Jesus Christ and confirmed by the Word of God they went forth preaching that the kingdome of God was coming Preaching then through Countries and Cities they constituted the first-fruits of them overseers and ministers of those that should beleeve This he thus prosecutes p. 57. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife about the name of Bishop And for that cause perfectly foreknowing it they constituted the aforesaid and gave order for the future that when they should fall asleep other approved persons should succeed into their Ministery Those therefore that were constituted by them or afterwards by other approved persons we conceive to be unjustly put out of their Ministery The sense of these words is some what obscure by reason of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth here afterwards as in Acts XIII 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gentiles besought that these things might be spoken to them the Sabbath after And so Cappellus de Dieu upon that Text of the Acts have observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the same signification by Iosephus But here the case is plain that it cannot be otherwise understood because of that which follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must needs be those that were made afterwards Now the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far as I can learn is no where read in all the Greek tongue but here so that we must take the signification either from the originall or from the consequence of the discourse The originall bears the sense which I conceive in translating it an Order well enough being the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the consequence of the Discourse necessarily requires it For what reason doth he expresse why those whom he speaks of should be thought unjustly removed but because the Apostles had appointed that those whom they constituted should be succeeded by others I grant that he allegeth other considerations aggravating the fault of the Corinthians in putting out their Governours that is their Bishop and Presbyters for one or two of the Presbyters But he hath said nothing by all this which I have here produced unlesse we grant that it was not in their power to doe it meerly in this consideration because they succeeded such as were constituted by the Apostles For the Apostles had done nothing in appointing that others should succeed them whom they constituted if this succession could be voided by any Power but that which appointed it From the distinction advanced p. 276. between those things that are commanded every Christian and those things that are commanded the Body of the Church perhaps a resolution may be deduced what is absolutely necessary to salvation and what not And also what is absolutely necessary to salvation to be known and what not The Book de Cive maintains this Position that there is but one Article of the Faith necessary to salvation which is that our Lord Jesus is the Messias But the sufficience of it is further declared to imply the receiving of Christ for a Doctor sent by God in all things without exception to be beleeved and obeyed which manifestly infers the profession of all Christianity and the sincerity of the same And upon these terms I see no reason how to deny that upon this condition the thief upon the Crosse is promised life everlasting and the Eunuch of Aethiopia admitted to Baptism that is to remission of sins and the title to life everlasting According to that which is said here p. 16. that in danger of death or when there appeared an ardent zeal to Christianity men were admitted to Baptism without regular triall to wit upon the free and zealous profession of Christianity So Philip is ordered by the Spirit to give Baptism on the like terms as the Church used to doe But this makes no alteration in the necessity of those things that are to be known and undertook by those that regularly come to Baptism which continue no lesse necessary to salvation though the obligation of knowing and acknowledging them cannot take place either at all in them that die immediately or in them that are thus baptized before their Baptism It may then with a great deal of reason be said that all that and onely that which is contained in the Covenant of Baptism is necessary to salvation among which is the Unity of the Church and the obligation of every Christian to contribute towards the preservation of it But otherwise what this Covenant containeth this is not the place to dispute Some of the particulars remembred p. 289. that are in the Scriptures and yet oblige not the Church deserve to be considered more at large That the Apostle speaks not barely of the Sacrament of the Eucharist 1 Cor. XI but of the celebration thereof at their Feasts of Love beside that which hath been said upon divers occasions in this Discourse appears further by this Glosse which I finde in the written Copy lately alleged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lords Supper saith he is to dine in the Church Whereby it may appear that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is properly called the Sacrament of the Lords Supper but not properly the Supper of the Lord. There is nothing can be propounded in a more expresse form of Precept then the decree of forbearing things sacrificed to Idols by the Councell at Jerusalem And yet it is manifest that it was but locall For if it had obliged the Church of Rome S. Paul could not have given them another Rule not to condemne one another Jews and Gentiles for eating or not eating For that this case is comprised within that Rule it appeareth because S. Paul is afraid that Jewish Christians should fall away from Christianity as enjoyning to renounce the Law and by consequence the Author of it which was manifestly the scandall of those at Ierusalem But if it had obliged the Church of Corinth much lesse could S. Paul have given leave to eate things sacrificed to Idols materially as Gods creatures which you have seen that he doth That under the Apostles Baptism was drenching of all the body under water appears by S. Pauls Discourse Rom. VI. 3 4 5. for how should the death and Resurrection of our Lord Christ be represented by Baptism otherwise And so the exception that is taken against the Baptism of Novatianus is that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 43. Had water poured about him in bed because of his sicknesse So the solemnity of drenching was due though I shewed afore that the substance of the exception is grounded upon the weaknesse of his resolution to Christianity who would not undertake to professe it while persecution appeared For if that had not been the solemnity would not have been avoided The Vail of women in the Church which the Apostle requires 1 Cor. XI that it was to cover their faces though laid upon the head I
alloweth of them which as it was alwayes the right of the Church to doe as I shall observe in another place so it appeareth so to be in that mariage was never celebrated among Christians without the Prayers of the Church And this observation I insist upon the more chearfully because it much strengtheneth the argument which the Church maketh for the Baptism of Infants from the Act of our Saviour in the Gospel when he blessed the Infants with Imposition of Hands For if all Imposition of Hands be an act of the publique Power of the Church allowing that which is done with it then can this Imposition of Hands signifie no lesse then that those to whom our Lord granteth it belong to his Kingdome of the Visible Church One little objection there lies against this from the incestuous person at Corinth whom S. Paul in his second Epistle seems to readmit to communion his crime being as deep as Adultery which we say the rigor of Apostolicall Discipline admitted not to Penance To which I have divers things to answer That this cannot be objected but by him that acknowledges that he was excommunicate by the former Epistle That Tertullian in his Book de Pudicitiâ disputes at large that it is not the same case which is spoken of in both Epistles That the crime here specified perhaps is not of the number of those which from the beginning were excluded from Penance But waving all this as I excepted two cases in which men were baptized without regular triall so supposing the Rule to take hold in this case it is no inconvenience to grant that S. Paul might wave the rigor of Discipline so setled as supposing there might be cause to wave it If this opinion seem new my purpose requires but these two Points that the Penance practised by the ancient Church supposed Excommunication which it only abateth and that it was instituted by the Apostles and for that there is enough said I suppose even to them that beleeve not that the Apostles excluded any kinde of crimes from Penance Besides that of S. Paul blaming the Corinthians that they were puffed up and had not rather lamented that he that had done the evil might be put from among them 1 Cor. V. 2. And again fearing that when he returned he should be forced to lament many 2 Cor. XII 21. Which if we compare with the Primitive solemnity of Excommunication which by the constitutions of the Apostles II. 16. and other ways we understand was to put the person out of the Church doors with mourning it will appear that Epiphanius is in the right in expounding this later Text to this purpose Haer. LIX num 5. The power of Excommunication then by all this is no more then the necessary consequence of the Power of admitting to Communion by Baptism Which if it imply a contract with the Church to live according to the rule of Christianity then it is forfeit to him that evidently does that which cannot stand with that rule and the Church not tied to restore it but as the person can give satisfaction to observe it for the future Now I will make short work with Erastus his long labour to prove that there is no Excommunication commanded by the Law I yeeld it And make a consequence which will be thought a strange one But I have it from the speculation of Origen in Levit Hom. XI and others why the Church should onely be inabled to Excommunicate whereas the Synagogue was inabled to put to death From the observation of S. Augustine Quaest in Deuteronom V. 38. de Fide Operibus cap. VI. and others that Excommunication in the Church is the same that the power of life and death in the Synagogue My argument is then that the Church is to have the power of Excommunication because the Synagogue had the power of life and death And the reason of the consequence this Because as the Law being the condition of the Covenant by which the benefit of the Commonwealth of Israel was due inabled to put to death such as destroyed it So the Gospel being the condition of the Covenant that makes men denizons of the spirituall Jerusalem must inable to put them from the society thereof that forfeited it It is not my intent hereby to say that there was no Excommunication under the Law For I doe beleeve that we have mention of it in Ezra X. 8. grounded if I mistake not upon the Commission of the King of Persia recorded Ezr. VII 26. for that which is here called rooting out seems to be the same that is called in the other place dividing from the Synagogue of the Captives Being indeed a kinde of temporall Outlawry to which is joined confiscation of Goods For so saith Luther truly that the greater Excommunication among Christians is every where a temporall punishment to wit in regard of some temporall punishment attending it in Christian States which in Christianity is accidentall by Act of those States in Judaisme essentiall so long as those temporall advantages which were the essentiall condition of the Law were not forfeited And this without doubt is the same punishment which the Gospels call putting out of the Synagogue Though I cannot say so peremptory for the temporall effects of it Which severall Soveraigns could easily limit to severall terms For the right that Ezra might have to introduce this penalty is clear by the Law of Deut. XVII 12. which inabling to put them to death that obeyed not the Synagogue inabled to Excommunicate to Banish to Outlaw them much more But as we see the Romanes allowed them not the power of life and death which the Persians granted them so I am not to grant that putting out of the Synagogue in the Gospel implieth the extinguishing of the civill being of any Jew The Talmud Doctors say that those that were under the greater Excommunication were to dwell in a cotage alone and to have meat and drink brought them till they died Arba Turim or Shulchan Auroh in Jore Dea Hilcoth Niddui Voherem A speculation sutable to their condition in their dispersions which no man is bound to beleeve how far it was in force and practice But suppose the Synagogue in the same condition with the Church afore Constantine injoying no privilege but to serve God according to the Law as the Church according to the Gospel And then as the Synagogue must always have power to excommunicate which had power to put to death so I say is the Church inabled by our Lord to doe what I have shewed the Apostles did doe by Mat. XVIII 18. I yeeld that the terms of binding and loosing are used by the Jews to signifie the declaring of what is prohibited and permitted by the Law But I yeeld not that it can be so understood here because the ground of this declaration ceaseth under the Gospel being derived from the sixe hundreth and thirteen Precepts of the Law and from the power
rank of the XII Apostles which afterwards he shews us was acknowledged by the XII themselves at Jerusalem Gal. II. 8 9. to wit when he went to Jerusalem with Barnabas about this question Acts XV. 1. for I can see no reason to doubt that all that he speaks of there passed during the time of this journey And in the mean time it was easie for those that stood for the Law to pretend Revelation from God and authority from the Apostles in matter of Christianity as well as Paul and Barnabas What possible way was there then to end this difference but that of the Apostle 1 Cor. XIV 32 33. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets for God is not the God of unquietnesse but of peace as in all Churches of the Saints Whereupon vindicating his authority and challenging obedience to his Order even from Prophets which might be lifted up with Revelations to oppose he addeth Came the word of God from you or came it to you alone If any man think himself a Prophet or spirituall let him acknowledge the things that I write you to be the Commandements of God That is that Apostles being trusted to convey the Gospel to the world were to be obeyed even by Prophets themselves as the last resolution of the Church in the will of God granting his Revelations with that temper that as one Prophet might see more in the sense effect and consequence of Revelations granted to another then himself could doe in which regard the spirits of the Prophets were to be subject to the Prophets so for the publick order of the Church all were to have recourse to the Apostles whom he had trusted with it If then the Church of Antiochia in which were many Prophets and among them such as Paul and Barnabas indowed with the immediate Revelations of the Holy Ghost Acts XIII 1. must resort to Jerusalem the seat of the Apostles to be resolved in matters concerning the state of the Church how much more are we to beleeve that God hath ordained that dependence of Churches without which the Unity of no other humane Society can be preserved when he governeth them not but by humane discretion of reasonable persons Besides we are here to take notice that the Church of Antiochia being once resolved the Churches of Syria and Cilicia are resolved by the same Decree Acts XVI 4. Because being planted from thence they were to depend upon it for the Rule and practice of Christianity Therefore it is both truly and pertinently observed that the Decree made at Jerusalem was locall and not universall which had it been made for the whole Church there could not have been that controversie which we finde was at Corinth by S. Paul 1 Cor. VIII 1. about eating things offered to Idols Neither could the Apostle give leave to the Corinthians to eat them materially as Gods creatures not formally as things offered to Idols as he does 1 Cor. VIII 7. had the Body of the Apostles at Jerusalem absolutely forbid the eating of them to Gentile Christians for avoiding the scandall of the Jewish Christians But because the Decree concerned onely the Church of Antiochia and so by consequence the Churches depending upon it therefore among those that depended not upon it for whom the Rule was not intended it was not to be in force There is yet one reason behinde which is the ground of all from the Originall constitution of the Synagogue Moses by the advice of Jethro ordained the Captains of Thousands Hundreds Fifties and Tens to judge the Causes of the people under himself Ex. XVIII 24 25. To himself God joyned afterwards LXX persons for his assistance Num. XI 16. But these Captains were to be in place but during the pilgrimage of the wildernesse For when they came to be setled in the land of Promise the Law provideth that Judges and Ministers be ordained in every City Deut. XVI 18. Who if there fell any difference about the Law were to repair to Jerusalem to the successors of Moses and his Consistory for resolution in it Deut. XVII 12. by which Law wheresoever the Ark should be this Consistory was to sit as inferiour Consistories in all inferiour Cities Most men will marvell what this is to my purpose because most men have a prejudice that the power of the Church is to be derived from the Rights and Privileges of the Priests and Levites during the Law though there be no reason for it For these Rights and Privileges were not onely temporary to vanish when the Gospel was published but also while the Law stood but locall and personall not extending beyond the Temple or land of Promise over any but their own Tribe But it is very well known that from the time of the Greekish Empire and partly afore it Judaisme subsisted in all parts wheresoever the Jews were dispersed and that wheresoever it subsisted there were the people to be governed and regulated in the observation of the Law and the publique worship of God according to the same frequented also all over the land of Promise whereas the Temple stood but in one place It is also manifest that this Law which gave the Consistory power of life and death to preserve the Body of that people in Unity and to prevent Schisms upon different Interpretations of the Law was found requisite to be put in practice in their Dispersions to wit as to the determining of all differences arising out of the Law not as to the power of life and death to inforce such sentences this power being seldome granted them by their Soveraigns For at Alexandria we understand by Philo in his Book de Legatione ad Caium that there was such a Consistory as also in Babylonia there was the like as the Jews writings tell us for the little Chronicle which they call Seder Olam Zuta gives us the names of the Heads thereof for many ages And after the destruction of the Temple it is manifest not onely by their writings as Semach David Sepher Juchasin and the like but by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites and the Constitutions of the Emperors remaining in the Codes Tit. de Judaeis Coelicolis that there continued a Consistory at Tiberias for many ages the Heads whereof were of the family of David as Epiphanius agreeing with the Jews informeth us in the place aforenamed And as by the story of Saul in the Acts it appears that the Jews of Damascus were subject to the Government at Jerusalem so by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites it appears that the Synagogues of Syria and Cilicia were subject to the Consistory at Tiberias as I have shewed out of Benjamins Itinerary in the Discourse of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 67. that the Synagogues of the parts of Assyria and Media were to that in Bagdat and without doubt that great Body of Jews dispersed through Aegypt was to that at Alexandria As for the Law
So Acts XV. 35. Paul and Barnabas continued at Antiochia Teaching that is the Church and preaching the Gospell to wit to Unbeleevers And with the same difference it is said of our Lord in the Gospels Mat. IV. 23. IX 35. XI 1. that he Taught to wit as a Prophet who had always the Privilege of Teaching in the Synagogues as his Disciples also by the same Title and preached the Gospel as sent by God for that extraordinary purpose But though the Apostles being sent to preach the Gospel were by consequence to Teach the Church yet is it never said that Presbyters being appointed to Teach the Church were also called to Preach the Gospel For their Relation being to Churches as much perswaded of the truth of Christianity as themselves they needed no such qualities as might make evidence that they were sent immediately from God to convince the world of the truth of it But onely such understanding in it above the people of their respective Churches as might inable them to conduct the People thereof in it And therefore what hindreth their Inferiours also to be imploied in Teaching the Church which now we call Preaching For if our Lord and his Apostles imploied their respective Ministers in Teaching those whom they could not attend upon themselves and in all Churches after the example of the first at Jerusalem Deacons or Ministers were Ordained to wait upon the Bishops and Presbyters of the same in the execution of their Office is it not the same thing for Bishops and Presbyters to imploy their Deacons in Preaching to those of their own Church as it is for the Apostles at Jerusalem to imploy S. Steven and S. Philip S. Paul Timothy or Erastus or Tychieus or Epaphroditus in Preaching to Unbeleevers for there remains as much difference in their Charges as in their Chiefs from whom they are imploied Besides who is able to prove by the Scriptures that those who are called Doctors 1 Cor. XII 28. Eph. IV. 12. were all of them men Ordained by Imposition of Hands as Presbyters Between whom and Evangelists there seems to be the same difference as between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the one part and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other this relating to Assemblies of Christians and importing the instructing of them in the right understanding of that Christianity which they already beleeve and professe that to those who are not Christians as undertaking to reduce them to Christianity which supposeth Commission and abilities answerable Further the supposed S. Ambrose upon Eph. IV. 12. comparing Evangelists with Deacons says that Deacons also taught without a Chair The custome of the Church then admitting them to Preach upon occasions but not sitting as the Bishop and Presbyters did Because they did not sit but stand in the Church as the Angels in the Revelation about the Presbyters Chairs as attending upon their commands And what is this but the same which you finde in use in the Synagogue Acts XIII 14. where Paul stands up to Preach whereas our Lord sits down like a Doctor when he goes to Preach in the Synagogue Luc. IV. 20 by which it appears that it was of custome drawn from the Synagogue for Deacons to Preach in the Church And indeed in the last place the practice of the Synagogue together with the reason of it and the Primitive practice of the Church agreeable to the same seems to make as full proof as a reasonable man can desire in a matter of this nature For in the Synagogue it is so manifest that Jurisdiction is above Doctrine and the Power of Governing above the Office of Teaching that the Prophets themselves who were Doctors of the Law immediately sent by God were subject to the Power and Jurisdiction of the Consistory setled by the Law Deut. XVII 8 12. So that though by the Law of Deut. XVIII 18. the whole Synagogue are subject to Gods curse if they obey not the Prophet by whom God speaks yet because it was possible that false Prophets might pretend to be sent from God therefore in the next words of the Law a mark is given to discern who was sent by God and who was not and he that pretended to be sent by God and was not being tried by this mark became liable to capitall punishment by the Law of Deut. XVII 8 12. for teaching contrary to that which the Consistory taught So that by this Law the Consistory hath Power of life and death even over Prophets whom they judged to teach things destructive to the Law And by this Power not usurped but abused our Lord also suffered under Pilate according to that which he had said in respect of this Power It is unpossible that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem Luc. XIII 33. that is not condemned by the Consistory The Successors of the Prophets after the Spirit of Prophesie ceased that is their Scribes and Wise men and Doctors received the Privilege of Teaching the Law from their Masters For whosoever had learned in the School of a Doctor till forty years of age was thenceforth counted a Doctor as the Talmud Doctors determine and thereby privileged to decide matters of Conscience in the Law provided that he did it not while his Master lived and where he was R. Solomon upon the Title Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Title of Learning the Law cap. V. But if I mistake not in our Lords time they were counted so at thirty years of age For Irenaeus II. 39. says that our Lord began to Preach at the same age at which men were counted Doctors manifestly referring to this Rule of the Synagogue And this is the Reason which the Church afterwards followed in all those Canons by which it is forbidden that any man be made Presbyter being lesse then thirty years of age because at those years our Lord and S. John Baptist began to Preach though by an extraordinary Commission yet according to the custome of the Synagogue in their time saith Irenaeus But by Imposition of Hands they were further qualified to sit and Judge in their Consistories Whereby we see how Jurisdiction includes Doctrine but is not included in it So that the Metaphoricall Jurisdiction of the Church by the power of the Keys belonging as all sides agree to Presbyters it is agreeable to the perpetuall custome of Gods people that the Office of Teaching be communicable to their inferiours But with such dependence upon the Bishop and Presbyters as may be correspondent to the Rule of the Synagogue In which he that taught any thing as of Gods Law contrary to the Consistory and persisted in it was liable to capitall punishment by the Law so often quoted of Deut. XVII 8 Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Title of Rebels cap. III. And therefore he that Teaches contrary to the Church it behoveth that he be liable to Excommunication from it And upon these terms I suppose those of the Congregations will give
two cases of Religion the first of Idolaters the second of those that disobey the Consistory But it is to be considered that Idolatry is a sin which the light of nature convinceth and is always attended with the consequences of such horrible sins as the Apostle declareth that God suffered the Gentiles to fall into for their Idolatries in the beginning of the Epistle to the Romanes Besides that Penalty by the Law lies but in respect of the seven Nations whom God for their Idolatries and the consequences thereof such as I have mentioned gave up to destruction by the sword of his people on whom he bestowed their inheritance And in respect of Israelites whom God having entred into Covenant with on condition to serve him alone had thereupon endowed with Secular power to punish the transgressors of it So that the power of inflicting death in these cases proceedeth upon the sentence of destruction and death pronounced by God against the seven Nations and committed to the execution of his People And upon the Soveraign power estated upon the people by virtue of their Covenant with God Which though more then Humane for the Originall yet must needs be available according to Humane Right to the same effect which the same Power established by Title of Humane Right is able to produce And therefore this Penalty by these Laws cannot belong to any that absolutely refuse to submit to Christianity Besides it is to be observed that those acts which this Law punishes with death are specified by the Law to be the worshipping of the Sun and Moon and other Gods Exod. XXII 20. Deut. XVII 3. the perswading to worship other Gods and for Cities to fall from God to doe it Deut. XIII 5 6 12. and therefore this punishment cannot be extended to other Acts which by interpretation and consequence may be argued into the generall nature or rather notion of Idolatries A thing necessary to be said because it is manifest that there have been those that have made reading Service or a Sermon much more kneeling at the Communion Idolatry who if they should proceed to improve their madnesse to that consequence which naturally it produceth must proceed to destroy Civile Society by destroying all them whom in their madnesse they take for Idolaters as that wretched person did his Father for perswading him to receive the Communion kneeling As for those that disobeyed the Consistory it is to be remembred that hath been formerly observed that Religion and the Civile State of Gods ancient people made but one Society by virtue of the Law that estated them in the Land of Promise upon condition of worshipping God and governing themselves in their Civile life according to the same By consequence whereof whosoever should refuse to stand to that judgement which God by the Law appointeth to determine the differences which should arise about the interpretation and limitation of that which the Law had not expressed must indanger a breach among the people which it is all one whether you call Rebellion or Schism Now it is no inconvenience to grant that whosoever shall pretend under the Title of Christianity to trouble the Civile peace of that people and State wherein he liveth be thought guilty of such punishment as the height of his offence shall deserve Because as this crime is most capitall as nearest concerning the publick so is it most manifest that Christianity cannot be wronged by the punishment of it seeing it hath been shewed that Christianity enableth no man to trouble the publick peace So that if any man make it a part of his Religion to maintain his Religion by force being by such profession fallen from the innocence of Christianity he is justly exposed to the violence of all temporall Laws that punish those which trouble the publick peace This is the case of them that thought themselves tied in conscience by the Bull of Pius the fift against Q. Elizabeth and it is the case of all them that under any title of Religion whatsoever pretend to maintain the profession or exercise thereof by faction or force For it is easie to see that the Primitive Christians maintain themselves so against the Gentiles that supposing them no Christians yet it doth appear that they could not rightfully persecute them for their Christianity Which none can maintain but those that professe to assert their Christianity by nothing else but by suffering for it And here it is worth our noting that about the time of our Lord there was a Constitution of the Consistory against Rebellious Elders as they call them that is such as having attained the degree of Doctors of the Law should Teach any thing to be lawfull or unlawfull by the Law contrary to the determination of the Consistory that they should be put to death as you may see in Maimoni in that Title Which how far it was ever in force is hard to be said because by the Gospels we understand that the Nation had not power of life and death at that time For that it was about that time that they say it was established appears because they report it to have been made in regard of the differences then on foot between the Scholars of Hillel and Sammai which we know were not long before our Lords time This Constitution is nothing else but the limitation of that which the Law of Deut. XVII 8. establisheth to particular circumstances And upon supposition of this Constitution it is that our Lord expresseth the difference between Moses Law and his Gospel when he saith Mat. V. 19. He that shall break the least of these Commandements and teach men so shall be least in the Kingdome of heaven but he that teacheth and doeth them shall be great in the Kingdome of heaven For the very terms of that Constitution being death to him that should both teach and doe contrary to the determination of the Consistory it is manifest that our Lord alluding to that Constitution of the Synagogue declareth hereby that on the contrary there is no penalty of death upon him that should teach and doe contrary to his precepts as those of the Consistory but greater that is to be least in the Kingdome of heaven Whereby he sheweth that the Gospel appointeth no temporall punishment to those that break Christs precepts but denies not that Civile States might For the Gospel supposing and establishing Civile Society supposeth also those Penalties without which it subsisteth not And the punishment of those that violate Civile Society under the title of Christianity is not by the Gospel but by the Civile Power which it presupposeth and voideth not because Preaching that Christianity cannot be prejudiciall to States it confirmeth as to Christianity that power which all States have towards all Religions to see that they prove not prejudiciall to the publick peace We have then two cases of Religion punishable with death The first when that which is contrary to the Law of Nature is by the
or spirituall Commonwealth by the Power of doing it Now the Law which is the condition upon which men are admitted to communicate with the Church is nothing else but the profession of Christianity upon which the Apostles of our Lord were first enabled to constitute Churches by baptizing them whom they should win to be Disciples according to the Commission of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 19. those onely being Disciples which undertook Christianity and therefore were afterwards called Christians being first called Disciples even after their Baptism Now Christianity consisting not onely in beleeving whatsoever our Lord Christ revealed but in the acknowledgement of an obligation to doe whatsoever he commanded it follows that this Law of Christianity consists of all Precepts of things to be beleeved and things to be done which our Lord Christ hath declared to his Church And not in these alone in regard that our Lord hath commanded Christianity not onely to be beleeved but also to be professed at the utmost perill of life and estate Therefore I said that the Law which is the condition of communicating with the Church is the profession of Christianity which entitleth to Baptism This profession seeing it cannot be made but to Christians that know what Christianity is and thereby are able to judge of the profession made how agreeable to Christianity of the person making the profession how sincerely how cordially he does it it followeth that the Power of the Church is committed to them that are trusted to judge of the profession of Christianity every one according to the Interesse which he justly pretendeth in that judgement Therefore is this Power called the Power of the Keys because it openeth the doore to the Communion of all Ordinances of Divine Service in the Church when it findeth the profession both agreeable to Christianity and to the heart life of him that makes it and shuts the same when it findeth things otherwise Therefore is it called the Power of remitting and retaining sinnes because God hath promised the free grace of remission of sins to all that make true profession of Christianity The benefit of which promise as it is good to him that makes such profession by virtue of his own act as to God so by virtue of the act that admits of the same it is good as to the Church Though it cannot be good as to God unlesse it be good also as to the Church by reason of the command of God that every Christian be a member of the Church For if it were morally possible that any man should attain to the knowlege and submit to the obedience of Christianity in such an estate of life and such Society of this World wherein it were not morally possible for him to hold Communion with the Church or those who in behalfe of the Church by the Laws of it are enabled to admit him to the Communion of the same by Baptism I would make no scruple to think that man in the state of salvation without Baptism or the Church And the same is to be said of all those that cannot be admitted to the Communion of the Church without professing or doing something contrary to Christianity which is the case of all that stand excommunicate upon unjust causes so that their Christianity obligeth them to communicate with no part of the true Church For seeing the Unity of the Church requires that he that is excommunicate to one part of the Church be excommunicate to all the Church seeing the Unity of the Whole cannot be preserved unlesse the Whole make good each act of the part which it hath power to doe it follows that he who is excommunicate for an unjust cause cannot with his Christianity communicate with any part of the Church his title to heaven remaining entire But this case ceasing the remission of sins depends upon the Church by reason of the profession of Christianity which as God requires every Christian to make so he enables the Church to admit And this is the Argument for the Power of Excommunication which is drawn from the Power of admitting to Baptism evidenced by divers Scriptures and divers particulars in the Primitive practice of the Church agreeable to the same And truly it was enough to point at some particulars for he that would undertake to produce all that is to be had in the records of the Church to depose for this reason and this right of the Church might easily fill great Volumes with nothing else Neverthelesse I will here adde one particular more because it seems this reason of the right and interesse of the Church is evidently seen in it And it will not require many allegations seeing it is a known Rule of the ancient Church that Clinicks should not be admitted to the Clergy alleged by Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antiochia in Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 43. against Novatianus the Father of the Novatians to shew that he could not be Bishop of Rome in opposition to him being made Presbyter contrary to that Rule What was then the reason of this Rule and what were they that were called Clinicks It is very evident that there were very many in the Primitive times that beleeved Christianity but durst not professe it because it was no prejudice to beleeve it but to professe it so as to be baptized and come under the Discipline of the Church might be a matter of life and death in case of persecution Besides beleeving and not professing that is not pretending to Baptism they avoided the strictnesse of Ecclesiasticall Discipline What should the Church doe in the case of these men when they came to demand their Baptism undertaking the Rule of Christianity Surely as they could not utterly exclude them from the Church that had never offended or failed in that which they had undertook to it so of necessity they must stand at a greater distance to such persons as having their Christianity more in suspition then otherwise Wherefore in danger of death they were not to refuse them Baptism but in case they recovered again it was very reasonable that they which had attained their Baptism onely in consideration of the danger of death and must have given better triall of themselves otherwise before they were admitted should therefore stand so far suspected afterwards as not to be admitted to the Clergy which required a greater proficience in Christianity then that which qualified a man onely for Baptism These then are they which were called Clinici because they were baptized in bed as requiring their Baptism when they found themselves upon the bed of their sicknesse which might be that of their death And this is the reason of the Rule that they should not be admitted to the Clergy And by this reason the right and interesse of the Church is evident in admitting the profession of Christianity in those that thereby demanded to be admitted to Baptism In the next argument drawn from the Discipline of Penance it may be