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
to Baptize such as should submit to the Gospel And so to judge whether each man did so or not which they that were trusted with the Gospel were by consequence trusted to judge The effect of this trust is seen in the many Orders and Canons of the Primitive Church by which those that desired to be admitted into the Church by Baptisme are limited to the triall of severall years to examine their profession whether sincere or not And such as gained their living by such Trades as Christianity allowed not rejected untill they renounced them Not that my intent is to say that these Canons were limited by the Apostles But because it is an argument that always to judge who shall be admitted to Baptisme and who not is another manner of power then to baptize being the power of them that were able to settle such Canons Though it is plain by the Scriptures that those Rules had their beginning from the Apostles themselves For when S. Peter saith 1 Pet. III. 21. that the Baptisme which saveth us is not the laying down the filth of the flesh but the examination of a good conscience to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sheweth that the Interrogatories which the ancient Church used to propound to them that were to be baptized were then in use and established by the Apostles as the condition of a contract between the Church and them obliging themselves to live according to the Gospel as Disciples And the Apostle Heb. VI. 2. speaking of the foundation of repentance from dead works the doctrine of Baptisms and imposition of Hands manifestly shews the succeeding custome of the Church that they which sued for Baptisme should be catechized in the Doctrine of the Gospel and contract with the Church to forsake such courses of the world as stood not with it to be brought in by the Apostles This is it which is here called the doctrine of Baptisms in the plurall number not for that frantick reason which the distemper of this time hath brought forth because there are two Baptismes one of John by water another of Christ by the Spirit but because it was severally taught severall persons before they were admitted to their several Baptisms And therefore called also the Doctrine of Imposition of Hands because we understand by Clemens Alexandrinus Paedag. III. 11. and by the Apostolicall Constitutions VII 40. that when they came to the Church to be catechized and were catechized they were then dismissed by him that catechized them with Imposition of Hands that is with prayer for them that they might in due time become good Christians All visible marks of the power of the Church in judging whether a man were fit for Baptisme or not To which I will adde onely that of Eusebius De vitâ Constant IV. where speaking of the Baptisme of Constantine he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that confessing his sinnes hee was admitted to prayer with Imposition of hands If it be said that there were added to the Church three thousand in a day Acts II. 41. which could not be thus catechized and tried my answer is that two cases were always excepted from the Rule The first was in danger of death The second when by the eagernesse of those that desired Baptism the hand of God appeared extraordinary in the work of their conversion to Christianity Besides it is not said that they were baptized that day but that they were added to the Church that day Which is true though they onely professed themselves Disciples for the present passing neverthelesse their examination and instruction as the case required If therefore there be a power setled in the Church by God to judge who is fit to be admitted into it then is the same power inabled to refuse him that shall appear unfit then by the same reason to exclude him that proves himself unfit after he is admitted This is the next argument which I will ground upon the Discipline of Penance as it was anciently practised in the Church Which is opened by the observation advanced in the 127 p. of this little Discourse that those who contrary to this contract with the Church fell into sins destructive to Christianity were fain to sue to be admitted to Penance Which supposeth that till they had given satisfaction of their sincerity in Christianity they remained strangers to the Communion of the Church For it appeareth by the most ancient of Church Writers that for divers ages the greatest Sinners as Apostates Murtherers Adulterers were wholly excluded from Penance For though Tertullian was a Montanist when he cried out upon Zephyrinus Bishop of Rome for admitting Adulterers to Penance in his Book De Pudicitiâ yet it is manifest by his case that it had formerly been refused in the Church because the granting of it makes him a Montanist And S. Cyprian Epist ad Antonianum testifieth that divers African Bishops afore him had refused it maintaining communion neverthelesse with those that granted it Irenaeus also I. 9. saith of a certain woman that had been seduced and defiled by Marcus the Heretick that after she was brought to the sight of her sin by some Christians she spent all her days in bewalling it Therefore without recovering the communion of the Church again And he that shall but look upon the Canons of the Eliberitane Councell shall easily see many kindes of sins censured some of them not to be admitted to communion till the point others not at the point of death In this case and in this estate these onely who were excluded from being admitted to Penance were properly excommunicate neither could those that were admitted to Penance be absolutely counted so because in danger of death they were to receive the Communion though in case they recovered they stood bound to compleat their Penance And from hence afterwards also those that had once been admitted to Penance if they fell into the like sins again were not to be admitted to Penance the second time Concil Tolet. X. Can. XI Eliber Can. III. VII Ambros de Poenit. II. 10 11. Innoc. I. Ep. I. August Epist L. LIV. It is an easie thing to say that this Rigor was an infirmity in the Church of those times not understanding aright free Justification by Faith But as it is manifest that this rigor of discipline abated more and more age by age till that now it is come to nothing So if we goe upwards and compare the writings of the Apostles with the Originall practice of the Church it will appear that the rigor of it was brought in by them because it abated by degrees from age to age till at length it is almost quite lost that the Reformation of the Church consists in retaining it that we shall doe so much prejudice to Christianity as we shall by undue interpretation make Justification by Faith inconsistent with it And in fine it will appear that all Penance presupposeth Excommunication being onely some abatement of it There
is a sin unto death saith the Apostle 1 John V. 16. I say not that ye pray for it This is commonly understood of denying Gods truth against that light which convinceth the conscience Which if it were true the Apostles precept could never come into practice seeing no man can know unlesse by Revelation against what light his Neighbour sinneth But the Novatians at the Councell of Nice as Socrates and Sozomenus both report Eccles Hist I. 7. I. 23. answering Constantine that they refused Penance onely to those that sinned the sin unto death doe give us to understand that S. John was understood by the Church not to command that Apostates be admitted to Penance And so also Tertullian in many places of his Book de Pudicit as cap. XIV argueth from this place that Penance was not to be granted to Adulterers Which sheweth that the Church understood the place in the same sense though it admitted not his consequence So also Origen in Mat. XVIII 18. Tract VII I was long doubtful of the truth of this Interpretation because the Apostle premising If any man see his brother sin a sin not unto death let him ask of God seems to speak of private Prayers of particular persons But the words of S. James V. 16. have cleared me of this doubt Confesse your sins one to another saith he and pray for one another that ye may be healed In which words I make no doubt but he speaketh of publique Penance For having premised that the Presbyters be sent for to the sick that they confesse their sins to the Presbyters that they pray for them anointing them with oil that their sins may be forgiven them to shew neverthelesse that according to the custome aforesaid in case they recovered they were to stand bound to Penance he addeth Confesse your sins to one another to signifie that this Confession and Penance remained due before the Church as we understand by the XII Canon of Nice that the practice was so long afterwards And this is proved by the precept of both Apostles to pray for one another For it is manifest that there were two means to obtain remission of sins in this case the Humiliation which the Church prescribed and the Penitent performed and the Prayers of the Church Which S. John prescribeth not to be granted to Apostates The very same is the meaning of the Apostle to the Hebrews VI. 6. when he pronounceth it unpossible that those that fall away be renued again to Repentance For as they that stood for Baptisme when they were catechized in Christianity were properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be instructed or dedicated to Repentance because of the Repentance from dead works which they professed so they that forfeited their Christianity by violating the contract of Baptisme are no lesse properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be renewed instructed and dedicated again to Repentance And the Apostles reason agrees For because the earth that receives rain and renders no fruit is near the curse therefore the Church will not easily beleeve that such a one shall lightly obtain of God the grace to become a sincere Christian And therefore the Apostle says not that it is unpossible that such a one should repent but that he should be instructed again to repentance to wit by the Church As the Novatians answered Constantine that they remitted such persons to God not prejudicing their salvation but not admitting them to the means of Reconciliation by the Church And herewith agreeth the example of Esau used by the Apostle again XII 17. saying that he found not place of Repentance alluding to that roome in the Church where Penitents were placed apart by themselves And again X. 26. the allusion which he maketh to the custome under the Law understood by the Hebrews to whom he writeth consisteth in this that as there was no sacrifice to be made for Apostates though for Ethnicks for this was the use of the Law as we understand by Moses Maimoni in the Title of Dressing Oblations cap. III. num 3 5. So the Christian Sacrifice of the Prayers of the Church was not to be offered for those that had renounced Christianity If it be thus you will ask What was the fault of the Novatians seeing they understood this Text right And my answer is that neverthelesse they are Hereticks extending the name of Hereticks to those whom now we call Schismaticks as I have shewed you in the little Discourse pag. 197. that it is often used For S. John as he commands not so he forbids not that they be admitted to Penance the other Apostle tels them it is impossible to let them know that they must not expect it But neither says that the Church could not give it When therefore the Church to preserve Unity was necessitated to grant it as we see by S. Cyprian the Novatians were no lesse Schismaticks in making separation upon the quarrell though perhaps the reason be not urged by their adversaries then if they had understood the Text amisse The Unity of the Church being of more moment then much understanding in the Scriptures And so perhaps S. Pauls words will belong to this purpose 1 Tim. 5. 19. as not onely the Socinians of late but Pacianus among the Ancients Paraen ad Poenitentiam and Matthaeus Galenus among modern Writers do expound them To wit that when he saith Lay hands suddenly on no men nor partake of other mens sins he leaves it to Timothies judgement whom to admit whom not to admit to Penance Because this Blessing with Imposition of hands was not the mark of Absolution but of admission to Penance as well as the ceremony of Ordinations And though this Text of the Apostle be understood in particular of Ordinations yet by the same reason which he allegeth it is to be extended to all Acts of the Church that are blessed by the Prayers of the Church with Imposition of Hands For if Timothy by Imposing hands upon those whom he Ordains become accessary to their sins if they be unfit to be Ordained by the same reason if he Impose Hands that is grant Penance unto them that are not fit for it he becomes accessory to the sins which they commit by being admitted to it Imposition of Hands being nothing else but a ceremony of that Benediction which signifieth that those Acts to which it is granted are allowed and authorized by the publique Power of the Church So Imposition of Hands in Confirmation is the admission of him that is confirmed to the communion of the Visible Church In Penance the restoring of him In Ordination to the exercise of this or that function in the Church Prayer over the sick which the Apostle commands James V. 14. and our Lord in the Gospel made with Imposition of Hands signified the admitting of the sick to Penance And it is said that in some Eastern Churches to this day mariages are blessed with Imposition of Hands in signification that the Church
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
they found most proper for their assistance it is manifest that they could have no authority but derived from the Apostles A thing perfectly agreeing with the Custome that had always been among Gods People For all Prophets whom God imploied upon his messages and may therefore properly be called his Apostles as our Lord Christ is called the Apostle of our Profession Heb. III. 1 had their Disciples to wait upon them which is called ministring to them in the language of the Scripture Thus Joshua the Minister of Moses Exod. XXIV 13. Elizeus poured water on the hands of Elias as the Chief of his Scholars that expected a double portion of his spirit 2 Reg. II. 9. III. 11. Thus the Baptist saith he is not worthy to loose or take away our Saviours shooes Mat. III. 11. Mar. I. 7. that is to be his Disciple for by Maimoni in the Title of learning the Law cap. V. we learn that the Disciples of the Jews Doctors were to do that service for their Masters Hereupon saith Christ Luc. XXII 26. I am among you as he that ministreth to wit not as a Master but as a Disciple Thus the chief of our Lords Disciples whom he had chosen from the beginning to be with him receiving his Commission became his Apostles having waited on his Person and by familiar conversation learned his doctrine better then others Whereupon I said in the Primitive Government of Churches p. 3. that to make an Apostle it was requisite to have seen our Lord in the flesh and that he appeared to S. Paul after death to advance him to that rank by this privilege Mar. III. 14. Mat. X. 1 4. And shall we think that the Apostles did not as their Lord and all the Prophets before him had done choose themselves Scholars that by waiting on them might learn their Doctrine and become fit to be imploied under them and after them If we do we shall mis-kenne the most remarkable circumstances of Scripture For we may easily observe that those who are called in the Scriptures Euangelists are such as first waited upon the Apostles as S. Mark upon S. Peter Timothy and S. Luke upon S. Paul Acts XVI 1. XIX 22. as Mark upon Paul and Barnabas Acts XIII 5. and Mark again whether the same or another upon S. Paul 2 Tim. IV. 11. And therefore I easily grant both Timothy and Titus to have been Euangelists though the Scripture says it but of one 2 Tim. IV. 5. because I see them both Companions of S. Paul that is his Scholars and Ministers And therefore find it very reasonable that he should imploy Titus into Dalmatia to Preach the Gospel in those parts where himself had left hoping to goe further and carry it beyond into Illyricum whereof Dalmatia was a part as you may see by comparing the Scriptures 2 Tim. IV. 10. Rom. XV. 19. 2 Cor. X 16. Tit. III. 12. For thus also of the seven Ministers to the Apostles at Jerusalem you see Steven and Philip imploied in Preaching the Gospel and this later called therefore expresly an Euangelist Acts VI. 9. VIII 5 12. XXI 8. And therefore it is not possible for any man out of the Scriptures to distinguish between the Office of Euangelists and those whom I shewed to have been Apostles of the Apostles And thereby the conclusion remains firm that all Ecclesiasticall Power at that time remained and for future times is to be derived from the Apostles when we see by the Scriptures that the Euangelists derived their Office and Authority from their appointment And indeed how can common sense indure to apprehend it otherwise especially admitting that which hath been discoursed of the Power of the Keys in admitting into the Church That being made Christians by the Apostles because by them convinced to beleeve that they were Gods Messengers whom they stood bound to obey should neverthelesse by being Christains obtain the Power of regulating and concluding the Apostles themselves in matters concerning the Community of the Church which what it meant or that such a Society should be they could not so much as imagine but by them is a thing no common sense can admit without prejudice Those that purchase dominion by lawfull Conquest in the world become thereby able to dispose of all their Subjects have because they give them their lives that is themselves The Church is a People subdued to Christ by the Apostles not by force but by the sword of the Spirit and though to freedome yet that freedome consists in the state of particular Christians towards God not in the publique Power of the Church otherwise then it is conveyed lawfully from them that had it before the Church Indeed visible Christianity is a condition requisite to make a man capable of Ecclesiasticall Power and the Church is then in best estate when that legall presumption of invisible Christianity is most reasonable But if Saints because Saints have Power and Right to govern the Church then follows the Position imposed on Wicleffe and Husse in the Councell of Constance and condemned by all Christians that Ecclesiasticall Power holds and fails with Grace which will not fail to draw after it the like consequence in Secular matters pernicious to all Civile Societies that the interesse of honest men is the interesse of Kingdomes and States contradicting the principle laid down at the beginning that Christianity calls no man to any advantage of this world but to the Crosse Therefore no Christian or Saint as Saint or Christian hath any Right or Power in the Church but that which can be lawfully derived from the Order of the Apostles Those of the Congregations use to allege S. Peters apology to the Jewish Christians for conversing with Cornelius and his Company Acts XI 9. as also that of S. Paul Col. IV. 17. speaking to the body of the Church at Colossae Say to Archippus look to the Ministery which thou hast received to fulfill it as if S. Peter or Archippus must be afraid of Excommunication if they render not a good account of their actions to the People By which it may appear how truly I have said that the Power they give the People is in check to that Power which was exercised by the Apostles But if we reason not amisse it would be a great prejudice to Christianity that S. Peter could not inform Christian People of the reason of his doings which they understood not but he must make them his Soveraign Or that S. Paul conveying his commands to Archippus by an Epistle directed to the whole Church should be thought to invest the People in that Power by which he commands Archippus They allege also the People of the Church of Jerusalem present at the Councell there and joyned in the letter by which the decree is signified and conveyed to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia Acts XV. 4 12 23. But of this I have spoken already and am very willing to leave all men to judge by the premises whether
the Pharisee Luc. XVIII 12. that the Mundays and Thursdays were then and before then observed by the Jews as since they have been And as you see the like done in the Feast of Lots ordained in Esthers time and that of the Dedication in Judas Maccabcus his And in the same Prophet Zac. XII 12 13 14. you have a manifest allusion to the Jews ceremonies at their Funerals recorded by Maimont in the title of Mourners cap. IX clearly shewing that they were in force in that Prophets time As it is manifest that they began before the Law it self not only by that which we reade of the Funerals of Jacob in Genesis but chiefly because it required an expresse Law of God to derogate from it as to the Priests in the case of Aarons sons Levit. X. 6. XXI 1 10 11 12. Many more there are to be observed in the Old Testament if these were not enough to evidence that which cannot be denied that it appears indeed by Scripture that there were such Laws in force but that they were commanded by revelations from God is quite another thing Though men of learning sometimes make themselves ridiculous by mistaking as if all that is recorded in the Scriptures were commanded by God when all that comes from God is the record of them as true not the authority of them as divine The case is not much otherwise in the New Testament where it is manifest that many Constitutions Ordinances or Traditions as the Apostle sometimes calls them 1 Cor. XI 2. are recorded which no man can say that they obliged not the Church and yet this force of binding the Church comes not from the mention of them which we finde in severall places of Scripture For they must needs be in force before they could be mentioned as such in the Scriptures but from that Power which God had appointed to order and determine such things in his Church This difference indeed there is between the Old and New Testament that this being all written in the Apostles time can mention nothing of that nature but that which comming from the Apostles might come by immediate revelation from God Which of the Old cannot be said For though there were Prophets in all ages of it and those Prophets endowed with such trust that if they commanded to dispense with any of Gods own positive Laws they were to be obeyed as appears by Elias commanding to Sacrifice in Mount Carmell contrary to the Law of Levit. XVII 4. and this by virtue of the Law Deut. XVIII 18 19. because he that gave the Law by Moses might by another as well dispense with it yet it is manifestly certain that neverthelesse they had not the power of making those Constitutions which were to bind the people in the exercise of their Religion according to the Law For when the Law makes them subject to be judged by the Consistory whether true Prophets or not whereupon we see that they were many times persecuted and our Lord at last put to death by them that would not acknowledge them because they had not the grace to obey them as you saw afore it cannot be imagined that they were enabled to any such act of government as giving those Laws to the Synagogue Especially seeing by the Law of Deut. XVII 8-12 this power and this right is manifestly setled upon the Consistory For seeing that by the Law all questions arising about the Law are remitted to the place of Gods worship where the Consistory sate in all ages and the determination of a case doubtfull in Law to be obeyed under pain of death is manifestly a Law which all are obliged to live by of necessity therefore those who have power to determine what the written Law had not determined doe give Law to the people And this right our Lord himself who as a Prophet had right to reprove even the publick government where it was amisse establishes as ready to maintain them in it had they submitted to the Gospel when he says Mat. XXIII 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair all therefore that they teach you observe and doe The Scribes and Pharisees being either limbs and members or appendences of the Consistory who under pain of death were not to teach any thing to determine any thing that the Law had not determined contrary to that which the Consistory had first agreed Whereby it is manifest that all these Laws and Ordinances aforenamed and all others of like nature which all common sense must allow to have been more then the Scripture any where mentions are the productions of this Right and Power placed by God in the Consistory on purpose to avoid Schism and keep the body of the people in Unity by shewing them what to stand to when the Law had not determined So that this is nothing contrary to the Law of Deut. IV. 2. XII 32. which forbiddeth to adde to or take from Gods Law the Law remaining intire when it is supplied by the Power which it self appointeth And he that will see the truth of this with his eys let him look upon the Jews Constitutions compiled into the Body of their Talmud Which though they are now written and in our Saviours time were taught from hand to hand though by succession of time and change in the State of that People they cannot continue in all points the same as they were in our Saviours time yet it is manifest that the substance of them was then in force because whatsoever the Gospel mentions of them is found to agree with that which they have now in writing And are all manifestly the effect of the lawfull power of the Consistory Nor let any man object that they are the Doctrines of the Pharisees which they pretended that Moses received from God in Mount Sinai and delivered by word of mouth to his Successors and that the Sadduces were of another opinion who never acknowledged any such unwritten Law but tied themselves to the letter as doth at this day one part of the Jews which renounce the Talmud and rest in the letter of the Law who are therefore called Karaim that is Scripturaries For though all this be true yet neither Pharisees nor Sadduces then neither Talmudists nor Scripturaries now did or do make question of acknowledging such Laws and Constitutions as are necessary to determine that which grows questionable in the practice of the Law but are both in the wrong when as to gain credit to those Orders and Constitutions which both bodies respectively acknowledge the one will have them delivered by God to Moses the other will needs draw them by consequence out of the letter of the Scripture And so entitle them to God otherwise then he appointed which is only as the results and productions of that power which he ordained to end all matter of difference by limiting that which the Law had not The same reason necessarily takes place under the New Testament saving the difference
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