intended It is not enough to shew a List of some persons in the great Churches of Ierusalem Antioch Rome and Alexandria although none of these be unquestionable but it should be produced at Philippi Corinth Caesarea and in all the seven Churches of Asia and not onely at Ephesus and so likewise in Creet some succeeding Titus and not think Men will be satisfied with the naming a Bishop of Gortyna so long after him But as I said before in none of the Churches most spoken of is the Succession so clear as is necessary For at Ierusalem it seems somewhat strange how fifteen Bishops of the Circumcision should be crouded into so narrow a room as they are so that many of them could not have above two years time to rule in the Church And it would bear an inquiry where the Seat of the Bishops of Ierusalem was from the time of the Destruction of the City by Titus when the Walls were laid even wih the Ground by Musonius till the time of Adrian for till that time the succession of the Bishops of the Circumcision continued For Antioch it is far from being agreed whether Evodius or Ignatius succeeded Peter or Paul or the one Peter and the other Paul much less at Rome whether Cletus Anacletus or Clemens are to be reckoned first but of these afterwards At Alexandria where the succession runs clearest the Originall of the power is imputedito the choice of Presbyters and to no Divine Institution But at Ephesus the succession of Bishops from Timothy is pleaded with the greatest Confidence and the Testimony brought for it is from Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon whose words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Timothy to this day there hath been a succession of seven and twenty Bishops all of them ordained in Ephesus I shall not insist so much on the incompetency of this single witness to pass a judgement upon a thing of that Nature at the distance of four hundred Years in which time Records being lost and Bishops being after settled there no doubt they would begin their account from Timothy because of his imployment there once for setling the Churches thereabout And to that end we may observe that in the after-times of the Church they never met with any of the Apostles or Evangelists in any place but they presently made them Bishops of that place So Philip is made Bishop of Trallis Ananias Bishop of Damascus Nicolaus Bishop of Samaria Barnabas Bishop of Milan Silas Bishop of Corinth Sylvanus of Thessalonica Crescens of Chalcedon Andreas of Byzantium and upon the same grounds Peter Bishop of Rome No wonder then if Leontius make Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and derive the succession down from him But again this was not an act of the Council its self but onely of one single person delivering his private opinion in it and that which is most observable is that in the thing mainly insisted on by Leontius he was contradicted in the face of the whole Council by Philip a Presbyter of Constantinople For the case of Bâ—ssianus and Stephen about their violent intrusion into the Bishoprick of Ephesus being discussed before the Council A question was propounded by the Council where the Bishop of Ephesus was to be regularly ordained according to the Canons Leontius Bishop of Magnesia saith that there had been twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus from Timothy and all of them ordained in the place His business was not to derive exactly the succession of Bishops but speaking according to vulgar tradition he insists that all had been ordained there Now if he be convicted of the crimen falsi in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no wonder if we meet with a mistake in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. if he were out in his allegation no wonder if he were deceived in his tradition Now as to the Ordination of the Bishops in Ephesus Philip a Presbyter of Constantinople convicts him of falsehood in that for saith he Iohn Bishop of Constantinople going into Asia deposed fifteen Bishops there and ordained others in their room And Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople instanceth in Castinus Heraclides Basilius Bishop of Ephesus all ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople If then the certainty of succession relyes upon the credit of this Leontius let them thank the Council of Chalcedon who have sufficiently blasted it by determining the cause against him in the main evidence produced by him So much to shew how far the clearest evidence for succession of Bishops from Apostolical times is from being convincing to any rationall Man Thirdly the succession so much pleaded by the Writers of the Primitive Church was not a succession of Persons in Apostolicall Power but a succession in Apostolical Doctrine Which will be seen by a view of the places produced to that purpose The first is that of Irenaeus Quoniam valdè longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae à gloriossimis duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatae constitutae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum perveniâ—nâ—es usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos c. Where we see Irenaeus doth the least of all aim at the making out of a Succession of Apostolical power in the Bishops he speaks of but a conveying of the Doctrine of the Apostles down to them by their hands which Doctrine is here called Tradition not as that word is abused by the Papists to signifie something distinct from the Scriptures but as it signifies the conveyance of the Doctrine of the Scripture it self Which is cleared by the beginning of that Chapter Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in Ecclesia adest perspic â—re omnibus qui vera vâ—lint audire habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt nâ—que cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur His plain meaning is that those persons who were appointed by the Apostles to oversee and govern Churches being sufficient witnesses themselves of the Apostles Doctrine have conveyed it down to us by their successours and we cannot learn any such thing of them as Valentinus and his followers broached We see it is the Doctrine still he speaks of and not a word what power and superiority these Bishops had over Presbyters in their several Churches To the same purpose Tertullian in that known speech of his Edant Origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primuâ— ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem antecessorem Hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum
380. Isidore succeeded Leander in Sevill 600. The Council sat 619. The Council of Aquen which tanscribes Isidore and owns his Doctrine 816. So that certainly supposing the words of all to be the same yet the Testimony is of greater force as it was owned in several Ages of the Church by whole Councils without any the least controul that we read of And if this then must not be looked on as the Sense of the Church at that time I know not how we can come to understand it if what is positively maintained by different persons in different ages of the Church and in different places without any opposing it by Writers of those ages or condemning it by Councils may not be conceived to be the Sense of the Church at that time So that laying all these things together we may have enough to conclude the Ambiguity at least and thereby incompetency of the Testimony of Antiquity for finding out the certain form which the Apostles observed in planting Churches We proceed to the third thing to shew the incompetency of Antiquity for deciding this Controversie which will be from the Partiality of the Testimony brought from thence Two things will sufficiently manifest the Partiality of the judgment of Antiquity in this Case First their apparent judging of the practice of the first Primitive Church according to the Customes of their own Secondly their stiffe and pertinacious adhering to private traditions contrary to one another and both sides maintaining theirs as Apostolical First judging the practice of the Apostles by that of their own times as is evident by Theodoret and the rest of the Greek Commentators assigning that as the Reason why the Presbyters spoken of in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in the Sense of their age because there could be but one Bishop in a City whereas there are more expressed in those places as being in the several Cities whereas this is denyed of Apostolical times by the late pleaders for Episcopacy and it is said of them that they spoke according to the custome of their own time And it is now thought there were two Bishops in Apostolical times in several Cities the one the head of the Jewish Coetus and the other of the Gentile I enter not the Dispute again here whether it were so or no onely I hence manifest how farr those persons themselves who plead for the judgement of the Fathers as deciding this Controversie are from thinking them impartial Judges when as to the grounds of their Sentence they are confessed to speak onely of the practice of their own time Who can imagine any force in Chrysostomes argument That the Presbyters who laid hands on Timothy must needs be Bishops because none do Ordain in the Church but Bishops unless he makes this the medium of his argument That whatever was the practice of the Church in his dayes was so in Apostolical times There is I know not what strange influence in a received custome if generally embraced that doth possess men with a â—ancy it was never otherwise then it is with them nay when they imagine the necessity of such a custome at present in the Church they presently think it could never be otherwise then it is But of this I have spoken somewhat already Secondly that which makes it appear how partial the judgement of Antiquity is in adhering to their particular Traditions and calling them Apostolical though contrary to one another How can we then fix upon the Testimony of Antiquity as any thing certain or impartial in this Case when it hath been found so evidently partial in a Case of less concernment then this is A witness that hath once betrayed his faithfulness in the open Court will hardly have his Evidence taken in a Case of moment especially when the Cause must stand or fall according to his single Testimony For my part I see not how any man that would see Reason for what he doth can adhere to the Church for an unquestionable Tradition received from the Apostles when in the case of keeping Easter whether with the Jewes on the fourteenth Moon or only on the Lords day there was so much unreasonable heat shewed on both sides and such confidence that on either side their Tradition was Apostolical The Story of which is related by Eusebius and Socrates and many others They had herein all the advantages imaginable in order to the knowing the certainty of the thing then in question among them As their nearness to Apostolical times being but one remove from them yea the persons contending pleaded personal acquaintance with some of the Apostles themselves as Polycarp with Iohn and Anicetus of Rome that he had his Tradition from Saint Peter and yet so great were the heats so irreconcilable the Controversie that they proceeded to dart the Thunderbolt of excommunication in one anothers faces as Victor with more zeal then piery threw presently the Asiatick Churches all out of Communion onely for differing as to this Tradition The small coals of this fire kindled a whole Aetna of contention in the Christian world the smoak and ashes nay the flames of which by the help of the Prince of the Aire were blown over into the bosome of the then almost Infant Northern Churches of Brittain where a solemn dispute was caused upon this quarrel between Colmannus on one side and Wilfride on the other The like contest was upon this Occasion between Augustine the Monk and the Brittish Bishops The Observation of this strange combustion in the Primitive Church upon the account of so vain frivolous unnecessary a thing as this was drew this note from a Learned and Judicious Man formerly quoted in his Tract of Schism By this we may plainly see the danger of our appeal to Antiquity for resolution in controverted points of Faith O how small relief are we to expect from thence For if the discretion of the chiefest Guides and Directors of the Church did in a point so trivial so inconsiderable so mainly fail them as not to see the Truth in a Subject wherein it is the greater marvel how they could avoid the fight of it Can we without the imputation of great grossness and folly think so poor-spirited persons competent Iudges of the questions now on foot betwixt the Churches Thus that person as able to make the best improvement of the Fathers as any of those who profess themselves the most superstitious admirers of Antiquity But if we must stand to the judgement of the Fathers let us stand to it in this that no Tradition is any further to be imbraced then as it is founded on the Word of GOD. For which purpose those words of Cyprian are very observable In compendio est autem apud religios as simplices mentes errorem deponere invenire atque eruere veritatem Nam si ad Divinae Traditionis caput Originem revertamur cessat error humanus He asserts it an easie
reason they that hold any one posture at receiving the Lords Supper necessary as sitting leaning kneeling do all equally destroy their own Christian-liberty as to these things which are undetermined by the Word So a Magistrate when commanding matters of Christian-liberty if in the preface to the Law he declares the thing necessary to be done in its self and therefore he commands it he takes away as much as in him lyes our Christian-liberty And in that case we ought to hold to that excellent Rule of the Apostle Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath set you free and be not intangled again with the yoke of bondage But if the Magistrate declare the things to be in themselves indifferent but only upon some prudent considerations for peace and order he requires persons to observe them though this brings a necessity of obedience to us yet it takes not away our Christian-liberty For an antecedent necessity expressed in the Law as a learned and excellent Casuist of our own observes doth not necessarily require the assent of the practical judgement to it which takes away our liberty of judgement or our judgement of the liberty of the things but a consequentiall necessity upon a command supposed doth only imply an act of the Will whereby the freedom of judgement and conscience remaining it is inclined to obedience to the commands of a superior Law Now that liberty doth lye in the freedom of Judgement and not in the freedom of Practise and so is consistent with the restraint of the exercise of it appears both in the former case of scandall and in the actions of the Apostles and primitive Christians complying with the Jews in matters of liberty yea which is a great deal more in such ceremonies of which the Apostle expresly saith that if they observed them Christ would profit them Nothing and yet we find Paul himself circumcising Timothy because of the Jews Certainly then however these ceremonies are supposed to be not only mortuae but mortiferae now the Gospel was preached and the Law of Christian-liberty promulged yet Paul did not look upon it as the taking away his liberty at any time when it would prevent scandall among the Jews and tend to the furtherance of the Gospel to use any of them It was therefore the opinion of the necessity of them was it which destroyed Christian-liberty and therefore it is observable that where the opinion of the necessity of observing the Judaicall Rites and Ceremonies was entertained the Apostle sets himself with his whole strength to oppose them as he doth in his Epistles to the Galatians and Colossians Whom yet we find in other places and to other Churches not leaven'd with this doctrine of the necessity of Judaicall Rites very ready to comply with weak Brethren as in his Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians From which we plainly see that it was not the bare doing of the things but the doing them with an opinion of the necessity of them is that which infringeth Christian-liberty and not the determination of one part above the other by the Supream Magistrate when it is declared not to be for any opinion of the things themselves as necessary but to be only in order to the Churches peace and unity Secondly It appears that Liberty is consistent with the restraint of the exercise of it because the very power of restraining the exercise of it doth suppose it to be a matter of liberty and that both antecedently and consequentially to that restraint Antecedently so it is apparent to be a matter of liberty else it was not capable of being restrained Consequentially in that the ground of observance of those things when restrained is not any necessity of the matter or the things themselves but only the necessity of obeying the Magistrate in things lawfull and undertermin'd by the Word which leads to another argument Thirdly Mens obligation to these things as to the ground of it being only in point of contempt and scandall argues that the things are matter of liberty still I grant the Magistrates authority is the ground of obedience but the ground of the Magistrates command is only in point of contempt and scandall and for preserving order in the Church For I have already shewed it to be unlawfull either to command or obey in reference to these things from any opinion of the necessity of them and therefore the only ground of observing them is to shew that we are not guilty of contempt of the power commanding them nor of scandall to others that are offended at our not observing them Tota igitur religio est in fugiendo scandalo vitando contemptu saith our learned Whitaker All our ground of obedience is the avoiding scandall and contempt of authority To the same purpose Pet. Martyr speaking of the obligation of Ecclesiasticall Laws Non obstringunt si removeatur contemptus scandalum So that non-observance of indifferent things commanded when there there is no apparent contempt or scandall do not involve a man in the guilt of sin as suppose a Law made that all publike prayer be performed kneeling if any thing lies in a mans way to hinder him from that posture in this case the man offends not because there is no contempt or scandall So if a Law were made that all should receive the Lords Supper fasting if a mans health calls for somwhat to refresh him before he sins not in the breach of that Law And therefore it is observable which Whitaker takes notice of in the Canons of the Councils of the primitive Church that though they did determine many things belonging to the externall Polity of the Church yet they observed this difference in their Censures or Anathema's That in matteâ—s of meer order and decency they never pronounced an Anathema but with the supposition of â—ppâ—rent contempt and inserted Si quis contrà praesumpserit si quis contumaciter contrà fecerit but in matters of Doctrine or Life fully determin'd by the Law of God they pronounced a simple Anathema without any such clause inserted Now from this we may take notice of a difference between Laws concerning indifferencies in civill and Ecclesiastical matters That in civils the Laws bind to indifferencies without the case of contempt or scandall because in these the publike good is aimed aâ— of which every private person is not fit to judge and therefore it is our duty either to obey or suffer but in Ecclesiasticall constitution only peace and order is that which is looked at and therefore Si nihil contra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feceris non teneris illis is the rule here If nothing tending to apparent disorder be done men break not those Laws For the end and reason of a Law is the measure of its obligation Fourthly Mens being left free to do the things forbidden either upon a repeal of the former Laws or when a man is from under
divide and separate from Church-society so it is an offence on the other side to continue communion when it is a duty to withdraw it For the resolving this knotty and intricate Question I shall lay down some things by way of premisall and come closely to the resolution of it First Every Christian is under an obligation to joyn in Church-society with others because it is his duty to professe himself a Christian and to own his Religion publickly and to partake of the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel which cannot be without society with some Church or other Every Christian as such is bound to look upon himself as the member of a body viz. the visible Church of Christ and how can he be known to be a member who is not united with other parts of the body There is then an obligation upon all Christianâ— to engage in a religious Society with others for partaking of the Ordinances of the Gospel It hath been a case disputed by some particularly by Grotius the supposed Author of a little Tract An semper sit communicandum per symbolu when he designed the Syncretism with the Church of Rome whether in a time when Churches are divided it be a Christians duty to communicate with any of those parties which divide the Church and not rather to suspend communion from all of them A case not hard to be decided for either the person questioning it doth suppose the Churches divided to remain true Churches but some to be more pure then others in which case by vertue of his generall obligation to communion he is bound to adhere to that Church which appears most to retain its Evangelicall purity Or else he must suppose one to be a true Church and the other not in which the case is clearer that he is bound to communicate with the true Church or he must judge them alike impure which is a case hard to be found but supposing it is so either he hath joyned formerly with one of them or he is now to choose which to joyn with if he be joyned already with that Church and sees no other but as impure as that he is bound to declare against the impurity of the Church and to continue his communion with it if he be to choose communion he may so long suspend till he be satisfied which Church comes nearest to the primitive constitution and no longer And therefore I know not whether Chrysostomes act were to be commended who after being made a Deacon in the Church of Antioch by Meletius upon his death because Flavianus came in irregularly as Bishop of the Church would neither communicate with him nor with Paulinus another Bishop at that time in the City nor with the Meletians but for three years time withdrew himself from communion with any of them Much lesse were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Haesitantes as the Latins called them to be commended who after the determination of the Council of Chalcedou against Entyches because of great differences remaining in Egypt and the Eastern Churches followed Zenoes Henoticum and would communicate neither with the Orthodox Churches nor Eutychians But I see not what censure Jâ—â—ome could in â—urr who going into the Diocesse of Antioeh and finding the Churches there under great divisions there being besides the Arian Bishop three others in the Church of Antioch Meletius Paulinus and Vitalis did so long suspend communion with any of them till he had satisfied himself about the occasion of the Schism and the innocency of the persons and Churches engaged in it But if he had withdrawn longer he had offended against his obligation to joyn in Church-society with others for participation of Gospel-Ordinances which is the necessary duty of every Christian. Secondly Every Christian actually joyned in Church-society with others is so long bound to maintain society with them till his communion with them becomes sin For nothing else can justifie withdrawing from such a Society but the unlawfulness of continuing any longer in it Supposing a Church then to remain true as to its constitution and essentials but there be many corruptions crept into that Church whether is it the duty of a Christian to withdraw from that Church because of those corruptions and to gather new Churches only for purer administration or to joyn with them only for that end This as far as I understand it is the state of the Controversie between our Parochiall Churches and the Congregationall The resolution of this great Question must depend on this Whether is it a sin to communicate with Churches true as to essentialls but supposed corrupt in the exercise of discipline For Parochiall Churches are not denyed to have the essentialls of true Churches by any sober Congregational men For there is in them the true Word of God preached the true Sacraments administred and an implicite Covenant between Pastor and People in their joyning together All that is pleaded then is corruption and defect in the exercise and administration of Church order and Discipline Now that it is lawfull for Christians to joyn with Churches so defective is not only acknowledged by Reverend Mr. Norton in his answer to Apollius but largely and fully proved For which he layes down five Propositions which deserve to be seriously considered by all which make that a plea for withdrawing from society with other Churches First A Believer may lawfully joyn himself in communion with such a Church where he cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God aâ— in the Jewish Church in our Saviours time which refused the Gospel of Christ and the baptism of Iohn and yet our Saviour bids us hear the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses Chair which hearing saith he doth imply conjunctionem Ecclesiae Iudaicae a joyning with the Iewish Church and so with Churches rejecting an article of faith in the Church of Corinth the doctrine of the Reâ—â—â—rection in the Churches of Galatia the doctrine of Ju 〈…〉 ion by faith but the Apostle no-where requires separation on that account from them Secondly A Believer may lawfully joyn in communion with such a Church in which some corruption in the worship of God is tolerated without Reformation As the offering on High-places from Solomon to Hezâ—kiah in the Church of Iuda observation of Circumcâ—sion and the necessity of keeping the Ceremonial Law in the Churches of Galaâ—ia Thirdly A Believer may lawfully joyn himself in communion with such a Church in which such are admitted to Sacraments who give no evident signs of grace but seem to be Lovers of this World which he proves because it is every ones main duty to examine himself and because anothers sin is no hurt to him and therefore cannot keep him from his duty and then by mens coming unworthily non polluitur communio licet minuitur consolatio the communion iâ— not defiled though the comfort of it be diminished He brings instance from the Church of Corinth among whom were many
scandalous and had not repented 2 Cor. 12. 20 21. So in the Jewish Church which lay under great corruptions when our Saviour and his Apostles communicated with it Fourthly Although a Believer joyn with such a Church he is not therefore bound with the guilt nor defiled with the pollutions of others which he proves because it is lawfull to do it and so he contract no guilt by it Fifthly A Believer that hath joyned himself to such a Church is not bound to withdraw and separate from such a Church under pain of guilt if he doth it not because it implyes a contradiction to be lawfull to joyn to such a Church and yet unlawfull to continue in its communion for that speaks it to be a Church and this latter to be no Church and by that he doth imply it to be unlawfull to separate from any Society which is acknowledged to be a true Church Thus for that learned and Reverend man by whom we see that the received Principles of the sober and moderate part of those of that perswasion are not at such a distance from others as many imagine We see then that communicating with a Church not so pure as we desire iâ— no sin by the arguments by him produced And how it should be then lawfull to withdraw from such a Church meerly for purer communion I 〈…〉 stand not This I am sure was not the case of our Churches in their separation from the Church of Rome the main ground of which was the sin of communicating with that Church in her Idolatry and Superstition and the impossibility of communicating with her and not partaking of her sins because she required a profession of her errours and the practise of her Idolatry as the necessary conditions of her communion in which case it is a sin to communicate with her And this leads me now to a closer resolution of the case of withdrawing from Churches in which men have formerly been associated and the grounds which may make such a withdrawing lawfull In order to that we must distinguish between these things First Between corruptions in the doctrine of a Church and corruptions in the practice of a Church Secondly Between corruptions whether in doctrine or practise professed and avowed by a Church and required as conditions of communion in all members of it and corruptions crept in and only tolerated in a Church Thirdly Between non-Communion as to the abuses of a Church and a positive and totall separation from a Church as it is such From these things I lay down these following Propositions First Where any Church is guilty of corruptions both in doctrine and practice which it avoweth and professeth and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of communion with her there a non-communion with that Church is necessary and a totall and positive separation is lawfull and convenient I have said already that the necessity and lawfulnesse of this departing from communion with any Church is wholly to be resolved by an inquiry into the grounds and reasons of the action it self So that the matter of fact must of necessity be discussed before the matter of Law as to separation from the Church be brought into debate If there be a just and necessary cause for separation it must needs be just and necessary therefore the cause must be the ground of resolving the nature of the â—ction Schism then is a separation from any Church upon any slight triviall unnecessary cause but if the cause be great and important a Departure it may be Schism it cannot be They who define Schism to be a voluntary separation from the Church of God if by voluntary they mean that where the will is the cause of it the definition stands good and true for that must needs be groundless and unnecessary as to the Church it self but if by voluntary be meant a spontaneous departing from communion with a Church which was caused by the corruptions of that Church then a separation may be so voluntary and yet no Schism for though it be voluntary as to the act of departing yet that is only consequentially supposing a cause sufficient to take such a resolution but what is voluntary antecedently that it hath no other Motive but faction and humour that is properly Schism and ought so to be looked upon But in our present case three things are supposed as the causes and motives to such a forsaking communion First Corruption in Doctrine the main ligature of a religious Society is the consent of it in Doctrine with the rule of Religion the Word of God Therefore any thing which tends to subvert and overthrow the foundation of the gathering such a Society which is the profession and practice of the true Religion yields sufficient ground to withdraw from communion with those who professe and maintain it Not that every small errour is a just ground of separation for then there would be no end of separation and men must separate from one another till knowledge comes to its perfection which will only be in glory but any thing which either directly or consequentially doth destroy any fundamental article of Christian faith Which may be as well done by adding to fundamental articles as by plain denying them And my reason is this because the very ratio of a fundamentall article doth imply not only its necessity to be believed and practised and the former in reference to the latter for things are therefore necessary to be known because necessary to be done and not è contrà but likewise its sufficiency as to the end for which it is called Fundamentall So that the articles of faith called Fundamentall are not only such as are necessary to be believed but if they be are sufficient for salvation to all that do believe them Now he that adds any thing to be believed or done as fundamentall that is necessary to salvation doth thereby destroy the sufficiency of those former articles in order to salvation for if they were sufficient how can new ones be necessary The case wil be clear by an Instance Who assert the satisfaction of Christ for sinners to be a fundamentall article and thereby do imply the sufficiency of the belief of that in order to salvation now if a Pope or any other command me to believe the meritoriousnesse of good works with the satisfaction of Christ as necessary to salvation by adding this he destroyes the former as a fundamentall article for if Christs satisfaction be sufficient how can good works be meritorious and if this latter be necessary the other was not for if it were what need this be added Which is a thing the Papists with their new Creed of Pius the fourth would do well to consider and others too who so confidently assert that none of their errours touch the foundation of faith Where there is now such corruption in Doctrine supposed in a Church withdrawing and separation from such a Church is as necessary as the
avoiding of her errours and not partaking of her sins is Thence we read in Scripture of rejecting such as are hereticks and withdrawing from their society which will as well hold to Churches as to persons and so much the more as the corruption is more dangerous and the relation nearer of a member to a Church then of one man to another And from the reason of that command we read in Ecclesiasticall History that when Eulalius Euphronius and Placentius were constituted Bishops of Antioch being Arrians many both of the Clergy and people who resolved to adhere to the true faith withdrew from the publike meetings and had private Assemblies of their own And after when Leontius was made Bishop of Antioch who favour'd the Arrians Flavianus and Diodorus not only publikely reproved him for deserting the Orthodox faith but withdrew the people from communion with him and undertook the charge of them themselves So when Foelix was made Bishop of Rome none of the Church of Rome would enter into the Church while he was there And Vincentius Lyrinensis tells us a remarkable story of Photinus Bishop of Syrmium in Pannonia a man of great abilities and same who suddenly turned from the true faith and though his people both loved and admired him yet when they discerned his errours Quem antea quasi arietem gregis sequebantur eundem deinceps veluti lupum fugere coeperunt Whom they followed before as the leader of the flock they now run away from as a devouring woolf This is the first thing which makes separation and withdrawment of communion lawfull and necessary viz. corruption of Doctrine The second is Corruption of practice I speak not of practice as relating to the civil conversation of men but as it takes in the Agenda of Religion When Idolatrous customs and superstitious practices are not only crept into a Church but are the prescribed devotion of it Such as the adoration of the Eucharist chiefly insisted on by Mr. Daillé in his Apology as a cause of separation from the Church of Rome invocation of Saints and Angels worshipping Images and others of a like nature used among the Papists which are of themselves sufficient to make our separation from them necessary But then thirdly as an accession to these two is the publike owning and professing them and requiring them as necessary conditions of communion from all the members of their Church which makes our withdrawing from them unavoidably necessary as long as we judge them to be such corruptions as indeed they are For men not to forsake the belief of errours supposing them to be such is impossible and not to forsake the practice and profession of them upon such belief were the highest hypocrisie and to do so and not to forsake the communion of that Church where these are owned is apparently contradictious as Mr. Chilling worth well observes seeing the condition of communion with it is that we must professe to believe all the doctrines of that Church not only not to be errours but to be certain and necessary truths So that on this account to believe there are any errours in the Church of Rome is actually and ipso facto to forsake the communion of that Church because the condition of its communion is the belief that there are none And so that learned and rationall Author there fully proves that those who require unlawfull and unnecessary conditions of communion must take the imputation of Schism upon themselves by making separation from them just and necessary In this case when corruptions in opinion or practice are thus required as conditions of communion it is impossible for one to communicate with such a Church without sin both materially as the things are unlawfull which he joyns with them in and formally as he judgeth them so This is the first Proposition The second is Where a Church retains the purity of doctrine in its publick profession but hath a mixture of some corruptions as to practice which are only tolerated and not imposed it is not lawfull to withdraw communion from such a Church much lesse to run into totall separation from it For here is no just and lawfull cause given of withdrawing here is no owned corruption of doctrine or practice nor any thing required as a condition of communion but what is in its self necessary and therefore there can be no plea but only pollution from such a communion which cannot be to any who do not own any such supposed corruptions in the Church Men may communicate with a Church and not communicate with the abuses of a Church for the ground of his communicating is its being a Church and not a corrupt or defective Church And that men are not themselves guilty by partaking with those who are guilty of corruptions in a Church might be easily and largely proved both from the Church of the Jews in the case of Elies sons and the Christian Churches of Asâ—â— and Corinth where we read of many corruptions reproved yet nothing spoken of the duty of the members of those Churches to separate from them which would have been had it been a sin to communicate with those Churches when such corruptions were in it Besides what reason is there that one mans sins should defile another more then anothers graces sanctifie another and why corruption in another should defile him more then in himself and so keep him from communicating with himself and what security any one can have in the most refined Churches but that there is some scandalous or at least unworthy person among them and whether then it is not his duty to try and examine all himself particularly with whom he communicates and why his presence at one Ordinance should defile it more then at another and why at any more then in wordly converse and so turn at last to make men Anchorets as it hath done some Many other reasons might be produced against this which I forbear it being fully spoke to by others And so I come to the Third Proposition which is Where any Church retaining the purity of doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawfull or suspected practice men may lawfully deny conformity to and communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schism I say not men may proceed to positive Schism as it is call'd that is erecting of new Churches which from Cyprian is call'd erigere Altare contra Altare but only that withdrawing communion from a Church in unlawfull or suspected things doth not lay men under the guilt of Schism which because I know it may meet with some opposition from those men who will sooner call men Schismaticks then prove them so I shall offer this reason for it to consideration If our separation from the Church of Rome was therefore lawfull because she required unlawfull things as conditions of her communion then where-ever such things are required by any Church non-communion
And we find by Pliny that when the hetaeriae were forbidden he brought the Christians in under that Law the ground of those Societies was onely a mutual compact and agreement among the persons of it Such as among the Essens of the Jewes and the Schools of Philosophers among the Greeks Iosephus mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those who were admitted into the Society of the Essens And so in all other Societies which subsist onely from mutuall confederation in a Common-wealth Thus I acknowledge it to be in Christianity that there must be such a supposed contract or voluntary consent in the persons engaged in such Societies But with this observable difference that although there must be a consent in both yet the one is wholly free as to any pre-engagement or obligation to it as well as to the act its self but in religious societies though the Act of consent be free yet there is an antecedent Obligation upon men binding them to this voluntary consent The want of the understanding this Difference is the very Foundation of that Opinion men call Erastianism For the followers of Erastus when they finde that Christians did act ex confoederatâ disciplinâ they presently conclude all Church-power lay onely in mutuall consent It is granted Church-power doth suppose consent but then all Christians are under an Obligation from the Nature of Christianity to express this consent and to submit to all censures Legally inflicted About the hetaeriae and Societies among the Romans we may take notice of the Law of Twelve Tables So in the collection of Lud. Charondus Sodalibus qui ejusdem Collegii sunt jus cotundi habent potestas esto pactionis quam volent inter se ineunda dum nè quid ex publicâ lege corrumpant Ex Caio c. 4. D. de Collec corp I confesse when persons are entred into a visible Church-So ciety by Baptism if they will own that profession they were baptized into and are not guilty either of plain ignorance of it or manifest scandall and demand as their right the other Ordinances of the Gospel I see not by what power they may be excluded If we fix not in a serious visible prosession as the ground of giving right but require positive evidences of grace in every one to be admitted to Ordinances as the only thing giving right for my part setting aside the many inconveniences besides which attend that in reference to the persons to be admitted I see not how with a safe and good conscience Ordinances can be administred by any My reason is this Every one especially a Minister in that case ought to proceed upon certain grounds that the person admitted hath right to the Ordinance to be administred but if positive signs of grace be required a mans conscience cannot proceed upon any certainty without infallible knowledge of anothers spiritual state which I suppose none will pretend to My meaning is that which gives right must be something evident to the person admitting into it if it be his duty to enquire after it but if only positive signs of grace be looked on as giving right the ground of right can never be so evident to another person as to proceed with a good conscience i. e. with a full perswasion of another right to the administration of any Ordinance to him If it be said that these are required only as tokens of a true visible profession and it is that which gives the right I reply Our knowledge of and assent to the conclusion can be no stronger nor more certain then to the premisses from whenâ—â— it is inferred if therefore true profession gives right and our knowledge of that proceeds upon our knowledge of the work of grace we are left at the same uncertainty we were at before But if we say that an outward profession of the Gospel where there is nothing rendring men uncapable of owning it which is ignorance nor declaring they do not own it which is sâ—andall is that which gives a visible right to the Ordinances of the Church as visible we have something to fix our selves upon and to bottom a perswasion of the right of persons to Ordinances Christ when he instituted Churches did institute them as visible Societies that is to have marks whereby to be known and distinguished as other Societies in the world are now that which puts a difference between this and other Societies is an open profession of Christianity which profession is looked upon as the outward expression of the internal consent of the soul to the Doctrine and Laws of the Gospel Which outward evidence of consent where there is nothing evidently and directly oppugning it is that which the Church of God in admission of visible members is to proceed upon I nowhere find that ever Christ or his Apostles in making disciples or admitting to Church-membership did exact any more then a professed willingnesse to adhere to the Doctrine which they preached nor that they refused any who did declare their desire to joyn with them An owning Christianity is all we read of antecedent to admission of Church-members And if any thing else be further required as necessary we must either say the Word of God is defective in institutions of necessity to the Church which I suppose the assertors of it will not be so inconsistent to their own principles as to do or else must produce where any thing further is required by the Word of God By this we may see what to answer those who require an explicite Covenant from all members of the Church as that which gives the form and being to a Church If they mean only in the first constitution of a visible Church an expresse owning of the Gospel-covenant there is none will deny that to be necessary to make one a member of the visible Church of Christ. If they further mean that there must be a real confederation between those who joyn together in Gospel-Ordinances in order to their being a Church I know none will question it that know what it is that makes a Society to be so which is such a real confederation with one another If they mean further that though Christians be bound by vertue of their Gospel-covenant to joyn with some Church Society yet not being determined by Scripture to what particular Church they should joyn therefore for Christians better understanding what their mutuall duty is to one another and who that Pastor is to whom they owe the relation of member that there should be some significant declaration either by words or actions of their willingnesse to joyn with such a particular Society in Gospel-Ordinances I shall grant this to be necessary too But if beyond this their meaning be that a formal explicite covenant be absolutely necessary to make any one a member of a Church I see no reason for it For 1. If there may be a real confederation without this then this is not necessary but there
the continuance of a Gospel Ministry fully cleared from all those Arguments by which positive Lawes are proved immutable The reason of the appointment of it continues the dream of a seculum Spiritûs Sancti discussed first broached by the Mâ—ndicant Friers It s occasion and unreasonableness shewed Gods declaring the perpetuity of a Gospel Ministry Matth. 28. 19. explained A novell Interpretation largely refuted The world to come what A Ministry necessary for the Churches continuance Ephes. 4. 12. explained and vindicated SEcondly That the Government of the Church ought to be Administred by Officers of Divine appointment is another thing I will yield to be of Divine Right but the Church here I take not in that latitude which I did in the former Concession but I take it chiefly here for the Members of the Church as distinct from Officers as it is taken in Acts 15. 22. So that my meaning is that there must be a standing perpetuall Ministry in the Church of God whose care and imployment must be to oversee and Govern the People of God and to administer Gospel-Ordinances among them and this is of Divine and perpetuall Right That Officers were appointed by Christ in the Church for these ends at first is evident from the direct affirmation of Scripture God hath set in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers c. 1 Corinth 12. 28. Eph. 4. 8 11. and other places to the same purpose This being then a thing acknowledged that they were at first of Divine Institution and so were appointed by a Divine positive Law which herein determines and restrains the Law of Nature which doth not prescribe the certain qualifications of the persons to govern this Society nor the instalment or admission of them into this employment viz by Ordination The only enquiry then left is Whether a standing Gospel-ministry be such a positive Law as is to remain perpetually in the Church or no which I shall make appear by those things which I laid down in the entrance of this Treatise as the Notes whereby to know when positive Laws are unalterable The first was when the same reason of the command continues still and what reason is there why Christ should appoint Officers to rule his Church then which will not hold now Did the people of God need Ministers then to be as Stars as they are call'd in Scripture to lead them unto Christ and do they not as well need them now Had people need of guides then when the doctrine of the Gospel was confirmed to them by miracles and have they not much more now Must there be some then to oppose gainsayers and must they have an absolute liberty of prophecying now when it is foretold what times of seduction the last shall be Must there be some then to rule over their charge as they that must give an account and is not the same required still Were there some then to reprove rebuke exhort to preach in season out of season and is there not the same necessity of these things still Was it not enough then that there were so many in all Churches that had extraordinary gifts of tongues prophecying praying interpretation of tongues but besides those there were some Pastors by office whose duty it was to give attendance to reading to be wholly in these things and now when these extraordinary gifts are ceased is not there a much greater necessity then there was then for some to be set apart and wholly designed for this work Were Ordinances only then administred by those whom Christ commissioned and such as derived their authority from them and what reason is there that men should arrogate and take this imployment upon themselves now If Christ had so pleased could he not have left it wholly at liberty for all believers to have gone about preaching the Gospel or why did he make choice of 12. Apostles chiefly for that work were it not his Will to have some particularly to dispense the Gospel and if Christ did then separate some for that work what Reason is there why that Office should be thrown common now which Christ himself inclosed by his own appointment There can be no possible Reason imagined why a Gospel-Ministry should not continue still unless it be that Fanatick pretence of a Seculum Spiritus Sancti a Dispensation of the Spirit which shall evacuate the use of all means of Instruction and the use of all Gospel-Ordinances which pretence is not so Novell as most imagine it to be for setting aside the Montanistical spirit in the Primitive Times which acted upon Principles much of the same Nature with these we now speak of The first rise of this Ignis fatuus was from the bogs of Popery viz. from the Orders of the Dominicans and Franciscans about the middle of the twelfth Century For no sooner did the Pauperes de Lugduno or the Waldenses appear making use of the Word of God to confute the whole Army of Popish Traditions but they finding themselves worsted at every turn while they disputed that ground found out a Stratagem whereby to recover their own Credit and to beat their adversaries quite out of the field Which was that the Gospel which they adhered to so much was now out of date and instead of that they broached another Gospel out of the Writings of the Abbot Ioachim and Cyrils visions which they blasphemously named Evangelium Spiritus Sancti Evangelium Novum and Evangelium Aeternum as Gulielmus de Sancto Amore their great Antagonist relates in his Book de periculis noviss temporum purposely designed against the Impostures of the Mendicant Friers who then like Locusts rose in multitudes with their shaven crowns out of the bottomless pit This Gospel of the Spirit they so much magnified above the Gospel of Christ that the same Author relates these words of theirs concerning it Quod comparatum ad Evangelium Christi tanto plus perfectionis ac dignitatis habet quantum Sol ad Lunam comparatus aut ad nucleum testa that it exceeded it as much as the kernell doth the shell or the Light of the Sun doth that of the Moon We see then from what quarter of the World this new Light began to rise but so much for this digression To the thing it self If there be such a dispensation of the Spirit which takes away the use of Ministry and Ordinances it did either commence from the time of the effusion of the Spirit upon the Apostles or some time since Not then for even of those who had the most large portion of the Spirit poured upon them we read that they continued in all Gospel ordinances Acts 2. 42 and among the chief 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Apostles Ministry it may be better rendred than in the Apostles Doctrine And which is most observable the Prophecy of Ioel about the Spirit is then said to be fulfilled Acts 2. 17.
wise men should do managed with the greatest subtilty and prudence by the maintainers of them Christ would make men see that his Doctrine stood not in need either of the wisdom or power of men to defend or propagate it and therefore made choice of the most unlikely Instruments for that end that mens faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God But withall we are to take notice of Christs admirable wisdom in the means he used to fit and qualifie them for the first builders of his Church for although the power and efficacy of their preaching was wholly from God and not from themselves yet our Saviour doth not presenly upon his calling them place them in the highest Office he intended them for but proceeds gradually with them and keeps them a long time under his own eye and instruction before he sends them abroad and that for two ends chiefly First To be witnesses of his actions Secondly To be Auditors of his Doctrine First To be witnesses of his actions which was looked on by the Apostles as the most necessary qualification for an Apostle in the place fore-cited Acts 1. 21 22. Peter calls himself a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ 1 Pet. 5. 1. Iohn saith That which was from the beginning which we have heard which we have seen with our eyes which we have looked upon and our hâ—â—ds have handled of the Word of Life that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you 1 John 1. 1 3. whereby the credibility of the Gospel was sufficiently evidenced to the World when the chief Preachers of it spoke nothing but what their own senses were witnesses of both as to the Doctrine and actions of Christ and therefore it is no wayes credible they should be deceived themselves in what they spoke and more improbable they would deceive others whose interest lay wholly upon the truth of the Doctrine which they Preoched for by the very Preaching of that Doctrine they rob'd themselves of all the comforts of Life and exposed themselves to a thousand miseries in this Life so that unlesse their Doctrine was true in order to another Life they were guilty of the greatest folly this World ever heard of We see what care our Saviour took to satisfie the reasons of men concerning the credibility of his Doctrine when the persons he employed in the founding a Church upon it were only such as were intimately conversant with the whole Life Doctrine and Works of him from whom they received it and thereby we cannot suppose any ignorance in them concerning the things they spoke and lest men should mistrust they might have a design to impose on others he made their faithfulness appear by their exposing themselves to any hazards to make good the truth of what they preached Especially having such a Divine Power accompanying them in the Miracles wrought by them which were enough to perswade any rational men that they came upon a true Embassie who carryed such Credentials along with them Another end of our Saviours training up his Apostles so long in his School before he sent them abroad was that they might be Auditors of his Doctrine and so might learn themselves before they taught others Christ was no friend to those hasty births which run abroad with the shell on their heads no although it was in his power to conferr the gifts of the Holy Ghost as well at their first entrance into Discipleship as afterwards yet we see he nuâ—tures and trains them up gradually teaching them as Quintilian would have Masters do guttatim acquainting them now with one then with another of the Mysteries of the Gospel Christ doth not overwhelm them with floods and torrents of Discourses but gently drops now one thing into them then another by which way such narrow-mouthed Vessels would be the soonest filled Yea our Saviour useth such â—n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Fathers call it such a prudent temper in instructing them that it is matter of just admiration to consider under how great and stupendious ignorance of the main points of Redemption Christs Death and Resurrection and the nature of Christs Kingdom they discovered after they had been some years under Christs Tutorage And we see what industry and diligence was used in the training up of those for the Apostleship who were in an immediate way sent out by Christ. And it is very probable that upon their first sending abroad they taught not by immediate Revelation but only what they had learned from Christ during their being with him Whence we see what a subordination there is in acquired parts labour and industry to the Teachings and Inspirations of the Divine Spirit our Saviour looked not on his labour as lost although afterwards the Unction from the Holy One should teach them all things It was Christs design to have them go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from strength to strength à domo sanctuarii in domum doctrinae as the Chaldee Paraphrast renders that place from one School of learning to another As under the Law even those that waited for the Râ—ach hakkodesh the inspiration of the Divine Spirit were brought up in the Schools of the Prophets under instruction there which was the place where they lay expecting the gentle gale of the Holy Spirit to carry them forth which was the ground of Amos his complaint that he was neither a Prophet nor the son of a Prophet by which it seems evident that Gods ordinary course was to take some of the Sons of the Prophets out of the Colledges where they lived and employ them in the Prophetical Office But of this largely elsewhere Such a School of the Prophets did our Saviour now erect wherein he entred his Disciples as Schollars and educated them in order to the Office he intended them for The next thing we take notice of is the name and nature of that Office which Christ call'd them to They who derive the use of the name of Apostles as applyed by Christ to his Disciples either from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens by which name the Masters of some ships were called as the ships 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from Hesychius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sense of the Civil Law which signifie the dimâ—ssory Letters granted for appeals or from the Jewish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as thereby were understood those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius calls them who were as Assessours and Counsellours to the Patriarch of the Jewes at Tiberias or those Officers who were sent up and down by the Patriarch to gather up tenths first fruits and such other things who are called thence Apostoli in the Codex Theod. tit de Iudaeis all these I say do equally lose their labour and run far to fetch that which might be found much nearer
from whom they derived their power and by whose authority they acted And these were the most suitable to them as making it appear that a Divine presence went along with them and therefore they could not salsifie to the world in what they Declared unto them which was the best way for them to evidence the Truth of their Doctrine because it was not to be discovered by the Evidence of the things themselves but it depended upon the Testimony of the Authour and therefore the onely way to confirm the truth of the Doctrine was to confirm the credibility of the Authour which was best done by doing something above what the power of nature could reach unto And this was the prerogative of the Apostles in their first mission above Iohn the Baptist For of him it is said that he did no miracle Fourthly we observe that the Apostles in this mission were invested in no power over the Church nor in any Superiority of Order one over another The first is evident because Christ did not now send them abroad to gather Churches but onely to call persons to the Doctrine of the Messias and while Christ was in the World among them he retained all Church power and authority in his own hand When this temporary mission expired the Apostles lived as private persons still under Christs Tutorage and we never read them acting in the least as Church-Officers all that while Which may appear from this one argument because all the time of our Saviours being in the World he never made a total separation from the Iewish Church but frequented with his Disciples the Temple worship and Service to the last although he super-added many Gospel Observations to those of the Law And therefore when no Churches were gathered the Apostles could have no Church power over them All that can be pleaded then in order to Church-Government from the consideration of the Form of Government as setled by our Saviour must be either from a supposed inequality among the Apostles themselves or their superiority over the LXX Disciples or from some Rules laid down by Christ in order to the Government of his Church of which two are the most insisted on Matthew 20. 25. Matth. 18. 17. Of these in their Order The first argument drawn for an established form of Government in the Church from the state of the Apostles under Christ is from a supposed inequality among the Apostles and the superiority of one as Monarch of the Church which is the Papists Plea from Saint Peter as the chief and head of the Apostles Whose loud Exclamations for Saint Peters authority aâ—â— much of the same nature with those of Demetrius the Silver-Smith at Ephesus with his fellow craftsmen who cried up Great is Diana of the Ephesians not from the honor they bore to her as Diana but from the gain which came to them from her worship at Ephesus But I dispute not now the entail of Saint Peters power what ever it was to the Roman Bishop but I onely inquire into the Pleas drawn for his authority from the Scriptures which are written in so small a character that without the spectacles of an implicite Faith they will scarce appear legible to the Eyes of men For what though Christ changed Saint Peters name must it therefore follow that Christ baptized him Monarch of his Church Were not Iohn and Iames called by Christ Boanerges and yet who thinks that those sons of Thunder must therefore overturn all other power but their own Christ gave them new names to shew his own authority over them and not their authority over others to be as Monitors of their Duty and not as Instruments to convey power So Chrysostome speaks of the very name Peter given to Simon it was to shew him his duty of being fixed and stable in the Faith of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this name might be as a string upon his finger a continual remembrancer of his duty And likewise I conceive as an incouragement to him after his fall that he should recover his former stability again else it should seem strange that he alone of the Apostles should have his name from firmness and stability who fell the soonest and the foulest of any of the Apostles unlesse it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would be worse Divinity then Rhetorick The change then of St Peters name imports no such Universall Power neither from the change nor from the name But why then hath Saint Peter the honour to be named first of all the Apostles First it seems to be implyed as an honour given to Peter above the rest But doth all honour carry an Universal power along with it there may be order certainly among equals and there may be first second and third c. where there is no imparity and jurisdiction in the first over all the rest Primacy of Order as among equals I know none will deny Saint Peter A Primacy of Power as over Inferiours I know none will grant but such as have subdued their Reason to their Passion and Interest Nay a further Order then of mâ—er place may without danger be attributed to him A Primacy in Order of Time as being of the first called and it may be the first who adhered to Christ in Order of Age of which Ierome aetati delatum quia Petrus senior erat speaking of Peter and Iohn nay yet higher some Order of Dignity too in regard of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greek Fathers speak so much of the servency and heat of his spirit whence by Eusebius he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prolocutor among the Apostles who was therefore most forward to inquire most ready to answer which Chrysostome elegantly calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are frequently given to Peter by the Fathers which import no more then praesultor in choreâ he that that led the dance among the Disciples but his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies no Superiority of Power For Dyonys Haliarnass calls Appius Claâ—dius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas all know that the Decemviri had an equality of power among themselves Neither doth his being as the mouth of the Disciples imply his power For Aaron was a mouth to Moses but Moses was Aarons Master Neither yet doth this Primacy of Order alwayes hold in reference to Peter For although generally he is named first of the Aposties as Matthew 10. 2. Mark 3. 16. Acts 1. 13. Mark 1. 36. Luk 8. 45. Acts 2. 14. 37. Yet in other places of Scripture we finde other Apostles set in Order before him as Iames Galat. 2. 9. Paul and Apollos and others 1 Cor. 3. 22. 1 Cor. 1. 12. 9. 5. No Argument then can be drawn hence if it would hold but onely a Primacy of Order and yet even that fails too in the Scriptures changing of the Order so often
Feasts at Ierusalem conforms to all the Rites and Customs in use then not only those commanded by God himself but those taken up by the Jews themselves if not contrary to Gods commands as in observing the feast of Dedication in going into their Synagogues and teaching so often there in washing the Feet of the Disciples a custome used by them before the Passeover in using baptism for the proselyting men to the profession of Christianity c. In these and other things our Saviour conformed to the received practice among them though the things themselves were no wayes commanded by the Law of Moses And after his Resurrection when he took care for the forming of a Church upon the doctrine he had delivered yet we find not the Apostles withdrawing from communion with the Jews but on the contrary we find the Disciples frequenting the Temple Act. 2. 46. Act. 3. 1. Act. 5. 20 21 26. Whereby it appears how they owned themselves as Jews still observing the same both time and place for publike Worship which were in use among the Jews We find Paul presently after his conversion in the Synagogues preaching that Christ whom he had before persecuted and where ever he goes abroad afterwards we find him still entering into the Synagogues to preach where we cannot conceive he should have so free and easie admission unlesse the Jews did look upon him as one of their own Religion and observing the same customs in the Synagogues with themselves only differing in the point of the coming of the Messias and the obligation of the ceremonial Law the least footsteps of which were seen in the Synagogue-worship But that which yet further clears this is the general prejudice of the Disciples against the Gentiles even after the giving of the Holy Ghost as appears by their contending with Peter for going in to men uncircumcised It is evident that then the Apostles themselves did not clearly apprehend the extent of their Commission for else what made Peter so shy of going to Cornâ—lius but by every creature and all nations they only apprehended the Jews in their dispersions abroad or at least that all others who were to be saved must be by being proselyted to the Jews and observing the Law of Moses together with the Gospel of Christ. And therefore we see the necessity of circumcision much pressed by the believing Jews which came down from Ierusalem which raised so high a Dispute that a Convention of the Apostles together at Ierusalem was called for the ending of it And even there we find great heats before the businesse could be decided 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After there had been much disputing Nay after this Council and the determination of the Apostles therein all the ease and release that was granted was only to the Gentile-converts but the Jews stick close to their old Principles still and are as zealous of the customes of the Jews as ever before For which we have a pregnant testimony in Act. 21. 20 21 22. Where the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem tell Paul there were many myriads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of believing Iews who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all very zealous for the Law still and therefore had conceived a sinister opinion of Paul as one that taught a defection from the Law of Moses saying they might not circumcise their Children nor walk after the customs One copy reads it as Beza tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to follow the custome of their Fathers We see how equally zealous they are for the customes obtaining among them as for the Law its self And is it then any wayes probable that these who continued such Zealots for the customs among them should not observe those customs in use in the Synagogues for the Government of the Church Might not they have been charged as well as Paul with relinquishing the customs if they had thrown off the model of the Jewish Synagogue and take up some customes different from that And that which further confirms this is that this Church of Ierusalem continued still in its zeal for the Law till after the destruction of the Temple and all the several Pastors of that Church whom Ecclesiastical Writers call Bishops were of the circumcision For both we have the testimony of Sulpitius Severus speaking of the time of Adrian Et quia Christiani ex Iudaeis potissimum putabantur namque tum Hierosolymae non nisi ex circumcisione habebat Ecclesia sacerdotem militum cohortem custodias in perpetuum agitare jussit quae Iudaeos omnes Hierosolymae aditu arceret Quod quidem Christiana fidei proficiebat quia tum pene omnes Christum Deum sub legis observatione credebant We see hereby that the Christians observed still the Law with the Gospel and that the Jews and Christians were both reckoned as one body which must imply an observation of the same Rites and Customes among them For those are the things whereby Societies are distinguished most Now it is evident that the Romans made no distinction at first between the Jews and Christians Thence we read in the time of Claudius when the Edict came out against the Jews Aquila and Priscilla though converted to Christianity were forced to leave Italy upon that account being still looked on as Jews yet these are called by Paul his helpers in Christ Iesus For which Onuphrius gives this reason Nullum adhuc inter Iudaeos Christianos discrimen noscebatur which account is likewise given by Alphonsus Ciaconius Congeneres comprofessores ejusdem religionis gentilibus censebantur Christiani pariter ac Iudaei The Edict of Claudius we may read still in Suetonius Iudaeos impulsore Christo assiduè tumultuantes Roma expulit We find here the Edict fully expressed for banishing the Jews and the occasion set down which most interpret of the Doctrine of Christ as the occasion of the stirs between the Jews and Christians For the Romans called Christ Chrestus and Christians Chrestiani as the authors of the Christians Apologies against the Heathens often tell us But Marcellus Donatus conjectures this Christus to have been some seditious Jew called by that name for which he brings many Inscriptions wherein the name occurrs but none wherein it is given to a Jew which should be first produced before we leave the received interpretation of it However that be we see the Jews and Christians equally undergo the punishment without any difference observed in them and therefore when Paul was brought before Gallio the Proconsul of Achaia he looked upon the difference between the Jews and Paul to be only a Question of words and names and of their Law and thereupon refused to meddle with it And so Celsus upbraids both Jews and Christians as though their contentions were about a matter of nothing By all this we may now consider how little the Christians did vary from the customs and practice of the Jews when
à Johanne conlocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit Proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant A succession I grant is proved in Apostolical Churches by these words of Tertullian and this succession of persons and those persons Bishops too but then it is only said that these persons derived their office from the Apostles but nothing expressed what relation they had to the Church any more then is implyed in the general name of Episcopi nor what power they had over Presbyters only that there were such persons was sufficient to his purpose which was to prescribe against heretickes i. e. to Non-suit them or to give in general reasons why they were not to be proceeded with as to the particular debate of the things in question between them For praescribere in the civil Law whence Tertullian transplanted that word as many other into the Church is cum quis adversarium certis exceptionibus removet à lite contestandâ ita ut de summa rei neget agendum eamve causam ex juris praescripto judicandaÌ„ three sorts of these prescriptions Tertullian elsewere mentions Hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potest non spatium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum Here he stands upon the first which is a prescription of time because the Doctrine which was contrary to that of the Hereticks was delivered by the Apostles and conveyed down by their successors which was requisite to be shewed in order to the making his prescription good Which he thus further explains Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur apud quas ipsae authenticae eorum literae recitantur sonantes vocem praesentantes faciem uniuscujusque Proximè est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos habes Thessalonicenses Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum Sâ— autem Italiae adjaces habes Romam unde nobis quoque auctoritas praestò est What he spoke before of the persons he now speaks of the Churches themselves planted by the Apostles which by retaining the authentick Epistles of the Apostles sent to them did thereby sufficiently prescribe to all the novell opinions of the Hereticks We see then evidently that it is the Doctrine which they speak of as to succession and the persons no further then as they are the conveyers of that Doctrine either then it must be proved that a succession of some persons in Apostolical power is necessary for the conveying of this Doctrine to men or no argument at all can be inferred from hence for their succeeding the Apostles in their power because they are said to convey down the Apostolical Doctrine to succeeding ages Which is Austins meaning in that speech of his Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur The root of Christian society i. e. the Doctrine of the Gospel is spread abroad the world through the channels of the Apostolical Sees and the continued successions of Bishops therein And yet if we may believe the same Austin Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est The difference between Episcopacy and Presbyterie rise from the custome of the Church attributing a name of greater honour to those it had set above others And as for Tertullian I believe neither party will stand to his judgement as to the original of Church power For he saith expresly Differentiâ—m inter ordinem plebem constituit Ecclesia auctoritas all the difference between Ministers and people comes from the Churches authority unless he mean something more by the following words honor per Ordinis concessum sanctificatus à Deo viz. that the honour which is received by ordination from the Bench of Church-Officers is sanctified by God i. e. by his appointment as well as blessing For otherwise I know not how to understand him But however we see here he makes the Government of the Church to lye in a Concessus ordinis which I know not otherwise to render than by a Bench of Presbyters because only they were said in ordinem cooptari who were made Presbyters and not those who were promoted to any higher degree in the Church By the way we may observe the original of the name of Holy Orders in the Church not as the Papists and others following them as though it noted any thing inherent by way of I know not what character in the person but because the persons ordained were thereby admitted in Ordinem among the number of Church-officers So there was Ordo Senatorum Ordo Equestris Ordo Decurionum and Ordo Sacerdotum among the Romans as in this Inscription ORDO SACERDOT DEI HERCULIS INVICTI From hence the use of the word came into the Church and thence Ordination ex vi vocis imports no more than solemn admission into this order of Presbyters and therefore it is observable that laying on of hands never made men Priests under the Law but only admitted them into publike Office So much for Tertullians Concessus ordinis which hath thus fâ—r drawn us out of our way but we now return And therefore Fourthly This personal suceession so much spoken of â—â— sometimes attributed to Presbyters even after the distinction came into use between Bishops and them And that even by those Authors who before had told us the succession was by Bishops as Irenaeus Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem quâ— est ab Apostolis quâ— per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur traditioni dicent se non solum Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores c. Here he attributes the keeping of the Pradition of Apostolical Doctrine to the succession of Presbyters which before he had done to Bishops And more fully afterwards Quapropter iis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt In this place he not only asserts the succession of Presbyters to the Apostles but likewise attributes the successio Episcopatus to these very Presbyters What strange confusion must this raise in any ones mind that seeks for a succession of Episcopal power above Presbyters from the Apostles by the Testimony of Irenaeus when he so plainly attributes both the succession to Presbyters and the Episcopacy too which he speaks of And in the next chapter adds Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait dabo principes tuos in pace Episcopos
onely to poor and private Men. Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them had a hand in this Heraldry of secundum sub supra all this comes from composition and agreement of men among themselves wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition is a vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy and an ordinary I will not give it lest you should take so transcendent a vice to be but trivial Thus that grave and wise person whose words savour of a more then ordinary tincture of a true Spirit of Christianity that scorns to make Religion a footstool to pride and ambition We see plainly he makes all difference between Church-Officers to arise from consent of parties and not from any Divine Law To the same purpose Master Chillingworth propounds this Question among many others to his adversary Whether any one kind of these external Forms and Orders and Government be so necessary to the being of a Church but that they may be diverse in divers places and that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit himself to the Government of the place where he lives whosoever he be Which Question according to the tenour of the rest to which it is joyned must as to the former part be resolved in the Negative and as to the latter in the Affirmative Which is the very thing I have been so long in proving of viz. that no one Form of Church-Government is so necessary to the being of a Church but that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to conform himself to the Government of that place where he lives So much I suppose may suffice to shew that the Opinion which I have asserted is no stranger in our own Nation no not among those who have been professed Defenders of the Ecclesiastical Government of this Church Having thus far acquainted our selves with the state and customes of our own Countrey we may be allowed the liberty of visiting Forraign Churches to see how far they concur with us in the matter in question The first person whose judgement we shall produce asserting the mutability of the Form of Church-Government is that great light of the German Church Chemnitius whom Brightman had so high an opinion of as to make him to be one of the Angels in the Churches of the Revelation He discoursing about the Sacrament of Order as the Papists call it layes down these following Hypotheses as certain truth◠1. Non esse Dei verbo mandatum qui vel quot tales gradus seu ordines esse debeant 2. Non fuisse tempore Apostolorum in omnibus Ecclesiis semper cosdem totidem gradus seu ordines id quod ex Epistolis Pauli ad diversas Ecclesias scriptis manifestè colligitur 3. Non fuit tempore Apostolorum talis distributio graduum illorum quin saepius unus idem omnia illa officia quae ad ministerium pertinent sustineret Liberae igitur fuerunt Apostolorum tempore tales ordinationes habitâ ratione ordinis decori aedificationis c. Illud Apostolorum exemplum Primitiva Ecclesia eadem ratione simili libertate imitata est Gradus enim officior um ministerii distributi fuerunt non autem eadem plane ratione sicut in Corinthiaca vel Ephesina Ecclesia sed pro ratione circumstantiarum cujusque Ecclesiae unde colligitur quae fuerit in distributione illorum graduum libertas The main thing he asserts is the Curches freedom and liberty as to the orders and degrees of those who superintend the affairs of the Church which he builds on a threefold foundation 1. That the Word of God no where commands what or how many degrees and Orders of Ministers there shall be 2. That in the Apostles times there was not the like number in all Churches as is evivident from Pauls Epistles 3. That in the Apostles times in some places one person did manage the several Offices belonging to a Church Which three Propositions of this Learned Divine are the very basis and foundation of all our foregoing Discourse wherein we have endeavoured to prove these several things at large The same Learned person hath a set Discourse to shew how by degrees the Offices in the Church did rise not from any set or standing Law but for the convenient managery of the Churches Affairs and concludes his Discourse thus Et haec prima graduum seu ordinum origo in Ecclesia Apostolica ostendit quae causa quae ratio quis usus finis esse debeat hujusmodi seu graduum seu ordinum ut scilicet pro ratione coetus Ecclesiastici singula Officia quae ad ministerium pertinent commodius rectius diligentius ordine cum aliqua gravitate ad aedificationem obeantur The summ is It appears by the practice of the Apostolical Church that the state condition and necessity of every particular Church ought to be the Standard and measure what Offices and Degrees of persons ought to be in it As to the uncertain number of Officers in the Churches in Apostolical times we have a full and express Testimony of the Famous Centuriatours of Magdeburge Quot verò in qualibet Ecclesia personae Ministerio functae sint non est in Flistoriis annotatum nec usquam est praeceptum ut aeque multi in singulis essent sed prout paucitas aut multitudo coetus postulavit ita pauciores aut plures administerium Ecclesiae sunt adhibiti We see by them there is no other certain rule laid down in Scripture what number of persons shall act in the governing every Church onely general prudence according to the Churches necessity was the ground of determining the number then and must be so still The next person whose judgement is fully on our side is a person both of Learning and Moderation and an earnest restorer of Discipline as well as Doctrine in the Church I mean Hieron Zanchy who in several places hath expressed his judgement to the purpose we are now upon The fullest place is in his Confession of Faith penned by him in the LXX year of his Age and if ever a man speaks his mind it must be certainly when he professeth his judgement in a solemn manner by way of his last Will and Testament to the world that when the Soul is going into another world he may leave his mind behind him Thus doth Zanch in that Confession in which he declares this to be his judgement as to the form of Church-Government That in the Apostles times there were but two orders under them viz. of Pastors and Teachers but presently subjoyns these words Interea tamen non improbamus Patres quod juxta variam tum verbi dispensandi tum regendae Ecclesiae rationem varios quoqu◠ordines ministrorum multiplicarint quando id iis liberum fuit sicut nobis quando constat id ab illis factum honestis de causis
Isidore himself the Bishop of Sevill in Spain speaking of Presbyters His sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est praesunt eni◠Ecclesiis Christi in confectione corporis sanguinis consortes cum Episcopis sunt similiter in doctrina populi in Officio praedicandi sed sola propter auctoritatem summo sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae Disciplina vindicatae concordiam solueret scandala generaret What could be spoken more to our purpose then this is he asserts the identity of power as well as name in both Bishops and Presbyters in governing the Church in celebrating the Eucharist in the Office of preaching to the people onely for the greater Honour of the Bishop and for preventing Schisms in the Church the power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop by those words propter Auctoritatem he cannot possibly mean the Authority of a Divine Command for that his following words contradict that it was to prevent Schisms and Scandals and after produceth the whole place of Ierome to that purpose Agreeable to this is the judgment of the second Council of Sevil in Spain upon the occasion of the irregular proceeding of some Presbyters ordained by Agapius Bishop of Corduba Their words are these Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis Ministeriorum communis sit dispensatio quaedam novellis Ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterororum Diaconorum Virginum consecratio c. Haec enim omnia illicita esse Presbyteris quia Pontificatus apicem non habent quem solis deberi Episcopis authoritate Canonum praecipitur ut per hoc discretio graduum dignitatis fastigium summi Pontificis demonstretur How much are we beholding to the ingenuity of a Spanish Council that doth so plainly disavow the pretence of any divine right to the Episcopacy by them so strenuously asserted All the right they plead for is from the novellae Ecclesiasticae regula which import quite another thing from Divine institution and he that hath not learnt to distinguish between the authority of the Canons of the Church and that of the Scriptures will hardly ever understand the matter under debate with us and certainly it is another thing to preserve the honour of the different Degrees of the Clergy but especially of the chief among them viz. the Bishop than to observe a thing meerly out of Obedience to the command of Christ and upon the account of Divine institution That which is rejoyned in answer to these Testimonies as far as I can learn is onely this that the Council and Isidore followed Jerome and so all make up but one single Testimony But might it not as well be said that all that are for Episcopacy did follow Ignatius or Epiphanius and so all those did make up but one single Testimony on the other side Ye◠I do as yet despair of finding any one single Testimony in all Antiquity which doth in plain terms assert Episcopacy as it was setled by the practice of the Primitive Church in the ages following the Apostles to be of an unalterable Divine right Some expressions I grant in some of them seem to extoll Episcopacy very high but then it is in Order to the Peace and Unity of the Church and in that Sense they may sometimes be admitted to call it Divine and Apostolical not in regard of its institution but of its end in that it did in their Opinion tend as much to preserve the Unity of the Church as the Apostles Power did over the Churches while they were living If any shall meet with expressions seeming to carry the Fountain of Episcopal power higher let them remember to distinguish between the power it self and the restrained Exercise of that power the former was from the Apostles but common to all Dispensers of the Word the latter was appropriated to some but by an Act of the Church whereby an eminency of power was attributed to one for the safety of the whole And withall let them consider that every Hyperbolical expression of a Father will not bear the weight of an Argument and how common it was to call things Divine which were conceived to be of excellent use or did come from persons in authority in the Church One would think that should meet with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon it could be rendred by nothing short of the Scriptures whereas they mean no more by it but onely the Emperours Letters to the Council It hath been already observed how ready they were to call any custome of the Church before their times an Apostolical Tradition And as the Heathens when they had any thing which they knew not whence it came they usually called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it came immediately from Heaven So the Fathers when Traditions were convey'd to them without the names of the Authors they conclude they could have no other Fountain but the Apostles And thus we see many Traditions in several Churches directly contrary to one another were looked on as Apostolical onely from the prevalency of this perswasion that whatever they derived from their Fathers was of that nature But then for that answer to the Council and Isidore and Ierome that they make but one testimony I say that although the words be of the same Sense yet they have the nature of a different testimony upon these accounts First as produced by persons of different condition in the Church some think they are even with Ierome when they tell us what a pique there was between him and Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem and that he might have the better advantage of his adversary when he could not raise himself up to the Honour of Episcopacy he would bring that down to the State of Presbytery but as such entertain too unworthy thoughts of one of those Fathers whom they profess themselves admirers of so this prejudice cannot possibly lie against Isidore or the Council For the first was himself a Bishop of no mean account in the Church of God and the Council was composed of such it could be no biass then of that nature could draw them to this Opinion and no doubt they would have been as forward to maintain their own authority in the Church as the Truth and Conscience would give them leave Therefore on this account one Testimony of a single Bishop much more of a whole Council of them against their acting by Divine Authority in the Church is of more validity then ten for it in as much as it cannot but be in Reason supposed that none will speak any thing against the authority they are in or what may tend in the least to diminish it but such as make more Conscience of the Truth then of their own Credit and Esteem in the World Secondly in that it was done in different ages of the Church Ierome flourished about