us lyes not here as it is generally mistaken What Form of Government comes the nearest to Apostolical practice but Whether any one individual form be founded so upon Divine Right that all Ages and Churches are bound unalterably to observe it The clearing up of which by an impartial inquiry into all the grounds produced for it being of so great tendency to an accommodation of our present differences was the only motive which induced me to observe Aristotles wild Politicks of exposing this deformed conception to the entertainment of the wide World And certainly they who have espoused the most the interest of a jus divinum cannot yet but say that if the opinion I maintain be true it doth exceedingly conduce to a present settlement of the differences that are among us For then all parties may retain their different opinions concerning the Primitive form and yet agree and pitch upon a form compounded of all together as the most suitable to the state and condition of the Church of God among us That so the peoples interest be secured by consent and suffrage which is the pretence of the congregational way the due power of Presbyteries asserted by their joynt-concurrence with the Bishop as is laid down in that excellent model of the late incomparable Primate of Armagh and the just honour and dignity of the Bishop asserted as a very laudable and ancient constitution for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church of God So the Learned Is. Casaubon describes the Polity of the Primitive Church Episcopi in singulis Ecclesiis constituti cum suis Prebyteriis propriam sibi quisque peculiari cura universam omnes in commune curantes admirabilis cujusdam Aristocraâ—iae speciem referebant My main design throughout this whole â—reatise is to shew that there can be no argument drawn from any pretence of a Divine Right that may hinder men from consenting and yielding to such a form of Government in the Church as may bear the greatest correspondency to the Primitive Church and be most advantagiously conduceable to the peace unity and settlement of our divided Church I plead not at all for any abuses or corruptions incident to the best form of Government through the corruption of men and times Nay I dare not harbour so low apprehensions of persons enjoying so great dignity and honour in the Church that they will in any wise be unwilling of themselves to reduce the Form of Church Government among us to its Primitive state and order by retrenching all Exorbitances of Power and restoring those Presbyteries which no law hath forbidden but onely through disuse have been laid aside Whereby they will give to the world that rare example of self-denial and the highest Christian prudence as may raise an honourable opinion of them even among those who have hitherto the most slighted so ancient and venerable an Order in the Church of God and thereby become the repairers of those otherwise irreparable breaches in the Church of God I conclude with the words of a late learned pious and moderate Prelate in his Via media I have done and now I make no other account but that it will fall out with me as it doth commonly with him that offers to part a fray both parts will perhaps drive at me for wishing them no worse than peace My ambition of the publike tranquillity shall willingly carry me through this hazzard let both beat me so their quarrel may cease I shall rejoyce in those blows and scars which I shall take for the Churches safety The Contents of the Chapters PART I. CHAP. I. THings necessary for the Churches peace must be clearly revealed The Form of Government not so as appears by the remaining controversie about it An evidence thence that Christ never intended any one Form as the only means to peace in the Church The Nature of a divine Right discussed Right in general either makes things lawful or else due For the former a non-prohibition sufficient the latter an express command Duty supposeth Legislation and promulgation The Question stated Nothing binds unalterably but by vertue of a standing Law and that two fold The Law of Nature and positive Lawes of God Three wayes to know when Positive Lawes are unalterable The Divine right arising from Scripture-examples divine acts and divine approbation considered p. 1. CHAP. II. SIX Hypotheses laid down as the basis of the following Discourse 1. The irreversible Obligation of the Law of Nature either by humane or divine positive Lawes in things immediately flowing from it 2. Things agreeable to the Law of nature may be lawfully practised in the Church of God inlarged into five subservient Propositions 3. Divine positive Lawes conâ—erning the manner of the thing whose substance is determined by the Law of nature must be obeyed by vertue of the obligation of the natural Law 4. Things undetermined both by the natural and positive laws of God may be lawfully determin'd by the supream authority in the Church of God The Magistrates power in matters of Religion largely asserted and cleared The nature of Indifferency in actions stated Matters of Christian liberty are subject to restraints largely proved Proposals for accommodation as to matters of Indifferency 5. What is thus determined by lawful authority doth bind the Consciences of men subject to that authority to obedience to those determinations 6. Things thus determined by lawful authority are not thereby made unalterable but may be revoked limited and changed by the same authority p. 27 CHAP. III. HOW far Church Government is founded upon the Law of nature Two things in it founded thereon 1. That there must be a Society of men for the Worship of God 2. That this Society be governed in the most convenient manner A Society for Worship manifested Gen 4. 26. considered The Sons of God and the sons of men who Societies for worship among Heathens evidenced by three things 1. Solemnity of Sacrifices sacrificing how far natural The antiquity of the Feast of first-fruits largely discovered 2. The Original of Festivals for the honour of their Deities 3. The sâ—crecy and solemnity of their mysteries This further proved from mans sociable nature the improvement of it by Religion the honour redounding to God by such a Society for his Worship p. 72 CHAP. IV. THE second thing the Law of Nature dictates that this Society be maintained and governed in the most convenient manner A further inquiry what particular Orders for Government in the Church come from the Law of Nature Six laid down and evidenced to be from thence First a distinction of some persons and their superiority over others both in power and order cleared to be from the Law of Nature The power and application of the power distinguished this latter not from any Law of Nature binding but permissive therefore may be restrained Peoples right of chosing Pastors considered Order distinguished from the form and manner of Government the former Natural the other not The
Forraign Churches Calvin and Beza both approving Episcopacy and Diocesan Churches Salmatius c. 3 Those who judge Episcopacy to be the Primitive Form yet look not on it as necessary Bishop Iewel Fulk Field Bishop Downam Bishop Bancroft Bishop Morton Bishop Andrews Saravia Francis Mason and others The Conclusion hence laid in Order to Peace Principles conducing thereto 1. Prudence must be used in Church-Government at last confessed by all parties Independents in elective Synods and Church Covenants admission of Members number in Congregations Presbyterians in Classes and Synods Lay-Elders c. Episcopal in Diocesses Causes Rites c. 2. That Prudence best which comes nearest Primitive practice A Presidency for life over an Ecclesiastical Senate shewed to be that Form in order to it Presbyteries to be restored Diocesses lessened Provincial Synods kept twice a year The reasonableness and easiness of accommodation shewed The whole concluded p. 383. 384. A Weapon-Salve for the Churches Wounds OR The Divine Right of particular Forms of Government in the Church of God discussed and examined according to the Principles of the Law of Nature the Positive Laws of God the Practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Church and the Judgement of Reformed Divines PART I. CHAP. I. Things necessary for the Churches Peace must be clearly revealed The Form of Church-Government not so as appears by the remaining Controversie about it An Evidence thence that Christ never intended any one Form as the only means to Peace in the Church The Nature of a Divine Right discussed Right in general either makes things Lawful or else Due For the former a Non-prohibition sufficient the later an Express Command Duty supposeth Legislation and Promulgation The Question stated Nothing binds unalterably but by virtue of a standing Law and that two-fold The Law of Nature and Positive Laws of God Three ways to know when Positive Laws are unalterable The Divine Right arising from Scripture-Examples Divine Acts and Divine Approbation considered HE that imposeth any matter of Opinion upon the belief of others without giving Evidence of Reason for it proportionable to the confidence of his Assertion must either suppose the thing propounded to carry such unquestionable Credentials of Truth and Reason with it that none who know what they mean can deny it entertainment or else that his own understanding hath attained to so great perfection as to have authority sufficient to oblige all others to follow it This latter cannot be presumed among any who have asserted the freedom of their own understandings from the dictates of an Infallible Chair but if any should forget themselves so far as to think so there needs no other argument to prove them not to be Infallible in their Assertions then this one Assertion that they are infallible it being an undoubted Evidence that they are actually deceived who know so little the measure of their own understandings The former can never be pretended in any thing which is a matter of Controversie among men who have not wholly forgot they are Reasonable Creatures by their bringing probable arguments for the maintaining one part of an opinion as well as another In which case though the Arguments brought be not convincing for the necessary entertaining either part to an unbiassed understanding yet the difference of their Opinions is Argument sufficient that the thing contended for is not so clear as both parties would make it to be on their own side and if it be not a thing of necessity to salvation it gives men ground to think that a final decision of the matter in controversie was never intended as a necessary means for the Peace and Unity of the Church of God For we cannot with any shew of reason imagine that our Supreme Law giver and Saviour who hath made it a necessary duty in all true members of his Church to endeavour after the Peace and Unity of it should suspend the performance of that duty upon a matter of Opinion which when men have used their utmost endeavors to satisfie themselves about they yet find that those very grounds which they are most inclinable to build their Judgements upon are either wholly rejected by others as wise and able as themselves or else it may be they erect a far different Fabrick upon the very same foundations It is no ways consistent with the Wisdom of Christ in founding his Church and providing for the Peace and Settlement of it to leave it at the mercy of mens private judgments and apprehensions of things than which nothing more uncertain and thereby make it to depend upon a condition never like to be attained in this world which is the agreement and Uniformity of mens Opinions For as long as mens faces differ their judgements will And until there be an Intellectus Averroisticus the same understanding in all persons we have little ground to hope for such an Universal Harmony in the Intellectual World and yet even then the Soul might pass a different judgement upon the colours of things according to the different tincture of the several Optick-Glasses in particular bodies which it takes a prospect of things through Reason and Experience then give us little hopes of any peace in the Church if the unity of mens judgements be supposed the condition of it the next inquiry then is how the Peace of the Church shall be attained or preserved when men are under such different perswasions especially if they respect the means in order to a Peace and Settlement For the ways to Peace like the fertile soils of Greece have been oft-times the occasion of the greatest quarrels And no sickness is so dangerous as that when men are sick of their remedy and nauseate that most which tends to their recovery But while Physitians quarrel about the Method of Cure the Patient languisheth under their hands and when men increase Contentions in the behalf of Peace while they seem to Court it they destroy it The only way left for the Churches Settlement and Peace under such variety of apprehensions concerning the Means and Method in order to it is to pitch upon such a foundation if possible to be found out whereon the different Parties retaining their private apprehensions may yet be agreed to carry on the same work in common in order to the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church of God Which cannot be by leaving all absolutely to follow their own ways for that were to build a Babel instead of Salem Confusion instead of Peace it must be then by convincing men that neither of those ways to peace and order which they contend about is necessary by way of Divine Command though some be as a means to an end but which particular way or form it must be is wholly left to the prudence of those in whose Power and Trust it is to see the Peace of the Church be secured on lasting Foundations How neerly this concerns the present Debate about the Government of the Church any one
positive Laws for God being the Supreme Governour of the World hath the Legislative Power in his hands to bind to the performance of what duties be please which carry no repugnancy in them to his Divine Nature and Goodness Hence arise all those positive Laws of God which we have in Scripture for God's end in his written Law was that man should have a Copy of all Divine constitutions by him that he might therein read what his duty was toward his Maker The Precepts of the Law of Nature are by the Jews call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutely without any addition because they are of such things as do perpetually bind which because they are known to all by natural light they sometimes call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praecepta scientia and being that their righteousness is so evident and apparent they call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verba rectitudinis but the clearest difference between the precepts of the Law of Nature and other positive commands is that which the famous Is. Casaubon takes notice of out of the Jewish Doctors Observant doctissimi è Rabbinis inter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hanâ— esse differentiam quod Mitsvoth sive prâ—ceptorum ratio aperta est ut Deum cole Honora patrem matrem at Chukim statuta sive decreta earum rerum esse dicunt quarum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratio soli Deo sit nota ut Circumcisionis similium The reason of the Laws of Nature is evident but of positive Laws there is no reason to be given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non est alia praeter decretum regis no other account to be given of them but the will of God The Laws of Nature are by the LXX often call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so used Rom. 2. 16. by Iustin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Iosephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Gods positive Laws are call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thence we read of Zachary and Elizabeth Luke 1. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. walking in all the Ordinances and Commandments of God blameless and those are call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by S. Paul Ephes. 2. 15. the Law of Commandments in Ordinances Now although this difference be not always observed in the words in Scripture yet there is a vast difference between the things themselves though both equally commanded by God That which is most to our present purpose to observe is that Positives being mutable and alterable in themselves a bare Divine Command is not sufficient to make them immutable unless there be likewise expressed that it is the Will of God that they should always continue This was that which the Jews stumbled at so much and do to this day because they are assured their Law came once from God therefore it must of necessity have a perpetual obligation as may be seen in their two great Doctors Maimonides and Abarbinel who both of them make the Eternity of the Law one of the Fundamental Articles of their Creed But Abarbinel splits this Article into two whereof the first is that the Law of Moses shall never be changed the other that no other Law shall come instead of it The original of which grand errour is from want of observing the difference between things commanded by God some of which are good and therefore commanded others commanded and therefore good In which latter if the reason of the Command ceaseth the Command its self obligeth no longer As the Ceremonial Law was to be their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not meant in regard of the sharp severe nature of the Law to drive them unto Christ as it is by many interpreted but the Law is a Paedagogue in regard of its tutorage and conduct as it signified him whose office it was to conduct Noblemens Children to the School as a learned man observes This being then the office of the Law when the Church was now entred into Christs School the office of this Paedagogue then ceased And so the Ceremonial Law needed no abrogation at all exspiring of its self at Christs coming as Laws made for the times of war do when peace comes Only because the Jews were so hardly perswaded that it should exspire the believing Jews conceiving at first the Gospel came rather to help them to obey the Law of Moses then to cancel the obligation of it therefore it was necessary that a more honourable burial should be given to it and the Apostles should pro rostris declare more fully that believers were freed from that yoke of Ceremonies under which the neck of their fore-fathers had groaned so long It appears then that a positive Law coming from God doth not meerly by virtue of its being enacted by God bind perpetually all persons unless there be a Declaration of Gods Will adjoyned that it should do so It will be here then well worth our inquiry to find out some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or notes of difference whereby to know when positive laws bind immutably when not I shall â—ay down these following First when the same reason of the Command continues still then we cannot conceive how that which was instituted upon such an account as remains still should not have the same force now which it had at first That positive Law under which Adam was in his state of Innocency touching the forbidden fruit did not bind any longer then his fall because the reason of the Command ceased which was the tryal of mans obedience For which God made choice of a very facile and easie Command according to that rule of Politicians In minimis obedientiae periculum faciunt Legislatores of which they give this rational account Quia legislatoris ad obedientiam obligantis potius habenda est ratio quà m rei de quâ lex est lata thence arose that Law of the Ephori at Sparta barbam tondere to which no other reason was annexed but this obtemperare legibus to learn them to obey the Laws This was Gods aim in that easie Command given to Adam to make thereon an experiment of mans willingness to obey his Maker and wherein man soon lost that Obsequii gloria as he in Tacttus calls it which as Pliny saith is in to major quod quis minus velit But had this Law been a standing Law for all mankind it would have continued its obligation still but since we see that it was only a personal temporary probative precept for no sooner was man fallen but its obligation ceased So likewise those precepts of the Judicial Law which immediately respected the Commonwealth of the Jews as such their obligation reacheth not to Christians at all nor as it is generally conceived to the Jews themselves when out of the Consines of their own Countrey because the reason of those Laws doth neither descend to Christians nor did travel abroad with the Jews
power is alwayes to be understood in all Laws to be reserved to God where he hath not himself declared that he will not use it which is done either by the annexing an Oath on a Promise which the Apostle calls the two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie For though God be free to promise yet when he hath promised his own nature and faithfulness binds him to performance in which sense I understand those who say God in making promises is bound only to himself and not to men that is that the ground of performance ariseth from Gods faithfulness For else if we respect the right coming by the promise that must immediately respect the person to whom it is made and in respect of which we commonly say that the promiser is bound to performance But the case is otherwise in penal Laws which thoughâ— never so strict do imply a power of relaxation in the Legislator because penall Laws do only constitute the debstum poenae and bind the sinner over to punishment but do not bind the Legislator to an actual execution upon the debt Which is the ground that the person of a Mediator was admittable in the place of faln man because it was a penal Law and therefore relaxable But because the debt of punishment is immediately contracted upon the breach of the Law therefore satisfaction was necessary to God as Law-giver either by the person himself or another for him because it was not consistent with the holiness of Gods nature and his wisdom as Governor to relax an established Law without valuable consideration Now for the third kind of Gods Laws besides promissory and penall viz such as are meerly positive respecting duties which become such by vertue of an express command these though they be revocable in themselves yet being revocable only by God himself and his own power since he hath already in his Word fully revealed his Will unlesse therein he hath declared when their obligation shall cease they continue irreversible This is the case as to the Sacraments of the New Testament which being commands meerly positive yet Christ commanding Christians as Christians to observe them and not as Christians of the first and second Ages of the Church his mind can be no otherwise interpreted concerning them then that he did intend immutably to bind all Christians to the observance of them For al though the Socinians say that Baptism was only a Rite instituted by Christ for the passing men from Judaism and Gentilism to Christianity yet we are not bound to look upon all as reason that comes from those who professe themselves the admirers of it For Christs Command nowhere implying such a limitation and an outward visible profession of Christianity being a duty now and the Covenant entred into by that Rite of initiation as obligatory as ever we have no reason to think that Christs command doth not reach us now especially the promise being made to as many as God shall call and consequently the same duty required which was then in order to the obtaining of the same ends A third way to discern the immutability of positive Laws is when the things commanded in particular are necessary to the being succession and continuance of such a Society of men professing the Gospel as is instituted and approved by Christ himself For Christ must be supposed to have the power himself to order what Society he please and appoint what Orders he please to be observed by them what Rites and Ceremonies to be used in admission of Members into his Church in their continuing in it in the way means manner of ejection out of it in the preserving the succession of his Church and the administration of Ordinances of his appointment These being thus necessary for the maintaining and upholding this Society they are thereby of a nature as unalterable as the duty of observing what Christ hath commanded is How much these things concern the resolution of the Question proposed will appear afterwards Thus we have gained a resolution of the second thing whereon an unalterable Divine Right is founded viz either upon the dictates of the Law of Nature concurring with the rules of the written word or upon express positive Laws of God whose reason is immutable or which God hath declared shall continue as necessary to the being of the Church The next thing is to examine the other pretences which are brought for a Divine Right which are either Scripture examples or Divine acts or Divine approbation For Scripture-examples First I take it for granted on all hands that all Scripture examples do not bind us to follow them such are the Mediatory acts of Christ the Heroical acts of extraordinary persons all accidentall and occasionall actions Example doth not bind us as an example for then all examples are to be followed and so we shall of necessity go quà itur non quà eundum walk by the most examples and not by rule There is then no obligatory force in example it self Secondly there must be then some rule fixed to know when examples bind and when not for otherwise there can be no discrimination put between examples which we are to follow and which to avoid This rule must be either immediately obligatory making it a duty to follow such examples or else directive declaring what examples are to be â—ollowed And yet even this latter doth imply as well as the former that the following these examples thus declared is become a duty There can be no duty without a Law making it to be a duty and consequently it is the Law making it to be a duty to follow such example which gives a Divine Right to those examples and not barely the examples themselves We are bound to follow Christs example not barely because he did such and such things for many things he did we are not bound to follow him in but because he himself hath by a command made it our duty to follow him in his humility patience self-denyal c. and in whatever things are set out in Scripture for our imitation When men speak then with so much confidence that Scripture-examples do bind us unalterably they either mean that the example it self makes it a duty which I have shewn already to be absurd or else that the morall nature of the action done in that example or else the Law making it our duty to follow the example though in its self it be of no morall nature If the former of these two then it is the morality of the action binds us without its being incarnate in the example For the example in actions not morall binds not at all and therefore the example binds only by vertue of the morality of it and consequently it is the morality of the action which binds and not the example If the latter the rule making it our duty then it it is more apparent that it is not the example which
binds necessarily but that rule which makes it a duty to follow it for examples in indifferent things do not bind without a Law making it to be a duty And so it evidently appears that all obligatory force is taken off from the examples themselves and resolved into one of the two former the morall nature of the action or a positive Law And therefore those who plead the obligatory nature of Scripture-examples must either produce the morall nature of these examples or else a rule binding us to follow those examples Especially when these examples are brought to found a New positive Law obliging all Christians necessarily to the end of the world Concerning the binding nature of Apostolicall practice I shall discourse largely afterwards The next thing pleaded for a Divine Right is by Divine Acts. As to this â—t is again evident that all Divine Acts do not constitute such a Right therefore there must be something expressed in those Acts when such a Divine Right follows them whence we may infallibly gather it was Gods intention they should perpetually oblige as is plain in the cases instanced in the most for this purpose as Gods resting on the seventh day making the Sabbath perpetual For it was not Gods resting that made it the Sabbath for that is only expressed as the occasion of its institution but it was Gods sanctifying the day that is by a Law setting it apart for his own service which made it a duty And so Christs resurrection was not it which made the Lords day a Sabbath of Divine Right but Christs resurrection was the occasion of the Apostles altering only a circumstantiall part of a morall duty already which being done upon so great reasons and by persons indued with an insallible spirit thereby it becomes our duty to observe that morall command in this limitation of time But here it is further necessary to distinguish between acts meerly positive and acts donative or legall The former conâ—er no right at all but the latter do not barely as acts but as legall acts that is by some declaration that those acts do conserr right And so it is in all donations and therefore in Law the bare delivery of a thing to another doth not give a legall title to it without express transferring of dominion and propriety with it Thus in Christs delivering the Keys to Peter and therest of the Apostles by that act I grant the Apostles had the power of the Keyes by Divine Right but then it was not any bare act of Christ which did it but it was only the declaration of Christs will conferring that authority upon them Again we must distinguish between a right conferâ—'d by a donative act and the unalterable nature of that Right for it is plain there may be a Right personall as well as successive derivative and perpetuall And therefore it is not enough to prove that a Right was given by any act of Christ unless it be made appear it was Christs intention that Right should be perpetuall if it oblige still For otherwise the extent of the Apostolical Commission the power of working miracles as well as the power of the Keyes whether by it we mean a power declarative of duty or a power authoritative and penall must continue still if a difference be not made between these two and some rule sound out to know when the Right conferr'd by Divine Acts is personall when successive Which rule thus found out must make the Right unalterable and so concerning us and not the bare donative act of Christ For it is evident they were all equally conferr'd upon the Apostles by an act of Christ and if some continue still and others do not then the bare act of Christ doth not make an unalterable Divine Right And so though it be proved that the Apostles had superiority of order and jurisdiction over the Pastors of the Church by an act of Christ yet it must further be proved that it was Christs intention that superiority should continue in their successors or it makes nothing to the purpose But this argument I confess I see not how those who make a necessary Divine Right to follow upon the acts of Christ can possibly avoid the force of The last thing pleaded for Divine Right is Divine approbation but this least of all constitutes a Divine Right For if the actions be extraordinary Gods approbation of them as such cannot make them an ordinary duty In all other actions which are good and therefore only commendable they must be so either because done in conformity to Gods revealed Will or to the nature of things good in themselves In the one it is the positive Law of God in the other the Law of Nature which made the action good and so approved by God and on that account we are bound to do it For God will certainly approve of nothing but what is done according to his Will revealed or natural which Will and Law of his is that which makes any thing to be of Divine Right i. e. perpetually binding as to the observation of it But for acts of meerly positive nature which we read Gods approbation of in Scripture by vertue of which approbation those actions do oblige us in this case I say it is not Gods meer approbation that makes the obligation but as that approbation so recorded in Scripture is a sufficient testimony and declaration of Gods intention to oblige men And so it comes to be a positive Law which is nothing else but a sufficient declaration of the Legislators will and intention to bind in particular actions and cases Thus now we have cleared whereon a necessary and unalterable Divine Right must be founded either upon the Law of Nature or some positive Law of God sufficiently declared to be perpetually binding CHAP. II. Six Hypotheses laid down as the basis of the following Discourse 1. The irreversible obligation of the Law of Nature either by humane or Divine positive Laws in things immediately flowing from it 2. Things agreeable to the Law of Nature may be lawfully practised in the Church of God where there is no prohibition by positive Laws inlarged into 5 subservient Propositions 3. Divine positive Laws concerning the manner of the thing whose substance is determined by the Law of Nature must be obeyed by vertue of the obligation of the natural Law 4. Things undetermined both by the naturall and positive Laws of God may be lawfully determined by the supream authority in the Church of God 5. What is thâ—â— determined by lawfull authority doth bind the consciences of men subject to that authority to obedience to those determinations 6. Things thus determined by lawfull authority are not thereby made unalterable but may be revoked limited and changed by the same authority HAving shewed what a Divine Right is and whereon it is founded our next great inquiry will be How far Church-Government is founded upon Divine Right taken either of these two wayes
But for our more distinct clear and rationaâ—â— proceeding I shall lay down some things as so many Postulata or generall Principles and Hypotheses which will be as the basis and foundation of the following Discourse which all of them concern the obligation of Laws wherein I shall proceed gradually beginning with the Law of Nature and so to Divine positive Laws and lastly to speak to humane positive Laws The first Principle or Hypothesis which I lay down is That where the Law of Nature doth determine any thing by way of duty as flowing from the principles of it there no positive Law can be supposed to take off the obligation of it Which I prove both as to humane positive Laws and Divine First as to humane For first the things commanded in the Law of Nature being just and righteous in themselves there can be no obligatory Law made against such things Nemo tenetur ad impossibile is true in the sense of the Civil Law as well as in Philosophy as impossibile is taken for turpe and turpe for that which is contrary to the dictates of Nature A man may be as well bound not to be a man as not to act according to principles of reason For the Law of Nature is nothing else but the dictate of right reason discovering the good or evil of particular actions from their conformity or repugnancy to natural light Whatever positive Law is then made directly infringing and violating natural principles is thereby of no force at all And that which hath no obligation in it self cannot dissolve a former obligation Secondly the indispensablenesse of the obligation of the Law of Nature appears from the end of all other Laws which are agreed upon by mutual compact which is the better to preserve men in their rights and priviledges Now the greatest rights of men are such as flow from Nature its self and therefore as no Law binds against the reason of it so neither can it against the common end of Laws Therefore if a humane positive Law should be made that God should not be worshipped it cannot bind being against the main end of Laws which is to make men live together as reasonable creatureâ— which they cannot do without doing what Nature requires which is to serve God who made it Again it overturns the very foundation of all Government and dissolves the tye to all humane Laws if the Law of Nature doth not bind indispensably for otherwise upon what ground must men yield obedience to any Laws that are made Is it not by vertue of this Law of Nature that men must stand to all compacts and agreements made If Laws take their force among men from hence they can bind no further then those compâ—cts did extend which cannot be supposed to be to violate and destroy their own natures Positive Laws may restrain much of what is only of the permissive Law of Nature for the intent of positive Laws was to make men abate so much of their naturall freedom as should be judged necessary for the preservation of humane Societies but against the obligatory Law of Nature as to its precepts no after-Law can derogate from the obligation of it And therefore it is otherwise between the Law of Nature and positive Laws then between Laws meerly civil for as to these the rule is that posterior derogat priori the latter Law cassats and nulls the obligation of the former but as to natural Laws and positive prior derogat posteriori the Law oâ— Nature which is firstâ— takes away the obligation of a positive Law if it be contrary to it As Iustellus observe it was in the primitive Church in reference to the obligation of the Canons of the Councils that such as were inserted in the Codex Canonum being of the more ancient Councils did render the obligation of later Canons invalid which were contrary to them unlesse it were in mâ—tteâ—s of small moment We see then that supposing the Law of Nature doth not continue obligatory the obligation of all humane positive Laws will fall with it as the superstructure needs must when the foundation is removed for if any other Law of Nature may be dissolved why not that whereby men are bound to stand to Covenants and contracts made and if that be dissolved How can the obligation to humane Laws remain which is founded upon that basis And so all civil Societies are thereby overturned Thirdly it appears from the nature of that obligation which follows the Law of Nature so that thereby no humane Law can bind against this for humane Laws bind only outward humane actâ—ons directly and internall acts only by vertue of their necessary connexion with and influence upon outward actions and not otherwise but the Law of Nâ—ture immediately binds the soul and conscience of man And therefore obligatio naturalis and nexus conscientiae are made to be the same by Lessius Suarâ—z and others For Lessius dâ—sputing Whether a Will made without solemnity of Law doth bind in conscience or no He proves it doâ—h by â—his argument from the opinion of the Lawyers that without those solemnities there doth arise from it a natural obligation and the hresae ab Intestato who is the next of Kin is bound to make it good therefore it doth bind in conscience So then there ariseth a necessary obllgation upon conscience from the dictâ—tes of the Law of Nature which cannot be removed by any positive Law For although there lye no action in the civil Law against the breach of a meerly natural Law as in the former case of succession to a Will not legally made in covenants made without conditions expressed in recovery of debtâ— from a person to whom money was lent in his Pupillage without consent of his Tutor in these cases though no action lie against the persons yet this proves not that these have no obligation upon a man but only that he is not responsible for the breach of morall honesty in them before civil Courts In which sense those Lawyers are to be understood which deny the obligation of the Law of Nature But however conscience binds the offender over to answer at a higher tribunal before which all such offences shall be punished Thus then we see no positive humane Law can dispence with or dissolve the obligation of thâ— Law of nature Much lesse Secondly can we suppose any positive Divine Law should For although Gods power be immense and infinite to do what pleaseth him yet we must always suppose this power to be conjoyned with goodnesse else it is no divine power and therefore posse malum non est posse it is no power but weakness to do evil and without this posse malum there can be no alteration made in the nature of good and evil which must be supposed if the obligation of the natural Law be dispensed with Therefore it was well said by Origen when Câ—lsus objected it as the common speech of
before Covenants made and things thereby determined may be so far from being lawful after that the doing of them may contradict a Principle of the Obligatory Law of Nature Thus in a state of liberty every one had right to what he thought fit for his use but Propriety and Dominion being introduced which was a free voluntary act by mens determining Rights it now becomes an offence against the Law of Nature to take away that which is another mans In which sense alone it is that Theft is said to be forbidden by the Law of Nature And by the same reason he that resists and opposeth the lawful Authority under which he is born doth not only offend against the Municipal Laws of the place wherein he lives but against that Original and Fundamental Law of Societies viz standing to Covenants once made For it is a gross mistake as well as dangerous for men to imagine That every man is born in a state of Absolute Liberty to chuse what Laws and Governours he please but every one being now born a Subject to that Authority he lives under he is bound to preserve it as much as in him lies Thence Augustus had some reason to say He was the best Citizen qui praesentem reipublicae statum mutari â—â—â— vult That doth not disturb the present state of the Commonwealth and who as Alcibiades saith in Thucydides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 endeavours to preserve that form of Government he was born under And the reason of it is that in Contracts and Covenants made for Government men look not only at themselves but at the benefit of Posterity if then one Party be bound to maintain the Rights of the others Posterity as well as of his person the other party must be supposed to oblige his Posterity in his Covenant to perform Obedience which every man hath power to do because Children are at their Parents disposal And Equity requires that the Covenant entred should be of equal extent to both parties And if a man doth expect Protection for his Posterity he must engage for the Obedience of his Posterity too to the Governorâ— who do legally protect them But the further prosecution of these things belongs to another place to consider of my purpose being to treat of Government in the Church and not in the State The sum of this is that the Obligation to the performance of what things are determined which are of the permissive Law of Nature by Positive Laws doth arise from the Obligatory Law of Nature As the Demonstration of the particular Problemes in the Mathematicks doth depend upon the Principles of the Theoremes themselves and so whoever denies the truth of the Probleme deduced by just Consequence from the Theoreme must consequentially deny the truth of the Theoreme its self So those who violate the particular Determinations of the Permissive Law of Nature do violate the Obligation of the Preceptive part of that Law Obedience to the other being grounded on the Principles of this 4. God hath Power by his Positive Laws to take in and determine as much of the Permissive Law of Nature as he please which being once so determined by an Universal Law is so far from being lawful to be done that the doing of them by those under an Obligation to his Positive Laws is an offence against the Immutable Law of Nature That God may restrain mans Natural Liberty I suppose none who own Gods Legislative Power over the world can deny especially considering that men have power to restrain themselves much more then hath God who is the Rector and Governor of the World That a breach of his positive Laws is an offence against the common Law of Nature appears hence because man being Gods creature is not only bound to do what is in general suitable to the principles of reason in flying evil and choosing good but to submit to the determinations of Gods will as to the distinction of good from evil For being bound universally to obey God it is implyed that man should obey him in all things which he discovers to be his will whose determination must make a thing not only good but necessary to be done by vertue of his supreme authority over men This then needs no further proof being so clear in its self 5. Lastly What things are left undetermined by divine positive Laws are in the Churches power to use and practise according as it judgeth them most agreeable to the rule of the Word That things undetermin'd by the Word are still lawfull evidently appears because what was once lawfull must have some positive Law to make it unlawfull which if there be none it remains lawfull still And that the Church of God should be debarr'd of any priviledge of any other Societies I understand not especially if it belong to it as a Society considered in its self and not as a particular Society constituted upon such accounts as the Church is For I doubt not but to make it evident afterwards that many parts of Government in the Church belong not to it as such in a restrained sense but in the general notion of it as a Society of men imbodyed together by some Laws proper to its self Although it subsist upon a higher foundation viz. of divine institution and upon higher grounds reasons principles ends and be directed by other Laws immediately then any other Societies in the World are The third Hypothesis is this Where the Law of Nature determines the thing and the Divine Law determines the manner and circumstances of the thing there we are bound to obey the divine Law in its particular determinations by vertue of the Law of Nature in its general obligation As for instance the Law of Nature bindeth man to worship God but for the way manner and circumstances of Worship we are to follow the positive Laws of God because as we are bound by Nature to worship him so we are bound by vertue of the same Law to worship him in the manner best pleasing to himself For the light of Nature though it determine the duty of worship yet it doth not the way and manner and though acts of pure obedience be in themselves acceptable unto God yet as to the manner of those acts and the positives of worship they are no further acceptable unto God then commanded by him Because in things not necessarily determined by the Law of Nature the goodnesse or evill of them lying in reference to Gods acceptance it must depend upon his Command supposing positive Laws to be at all given by God to direct men in their worship of him For supposing God had not at all revealed himself in order to his worship doubtlesse it had been lawfull for men not only to pray to God express their sense of their dependance upon him but to appoint waies times and places for the doing it as they should judge most convenient agreeable to natural light Which is evident from the
vacuae observationis superstitioni deputanda as superstitious which are done sine ulliâ—s Dominici aâ—t Apostolici praecepti autoritate without the Warrant of Divine Command Although even here we may say too that it is not meerly the want of a Divine Precept which makes any part of Divine Worship uncommanded by God unlawful but the General Prohibition that nothing should be done in the immediate Worship of God but what we have a Divine Command for However in matters of meer Deceâ—cy and Order in the Church of God or in any other civil action of the lives of men it is enough to make things lawful if they are not forbidden But against this that a Non-prohibition is warrant enough to make any thing lawful this Objection will be soon leavied that it is an Argument ab authoritate negativè and therefore is of no force To which I answer that the Rule if taken without limitation upon which this Objection is founded is not true for although an Argument ab authoritate negativè as to matter of Fact avails not yet the Negative from Authority as to matter of Law and Command is of great force and strength I grant the Argument holds not here we do not read that ever Christ or his Apostles did such a thing therefore it is not to be done but this we read of no Law or Precept commanding us to do it therefore it is not unlawful not to do it and we read of no Prohibition forbidding us to do it therefore it may be lawfully done this holds true and good and that upon this two-fold Reason First From Gods Intention in making known his Will which was not to record every particular fact done by himself or Christ or his Apostles but it was to lay down those general and standing Laws whereby his Church in all Ages should be guided and ruled And in order to a perpetual obligation upon the Consciences there must be a sufficient promulgation of those Laws which must bind men Thus in the case of Infant-Baptism it is a very weak unconcluding Argument to say that Infants must not be baptized because we never read that Christ or his Apostles did it for this is a Negative in matter of Fact but on the other side it is an Evidence that Infants are not to be excluded from Baptism because there is no Divine Law which doth prohibit their admission into the Church by it for this is the Negative of a Law and if it had been Christs intention to have excluded any from admission into the Church who were admitted before as Insants were there must have been some positive Law whereby such an Intention of Christ should have been expressed For nothing can make that unlawful which was a duty before but a direct and express Prohibition from the Legislator himself who alone hath power to reâ—cind as well as to make Laws And therefore Antipaedobaptists must instead of requiring a Positive Command for baptizing Infants themselves produce an express Prohibition excluding them or there can be no appearance of Reason given why the Gospel should exclude any from those priviledges which the Law admitted them to Secondly I argue from the intention and end of Laws which is to circumscribe and restrain the Natural Liberty of man by binding him to the observation of some particular Precepts And therefore where there is not a particular Command and Prohibition it is in Nature and Reason supposed that men are left to their Natural freedom as is plain in Positive Humane Laws wherein men by compact and agreement for their mutual good in Societies were willing to restrain themselves from those things which should prejudice the good of the Community this being the ground of mens first inclosing their Rights and common Priviledges it must be supposed that what is not so inclosed is left common to all as their just Right and Priviledge still So it is in Divine Positive Laws God intending to bring some of Mankind to happiness by conditions of his own appointing hath laid down many Positive Precepts binding men to the practise of those things as duties which are commanded by him But where we find no Command for performance we cannot look upon that as an immediate duty because of the necessary relation between Duty and Law and so where we find no Prohibition there we can have no ground to think that men are debarred from the liberty of doing things not forbidden For as we say of Exceptions as to General Laws and Rules that an Exception expressed firmat regulam in non exceptis makes the Rule stronger in things not expressed as excepted so it is as to Divine Prohibitions as to the Positives that those Prohibitions we read in Scripture make other things not-prohibited to be therefore lawful because not expresly forbidden As Gods forbidding Adam to taste of the fruit of one Tree did give him a liberty to taste of all the rest Indeed had not God at all revealed his Will and Laws to us by his Word there might have been some Plea why men should have waited for particular Revelations to dictate the goodness or evil of particular actions not determined by the law of nature but since God hath revealed his will there can be no reason given why those things should not be lawful to do which God hath not thought fit to forbid men the doing of Further we are to observe that in these things which are thus undetermined in reference to an obligation to duty but left to our natural liberty as things lawful the contrary to that which is thus lawful is not thereby made unlawful But both parts are left in mens power to do or not to do them as is evident in all those things which carry a general equity with them and are therefore consonant to the Law of Nature but have no particular obligation as not flowing immediately from any dictate of the natural Law Thus community of goods is lawful by the law and principles of nature yet every man hath a lawful right to his goods by dominion and propriety And in a state of Community it was the right of every man to impropriate upon a just equality supposing a preceding compact and mutual agreement Whence it is that some of the School-men say that although the Law of Nature be immutable as to its precepts and prohibitions yet not as to its demonstrations as they call them as Do as you would be done to binds always indispensably but that in a state of nature all things are common to all This is true but it binds not men to the necessary observance of it These which they call Demonstrations are only such things as are agreeable to nature but not particularly commanded by any indispensable precept of it Thus likewise it is agreeable to nature that the next of the kindred should be heir to him who dies intestate but he may lawfully wave his interest if he please Now to apply this to
named a Controversie But that which I am now clearing is this that whatsoever binds Christians as an universal standing Law must be clearly revealed as such and laid down in Scripture in such evident terms as all who have their senses exercised therein may discern it to have been the will of Christ that it should perpetually oblige all believers to the Worlds end as is clear in the case of Baptism and the Lords Supper But here I shall add one thing by way of caution That there is not the same necessity for a particular and clear revelation in the alteration of a Law unrepealed in some circumstances of it as there is for the establishing of a New Law As to the former viz. the change of a standing Law as to some particular circumstance a different practice by persons guided by an infallible spirit is sufficient which is the case as to the observation of the Lords day under the Gospel For the fourth Command standing in force as to the Morality of it a different practice by the Apostles may be sufficient for the particular determination of the more ritual and occasional part of it which was the limitation of the observation of it to that certain day So likewise that other Law standing in force that persons taken into Covenant with God should be admitted by some visible sign Apostolical practice clearly manifested may be sufficient ground to conclude what the mind of Christ was as to the application of it to particular persons and what qualifications are requisite in such as are capable of admission as in the case of Infants Whereby it is clear why there is no particular Law or command in reference to them under the Gospel because it was only the application of a Law in force already to particular persons which might be gathered sufficiently from the Apostles practice the Analogy of the dispensation the equal reason of exclusion under the Law and yet notwithstanding the continual admission of them then into the same Gospel-Govenant Circumcision being the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith But this by the way to prevent mistakes We must now by parity of reason say that either the former Law in those things wherein it was not typical must hold in reference to the form of Government in the Church of Christ or else that Christ by an universal Law hath setled all order in Church Government among the Pastors themselves or else that he hath left it to the prudence of every particular Church to determine its own form of Government which I conceive is the direct state of the Question about Divine Right viz. Whether the particular form of Government in the Church be setled by an universal binding Law or no But for a further clearing the state of the Question we must consider what it is that makes an unalterable Divine Right or a standing Law in the Church of God for those who found forms of Government upon a Divine Right do not plead a Law in express terms but such things from whence a Divine Right by Law may be inferred Which I now come to examine and that which I lay down as a Postulatum or a certain conclusion according to which I shall examine others â—ssertions concerning Divine Right is That nothing is founded upon a Divine Right nor can bind Christians directly or consequentially as a positive Law but what may be certainly known to have come from God with an intention to oblige Believers to the worlds end For either we must say it binds Christians as a Law when God did not intend it should or else Gods intentions to bind all Believers by it must be clearly manifested Now then so many ways and no more as a thing may be known to come from God with an intention to oblige all perpetually a thing may be said to be of an unalterable Divine Right and those can be no more then these two Either by the Law of Nature or by some positive Law of God Nothing else can bind universally and perpetually but one of these two or by virtue of them as shall be made appear I begin with the Law of Nature The Law of Nature binds indispensably as it depends not upon any arbitrary constitutions but is founded upon the intrinsecal nature of good and evil in the things themselves antecedently to any positive Declaration of Gods Will. So that till the nature of good and evil be changed that Law is unalterable as to its obligation When I say the Law of Nature is indispensable my meaning is that in those things which immediately flow from that Law by way of precept as the three first Commands of the Moral Law no man can by any positive Law be exempted from his obligation to do them neither by any abrogation of the Laws themselves nor by derogation from them nor interpretation of them nor change in the object matter or circumstance whatsoever it be Now although the formal reason of mans obedience to the precepts of this Law be the conformity which the things commanded have to the Divine Nature and goodness yet I conceive the efficient cause of mans obligation to these things is to be fetched from the Will Command and Pleasure of God Not as it is taken for an arbitrary positive will but as it is executive of Divine purposes and as it ingraves such a Law upon the hearts of men For notwithstanding mans Reason considered in it self be the chiefest instrument of discovery what are these necessary duties of humane nature in which sense Aristotle defines a Natural Law to be that which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath every where the same force and strength i. e. as Andronicus Rhodius very well interprets it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among all that have the free use of their reason and faculties yet I say it is not bare Reason which binds men to the doing of those things commanded in that Law but as it is expressive of an Eternal Law and deduceth its obligation from thence And so this Law if we respect the rise extent and immutability of it may be call'd deservedly the Law of Nature but if we look at the emanation efflux and original of it it is a Divine Law and so it is call'd by Molina Alphonsus à Castrâ—â— and others For the sanction of this Law of Nature as well as others depends upon the Will of God and therefore the obligation must come from him it being in the power of no other to punish for the breach of a Law but those who had the Legislative Power to cause the obligation to it It appears then from hence that whatever by just consequence can be deduced from the preceptive Law of Nature is of Divine Right because from the very nature of that Law it being indispensable it appears that God had an intent to oblige all persons in the world by it The second way whereby we may know what is of Divine Right is by Gods
two We distinguish then between a power declarative of the obligation of former Laws and a power authoritative determining a New Obligation between the office of counselling and advising what is fit to be done and a power determining what shall be done between the Magistrates duty of consulting in order to the doing it and his deriving his authority for the doing it These things premised I say First that the power of declaring the obligation of former Laws and of consulting and advising the Magistrate for setling of New Laws for the Policy of the Church belongs to the Pastors and Governours of the Church of God This belongs to them as they are commanded to teach what Christ hath commanded them but no authority thereby given to make new Laws to bind the Church but rather a tying them up to the commands of Christ already laid down in his Word For a power to bind mens consciences to their determinations lodged in the Officers of the Church must be derived either from a Law of God giving them this right or else only from the consent of parties For any Law of God there is none produced with any probability of reason but that Obey those that are over you in the Lord. But that implies no more then submitting to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Gospel and to those whom Christ hath constituted as Pastors of his Church wherein the Law of Christ doth require obedience to them that is in looking upon them and owning them in their relation to them as Pastors But that gives them no authority to make any new Laws or Constitutions binding mens consciences any more then a Command from the Supreme authority that inferiour Magistrates should be obeyed doth imply any power in them to make new Laws to bind them But thus far I acknowledge a binding power in Ecclesiastical Constitutions though they neither bind by virtue of the matter nor of the authority commanding there being no legislative power lodged in the Church yet in respect of the circumstances and the end they should be obey'd unlesse I judge the thing unlawfull that is commanded rather then manifest open contempt of the Pastors of the Church or being a scandall to others by it But as to the other power arising from mutual compact and consent of Parties I acknowledge a power to bind all included under that compact not by vertue of any Supream binding power in them but from the free consent of the parties submitting which is most agreeable to the Nature of Church-power being not coactive but directive and such was the confederate discipline of the primitive Church before they had any Christian Magistrate And thence the decrees of Councils were call'd Canons and not Laws Secondly Though it be the Magistrates duty to consult with the Pastors of the Church to know what is most agreeable to the Word of God for the settlement of the Church yet the Magistrate doth not derive his authority in commanding things from their sentence decree and judgement but doth by vertue of his own power cause the obligation of men to what is so determin'd by his own enacting what shall be done in the Church The great use of Synods and Assemblies of Pastors of Churches is to be as the Council of the Church unto the King in matters belonging to the Church as the Parliament is for matters of civil concernment And as the King for the settling civil Laws doth take advice of such persons who are most versed in matters of Law so by proportion of reason in matters concerning the Church they are the fittest Council who have been the most versed in matters immediately belonging to the Church In the management of which affairs as much if not more prudence experience judgement moderation is requisite as in the greatest affairs of State For we have found by dolefull experience that if a fire once catch the Church and Aarons Bells ring backward what a Combustion the whole State is suddenly put into and how hardly the Churches Instruments for quenching such fires lachrymae preces Ecclesiae do attain their end The least peg serued up too high in the Church soon causeth a great deal of discord in the State and quickly puts mens spirits out of Tune Whereas many irregularities may happen in the State and men live in quietnesse and peace But if Phaâ—tons dâ—ive the Chariot of the Sun the World wil be soon on fire I mean such in the Church whose brains like the Unicorns run out into the length of the Horn Such who have more fury then zeal and yet more zeal then knowledge or Moderation Persons therefore whose calling â—temper office and experience hath best acquainted them with the State-actions Policy of the primitive Church and the incomparable Prudence and Moderation then Used are fittest to debate consult deliberate and determine about the safest expedients for repairing breaches in a divided broken distracted Church But yet I say when such men thus assembled have gravely and maturely advised and deliberated what is best and fitted to te done the force strength and obligation of the things so determin'd doth depend upon the power and authority of the Civil Magistrate for taking the Church as incorporated into the civill state as Ecclesia est in republicâ non respublica in Ecclesia according to that known speech of Optatus Milivetanus so though the object of these constitutions and the persons determining them and the matter of them be Ecclesiasticall yet the force and ground of the obligation of them is wholly civill So Peter Martyr expresly Nam quod ad potestatem Ecclesiasticam attinet satis est civilis Magistratus is enim â—urare debet ut omnes officium faciant But for the judgement of the reformed Divines about this see Vedelius de Episcopatis Constant. M Officium Magistratus Christiani annexed to Grotius de Imper. c. I therefore proceed to lay down the reason of it First That whereby we are bound either to obedience or penalty upon disobedience is the ground of the obligation but it is upon the account of the Magistrates power that we are either bound to obedience or to submit to penalties upon disobedience For it is upon the account of our general obligation to the Magistrate that we are bound to obey any particular Laws or Constitutions Because it is not the particular determinations made by the civil Magistrate which do immediately bind Conscience but the general Law of Scripture requires it as a duty from us to obey the Magistrate in all things lawfull Obedience to the Magistrate is due immediately from Conscience but obedience to the Laws of the Magistrate comes not directly from Conscience but by vertue of the general obligation And therefore disobedience to the Magistrates Laws is an immediate sin against Conscience because it is against the general obligation but obedience to particular Laws ariseth not immediately from the obligation of Conscience to
them in particular but to the Magistrate in general So that in things left lawfull and undetermin'd by the Word where there ariseth no obligation from the matter it must arise from our subjection and relation to the Magistrate and what is the ground of obedience is the cause of the obligation Secondly He hath only the power of obligations who hath the power of making Sanctions to those Laws By Sanctions I mean here in the sense of the civil Law eas legum partes quibus poenas constituimus adversus eos qui contra leges fecerint those parts of the Law which determine the punishments of the violaters of it Now it is evident that he only hath power to oblige who hath power to punish upon disobedience And it is as evident that none hath power to punish but the civill Magistrate I speak of legall penalties which are annexed to such Laws as concern the Church Now there being no coercive or coactive power belonging to the Church as such all the force of such Laws as respect the outward Polity of the Church must be derived from the civill Magistrate Thirdly He who can null and declare all other obligations void done without his power hath the only power to oblige For whatsoever destroys a former obligation must of necessity imply a power to oblige because I am bound to obey him in the abstaining from that I was formerly obliged to But this power belongs to the Magistrate For suppose in some indifferent Rites and Ceremonies the Church representative that is the Governors of it pro tempore do prescribe them to be observed by all the Supreme power fâ—rbids the doing of those things if this doth not null the former supposed obligation I must inevitably run upon these absurdities First that there are two supreme powers in a Nation at the same time Secondly that a man may lie under two different Obligations as to the same thing he is bound to do it by one power and not to do it by the other Thirdly the same action may be a duty and a sin a duty in obeying the one power a sin in disobeying the other Therefore there can be but one power to oblige which is that of the Supreme Magistrate Having thus far asserted the Magistrates due power and Authority as to matters of Religion we proceed to examine the extent of this power in determining things left at liberty by the Word of God in order to the Peace and Government of the Church For our clear and distinct proceeding I shall ascend by these three steps First to shew that there are some things left undetermined by the Word Secondly that these things are capable of positive Determinations and Restraint Thirdly that there are some bounds and limits to be observed in the stating and determining these things First That there are some things left undetermined by the Word By Determining here I do not mean determining whether things be lawful or no for so there is no Ritâ— or Ceremony whatsoever but is determined by the Scripture in that sense or may be gathered from the application of particular actions to the general Rules of Scripture but by Determining I mean whether all things concerning the Churches Polity and Order be determined as Duties or no viz. that this we are bound to observe and the other not As for instance what time manner method gesture habit be used in preaching the Word whether Baptism must be by dipping or sprinkling at what day time place the Child shall be baptized and other things of a like Nature with these Those who assert any of these as duties must produce necessarily the Command making them to be so For Duty and Command have a necessary respect and relation to one another If no Command be brought it necessarily follows that they are left at liberty So as to the Lords Supper Calvin saith whether the Communicants take the Bread themselves or receive it being given them whether they should give the Cup into the hands of the Deacon or to their next Neighbour whether the Bread be leavened or not the Wine red or white nihil refert it matters not Haec indifferentia sunt in Ecclesiae libertate posita they are matters of indifferency and are left to the Churches liberty But this matter of Indifferency is not yet so clear as it is generally thought to be we shall therefore bare the ground a little by some necessary distinctions to see where the root of indifferency lies Which we shall the rather do because it is strongly asserted by an Honourable person that there is no Indifferency in the things themselves which are still either unlawful or necessary if lawful at this time in these circumstances but all indifferency lies in the darkness and shortness of our understandings which may make some things seem so to us But that Honourable person clearly runs upon a double mistake First that Indifferency is a medium participationis of both extremes and not only negationis viz. that as intermediate colours partake both of black and white and yet are neither so in morality between good and bad there is an intermediate entity which is neither but indifferent to either Whereas the Nature of Indifferency lies not in any thing intermediate between good and bad but in some thing undetermined by Divine Laws as to the necessity of it so that if we speak as to the extremes of it it is something lying between a necessary duty and an intrinsecal evil The other mistake is that throughout that Discourse he takes Indifferency as Circumstantiated in Individual actions and as the morality of the action is determined by its Circumstances whereas the proper notion of Indifferency lies in the Nature of the action considered in its self abstractly and so these things are implyed in an indifferent action First absolute undetermination as to the general nature of the act by a Divine Law that God hath left it free for men to do it or no. Secondly that one part hath not more propension to the Rule then the other for if the doing of it comes nearer to the rule then the omission or on the contrary this action is not wholly indifferent Thirdly that neither part hath any repugnancy to the Rule for that which hath so is so far from being indifferent that it becomes unlawful So that an indifferent action is therein like the Iron accosted by two Loadstones on either side of equal virtue and so hovers in medio inclining to neither but supposing any degree of virtue added to the one above the other it then inclines towards it or as the Magnetical Needle about the Azores keeps its self directly parallel to the Axis of the world without variation because it is supposed then to be at an equal distance from the two Great Magnets the Continents of Europe and America But no sooner is it removed from thence but it hath its variations So indifferency taken in
specie as to the Nature of the act inclines neither way but supposing it lye under Positive Determinations either by Laws or Circumstances it then necessarily inclines either to the Nature of Good or Eâ—il Neither yet are we come to a full understanding of the Nature of indifferent actions we must therefore distinguish between indifferency as to goodness necessitating an action to be done and as to goodness necessary to an action to make it good For there is one kind of goodness propter quam fit actio in order to which the action must necessarily be done and there is another kind of goodness sine quâ non benè fit actio necessary to make an action good when it is done As following after peace hath such a goodness in it as necessitates the action and makes it a necessary duty but handling a particular Controversie is such an action as a man may let alone without sin in his course of studies yet when he doth it there is a goodness necessary to make his doing it a good action viz. his referring his study of it to a right end for the obtaining of truth and peace This latter goodness is twofold either bonitas directionis as some call it which is referring the action to its true end in reference to which the great Controversie among the Schoolmen is about the indifferency of particular actions viz. Whether a particular direction of a mans intention to the ultimate end be not so necessary to particular actions as that without that the action is of necessity evil and with it good or whether without that an action may be indifferent to good or evil which is the state of the Question between Thomas and Scotus Bonaventure and Durandus but we assert the necessity of at least an habitual direction to make the action in individuo good and yet the act in its self may notwithstanding be indifferent even in individuo as there is no antecedent necessity lying upon mens Consciences for the doing of it because men may omit it and break no Law of God Besides this to make an action good there is necessary a bonitas Originis or rather Principii â—â— good Principle out of which the action must flow which must be that Faith which whatsoever is not of is sin as the Apostle tells us Which we must not so understand as though in every action a man goes about he must have a full perswasion that it is a necessary duty he goes about but in many actions that Faith is sufficient whereby he is perswaded upon good ground that the thing he goes about is lawful although he may as lawfully omit that action and do either another or the contrary to it There may be then the necessity of some things in an action when it is done to make it good and yet the action its self be no ways necessary but indifferent and a matter of Liberty This may be easily understood by what is usually said of Gods particular Actions that God is free in himself either to do or not to do that action as suppose the Creation of the World but when he doth it he must necessarily do it with that goodness holiness and wisdom which is suitable to his Nature So may many actions of men be in themselves indifferent and yet there must be a concomitant necessity of good intention and Principle to make the action good But this concomitant necessity doth not destroy the Radical Indifferency of the action it self it is only an antecedent necessity from the obligation of the Law is that which destroys indifferency So likewise it is as to evil there is such an evil in an action which not only spoils the action but hinders the person from the liberty of doing it that is in all such actions as are intrinsecally evil and there is such a kind of evil in actions which though it spoils the goodness of the action yet keeps not from performance which is such as ariseth from the manner of performance as praying in hypocrisie c. doing a thing lawful with a scrupulous or erring Conscience We see then what good and evil is consistent with indifferency in actions and what is not And that the Nature of Actions even in individuo may be indifferent when as to their Circumstances they may be necessarily determin'd to be either good or evil As Marrying or not Marrying as to the Law of God is left at liberty not making it in its self a necessary duty one way or other but supposing particular Circumstances make it necessary pro hîc nunc yet the Nature of it remains indifferent stâ—ll and supposing Marriage it is necessary it should be in the Lord and yet it is not necessary to make choice of this person rather then of that so that not only the absolute indifferency of the action is consistent with this concomitant necessity but the full liberty both of contradiction and contrariety Again we must distinguish between an Indifferency as to its Nature and Indifferency as to its use and end or between an indifferency as to a Law and indifferency as to order and peace Here I say that in things wholly indifferent in both respects that is in a thing neither commanded nor forbidden by God nor that hath any apparent respect to the Peace and Order of the Church of God there can be no rational account given why the Nature of such indifferencies should be alter'd by any Humane Laws and Constitutions But matters that are only indifferent as to a Command but are much conducing to the Peace and Order of a Church such things as these are the proper matter of Humane Constitutions concerning the Churches Polity Or rather to keep to the words of the Hypothesis it self where any things are determin'd in general by the Word of God but left at Liberty as to manner and Circumstances it is in the power of Lawful Authority in the Church of God to determine such things as far as they tend to the promoting the good of the Church And so I rise to the second step which is That matters of this Nature may be determin'd and restrained Or that there is no necessity that all matters of Liberty should remain in their primary indifferency This I know is asserted by some of great Note and Learning that in things which God hath left to our Christian Liberty man may not restrain us of it by subjecting those things to Positive Laws but I come to examine with what strength of reason this is said that so we may see whether men may not yield in some lawful things to a restraint of their Christian Liberty in order to the Peace of the Church of God Which I now prove by these Arguments First What may be lawfully done when it is commanded may be so far lawfully commanded as it is a thing in it self lawful but matters of Christian Liberty may be lawfully done when they are commanded to be done
sit conditio Iudaeorum qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnoverint legalibus tamen sarcinis non humanis praesumptionibus subjiciuntur For although we cannot positively say how such things as these do manifestly iâ—â—pugn our Faith yet in that they load our Religion with such servile burdens which the mercy of God hath left free for all other observations but the celebration of some few and most clear Sacraments that they make our condition worse then that of the Iews for they although strangers to Gospel Liberty had no burdens charged upon them by the Constitutions of men but only by the Law and Commands of God Which Sentence and Reason of his I leave to the most Impartial Judgement of every true sober minded Christian. And thus I am at last come through this Field of Thorns and Thistles I hope now to find my way more plain and easie So much for the fourth Hypothesis The two next will be discharged with lesser trouble Hypoth 5. What is left undetermined both by Divine Positive Laws and by Principles deduced from the Natural Law if it be determined by lawful Authority in the Church of God doth bind the Conscience of those who are subject to that Authority to Obedience to those Determinations I here suppose that the matter of the Law be something not predetermined either by the Law of Nature or Divine Positive Lawâ— for against either of these no Humane Law can bind the Conscience For if there be any moral evil in the thing Commanded we are bound to obey God rather than men in which case we do not formally and directly disobey the Magistrate but we chuse to obey God before him And as we have already observed a former Obligation from God or Nature destroys a latter because God hath a greater Power and Authority over mens Consciences then any Humane Authority can have And my Obedience to the Magistrate being founded upon a Divine Law it must be supposed my duty to obey him first by virtue of whose Authority I obey another then the other whom I obey because the former hath commanded me If I am bound to obey an Inferiour Magistrate because the Supreme requires it if the Inferiour command me any thing contrary to the Will and Law of the Supreme I am not bound to obey him in it because both the derives his Power of Commanding and I my Obligation to Obedience from the Authority of the Supreme which must be supposed to do nothing against it self So it is between God and the Supreme Magistrate By him Kings reign God when he gives them a Legislative Power doth it cumulativè non privativè not so as to deprive himself of it nor his own Laws of a binding force against his So that no Law of a Magistrate can in reason bind against a Positive Law of God But what is enacted by a Lawful Magistrate in things left undetermined by Gods Laws doth even by virtue of them bind men to Obedience which require Subjection to the Higher Powers for Conscience sake So that whatsoever is left indifferent Obedience to the Magistrate in things indifferent is not And if we are not bound to obey in things undetermin'd by the Word I would â—ain know wherein we are bound to obey them or what distinct Power of Obligation belongs to the Authority the Magistrate hath over men For all other things we are bound to already by former Laws therefore either there must be a distinct Authority without Power to oblige or else we are effectually bound to whatsoever the Magistrate doth determine in lawful things And if it be so in general it must be so as to all particulars contained in that general and so in reference to matters of the Church unless we suppose all things concerning it to be already determined in Scripture which is the thing in Question and shall be largely discussed in its due place Sixthly Hypoth 6. Things undetermined by the Divine Law Natural and Positive and actually determined by lawful Authority are not thereby made unalterable but may be revoked limited and changed according to the different ages tempers inclinations of men by the same Power which did determine them All Humane Constitutions are reversible by the same Power which made them For the Obligation of them not arising from the matter of them but from the Authority of the Person binding are consequently alterable as shall be judged by that Power most sutable to the ends of its first promulgation Things may so much alter and times change that what was a likely way to keep men in Unity and Obedience at one time may only inrage them at another The same Physick which may at one time cure may at another only inrage the distemper more As therefore the Skill of a Physitian lies most in the application of Physick to the several tempers of his Patients So a wise Magistrate who is as Nicias said in Thucydides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Physitian to cure the distempers of the body Politick and considers as Spartian tells us Adrian used to say in the Senate Ita se Rempub. gesturum ut sciret populirem esse non propriam that the Peoples Interest is the main care of the Prince will see a necessity of altering reforming varying many Humane Constitutions according as they shall tend most to the ends of Government either in Church or State Thence it is said of the several Laws of Nature Divine and Humane that Lex naturae potest poni sed non deponi Lex divina nec poni nec deponi Lex humana poni deponi The Law of Nature may be laid down as in case of Marriage with Sisters in the beginning of the world but not laid aside the Law of God can neither be laid down nor laid aside but Humane Laws both may be laid down and laid aside Indeed the Laws of the Medes and Persians are said to be unalterable but if it be meant in the sense it is commonly understood in yet that very Law which made them unalterable for they were not so of their own Nature was an alterable Law and so was whatever did depend upon it I conclude then whatever is the subject of Humane Determination may lawfully be alter'd and changed according to the wisdome and prudence of those in whose hands the care of the Publick is Thus then as those things which are either of Natural or Christian Liberty are subjected to Humane Laws and restraints so those Laws are not irreversible but if the Fences be thrown down by the same Authority which set them up whatever was thereby inclosed returns to the Community of Natural Right again So much for these Hypotheses which I have been the longer in explaining and establishing because of the great influence they may have upon our present Peace and the neer concernment they have to this whole Discourse the whole Fabrick of which is erected upon these Foundations CHAP. III. How
far Church Government is founded upon the Law of Nature Two things in it founded thereon 1. That there must be a Society of men for the Worship of God 2. That this Society be governed in the most convenient manner A Society for Worship manifested Gen. 4. 26. considered The Sons of God and the Sons of Men who Societies for Worship among Heathens evidenced by three things 1. Solemnity of Sacrifices Sacrificing how far Natural the antiquity of the Feast of first-fruits largely discovered 2. The Original of Festivals for the Honour of their Deities 3. The Secrecy and Solemnity of their Mysteries This further proved from Mans Sociable Nature the improvement of it by Religion the Honor redounding to God by such a Society for his Worship HAving now laid our Foundation we proceed to raise a superstructure upon it And we now come closely to inquire how far Government in the Church is founded upon an unalterable Divine Right That we have found to be built upon a double Foundation the Dictates of the Law of Nature and Divine Positive Laws We shall impartially inquire into both of them and see how far Church-Government is setled upon either of these two I begin then with the Law of Nature Two general things I conceive are of an unalterable Divine Right in reference to this First That there be a Society and joyning together of men for the Worship of God Secondly That this Society be governed preserved and maintained in a most convenient manner First That there must be a Society of men joyning together for the Worship of God For the Dictate of Nature being common to all that God must be served Nature requires some kind of Mutual Society for the joynt performance of their common duties An Evidence of which Dictate of Nature appears in the first mention we find of any Publick Society so that a Society for Religious Worship was as ancient as the first Civil Societies we have any Records of Nay the very first Publick Society we read of was gathered upon this account For we read in the early days of the world that the Charter for this Society was soon made use of Gen. 4. 26. In the days of Enosh men began to call upon the Name of the Lord. Now Enosh was Seths Son whom Adam had given to him in the place of Abel and assoon as the number of men did increase that men grew into Societies they then had their publike societies for Gods Worship For we cannot understand that place absolutely as though God had not been called on before but now he was called on more signally and solemnly when men were increased that they began to imbody themselves into Societies Coepit congregare populum ad tractandum simul Dei cuâ—tum saith Pererius Tunc coeptum est populariter coli Deus Mariana Invocare i. e. palam colere Emanuel Sa. relating all to the publike societies being then gathered for the worship of the true God From which time in all probability did commence that Title of those who joyned in those societies that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sons of God which we read of soon after Gen. 6. 2. as they are distinguished from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sons of men which Titles as I am far from understanding in the sense of the Fathers taking them for the Angels which in likely-hood they took from that supposititious piece going under the name of Enochs Prophesie so I cannot understand them as commonly they are taken for meer discretive Titles of the posterity of Seth and Cain as though all that came of Seth were the Sons of God and all of Cain were the sons of men For as there certainly were many bad of Seths Posterity because the flood destroyed all of them Noah only and his Family excepted so there might be some good of the other vice being no more entaâ—ld then vertue is and Jewels may sometimes lye in a heap of dung and so this name of the sons of God might be appropriated to those who joyned themselves to those Societies for Gods worship In which sense some understand the very words of the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then began men to be called by the Name of the Lord which I suppose is the sense of Aquila who thus renders the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although it be brought by Dionys. Vossius to justifie the former interpretation of the words This sense if the construction of the words will bear it which Drusius questions but others are much for it and Theodoret The French and Piscator so render it seems most genuine and natural and not at all impugning what I have formerly gathered from the words but implying it For this distinction of Names and Titles did argue a distinction of Societies among them I am not ignorant that the generality of Jewish Expositors and many of their followers do carry the sense of the words quite another way from the ambiguity of the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be interpreted as well to Prophane as Begin and so they read it tunc prophanatum est ad invocandum nomen Domini Then men prophaned the Name of the Lord And accordingly Maimonides begins Idolatry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the dayes of Enosh But the words will scarce bear this construction as Vossius upon him observes and besides there is no mention at all of the name of any false Gods but only of the true one So much then for the first originall of this Society for Religion which we see began assoon as there was matter for a Society to be gathered up of Some indeed derive this Society a great deal higher and because we read that Abel and Cain brought their sacrifices they thence infer that it was to Adam who was the publike Priest then and performed all publike duties of worship in his own person and so was indeed Occumenicall Bishop of the whole world and yet had but four persons or but few more for his Charge Such a Diocess we might be content to allow him that pleads for the same Office and derives his Title somewhat higher then Adam For Pope Boniface the eighth proved there must be but one chief Priest and so one Pope because it is said Gen. 1. 1. That God created the world in Principio not in Principiis mark the number therefore there must be but one beginning and so one Bishop and not many What excellent Disputants an Infallible Chair makes men Much good may his argument do him As a further evidence How much Nature dictates that such a Society there should be for Divine Worship we shall inquire into the practise of men in their dispersion after the Flood And what we find unanimously continued among them under such gross Idolatry as they were given to and which did arise not from their Idolatry as such but from the general nature of it as a kind of
comparison of Christ with Moses from the equal necessity of forms of Government now which there is for other Societies from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures all other arguments are reducible to these three Heads Of these in their order First From the comparison of Christ with Moses they argue thus If Moses was faithfull in his house as a servant much more Christ as a Son now Moses appointed a particular form of Government for the Church under the old Testament therefore Christ did certainly lay down a form of Church Government for the New Testament To this I answer first Faithfulnesse implyes the discharge of a trust reposed in one by another so that it is said vers 2. he was faithful to him that appointed him Christs faithfulnesse then lay in discharging the Work which his Father laid upon him which was the Work of mediation between God and us and therefore the comparison is here Instituted between Moses as typical Mediator and Christ as the true Mediator that as Moses was faithfull in his Work so was Christ in his Now Moses his faithfulnesse lay in keeping close to the Pattern received in the Mount that is observing the commands of God Now therefore if Christs being faithfull in his office doth imply the setling any one form of Goverment in the Church it must be made appear that the serling of this form was part of Christs Mediatory Work and that which the Father commanded him to do as Mediator and that Christ received such a form from the Father for the Christian Church as Moses did for the Jewish To this it is said That the Government is laid upon Christs shoulders and all power in his hands and therefore it belongs to him as Mediatour Christ I grant is the King of the Church and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws and inwardly by the conduct of his Spirit but shall we say that therefore any one form of Government is necessary which is neither contained in his Laws nor dictated by his Spirit the main original of mistakes here is the confounding the external and internal Government of the Church of Christ and thence whensoever men read of Christs power authority and government they fancy it refers to the outward Government of the Church of God which is intended of his internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men But withall I acknowledge that Christ for the better government of his Church and people hath appointed Officers in his Church invested them by vertue of his own power with an authority to preach and baptize and administer all Gospel-Ordinances in his own Name that is by his authority for it is clearly made known to us in the Word of God that Christ hath appointed these things But then whether any shall succeed the Apostles in superiority of power over Presbyters or all remain governing the Church in an equality of power is nowhere determined by the Will of Christ in Scripture which contains his Royal Law and therefore we have no reason to look upon it as any thing flowing from the power and authority of Christ as Mediator and so not necessarily binding Christians Secondly I answer If the correspondency between Christ and Moses in their work doth imply an equal exactnesse in Christs disposing of every thing in his Church as Moses did among the Jews then the Church of Christ must be equally bound to all circumstances of Worship as the Jews were For there was nothing appertaining in the least to the Worship of God but was fully set down even to the pins of the Tabernacle in the Law of Moses but we find no such thing in the Gospel The main Duties and Ordinances are prescribed indeed but their circumstances and manner of performance are left as matters of Christian-liberty and only couched under some general Rules which is a great difference between the legal and Gospel-state Under the Law all Ceremonies and Circumstances are exactly prescribed but in the Gospel we read of some general Rules of direction for Christians carriage in all circumstantial things These four especially contain all the directions of Scripture concerning Circumstantials All things to be done decently and in order All to be done for edification Give no offence Do all to the glory of God So that the particular circumstances are left to Christian-liberty with the observation of general Rules It is evident as to Baptism and the Lords Supper which are unquestionably of divine Institution yet as to the circumstances of the administration of them how much lesse circumstantial is Christ then Moses was As to circumcision and the pass-over under the Law the age time persons manner place form all fully set down but nothing so under the Gospel Whether Baptism shall be administred to Infants or no is not set down in expresse words but left to be gathered by Analogy and consequences what manner it shall be administred in whether by dipping or sprinkling is not absolutely determined what form of words to be used whether in the name of all three persons or sometimes in the Name of Christ only as in the Acts we read if that be the sense and not rather in Christs Name i. e. by Christs authority Whether sprinkling or dipping shall be thrice as some Churches use it or only once as others These things we see relating to an Ordinance of Divine Institution are yet past over without any expresse command determining either way in Scripture So as to the Lords Supper What persons to be admitted to it whether all visible professors or only sincere Christians upon what terms whether by previous examination of Church-officers or by an open profession of their faith or else only by their own tryal of themselves required of them as their duty by their Ministers whether it should be alwayes after Supper as Christ himself did it whether taking fasting or after meat whether kneeling or sitting or leaning Whether to be consecrated in one form of words or several These things are not thought fit to be determined by any positive command of Christ but left to the exercise of Christian-liberty the like is as to preaching the Word publike Prayer singing of Psalmes the duties are required but the particular Modes are left undetermined The case is the same as to Church-governwent That the Church be governed and that it be governed by its proper Officers are things of Divine appointment but whether the Church should be governed by many joyning together in an equality or by Subordination of some persons to others is left to the same liberty which all other Circumstances are this being not the Substance of the thing it self but onely the manner of performance of it 3. I answer That there is a manifest disparity between the Gospel and Jewish state and therefore Reasons may be given why all Punctilioes were determined then which are not now as 1. The perfection and
only on confederation such things being lyable to a Magistrates power there can be no plea from mutual consent to justifie any opposition to supream authority in a Common wealth But then how such persons can bee Christians when the Magistrates would have them to bee otherwise I cannot understand nor how the primitive Martyrs were any other then a company of Fools or mad-men who would hazard their lives for that which was a meer arbitrary thing and which they had no necessary obligation upon them to profess Mistake me not I speak not here of meer acts of discipline but of the duty of outward professing Christianity if this be a duty then a Christian society is setled by a positive Law if it be not a duty then they are fools who suffer for it So that this question resolved into its principles leads us higher than we think for and the main thing in debate must bee Whether there be an obligation upon conscience for men to associaâ—e in the profession of Christianity or no If there be then the Church which is nothing else but such an association is established upon a positive Law of Christ if there be not then those inconveniences follow which are already mentioned Wee are told indeed by the Leviathan with confidence enough that no precepts of the Gospel are Law till enacted by civil authority but it is little wonder that hee who thinks an immaterial substance implyes a contradiction should think as much of calling any thing a Law but what hath a civil sanction But I suppose all those who dare freely own a supream and infinite essence to have been the Creator and to be the Ruler of the World will acknowledge his Power to oblige conscience without being beholding to his own creature to enact his Laws that men might bee bound to obey them Was the great God sain to bee be holding to the civil authority hee had over the Iewish Common wealth their government being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make his Laws obligatory to the consciences of the Iews What had not they their beings from God and can there be any greater ground of obligation to obedience than from thence Whence comes civil power to have any Right to oblige men more than God considered as Governour of the World can have Can there be indeed no other Laws according to the Leviathans Hypothesis but only the Law of nature and civil Laws But I pray whence comes the obligation to either of these that these are not as arbitrary as all other agreements are And is it not as strong a dictate of nature as any can bee supposing that there is a God that a creature which receives its being from another should be bound to obey him not only in the resultancies of his own nature but with the arbitrary constitutions of his will Was Adam bound to obey God or no as to that positive precept of eating the forbidden fruit if no civil Sanction had been added to that Law The truth is such Hypotheses as these are when they are followed close home will be sound to Kennel in that black Den from whence they are loath to be thought to have proceeded And now supposing that every full Declaration of the will of Christ as to any positive Institution hath the force and power of a Law upon the consciences of all to whom it is sufficiently proposed I proceed to make appear that such a divine positive Laew there is for the existence of a Church as a visible body and society in the World by which I am far from meaning such a conspicuous society that must continue in a perpetual visibility in the same place I find not the least intimation of any such thing in Scripture but that there shall alwayes bee somewhere or other in the world a society owning and professing Christianity may bee easily deduced from thence and especially on this account that our Saviour hath required this as one of the conditions in order to eternal felicity that all those who believe in their hearts that Iesus is the Christ must likewise confess him with their mouths to the world and therefore as long at there are men to believe in Christ there must be men that will not be ashamed to associate on the account of the Doctrine he hath promulged to the world That one Phrase in the New Testament so frequently used by our blessed Saviour of the Kingdome of Heaven importing a Gospel-state doth evidently declare a society which was constituted by him on the principles of the Gospel Covenant Wherefore should our Saviour call Disciples and make Apostles and send them abroad with full commission to gather and initiate Disciples by Baptism did he not intend a visible society for his Church Had it not been enough for men to have cordially believed the truth of the Gospel but they must bee entred in a solemn visible way and joyn in participation of visible Symbols of bread and wine but that our Saviour required external profession and society in the Gospel as a necessary duty in order to obtaining the priviledges conveyed by his Magna Charta in the Gospel I would fain know by what argument wee can prove that any humane Legislator did ever intend a Common wealth to be governed according to his mode by which we cannot prove that Christ by a positive Law did command such a society as should be governed in a visible manner as other societies are Did he not appoint officers himself in the Church and that of many ranks and degrees Did he not invest those Officers with authority to rule his Church Is it not laid as a charge on them to take heed to that flock over which God had made them Over-seers Are there not Rules laid down for the peculiar exercise of their Government over the Church in all the parts of it Were not these Officers admitted into theâ—â— function by a most solemn visible Rite of Imposition of Hands And are all these solemn transactions a meer piece of sacred Pageantry And they will appear to bee little more if the Society of the Church bee a meer arbitrary thing depending only upon consent and confederation and not subsisting by vertue of any Charter from Christ or some positive Law requiring all Christians to joyn in Church society together But if now from hence it appears as certainly it cannot but appear that this Society of the Church doth subsist by vertue of a Divine positive Law then it must of necessity be distinct from a civil Society and that on these accounts First because there is an antecedent obligation on conscience to associate on the account of Christianity whether Humane Laws prohibit or command it From whence of necessity it follows that the constitution of the Church is really different from that of the Commonwealth because whether the Common wealth be for or against this Society all that own it are bound to profess it openly and declare
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they consume the fomes morbi the root of the distemper by their serious endeavours after peace and holiness But instead of this the generality of men let all their Religion run up into Bryers and Thorns into Contentions and Parties as though Religion were indeed sacramentum militiae but more against fellow-Christians then the unquestionable hinderances of mens Eternal Happiness Men being very loath to put themselves to the trouble of a Holy Life are very ready to embrace any thing which may but dispense with that and if but listing mens selves under such a party may but shelter them under a disguise of Religion none more ready then such to be known by distinguishing names none more zealous in the defence of every tittle and punctilio that lies most remote from those essential duties wherein the Kingdome of God consists viz. Righteousness and Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost And hence all the several parties among us have given such glorious names onely to the outward Government of the Church the undoubted practise of the Apostles the Discipline of Christ the order of the Gospel and account onely that the Church where their own method of Government is observed just as the Historian observes of Brutus and Cassius Ubicunque ipsi essent praetexentes esse Rempublicam they think the Church can never be preserved but in that Vâ—ssel they are imbarked in As though Christ could not have caused his flock to rest sub Meridie unless the Pars Donati had been in the South And from this Monopolizing of Churches to parties hath proceeded that strange uncharitableness towards all who come not up to every circumstance of their way and method which is a piece of Prudence like that of Brutus who when he had raised those flames in the Common-wealth was continually calling Caesar Tyrant Ita enim appellari Caesarem facto ejus expediebat So when men have caused such lamentable Divisions in the Church by their several parties and factions it concerns them to condemn all others beside themselves leâ—t they most of all condemn themselves for making unnecessary Divisions in the Church of God This uncharitableness and ill opinion of all different parties onely gathers the fuel together and prepares combustible matter which wants nothing but the clashing of an adverse party acted upon Principles of a like Nature to make it break out into an open flame And such we have seen and with sadness and grief of heart felt it to be in the Bowels of our own Church and Nation by reason of those violent Calentures and Paroxysms of the spirits of men those heart-burnings and contentions which have been among us which will require both time and skill to purge out those noxious humours which have been the causes of them I know no prescriptions so likely to effect this happy end as an Infusion of the true spirits of Religion and the Revulsion of that extravasated blood into its proper channels Thereby to take men off from their eâ—ger pursuit after wayes and parties Nations and Opinions wherein many have run so far that they have left the best part of their Religion behind them and to bring them back to a right understanding of the nature design and principles of Christianity Christianity a Religion which it is next to a miracle men should ever quarrel or fall out about much less that it should be the occasion or at least the pretence of all that strife and bitterness of spirit of all those comentions and animosities which are at this day in the Christian World But our onely comfort is that whatever our spirits are our God is the God of peace our Saviour is the Prince of peace and that Wisdome which this Religion teacheth is both pure and peaceable It was that which once made our Religion so amiable in the judgement of imrartial heathens that nil nisi justum suadet lene the Court of a Christians Conscience was the best Court of Equity in the world Christians were once known by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bâ—nignity and sweetness of their disposition by the Candour and Ingenuity of their spirits by their mutual love forbearance and condescension towards one another But Aut hoc non est Evangelium aut nos non sumus Evangelici Either this is not the practice of Christianity or it was never calculated for our Meridian wherein mens spirits are of too high an elevation for it If pride and uncharitableness if divisions and strifes if wrath and envy if animosities and contâ—ntions were but the marks oâ— true Christians Diogenesâ—â—â—â—er â—â—â—â—er need light his Lamp at noon to find out such among us But if a Spirit of meekness gentleness and condescension if a stooping to the weakness and infirmities of others if a pursuit after peace even when it flies from us be the indispensable duties and the characteristical notes of those that have more then the name of Christians it may possibly prove a difficult inquest to find out such for the crouds of those who shelter themselves under that glorious name Whence came it else to be so lately looked on as the way to advance Religion to banish Peace and to reform mens manners by taking away their lives whereas in those pure and primitive times when Religion did truly flourish it was accounted the greatest instance of the piety of Christians not to fight but to dye for Christ. It was never thought then that Bellona was a nursing Mother to the Church of God nor Mars a God of Reformation Religion was then propagated not by Christians shedding the blood of others but by laying down their own They thought there were other wayes to a Canaan of Reformation besides the passing through a Wilderness of Confusion and a red Sea of blood Origen could say of the Christians in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had not yet learnt to make way for Religion into mens mind by the dint of the sword because they were the Disciples of that Saviour who never pressed Followers as men do Soldiers but said If any man will come after me let him take up his Cross not his sword and follow me His was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his very commands shewed his meekness his Laws were sweet and gentle Laws not like Draco's that were writ in blood unless it were his own that gave them His design was to ease men of their former burdens and not to lay on more the duties be required were no other but such as were necessary and withall very just and reasonable He that came to take away the insupportable yoke of Iewish Ceremonies certainly did never intend to gall the necks of his Disciples with another instead of it And it would be strange the Church should require more then Christ himself did and make other conditions of her Communion then our Saviour did of Discipleship What possible reason can be assigned or given why such things should not be
second is that the persons imployed in the Service of God should have respect answerable to their imployment which appears from their Relation to God as his Servants from the persons imployed in this work before positive Laws Masters of Families the first Priests The Priesthood of the first-born before the Law discussed The Arguments for it answered The Conjunction of Civil and Sacred Authothority largely shewed among Egyptians Grecians Romans and others The ground of Separation of them afterwards from Plutarch and others p. 85 CHAP. V. THE third thing dictated by the Law of Nature is the solemnity of all things to be performed in this Society which lyes in the gravity of all Rites and Ceremonies in the composed temper of mind Gods Worship rational His Spirit destroyes not the use of Reason The Enthusiastick spirit discovered The circumstantiating of fit times and place for Worship The seventh day on what account so much spoken of by Heathens The Romans Holy dayes Cessation of labour upon them The solemnity of Ceremonies used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 silence in devotions Exclusion of unfit persons Solemnity of Discipline Excommunication among the Iewes by the sound of a Trumpet among Christians by a Bell. p. 93 CHAP. VI. THE fourth thing dictated by the Law of Nature that there must be a way to end controversies arising which tend to break the peace of the Society The nature of Schisme considered The Churches Power as to Opinions explained When separation from a Church may be lawful Not till communion becomes sin Which is when corruptions are required as conditions of Communion Not lawful to erect new Churches upon supposition of corruption in a Church The ratio of a fundamental article explained it implyes both necessity and sufficiency in order to salvation Liberty of judgement and authority distinguished The latter must be parted with in religious Societies as to private persons What way the Light of nature directs to for ending Controversies First in an equality of power that the less number yield to the greater on what Law of Nature that is founded Secondly In a subordination of power that there must be a liberty of Appeals Appeals defined Independency of particular Congregations considered Elective Synods The Case paralleld between Civill and Church-Government Where Appeals finally lodge The power of calling Synods and confirming their Acts in the Magistrate p. 104. CHAP. VII THE fifth thing dictated by the Law of Nature That all that are admitted into this Society must consent to be governed by the Lawes and Rules of it Civil Societies founded upon mutual Consent express in their first entrance implicite in others born under Societies actually formed Consent as to a Church necessary the manner of Consent determined by Christ by Baptism and Profession Implicite consent supposed in all Baptized explicite declared by challenging the Priviledges and observing the Duties of the Covenant Explicite by express owning the Gospel when adult very useful for recovering the credit of Christia nity The Discipline of the primitive Church cleared from Origen Iustin Martyr Pliny Tertullian The necessary reâ—â—â—â—â—â—es of Church membership whether Positive signs of Grace nothing required by the Gospel beyand reality of profession Exâ—â—â—â—â—tâ— Coâ—â—â—â—â—â— how far necessary not the formal Constitution of a Church proved by severâ—â— arguments p. 132. CHAP. VIII THE last thing dictated by the Law of Nature is that every offender against the Lawes of this Society is bound to give an account of his actions to the Governours of it and submit to the censures inflicted upon him by them The original of penalties in Societies The nature of them according to the nature and ends of Societies The penalty of the Church no civil mulct because its Lawes and ends are different from civil Societies The practice of the Dâ—uâ—ds and Câ—rceâ—ae in e 〈…〉 n. Among the Iewes whether a meer civil or sacr 〈…〉 y. The latter proved by six Arguments Cherem Col Bo what Objections answered The original of the mistake shewed The first part concluded p. 141 PART II. CHAP. I. THE other ground of divine Right considered viz. Gods positive Lawes which imply a certain knowledge of Gods intention to bind men perpetuaâ—ly As to which the arguments drawn from Tradition and the practice of the Church in after ages proved invalid by several arguments In order to a right stating the Question some Concessions laid down First That there must be some form of Government in the Church is of divine right The notion of a Church explained whether it belongs only to particular Congregations which are manifested not to be of Gods primary intention but for our necessity Evidence for National Churches under the Gospel A National Church-Government necessary p. 150 CHAP. II. THE second Concession is That Church Government must be administred by officers of Divine appointment To that end the continuance of a Gospel Ministry fully cleared from all those arguments by which positive Laws are proved immutable The reason of its appointment continues the dream of a â—aeculum Spiritus sancti discussed first broached by the Mendicant Friers upon the rising of the Waldenses now embraced by Enthusiasts It s occasion and unreasonableness shewed Gods declaring the perpetuity of a Gospel Ministry Matth. 28. 20. explained A Novel interpretation largely refuted The world to come What A Ministry necessary for the Churches continuance Ephes. 4 12. explained and vindicated p. 158 CHAP. III. THE Question fully stated Not what Form of Government comes the nearest to the Primitive practice but whether any be absolutely determined Several things propounded for resolving the Question What the Form of Church-Government was under the Law How far Christians are bound to observe that Neither the necessity of a superiour Order of Church-Officers nor the unlawfulness can be proved from thence p. 170 CHAP. IV. WHether Christ hath determined the Form of Government by any positive Laws Arguments of the necessity why Christ must determine it largely answered as First Christs faithfulness compared with Moses answered and retorted and thence proved that Christ did not institute any Form of Government in the Church because he gave no such Law for it as Moses did And we have nothing but general Rules which are appliable to several Forms of Government The Office of Timothy and Titus What it proves in order to this question the lawfulness of Episcopacy shewed thence but not the necessity A particular form how far necessary as Christ was Governour of his Church the Similitudes the Church is set out by prove not the thing in question Nor the difference between civil and Church-Government nor Christ setting Officers in his Church nor the inconvenience of the Churches power in appointing new Officers Every Minister hath a power respecting the Church in common which the Church may determine and fix the bounds of Episcopacy thence proved lawful The argument from the Scriptures perfection answered p. 175 CHAP. V. WHether any of Christs actions have determined the Form of
may quickly discern The main Plea for Forms of Government in the Church is their necessity in order to its Peace and Order and yet nothing hath produced more disorder and confusion then our Disputes about it have done And our sad experience still tells us that after all our Debates and the Evidences brought on either side men yet continue under very different apprehensions concerning it But if we more strictly enquire into the causes of the great Distances and Animosities which have risen upon this Controversie we shall find it hath not been so much the difference of Judgements concerning the Primitive Form of Government which hath divided men so much from one another as the prevalency of Faction and Interest in those whose Revenues have come from the Rents of the Church and among others of greater Integrity it hath been the Principle or Hypothesis which men are apt to take for granted without proving it viz. that it is in no case lawful to vary from that Form which by obscure and uncertain conjectures they conceive to have been the Primitive Practice For hereby men look upon themselves as obliged by an unalterable Law to endeavour the Establishment of that Idea of Government which oft-times Affection and Interest more then Reason and Judgement hath formed within them and so likewise bound to over throw any other Form not suitable to those Correspondencies which they are already engaged to maintain If this then were the Cause of the Wounds and Breaches this day among us the most successful Weapon-salve to heal them will be to anoint the Sword which hath given the Wound by a seasonable inquiry into the Nature and Obligation of particular Forms of Government in the Church The main Subject then of our present Debate will be Whether any one particular Form of Church Government be setled upon an unalterable Divine Right by virtue whereof all Churches are bound perpetually to observe that Individual Form or whether it be left to the Prudence of every particular Church to agree upon that Form of Government which it judgeth most conducible within its self to attain the end of Government the Peace Order Tranquillity and Settlement of the Church If this latter be made fully appear it is then evident that however mens judgements may differ concerning the Primitive Form of Government there is yet a sure ground for men to proceed on in order to the Churches Peace Which one Consideration will be motive sufficient to justifie an attempt of this Nature it being a Design of so great Importance as the recovery of an advantagious piece of ground whereon Different Parties may with safety not only treat but agree in order to a speedy Accommodation We come therefore closely to the business in hand and for the better clearing of our passage we shall first discuss the Nature of a Divine Right and shew whereon an unalterable Divine Right must be founded and then proceed to shew how far any Form of Government in the Church is setled upon such a Right Right in the general is a relative thing and the signification and import of it must be taken from the respect it bears to the Law which gives it For although in common acception it be often understood to be the same with the Law its self as it is the rule of actions in which sense Ius naturae gentium civile is taken for the several Laws of Nature Nations and particular States yet I say Ius and so Right is properly something accruing to a person by virtue of that Law which is made and so jus naturae is that right which every man is invested in by the Law of Nature which is properly jus personae and is by some call'd jus activum which is defined by Grotius to be Qualitas moralis personae competens ad aliquid juste habendum aut agendum by Lessius to be Potestas Legitima ad rem aliquam obtinendam c. So that by these descriptions Right is that Power which a man hath by Law to do have or obtain any thing But the most full description of it is given by Martinius that it is adhaerens personae necessitas vel potestas recta ad aliquid agendum omittendum aut permittendum that whereby any person lies under a necessity of doing omitting or suffering a thing to be or else hath a lawful authority of doing c. For we are to consider that there is a two-fold Right either such whereby a man hath Liberty and Freedom by the Law to do any thing or such whereby it becomes a mans necessary duty to do any thing The opening of the difference of these two and the different influences they have upon persons and things is very useful to our present purpose Ius then is first that which is justum so Isidore Ius dictum quia justum est So what ever is just men have right to do it Now a thing may be said to be just either more generally as it signifies any thing which is lawful or in a more restrained sense when it implies something that is equal and due to another So Aristotle distributes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The former sense of it is here only pertinent as it implies any thing which may be done according to Law that is done jure because a man hath right to do it In order to this we are to observe that an express Positive Command is not necessary to make a thing lawful but a non-prohibition by a Law is sufficient for that For it being the Nature of Laws to bound up mens Rights what is not forbidden by the Law is thereby supposed to be left in mens power still to do it So that it is to little purpose for men to seek for Positive Commands for every particular action to make it lawful it sufficeth to make any action lawful if there be no Bar made by any direct or consequential prohibition unless it be in such things whose lawfulness and goodness depend upon a meer Positive Command For in those things which are therefore only good because commanded a Command is necessary to make them lawful as in immediate positive acts of Worship towards God in which nothing is lawful any further then it is founded upon a Divine Command I speak not of Circumstances belonging to the Acts of Worship but whatever is looked upon as a part of Divine Worship if it be not commanded by God himself it is no ways acceptable to him and therefore not lawful So our Saviour cites that out of the Prophet In vain do they worship me teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men which the Chaldee Paraphrast and Syriack version render thus Reverentia quam mihi exhibent est ex praecepto documento humano plainly imputing the reason of Gods rejecting their worship to the want of a Divine Command for what they did And therefore Tertullian condemns all those things to be
our present case According to this sense of jus for that which is lawful those things may be said to be jure divino which are not determined one way or other by any positive Law of God but are left wholly as things lawful to the prudence of men to determine them in a way agreeable to natural light and the general Rules of the Word of God In which sense I assert any particular form of Government agreed on by the Governours of the Church consonant to the general Rules of Scripture to be by Divine Right i. e. God by his own Laws hath given men a power and liberty to determine the particular form of Church-Government among them And hence it may appear that though one form of Government be agreeable to the Word it doth not follow that another is not or because one is lawful another is unlawful but one form may be more agreeable to some parts places people and times then others are In which case that form of Government is to be setled which is most agreeable to the present state of a place and is most advantagiously conducible to the promoting the ends of Church-Government in that place or Nation I conclude then according to this sense of jus that the Ratio regiminis Ecclesiastici is juris divini naturalis that is that the reason of Church-Government is immutable and holds in all times and places which is the preservation of the peace and unity of the Church but the modus regiminis Ecclesiastici the particular form of that Government is juris divini permissivi that both the Laws of God and Nature have left it to the Prudence of particular Churches to determine it This may be cleared by a parallel Instance The reason and the Science of Physick is immutable but the particular prescriptions of that Science are much varied according to the different tempers of Patients And the very same reason in Physick which prescribes one sort of Physick to one doth prescribe a different sort to another because the temper or disease of the one calls for a different method of cure yet the ground and end of both prescriptions was the very same to recover the Patient from his distemper So I say in our present case the ground and reason of Government in the Church is unalterable by divine right yea and that very reason which determines the particular forms but yet these particular forms flowing from that immutable reason may be very different in themselves and may alter according to the several circumstances of times and places and persons for the more commodious advancing the main end of Government As in morality there can be but one thing to a man in genere summi boni as the chief good quò tendit in quod dirigit aroum to which he refers all other things yet there may be many things in genere boni conducentis as means in order to attaining that end So though Church-Government vary not as to the ground end and reason of it yet it may as to the particular forms of it As is further evident as to forms of Civil Government though the end of all be the same yet Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy are in themselves lawful means for the attaining the same common end And as Alensis determines it in the case of Community of goods by the Law of Nature that the same reason of the Law of Nature which did dictate Community of goods to be most suitable to man in the state of Innocency did in his faln estate prescribe a propriety of goods as most agreeable to it so that herein the modus observantiâ—â— dissered but the ratio praecepti was the same still which was mans comfortable enjoyment of the Accommodations of life which in Innocency might have been best done by Community but in mans degenerate condition must be by a Propriety So the same reason of Church-Government may call for an Equality in the persons acting as Governours of the Church in one place which may call for Superiority and subordination in another Having now dispatched the first sense of a Divine Right I come to the other which is the main seat of the Controversie and therefore will require a longer debate And so jus is that which makes a thing to become a duty so jus quasi jussum and jussa jura as Festus explains it i. e. that whereby a thing is not only licitum in mens lawful power to do it or no but is made dâ—bitum and is constituted a duty by the force and virtue of a Divine Command Now mans obligation to any thing as a duty doth suppose on the part of him from whose authority he derives his obligation both legislation and promulgation First there must be a Legislative Power commanding it which if it respects only the outward actions of a man in a Nation imbodied by Laws is the supreme Magistrate but if the obligation respect the consciences of all men directly and immediately then none have the power to settle any thing by way of an universal standing Law but God himself Who by being sole Creator and Governour of the World hath alone absolute and independent Dominion and Authority over the souls of men But besides Legislation another thing necessary to mans obligation to duty is a sufficient promulgation of the Law made Because though before this there be the ground of obedience on mans part to all Gods Commands yet there must be a particular Declaration of the Laws whereby man is bound in order to the determination of Mans duty Which in Positives is so absolutely necessary that unless there be a sufficient promulgation and declaration of the will of the Law-giver mans ignorance is excusable in reference to them and so frees from guilt and the obligation to punishment But it is otherwise in reference to the dictates of the natural Law wherein though man be at a loss for them yet his own contracted pravity being the cause of his blindness leaves him without excuse Hence it is said with good reason that though man under the Moral Law was bound to obey Gospel-precepts as to the reason and substance of the duties by them commanded as Faith Repentance from dead works and New Obedience yet a more full and particular revelation by the Gospel was necessary for the particular determination of the general acts of obedience to particular objects under their several Modifications expressed in the Gospel And therefore Faith and Repentance under the Moral Law taken as a transcript of the Law of Nature were required under their general notion as acts of obedience but not in that particular relation which those acts have under the Covenant of Grace Which particular determination of the general acts to special objects under different respects some call New Precepts of the Gospel others New Light but taking that light as it hath an influence upon the consciences of men the difference is so small that it deserves not to be
the Christians That with God all things are possible that he neither understood how it was spoken nor what these all-things are nor how God could do them and concludes with this excellent speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We say saith he that God can do all things which are reconcilable with his Deity Goodnesse and Wisdom And after adds That as it is impossible for honey to make things bitter and light to make things obscure so it is for God to do any thing that is unjust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the power of doing evil is directly contrary to the Divine Nature and that Omnipotency which is consistent with it To the same purpose he speaks elswhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God wills nothing unbecoming himself And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We affirm that God cannot do evil actions for if he could he might as well be no God For if God should do evil he would be no God So then though God be omnipotent yet it follows not that he can therefore dissolve the obligation of the preceptive Law of nature or change the natures of good and evil God may indeed alter the properties of those things from whence the respects of good and evil do result as in Abrahams offering Isaac the Israelites taking away the Aegyptians Jewels which God may justly do by vertue of his absolute dominion but the change here is not in the obligation of the Law but in the things themselves Murther would be an intrinsecal evil still but that which was done by immediate and explicit command from God would have been no murther Theft had been a sin still but taking things alienaâ—ed from their properties by God himself was not Theft We conclude then what comes immediately from the Law of nature by way of command binds immutably and indispensably Which is the first Hypothesis or Principle laid down The second Hypothesis is That things which are either deducible from the Law of Nature or by the light of Nature discovered to be very agreeable to it may be lawfully practised in the Church of God if they be not otherwise determined by the positive Laws of God or of lawfull humane authority We shall first inquire into the nature of these things and then shew the lawfulnesse of doing them For the nature of these things we must consider what things may be said to be of the Law of nature They may be reduced to two heads which must be accurately distinguished They are either such thingâ— which Nature dictates to be done or not to be done necessarily and immutably or else such things as are judged to be very agreeable to natural light but are subject to positive determinations The former are called by some jus naturae obligativum by others jus naturae proprium whereby things are made necessarily duties or sins the latter jus naturae permissivum and reductivum for which it is sufficient if there be no repugnancy to natural light From these two arise a different obligation upon men either strict and is called by Covarrâ—vias obligatio ex justitiâ an obligation of duty and justice the other larger obligatio ex communi aequitate or ex honestate morali an obligation from common equity that is according to the agreeablenesse of things to natural light The former I have shewn already to bind indispensably but these latter are subject to positive Laws For our better understanding the obligation of these which is more intricate then the former we shall consider men under a double notion either in a state of absolute liberty which some call a state of Nature or else in a state wherein they have restrained their own liberty by mutual compacts or are determined by a higher Law These things premised I lay down these Propositions 1. In a state of absolute liberty before any positive Laws were superadded to the naturall Whatsoever was not necessarily determined by the obligatory Law of Nature was wholly left to mens power to do it or not and belongs to the permissive Law of Nature And thus all those things which are since determined by positive Laws were in such a supposed state left to the free choyce of a mans own will Thus it was in mens power to joyn in civil Society with whom they pleased to recover things or vindicate injuries in what way they judged best to submit to what constitutions alone they would themselves to choose what form of Government among them they pleased to determine how far they would be bound to any Authority chosen by themselves to lodge the legislative and coercive Power in what persons they thought fit to agree upon punishments answerable to the nature of offences And so in all other things not repugnant to the common light of reason and the dictates of the preceptive part of the Law of Nature 2. A state of absolute liberty not agreeing to the nature of man considered in relation to others it was in mens power to restrain their own liberty upon compacts so far as should be judged necessary for the ends of their mutuall Society A state of Nature I look upon only as an imaginary state for better understanding the nature and obligation of Laws For it is confessed by the greatest Assertors of it that the relation of Parents and Children cannot be conceived in a state of natural liberty because Children assoon as born are actually under the power and authority of their Parents But for our clearer apprehending the matter in hand we shall proceed with it Supposing then all those former rights were in their own power it is most agreeable to natural reason that every man may part with his right so far as he please for his own advantage Here now men finding a necessity to part with some of their Rights to defend and secure their most considerable Ones they begin to think of Compacts one with another taking this as a Principle of the Natural Law and the Foundation of Society That all Covenants are to be performed When they are thus far agreed they then consider the terms upon which they should enter into Society one with another And here men devest themselves of their original liberty and agree upon an Inclosure of Properties and the Fences of those Properties I mean upon living together in a civil state and of the Laws they must be ruled by This is apparently agreeable to Natural Reason the things being in their own power which they agree to part with Men entring upon Societies by Mutual Compacts things thereby become good and evil which were not so before Thus he who was free before to do what and how he pleased is now bound to obey what Laws he hath consented to or else he breaks not only a Positive Law but that Law of Nature which commands Man to stand to Covenants once made though he be free to make them And therefore it is observable that the doing of things that were lawful
Scripture its self as to places for as far as we can find sacrificing in high places that is such as were of mens own appointment was lawful till the Temple was built by Solomon as appears by the several examples of Gedeon Samuel David and others Indeed after the place was setled by Gods own Law it became wholly sinfull but if so before we should not have read of Gods accepting sacrifices in such places as he did Gedeons nor of the Prophets doing it as Samuel and David did It is a disputable case about Sacrifices Whether the offering of them came only from natural light or from some express command the latter seems far more probable to me because I cannot see how naturall light should any wise dictate that God would accept of the blood of other creatures as a token of mans obedience to himself And Rivet gives this very good reason why the destruction of any thing in sacrifice cannot belong to the Law of Nature because it is only acceptable as a sign and token of obedience and not simply as an act of obedience and this sign signifying ex instituto for mans destroying the life of a beast can never naturally signifie mans obedience to God and therefore it must have some positive Law for those which signifie only by institution and not naturally cannot be referred to a dictate of the Law of Nature To which purpose it is further observable that God doth so often in Scripâ—ure slight the offering of Sacrifices in respect of any inherent vertue or goodnesse in the action its self or acceptablenesse to God upon the account of the thing done In which sense God saith He that killeth a bullock is as if he slew a man and he that Sacrificeth a sheep as if he cut off a dogs neck c. For what is there more in the one then in the other but only Gods appointment which makes one acceptable and not the other So that it is no wayes probable that God would have accepted Abels sacrifice rather then Cains had there been no command for their sacrificing For as to meer natural light Cains Sacrifice seems more agreeable to that then Abels Cains being an Eucharistical offering without hurt to other creatures but Abels was cruentum Sacrificium a Sacrifice of blood But the chief ground of Abels acceptance was his offering in faith as the Apostle to the Hebrews tells us Now saith is a higher principle then natural light and must suppose divine Revelation and so a divine Command as the Principle and ground of his action Moses his silence in reference to a Command is no argument there was none it not being his design to write at large all the particular precepts of the Orall Law but to deduce the Genealogy of the Patriarchs down from Adam and the Creation But supposing a Command given from God determining modes and circumstances of such â—hings of which the substance depends on a natural Law men are as well bound to the observation of them after their revelation as the other before The one being a Testimony of their obedience to God as clear and full as the other yes and so much the clearer evidence of obedience in that there could be no argument for the performing of those things but a divine Command And even in doing things intrinsecally good the ground of purely religious obedience is because God commands men to do those things more then that they are good in themselves Doing a thing because most suitable to nature speaking morality but doing because God commands it speaks true Religion and the obedience of Faith For as the formal reason of the act of Faith is a divine Testimony discovered to our understandings so the formal principle of an act of spiritual obedience is a divine Command inclining the will and awing it to performance So far then as divine Law determines things we are bound to observe them from the dictates of the natural Law The fourth Hypothesis In things which are determined both by the Law of Nature and divine positive Laws as to the substance and morality of them but not determined as to all circumstances belonging to them it is in the power of Lawful authority in the Church of God to determine them so far as they judge them tend to the promoting the performance of them in due manner So that not only matters wholly left at liberty as to the substance of them are subject to humane Laws and Constitutions but even things commanded in the divine Law in reference to the manner of performance if undetermined by the same Law which enforce the duty Thus the setting apart some time for Gods Worship is a dictate of the natural Law that the first day of the week be that time is determin'd under the Gospel but in what places at what hours in what order decency and solemnity this Worship shall be then performed are circumstances not determined in Scripture but only by general Rules as to these then so they be done in conformity to those Rules they are subject to humane positive determinations But this is not an hypothesis in the Age we live in to be taken for granted without proving it some denying the Magistrate any power at all in matters of Religion others granting a defensive protective power of that Religion which is professed according to the Laws of Christ but denying any determining power in the Magistrate concerning things left undetermin'd by the Scripture This Hypothesis then hath landed me into a Field of Controversie wherein I shall not so much strive to make my way through any opposite party as endeavour to beget a right understanding between the adverse parties in order to a mutual compliance which I shall the rather do because if any Controversie hath been an increaser and fomenter of heart-burnings and divisions among us it hath been about the determination of indifferent things And which seems strange the things men can least bear with one another in are matters of liberty and those things men have divided most upon have been matters of uniformity and wherein they have differed most have been pretended things of Indifferency In order then to laying a foundation for peace and union I shall calmly debate what power the Magistrate hath in matters of Religion and how far that power doth extend in determining things left undetermin'd by the Word For the clear understanding the first of these we shall make our passage open to it by the laying down several necessâ—ry distinctions about it the want of considering which hath been the ground of the great confusion in the handling this Controversie First then we must distinguish between a power respecting Religion in its self and a power concerning Religion as it is the publick owned and professed Religion of a Nation For although the Magistrate hath no proper power over Religion in its self either taking it abstractly for the Rule of Worship or concretely
of the Magistrate though he is not subject to the power of the Ministers yet both as a Christian and as a Magistrate he is subject to the Word of God and is to be guided by that in the Administration of his Function So on the other side in a Minister of the Gospel there are these things considerable the Object of his Function the Function its self the Liberty of exercising it and the Person who doth exercise it As for the Object of this Function the Word and Sacraments these are not subject to the Civil Power being setled by a Law of Christ but then for the Function its self that may be considered either in the Derivation of it or in the Administration of it As for the derivation of the power and authority of the Function that is from Christ who hath setled and provided by Law that there shall be such a standing Function to the end of the world with such authority belonging to it But for the Administration of the Function two things belong to the Magistrate First to provide and take care for due administration of it anâ— to see that the Ministers preach the true Doctrine though he cannot lawfully forbid the true Doctrine to be taught and that they duly administer the Sacraments though he cannot command them to administer them otherwise then Christ hath delivered them down to us This for due Administration Secondly in case of male-administration of his Function or scandal rendring him unfit for it it is in the Magistrates power if not formally to depose yet to deprive them of the liberty of ever exercising their Function within his Dominions as Solomâ—n did Abiathar and Iustinian Sylverius as Constantius did Vigilius For the liberty of exercise of the Function is in the Magistrates power though a right to exercise it be derived from the same power from which the Authority belonging to the Function was conveyed And then lastly as to the persons exercising this Function it is evident As they are members of a Civil Society as well as others so they are subject to the same Civil Laws as others are Which as it is expresly affirmed by Chrysostom on Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers that is saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be he an Apostle Evangelist Prophet Priest Monk be he who he will So it is fully largely irrefragably proved by our Writers against the Papists especially by the learned Is. Casaubon in his piece de libertate Ecclesiasticâ So then we see what a fair amicable and mutual aspect these two powers have one upon another when rightly understood being far from clashing one with the other either by a subjection of the Civil Power to the Ecclesiastical or the Civil powers swallowing up and devouring the peculiarity of the Ministerial Function And upon these grounds I suppose Beza and Erastus may as to this shake hands So that the Magistrate do not usurp the Ministerial Function which Videlius calls Papatus politicus nor the Ministers subject the Civil power to them which is Papatus Ecclesiasticus Thirdly we distinguish between an absolute Architectonical and Nomothetical Power independent upon any other Law and a Legislative Power absolute as to persons but regulated by a Higher Law The former we attribute to none but God the latter belongs to a Supreme Magistrate in reference to things belonging to his power either in Church or Commonwealth By an Architectonical Nomothetical Power we mean that power which is distinguished from that which is properly call'd Political The former lies in the making Laws for the good of the Commonwealth the latter in a due execution and administration of those Laws for the Common Good This we have asserted to the Magistrate already We now come to assert the other where we shall first set down the bounds of this power and then see to whom it belongs First then we say not that the Magistrate hath a power to revoke repâ—al or alter any Divine positive Law which we have already shewn Secondly we say not that the Magistrate by his own will may constitute what new Laws he please for the Worship of God This was the fault of Ieroboam who made Israel to sin and therefore by the Rule of Reason must be supposed to sin more himself So likewise Ahab Ahaz and others Religion is a thing setled by a Divine Law and as it is taken for the Doctrine and Worship of God so it is contained in the Word of God and must be fetched wholly from thence But then thirdly The Magistrate by his power may make that which is a Divine Law already become the Law of the Land Thus Religion may be incorporated among our Laws and the Bible become our Magna Charta So the first Law in the Codex Theod. is about the believing the Trinity and many others about Religion are inserted into it Now as to these things clearly revealed in the Word of God and withall commanded by the Civil Magistrate although the primary obligation to the doing them is from the former determination by a Divine Law yet the Sanction of them by the Civil Magistrate may cause a further obligation upon Conscience then was before and may add punishments and rewards not expressed before For although when two Laws are contrary the one to the other the obligation to the Higher Law takes away the obligation to the other yet when they are of the same Nature or subordinate one to the other there may a New Obligation arise from the same Law enacted by a New Authority As the Commands of the Decalogue brought a New Obligation upon the Consciences of the Jews though the things contained in them were commanded before in the Law of Nature And as a Vow made by a man adds a new â—ye to his Conscience when the matter of his Vow is the same with what the Word of God commands and renewing our Covenant with God after Baptism renews our Obligation So when the Faith of the Gospel becomes the Law of a Nation men are bound by a double Cord of duty to entertain and profess that Faith Fourthly in matters undetermined by the Word concerning the External Polity of the Church of God the Magistrate hath the power of determining things so they be agreeable to the Word of God This last Clause is that which binds the Magistrates power that it is not absolutely Architectonicall because all his Laws must be regulated by the generall rules of the Divine Law But though it be not as to Laws yet I say it is as to persons that is that no other persons have any power to make Laws binding men to obedience but only the civil Magistrate This is another part of the Controversie between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power about the power of determining matters belonging to the Churches Government But there is here no such breach between those two but what may be made up with a distinction or
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
were not such particular Organized Churches but they were as the first matter of many congregations to be propagated out of them which after made one Society consisting of those several congregations imbodyed together and ruled by one common Government As in a Colledge every Tutor hath his own Pupils wich he rules and if we suppose but one Tutor at first in the Colledge with his Pupils all the power both common to the Society and peculiar to his Flock is joyned together but when there are many more Tutors having Pupils under their charge all these for their better ordering as a Society must be governed by the common Government of the Colledge to which the particular Government of every Tutor is and must be subordinate But this will be more fully made appear in the Original of Civil Government It is far more evident that all Civil power lay at first in Adam and his Family and afterwards in particular Families than that all Church-power lay in particular congregations at first We may then with as good Reason say that there is no lawfull civil Government now but that of particular Families and that no Nationall Government hath any right or power over particular Families because Families had once all civil Power within themselves as because it â—â— supposed that all Church-power lay first in particular congregations therefore there must be no Church-power above them nor that particular congregations are subject to such Government as is requisite for the Regulating of the Society in common as comprehending in it many particular congregations Let them shew then how any Government in the State is lawfull when Families had the first power and by what right now those Families are subordinate to the civill Magistrate and what necessity there is for it and by the very same Reasons will we shew the lawfulness of Government in the Church over many Congregations and that those are by the same right and upon the same necessity to subordinate themselves to the Government of the Church considereâ—â—â— a Society taking in many particular Congregations The Parallel runs on further and clearer still For as the heads of the severall Families after the Flood had the command over all dwelling under their Roofs while they remained in one Family and when that increased into more there power was extended over them too which was the first Original of Monarchy in the World So the Planters of the first Churches that while the Church was but one Congregation had power over it when this Congregation was multiplyed into more their Power equally extended over them all And as afterwards several heads of Families upon their increase did constitute distinct Civil Governments wherein were subordinate Officers but those Governments themselves were co-ordinate one with another So in the Church so many Congregations as make up one Provincial or National Society as succession and prudence doth order the bounds of them do make up several particular Churches enjoying their Officers ruling them but subordinare to the Governours of the Church in common Which Society National or Provincial is subordinate to none beyond its self but enjoyes a free Power within its self of ordering things for its own Government as it judgeth most convenient and agreeable to the Rules of Scripture The summe then of what I say concerning subordination of Officers and Powers in the Society of the Church is this That by the light and Law of Nature it appears that no individuall company or Congregation hath an absolute independent power within its self but that for the redressing grievances happening in them appeals are 〈…〉 to the parties aggrieved and a subordination of that particu 〈…〉 Congregation to the Government of the Society in common 〈…〉 at the right of Appealing and Originall of Subordination is from Nature the particular manner and form of subordinate and superiour Courts is to be fetched from positive Lawes the limitation of Appeals extent of jurisdiction the binding power of Sentence so far as concerns external Unity in the Church is to be fetched from the power of the Magistrate and civil Sanctions and Constitutions The Churches power as to Divine Law being onely directive and declarative but being confirmed by a civil Sanction is juridicall and obligatory Concerning the Magistrates power to call confirm alter repeal the Decrees of Synods see Grotius Chamier Whitaker Casaubon Mornay and others who fully and largely handle it To whom having nothing to add I will take nothing at all from them As for that time when the Church was without Magistrates ruling in it in those things left undetermined by the Rule of the Word they acted out of Principles of Christian Prudence agreeable to the Rules of Scripture and from the Principles of the Law of nature One of which we come in the next place to speak to So much for the Churches Power considered as a Society for ending controversies arising within its self tending to break the Peace and Unity of it CHAP. VII The fifth thing dictated by the Law of Nature That all that are admitted into this Society must consent to be governed by the Lawes and Rules of it Civil Societies founded upon mutual consent express in the first entrance implicite in others born under societies actually formed Consent as to a Church necessary the manner of Consent determined by Christ by Baptism and Profession Implicite Consent supposed in all baptized explicite declared by challenging the priviledges and observing the duties of the Covenant Explicite by express owning the Gospel when adult very usefull for recovering the credit of Christianity The Discipline of the Primitive Church cleared from Origen Iustin Martyr Pliny Tertullian The necessary requisites of Church Membership whether positive signs of Grace Explicite Covenant how far necessary not the formal Constitution of a Church * proved by several Arguments THe Law of Nature dictates That all who are admitted into this Society must consent to be governed by the Laws and Rules of that Society according to its Constitution For none can be looked upon as a Member of a Society but such a one as submits to the Rules and Laws of the Society as constituted at the time of his entrance into it That all civil Societies are founded upon voluntary consent and agreement of parties and do depend upon Contracts and Covenants made between them is evident to any that consider that men are not bound by the Law of Nature to associate themselves with any but whom they shall judge fit that Dominion and Propriety was introduced by free consent of men and so there must be Laws and Bonds fit agreement made and submission acknowledged to those Lawes else Men might plead their Naturall Right and Freedom still which would be destructive to the very Nature of these Societies When men then did first part with their natural Liberties two things were necessary in the most express terms to be declared First a free and voluntary consent to part with
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
may be a real confederation without this explicite covenant as appears in those Churches of Christ both in the primitive times and since the Reformation who have never used it which none I suppose who maintain this opinion will deny to have been true visible Churches of Christ. 2. If the Gospel-covenant entred into by any gives a right to Gospel-Ordinances by its self then an explicite covenant is not that which makes one a member of a Church but the Gospel-covenant gives that right to all Gospel-Ordinances If by Baptism the person baptized have a legal title to all Gospel-Ordinances then c. The Minor appears in that they are admitted Church-members by Baptism and how can any be a Member of a Church and not have right to all Ordinances in it supposing capacity to receive them A right once received continues till it be forfeited especially when it is such a right as is not limited to any particular priviledges but to all the priviledges of that Society into which they are entred 3. The reality of consent may be sufficiently manifested without an explicite covenant as in the joyning with those who are under the same profession in the common acts of the Society and acceptance of and submission to the Rulers of that Society which implicitely is that Covenant which they would have expressed and actions in this case are as declarative and significative as words 4. If a Church may cease to be a true Church without explicite disowning such a Covenant then it is not explicite covenanting which makes a Church but a Church may cease to be a true Church without explicite disowning it as in case of universall corruption as to Word and Sacraments as in the Church of Rome that still owns her self for a Church The ground of the consequence is from the parity of reason as to contraries But though I see no reason at all why an explicite Covenant should be so necessary to a Church that we cannot suppose a true Church without it yet I no wayes deny the lawfulnesse or expediency in many cases of having a personal profession from all baptized in Infancy when they come to age which we may if we please call Confirmation and the necessity of of desiring admission in order to participation of all Ordinances which desire of admission doth necessarily imply mens consenting to the Laws of that Society and walking according to the duties of it and so they are consequentially and virtually though not expresly and formally bound to all the duties required from them in that relation When Churches are over-run with loosnesse ignorance and prophanesse or when Christians are under persecution an externall profession of the Gospel-covenant and declaring their owning the Society they are entred into and submitting to the Laws of it may be if not wholly necessary yet very usefull and expedient And indeed at all times we see people understand so little of their duty or engagements and are so hardly brought under the exercise of Gospel-discipline that an open profession of their submission to the Rules of the Gospel seems the most likely way to advance the practise Power and purity of Religion But of this much is spoken by others lately and therefore I supersede From all this we see that every Society implying a joyning together in some common duties Nature tells us there must be a reall consenting together explicite or implicite in all persons who enter into such a Society CHAP. VIII The last thing dictated by the Law of Nature is that every Offender against the Laws of the Society must give an account of his actions to the Governours of it and submit to the censures inflicted upon him by them The originall of penalties in Societies The nature of them according to the nature and ends of Societies The penalty of the Church no civil mulct because its Laws and ends are different from civill Societies The practice of the Druids in excommunication Among the Iews whether a meer civill or sacred penalty The latter proved by six arguments Cherem Col Bo objections answered The originall of the mistake shewed The first part concluded NAture dictates further that in a well-ordered Society every offender against the Rules of that Society must give an account of his actions to the Governours of that Society and submit to the censures of it according to the judgement of the Rulers of it In all Societies subsisting by Laws men being more ruled by hopes and fears then by a sense of duty or love of goodness it is necessary for maintaining a Society that there must be not only a declaration of what men ought to do but a setting forth the penalties which they must undergo upon violation of the Laws whereon the Society doth subsist And as there must be penalties annexed as the sanction of the Law so it must of necessity be implyed in a well-ordered Society that every person as he doth promise obedience to the Law so by the same obligation he is bound to submit to the penalties upon disobedience For whatever Laws binds to duty where there is a penalty threatned doth bind likewise to punishment upon neglect of duty for no sooner is the Law broken but the offender lyes under the penall sanction of that Law and is thereby bound to give an account of himself and actions to those Governours who are bound to see the Laws obeyed or offenders punished Guilt follows immediately upon the breach of the Law which is nothing else but the offenders obligation to punishment From this obligation on the offenders part ariseth a new relation between the Governour of the Society and the offender On the Governours part a right to punish vindictive justice supposing offences committed and on the offender◠part an obligation to undergo what shall be inflicted upon him for his offence Punishment being nothing else but malum passionis ob malum actionis There must be then these things supposed in any well ordered Society Laws to be governed by Rulers to see the Laws kept or offenders punished penalties made known for offenders submission of the persons in the Societies to the penalties if they deserve them But now of what kind nature and degree the penalties must be must be resolved according to the nature end and design of the constitution of the Society If it be a Society for preservation of the rights of Bodies or Estates the penalties must be either pecuniary or corporal And the ground is because the end of legall punishment is not properly revenge but the preservation of the Society which without punishments could not be A threefold end is therefore assigned to punishments the reformation of the offending person the prevention of further offences in the Society of the same kind and the being a terrour and example to others the first is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being for the preservation of the honour of the
Magistrate the third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the punishment is inflicted upon one that others should take notice of it which must be alwayes done in a publike manner So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matthew is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things being thus in general considered come we now to apply it to the Church considered as a Society That it hath peculiar Laws to be governed by appears by the distinct nature end and design of the constitution of it which is not to preserve any outward Rights but to maintain and keep up a religious Society for the service of God and therefore the penall sanctions of these Laws cannot properly be any corporall or pecuniary mulct but somewhat answerable to the nature of the Society It must be then somewhat which implyes the deprivation of that which is the chiefest benefit of that Society The benefits of it are the priviledges and honour which men enjoy by thus associating themselves for so high an employment That punishment then must be the loss of those priviledges which the Corporation enjoyes which must be by exclusion of the offending person from communion with the Society Hence we see it is evident that which we call Excommunication is the greatest penalty which the Church as a Society can inflict upon the members of it considered as such And hence it is likewise clear that as the Society of the Church is distinct from others the Laws ends Governours of a different nature so the punishment must be a punishment distinct from civill and ordained wholly in order to the peculiar ends of this Society which they do not well consider who deny any such power as that of Excommunication peculiar to the Church which is as much as to deny that the Laws whereby the Church is ruled are different from the civil Laws or the end of this Society from the ends of civil Societies for the punishment must be proportioned to the Laws and referred immediately to its proper ends It were no wayes difficult to answer the pretences brought against this For although I acknowledge a subordination of this religious Society to the Supream Authority in the Commonwealth and that the Rules concerning the Government of the Society in common must have their sanction from thence yet this no wayes implyes but it may have its peculiar penalties and power to inflict them any more then any Company of Tradesmen have not power to exclude any from their Company for breaking the Rules of the Company because they are subordinate to the Supream Authority or any Colledge to expell any from thence for breaking the locall Statutes of it which are distinct from the common-Common-Laws Nor is it any argument that because Christians had mutuall confederations in times of persecution for the exercise of censures therefore these censures were only arbitrary and humane unless it be proved that it was not a duty in them so to confederate joyn together nor was there any antecedent obligation to inflict those censures upon offenders Much lesse thirdly because their jurisdiction is not civil and coactive therefore they have none at all which is as much as to say the Laws of Scripture are not our common-Laws therefore they are none at all I shall not here insist upon the divine Right of power to excommunicate offenders founded upon the positive Laws of Chist it being my only businesse now to shew what foundation such a power hath in the Law of Nature which we have seen doth follow upon the Churches being a distinct Society ruled by other Laws acting on other ends subsisting upon different grounds from any other Society A further evidence we have of this how consonant it is to the light of Nature from the practice of all Societies pretending to be for the Worship of God who have looked upon this as the proper penalty of offenders among them to be excluded out of those Societies Thus we find among the Druids whose great office was to take care of the worship of their gods and to instruct the people in Religion as Caesar relates Illi rebus divinis intersunt sacrificia publica ac privata procurant religiones interpretantur and accordingly the punishment of disobedience among them was excommunication from their sacrifices which they looked upon as the greatest punishment could be inflicted upon them as Caesar at large describes it Si quis aut privatus aut pubicus eorum decreto non stetit sacrificiis interdicunt haec poena apud eos est gravissima quibus ita est interdictum ii numero impiorū sceleratorum habentur iis omnes decedunt aditū eorū sermonemque defugiunt nè quid ex contagione incommodi accipiant neque iis petentibus jus redditur neque honos ullus communicatur The practice of Excommunication among the Jews is not questioned by any but the right ground and orignall of that practice with the effect and extent of it Some conceive it to have been only taken up among the Jews after the power of capitall punishments was taken from them and that it was used by them wholly upon a civill account not extending to the exclusion of men from their worship in the Temple or Synagogues but only to be a note of insamy upon offending persons This opinion though entertained by persons of much skill and learning in the Jewish antiquities yet carries not that evidence with it to gain my assent to it For first the causes of excommunication were not such as were expressed by their Law to deserve such civil punishments as might have been inflicted by them upon offenders nor were they generally matters of a civill nature but matters of offence and scandall as will appear to any that shall peruse the twenty four causes of Excommunication related out of the Jewish Writers by Selden and Ioh. Coch. Such were the neglecting the Precepts of the Scribes the vain pronouncing the Name of God bearing witness against a Iew before Heathen tribunals doing any common work in the afternoon of the day before the Passover with others of a like Nature If Excommunication had been then taken up among them onely ex confoederatâ disciplinâ to supply the defect of civil Judicatories at least all Capitall offenders must have lain under the Sentence of Excommunication But here we read not of any being Excommunicated for those but for other lesser matters which were looked upon as matters of scandal among them and though some of them were matters of civil injuries yet it follows not that men were Excommunicated for them as such but for the scandall which attended them As in the Christian Church men are Excommunicated for matters which are punishable by the civil Magistrate but not under that notion but as they are offences to that Christian Society which they live among Secondly It appears that Excommunication was not a meer civil Penalty because the increasing or abatement of that Penalty did depend upon the
and the sense of the names must neither be fetched from the custome now used nor from the Etymologie of the word but from the undoubted practice of Apostolical times if that can be made appear what it was Which will be best done if we can once find out what course and order the Apostles took in the forming and modelling the Churches by them planted That which we lay then as a foundation whereby to clear what Apostolical practice was is that the Apostles in the forming Churches did observe the customes of the Jewish Synagogues Totum regimen Ecclesiarum Christi conformatum fuit ad Synagogarum exemplar saith Grotius truly Praesides curatores Ecclesiarum ad instar Presbyterorum Synagogae Iudaicae constitutos fuisse constat as Salmasius often affirms In which sense we understand that famous speech of the Author of the Commentary on St. Pauls Epistles which goes under the name of Ambrose but now judged by most to be done by Hilary a Deacon of the Church of Rome under which name St. Augustine quotes some words on the fifth to the Romanes which are found still in those Commentaries Nam apud omnes utique gentes honorabilis est senectus unde Synagoga postea Ecclesia Seniores habuit sine quorum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesiâ which words are not to be understood of a distinct sort of Presbyters from such as were employed in preaching the Word but of such Presbyters as were the common Council of the Church for the moderating and ruling the affairs of it which the Church of Christ had constituted among them as the Jewish Synagogue had before And from hence we observe that the Ebionites who blended Judaism and Christianity together whence Ierome saith of them Dum volent Iudai esse Christiani nec Iudaei sunt nec Christiani they made a Linsey-woolsey Religion which was neither Iudaism nor Christianity These as Epiphanius tells us called their publike Meeting-place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Pastors of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thereby implying the resemblance and Analogy between the form of Government in both of them But this will best be made appear by comparing them both together For which we are to take notice how much our Saviour in the New Testament did delight to take up the received practices among the Jews only with such alterations of them as were suitable to the Nature and Doctrine of Christianity as hath been abundantly manifested by many learned men about the Rites of the Lords Supper taken from the post-coenium among the Jews the use of Baptism from the Baptism used in initiating Proselytes Excommunication from their putting out of the Synagogue As to which things it may be observed that those Rites which our Saviour transplanted into the Gospel-soyl were not such as were originally founded on Moses his Law but were introduced by a confederate Discipline among themselves And thus it was in reference to the government of the Synagogues among them for although the reason of erecting them was grounded on a command in the Levitical Law Levit. 23. 3. where holy Convocations are required upon the Sabbath-dayes yet the building of Synagogues in the Land was not as far as we can find till a great while after For although Moses require the duty of assembling yet he prescribes no orders for the place of meeting nor for the manner of spending those dayes in Gods service nor for the persons who were to super-intend the publike worship performed at that time These being duties of a moral nature are left more undetermined by Moses his Law which is most punctual in the Ceremonial part of Divine Service And therefore even then when God did determine the positives of Worship we see how much he left the performance of morals to the wisdom and discretion of Gods people to order them in a way agreeable to the mind and will of God We shall not here discourse of the more elder Customs and observations of the Synagogues but take the draught of them by the best light we can about our Saviours time when the Apostles copyed out the Government of Christian-Churches by them About the time of Christ we find Synagogues in very great request among the Jews God so disposing it that the moral part of his service should be more frequented now the Ceremonial was expiring and by those places so erected it might be more facile and easie for the Apostles to disperse the Gospel by preaching it in those places to which it was the custome for the people to resort And as Paul at Athens observing the Altar inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the unknown God takes his Text from thence and begins to preach God and Christ to them so the Apostles in every Synagogue meet with a Copy of the Law from whence they might better take their rise to discover him who was the end of the Law for Righteousness to all that believe For Moses of old time hath in every City them that Preach him being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day It was their constant custome then every Sabbath day to have the Law publickly read for which every Synagogue was furnished with a most exact Copy which was looked upon as the great Treasure and Glory of their Synagogue in the Copying out of which the greatest care and diligence was used In their Synagogues they read onely the Law and the Prophets the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hagiographa were not ordinarily read in publick the Law for the more convenient reading it was distributed into fifty four Sections which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every week one Section being read joyning twice two lesser Sections together the whole Law was read through once every year But here I cannot say that the Jews were absolutely bound up to read the several Sections appointed for the dayes as it is commonly thought from which Paraschae and the times prefixed of reading them Cloppenburgh fetched a new Interpretation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is that the first Sabbath was that of the civil year which began with the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the twenty fourth of the month Tisri but the second Sabbath after the first was the first Sabbath of the sacred Year which began with the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the Calends of Nisan but I doe not see any such Evidence of so exact and curious a Division of the several Sections so long since as the time of our Saviour is which appears by our Saviours reading in the Synagogue at Nazareth where it seems he read after the Synagogue custome as one of the seven called out by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to read before the people but we find no Section assigned him by him that delivered the book to him the Office of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is said of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Coactive nor meerly Arbitrary viz. such a one as immediately results from Divine Institution and doth suppose consent to submit to it as a necessary Duty in all the members of this Society This Power it is evident is not meerly Arbitrary either in the Governours or Members for the Governours derive their Power or right of Governing from the institution of Christ and are to be regulated by his Laws in the execution of it and the Members though their consent be necessarily supposed yet that consent is a Duty in them and that duty doth imply their submission to the Rulers of this Society neither can this power be called Coactive in the â—ense it is commonly taken for coactive power and external force are necessary correlates to each other but we suppose no such thing as a power of outward force to be given to the Church as such for that properly belongs to a Common-wealth But the power which I suppose to be lodged in the Church is such a power as depends upon a Law of a Superiour giving right to Govern to particular persons over such a Society and making it the Duty of all Members of it to submit unto it upon no other penalties then the exclusion of them from the priviledges which that Society enjoyes So that supposing such a Society as the Church is to be of Divine Institution and that Christ hath appointed Officers to rule it it necessarily follows that those Officerâ— must derive their power i. e. their right of Governing this Society not meerly from consent and confederation of parties but from that Divine Institution on which the Society depends The â—â—ht of understanding the right notion of power in the sense here â—â—â— down is certainly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Erastianism and that which hath given occasion to so many to question any such thing as Power in the Church especially when the more zealous then judicious defenders of it have rather chosen to hang it upon some doubtfull places of Scripture then on the very Naturâ— and Constitution of the Christian Church as a Society instituted by Iesus Christ. This being then the nature of power in general it is I suppose clear that an outward coactive force is not necessary in order to it for if some may have a Right to Govern and others may be obliged to obedience to those persons antecedently to any Civil Constitution then such persons have a just power to inflict censures upon such as transgress the Rules of the Society without any outward force It is here very impertinent to dispute what effects such censures can have upon wilful persons without a Coactive power If I can prove that there is a right to inflict them in Church-Officers and an Obligation to submit to them in all Offenders I am not to trouble my self with the event of such things as depend upon Divine Institutions I know it is the great Objection of the followers of Erastus that Church censures are inflicted upon persons unwilling to receive them and therefore must imply external and coactive force which is repugnant to the nature of a Church But this admits according to the Principles here established of a very easie solution for I deny not that Church Power goes upon consent but then it 's very plain here was an antecedent consent to submit to censures in the very entrance into this Society which is sufficient to denominate it a voluntary act of the persons undergoing it and my reason is this every person entring into a Society parts with his own freedom and liberty as to matters concerning the governing of it and professeth submission to the Rules and Orders of it now a man having parted with his freedom already cannot reassume it when he please for then he is under an Obligation to stand to the Covenants made at his entrance and consâ—quently his undergoing what shall be laid upon him by the Lawes of this Society must be supposed to be voluntary as depending upon his consent at first entrance which in all Societies must be supposed to hold still else there would follow nothing but confusion in all Societies in the World if every man were at liberty to break his Covenants when any thing comes to lye upon him according to the Rules of the Society which he out of some private design would be unwilling to undergo Thus much may serve to settle aright the Notion of Power the want of understanding which hath caused all the confusion of this Controversie The next thing is In what Notion we are to consider the Church which is made the subject of this Power As to which we are to consider This Power either as to its right or in actu primo or as to its exercise or in actu secundo Now if we take this Power as to the fundamental Right of it then it belongs to that Universal Church of Christ which subsists as a visible Society by vertue of that Law of Christ which makes an owning the Profession of Christianity the Duty of all Church members If we consider this Power in the exercise of it then it being impossible that the Universall Church should perform the executive part of this power relating to offences I suppose it lodged in that particular Society of Christians which are united together in one body in the community of the sâ—me Government but yet so as that the administration of this Power doth not belong to the body of the Society considered complexly but to those Officers in it whose care and charge it is to have a peculiar oversight and inspection over the Church and to redress all disorders in it Thus the visive faculty is fundamentally lodged in the Soul yet all exterior acts of sight are performed by the Eyes which are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Overseers of the Body as the other are of the Church so that the exercise and administration of this power belongs to the speciall Officers and Governours of the Church none else being capable of exercising this Power of the Church as such but they on whom it is settled by the Founder of the Church it 's self This Society of the Church may be again considered either as subsisting without any influence from the Civil Power or as it is owned by and incorporated into a Christian State I therefore demand Whether it be absolutely necessary for the subsistence of this Christian Society to be upheld by the Civil Power or no And certainly none who consider the first and purest Ages of the Christian Church can give any entertainment to the Affirmative because then the Church flourished in it's greatest purity not onely when not upheld but when most violently opposed by the Civil Power If so then it 's being united with the Civil State is onely accidental as to the constitution a Church and if this be onely accidental then it must be supposed furnished with every thing requisite to it 's well ordering accidentally to