themselves members of it Whereas were the Church and Commonwealth really and formally the same all obligation to Church society would arise meerly from the Legislative Power of the Common wealth But now there being a Divine Law binding in conscience whose obligation cannot bee superseded by any Humane Law it is plain and evident where are such vastly different obligations there are different Powers and in this sense I know no incongruity in admitting imperium in imperio if by it wee understand no external coactive power but an internal power laying obligation on conscience distinct from the power lodged in a Commonwealth considered as such An outward coactive power was alwayes disowned by Christ but certainly not an internal Power over conscience to oblige all his Disciples to what Duties hee thought fit Secondly I argue from those Officers whose rights to govern this Society are founded on that Charter whereby the Society it self subsists Now I would willingly know why when our Saviour disowned all outward power in the World yet hee should constitute a Society and appoint Officers in it did hee not intend a peculiar distinct Society from the other Societies of the world And therefore the argument frequently used against Church-power because it hath no outward force with it by the constitution of Christ is a strong argument to me of the peculiarity of a Christian society from a Commonwealth because Christ so instituted it as not to have it ruled at first by any outward force or power When Christ saith his Kingdome was not of this world he implies that he had a Society that was governed by his Laws in the world yet distinct from all mundane Societies had not our Saviour intended his Church to have been a peculiar Society distinct from a Commonwealth it is hard to conceive why our Saviour should interdict the Apostles the use of a civil coactive power Or why instead of sending abroad Apostles to preach the Gospel hee did not employ the Governours of Commonwealths to have inforced Christianity by Laws and temporal edicts and the several Magistrates to have impowred several persons under them to preach the Gospel in their several Territories And can any thing bee more plain by our Saviours taking a contrary course than that hee intended a Church society to bee distinct from civil and the power belonging to it as well as the Officers to bee of a different nature from that which is settled in a Commonwealth I here suppose that Christ hath by a positive Law established the Government of his Church upon Officers of his own appointment which I have largely prove â—â—sewhere and therefore suppose it now Thirdly I arguâ—â—â—om the peculiar rights belonging to these Societies For if every one born in the Commonwealth have not thereby a right to the priviledges of the Church nor every one by being of the Church any right to the benefits of the Commonwealth it must necessarily follow that these are distinct from one another If any one by being of the Common-wealth hath right to Church-priviledges then every one born in a Common-wealth may challenge a right to the Lords Supper without Baptism or open professing Christianity which I cannot think any will be very ready to grant Now there being by Divine appointment the several rights of Baptism and the Lords Supper as peculiar badges of the Church as a visible Society it is evident Christ did intend it a Society distinct from the Common wealth Fourthly I argue from the different ends of these societies A Common-wealth is constituted for civil ends and the Church for spiritual for ends are to be judged by the primary constitution but now it is plain the end of civil society is for preservation of mens rights as men therefore Magistracy is called by St. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this Christian society doth not respect men under the connotation of men but as Christians The answer given to this is very short and insufficient when it is said that every man in a Commonwealth is to act upon spiritual accounts and ends For there is a great deal of difference between Christianities having an influence upon mens actings in a Commonwealth and making a society the same with a Commonwealth To argue therefore from one to another is a shortness of discourse I cannot but wonder at unless it could be proved that Christianity aymed at nothing else but regulating men in the affairs of a Commonwealth which is a task I suppose will not be undertaken Lastly I argue from the peculiar offences against this society which are or â—ay bee distinct from those against a Commonwealth I deny not but most times they are the same but frequently they differ and when they are the same yet the consideration of them is different in the Church and Common wealth for which I shall suppose the six arguments produced in the last chapter of the first part to stand good which will strongly hold to exâ—â—â—â—unication in the Christian Church though there produce 〈…〉 ly for the Iewish I would fain know what is to bee done in many offences known to bee against the Laws of Christ and which tend to the dishonour of the Christian society which the civil and Municipal Laws either do not or may not take cognizance of Thus much may serve as I think to make evident that the Church in its own nature is a peculiar society distinct from a Commonwealth which was the first proposition to bee proved The second is That the power of the Church over it's members in case of offences doth not arise meerly from confederation and consent though it doth suppose it This Church power may be considered two wayes Either first as it implyes the right in some of inflicting censures Or secondly as it implyes in others the duty of submitting to censures inflicted now as to both these I shall prove that their original is higher than meer confederation 1. As to the right of inflicting censures on these accounts First What ever society doth subsist by vertue of a divine constitution doth by vertue thereof derive all power for it's preservation in peace unity and purity but it is plain that a power of censuring offenders is necessary for the Churches preservation in peace and purity and it is already proved that the Church hath its Charter from Christ and therefore from him it hath a power to inflict punishments on Offenders suitable to the Nature of the Society they are of I am very prone to think that the ground of all the mistakes on this subject have risen from hence that some imprudently enough have fixt the original of this Power on some ambiguous places of Scripture which may and it may bee ought to bee taken in a different sense and their adversaries finding those places weak and insufficient proofs of such a power have from thence rejected any such kind of power at all But certainly if wee should reject every truth that is weakly
for so at first the Presbyters were called among whom this was the course of governing Churches that as one withdrew another took his place This opinion of his he takes occasion to speak of in several other places Upon Rom. 16. Adhuc rectores Ecclesiae paucis erant in locis Governours of Churches were as yet set up but in few places And upon 1 Cor. 1. Propterea Ecclesiae scribit quia adhuc singulis Ecclesiis rectores non erant instituti And on 1 Cor. 11. Convenientibus Presbyteris quia adhâ—o rectores Ecclesiis non omnibus locis erant constituti By all which it is most evident that this both learned and antient Author cited with no small respect by St. Austin doth not conceive that the Apostle did observe any setled form in the governing of Churches but actâ—d according to principles of prudence according to the necessities and occasions of the several Churches by them planted So that where there were small Churches one Pastor with Deacons might suffice in greater Churches some were governed by Presbyters acting in common Council others though very few at first had Rectors placed over them for superintending the affairs of the Church Secondly In Churches consisting of a multitude of believers or where there was a probability of great increase by preaching the Gospel the Apostles did settle a Colledge of Presbyters whose office was partly to govern the Church already formed and partly to labour in the Converting more So that in all great Cities where either the work was already great by the number of believers in order to the discharging of Pastoral duties to them or where it was great in reference to the number they laboured in converting of it seems most consonant to reason and Scripture that the work should be carried on by the joint assistance of many associated in the same work For is it any ways probable that the Apostles should ordain Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Clemens speaks of such as should believe and not ordain persons in order to the making them believe They have either a very low opinion of the work of a Gospel-Bishop or very little consideration of the zeal activity and diligence which was then used in preaching reproving exhorting in season out of season that think one single person was able to undergo it all Discipline was a great deal more strict theâ— Preaching more diligent men more apprehensive of the weight of their function than for any to undertake such a care and charge of souls that it was impossible for them ever to know observe or watch over so as to give an account for them Besides while we suppose this one person imployed in the duties of his flock what leisure or time could such a one have to preach to the Gentiles and unbelieving Jews in order to their Conversion The Apostles did not certainly aym at the setting up the honour of any one person making the Office of the Church a matter of State and Dignity more then employment but they chose men for their activity in preaching the Gospel and for their usefulness in labouring to add continually to the Church Men that were imployed in the Church then did not consult for their â—ase or honour and thought it not enough for them to sit still and bâ—d others work but they were of Pauls mind Necessity was laid upon them yea Woe was unto them if they preached not the Gospel Publick prayers were not then looked on as the more principal end of Christian assemblies then preaching nor consequenâ—ly that it was the more principal office of the Stewardâ— of the Mysteries of God to read the publick prayers of the Church then to preach in season and out of season And is it not great pitty two such excellent and necessary duties should ever be set at variance much less one so preferred before the other that the one must be esteemed as Sarah and the other almost undergo the hardship of Hagar to be looked on as the Bond-woman of the Synagogue and be turned out of doors Praying and preaching are the Iackin and Boaz of the Temple like Rachel and Leah both which built up the house of Israel but though Rachel be fair and beautifull yet Leah is the more fruitful though prayer be lovely and amiable in the sight of God when it comes from a heart seriously affected with what it speaks yet preaching tends more to the turning mens souls from sin unto God Were the Apostles commissioned by Christ to go pray or preach and what is it wherein the Ministers of the Gospel succeed the Apostles Is it in the office of Praying or preaching Was Paul sent not to baptize but to preach the Gospel and shall we think those who succeed Paul in his office of preaching are to look upon any thing else as more their work then that Are Ministers in their ordination sent forth to be readers of publick Prayers or to be Dispensers of Gods holy Word Are they ordained wholly to this and shall this be the lesse principal part of their work I but the reason is unanswerable that praying is the more principal end of Christian-assemblies then preaching For the one is the End and the other the Means If by End be meant the ultimate end of all Christian duties that cannot be Prayer for that is a means it self in order to that but the chief end is the fitting souls for eternal prayses if then this unanswerable reason hold good the principal end of Christian assemblies must be only prayses of God and not prayers If by the End be meant the immediate end of preaching as that it referrs to that cannot be for the immediate end of preaching if the Apostle may be judge is instruction and edification in the faith Rather preaching is the end of praying in as much as the blessings conveyed by preaching are the things which men pray for But this is but one of those unhappy consequences which follows mens judging of the service of God rather by the practices of the Church when it came to enjoy ease and plenty than by the wayes and practices of the first and purest Apostolical times when the Apostles who were best able to judge of their own duty looked upon themselves as most concerned in the preaching of the Gospel But to this it is commonly said that there was great reason for it then because the world was to be converted to Christianity and therefore preaching was the more necessary work at that time but when a Nation is converted to the faith that necessity ceaseth It is granted that the preaching of the Gospel in regard of its universal extent was more necessary then which was the foundation of Christs instituting the Apostolical Office with an unlimited commission but if we take Preaching as referring to particular Congregations there is the same necessity now that there was then People need as much instruction as ever and so much the more in that they are
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
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
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
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
used to say that their Gods beg'd them all their play-days After telling us of the mirth and jollity used after their sacrifices which was alwayes the second course at these Festivalls thence the Jews called their High Festival days 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good days or days of Mirth We read of few Nations but had these Festival Solemnities for the honour of their Gods The Persians had theirs for their God Mithras The Babylonians saith Athenaeus out of Berosus had their Feast Sacaea which Casaubon would have called Sesacaea because Babylon in Scripture is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sesac as the Ludi Romani were from Rome It is to no purpose to mention the Festivals observed by the Greeks and Romans in honour of their Gods being so many that whole books have been composed of them That which I observe from hence is that Societies for the Worship of God are Natural because of their solemn resting from their ordinary labour upon days appointed for the honour of their Gods Thereby shewing they looked upon those as peculiar days and themselves as peculiar Societies upon those days from what they were at other times One thing more evidenceth this among them their solemn and secret Mysteries which were Societies on purpose as pretended for this very end in honor of their Gods Their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they were wont to call them preserved with the greatest secrecy by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their great and lesser Eleusinian Samothracian Cotyttian Mithriacal Mysteries to which none were admitted without passing through many degrees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before they came to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectly initiated Wherein they were much imitated by the Christians in the Celebration of the Lords Supper about the fourth or fifth Century as is largely showed by Casaubon in a most learned Diutriba on this Subject in his Exercitations to which I refer the Reader We see what strict Rules they had for Admission of any into these pretendedly Sacred but truly most impious Societies In those of Mithras as Suidas and Nonnus tell us they passed through eighty degrees before they were throughly initiated and seldome escaped with life However we may gain from them this general notion that they looked on a peculiar distinct Society as necessary for the worship and honor of the Deity they served Thus we see à posteriori how a distinct Society for Gods Worship appears to be a Dictate of Nature We shall now see if we can evidence à priori that it is a Dictate of Nature that there must be some Society for the Worship of God Three things will make that appear First The sociableness of Mans Nature Man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Creature that loves to herd it self with those of his own kind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a man had all other comforts of life and wanted Society he would not think his life worth leading as Aristotle observes who further takes notice of the sociableness of mans Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the general commendation that is given to courteous and affable men I deny not but in the entring into a Civil State or Society either fear or profit might be a main inducement to it but though it be an inducement yet there must be supposed an inclinableness to a Society or a Commonwealth might be assoon set up among Tygers as Men. So that they have very little ground of Reason who from the external inducements of fear or profit in entring into Civil Societies do conclude against the sociableness of Mans Nature If then Mans Nature be sociable in all other things then Nature will tell men they ought to be so in things of common concernment to them all and which is every ones work or duty as Religion is if in other things men are sociable much more in this For Secondly Religion gives a great improvement to mans sociable Nature and therefore Plutarch well calls Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Foundation that knits and joynts Societies together And thence wisely observes that in the Constitution of Laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first and greatest thing to be looked at is the Religion established or the Opinions men entertain of the Gods To which he subjoyns this excellent reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is more impossible for a Commonwealth either to be formed or subsist without Religion then a City to si and without Foundations Thence a prudent States-man called Religion the best Reason of State It appears then evidently both from reason and experience that Religion hath a great influence upon the modelling and ordering Civil Societies whence as the same Moralist observes Lycurgus did as it were consecrate the Lacedaemonians with Religious Rites as Numa the Romans Ion the Athenians and Deucalion the Hellens Whence some half-witted men but I know not whether more defective in wit or grace have observing the great influence Religion hath to keep men in order been ready to look upon it as only a Politick device to awe men with greater ease It is not here a place largely to Examine and Refute this unworthy pretence Only I adjure them by their onely Goddess Reason to tell me whence come men to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Plutarch expresseth it To be so easily awed by the hopes and fears of another life more then other creatures are Why are they at all affected with the discourse of them Why cannot they shake off the thoughts of these things when they please Are not men hereby made the most miserable of creatures For no other creature can be perswaded that it shall ever quench its thirst in those Rivers of pleasures nor make its bed in everlasting flames The beasts of Sardinia that have their only refreshment by the Dew of Heaven yet have never any hopes to â—ome there The Lyon never keeps from his prey by the thoughts and fears of a great Tribunal But suppose onely mankind of all creatures should be liable to be thus imposed on as is pretended How comes it to pass that in no age of the world this Imposture hath not been discovered confuted and shaken off by some people as wise as themselves Or have there never been any such in the world But whence come some men then to be wiser then others Whence come some to know things which all the Reason in the World could never finde out without Revelation Whence comes a power to doe any thing above the course of Nature if there be nothing but Nature Or are all men deceived that believe such things If so then there must be somewhat that must deceive men men would not deceive themselves and they could not be so long imposed upon by other men there must be then some evil spirit must do it and whence should that come from Nature too but then whence comes Nature its self from its self too or some thing ' else
word belonging to sacrificing exta Diâ—s cum dabant porricere dicebant Varro then it was lawfull to open the Courts but again when the sacrifice was offered it was not By which we see as from the light of Nature that what dayes and times whether weekly monthly or Anniversary were designed and appointed as dies Festi for the service of God were to be spent wholly in order to that end and not to give some part to God and take others to themselves as they were wont to do in their sacrifices to offer up some part to the Gods and feast upon the rest themselves as Athenaeus tells us that Conon and Alcibiades offered such Hecatombs to the Gods that they entertained the people upon the remainders of them And from hence we may see how far short of natural light their Religion falls who make no scruple of spending a great part of the dayes devoted to Gods worship in following either their imployments or recreations Which latter seem more directly to impugne the end of such time appointed then the other in as much as recreations tend more to the ratifying mens spirits and evaporating them into lightnesse and vanity and so discomposing them for the duties of spirituall worship then mens serious and lawfull callings do But further we observe among the Romans severall sorts of dayes appointed for publike worship Macrobius reckons up four sorts of them Stative Conceptivae Imperativae Nundinae Stativae were the set festivall dayes observed every year by the whole people and marked for that end in their Fasti. Such were the Agonalia Carmentalia Lupercalia which are marked with red Letters in the Fasti consulares or the Calendarium Romanum by Ios. Scaliger call'd Calendarium Colotianum which may be seen at large in Mr. Selden besides which their other anniversary festivals are there set down which Tertullian saith being all put together Pentecostem implere non poterunt make not up the number of fifty and so not so many as our Lords Dayes in a year are Conceptivae were such festivals as were annually observed but the dayes of the keeping them were every year determined by the Magistrates of the Priests as Latinae Sementivae Paganalia Compitalia Imperativa were such as the Consuls or Praetors did command at their own pleasure Such were their solemn supplications in times of trouble and their dayes of Triumph and Thanksgiving for Victories The Nundinae were those which returned every ninth day and therefore the Letter by which they observed the return of the ninth day was H. as among us Christians G. which because it notes the return of the Lords Dayes we call the Dominical Letter These Nundinae were the days when the Country people brought in their wares into the City to be sold which were anciently observed as festival dayes sacred to Iupiter but by the Lex Hortensia were made Dies fasti for determining the Controversies that might arise among the people in their dealings as the Court of Pye-powder was instituted among us upon the same account So much for the solemnity of time used in the service of God Another evidence of the solemnity of Woâ—ship was the extraordinary care of the Heathens in preparing themselves for it by cleansing and purifying themselves with water for which purpose they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for cleansing their hands and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 standing at the porch of their Temples for their whole bodies which custome was generally observed by the Heathens as is very obvious in the severall Writers of their Customs in sacrificing besides which they observed likewise this washing with water by way of lustration and expiation of their faults as Triclinius the Sholiast on Sophocles tells us it was an antient custome when men had murthered others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wash their hands in expiation of their guilt as Orestes did in Pausanias after the killing his mother and some think Pilate in the Gospel did so for the same end but his was only to declare his innocency and not to expiate his sin as is observed by many upon that place But however from hence we may take notice of the Spring and Fountain of the Popes Holy-water which was consecrated by Numa long before Alexander 1. to whom Polydore Virgil and others attribute the first use of it in the Christian Church And as the use of it and the manner of sprinkling it is the same among the Papists as it was among the Heathen so likewise the end of it witness the old Rime Hac aqua benedicta deleat mihi mea delicta Which may be sufficiently answered with the Ceâ—sure of a Heathen Ah nimiùm faciles qui tristia crimina caediâ— Tolli flùmineâ posse putatis aquâ Too easie souls who think the spots of blood Can be wash'd out with every watry flood But from this I pass to the solemnity in their Worship it self evidenced by the generall silence commanded in it which appears by Horace's Favete linguis Ovids Ore favent populi nunc cum venit aurea pompa Virgils fida silentia sacris Festus ' s Linguam pascito i. e. coerceto The Egyptians setting Harpocrates his Image in the entrance to their Temples and the Romans placing the Statue of Angerona on the Altar of Volupia The Greeks had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Iulius Pollux tells us which Plautus calls facere audientiam to command silence much as the Deacons afterwards did in the Primitive Church who were wont to command silence by their Orarium and were thence call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Christians for though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applyed to the Bishop and Presbyters did signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach yet as it was applyed to the Deacons it implyed only their commanding silence in order to the prayers of the Catechumeni call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristenus observes on Concil Carthag can 106. But this by the way The formula used by the Greeks in commanding silence was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which Aristonicus the Fidler alluded when in the Market place of Mylassa a Town in Caria he saw many Temples and but few Citizens he cryed out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I passe these things over as being commonly known only observing from them the solemnity of their publick devotions which is further seen in their solemn excluding unfit persons from partaking with them in their sacrifices Of which Virgil Ovid Statius Silius Italicus and others among the Romans speak and the Lictor in some Sacrifices stood up saith Festus and cryed aloud Hostis mulier vinctus exesto i. e. extra esto and to keep unfit persons the better ff the Flamines had a Commentaculum a kind of Rod in their hands Among
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
Thanksgiving Reading of Scriptures in the plainest and simplest manner were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy though nothing either of private Opinion or of Church Pomp of Garments or prescribed Gestures of Imagenary of Musick of matter concerning the dead of many Superfluities which creep into the Church under the name of Order and Decency did interpose it self To charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary was the first beginning of all Superstition and when scruple of conscience began to be made or pretended then Schism began to break in if the special Guides and Fathers of the Church would be a little sparing of incumbring Churches with Superfluities or not over-rigid either in reviving obsolete customes or imposing new there would be far less cause of Schism or Superstition and all the inconvenience were likely to ensue would be but this they should in so doing yield a little to the imbecillity of their inferiours a thing which Saint Paul would never have refused to do mean while wheresoever false or suspected Opinions are made a piece of Church-Liturgy he that separates is not the Schismatick for it is alike unlawful to make profession of known or suspected falshood as to put in practice unlawful or suspected actions Thus far that excellent person whose words I have taken the pains to transcribe because of that great wisdome judgement and moderation contained in them and the seasonableness of his Counsel and Advice to the present posture of affairs among us Were we so happy but to take off things granted unnecessary by all and suspected by many and judged unlawful by some and to make nothing the bonds of our Communion but what Christ hath done viz. one Faith one Baptism c. Allowing a liberty for matters of indifferency and bearing with the weakeness of those who cannot bear things which others account lawfull we might indeed be restored to a true Primitive luster far sooner then by furbishing up some antiquated ceremonies which can derive their pedegree no higher then from some ancient Custome and Tradition God will one day convince men that the Unnion of the Church lies more in the Unity of Faith and Affection then in uniformity of doubtful Rites and Ceremonies The bond of Church-communion should be somthing common to strong and weak Christians as S. Austin saith of the rule of faith that it is pusillis magnisque communis and certainly the Primitive Church that did not charge mens faith with such a load of Articles as now in these latter ages men are charged with would much less burden men with imposing doubtful practices upon them as the ground of Church-communion And for publick forms of Divine Service such of all things certainly should be so composed as to be the least subject to any scruple from any persons whatsoever being on purpose composed for the declaring mens unity and consent in their publick worship and those who are the most addicted to any one form can never plead it unlawful to amend it whereas others may that it is not lawful or convenient at least to use it without such alterations And therefore were there that spirit of mutual condescention which was most certainly in Ecclesiâ primo-primitivâ as Gratian somwhere speaks in the first and truly primitive Church in the Apostles time our breaches as to this thing too might soon be closed up and the voice of Schism be heard among us no more It argued very much the prudence and temper of the French-Churches in composing their publick forms of prayer that they were so far from inserting any thing controversiall into them that Amyraldus tels us the Papists themselves would use them Et quod vix credibile esset nisi publicè viseretur eas inseruerunt in eos libros in quos congesserunt varias precationum formulas And that which men would scarce believe unless they saw it they inserted them into their own Prayer-books The same temper was used by our Reformers in the composing our Liturgy in reference to the Papists to whom they had then an especial eye as being the only party then appearing whom they desired to draw into their communion by coming as near them as they well and safely could And certainly those Holy men who did seek by any means to draw in others at such a distance from their principles as the Papists were did never intend by what they did for that end to exclude any truly tender consciences from their Communion That which they laid as a bait for them was never intended by them as a hook for those of their own profession But the same or greater reason which made them seek so much at that time before the rent between the Papists and us was grown to that height it is now at they being then in hopes by a fair complyance to have brought the whole Kingdom to joyn with them I say the same reason which at that time made them yield so far to them then would now have perswaded them to alter and lay aside those things which yield matter of offence to any of the same profession with themselves now For surely none will be so uncharitable toward those of his own profession as not to think there is as much reason to yield in complyance with them as with the Papists And it cannot but be looked upon as a Token of Gods severe displeasure against us if any though unreasonable Proposals of Peace between us and the Papists should meet with such entertainment among many and yet any fair Offers of Union and Accommodation among our selves be so coldly embraced and entertained Having thus far shewed how far the Obligation to keep in a Church Society doth reach to the several Members of it I now proceed to shew what way the light of nature directs men to for the quieting and composing any differences which may arise in such a Society tending to break the Peace of it But before I come to the particular wayes directed to by the Law of Nature for ending Controversies in the Church I shall lay down some things by way of caution for the right understanding of what is already spoken lest I should be thought instead of pleading for peace to leave a door open for an universal liberty and so pave a new cawse-way towards Babel First That though it be lawful not to conform to unlawful or suspected practises in a Church yet it is not therefore lawful to erect new Churches For all other essentials supposed in a Church a meer requiring conformity in some suspected rites doth not make it to be no true or sound Church as to other things from which it is lawful to make a total divorce and separation A total separation is when a new and distinct society for worship is entered into under distinct and peculiar officers governing by Laws and Church-rules different from that form which they separate from This I do not assert to be therefore lawfull because some things
person's Repentance and desire of Absolution Now civil Penalties do not regard the intention and mind of the Person but the quality and desert of the Action the Reason is because Humane Lawes do respect immediately actionem ipsam and not animum agentis unless it be onely so far as the mind hath influence upon the Action But now it is otherwise in such Lawes which take immediate Notice of the intention of the minde and onely of outward Actions as they are significative and expressive of the inward intention for in these though the ground of proceeding to Penalties be from the notice taken of the outward Action yet that outward Action being subject to Penalty as expressive of the minds intention where there may be sufficient evidence given of the Integrity and Uprightness of the Intention afterwards there may be proportionably a Relaxation of the penalty because the end of the Penalty inflicted was not to be an Act of Justice excluded from Mercy in the end of Administration as in Civil Judicatories but an Act of Justice whose end was mercy that is the regaining and recovering the offenders soul from sin by inflicting such a penalty upon him as might humble him under the sense of it Hence appears the great reasonablenesse of their proceedings in the managery of Discipline in the primitive times who did not fix a certain time as a standing Law for all offenders but did encrease or lessen both the time and weight of their penance according to the evidences given of their submission and true repentance for their miscarriages That it was thus now in reference to excommunication among the Jews appears from what is asserted by the learned Buxtorf concerning the time of the lesser excommunication called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niddui which remained thirty dayes usually but were shortned by confession and desire of absolution durat 30. dies qui tamen poenitentiâ deprecatione decurtantur But if after thirty dayes past he continue impenitent the Judge as he sees sit encreaseth the punishment so as to double or treble the time or extend it to his whole life if he dyed without repentance a stone is laid upon his Bier to shew he deserved lapidation they wept not for him nor buryed him in the common place of buriall Further Buxtorf there alledgeth this constitution of their Law that if he that was under Niddui and desired not absolution was the second time under it if that did no good on him then he was excommunicated with the higher sort of excommunication called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is likewise observed by Ioh. Coch. Mr. Selden and others From whence it is evident that this was an Ecclesiasticall censure and not meerly Civill because the main end of it was not satisfaction to the Law but the repentance of the person who lay under the fault and according to the evidence given of it the penalty was relaxed or encreased which argument not yet taken notice of nor improved by Writers on this subject seems to make the case clear that excommunication among the Jews was not a meer out-lawry as some conceive it to have been Thirdly I argue If it was not the breach of the Law but the publikeness of the offence or the scandall of it which was the ground of excommunication then it was not a meer civil penalty but an Ecclesiasticall censure for civill penalties do proceed upon the breach of the Law and alter not as to the publikeness or privateness of the offence but here it is evident that the same offence deserving excommunication if done in publike did not if done in private or was left at the persons liberty to have the offender excommunicated or not That which is reckoned as the first cause of excommunication is affront or contempt put upon a wise man or Rabbi or one that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Student in the Law now it is determined by them in this case that if it were done in private the Rabbi might pardon him but if in publike he could not For as Ioh. Coch. gives the reason publicum Doctoris ludibrium in legis contemptum redundas the contempt of publike Teachers of the Law redounds to the dishonour of the Law its self Thus it was the scandall of the fault and not the bare offence which made excommunication necessary among them and not as that scandall was a meer defamation of the person but as it redounded to the contempt of the Law Fourthly I argue from the form used in excommunication by them There are two forms produced of their excommunications the one by Buxtorf out of an old Hebrew Manuscript the beginning of which is Ex sententiâ Domini Dominorum sit in Anathemate Ploâ—i filius Ploni in utraque domo judicii superiorum sc. inferiorum c. where two things evidence it was accounted a sacred and no civill action doing it immediately in the name and authority of the Lord of lords and pronouncing him excommunicate both in Heaven and Earth So R. Elieser speaking of the Excommunication of the Cuthites or Samaritans Atque anathemate devovebant Cuthaos mysterio nominis Amphorasch Scriptura exarata in tabulis anathemate domus judicii superioris atque anathemate curia inferioris as it is translated by Guli Vorstius who in his Notes upon that Book produceth a most dreadfull sentence of Excommunication used to this day in many Synagogues which they call Cherem Col Bo. from the book whence it is taken which runs most solemnly in the several names of God whereby they do Chamatize curse and devote the persons against whom it is pronounced Fifthly It appears not to be a meerly civil thing instead of civill power because they use it against those over whom they have no civill Jurisdiction as appears by their Schamatizing the Christians in their Liturgies as Buxtorf observes Sixthly I argue from the Effects of it because they who lay under it were excluded from publike Worship which is averred by Buxtorf Gocâ— and others in the places forecited It is acknowledged that he that was onely under Niddui might be present at publike Worship but even there he was under his Separation too of four Cubits from any other Israelite And hence in probability might the mistake arise because those under Niddui might appear at the Temple or Synagogue therefore Excommunication was no prohibition à Sacris But he that was under Cherem Non docet non docetur Neither teacheth others nor is taught himself saith Ioh. Cocceius and Buxtorf of one under Cherem omninò à coetu sacro excluditur and in this sense Buxtorf expresly takes the turning out of the Synagogue Ioh. 9. 22 12. 42. which saith he is done by Cherem But against this it is strongly pleaded by our Learned Mr. Selden that putting out of the Synagogue is nothing else but Excommunicating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to separate from the Congregation taking
Feasts at Ierusalem conforms to all the Rites and Customs in use then not only those commanded by God himself but those taken up by the Jews themselves if not contrary to Gods commands as in observing the feast of Dedication in going into their Synagogues and teaching so often there in washing the Feet of the Disciples a custome used by them before the Passeover in using baptism for the proselyting men to the profession of Christianity c. In these and other things our Saviour conformed to the received practice among them though the things themselves were no wayes commanded by the Law of Moses And after his Resurrection when he took care for the forming of a Church upon the doctrine he had delivered yet we find not the Apostles withdrawing from communion with the Jews but on the contrary we find the Disciples frequenting the Temple Act. 2. 46. Act. 3. 1. Act. 5. 20 21 26. Whereby it appears how they owned themselves as Jews still observing the same both time and place for publike Worship which were in use among the Jews We find Paul presently after his conversion in the Synagogues preaching that Christ whom he had before persecuted and where ever he goes abroad afterwards we find him still entering into the Synagogues to preach where we cannot conceive he should have so free and easie admission unlesse the Jews did look upon him as one of their own Religion and observing the same customs in the Synagogues with themselves only differing in the point of the coming of the Messias and the obligation of the ceremonial Law the least footsteps of which were seen in the Synagogue-worship But that which yet further clears this is the general prejudice of the Disciples against the Gentiles even after the giving of the Holy Ghost as appears by their contending with Peter for going in to men uncircumcised It is evident that then the Apostles themselves did not clearly apprehend the extent of their Commission for else what made Peter so shy of going to Cornâ—lius but by every creature and all nations they only apprehended the Jews in their dispersions abroad or at least that all others who were to be saved must be by being proselyted to the Jews and observing the Law of Moses together with the Gospel of Christ. And therefore we see the necessity of circumcision much pressed by the believing Jews which came down from Ierusalem which raised so high a Dispute that a Convention of the Apostles together at Ierusalem was called for the ending of it And even there we find great heats before the businesse could be decided 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After there had been much disputing Nay after this Council and the determination of the Apostles therein all the ease and release that was granted was only to the Gentile-converts but the Jews stick close to their old Principles still and are as zealous of the customes of the Jews as ever before For which we have a pregnant testimony in Act. 21. 20 21 22. Where the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem tell Paul there were many myriads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of believing Iews who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all very zealous for the Law still and therefore had conceived a sinister opinion of Paul as one that taught a defection from the Law of Moses saying they might not circumcise their Children nor walk after the customs One copy reads it as Beza tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to follow the custome of their Fathers We see how equally zealous they are for the customes obtaining among them as for the Law its self And is it then any wayes probable that these who continued such Zealots for the customs among them should not observe those customs in use in the Synagogues for the Government of the Church Might not they have been charged as well as Paul with relinquishing the customs if they had thrown off the model of the Jewish Synagogue and take up some customes different from that And that which further confirms this is that this Church of Ierusalem continued still in its zeal for the Law till after the destruction of the Temple and all the several Pastors of that Church whom Ecclesiastical Writers call Bishops were of the circumcision For both we have the testimony of Sulpitius Severus speaking of the time of Adrian Et quia Christiani ex Iudaeis potissimum putabantur namque tum Hierosolymae non nisi ex circumcisione habebat Ecclesia sacerdotem militum cohortem custodias in perpetuum agitare jussit quae Iudaeos omnes Hierosolymae aditu arceret Quod quidem Christiana fidei proficiebat quia tum pene omnes Christum Deum sub legis observatione credebant We see hereby that the Christians observed still the Law with the Gospel and that the Jews and Christians were both reckoned as one body which must imply an observation of the same Rites and Customes among them For those are the things whereby Societies are distinguished most Now it is evident that the Romans made no distinction at first between the Jews and Christians Thence we read in the time of Claudius when the Edict came out against the Jews Aquila and Priscilla though converted to Christianity were forced to leave Italy upon that account being still looked on as Jews yet these are called by Paul his helpers in Christ Iesus For which Onuphrius gives this reason Nullum adhuc inter Iudaeos Christianos discrimen noscebatur which account is likewise given by Alphonsus Ciaconius Congeneres comprofessores ejusdem religionis gentilibus censebantur Christiani pariter ac Iudaei The Edict of Claudius we may read still in Suetonius Iudaeos impulsore Christo assiduè tumultuantes Roma expulit We find here the Edict fully expressed for banishing the Jews and the occasion set down which most interpret of the Doctrine of Christ as the occasion of the stirs between the Jews and Christians For the Romans called Christ Chrestus and Christians Chrestiani as the authors of the Christians Apologies against the Heathens often tell us But Marcellus Donatus conjectures this Christus to have been some seditious Jew called by that name for which he brings many Inscriptions wherein the name occurrs but none wherein it is given to a Jew which should be first produced before we leave the received interpretation of it However that be we see the Jews and Christians equally undergo the punishment without any difference observed in them and therefore when Paul was brought before Gallio the Proconsul of Achaia he looked upon the difference between the Jews and Paul to be only a Question of words and names and of their Law and thereupon refused to meddle with it And so Celsus upbraids both Jews and Christians as though their contentions were about a matter of nothing By all this we may now consider how little the Christians did vary from the customs and practice of the Jews when