manisest that by the leter of the Law Deut. XIV 23. XVIII 4. Num. XVIII 12. of all fruits of the earth onelyCome and Oile and Wine are Tithable Of living creatures the Tith goes not to the Levites who payed the Priesthood the Tenth of their Tithes but to the Altar that is they are to be sacrificed to God So that by this means the Priests and Levites themselves paid this Tith as well as other Israelites and that no more to the interest and advantage of the Priesthood than the Paschal Lambs which they also sacrificed for Tithe cattel went to the owners as the Paschal Lambs did the Law having provided onely that they should be holy to the Lord Levis XXVII 32. that is sacrificed to God their bloud sprinkled upon the Altar and their flesh eaten in Jerusalem Which Law providing also that this Tith he onely of the Herd or of the flock that is of Bullock Sheep or Goat that passeth under the rod they that will derive the Churches claime of Tithes from the Levitical Law must by consequence tye themselves to these Terms Which would be not to abridge the claime but to destroy it For though many kindes besides these were Tithable among the Jewes by virtue of the Constitutions of the Synagogue yet that would not advantage the Church which forsaking the Synagogue for refusing Christianity cannot avail it self of the authority of it And truly hee that would insist that the Law is in force for the payment of Tithes to the Church will never be able to give a reason why it should not be in force for observing the Sabbath that is the Saturday for being circumcised and keeping all the Festivals and Sacrifices and Purifications of the Ceremonial Law and much more the Civil Law of that people as much contrary to the Civil Law of Christian people as to Christianity seeing that whatsoever is contained in that Law which is made void by Christianity must be understood to be void till it appear to be contained and imported in that Act which introduceth and establisheth Christianity in stead of the Law Indeed I must not say that the Levitical Law is the onely evidence that is alleged for the right of Tithes in the Church For every man knowes that Abrahams paying Tithes to Metchiseck the Priest of the most high God Gen. XIV 20. and Jacobs paying Tithes or vowing to pay them Gen. XXVIII 22. are alleged as indeed they ought to be alleged to show that paying of Tithes was in force under the Law of Nature that is in the time of the Patriarchs before the Ceremonial Law In which regard God faith that Tithes are his Levis XXVII 30 to wit by a Law introduced afore And the consequence hereof seems to be more effectual to the Church than that which is drawn from the Levitical Law in that consideration which the Fathers of the Church do presse with advantage enough against the Jewes that the Patriarchs were the fore-runners of Christians and that Christianity is more ancient than Judaisme in regard that the same service of God in spirit and truth by the inward obedience of the heart was in being in the lives of the Patriarchs as the Gospel requires before the scrupulous and precise and supperssitious observation of bloudy sacrifices and smoke of fat and incense and troublesom purifications of the outward man and the rest of Moses positive Law was required For if the Law of Nature and the conversation of the Patriarchs under it is indeed the pattern of Christianity and of the life of Christians under the Gospel expressed by deed before wee finde it indented for by Covenant Then certainly that which ought to be out-done by the Church is not abrogated by Christianity But this argument being made and allowed to be of force hee that therefore should say that the Church claimeth this right by virtue of that Law whereby it was in force under the Patriarchs would be presently lyable to peremptory instances of the difference of clean and unclean creatures Gen. Vll. 2. Of raising up feed to a brother deceased Gen. XXXVIII II. Of the Polygamy of the Patriarchs and others which though then in force under the Gospel hold not Wherefore it is not to be said that the Law of that time is the act whereby the Church claimes but a ground whereupon the act whereby the Church claimes was done In like maner hee that should affirm this right due to the Church by virtue of the Levitical Law would meet with these exceptions peremptory as I suppose that have been advanced But when it hath been said and made good that the Levitical Law supposing the Gospel ordained by God to succeed it yields a sufficient ground to argue that a provision answerable thereunto was to be established in the Church as the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel between the Synagogue and the Church requireth I say this being premised there remaines nothing in question but how the establishing of it may be derived from the act of them that had the settling of the Church in their hands Considering then that provision is made by the Law onely for the maintenance of Gods Ceremonial service confined to Jerusalem for a powerfull evidence that the intent of that Covenant expressed no more than the Land of Promise that the promise of bringing the Gentiles to Christianity and the real destruction of the Law with the Place of this service inferrs the service of God in all places in spirit and truth to succeed it under the Gospel and by it that no order for all Nations that should be converted to resort to this service can be maintained without a Society or Corporation of the Church visibly telling them whither to resort for that purpose Upon these premiâ—es it will be of necessary consequence that the like provision for the maintenance of that service of God which the Church professeth be made to that which had been made for the service of God at Jerusalem during the time of the Synagogue Now the maintenance of Gods service in the Church with the maintenance of the Church subsisting for no other end than that service consists in the maintenance of those persons that are to attend on Gods service Of which persons there are two sorts The first is of those that attend either upon the Government of the Church or else upon the minisâ—ring of those Offices which God is served with by his Church unto the Assemblies of his people The second sort is of those that to preserve this temporal life being obliged to attend upon the imployment of it cannot spare themselves and their time to attend on Gods service It was therefore necessary that Christian people should contribute the first-fruits of their goods in Tithes and oblations to the Church by which those that attended upon the publick government of it as well as upon ministring the Offices of Christianity should both maintain themselves and be trusted to maintain the
Circumcision John VII 22. Such was the Law of mourning for the dead so much in force at giving the Law that upon the death of Aarons sons it was necessary that a Law should presently come forth incerdicting the Priests to mourne for them upon paine of death the rest of the people remaining under that Law Though Aaron thereupon excuses himself that they did not feast upon the sinne offering upon that day of mourning and is accepted Levit. X. 5 to 19. This the Law introduceth not but was in force under the Fathers as wee see Gen. L. 2 10. XXVII 41. The same is to be said of the seven dayes in which Marriages were celebrated under the Law as wee see in Sampson Judg. XIV 12 15 17. which is doubled Tobâ— VIII 22. no where introduced by the Law no more than the seven dayes or seventy dayes or thirty dayes of mourning Gen. L. 2. Deut. XXXIV 8. The like of answering adjurations which the Law Levit. V. 1. presupposes as also Prov. XXIX 24. as a duty then received that if a man conjure all that know any thing of his businesse to declare what they know all that heare him stand bound to declare their knowledge in it For for this cause it is that the Law supposing him guilty of perjury that conceals his knowledge in that case makes him liable to the sacrifice for expiâ—tion of perjury as you may see Levit. V. 1. And by virtue of this custome among Gods people not onely stood they bound to answer the High Priest as our Lord answers Caâ—aphas Mat. XXVI 63. or the King 1 Kings XXII 18. 2 Chron. XVIII 15. Jos VII 19. Job IX 24. but also private men in the Coâ—â— where their cause was hearing adjuring all that were present to testifie their knowledge in their causes if wee believe the Jewes Constitutions In like maner wee have nothing ordained in the Law that Tithes should be payed or that it should be lawfull or acceptable to God to consecrate any other part of their goods to the service of God or to make Vowes of abstinence from things otherwise lawfull But wee have it determined by the Law what kindes shall be Tithable what Vowes shall stand good what sacrifice shall be offered by him that transgresses his Vow how every thing that a man freely consecrates to the service of God shall be valued in money Levit. XXVII 1-30 Psal XV. 4. Gen. XIV 20. XXVIII 22. Numb XVIII 29. The like is to be said of many other Lawes which being in the Old Testament mentioned as in force by custome and no where introduced by the Lawes of Moses must be presumed to descend by Tradition from the Fathers Which hee that believes as it cannot be doubted must of necessity acknowledge that not onely the principles and grounds of spiritual and inward obedience to God for Gods sake but also the precepts wherein it consists are rather presupposed by the Law than introduced by it And therefore may well be said to be translated out of the Law of Nature into Moses Law when they are mentioned by it Though hereunto I must adde this That they had not onely the doctrine of their Fathers afore the Law to introduce and to regulate this inward obedience but also the Prophets under the Law The intent of whose Office was not onely to reclaime them from Idol to their own true God but also to instruct them wherein consisted not so much that civil and outward observation of his Law which it promiseth to reward with temporal happinesse in the Land of Promise as that spiritual and inward obedience to God from which they might conceive competent ground of hope toward the world to come Every man knows how ready they were to fall from God all the time whereof wee have the records in the Scriptures before the Captivity of Babylon After that time wee do not finde that ever they â—ell to the worship of Idols but wee finde abundantly by the reproofs of the Scribes and Pharisees by our Lord in the Gospels that the next sinne to it of Superstition and Hypocrisie was soon come in insâ—eaâ— of it When by the outward observation of the Ceremonial and Judicial Lawes they promised themselves the favor of God and the reward of the world to come As by paying Tithes precisely Mat. XXIII 23. Luc. XI 42. XVIII 12. by washing their hands and vessels according to the Tradition of their Predecssors Mar. VII 4 8. Mat. XXIII 25 26. Luc. XI 39. by punctually observing the Sabbath Mat. XII 1-12 Mar. II. 23-28 Luc. VII 1-9 XIII 10-16 XIV 1-5 Joh. V. 9 inlarging their Phylacteries and fringes Mat. XXIII 5. by many things more which are to be read up and down the Gospels This disease could not have been reproved by our Lord by the testimony of the Prophet Esay Mat. XV. 9. Mar. VII 7. Esa XXIX 13. had it not taken root even before the Captivity when as yet they were so subject to fall to the worship of false Gods Therefore wee finde the reproof of this superstitious and hypocritical confidence in the Sacrifices which they thought to bribe God with and other outward performances of the Law to be the ordinary work of the most part of the Prophets David Psal XL. 7 12. Psal L. 8-13 LI. 18. The Prophet Samuel 1 Sam. XV. 22. The Prophet Esay of Sacrifices and Festivals Esa I. 11-20 Of their Fasts Esa LVIII 3-10 Of their serving God by Traditions Esa XXIX 13. The Prophet Jeremy that God required not Sacrifices but obedience Jer. VII 21 22 23. and concerning patience and hope in the afflictions which hee sendeth Lam. III. 25-33 The Prophet Hosea in the Calves of our lips Hos XIV 2. The Prophet Micah when hee teacheth what they should come before God with Micah VI. 6 7 8. The Prophet Zachary of celebrating their Fasts Zac. VII 3-10 VIII 16 19. In fine all the Prophets in their instructions and exhortations to the inward obedience of God in spirit and in truth have showed themselves true fore-runners of our Lord Christ and his Apostles Not onely in preaching the principal intent of the Law to be the same which the Gospel pretends to covenant for but in suffering as well for this as for reproving Idolaters at the hands of those that taught for doctrines the Traditions of men the like things as our Lord and his Apostles suffered for the same cause at the hands of the Scribes and Pharisees First then the acknowledgment of one God that disposeth of all things and knowes the secrets of all hearts expresly covenanted for by Moses Law by consequence of right reason infers the duty of spiritual obedience to him in all his commands Secondly the Fathers before the Law had delivered the Prophets after the Law did preach the same no lesse than they did the acknowledgment of the true God but more principally than the outward observation of the Ceremonial or Civil precept of it Therefore there might
Apostles are certainly their act the declaration of the Church proceeding no further than the means provided by God for that purpose will inable the Church to discerne that this doth appear will have the force of a Law to oblige all Christians not to violate the communion of Christians upon pretense that it doth not appear So the rcason of believing and the evidence thereof are both antecedent to the foundation of the Church But the declaration of the Church obliging those that are within it not to violate communion upon pretense of contrary evidence that is the effect of that right and power which God giveth his Church But there are other acts which the Church will be as often necessitated to do as it becomes questionable in the Church how any of those Offices which God is served with by Christians is to be performed What times at what places what persons are to assemble themselves for that service as of it self it is not determined so were it never so particularly determined by the writings of the Apostles yet so long as the world is changeable and the condition of the Church by that reason not to be limited in that service by the same Rule alwaies the Society of the Church could not subsist without a Power to determine it The persons especially that communicate with the Church if you will have the Church a Society must be indowed with several qualities some of them inabling to communicate passively that is to joyn in the Offices of Gods service For till our time I think it was never quessioned among Christians whether the same persons might minister and he ministred to in the Offices of Christianity Then if some persons be to be set apart for that purpose of necessity it may become questionable by what acts the fame is lawfully done according to the will of God declared by his Apostles Further when it is determined who when where are the Offices of Christianity and the Assemblies of the Church to be celebrated the least circumstance of matter and form of solemnity and ceremony though it make no difference of saith yet is able to create a cause of separation of communion that shall be just on the one side Is it any great Power that is demanded for the Church by the Original constitution thereof when it is demanded that the Church have Power to regulate it self in things of this consequence Let mee be bold to say there is never a Company in London so contemptible that can stand without having the like excepting the determination of maters of Faith And therefore it is a small thing to demand that the Apostles for their time should be able to do it by Power from God so as to be heard in Christs stead Those that received Power from them according to the measure of that Power which they received though they pretend not their acts to be our Lord Christs as the Apostles yet within the bounds of that Office to which they are ordained they have power from God determining their persons though not justifying their acts Suppose then that our Lord Christ assume a Ceremony in use in the Synagogue at such time as hee preached of baptizing those that imbraced Moses Law being born of other Nations to signifie and to solemnize the admission of them that undertake Christianity to the privileges of his New people I suppose it is the act of our Lord that makes this a Law to his Church though it was the Power which God had provided to govern his ancient people that made it a Law to the Synagogue It is no more doubted among men of Learning that our Lord Christ at his last Supper made use of Ceremonies practised among the Jewes at their Passeover in the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist the outward act whereof hee appointed to consist in those Ceremonies whereas the inward intent thereof was not known afore For whatsoever they knew of Christ they could not thereby know that hee would institute the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in those Elements In like maner it had been alwaies a custome of Superiors in the Synagogue according to that of the Apostle Ebr. VlI. 7. Without all contradiction the lesse is blessed by the greater to blesse and to pray for interiors with laying hands upon them or lifting up hands over them So did the Priests so did the Prophets so Isaac Gen. XXVII 4 7 12 19 21 22. Jacob Gen. XLVIII 9 14 17. Aaron Levit. lX. 22. because a man cannot lay hands upon an Assembly all at once The Priests blessing therefore is called among the Jewes listing up of hands and many scrupulous observations there are among them in doing it Num. VI. 23 24 25. So our Lord in doing cures as Naaman thought Elisha would have done 2 Kings V. II. in blessing his Disciples Lue. XXIV 50. and divers the like If then the Apostles of our Lord frequented the same Ceremony in solemnizing Ordination as praying for the grace of the Holy Ghost upon those that received it and in other acts of publick effect in the Church it cannot be conceived that any thing but their owne act brought it in force though the practice of Gods ancient people gave them a precedent for it but it must be conceived that this argues a Society of the Church where such Ceremonies are instituted to celebrate such acts with as were to provide for the maintenance of it Here I must not forget the Law of Tithes and the Title by which they are challenged to be due to the Church For having made that this proved the Church a Corporation by the power of making Lawes within themselves of creating Governors and of Excommunicating If it be demanded where is the common stock and revenue of it seeing no Corporation can subsist without means to maintaine the attendance requisite to those things wherein it is to communicate it will be necessary to show that those who founded the Church have provided for this Tithes are commonly claimed by the Levitical Law And it is not easie to give a reason why other Lawes of the Church should not come in force or stand in force by the Law of Moses if it be once said that Tithes are due to the Church under the Gospel because they were as signed the Levitical Priesthood by the Law Truly it deserves consideration whether they that insist upon the Levitical Law in the claime of Tithes to the Church do not prejudice the cause which they pretend to maintaine For if they look into the tenor of the Law it will easily appear that Tithes of fruits of the earth are assigned the Priesthood by God in consideration of the Land of Promise which hee gave them And that therefore the practice of the Jewes at this very day is due and legal who pay no Tithes of those fruits because the service for which they are due is by the Law prohibited out of the Land of Promise Besides it is
before acknowledges as a Christian that right which Christians acknowledge of holding Land and Goods to be in the Church For when wee reade afore in any records of the Church where the persecution of Diocletian is mentioned as in Eusebius Eccles Hist IX 9. that Churches and Oratories were pulled down and the books of the Scriptures burned were not these Churches and Oratories and Books the common goods of the Church dedicated to the service of God but given the Church for the purpose of it When Constantine writ that famous letter to Eusebius to provide fifty Copies of the Bible was it not to furnish the Churches which hee had erected at Constantinople There is nothing more ancient in the records of the Church than the mention of Titles and Coemiteries belonging to the Church at Rome nor any thing more effectual to convince this intent than the name and condition of the same The maner was at Rome to set marks upon eschetes and confiscations and all other goods belonging to the Exchequer whether moveable or immoveable intimating that the Exchequet claimed them and that no man was to meddle with that Title for so it was called And truly the same was the reason why they set a bodily mark upon souldiers to signifie them to be the Emperors men as private men did on their goods which occasioned the allegory of the character of Baptisme the reason whereof S. Austine by that comparison declares When therefore a piece of ground or a house was given the Church to exercise their Assemblies in the name of Title evidences that a mark was set upon it whether a Crosse as Cardinal Baronius would have it whether visible to the world or onely to those of the Church I dispute not now to distinguish the Churches goods from the goods of private persons And therefore what can be more clear than that the Church had goods In the life of Alexander Severus you have a question about a certain place challenged on one side by the Christians on the other by the Taverners popinariis whom with the like hee had made Corporations as the same Life relateth decreed by him in favor of Christians It will perhaps be said that it is enough to justifie those that have seized the goods of this Church that the Tenth part and those kindes of which it is to be payed are not determined by Gods Law For if it be once granted that the act of man is requisite to designe what hee will please to indow the Church with That the act of Soveraign Power is requisite to make such or such or all kindes Tithable through each State it will be in the Soveraigne Power either to recall its own act or to limit or void the acts of particular persons To this my answer shall be That all this dispute proceeds upon a supposition that the men are Christians to whom it addresseth Seeing then it is a part of Christianity to acknowledge the Church a Corporation founded by God and so capable of rights as well as of goods Whatsoever by any mans voluntary act it stands indowed with as the Church of England is with all Tithes some man may have force no man can have right to take from it But I have showed further that all Christians whether publick or private persons are bound to indow the Church with the First-fruits of their goods Of which First-fruits the Tenth hath been the part most eminently limited under the Lawes of Nature Moses and Christ Therefore the persons whereof a Commonwealth consisteth may be Christians in giving their goods as the necessity of the Church requires but the Commonwealth it self cannot be Christian but by securing such Christian acts from violence Which if it be true so farre must any State be from seizing such goods that the first thought thought should be to restore the breach made upon Christianity by such feizures For the intent of consecrating First-fruits and Oblations whether presently to be spent or to make a standing stock to the maintenance of one Communion and corporation of the Church is evidenced by the same means as our common Christianity That is by the Scriptures expounded by the original practice of Ghristians And therefore supposing Christian States were mistaken in accepting the Obligation of Tithes as from the Levitical Law they were not mistaken either in their duty to indow the Church or in limiting the Tith for the discharge of it suppoâ—ing it necessary that all being become Christians the rate should be limited and that the Tenth whether alone or with other consecrations might serve the turne And therefore there can be no difference between the Churches goods that is Gods and private mens but the difference between mans Law onely and Gods and mans Law both speaking of those Churches upon which mans Law hath once settled that which private or publick devotion hath once consecrated to God For consider that there is neither Kingdome nor State to be named before the Reformation that ever undertook to maintain that Christianity which it professed wherein there hath not been a course taken to settle Goods consecrated to God upon his Church for the maintenance of Gods service that it might not lye at the casuality of Christians behaving themselves as Christians should do whether the service of God should be maintained or not For though while no man was a Christian but hee that had resolved to undergo persecution to death for the profession of Christianity it was not to be doubted that hee who had given himself up to the Church would not stick at giving up his goods so farre as the necessities thereof should require Yet when all the world was come into the Church whether for love of God or of the World that favored the Church what disorder might have insued had not a standing provision been made it is obvious to common reason to imagine Or rather what disorder did insue for want of it it is evident by the provisions of the Civil Law of all Christian Kingdoms and States that proved requistie to prevent it for the future Whether or no the Tenth part were due by virtue of the Levitical Law seeing it appeareth by that which hath been said that from the beginning of Christianity a stock of maintenance was due to the Church out of the First-fruits of Christians goods offered and dedicated to God whereof Tithes were from the Law of Nature before Moses one kinde They might be bad Divines in deriving the Churches Title from the Levitical Law who had not been good Christians had they not discharged themselves to it But they can be neither good Divines nor good Christians that discharge the Church of the rights so purchased to it Alwayes this being the course of maintaining the Church from the beginning the evidence for the corporation of the Church is the same with the evidence for our common Christianity To wit the Scriptures with the consent of all Christians to limit the meaning of it
CHAP. IX The Keyes of the Church given to the Apostles and exercised by excommunication under the Apostles The ground thereof is that profession which all that are baptized are to make That Penance and abatâ—ment of Penance hath been in force ever since and under the Apostles In particular of excluding Hereticks CHAP. X. Evidence of the Apostles act from the effect of it in preserving the Vnity of the Church Of the businesse of Marcion and Montanus That about keeping Easter That of the Novatians of rebaptizing Hereticks of Paulus Samosatenus of Dionysius Alexandrinus and Arius Of communicatory leters and the intercourse of the Church under and after the Apostles CHAP. XI Upon what grounds the first book de Synedriis holds that the Church cannot excommunicate Before the law there was no such Power nor by it Christians went for Jewes under the Apostles His sense of some Scriptures What the Leviathan saith in generall concerning the Power of the Church Both suppose that Ecclesiasticall Power includeth Temporall which is not true Of the Oxford Doctors Paraenesis CHAP. XII That the Law expresly covenanted for the Land of Promise A great Objection against this from the Great precept of the Law The hope of the world to come under the Law and the obedience which it required was grounded upon reason from the true God the tradition of the Fathers and the Doctrine of the Prophets The Love of God above all by the Law extendeth no further than he precepts of the Law the lâ—ve of our Neighbor onely to Jews Of the Ceremonial Judicial and Moral Law CHAP. XIII That the Law tendereth no other promise but that of the Land of Canaan How the Resurrection is signified by the Prophets Expresse texts of the Apostles Their Arguments and the Arguments of our Lord do suppose the mystical sense of the Scriptures That this sense is to be made good throughout the Scripture wheresoever the ground of it takes place Christianity well grounded supposing this What parts of Scripture may be questionable whether they have a mysticall sense or not The sayings and doings of our Lord have it As also those passages of the Old Testament which are fulfilled by the same The sense of the Fathers CHAP. XIV The Leviathans opinion that Christ came to restore that Kingdome of God which the Jewes cast off when they rejected Sâ—muel It overthroweth the foundation of Christianity The true Government of Gods ancient people The name of the Church in the New Testament cannot signifie the Synagogue Nor any Christian State CHAP. XV. How the Power of the Church is founded upon the Law The Power of the Kingdome Priesthood Prophets and Rulers of that people all of divine right How farre these qualities and the powers of them are to continue in the Church The sense of the Fathers in this point That the acts of S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were nâ—t of force by virtue of the Law What Ecclesiastical Power should have been among the Jewes in case they had received the Gospel and so the state had stood CHAP. XVI The Church founded upon the Power given the Apostles What is the subject mater of Church Lawes The Right of the Church to Tythes and Oblations is not grounded upon the Law though evidenced by it and by practice of the Patriarchs Evidence of the Apostles Order in the Scriptures The Church of Jerusalem held not community of Goods The original practice of the Church CHAP. XVII The Power of Excommunication in the Church is not founded in the Law What argument there is of it in the Old Testament The allegorical sense thereof is argumentative It was not necessary that the Christians should incurre persecution for using the Power of the Keyes and not by virtue of the Law CHAP. XVIII The difference between S. Pauls anathema and that of the Jews It is not necessary that the Christians anathema should signifie cursing That the incestuous person at Corinth was Excommunicated by S. Paul Jurisdiction of the Church Telling the Church binding and loosing holding him that is bound for a Heathen or a Publicanâ— signifie the same The coherence of our Lords discourse Of Excommunication and Indulgence by private persons in the Ancient Church That Excommunication and the Power of the Church could not come in force by the voluntary consent of the first Christians How it may be said to be voluntary Of the confederacy of the primitive Christians CHAP XIX That Power which was in Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Soveraign The dâ—fference between the Church and the Synagogue in that regard The interest of Seculâ—r Power in determining maters of faith presuppâ—seâ—h the Socieâ—y of the Church and the act of it No man can be bound to profâ—sse tâ—e contrary of that which he believeth Every man is bound to professe thâ—t Christianity which hee believeth The Church is the chiefe Teacher of Christianity through Christendom as the Soveraign of Civil Peace thorough his Dominions Why the Church is to decide maters of Faith rather then the State neither being infallible 146 CHAP. XX. The rest of the Oxford Doctors pretense The Power of binding and loosing supposeth not onely the Preaching of the Gospel but the outward act of Faith Christians are not at liberty to cast themselves in what formes of Churches the Law of Nature alloweth They are Judges in chief for themselvss in mater of Religion supposing the Catholick Church not otherwise Secular Power cannâ—t punish for Relâ—gion but supposing the act of the Church nor do any act to inforce Religion unlâ—sse the Church determine the mater of it 151 CHAP. XXI How the Tradition of the Church limits the interpretation of Scriptures How the declaration of the Church becomes a reasonable marke of Heresie That which is not found in the Scriptures may have been delivered by the Apostles Some things delivered by the Apostles and recorded in the Scriptures may not oblige S. Austines Rule of Apostolical Traditions 159 CHAP. XXII The Authority of the Fathers is not grounded upon any presumption of their Learning or Holinesse How farr they challenge the credit of Historical truth The pre-eminence of the Primitive The presumption that is grounded upon their ranks and qualities in the Church Of Arnobius Lactantius Tertulliâ—n Origen Clemens and the approbation of Posterity 165 CHAP. XXIII Two iâ—stances against the premises besides the obâ—ection concerning the beginning of Antichrist under the Apostles The General answer to it The seven Trumpeâ—s in the Apocalypse fore-tell the destruction of the Jewes The seven Vials the plagues inflicted upon the Empire for the ten persecutions The correspondence of Daniels Prophesie inferreth the same Neither S. Pauls Prophesie nor S. Johns concerneth any Christian Neither the opinion of the Chiliasts nor the the giving of the Eucharist to Infants new Baptized Catholick 169 CHAP. XXIV Two sorts of means to resolve whatsoever is resolvable conceâ—rning the Scripture Vpon what terms the Church may or
is Soveraign inact it By consequence must needs deny that any Act of the Apostles could be Law to the Church whose office was onely to publish the newes of the coming and rising again of Christ and to induce men to submit themselves to his kingdome of the world to come Much lesse can there be any Power to give Lawes to the Church but that which is in the Soveraigne of each State which therefore when it is Christian is called the Church of such a Kingdome Though hee acknowledge also that before the Empire was Christian the Body of Christians in every City is called in the Scriptures the Church of such or such a City pag. 275 But denying that there can be upon earth any such universal Church as all Christians are tied to obey because they are lyable to other Powers of this world according to the States of which they are pag. 248. and before pag. 206. As for the Power of bunding and loosing very properly hee understands it to be a consequence of the Apostles commission to baptize unto forgivenesse of sins But so that supposing they have nothing to do either to loose them that repent not or to binde them that do and that no mans repentance is visible but by our outward signes there must be some Power to judge of the truth of those fignes because they may be counterfeit And this Power as it is expresly given by our Lord to the Church Mat. XVIII 16. when hee saith Tell the Church So doth S. Paul 1 Cor. V. 11 12 and 3 4 5. acknowledge the power of casting out the incestuous persons and other finners to be in the Congregation reserving to himself onely the pronouncing of the sentence Supposing this Church to be now the Soveraign Power that representeth the people but when S. Paul writ the Body of Christians in such or such a City pag. 275. In like maner the appointing of Persons either to officiate the Service of God or to wait upon the necessities of the Church hee also gives unto the Church that is then to the respective Bodies of Christians but now to the Soveraign Power into which all Rights of the People resolve by the establishment of it But the consecrating of them by Imposition of hands as to the Apostles for their time so to the worlds end to their Successors For thus were Maâ—thias Paul and Barnabas made Apostles Act. I. 15 23. XIV 1 2 3. XIV 14. Thus the seven Deacons thus the Elders of Churches were constituted Acts VI. 3. XIV 23. the Congregation chusing the Apostles declaring the choice as in binding and loosing As for the maintenance of Persons thus appointed it is no marvail if hee make it meer almes and benevolence without any Law of God to make the purses of Christians lyable to it who acknowledgeth not Christianity to be any Law For how shall hee be bound to contribute towards the maintenance of such persons that is not bound to be a Christian But that Tithes under the Law were due onely by the Civil Power which God had upon the people having made God their Soveraign by their Covenant with him in which right Moses and Aaeron and the High Priests that succeeded him were but his Lieutenants so that when this Power was translated and settled upon their Kings it held meerly by their sufferance this is an imagination that no mans brain ever teemed with till now And truly in the point of giving Law to the Church by determining Controversies of Faith and by interpreting difficulties of Scripture call it what you please as also by deciding that which becomes questionable in any thing that concerns the community of Christians It had been a necessary consequence of this opinion that as hee owneth the Soveraign Powers right to decree so hee should assign the Persons thereby appointed for the Church a Right to declare publish or pronounce the same as in Excommunicating and Ordaining hee doth For which hee hath found no ground no pretense in the Scriptures Besides whereas by the Act of the Apostles laying a burden upon believers Acts XV. 28. and by the practice of their successors practising the holding of Councils which common sense would make ridiculous if they had no effect upon the Church hee is convinced to acknowledge that they were able to binde themselves though not the Church It will be impossible for him to render a reason either why this power should cease or how it should continue when the Soveraign Power becomes Christian and all right in the Church is resolved into it I must not leave this point before I have taken notice of one presumption wherein both these Authors seem to agree For the Leviathan in several places pag. 285 286 282 205 206 322. taketh for granted that there is no Law in the world but the Law of Nature and the Civil Lawes of Commonwealths And therefore that hee which makes Ecclesiastical Power not to depend upon the Civil must indow it both with right and means to constrain men to obey it and thereupon inferrs all the inconvenience which hee so much aggravates That then all Civil Power must of necessity be swallowed up and resolved into the Power of the Church in as much as all Christians even Soveraignes are members of it Which to avoid it is necessary to grant that the Church is nothing else but a Christian Commonwealth and the Clergy ministers of the Soveraign Power deriving all their authority from it pag. 209 249 296. In like maner the first book de Synedriis Ebraeorum in defining Excommunication pag. 105. takes it for granted that those who challenge the power of it in behalf of the Church would have the Civil estate and condition of him that is excommunicate in regard of his reputation of freedom changed and abated by it Which must needs inferre the Church to be indowed with such a power as is able by outward force to constrain obedience For otherwise the estate of no man that is protected in all right by the Civil Power could be changed or abated by it Accordingly in several places hee presumes that those who maintain the Power of the Church and the right of Excommunicating which is a prime part of it to stand by Gods Law are obliged by consequence to maintain the Power of the Church in maters of the world in Ordine ad spiritualia And hereupon follow the reasons whereby these Authors have disputed the one à priori that this constitution of the Church is destructive to the peace and safety of all States Kingdomes and Commonwealthes in as much as a Power not depending upon them may lawfully be used against them by giving the people a title of executing the commands of it by force The other à posteriori from the practice of all Christian States Kingdomes and Commonwealthes Who by limiting the exercise and effect of all kindes of acts which the Church hath done or pretended to inforce by Excommunication have
in propagating of it which are not against Gods Law but according to it As for the Apostles of our Lord Christ all whose acts done with intent to oblige the Church are of force by Gods act of establishing them all that can remaine questionable is with what intent they introduced their Ordinances into the Church which are unquestionably of force by Gods Law for whatsoever they intended whatsoever the Synagogue might intend by the like As for that voluntary conjecture of pag. 315. which makes the XII Apostles created with Power of Binding and Loosing so many Elders to declare what was lawfull and unlawful in Christianity I admit all understood according to the premises To wit that as there was in those Elders which the Synagogue created a Power to declare what was lawful or unlawful by the Law of Moses to make a man capable or uncapable of the society of that people to which those promises were made but in every one as his creation limited So were the Apostles ordained by our Lord to declare to the world upon what termes it might be reconciled to God and obtaine everlasting life And those whom they prevailed not with they are therefore said to binde because they loosed them not And as they held this Power in chief and fully to all purposes So all that claime any part of it under them must claime no more than the act by which they conveyed it upon them may appear to have limited But it were too great an impertinence to imagine that this power depended any way upon that authority which the Law might allow or constitute even in our Lord Christ supposing him a Prophet acknowledged according to the Law otherwise then as the Gospel depends upon the Law and the Church upon the Synagogue in that they give evidence to them by which they are made void For that which our Lord gives his Apostles is more then the Law was ever able to effect if the premises be true though the Law gave competent witness and evidence to it Neither is there any more force in that which is conjectured in the same place that the VII who are created to wait upon the Tables or common Diet of the Christians at Jerusalem Acts VI. are also so many Elders because made by Imposing hands For if it be the authority of the Apostles that made Imposition of hands in force to Christians though they had a pattern from the Synagogue to move them to introduce it who shall limit them not to use it unlesse they be Elders whom they ordaine and therefore who shall conclude that they are Elders because so ordained If these things be true it will be easie to resolve the consequence of that supposition which is propounded in the Preface to that Book To wit supposing the Jewes in the Land of Promise had received Christianity at the Preaching of the Apostles as they ought to have done and so that their Estate had continued as it did which for refusing it was taken away whether the Civil Law of that people continuing as it ought to continue should have had the same Power in Ecclesiastical causes as it had in ordering all things that concerned the Ceremonial Law For if so then no Ecclesiastical Power could have subsisted among the Jewes and therefore no cause could be alleged why other Nations im̄bracing Christianity should not reserve the same Power to their own Civīl Law For supposing the Covenant under Moses to be no more in force at such time as the New is on foot which the Preaching of the Apostles had declared to be the intent of the Old at such time as Christ should come it will follow indeed that the reason why the Nation was taken away that is the refusal of the Gospel ceasing God might have preserved them in Estate had hee pleased but by the termes of the Covenant which was expired could not be tied to it But supposing hee had preserved them so wee must then suppose that the Civil Law of Moses ought to be still maintained among that people not by the Covenant which being expired and the condition of the Land of Promise holding no longer when the taking up of Christs Crosse is propounded and admitted by receiving Christianity the obligation of maintaining the same Civil Law can no further hold than the reason of maintaining Christianity should require That is So farr as the quiet of that people in the privileges which till then they injoyed would evidently have been for the advancement and maintenance of Christianity and the preserving of the Lawes which they were alwaies tied to as evidently for the quiet of that people For suppose at this hour a Synagogue of Jewes in the Empire or in Italy or wheresoever else they subsist should receive Christianity Neither would any obligation of the Law remain upon them why they should not give it all over to become free denizens of the States in which they dwelt afore their conversion which is that as I suppose that Christian States ought to propose to them to move them to imbrace Christianity neither is there any thing to difference their case now from those of our Lords time that injoyed so much of their own Lawes in the hand of Promise And supposing that God had been pleased to preserve them in that estate wee must also suppose that God intending his Church as well of the Gentiles as Jewes intended both to make parts of it upon the same termes And therefore that Power which the Apostles left for the preserving of unity in the communion of the service of God for which the Society of the Church stands that as well Jewes as Gentiles must have admitted as a part of the Christianity which they professed bounding the force of their own Civil Laws upon the same Terms as wee show the Civil Lawes of other Nations that received Christianity are to be bounded with in Church maters CHAP. XVI The Church founded upon the Power given the Apostles What is the subject mater of Church Lawes The right of the Church to Tithes and Oblations is not grounded upon the Law though evidenced by it and by practice of the Patriarchs Evidence of the Apostles Order in the Scriptures The Church of Jerusalem held not community of Goods The original practice of the Church HAving thus farre showed the foundation of Ecclesiastical Power in the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord Christ whom wee may justly affirm to have been the Church materially as so many Christians but in virtue and force as much as the whole Church can ever be it will not be requisite to those that consider things a right to argue that their Acts and Ordinances must of necessity have the force of Gods Lawes to the Church as much as those things which God said alone to Moses in the Tabernacle of Assembling had the force of Lawes to his ancient people For those that consider the beginnings of States from the beginning of the World shall
principles to spirituall good can no way impeach it as coming from the constitution of our nature supposing the ornaments and additions of grace to be removed The opinion of the fulfilling of Gods Law by Christians supposes that the remaines of concupiscence in the regenerate and the immediate effects thereof in the first motions to sinne which cannot be prevented are not against Gods Law but onely besides it From whence it will follow that he who of his free will imbraces Christianity and perseveres in the good works which it injoyneth meriteth of justice the reward of the Life to come And truly for my part I cannot deny that all this is justly pleaded against those that are of this opinion and cannot by them justly be answered But that this opinion is injoyned by the Church of Rome I cannot understand seeing divers learned Doctors of the Schools alledged by Doctor Field for the opposition which he maketh to this opinion and that very truly and justly shewing infallibly that the contrary opinion is allowed to be maintained in the communion of the Church of Rome And that nothing hath been done since the authors whom he alledgeth to make this unlawfull to be held amongst them I suppose it will be enough to produce the decree of the Council of Trent since which it is evident that it is lawfull among them to maintaine that concupiscence is originall sinne For though the decree declareth that the Church never understood concupiscence in the regenerate to be truly and properly sinne but to be so called as proceeding from sinne and inclining to sinne Yet in as much as it is one thing to speak of concupiscence in the regenerate another in the unregenerate and in as much as it is one thing to declare the sense of the Church according to the opinion of the Synode another to condemn the contrary sense as opposite to the Faith it is manifest that this declaration condemns not those that hold originall concupiscence to be originall sinne but onely shewes that they could not answer the difficulty of originall sinne in the regenerate On the other side it cannot be justly said so farre as I understand that those of the Reformation do affirme that the grace given to Adam at his creation was due to his nature in this sense and to this effect as if they did intend to deny that he was created in such an estate and to such a condition of happinesse as the principles and constitution of his nature do not necessarily require But onely this That the gifts which by his creation he stood indowed with were necessary to the purchase of that happinesse which he that is to say his nature was created to whereupon they are justly called the indowments of nature Here I must not omit the opinion of Catharinus in the Council of Trent That Adam received originall righteousnesse of God in his own name and the name of his posterity to be continued to them he obeying God Whereupon his disobedience iâ— in Law their disobedience though in nature onely his and the act of his transgression imputed to them is their originall sinne as personall as the penalties of it No otherwise then Levâ— paid Tithes in Abraham Many passages of S. Augustine he had to alledge for this as also a Text of the Prophet Osee and another of Ecclesiasticus But especially the expresse words of S. Paul That by the inobedience of one man many are made sinnerâ— And That by sinne death came into the world which surely came into the world by the actuall transgression of Gods commandment Alledging that Eve found not her self naked till Adam had eaten the forbidden fruit Nor had originall sin been had the matter rested there And by this reason he thought he avoided a difficulty not to be overcome otherwise how the lust of generation can give a spirituall staine to the soul which must needs be carnall if it come from the flesh And by this meanes nothing but an action which transgresseth Gods Law shall be sinne which all men understand by that name This opinion the History saith was the more plausible among the Prelates there as not bred Divines but Canonists or versed in businesse and so best relishing that which they best understood to wit the conceit of a civile contract with Adam in behalfe of his posterity as well as himself To give a judgement of this opinion I shall do no more but remit the reader to those Scriptures which I have produced to shew that there is such a thing as originall sinne concluding that the nature of it wherein it consists must be valued by the evidence of it whereby it appeares that it is It will then be unavoidable that when death is the effect of sinne because righteousnese is the cause of life as Adams sinne is the cause of his death so the death of his posterity depends upon their own unrighteousnesse Why else should Christianity free us from death as hath been shewed Why should S. Paul complain of the Law that he found in his members opposing the Law of righteousnesse why should the flesh fight with the Spirit and the fruits of the flesh be opposite to the fruits of the Spirit but that the same opposition of sinne to righteousnesse is to be acknowldged in the habituall principles as in the actuall effects which proceed from the same As for that onely text of S. Paul in which he could find any impression of his meaning if the reader observe the deduction whereby I have shewed that S. Pauls discourse obliged him to set forth the ground whereupon the coming of Christ and his Gospel became necessary to the salvation both of the Jews and Gentiles he will easily find that the question is of the effective not of the formall cause that S. Paul is not ingaged to shew wherein that source of sinne which our Lord Christ came to cure consisteth but from whence it proceedeth True it is when the posterity suffers losse of estate and honour for the Fathers treason it may properly be said that the Fathers crime is imputed to the posterity Not because any reason can indure that what is done by one man should be thought to be done by another but because the effect of what one man does may justly be either granted to or inflicted upon another whether for the better or for the worse As in a civile state suppose the Laws make treason to forfeit lands and honours which every man sees are held by virtue of the Lawes that posterity which hath no right to them but from predecessors and the obligation which they had to maintaine the state should forfeit them by the act of predecessors is a thing not strange but reasonable Though so that the forfeiture may transgresse the bounds of reason and humanity if the Law should not allow posterity or kindred to live in that state to which predecessors have forfeited when there is so much cause to believe that the
sorts of Oblations commanded by the Law and practised by Gods ancient people For First-fruits Tithes and accursed things that is things dedicated to God under a curse upon them that should convert them to any other use Leviâ— XXVIII were not dedicated to be spent upon the Altar in Sacrifices but to the maintenance of the Temple or of them that attended upon the service of it But seeing wee have now showed that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice it followeth that those Oblations which are dedâ—cated to God to be spent in the celâ—bration of the Eucharist in reference whereunto I have already showed that all Oblations of Christians are consecrated to God because dedicated to maintain the Communion of his Church whereof the Eucharist is that Office which is peculiar to Christianity are not barely consecrated to God but to the service of God by Sacrifice For those things which under the Law were consecrated to God to be sacrificed upon the Altar were not then first offered to God when they were killed and the parts of them burnt upon the Altar But from the time that they were declared Gods goods for that purpose as by the Law it self may appear in the precept of the second Tithe which for two years belonging to the poor the third year was to be spent in sacrificing at Jerusalem and so by Law and by no mans act consecrate to the Altar Deut. XIV 22-29 In as much then as I have showed that the Eucharist is a Sacriâ—iâ—e in so much and for that very reason that which Christians offer to God for the celebration of the Eucharist is no otherwise a Sacrifice than those things which were appropriated to the Altar under the Law were Sacrifices from the time that they were dedicated to that purpose Saving alwaies the difference between Sacrifices figurative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse such as Christianity supposeth all the Sacrifices of the Old Law to be and the commemoration and representation of the same past which I have showed that the Eucharist pretendeth And truly having showed that this representative and commemorative Sacrifice is of the nature and kinde of Peace-Offerings in as much as it is celebrated on purpose to communicate with the Altar in feasting upon it And knowing that every beast that was sacrificed for a Peace-Offering was attended with a Meat-Offering of floure and a Drink-Offering of wine which are the kindes in which the Eucharist is appointed to be celebrated I must needs say that those species set apart for the celebration of the Eucharist are as properly to be called Sacrifices of that nature which the Eucharist is of to wit commemorative and representative as the same are to be counted figurative under the Law from the time that they were deputed to that use This is then the first act of Oblation by the Church that is by any Christian that consecrates his goods not at large to the service of God but peculiarly to the service of God by Sacrifice in regard whereof the Elemenâ—s of the Eucharist before they be consecrated are truly counted Oblations or Sacrifices After the Consecration is past having showed you that S. Paul hath appointed that at the celebration of the Eucharist prayers supplications and intercessions be made for all estates of the world and of the Church And that the Jews have no right to the Eucharist according to the Epistle to the Hebrews because though Eucharistical yet it is of that kinde the bloud whereof is offered to God within the Vail with prayers for all estates of the world as Philo and Josephus inform us Seeing the same Apostle hath so plainly expounded us the accomplishment of that figure in the offering of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to the Father in the highest heavens to obtain the benefits of his passion for us And that the Eucharist is nothing else but the representation here upon earth of that which is done there These things I say considered necessarily it follows that whoso believes the prayers of the Church made in our Lords name do render God propitious to them for whom they are made and obtain for them the benefits of Christs death which hee that believes not is no Christian cannot question that those which are made by S. Pauls appointment at the celebration of the Eucharist offering up unto God the merits and sufferings of Christ there represented must be peculiarly and especially effectual to the same purposes And that the Eucharist may very properly be accounted a Sacrifice propitiatory and impetratory both in this regard because the offering of it up unto God with and by the said prayers doth render God propitious and obtain at his hands the benefits of Christs death which it representeth there can be no cause to refuse being no more than the simplicity of plain Christianity inforceth But whether the Eucharist as in regard of this Oblation so in regard of the Consecration may be called a propitiatory Sacrifice this I perceive is yet a question even among those of the Church of Rome For it is acknowledged that there is yet among them a party even since the Decree of the Council of Trent who acknowledging the nature of a Sacrifice propitiatory in the Eucharist in regard of the offering of it already consecrated according to the order of the Latine Masse to God for the necessities of the Church utterly deny any nature of such a Sacrifice in it by virtue of the Consecration otherwise True it is these men are looked upon as bordering upon Hereticks in regard they acknowledg no other nature of a Sacrifice but that which those who acknowledg no Transubstantiation may grant without prejudice to their positions And if my aim were onely to hold a mean opinion between â—wo extreams and not freely to declare what may be affirmed with truth it might seem very convenient to take up that position for which I may allege a party at present extant in the Communion of the Church of Rome But having resolved to set all regard of faction behinde the consideration of truth manifested by the Scriptures I stick not to yield and to maintain that the consecration of the Eucharist in order to the participation of it is indeed a Sacrifice whereby God is rendred propitious to and the benefits of Christs death obtained for them that worthily receive it But this perhaps neither in the sense nor to the interest of them who make it their businesse to maintain the present abuses of the Church of Rome by disguising the true intentions and expressions of the Catholick Church That I may be understood without prejudice in this point I will lay down the difference of opinion that remains in the Church of Rome â—â—nce the Council of Trent as I finde it reported by Jacobus Bayus de Eucharistiâ III. 15-18 Hee complains of an opinion that the nature of a Sacrifice is not seen in conâ—ecrating the Elements to become the body and bloud of
to one wife indissolubly as mariage hath alwaies been indissoluble among Christians could have taken effect among all Christians had it not been received from the beginning for a part of that Christianity which our Lord Christ and his Disciples delivered to the Church nor preserved so inviolable as it hath been but by the society of the Church He that will give a reason how this Law could have taken place otherwise must either alledge the Law of Moses or the Law of the Romane Empire There being no other Law extant when Christianity took place For the law of Moses it is evident that at such time as Christianity came into the world it was counted lawfull according to it to have more wives then one and to put away away a mans wife by a Bill of divorce I demand then how this should come to be prohibited by virtue of that Law which was hitherto thought to allow it It will be said by the true interpretaion of the Law which having been obscured by the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees our Lord by his Gospel Mat. V. 31. 32. XIX 3-9 Mark X. 11. 12. Luk. XVII 18. clears and injoyns upon Christians for the future But I showed before in the second Book that when our Lord saith so oft in his Sermon on the Mount You have heard it was said to those of old his meaning is that Moses said so to their Fathers when he gave them the Law not that the Scribes and Pharisees said so to their Predecessors when they corrupt it Besides there are two things evident in the Scripture beyond contradiction The first that divers Lawes of Moses either make it lawfull or suppose it lawful to have more wives then one Deut. XXI 15-17 the Law supposes a man to have two wives the one beloved the other not and provides accordingly Ex. XXI 6-11 the Law gives him leave that hath bought the daughter of a Jew to mary her to his Sonne who if he have another is â—bound to pay her the mariage debt of a wife so that if he do not she is to go free Deut. XXI 1-14 the Law inables him that hath taken a captive in the War whom he likes to marry her not conditioning if he have no other wife Call these two later wives or call them Concubines so long as the Law of God allows them evident it is that it allows that which Christians by their Christianity think themselves bound to forbear Adde hereunto that the King is bound not to take too many wives Deut. XVII 16. 17. that David is not reproved as transgressing this Law though Solomon is But on the contrary that God imputes it as a favour to him that he gave him many wives 2 Saâ— XII 8. which he could not do had he not allowed it I say adde the practice as the life of the Law to the leter as the carcase of it and I may justly conclude that Polygamy is not prohibited by the Law of Moses Besides the Law provides that an Ebrue slave who may go free at the seventh year if his Master have given him a slave of his own to wife and he have children by her must part wedlock with his wife and leave her and children to his Master for his goods Exodus XXI 3. 4. nullifying the contract of Mariage by the choice of him who proffers his freedom before his wife and children in bondage a thing utterly inconsistent with the insolubility of Mariage by Moses Law Secondly our Lord in the Gospel saith not onely It was said to them of â—ld He that puts away his wife let him give her a Bill of Divorce But I say unto you as Mat. V. 31. 32. But further when they ask him Mat. XIX 7. Why did Moses then command to give a Bill of divorce and seâ—d her away He answereth Moses for your hard-heartednesse suffered you to put away your wives But from the beginning it was not so Now I say unto you that he that puts away his wife for fornicatioâ— and maries another commits adultery and he that maries her that is put away commits adultery And all this having laid his ground afore He that made them from the beginning made them male and female and said therefore shall a mâ—n leave father and mother and cleave to his wife and they two shall be one flesh So they are no longer two but one flesh Therefore what God hath joyned let no man part Whereby it is evident that he derives not the prohibition of putting away a wife to take another from any interpretation of Moses Law to the provision whereof he opposeth the provision which hereby he introduceth But from the commission which he pretendeth by virtue whereof he restoreth the primitive institution of Paradise which the Law of Moses had either dispensed with or did suppose it to have been formerly dispensed with For he saith not onely You have heard that it was said to them of old which may be thought to be understood of the Scribes and Pharisees But also Moses said and I say opposing his own saying to that of Moses so farre as prohibiting that which he had allowed imports without licensing that which was prohibited by the Law And upon this ground that by mariage man and wife become one flesh he proceeds to prohibite the divorces which Moses Law alloweth so that the reason why mariage is indissoluble is because man and wife are one flesh by the Gospel of Christ according to the first institutions in Paradise This indeed is the difficulty which I here suppose already declared how this first institution lost or may appear to have lost the force of a Law till revived by our Lord Christ though I conceive the evidence of this truth cannot be obstructed by not declaring the reason of it here S. Paul having so fully laid down the effect and intent of his masters Law 1 Cor. VII 1-6 Now of that you writ to me about it is good for a man not to touch a woman Neverthelesse because of fornications sake let every man have his wife and every woman her husband let the man render his wife the benevolence that is due likewise the wife to the Husband The woman hath no power of her Body but the man Likewise the man is not master of his own Body but the wife Defraud not one another unlesse upon agreement for a time that ye may attend to fasting and prayer and come together againâ— least Satan tempt you for your incontinence For here it is manifest that because man and wife are one flesh they have an interess in one anothers bodies not to be disposed of upon any other to the prejudice of it And upon this supposition the mariage of the first Adam in this earthly Paradise being the figure of the mariage between the second Adam and his Church becomes the rule and measure of the Mariages of Christians in the Church as the same Apostle declares at large Ephes V.
is what course the Law of the Church should take And therefore the profession of that continence which single life requireth grounding a reasonable presumption of eminence in Christianity above those that are marryed there was all the reason in the world why the Church should indeavour to put the governement thereof into such hands by preferring them before others On the other side as all truth in morall and humane maters is liable to many exceptions it cannot be denyed that more abstinence from riot and from riches both more attendance upon the service of God is found some times in those that live marryed then in those that live single In which consideration it may well seem harde to conclude all them that are marryed unserviceable for the Church The moderation therefore of the Easterne Church seemeth to proceed upon a very considerable Ground not excluding marryed persons from a capacity of Holy orders but excluding persons ordayned from any capacity of mariage For those who were promoted to the Clergy being single knowing that they were not allowed mariage what can they pretend why they should hold their estate not performing the condition of it As for the promoting of those who are already maried it is the triall of their conversation in wedlock that may ground a presumption as well for that conscience which their fidelity in dispensing the goods of the Church as for that diligence in setting aside the importunities of marriage which their attendance upon the service of the Church requireth It was therefore to be wished that the Westerne Church had used the limitation which the Nicene councill by resting contented with confirmed to admit of persons maryed before orders preferring before them those that are single But it must be granted that as well in the West as in the East though the aime was to perfer single life yet here and there now and then those that were maryed were not excluded It is not to be thought that one Spanish councill which had no effect at all without the bounds of it could as easily be reduced to effect in practice as couched in writing Especially the Generall councill of Nicaea having waived the motion of inacting the same But this demonstrates the credite of the Church of Rome in the Westerne Church at that time that the Rescripts of Syricius Innocent Popes are found the first acts to inforce the same which that Spanish council had inacted For the African and other Westerne Canons that injâ—ine the same are for time after Syricius Whereby it appeareth though they doe not use that exception which the councill of Nicca had supposed yet that the rule of single life for the Clergy was so troden under foot that it was found requisite to seeke meanes by the Synods of severall parts and by the concuâ—rence of the See of Rome to bring it into force For let no mâ—n think that those Canons took effect so soon as they were made which were made on purpose to restraine the mariages of the Clergy Who for the most part had from the beginning lived single but neither before nor after could be totally restrained from maryage It would be too large a worke in this place to repeate either the particular Canons which were made and the discourses of the Fathers to inforce them on the one side or on the other side the saying of the Fathers and other records in point of fact whereby the in execution of them doth appeare Those that would be satisfied in it may see what the Arch-Bishop of Spalato hath collected and find Epiph. his saying still take place during the flourishing time of the Church But all this while you heare nothing of any vowe annexed to the undertakeing of Holy Orders by vertue whereof maryage contracted under them should become voide For the vowe of single life being an act that disposeth of a man and his estate in this world to a totall change of his courses if he mean to observe it what reason can admit any ground for presuming of it when it is not expressed And the custom of the Eastern Church reduceth the penalty thereof unto the ceasing ofâ— that ministry by consequence of that maintenance which the order intitleth to which is not the penalty of breaking a vowe But the effects of these rules and indeavours of the Western Church was never such as to exclude the Clergy from marryage how much soever they might exclude maryed persons from the H. orders When Greg. the seventh undertook to bring them under a total restraint from maryage it is manifest that other maner of meanes were imployed to make that restraint forcible then the constitution of the Church indowes it with For that was the time when the Church undertooke to dispose of Crownes and scepters and to extend the spirituall power thereof to the utmost of temporall effects And therefore it is to be granted that by such meanes indeed it might and did come to effect But in point of fact onely not in point of right as being a rigor which the practice of all parts was sufficient protestation that the Church in that estate was not able to undergoe For the horrible and abominable effects thereof have beene so visiblâ— that it is not possible the cause of them should seeme the production of that reason which the being of any law requireth and supposeth Nor can the See of Rome justly be admitted to charge that no bounds have been observed in releasing of it which it cannot be denyed that the ancient Church in all places did observe For I truely for my part have granted that even Lawes given by the Apostles for the better governement of the Church though written in the scriptures may be dispensed in by the Church when the present constitution of things shall make it appear to the Governours thereof that the observation of that rule which served for that state in which it was prescribed â—ends to the considerable visible harme of the Church in the present state of it And therefore I will not take upon me to say that the state of bigamy which S. Paul I have showed maketh an impediment to some Orders can by no means be dispensed with But the See of Rome which dispenseth with it as of course paying the ordinary fees I conceive cannot in justice charge the releasing of the rule of single life to all the Clergy though in some measure a Law of the whole Church And how many Canons of the whole Church besides are there which must be trampled under foot by bringing that unlimited power into effect which now it exerciseth I could therefore earnestly wish for mine owne parte that some reservation had beene used in the releasing of it that the respect due to single life by our common Christianity might have remained visible to Christian people by the priviledge of it in the Church Nor doe I thinke my selfe bound by being of the reformation to maintaine the acts by
to be maintained by the first-fruits and oblations of Christians goods have not thought it fit to leave this maintainance to the daily wil of Christians but to make good that which they have vested in the Church for a standing indowment by protection of Law it is manifest that they have left themselves no particular right in that which either themselves have consecrated or allowed their subjects to consecrate to the use of the Church But it doth not follow from hence that they have abandoned and disclaimed that common right which every Common wealth hath in all goods of particular persons for the maintenance and defence of the Publick in the necessities of it Whereby it seemeth that be the gift of Ecclesiasticall goods never so large or so absolute for the form which private mens gifts go in the Soveraigne by making them good doth not abandon the right of publicke aide in them And therefore that the Common wealth may notwithstanding serve themselves of taxes imposed on Church goods Likewise seeing the use of Church goods is declared by all records of the Church as well as by the Scriptures to tend to the maintainance of the poor which is included in the intent of maintaining Gods service in the Church it followes that if Church goods be used otherwise by those that are not proprietors but trustees for the poor it is in the secular power to reduce and restore the use of them according to the original intent of the Church But to seize them into the hands of the secular power as if the Corporation of the Church could be dissolved by mans Law which is founded by Gods to be imployed to the advantage of the seizers of them is an attempt of sacrilege upon Gods goods first and by consequence upon Gods Law by which the Church standeth For the indowment of the Church may be invaded by Secular power upon the Title of publick aide but extended beyond any bound of it that reason or common sense can allow And this is sacriledge though consistent with an opinion that they are the Churches For it is no new thing for men to transgresse their profession by their actions But it may also be invaded out of an opinion that they are onely publick goods and not Gods And that opinion supposeth that there is no such thing as a Corporation of the Church founded by God which hitherto Christians by their Creed do professe to believe And therefore this is a sacrilege of an higher nature tending to root out all difference of good and bad according to Christianity that is grounded upon the constitution of the Church Seeing then that all Christian Kingdoms and states have thought themseves tied to inable the Church by their Laws to transmit those estates to posterity which either Soveraigns or private Christians have upon supposition of Gods Law indowed it with for how should all Christians agree to do that which no Law of Christianity obliged them to do it will be of no force to argue from any limitations which Christian States may have bounded the right of Tithes with that they did not believe the Church to be a Corporation inabled by God to hold an estate bestowed upon it but onely to be made such a one by their priviledges For as it appeares by the premimises that those limitations may be according to Gods Law So whether they be so or not it is to be judged by the grounds upon which I proceed here And this is the case of the right of Patronage reserved over Churches to those that first indowed them by consent of the Church in remembrance of their merit For as it may be so limited as to be no prejudice to the Church and to Christianity So that it is every where so limited I do not find my self tied to maintaine Of the concurrent interests of Church and State in marriage or matrimonial causes I cannot say much here Supposing the premises upon which I maintaine it I can undertake thereupon to evidence the weaknesse of this presumption That those Christian powers which take upon them to limit the exercise of Ecclesiasticall power in matrimoniall causes do not believe any Ecclesiasticall power in them as of divine right that is to say any Corporation of the Church indowed by God with power to allow or disallow the marriages of Christians Suppose then that our Lord Christ hath introduced a new Law among Christians of the marriage of one with one and that indissoluble saving upon breach of wedlock Suppose that which I proved afore that the Lawes of Moses are not Lawes to the Church but arguments evidencing the Lawes of the Church by the correspondence betweene it and the Synagogue And therefore Granting that those degrees in which marriage was prohibited Jewes by the Leviticall Law are not licensed for marriage among Christians That it doth not follow that no further degrees are prohibited in the Church Suppose further from common sense and experience of the world that upon any new Law there will arise a multitude of new cases to be decided either by particular jurisdiction or by a generall Law And the power of deciding the same vested in that Corporation which first received the Law Suppose againe that marriage though among Christians limited to a mutuall interest in one anothers bodies for the preventing of concupiscence is notwithstanding a civile contract supposing the same freedome from error or force in the persons that contract that is requisite to the validity of all civil contracts And further that it may concerne the State to limit the qualities of persons that may contract it so that not being contracted within those bounds which the State shall limit it shall be either unlawfull or voide It will follow then upon these suppositions that Civile Powers may create lawfull impediments of marriage as of civile contracts But neverthelesse that the use of marriage is not to be deemed Lawfull untill the allowance of the Church give them assurance that the limitations given by our Lord and his Apostles to the marriages of Christians and the determinations which thereupon have proceded from the Lawfull power of the Church are not violated by the same Neither is it available to say as some have pretended to say that this right of the Church falls to the State when it professeth Christianity and the maintainance thereof all parties being members or subjects of it No more then that the society of the Church ceaseth and is swallowed up in the Common-wealth when the Soveraigne becomes Christiane Indeed among Gentiles whose Religion being contrived by the devill and his ministers was admitted by civile Powers as an expedient to keep their people in obedience Among Jewes whose religion given by God as a condition of maintaining them in the Land of Promise pretended expresly no more then the civile good of one people it is no marvaile that the determination of all things questionable concerning mariage should lastly resort to the civil Powers