But those judicial Laws which are founded upon common equity to bind still not by virtue of that Sanction but by virtue of common principles of equity which certainly in the present shortness of humane reason cannot be fetched from a clearer Fountain then those Laws which once came from the Fountain of Goodness none of whose constitutions can any ways be supposed to deviate from the exactest rules of Justice and Equity And upon this very ground too some part of the fourth Commandment is abrogated and the other continues to bind still For the reason of the Ceremonial and occasional part is ceased and the reason of what was Moral continues Therefore the School-men say right of the Sabbath day Cultus est à naturâ modus à lege virtuâ— Ã Gratiâ Nature dictates that God should be worshipped the Law informs what day and time to spend in his worship Grace must enable us to perform that worship on that day in a right manner And because the same reason for Gods Worship continueâ— still therefore it is a Precept of the Natural Law that God should be worshipped What time precisely must be spent in Gods Worship as one day in seven though the reason be evident to nature of it when it is made known yet it is hard to conceive that Nature could have found out the precise determination of the time Although I must confess the general consent of Nations as to the seventh part if it were fully cleared would speak fair to be the voice of Nature or at least a tradition received from the Sons of Noah which if so will be an evidence of the observation of the Sabbath before the Children of Israels being in the Wilderness But granting that the seventh part of time was a positive Law of God yet I say it binds immutably because there is as strong a reason for it now as ever and Ratio immutabilis praecepti facit praeceptum immutabile This I take to be the sense of those who distinguish between morale positivum and morale naturale i. e. that some things are so moral that even Nature its self can discover them as that God should be worshipped Other things are so moral that though the reason of them be founded in Nature yet there wants Divine Revelation to discover them to us but when once discovered are discerned to be very agreeable to common principles of reason And these when thus discovered are as immutably obligatory as the other because the reason of them is immutable And of this nature is the determination of the particular time for Gods worship and limitation of it to one day in seven But what was in that Precept meerly occasional as the first and original ground of its limitation to the seventh in order Gods resting on that day from the work of Creation and the further ground of its inforcement to the Jews viz. their deliverance out of Egypt these being not immutâ—ble but temporary and occasional may upon as great ground given and approved of God for that end as is evident by the Apostles practice be sufficient reason of the alteration of the seventh day to the first day of the week By this may briefly be seen how irrationally those speak who say we have no further ground for our observation of the Lords day now then for other arbitrary Festivals in the Church viz. The Tradition of the Church of God I grant the Tradition of the Church doth acquaint us with Apostolical practice but the ground of our observation of the Lords day is not the Churches Tradition but that Apostolical practice conveyed by Universal Tradition which setting aside the Festivals observed upon the Lords days can very hardly be â—ound for any other But supposing Universal Tradition for other Festivals I say here Tradition is not only used as a testimony and instrument of conveyance as in the other case of the Lords day but is it self the only argument and the very ground of the original observation Between which two what a wide difference there is let any rational man judge But for a further clearing this observation we must consider that the reason of the Command which we say is the measure of its obligation must not be fetched from mens uncertain conjectures among whom dreams often pass for reasons but it must be either expressed in the Law its self or deducible by apparent and easie collection from it as is plain in the Decrees of the Apostles about things strangled and offered to Idols where the reason of the Command is plainly implied to wit for present compliance with the Jews and therefore no sooner did the reason of the Command cease but the obligation of it ceased too but of this more afterwards This is one way then to discern the difference between positive Laws as to the obligation of them by the ground and reason of the Command And therefore it is well observed by Divines which further confirms what I now prove that no Command doth bind against the reason of the Command because it is not the words but the sense and reason of a Command which hath the greatest obligatory force Therefore Tully tells us that the ratio juris legislatoris consilium is the best Interpreter of any Law who excellently and largely proves that the reason of the Law is the Law and not the words So much for the first Rule Secondly Another way to know when Positive Laws are immutable is when Gods Will is expresly declared that such Laws shall bind immutably For it being granted on all hands that God may bind us to those things which are left indifferent by the Law of Nature and likewise for what term he please the only inquiry left is to see in his Word whether he hath so bound us or no and if he hath whether he hath left it in mans power to revoke his Laws For as to Positive Laws expresly laid down in Scripture the ground of which is only as the Jews speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the will of the King i. e. Gods own pleasure without any reason or occasion of it else expressed or necessarily implied these do bind immutably unless the same Power which commanded them doth again revoke them For we cannot in any wise conceive that the wise God should after the declaring his own will leave it in the power of any corrupt fallible Being to determine or dispence with the obligation of his own Laws Which to do and instead of them to enforce others immediately upon the Consciences of men as standing Laws is an attempt beyond that of the Gyants against heaven or the men at Babel that being only an affectation of reaching heaven but this an actual usurpation of Gods supreme and legislative power and authority But though man hath nor God alwayes reserves to himself a power to relax interpret and dispence with his own positive Laws which imply no repugnancy to his own nature And this
before Covenants made and things thereby determined may be so far from being lawful after that the doing of them may contradict a Principle of the Obligatory Law of Nature Thus in a state of liberty every one had right to what he thought fit for his use but Propriety and Dominion being introduced which was a free voluntary act by mens determining Rights it now becomes an offence against the Law of Nature to take away that which is another mans In which sense alone it is that Theft is said to be forbidden by the Law of Nature And by the same reason he that resists and opposeth the lawful Authority under which he is born doth not only offend against the Municipal Laws of the place wherein he lives but against that Original and Fundamental Law of Societies viz standing to Covenants once made For it is a gross mistake as well as dangerous for men to imagine That every man is born in a state of Absolute Liberty to chuse what Laws and Governours he please but every one being now born a Subject to that Authority he lives under he is bound to preserve it as much as in him lies Thence Augustus had some reason to say He was the best Citizen qui praesentem reipublicae statum mutari â—â—â— vult That doth not disturb the present state of the Commonwealth and who as Alcibiades saith in Thucydides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 endeavours to preserve that form of Government he was born under And the reason of it is that in Contracts and Covenants made for Government men look not only at themselves but at the benefit of Posterity if then one Party be bound to maintain the Rights of the others Posterity as well as of his person the other party must be supposed to oblige his Posterity in his Covenant to perform Obedience which every man hath power to do because Children are at their Parents disposal And Equity requires that the Covenant entred should be of equal extent to both parties And if a man doth expect Protection for his Posterity he must engage for the Obedience of his Posterity too to the Governorâ— who do legally protect them But the further prosecution of these things belongs to another place to consider of my purpose being to treat of Government in the Church and not in the State The sum of this is that the Obligation to the performance of what things are determined which are of the permissive Law of Nature by Positive Laws doth arise from the Obligatory Law of Nature As the Demonstration of the particular Problemes in the Mathematicks doth depend upon the Principles of the Theoremes themselves and so whoever denies the truth of the Probleme deduced by just Consequence from the Theoreme must consequentially deny the truth of the Theoreme its self So those who violate the particular Determinations of the Permissive Law of Nature do violate the Obligation of the Preceptive part of that Law Obedience to the other being grounded on the Principles of this 4. God hath Power by his Positive Laws to take in and determine as much of the Permissive Law of Nature as he please which being once so determined by an Universal Law is so far from being lawful to be done that the doing of them by those under an Obligation to his Positive Laws is an offence against the Immutable Law of Nature That God may restrain mans Natural Liberty I suppose none who own Gods Legislative Power over the world can deny especially considering that men have power to restrain themselves much more then hath God who is the Rector and Governor of the World That a breach of his positive Laws is an offence against the common Law of Nature appears hence because man being Gods creature is not only bound to do what is in general suitable to the principles of reason in flying evil and choosing good but to submit to the determinations of Gods will as to the distinction of good from evil For being bound universally to obey God it is implyed that man should obey him in all things which he discovers to be his will whose determination must make a thing not only good but necessary to be done by vertue of his supreme authority over men This then needs no further proof being so clear in its self 5. Lastly What things are left undetermined by divine positive Laws are in the Churches power to use and practise according as it judgeth them most agreeable to the rule of the Word That things undetermin'd by the Word are still lawfull evidently appears because what was once lawfull must have some positive Law to make it unlawfull which if there be none it remains lawfull still And that the Church of God should be debarr'd of any priviledge of any other Societies I understand not especially if it belong to it as a Society considered in its self and not as a particular Society constituted upon such accounts as the Church is For I doubt not but to make it evident afterwards that many parts of Government in the Church belong not to it as such in a restrained sense but in the general notion of it as a Society of men imbodyed together by some Laws proper to its self Although it subsist upon a higher foundation viz. of divine institution and upon higher grounds reasons principles ends and be directed by other Laws immediately then any other Societies in the World are The third Hypothesis is this Where the Law of Nature determines the thing and the Divine Law determines the manner and circumstances of the thing there we are bound to obey the divine Law in its particular determinations by vertue of the Law of Nature in its general obligation As for instance the Law of Nature bindeth man to worship God but for the way manner and circumstances of Worship we are to follow the positive Laws of God because as we are bound by Nature to worship him so we are bound by vertue of the same Law to worship him in the manner best pleasing to himself For the light of Nature though it determine the duty of worship yet it doth not the way and manner and though acts of pure obedience be in themselves acceptable unto God yet as to the manner of those acts and the positives of worship they are no further acceptable unto God then commanded by him Because in things not necessarily determined by the Law of Nature the goodnesse or evill of them lying in reference to Gods acceptance it must depend upon his Command supposing positive Laws to be at all given by God to direct men in their worship of him For supposing God had not at all revealed himself in order to his worship doubtlesse it had been lawfull for men not only to pray to God express their sense of their dependance upon him but to appoint waies times and places for the doing it as they should judge most convenient agreeable to natural light Which is evident from the
us lyes not here as it is generally mistaken What Form of Government comes the nearest to Apostolical practice but Whether any one individual form be founded so upon Divine Right that all Ages and Churches are bound unalterably to observe it The clearing up of which by an impartial inquiry into all the grounds produced for it being of so great tendency to an accommodation of our present differences was the only motive which induced me to observe Aristotles wild Politicks of exposing this deformed conception to the entertainment of the wide World And certainly they who have espoused the most the interest of a jus divinum cannot yet but say that if the opinion I maintain be true it doth exceedingly conduce to a present settlement of the differences that are among us For then all parties may retain their different opinions concerning the Primitive form and yet agree and pitch upon a form compounded of all together as the most suitable to the state and condition of the Church of God among us That so the peoples interest be secured by consent and suffrage which is the pretence of the congregational way the due power of Presbyteries asserted by their joynt-concurrence with the Bishop as is laid down in that excellent model of the late incomparable Primate of Armagh and the just honour and dignity of the Bishop asserted as a very laudable and ancient constitution for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church of God So the Learned Is. Casaubon describes the Polity of the Primitive Church Episcopi in singulis Ecclesiis constituti cum suis Prebyteriis propriam sibi quisque peculiari cura universam omnes in commune curantes admirabilis cujusdam Aristocraâ—iae speciem referebant My main design throughout this whole â—reatise is to shew that there can be no argument drawn from any pretence of a Divine Right that may hinder men from consenting and yielding to such a form of Government in the Church as may bear the greatest correspondency to the Primitive Church and be most advantagiously conduceable to the peace unity and settlement of our divided Church I plead not at all for any abuses or corruptions incident to the best form of Government through the corruption of men and times Nay I dare not harbour so low apprehensions of persons enjoying so great dignity and honour in the Church that they will in any wise be unwilling of themselves to reduce the Form of Church Government among us to its Primitive state and order by retrenching all Exorbitances of Power and restoring those Presbyteries which no law hath forbidden but onely through disuse have been laid aside Whereby they will give to the world that rare example of self-denial and the highest Christian prudence as may raise an honourable opinion of them even among those who have hitherto the most slighted so ancient and venerable an Order in the Church of God and thereby become the repairers of those otherwise irreparable breaches in the Church of God I conclude with the words of a late learned pious and moderate Prelate in his Via media I have done and now I make no other account but that it will fall out with me as it doth commonly with him that offers to part a fray both parts will perhaps drive at me for wishing them no worse than peace My ambition of the publike tranquillity shall willingly carry me through this hazzard let both beat me so their quarrel may cease I shall rejoyce in those blows and scars which I shall take for the Churches safety The Contents of the Chapters PART I. CHAP. I. THings necessary for the Churches peace must be clearly revealed The Form of Government not so as appears by the remaining controversie about it An evidence thence that Christ never intended any one Form as the only means to peace in the Church The Nature of a divine Right discussed Right in general either makes things lawful or else due For the former a non-prohibition sufficient the latter an express command Duty supposeth Legislation and promulgation The Question stated Nothing binds unalterably but by vertue of a standing Law and that two fold The Law of Nature and positive Lawes of God Three wayes to know when Positive Lawes are unalterable The Divine right arising from Scripture-examples divine acts and divine approbation considered p. 1. CHAP. II. SIX Hypotheses laid down as the basis of the following Discourse 1. The irreversible Obligation of the Law of Nature either by humane or divine positive Lawes in things immediately flowing from it 2. Things agreeable to the Law of nature may be lawfully practised in the Church of God inlarged into five subservient Propositions 3. Divine positive Lawes conâ—erning the manner of the thing whose substance is determined by the Law of nature must be obeyed by vertue of the obligation of the natural Law 4. Things undetermined both by the natural and positive laws of God may be lawfully determin'd by the supream authority in the Church of God The Magistrates power in matters of Religion largely asserted and cleared The nature of Indifferency in actions stated Matters of Christian liberty are subject to restraints largely proved Proposals for accommodation as to matters of Indifferency 5. What is thus determined by lawful authority doth bind the Consciences of men subject to that authority to obedience to those determinations 6. Things thus determined by lawful authority are not thereby made unalterable but may be revoked limited and changed by the same authority p. 27 CHAP. III. HOW far Church Government is founded upon the Law of nature Two things in it founded thereon 1. That there must be a Society of men for the Worship of God 2. That this Society be governed in the most convenient manner A Society for Worship manifested Gen 4. 26. considered The Sons of God and the sons of men who Societies for worship among Heathens evidenced by three things 1. Solemnity of Sacrifices sacrificing how far natural The antiquity of the Feast of first-fruits largely discovered 2. The Original of Festivals for the honour of their Deities 3. The sâ—crecy and solemnity of their mysteries This further proved from mans sociable nature the improvement of it by Religion the honour redounding to God by such a Society for his Worship p. 72 CHAP. IV. THE second thing the Law of Nature dictates that this Society be maintained and governed in the most convenient manner A further inquiry what particular Orders for Government in the Church come from the Law of Nature Six laid down and evidenced to be from thence First a distinction of some persons and their superiority over others both in power and order cleared to be from the Law of Nature The power and application of the power distinguished this latter not from any Law of Nature binding but permissive therefore may be restrained Peoples right of chosing Pastors considered Order distinguished from the form and manner of Government the former Natural the other not The
Scripture its self as to places for as far as we can find sacrificing in high places that is such as were of mens own appointment was lawful till the Temple was built by Solomon as appears by the several examples of Gedeon Samuel David and others Indeed after the place was setled by Gods own Law it became wholly sinfull but if so before we should not have read of Gods accepting sacrifices in such places as he did Gedeons nor of the Prophets doing it as Samuel and David did It is a disputable case about Sacrifices Whether the offering of them came only from natural light or from some express command the latter seems far more probable to me because I cannot see how naturall light should any wise dictate that God would accept of the blood of other creatures as a token of mans obedience to himself And Rivet gives this very good reason why the destruction of any thing in sacrifice cannot belong to the Law of Nature because it is only acceptable as a sign and token of obedience and not simply as an act of obedience and this sign signifying ex instituto for mans destroying the life of a beast can never naturally signifie mans obedience to God and therefore it must have some positive Law for those which signifie only by institution and not naturally cannot be referred to a dictate of the Law of Nature To which purpose it is further observable that God doth so often in Scripâ—ure slight the offering of Sacrifices in respect of any inherent vertue or goodnesse in the action its self or acceptablenesse to God upon the account of the thing done In which sense God saith He that killeth a bullock is as if he slew a man and he that Sacrificeth a sheep as if he cut off a dogs neck c. For what is there more in the one then in the other but only Gods appointment which makes one acceptable and not the other So that it is no wayes probable that God would have accepted Abels sacrifice rather then Cains had there been no command for their sacrificing For as to meer natural light Cains Sacrifice seems more agreeable to that then Abels Cains being an Eucharistical offering without hurt to other creatures but Abels was cruentum Sacrificium a Sacrifice of blood But the chief ground of Abels acceptance was his offering in faith as the Apostle to the Hebrews tells us Now saith is a higher principle then natural light and must suppose divine Revelation and so a divine Command as the Principle and ground of his action Moses his silence in reference to a Command is no argument there was none it not being his design to write at large all the particular precepts of the Orall Law but to deduce the Genealogy of the Patriarchs down from Adam and the Creation But supposing a Command given from God determining modes and circumstances of such â—hings of which the substance depends on a natural Law men are as well bound to the observation of them after their revelation as the other before The one being a Testimony of their obedience to God as clear and full as the other yes and so much the clearer evidence of obedience in that there could be no argument for the performing of those things but a divine Command And even in doing things intrinsecally good the ground of purely religious obedience is because God commands men to do those things more then that they are good in themselves Doing a thing because most suitable to nature speaking morality but doing because God commands it speaks true Religion and the obedience of Faith For as the formal reason of the act of Faith is a divine Testimony discovered to our understandings so the formal principle of an act of spiritual obedience is a divine Command inclining the will and awing it to performance So far then as divine Law determines things we are bound to observe them from the dictates of the natural Law The fourth Hypothesis In things which are determined both by the Law of Nature and divine positive Laws as to the substance and morality of them but not determined as to all circumstances belonging to them it is in the power of Lawful authority in the Church of God to determine them so far as they judge them tend to the promoting the performance of them in due manner So that not only matters wholly left at liberty as to the substance of them are subject to humane Laws and Constitutions but even things commanded in the divine Law in reference to the manner of performance if undetermined by the same Law which enforce the duty Thus the setting apart some time for Gods Worship is a dictate of the natural Law that the first day of the week be that time is determin'd under the Gospel but in what places at what hours in what order decency and solemnity this Worship shall be then performed are circumstances not determined in Scripture but only by general Rules as to these then so they be done in conformity to those Rules they are subject to humane positive determinations But this is not an hypothesis in the Age we live in to be taken for granted without proving it some denying the Magistrate any power at all in matters of Religion others granting a defensive protective power of that Religion which is professed according to the Laws of Christ but denying any determining power in the Magistrate concerning things left undetermin'd by the Scripture This Hypothesis then hath landed me into a Field of Controversie wherein I shall not so much strive to make my way through any opposite party as endeavour to beget a right understanding between the adverse parties in order to a mutual compliance which I shall the rather do because if any Controversie hath been an increaser and fomenter of heart-burnings and divisions among us it hath been about the determination of indifferent things And which seems strange the things men can least bear with one another in are matters of liberty and those things men have divided most upon have been matters of uniformity and wherein they have differed most have been pretended things of Indifferency In order then to laying a foundation for peace and union I shall calmly debate what power the Magistrate hath in matters of Religion and how far that power doth extend in determining things left undetermin'd by the Word For the clear understanding the first of these we shall make our passage open to it by the laying down several necessâ—ry distinctions about it the want of considering which hath been the ground of the great confusion in the handling this Controversie First then we must distinguish between a power respecting Religion in its self and a power concerning Religion as it is the publick owned and professed Religion of a Nation For although the Magistrate hath no proper power over Religion in its self either taking it abstractly for the Rule of Worship or concretely
of the Magistrate though he is not subject to the power of the Ministers yet both as a Christian and as a Magistrate he is subject to the Word of God and is to be guided by that in the Administration of his Function So on the other side in a Minister of the Gospel there are these things considerable the Object of his Function the Function its self the Liberty of exercising it and the Person who doth exercise it As for the Object of this Function the Word and Sacraments these are not subject to the Civil Power being setled by a Law of Christ but then for the Function its self that may be considered either in the Derivation of it or in the Administration of it As for the derivation of the power and authority of the Function that is from Christ who hath setled and provided by Law that there shall be such a standing Function to the end of the world with such authority belonging to it But for the Administration of the Function two things belong to the Magistrate First to provide and take care for due administration of it anâ— to see that the Ministers preach the true Doctrine though he cannot lawfully forbid the true Doctrine to be taught and that they duly administer the Sacraments though he cannot command them to administer them otherwise then Christ hath delivered them down to us This for due Administration Secondly in case of male-administration of his Function or scandal rendring him unfit for it it is in the Magistrates power if not formally to depose yet to deprive them of the liberty of ever exercising their Function within his Dominions as Solomâ—n did Abiathar and Iustinian Sylverius as Constantius did Vigilius For the liberty of exercise of the Function is in the Magistrates power though a right to exercise it be derived from the same power from which the Authority belonging to the Function was conveyed And then lastly as to the persons exercising this Function it is evident As they are members of a Civil Society as well as others so they are subject to the same Civil Laws as others are Which as it is expresly affirmed by Chrysostom on Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers that is saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be he an Apostle Evangelist Prophet Priest Monk be he who he will So it is fully largely irrefragably proved by our Writers against the Papists especially by the learned Is. Casaubon in his piece de libertate Ecclesiasticâ So then we see what a fair amicable and mutual aspect these two powers have one upon another when rightly understood being far from clashing one with the other either by a subjection of the Civil Power to the Ecclesiastical or the Civil powers swallowing up and devouring the peculiarity of the Ministerial Function And upon these grounds I suppose Beza and Erastus may as to this shake hands So that the Magistrate do not usurp the Ministerial Function which Videlius calls Papatus politicus nor the Ministers subject the Civil power to them which is Papatus Ecclesiasticus Thirdly we distinguish between an absolute Architectonical and Nomothetical Power independent upon any other Law and a Legislative Power absolute as to persons but regulated by a Higher Law The former we attribute to none but God the latter belongs to a Supreme Magistrate in reference to things belonging to his power either in Church or Commonwealth By an Architectonical Nomothetical Power we mean that power which is distinguished from that which is properly call'd Political The former lies in the making Laws for the good of the Commonwealth the latter in a due execution and administration of those Laws for the Common Good This we have asserted to the Magistrate already We now come to assert the other where we shall first set down the bounds of this power and then see to whom it belongs First then we say not that the Magistrate hath a power to revoke repâ—al or alter any Divine positive Law which we have already shewn Secondly we say not that the Magistrate by his own will may constitute what new Laws he please for the Worship of God This was the fault of Ieroboam who made Israel to sin and therefore by the Rule of Reason must be supposed to sin more himself So likewise Ahab Ahaz and others Religion is a thing setled by a Divine Law and as it is taken for the Doctrine and Worship of God so it is contained in the Word of God and must be fetched wholly from thence But then thirdly The Magistrate by his power may make that which is a Divine Law already become the Law of the Land Thus Religion may be incorporated among our Laws and the Bible become our Magna Charta So the first Law in the Codex Theod. is about the believing the Trinity and many others about Religion are inserted into it Now as to these things clearly revealed in the Word of God and withall commanded by the Civil Magistrate although the primary obligation to the doing them is from the former determination by a Divine Law yet the Sanction of them by the Civil Magistrate may cause a further obligation upon Conscience then was before and may add punishments and rewards not expressed before For although when two Laws are contrary the one to the other the obligation to the Higher Law takes away the obligation to the other yet when they are of the same Nature or subordinate one to the other there may a New Obligation arise from the same Law enacted by a New Authority As the Commands of the Decalogue brought a New Obligation upon the Consciences of the Jews though the things contained in them were commanded before in the Law of Nature And as a Vow made by a man adds a new â—ye to his Conscience when the matter of his Vow is the same with what the Word of God commands and renewing our Covenant with God after Baptism renews our Obligation So when the Faith of the Gospel becomes the Law of a Nation men are bound by a double Cord of duty to entertain and profess that Faith Fourthly in matters undetermined by the Word concerning the External Polity of the Church of God the Magistrate hath the power of determining things so they be agreeable to the Word of God This last Clause is that which binds the Magistrates power that it is not absolutely Architectonicall because all his Laws must be regulated by the generall rules of the Divine Law But though it be not as to Laws yet I say it is as to persons that is that no other persons have any power to make Laws binding men to obedience but only the civil Magistrate This is another part of the Controversie between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power about the power of determining matters belonging to the Churches Government But there is here no such breach between those two but what may be made up with a distinction or
far Church Government is founded upon the Law of Nature Two things in it founded thereon 1. That there must be a Society of men for the Worship of God 2. That this Society be governed in the most convenient manner A Society for Worship manifested Gen. 4. 26. considered The Sons of God and the Sons of Men who Societies for Worship among Heathens evidenced by three things 1. Solemnity of Sacrifices Sacrificing how far Natural the antiquity of the Feast of first-fruits largely discovered 2. The Original of Festivals for the Honour of their Deities 3. The Secrecy and Solemnity of their Mysteries This further proved from Mans Sociable Nature the improvement of it by Religion the Honor redounding to God by such a Society for his Worship HAving now laid our Foundation we proceed to raise a superstructure upon it And we now come closely to inquire how far Government in the Church is founded upon an unalterable Divine Right That we have found to be built upon a double Foundation the Dictates of the Law of Nature and Divine Positive Laws We shall impartially inquire into both of them and see how far Church-Government is setled upon either of these two I begin then with the Law of Nature Two general things I conceive are of an unalterable Divine Right in reference to this First That there be a Society and joyning together of men for the Worship of God Secondly That this Society be governed preserved and maintained in a most convenient manner First That there must be a Society of men joyning together for the Worship of God For the Dictate of Nature being common to all that God must be served Nature requires some kind of Mutual Society for the joynt performance of their common duties An Evidence of which Dictate of Nature appears in the first mention we find of any Publick Society so that a Society for Religious Worship was as ancient as the first Civil Societies we have any Records of Nay the very first Publick Society we read of was gathered upon this account For we read in the early days of the world that the Charter for this Society was soon made use of Gen. 4. 26. In the days of Enosh men began to call upon the Name of the Lord. Now Enosh was Seths Son whom Adam had given to him in the place of Abel and assoon as the number of men did increase that men grew into Societies they then had their publike societies for Gods Worship For we cannot understand that place absolutely as though God had not been called on before but now he was called on more signally and solemnly when men were increased that they began to imbody themselves into Societies Coepit congregare populum ad tractandum simul Dei cuâ—tum saith Pererius Tunc coeptum est populariter coli Deus Mariana Invocare i. e. palam colere Emanuel Sa. relating all to the publike societies being then gathered for the worship of the true God From which time in all probability did commence that Title of those who joyned in those societies that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sons of God which we read of soon after Gen. 6. 2. as they are distinguished from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sons of men which Titles as I am far from understanding in the sense of the Fathers taking them for the Angels which in likely-hood they took from that supposititious piece going under the name of Enochs Prophesie so I cannot understand them as commonly they are taken for meer discretive Titles of the posterity of Seth and Cain as though all that came of Seth were the Sons of God and all of Cain were the sons of men For as there certainly were many bad of Seths Posterity because the flood destroyed all of them Noah only and his Family excepted so there might be some good of the other vice being no more entaâ—ld then vertue is and Jewels may sometimes lye in a heap of dung and so this name of the sons of God might be appropriated to those who joyned themselves to those Societies for Gods worship In which sense some understand the very words of the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then began men to be called by the Name of the Lord which I suppose is the sense of Aquila who thus renders the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although it be brought by Dionys. Vossius to justifie the former interpretation of the words This sense if the construction of the words will bear it which Drusius questions but others are much for it and Theodoret The French and Piscator so render it seems most genuine and natural and not at all impugning what I have formerly gathered from the words but implying it For this distinction of Names and Titles did argue a distinction of Societies among them I am not ignorant that the generality of Jewish Expositors and many of their followers do carry the sense of the words quite another way from the ambiguity of the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be interpreted as well to Prophane as Begin and so they read it tunc prophanatum est ad invocandum nomen Domini Then men prophaned the Name of the Lord And accordingly Maimonides begins Idolatry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the dayes of Enosh But the words will scarce bear this construction as Vossius upon him observes and besides there is no mention at all of the name of any false Gods but only of the true one So much then for the first originall of this Society for Religion which we see began assoon as there was matter for a Society to be gathered up of Some indeed derive this Society a great deal higher and because we read that Abel and Cain brought their sacrifices they thence infer that it was to Adam who was the publike Priest then and performed all publike duties of worship in his own person and so was indeed Occumenicall Bishop of the whole world and yet had but four persons or but few more for his Charge Such a Diocess we might be content to allow him that pleads for the same Office and derives his Title somewhat higher then Adam For Pope Boniface the eighth proved there must be but one chief Priest and so one Pope because it is said Gen. 1. 1. That God created the world in Principio not in Principiis mark the number therefore there must be but one beginning and so one Bishop and not many What excellent Disputants an Infallible Chair makes men Much good may his argument do him As a further evidence How much Nature dictates that such a Society there should be for Divine Worship we shall inquire into the practise of men in their dispersion after the Flood And what we find unanimously continued among them under such gross Idolatry as they were given to and which did arise not from their Idolatry as such but from the general nature of it as a kind of
Did it make it self or was it made by a greater Power then it if it made its self it must be and not be at the same time it must be as producing and not be as produced by that Act. And what is become of our Reason now There must be then a Supream Eternal Infinite Being which made the world and all in it which hath given Nature such a Touch of its own immortality and dependance upon God that Reason capable of Religion is the most proper distinctive Character of man from all Inferior beings And this Touch and Sense being common to the whole Nature they therefore incline more to one anothers Society in the joynt performance of the common Duties due from them to their Maker And so Religion not onely makes all other Bonds firm which without it are nothing as Oaths Covenants Promises and the like without which no civill Society can be upheld but must of its self be supposed especially to tye men in a nearer Society to one another in reference to the proper Acts belonging to its self Thirdly it appears from the greater honour which redounds to God by a sociable way of Worship Nature that dictates that God should be worshipped doth likewise dictate that worship should be performed in a way most for the honour and glory of God Now this tends more to promote Gods honour when his service is own'd aâ— a publike thing and men do openly declare and profess themselves his Subjects If the honour of a King lies in the publikely professed and avowed obedience of a multitude of Subjects it must proportionably promote and advance Gods honour more to have a fixed stated Worship whereby men may in a Community and publike Society declare and manifest their homage and fealty to the supream Governour of the World Thus then we see the light of Nature dictates there should be a society and joyning together of men for and in the Worship of God CHAP. IV. The second thing the Law of Nature dictates that this society be maintained and governed in the most convenient manner A further inquiry what particular Orders for Government in the Church come from the Law of Nature Six laid down and evidenced to be from thence First a distinction of some persons and their superiority over others both in power and order cleared to be from the Law of Nature The power and application of the power distinguished this latter not from any Law of Nature binding but permissive therefore may be restrained Peoples right of chosing Pastors considered Order distinguished from the form and manner of Government the former Natural the other not The second is that the persons imployed in the Service of God should have respect answerable to their imployment which appears from their Relation to God as his Servants from the persons imployed in this work before positive Laws Masters of Families the first Priests The Priesthood of the first born before the Law discussed The Arguments for it answered The Conjunction of Civil and Sacred Authothority largely shewed among Egyptians Grecians Romans and others The ground of Separation of them afterwards from Plutarch and others THe second thing which the Light of Nature dictates in reference to Church-Government is That the Society in which men joyn for the Worship of God be preserved mantained and governed in the most convenient manner Nature which requires Society doth require Government in that Society or else it is no Society Now we shall inquire what particular Orders for Government of this Society established for the Worship of God do flow from the light of Nature which I conceive are these following First To the maintaining of a Society there iâ— requisite a Distinction of Persons and a Superiority of Power and Order in some over the other If all be Rulers every man is sui juris and so there can be no Society or each man must have power over the other and that brings confusion There must be some then invested with Power and Authority over others to rule them in such things wherein they are to be subordinate to them that is in all things concerning that Society they are entered into Two things are implyed in this First Power Secondly Order By Power I mean a right to Govern by Order the Superiority of some as Rulers the Subordination of others as ruled These two are so necessary that no Civil Society in the World can be without them For if there be no Power how can men Rule If no Order how can men be ruled or be subject to others as their Governours Here several things must be heedfully distinguished The Power from the Application of that Power which we call the Title to Government The Order it self from the form or manner of Government Some of these I Assert as absolutely necessary to all Government of a Society and consequently of the Church considered without positive Laws but others to be accidentall and therefore variable I say then that there be a Governing Power in the Church of God is immutable not onely by Vertue of Gods own Constitution but as a necessary result from the dictate of Nature supposing a Society But whether this Power must be derived by Succession or by a free Choice is not at all determined by the Light of Nature because it may be a lawful Power and derived either way And the Law of Nature as binding onely determines of necessaries Now in Civil Government we see that a lawfull Title is by Succession in some places as by Election in other So in the Church under the Law the Power went by lineal Descent and yet a lawful Power And on the other side none deny setting aside positive Lawes but it might be as lawful by choice and free Election The main Reason of this is that the Title or Manner of conveying Authority to particular Persons is no part of the preceptive Obligatory Law of Nature but onely of the permissive and consequently is not immutable but is subject to Divine or Humane positive Determinations and thereby made alterable And supposing a Determination either by Scripture or lawful Authority the exercise of that Natural Right is so far restrained as to become sinful according to the third Proposition under the 2. Hypoth and the 5. Hypoth So that granting at present that people have the Right of choosing their own Pastors this Right being only a part of the Permissive Law of Nature may be lawfully restrained and otherwise determined by those that have lawfull authority over the people as a Civil Society according to the 5. Hypoth If it be pleaded that they have a right by divine positive law that law must be produced it being already proved that no bare Example without a Declaration by God that such an Example binds doth constitute a Divine Right which is unalterable We say then that the manner of investing Church-Governours in their Authority is not Determined by the Law of Nature but that there should
the Greeks the old form continued from Orpheus or Onomacritus his Orphaica 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and those that sacrifice asked 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From all these things laid together we see the great solemnity used by them in their worship which considered in its self was not the product of superstition but a dictate of the Law of Nature And it seems most naturall to the acts of discipline that they should be performed in the most publick solemn manner and not in any private Câ—andestine way which being so done oft times lose the designed effect of them in making men sensible and ashamed of those miscarriages which made them deserve so sharp and severe a censure Thence among the Jews their solemn sentence of the greater excommunication was pronounced by the sound of a Trumpet and so they say Meroz was excommunicated with 400. Trumpets and the same number they report was used in excommunicating Iesus of Nazareth which was usually done by the Magistrate or the Rector of the University as they tell us a story of a man coming to buy flesh at Pombeditha which was one of the three Universities of the remaining Jews in Chaldea after the return from Captivity the other were Sora and Neharda but offering some opprobrious language to R. Iehuda then Governour of the University he makes no more to do but prolatus tubis hominem excommunicavit brings out his Trumpets and excommunicates him And as the use of Bells since their invention did supply the former use of Trumpets in calling the Congregation together which I suppose was the account of using Trumpets in excommunicating from the Congregation so it seems the Bells were sometimes used to ring men out of as well as into the Church thence the solemn Monkish curse cursing men with Bell Book and Candle which can have no other sense but from this practice So much shall suffice to shew the soundation which the solemnity of Worship and the acts belonging to it have in the dictates of Nature manifested by the voyce and consent of Nations for herein vox Populi is vox Naturae as at other times it is Vox Dei CHAP. VI. The fourth thing dictated by the Law of Nature that there must be a way to end Controversies arising which tend to break the peace of the Society The nature of schisâ—â— considered Liberty of judgement and authority distinguished the latter must be parted within religious Societies as to private persons What way the light of Nature directs to for ending Controversies in an equality of power that the lesse number yield to the greater on what Law of Nature that is founded In a subordination of power that there must be a liberty of Appeals defined Independency of particular Congregations considered Elective Synods The Original of Church-Government as to Congregations The case paralleld between Civil and Church Government Where Appeals finally lodge The power of calling Synods and confirming their acts in the Magistrate THe fourth thing which Nature dictates in reference to a Church-society is That there must be a way agreed upon to determine and decide all those Controversies arising in this Society which immediately tend to the breaking the peace and unity of it We have seen already that natural reason requires a disparity between persons in a society To form and constitute a Society there must be order and power in some there must be inferiority and subjection in others answering to the former And by these we suppose a Society to be now modeld But Nature must either be supposed defective in its designs and contrivements as to the necessaries required for the management of them or else there must likewise be implyed a sufficient provision for the maintenance and preservation of the Societies thus entred into It is no wise agreeable to the wisdom of Nature to erect a Fabrick with such materials which though they may lye one upon the other yet if not fitly compacted together will fall in pieces again assoon as it is set up nor yet to frame a body with meer flesh and bones and the superiority of some members above the other for unlesse there be joints and sinews and ligatures to hold the parts together the dissolution will immediately follow the formation of it The end and design of Nature is preservation and continuance and therefore things necessary in order to that must be implyed in the first design of the being of the thing so that at least as to its self there be no defect in order to that This must in reason be supposed in all Societies that when they are first entred it must be upon such terms as may be sufficient to maintain and keep up those Societies in that peace and order which is requisite in order to the continuance of them For what diseases are to bodies Age and fire are to buildings that divisions and animosities are to Societies all equally tending to the ruine and destruction of the things they seize upon And as bodies are furnished by Nature not only with a receptive and concoctive faculty of what tends to their nourishment but with an expulsive faculty of what would tend to the ruine of it So all civill bodies must not only have ways to strengthen them but must have likewise a power to expell and disperse those noxions humours and qualities which tend to dissolve the frame compages and constitution of them A power then to prevent mischiefs is as necessary in a Society as a power to settle things in order to the advancement of the common good of Society This therefore the Church as a religious Society must likewise he endowed with viz. a power to maintain its self and keep up peace and unity within its self which cannot otherwise be supposed considering the bilious humour in mens natures not wholly purged out by Christianity without some way to decide Controversies which will arise disturbing the peace of it For the clearing of this which much concerns the power and government of the Church we shall consider what the controversies are which tend to break the Churches peace and what way the Law of nature finds out for the ending of them Which we are the more necessitated to speak to because nothing hath begotten controversies more then the power of determining them hath done The Controversies then which tend to break the peace of a religious Society are either matter of different practice or matter of different opinion The former if it comes from no just and necessary cause and ends in a totall separation from that Society the person guilty of it was joyned with is justly call'd Schism which as 〈…〉 it is an Ecclefiasticall sedition as Sedition iâ— a Lay Schism both being directly contrary to that communion and friendlinesse which should be preserved in all Societies The latter if impugning somewhat fundamentall in order to the end of constituting religious Societies or being a
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the civil and not sacred sense as it denotes an excluding them from common Society but though it be freely granted that that is sometimes the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mat. 10. 17. yet those particulars being considered which are already laid down I shall leave it to consideration whether it be more probable to take the word Synagogue here in a Civil or Sacred Sense when the occasion expressed is meerly a matter of Doctrine and Opinion and not any thing condemned by their Law Another thing which hath been I believe a great ground of mistaking in this matter is that excluding from the civill Society among them was alwayes consequent upon Excommunication the Reason whereof was because the Church and Common-wealth were not distinct among the Jews and the same persons who took care of Sacred did likewise of Civil things there being no distinct Sanhedrins among them as some imagine but from hence it no wayes follows but their Excommunication might be an exclusion from Sacred Worship as well as Civil Society However were it as they pretend that it was from civill commerce yet the whole people of the Jews being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods peculiar people and his only Church in being before the times of the Gospel an exclusion in that respect from the common Society of them might deservedly be looked upon as a sacred action and not meerly civill it being a separation from a people whose main ligature was their being a Church of God or a Community gathered together for Gods worship and service Thus we see the Church of the Jews had this power among them and for the Christian Church the practice of Discipline upon offenders was never questioned though the right hath been so that from hence we gather in that it hath been the practice of Societies constituted for the Worship of God to call offenders to an account for their offences and if upon examination they be found guilty to exclude them their Society that it is a dictate of the Law of Nature That every offender against the Laws of a Society must give an account of his actions to the Rulers of it and submit to the Censures inflicted on him by them Thus I am now come to the end of my first stage to shew how far Church-Government is founded upon the Law and Light of Nature And so to the end of the first Part. PART II. CHAP. I. The other ground of Divine Right considered viz. Gods positive Laws which imply a certain knowledge of Gods intention to bind men perpetually As to which the Arguments drawn from Tradition and the practice of the Church in after-ages proved invalid by several arguments In order to a right stating the Question some Concessions laid down First That there must be some form of Government in the Church The notion of a Church explained whether it belongs only to particular Congregations which are manifested not to be of Gods primary intention but for our necessity Evidence for National Churches under the Gospel A National Church-Government necessary I Now come to the second way whereby any thing comes to be of unalterable Divine Right which is by the positive Laws of God which do bind universally to obedience In the entrance into this Discourse it is necessary to lay down the ways whereby we find out a Divine positive Law determining an unalterable Obligation which must be either by express words of Scripture or by some other certain way whereby to gather from thence that it was Gods intention to bind men For the main thing requisite to make a standing universal positive Law is Gods declaring his mind that the thing enquired into should unalterably bind men to the practice of it Now whatever doth sufficiently manifest Gods intention is a medium to find out such a Law by and nothing else But it must be such a manifestation as gives a mans mind sufficient evidence and testimony whereon to build a true certain and divine assent to the thing as revealed So that whatsoever binds the conscience as a Law must first be entertained by the understanding as a matter of faith not as it imports something meerly doctrinall and dogmaticall but as it implyes the matter of a Divine Revelation and the object of an assent upon the credibility of a Testimony For God having the only immediate authority over the consciences of men nothing can bind immediately the conscience but a Divine Law neither can any thing bind as such but what the understanding assents unto as revealed by God himself Now the Word of God being the only Codex and Digests of Divine Laws whatever Law we look for must either be found there in express terms or at least so couched therein that every one by the exercise of his understanding may by a certain and easie collection gather the universall obligation of the thing enquired after In this case then whatsoever is not immediately founded upon a Divine Testimony cannot be made use of as a Medium to infer an universally binding Law by So that all Traditions and Historicall evidence will be unserviceable to us when we enquire into Gods intentions in binding mens consciences Matters of fact and meer Apostolicall practice may I freely grant receive much light from the Records of succeeding ages but they can never give a mans understanding sufficient ground to inferr any Divine Law arising from those facts attested to be the practice or Records of succeeding ages For first The foundation and ground of our assent in this case is not the bare testimony of Antiquity but the assurance which we have either that their practice did not vary from what was Apostolicall or in their Writings that they could not mistake concerning what they deliver unto us And therefore those who would inferr the necessary obligation of men to any form of Government because that was practised by the Apostles and then prove the Apostolicall practice from that of the ages succeeding or from their Writings must first of all prove that what was done then was certainly the Apostles practice and so prove the same thing by its self or that it was impossible they should vary from it or that they should mistake in judging of it For here something more is required then a meer matter of fact in which I confess their nearnesse to the Apostles times doth give them an advantage above the ages following to discern what it was but such a practice is required as inferrs an universall obligation upon all places times and persons Therefore these things must be manifested that such things were unquestionably the practice of those ages and persons that their practice was the same with the Apostles that what they did was not from any prudential motives but by vertue of a Law which did bind them to that practice Which things are easily passed over by the
comparison of Christ with Moses from the equal necessity of forms of Government now which there is for other Societies from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures all other arguments are reducible to these three Heads Of these in their order First From the comparison of Christ with Moses they argue thus If Moses was faithfull in his house as a servant much more Christ as a Son now Moses appointed a particular form of Government for the Church under the old Testament therefore Christ did certainly lay down a form of Church Government for the New Testament To this I answer first Faithfulnesse implyes the discharge of a trust reposed in one by another so that it is said vers 2. he was faithful to him that appointed him Christs faithfulnesse then lay in discharging the Work which his Father laid upon him which was the Work of mediation between God and us and therefore the comparison is here Instituted between Moses as typical Mediator and Christ as the true Mediator that as Moses was faithfull in his Work so was Christ in his Now Moses his faithfulnesse lay in keeping close to the Pattern received in the Mount that is observing the commands of God Now therefore if Christs being faithfull in his office doth imply the setling any one form of Goverment in the Church it must be made appear that the serling of this form was part of Christs Mediatory Work and that which the Father commanded him to do as Mediator and that Christ received such a form from the Father for the Christian Church as Moses did for the Jewish To this it is said That the Government is laid upon Christs shoulders and all power in his hands and therefore it belongs to him as Mediatour Christ I grant is the King of the Church and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws and inwardly by the conduct of his Spirit but shall we say that therefore any one form of Government is necessary which is neither contained in his Laws nor dictated by his Spirit the main original of mistakes here is the confounding the external and internal Government of the Church of Christ and thence whensoever men read of Christs power authority and government they fancy it refers to the outward Government of the Church of God which is intended of his internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men But withall I acknowledge that Christ for the better government of his Church and people hath appointed Officers in his Church invested them by vertue of his own power with an authority to preach and baptize and administer all Gospel-Ordinances in his own Name that is by his authority for it is clearly made known to us in the Word of God that Christ hath appointed these things But then whether any shall succeed the Apostles in superiority of power over Presbyters or all remain governing the Church in an equality of power is nowhere determined by the Will of Christ in Scripture which contains his Royal Law and therefore we have no reason to look upon it as any thing flowing from the power and authority of Christ as Mediator and so not necessarily binding Christians Secondly I answer If the correspondency between Christ and Moses in their work doth imply an equal exactnesse in Christs disposing of every thing in his Church as Moses did among the Jews then the Church of Christ must be equally bound to all circumstances of Worship as the Jews were For there was nothing appertaining in the least to the Worship of God but was fully set down even to the pins of the Tabernacle in the Law of Moses but we find no such thing in the Gospel The main Duties and Ordinances are prescribed indeed but their circumstances and manner of performance are left as matters of Christian-liberty and only couched under some general Rules which is a great difference between the legal and Gospel-state Under the Law all Ceremonies and Circumstances are exactly prescribed but in the Gospel we read of some general Rules of direction for Christians carriage in all circumstantial things These four especially contain all the directions of Scripture concerning Circumstantials All things to be done decently and in order All to be done for edification Give no offence Do all to the glory of God So that the particular circumstances are left to Christian-liberty with the observation of general Rules It is evident as to Baptism and the Lords Supper which are unquestionably of divine Institution yet as to the circumstances of the administration of them how much lesse circumstantial is Christ then Moses was As to circumcision and the pass-over under the Law the age time persons manner place form all fully set down but nothing so under the Gospel Whether Baptism shall be administred to Infants or no is not set down in expresse words but left to be gathered by Analogy and consequences what manner it shall be administred in whether by dipping or sprinkling is not absolutely determined what form of words to be used whether in the name of all three persons or sometimes in the Name of Christ only as in the Acts we read if that be the sense and not rather in Christs Name i. e. by Christs authority Whether sprinkling or dipping shall be thrice as some Churches use it or only once as others These things we see relating to an Ordinance of Divine Institution are yet past over without any expresse command determining either way in Scripture So as to the Lords Supper What persons to be admitted to it whether all visible professors or only sincere Christians upon what terms whether by previous examination of Church-officers or by an open profession of their faith or else only by their own tryal of themselves required of them as their duty by their Ministers whether it should be alwayes after Supper as Christ himself did it whether taking fasting or after meat whether kneeling or sitting or leaning Whether to be consecrated in one form of words or several These things are not thought fit to be determined by any positive command of Christ but left to the exercise of Christian-liberty the like is as to preaching the Word publike Prayer singing of Psalmes the duties are required but the particular Modes are left undetermined The case is the same as to Church-governwent That the Church be governed and that it be governed by its proper Officers are things of Divine appointment but whether the Church should be governed by many joyning together in an equality or by Subordination of some persons to others is left to the same liberty which all other Circumstances are this being not the Substance of the thing it self but onely the manner of performance of it 3. I answer That there is a manifest disparity between the Gospel and Jewish state and therefore Reasons may be given why all Punctilioes were determined then which are not now as 1. The perfection and
from whom they derived their power and by whose authority they acted And these were the most suitable to them as making it appear that a Divine presence went along with them and therefore they could not salsifie to the world in what they Declared unto them which was the best way for them to evidence the Truth of their Doctrine because it was not to be discovered by the Evidence of the things themselves but it depended upon the Testimony of the Authour and therefore the onely way to confirm the truth of the Doctrine was to confirm the credibility of the Authour which was best done by doing something above what the power of nature could reach unto And this was the prerogative of the Apostles in their first mission above Iohn the Baptist For of him it is said that he did no miracle Fourthly we observe that the Apostles in this mission were invested in no power over the Church nor in any Superiority of Order one over another The first is evident because Christ did not now send them abroad to gather Churches but onely to call persons to the Doctrine of the Messias and while Christ was in the World among them he retained all Church power and authority in his own hand When this temporary mission expired the Apostles lived as private persons still under Christs Tutorage and we never read them acting in the least as Church-Officers all that while Which may appear from this one argument because all the time of our Saviours being in the World he never made a total separation from the Iewish Church but frequented with his Disciples the Temple worship and Service to the last although he super-added many Gospel Observations to those of the Law And therefore when no Churches were gathered the Apostles could have no Church power over them All that can be pleaded then in order to Church-Government from the consideration of the Form of Government as setled by our Saviour must be either from a supposed inequality among the Apostles themselves or their superiority over the LXX Disciples or from some Rules laid down by Christ in order to the Government of his Church of which two are the most insisted on Matthew 20. 25. Matth. 18. 17. Of these in their Order The first argument drawn for an established form of Government in the Church from the state of the Apostles under Christ is from a supposed inequality among the Apostles and the superiority of one as Monarch of the Church which is the Papists Plea from Saint Peter as the chief and head of the Apostles Whose loud Exclamations for Saint Peters authority aâ—â— much of the same nature with those of Demetrius the Silver-Smith at Ephesus with his fellow craftsmen who cried up Great is Diana of the Ephesians not from the honor they bore to her as Diana but from the gain which came to them from her worship at Ephesus But I dispute not now the entail of Saint Peters power what ever it was to the Roman Bishop but I onely inquire into the Pleas drawn for his authority from the Scriptures which are written in so small a character that without the spectacles of an implicite Faith they will scarce appear legible to the Eyes of men For what though Christ changed Saint Peters name must it therefore follow that Christ baptized him Monarch of his Church Were not Iohn and Iames called by Christ Boanerges and yet who thinks that those sons of Thunder must therefore overturn all other power but their own Christ gave them new names to shew his own authority over them and not their authority over others to be as Monitors of their Duty and not as Instruments to convey power So Chrysostome speaks of the very name Peter given to Simon it was to shew him his duty of being fixed and stable in the Faith of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this name might be as a string upon his finger a continual remembrancer of his duty And likewise I conceive as an incouragement to him after his fall that he should recover his former stability again else it should seem strange that he alone of the Apostles should have his name from firmness and stability who fell the soonest and the foulest of any of the Apostles unlesse it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would be worse Divinity then Rhetorick The change then of St Peters name imports no such Universall Power neither from the change nor from the name But why then hath Saint Peter the honour to be named first of all the Apostles First it seems to be implyed as an honour given to Peter above the rest But doth all honour carry an Universal power along with it there may be order certainly among equals and there may be first second and third c. where there is no imparity and jurisdiction in the first over all the rest Primacy of Order as among equals I know none will deny Saint Peter A Primacy of Power as over Inferiours I know none will grant but such as have subdued their Reason to their Passion and Interest Nay a further Order then of mâ—er place may without danger be attributed to him A Primacy in Order of Time as being of the first called and it may be the first who adhered to Christ in Order of Age of which Ierome aetati delatum quia Petrus senior erat speaking of Peter and Iohn nay yet higher some Order of Dignity too in regard of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greek Fathers speak so much of the servency and heat of his spirit whence by Eusebius he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prolocutor among the Apostles who was therefore most forward to inquire most ready to answer which Chrysostome elegantly calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are frequently given to Peter by the Fathers which import no more then praesultor in choreâ he that that led the dance among the Disciples but his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies no Superiority of Power For Dyonys Haliarnass calls Appius Claâ—dius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas all know that the Decemviri had an equality of power among themselves Neither doth his being as the mouth of the Disciples imply his power For Aaron was a mouth to Moses but Moses was Aarons Master Neither yet doth this Primacy of Order alwayes hold in reference to Peter For although generally he is named first of the Aposties as Matthew 10. 2. Mark 3. 16. Acts 1. 13. Mark 1. 36. Luk 8. 45. Acts 2. 14. 37. Yet in other places of Scripture we finde other Apostles set in Order before him as Iames Galat. 2. 9. Paul and Apollos and others 1 Cor. 3. 22. 1 Cor. 1. 12. 9. 5. No Argument then can be drawn hence if it would hold but onely a Primacy of Order and yet even that fails too in the Scriptures changing of the Order so often
and the sense of the names must neither be fetched from the custome now used nor from the Etymologie of the word but from the undoubted practice of Apostolical times if that can be made appear what it was Which will be best done if we can once find out what course and order the Apostles took in the forming and modelling the Churches by them planted That which we lay then as a foundation whereby to clear what Apostolical practice was is that the Apostles in the forming Churches did observe the customes of the Jewish Synagogues Totum regimen Ecclesiarum Christi conformatum fuit ad Synagogarum exemplar saith Grotius truly Praesides curatores Ecclesiarum ad instar Presbyterorum Synagogae Iudaicae constitutos fuisse constat as Salmasius often affirms In which sense we understand that famous speech of the Author of the Commentary on St. Pauls Epistles which goes under the name of Ambrose but now judged by most to be done by Hilary a Deacon of the Church of Rome under which name St. Augustine quotes some words on the fifth to the Romanes which are found still in those Commentaries Nam apud omnes utique gentes honorabilis est senectus unde Synagoga postea Ecclesia Seniores habuit sine quorum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesiâ which words are not to be understood of a distinct sort of Presbyters from such as were employed in preaching the Word but of such Presbyters as were the common Council of the Church for the moderating and ruling the affairs of it which the Church of Christ had constituted among them as the Jewish Synagogue had before And from hence we observe that the Ebionites who blended Judaism and Christianity together whence Ierome saith of them Dum volent Iudai esse Christiani nec Iudaei sunt nec Christiani they made a Linsey-woolsey Religion which was neither Iudaism nor Christianity These as Epiphanius tells us called their publike Meeting-place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Pastors of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thereby implying the resemblance and Analogy between the form of Government in both of them But this will best be made appear by comparing them both together For which we are to take notice how much our Saviour in the New Testament did delight to take up the received practices among the Jews only with such alterations of them as were suitable to the Nature and Doctrine of Christianity as hath been abundantly manifested by many learned men about the Rites of the Lords Supper taken from the post-coenium among the Jews the use of Baptism from the Baptism used in initiating Proselytes Excommunication from their putting out of the Synagogue As to which things it may be observed that those Rites which our Saviour transplanted into the Gospel-soyl were not such as were originally founded on Moses his Law but were introduced by a confederate Discipline among themselves And thus it was in reference to the government of the Synagogues among them for although the reason of erecting them was grounded on a command in the Levitical Law Levit. 23. 3. where holy Convocations are required upon the Sabbath-dayes yet the building of Synagogues in the Land was not as far as we can find till a great while after For although Moses require the duty of assembling yet he prescribes no orders for the place of meeting nor for the manner of spending those dayes in Gods service nor for the persons who were to super-intend the publike worship performed at that time These being duties of a moral nature are left more undetermined by Moses his Law which is most punctual in the Ceremonial part of Divine Service And therefore even then when God did determine the positives of Worship we see how much he left the performance of morals to the wisdom and discretion of Gods people to order them in a way agreeable to the mind and will of God We shall not here discourse of the more elder Customs and observations of the Synagogues but take the draught of them by the best light we can about our Saviours time when the Apostles copyed out the Government of Christian-Churches by them About the time of Christ we find Synagogues in very great request among the Jews God so disposing it that the moral part of his service should be more frequented now the Ceremonial was expiring and by those places so erected it might be more facile and easie for the Apostles to disperse the Gospel by preaching it in those places to which it was the custome for the people to resort And as Paul at Athens observing the Altar inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the unknown God takes his Text from thence and begins to preach God and Christ to them so the Apostles in every Synagogue meet with a Copy of the Law from whence they might better take their rise to discover him who was the end of the Law for Righteousness to all that believe For Moses of old time hath in every City them that Preach him being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day It was their constant custome then every Sabbath day to have the Law publickly read for which every Synagogue was furnished with a most exact Copy which was looked upon as the great Treasure and Glory of their Synagogue in the Copying out of which the greatest care and diligence was used In their Synagogues they read onely the Law and the Prophets the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hagiographa were not ordinarily read in publick the Law for the more convenient reading it was distributed into fifty four Sections which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every week one Section being read joyning twice two lesser Sections together the whole Law was read through once every year But here I cannot say that the Jews were absolutely bound up to read the several Sections appointed for the dayes as it is commonly thought from which Paraschae and the times prefixed of reading them Cloppenburgh fetched a new Interpretation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is that the first Sabbath was that of the civil year which began with the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the twenty fourth of the month Tisri but the second Sabbath after the first was the first Sabbath of the sacred Year which began with the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the Calends of Nisan but I doe not see any such Evidence of so exact and curious a Division of the several Sections so long since as the time of our Saviour is which appears by our Saviours reading in the Synagogue at Nazareth where it seems he read after the Synagogue custome as one of the seven called out by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to read before the people but we find no Section assigned him by him that delivered the book to him the Office of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is said of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
understanding of the truth and certainty of Christian Religion For when once the mind of any rational man is so far wrought upon by the influence of the Divine Spirit as to discover the most rational and undoubted evidences which there are of the truth of Christianity he is presently obliged to profess Christ openly to worship him solemnly to assemble with others for instruction and participation of Gospel Ordinances and thence it follows that there is an antecedent Obligation upon Conscience to associate with others and consequently to consent to be governed by the Rulers of the Society which he enters into So that this submission to the power of Church Officers in the exercise of Discipline upon Offenders is implyed in the very conditions of Christianity and the solemn professing and undertaking of it 2. It were impossible any Society should be upheld if it be not laid by the founder of the Society as the necessary Duty of all members to undergo the penalties which shall be inflicted by those who have the care of governing that Society so they be not contrary to the Laws Nature and Constitution of it Else there would be no provision made for preventing divisions and confusions which will happen upon any breach made upon the Laws of the Society Now this Obligation to submission to censures doth speak something antecedentaly to the confederation although the expression of it lies in the confederation its self By this I hope we have made it evident that it is nothing else but a mistake in those otherwise Learned persons who make the power of censures in the Christian Church to be nothing else but a Lex confederata Disciplinae whereas this power hath been made appear to be deâ—ived from a higher Original than the meer Arbitrary consent of the several members of the Church associating together And how farre the examples of the Synagogues under the Law are from reaching that of Christian Churches in reference to this because in these the power is conveyed by the Founder of the Society and not left to any arbitrary constitutions as it was among the Iews in their Synagogues It cannot be denied but consent is supposed and confederation necessary in order to Church power but that is rather in regard of the exercise then the original of it For although I affirm the original of thiâ— power to be of Divine Institution yet in order to the exercise of it in reference to particular persons who are not mentioned in the Charter of the power its self it is necessary that the persons on whom it is exerted should declare their consent and submission either by words or actions to the Rules and Orders of this Society Having now proved that the Power of the Church doth not arise from meer consent of parties the next grand Inquiry is concerning the extent of this power Whether it doth reach so far as to Excommunication For some men who will not seem wholly to deny all power in the Church over Offenders nor that the Church doth subsist by Divine Institution yet do wholly deny any such power as that of Excommunication and seem rather to say that Church-Officers may far more congrâ—ously to their Office inflict any other mulct upon Offenders then exclude them from participation of Communion with others in the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel In order therefore to the clearing of this I come to the third Proposition That the power which Christ hath given to the Officers of his Church doth extend to the exclusion of contumacious Offenders from the priviledges which this Society enjoyes In these terms I rather choose to fix it then in those crude expressions wherein Erastus and some of his followers would state the question and some of their imprudent adversaries have accepted it viz. Whether Church Officers have power to exclude any from the Eucharist ob moralem impuritatem And the reasons why I wave those terms are 1. I must confess my self yet unsatisfied as to any convincing Argument whereby it can be proved that any were denyed admission to the Lords Supper who were admitted to all other parts of Church-Society and owned as members in them I cannot yet see any particular Reason drawn from the Nature of the Lords-Supper above all other parts of Divine worship which should confine the censures of the Church meerly to that Ordinance and so to make the Eucharist bear the same Office in the Body of the Church which our new Anatomists tell us the parenchyme of the Liver doth in the natural Body viz. to be colâ—â—â— sanguinis to serve as a kind of strainer to separate the more gross and faeculent parts of the Blood from the more pure and spirituous so the Lord's Supper to strain out the more impure members of the Church from the more Holy and Spiritual My judgement then is that Excommunication relates immediately to the cutting a person off from Communion with the Churches visible Society constituted upon the ends it is but because Communion iâ— not visibly discerned but in Administration and Participation of Gospel Ordinances therefore Exclusion doth chiefly referre to these and because the Lords Supper is one of the highest privilledges which the Church enjoyes therefore it stands to reason that censures should begin there And in that sense suspension from the Lords Supper of persons apparently unworthy may be embraced as a prudent lawful and convenient abatement of the greater penalty of Excommunication and so to stand on the same general grounds that the other doth for Qui pâ—test majus potest etiam minus which will hold as well in moral as natural power iâ— there be no prohibition to the contrary nor peculiar Reason as to the one more then to the oâ—her 2. I dislike the terms ob moralem impuritatem on this account Because I suppose they were taken up by Erastus and from him by others as the Controversie was managed concerning Excommunication among the Iâ—wes viz. whether it were â—meerly because of Ceremonial or else likewise because of moral impurity As to which I must ingenuously acknowledge Erastus hath very much the advantage of his adversaries clearly proving that no persons under the Law were excluded the Temple Worship because of moral impurity But then withall I think he hath gained little advantage to his cause by the great and successfull pains he hath taken in the proving of that My reason is because the temple-Temple-Worship or the sacrifices under the Law were in some sense propitiatory as they were the adumbrations of that grand Sacrifice which was to be offered up for the appeasing of Gods wrath viz. The Blood of Christ therefore to have excluded any from participation of them had been to exclude them from the visible way of obtaining pardon of sin which was not to be had without shedding of Blood as the Apostle tells us and from testifying their Faith towards God and Repentance from dead works But now under the Gospel those