and did bestow his entertainment upon them all as considered together but by reason of the great multitude of them it was impossible that they should all be feasted together in the same Room and therefore for more convenient participation of the Kings bounty it was necessary to divide themselves into particular companies and to associate as many as conveniently could in order to that end So it is in the Church Christ in donation of priviledges equally respects the whole Church but because men cannot all meet together to participate of these priviledges a more particular distribution was necessary for that end But a clearer example of this kind we have yet in Scripture which is Mark 6. 39. in our Saviours feeding the multitude with five loaves and two fishes where we see our Saviours primary intention was to feed the whole multitude but for their more convenient partaking of this food our Saviour commands them to sit down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Hebraism of ingeminating the words to note the distribution of them and therefore the Vulg. Lat. renders it secundum contubernia that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Camerarius expounds it according to so many companies and divisions as might conveniently sit together as at a Table Where we plainly see this distribution was only accidentall as to Christs primary intention of feeding the multitude but was only necessary for their own conveniency Thus the case is evident as to the Church of God it is our necessity and conveniency which makes severall Congregations of the Catholike visible Church and not Gods primary intention when he bestowed such priviledges upon the Church that it should be understood of particular Congregations If then particular Congregations be only accidentall for our conveniency it evidently follows that the primary notion of a Church doth not belong to these nor that these are the first subject of Government which belongs to a Church as such and not as crumbled into particular Congregations although the actual exercise of Government be most visible and discernable there Because the joyning together for participation of Gospel-Ordinances must be in some particular company or other associated together for that end Where ever then we find the notion of a Church particular there must be government in that Church and why a National Society incorporated into one civil Government joyning in the profession of Christianity and having a right thereby to participate of Gospel-Ordinances in the convenient distributions of them in particular congregations should not be called a Church I confesse I can see no reason The main thing objected against it is that a Church implyes an actual joyning together for participation of all Gospel-Ordinances but as this as I said before is only a begging the Question so I say now that actual communion with any particular Congregation is not absolutely necessary to a member of a Church for supposing one baptized at Sea where no setled Congregation is nor any more Society then that which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet such a one is thereby a member of the Church of God though not of any Congregation so likewise a Church then may consist of such as have a right to Ordinances without the inserting their actual participation of them in fixed Congregations A particular Church then I would describe thus That it is A society of men joyning together in the visible profession of the true Faith having a right to and enjoying among them the Ordinances of the Gospel That a whole Nation professing Christianity in which the Ordinances of the Gospel are duly administred in particular Congregations is such a Society is plain and evident A clear instance of such a National constitution of a Church under the Gospel we have in the Prophesie of the Conversion of Egypt and Assyria in Gospel-times Isaiah 19. 19 21 24 25. We have Egypts professing the true Faith and enjoying Gospel Ordinances vers 19. 21. which according to the Prophetical stile are set down under the representation of such things as were then in use among the Jewes by an Altar in the midst of the Land ver 19. The Altar noting the true worship of God and being in the midst of the Land the universal owning of this worship by all the people of the land God owns them for a Church v. 25. Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless saying Blessed be Egypt my people The very name whereby Israel was called while it was a Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hosea 2. 1. And when God unchurched them it was under this name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye are not my people As much then as Israel was a Church when God owned it for his People so should Egypt be upon their conversion to the Faith of Christ which was done upon Marks preaching at Alexandria not long after the death of Christ. This then we have now briefly cleared that a Nation joyning in profession of Christianity is a true Church of God whence it evidently follows that there must be a Form of Ecclesiastical Government over a Nation as a Church as well as of Civil Government over it as a Society governed by the same Lawes Therefore some make this necessary to a Nationall Church National Union in one Ecclesiasticall body in the same Community of Ecclesiasticall Government For every Society must have its Government belonging to it as such a Society and the same Reason that makes Government necessary in any particular Congregation will make it necessary for all the particular Congregations joyning together in one visible society as a particular National Church For the unity and peace of that Church ought much more to be looked after then of any one particular Congregation in as much as the Peace of all the particular combinations of men for participation of Ordinances doth depend upon and is comprehended in the Peace of the whole But though I say from hence that some form of publike Government by the subordination of particular Assemblies to the Government of the whole body of them is necessary yet I am far from asserting the necessity of any one form of that Government much more from saying that no Nationall Church can subsist without one Nationall Officer as the High-Priest under the Law or one Nationall place of Worship as the Temple was The want of considering of which viz that Nationall Churches may subsist without that Form of them under the Jewes is doubtless the great Ground of Mens quarrelling against them but with what Reason let Men impartially judge This then we agree that some from of Government is necessary in every particular Church and so that Government in the Church of Divine and unalterable Right and that not onely of particular Congregations but of all Societies which may be called Churches whether Provinciall or Nationall CHAP. II. The second Concession is That Church-government formally considered must be administred by Officers of Divine appointment To that end
liberty of the Gospel-state above the Jewish The Law was onely as a Paedagogy the Church then in her Infancy and Nonage and therefore wanted the Fescues of Ceremonies to direct her and every part of her lesson set her to bring her by degrees to skill and exactness in her Understanding the mystery of the things represented to her But must the Church now grown up under Christ be still sub ferula and not dare to vary in any Circumstance which doth not concern the thing it self A Boy at School hath his Lesson set him and the manner of learning it prescribed him in every mode and circumstance But at the University hath his Lectures read him and his work set and general Directions given but he is left to his own liberty how to perform his work and what manner to use in the doing of it So it was with the Church under age Every mode and circumstance was Determined but when the fulnesse of Time was come the Church then being grown up the main Offices themselves were appointed and generall Directions given but a liberty left how to apply and make use of them as to every particular case and occasion Things Morall remain still in their full force but circumstantials are left more at liberty by the Gospel-liberty as a Son that is taught by his Father while he is under his instruction must observe every particular direction for him in his Learning but when he comes to age though he observes not those things as formerly yet his Son ship continues and he must obey his Father as a Childe still though not in the same manner The similitude is the Apostles Galat. 4. 1 2 3 4 5. 10. which he there largely amplifies to this very purpose of freeing Christians from Judaical ceremonies 2. The Form of Government among the Jewes in the tribe of Levi was agreeable to the Form of Government among the other Tribes and so Moses was not more exact in Reference to that then to any other and those persons in that Tribe who were the chief before the Institution of the Aâ—ronicall Priest-hood were so after but now under the Gospel people are not under the same Restrictions for civil Government by a Judicial Law as they were then For the Form of Ecclesiastical Government then took place among them as one of their Judicial Laws And therefore if the Argument hold Christ must as well Prescribe a Form for civil Government as Ecclesiastical if Christ in the Gospel must by his Faithfulnesse follow the Pattern of Moses But if Christ be not bound to follow Moses Pattern as to Judicial Law for his Church and People neither is he as to a Form of Ecclesiastical Government because that was a part of their Civil and Judicial Law 3. The people of the Jewes was a whole and entire people subsisting by themselves when one set Form of Government was prescribed them but it is otherwise now under the Gospel The Church of Christ was but Forming in Christs own time nor the Apostles in whose time we reade of but some Cities and no whole Nations converted to the Faith and therefore the same Form of Government would not serve a Church in its first constitution which is necessary for it when it is actually formed A Pastour and Deacons might serve the Church of a City while believers were few but cannot when they are increased into many Congregations And so proportionably when the Church is enlarged to a whole Nation there must be another Form of Government then Therefore they who call for a National Church under the Gospel let them first shew a Nation Converted to the Faith and we will undertake to shew the other And this is the chief Reason why the Churches Polity is so little described in the New Testament because it was onely growing then and it doth not stand to Reason that the coat which was cut out for one in his Infancy must of necessity serve him when grown a man which is the argument of those who will have nothing observed in the Church but what is expressed in Scripture The Apostles looked at the present state of a Church in appointing Officers and ordered things according to the circumstances of them which was necessary to be done in the founding of a Church and the reason of Apostolical practice binds still though not the individual action that as they Regulated Churches for the best conveniency of Governing them so should the Pastours of Churches now But of this largely afterwards 4. Another difference is that the People of the Jewes lived all under one civil Government but it is otherwise with Christians who live under different Forms of civil Government And then by the same reason that in the first institution of their Ecclesiastical Government it was formed according to the civil by the same reason must Christians doe under the Gospel if the argument holds that Christ must be faithful as Moses was And then because Christians do live under several and distinct Forms of civil Government they must be bound by the Law of Christ to contemperate the Government of the Church to that of the State And what they have gained by this for their cause who assert the necessity of any one Form from this Argument I see not but on the contrary this is evident that they have evidently destroyed their own principle by it For if Moses did prescribe a Form of Government for Levi agreeable to the Form of the Common-wealth and Christ be as faithfull as Moses was then Christ must likewise order the Government of Christian Churches according to that of the State and so must have different Forms as the other hath Thus much will serve abundantly to shew the weakness of the argument drawn from the agreement of Christ and Moses for the proving any one form of Government necessary but this shall not suffice I now shall ex abundanti from the answers to this argument lay down several arguments that Christ did never intend to institute any one Form of Government in his Church 1. Whatever binds the Church of God as an institution of Christ must bind as an universal standing Law but one form of Government in the Church cannot bind it as a standing Law For whatever binds as a standing â—aw must either be expressed in direct terms as such a Law or deduced by a necessary Consequence from his Lawes as of an universally binding Nature but any one particular form of Government in the Church is neither expressed in any direct terms by Christ nor can be deduced by just Consequence therefore no such form of Government is instituted by Christ. If there be any such Law it must be produced whereby it is determined in Scripture either that there must be Superiority or Equality among Church Officers as such after the Apostles decease And though the Negative of a Fact holds not yet the Negative of a Law doth else no superstition I have not yet met with
used to say that their Gods beg'd them all their play-days After telling us of the mirth and jollity used after their sacrifices which was alwayes the second course at these Festivalls thence the Jews called their High Festival days 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good days or days of Mirth We read of few Nations but had these Festival Solemnities for the honour of their Gods The Persians had theirs for their God Mithras The Babylonians saith Athenaeus out of Berosus had their Feast Sacaea which Casaubon would have called Sesacaea because Babylon in Scripture is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sesac as the Ludi Romani were from Rome It is to no purpose to mention the Festivals observed by the Greeks and Romans in honour of their Gods being so many that whole books have been composed of them That which I observe from hence is that Societies for the Worship of God are Natural because of their solemn resting from their ordinary labour upon days appointed for the honour of their Gods Thereby shewing they looked upon those as peculiar days and themselves as peculiar Societies upon those days from what they were at other times One thing more evidenceth this among them their solemn and secret Mysteries which were Societies on purpose as pretended for this very end in honor of their Gods Their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they were wont to call them preserved with the greatest secrecy by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their great and lesser Eleusinian Samothracian Cotyttian Mithriacal Mysteries to which none were admitted without passing through many degrees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before they came to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectly initiated Wherein they were much imitated by the Christians in the Celebration of the Lords Supper about the fourth or fifth Century as is largely showed by Casaubon in a most learned Diutriba on this Subject in his Exercitations to which I refer the Reader We see what strict Rules they had for Admission of any into these pretendedly Sacred but truly most impious Societies In those of Mithras as Suidas and Nonnus tell us they passed through eighty degrees before they were throughly initiated and seldome escaped with life However we may gain from them this general notion that they looked on a peculiar distinct Society as necessary for the worship and honor of the Deity they served Thus we see à posteriori how a distinct Society for Gods Worship appears to be a Dictate of Nature We shall now see if we can evidence à priori that it is a Dictate of Nature that there must be some Society for the Worship of God Three things will make that appear First The sociableness of Mans Nature Man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Creature that loves to herd it self with those of his own kind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a man had all other comforts of life and wanted Society he would not think his life worth leading as Aristotle observes who further takes notice of the sociableness of mans Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the general commendation that is given to courteous and affable men I deny not but in the entring into a Civil State or Society either fear or profit might be a main inducement to it but though it be an inducement yet there must be supposed an inclinableness to a Society or a Commonwealth might be assoon set up among Tygers as Men. So that they have very little ground of Reason who from the external inducements of fear or profit in entring into Civil Societies do conclude against the sociableness of Mans Nature If then Mans Nature be sociable in all other things then Nature will tell men they ought to be so in things of common concernment to them all and which is every ones work or duty as Religion is if in other things men are sociable much more in this For Secondly Religion gives a great improvement to mans sociable Nature and therefore Plutarch well calls Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Foundation that knits and joynts Societies together And thence wisely observes that in the Constitution of Laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first and greatest thing to be looked at is the Religion established or the Opinions men entertain of the Gods To which he subjoyns this excellent reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is more impossible for a Commonwealth either to be formed or subsist without Religion then a City to si and without Foundations Thence a prudent States-man called Religion the best Reason of State It appears then evidently both from reason and experience that Religion hath a great influence upon the modelling and ordering Civil Societies whence as the same Moralist observes Lycurgus did as it were consecrate the Lacedaemonians with Religious Rites as Numa the Romans Ion the Athenians and Deucalion the Hellens Whence some half-witted men but I know not whether more defective in wit or grace have observing the great influence Religion hath to keep men in order been ready to look upon it as only a Politick device to awe men with greater ease It is not here a place largely to Examine and Refute this unworthy pretence Only I adjure them by their onely Goddess Reason to tell me whence come men to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Plutarch expresseth it To be so easily awed by the hopes and fears of another life more then other creatures are Why are they at all affected with the discourse of them Why cannot they shake off the thoughts of these things when they please Are not men hereby made the most miserable of creatures For no other creature can be perswaded that it shall ever quench its thirst in those Rivers of pleasures nor make its bed in everlasting flames The beasts of Sardinia that have their only refreshment by the Dew of Heaven yet have never any hopes to â—ome there The Lyon never keeps from his prey by the thoughts and fears of a great Tribunal But suppose onely mankind of all creatures should be liable to be thus imposed on as is pretended How comes it to pass that in no age of the world this Imposture hath not been discovered confuted and shaken off by some people as wise as themselves Or have there never been any such in the world But whence come some men then to be wiser then others Whence come some to know things which all the Reason in the World could never finde out without Revelation Whence comes a power to doe any thing above the course of Nature if there be nothing but Nature Or are all men deceived that believe such things If so then there must be somewhat that must deceive men men would not deceive themselves and they could not be so long imposed upon by other men there must be then some evil spirit must do it and whence should that come from Nature too but then whence comes Nature its self from its self too or some thing ' else