their Power i. e. their right of Governing this Society not meerly from consent and confederation of parties but from that Divine institution on which the Society depends The want of understanding the right notion of power in the sense here set down is certainiy the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Erastianisme and that which hath given occasion to so many to question any such thing as Power in the Church especially when the more zealous then judicious defenders of it have rather chosen to hang it upon some doubtful places of Scripture then on the very nature and constitution of the Christian Church as a Society instituted by Jesus Christ. This being then the nature of power in general it is I suppose clear that an outward coactive force is not necessary in order to it for if some may have a right to govern and others may bee obliged to obedience to those persons antecedently to any civil constitution then such persons have a just power to inflict censures upon such as transgress the rules of the society without any outward force It is here very impertinent to dispute what effects such censures can have upon wilful persons without a coactive power if I can prove that there is a right to inflict them in Church officers and an obligation to submit to them in all offenders I am not to trouble my self with the event of such things as depend upon divine institutions I know it is the great objection of the followers of Erastus that Church censures are inflicted upon persons unwilling to receive them and therefore must imply external and coactive force which is repugnant to the nature of a Church But this admits according to the principles here established of a very easie solution for I deny not that Churchpower goes upon consent but then it s very plain here was an antecedent consent to submit to censures in the very entrance into this Society which is sufficient to denominate it a voluntary act of the persons undergoing it and my reason is this every person entring into a Society parts with his own freedome and liberty as to matters concerning the governing of it and professeth submission to the rules and orders of it now a man having parted with his freedome already cannot reassume it when hee please for then hee is under an obligation to stand to the Covenants made at his entrance and consequently his undergoing what shall bee laid upon him by the Laws of this society must bee supposed to bee voluntary as depending upon his consent at first entrance which in all societies must bee supposed to hold still else there would follow nothing but confusion in all Societies in the world if every man were at liberty to break his Covenants when any thing comes to lye upon him according to the rules of the Society which hee out of some private design would bee unwilling to undergo Thus much may serve to settle aright the notion of power the want of understanding which hath caused all the confusion of this controversie The next thing is in what notion wee are to consider the Church which is made the subject of this power As to which wee are to consider This power either as to it 's right or in actu primo or as to it's exercise or in actu secundo Now if wee take this power as to the fundamental right of it then it belongs to that universal Church of Christ which subsists as a visible Society by vertue of that Law of Christ which makes an owning the profession of Christianity the duty of all Church members If wee consider this power in the exercise of it then it being impossible that the universal Church should perform the executive part of this power relating to offences I suppose it lodged in that particular Society of Christians which are united together in one body in the community of the same Government but yet so as that the administration of this power doth not belong to the body of the society considered complexly but to those officers in it whose care and charge it is to have a peculiar oversight and inspection over the Church and to redress all disorders in it Thus the visive faculty is fundamentally lodged in the soul yet all exterior acts of sight are performed by the eyes which are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Overseers of the body as the other are of the Church so that the exercise and administration of this power belongs to the special Officers and Governours of the Church none else being capable of exercising this power of the Church as such but they on whom it is setled by the founder of the Church it 's self This Society of the Church may bee again considered either as subsisting without any influence from the civil power or as it is owned by and incorporated into a Christian state I therefore demand whether it bee absolutely necessary for the subsistence of this Christian society to bee upheld by the civil power or no And certainly none who consider the first and purest ages of the Christian Church can give any entertainment to the Affirmative because then the Church flourished in it's greatest purity not only when not upheld but when most violently opposed by the civil power if so then it 's being united with the civil state is only accidental as to the constitution of a Church and if this bee only accidental then it must bee supposed furnished with every thing requisite to it 's well ordering antecedenty to any such union and abstractly from it For can wee imagine our Blessed Saviour should institute a society and leave it destitute of means to uphold it's self unless it fell into the hands of the civil power or that hee left every thing tending thereto meerly to prudence and the arbritrary constitutions of the persons joyning together in this society Did our Saviour take care there should bee a society and not provide for means to uphold it Nay it is evident hee not only appointed a society but officers to rule it had those officers then a Right to Govern it or no by vertue of Christs institution of them if not they were rather Bibuli than Caesares Cyphers than Consuls in the Church of God If they had a power to govern doth not that necessarily imply a Right to inflict censures on offenders unless 〈◊〉 will suppose that either there can bee no offenders in a Christian Church or that those offenders do not violate the Laws of the society or there bee some prohibition for them to exercise their power over them which is to give power with one hand and take it away with the other or that this power cannot extend so far as to exclude any from the priviledges of the Church which is the thing to bee discussed Having thus cleared our way I now come to the resolution of the question its self in order to which I shall endeavour to demonstrate with what evidence
the subject is capable of these following things First that the Church is a peculiar Society in its own Nature distinct from the Common-wealth Secondly that the power of the Church over its members doth not arise from meer confederation or consent of parties Thirdly That this power of the Church doth extend to the exclusion of offenders from the priviledges of it Fourthly That the fundamental rights of the Church do not escheat to the Common-wealth upon their being united in a Christian State If these principles bee established the Churches power will stand upon them as on a firm and unmoveable basis I begin with the first That the Church is a peculiar Society in its own nature distinct from the Common-wealth which I prove by these arguments 1 Those Societies which are capable of subsisting apart from each other are really and in their own nature distinct from one another but so it is with the Church and Common-wealth For there can bee no greater evidence of a reall distinction than mutual separation and I think the proving the possibility of the souls existing separate from the body is one of the strongest arguments to prove it to bee a substance really distinct from the body to which it is united although wee are often fain to go the other way to work and to prove possibility of separation from other arguments evincing the soul to bee a distinct substance but the reason of that is for want of evidence as to the state of separate souls and their visible existence which is repugnant to the immateriality of their natures But now as to the matter in hand wee have all evidence desirable for wee are not put to prove possibilâ—â—y of separation meerly from the different constitution of the things united but wee have evidence to sense of it that the Churh hath subsisted when it hath been not onely separated from but persecuted by all civil power It is with many men as to the union of Church and State as it is with others as to the union of the Soul and Body when they observe how close the union is and how much the Soul makes use of the Animal Spirits in most of its operations and how great a sympathy there is between them that like Hyppocrates his Twins they laugh and weep ' together they are shrewdly put to it how to fancy the Soul to bee any thing else then a more vigorous mode of matter so these observing how close an Union and Dependence there is between the Church and State in a Christian Common-wealth and how much the Church is beholding to the civil power in the Administration of its functions are apt to think that the Church is nothing but a higher mode of a Common-wealth considered as Christian. But when it is so evident that the Church hath and may subsist supposing it abstracted from all Civil Power it may bee a sufficient demonstration that however neer they may be when united yet they are really and in their own nature distinct from each other Which was the thing to bee proved 2 Those are distinct societies which have every thing distinct in their nature from each other which belong to the constitution or government of them but this is evident as to the Church and Common-wealth which will appear because their Charter is distinct or that which gives them their being as a society Civil societies are founded upon the necessity of particular mens parting with their peculiar Rights for the preservation of themselves which was the impulsive cause of their entring into societies but that which actually speaks them to bee a society is the mutual consent of the several parties joyning together whereby they make themselves to bee one Body and to have one common interest So Cicero de Repub. defines populus to bee caetus multitudinis juris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus There is no doubt but Gods general providence is as evidently seen in bringing the World into societies and making them live under Government as in disposing all particular events which happen in those societies but yet the way which providence useth in the constitution of these societies is by inclining men to consent to associate for their mutual benefit and advantage So that natural reason consulting for the good of mankinde as to those Rights which men enjoy in common with each other was the main foundation upon which all civil societies were erected Wee finde no positive Law enacting the beeing of civil societies because nature it's self would prompt men for their own conveniencies to enter into them But the ground and foundation of that society which we call a Church is a matter which natural reason and common notions can never reach to and therefore an associating for the preserving of such may bee a Philosophical Society but a Christian it cannot bee And that would make a Christian Church to bee nothing else but a society of Essens or an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Pythagorians who do either not understand or not consider whereon this Christian society is founded for it is evident they look on it as a meerly voluntary thing that is not at all setled by any Divine positive Law The truth is there is no principle more consistent with the opinion of those who deny any Church power in a Christian state then this is and it is that which every one who will make good his ground must bee driven to for it is evident that in matters meerly voluntary and depending only on consideration such things being lyable to a Magistrates power there can be no plea from mutual consent to justifie any opposition to supream authority in a Common-Wealth But then how such persons can bee Christians when the Magistrates would have them to bee otherwise I cannot understand nor how the primitive Martyrs were any other then a company of Fools or Mad-men who would hazard their lives for that which was a meer arbritrary thing and which they had no necessary obligation upon them to profess Mistake mee not I speak not here of meer acts of discipline but of the duty of outward professing Christianity if this bee a duty then a Christian society is setled by a positive Law if it bee not a duty then they are fools who suffer for it So that this question resolved into it's principles leads us higher than wee think for and the main thing in debate must bee whether there bee an obligation upon conscience for men to associate in the profession of Christianity or no If there bee then the Church which is nothing else but such an association is established upon a positive Law of Christ if there bee not then those inconveniencies follow which are already mentioned Wee are told indeed by the Leviathan with confidence enough that no precepts of the Gospel are Law till enacted by civil authority but it is little wonder that hee who thinks an immaterial substance implies a contradiction
2. I prove the divine original of this power from the special appointment and designation of particular officers by Jesus Christ for the ruling this society Now I say that Law which provides there shall bee officers to govern doth give them power to govern suitable to the nature of their society Either then you must deny that Christ hath by an unalterable institution appointed a Gospel Ministry or that this Ministry hath no Power in the Church or that their Power extends not to excommunication The first I have already proved the second follows from their appointment for by all the titles given to Church Officers in Scripture it appears they had a Power over the Church as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which as you well know do import a right to govern the Society over which they are set And that this power should not extend to a Power to exclude convict offenders seems very strange when no other punishment can bee more suitable to the nature of the Society than this is which is a debarring him from the priviledges of that Society which the offender hath so much dishonoured Can there bee any punishment less imagined towards contumacious offenders then this is or that carries in it less of outward and coactive force it implying nothing but what the offender himself freely yeilded to at his entrance into this Society All that I can find replyed by any of the Adversaryes of the opinion I here assert to the argument drawn from the institution and titles of the Officers of the Church is that all those titles which are given to the Ministers of the Gospel in the New Testament that do import rule and government are all to bee taken in a spirituall sense as they are Christs Ministers and Ambassadors to preach his Word and declare his will to his Church So that all power such persons conceive to lye in those titles is onely Doctrinal and declarative but how true that is let any one judge that considers these things 1. That there was certainly a power of discipline then in the Churches constituted by the Apostles which is most evident not only from the passages relating to offendors in Saint Pauls Epistles especially to the Corinthians and Thessalonians but from the continued practice of succeeding ages manifested by Tertullian Cyprian and many others There being then a power of discipline in Apostolical Churches there was a necessity it should be administred by some persons who had the care of those Churches and who were they but the several Pastors of them It being then evident that there was such a power doth it not stand to common sense it should be implyed in such titles which in their natural importance do signifie a right to govern as the names of Pastors and Rulers do 2. There is a diversity in Scripture made between Pastors and Teachers Ephes. 4.11 Though this may not as it doth not imply a necessity of two distinct offices in the Church yet it doth a different respect and connotation in the same person and so imports that ruling carries in it somewhat more then meer teaching and so the power implyed in Pastors to be more then meerly doctrinal which is all I contend for viz. A right to govern the flock committed to their charge 3. What possible difference can be assigned between the Elders that rule well and those which labour in Word and Doctrine 1 Tim. 5.17 if all their ruling were meerly labouring in the Word and Doctrine and all their governing nothing but teaching I intend not to prove an office of rulers distinct from teachers from hence which I know neither this place nor any other will do but that the formal conception of ruling is different from that of teaching 4. I argue from the Analogy between the primitive Churches and the Synagogues that as many of the names were taken from thence where they carried a power of Discipline with them so they must do in some proportion in the Church or it were not easie understanding them It is most certain the Presbyters of the Synagogue had a power of ruling and can you conceive the Bishops and Presbyters of the Church had none when the Societies were much of the same constitution and the Government of the one was transcribed from the other as hath been already largely proved 5. The acts attributed to Pastors in Scripture imply a power of Governing distinct from meer Teaching such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for a right to govern Matth. 2.6 Revel 12.5 19.15 which word is attributed to Pastors of Churches in reference to their flocks Acts 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed to Ministers when they are so frequently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notes praesidentiam eum potestate for Hesychius renders is by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens had certainly a power of Government in them 6. The very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is attributed to those who have over-sight of Churches 1 Cor. 12.8 by which it is certainly evident that a power more then doctrinal is understood as that it could not then be understood of a power meerly civil And this I suppose may suffice to vindicate this argument from the titles of Church-officers in the New Testament that they are not insignificant things but the persons who enjoyed them had a right to govern the Society over which the Holy-Ghost hath made them Over-seers 3. I argue that Church power ariseth not meerly from consent because the Church may exercise her power on such who have not actually confederated with her which is in admitting members into the Church For if the Church-officers have power to judge whether persons are fit to be admitted they have power to exclude from admission such whom they judge unfit and so their power is exercised on those who are not confederated To this it may be answered That the consent to be judged gives the Church power over the person suing for admission I grant it doth as to that particular person but the right in general of judging concerning admission doth argue an antecedent power to an actual confederation For I will suppose that Christ should now appoint some Officers to found a Church and gather a Society of Christians together where there hath been none before I now ask Whether these Officers have power to admit any into the Church or no This I suppose cannot be denyed for to what end else were they appointed If it be granted they have power to admit persons and thereby make a Church then they had power antecedently to any confederation for the confederation was subsequent to their admission and therefore they who had power to admit could not derive their power from confederation This argument to me puts the case out of dispute that all Church-power cannot arise from meer confederation And that which further evidenceth that the power of the Church doth not
2. I grant the Jews had very many priviledges above other Nations Nay so far that the whole body of the people were looked upon as Gods chosen and peculiar and holy people and from thence I justly infer that whatever exclusion was among the people of the Jews from their society will far better hold as an argument for excommunication under the Christian Church then if it had been a meer debarring from their Levitical Worship And that I should far sooner insist upon from the reason assigned as the ground of excommunication then the other infirm and profligated argument and so the exclusion out of the Camp of Israel and the Cerith among the Jews whatever we understand by it may à pari hold to a ground of exclusion from the Christian Society In imitation of which I rather suppose that exclusion out of the Synagogues was after taken up rather then as a meer Out-lawry when they were deprived of Civill power The question then being thus clearly stated it amounts to this Whether under the Gospel there be any power in the Officers of the Church by vertue of divine institution to exclude any offenders out of the Christian society for transgressing the Laws of it And according to our former propositions I suppose it will be sufficient to prove that power to be of divine institution if I prove it to be fundamentally and intrinsecally resident in the society its self For what ever doth immediately result from the society it self must have the same original which the subject hath because this hath the nature of an inseparable property resulting from its constitution For the clearing of which I shall lay down my thoughts of it as clearly and methodically as I can and that in these following hypotheses 1. Where there is a power of declaring any person to be no true member of the society he is in there is a formal power of excommunication for this is all which I intend by it viz. an authoritative pronouncing virtute officii any convict offender to have forfeited his interest in the Church as a Christian society and to lose all the priviledges of i◠So that if this power be lodged in any Church officer then he hath power formally to excommunicate 2. Where the enjoyment of the priviledges of a society is not absolute and necessary but depends upon conditions to be performed by every member of which the society is judge there is a power in the rulers of that society to debarr any person from such priviledges upon non-performance of the conditions As supposing the jus civitatis to depend upon defending the rights of the City upon a failing in referente to this in any person admitted to Citizen-ship the Rulers of the City have the same power to take that right away which they had at first to give it because that right was never absolutely given but upon supposition that the person did not overthrow the ends for which it was bestowed upon him 3. The Church is such a society in which communion is not absolute and necessary but it doth depend on the performance of some conditions of which the Governours of it are the competent Judges And that appears 1. Because the admission into the Church depends upon conditions to be judged by Pastors as in case of adult persons requiring Baptism and the Children of Infidels being baptized in both which cases it is evident that conditions are prerequisite of which the Pastors are Judges 2. Because the priviledges of this Society do require a separation from other Societies in the world and calls for greater holiness and purity of life and those very priviledges are pledges of greater benefits which belong only to persons qualified with suitable conditions it would therefore be a very great dishonour to this Society if it lay as common and open as other Societies in the world do and no more qualifications required from the members of it 3. We have instances in the sacred Records of Apostolical times of such scandals which have been the ground of the exclusion of the persons guilty of them from the priviledges of the Christian Society And here I suppose we may notwithstanding all the little evasions which have been found out fix on the incestuous person in the Church of Corinth As to which I lay not the force of the argument upon the manner of execution of the censure then viz. by delegation from an Apostle or the Apostolical rod or delivering to Satan for I freely grant that these did then import an extraordinary power in the Apostles over offenders but I say the ground and reason of the exercise of that power in such an extraordinary manner at that time doth still continue although not in that visible extraordinary effect which it then had And whatever practice is founded upon grounds perpetual and common that practice must continue as long as the grounds of it do and the Churches capacity will admit which hypothesis is the only rational foundation on which Episcopal Government in the Church doth stand firm and unshaken and which in the former discourse I am far from undermining of as any intelligent Reader may perceive now I say that it is evident that the reasons of the Apostles censure of that person are not fetched from the want of Christian Magistrates but from such things which will hold as long as any Christian Church which are the dishonour of the Society 1 Corinth 5 1. the spreading of such corruptions further if they pass uncensured 1 Corinth 5.6 and amendment of the person 1 Cor. 5.5 Upon these pillars the power of censures rests it self in the Church of God which are the main grounds of penalties in all Societies whatsoever viz. the preservation of the honour of them and preventing of further mischief and doing good to the offending party And that which seems to add a great deal of weight to this instance is that the Apostle checks the Corinthians that before the exercise of the Apostolical rod they were not of themselves sensible of so great a dishonour to the Church as that was and had not used some means for the removing such a person from their Society And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed may be taken away from among you 1 Corinth 5.2 Therein implying that whether there had been such a thing in the Church or no as the Apostolical rod it had been the duty of a Christian Society to have done their endeavour in order to the removing such a person from their number But further I cannot understand how it should be a duty in Christians to withdraw from every brother who walketh disorderly and Church-officers not to have power to pronounce such a person to be withdrawn from which amounts to excommunication It is not to me at all material whether they did immediately relate to Civil or Sacred converse concerning which there is so much dispute for in which