so not in subordination to any other Tribe for they had the heads of their Fathers as well as others Exodus 6. 25. and although when they were setled in Canaan their habitations were intermixt with other Tribes in their forty eight Cities yet they were not under the government of those Tribes among whom they lived but preserved their authority and government intire among themselves And therefore it was necessary there should be the same form of government among them which there was among the rest The whole body of the Nation then was divided into thirteen Tribes these Tribes into their several families some say seventy which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Families were divided into so many Housholds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Housholds into persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the several persons were the several Masters of Families over the several Housholds were the Captains of 1000 and 100 50 10. Over the Families I suppose were the heads of the Fathers And over the thirteen Tribes were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Fathers of the Tribes of the Children of Israel Numb 32. 28. and we have the names of them set down Numb 34. 17 c. So that hitherto we find nothing peculiar to this Tribe nor proper to it as employed in the service of God For their several Families had their several Heads and Eleazar over them as chief of the Tribe And so we find throughout Numbers 2. all the Heads of the several Tribes are named and appointed by God as Eleazar was The only things then which seem proper to this Tribe were the superiority of the Priests over the Levites in the service of God and the supereminent power of the High Priest as the type of Christ. So that nothing can be inferred from the order under the Law to that under the Gospel but from one of these two And from the first there can be nothing deduced but this that as there was a superiority of Officers under the Law so likewise should there be under the Gospel which is granted by all in the superiority of Priests over Deacons to whom these two answer in the Church of God in the judgement of those who contend for a higher order by divine Institution above Presbyters And withall we must consider that there was under that order no power of jurisdiction invested in the Priests over the Levites but that was in the heads of the Families and ordination there could not be because their office descended by succession in their several Families Those who would argue from Aarons power must either bring too little or too much from thence Too little if we consider his office was typical and ceremonial and as High Priest had more immediate respect to God then men Heb. 5. 1. and therefore Eleazar was appointed over the several Families during Aarons life-time and under Eleazar his son Phinehas Too much If a necessity be urged for the continuance of the same authority in the Church of God which is the argument of the Papists deriving the Popes Supremacy from thence Which was acutely done by Pope Innocentius the third the Father of the Lateran Council who proved that the Pope may exercise temporall jurisdiction from that place in Deuteronomy 17. 8. and that by this reason because Deuteronomy did imply the second Law and therefore what was there written in Novo Testamento debet observari must be observed under the Gospel which according to them is a new Law All that can be inferred then from the Jewish pattern cannot amount to any obligation upon Christians it being at the best but a judicial Law and therefore binds us not up as a positive Law but only declares the equity of the thing in use then I conclude then That the Jewish pattern is no standing Law for Church-Government now either in its common or peculiar form of Government but because there was some superiority of order then and subordination of some persons to others under that government that such a superiority and subordination is no wayes unlawfull under the Gospel for that would destroy the equity of the Law And though the form of Government was the same with that of other Tribes yet we see God did not bind them to an equality because they were for his immediate service but continued the same way as in other Tribes thence I inferr that as there is no necessary obligation upon Christians to continue that form under the Jews because their Laws do not bind us now so neither is there any repugnancy to this Law in such a subordination but it is very agreeable with the equity of it it being instituted for peace and order and therefore ought not to be condemned for Antichristian The Jewish pattern then of Government neither makes equality unlawfull because their Laws do not oblige now nor doth it make superiority unlawfull because it was practised then So that notwithstanding the Jewish pattern the Church of Christ is left to its own liberty for the choyce of its form of Government whether by an equality of power in some persons or superiority and subordination of one order to another CHAP. IV. Whether Christ hath determined the form of Government by any positive Laws Arguments of the necessity why Christ must determine it largely answered as First Christs faithfulness compared with Moses answered and retorted and proved that Christ did not institute any form of Church Government because no such Law for it as Moses gave and we have nothing but general Rules which are applyable to several forms of Government The office of Timothy and Titus what it proves in order to this question the lawfulnesse of Episcopacy shewn thence but not the necessity A particular form how far necessary as Christ was the Governour of his Church the similitudes the Church is set out by prove not the thing in question Nor the difference of Civil and Church Government nor Christ setting Officers in his Church nor the inconvenience of the Churches power in appointing new Officers Every Minister hath a power respecting the Church in common which the Church may restrain Episcoâ—acy thence proved lawfull the argument from the Scriptures perfection answered VVE come then from the Type to the Antitype from the Rod of Aaron to the Root of Iessâ— from the Pattern of the Jewish Church to the Founder of the Christian To see whether our Lord Saviour hath determined this controversie or any one form of government for his Church by any universally binding act or Law of his And here it is pleaded more hotly by many that Christ must do it than that he hath done it And therefore I shall first examine the pretences of the necessity of Christs determining the particular form and then the arguments that are brought that he hath done it The main pleas that there must be a perfect form of Church-government laid down by Christ for the Church of God are from the
28. 18. What the Apostles did in order to the Church Government before Pentecost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained How the Apostles did divide Provinces whether Paul and Peter were confined to the circumcision and uncircumcision and different Churches erected by them in the same Cities What the Apostles did in order to settling particular Churches The Names and Office of Bishops Presbyters Deacons considered Four general Considerations laid down about the Apostles practice First It cannot be fully known what is was 2. Great probability they observe no one certain Form in setling Churches proved from Epiphanius Ierome Ambrose or Hilary 3. Their Case different from ours in regard of the paucity of Believers 4. If granted for any Form yet proves not the thing in question For 1. Offices appointed by them are ceased Widdows Deaconesses abolished 2. Rites and Customs Apostolical grown out of use 1. Such as were founded upon Apostolical Precepts Acts 15. 29. considered 2. Such as were grounded on their practice Holy kiss Love-feasts dipping in Baptism community of goods with several others HAving found nothing either in our Saviours practice or in the rules laid down by him conceived to respect Church-Government which determines any necessity of one particular Form the onely argument remaining which can be conceived of sufficient strength to found the necessity of any one form of Government is the practice of the Apostles who were by their imployment and commission entrusted with the Government of the Church of God For our Saviour after his Resurrection taking care for the Planting and Governing of his Church after his Ascension to Glory doth at two several times call his Apostles together and gives now their full Charter and Commission to them the first containing chiefly the power it self conferred upon them Iohn 20. 21. The other the Extent of that power Matth. 28. 19. In the former our Saviour tells them As the Father had sent him so did he send them Which we must not understand of a parity and equality of Power but in a similitude of the mission that as Christ before had managed the great affairs of his Church in his own Person so now having according to the Prophecies made of him at the end of seventy weeks made Reconciliation for iniquity by his Death and brought in everlasting Righteousness by his Resurrection He dispatcheth abroad his Gospel Heralds to proclaim the Iubilee now begun and the Act of Indempnity now past upon all penitent Offendors which is the Sense of the other part of their Commission Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained John 20. 23. i. e. as many as upon the Preaching the Gospel by you shall come in and yield up themselves to the tenders of Grace proclaimed therein shall have their former Rebellions pardoned but such as will still continue obstinate their former guilt shall still continue to bind them over to deserved punishment And to the end the Apostles might have some Evidence of the power thus conferred upon them He breathes the Holy Ghost on them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost which we are not to understand of the Extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which were not received till the day of Pentecost Act. 2. 1. but of the Authoritative power of preaching the Gospel which was now conferred upon them by the solemn Rite of breathing the Holy Ghost on the Apostles In which Sense the Church of England understands that Expression in the Ordination of Ministers as it implies onely the conferring thereby an authority for the preaching of the Gospel which being conveyed by Ordination is fitly expressed by the same wordâ— which our Saviour used in the conferring the same Power upon his Apostles at his sending them forth to be Gospel-Preachers After this comes the solemn appointed meeting of Christ with his Disciples at the mountain of Galilee where in probability besides the eleven were present the five hundered Brethren at once And here Christ more solemnly inaugurates the Apostles in their Office declaring all power to be in his hands and therefore appoints the Apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature that is to all men indefinitely Gentiles as well as Jewes which Matthew fully expresseth by all Nations Now are the Apostles left as chief Governours of the Church under Christ and in this last Commission wherein the extent of the Apostles power is more fully expressed there is nothing mentioned of any order for the Government of the Church under them not what course should be taken by the Church after their decease All that remains then to be inquired into is what the Apostles practice was and how far they acted for the determining any one form of Government as necessary for the Church The Apostles being thus invested in their authority we proceed to consider the Exercise of this authority for the Governing of the Church And here we are to consider that the Apostles did not presently upon their last Commission from Christ goe forth abroad in the World to Preach but were commanded by Christ to go first to Ierusalem and there to expect the coming of the Holy Ghost according to our Saviours own appointment Luke 24. 49. And therefore what Mark adds Mark 16. 20. that after Christs appearance to them the Apostles went abroad and preached every where working Miracles must either be understood of what they did onely in their way returning from Galile oo Ierusalem or else more probably of what they did indefinitely afterwarps For presently after we find them met together at Ierusalem whence they came from Mount Olivet where Christs Ascension was Here we find them imployed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint Luke in his Gospel which we render the Temple but I understand it rather as referring to the action than the place and is best explained by what Luke saith in Acts 1. 14. they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continuing in Prayer and Supplication And that it cannot be meant of the Temple appears by the mention of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an upper room where they continued together For that it should be meant of any of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Temple is most improbable to conceive because not only those ninty Cells about the Temple were destined and appointed for the Priests in their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or times of Ministration and it is most unlikely the chief Priests and Masters of the Temple should suffer those whom they hated so much to continue â—o near them without any molestation or disturbance While the Apostles continue here they proceed to the choice of a new Apostle instead of Iudas thereby making it appear now necessary that number was to the first forming of Churches when the vacant place must be supplyed with so great solemnity Which office of Apostleship which Iudas once had and Matthias was now chosen into is call'd by Peter
title above Presbyter but rather used by way of diminution and qualification of the power implyed in the name of Presbyter Therefore to shew what kind of power and Duty the name Presbyter imported in the Church the Office conveyed by that name is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Presbyters are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5 2. where it is opposed to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lording it over the people as was the custome of the Presbyters among the Jews So that if we determine things by importance of words and things signified by them the power of Ordination was proper to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the former name did then import that power and not the latter We come therefore from the names to the things then implyed by them and the Offices established by the Apostles for the ruling of Churches But my design being not to dispute the arguments of either party viz. those who conceive the Apostles setled the Government of the Church in an absolute parity or else by Superiority and Subordination among the setled Officers of the Church but to lay down those principles which may equally concern both in Order to accommodation I find not my self at present concerned to debate what is brought on either side for the maintaining their particular Opinion any further then thereby the Apostles intentions are brought to have been to bind all future Churches to observe that individual Form they conceived was in practice then All that â— have to say then concerning the course taken by the Apostles in setling the Government of the Churches under which will be contained the full Resolution of what I promised as to the correspondency to the Synagogue in the Government of Churches lies in these three Propositions which I now shall endeavour to clear viz. That neither can we have that certainty of Apostolical practice which is necessary to Constitute a Divine right nor Secondly Is it probable that the Apostles did tye themselves up to any one fixed course in modelling Churches nor thirdly if they did doth it necessarily follow that we must observe the same If these three considerations be fully cleared we may see to how little purpose it is to Dispute the Significancy and Importance of words and names as used in Scripture which hitherto the main quarrel hath been about I therefore begin with the first of these That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in Governing Churches as to inferr from thence the only Divine Right of that one Form which the several parties imagine comes the nearest to it This I shall make out from these following arguments First from the equivalency of the names and the doubtfulness of their signification from which the Form of Government used in the New Testament should be determined That the Form of Government must be derived from the Importance of the names of Bishop and Presbyter is hotly pleaded on both sides But if there can be no certain way sound out whereby to come to a Determination of what the certain Sense of those names is in Scripture we are never like to come to any certain Knowledge of the things signified by those names Now there is a fourfold equivalency of the names Bishop and Presbyter taken notice of 1. That both should signifie the same thing viz. a Presbyter in the modern Notion i. e. one acting in a parity with others for the Government of the Church And this Sense is evidently asserted by Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Acts 20. 28. Philip. 1. 1. Titus 1. 5. 1 Tim. 3. 1. doth by Bishops mean nothing else but Presbyters otherwise it were impossible for more Bishops to govern one City 2. That both of them should signifie promiscuously sometimes a Bishop and sometimes a Presbyter so Chrysostome and after him Occumenius and Theophylact in Phil. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Acts 20. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where they assert the Community and promiscuous use of the names in Scripture so that a Bishop is sometimes called a Presbyter and a Presbyter sometimes called a Bishop 3. That the name Bishop alwayes imports a singular Bishop but the name Presbyter is taken promiscuously both for Bishop and Presbyter 4. That both the names Bishop and Presbyter doe import onely one thing in Scripture viz. the Office of a singular Bishop in every Churchâ— which Sense though a stranger to antiquity is above all other embraced by a late very Learned Man who hath endeavoured by set Discourses to reconcile all the places of Scripture where the names occur to this sense but with what success it is not here a place to examine By this variety of Interpretation of the Equivalency of the names of Bishop and Presbyter we may see how far the argument from the promiscuous use of the names is from the Controversie in hand unless some evident arguments be withall brought that the Equivalency of the words cannot possibly be meant in any other Sense then that which they contend for Equivocal words can never of themselves determine what Sense they are to be taken in because they are Equivocal and so admit of different Senses And he that from the use of an Equivocal word would inferr the necessity onely of one sense when the word is common to many unless some other argument be brought inforcing that necessity will be so far from perswading others to the same belief that he will only betray the weakness and shortness of his own reason When Augustus would be called only Princeps Senatus could any one inferr from thence that certainly he was onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Senate or else that he had superiority of power over the Senate when that Title might be indifferent to either of those senses All that can be infer'd from the promiscuous sense of the words is that they may be understood only in this sense but it must be proved that they can be understood in no other sense before any one particular form of Government as necessâ—ry can be inferred from the use of them If notwithstanding the promiscuous use of the name Bishop and Presbyter either that Presbyter may mean a Bishop or that Bishop may mean a Presbyter or be sometimes used for one sometimes for the other what ground can there be laid in the equivalency of the words which can inferr the only Divine Right of the form of Government couched in any one of those senses So likewise it is in the Titles of Angels of the Churches If the name Angel imports no incongruity though taken only for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Jewish Synagogue the publick Minister of the Synagogue called the Angel of the Congregation what power can be inferred from thence any more then such an Officer was invested with Again if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President
à Johanne conlocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit Proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant A succession I grant is proved in Apostolical Churches by these words of Tertullian and this succession of persons and those persons Bishops too but then it is only said that these persons derived their office from the Apostles but nothing expressed what relation they had to the Church any more then is implyed in the general name of Episcopi nor what power they had over Presbyters only that there were such persons was sufficient to his purpose which was to prescribe against heretickes i. e. to Non-suit them or to give in general reasons why they were not to be proceeded with as to the particular debate of the things in question between them For praescribere in the civil Law whence Tertullian transplanted that word as many other into the Church is cum quis adversarium certis exceptionibus removet à lite contestandâ ita ut de summa rei neget agendum eamve causam ex juris praescripto judicandaÌ„ three sorts of these prescriptions Tertullian elsewere mentions Hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potest non spatium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum Here he stands upon the first which is a prescription of time because the Doctrine which was contrary to that of the Hereticks was delivered by the Apostles and conveyed down by their successors which was requisite to be shewed in order to the making his prescription good Which he thus further explains Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur apud quas ipsae authenticae eorum literae recitantur sonantes vocem praesentantes faciem uniuscujusque Proximè est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos habes Thessalonicenses Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum Sâ— autem Italiae adjaces habes Romam unde nobis quoque auctoritas praestò est What he spoke before of the persons he now speaks of the Churches themselves planted by the Apostles which by retaining the authentick Epistles of the Apostles sent to them did thereby sufficiently prescribe to all the novell opinions of the Hereticks We see then evidently that it is the Doctrine which they speak of as to succession and the persons no further then as they are the conveyers of that Doctrine either then it must be proved that a succession of some persons in Apostolical power is necessary for the conveying of this Doctrine to men or no argument at all can be inferred from hence for their succeeding the Apostles in their power because they are said to convey down the Apostolical Doctrine to succeeding ages Which is Austins meaning in that speech of his Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur The root of Christian society i. e. the Doctrine of the Gospel is spread abroad the world through the channels of the Apostolical Sees and the continued successions of Bishops therein And yet if we may believe the same Austin Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est The difference between Episcopacy and Presbyterie rise from the custome of the Church attributing a name of greater honour to those it had set above others And as for Tertullian I believe neither party will stand to his judgement as to the original of Church power For he saith expresly Differentiâ—m inter ordinem plebem constituit Ecclesia auctoritas all the difference between Ministers and people comes from the Churches authority unless he mean something more by the following words honor per Ordinis concessum sanctificatus à Deo viz. that the honour which is received by ordination from the Bench of Church-Officers is sanctified by God i. e. by his appointment as well as blessing For otherwise I know not how to understand him But however we see here he makes the Government of the Church to lye in a Concessus ordinis which I know not otherwise to render than by a Bench of Presbyters because only they were said in ordinem cooptari who were made Presbyters and not those who were promoted to any higher degree in the Church By the way we may observe the original of the name of Holy Orders in the Church not as the Papists and others following them as though it noted any thing inherent by way of I know not what character in the person but because the persons ordained were thereby admitted in Ordinem among the number of Church-officers So there was Ordo Senatorum Ordo Equestris Ordo Decurionum and Ordo Sacerdotum among the Romans as in this Inscription ORDO SACERDOT DEI HERCULIS INVICTI From hence the use of the word came into the Church and thence Ordination ex vi vocis imports no more than solemn admission into this order of Presbyters and therefore it is observable that laying on of hands never made men Priests under the Law but only admitted them into publike Office So much for Tertullians Concessus ordinis which hath thus fâ—r drawn us out of our way but we now return And therefore Fourthly This personal suceession so much spoken of â—â— sometimes attributed to Presbyters even after the distinction came into use between Bishops and them And that even by those Authors who before had told us the succession was by Bishops as Irenaeus Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem quâ— est ab Apostolis quâ— per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur traditioni dicent se non solum Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores c. Here he attributes the keeping of the Pradition of Apostolical Doctrine to the succession of Presbyters which before he had done to Bishops And more fully afterwards Quapropter iis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt In this place he not only asserts the succession of Presbyters to the Apostles but likewise attributes the successio Episcopatus to these very Presbyters What strange confusion must this raise in any ones mind that seeks for a succession of Episcopal power above Presbyters from the Apostles by the Testimony of Irenaeus when he so plainly attributes both the succession to Presbyters and the Episcopacy too which he speaks of And in the next chapter adds Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait dabo principes tuos in pace Episcopos
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 p. 85 CHAP. V. THE third thing dictated by the Law of Nature is the solemnity of all things to be performed in this Society which lyes in the gravity of all Rites and Ceremonies in the composed temper of mind Gods Worship rational His Spirit destroyes not the use of Reason The Enthusiastick spirit discovered The circumstantiating of fit times and place for Worship The seventh day on what account so much spoken of by Heathens The Romans Holy dayes Cessation of labour upon them The solemnity of Ceremonies used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 silence in devotions Exclusion of unfit persons Solemnity of Discipline Excommunication among the Iewes by the sound of a Trumpet among Christians by a Bell. p. 93 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 Schisme considered The Churches Power as to Opinions explained When separation from a Church may be lawful Not till communion becomes sin Which is when corruptions are required as conditions of Communion Not lawful to erect new Churches upon supposition of corruption in a Church The ratio of a fundamental article explained it implyes both necessity and sufficiency in order to salvation Liberty of judgement and authority distinguished The latter must be parted with in religious Societies as to private persons What way the Light of nature directs to for ending Controversies First in an equality of power that the less number yield to the greater on what Law of Nature that is founded Secondly In a subordination of power that there must be a liberty of Appeals Appeals defined Independency of particular Congregations considered Elective Synods The Case paralleld between Civill and Church-Government Where Appeals finally lodge The power of calling Synods and confirming their Acts in the Magistrate p. 104. CHAP. VII THE fifth thing dictated by the Law of Nature That all that are admitted into this Society must consent to be governed by the Lawes and Rules of it Civil Societies founded upon mutual Consent express in their first entrance implicite in others born under Societies actually formed Consent as to a Church necessary the manner of Consent determined by Christ by Baptism and Profession Implicite consent supposed in all Baptized explicite declared by challenging the Priviledges and observing the Duties of the Covenant Explicite by express owning the Gospel when adult very useful for recovering the credit of Christia nity The Discipline of the primitive Church cleared from Origen Iustin Martyr Pliny Tertullian The necessary reâ—â—â—â—â—â—es of Church membership whether Positive signs of Grace nothing required by the Gospel beyand reality of profession Exâ—â—â—â—â—tâ— Coâ—â—â—â—â—â— how far necessary not the formal Constitution of a Church proved by severâ—â— arguments p. 132. CHAP. VIII THE last thing dictated by the Law of Nature is that every offender against the Lawes of this Society is bound to give an account of his actions to the Governours of it and submit to the censures inflicted upon him by them The original of penalties in Societies The nature of them according to the nature and ends of Societies The penalty of the Church no civil mulct because its Lawes and ends are different from civil Societies The practice of the Dâ—uâ—ds and Câ—rceâ—ae in e 〈…〉 n. Among the Iewes whether a meer civil or sacr 〈…〉 y. The latter proved by six Arguments Cherem Col Bo what Objections answered The original of the mistake shewed The first part concluded p. 141 PART II. CHAP. I. THE other ground of divine Right considered viz. Gods positive Lawes which imply a certain knowledge of Gods intention to bind men perpetuaâ—ly 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 is of divine right 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 p. 150 CHAP. II. THE second Concession is That Church Government must be administred by officers of Divine appointment To that end the continuance of a Gospel Ministry fully cleared from all those arguments by which positive Laws are proved immutable The reason of its appointment continues the dream of a â—aeculum Spiritus sancti discussed first broached by the Mendicant Friers upon the rising of the Waldenses now embraced by Enthusiasts It s occasion and unreasonableness shewed Gods declaring the perpetuity of a Gospel Ministry Matth. 28. 20. explained A Novel interpretation largely refuted The world to come What A Ministry necessary for the Churches continuance Ephes. 4 12. explained and vindicated p. 158 CHAP. III. THE Question fully stated Not what Form of Government comes the nearest to the Primitive practice but whether any be absolutely determined Several things propounded for resolving the Question What the Form of Church-Government was under the Law How far Christians are bound to observe that Neither the necessity of a superiour Order of Church-Officers nor the unlawfulness can be proved from thence p. 170 CHAP. IV. WHether Christ hath determined the Form of Government by any positive Laws Arguments of the necessity why Christ must determine it largely answered as First Christs faithfulness compared with Moses answered and retorted and thence proved that Christ did not institute any Form of Government in the Church because he gave no such Law for it as Moses did And we have nothing but general Rules which are appliable to several Forms of Government The Office of Timothy and Titus What it proves in order to this question the lawfulness of Episcopacy shewed thence but not the necessity A particular form how far necessary as Christ was Governour of his Church the Similitudes the Church is set out by prove not the thing in question Nor the difference between civil and Church-Government nor Christ setting Officers in his Church nor the inconvenience of the Churches power in appointing new Officers Every Minister hath a power respecting the Church in common which the Church may determine and fix the bounds of Episcopacy thence proved lawful The argument from the Scriptures perfection answered p. 175 CHAP. V. WHether any of Christs actions have determined the Form of
Government All Power in Christs hands for Governing the Church What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World Calling the Apostles the first action respecting outward Government Three steps of the Apostles calling to be Disciples in their first mission in their plenary Commission Several things observed upon them pertinent to our purpose The Name and Office of Apostles cleared An equality among them proved during our Saviours life Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The pleas for it answered The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered with the nature and quality of their Office Matth. 20. 25 26. largely discussed and explained It excludes all civil power but makes not all inequality in Church-Officers unlawful by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches Matth. 18. 15 16 17. fully inquired into No evidence for any one Form from thence because equally applyed to several What the offences are there spoken of What the Church spoken to Not an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Iews nor yet the civil Sanhedrin as Erastus and his followers explain it nor a Consistorial or Congregational Church under the Gospel but onely a select company for ending private differences among Christians p. 200 CHAP. VI. THe next and chief thing pleaded for determining the Form of Church-Government is Apostolical practice two things inquired into concerning that what it was how far it binds The Apostles invested with the power and authority of governing the whole Church of Christ by their Commission Iohn 20. 21. Matth. 28. 19. What the Apostles did in order to Church-Government before Pentecost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained No division of Provinces made among the Apostles then made appear by several Arguments Whether Paul and Peter were conâ—ined one to the circumcision the other to the uncircumcision and different Churches erected by them in the same Cities What course the Apostles took in setling the Government of particular Churches Largely proved that they observed the customs of the Iewish Synagogue The model of the Synagogue Government described Whether peculiar Ordination for the Synagogue Officers The service of the Synagogue set forth with the Officers belonging to it Grounds proving that the Apostles copied forth the the Synagogue modell Community of names and customs between Iews and Christians then Forming Churches out of Synagogues Whether any distinct Coetus of Jewish and Gentile Christians in the same Cities Correspondency of the Church with the Synagogue in the orders of publick Service In the custome of Ordination Ierom explained The power of Ordination in whom it lodgeth in the Christian Church The opinions of Ierom and Aerins considered The name of Presbyters and Bishops explained Three general considerations touching Apostolical practice 1. That we cannot attain to such a certainty of Apostolical practice as thereon to ground a divine right The uncertainty of Apostolical practice as to us fully discovered 1. From the equivalency of the names which should determine the controversie 2. In that the places in controversie may without incongruity be understood of the different forms 3. From the defectiveness ambiguity partiality and repugnancy of the Records of Antiquity which should inform us what the Apostolical practice was These fully discoursed upon The testimonies of Eusebius Irenaeus Tertullian Hilary Ierom and Ignatius discussed and these two last proved not to contradict each other Episcopacy owned as a humane Instituiion by the sense of the Church 2. Consideration That in all probability the Apostles did not observe any one fixed course of settling Church Government but settled it according to the several circumstances of time places and persons Several things premised for clearing it This Opinion though seemingly New is proved at large to be most consonant to antiquity by the several Testimonies of Clemens Rom. Alexandrinus Epiphanius whose Testimony is corrected explained and vindicated Hilary and divers others This Opinion of great consequence towards our present peace No foundation for Lay-Elders either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Consideration Meer Apostoliâ—al practice if supposed founds not any divine right proved by a fourfold Argument The right of Tithes resolved upon the same Principles with that of Church Government Rites and Institutions Apostolical grown quite out of use among the several contending parties p. 230. CHAP. VII THE Churches Polity in the ages after the Apostles considered Evidences thence that no certain unalterable Form of Church-Government was delivered to them 1. Because Church Power did inlarge as the Churches did Whether any Metropolitan Churches established by the Apostles Seven Churches of Asia whether Metropolitical Philippi no Metropolis either in Civil or Ecclesiastical sense Several degrees of inlargement of Churches Churches first the Christians in whole Cities proved by several arguments the Eulogiae an evidence of it Churches extended into the neighbour territories by the preaching there of City Presbyters thence comes the subordination between them Churches by degrees inlarged to Diocesses from thence to Provinces The Original of Metropolitans and Patriarches 2. No certain Form used in all Churches Some Churches without Bishops Scots Goths Some with but one Bishop in their whole Countrey Scythian Aethiopian Churches how governed Many Cities without Bishops Diocesses much altered Bishops discontinued in several Churches for many years 3. Conforming Ecclesiastical Government to the civil in the extent of Diocesses The suburbicarian Churches what Bishops answerable to the civil Governours Churches power rises from the greatness of Cities 4. Validity of Ordination by Presbyters in places where Bishops were The case of Ischyras discussed instances given of Ordination by Presbyters not pronounced null 5. The Churches prudence in managing its affairs by the several Canons Provincial Synods Codex Canonum p. 346 CHAP. VIII AN Inquiry into the Iudgement of Reformed Divines concerning the unalterable Divine Right of particular Forms of Church-Government wherein it is made appear that the most emine nt Divines of the Reformation did never conceive any one Form necessary manifested by three arguments 1. From the judgment of those who make the Form of Church-Government mutable and to depend upon the wisdom of the Magistrate and Church This cleared to have been the judgement of most Divines of the Church of England since the Reformation Archbishop Cranmers judgements with others of the Reformation in Edward the Sixth time now first published from his authentick MS. The same ground of setling Episcopacy in Queen Elizabeth's time The judgement of Archbishop Whitgift Bishop Bridges Dr. Loe Mr. Hooker largely to that purpose in King Iames his time The Kings own Opinion Dr. Sutâ—â—ffe Since of Grakanthorp Mr. Hales Mr. Chillingworth The Testimony of Forraign Divines to the same purpose Chemnitius Zanchy French Divines Peter Moulin Fregevil Blondel Bochartus Amyraldus Other learned men Grotius Lord Bacon c. 2. Those who look upon equality as the Primitive Form yet judge Episcopacy lawful Augâ—stane Confession Melanchthon Articuli Smalcaldici Prince of Anhalt Hyperius Hemingiâ—s The practice of most
be a Power Governing is supposing a Society of the immutable Law of Nature because it is that without which no Society can be maintained And this is one of those things which are of the Law of Nature not in an absâ—lute state of Liberty but supposing some Acts of Men which once supposed become immutable and indispensable As supposing Propriety every Man is bound to abstain from what is in anothers Possession without his consent by an immutable Law of Nature which yet supposeth some Act of Man viz. the voluntary introducing of Propriety by consent So supposing a Society in being it is an immutable dictate of the Law of Nature that a Power of Government should be maintained and preserved in it So I say for the second thing Order This as it implies the Subordination of some in a Society to others as their Rulers is immutable and indispensable but as to the Form whereby that Order should be preserved that is whether the Government should be in the hands of one or more is no wise Determined by the Obligatory Law of Nature because either of them may be lawfull and usefull for the ends of Government and so neither necessary by that Law For as to the Law of Nature the Case is the same in Civil and Religious Societies Now who will say that according to the Law of Nature any form of Government Monarchy Aristocracy Democracy is unlawfull These things are then matters of Naturall Liberty and not of Naturall necessity and therefore must be examined according to positive Determinations of Divine and Humane Lawes where we shall speak of it This then is clear as to our purpose That a power in the Church must be constantly upheld and preserved fitly qualified for the ends of Government is an immutable Law so that this power be lodged in some particular Persons to act as Governours and so distinct from others as subordinate to them but whether the Power of Government come from People by Election or from Pastors by Ordination or from Magistrates by Commission and Delegation whether one two or all these wayes is not determined by Naturall Law but must be looked for in Gods positive Laws if not there neither to be found we must acquiesce in what is determined by lawful Authority The same I say again as to forms of Government whether the Power of sole Jurisdiction and Ordination be invested in one person above the rank of Presbyters or be lodged in a Colledge acting in a pâ—rity of Power is a plea must be removed from the Court of common Law of Nature to the Kings Bench I mean to the positive Lawes of God or the Supream power in a Common-wealth There being no Statutes in the Law of Nature to determine it it must be therefore Placitum Regis some positive Law must end the controversie We therefore traverse the Suit here and shall enter it at the other Court The second thing dictated by the Law of Nature is That the persons imployed in the immediate Service of God and entrusted with the Power of governing the Society appointed for that end should have respect paid them answerable to the Nature of their imployment This appears to have foundation in the Law of Nature being easily deducible from one of the first principles of that Law that God is to be worshipped if so then those whose imployment is chiefly to attend upon himself ought to have greater Reverence then others By the same Reason in Nature that if we do honour the King himself the nearer any are to the Kings Person in attendance and imployment the greater honour is to be shewed them The ground of which is that the honour given to servants as such is not given to their persons but to their Relation or to the one only upon the account of the other and so it doth not fix and terminate upon themselves but rebounds back and reflects upon the Original and Fountain of that Honour the Prince himself So if any be honoured upon the account of their immediate imployment in the service of God it is God who is chiefly honour'd and not they it being the way men have to expresse their honour to God by shewing it proportionably and respectively to those who either represent him or are imployed by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome speaks in this very case The honour pâ—sseth through them to God himself Where he largely proves this very thing from the Egyptians sparing the Lands of their Priests and argues at least for an equality of honour from reason to be given to those who serve the true God Nay he is so far from looking upon it as part of their superstition that he mounts his argument à pari to one à minori ad majus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is As much as truth exceeds errour and the servants of God do the Idol-priests so much let the honour we give to them exceed that which was given by the Heathen to theirs But we have a further evidence of the honourablenesse of this imployment by the light of Nature from the persons imployed in this work before any positive Laws did restrain it For I say not that the Law of Nature doth dictate that the function of those imployed in this work should be differenced from all other that is done by Divine positive Laws but the honour of those in that function is from the Law of Nature which appears hence in that in the eldest times those who had the greatest authority civil had likewise the sacred conjoyned with it For as Aristotle rightly observes that the originall of civil Government was from private families so in those families before they came to associate for more publike worship the Master of the family was the Priest of it Thence we read of Noahs sacrificing Abrahams duty to instruct his family and his own command for offering up his Son we read of Iacobs sacrificing and Iobs and so of others Every Master of the family then was the High Priest too and governed his family not only as such but as a religious Society Afterwards from what institution we know not but certainly the reason of it if it were so was to put the greater honour upon the eldest son it is generally conceived that the first-born had the Priesthood of the Family in their possession till the time of the Leviticall Law The Jewish Doctors think that was the Birthright which Iacob procured from his Father and which Abraham gave to Isaac when it is said that he gave him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that he had For saith Postellus if it be meant in a literall sense how could he give those gifts to his other Sons which are mentioned before Wherefore he conjectures by that All is meant the spiritual knowledge of Christ which he calls Intellectus generalis which might be more proper to him as Priest of the family But the plain meaning is no more than
with the dispencers of the Word as appears from the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governours Rulers Pastors all which necessarily imply a Governing power which having been largely proved by others and yeelded by me I pass over CHAP. III. The Question fully stated Not what form of Government comes the nearest to the Primitive practice but whether any be absolutely determined Several things propounded for resolving the Question What the form of Church-Government was under the Law How far Christians are bound to observe that Neither the necessity of superiority nor the unlawfulnesse can be proved thence ANd now I come to the main Subject of the present Controversie which is acknowledging a form of Government necessary and the Governours of the Church perpetuall Whether the particular form whereby the Church must be governed be determined by any positive Law of God which unalterably binds all Christians to the observation of it By Church here I mean not a particular Congregation but such a Society which comprehends in it many of these lesser Congregations united together in one body under a form of Government The forms of Government in controversie the Question being thus stated are only these two the particular officers of several Churches acting in an equality of Power which are commonly called a Colledge of Presbyters or a Superiour Order above the standing Ministry having the Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination belonging to it by vertue of a Divine Institution Which order is by an Antonomasia called Episcopacy The Question now is not which of these two doth come the nearest to Apostolical practice and the first Institution which hath hitherto been the controversie so hotly debated among us but whether either of these two forms be so setled by a jus divinum that is be so determined by a positive Law of God that all the Churches of Christ are bound to observe that one form so determined without variation from it or whether Christ hath not in setling of his Church provided there be some form of Government and a setled Ministry for the exercise of it left it to the prudence of every particular Church consisting of many Congregations to agree upon its own form which it judgdeth most conducing to the end of Government in that particular Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here now we fix our selves and the first thing we do is to agree upon our wayes of resolution of this Question whereby to come to an end of this debate And the most probable way to come to an issue in it is to go through all the wayes whereon men do fix an unalterable divine Right and to see whether any of these do evince a divine Right setled upon a positive Law or no for one of these forms The pleas then for such a divine Right are these Either some formal Law standing in force under the Gospel or some plain Institution of a New Law by Christ in forming his Church or the obligatory nature of Apostolical practice or the general sense of the Primitive Church to which we shall add by way of Appendix the Judgement of the chief Divines and Churches since the Reformation if we go happily through these we may content our selves with having obtained the thing we aim at The first inquiry then is Whether any formal Law of God concerning a form of government for his Church either by persons acting in an equality of Power or subordination of one Order to another under the Gospel doth remain in force or no binding Christians to the observing of it The Reason why I begin with this is because I observe the Disputants on both sides make use of the Pattern under the Law to establish their form by Those who are for Superiority of one Order above another in the government of the Church derive commonly their first argument from the Pattern under the Law Those who are for an equality of Power in the persons acting in government yet being for a subordination of Courts they bring their first argument for that from the Jewish Pattern So that these latter are bound by their own argument though used in another case to be ruled in this Controversie by the Jewish Pattern For why should it be more obligatory as to subordination of Courts then as to the superiority of Orders If it holds in one case it must in the other And if there be such a Law for Superiority standing unrepealed there needs no New Law to inforce it under the Gospel We shall therefore first enquire what foundation there is for either form in that Pattern and how far the argument drawn from thence is obligatory to us now For the practice then in the Jewish Church That there was no universal equality in the Tribe of Levi which God singled out from the rest for his own service is obvious in Scripture For there we find Priests above the Levites the family of Aaron being chosen out from the other families of Cohath one of the three sons of Levi to be employed in a nearer attendance upon Gods Service then any of the other families And it must be acknowledged that among both Priests and Levites there was a Superiority For God placed Eleazar over the Priests Elizaphan over the Cohathites Eliasaph over the Gershonites Zuriel over the Merarites and these are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rulers over their several families for it is said of every one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was Ruler over the house of his Father Neither were these equal for over Eliasaph and Zuriel God placed Ithamar over Elisaphan and his own family God set Eleazar who by reason of his authority over all the rest is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ruler of the Rulers of Levi and besides these there were under these Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Fathers of the several distinct families as they are called Exodus 6. 25. Thus we briefly see the subordination that there was in the Tribe of Levi the Levites first over them the heads of the Families over them the Rulers or the chief of the heads over them Ithamar over both Priests and Levites Eleazar Over all Aaron the High Priest There being then so manifest an inequality among them proceed we to shew how obligatory this is under the Gospel For that end it will be necessary to consider whether this imparity and Superiority were peculiarly appointed by God for the Ecclesiastical government of the Tribe of Levi as it consisted of persons to be employed in the service of God or it was only such an inequality and Superiority as was in any other Tribe If only common with other Tribes nothing can be inferred from thence peculiar to Ecclesiasticall government under the Gospel any more then from the government of other Tribes to the same kind of government in all civil States We must then take notice that Levi was a particular distinct Tribe of it self and
I come to examine the argument from Apostolical Succession Thus we see then that neither the qualification of the persons nor the commands for a right exercise of the office committed to them nor the whole Epistles to Timothy and Titus do determine any one form of Government to be necessary in the Church of God Thirdly Let us see whether the general Rules do require any one form which rules in that they are general can determine nothing of the authority it self as to its particular mode being intended only for the regulation of the exercise of the authority in which men are placed And it is an evidence that nothing is particularly determined in this case when the Spirit of God only lays down such Rules for government which are applyable to distinct forms Otherwise certainly some Rule would have been laid down which could have been applyed to nothing but to that one form That none take the office of preaching without a Call nor go without sending will equally hold whether the power of Ordination lye in a Bishop with Presbyters or in Presbyters acting with equality of power That offenders be censured and complaints made to the Church in case of scandal determines nothing to whom the power of Jurisdiction doth solely belong nor what that Church is which must receive these complaints That all things be done with decency and order doth prescribe nothing wherein that Decency lyes nor how far that Order may extend nor yet who must be the Judges of that Decency and Order That all be done for edification and the common benefit of the Church doth no wayes restrain his Churches freedom in disposing of its self as to the form of its government so the aym of the Church be for the better edification of the body of the Church and to promote the benefit of it But methinks these general Orders and Rules for Discipline do imply the particular manner of government to be left at liberty to the Church of God so that in all the several forms these general Rules be observed Whereas had Christ appointed a superiour Order to govern other subordinate Officers and the Church together Christs command for governing the Church would have been particularly addressed to them and again had it been the will of Christ there should be no superior Order above the Pastours of particular Churches there would have been some expresse and direct prohibition of it which because we no where read it seems evident that Christ hath left both the one and the other to the freedom and liberty of his Church So much shall serve in this place to shew how improbable it is that Christ did ever prescribe any one form of Government in his Church since he hath only laid down general Rules for the management of Church government But this will not yet suffice those who plead that Christ must determine one immutable form of Government in his Church but although it be a high presumption to determine first what Christ must do before we examine what he hath done yet we shall still proceed and examine all the pretences that are brought for this opinion The next thing then which is generally urged for it is the equal necessity of Christs instituting a certain form as for any other Legislator who models a Common-wealth Now for answer to this I say first That Christ hath instituted such an immutable government in his Church as is sufficient for the succession and continuance of it which is all which Founders of Common-wealths do look after viz. that there be such an Order and distinction of persons and subordination of one to the other that a Society may still be preserved among them now this is sufficiently provided for by Christs appointing Officers continually to rule his Church and establishing Laws for the perpetuating of such Officers so whatsoever is necessary in order to the general ends of Government is acknowledged to be appointed by Jesus Christ. Untill then that it be proved that one form of government is in it self absolutely necessary for the being of a Church this argument can prove nothing for what is drawn from necessity will prove nothing but in a case of necessity Secondly I answer That those things which are not absolutely necessary to the being of a Church are left to Christs liberty whether he will determine them or no and are no further to be looked on as necessary then as he hath determined by his Laws whether they shall be or no in his Church The thing will be thus cleared When I read that Zaleucus Lycurgus or Numa did form a Common-wealth and make Laws for it I presently conclude that there must be some order or distinction of persons in this Common wealth and some rules whereby persons must be governed and whereby others must Rule But I cannot hence inferr that Zaleucus or Lycurgus did institute Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical Government because any of these forms might be agreeable to their design and therefore what kind of government they did appoint can no otherwise be known then by taking a view of the Laws which they made in order thereto So it is in reference to Christ when we read that Christ hath instituted a Church alwayes to continue in the World we presently apprehend that there must be some power and order in the members of that Society and Laws for the governing it but we cannot hence gather that he hath bound up his Officers to act in any one form because several forms might in themselves equally tend to the promoting the end of Government in his Church And therefore what Christ hath expresly determined in his positive Laws must be our Rule of judging in this case and not any presumption of our own that such a form was necessary and therefore Christ must institute and appoint it Which is fully expressed by judicious Mr. Hooker whose words will serve as a sufficient answer to this Objection As for those marvellous Discourses whereby they adventure to argue that God must needs have done the thing which they imagine was to be done I must confesse I have often wondred at their exceeding boldnesse herein When the question is Whether God have delivered in Scripture as they affirm he hath a compleat particular immutable form of Church-Polity why take they that other both presumptuous and superfluous labour to prove he should have done it there being no way in this case to prove the deed of God saving only by producing that evidence wherein he hath done it But if there be no such thing apparent upon record they do as if one should demand a Legacy by force and vertue of some written Testament wherein there being no such thing specified he pleadeth that there it must needs be and bringeth arguments from the Love and good will which alwayes the Testator bore imagining that these or the like proofs will convict a Testament to have that in it which other men can no
Evangelists and some Pastours and Teachers but it doth not thence follow that Christ hath determined whether the Power of Apostles and Evangelists should continue in his Church or no as it implied Superiority over the ordinary Pastors of the Churches nor whether the Pastors of the Church should act in an equality in their Governing Churches I grant that all Church-Government must be performed by Officers of Christs appointing but that which I say is not determined in Scripture is the way and manner whereby they shall Govern Churches in common It is yet further argued That if the Form of Church Government be not immutably determined in Scripture then it is in the Churches Power to make new Officers which Christ never made which must be a plain addition to the Lawes of Christ and must argue the Scripture of Imperfection This being one of the main Arguments I have reserved it to the place of the Triarii and shall now examine what strength there lies in it To this therefore I answer First Those Officers are onely said to be new which were never appointed by Christ and are contrary to the first appointments of Christ for the Regulating of his Church such it is granted the Church hath no power to institute but if by new Officers be meant onely such as have a charge over more then one particular congregation by the consent of the Pastours themselves then it is evident such an Office cannot be said to be new For besides the general practice of the Church of God from the first Primitive times which have all consented in the use of such Officers we finde the Foundation of this Power laid by Christ himself in the Power which the Apostles were invested in which was extended over many both Churches and Pastours But if it be said The Apostolical Power being extraordinary must cease with the persons which enjoyed it I answer First What was extraordinary did cease but all the Dispute is what was extraordinary and what not some things were ordinary in them as Preaching Baptizing Ordaining Ruling Churches some things were again extraordinary as immediate mission from Christ the main distinguishing Note of an Apostle a Power of working Miracles to confirm the Truth of what they Preached Now the Question is whether the power which they enjoyed over Presbyters and Churches be to be reckoned in the first or the second number It must therefore be proved to be extraordinary before it can be said to cease with them and that must be done by some Arguments proper to their persons for if the Arguments brought be of a common and moral Nature it will prove the Office to be so too Secondly By ceasing may be meant either ceasing as to its necessity or ceasing as to its lawfulness I say not but that the necessity of the Office as in their persons for the first Preaching and propagating the Gospel did cease with them but that after their death it became unlawful for any particular persons to take the care and charge of Diocesan Churches I deny For to make a thing unlawfull which was before lawfull there must be some expresse prohibition forbidding any further use of such a power which I suppose men will not easily produce in the Word of God I answer therefore Secondly That the extending of any Ministerial power is not the appointing of any New Office because every Minister of the Gospel hath a Relation in actu primo to the whole Church of God the restraint and inlargement of which power is subject to Positive Determinations of prudence and conveniency in actu secundo and therefore if the Church see it fit for some men to have this power enlarged for better government in some and restrained in others that inlargement is the appointing no new Office but the making use of a power already enjoyed for the benefit of the Church of God This being a Foundation tending so fully to clear the lawfulnesse of that Government in the Church which implies a superiority and subordination of the Officers of the Church to one another and the Churches using her prudence in ordering the bounds of her Officers I shall do these two things First Shew that the power of every Minister of the Gospel doth primarily and habitually respect the Church in common Secondly that the Church may in a peculiar manner single out some of its Officers for the due Administration of Ecclesiastical power First that every Minister of the Gospel hath a power respecting the Church in common This I find fully and largely proved by those who assert the equality of the power of Ministers First from Christs bestowing the several Offices of the Church for the use of the whole Church Ephesians 4. 12 13. Christ hath set Apostles c. Pastours and Teachers in his Church now this Church must needs be the catholicke visible Church because indisputably the Apostles Office did relate thereto and consequently so must that of Pastours and Teachers too Again the end of these Offices is the building up the Body of Christ which cannot otherwise be understood then of his whole Church else Christ must have as many Bodies as the Church hath partiticular congregations Which is a new way of Consubstantiation Secondly The Ministerial Office was in being before any particular congregations were gathered For Christ upon his Ascension to Glory gave these Gifts to men and the Apostles were impowered by Christ before his Ascension Either then they were no Church Officers or if they were so they could have no other Correlate but the whole body of the Church of God then lying under the power of Darkness a few persons excepted Thirdly Because the main Designe of appointing a Gospel Ministry was the conversion of Heathens and Infidels and if these be the proper Object of the Ministerial Function then the Office must have reference to the whole Church of Christ else there could be no part of that Office performed towards those who are not yet converted Fourthly Else a Minister can perform no office belonging to him as such beyond the bounds of his particular congregation and so can neither Preach nor Administer the Sacraments to any other but within the Bounds of his own particular place and people Fifthly Because Ministers by Baptizing do admit men into the catholike visible Church else a man must be baptized again every time he removes from one Church to another and none can admit beyond what their office doth extend to therefore it is evident that every particular Pastor of a Church hath a Relation to the whole Church To which purpose our former observation is of great use viz. That particular congregations are not of Gods primary intention but for mens conveniency and so consequently is the fixedness of particular Pastors to their several places for the greater conveniency of the Church every Pastor of a Church then hath a Relation to the whole Church and that which hinders him from the
exercise of this power is not any unlawfulnesse in the thing but the preserving of order and conveniency in the Church of God This being premised I say Secondly That the officers of the Church may in a peculiar manner attribute a larger and more extensive power to some particular persons for the more convenient exercise of their common power We have seen already that their power extends to the care of the Churches in common that the restraint of this power is a matter of order and decency in the Church of God Now in matters of common concernment without all question it is not unlawful when the Church judgeth it most for Edification to grant to some the executive part of that power which is Originally and Fundamentally common to them all For our better understanding of this we must consider a twofold power belonging to Church-Officers a power of Order and a power of jurisdiction for in every Presbyter there are some things inseparably joyned to his Function and belonging to every one in his personal capacity both in actu primo and in actu secundo both as to the right and power to do it and the exercise and execution of that power such are preaching the Word visiting the sick administring Sacraments c. But there are other things which every Presbyter hath an aptitude and a jus to in actu primo but the limitation and exercise of that power doth belong to the Church in common and belong not to any one personally but by a further power of choice or delegation to it such is the power of visiting Churches taking care that particular Pastors discharge their duty such is the power of ordination and Church censures and making Rules for decency in the Church this is that we call the power of jurisdiction Now this latter power though it belongs habitually and in actu primo to every Presbyter yet being about matters of publike and common concernment some further Authority in a Church constituted is necessary besides the power of order and when this power either by consent of the Pastors of the Church or by the appointment of a Christian Magistrate or both is devolved to some particular persons though quoad aptitudinem the power remain in every Presbyter yet quoad executionem it belongs to those who are so appointed And therefore Camero determins that Ordinatio non fit à pastore quatenus pastor est sed quatenus ad tempus singularem authoritatem obtinet i. e. That Ordination doth not belong to the Power of Order but to the Power of Jurisdiction and therefore is subject to Positive restraints by Prudential Determinations By this we may understand how lawfull the Exercise of an Episcopal Power may be in the Church of God supposing an equality in all Church-Officers as to the Power of Order And how incongruously they speak who supposing an equality in the Presbyters of Churches at first do cry out that the Church takes upon her the Office of Christ if she delegates any to a more peculiar Exercise of the power of Jurisdiction The last thing pleaded why an immutable Form of Church-Government must be laid down in Scripture is from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures because otherwise the Scriptures would be condemned of imperfection But this will receive an easie dispatch For First The Controversie about the perfection of the Scriptures is not concerning an essential or integral Perfection but a perfection ratione finis effectuum in order to its end now the end of it is to be an adaequate Rule of Faith and Manners and sufficient to bring men to salvation which it is sufficiently acknowledged to be if all things necessary to be believed or practised be contained in the Word of God now that which we assert not to be fully laid down in Scripture is not pleaded to be any wayes necessary nor to be a matter of Faith but something left to the Churches Liberty but here it is said by some that this is adding to the Law of God which destroyes the Scriptures perfection therefore I answer Secondly Whatever is done with an Opinion of the necessity of doing it destroyes the Scriptures perfection if it be not contained in it for that were to make it an imperfect Rule and in this sense every additio perficiens is additio corrumpens because it takes away from the perfection of the Rule which it is added to and thus Popish Traditions are destructive of the Scriptures sufficiency But the doing of any thing not positively determined in Scripture not looking upon it as a thing we are bound to do from the necessity of the thing and observing the general Rules of Scripture in the doing it is far from destroying the perfection or sufficiency of the Word of God Thirdly All essentials of Church-Government are contained clearly in Scripture The essentials of Church-Government are such as are necessary to the preservation of such a Society as the Church is Now all these things have been not only granted but proved to be contained in Scripture but whatever is not so necessary in its self can only become necessary by vertue of Gods express command and what is not so commanded is accidental and circumstantial and a matter of Christian liberty and such we assert the Form of Church-Government to be It is not our work to enquire why God hath determined some things that might seem more circumstantial than this and left other things at liberty but whether God hath determined these things or no. Which determination being once cleared makes the thing so commanded necessary as to our observance of it but if no such thing be made appear the thing remains a matter of liberty and so the Scriptures perfection as to necessaries in order to Salvation is no wayes impeached by it So much now for the necessity of Christs determining the particular form of Government We now proceed to the consideration of Christs Actions whether by them the form of Church-Government is determined or no CHAP. V. Whether any of Christs Actions have determined the Form of Government All Power in Christs hands for Governing his Church What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World Calling Apostles the first action respecting outward Government The Name and Office of Apostles cleared An equality among them proved during our Saviours life Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered with the nature and quality of their Office Matth. 20. 25 26 27. largely discussed and explained It makes not all inequality in Church Officers unlawful by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches Matth. 18. 15. How far that determins the Form of Church-Government No evidence of any exact Order for Church-Government from thence Matth. 16. 15 16 17 18. considered how far that concerns the Government of the Church HAving considered and answered the Arguments which are brought why Christ must
the Jewes as a significative rite in the ordaining the Elders among them and thereby qualifying them either to be members of their Sanhedrins or Teachers of the Law Aâ— twofold use I find of this Symbolical Rite beside the solemn designation of the person on whom the hands are laid The first is to denote the delivery of the person or thing thus laid hands upon for the right use and peculiar service of God And that I suppose was the reason of laying hands upon the Beast under the Law which was to be sacrificed thereby noting their own parting with any right in it and giving it up to be the Lords for a sacrifice to him Thus in the Civill Law this delivery is requisite in the transferring Dominion which they call translatio de manu in manum The second end of laying on of hands was the solemn Iuvocation of the Divine presence and assistance to be upon and with the person upon whom the hands are thus laid For the hands with us being the instruments of action they did by stretching out their hands upon the person represent the efficacy of Divine Power which they implored in behalf of the perâ—on thus designed Tunc enim â—rabant ut sic Dei efficacia esset super illum sicut manus efficaciae symbolum ei imponebatur as Grotius observes Thence in all solemn Prayers wherein any person was particularly designed they made use of this Custome of imposition of Hands from which Custome Augustine speaks Quid aliud est manuum impositio nisi oratio super hominem Thence when Iacob prayed over Iosephs Children he laid his hands upon them so when Moses prayed over Ioshua The practice likewise our Saviour used in blessing Children healing the Sick and the Apostles in conferring the Gifts of the Holy-Ghost and from thence it was conveyed into the practice of the Primitive Church who used it in any more solemn invocation of the name of God in behalf of any particular persons As over the sick upon Repentance and Reconciliation to the Church in Confirmation and in Matrimony which as Grotius observes is to this day used in the Abissine Churches But the most solemn and peculiar use of this Imposition of hands among the Jews was in the designing of any Persons for any publike imployment among them Not as though the bare Imposition of hands did conferre any power upon the Person no more then the bare delivery of a thing in Law gives a legall Title to it without express transferring Dominion with it but with that Ceremony they joyned those words whereby they did confer that Authority upon them Which were to this purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce sis tu Ordinatus or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ego ordino te or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sis ordinatus to which they added according to the authority they ordained them to some thing peculiarly expressing it whether it was for causes finable or pecuniary or binding and loosing or ruling in the Synagogue Which is a thing deserving consideration by those who use the rite of imposing hands in Ordination without any thing expressing that authority they convey by that Ordination This custome being so generally in use among the Jews in the time when the Apostles were sent forth with Authority for gathering and setling Churches we find them accordingly making use of this according to the former practice either in any more solemn invocation of the presence of God upon any persons or designation and appointing them for any peculiar service or function For we have no ground to think that the Apostles had any peculiar command for laying on their hands upon persons in Prayer over them or Ordination of them But the thing its self being enjoyned them viz. the setting apart some persons for the peculiar work of attendance upon the necessities of the Churches by them planted they took up and made use of a laudable Rite and Custome then in use upon such occasions And so we find the Apostles using it in the solemn designation of some persons to the Office of Deacons answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Synagogue whose Office was to collect the moneys for the poor and to distribute it among them Afterwards we read it used upon an occasion not heard of in the Synagogue which was for the conferring the gifts of the Holy-Ghost but although the occasion was extraordinary yet supposing the occasion the use of that rite in it was very suitable in as much as those gifts did so much answer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Jewes conceived did rest upon those who were so ordained by imposition of hands The next time we meet with this rite was upon a peculiar Designation to a particular service of persons already appointed by God for the work of the Ministry which is of Paul and Barnabas by the Prophets and Teachers at Antioch whereby God doth set forth the use of that Rite of Ordination to the Christian Churches Accordingly we find it after practised in the Church Timothy being ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery And Timothy hath direction given him for the right management of it afterwards Lay hands suddenly on no man For they that would interpret that of reconciling men to the Church by that Rite must first give us Evidence of so early an use of that Custome which doth not yet appear But there is one place commonly brought to prove that the Apostles in Ordaining Elders in the Christian Churches did not observe the Jewish Form of laying on of hands but observed a way quite different from the Jewish practice viz. appointing them by the choice consent and suffrages of the people Which place is Acts 14 23. where it is said of Paul and Barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We render it Ordaining them Elders in every Church But others from the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have it rendered When they had appointed Elders by the suffrages of the people But how little the peoples power of Ordination can be inferred from these words will be evident to any one that shall but consider these things First that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did originally signifie the choosing by way of suffrage among the Greeks yet before the time of Lukes writing this the word was used for simple designation without that Ceremony So Hesychius interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used of Titus for ordaining Elders in every City and in Demosthenes and others it occurs for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to decree and appoint and that sense of the word appears in Saint Luke himself Acts 10. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Witnesses foreappointed of God Many examples of this signification are brought by Learned men of Writers before and about the time when Luke Writ
from Philo Iudaeus Iosephus Appian Lucian and others But Secondly granting it used in the primary signification of the word yet it cannot be applied to the people but to Paul and Barnabas for it is not said that the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that Paul and Barnabas did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now where ever that word is used in its first signification it is implyed to be the action of the persons themselves giving suffrages and not for other persons appointing by the suffrages of others Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may import no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that laying on of the hands must suppose the stretching them out Which is onely a common figure in Scripture for the Antecedent to be put for the Consequent or one part for the whole action and concerning this sense of the word in Ecclesiastical Writers see the large quotations in Bishop Bilson to this purpose Fourthly It seems strangely improbable that the Apostles should put the choice at that time into the hands of the people when there were none fitted for the work the Apostles designed them for but whom the Apostles did lay their hands on by which the Holy Ghost sell upon them whereby they were fitted and qualified for that work The people then could no wayes choose men for their abilities when their abilities were consequenâ— to their ordination So much to clear the manner of Ordination to have been from the Synagogue The second thing we consider is The persons authorized to do it whom we consider under a double respect before their liberties were bound up by compact among themselves and after First Before they had restrained themselves of their own liberty then the general rule for Ordinations among them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one regularly ordained himself had the power of Ordaining his Disciples as Maimonides affirms To the same purpose is that Testimony of the Gemara Babylonia in Master Selden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rabbi Abba Bar Ionah said that in times of old every one was wont to ordain his own Disciples to which purpose many instances are there brought But it is generally agreed among them that in the time of Hillel this course was altered and they were restrained from their former liberty in probability finding the many inconveniences of so common Ordinations or as they say out of their great reverence to the house of Hillel they then agreed that none should ordain others without the presence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince of the Sanhedrin or a license obtained from him for that end and it was determined that all Ordinations without the consent of the Prince of the Sanhedrin should be looked upon as null and void which is attested by the former Authors The same distinct on may be observed under the Gospel in reference to the fixed Officers of the Church for we may consider them in their first state and period as the Presbyters did rule the Churches in common as Hierom tells us communi Presbyterorum conciâ—io Ecclesiâ— gubernabantur before the jurisdiction of Presbyters was restrained by mutual consent in this instant doubtlesse the Presbyters enjoyed the same liberty that the Presbyters among the Jews did of ordaining other Presbyters by that power they were invested in at their own ordination To which purpose we shall only at present take notice of the Confession of two Canonists who are the hâ—ghest among the Papists for defence of a distinct order of Episcopacy Yet Gratian himself confesseth Sacros ordines dicimus Diaconatum Presbyteratum hos quidem solos Ecclesia primitiva habuisse dicitur And Iohannes Semeca in his Gloss upon the Canon Law Dicunt quidem quod in Ecclesia prima-primitiva commune erat officium Episcoporum Sacerdotum nomina erant communia Sed in secundâ primitivâ coeperunt distingui nomina officia Here we have a distinction of the Primitive Church very agreeable both to the opinion of Hierom and the matter we are now upon in the first Primitive Church the Presbyters all acted in common for the welfare of the Church and either did or might ordain others to the same authority with themselves because the intrinsecal power of order is equally in them and in those who were after appointed Governours over Presbyteries And the collation of orders doth come from the power of order and not meeâ—ly from the power of jurisdiction It being likewise fully acknowledged by the Schoolmen that Bishops are not superiour above Presbyters as to the power of order But the clearest evidence of this is in the Church of Alexandria of which Hierom speaks Nam Alexandria à Marco Evangelistâ usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collâ—catum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocent That learned Doctor who would perswade us that the Presbyters did only make choice of the person but the ordination was performed by other Bishops would do well first to tell us who and where those Bishops in Aegypt were who did consecrate or ordain the Bishop of Alexandria after his election by the Presbyters especially while Aegypt remained but one Province under the Government of the Praefectus Augustalis Secondly how had this been in the least pertinent to Hieroms purpose to have made a particular instance in the Church of Alexandria for that which was common to all other Churches besides For the old Rule of the Canon-Law for Bishops was Electio clericorum est consensus principis petitio plebis Thirdly this election in Hierom must imply the conferring the power and authority whereby the Bishop acted For first the first setting up of his power is by Hierom attributed to this choice as appears by his words Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet Whereby it is evident Hierom attributes the first original of that Exsors potestas as he calls it elsewhere in the Bishop above Presbyters not to any Apostolical institution but to the free choice of the Presbyters themselves which doth fully explain what he means by consuetudo Ecclesiae before spoken of viz. that which came up by a voluntary act of the Governours of Churches themselves Secondly it appears that by election he means conferring authority by the instances he brings to that purpose As the Roman Armies choosing their Emperours who had then no other power but what they received by the length of the sword and the Deacons choosing their Archdeacon who had no other power but what was meerly conâ—erred by the choice of the Coâ—ledge of Deacons To which we may add what Eutychius the Patriarch of Alexandria saith in
his Origines Ecclesiae Alexandrinae published in Arabick by our moâ—â— learned Selden who expresly affirms that the twelve Presbyters constituted by Mark upon the vacancy of the See did choose out of their number one to be head over the rest and the other eleven did lay their hands upon him and blessed him and made him Patriarch Neither is the authority of Eutychius so much to be sleighted in this case coming so near to Hierom as he doth who doubtless had he told us that Mark and Anianus c. did all there without any Presbyters might have had the good fortune to have been quoted with as much frequency and authority as the Anonymous Author of the martyrdome of Timothy in Photius who there unhappily follows the story of the seven sleepers or the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions whose credit is everlastingly blasted by the excellent Mr. Duille De Pseudepigraphis Apostolorum so much doth mens interestâ—tend to the inhancing or abating the esteem and credit both of the dead and the living By these we see that where no positive restraints from consent and choice for the unity and peace of the Church have restrained mens liberty as to their external exercise of the power of order or jurisdiction every one being himself advanced into the authority of a Church Governour hath an internal power of conferring the same upon persons fit for it To which purpose the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is no wayes impertinently alledged although we suppose St. Paul to concur in the action as it is most probable he did because if the Presbytery had nothing to do in the ordination to what purpose were their hands laid upon him Was it only to be witnesses of the fact or to signifie their consent both those might have been done without their use of that ceremony which will scarce be instanced in to be done by any but such as had power to confer what was signified by that ceremony We come therefore to the second period or state of the Church when the former liberty was restrained by some act of the Church it self for preventing the inconveniences which might follow the too common use of the former liberty of ordinations So Antonius de Rosellis fully expresseth my meaning in this Quilibet Presbyter Presbyteri ordinabant indiscretè schismata oriebantur Every Presbyter and Presbyters did ordain indifferently and thence arose schisms thence the liberty was restrained and reserved peculiarly to some persons who did act in the several Presbyteries as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prince of the Sanhedrin without whose presence no ordination by the Church was to be looked on as regular The main controversie is when this restraint began and by whose act whether by any act of the Apostles or only by the prudence of the Church its self as it was with the Sanhedrin But in order to our peace I see no such necessity of deciding it both parties granting that in the Church such a restraint was laid upon the liberty of ordaining Presbyters and the exercise of that power may be restrained still granting it to be radically and intrinsically in them So that this controversie is not such as should divide the Church For those that are for ordinations only by a Superiour order in the Church acknowledging a radical power for ordination in Presbyters which may be exercised in case of necessity do thereby make it evident that none who grant that do think that any positive Law of God hath forbidden Presbyters the power of ordination for then it must be wholly unlawful and so in case of necessity it cannot be valid Which Doctrine I dare with some confidence assert to be a stranger to our Church of England as shall be largely made appear afterwards On the other side those who hold ordinations by Presbyters lawful do not therefore hold them necessary but it being a matter of liberty and not of necessity Christ having no where said that none but Presbyters shall ordain this power then may be restrained by those who have the care of the Churches Peace and matters of liberty being restrained ought to be submitted to in order to the Churches Peace And therefore some have well observed the difference between the opinions of Hierom and Aerius For as to the matter it self I believe upon the strictest enquiry Medina's judgement will prove true that Hierom Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodores Theophylact were all of Aerius his judgement as to the Identity of both name and order of Bishops and Presbyters in the Primitive Church but here lay the difference Aerius from hence proceeded to separation from Bishops and their Churches because they were Bishops And Blondell well observes that the main ground why Aerius was condemned was for unnecessary separation from the Church of Sebastia and those Bishops too who agreed with him in other things as Eustathius the Bishop did Whereas had his meer opinion about Bishops been the ground of his being condemned there can be no reason assigned why this heresie if it were then thought so was not mentioned either by Socrates Theodoret Sozomen or Evagrius before whose time he lived when yet they mention the Eustathiani who were co-temporaries with him But for Epiphanius and Augustine who have listed him in the roul of Hereticks it either was for the other heretical opinions maintained by him or they took the name Heretick as it is evident they often did for one who upon a matter of different opinion from the present sense of the Church did proceed to make separation from the Unity of the Catholick Church which I take to be the truest account of the reputed Heresie of Aerius For otherwise it is likely that Ierome who maintained so great correspondency and familiarity with Epiphanius and thereby could not but know what was the cause why Aerius was condemned for Heresie should himself run into the same Heresie and endeavour not only to assert it but to avouch and maintain it against the Judgement of the whole Church Ierome therefore was not ranked with Aerius because though he held the same opinion as to Bishops and Presbyters yet he was far from the consequence of Aerius that therefore all Bishops were to be separated from nay he was so far from thinking it necessary to cause a schism in the Church by separating from Bishops that his opinion is clear that the first institution of them was for preventing schisms and therefore for peace and unity he thought their institution very useful in the Church of God And among all those fifteen testimonies produced by a learned Writer ouâ— of Ierome for the superiority of Bishopâ— above Presbyters I cannot find one that doth found it upon any Divine Right but only upon the conveniency of such an order for the peace and unity of the Church of God Which is his meaning in that place most produced to this purpose Ecclesiae salus
toto orbe decretum ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris Quomodo enim saith a learned man fieri poâ—uit ut toto hoc orbe decerneretur nullo jam Oecumenico Concilio ad illud decernendum congregaâ—o si non ab Apostolis ipsis fidem toto orbe promulgantibiss cum fide hanc regendi Ecclesias formam constituentibus factum sit So that he conceives so general an order could not be made unless the Apostles themselves at that time were the authors of it But First Ieroms In toto orbe dicretâ—m est relates not to an antecedent order which was the ground of the institution of Episcopacy but to the universal establishment of that order which came up upon the occasion of so many schisms it is something therefore consequent upon the first setting up Episcopacy which is the general obtaining of it in the Churches of Christ when they saw its usefulness in order to the Churches peace therefore the Emphasis lies not in decretum est but in toto orbe noting how suddenly this order met with universal acceptance when it first was brought up in the Church after the Apostles death Which that it was Ieroms meaning appears by what he saith after Paulatim verò ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam Where he notes the gradual obtaining of it which I suppose was thus according to his opinion first in the Colledge of Presbyters appointed by the Apostles there being a necessity of order there was a President among them who had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the President of the Senate i. e. did moderate the affairs of the Assembly by proposing matters to it gathering voices being the first in all matters of concernment but he had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Casaubon very well distinguisheth them i. e. had no power over his fellow-Presbyters but that still resided in the Colledge or body of them After this when the Apostles were taken out of the way who kept the main power in their own hands of ruling the several Presbyteries or delegated some to do it who had a main hand in the planting Churches with the Apostles and thence are called in Scripture sometimes Fellow-labourers in the Lord and sometimes Evangelists and by Theodoret Apostles but of a second order after I say these were deceased and the main power left in the Presbyteries the several Presbyters enjoying an equal power among themselves especially being many in one City thereby great occasion was given to many schisms partly by the bandying of the Presbyters one against another partly by the sidings of the people with some against the rest partly by the too common use of the power of ordinations in Presbyters by which they were more able to increase their own party by ordaining those who would joyn with them and by this means to perpetuate schisms in the Church upon this when the wiser and graver sort considered the abuses following the promiscuous use of this power of ordination and withall having in their minds the excellent frame of the Government of the Church under the Apostles and their Deputies and for preventing of future schisms and divisions among themselves they unanimously agreed to choose one out of their number who was best qualified for the management of so great a trust and to devolve the exercise of the power of ordination and jurisdiction to him yet so as that he â—ct nothing of importance without the consent and concurrence of the Presbyters who were still to be as the Common Council to the Bishop This I take to be the true and just account of the Original of Episcopacy in the Primitive Church according to Ierome Which model of Government thus contrived and framed sets forth to us a most lively character of that great Wisdom and Moderation which then ruled the heads and hearts of the Primitive Christians and which when men have searched and studyed all other wayes the abuses incident to this Government through the corruptions of men and times being retrenched will be found the most agreeable to the Primitive form both as asserting the due interest of the Presbyteries and allowing the due honour of Episcopacy and by the joynt harmony of both carrying on the affairs of the Church with the greatest Unity Concord and Peace Which form of Government I cannot see how any possible reason can be produced by either party why they may not with chearfulness embrace it Secondly another evidence that Ierome by decretum est did not mean an order of the Apostles themselves is by the words which follow the matter of the decree viz. Ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris one chosen not only out of but by the Presbyters should be set above the rest for so Ierome must be understood for the Apostles could not themselves choose out of all Presbyteries one person to be set above the rest and withall the instance brought of the Church of Alexandria makes it evident to be meant of the choosing by the Presbyters and not by the Apostles Besides did Ierome mean choosing by the Apostles he would have given some intimations of the hand the Apostles had in it which we see not in him the least ground for And as for that pretence that Ecclesiae consuetudo is Apostolica traditio I have already made it appear that Apostolica traditio in Ierome is nothing else but Consuetudo Ecclesiae which I shall now confirm by a pregnant and unanswerable testimony out of Ierome himself Unaquaeque provincia abundet in sensu suo praecepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let every Province abound in its own sense and account of the ordinances of their Ancestors as of Apostolical Laws Nothing could have been spoken more fully to open to us what Ierome means by Apostolical traditions viz the practice of the Church in former ages though not coming from the Apostles themselves Thus we have once more cleared Ierome and the truth together I only wish all that are of his judgement for the practice of the primitive Church were of his temper for the practice of their own and while they own not Episcopacy as necessary by a divine right yet being duly moderated and joyned with Presbyteries they may embrace it as not only a lawful but very useful constitution in the Church of God By which we may see what an excellent temper may be found out most fully consonant to the primitive Church for the management of ordinations and Church power viz. by the Presidency of the Bishop and the concurrence of the Presbyterie For the Top-gallant of Episcopacy can never be so well managed for the right steering the ship of the Church as when it is joyned with the under-sails of a Moderate Presbyterie So much shall suffice to speak here as to the power of ordination which we have found to be derived from the Synagogue and the customes observed in
it transplanted into the Church There are yet some things remaining as to Ordination wherein the Church did imitate the Synagogue which will admit of a quick dispatch as the number of the persons which under the Synagogue were alwaies to be at least three This being a fundamental constitution among the Jews as appears by their writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordination of Presbyters by laying on of hands must be done by three at the least To the same purpose Maimonides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did not ordain any by imposition of hands into a power of judicature without the number of three Which number Peter Galatinus and Postellus conceive necessary to be all ordained themselves but Master Selden thinks it was sufficient if there were but one of that number so ordained who was to be as principal in the action whose opinion is favoured by Maimonides who adds to the words last cited out of him Of which Three one at the least must be ordained himself Let us now see the Parallel in the Church of God The first solemn Ordination of Elders under the Gospel which some think to be set down as a Pattern for the Church to follow is that we read of Acts 13. 1 2 3. Which was performed by three for we read in the first verse that there were in the Church at Antioch five Prophets and Teachers Barnabas Simeon Lucius Manaen and Saul of these five the Holy-Ghost said that two must be separated for the work whereto God had called them which were Barnabas and Saul there remain onely the other three Simeon Lucius and Manaen to lay their hands on them and ordain them to their work Accordingly those who tell us that Iames was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem do mention the three Apostles who concurred in the ordaining of him But most remarkable for this purpose is the Canon of the Nicene Council wherein this number is set down as the regular number for the Ordination of Bishops without which it was not accounted Canonical The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Ordination of a Bishop should if possible be performed by all the Bishops of the Province which if it cannot easily be done either through some urgent necessity or the tediousness of the way three Bishops at least must be there for the doing it which may be sufficient for the Ordination if those that are absent do express their consent and by Letters approve of the doing of it To the same purpose Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canons injoyn all the Bishops of the Province to be present at the Ordination of one and forbid the Ordination of any without three being present at it Thus we see how the Constitution of the Synagogue was exactly observed in the Church as to the number of the persons concurring to a regular Ordination The last thing as to Ordination bearing Analogy to the Synagogue is the effect of this Ordination upon the person It was the Custom of the Jews to speak of all that were legally Ordained among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Divine Presence or Schecinah rested upon them which sometimes they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holy Spirit supposed to be in a peculiar manner present after this solemn Separation of them from others in the world and Dedication of them unto God Answerable to this may that of our Saviour be when he gives his Apostles authority to preach the Gospel he doth it in that Form of words Receive ye the Holy Ghost and then gives them the power of binding and loosing usually conveyed in the Jewish Ordinations Whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained So that as under the Law they by their Ordination received a moral Faculty or Right to exercise that power they were Ordained to so under the Gospel all who are Ordained according to Gospel Rules have a right authority and power conveyed thereby for the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments Which right and power must not be conceived to be an internal indelible Character as the Papists groundlesly conceive but a moral legal Right according to the Lawes of Christ because the persons Ordaining do not act in it in a natural but a moral Capacity and so the effect must be moral and not physical which they must suppose it to be who make it a Character and that indelible Thus much may serve to clear how Ordination in all its circumstances was derived from the Jewish Synagogue The other thing remaining to be spoken to as to the correspondence of the Church with the Synagogue in its constitution is what order the Apostles did settle in the several Churches of their Plantation for the Ruling and Ordering the Affairs of them Before I come to speak so much to it as will be pertinent to our present purpose and design we may take notice of the same name for Church-Rulers under the Gospel which there was under the Synagogue viz. that of Presbyters The name Presbyter as the Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it Originally import Age yet by way of connotation it hath been looked on as a name both of Dignity and Power Because Wisdome was supposed to dwell with a multitude of years therefore persons of age and experience were commonly chosen to places of honour and trust and thence the name importing age doth likewise cary dignity along with it Thence we read in the time of Moses how often the Elders were gathered together Thence Eliezer is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 24. 2. which the Greek renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Seignior Domo the chief Officer in his house and so we read Gen. 50. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elders of the Land of Egypt So the Elders of Mâ—dian the Elders of Israel the Elders of the Cities so among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Council of State and among the Latines Senatus and our Saxon Aldermen in all importing both age and honour and power together But among the Jewes in the times of the Apostles it is most evident that the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imported not only dignity but power the Presbyters among the Jewes having a power both of judgeing and teaching given them by their Semicha or Ordination Now under the Gospel the Apostles retaining the name and the manner of Ordination but not conferring that judiciary power by it which was in use among the Jewes to shew the difference between the Law and the Gospel it was requisite some other name should be given to the Governours of the Church which should qualifie the importance of the word Presbyters to a sense proper to a Gospel State Which was the Original of giving the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Governours of the Church under the Gospel A name importing Duty more then Honour and not a
Isidore himself the Bishop of Sevill in Spain speaking of Presbyters His sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est praesunt eni◠Ecclesiis Christi in confectione corporis sanguinis consortes cum Episcopis sunt similiter in doctrina populi in Officio praedicandi sed sola propter auctoritatem summo sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae Disciplina vindicatae concordiam solueret scandala generaret What could be spoken more to our purpose then this is he asserts the identity of power as well as name in both Bishops and Presbyters in governing the Church in celebrating the Eucharist in the Office of preaching to the people onely for the greater Honour of the Bishop and for preventing Schisms in the Church the power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop by those words propter Auctoritatem he cannot possibly mean the Authority of a Divine Command for that his following words contradict that it was to prevent Schisms and Scandals and after produceth the whole place of Ierome to that purpose Agreeable to this is the judgment of the second Council of Sevil in Spain upon the occasion of the irregular proceeding of some Presbyters ordained by Agapius Bishop of Corduba Their words are these Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis Ministeriorum communis sit dispensatio quaedam novellis Ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterororum Diaconorum Virginum consecratio c. Haec enim omnia illicita esse Presbyteris quia Pontificatus apicem non habent quem solis deberi Episcopis authoritate Canonum praecipitur ut per hoc discretio graduum dignitatis fastigium summi Pontificis demonstretur How much are we beholding to the ingenuity of a Spanish Council that doth so plainly disavow the pretence of any divine right to the Episcopacy by them so strenuously asserted All the right they plead for is from the novellae Ecclesiasticae regula which import quite another thing from Divine institution and he that hath not learnt to distinguish between the authority of the Canons of the Church and that of the Scriptures will hardly ever understand the matter under debate with us and certainly it is another thing to preserve the honour of the different Degrees of the Clergy but especially of the chief among them viz. the Bishop than to observe a thing meerly out of Obedience to the command of Christ and upon the account of Divine institution That which is rejoyned in answer to these Testimonies as far as I can learn is onely this that the Council and Isidore followed Jerome and so all make up but one single Testimony But might it not as well be said that all that are for Episcopacy did follow Ignatius or Epiphanius and so all those did make up but one single Testimony on the other side Ye◠I do as yet despair of finding any one single Testimony in all Antiquity which doth in plain terms assert Episcopacy as it was setled by the practice of the Primitive Church in the ages following the Apostles to be of an unalterable Divine right Some expressions I grant in some of them seem to extoll Episcopacy very high but then it is in Order to the Peace and Unity of the Church and in that Sense they may sometimes be admitted to call it Divine and Apostolical not in regard of its institution but of its end in that it did in their Opinion tend as much to preserve the Unity of the Church as the Apostles Power did over the Churches while they were living If any shall meet with expressions seeming to carry the Fountain of Episcopal power higher let them remember to distinguish between the power it self and the restrained Exercise of that power the former was from the Apostles but common to all Dispensers of the Word the latter was appropriated to some but by an Act of the Church whereby an eminency of power was attributed to one for the safety of the whole And withall let them consider that every Hyperbolical expression of a Father will not bear the weight of an Argument and how common it was to call things Divine which were conceived to be of excellent use or did come from persons in authority in the Church One would think that should meet with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon it could be rendred by nothing short of the Scriptures whereas they mean no more by it but onely the Emperours Letters to the Council It hath been already observed how ready they were to call any custome of the Church before their times an Apostolical Tradition And as the Heathens when they had any thing which they knew not whence it came they usually called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it came immediately from Heaven So the Fathers when Traditions were convey'd to them without the names of the Authors they conclude they could have no other Fountain but the Apostles And thus we see many Traditions in several Churches directly contrary to one another were looked on as Apostolical onely from the prevalency of this perswasion that whatever they derived from their Fathers was of that nature But then for that answer to the Council and Isidore and Ierome that they make but one testimony I say that although the words be of the same Sense yet they have the nature of a different testimony upon these accounts First as produced by persons of different condition in the Church some think they are even with Ierome when they tell us what a pique there was between him and Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem and that he might have the better advantage of his adversary when he could not raise himself up to the Honour of Episcopacy he would bring that down to the State of Presbytery but as such entertain too unworthy thoughts of one of those Fathers whom they profess themselves admirers of so this prejudice cannot possibly lie against Isidore or the Council For the first was himself a Bishop of no mean account in the Church of God and the Council was composed of such it could be no biass then of that nature could draw them to this Opinion and no doubt they would have been as forward to maintain their own authority in the Church as the Truth and Conscience would give them leave Therefore on this account one Testimony of a single Bishop much more of a whole Council of them against their acting by Divine Authority in the Church is of more validity then ten for it in as much as it cannot but be in Reason supposed that none will speak any thing against the authority they are in or what may tend in the least to diminish it but such as make more Conscience of the Truth then of their own Credit and Esteem in the World Secondly in that it was done in different ages of the Church Ierome flourished about
goods was used at first by the Church oâ— Ierusalem as most sutable to the present state of that Church but as far as we can find did neither perpetually hold in that Church nor universally obtain among other Churches as is most clear in the Church at Corinth by their Law-suiâ—â— by the different offerings of the rich and poor at the Lords Supper and by their personal contributions So the Apostles Preaching from house to house was for want of conveniency then of more publick places as free onely for Christians although that practice binds now as far as the Reason doth viz. in its tendency the promoting the work of Salvation of mens Souls Laying on hands for conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost can never certainly bind where the Reason of it is ceased but may still continue â—s a rite of solemn Prayer and not by vertue of that practice Observing the Apostolical Decrees of abstaining from blood and things strangled and offered to Idols did hold as long as the ground of making them did which was condescension to the Jews although it must be withall acknowledged that the Primitive Christians of the second and third Centuries did generally observe them and the Greek Church to this day and some men of note and learning have pleaded for the necessary observation of them still as Christ. Beckman Steph. Curcellaeus in a Diatriba lately published to this purpose to which Grotius is likewise very inclinable The arguments are too large here to examine although I see not how possibly that place of Paul can be avoided Whatever is set in the shambles eat making no scruple for conscience sakâ— I conclude this with what I laid down at the entrance of this Treatise that where any Act or Law is founded upon a particular reason or occasion as the ground of it it doth no further oblige then the reason or occasion of it doth continue Therefore before an acknowledged Apostolical practice be looked on as Obligatory it must be made appear that what they did was not according as they saw reason and cause for the doing it depending upon the several circumstances of Time Place and Persons but that they did it from some unalterable Law of Chrâ—ist or from some such indispensable reasons as will equally hold in all Times Places and Persons And so the Obligation is taken off from Apostolical practice and laid upon that Law and Reason which was the ground of it Thirdly Offices that were of Apostolical appointment are grown wholly out of use in the Church without mens looking upon themselvs as bound now to observe them As the Widdows of the Churches afterwards from their Office called Deaconnesses of the Church of which number Phoebe was one whom Paul calls the Deaconness of the Church at Cenchrea so both Origen and Chrysostome understand it Of them and their continuance in the Church for some Centuries of years much is spoken by several Writers and resolved by several Councils and yet we see these are laid aside by the pâ—etenders to hold close to Apostolical practice if that binds certainly it doth in its plain institutions if it doth not bind in them how can it in that which is only gathered but by uncertain conjectures to have been ever their practice So that in the issue those who plead so much for the obligatory nature of Apostolical practice do not think it obligatory for if they did how comes this office of Widdows and Deaconesses to be neglected If it be answered that these are not usefull now then we must say that we look upon Apostolical practice to be binding no further then we judge it useful or the reason of it holds which is as much as to say of its self it binds not Fourthly Rites and customs Apostolical are altered therefore men do not think that Apostolical practice doth bind For if it did there could be no alteration of things agreeable thereunto Now let any one consider but these few particulars and judge how far the pleaders for a divine Right of Apostolical practice do look upon themselves as bound now to observe them as Dipping in baptism the use of Love Feasts community of goods the Holy kiss by Tertullian called Signaâ—ulum orationis yet none look upon themselves as bound to observe them now and yet all acknowledge them to have been the practice of the Apostles and therefore certainly though when it may serve for their purpose men will make Apostolical practice to found a divine Right yet when they are gone off from the matter in hand they change their opinion with the matter and can then think themselves free as to the observation of things by themselves acknowledged to be Apostolical Thus we are at last come to the end of this chapter which we have been the longer upon because the main hinge of this controversie did lyâ— in the practice of the Apostles which I suppose now so far cleared as not to hinder our progress towards what remains which we hope will admit of a quicker dispatch We come therefore from the Apostles to the Primitive Church to see whether by the practice of that we can find any thing whereby they looked on themselves as obliged by an unalterable Law to observe any one particular form of Church-Government CHAP. VII The Churches Polity in the ages after the Apostles considered Evidences thence that no certain unalterable Form of Church-Government was delivered to them 1. Because church-Church-Power did in large as the Churches did Whether any Metropolitan Churches established by the Apostles Seven Churches of Asia whether Metropolitical Philippi no Metropolis either in Civil or Ecclâ—siastical sense Several degrees of inlargemext of Churches Churches first the Christians in whole Cities proved by several arguments the Eulogiae an evidence of it Churches extended into the neighbour Territories by the preaching there of City Presbyters thence comes the subordination between then Churches by degrees inlarged to Diocesses from thence to Provinces The Original of Metropolitans and Patriarchs 2. No certain Form used in all Churches Some Churches without Bishops Scots Goths Some with but one Bishop in their whole Countrey Scythian Aethiopian Churches how governed Many Cities without Bishops Diocesses much altered Bishops discontinued in several Churches for many years 3. Conforâ—eing Ecclesiastical Government to the civil in the extent of Diocesses The suburbicarian Churches what Bishops answerable to the civil Governours Churches power rises from the greatness of Cities 4. Validity of Ordination by Presbyters in places where Bishops were The case of Ischyras discussed instances given of Ordination by Presbyters not pronounced null 5. The Churches prudence in managing its affairs by the several Canons Provincial Synods Codex Canonum HAving largely considered the actions of Christ and the practice of the Apostles so far as they are conceived to have reference to the determining the certain form of Government in the Church our next stage is according to our
propounded method to examine what light the practice of the Church in the ages succeeding the Apostles will cast upon the controversie we are upon For although according to the principles established and â—aid down by us there can be nothing setled as an universal Law for the Church but what we find in Scriptures yet because the general practice of the Church is conceived to be of â—o great use for understanding what the Apostles intentions as well as actions were we shall chearfully pass over this Rubicon because not with an intent to increase divisions but to find out some further evidence of a way to compose them Our Inquiry then is Whether the primitive Church did conceive its self obliged to observe unalterably one individual form of Government as delivered down to them either by a Law of Christ or an universal constitution of the Apostles or else did only settle and order things for Church-government according as it judged them tend most to the peace and settlement of the Church without any antecedent obligation as necessarily binding to observe onely one course This latter I shall endeavour to make out to have been the onely Rule and Law which the primitive Church observed as to Church-government viz. the tendency of its constitutions to the peace and unity of the Church and not any binding Law or practice of Christ or his Apostles For the demonstrating of which I have made choyce of such arguments as most immediately teâ—d to the proving of it For If the power of the Church and its officers did encrease meerly from the inlargement of the bounds of Churches if no one certain form were observed in all Churches but great varieties as to Officers and Diocesses if the course used in setling the power of the chief Officers of the Church was from agreement with the civil government if notwithstanding the superiority of Bishops the ordination of Presbyters was owned as valid if in all other things concernning the Churches Polity the Churches prudence was looked on as a sufficient ground to establish things then we may with reason conciude that nothing can be inferred from the practice of the primitive Church Demonstrative of any one fixed form of Church-government delivered from the Apostles â—o them Having thus by a lâ—ght 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drawn ouâ— the several lines of the pourtraiture of the Polity of the antient Church we now proceed to fill them up though not with that life which it deserves yet so far as the model of this Discourse will permit Our first argument then is from the rise of the extent of the power of Church-Governours which I assert not to have been from any order of the Apostles but from the gradual encrease of the Churches committed to their charge This will be best done by the observation of the growth of Churches and how proportionably the power of the Governours did increase with it As to that there â—re four observable steps or periods as so many ages of growth in the primitive Churches First when Churches and Cities were of the same extent Secondly when Churches took in the adjoyning Terriâ—ories with the Villages belonging to the Cities Thirdly when several Cities with their Villages did associate for Church-Government in the same Province Fourthly when several provinces did associate for Government in the Roman Empire Of these in their order The first period of Church government observable in the primitive Church was when Churches were the same with Christians in whole Cities For the clearing of this I shall first shew that the primitive constitution of Churches was in a society of Christians in the same City Secondly I shall consider the form and manner of Government then observed among them Thirdly consider what relation the several Churches in Cities had to one another First That the Primitive Churches were Christians of whole Cities It is but a late and novel acception of the word Church whereby it is taken for stated fixed congregations for publike Worship and doubtless the original of it is only from the distinction of Churches in greater Cities into their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike places for meeting whence the Scotch Kirk and our English Church so that from calling the place Church they proceed to call the persons there meeting by that name and thence some think the name of Church so appropriated to such a society of Christians as may meet at such a place that they make it a matter of Religion not to call those places Churches from whence originally the very name as we use it was derived But this may be pardoned among other the religioâ—s weaknesses of well meaning but lesse knowing people A Church in its primary sense as it answers to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applyed to Christians is a society of Christians living together in one City whether meeting together in many Congregations or one is not at all material because they were not called a Church as meeting together in one place but as they were a Society of Christians inhabiting together in such a City not but that I think a society of Christians might be called a Church where-ever they were whether in a City or Countrey but because the first and chief mention we meet with in Scripture of Churches is of such as did dwell together in the same Cities as is evident from many pregnant places of Scripture to this purpose As Acts 14. 23. compared with Titus 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other Ordaining Elders in every Church and ordaining Elders in every City which implyes that by Churches then were meant the body of Christians residing in the Cities over which the Apostles ordained Elders to rule them So Acts 16. 4. 5. As they went through the Cities c. and so were the Churches established in the faith The Churches here were the Christians of those Cities which they went through So Acts 20. 17. He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church If by the Elders we mean as all those do we now deal with the Elders of Ephesus then it is here evident that the Elders of the Church and of the City are all one but what is more observable ver 28. he calls the Church of that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take heed to your selves and to the flock over which God hath made you overseâ—rs to feed the Church of God Where several things are observable to our purpose first that the body of Christians in Ephesus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flock of the Church and not the several flocks and Churches over which God hath made you Bishops Secondly That all these spoken to were such as had a pastoral charge of this one flock Paul calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do the work of a Pastor towards it So
Presbyterii honore provexit What more plain and evident then that here a Presbyter ordained a Presbyter which we now here read was pronounced null by Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria or any others that at time It is a known instance that in the ordination of Pelagius first Bishop of Rome there were only two Bishops concurred and one Presbyter whereas according to the fourth Canon of the Nicene Council three Bishops are absolutely required for Ordinaâ—ion 〈…〉 Bishop either â—hen Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop and so the point of succession thereby fails in the Church of Rome or else a Presbyter hath the same intrinsecal power of Ordination which a Bishop hath but it is onely restrained by Ecclesiastical Lawes In the time of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch which was done A. D. 328 as Iacobus Gothâ—â—redus proves till the time of the ordination of Paulinus A. D. 362. which was for thirty four years space when the Church was governed by Paulinus and his Colleagues withdrawing from the publick Assemblies it will be hard to say by whom the Ordinations were performed all this while unless by Paulinus and his Collegues In the year 452. it appears by Leo in his Epistle to Rusticus Narbonensis that some Presbyters took upon them to ordain as Bishops about which he was consulted by Rusticus what was to be done in that Case with those so ordained Leo his resolution of that Case is observable Siqui autem Clerici ab ist is pseudo-Episcopis in iis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt quae ad prâ—prios Episcopos pertinebant ordinatio â—orum cum consensn judicio praesidentium facta est potest rata haberi ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent Those Clergy men who were ordained by such as took upon them the Office of Bishops in Churches belonging to proper Bishops if the Ordination were performed by the consent of the Bishops it may be looked on as valid and those Presbyters remain in their Office in the Church So that by the consent ex post facto of the true Bishops those Presbyters thus ordained were looked on as Lawful Presbyteâ—s which could not be unless their ordainers had an intrinsecal power of Ordination which was onely restrained by the Laws of the Church for if they have no power of Ordination it is impossible they should confer any thing by their Oâ—dâ—nation If to this it be answered that the validity of their Ordination did depend upon the consent of the Bishops and that Presbyters may ordain if delegated thereto by Bishops as Paulinus might ordain on that account at Antioch It is easily answered that this very power of doing it by delegation doth imply an intrinsecal power in themselves of doing it For iâ— Presbyters be forbidden ordaining others by Scriptures then they can neither do it in their own persons nor by delegation from others Fâ—â— Qâ—od alicui suo nomine â—on lices nec 〈…〉 Anâ—â—â—â—â— Rule oâ— Cyprian must hold true Non aliquid câ—i â—â—â—â— largiri potest humana indulgentia ubi intercâ—dit legâ—â— tribuit Divina â—râ—scriptio There can be no dispensing with Divine Lawes which must be if that may be delegated to other persons which was required of men in the Office wherein they are And if Presbyters have power of conferring nothing by their Ordination how can an after-consent of Bishops make that Act of theirs valid for conserring Right and Power by it It appears then that this Power was restrained by the Lawes of the Church for preserving Uâ—ity in its self but yet so that in case of necessity what was done by Presbyters was not looked on as invalid But against this the case of Ischyras ordained as it is said a Presbyter by Collutbus and pronounced null by the Council of Alexandria is commonly pleaded But there is no great difficulty in answering it For first the pronouncing such an Ordination null doth not evidence that they looked on the power of Ordination as belonging of Divine right onely to Bishops for we find by many instances that acting in a bare contempt of Ecclesiastical Canons was sufficient to degrade any from being Presbyters Secondly If Ischyras had been ordained by a Bishop there were câ—rcumstances enough to induce the Council to pronounce it null First as done out of the Diocess in which case Ordinations are nulled by Concil Arel cap. 13. Secondly done by open and pronounced Schismaticks Thirdly done sine titulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and â—o nulled by the Canons then Thirdly Colluthns did not act as a Presbyter in ordaining but as a Bishop of the Meletian party in Cynus as the Clergy of Mareotis speaking of Ischyras his ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Collytbus a Presbyter making shew of being a Bishop and is supposed to have been ordained a Bishop by Meletius More concerning this may be seen in Blondel who fully clears all the particulars here mentiâ—â—eâ— So that notwithstanding this Instance nothing appears but that the power of Ordination was restrained only by Ecclesiastical Lawâ— The last thing to prove that the Church did act upon prudence in Church-Government is from the many restraints in other cases made by the Church for restraint of that Liberty which was allowed by Divine Laws He must be a stranger to the ancient Canons and Constitutions of the Church that takes not notice of such restraints made by Canons as in reference to observation of several Rites and Customes in the Churches determined by the Provincial Synods of the several Churches for which purpose their Provincial Synods were still kept up in the Eastern Church as appears by the Testimony of Firmilian in his Epistle to Cyprian Qua ex causa necessariò apud nos fit ut per singulos annos Seniores Praepositi in unum conveniamus ad disponenda ea quae curae nostrae commissa sunt Ut si quae graviora sunt communi consilio dirigantur lapsis quoque fratribus c. medela quaeratur non quasi à nobis remissionem peccatorum consequâ—ntâ—r sed â—t per nos ad intelligentiam delictorum suorum convertantur Domino pleniùs satisfacere cogantur The several orders about the Discipline of the Church were detâ—rmined in these Synods as to which he that would find a command in Scripture for their ordeâ—s about the Catechumeni and Lapsi will take pains to no purpose the Church ordering things it self for the better Regulating the several Churches they were placed over A demonstrative Argument that these things came not from Divine command is from the great diversiâ—y of these customes in several places of which besides Socrates Sozomen largely speaks and may easily be gathered from the History of the several Churches When the Church began to enjoy ease and liberty and thereby had opportunity of enjoying greater conveniency for Councils we find what was detrrmined by those Councils were entred into a Codex Canonum for that purpose which
proved by some who have undertaken it I know no opinion would bid so saiâ— for acceptance as Scepticism and that in reference to many weighty and important truthâ— for how weakly have some proved the existence of a Deity the immortality of the soul and the truth of the Scriptures by such arguments that if it were enough to overthroâ—â— an opinion to bee able to answer some Arguments brought for it Atheisme it self would become plausible It can be then no evidence that a thing is not true because some Arguments will not prove it and truly as to the matter in hand I am fully of the opinion of the excellent H. Grotius speaking of Excommunication in the Christian Church Neque adâ—am râ—m peculiare praeceptum desideratur eum Ecclestae coetu à Christo semel constituto omnia illa imperata censeri debent sine quibus ejus coeiûs puritas retineri non potest And therefore men spend needless pains to prove an institution of this power by some positive precept when Christs founding his Church as a peculiar Society is sufficient proof hee hath endowed it with this fundamental Right without which the Society were arena sino calce a company of persons without any common tye of union among them for if there bee any such union it must depend on some conditions to bee performed by the members of that Society which how could they require from them if they have not power to exclude them upon non performance 2. I prove the divine original of this power from the special appointment and designation of particular Officers by Iesus Christ for the ruling of this Society Now I say that Law which provides there shall bee Officers to Govern doth give them power to govern suitably 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 be 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 be 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 yielded 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 be taken in a Spiritual 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 only 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 onely from the passages relating to Offenders 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 severall 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 Naturall 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 the Word and Doctrine 1 Timothy 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 transscribed from the other as hath been already largely proved 5. The acts attributed to Pastor 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 cum potestate for Hesychius renders it 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 than 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
â—RENâ—CUM A VVEAPON-SALVE FOR THE Churches Wounds OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Particular forms of CHURCH-GOVERNMENT Discuss'd and examin'd according to the Principles of the law of Nature the positive Laws of God the practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Church the judgment of reform'd Divines Whereby a Foundation is laid for the Churches peace and the accommodation of our present differences Humbly tendered to Consideration By Edward Stillingfleete Rector of Sutton in Bedfordshire The Second Edition With an APPENDIX concerning the power of Excommunication in a Christian Church Let your Moderation be known unto all men the Lord is at hand Phil. 4. 5. Si ad decidendas hodiernaâ— controversias jus divinum à positivo seu Ecclesiastico candidâ— separaretur non videretur de iis quae sunt absolutè necessaria inter pios aut moderatos viros longa aut aeris contentio futura Isaac Casaub. ep ad Card. Perron Multum referâ— ad reâ—inendam Ecclesiarum pacem inter ea quae jure divino praecepta sunt quae non sunt accuratè distinguere Grot. de Imper. sum Potestat circa sacra cap. 11. London Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard neer the little North door 1662. THE PREFACE TO THE READER I Write not to increase the Controversies of the times nor to foment the differences that are among us the one are by far too many the other too great already My onely design is to allay the heat and abate the fury of that Ignis sacer or Erysipelas of contention which hath risen in the face of our Church by the overflowing of that bilious humour which yet appears to have too great predominancy in the spirits of men And although with the poor Persian I can onely bring a hand full of water yet that may be my just Apology that it is for the quenching those flames in the Church which have caused the bells of Aaron to jangle so much that it seems to be a work of the greatest difficulty to make them tunable And were this an Age wherein any thing might be wondered at it would be matter of deserved admiration to hear the noise of these Axes and Hammers so much about the Temple and that after these nigh twenty years carving and hewing we are so rude and unpolished still and so far from being cemented together in the unity of the Spirit and the bond of Peace May we not justly fear that voyce Migremus hinc when we see the Vail of the Temple so rent asunder and the Church its self made a Partition wall to divide the members of it And since the wise and gracious God hath been pleased in such an almost miraculous manner so lately to abatâ— the Land-flood of our civil intestine Divisions how strange must it needs seem if our sacred Contentions if Contentions may be call'd sacred like the waters of the Sanctuary should rise from the Ankle to the Knee till at last they may grow unpassable Must onely the fire of our unchristian animosities be like that of the Temple which was never to be extinguished However I am sure it is such a one as was never kindled from Heaven nor blown up with any breathings of the Holy and Divine Spirit And yet that hath been the aggravation of our Divisions that those whose duty it is to lift up their voyces like Trumpets have rather sounded an Allarm to our contentious spirits then a Parley or Retreat which had been far more suitable to our Messengers of Peace In which respect it might be too truly said of our Church what is spoken of the Eagle in the Greek Apologue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Eagle saw her breast was wounded sore She stood and weeped much but grieved more But when she saw the dart was feather'd said Woo's me for my own kind hath me destroy'd It is not so long since that version of the vulgar Latine Psal. 68. 15. inter Domini cleros might have been sadly rendred to lye among the pots and Pierius Valerianus might have met with too many Examples to have increased his Book De Literatorum Infoelicitate and in the next age it might have been true again what Matthew Paris observes of the Clergy in the Conquerours time adeò literaturâ carebant ut caeteris stupori esset qui Grammaticam didicâ—sset But blessed be God who hath freed us from that Daemonium meridianum of Ignorance and Barbarism may we be but as happily delivered from the plague of our divisions and animosities Than which there hath been no greater scandal to the Iews nor opprobrium of our Religion among Heathens and Mahumetans nor more common objection among the Papists nor any thing which hath been more made a pretence even for Atheism and Infidelity For our Controversies about Religion have brought at last even Religion it self into o Controversie among such whose weaker judgements have not been able to discern where the plain and unquestionable way to Heaven hath lain in so great a Mist as our Disputes have raised among us Weaker heads when they once see the battlements shake are apt to suspect that the foundation its self is not firm enough and to conclude if any thing be call'd in question that there is nothing certain And truly it cannot but be looked on as a sad presage of an approaching Famine not of bread but of the Word of the Lord that our lean Kine have devoured the fat and our thin ears the plump and full I mean our Controversies and Disputes have eaten so much out the Life and practice of Christianity Religion hath been so much rarified into aiery Notions and Speculations by the distempered heat of mens spirits that its inward strength and the Vitals of it have been much abated and consumed by it Curiosity that Green-sickness of the Soul whereby it longs for novelties and loaths sound and wholsome Truths hath been the Epidemical distemper of the Age we live in Of which it may be as truly said as ever yet of any that it was saecolum fâ—rtile religionis sterile pietatis I fear this will be the Character whereby our Age will be known to Posterity that it was the Age wherein men talked of Religion most and lived it least Few there are who are content with the Dimensum which God hath set them every one almost is of the Spanish Iesuâ—tes mind Beatus qui praedicat verbum inauditum seeking to find out somewhat whereby he may be reckoned if not among the Wise yet among the Disputers of this World How small is the number of those sober Christians of whom it may be said as Lucian of his Parasites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not at leisure to be sick of this pica 1 Tim. â— 4. such as longed more to taste of the Tree of Life then of the Tree of Knowledge and as Zenophon speaks of the Persians
sufficient for Communion with a Church which are sufficient for eternal salvation And certainly those things are sufficient for that which are laid down as the necessary duties of Christianity by our Lord and Saviour in his Word What ground can there be why Christians should not stand upon the same terms now which they did in the time of Christ and his Apostles Was not Religion sufficiently guarded and fenced in them Was there ever more true and cordial Reverence in the Worship of God What Charter hath Christ given the Church to bind men up to more then himself hath done or to exclude those from her Society who may be admitted into Heaven Will Christ ever thank men at the great day for keeping such out from Communion with his Church whom he will vouchsafe not onely Crowns of Glory to but it may be aureolae too if there be any such things there The grand Commission the Apostles were sent out with was onely to teach what Christ had commanded them Not the least intimation of any Power given them to impose or require any thing beyond what himself had spoken to them or they were directed to by the immediate guidance of the Spirit of God It is not Whether the things commanded and required be lawfull or no It is not Whether indifferencies may be determined or no It is not How far Christians are bound to submit to a restraint of their Christian liberty which I now inquire after of those things in the Treatise its self but Whether they do consult for the Churches peace and unity who suspend it upon such things How far either the example of our Saviour or his Apostles doth warrant such rigorous impositions We never read the Apostles making Lawes but of things supposed necessary When the Councel of Apostles met at Ierusalem for deciding a Case that disturbed the Churches peace we see they would lay no other burden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides these necessary things Acts 15. 29. It was not enough with them that the things would be necessary when they had required them but they looked on an antecedent necessity either absolute or for the present state which was the onely ground of their imposing those commands upon the Gentile-Christians There were after this great diversities of practice and varieties of Observations among Christians but the Holy Ghost never thought those things fit to be made matters of Lawes to which all parties should conform All that the Apostles required as to these was mutuall forbearance and condescension towards each other in them The Apostles valued not indifferencies at all and those things it is evident they accounted such which whether men did them or not was not of concernment to Salvation And what reason is there why men should be so strictly tied up to such things which they may do or let alone and yet be very good Christians still Without all Controversie the main in-let of all the Distractions Confusions and Divisions of the Christian World hath been by adding other conditions of Church-Communion then Christ hath done Had the Church of Rome never taken upon her to add to the Rule of Faith nor imposed Idolatrous and superstitious practises all the injury she had done her self had been to have avoyded that fearful Schisme which she hath caused throughout the Christian World Would there ever be the less peace and unity in a Church if a diversity were allowed as to practices supposed indifferent yea there would be so much more as there was a mutual forbearance and condiscension as to such things The Unity of the Church is an Unity of love and affection and not a bare uniformity of practice or opinion This latter is extreamly desireable in a Church but as long as there are several ranks and sizes of men in it very hardly attainable because of the different perswasions of mens minds as to the lawfulness of the things required and it is no commendation for a Christian to have only the civility of Procrustes to commensurate all other men to the bed of his own humour and opinion There is nothing the Primitive Church deserves greater imitation by us in then in that admirable temper moderation and condescension which was used in it towards all the members of it It was never thought worth the while to make any standing Laws for Rites and Customs that had no other Original but Tradition much less to suspend men her his communion for not observing them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sozomen tells us They judged it and that very justly a foolish and frivolous thing for those that agree in the weighty matters of Religion to separate from one anothers communion for the sake of some petty Customs and Observations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Churches agreeing in the same Faith often differ in their Rites and Customes And that not only in different Churches but in different places belonging to the same Church for as he tells us many Cities and Villages in Egypt not onely differed from the Customes of the Mother-Church of Alexandria but from all other Churches besides in their publick Assemblies on the Evenings of the Sabbath and receiving the Eucharist after dinner This admirable temper in the Primitive Church might be largely cleared from that liberty they allowed freely to dissenters from them in matters of practice and opinion as might be cleared from Cyprian Austine Ierome and others but that would exceed the bounds of a Preface The first who brake this Order in the Church were the Arrians Donatists and Circumcellians while the true Church was still known by his pristine Moderation and sweetness of deportment towards all its members The same we hope may remain as the most infallible evidence of the conformity of our Church of England to the Primitive not so much in using the same rites that were in use then as in not imposing them but leaving men to be won by the observing the true decency and order of Churches whereby those who act upon a true Principle of Christian ingenuity may be sooner drawn to a complyance in all lawfull things then by force and rigorous impositions which make men suspect the weight of the thing it self when such force is used to make it enter In the mean time what cause have we to rejoyce that Almighty God hath been pleased to restore us a Prince of that excellent Prudence and Moderation who hath so lately given assurance to the World of his great indulgence towards all that have any pretence from Conscience to differ with their Brethren The onely thing then seeming to retard our peace is the Controversie about Church-Government an unhappy Controversie to us in England if ever there were any in the World And the more unhappy in that our contentions about it have been so great and yet so few of the multitudes engaged in it that have truly understood the matter they have so eagerly contended about For the state of the controversie as it concerns
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
vacuae observationis superstitioni deputanda as superstitious which are done sine ulliâ—s Dominici aâ—t Apostolici praecepti autoritate without the Warrant of Divine Command Although even here we may say too that it is not meerly the want of a Divine Precept which makes any part of Divine Worship uncommanded by God unlawful but the General Prohibition that nothing should be done in the immediate Worship of God but what we have a Divine Command for However in matters of meer Deceâ—cy and Order in the Church of God or in any other civil action of the lives of men it is enough to make things lawful if they are not forbidden But against this that a Non-prohibition is warrant enough to make any thing lawful this Objection will be soon leavied that it is an Argument ab authoritate negativè and therefore is of no force To which I answer that the Rule if taken without limitation upon which this Objection is founded is not true for although an Argument ab authoritate negativè as to matter of Fact avails not yet the Negative from Authority as to matter of Law and Command is of great force and strength I grant the Argument holds not here we do not read that ever Christ or his Apostles did such a thing therefore it is not to be done but this we read of no Law or Precept commanding us to do it therefore it is not unlawful not to do it and we read of no Prohibition forbidding us to do it therefore it may be lawfully done this holds true and good and that upon this two-fold Reason First From Gods Intention in making known his Will which was not to record every particular fact done by himself or Christ or his Apostles but it was to lay down those general and standing Laws whereby his Church in all Ages should be guided and ruled And in order to a perpetual obligation upon the Consciences there must be a sufficient promulgation of those Laws which must bind men Thus in the case of Infant-Baptism it is a very weak unconcluding Argument to say that Infants must not be baptized because we never read that Christ or his Apostles did it for this is a Negative in matter of Fact but on the other side it is an Evidence that Infants are not to be excluded from Baptism because there is no Divine Law which doth prohibit their admission into the Church by it for this is the Negative of a Law and if it had been Christs intention to have excluded any from admission into the Church who were admitted before as Insants were there must have been some positive Law whereby such an Intention of Christ should have been expressed For nothing can make that unlawful which was a duty before but a direct and express Prohibition from the Legislator himself who alone hath power to reâ—cind as well as to make Laws And therefore Antipaedobaptists must instead of requiring a Positive Command for baptizing Infants themselves produce an express Prohibition excluding them or there can be no appearance of Reason given why the Gospel should exclude any from those priviledges which the Law admitted them to Secondly I argue from the intention and end of Laws which is to circumscribe and restrain the Natural Liberty of man by binding him to the observation of some particular Precepts And therefore where there is not a particular Command and Prohibition it is in Nature and Reason supposed that men are left to their Natural freedom as is plain in Positive Humane Laws wherein men by compact and agreement for their mutual good in Societies were willing to restrain themselves from those things which should prejudice the good of the Community this being the ground of mens first inclosing their Rights and common Priviledges it must be supposed that what is not so inclosed is left common to all as their just Right and Priviledge still So it is in Divine Positive Laws God intending to bring some of Mankind to happiness by conditions of his own appointing hath laid down many Positive Precepts binding men to the practise of those things as duties which are commanded by him But where we find no Command for performance we cannot look upon that as an immediate duty because of the necessary relation between Duty and Law and so where we find no Prohibition there we can have no ground to think that men are debarred from the liberty of doing things not forbidden For as we say of Exceptions as to General Laws and Rules that an Exception expressed firmat regulam in non exceptis makes the Rule stronger in things not expressed as excepted so it is as to Divine Prohibitions as to the Positives that those Prohibitions we read in Scripture make other things not-prohibited to be therefore lawful because not expresly forbidden As Gods forbidding Adam to taste of the fruit of one Tree did give him a liberty to taste of all the rest Indeed had not God at all revealed his Will and Laws to us by his Word there might have been some Plea why men should have waited for particular Revelations to dictate the goodness or evil of particular actions not determined by the law of nature but since God hath revealed his will there can be no reason given why those things should not be lawful to do which God hath not thought fit to forbid men the doing of Further we are to observe that in these things which are thus undetermined in reference to an obligation to duty but left to our natural liberty as things lawful the contrary to that which is thus lawful is not thereby made unlawful But both parts are left in mens power to do or not to do them as is evident in all those things which carry a general equity with them and are therefore consonant to the Law of Nature but have no particular obligation as not flowing immediately from any dictate of the natural Law Thus community of goods is lawful by the law and principles of nature yet every man hath a lawful right to his goods by dominion and propriety And in a state of Community it was the right of every man to impropriate upon a just equality supposing a preceding compact and mutual agreement Whence it is that some of the School-men say that although the Law of Nature be immutable as to its precepts and prohibitions yet not as to its demonstrations as they call them as Do as you would be done to binds always indispensably but that in a state of nature all things are common to all This is true but it binds not men to the necessary observance of it These which they call Demonstrations are only such things as are agreeable to nature but not particularly commanded by any indispensable precept of it Thus likewise it is agreeable to nature that the next of the kindred should be heir to him who dies intestate but he may lawfully wave his interest if he please Now to apply this to
our present case According to this sense of jus for that which is lawful those things may be said to be jure divino which are not determined one way or other by any positive Law of God but are left wholly as things lawful to the prudence of men to determine them in a way agreeable to natural light and the general Rules of the Word of God In which sense I assert any particular form of Government agreed on by the Governours of the Church consonant to the general Rules of Scripture to be by Divine Right i. e. God by his own Laws hath given men a power and liberty to determine the particular form of Church-Government among them And hence it may appear that though one form of Government be agreeable to the Word it doth not follow that another is not or because one is lawful another is unlawful but one form may be more agreeable to some parts places people and times then others are In which case that form of Government is to be setled which is most agreeable to the present state of a place and is most advantagiously conducible to the promoting the ends of Church-Government in that place or Nation I conclude then according to this sense of jus that the Ratio regiminis Ecclesiastici is juris divini naturalis that is that the reason of Church-Government is immutable and holds in all times and places which is the preservation of the peace and unity of the Church but the modus regiminis Ecclesiastici the particular form of that Government is juris divini permissivi that both the Laws of God and Nature have left it to the Prudence of particular Churches to determine it This may be cleared by a parallel Instance The reason and the Science of Physick is immutable but the particular prescriptions of that Science are much varied according to the different tempers of Patients And the very same reason in Physick which prescribes one sort of Physick to one doth prescribe a different sort to another because the temper or disease of the one calls for a different method of cure yet the ground and end of both prescriptions was the very same to recover the Patient from his distemper So I say in our present case the ground and reason of Government in the Church is unalterable by divine right yea and that very reason which determines the particular forms but yet these particular forms flowing from that immutable reason may be very different in themselves and may alter according to the several circumstances of times and places and persons for the more commodious advancing the main end of Government As in morality there can be but one thing to a man in genere summi boni as the chief good quò tendit in quod dirigit aroum to which he refers all other things yet there may be many things in genere boni conducentis as means in order to attaining that end So though Church-Government vary not as to the ground end and reason of it yet it may as to the particular forms of it As is further evident as to forms of Civil Government though the end of all be the same yet Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy are in themselves lawful means for the attaining the same common end And as Alensis determines it in the case of Community of goods by the Law of Nature that the same reason of the Law of Nature which did dictate Community of goods to be most suitable to man in the state of Innocency did in his faln estate prescribe a propriety of goods as most agreeable to it so that herein the modus observantiâ—â— dissered but the ratio praecepti was the same still which was mans comfortable enjoyment of the Accommodations of life which in Innocency might have been best done by Community but in mans degenerate condition must be by a Propriety So the same reason of Church-Government may call for an Equality in the persons acting as Governours of the Church in one place which may call for Superiority and subordination in another Having now dispatched the first sense of a Divine Right I come to the other which is the main seat of the Controversie and therefore will require a longer debate And so jus is that which makes a thing to become a duty so jus quasi jussum and jussa jura as Festus explains it i. e. that whereby a thing is not only licitum in mens lawful power to do it or no but is made dâ—bitum and is constituted a duty by the force and virtue of a Divine Command Now mans obligation to any thing as a duty doth suppose on the part of him from whose authority he derives his obligation both legislation and promulgation First there must be a Legislative Power commanding it which if it respects only the outward actions of a man in a Nation imbodied by Laws is the supreme Magistrate but if the obligation respect the consciences of all men directly and immediately then none have the power to settle any thing by way of an universal standing Law but God himself Who by being sole Creator and Governour of the World hath alone absolute and independent Dominion and Authority over the souls of men But besides Legislation another thing necessary to mans obligation to duty is a sufficient promulgation of the Law made Because though before this there be the ground of obedience on mans part to all Gods Commands yet there must be a particular Declaration of the Laws whereby man is bound in order to the determination of Mans duty Which in Positives is so absolutely necessary that unless there be a sufficient promulgation and declaration of the will of the Law-giver mans ignorance is excusable in reference to them and so frees from guilt and the obligation to punishment But it is otherwise in reference to the dictates of the natural Law wherein though man be at a loss for them yet his own contracted pravity being the cause of his blindness leaves him without excuse Hence it is said with good reason that though man under the Moral Law was bound to obey Gospel-precepts as to the reason and substance of the duties by them commanded as Faith Repentance from dead works and New Obedience yet a more full and particular revelation by the Gospel was necessary for the particular determination of the general acts of obedience to particular objects under their several Modifications expressed in the Gospel And therefore Faith and Repentance under the Moral Law taken as a transcript of the Law of Nature were required under their general notion as acts of obedience but not in that particular relation which those acts have under the Covenant of Grace Which particular determination of the general acts to special objects under different respects some call New Precepts of the Gospel others New Light but taking that light as it hath an influence upon the consciences of men the difference is so small that it deserves not to be
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
for the internal acts of Worship for he can neither add to that Rule nor dissolve the obligation of it nor yet can he force the consciences of men the chief seat of Religion it being both contrary to the nature of Religion its self which is a matter of the greatest freedom and internal liberty and it being quite out of the reach of the Magistrates Laws which respect only external actions as their proper object for the obligation of any Law can extend no further then the jurisdiction and authority of the Legislator which among men is only to the outward actions But then if we consider Religion as it is publikely owned and professed by a Nation the supreme Magistrate is bound by vertue of his office and authority not only to defend and protect it but to restrain men from acting any thing publikely tending to the subversion of it So that the plea for liberty of conscience as it tends to restrain the Magistrates power iâ— both irrationall and impertinent because liberty of conscience is the liberty of mens judgements which the Magistrate cannot deprive them of For men may hold what opinions they will in their minds the Law takes no cognizance of them but it is the liberty of practice and venting and broaching those opinions which the Magistrates power extends to the restraint of And he that hath the care of the publike good may give liberty to and restrain liberty from men as they act in order to the promoting of that good And as a liberty of all opinions tends manifestly to the subverting a Nations peace and to the embroyling it into continual confusions a Magistrate cannot discharge his office unlesse he hath power to restrain such a liberty Therefore we find plainly in Scripture that God imputes the increase and impunity of Idolatry as well as other vices to the want of a lawful Magistracy Iudges 17. 5 6. where the account given of Micahs Idolatry was because there was no King in Israel which implies it to be the care and duty of Magistrates to punish and restrain whatever tends to the opposing and subverting the true Religion Besides I cannot find any reason pleaded against the Magistrates power now which would not have held under David Solomon Asa Iehosophat Hezekias Iosias or other Kings of the Jews who asserted the publike profession to the extirpation to what opposed it For the plea of Conscience taken for mens judgements going contrary to what is publikely owned as Religion it is indifferently calculated for all Meridians and will serve for a Religion of any elevation Nay stiff and contumacious Infidels or Idolaters may plead as highly though not so truly as any that it goes against their judgements or their conscience to own that Religion which is established by authority If it be lawfull then to restrain such notwithstanding this pretence why not others whose doctrine and principles the Magistrate judgeth to tend in their degree though not so highly to the dishonouring God and subverting the profession entertained in a Nation For a mans own certainty and confidence that he is in the right can have no influence upon the Magistrate judging otherwise only if it be true it wil afford him the greater comfort and patience under his restraint which was the case of the primitive Christians under persecutions The Magistrate then is bound to defend protect and maintain the Religion he owns as true and that by vertue of his office as he is Custos utriusque tabulae The maintainer of the honour of Gods Laws which cannot be if he suffer those of the first Table to be broken without any notice taken of them Were it not for this power of Magistrates under the Gospel how could that promise be ever made good that Kings shall be nursing Fathers to the Church of God unlesse they mean such Nursing Fathers as Astyages was to Cyrus or Amulius to Romulus and Remus who exposed their nurslings to the Fury of wild Beasts to be devoured by them For so must a Magistrate do the Church unlesse he secure it from the incursion of Hereticks and the inundation of Seducers But so much for that which is more largely asserted and proved by others The Magistrate then hath power concerning Religion as owned in a Nation Secondly We must distinguish between an external and objective power about matters of Religion and an internal formal power which some call an Imperative and Elicitive power others a power of Order and a power of Jurisdiction others potestas Ecclesiastica and potestas circa Ecclesiastica or in the old distinction of Constantine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a power of things within and without the Church the sense of all is the same though the terms differ The internal formal Elicitive power of Order concerning things in the Church lies in authoritative exercise of the Ministerial Function in preaching the Word and administration of Sacraments but the external objective Imperative power of Jurisdiction concerning the matters of the Church lies in a due care and provision for the defence protection and propagation of Religion The former is only proper to the Ministry the latter to the Supreme Magistracy For though the Magistrate hath so much power about Religion yet he is not to usurp the Ministerial Function nor to do any proper acts belonging to it To which the instance of Uzzias is pertinently applied But then this takes nothing off from the Magistrates power for it belongs not to the Magistrate imperata facere but imperare facienda as Grotius truly observes not to do the things commanded but to command the things to be done From this distinction we may easily understand and resolve that so much vexed and intricate Question concerning the mutual subordination of the Civil and Ecclesiastical power For as Peter Martyr well observes these two powers are some wayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are conversant several wayes about the same thing but the Functions of both of them must be distinguished For the Pastors of the Church are not to administer Justice but it is their duty to declare how Justice should be rightly administred without partiality or oppression So on the other side the Magistrate must not preach the Gospel nor administer Sacraments but however must take care that these be duly done by â—hose to whose Function it belongs But for a clearer making it appear these things are to be considered both in a Magistrate and Minister of the Gospel In a Magistrate the Power it self and the Person bearing that Power The power it self of the Magistrate is no ways subordinate to the Power of the Ministry Indeed if we consider both Powers in reference to their objects and ends there may be an inferiority of Dignity as Chamier calls it in the civil power to the other considered abstractly but considering it concretely as lodged in the persons there is an inferiority of Subjection in the Ecclesiastical to the Civil But still the person
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
two We distinguish then between a power declarative of the obligation of former Laws and a power authoritative determining a New Obligation between the office of counselling and advising what is fit to be done and a power determining what shall be done between the Magistrates duty of consulting in order to the doing it and his deriving his authority for the doing it These things premised I say First that the power of declaring the obligation of former Laws and of consulting and advising the Magistrate for setling of New Laws for the Policy of the Church belongs to the Pastors and Governours of the Church of God This belongs to them as they are commanded to teach what Christ hath commanded them but no authority thereby given to make new Laws to bind the Church but rather a tying them up to the commands of Christ already laid down in his Word For a power to bind mens consciences to their determinations lodged in the Officers of the Church must be derived either from a Law of God giving them this right or else only from the consent of parties For any Law of God there is none produced with any probability of reason but that Obey those that are over you in the Lord. But that implies no more then submitting to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Gospel and to those whom Christ hath constituted as Pastors of his Church wherein the Law of Christ doth require obedience to them that is in looking upon them and owning them in their relation to them as Pastors But that gives them no authority to make any new Laws or Constitutions binding mens consciences any more then a Command from the Supreme authority that inferiour Magistrates should be obeyed doth imply any power in them to make new Laws to bind them But thus far I acknowledge a binding power in Ecclesiastical Constitutions though they neither bind by virtue of the matter nor of the authority commanding there being no legislative power lodged in the Church yet in respect of the circumstances and the end they should be obey'd unlesse I judge the thing unlawfull that is commanded rather then manifest open contempt of the Pastors of the Church or being a scandall to others by it But as to the other power arising from mutual compact and consent of Parties I acknowledge a power to bind all included under that compact not by vertue of any Supream binding power in them but from the free consent of the parties submitting which is most agreeable to the Nature of Church-power being not coactive but directive and such was the confederate discipline of the primitive Church before they had any Christian Magistrate And thence the decrees of Councils were call'd Canons and not Laws Secondly Though it be the Magistrates duty to consult with the Pastors of the Church to know what is most agreeable to the Word of God for the settlement of the Church yet the Magistrate doth not derive his authority in commanding things from their sentence decree and judgement but doth by vertue of his own power cause the obligation of men to what is so determin'd by his own enacting what shall be done in the Church The great use of Synods and Assemblies of Pastors of Churches is to be as the Council of the Church unto the King in matters belonging to the Church as the Parliament is for matters of civil concernment And as the King for the settling civil Laws doth take advice of such persons who are most versed in matters of Law so by proportion of reason in matters concerning the Church they are the fittest Council who have been the most versed in matters immediately belonging to the Church In the management of which affairs as much if not more prudence experience judgement moderation is requisite as in the greatest affairs of State For we have found by dolefull experience that if a fire once catch the Church and Aarons Bells ring backward what a Combustion the whole State is suddenly put into and how hardly the Churches Instruments for quenching such fires lachrymae preces Ecclesiae do attain their end The least peg serued up too high in the Church soon causeth a great deal of discord in the State and quickly puts mens spirits out of Tune Whereas many irregularities may happen in the State and men live in quietnesse and peace But if Phaâ—tons dâ—ive the Chariot of the Sun the World wil be soon on fire I mean such in the Church whose brains like the Unicorns run out into the length of the Horn Such who have more fury then zeal and yet more zeal then knowledge or Moderation Persons therefore whose calling â—temper office and experience hath best acquainted them with the State-actions Policy of the primitive Church and the incomparable Prudence and Moderation then Used are fittest to debate consult deliberate and determine about the safest expedients for repairing breaches in a divided broken distracted Church But yet I say when such men thus assembled have gravely and maturely advised and deliberated what is best and fitted to te done the force strength and obligation of the things so determin'd doth depend upon the power and authority of the Civil Magistrate for taking the Church as incorporated into the civill state as Ecclesia est in republicâ non respublica in Ecclesia according to that known speech of Optatus Milivetanus so though the object of these constitutions and the persons determining them and the matter of them be Ecclesiasticall yet the force and ground of the obligation of them is wholly civill So Peter Martyr expresly Nam quod ad potestatem Ecclesiasticam attinet satis est civilis Magistratus is enim â—urare debet ut omnes officium faciant But for the judgement of the reformed Divines about this see Vedelius de Episcopatis Constant. M Officium Magistratus Christiani annexed to Grotius de Imper. c. I therefore proceed to lay down the reason of it First That whereby we are bound either to obedience or penalty upon disobedience is the ground of the obligation but it is upon the account of the Magistrates power that we are either bound to obedience or to submit to penalties upon disobedience For it is upon the account of our general obligation to the Magistrate that we are bound to obey any particular Laws or Constitutions Because it is not the particular determinations made by the civil Magistrate which do immediately bind Conscience but the general Law of Scripture requires it as a duty from us to obey the Magistrate in all things lawfull Obedience to the Magistrate is due immediately from Conscience but obedience to the Laws of the Magistrate comes not directly from Conscience but by vertue of the general obligation And therefore disobedience to the Magistrates Laws is an immediate sin against Conscience because it is against the general obligation but obedience to particular Laws ariseth not immediately from the obligation of Conscience to
them in particular but to the Magistrate in general So that in things left lawfull and undetermin'd by the Word where there ariseth no obligation from the matter it must arise from our subjection and relation to the Magistrate and what is the ground of obedience is the cause of the obligation Secondly He hath only the power of obligations who hath the power of making Sanctions to those Laws By Sanctions I mean here in the sense of the civil Law eas legum partes quibus poenas constituimus adversus eos qui contra leges fecerint those parts of the Law which determine the punishments of the violaters of it Now it is evident that he only hath power to oblige who hath power to punish upon disobedience And it is as evident that none hath power to punish but the civill Magistrate I speak of legall penalties which are annexed to such Laws as concern the Church Now there being no coercive or coactive power belonging to the Church as such all the force of such Laws as respect the outward Polity of the Church must be derived from the civill Magistrate Thirdly He who can null and declare all other obligations void done without his power hath the only power to oblige For whatsoever destroys a former obligation must of necessity imply a power to oblige because I am bound to obey him in the abstaining from that I was formerly obliged to But this power belongs to the Magistrate For suppose in some indifferent Rites and Ceremonies the Church representative that is the Governors of it pro tempore do prescribe them to be observed by all the Supreme power fâ—rbids the doing of those things if this doth not null the former supposed obligation I must inevitably run upon these absurdities First that there are two supreme powers in a Nation at the same time Secondly that a man may lie under two different Obligations as to the same thing he is bound to do it by one power and not to do it by the other Thirdly the same action may be a duty and a sin a duty in obeying the one power a sin in disobeying the other Therefore there can be but one power to oblige which is that of the Supreme Magistrate Having thus far asserted the Magistrates due power and Authority as to matters of Religion we proceed to examine the extent of this power in determining things left at liberty by the Word of God in order to the Peace and Government of the Church For our clear and distinct proceeding I shall ascend by these three steps First to shew that there are some things left undetermined by the Word Secondly that these things are capable of positive Determinations and Restraint Thirdly that there are some bounds and limits to be observed in the stating and determining these things First That there are some things left undetermined by the Word By Determining here I do not mean determining whether things be lawful or no for so there is no Ritâ— or Ceremony whatsoever but is determined by the Scripture in that sense or may be gathered from the application of particular actions to the general Rules of Scripture but by Determining I mean whether all things concerning the Churches Polity and Order be determined as Duties or no viz. that this we are bound to observe and the other not As for instance what time manner method gesture habit be used in preaching the Word whether Baptism must be by dipping or sprinkling at what day time place the Child shall be baptized and other things of a like Nature with these Those who assert any of these as duties must produce necessarily the Command making them to be so For Duty and Command have a necessary respect and relation to one another If no Command be brought it necessarily follows that they are left at liberty So as to the Lords Supper Calvin saith whether the Communicants take the Bread themselves or receive it being given them whether they should give the Cup into the hands of the Deacon or to their next Neighbour whether the Bread be leavened or not the Wine red or white nihil refert it matters not Haec indifferentia sunt in Ecclesiae libertate posita they are matters of indifferency and are left to the Churches liberty But this matter of Indifferency is not yet so clear as it is generally thought to be we shall therefore bare the ground a little by some necessary distinctions to see where the root of indifferency lies Which we shall the rather do because it is strongly asserted by an Honourable person that there is no Indifferency in the things themselves which are still either unlawful or necessary if lawful at this time in these circumstances but all indifferency lies in the darkness and shortness of our understandings which may make some things seem so to us But that Honourable person clearly runs upon a double mistake First that Indifferency is a medium participationis of both extremes and not only negationis viz. that as intermediate colours partake both of black and white and yet are neither so in morality between good and bad there is an intermediate entity which is neither but indifferent to either Whereas the Nature of Indifferency lies not in any thing intermediate between good and bad but in some thing undetermined by Divine Laws as to the necessity of it so that if we speak as to the extremes of it it is something lying between a necessary duty and an intrinsecal evil The other mistake is that throughout that Discourse he takes Indifferency as Circumstantiated in Individual actions and as the morality of the action is determined by its Circumstances whereas the proper notion of Indifferency lies in the Nature of the action considered in its self abstractly and so these things are implyed in an indifferent action First absolute undetermination as to the general nature of the act by a Divine Law that God hath left it free for men to do it or no. Secondly that one part hath not more propension to the Rule then the other for if the doing of it comes nearer to the rule then the omission or on the contrary this action is not wholly indifferent Thirdly that neither part hath any repugnancy to the Rule for that which hath so is so far from being indifferent that it becomes unlawful So that an indifferent action is therein like the Iron accosted by two Loadstones on either side of equal virtue and so hovers in medio inclining to neither but supposing any degree of virtue added to the one above the other it then inclines towards it or as the Magnetical Needle about the Azores keeps its self directly parallel to the Axis of the world without variation because it is supposed then to be at an equal distance from the two Great Magnets the Continents of Europe and America But no sooner is it removed from thence but it hath its variations So indifferency taken in
specie as to the Nature of the act inclines neither way but supposing it lye under Positive Determinations either by Laws or Circumstances it then necessarily inclines either to the Nature of Good or Eâ—il Neither yet are we come to a full understanding of the Nature of indifferent actions we must therefore distinguish between indifferency as to goodness necessitating an action to be done and as to goodness necessary to an action to make it good For there is one kind of goodness propter quam fit actio in order to which the action must necessarily be done and there is another kind of goodness sine quâ non benè fit actio necessary to make an action good when it is done As following after peace hath such a goodness in it as necessitates the action and makes it a necessary duty but handling a particular Controversie is such an action as a man may let alone without sin in his course of studies yet when he doth it there is a goodness necessary to make his doing it a good action viz. his referring his study of it to a right end for the obtaining of truth and peace This latter goodness is twofold either bonitas directionis as some call it which is referring the action to its true end in reference to which the great Controversie among the Schoolmen is about the indifferency of particular actions viz. Whether a particular direction of a mans intention to the ultimate end be not so necessary to particular actions as that without that the action is of necessity evil and with it good or whether without that an action may be indifferent to good or evil which is the state of the Question between Thomas and Scotus Bonaventure and Durandus but we assert the necessity of at least an habitual direction to make the action in individuo good and yet the act in its self may notwithstanding be indifferent even in individuo as there is no antecedent necessity lying upon mens Consciences for the doing of it because men may omit it and break no Law of God Besides this to make an action good there is necessary a bonitas Originis or rather Principii â—â— good Principle out of which the action must flow which must be that Faith which whatsoever is not of is sin as the Apostle tells us Which we must not so understand as though in every action a man goes about he must have a full perswasion that it is a necessary duty he goes about but in many actions that Faith is sufficient whereby he is perswaded upon good ground that the thing he goes about is lawful although he may as lawfully omit that action and do either another or the contrary to it There may be then the necessity of some things in an action when it is done to make it good and yet the action its self be no ways necessary but indifferent and a matter of Liberty This may be easily understood by what is usually said of Gods particular Actions that God is free in himself either to do or not to do that action as suppose the Creation of the World but when he doth it he must necessarily do it with that goodness holiness and wisdom which is suitable to his Nature So may many actions of men be in themselves indifferent and yet there must be a concomitant necessity of good intention and Principle to make the action good But this concomitant necessity doth not destroy the Radical Indifferency of the action it self it is only an antecedent necessity from the obligation of the Law is that which destroys indifferency So likewise it is as to evil there is such an evil in an action which not only spoils the action but hinders the person from the liberty of doing it that is in all such actions as are intrinsecally evil and there is such a kind of evil in actions which though it spoils the goodness of the action yet keeps not from performance which is such as ariseth from the manner of performance as praying in hypocrisie c. doing a thing lawful with a scrupulous or erring Conscience We see then what good and evil is consistent with indifferency in actions and what is not And that the Nature of Actions even in individuo may be indifferent when as to their Circumstances they may be necessarily determin'd to be either good or evil As Marrying or not Marrying as to the Law of God is left at liberty not making it in its self a necessary duty one way or other but supposing particular Circumstances make it necessary pro hîc nunc yet the Nature of it remains indifferent stâ—ll and supposing Marriage it is necessary it should be in the Lord and yet it is not necessary to make choice of this person rather then of that so that not only the absolute indifferency of the action is consistent with this concomitant necessity but the full liberty both of contradiction and contrariety Again we must distinguish between an Indifferency as to its Nature and Indifferency as to its use and end or between an indifferency as to a Law and indifferency as to order and peace Here I say that in things wholly indifferent in both respects that is in a thing neither commanded nor forbidden by God nor that hath any apparent respect to the Peace and Order of the Church of God there can be no rational account given why the Nature of such indifferencies should be alter'd by any Humane Laws and Constitutions But matters that are only indifferent as to a Command but are much conducing to the Peace and Order of a Church such things as these are the proper matter of Humane Constitutions concerning the Churches Polity Or rather to keep to the words of the Hypothesis it self where any things are determin'd in general by the Word of God but left at Liberty as to manner and Circumstances it is in the power of Lawful Authority in the Church of God to determine such things as far as they tend to the promoting the good of the Church And so I rise to the second step which is That matters of this Nature may be determin'd and restrained Or that there is no necessity that all matters of Liberty should remain in their primary indifferency This I know is asserted by some of great Note and Learning that in things which God hath left to our Christian Liberty man may not restrain us of it by subjecting those things to Positive Laws but I come to examine with what strength of reason this is said that so we may see whether men may not yield in some lawful things to a restraint of their Christian Liberty in order to the Peace of the Church of God Which I now prove by these Arguments First What may be lawfully done when it is commanded may be so far lawfully commanded as it is a thing in it self lawful but matters of Christian Liberty may be lawfully done when they are commanded to be done
reason they that hold any one posture at receiving the Lords Supper necessary as sitting leaning kneeling do all equally destroy their own Christian-liberty as to these things which are undetermined by the Word So a Magistrate when commanding matters of Christian-liberty if in the preface to the Law he declares the thing necessary to be done in its self and therefore he commands it he takes away as much as in him lyes our Christian-liberty And in that case we ought to hold to that excellent Rule of the Apostle Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath set you free and be not intangled again with the yoke of bondage But if the Magistrate declare the things to be in themselves indifferent but only upon some prudent considerations for peace and order he requires persons to observe them though this brings a necessity of obedience to us yet it takes not away our Christian-liberty For an antecedent necessity expressed in the Law as a learned and excellent Casuist of our own observes doth not necessarily require the assent of the practical judgement to it which takes away our liberty of judgement or our judgement of the liberty of the things but a consequentiall necessity upon a command supposed doth only imply an act of the Will whereby the freedom of judgement and conscience remaining it is inclined to obedience to the commands of a superior Law Now that liberty doth lye in the freedom of Judgement and not in the freedom of Practise and so is consistent with the restraint of the exercise of it appears both in the former case of scandall and in the actions of the Apostles and primitive Christians complying with the Jews in matters of liberty yea which is a great deal more in such ceremonies of which the Apostle expresly saith that if they observed them Christ would profit them Nothing and yet we find Paul himself circumcising Timothy because of the Jews Certainly then however these ceremonies are supposed to be not only mortuae but mortiferae now the Gospel was preached and the Law of Christian-liberty promulged yet Paul did not look upon it as the taking away his liberty at any time when it would prevent scandall among the Jews and tend to the furtherance of the Gospel to use any of them It was therefore the opinion of the necessity of them was it which destroyed Christian-liberty and therefore it is observable that where the opinion of the necessity of observing the Judaicall Rites and Ceremonies was entertained the Apostle sets himself with his whole strength to oppose them as he doth in his Epistles to the Galatians and Colossians Whom yet we find in other places and to other Churches not leaven'd with this doctrine of the necessity of Judaicall Rites very ready to comply with weak Brethren as in his Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians From which we plainly see that it was not the bare doing of the things but the doing them with an opinion of the necessity of them is that which infringeth Christian-liberty and not the determination of one part above the other by the Supream Magistrate when it is declared not to be for any opinion of the things themselves as necessary but to be only in order to the Churches peace and unity Secondly It appears that Liberty is consistent with the restraint of the exercise of it because the very power of restraining the exercise of it doth suppose it to be a matter of liberty and that both antecedently and consequentially to that restraint Antecedently so it is apparent to be a matter of liberty else it was not capable of being restrained Consequentially in that the ground of observance of those things when restrained is not any necessity of the matter or the things themselves but only the necessity of obeying the Magistrate in things lawfull and undertermin'd by the Word which leads to another argument Thirdly Mens obligation to these things as to the ground of it being only in point of contempt and scandall argues that the things are matter of liberty still I grant the Magistrates authority is the ground of obedience but the ground of the Magistrates command is only in point of contempt and scandall and for preserving order in the Church For I have already shewed it to be unlawfull either to command or obey in reference to these things from any opinion of the necessity of them and therefore the only ground of observing them is to shew that we are not guilty of contempt of the power commanding them nor of scandall to others that are offended at our not observing them Tota igitur religio est in fugiendo scandalo vitando contemptu saith our learned Whitaker All our ground of obedience is the avoiding scandall and contempt of authority To the same purpose Pet. Martyr speaking of the obligation of Ecclesiasticall Laws Non obstringunt si removeatur contemptus scandalum So that non-observance of indifferent things commanded when there there is no apparent contempt or scandall do not involve a man in the guilt of sin as suppose a Law made that all publike prayer be performed kneeling if any thing lies in a mans way to hinder him from that posture in this case the man offends not because there is no contempt or scandall So if a Law were made that all should receive the Lords Supper fasting if a mans health calls for somwhat to refresh him before he sins not in the breach of that Law And therefore it is observable which Whitaker takes notice of in the Canons of the Councils of the primitive Church that though they did determine many things belonging to the externall Polity of the Church yet they observed this difference in their Censures or Anathema's That in matteâ—s of meer order and decency they never pronounced an Anathema but with the supposition of â—ppâ—rent contempt and inserted Si quis contrà praesumpserit si quis contumaciter contrà fecerit but in matters of Doctrine or Life fully determin'd by the Law of God they pronounced a simple Anathema without any such clause inserted Now from this we may take notice of a difference between Laws concerning indifferencies in civill and Ecclesiastical matters That in civils the Laws bind to indifferencies without the case of contempt or scandall because in these the publike good is aimed aâ— of which every private person is not fit to judge and therefore it is our duty either to obey or suffer but in Ecclesiasticall constitution only peace and order is that which is looked at and therefore Si nihil contra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feceris non teneris illis is the rule here If nothing tending to apparent disorder be done men break not those Laws For the end and reason of a Law is the measure of its obligation Fourthly Mens being left free to do the things forbidden either upon a repeal of the former Laws or when a man is from under
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Socrates tells us Those that agree in the same Faith may differ among themselves in their Rites and Customs as he largely shews in a whole Chapter to that purpose as in the observation of Easter some on the fourteenth day of April others only upon the Lords Day but some of the more Eastern Churches differed from both In their Fasts some observed Lent but for one day some two some three weeks some six weeks other seven and in their Fasts some abstained from all kind of living creatures others only from fresh eating fish and others â—oul others abstained from fruit and eggs others eat only dry bread others not that neither And so for their publick Assemblies Some communicating every Lords day others not The Church of Alexandria had its publick Meetings and Sermons every fourth day of the week as he tells us The same Church made the publick Readers and Interpreters either of the Catechumeni or of the baptized differing therein from all other Churches Several Customes were used about Digamy and the Marriage of Ministers in several Churches So about the time of Baptism some having only one set time in the year for it as at Easter in Tâ—hâ—ssaly others two Easter and Dominica in Albis so call'd from the white garments of the baptized Some Churches in Baptism used three dippings others only one Great differences about the time of their being Catechumeni in some places longer in others a shorter time So about the Excommunicate and degrees of penance as they are call'd their Flentes audientes succumbentes consistentes the Communio peregrinae the several Chrismes in vertice in pectore in some places at Baptism in some after So for placing the Altar as they Metaphorically called the Communion Table it was not constantly towards the East for Socrates affirms that in the great Church at Antiochia it stood to the West end of the Church and therefore it had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a different positure from other Churches And Eusebius saith out of the Panegyrist that in the New Church built by Paulinus at Tyre the Altar stood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the middle These things may suffice for a taste at present of which more largely elsewhere God willing in due time We see the Primitive Christians did not make so much of any Uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies nay I scarce think any Churches in the Primitive times can be produced that did exactly in all things observe the same customes Which might especially be an argument of moderation in all as to these things but especially in pretended Admirers of the Primitive Church I conclude with a known saying of Austin Indignum est ut propter ea quae nos Deo neque digniores neque indigniores possunt facere alii alios vel condemnemus vel judicemus It is an unworthy thing for Christians to condemn and judge one another for those things which do not further us at all in our way to Heaven Lastly That Religion be not clogg'd with Ceremonies They when multiplied too much if lawful yet strangely eat out the heart heat life vigour of Christianity Christian Religion is a plain simple easie thing Christ commends his Yoke to us by the easiness of it and his burden by the lightness of it It was an excellent testimony which Amm. Marcellinus a Heathen gave to Christianity when speaking of Constantius Religionem Christianam rem absolutam simplicem aâ—â—li superstitione confudit That he spoiled the beauty of Christianity by musting it up in Superstitious observations And it is as true which Erasmus said in answer to the Sorbonists Quò magis in corporalibus ceremoniis haeremus hoc magis vergimus ad Iudaismum External Ceremonies teach us backward and bring us back from Christ to Moses which is fully proved as to the Papists by our Learned Rainolds and Mr. De Croy But we need no further Evidence then a bare perusal of Durandus Mimatensis his Rationale Divinorum officiorum By Ceremonies I mean not here matters of meer decency and order for order sake which doubtless are lawful if the measure of that order be not the pomp and glory of the world but the gravity composure sobriety which becomes Christianity for when the Jews were the most strictly tyed up by a Ceremonial Law they did introduce many things upon the account of order and decency ás the building Synagogues their hours of Prayer their Parashoth and Haphtaroth the Sections of the Law and Prophets the continuation of the Passover fourteen days by Hezekiah when the Law required but seven the Feast of Purim by Esther and Mordecai the Fasts of the 4. 5. 10 moneth under the Captivity the Feast of Dedication by the Maccabees The use of Baptism in Proselyting washing the feet before the Passeover imitated and practised by our Saviour So that matters of Order and Decency are allowable and fitting but Ceremonies properly taken for actions significative and therefore appointed because significative their lawfulness may with better ground be scrupled Or taking Ceremony in Bellarmines description of it to be actio externa quae non aliunde est bona laudabilis nisi quia fit ad Deum colendum And in this sense it will be hard to manifest any thing to be lawful but what is founded upon a Divine Precept if it be not a matter of Order and so no Ceremony And as for significative Ceremonies concerning matter of Doctrine or Fact a learned Dr. puts us in mind of the old Rule that they be paucae salubres and the fewer the more wholesome for as he observes from Aristotle in Insectâ—le Animals the want of blood was the cause they run out into so many legs I shall conclude this whole Discourse with another Speech of S. Austin very pertinenâ— to our present purpose Omnia itaque talia quae neque sanctarum Scripturarum autoritatibus continentur nec in Conâ—iliis Episcoporum statuta inveniuntur nec consuetudine universae Ecclesiae roborata sunt sed diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur ita ut vix aut omnino nunquam inveniri possint causae quas in eis instituendis secuti sunt homines ubi facultas tribuitur sine ulla dubitatione resecanda existimo All such things which are neither founded on the authority of the Scriptures nor determined by General Councils for so he must be understood nor practised by the Catholick Church but vary according to the customes of places of which no rational account can be given â—ssoon as men have power to do it I judge them to be cut off without any scruple For which definitive sentence of his he gives this most sufficient Reason Quamvis enim neque hoc inveniri possit quomodo contra fidem sint ipsam tamen religionem quam paucissimis manifestissimis celebrationem sacramentis misericordia Dei liberam esse voluit servilibus oneribus premunt ut tolerabilior
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
lesser matter if wilfully taken up and obstinately maintained is call'd Here sit which two are seldom seen out of each others company and when they are together are like the blind and same man in the Fable the one lent the other eyes and the other lent him feet one to find out what they desired the other to run away with it when they had it The Heretick he useth his eyes to spy out some cause or pretence of deserting Communion the Schismatick he helps him with his legâ— to run away from it but between them both they rob the Church of its peace and unity But in order to the making clear what the Churches power is in reference to these we are to take notice of these things First That the Church hath no direct immediate power over mens opinions So that a matter of meer different opinion lyes not properly within the cognizance of any Church power the reason of it is this because the end of power lodged in the Church is to preserve the peace and unity of its self now a meer different opinion doth not violate the bonds of Society for Opinionum diâ—er sitas opinantium unitas non sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men may preserve communion under different apprehensions So long then as diversity of opinion tends not to the breaking the quiet and tranquillity of the Church of God a man may safely enjoy his own private apprehensions as to any danger of molestation from Church Governours That is so long as a man keeps his opinion to himself and hath the power of being his own Counsellor It is not the difference of opinion formally considered when it is divulged abroad that is punishable but the tendency to Schism which lyes in the divâ—lging of it and drawing others away from the received Truths For the opinion its self is an internall act of the mind and therefore is punishable by no externall power as that of the Magistrate or Church is as no internall action is under the jurisdiction or authority of a Magistrate any further then as necessarily conjoyned with the outward action or as it hath a direct influence upon it The case of blasphemy which is a thing of the highest nature in this kind is not punishable by men as blasphemy implyes low and undervaluing thoughts of God but as being a thing divulged else no formal blaspemy it tends apparently to the dishonour of God and consequently to the breaking in pieces all such Societies whose great foundation is the belief of the Majesty and glory of God So Idolatry under the Law was punished as it was immediately destructive of that obedience which men did owe to the true God And under the Gospel it is not meer difference of opinion judgement and apprehension which layes men open to the Censures of that power which moderates and rules a religious Society but the endeavour by difference of opinion to alienate mens spirits one from another and thereby to break the Society into fractions and divisions is that which makes men liable to restraint and punishment From whence it follows that where the peace and unity of the Church may be preserved and yet men keep up different apprehensions of things there is nothing deserving any severe animadversion from the Rulers of that Society For a power corrective and vindictive must suppose something acted contrary to the Laws and Rules of the Society and the end of committing that power into the hands of Governours now here is nothing of that nature for the Laws of mutual Society are observed and the end of Church-Government is to see nè quid Ecclesia detrimenti capiat lest the Church as a Society be any wayes prejudiced which cannot be while men maintain that love affection and communion which becomes the members of such a Society The unity then required in the Church is not an unity of judgement and apprehension among the members of it which though it be their duty to endeavour after yet it is no further attainable by mens endeavours then perfection is and Unio Christianorum in this sense is one of the Jewels belonging to the Crown of Heaven There is no necessity then of inquiring after an infallible Judge of Controversies unlesse we had some promise and assurance from Christ that the members of his Church should never differ in their judgements from one another and then what need of an infallible Judge and if Christ had appointed an infallible Judg he would infallibly have discovered it to the minds of all sober men or else his infallibility could never attain its end For while I question whether my Judge be infallible or no I cannot infallibly assent to any of his determinations And where there is no ground for an infallible Judge for any to pretend to it is the worst of supposable errours because it renders all others incurable by that apprehension and takes away all possibility of repentance while men are under that perswasion The Unity then of the Church is that of Communion and not that of Apprehension and different opinions are no further lyable to censures then as men by the broaching of them do endeavour to disturb the peace of the Church of God That then which seems most lyable to censures in a Church is Schism as being immediately destructive of that communion which should be maintained in a religious Society But as to this too we must observe something further and not to think and judge every thing to deserve the name which is by many call'd Schism it being well observed by a very learned and judicious Divine that Heresie and Schism as they are commonly used are two Theologicall scare-crows with which they who use to uphold a party in Religion use to fright away such as making enquiry into it are ready to relinquish and oppose it if it appear either erroneous or suspitious For as Plutarch reports of a Painter who having unskilfully painted a Cock chased away all Cocks and Hens that so the imperfection of his Art might not appear by comparison with nature so men willing for ends to admit of no fancy but their own endeavour to hinder an enquiry into it by way of comparison of somewhat with it peradventure truer that so the deformity of their own might not appear Thus he Schism then as it imports a separation from communion with a Church-society is not a thing intrinsecally and formally evil in it self but is capable of the differences of good and evil according to the grounds reasons ends and circumstances inducing to such a separation The withdrawing from Society is but the materiality of Schism the formality of it must be fetched from the grounds on which that is built It is therefore a subject which deserve a strict inquiry what things those are which may make a withdrawing from a religious Society to which a man is joyned to be lawfull For as it is a great sin on the one hand unnecessarily to
with that Church in those things will be lawfull too and where non-communion is lawfull there can be no Schism in it Whatever difference will be thought of as to the things imposed by the Church of Rome and others will be soon answered by the proportionable difference between bare non-conformity and totall and positive separation What was in its self lawfull and necessary then how comes it to be unlawfull and unnecessary now Did that justifie our withdrawing from them because they required things unlawfull as conditions of communion and will not the same justifie other mens non-conformity in things supposed by them unlawfull If it be said here that the Popes power was an usurpation which is not in lawfull Governours of Churches it is soon replyed That the Popes usurpation mainly lyes in imposing things upon mens consciences as necessary which are doubtfull or unlawfull and where-ever the same thing is done there is an usurpation of the same nature though not in so high a degree and it may be as lawfull to withdraw communion from one as well as the other If it be said that men are bound to be ruled by their Governours in determining what things are lawfull and what not To this it is answered first no true Protestant can swear blind obedience to Church-Governours in all things It is the highest usurpation to rob men of the liberty of their judgements That which we plead for against the Papists is that all men have eyes in their heads as well as the Pope that every one hath a judicium privata discretionis which is the rule of practice as to himself and though we freely allow a ministeriall power under Christ in the Government of the Church yet that extends not to an obligation upon men to go against the dictates of their own reason and conscience Their power is only directive and declarative and in matters of duty can bind no more then reason and evidence brought from Scripture by them doth A man hath not the power over his own understanding much lâ—sse can others have it Nullus credit aliquid esse verum quia vult credere id esse verum non est enim in potestate hominis facere aliquid apparere intellectui suo verum quando voluerit Either therefore men are bound to obey Church-Governours in all things absolutely without any restriction or limitation which if it be not usurpation and dominion over others faith in them and the worst of implicite faith in others it is hard to define what either of them is or else if they be bound to obey only in lawfull things I then enquire who must be judge what things are lawfull in this case what not if the Governours still then the power will be absolute again for to be sure whatever they command they will say is lawfull either in it self or as they command it if every private person must judge what is lawfull and what not which is commanded as when all is said every man will be his owd judge in this case in things concerning his own welfare then he is no further bound to obey then he judgeth the thing to be lawfull which is commanded The plea of an erroneous conscience takes not off the obligation to follow the dictates of it for as he is bound to lay it down supposing it erroneous so he is bound not to go against it while it is not laid down But then again if men are bound to submit to Governours in the determination of lawfull things what plea could our Reformers have to withdraw themselves from the Popes yoke it might have still held true Boves arabant Asina Pascebantur simul which is Aquinas his argument for the submission of inferiours in the Church to their superiours for did not the Pope plead to be a lawfull Governour and if men are bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governours as to the lawfulnesse of things they were bound to believe him in that as well as other things and so separation from that Church was unlawfull then So that let men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same arguments that any will prove separation from the Church of Rome lawfull because she required unlawfull things as conditions of her communion it will be proved lawfull not to conform to any suspected or unlawfull practice required by any Church-Governours upon the same terms if the thing so required be after serious and â—ober inquiry judged unwarrantable by a mans own conscience And withall it would be further considered whether when our best Writers against the Papists do lay the imputation oâ— Schism not on those who withdraw communion but on them for requiring such conditions of communion whereby they did rather eject men out of their communion than the others separate from them they do not by the same arguments lay the imputation of Schism on all who require such conditions of communion and take it wholly off from those who refuse to conform for conscience sake To this I shall subjoyn the judgement of as learned and judicious a Divine as most our Nation hath bred in his excellent though little Tract concerning Schism In those Schisms saith he which concern fact nothing can be a just cause of refusing communion but only to require the execution of some unlawfull or suspected act for not only in reason but in Religion too that Maxim admits of no release Cantissimi cujusque praeceptum Quod dubitas nè feceris And after instanceth in the Schism about Image-worship determin'd by the second Council of Nice in which he pronounceth the Schismatical party to be the Synod its self and that on these grounds First because it is acknowledged by all that it is a thing unnecessary Secondly it is by most suspected Thirdly it is by many held utterly unlawfull Can then saith he the enjoyning of such a thing be ought else but abuse Or can the refusall of communion here be thought any other thing then duty Here or upon the like occasion to separate may peradventure bring personal trouble or danger against which it concerns any honest man to have pectus praeparatum further harm it cannot do so that in these cases you cannot be to seek what to think or what you have to do And afterwards propounds it as a remedy to prevent Schism to have all Liturgies and publike forms of service so framed as that they admit not of particular and private fancies but contain only such things in which all Christians do agree For saith he consider of all the Liturgies that are and ever have been and remove from them whatever is scandalous to any party and leave nothing but what all agree on and the evil shall be that the publike service and honour of God shall no wayes suffer Whereas to load our publike forms with the private fancies upon which we differ is the most soveraign way to perpetuate Schism unto the Worlds end Prayer Confession
are required which mens consciences are unsatisfied in unless others proceed to eject and cast them wholly out of communion on that account in which case their separation is necessary and their Schism unavoidable Secondly therefore I assert that as to things in the judgement of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermined by the Law of God and in matters of meer order and decency and wholly as to the form of Government every one notwithstanding what his private judgement may be of them is bound for the Peace of the Church of God to submit to the determination of the lawful Governours of the Church And this is that power of ending Controversies which I suppose to be lodged in a Church-Society not such a one as whereto every man is bound to conform his private judgement but whereto every private person is bound to submit in Order to the Churches Peace That is that in any Controversies arising in a Church there is such a power supposed that may give such an authoritative Decision of the controversie in which both parties are bound to acquiesce so as to act nothing contrary to that Decision For as it is supposed that in all Contracts and Agreements for mutuall Society men are content to part with their own Liberties for the good of the whole so likewise to part with the Authority of their own judgements and to submit to the Determination of things by the Rulers of the Society constituted by them For there must be a difference made between the Liberty and freedom of a mans own judgment and the Authority of it for supposing men out of all Society every man hath both but Societies being entred and Contracts made though men can never part with the freedom of their Judgements Men not having a Depotical power over their own understandings yet they must part with the Authority of their Judgements i. e. in matters concerning the Government of the Society they must be ruled by Persons in Authority over them Else there can be nothing imagined but confusion and disorder in stead of Peace and Unity in every civil State and Society The case is the same in a religious Society too in which men must be supposed to part with the Authority of their own judgements in matters concerning the Government of the Church and to submit to what is constituted and appointed by those who are intrusted with the care and welfare of it Else it is impossible there should be Unity and Peace in a Church considered as a Society which is as much as to say there neither is nor can be such a Society And that God hath commanded that which is Naturally impossible I mean freedom from divisions and the Unity and Peace of his Church Which will appear from hence because it can never be expected that all men should be exactly of one mind Either then men retaining their private apprehensions are bound to acquiesce in what is publikely determined or there is a necessity of perpetuall confusions in the Church of God For the main inlet of all disturbances and divisions in the Church is from hence that Men consider themselves absolutely and not as Members of a governed Society and so that they may follow their own own private judgements and are bound so to doe in matters belonging to the Government of the Church and not to acquiesce for the Churches Peace in what is established in Order to the ruling of this so constituted Society by lawfull Authority These things premised the way is now fully cleared for the discovering what wayes are prescribed by the light of Nature for ending controversies in the Church which will appear to be these two 1. In societies wherein persons act with an equality of Power for the ending differences arising the less number must alwayes acquiesce in the determination of the greater And therefore it iâ— a generally received Axiom that in all Societies pars major â—ut habet universitatis the greater part hath the power of the whole And it is a standing Rule in the Civil Law Refertur ad universos quod publice fit per majorem partem which is determined by the Lawyers to hold not of the persons in power but of the persons present at the Determination as when Alexander Severus made fourteen of the Viri Consulares to be Curatores urbis joyned with the Praefectis urbis to Determine cases brought before them what was determined by the greater part of those present was looked upon as binding as if the whole number had been there And this Aristotle layes down as one of the fundamental Lawes of a Democratical Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That must be looked on as a just and final decision of a Case debated which the major part determines And therefore rationally infers that in a Democracy the poorer sort and so likewise the worse must alwayes bear the greatest sway because they are the most Which is an unavoydable inconvenience in that form of Government whether in Church or State The same he elsewhere applyes to other forms of Government which have a multitude of Rulers as Aristocracy and Oligarchy That which seems good to the most obtains as a Law amongst all Which Appian thus briefly expresseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dionys. Halicarnasseus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one speaking of matter of Fact that it doth obtain the other of matter of Law that it should do so It appears then from the Law and light of nature that where ever any multitude acts in an equality of Power the greater part have the power of the whole not from any right which the major part hath as superiour over the less but from the Law of nature which will have every part ordered for the good of the whole which good cannot oft times be obtained without a special determination on one side or other nor that determination have its effect if the Act of the major part may be rescinded by the less So that in every thing requiring special determination this is to be esteemed the most just and final decision which is done by the major part For it would be manifestly unjust for the lesser part to determine the greater and therefore by the Law of nature the greater part hath the right of the whole 2. In a society consisting of many particular Companies or Congregations there must be a subordination of Powers by the Law of nature which grants a right of Appeal to an injured person from the lower and subordinate Power to the higher and superiour Appealing is defined by the Lawyers to be Provocatio iniquae sententiae querelam contineus An address to a higher Power with complaint of wrong and so in geneall it is defined by Ulpian to be ab Inferioris Iudicis sententiâ ad superiorem provocatio but as Hottoman observes appeals may sometimes be made to a co-ordinate power upon complaint of injustice done As one
Praetor Consul Tribune might be appealed to from the sentence of another The originall of Appeals then is that injuries may be redressed and in order to that nature dictates that there ought to be a subordination of Powers one to another lest any injury done through corruption or ignorance of the immediate Judges prove irremediable To which purpose our learned Whitaker saith that Appeals are juris divini naturalis in omni societate admodum necessariae propter multorum judicum vel iniquitatem vel ignorantiam alioqui actum esset de innocente si non liceret ab iniqua sententia appestare So that appeals are founded upon natural right lest men should be injured in any determination of a case by those that have the cognizance of it And in order to a redress of wrongs and ending controversies Nature tells us that Appeals must not be infinite but there must be some Power from whence Appeals must not be made What that should be must be determined in the same manner that it is in Civils not that every Controversie in the Church must be determined by an Oecumenical Council but that it is in the Power of the Supream Magistrate as Supream head in causes Ecclesiastical to limit and fix this Subordination and determine how far it shall go and no further The Determination being in order to the Peace of the Church which Christian Magistrates are bound to look after and see that causes hang not perpetually without Decision And so we find the Christian Emperours constituting to whom Appeals should be made and where they should be fixed as Iustinian and Theodostus did For when the Church is incorporated into the Common-wealth the chief Authority in a Common-wealth as Christian belongs to the same to which it doth as a Common-wealth But of that already It is then against the Law and Light of Nature and the natural right of every man for any particular company of men calling themselves a Church to ingross all Ecclesiastical Power so into their hands that no liberty of Appeals for redress can be made from it Which to speak within compass is a very high usurpation made upon the Civil and Religious rights of Christians because it leaves men under a causeless censure without any authoritative vindication of them from it As for that way of elective Synods substituted in the place of authoritative Power to determine Controversies it is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which will never be soveraign enough to cure the distemper it is brought for For elective Synods are but like that which the Lawyers call arbitrium boni viri which they distinguish from arbitrium ex compromisso and binds no further then the party concerned doth judge the Sentence equall and just So that this helps us with no way to end controversies in the Church any further then the persons engaged are willing to account that just which shall be judged in their Case Taking then a coercive Power onely for such a one as may authoritatively decide a controvâ—rsie we see what great Reason there is for what the Historian observes Arbitriis ii se debent interponere qui non parenteâ— coercere possunt That all Power of Arbitration should have some juridicall power going along with it to make a finall end of quarrels But that which seems yet more strange to me is this that by those who assert the Independency of particular Congregationâ— it is so hotly pleaded that Christ hath given every particular Congregation a Power over its own Members to determine controversies arising between them but that if one or many of these particular Congregations should erre or break the Rule he hath left no power Authoritatively to decide what should be done in such cases Can we conceive that Christ should provide more for the Cases of particular Persons then of particular Churches And that he should give Authority for Determining one and not the other Is there any more coactive Power given by any to Synods or greater Officers then there is by them to particular Churches which power is onely declarative as to the Rule though Authoritative as to persons where-ever it is lodged Is there not more danger to Gods People by the scandals of Churches then Persons Or did Christs Power of governing his People reach to them onely as particular Congregations Doth not this too strongly savour of the Pars Donati only the Meridies must be rendred a particular Congregationall Church where Christ causeth his Flock to rest But supposing the Scripture not expresly to lay down a Rule for governing many Churches are men outlawed of their natural Rights that supposing a wrong Sentence passed in the Congregation there is no hopes way or means to redress his injury and make his innocency known Doth this look like an Institution of Christ But that which I conceive is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Original of this mistake is that the Churches we read of first Planted in Scripture were onely particular Congregations and therefore there is no proper church-Church-power beyond them or above them I meddle not with the Antâ—cedent now which is largely discussed by others but the extream weakness of the consequence is that I am here obliged to discover For what a strange shortness of Discourse is it to Argue thus If when there was but one Congregation that Congregation had all Power within its self then when there are more particular congregations it must be so and yet this is the very Foundation of all those Kingdomes of Yvetos as one calls them those sole self-governing congregations When there was but one congregation in a Church it was necessary if it had any church-Church-power that it must be lodged in that one congregation But when this congregation was multiplyed into many more is it not as necessary for their mutual Government there should be a common power governing them together as a joynt-society Besides the first congregational Church in the New Testament viz. that of Ierusalem could be no particular Organical Church for it had many if not all Universall Officers in it and if they were the fixed Pastours of that Church they could not according to the Principles of those who thus speak Preach to any other congregation but their own by vertue of their Office And so either their Apostolicall Office and Commission must be destroyed if they were Pastors of particular Organical Churches or if their Apostolicall Office be asserted their Pastorship of particular Organicall Churches is destroyed by their own Principles who â—ssert that the Pastor of a Church can do no Pastorall Office out of his own congregation The case is the same as to other Churches planted by the Apostles and govern'd by themselves which two as far as I can find in the New Testament were of an equal extent viz. That all the Churches planted by Apostles were chiefly governed by themselves though they had subordinate officers under them These first Churches then
were not such particular Organized Churches but they were as the first matter of many congregations to be propagated out of them which after made one Society consisting of those several congregations imbodyed together and ruled by one common Government As in a Colledge every Tutor hath his own Pupils wich he rules and if we suppose but one Tutor at first in the Colledge with his Pupils all the power both common to the Society and peculiar to his Flock is joyned together but when there are many more Tutors having Pupils under their charge all these for their better ordering as a Society must be governed by the common Government of the Colledge to which the particular Government of every Tutor is and must be subordinate But this will be more fully made appear in the Original of Civil Government It is far more evident that all Civil power lay at first in Adam and his Family and afterwards in particular Families than that all Church-power lay in particular congregations at first We may then with as good Reason say that there is no lawfull civil Government now but that of particular Families and that no Nationall Government hath any right or power over particular Families because Families had once all civil Power within themselves as because it â—â— supposed that all Church-power lay first in particular congregations therefore there must be no Church-power above them nor that particular congregations are subject to such Government as is requisite for the Regulating of the Society in common as comprehending in it many particular congregations Let them shew then how any Government in the State is lawfull when Families had the first power and by what right now those Families are subordinate to the civill Magistrate and what necessity there is for it and by the very same Reasons will we shew the lawfulness of Government in the Church over many Congregations and that those are by the same right and upon the same necessity to subordinate themselves to the Government of the Church considereâ—â—â— a Society taking in many particular Congregations The Parallel runs on further and clearer still For as the heads of the severall Families after the Flood had the command over all dwelling under their Roofs while they remained in one Family and when that increased into more there power was extended over them too which was the first Original of Monarchy in the World So the Planters of the first Churches that while the Church was but one Congregation had power over it when this Congregation was multiplyed into more their Power equally extended over them all And as afterwards several heads of Families upon their increase did constitute distinct Civil Governments wherein were subordinate Officers but those Governments themselves were co-ordinate one with another So in the Church so many Congregations as make up one Provincial or National Society as succession and prudence doth order the bounds of them do make up several particular Churches enjoying their Officers ruling them but subordinare to the Governours of the Church in common Which Society National or Provincial is subordinate to none beyond its self but enjoyes a free Power within its self of ordering things for its own Government as it judgeth most convenient and agreeable to the Rules of Scripture The summe then of what I say concerning subordination of Officers and Powers in the Society of the Church is this That by the light and Law of Nature it appears that no individuall company or Congregation hath an absolute independent power within its self but that for the redressing grievances happening in them appeals are 〈…〉 to the parties aggrieved and a subordination of that particu 〈…〉 Congregation to the Government of the Society in common 〈…〉 at the right of Appealing and Originall of Subordination is from Nature the particular manner and form of subordinate and superiour Courts is to be fetched from positive Lawes the limitation of Appeals extent of jurisdiction the binding power of Sentence so far as concerns external Unity in the Church is to be fetched from the power of the Magistrate and civil Sanctions and Constitutions The Churches power as to Divine Law being onely directive and declarative but being confirmed by a civil Sanction is juridicall and obligatory Concerning the Magistrates power to call confirm alter repeal the Decrees of Synods see Grotius Chamier Whitaker Casaubon Mornay and others who fully and largely handle it To whom having nothing to add I will take nothing at all from them As for that time when the Church was without Magistrates ruling in it in those things left undetermined by the Rule of the Word they acted out of Principles of Christian Prudence agreeable to the Rules of Scripture and from the Principles of the Law of nature One of which we come in the next place to speak to So much for the Churches Power considered as a Society for ending controversies arising within its self tending to break the Peace and Unity of it CHAP. VII The fifth thing dictated by the Law of Nature That all that are admitted into this Society must consent to be governed by the Lawes and Rules of it Civil Societies founded upon mutual consent express in the first entrance implicite in others born under societies actually formed Consent as to a Church necessary the manner of Consent determined by Christ by Baptism and Profession Implicite Consent supposed in all baptized explicite declared by challenging the priviledges and observing the duties of the Covenant Explicite by express owning the Gospel when adult very usefull for recovering the credit of Christianity The Discipline of the Primitive Church cleared from Origen Iustin Martyr Pliny Tertullian The necessary requisites of Church Membership whether positive signs of Grace Explicite Covenant how far necessary not the formal Constitution of a Church * proved by several Arguments THe Law of Nature dictates That all who are admitted into this Society must consent to be governed by the Laws and Rules of that Society according to its Constitution For none can be looked upon as a Member of a Society but such a one as submits to the Rules and Laws of the Society as constituted at the time of his entrance into it That all civil Societies are founded upon voluntary consent and agreement of parties and do depend upon Contracts and Covenants made between them is evident to any that consider that men are not bound by the Law of Nature to associate themselves with any but whom they shall judge fit that Dominion and Propriety was introduced by free consent of men and so there must be Laws and Bonds fit agreement made and submission acknowledged to those Lawes else Men might plead their Naturall Right and Freedom still which would be destructive to the very Nature of these Societies When men then did first part with their natural Liberties two things were necessary in the most express terms to be declared First a free and voluntary consent to part with
Magistrate the third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the punishment is inflicted upon one that others should take notice of it which must be alwayes done in a publike manner So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matthew is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things being thus in general considered come we now to apply it to the Church considered as a Society That it hath peculiar Laws to be governed by appears by the distinct nature end and design of the constitution of it which is not to preserve any outward Rights but to maintain and keep up a religious Society for the service of God and therefore the penall sanctions of these Laws cannot properly be any corporall or pecuniary mulct but somewhat answerable to the nature of the Society It must be then somewhat which implyes the deprivation of that which is the chiefest benefit of that Society The benefits of it are the priviledges and honour which men enjoy by thus associating themselves for so high an employment That punishment then must be the loss of those priviledges which the Corporation enjoyes which must be by exclusion of the offending person from communion with the Society Hence we see it is evident that which we call Excommunication is the greatest penalty which the Church as a Society can inflict upon the members of it considered as such And hence it is likewise clear that as the Society of the Church is distinct from others the Laws ends Governours of a different nature so the punishment must be a punishment distinct from civill and ordained wholly in order to the peculiar ends of this Society which they do not well consider who deny any such power as that of Excommunication peculiar to the Church which is as much as to deny that the Laws whereby the Church is ruled are different from the civil Laws or the end of this Society from the ends of civil Societies for the punishment must be proportioned to the Laws and referred immediately to its proper ends It were no wayes difficult to answer the pretences brought against this For although I acknowledge a subordination of this religious Society to the Supream Authority in the Commonwealth and that the Rules concerning the Government of the Society in common must have their sanction from thence yet this no wayes implyes but it may have its peculiar penalties and power to inflict them any more then any Company of Tradesmen have not power to exclude any from their Company for breaking the Rules of the Company because they are subordinate to the Supream Authority or any Colledge to expell any from thence for breaking the locall Statutes of it which are distinct from the Common-Laws Nor is it any argument that because Christians had mutuall confederations in times of persecution for the exercise of censures therefore these censures were only arbitrary and humane unless it be proved that it was not a duty in them so to confederate joyn together nor was there any antecedent obligation to inflict those censures upon offenders Much lesse thirdly because their jurisdiction is not civil and coactive therefore they have none at all which is as much as to say the Laws of Scripture are not our common-Laws therefore they are none at all I shall not here insist upon the divine Right of power to excommunicate offenders founded upon the positive Laws of Chist it being my only businesse now to shew what foundation such a power hath in the Law of Nature which we have seen doth follow upon the Churches being a distinct Society ruled by other Laws acting on other ends subsisting upon different grounds from any other Society A further evidence we have of this how consonant it is to the light of Nature from the practice of all Societies pretending to be for the Worship of God who have looked upon this as the proper penalty of offenders among them to be excluded out of those Societies Thus we find among the Druids whose great office was to take care of the worship of their gods and to instruct the people in Religion as Caesar relates Illi rebus divinis intersunt sacrificia publica ac privata procurant religiones interpretantur and accordingly the punishment of disobedience among them was excommunication from their sacrifices which they looked upon as the greatest punishment could be inflicted upon them as Caesar at large describes it Si quis aut privatus aut pubicus eorum decreto non stetit sacrificiis interdicunt haec poena apud eos est gravissima quibus ita est interdictum ii numero impiorū sceleratorum habentur iis omnes decedunt aditū eorū sermonemque defugiunt nè quid ex contagione incommodi accipiant neque iis petentibus jus redditur neque honos ullus communicatur The practice of Excommunication among the Jews is not questioned by any but the right ground and orignall of that practice with the effect and extent of it Some conceive it to have been only taken up among the Jews after the power of capitall punishments was taken from them and that it was used by them wholly upon a civill account not extending to the exclusion of men from their worship in the Temple or Synagogues but only to be a note of insamy upon offending persons This opinion though entertained by persons of much skill and learning in the Jewish antiquities yet carries not that evidence with it to gain my assent to it For first the causes of excommunication were not such as were expressed by their Law to deserve such civil punishments as might have been inflicted by them upon offenders nor were they generally matters of a civill nature but matters of offence and scandall as will appear to any that shall peruse the twenty four causes of Excommunication related out of the Jewish Writers by Selden and Ioh. Coch. Such were the neglecting the Precepts of the Scribes the vain pronouncing the Name of God bearing witness against a Iew before Heathen tribunals doing any common work in the afternoon of the day before the Passover with others of a like Nature If Excommunication had been then taken up among them onely ex confoederatâ disciplinâ to supply the defect of civil Judicatories at least all Capitall offenders must have lain under the Sentence of Excommunication But here we read not of any being Excommunicated for those but for other lesser matters which were looked upon as matters of scandal among them and though some of them were matters of civil injuries yet it follows not that men were Excommunicated for them as such but for the scandall which attended them As in the Christian Church men are Excommunicated for matters which are punishable by the civil Magistrate but not under that notion but as they are offences to that Christian Society which they live among Secondly It appears that Excommunication was not a meer civil Penalty because the increasing or abatement of that Penalty did depend upon the
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
will be with his Disciples to the end of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we take it for a state of things or the Gospel-dispensation that is as long as the Evangelical Church shall continue For that in Scripture is sometime called The World to come and that Phrase among the Jews of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the world to come is set to express the times of the Messias and it may be the Apostle may referr to this when he speaks of Apostales tasting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the force and energy of the Gospel preached whence the Kingdom of God is said to be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in word but in power which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of by the Apostle elsewhere the powerfull demonstration of the Spirit accompanying the preaching of the Gospel When Christ is called by the Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the everlasting Father the Septuagint renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Vulgar Latin Pater futuri saeculi the Father of the World to Come that is the Gospel State and to this sense Christ is said to be made an High Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Law to be a shadow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of good things which should be under the new state of the Gospel And which is more plain to the purpose the Apostle expresseth what was come to passe in the dayes of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Ages to come where the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to this sense And according to this importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some very probably interpret that place of our Saviour concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost that it should not be forgiven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither in the present state of the Iewish Church wherein there is no sacrifice of expiation for contumacious sinners but they that despised Moses Law dyed without mercy so neither shall there be any under the World to come that is the dispensation of Gospel Grace any pardon proclaimed to any such sinners who â—â—ample under foot the blood of the Covenant and offer despight to the Spirit of grace Thus we see how properly the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may agree here to the Gospel-State and so Christs promise of his Presence doth imply the perpetuity of that Office as long as the Evangelical state shall remain which will be to the Worlds end The third thing whereby to know when positive institutions are unalterable is when they are necessary to the being succession and continuance of the Church of God Now this yields a further evidence of the perpetuity of Officers in the Church of God seeing the Church its self cannot be preserved without the Government and there can be no Government without some to Rule the members of the Church of God and to take care for a due administration of Church-priviledges and to inflict censures upon offenders which is the power they are invested in by the same authority which was the ground of their institution at first It is not conceivable how any Society as the Church is can be preserved without the continuance of Church-Officers among them As long as the Body of Christ must be edified there must be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fitted for the work of the Ministry which is appointed in order to that end For that I suppose is the Apostles meaning in Ephes. 4. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the Complutensian copy leaving out the comma between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes as though it were a distinct thing from the former whereas the Original carryes the sense on for otherwise it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and those who follow the ordinary reading are much at a loss how to explain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming in so in the midst without dependance upon the former Therefore the vulg Latin best renders it ad consummationem sanctorum ad opus ministerii for the compleating of the Saints for the work of the ministry in order to the building up of the body of Christ and to this purpose Musculus informs us the German version renders it And so we understand the enumeration in the verse before of Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers not for the persons themselves but for the gifts of those persons the office of Apostles Evangelists Pastors c. which is most suitable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the eighth verse He gave gifts to men now these gifts saith he Christ gave to men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the fitting the Saints for the work of the Ministry Not as a late Democratical Writer would perswade us as though all the Saints were thereby fitted for this Work of the Ministry for that the Apostle excludes by the former enumeration for are all the Saints fitted for Apostles are all Prophets are all Evangelists are all Pastors and Teachers as the Apostle himself elsewhere argues And in the 8 v. of that chapter he particularly mentions the several gifts qualifying men for several usefull employments in the Church of God the Spirit dividing to every man severally as he will Therefore it cannot be that all the Saints are hereby fitted for this Work but God hath scattered these gifts among the Saints that those who have them might be fitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because God would not leave his Church without persons qualified for the service of himself in the work of the Ministry in order to the building up of the Body of Christ. And by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here may be meant no other then those he speaks of in the chapter before when he speaks of the Revelation made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his holy Apostles and Prophets and so God gave these gifts for the fiitting the holy Apostles c. for the work of the Ministry It cannot be meant of all so as to destroy a peculiar function of the Ministry for Gods very giving these gifts to some and not to others is an evidence that the function is peculiar For else had the gifts been common to all every Saint had been an Apostle every believer a Pastor and Teacher and then where had the People been that must have been ruled and governed So that this very place doth strongly assert both the peculiarity of the Function from the peculiarity of gifts in order to fitting men for it and the perpetuity of the Function from the end of it the building up of the Body of Christ. Thus I have now asserted the perpetual divine Right of a Gospel-Ministry not only for teaching the Word but administration of Ordinances and governing the Church as a Society which work belongs to none but such as are appointed for it who are the same
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
any such produced and therefore shall see what consequences can be made of a binding Nature To this I say that no consequences can be deduced to make an institution but onely to apply one to particular Cases because Positives are in themselves indifferent without Institution and Divine appointment and therefore that must be directly brought for the making a Positive universally binding which it doth not in its own Nature do Now here must be an Institution of something meerly Positive supposed which in its self is of an indifferent Nature and therefore no consequence drawn can suffice to make it unalterably binding without express Declaration that such a thing shall so bind for what is not in its own Nature moral binds only by vertue of a command which command must be made known by the Will of Christ so that we may understand its Obligatory nature So that both a consequence must be necessarily drawn and the Obligation of what shall be so drawn must be expressed in Scripture which I despair of ever finding in reference to any one Form of Government in the Church 2. If the standing Laws for Church-Government be equally applyable to several distinct Forms then no one Form is prescribed in Scripture but all the standing Lawes respecting Church-Government are equally applyable to several Forms All the Lawes occurring in Scripture respecting Church Government may be referred to these three heads Such as set down the Qualifications of the Persons for the Office of Government such as require a right management of their Office and such as lay down Rules for the management of their Office Now all these are equally applyable to either of these two forms we now discourse of We begin then with those which set down the qualifications of persons employed in Government those we have largely and fully set down by St. Paul in his Order to Timothy and Titus prescribing what manner of persons those should be who are to be employed in the Government of the Church A Bishop must be blamelesse as the Steward of God not self-willed not soon angry not given to wine no striker c. All these and the rest of the Qualifications mentioned are equally required as necessary in a Bishop whether taken for one of a Superiour Order above Presbyters or else only for a single Presbyter however that be if he hath a hand in Church-government he must be such a one as the Apostle prescribes And so these commands to Timothy and Titus given by Paul do equally respect and concern them whether we consider them as Evangelists acting by an extraordinary Commission or as fixed Pastors over all the Churches in their several precincts so that from the Commands themselves nothing can be inferred either way to determine the Question only one place is pleaded for the perpetuity of the Office Timothy was employed in which must now be examined The place is 1 Tim. 6. 13 14. I give thee charge in the sight of God c. that thou keep this commandement without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ. From hence it is argued thus The Commandment here was the Charge which Timothy had of governing the Church this Timothy could not keep personally till Christs second coming therefore there must be a Succession of Officers in the same kind till the second coming of Christ. But this is easily answered For first it is no wayes certain what this Command was which St. Paul speaks of Some understand it of fighting the good fight of Faith others of the precept of Love others most probably the sum of all contained in this Epistle which I confesse implies in it as being one great part of the Epistle Pauls direction of Timothy for the right discharging of his Office but granting that the command respects Timothy's Office yet I answer Secondly It manifestly appears to be something personal and not successive or at least nothing can be inferr'd for the necessity of such a Succession from this place which it was brought for Nothing being more evident then that this command related to Timothy's personal observance of it And therefore thirdly Christs appearing here is not meant of his second coming to judgement but it only imports the time of Timothy's decease So Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Estius understands it usque ad exitum vitae and for that end brings that Speech of Augustine Tun◠unicuique veniet dies adventûs Domini cum venerit ei dies ut talis hinc exeat qualis judicandus est illo die And the reason why the time of his death is set out by the coming of Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome and from him Theophylact observes to incite him the more both to diligence in his work and patience under sufferings from the consideration of Christs appearance The plain meaning of the words then is the same with that Revel 2. 10. Be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a Crown of life Nothing then can be hence inferred as to the necessary succession of some in Timothy's Office whatever it is supposed to be Secondly The precepts of the Gospel requiring a right management of the work are equally applyable to either form Taking heed to the flock over which God hath made them overseers is equally a duty whether by flock we understand either the particular Church of Ephesus or the adjacent Churches of Asia Whether by Overseers we understand some acting over others or all joyning together in an equality So exhorting reproving preaching in season and out of season doing all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without rash censures and partiality watching over the flock as they that must give an account Laying hands suddenly on no man rebuking not an Elder but under two or three witnesses And whatever precepts of this nature we read in the Epistles of Timothy and Titus may be equally applyable to men acting in either of these two forms of Government There being no precept occurring in all those Epistles prescribing to Timothy whether he must act only as a Consul in Senatu with the consent of the Presbytery or whether by his sole power he should determine what was the common interest and concern of those Churches he was the Superintendent over Neither doth the Apostle determine at all in those Epistles chiefly concerning Church-government whether upon the removal of Timothy or Titus thence as Evangelists as some pretend or upon their death as fixed Pastors and Bishops as others any should succeed them in the power they enjoyed or no nor in what manner the Pastors of the several Churches should order things of common concernment Which would seem to be a strange omission were either of these two forms so necessary taken exclusively of the other as both parties seem to affirm For we cannot conceive but if the being and right constitution of a Church did depend upon the manner
of the Governours acting in it but that care which Paul had over all the Churches would have prompted him especially being assisted and guided by an infallible Spirit in the penning those Epistles to have laid down some certain Rules for the acting of the Pastors of the Churches after the departure of Timothy and Titus Considering especially that the Epistles then written by him were to be of standing perpetual use in the Church of God and by which the Churches in after-ages were to be guided as well as those that were then in being The Apostle in both Epistles takes care for a succession of Pastors in those Churches Timothy is charged to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others Had it not been as requisite to have charged him to have committed his power of Government to men fit for that had the Apostles looked on the form of Government to be as necessary as the office of preaching Paul saith he left Titus in Creete on purpose to settle the Churches and ordain Presbyters in every City had it not been as necessary to have shewed in what order the Churches must be setled and what power did belong to those Presbyters and how they should act in the governing their Churches had he thought the constitution of the Churches did depend upon the form of their acting We see here then that St. Paul doth not expresse any thing necessarily inferring any one constant form to be used in the Church of God And whence can we inferr any necessity of it but from the Scriptures laying it down as a duty that such a form and no other there must be used in the Church of God For all that we can see then by Pauls direction for Church-Government when if ever this should have been expressed it was left to the Christian wisdome and prudence of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet to consult and determine in what manner the government of their Churches should be provided for upon the departure of Timothy and Titus from them But here it will be soon replyed That though nothing be expressed in Pauls Epistles to Timothy and Titus yet Pauls appointing Timothy and Titus over those Churches did determine the form of Government and they were entrusted with a power to provide for future Governours after them To this â—answer First The superiority which Timothy and Titus had over those Churches doth not prove that form of Government necessary in all Churches I dispute not whether they were Evangelists or no or acted as such in that Superiority of that afterwards it is evident they might be so there being no convincing argument to the contrary And the bare possibility of the truth of the Negative destroys the necessity of the Affirmative of a Proposition As Si posibile est hominem non esse animal then that Proposition is false Necesse est hominem esse animal For Necesse est esse and Non possibile est non esse being â—quipollents on the one side and Possibile est non esse Et non necesse est esse being â—quipollents on the other Possibile est non esse must be contradictory to Necesse est esse as Non possibile est non esse is to Non necesse est esse So that if only the possibility of their acting as Evangelists that is by an extraordinary Commission be evicted which I know none will deny the necessity of their acting as fixed Bishops is destroyed and consequently the necessity of the continuance of their office too which depends upon the former For if they acted not as Bishops nothing can be drawn from their example necessarily inforcing the continuance of the Superiority which they enjoyed But though nothing can be inferred from hence as to the necessity of that office to continue in the Church which Timothy and Titus were invested in yet from the Superiority of that power which they enjoyed over those Churches whether as Evangelists or as fixed Bishops These two things may be inferred First That the superiority of some Church-Officers over others is not contrary to the Rule of the Gospel for all parties acknowledge the superiority of their power above the Presbyters of the several Cityes only the continuance of this power â—â— disputed by many But if they had any such power at all it is enough for my present design viz. that such a superiority is not contrary to the Gospel-Rule or that the nature of the Government of the Church doth not imply a necessary equality among the Governours of it Secondly Hence I infer that it is not repugnant to the constitution of Churches in Apostolical times for men to have power over more than one particular Congregation For such a power Timothy and Titus had which had it been contrary to the nature of the regiment of Churches we should never have read of in the first planted Churches So that if those popular arguments of a necessary relation between a Pastor and particular people of personal knowledge care and inspection did destroy the lawfulnesse of extending that care and charge to many particular Congregations they would likewise overthrow the nature end and design of the office which Timothy and Titus acted in which had a relation to a multitude of particular and Congregational Churches Whether their power was extraordinary or no I now dispute not but whether such a power be repugnant to the Gospel or no which from their practice is evident that it is not But then others who would make this office necessary urge further that Timothy or Titus might ordain and appoint others to succeed them in their places and care over all those Churches under their charge To which I answer First What they might do is not the question but what they did as they might do it so they might not do it if no other evidence be brought to prove it for Quod possibile est esse possibile â—st non esse Secondly Neither what they did is the whole question but what they did with an opinion of the necessity of doing it whether they were bound to do it or no and if so whether by any Law extant in Scripture and given them by Paul in his Epistles or some private command and particular instructions when he deputed them to their several charges If the former that Law and command must be produced which will hardly be if we embrace only the received Canon of the Scripture If the latter we must then fetch some standing Rule and Law from unwritten Traditions for no other evidence can be given of the Instructions by word of mouth given by Paul to Timothy and Titus at the taking their charges upon them But yet Thirdly Were it only the matter of fact that was disputed that would hold a Controversie still viz. Whether any did succeed Timothy and Titus in their Offices but this I shall leave to its proper place to be discussed when
where by reading find In matters which concern the actions of God the most dutiful way on our part is to search what God hath done and with meekness to admire that rather then to dispute what he in congruâ—ty of reason ought to do Thus he with more to the same purpose The sum then of the answer to this Argument is this That nothing can be inferred of what Christ must do from his relation to his Church but what is absolutely necessary to the being of it as for all other things they being arbitrary constitutions we can judge no more of the necessity of them then as we find them clearly revealed in the Word of God And therefore the Plea must be removed from what Christ must do to what he hath done in order to the determining the particular form of Government in his Church But still it is argued for the necessity of a particular form of Government in the Church from the similitudes the Church is set out by in Scripture It is called a Vine and therefore must have Keepers an House and therefore must have Government a City and therefore must have a Polity a Body and therefore must have Parts I answer First All these Similitudes prove only that which none deny that there must be Order Power and Government in the Church of God we take not away the Keepers from the Vine nor the Government from the House nor Polity from the City nor distinction of parts from the Body we assert all these things as necessary in the Church of God The keepers of the Vine to defend and prune it the Governours of the House to rule and order it the Polity of the City to guide and direct it the parts of the Body to compleat and adorn it But Secondly None of these Similitudes prove what they are brought for viz. that any one immutable form of Government is determined For may not the Keepers of the Vine use their own discretion in looking to it so the flourishing of the Vine be that they aym at and if there be many of them may there not be different orders among them and some as Supervisors of the others work The House must have Governours but those that are so are entrusted with the power of ordering things in the House according to their own discretion and where there is a multitude is there not diversity of Offices among them and is it necessary that every House must have Offices of the same kind In great and large Families there must be more particular distinct Orders and Offices than in a small and little one The City must have its Polity but all Cities have not the like some have one form and some another and yet there is a City still and a Polity too A body must have all its parts but are all the parts of the body equal one to another it sufficeth that there be a proportion though not equality in them the several parts of the body have their several offices and yet we see the head is superintendent over them all and thus if we make every particular Church a Body yet it follows not that the form of cloathing that Body must alwayes be the same for the manner of Government is rather the cloathing to the Body than the parts of it the Governours indeed are parts of the Body but their manner of governing is not that may alter according to the proportion and growth of the Body and its fashion change for better conveniency But if these Similitudes prove nothing yet certainly say they the difference as to Civil and Ecclesiastical Government will for though there may be different forms in civil Government which are therefore call'd an Ordinance of man yet there must be but one in Church-Government which is an Ordinance of God and Christ hath appointed Officers to rule it I answer first We grant and acknowledge a difference between the Church and the Common-wealth they are constituted for other ends the one Political the other Spiritual one temporal the other eternal they subsist by different Charters the one given to men as men the other to men as Christians They act upon different principles the one to preserve civil Rights the other to promote an eternal Interest nay their formal constitution is different for a man by being a member of a Common-wealth doth not become a Member of the Church and by being excommunicated out of the Church doth not cease to be a Member of the Common-wealth The Officers of the one are clearly distinct from the other the one deriving their power from the Law of Christ the other from Gods general Providence the Magistrate hath no power to Excommunicate formally out of the Church any more then to admit into it nor have the Church-officers any power to cast men out of the common-wealth We see then there is a difference between Civil and Ecclesiastical Government But then I answer Secondly The power of the Magistrate is not therefore called an Ordinance of man because of the mutability of its Form and as distinguished from the Form of Church-government For First The Apostle speaks not of the Form of Government but of the Power Submit to every Ordinance of man c. the ground of Submission is not the form but the power of civil government and therefore there can be no opposition expressed here between the Forms of Civil and Ecclesiastical government but if any such opposition be it must be between the powers and if this be said as to civils that the power is an Ordinance of Man in that sense whereas Paul saith it is of God yet as to the Church it is freely acknowledged that the Power is derived from God Secondly The civil power is not called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is a creature of mans making and so subject to mens power but the ground of that Speech is because all civil power respects men as men without any further connotation Humana dicitur non quod ab hominibus sit excogitata sed quod hominum sit propria saith Beza And to the same purpose Calvin Humana dicitur Ordinatio non quod humanitùs inventa fuerit sed quod propria hominum est digesta ordinata vivendi ratio Piscator Humanam appellat non quod magistratus homines authores habeat sed quod Homines eam gerant So then the civil power is not called an Ordinance of man as it is of mans setting up but as it is proper to man and so if there be any opposition between the civil and Church power it is onely this that the one belongs to men as men the other to men as Christians Thirdly Although it be granted that Christ hath appointed and set up his own Officers in his Church yet it doth not thence follow that he hath determined in what manner they shall Rule his Church It is true Christ hath set up in his Church some Apostles some
determine the particular Form of Government Our next task will be to enquire into those Actions of our Saviour which are conceived to have any plausible aspect towards the setling the Form of Government in his Church And were it not that men are generally so wedded to an hypothesis they have once drunk in by the prevalency of interest or education we might have been superseded from our former labour but that men are so ready to think that Opinion to be most necessary which they are most in love with and have appeared most zealous for Men are loth to be perswaded that they have spent so much breath to so little purpose and have been so hot and eager for somewhat which at last appears to be a matter of Christian liberty Therefore we finde very few that have been ever very earnest in the maintaining or promoting any matter of opinion but have laid more weight upon it than it would really bear lest men should think that with all their sweat and toile they only beat the ayr and break their Teeth in cracking a Nut with a hole in it which if they had been so wise as to discern before they might have saved their pains for somewhat which would have better recompenced them But thus it generally fares with men they suck in principles according as interest and education disposeth them which being once in have the advantage of insinuating themselves into the understanding and thereby raise a prejudice against whatever comes to disturb them which prejudice being the Yellow-jaundise of the Soul leaves such a tincture upon the eyes of the Understanding that till it be cured of that Icterism it cannot discern things in their proper colours Now this prejudice is raised by nothing more strongly than when the opinion received is entertained upon a presumption that there is a Divine stamp and Impress upon it though no such Effigies be discernable there Hence come all the several contending parties about Church-Government equally to plead an interest in this Ius Divinum and whatever opinion they have espoused they presently conceive it to be of no lesse than Divine extract and Original And as it sometimes was with great personages among the Heathens when their miscarriages were discernable to the eye of the World the better to palliate them among the vulgar they gave themselves out to be impreguated by some of their adored Deities so I fear it hath been among some whose Religion should have taught them better things when either faction design or interest hath formed some conceptions within them suitable thereunto to make them the more passable to the World they are brought forth under the pretence of Divine Truths Far be it from me to charge any sincere humble sober Christians with an offence of so high a nature who yet may be possessed with some mistakes and apprehensions of this nature but these are only wrought on by the Masters of parties who know unlesse they fly so high they shall never hit the game they aym at This is most discernable in the Factors for the Roman Omnipotency as Paulus the fifth was call'd Omnipotentiae Pontificiâ— Conservaton they who see not that Interest and Faction upholds that Court rather then Church may well be presumed to be hood-winked with more then an implicite Faith and yet if we believe the great supporters of that Interest the power they plead for is plainly given them from Christ himself and not only offer to prove that it was so but that it was not consistent with the Wisdom of Christ that it should be otherwise Lest I should seem to wrong those of any Religion hear what the Author of the Gloss upon the Extravagants so they may be well called saith to this purpose applying that place of our Saviour all power is given to me in heaven and earth Matthew 28. 18. to the Pope adds these words Non videretur Dominus discretas fuisse ut cum reverentia ejus loquar nisi unicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset qui hac omnia posset We see by this what blasphemies men may run into when they argue from their private fancies and opinions to what must be done by the Law of Christ. It therefore becomes all sober Christians impartially to enquire what Christ hath done and to ground their opinions only upon that without any such presumptuous intrusions into the Counsels of Heaven We here therefore take our leave of the Dispute Why it was necessary a form of Government should be established and now enter upon a survey of those grounds which are taken from any passages of our Saviour commonly produced as a Foundation for any particular Forms I shall not stand to prove that Christ as Mediator hath all the power over the Church in his own hands it being a thing so evident from Scripture and so beyond all dispute with those whom I have to deal with In which respect he is the only Head of the Church and from whom all divine Right for authority in the church must be derived Which Right can arise only from some actions or Laws of Christ which we therefore now search into The first publike action of Christ after his solemn entrance upon his Office which can be conceived to have any reference to the Government of his Church was the calling the Apostles In whom for our better methodizing this Discourse we shall observe these three â—everal steps First When they were called to be Christs Disciples Secondly When Christ sent them out with a power of Miracles Thirdly When he gave them their full commission of acting with Apostolical power all the world over These three seasons are accurately to be distinguished for â—he Apostles did not enjoy so great power when they were â—isciples as when they were sent abroad by Christ neither had â—hey any proper power of Church-government after that â—â—nding forth till after Christs Resurrection when Christ told â—hem All power was put into his hands and therefore gave them â—â—ll commission to go and preach the Gospel to all Nations The first step then we observe in the Apostles towards their power of Church-government was in their first calling to be Disciples Two several calls are observed in Scripture concerning the Apostles The first was more general when they were called only to follow Christ The second more special when Christ told them what he called them to and specified and described their Office to them by telling them he would make them Fishers of Men. We shall endeavour to digest the Order of their calling as clearly and as briefly as we â—an Our blessed Saviour about the thirtieth year of his age solemnly entering upon the discharge of his prophetical Office in making known himself to be the true Messias to the World to make his appearance more publike goes to Iordan and is there baptized of Iohn presently after he is led up by the Spirit into the Wildernesse where he
wise men should do managed with the greatest subtilty and prudence by the maintainers of them Christ would make men see that his Doctrine stood not in need either of the wisdom or power of men to defend or propagate it and therefore made choice of the most unlikely Instruments for that end that mens faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God But withall we are to take notice of Christs admirable wisdom in the means he used to fit and qualifie them for the first builders of his Church for although the power and efficacy of their preaching was wholly from God and not from themselves yet our Saviour doth not presenly upon his calling them place them in the highest Office he intended them for but proceeds gradually with them and keeps them a long time under his own eye and instruction before he sends them abroad and that for two ends chiefly First To be witnesses of his actions Secondly To be Auditors of his Doctrine First To be witnesses of his actions which was looked on by the Apostles as the most necessary qualification for an Apostle in the place fore-cited Acts 1. 21 22. Peter calls himself a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ 1 Pet. 5. 1. Iohn saith That which was from the beginning which we have heard which we have seen with our eyes which we have looked upon and our hâ—â—ds have handled of the Word of Life that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you 1 John 1. 1 3. whereby the credibility of the Gospel was sufficiently evidenced to the World when the chief Preachers of it spoke nothing but what their own senses were witnesses of both as to the Doctrine and actions of Christ and therefore it is no wayes credible they should be deceived themselves in what they spoke and more improbable they would deceive others whose interest lay wholly upon the truth of the Doctrine which they Preoched for by the very Preaching of that Doctrine they rob'd themselves of all the comforts of Life and exposed themselves to a thousand miseries in this Life so that unlesse their Doctrine was true in order to another Life they were guilty of the greatest folly this World ever heard of We see what care our Saviour took to satisfie the reasons of men concerning the credibility of his Doctrine when the persons he employed in the founding a Church upon it were only such as were intimately conversant with the whole Life Doctrine and Works of him from whom they received it and thereby we cannot suppose any ignorance in them concerning the things they spoke and lest men should mistrust they might have a design to impose on others he made their faithfulness appear by their exposing themselves to any hazards to make good the truth of what they preached Especially having such a Divine Power accompanying them in the Miracles wrought by them which were enough to perswade any rational men that they came upon a true Embassie who carryed such Credentials along with them Another end of our Saviours training up his Apostles so long in his School before he sent them abroad was that they might be Auditors of his Doctrine and so might learn themselves before they taught others Christ was no friend to those hasty births which run abroad with the shell on their heads no although it was in his power to conferr the gifts of the Holy Ghost as well at their first entrance into Discipleship as afterwards yet we see he nuâ—tures and trains them up gradually teaching them as Quintilian would have Masters do guttatim acquainting them now with one then with another of the Mysteries of the Gospel Christ doth not overwhelm them with floods and torrents of Discourses but gently drops now one thing into them then another by which way such narrow-mouthed Vessels would be the soonest filled Yea our Saviour useth such â—n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Fathers call it such a prudent temper in instructing them that it is matter of just admiration to consider under how great and stupendious ignorance of the main points of Redemption Christs Death and Resurrection and the nature of Christs Kingdom they discovered after they had been some years under Christs Tutorage And we see what industry and diligence was used in the training up of those for the Apostleship who were in an immediate way sent out by Christ. And it is very probable that upon their first sending abroad they taught not by immediate Revelation but only what they had learned from Christ during their being with him Whence we see what a subordination there is in acquired parts labour and industry to the Teachings and Inspirations of the Divine Spirit our Saviour looked not on his labour as lost although afterwards the Unction from the Holy One should teach them all things It was Christs design to have them go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from strength to strength à domo sanctuarii in domum doctrinae as the Chaldee Paraphrast renders that place from one School of learning to another As under the Law even those that waited for the Râ—ach hakkodesh the inspiration of the Divine Spirit were brought up in the Schools of the Prophets under instruction there which was the place where they lay expecting the gentle gale of the Holy Spirit to carry them forth which was the ground of Amos his complaint that he was neither a Prophet nor the son of a Prophet by which it seems evident that Gods ordinary course was to take some of the Sons of the Prophets out of the Colledges where they lived and employ them in the Prophetical Office But of this largely elsewhere Such a School of the Prophets did our Saviour now erect wherein he entred his Disciples as Schollars and educated them in order to the Office he intended them for The next thing we take notice of is the name and nature of that Office which Christ call'd them to They who derive the use of the name of Apostles as applyed by Christ to his Disciples either from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens by which name the Masters of some ships were called as the ships 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from Hesychius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sense of the Civil Law which signifie the dimâ—ssory Letters granted for appeals or from the Jewish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as thereby were understood those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius calls them who were as Assessours and Counsellours to the Patriarch of the Jewes at Tiberias or those Officers who were sent up and down by the Patriarch to gather up tenths first fruits and such other things who are called thence Apostoli in the Codex Theod. tit de Iudaeis all these I say do equally lose their labour and run far to fetch that which might be found much nearer
home Our Saviour taking the word from common use but applying it in a special manner to a peculiar Sense which is the custome of the Scriptures The Original of the Word properly imports such as are imployed by Commission from another for the dispatch of some businesse in his Name So Casaubon who was sufficiently able to judg of the use of a Greek word In communi Graecorum usu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicebantur certi homines qui negotii gerendi gratiâ magis quam deferendi nuntii aliquò mittebantur And so it is taken Iohn 13. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that is sent is not greater then he that sent him Thence Epaphroditus when imployed upon a special message to Paul in the Name of the Churches is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philippians 2. 25. which we Translate your Messenger And so Titus and the two other sent to the Church of Corinth to gather their Charity are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Messengers of the Churches Thence Paul fully renders the Import and Sense of the word Apostle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Corinth 5. 20. We act as Ambassaduors for Christ. To which purpose it is observable that the Septuagint whose Greek is most followed by the New Testament doe render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it signifies to imploy a Messenger upon special Service by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 1 King 21. 11. 1 King 12. 18. Exod 4. 30. and the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in this Sense 1 King 14. 6. where Ahijah saith I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A sad Messenger to thee for thus saith the Lord c. Whereby the full Sense and Importance of the word Apostle appears to be one that is imployed by a peculiar Commission from him that hath authority over him for the doing some special service Thus were Christs disciples called Apostles from the immediate commission which they had from Christ for the discharge of that work which he imployed them in Thence our Saviour makes use of the word sending in the proper and peculiar sense when he gives the Apostles their commission in those remarkable words of Christ to them As the Father hath sent me even so send I you John 20. 21. Whereby our Saviour delegates his power and authority which he had as Doctour of the Church to his Apostles upon his leaving the World not in a privative way so as to destroy his own authority over the Church but in a cumulative way investing them with that authority which they had not before for both Teaching and Governing the Church No Argument then can be drawn for the Right or Form of Church-Government from Christs actions towards his Disciples before the last and full Commission was given unto them because they had no power of Church-government before that time Which will be further cleared if we consider their first sending out spoken of Matth. 10. 1. Mark 6. 7. Luke 9. 1. Several things lie in our way to be observed in reference to this Mission of the Apostles First that though the Apostles had been now for some competent time not onely called to their Office but solemnly chosen to it yet we no where read that they did ever exercise that Office till now they were sent forh by Christ. They remained still at Christs feet learning for their own instruction and fitting themselves for their future imployment and thought it no inconvenience while they lay for a wind to lay in sufficient lading and provision for their voyage Baptize indeed they did before Ioh. 4. 2. but that I suppose was done by them by an immediate present Order from Christ himself being by as the chief in the action thence Christ in one place is said to baptize Ioh. 3. 22. and yet he is said not to baptize but his Disciples Ioh. 4. 2. Christ did it authoritatively the Disciples ministerially Yet if we should grant the Disciples did then baptize as private men after the received custome of the Jews among whom onely a Confessus trium was requisite to Baptize a proselyte this doth not at all take off from the peculiarity of a Function both to Preach and Baptize because as yet the Gospel-Ministry was not instituted and therefore what might be lawfull before restraint doth not follow it should be so after when all those scattered rayes and beam which were dispersed abroad before were gathered into the Ministerial Office upon Christs appointing it as that great Hemisphere of Light in the creation was after swallowed up in the body of the Sun But now were the Apostles first sent out to Preach and now God first begins to null the Jewish Ministry and set up another instead of it and makes good that threatning That he was against the Shepherds and would require the flock at their hand and cause them to cease to feed the Flock c. Here then we have the first Exercise of the Apostles Ministry for which we see besides their former call and choice particular mission was after necessary Secondly we observe that the imployment Christ sent them upon now was onely a Temporary imployment confined as to work and place and not the full Apostolicall work The want of considering and understanding this hath been the ground of very many mistakes among Men when they argue from the Occasional Precepts here given the Apostles as from a standing perpetual Rule for a Gospel-Ministry Whereas our Saviour onely suited these instructions to the present case and the nature and condition of the Apostles present imployment which was not to preach the Gospel up and down themselves but to be as so many Iohn Baptists to call people to the hearing of Christ himself and therefore the Doctrine they were to Preach was the same with his The Kingdome of Heaven is at hand whereby it appears their Doctrine was only preparatory to Christ it being onely to raise up higher expectations of the Gospel-state under the Messias and these were they whom the King now sent into the high-wayes to invite men to the marriage Feast and to bid them to come in to him This was the only present imployment of the Apostles in their first mission in which they were confined to the Cities of Iudea that they might have the first refusal of the Gospel-Offers This mission then being occasional limited and temporary can yield no Foundation for any thing perpetual to be built upon it Thirdly we observe that those whom Christ imploied in the first dispersing of the Gospel abroad were furnished with arguments sufficient to evince not onely the credibility but the certain truth of what they preached Therefore Christ when he now sent them out gave them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only a meer power to work miracles but a right conferrèd on them to do it as the Apostles of Christ. These were the Credentials which the Apostles carried along with them to shew
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
But say they whatever becomes of this Order we have a strong Foundation for Saint Peters Power because Christ said he would build his Church upon him Matth. 16. 17. This were something indeed if it were proved but I fear this Rock will not hold water as it is brought by them nor Saint Peter prove to be that Rock For indeed Was the Church built upon Saint Peter then he must be the chief Foundation stone and Peter must build upon himself and not upon Christ and all the Apostles upon him and thus in exalting the Servant we depress the Master and in setting a new Foundation we take away the only Foundation Iesus Christ. If by being built upon Peter they mean no more then being built by him as the chief Instrument it is both a very incongruous Speech and implies nothing more then what was common to him and the rest of the Apostles who were all Master-builders in the Church of Christ as Paul calls himself and in that respect are set forth as the twelve Foundation stones in the walls of the New Ierusalem The Rock then spoken of by Christ in his Speech to Peter if taken Doctrinally was Saint Peters Confession as many of the Fathers interpret it if taken personally it was none other but Christ himself who used a like Speech to this when he said Destroy this Temple and in three dayes I will raise it up Which words though spoken by occasion of the material Temple as those were of Peters name yet Christ understood them of the Temple of his Body as here likewise he doth of his person But still they urge Christ put the Keyes into Saint Peters hands Matthew 16. 19. Now the power of the Keyes doth denote Regal Authority I answer First The Keyes may be given two wayes either from a Prince to a Subject or from a City to a Prince In this latter acception they denote principality in the Receiver but withall inferiority and subjection in the Given and in this sense I am so charitable as to think they will not say that Christ gave the Keyes to Peter it must be then as a Prince to a Subject and when they are so given it doth not imply an universal power in the persons to whom they are given but an investing them in that particular place he hath appointed them to the Office which the power of the Keyes implies is Ministerial and not Authoritative Delarative and not Iuridical over persons committed to their charge and not over Officers joyned inâ—equality of power with them For so were the rest of the Apostles with Peter in the same power of the Keyes Matth. 18. 18. Iohn 20. 23. This-power of the Keyes then was given to Peter in a peculiar manner but nothing peculiar to him given thereby But still there remains another Ward in Saint Peters Keyes and the last foot to the Popes Chair which is Pasce oves Feed my sheep a charge given particularly to Peter Iohn 21. 15. Thence they infer his Power over the whole Church But this foot hath neither joynts nor sinews in it and is as infirm as any of the rest sor neither did this Command rather then Commission belong onely to Peter for Christ had before given them all their general Commission As the Father hath sent me even so send I you John 20 21. whereby is implied an investing all the Apostles equally with the power and authority of Governing the Church of God although this charge be peculiarly renewed to Peter because as he had particularly faln so he should be particularly restored neither yet did we grant this doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imply such a Power and authority as they plead for viz. A Supream power over the Church of God for this even by Peter himself is attributed to the fixed Presbyters of the Churches who by this argument have as much authority conveyed them as Saint Peter had 1 Pet. 5. 2. and yet should we grant this it would not infer what they desire for these sheep were not the whole Church of Christ taken absolutely but Indefinitely For all the Apostles had a command to preach to every Creature Matth. 28. 18. which was as to the words larger as to the Sense the same with that to Saint Peter here And afterwards we find Peter called the Apostle of Circumcision and the Apostles sending him to Samaria and Paul in the right hand of fellowship with Peter which had been certainly dishonourable to Peter had he been invested with such an Universal Supream Power over the Apostles and the whole Church Such pretences then as these are for such an Extravagant power in the Church of God from such miserably weak Foundations for the upholding a corrupt Interest have given the occasion to that tart Sarcasm In Papatu sub Petri nudo nomine Satan non amplius Larva But that which would seem sufficient to awaken any out of this dream of Saint Peters power over the rest of the Apostles is the frequent contendings of the twelve Apostles one among another Who should be the greatest and that even after that Christ had said Upon this Rock will I build my Church as we may see Matthew 20 24. If Christ had conferred such a power on Saint Peter what little ground had there been for the request of Iames and Iohn and would not our Saviour rather have told them the chiefest place was conserred on Peter already then have curbed their ambition in seeking who should be greatest and would have bid them be subject to Peter as their Head and Ruler We see not then the least foundation for an universal Monarchy in the Church of God and so this form of Government is not determined by any actions or commands of Christ. We come now to consider the pleas of others who joyn in renouncing any Supream power under Christ over the Church of God but differ as to the particular forms of Government in the Church those who are for an inequality usually fix on the imparity between the Apostles and the LXX Those that are for a parity upon Matth. 20. 25. and Matth. 18. 17. I shall here proceed in the former method to shew that none of those can prove the Form they contend for as only necessary nor their adversaries prove it unlawful First then for the inequality between the Apostles and the LXX Disciples by that inequality is meant either only an inequality of order or else an inequality carrying superiority and subordination It is evident that the LXX disciples were not of the same Order with the twelve Apostles whom Christ had designed for the chief Government of his Church after his Ascension and in this respect the comparison of the twelve heads of the Tribes and the seventy Elders seems parallel with the twelve Apostles and the LXX disciples but if by imparity be meant that the twelve Apostles had a superiority of power and jurisdiction over the LXX disciples
there is not the least evidence or foundation in Reason or Scripture for it For the LXX did not derive their power from the Apostles but immediately from Christ they enjoyed the same priviledges were sent upon the same message making way for Christs entertainment in the several Cities they went to yea all things were parallel between them and the Apostles in their mission unlesse any difference be made in the Cities they went to and their number So that there is no superiority of office in the Apostles above the LXX nor of power and jurisdiction over them their Commissions being the same And it seems most probable that both their missions were only temporary and after this the LXX remained in the nature of private Disciples till they were sent abroad by a new Commission after the Resurrection for preaching the Gospel and planting Churches For we see that the Apostles themselves were only Probationers till Christ solemnly authorized them for their Apostolical employment Matth. 28. 18. Iohn 20. 21. when their full Commissions were granted to them and then indeed they acted with a plenitude of power as Governours of the Church but not before Nothing can be inferred then for any necessary standing Rule for Church-government from any comparison between the Apostles and the LXX during the life of Christ because both their missiors were temporary and occasional Only we see that because Christ did keep up the number of the twelve so strictly that as the LXX were a distinct number from them so when one was dead another was to be chosen in his stead which had been needlesse if they had not been a distinct Order and Colledge by themselves it is thence evident that the Apostolical power was a superiour power to any in the Church and that such an inequality in Church-Officers as was between them and particular Pastors of Churches is not contrary to what our Saviour saith when he forbids that dominion and authority in his Disciples which was exercised by the Kings of the earth Matthew 20. 25. Luke 22. 25. which places because they are brought by some to take away all inequality among Church-Officers I shall so far examine the meaning of them as they are conceived to have any influence thereupon First then I say that it is not only the abuse of civil power which our Saviour forbids his Disciples but the exercise of any such power as that is And therefore the Papists are mistaken when from the words of Luke Vos autem non sic they conclude All power is not forbidden but only such a tyrannical power as is there spoken of For those words are not a limitation and modification of the power spoken of but a total prohibition of it for first the comparison is not between the Apostles and Tyrants but between them and Princes yea such as Luke câ—lls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indeed had Christ said The Kings of the earth abuse their authority vos autem non sic then it would have been onely a limitation of the exercise of power but the meer exercise of civil authority being spoken of before and then it being subjoyned but you not so it plainly implyes a forbidding of the power spoken of in the persons spoken to But say they the words used in Matthew are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which import the abuse of their power which is forbidden But I answer first in Luke it is otherwise for there it is the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if the abuse be forbidden in one the use is in the other but secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the LXX is used frequently for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendred by that word as Psalm 72. 7. He shall have dominion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psalm 110. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies in both which places it is spoken of christs Kingdom So in Genesis 1. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Replenish the earth and have dominion over it In all which places it is used simply for Dominion and not for Tyrannical Power It is not then the abuse of civil Power but the use of it which is here forbidden which will be more evident secondly from the importance of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and simply denyes what went before as when Cain expresseth his fear of being kill'd Genesis 4. 14. The Septuagint render Gods answer by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby is not denyed only the manner of his death to be as Abels was but it is simply denyed and so Psalm 1. 4. the LXX render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wicked are not so So when Christ saith Matthew 19. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning it was not so it imports an absolute denyal of giving bills of divorce from the beginning Thirdly This no wayes answers to the scope of the Apostles contention which was meerly about Primacy and Power and not at all about the abuse of this Power So that by this place all affectation and use of a civil co active external power is forbidden to the Officers of the Church the power of the Church being only a directive voluntary power and is rather a Ministry then a Power as our Saviour expresseth there Matthew 20. 26. Luke 22. 26. But having thus excluded all Civil Power from the Governours of the Church as such I say secondly That this place doth no wayes imply a prohibition of all inequality among the Governours of the Church which is abundantly cleared by this reason because by the acknowledgement of all parties the Apostles had a Superiour power over the ordinary Pastors of Churches Now if the exercise of all Superiority had been forbidden this must have been forbidden too as implying plainly an exercise of authority in some over others in the Church And therefore Musculus thus explains the place Non exigit hoc Christus ut omnes in regno suo sint aequales sed nè quispiam cupiat magnus primus haberi videri It is not an inequality of Order but ambition which Christ forbids and therefore he observes that Christ saith not Let none be great among you and none first which should have been if all Primacy and Superiority had been forbidden and a necessity of an equality among Church-Officers but he that will be great among you let him be your Minister Let those that are above others look upon themselves as the servants of others and not as their masters For God never bestows any power on any for the sake of those that have it but for the sake of those for whom they are employed When men seek then their own greatnesse and not the service of the Church they flatly contradict this
Precept of Christ But with you it shall not be so But however an inequality of Power and Order for the Churches good is not thereby prohibited Which is sufficient for my purpose The next place to be considered is that in Matthew 18. 15 16 17. If thy brother shall trespass against thee go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone if he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother But if he will not hear thee then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a Publican It seems a very strange thing to consider that this one place hath been pressed by all parties to serve under them for the maintenance of their own particular form of Government so that as the Iews fable of the Manna it hath had a different taste according to the diversity of the palats of men Those that are for a Congregational Church being the first receptacle of Church power set this place in the front of their arguments Those who plead for Standing Presbyteries Lay-Elders subordination of Courts fetch all these out of this place Those that are for a Power of Church Discipline to be only lodged in a higher Order of Chur 〈…〉 Officers succeeding the Apostles derive the succession of that power from this place nay lest quidlibet should not be proved èquolibet the Papists despair not of proving the constant visibility of the Church the subordination of all to the Pope the infallibility of general Councils all out of this place Methinks then it might be argument enough of the incompetency of this place to determine any one particular form when it is with equal confidence on all sides brought to prove so many especially if it be made appear that the general Rule laid down in these words may be observed under a diversity of forms of Government For whether by the Church we mean the community of the faithful in a particular Congregation or the standing Officers of such a Church or a Consistorial Court or Synodical Assembly or higher Church-Officers it is still the duty of men in case of offences to tell the Church for redresse of grievances or vindication of the person himself that he hath discharged his duty This place then determines not what this Church is nor what the form of it◠Government should be when the sense of it holds good and true under such diversity of forms But we shall further enquire what influence this place can have upon the modelling the Government in the Church of God Fo◠Chamier tells us the prima Politia Ecclesiasticae origo is to be found in these words it will be then worth our enquiry to see what foundation for Church government can be drawn out of these words In which the variety of Expositions like a multitude of Physitians to a distempered Patient have left it worse then they found it I mean more difficult and obscure We shall therefore endeavour to lay aside all pre-conceptions by other mens judgements and opinions and see what innate Light there is in the Text it self to direct us to the full sense and meaning of it Two things the great difficulty of the place lyes in What the offences are here spoken of What the Church is which must b◠spoken to For the First I conceive it evident to any unprejudicated mind that the matter our Saviour speaks of is a matter of private offence and injury and not a matter of scandal as such considered in a Church-Society which I make appear thus First From the parallel place to this Luke 17. 3. 〈…〉 y Brother trespasse against thee rebuke him and if he repent forgive him This can be nothing else but a matter of private injury because it is in the power of every private person to forgive it which it was not in his power to do were it a matter of scandal to the whole Church unlesse we make it among Christians as it was among the Jews that every private person might excommunicate another and to release him afterward Secondly It manifestly appears from St. Peters words next after this Paragraph Matth. 18. 20. Lord how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him till seven times c. Christ answers him till seventy times seven that is as often as he doth it And thence Christ brings the parable of the King forgiving his Servants v. 23. Thirdly Were it meant of any scandalous sin committed with the privacy of any particular person as many understand trespassing against thee that is te conscio then this inconvenience must necessarily follow that matters of scandal must be brought to the Churches cognizance when there can be no way to decide them that is when one offends and only one person knows it here will be a single affirmation on one side and denyal on the other side and so there can be no way to decide it the matter here spoken of then is somewhat only relating to the offence or injury of some particular person and not a matter of scandal to the whole Church The Question then as propounded to be spoken to by our Saviour is What is to be done in case of private offences between man and man and not in case of secret sins against God and scandalous to the Church Now to this our Saviour layes down his answer gradually first there must be private admonition if that succeed not admonition before witnesses if not that telling the Church if not that neither reputing him as a Heathen and Publican Now in this answer we must conceive our Saviour speaks as to an ordinary case so in a way easie to be understood by all that heard him and therefore he must speak in allusion to what was at that time among the Jews in such cases which is freely acknowledged both by Calvin and Beza upon the place Nam certè tanquam de Iudais haec dici apparet saltem ex eo quod addit Sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus We must then see what the custom was among the Jews in such cases and how far our Saviour doth either approve the custome received or appoint new The Law was very strict in case of offences for every man in any wise to rebuke his Neighbour and not to suffer sin upon him Arguendo argues our old Translation renders it Thou shalt plainly rebuke thy Neighbour Now this piece of necessary Discipline our Saviour endeavours to recover among them which it seems was grown much out of use with them For Rabbi Chanina as Mr. Selden observes gave this as one reason of the destruction of Ierusalem because they left off reproving one another Non excisa fuissent Hierosolyma nisi quoniam alter alterum non coarguebat Our Saviour
therefore inforceth this Law upon them in case of offences first to deal plainly with their Neighbour in reproving him but our Saviour rests not here but being himself a pattern of Meeknesse and Charity he would not have them to rest in a bare private admonition but to shew their own readinesse to be reconciled and willingnesse to do good to the Soul of the offending party thereby he adviseth further to take two or three witnesses with them hoping thereby to work more upon him but if still he continues refractory and is not sensible of his miscarriage Tell it the Church What the Church here is is the great Controversie Some as Beza and his followers understand an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Jews which had the proper cognizance of Ecclesiastical causes but it will be hard to prove any such Sanhedrin in use among them the Priests and Levites indeed were very often chosen into the Sanhedrin which it may be is the ground of the mistake but there was no such Sanhedrin among them which did not respect matters criminal and civil So we must understand what Iosephus speaks of the Priests among the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Priests were alwayes very studious of the Law and other matters of concernment These were appointed as the Overseers of all things Iudges of Controversies and the punishers of condemned persons Thus we see he is so far from attributing a distinct Ecclesiastical Court to them that he seems to make them the only Judges in civil and criminal causes Others by the Church understand the Christian Church but herein they are divided some understanding by it only the Officers of the Church so Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euthemius Ecclesiam nunc vocat prasides fidelium Ecclesiae Others understand it not in its representative notion but in its diffusive capacity as taking in all the members But our Saviour speaking to a present case must be supposed to lay down a present remedy which could not be if he gave only Rules for governing his Church which was not as yet gathered nor formed there being then no Court Ecclesiastical for them to appeal unto Suppose then this case to have fallen out immediately after our Saviours speaking it that one brother should trespasse against another either then notwithstanding our Saviours Speech which speaks to the present time Go and tell the Church the offended brother is left without a power of redresse or he must understand it in some sense of the word Church which was then in use among the Jews And these who tell us That unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be understood for a Church as we understand it it would be no easie matter for us now to conceive what the Holy Ghost meant by it would do well withall to consider how those to whom Christ spoke should apprehend his meaning if he spoke in a sense they never heard of before And certainly our best way to understand the meaning of Scripture is to consider what of whom to whom the Scripture speaks for although the Scripture as a Rule of Faith for us be supposed to be so written as to be easily understood by us yet as the parcels of it were spoken upon several Occasions they must be supposed to be so spoken as to be apprehended by them to whom they were spoken in the common senss of the words if nothing peculiar be expressed in the Speech whereby to restrain them to another sense And therefore the Church must be understood in the same sense wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Syriack answering to it was apprehended among the Jewes in our Saviours time Which could not be for any new Consistory or Sanhedrin to be erected under the Gospel Thence others conceiving that Christ did speak according to the Custome of the Jewes by the Church understand nothing else but the Sanhedrin and so make the sense of the words to be this The Case our Saviour speaks to is that of private Quarrels wherein our Saviour layes down two Directions in a way of Charity private admonition and before witnesses but if the party continues refractory then it may be lawful to convent him before the Courts of Judicature among them the Triumvirate the 23. or the great Sanhedrin for although the Romans had taken away the power of the Iewes in Capital matters yet they allowed them liberty of judgeing in the case of private quarrels but if he neglect to hear the Sanhedrin then it may be lawful to implead him before the Governour of the Province in his Court of Judicature by which Heathens and Publicans were to be judged which is meant by Let him be to thee not as a brother Jew but as a Heathen and a Publican This Exposition is said to be first Broached by Erastus but much improved and enlarged by Reverend Bishop Bilson who spends a whole Chapter upon it But this Exposition though it seems fair and plausible yet there are several things in it which keep me from imbracing it as First It seems not very probable that our Saviour should send his Disciples to whom he speaks to the Jewish Sanhedrin for the ending any Controversies arising among themselves knowing how bitter Enemies they wer to all who were the followers of Christ. Secondly it seems not very agreeable with the scope of our Saviours Speech which was to take up differences as much as may be among his Disciples and to make them shew all lenity and forherance towards those that had offended them and to do good to the Souls of those that had injured and provoked them whereas this command of telling the Sanhedrin and inpleading offendors before Heathen Courts tends apparently to heighten the bitterness and animosities of Mens spirits one against another and layes Religion so open to Obloquies which makes Paul so severely reprove the Christians at Corinth for going to Law before Heathen Magistrates therefore to say that Christ allows there going to Law before Heathens and Paul to forbid it were instead of finding a way to end the differences among Christians to make one between Christ and Paul Thirdly the thing chiefly aimed at by Christ is not a mans Vindication of himself or recovering losses by injuries received but the recovering and gaining the offending brother which evidently appears by what our Saviour adds to the using admonition in private If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament is used for the Conversion and turning others from sin That I might gain them that are under the Law 1 Corinth 9. 19 20 c. So 1 Pet. 3. 1. explained by Iames 5. 20. Our Saviour then speaks not to the manner of proceeding as to civil injuries which call for Restitution but to such as call for Reconciliation And so the Case I conceive is that of private Differences and Quarrels between men and not Law-Suites nor civil Causes I
mean such Differences as respect persons and not things which our Saviour layes down these Rules for the ending of And therefore I cannot but wonder to see some men insist so much on that place against such an Exposition of this Luke 12. 14. where Christ saith Who made me a Iudge and a Divider among you For doth it any wayes follow Because Christ would not take upon him to be a temporal Judge among the Jewes therefore he should take no course for the ending differences among his Disciples and the taking away all animosities from among them Nay on the contrary doth not our Saviour very often designedly speak to this very purpose to root out all bitterness malice envy and rancour from mens spirits and to perswade them to forgive injuries even to pray for persecutours and by any means to be reconciled to their Brethren Which he makes to be a Duty of so great necessity that if a man had brought his gift to the Altar and remembred his brother had ought against him he bids him leave his gift there and go be reconciled to his Brother and then offer up the Gift We see hereby how suitable it was to our Saviours Doctrine and Design to lay down Rules for the ending of any differences arising among his Disciples and this being now cleared to be the state of the Case it will not be difficult to resolve what is meant by telling the Church Which I make not to be any appeal to a juridical court acting authoritatively over the persons brought before it but the third and highest step of Charity in a man towards a person that hath offended him viz. That when neither private admonition nor before two or three witnesses would serve to reclaim the offendor then to call a select company together which is the Natural importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and before them all to lay open the cause of the breach and difference between them and to refer it to their Arbitration to compose and end it Which Sense of the place I humbly conceive to have the least force in it and in every part of it to be most genuine and natural and fully agreeable to the received practice among the Jewes which the Author of the Book Musar cited by Drusius fully acquaints us with whose words I shall Transcribe as being a plain Paraphrase on these of our Saviour Qui arguit socium suum debet primum hoc facere placide inter se ipsum solum verbis mollibus ita ut non pudefaciat eum Si resipiscit bene est sin debet eum acritèr arguere pudefacere inter se ipsum Si non resipiscit debet adhibere socios ipsumque coram illis pudore afficere si nec modo quicquam proficit debet eum pudefacere coram multis ejusque delictum publicare Nam certe detegendi sunt hypocritae That which this Authour calls pudefacere eum coram multis is that which our Saviour means when he bids him tell the Church or the Congregation as our Old Translation renders it This the Jews called reproving of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before a multitude as the Vulg. Latin though falsly renders that place Lâ—viticus 19. 17. publicè argue eum and to this the Apostle may allude when he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Corinth 2. 6. censure of many and the reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. which was to be in matters of publike scandal upon Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Jewes call them but in case the offendor should still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 slight this overture of Reconciliation before the company selected for hearing the Case then saith our Saviour look upon him as an obstinate refractory creature and have no more to do with him then with a Heathen and a Publican by which terms the most wilful obstinate sinners were set out among the Jewes and by which our Saviour means a mans withdrawing himself as much as in him lies from all familiar society with such a person And thus saith Christ Whatsoever you bind in Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven v. 18. that is If after all your endeavours of Reconciliation the offender will hearken to no agreement it is an evidence and token that mars sin is bound upon him that is shall not be pardoned so long as he continues impenitent but if he repent of his offence and you be reconciled as the offence is removed on Earth thereby so the sin is loosed in Heaven that is forgiven The guilt of sin that binds it being an Obligation to punishment and so the pardon of sin that looseth as it cancels that Obligation And so Grotius observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is called retaining in one place is binding in another and what is loosing in one place is remitting in the other But now although I assert this to be the true proper genuine meaning of this difficult place yet I deny not but that this place hath influence upon Church-Government but I say the influence it hath is onely by way of Accommodation and by Analogy deduced from it According to which these things I conceive have Foundation in these words First gradual appeals from the Method here laid down by our Saviour Secondly Church censures and the Duty of submitting to Church-authority For although before any Church Power was actually set up as when our Saviour spake these words then there was none yet after that Church-Government was fixed and set up it must in Reason be supposed that all matters of the Nature of scandals to the Church must be decided there Thirdly The lawfulness of the Use of excommunication in Christian Churches for if every particular person might withdraw from the Society of such a one as continues refractory in his Offences then much more may a whole Society and the Officers of it declare such a one to be avoided both in religious and familiar civil Society which is the formal Nature of Excommunication Herein we see the wisdom of our Saviour who in speaking to a particular case hath laid down such general Rules as are of perpetual use in the Church of God for accommodating differences arising therein Thus have we hitherto cleared that our Saviour hath determined no more of Church-Govern-ment then what is appliable to a diversity of particular Forms and so hath not by any Law or practice of his own determined the necessity of any one form CHAP. VI. The next thing pleaded for determining the Form of Government is Apostolical practice two things inquired into concerning that What it was How far it binds The Apostles invested with the power and authority of Governing the whole Church of Christ by their Commission Io. 20. 21. Matth.
wanting is looked on onely as a Village and thought unworthy to have a Sanhedrin of twenty three So that by this it appears the number of the Decemvirate for the Synagogue was distinct from the persons imployed in the civil Courts To the same purpose Maimonides gives the account of the number of 120. who likewise requires the ten for the Synagogue as a distinct and peculiar number Atque hi erant viri qui vacabant tantum rebus divinis nimirum lectioni legit sessioni in Synagogis as Mr. Selden quotes it from another place in him Whereby it is evident that those who were imployed in the Synagogue did make a peculiar Bench and Consistory distinct from the civil Judicature of the place And therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not the civil Rulers but some peculiar Officers belonging to the service of the Synagogue And thence when all civil Power and government was taken from the Jews yet they retained their Archisynagogues still Whence we read of Archisynagogues Patriarchs and Presbyters among the Jewes in the time of Arcadius and Honorius when all civil Power and Jurisdiction was taken from them The Second Reason is from the peculiar Ordination of those who were the Rulers of the Synagogues This I know is denyed by many because say they Ordination was proper onely to the Presbyters among the Jewes who were thereby made capable of being members of the Sanhedrin thence it was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordinatio Presbyterorum i. e. Impositio manuum quâ Presbyteri fiunt This Ordination was I grant primarily used in order to the making men Members of the great Sanhedrin and therefore the Jewes derive the custome of ordaining them from Moses his first constituting the LXX Elders which say they was done by imposition of hands which was seconded by the example of Moses laying his hands on Ioshua from whence the custome was continued down among them till the time of Adrian who severely prohibited it by an Edict that whosoever should ordain another should forfeit his life and so every one that was so ordained Thence the Jewes tell us that R. Iehuda Ben Baba is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordainer because in the time of that Edict he ordained five Presbyters without which they had wholly lost their succession of Presbyters for Courts of Judicature But though it be thus evident that their Ordination was chiefly used in Order to the fitting men to be members of the Sanhedrin yet that besides this there was a peculiar Ordination for persons not imployed in civil matters will appear First from the different Forms of their Ordination some were general without any restriction or limitation at all which power was conferred in words to this purpose Ordinatus jam sis sit tibi facultas judicandi etiam causas poenales He that was thus ordained was â—it for any Court of Judicature but there was another Form of Ordination which was more particular and restrained a Form limiting the general power either to pecuniary Cases or criminal or onely to the power of binding and loosing without any judiciary power at all Now those that were thus Ordained were the Jewish Casuists resolving men onely in forâ— conscientiae of the lawfulness and unlawfulness of things propounded to them This they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Facultas decernendi circa ligatum solutum that is a power of Decreeing what was lawful or unlawfull For in that sense binding and loosing is used by the Jewish Writers In which sense they tell us commonly that one School as that of Hille◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 binds that is judgeth a thing unlawful another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 looseth as that of Schammai that is judgeth it lawful and free to be done Now the persons thus ordained with this power onely were thereby no Members of any civil Court of Judicature nor thereby made capable of it it appears then that this Ordination was peculiar to a particular function which exactly answers to the Ministerial Office under the Gospel And that those who were thus ordained either might not or did not exercise that Office of theirs in the Synagogue I can see no reason I am sure it was most suitable to that place or at least to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where there was such a one distinct from the Synagogue But a clearer evidence of the particular ordination of those imployed in the Synagogue we have from Benjamin in his Itinerary for granting his palpable mistakes about the civil power of the Jewes in his time which was about the middle of the twelfth Century sufficiently discovered by the Learned L'Empereur yet as to the ordaining of persons for the severall Synagogues we have no ground to suspect his Testimony which is very plain and evident For speaking of R. Daniel Ben Hasdai who was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Head of the Captivity then residing at Bagdad He tells us the Synagogues of Babylon Persia Choresan Sheba Mesopotamia and many other places derived power from him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of ordaining a Rabbi and Preacher over every Synagogue which he tells us was done by laying on his hands upon them These two the Rabbi and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he makes to be the fixed Officers of every Synagogue and the Office of the latter lay chiefly in expounding the Scriptures The like he hath of R. Nathaniel the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Egypt to whose Office it belonged to ordain in all the Synagogues in Egypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 th 〈…〉 bbies and Lecturers of the Synagogue by which we see 〈…〉 arly that there was a peculiar Ordination for the Ministers belonging to the Synagogue Thence Scaliger wonders how Christ at twelve years old should be permitted to sit among the Doctours asking Questions when he was no ordained Rabbi to whom that place belonged But although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may possibly mean no more then sitting on one of the lower seats belonging to those who were yet in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Minority where they sat at the feet of their Teachers which was not within the Temple its self but as Arias Montanus thinks was at the East-gate of the Temple where the Doctors sat yet this is evident by Scaliger that he looked on an Ordination for that end as necessary to those who sat in the Synagogues as the Doctors there which is likewise affirmed by Grotius who tell us that among the Jews not onely all publick civil Offices were confer'd by imposition of hands Sed in Archisynagogis senioribus Synagogae idem observatum unde mos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Christianos transiit But likewise all the Rulers and Elders of the Synagogue were so ordained from whence the custome was translated into Christianity of which afterwards Thus now we have cleared
call'd the Ruler of the Synagogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the importance of the New Testament Greek following that of the Alexandrian Iews in the version of the Old Testament implyes no more then a primacy of order in him above the rest he was joyned with And thence sometimes we read of them in the Plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 13. 15. implying thereby an equality of power in many but by reason of the necessary primacy of one in order above the rest the name may be appropriated to the President of the Colledge Acts 18. 8 17. we read of two viz. Crispus and Sosthenes and either of them is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which could not be did the name import any peculiar power of Jurisdiction lodged in one exclusive of the rest unlesse we make them to be of two Synagogues which we have no evidence at all for I confesse Beza his argument from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 5. 22. for a multitude of those so call'd in the same Synagogue is of no great force where we may probably suppose there were many Synagogues But where there is no evidence of more then one in a place and we find the name attributed to more then one we have ground to think that there is nothing of power or Jurisdiction in that one which is not common to more besides himself But granting some peculiarity of honour belonging to one above the rest in a Synagogue which in some places I see no great reason to to deny yet that implyes not any power over and above the Bench of which he was a Member though the first in order Much as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince of the Sanhedrin whose place imported no power peculiar to himself but only a Priority of dignity in himself above his fellow Senators as the Princeps Senatûs in the Roman Republick answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the great Sanhedrin who was next to the Nasi as the Princeps Senatûs to the Consuls which was only a Honorary Dignity and nothing else Under which disguise that Politick Prince Augustus ravished the Roman Commonwealth of its former liberty The name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may I suppose in propriety of speech be rendred in Latin Magister ordinis he being by his Office Praesul a name not originally importing any power but only dignity Those whom the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latins render Magistros sui ordinis and so Suetonius interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Magisterium sacerdotii They who meet then with the name Archisynagogues either in Lampridius Vopiscus Codex Theodosii Iustinians Novels in all whom it occurs and in some places as distinct from Presbyters will learn to understand thereby only the highest honour in the Synagogue considering how little yea nothing of power the Jews enjoyed under either the Heathen or Christian Emperours One thing more we add touching this honour of the Rulers of the Synagogue among the Jews that whatever honour title power or dignity is imported by that name it came not from any Law enforcing or commanding it but from mutual conâ—oederation and agreement among the persons imployed in the Synagogue whose natural reason did dictate that where many have an equality of power it is most convenient by way of accumulation upon that person of a power more then he had but not by deprivation of themselves of that inherent power which they enjoyed to entrust the management of the executive part of affairs of common concernment to one person specially chosen and deputed thereunto So it was in all the Sanhedrins among the Jews and in all well-ordered Senates and Councils in the World And it would be very strange that any Officers of a religious Society should upon that account be out-Lawed of those natural Liberties which are the results and products of the free actings of Reason Which things as I have already observed God hath looked on to be so natural to man as when he was most strict and punctual in ceremonial Commands he yet left these things wholly at liberty For we read not of any command that in the Sanhedrin one should have some peculiarity of honour above the rest this mens natural reason would prompt them to by reason of a necessary priority of Order in some above others which the very instinct of Nature hath taught irrational creatures much more should the Light of Reason direct men to But yet all order is not power nor all power juridical nor all juridical power a sole power therefore it is a meer Paralogism in any from Order to inferr power or from a delegated power by consent to inferr a juridical power by Divine Right or lastly from a power in common with others to deduce a power excluding others All which they are guilty of who meerly from the name of an Archisynagogue would fetch a perpetual necessity of jurisdiction in one above the Elders joyned with him or from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sanhedrin a power of a sole Ordination in one without the consent of his fellow Senators But of these afterwards Thus much may suffice for a draught in little of the Government of the Jewish Synagogue Having thus far represented the Jewish Synagogue that the Idea of its government may be formed in our understandings we now come to consider how far and in what the Apostles in forming Christian Churches did follow the pattern of the Jewish Synagogue Which is a notion not yet so far improved as I conceive it may be and I know no one more conducible to the happy end of composing our differences touching the government of the Church then this is I shall therefore for the full clearing of it premise some general considerations to make way for the entertainment of this hypothesis in mens minds at least as probable and then endeavour particularly to shew how the Apostles did observe the model of the Synagogue in its publike service in ordination of Church Officers in forming Presbyteries in the several Churches in ruling and governing those Presbyteries The general consideration I premise to shew the probability of what I am asserting shall be from these things from the community of name and customs between the believing Iews and others at the first forming of Churches from the Apostles forming Churches out of Synagogues in their travelling abroad from the agreeablenesse of that model of Government to the State of the Christian Churches at that time I begin with the first From the community of names and customs between the believing and unbelieving Iews at the first forming Churches All the while our blessed Saviour was living in the World Christ and his Disciples went still under the name of Jews they neither renounced the name nor the customs in use among them Our Saviour goes up to the
let us see them at large Unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia There was nothing then peculiar to those of the Gentiles at Antioch more then in Syria and Cilicia and if those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imply a Coetus distinct of Gentile-Christians from the Jews at Antioch it must do so through all Syria and Cilicia which was Pauls Province and not Peters as appears by his travels in the Acts. Eâ—theâ— then the Apostle of the uncircumcision must form distinct Churches of Iews and Gentiles in his preaching through Syria and Silicia which is irreconcilable with the former pretence of distinct Provinces asserted by the same Author who pleads for distinct Coetus or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can imply no such thing as a distinct Church of Gentiles to whomsover it is spoken and so not at Antioch more then through all Syria and Silicia The plain ground then of the Apostles inscribing the order of the Council to the Brethren of the Gentiles was because the matter of that Order did particularly concern them and not the Jews as is obvious to any that will but cast an eye upon the 23 24 29. verses of the 15. of the Acts. As well might then an order supposed from the Apostles to the several Pastors of the Churches in things concerning them as such imply that they make distinct Churches from their people as this order concerning the Gentile Brethren being therefore directed to them doth imply their making distinct Churches from the Jewish Brethren in the Cities where they lived together What is further produced out of Antiquity to this purpose hath neither evidence nor pertinency enough to stop the passage of one who is returning from this digression to his former matter Although then we grant not any such distinct Coetus of the Jews from the Christians yet that hinders not but that both Jews and Christians joyning together in one Church might retain still the Synagogue form of Government among them which there was no reason at all why the Christians should scruple the using of either as Jews or Gentiles because it imported nothing either Typical and Ceremonial or heavy and burdensome which were the grounds why former customs in use among the Jews were laid aside by the Christians But instead of that it was most suitable and agreeable to the state of the Churches in Apostolical times which was the third consideration to make it probable that the Synagogue form of Government was used by the Christians And the suitablenesse of this Government to the Churches lay in the conveniency of it for the attaining all ends of Government in that condition wherein the Churches were at that time For Church Officers acting then either in gathering or governing Churches without any authority from Magistrates such a way of Government was most suitable to their several Churches as whereby the Churches might be governed and yet have no dependancy upon the secular power which the way of Government in the Synagogues was most convenient for for the Jews though they enjoyed a bare permission from the civil state where they lived yet by the exercise of their Synagogue Government they were able to order all affairs belonging to the service of God and to keep all members belonging to their several Synagogues in unity and peace among themselves The case was the same as to Synagogues and Churches these subsisted by the same permission which the others enjoyed the end of these was the service of God and preserving that order among them which might best become societies so constituted there can be no reason then assigned why the Apostles in setling particular Churches should not follow the Synagogue in its model of Government These things may suffice to make it appear probable that they did so which is all these considerations tend to Having thus prepared the way by making it probable I now further enquire into the particular part of Government and what orders in the Synagogue were which there is any evidence for that the Apostles did take up and follow Here I begin with the thing first propounded The orders of publick Worship which did much resemble those of the Synagogue Only with those alterations which did arise from the advancing of Christianity That the Christians had their publick and set meetings for the service of God is evident from the first rising of a society constituted upon the account of Christianity We read of the three thousand converted by Peters Sermon That they continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers Where we have all that was observed in the Synagogue and somewhat more here there is publick joyning together implyed in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their solemn prayers expressed which were constantly observed in the Synagogue instead of reading the Sections of the Law and Prophets we have the Apostles teaching by immediate inspiration and to all these as the proper service of Christianity is set down the celebration of the Lords-supper which we shall seldome or ever in the Primitive Church read the publick service on Lords Dayes performed without During the Apostolical times in which there was such a Land-flood of extraordinary gifts overflowing the Church in the publick meeting we find those persons who were indued with those gifts to be much in exercising them as to the custom agreeing with the Synagogue but as to the gifts exceeding it concerning the ordering of which for the publick edification of the Church the Apostle Paul layes down so many Rules in the fourteenth Chapter to the Corinthians but assoon as this flood began to abate which was then necessary for the quicker softening the World for receiving Christianity the publick service began to run in its former channel as is apparent from the unquestionable testimonies of Iustin Martyr and Tertullian who most fully relate to us the order of publick Worship used among the Christians at that time Iustin Martyr the most ancient next to Clemens whose Epistle is lately recovered to the Christian World of the unquestionable Writers of the Primitive Church gives us a clear Narration of the publick Orders observed by the Church in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon the Day call'd Sunday all the Christians whether in Town or Country assemble in the same place wherein the Memoires or Commentaries of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets are read as long as the time will permit Then the Reader sitting down the President of the Assembly stands up and makes a Sermon of Instruction and Exhortation to the following so good Examples After this is ended we all stand up to prayers prayers ended the Bread Wine and Water are all brought forth then the President again praying and praising to his utmost ability the people testifie their consent by saying Amen What could have been spoken with greater congruity or correspondency to the Synagogue abating the
of the assembly of Presbyters might be so called what superiority can be deduced thence any more then such a one enjoys Nay if in the Prophetical style an unity may be set down by way of representation of a multitude what evidence can be brought from the name that by it some one particular person must be understood And by this means Timothy may avoid being charged with leaving his first Love which he must of necessity be by those that make him the Angel of the Church of Ephesus at the time of writing these Epistles Neither is this any wayes solved by the Answer given that the name Angel is representative of the whole Church and so there is no necessity the Angel should be personally guilty of it For first it seems strange that the whole diffusive body of the Church should be charged with a crime by the name of the Angel and he that is particularly meant by that name should be free from it As if a Prince should charge the Maior of a Corporation as guilty of rebellion and by it should only mean that the Corporation was guilty but the Maior was innocent himself Secondly If mady things in the Epistles be directed to the Angel but yet so as to concern the whole body then of necessity the Angel must be taken as Representative of the Body and then why may not the word Angel be taken only by way of representation of the body its self either of the whole Church or which is far more probable of the Consessus or Order of Presbyters in that Church We see what miserably unconcluding arguments those are which are brought for any form of Government from Metaphorical or Ambiguous expressions or names promiscuously used which may be interpreted to different senses What certainty then can any rational man find what the form of Government was in the Primitive times when onely those arguments are used which may be equally accommodated to different forms And without such a certainty with what confidence can men speak of a Divine Right of any one particular form Secondly The uncertainty of the Primitive form is argued from the places most in controversie about the form of Government because that without any apparent incongruity they may be understood of either of the different forms Which I shall make out by going through the several places The Controversie then on foot is this as it is of late stated Whether the Churches in the Primitive times were governed by a Bishop only and Deacons or by a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a parity of power The places insisted on on both sides are these Acts 11. 30. Acts 14. 23. Acts 28. 17 1 Tim. 3. 1. Titus 1. 5. The thing in controversie is Whether Bishops with Deacons or Presbyters in a parity of power are understood in these places I begin then in order with Acts 11. 30. The first place wherein the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occurrs as applyed to the Officers of the Christian Church Those that are for a Colledge of Presbyters understand by these Elders those of the Church of Ierusalem who did govern the affairs of that Church those that are for a solitary Episcopacy by these Elders understand not the local Elders of Ierusalem but the several Bishops of the Churches of Iudea Let us now see whether there be any evidence from the place to determine which of these two must necessarily be understood There is nothing at all mentioned in the place but only that upon the occasion of the Famine they sent relief to the Brethren of Judea and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul Which might either be to the Elders of the Church at Ierusalem to be distributed to the several Churches of Iudea or else to the several Pastors of those Churches either collectively as met together at Ierusalem to receive this contribution or distributively as they were in their several Churches The relief might be sent to all the Brethren of Iudea and yet either be conveyed to the particular Elders of Ierusalem to send it abroad or to the several Elders of the Churches within the circuit of Iudea But other places are brought by both parties for their particular sense in this As Acts 15. 6. here indeed mention is made of the Apostles and Elders together at Ierusalem but nothing expressed whereby we may know whether the fixed Elders of that Church or else the Elders of all the Churches of Iudea assembled upon this solemn occasion of the Council of the Apostles there So Acts 21. 11. when Paul went in to Iames it is said That All the Elders were present No more certainty here neither for either they might be the fixed Officers of that Church meeting with Iames upon Pauls coming or else they might be the Elders of the several Churches of Iudea met together not to take account of Pauls Ministry as some improbably conjecture but assembled together there at the Feast of Pentecost at which Paul came to Ierusalem which is more probable upon the account of what we read v. 20. of the many thousand believing Iews then at Jerusalem who were zealous of the Law who in all probability were the believing Jews of Iudea who did yet observe the annual Festivals of Ierusalem and so most likely their several Elders might go up together with them and there be with Iames at Pauls coming in to him No certainty then of the Church of Ierusalem how that was governed whether by Apostles themselves or other unfixed Elders or onely by Iames who exercised his Apostleship most there and thence afterward◠called the Bishop of Ierusalem We proceed therefore to the government of other Churches and the next place is Acts 14. 23. And when they had ordained them Elders in every Church Here some plead for a plurality of Elders as fixed in every Church but it is most evident that the words hold true if there was but one in each Church For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Titus 1. 5. for both places will admit of the same answer doth signifie no more then oppidatim or Ecclesiatim as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gradatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viritim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particulatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vicatim No more then is imported than that Elders were ordained City by City or Church by Church as we would render i◠and thereby nothing is expressed but that no Church wanted an Elder but not that every Church had more Elders then one But the place most controverted is Acts 20. 17. And from Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Those that say these Elders were those only of the Church of Ephesus seem to be most favoured by the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as seeming to apply it to that particular Church of Ephesus and by the Syriack version which renders it Venire fecit Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesi to the same
Ignatius of all others be brought to Rome to suffer when the Proconsuls and the Praesides provinciarum did every where in time of persecution execute their power in punishing Christians at their own Tribunals without sending them so long a journey to Rome to be martyred there And how came Ignatius to make so many and such strange excursions as he did by the story if the Souldiers that were his Guard were so cruel to him as he complains they were Now all those uncertain and fabulous Narrations as to Persons then arising from want of sufficient Records made at those times make it more evident how incompetent a Judge antiquity is as to the certainty of things done in Apostolical times If we should onely speak of the Fabulous Legends of the first Planters of Churches in these Western parts we need no further evidence of the great defect of antiquity as to persons Not to goe out of our own Nation Whence come the stories of Peter Iames Paul Simon Aristobulus besides Ioseph of Arimathea and his company all being Preachers of the Gospel and planters of Churches here but onely from the great defect in Antiquity as to the Records of persons imployed in the several places for preaching the Gospell Thus much to shew the defectiveness as to the Records of antiquity and thereby the incompetency of them for being a way to find out the certain course the Apostles took in Setling and Governing Churches by them Planted The next thing shewing the incompetency of the Records of the Church for deciding the certain Form of Church-Government in the Apostles times is the ambiguity of the Testimony given by those Records A Testimony sufficient todecide a Controversie must be plain and evident and must speak full and home to the Case under debate Now if I make it appear that antiquity doth not so nothing then can be evident from thence but that we are left to as great uncertainties as before The matter in Controversie is whether any in a Superiour Order to Presbyters were instituted by the Apostles themselves for the Regulating of the Churches by them planted For the proving of which three things are the most insisted on First the Personal succession of some persons to the Apostles in Churches by them planted Secondly the appropriating the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Bishops in a Superiour Order to Presbyters after the Apostles decease Thirdly the Churches owning the Order of Episcopacy as of Divine Institution If now we can make these three things evident First That personall Succession might be without such superiority of Order Secondly That the names of Bishop and Presbyters were common after the Distinction between them was introduced and Thirdly That the Church did not own Episcopacy as a Divine Institution but Ecclesiasticall and those who seem to speak most of it do mean no more I shall suppose enough done to invalidate the Testimony of antiquity as to the matter in hand First Then for the matter of Succession in Apostolical Churches I shall lay down these four things to evince that the argument drawn from thence cannot fully clear the certain course which the Apostles took in setling the Government of Churches First That the Succession might be onely as to different Degree and not as to a different Order where the Succession is clear nothing possibly can be inferred from it beyond this For bare Succession implies no more then that there was one in those Churches succeeding the Apostles from whom afterwards the succession was derived Now then supposing onely at present that it was the Custome in all the Churches at that time to be ruled by a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a parity of Power and among these one to sit as the Nasi in the Sanhedrin having a priority of Order above the rest in place without any superiory of Power over his Colleagues will not the matter of Succession be clear and evident enough notwithstanding this Succession of Persons was the thing inquired for and not a Succession of Power if therefore those that would prove a Succession of Apostolical Power can onely produce a List and Catalogue of names in Apostolical Churches without any evidence of what power they had they apparently fail of proving the thing in question which is not whether there might not be found out a List of persons in many Churches derived from the Apostles times but whether those persons did enjoy by way of peculiarity and appropriation to themselves that power which the Apostles had over many Churches while they lived Now this the meer Succession will never prove which will best appear by some Parallel instances At Athens after they grew weary of their ten yeares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people chose nine every year to Govern the affairs of the Common-wealth These nine enjoyed a parity of power among themselves and therefore had a place where they consulted together about the matters of State which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Demosthenes Plutarch and others tell us Now although they enjoyed this equality of power yet One of them had greater Dignity then the rest and therefore was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency and his name was onely set in the publike Records of that year and therefore was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the year was reckoned from him as Pausanias and Iulius Pollux inform us Here we see now the Sccession clear in one single person and yet no superiority of power in him over his Colleagues The like may be observed among the Ephori and Bidiaej at Sparta the number of the Ephori was alwayes five from their first institution by Lycurgus and not nine as the Greek Etymologist imagines these enjoyed likewise a parity of power among them but among these to give name to the year they made choice of one who was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here too â—s the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens and him they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Plutarch tells us Where we have the very name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attributed to him that had only his primacy of order without any superiority of power which is used by Iustin Martyr of the President of assemblies among the Christians Now from hence we may evidently see that meer succession of some single persons named above the rest in the successions in Apostolicall Churches cannot inforce any superiority of power in the persons so named above others supposed to be as joynt Governours of the Churches with them I dispute not whether it were so or no whether according to Blondel the Succession was from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether by choice as at Alexandria but I onely now shew that this argument from Succession is weak and proves not at all the certainty of the power those persons enjoyed Secondly This Succession is not so evident and convincing in all places as it ought to be to demonstrate the thing
intended It is not enough to shew a List of some persons in the great Churches of Ierusalem Antioch Rome and Alexandria although none of these be unquestionable but it should be produced at Philippi Corinth Caesarea and in all the seven Churches of Asia and not onely at Ephesus and so likewise in Creet some succeeding Titus and not think Men will be satisfied with the naming a Bishop of Gortyna so long after him But as I said before in none of the Churches most spoken of is the Succession so clear as is necessary For at Ierusalem it seems somewhat strange how fifteen Bishops of the Circumcision should be crouded into so narrow a room as they are so that many of them could not have above two years time to rule in the Church And it would bear an inquiry where the Seat of the Bishops of Ierusalem was from the time of the Destruction of the City by Titus when the Walls were laid even wih the Ground by Musonius till the time of Adrian for till that time the succession of the Bishops of the Circumcision continued For Antioch it is far from being agreed whether Evodius or Ignatius succeeded Peter or Paul or the one Peter and the other Paul much less at Rome whether Cletus Anacletus or Clemens are to be reckoned first but of these afterwards At Alexandria where the succession runs clearest the Originall of the power is imputedito the choice of Presbyters and to no Divine Institution But at Ephesus the succession of Bishops from Timothy is pleaded with the greatest Confidence and the Testimony brought for it is from Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon whose words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Timothy to this day there hath been a succession of seven and twenty Bishops all of them ordained in Ephesus I shall not insist so much on the incompetency of this single witness to pass a judgement upon a thing of that Nature at the distance of four hundred Years in which time Records being lost and Bishops being after settled there no doubt they would begin their account from Timothy because of his imployment there once for setling the Churches thereabout And to that end we may observe that in the after-times of the Church they never met with any of the Apostles or Evangelists in any place but they presently made them Bishops of that place So Philip is made Bishop of Trallis Ananias Bishop of Damascus Nicolaus Bishop of Samaria Barnabas Bishop of Milan Silas Bishop of Corinth Sylvanus of Thessalonica Crescens of Chalcedon Andreas of Byzantium and upon the same grounds Peter Bishop of Rome No wonder then if Leontius make Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and derive the succession down from him But again this was not an act of the Council its self but onely of one single person delivering his private opinion in it and that which is most observable is that in the thing mainly insisted on by Leontius he was contradicted in the face of the whole Council by Philip a Presbyter of Constantinople For the case of Bâ—ssianus and Stephen about their violent intrusion into the Bishoprick of Ephesus being discussed before the Council A question was propounded by the Council where the Bishop of Ephesus was to be regularly ordained according to the Canons Leontius Bishop of Magnesia saith that there had been twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus from Timothy and all of them ordained in the place His business was not to derive exactly the succession of Bishops but speaking according to vulgar tradition he insists that all had been ordained there Now if he be convicted of the crimen falsi in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no wonder if we meet with a mistake in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. if he were out in his allegation no wonder if he were deceived in his tradition Now as to the Ordination of the Bishops in Ephesus Philip a Presbyter of Constantinople convicts him of falsehood in that for saith he Iohn Bishop of Constantinople going into Asia deposed fifteen Bishops there and ordained others in their room And Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople instanceth in Castinus Heraclides Basilius Bishop of Ephesus all ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople If then the certainty of succession relyes upon the credit of this Leontius let them thank the Council of Chalcedon who have sufficiently blasted it by determining the cause against him in the main evidence produced by him So much to shew how far the clearest evidence for succession of Bishops from Apostolical times is from being convincing to any rationall Man Thirdly the succession so much pleaded by the Writers of the Primitive Church was not a succession of Persons in Apostolicall Power but a succession in Apostolical Doctrine Which will be seen by a view of the places produced to that purpose The first is that of Irenaeus Quoniam valdè longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae à gloriossimis duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatae constitutae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum perveniâ—nâ—es usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos c. Where we see Irenaeus doth the least of all aim at the making out of a Succession of Apostolical power in the Bishops he speaks of but a conveying of the Doctrine of the Apostles down to them by their hands which Doctrine is here called Tradition not as that word is abused by the Papists to signifie something distinct from the Scriptures but as it signifies the conveyance of the Doctrine of the Scripture it self Which is cleared by the beginning of that Chapter Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in Ecclesia adest perspic â—re omnibus qui vera vâ—lint audire habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt nâ—que cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur His plain meaning is that those persons who were appointed by the Apostles to oversee and govern Churches being sufficient witnesses themselves of the Apostles Doctrine have conveyed it down to us by their successours and we cannot learn any such thing of them as Valentinus and his followers broached We see it is the Doctrine still he speaks of and not a word what power and superiority these Bishops had over Presbyters in their several Churches To the same purpose Tertullian in that known speech of his Edant Origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primuâ— ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem antecessorem Hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum
controversie as to the certainty of the form of Government instituted by Christ because of the Ambiguity of those Records as to the point of succession to the Apostles in that this succession might be only of a different degree in that it is not clear and convincing in all places in that where it is clearest it is meant of a succession of Doctrine and not of persons in that if it were of persons yet Presbyters are said to succeed the Apostles as well as Bishops by the same persons who speak of these By which last thing we have likewise cleared the Second thing propounded to shew the ambiguity of the Testimony of Antiquity which was the promiscuous use of the names of Bishop and Presbyters after the distinction between their office was brought in by the Church For we have made it appear that the names are promiscuously used when that succession which is sometimes attributed to Bishops is at other times given to Presbyters Other instances might be brought of that nature as first that of Clemens Romanus in his excellent Epistâ—e which like the River Alpâ—eus had run under ground for so many centuries of years but hath now in these last times of the world appeared publikely to the view of the World to make it appear how true that is which he saith the Apostles did foresee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there would be great contentions about the name of Episcopacy and so there are still and that from his Epistle too For when in one place he tells us that the Apostles ordained their first fruits to be Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should believe afterwards he makes no scruple of calling those Bishops Presbyters in several places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and speaking of the present schism at Corinth he saith it was a most shamefull thing and unworthy of Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To hear the firm and ancient Church of Corinth for the sake of one or two persons to raise a sedition against the Presbyters and afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only lâ—t the flock of Christ enjoy its peace with the Presbyters which are set over it But because this is said to be spoken before the time of distinction between Bishops and Presbyters it being supposed that there were no subject Presbyters then although no reason can be assigned why the Apostles should ordain Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should believe and should not likewise ordain Presbyters for them yet to take away all scruple we shall go farther when subject Presbyters as they are called are acknowledged to be and yet Bishops are call'd Presbyters then too For which we have the clear testimony of the Martyrs of the Gallican Church in their Epistle to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome who call Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when as Blondell observes he had been nine years Bishop of Lyons in the place of Pothinus neither doth Blondels argument lye here that because they call him the Presbyter of the Church therefore he was no Bishop as his Antagonist supposeth but he freely acknowledgeth him to have succeeded Pothinus there in his Bishoprick but because after the difference arose between Bishop and Presbyters yet they called him by the name of Presbyter it seems very improbable that when they were commending one to the Bishop of another Church they should make use of the lowest name of honour then appropriated to subject Presbyters which instead of commending were a great debasing of him if they had looked on a superiour order above those Presbyters as of divine institution and thought there had been so great a distance between a Bishop and subject Presbyters as we are made to believe there was Which is as if the Master of a Colledge in one University should be sent by the Fellows of his Society to the Heads of the other and should in his Commendatory letters to them be styled a Senior Fellow of that House Would not any one that read this imagine that there was no difference between a Senior Fellow and a Master but only a primacy of order that he was the first of the number without any power over the rest This was the case of Irenaeus he is supposed to be Bishop of the Church of Lyons he is sent by the Church of Lyons on a Message to the Bishop of Rome when notwithstanding his being Bishop they call him Presbyter of that Church when there were other Presbyters who were not Bishops what could any one imagine by the reading of it but that the Bishop was nothing else but the Seniour Presbyter or one that had a primacy of order among but no divine Right to a power of jurisdiction over his Fellow Presbyters More instances of this nature are brought there by that learned Author which the Reader may compare with the answers and then let him judge whether the Testimony of Antiquity have not too much ambiguity in it to decide the Controversie clearly on either side But that which seems yet more material is that which we observed in the third place that those who acknowledge the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters do impute it to an act of the Church and not ascribe it to any divine institution The testimony of Ierome to this purpose is well known and hath been produced already that of the counterfeit Ambiose but true Hilary is in every ones mouth upon this Controversie Quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequensti succederet sed quia coeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Coâ—cilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne indignus temerâ— Usurparet esset multis scandalum Very strange that an opinion so directly contrary to the Divine right of Episcopâ—cy should be published by a Deacon of the Church of Rome and these Commentaries cited by Austin with applause of the person without stigmatizing him for a heretick with Aerius if it had been the opinion of the Church that Bishops in their power over Presbyters did succeed the Apostles by a Divine Right Nothing more clear then that he asserts all the difference between a Bishop and Presbyters to arise from an act of the Church choosing men for their deserts when before they succeeded in order of place It is a mistake of Blundels to attribute this to the Nicene Council doub less he means no more then that Hierom calls Concilium Presbyterorum or which he himself means by judicium Sacerdotum The testimony of Austin hath been already mentioned Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est Thereby implying it was not so alwayes else to what purpose serves that jam obtinuit and that the original of the difference was from the Church But more express and full is
matter for truly religious and plain-hearted men to lay aside their Errour and to find out the Truth which is by returning to the head and spring of Divine Tradition viz. the Scriptures Which he expresseth further with an elegant similitude Si Canalis aquam ducens qui copiose prius largiter profluebat subito deficiat nonne ad fontem pergitur ut illic defectionis ratio noscatur utrumne arescentibus venis in capite unda siccaverit an verò integra deinde plena procurrens in medio itinere destiterit ut si vitio interrupti aut bibuli canalis effectum est quò minus aqua continua perseveranter jugiter flueret refecto confirmato canali ad usum atque ad potum civitatis aqua collecta eadem ubertate atque integritate repraesentaretur qua de fonte proficiscitur Quod nunc facere oportet Dei sacerdotes praecepta divina servantes ut si in aliquo mutaverit l. nutaverit vacillaverit veritas ad originem Dominicam Evangelicam Apostolicam Traditionem revertamur inde surgat actus nostri ratio unde ordo origo surrexit His meaning is That as when a channel suddenly fails we presently inquire where and how the breach was made and look to the Spring and Fountain to see the waters be fully conveyed from thence as formerly so upon any failure in the Tradition of the Church our onely recourse must be to the true Fountain of Tradition the Word of God and ground the Reason of our Actions upon that which was the Foundation of our profession And when Stephen the Bishop of Rome would tedder him to tradition Cyprian keeps his liberty by this close question Unde illa Traditio â— utrumne de Dominica Evangelica auctoritate descendens an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens Si ergo aut Evangelio praecipitur aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actibus continetur observetur Divina haec Sancta traditio We see this good man would not baulk his way on foot for the great bugbear of Tradition unless it did bear the Character of a Divine Truth in it and could produce the credentials of Scripture to testifie its authority to him To the same purpose that stout Bishop of Cappadocia Firmilian whose unhappiness with Cyprians was onely that of Iobs Friends that they excellently managed a bad Cause and with far more of the Spirit of Christianity then Stephen did who was to be justified in nothing but the Truth he defended Eos autem saith Firmilian qui Roma sunt non ea in omnibus observare quae sint ab origine tradita frustra Apostolorum auctoritatem prâ—tendere which he there makes out at large viz. That the Church of Rome had gathered corruption betimes which after broke out into an Impostume in the head of it Where then must we find the certain way of resolving the Controversie we are upon The Scriptures determine it not the Fathers tell us there is no believing tradition any further then it is founded in Scripture thus are we sent back from one to the other till at last we conclude there is no certain way at all left to find out a decision of it Not that we are left at such uncertainties as to matters of Faith I would not be so mistaken We have Archimedes his Postulatum granted us for that a place to fix our Faith on though the World be moved out of its place I mean the undoubted Word of God but as to matters of Fact not clearly revealed in Scripture no certainty can be had of them from the hovering light of unconstant Tradition Neither is it onely unconstant but in many things Repugnant to its self which was the last Consideration to be spoke to in reference to the shewing the incompetency of Antiquity for deciding our Controversie Well then suppose we our selves now waiting for the final Verdict of Church-Tradition to determine our present cause If the Iury cannot agree we are as far from satisfaction as ever and this is certainly the Case we are now in The main difficulty lyes in the immediate succession to the Apostles if that were but once cleared we might bear with interruptions afterwards but the main seat of the controversie lies there whether the Apostles upon their withdrawing from the Government of Churches did substitute single persons to succeed them or no so that uâ—less that be cleared the very Deed of Gift is questioned and if that could be made appear all other things would speedily follow Yes say some that is clear For at Ierusalem Antioch and Rome it is evident that single persons were entrusted with the Government of Churches In Ierusalem say they Iames the brother of our LORD was made Bishop by the Apostles But whence doth that appear It is said from Hegesippus in Eusebius But what if he say no such thing his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is there interpreted Ecclesiae administrationem una cum caeteris Apostolis suscepit And no more is thereby meant but that this Iames who is by the Antients conceived to be onely a Disciple before is now taken into a higher charge and invested in a power of governing the Church as the Apostles were His power it is plain was of the same nature with that of the Apostles themselves And who will go about to degrade them so much as to reduce them to the Office of Ordinary Bishops Iames in probability did exercise his Apostleship the most at Ierusalem where by the Scriptures we find him Resident and from hence the Church afterwards because of his not travelling abroad as the other Apostles did according to the Language of their own times they fixed the Title of Bishop upon him But greater difference we shall find in those who are pleaded to be successours of the Apostles At Antioch some as Origen and Eusebius make Ignatius to succeed Peter Ierome makes him the third Bishop and placeth Evodius before him Others therefore to solve that make them cotemporary Bishops the one of the Church of the Jewes the other of the Gentiles with what congruity to their Hypothesis of a single Bishop and Deacons placed in every City I know not but that Salvo hath been discussed before Come we therefore to Rome and here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber it self for here Tertullian Rufinus and several others place Clement next to Peter Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus Augustinus and Damasus with others make Anacletus Cletus and Linus all to precede him What way shall we find to extrica e our selves out of this Labyrinth so as to reconcile it with the certainty of the Form of Government in the Apostles times Certainly if the Line of Succession fail us here when we most need it we have little cause to pin our Faith upon it as to the certainty of
as yet strangers to the Covenant of promise and aliens from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 society of Christians And here I conceive a mistake of some men lies when they think the Apostles respected onely the Ruling of those which were already converted for though this were one part of their work yet they had an eye to the main Design then on foot the subjecting the World to the Obedience of Faith in order to which it was necessity in places of great resort and extent to place not onely such as might be sufficient to superintend the Affairs of the Church but such as might lay out themselves the most in Preaching the Gospel in order to converting others Haveing laid down these things by way of premisal we will see what advantage we can make of them in order to our purpose First then I say that in Churches consisting of a small number of Believers where there was no great probability of a large increase afterwards One single Pastour With Deacons under him were onely constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of those Churches Where the work was not so great but a Pastour and Deacons might do it what need was there of having more and in the great scarcity of fit Persons for setled Rulers then and the great multitude and necessity of unfixed Officers for preaching the Gospel abroad many persons fit for that work could not be spared to be constantly Resident upon a place Now that in some places at first there were none placed but onely a Pastour and Deacons I shall confirm by these following Testimonies The first is that of Clement in his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles therefore preaching abroad through Countreys and Cities ordained the First-fruits of such as believed having proved them by the Spirit to be Bishops and Deacons for them that should afterwards believe Whether by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we understand Villages or Regions is not material for it is certain here the Author takes it as distinct from Cities and there is nothing I grant expressed where the Apostles did place Bishops and Deacons exclusive of other places i. e. whether onely in Cities or Countreys but it is evident by this that where-ever they planted Churches they ordained Bishops and Deacons whether those Churches were in the City or Countrey And here we find no other Officers setled in those Churches but Bishops and Deacons And that there were no more in those Churches then he speaks of appears from his Designe of paralleling the Church-Officers in the Gospel to those under the Law and therefore it was here necessary to enumerate all that were then in the Churches The main controversie is what these Bishops were whether many in one place or onely one and if but one whether a Bishop in the modern Sense or no. For the first here is nothing implying any necessity of having more then one in a place which will further be made appear by and by out of other Testimonies which will help to explain this As for the other thing we must distinguish of the Notion of a Bishop For he is either such a one as hath none over him in the Church or he is such a one as hath a power over Presbyters acting under him and by authority derived from him If we take it in the first Sense so every Pastor of a Church having none exercising jurisdiction over him is a Bishop and so every such single Pastor in the Churches of the Primitive times was a Bishop in this Sense as every Master of a Family before Societies for Government were introduced might be called a King because he had none above him to command him but if we take a Bishop in the more proper Sense for one that hath power over Presbyters and People such a one these single Pastors were not could not be For it is supposed that these were onely single Pastors But then it is said that after other Presbyters were appointed then these single Pastors were properly Bishops but to that I answer First they could not be proper Bishops by vertue of their first Constitution for then they had no power over any Presbyters but onely over the Deacons and People and therefore it would be well worth considering how a power of jurisdiction over Presbyters can be derived from those single Pastors of Churches that had no Presbyters joyned with them It must be then clearly and evidently proved that it was the Apostles intention that these single Pastors should have the power over Presbyters when the Churches necessity did require their help which intention must be manifested and declared by some manifestation of it as a Law of Christ or nothing can thence be deduced of perpetual concernment to the Church of Christ. Secondly either they were Bishops before or onely after the appointment of Presbyters if before then a Bishop and a Presbyter having no Bishop over him are all one if after onely then it was by his communicating power to Presbyters to be such or their choice which made him their Bishop if the first then Presbyters quoad ordinem are onely a humane institution it being acknowledged that no Evidence can be brought from Scripture for them and for any Act of the Apostles not recorded in Scripture for the constituting of them it must goe among unwritten Traditions and if that be a Law still binding the Church then there are such which occurre not in the Word of GOD and so that must be an imperfect coppy of Divine Lawes If he were made Bishop by an Act of the Presbyters then Presbyters have power to make a Bishop and so Episcopacy is an humane institution depending upon the voluntary Act of Presbyters But the clearest Evidence for one single Pastour with Deacons in some Churches at the beginning of Christianity is that of Epiphanius which though somewhat large I shall recite because if I mistake not the curtailing of this Testimony hath made it speak otherwise then ever Epiphanius meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Sense of Epiphanius is very intricate and obscure we â—hall endeavour to explain it He is giving Aerius an account why Paul in his Epistle to Timothy mentions onely Bishops and Deacons and passeth over Presbyters His account is this first he chaâ—geth Aerius with ignorance of the Series of History which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the profound and ancient Records the Church wherein it is expressed that upon the first Preaching of the Gospel the Apostle writ according to the present state of things Where Bishops were not yet appointed for so certainly it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then he must contradict himself the Apostle writes to Bishops and Deacons for the Apostles could not settle all things at first for there was a necessity of Presbyters and Deacons for by these two Orders all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed for where so I read it 〈◊〉
that either there must be several Pastors taking the pastoral charge of one Congregation which is not very suitable with the principles of those I now dispute against or else many congregations in one City are all called but one Church and one flock which is the thing I plead for And therefore it is an observation of good use to the purpose in hand that the New Testâ—ment speaking of the Churches in a Province alwayes speakes of them in the plural number as the Churches of Iudaea Gal. 1. 22 1 Thes. 2 14. The Churches of Samaâ—iâ— and Galilee Acts 9. 31. The Churches of Syria and Câ—icia Acts 15. 41. The Churches of Galatia 1 Cor. 16. 1. Gal 1. 1 2. The Churches of Asia Rom. 16. 16. Rev. 1. 11. But when it speaks of any particular City then it is alwayes used in the Singular number as the Church at Jerusalem Acts 8. 1. 15 4 22. The Church at Antioch Acts 11. 26 13. 1. The Church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1â— and so of all the seven Churches of Asia the Church of Ephesus Smyrna c. So that we cannot find in Scripture the least footstep of any difference between a Church and the Christians of such a City whereas had the notion of a Church been restrained to a particular congregation doubtlesse we should have found some difference as to the Scriptures speaking of the several places For it is scarce imaginable that in all those Cities spoken of as for example Ephesus where Paul was for above two years together that there should be no more converts then would make one Congregation Accordingly in the times immediately after the Apostles the same language and custom continued still So Clement inscribes his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God which is at Rome to the Church of God which is at Corinth So by that it is plain that all the Believers at that time in Rome made up but one Church as likewise did they at Corinth Sâ— Polycarp in the Epistle written by him from the Church at Smyrna to the Church at Phylomilium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so in his Epistle to the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polycarp and the Elders with him to the Church which is at Philippi Origen compares the Church of God at Athens Corinth Alexandria and oâ—her places with the people of those several Cities and so the Churches Senate with the peoples and the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his word chief Ruler with the Maior of those Cities implying thereby that as there was one civil Society in such places to make a City so there was a Society of Christians incorporated together to make a Church So that a Church setled with a full power belonging to it and exerc sing all acts of Church-discipline within its self was antiently the same with the Society of Christians in a City Not but that the name Church is attributed sometimes to Families in which sense Tertullian speaks Ubi duo aut tres sunt ibi Ecclesia est licet Laici And may on the same account be attributed to a small place such as many imagine the Church of Cenchrea to be it being a port to Corinth on the Sinus Sarònicus but Stephanus Byzantinus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suidas saith no more of it then that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strabo and Pausanias only speak of the scituation of it as one of the poâ—ts of Corinth lying in the way from Tegaea to Argos nor is any more said of it by Pliny then that it answers to Lechaeum the port on the other side upon the Sinus Corinthiacus Ubbo Emmius in his description of old Greece calls both of them oppidula duo cum duobus praeclaris portubus in ora utriusq maris but withall adds that they were duo urbis emporia the two Marts of Corinth therefore in probability because of the great Merchandise of that City they were much frequented Cenchrea was about twelve furlongs distance from Corinth Where Pareus conjectures the place of the meeting of the Church of Corinth was because of the troubles they met with in the City and therefore they retired thither for greater conveniency and privacy which conjecture will appear not to be altogether improbable when we consider the furious opposition made by the Iews against the Christians at Corinth Acts 18. 12. and withall how usual it was both for Jews and Christians to have their place of meeting at a distance from the City As Acts 16. 13. They went out from Philippi to the River side where there was a Proseucha or a place of prayer where the Iews of Philippi accustomed to meet According to this interpretation the Church at Cenchrea is nothing else but the Church of Corinth there assembling as the Reformed Church at Paris hath their meeting place at Charenton which might be called the Church of Charenton from their publick Assemblies there but the Church of Paris from the Residence of the chief Officers and people in that City So the Church of Corinth might be called the Church at Cenchrea upon the same account there being no evidence at all of any setled Government there at Cenchrea distinct from that at Corinth So that this place which is the only one brought against that position I have laid down hath no force at all against it I conclude then that Churches and Cities were originally of equal extent and that the formal constitution of a Church lyes not in their capacity of assembling in one place but acting as a society of Christians imbodyed together in one City having Officers and Rulers among themselves equally respecting the whole number of Believers Which leads to the second thing the way and manner then used for the modelling the government of these Churches Which may be considered in a double period of time either before several Congregations in Churches were setled or after those we now call Parishes were divided First before distinct Congregations were setled and this as far as I can find was not only during the Apostles times but for a competent time after generally during the persecution of Churches For we must distinguish between such a number of Believers as could not conveniently assemble in one place and the distributing of Believers into their several distinct congregations I cannot see any reason but to think that in the great Churches of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus and the like there were more Believers then could well meet together considering the state of those times but that they were then distributed into their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Centuries as the Athenians and Romans divided their people i. e. into several worshipping congregations with peculiar Officers I see no reason at all for it They had no such conveniences then of setling several congregations under their particular Pastors but all the Christians in a City looked upon
manner of Government in the Church was now The Bishop sitting as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sanhedrin and the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Ignatius expresseth it acting as the Common-Council of the Church to the Bishop the Bishop being as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Presbytery as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Origen compares them Whereby he fully describes the form of Government in his time in the Church which was by an Ecclesiastical Senate and a President in it ruling the Society of Christians in every City So that the Presbytery of a great City joyning together for Government were never accounted a Provincial Assembly but onely the Senate for Government of the Church in the whole City The erecting Presbyteries for every particular congregation in a City is a stranger to the ancient constitution of Churches and hath given the greatest rise to the Independency of particular congregations For if every particular congregation be furnished with a Government within its self then men are apt presently to think that there is no necessity of subordination of it to any higher church-Church-power Whereas if that pâ—imitive constitution of Churches be held that they are Societies of Christians under an Ecclesiastical Senate in a City then it is evident that the congregations must truckâ—e under the great body as receiving their government by and their Officers from that Senate of the Church which superintends and orders the affairs of that whole Body of Christians residing in such a place And this crumbling of church-Church-power into every congregation is a thing absolutely disowned by the greatest and most learned Patrons of Presbytery beyond the Seas as may be seen both in Calvin Bâ—za Salmasius Blondel Gersome Bucer and others It is much disputed when the first division of Parochiall Congregations in Cities began Platina attributes it to Evaristus and so doth Damasus Hic Titulos in Urbe Roma divisit Presbyteris He divided the several Parish Churches to the Presbyters these were called then Tituli Baronius gives a double reason of the name either from goods belonging to the Princes Excâ—equer which have some sign imprinted upon them that it may be known whose they are So saith he the sign of the Cross was put upon the Churches to make it known that they were devoted to Gods Service or else they are called Tituli because the severall Presbyters did receive their Titles from them but by the Leave of the great Cardinal another Reason may be given of the name more proper then either of these It hath been observed by Learned men that the generall meetings of the Christians were in the Coemeteria or Dormitories of Christians So they called the Sepulchres then which were great and capacious Vaults fit to receive many people in them two chief grounds of the Christians meeting in those places the first was their own security because the Heathens looked on it as a matter of Religion manes temerare sepultos to disturb the ashes of the dead but the chief Reason was to encourage themselves to suffeâ— Martyrdom by the examples of those who had gone before them and lay buried there thence they were called Martyrum memoriae because they did call to mind their actions and constancy in the Faith Now from these Coemeteria was afterwards the original of Churches whence persons most reverenced for Piety were wont still to be buried in Churches not for any Holiness of the place but because in such places the Martyrs lay buried the Churches being raised over the Vaults wherein the Martyra lay intombed Now Churches being raised from these Coemeteries which were called memoriae Martyrum that they might still retain somwhat intimating their former use were called Tituli For Titulus as Santius observes is signum aliquod aut monumentum quod docet ibi latere aliquid aut accidisse cujus nolumus perire memoriam thence Statues are called Tituli So Gen. 35. 20. Erexit Iacob Titulum super Sepulchrum as the Vulgar Latine renders it and Gen. 28. 18. Surgens ergo Iacob mane tulit lapidem quem suâ—posuerat capiti suo erexit in titulum So Absalom 2 Sam. 18. 18. erexit sibi Titulum So that what was erected to maintain and preserve the memory of any thing was called Titulus and thence the Churches being built upon the Coemiteries of the Martyrs were on that account called Tituli because intended for the preservation of their memories This account of the Original of the name I leave to the judgement of Learned men but to proceed I confess it seems not probable to me that these Tituli were so soon divided as the time of Evaristus who lived in the time of Trajan when the persecution was hot against the Christians but Damasus seems not to believe himself for in the life of Dionysius â—e saith Hic Presbyteris ecclesias divisit coemeteria paroecias dioeceses instituit but most probably it began assoon as the Churches enjoyed any ease and peace it being so necessary for the convenient meeting of such a multitude of Christians as there was then In the life of Marcellus about fourty years after Dionysius we read of twenty five Titles in the Church of Rome of which number what use is made for interpreting the number 666. may be seen in Mr. Potters ingenuous Tract on that Subject But when afterwards these Titles were much increased those Presbyters that were placed in the ancient Titles which were the chief among them were called Cardinales Presbyteri which were then looked on as chief of the Clergy and therefore were the chief members of the Council of Presbyters to the Bishop So that at this day the Conclave at Rome and the Pope's Consistory is an evident Argument in this great degeneracy of it of the Primitive constitution of the Government of the Church there by a Bishop acting with his Colledge of Presbyters Neither was this proper to Rome alone but to all other great Cities which when the number of Presbyters was grown so great that they could not conveniently meet and joyn with the Bishop for ordering the Government of the Church there were some as the chief of them chosen out from the rest to be as the Bishops Council and these in many places as at Milan Ravenna Naples c. were called Cardinales Presbyteri as well as at Rome which were abrogated by Pius Quintus 1568 but the memory of them is preserved still in Cathedral Churches in the Chapter there where the Dean was nothing else but the Archipresbytâ—r and both Dean and Prebendaries were to be assistant to the Bishop in the regulating the Church-affairs belonging to the Citie while the Churches were contained therein So much shall suffice for the model of Government in the Churches while they were contained within the same precincts with the City its self We come in the
ordination of a Bishop Subscriptio clericorum Honoratorum testimonium Ordinis consensus plebis and in the same chapter speaking of the choyce of the Bishop he saith it was done subscribentibus plus minus septuagintâ— Presbyteris And therefore it is observed that all the Clergy conâ—urred to the choyce even of the Bishop of Rome till after the time of that Hildebrand called Greg. 7. in whose time Popery came to Age thence Casaubon calls it Haeresin Hildebrandinam Cornelius Bishop of Rome was chosen Clericoram pene omnium testimonio and in the Council at Rome under Sylvâ—ster it is decreed that none of the Clergy should be ordained nisi cum tota adunata Ecclesia Many instances are brought from the Councils of Carthage to the same purpose which I pass over as commonly known It was accounted the matter of an accusation against Chrysostom by his enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ordained without the Council and assistance of his Clergy The pâ—esence of the Clergy at Councils hath been already shewed Thus we see how when the Church of the City was enlarged into the Countrey the power of the Governours of the Churches in the City was extended with it The next step observable in the Churches encrease was when several of these Churches lying together in one Province did associate one with another The Primitive Church had a great eye to the preserving unity among all the members of it and thence they kept so strict a correspondency among the several Bishops in the Commercium Formatarum the formula of writing which to prevent deceit may be seen in Iustellus his Notes on the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae and for a maintaining of nearer correspondency among the Bishops themselves of a Province it was agreed among themselves for the better carrying on of their common work to call a Provincial Synod twice every year to debate all causes of concernment there among themselves and to agree upon such wayes as might most conduce to the advancing the common interest of Christianity Of these Tertullian speaks Aguntur praeceptâ— per Gracias illas certis in locis Concilia ex universis Ecclesâ—is per quae altiora quaeque in communi tractantur ipsa repraesentatio nominis Christiani magna vâ—neratione celebratur Of these the thirty eighth Canon Apostolical as it is called expresly speaks which Canons though not of authority sufficient to ground any right upon may yet be allowed the place of a Testimony of the practice of the Primitive Church especially towards the third Century 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Twice a year a Synod of Bishops was to be kept for discussing matters of faith and resolving matters of practice To the same purpose the Council of Antioch A. D. 343 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To these Councils the Presbyters and Deacons came as appears by that Canon of the Council of Antioch and in the seventh Canon of the Nicene Council by Alphon us Pisanus the same custome is decâ—eed but no such thing occurrs in the Codex Canonum either of Tilius or Iustellus his Edition and the Arabick ediâ—â—â—â— of that Council is conceived to have been compiled above four hundred years after the Council set But however we see evidence enough of this practice of celebrating Provincial Synods twice a year now in the assembling of these Bishops together for mutual counsel in their affairs there was a necessity of some order to be observed There was no difference as to the power of the Bishops themselves who had all equal authority in their several Churches and none over one another For Episcopatus unus â—st cujus â— singulis in solidum pars tenetur as Cyprian speaks and as Ierome Ubicunq Episcopus fuerit sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Râ—egii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem est meriti ejusdem est Sacerdotii Potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit Caterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt There being then no difference between them no man calling himself Episcopum Episcoporum as Cyprian elsewhere speaks some other way must be found out to preserve order among them and to moderate the affairs of the Councils and therefore it was determined in the Council of Antioch that he that was the Bishop of the Metropolis should have the honour of Metropolitan among the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the great confluence of people to that City therefore he should have the prâ—heminence above the rest We see how far they are from attributing any Divine Right to Metropolitaus and therefore the rights of Metropolitans are called by the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which had been a dishonourable introduction for the Metropolitan Rights had they thought them grounded upon Apostolical institution Nothing more evident in antiquity then the honour of Metropolitans depending upon their Sees thence when any Cities were raised by the Emperour to the honour of Metropoles their Bishop became a Metropolitan as is most evident in Iustiniana prima and for it there are Canons in the Councils decreeing it but of this more afterwards The chief Bishop of Africa was only called primae sedis Episcop 〈…〉 thence we have a Canon in the Codex Ecclesiae African◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Bishop of the chief See should not be called the Exarch of the Priests or chief Priest or any thing of like nature but only the Bishop of the chief seat Therefore it hath been well observed that the African Churches did retain longest the Primitive simplicity and humility among them and when the voyce was said to be heard in the Church upon the flowing in of riches Hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam by the working of which poyson the spirits of the Prelates began to swell with pride and ambition as is too evident in Church History only Africa escaped the infection most and resisted the tyrannical incroachments of the Roman Bishop with the greatest magnanimity and courage as may be seen by the excellent Epistle of the Council of Carthage to Boniface Bishop of Rome in the Codex Ecclesiae Africanae So thaâ— however Africa hath been alwayes fruitfull of Monsters yet in that ambitious age it had no other wonder but only this that it should escape so free from that typhus saecularis as they then called it that monstrous itch of pride and ambition From whence we may well rise to the last step of the power of the Church which was after the Empire grew Christian and many Provinces did associate together then the honour and power of Patriarchs came upon the stage And now began the whole Christian world to be the Cock pitt wherein the two great Prelates of Rome and Constantinople strive with their greatest force for mastery of one another and the whole world
with them as may be seen in the actions of Paschasinus the Roman Legat in the Council of Chalcedon From whence forward the great Leviâ—than by his tumbling in the waves endeavoured to get the Dominion of all into his hands but God hath at last put a hook into his nostrils and raised up the great instruments of Reformation who like the Sword fish have so pierced into his bowels that by his tumbling he may only hasten his approaching ruine and give the Church every day more hopes of seeing its self freed from the tyranny of an Uâ—urped power By this Scheme and draught now of the increase of the Churches power nothing can be more evident then that it rise not from any divine institution but only from positive Ecclesiastical Laws made according to the several states and conditions wherein the Church was which as it gradually grew up so waâ— the power of the Church by mutual consent fitted to the state of the Church in its several ages Which was the fiâ—st argument that the Primitive Church did not conceive its self bound to observe any one unalterable form of Government This being the chief the rest that follow will sooner be dispatched The second is from the great varieties as to Government which were in several Churches What comes from divine right is observed unalterably in one uniform constant tenour but what we find so much diversified according to several places we may have ground to look on only as an Ecclesiastical constitution which was followed by every Church as it judged convenient Now as to Church Government we may find some Churches without Bishops for a long time some but with one Bishop in a whole Nation many Cities without any where Bishops were common many Churches discontinue Bishops for a great while where they had been no certain rule observed for modelling their Dâ—ocesses where they were still continued Will not all these things make it seem very improbable that it should be an Apostolical institution that no Church should be without a Bishop First then some whole Nations seem to have been without any Bishops at all if we may believe their own Historians So if we may believe the great Antiquaries of the Church of Scotland that Church was governed by their Culdei as they called their Presbyters without any Bishop over them for a long time Iohannes Maior speaks of their instruction in the faith per Sacerdotes Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in fide eruditi but least that should be interpreted only of theâ—r conversion Iohannes Fordònus is clear and full to their government from the time of their conversion about A. D 263. to the coming of Palladius A. D. 430. that they were only governed by Presbyters and Monks Ante Palladii adventum habebant Scoti fidei Dâ—ctores ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solunmodo vel Monachos ritum sequentes Ecclesiae Primitivae So much mistaken was that learned man who saith That neither Beda nor any other affirms that the Scots were formerly ruled by a Presbyterie or so much as that they had any Presbyter among them Neither is it any wayes sufficient to say that these Presbyters did derive their authority from some Bishops for however we see here a Church governed without such or if they had any they were only chosen from their Culdei much after the custom of the Church of Alexandria as Hector Boethiuâ— doth imply And if we believe Philostorgius the Gothick Churches were planted and governed by Presbyters for above seventy years for so long it was from their first conversion to the time of Ulphilas whom he makes their first Bishop And great probability there is that where Churches were planted by Presbyters as the Church of France by Andochius and Benignus that afterwards upon the encrease of Churches and Presbyters to rule them they did from among themselves choose one to be as the Bishop over them as Pothinus was at Lyons For we nowhere read in those early plantations of Churches that where there were Presbyters already they sent to other Churches to derive Episcopâ—l ordination from them Now for whole Nations having but one Bishop we have the testimony of Sozomen that in Scythia which by the Romans was called Masia inferior 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Although there were many Cities they had but one Bishop The like Godignus relates of the Abâ—ssine Churches Though their Territories be of vast extent there is but only one Bishop in all those Dominions who is the Bishop of Abuna And where Bishops were most common it is evident they looked not on it as an Apostolical rule for every City to have a Bishop which it must have if it was an Apostolical institution for the Church to follow the civil Government Theodoret mentions 800 Churches under his charge in whose Diâ—cess Ptolomy placeth many other Cities of note besides Cirus as Ariseria Regia Ruba Heraclea c. In the Province of Tripoly he reckons nine Cities which had but five Bishops as appears by the Notitia Ecclesiae Africanae In Thracia every Bishop had several Cities under hâ—m The Bishop of Heraclea that and Panion the Bishop of Byze had it and Arcadiapolis of Coela had it and Callipolis Sabsadia had it and Aphrodisias It is needless to produce more instances of this nature either ancient or modern they being so common and obvious But further we find Bishops discontinued for a long time in the greatest Churches For if there be no Church without a Bishop where was the Church of Rome when from the Martyrdome of Fabian and the banishment of Lucius the Church was governed only by the Clergy So the Church of Carthage when Cyprian was banished the Church of the East when Meletius of Antioeh Eusebius Samosatenus Pelagius of Laodicea and the rest of the Orthodox Bishops were banished for ten years space and Flavianus and Diodorus two Presbyters ruled the Church of Antioch the mean while The Church of Carthage was twenty four years without a Bishop in the time of Hunerik King of the Vandals and when it was offered them that they might have a Bishop upon admitting the Arrians to a free exercise of their Religion among them their answer was upon those terms Ecclesia Episcopum non delictatur habere and Balsamon speaking of the Christian Churches in the East determines it neither safe nor necessary in their present state to have Bishops set up over them And lastly for their Diocesses it is evident there was no certain Rule for modelling them In some places they were far less then in others Generally in the primitive and Eastern Churches they were very small and little as far more convenient for the end of them in the government of the Churches under the Bishops charge it being observed out of Walafridus Strabo by a learned man Fertur in Orientis partibus per singulas urbes praefecturas singulas
in by every one of them singly and subscribed with their own hands all which I have perused these following persons Thomas Arch Bishop of Canterbury Edward Arch-bishop of Yorke the Bishop of Rochester Edmund Bishop of London Robert Bishop of Carlisle Dr. George Day Dr. Thomas Robertson Dr. I. Redmayne Dr. Edward Leighton Dr. Symon Matthew Dr. William Tresham Dr. Richard Cozen Dr. Edgeworth Dr. Owen Oglethorp Dr. Thyrleby These all gave in their several resolutions in papers to the Questions propounded with their names subscribed a far more prudent way then the confusion of verbal and tedious disputes all whose judgements are accurately summed up and set down by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury himself Their resolutions contain distinct answers to several Sets of questions propounded to them The first Set contained several Questions about the Mass about the instituting receiving nature celebration of it and whether in the Mass it be convenient to use such speech as the people may understand whether the whole were fit to be translated or only some part of it with several other questions of the same nature The second Set is more pertinent to our purpose wherein are 17 Questions proposed to be resolved Ten of them belong to the number of Sacraments the other 7. concern Church Government The Questions are these Whether the Appostells lacking a higher power as in not having a Christian-King among them made Bishoppes by that necessity or by auctorite given them of God Whether Bishops or Priests were first and if the Priests were first then the Priest made the Bishop Whether a Bishop hath auctorite to make a Priest by the Scripture or no and whether any other but onely a Bishop may make a Priest Whether in the New Testament be required any consecration of a Bishop and Priest or onely appointeinge to the office be sufficient Whether if it fortuned a Prince Christien lerned to conquer certen domynyons of Infidells having non but the temporall lerned men with him it be defended by Gods Law that be and they should preche and teche the word of God there or no and also make and constitute Priests or noe Whether it be forefended by Goddes Law that if it so fortuned that all the Bishopps and Priests were dedde and that the word of God shuld there unpreached the Sacrament of baptisme and others unministred that the King of that region shulde make Bishoppes and Priests to supply the same or noe Whether a Bishop or a Priest may excommunicate and for what crimes and whether they only may excommunicate by Goddes Law These are the questions to which the answers are severally returned in distinct papers all of them bound together in a large Volume by Archbishop Cranmer and every one subscribed their names and some their seals to the Papers delivered in It would be too tedious a work to set down their several opinions at large only for the deserved reverence all bear to the name and memory of that most worthy Prelate and glorious Martyr Archbishop Cranmer I shall set down his answer distinctly to every one of these questions and the answers of some others to the more material questions to our purpose To the 9. Q. All Christian Princes have committed unto them immediately of God the holle cure of all their subjects as well concerning the administration of Goddes word for the cure of soul as concerning the ministration of things Political and civil governaunce And in both theis ministrations thei must have sundry ministers under them to supply that which is appointed to their several office The Cyvile ministers under the Kings Majesty in this realme of England be those whom yt shall please his highness for the tyme to put in auctorite under him as for example the Lord Chancellour Lord Treasurer Lord Greate Master Lord privy seal Lord Admyral Mayres Shryves c. The Ministers of Gods wourde under his Majesty be the Bishops Parsons Vicars and such other Priests as be appointed by his highnes to that ministration as for example the Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Duresme the Bishop of Winchester the Parson of Wynwicke c. All the said officers and ministers as well of th' one sorte as the other be appointed assigned and elected in every place by the Laws and orders of Kings and Princes In the admission of many of these officers bee diverse comely ceremonies and solemnities used which be not of necessity but only for a good order and semely fashion For if such offices and ministrations were committed without such solemnitye thei were nevertheles truely committed And there is no more promise of God that grace is given in the committing of the Ecclesiastical office then it is in the committing of the Cyvile In the Apostles time when there was no Christien Princes by whose authority Ministers of Gods Word might be appointed nor synnes by the sword corrected there was no remedie then for the correction of vice or appoynteinge of ministers but onely the consent of Christien multitude amonge themselfe by an uniforme consent to follow the advice and perswasion of such persons whom God had most endued with the spirit of wisdome and counsaâ—le And at that time for as much as Christian people had no sword nor Governer among them thei were constrained of necessity to take such Curates and Priests as either they knew themselfes to bee meet thereunto or else as were commended unto them by other that were so replete with the spirit of God with such knowledge in the profession of Christ such wisdome such conversation and counsell that they ought even of very conscience to give credit unto them and to accept such as by theym were presented And so some tyme the Appostles and other unto whom God had given abundantly his spirit sent or appointed Ministers of Gods word sometime the people did chose such as they thought meete thereunto And when any were appointed or sent by the Appostles or other the people of their awne voluntary will with thanks did accept them not for the supremitie Imperie or dominion that the Apostells had over them to command as their Princes or Masters but as good people readie to obey the advice of good counsellours and to accept any thing that was necessary for their edification and benefit The Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one office in the beginning of Christs Religion A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scriptures and so may Princes and Governours alsoe and that by the auctoritie of God committed them and the people alsoe by their election For as we reade that Bishops have done it so Christien Emperours and Princes usually have done it And the people before Christien Princes were commonly did elect their Bishops and Priests In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no consecration by the Scripture for election or appointeing thereto
ad ordinem ad decorum ad aedificationem Ecclesiae pro co tempore pertinentibus And in the next Section Novimus enim Deum nostrum Deum esse Ordinis non confusionis Ecclesiam servari ordine perdi autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qua de causa multos etiam diversos non solum olim in Israele verum etiam post in Ecclesia ex Iudaeis Gentibus collecta ministrorum ordines instituit eandem etiam ob causam liberum reliquit Ecclesiis ut plures adderent vel non adderent modo ad aedificationem fieret He asserts it to be in the Churches power and liberty to add several orders of Ministers according as it judgeth them tend to edification and saith he is far from condemning the Course of the Primitive Church in erecting one as Bishop over the Presbyters for better managing Church Affairs yea Arch-Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs as instituted by the Primitive Church before the Nicene Council he thinks may be both excused and defended although afterward they degenerated into Tyranny and Ambition And in his Observations upon his Confession penned chiefly upon the occasion of the exceptions of Magnus quidam Vir some will guess who that was taken at the free delivery of his mind concerning the Polity of the Primitive Church he hath expressions to this purpose That what was unanimously determined by the Primitive Church without any contradiction to Scripture did come from the Holy Spirit Hinc fit saith he ut quae sint hujuscemodi ea ego improbare nec velim nec audeam bona conscientia Quis autem ego sim qui quod tota Ecclesia approbavit improbem Such things saith he as are so determined I neither will nor can with a safe Conscience condemn For who am I that I should condemn that which the whole Church of God hath approved A Sentence as full of judgement as modesty And that he might shew he was not alone in this opinion he produceth two large and excellent Discourses of Martin Bucer concerning the Polity of the ancient Church which he recites with approbation the one out of his Commentaries on the Ephesians the other de Disciplina Clericali whereby we have gained another Testimony of that famous and peaceable Divine whose judgement is too large to be here inserted The same opinion of Zanchy may be seen in his Commentaries upon the fourth Command wherein he asserts no particular Form to be prescribed but onely general Rules laid down in Scripture that all be done to Edification speaking of the Originall of Episcopacy which came not dispositione Divina but consuetudine Ecclesiastica atque ea quidem minime improbanda neque enim hunc ordinem prohibuit Christus sed potius regulam generalem reliquit per Apostolum nt in Ecclesia omnia fiant ad edificationem It is then most clear and evident that neither Bucer Chemnitius or Zanchy did look upon the Church as so bound up by any immutable Form of Church-Government laid down in Scripture but it might lawfully and laudably alter it for better edification of the Church For these Learned Divines conceiving that at first in the Church there was no difference between Bishop and Presbyter and commending the Polity of the Church when Episcopacy was set in a higher order they must of necessity hold that there was no obligation to observe that Form which was used in Apostolical times Our next inquiry is into the opinion of the French Church and the eminent Divines therein For Calvin and Bâ—zÌ„a we have designed them under another rank At present we speak of those who in Thesi assert the Form of Church-Government mutable The first wee meet with here who fully layes down his opinion as to this matter is Ioh. Fregevil who although in his Palma Christiana he seems to assert the Divine right of Primacy in the Church yet in his Politick Reformer he asserts both Forms of Government by equality and inequality to be lawful And we shall the rather produce his Testimony because of the high Character given of him by the late Reverend Bishop Hall Wise Fregevil a deep head and one that was able to cut even betwixt the League the Church and State His words are these As for the English Government I say it is grounded upon Gods Word so far forth as it keepeth the State of the Clergy instituted in the Old Testament and confirmed in the New And concerning the Government of the French Church so far as concerneth the equality of Ministers it hath the like foundation in Gods Word namely in the example of the Apostles which may suffice to authorize both these Forms of Estate albeit in several times and places None can deny but that the Apostles among themselves were equal as concerning authority albeit there were an Order for their precedency When the Apostles first planted Churches the same being small and in affliction there were not as yet any other Bishops Priests or Deacons but themselves they were the Bishops and Deacons and together served the Tables Those men therefore whom God raiseth up to plant a Church can do no better then after the examples of the Apostles to bear themselves in equal authority For this cause have the French Ministers planters of the Reformed Church in France usurped it howbeit provisionally reserving liberty to alter it according to the occurrences But the equality that rested among the Bishops of the primitive Church did increase as the Churches increased and thence proceeded the Creation of Deacons and afterwards of other Bishops and Priests yet ceased not the Apostles equality in authority but they that were created had not like authority with the Apostles but the Apostles remained as Soveraign Bishops neither were any greater then they Hereof I do inferr that in the State of a mighty and peaceable Church as is the Church of England or as the Church of France is or such might be if God should call it to Reformation the State of the Clergy ought to be preserved For equality will be hurtful to the State and in time breed confusion But as the Apostles continued Churches in their equality so long as the Churches by them planted were small so should equality be applyed in the planting of a Church or so long as the Church continueth small or under persecution yet may it also be admitted as not repugnant to Gods Word in those places where already it is received rather then to innovate anything I say therefore that even in the Apostles times the state of the Clergy increased as the Church increased Neither was the Government under the bondage of Egypt and during the peace of the Land of Canaan alike for Israelites had first Iudges and after their state increased Kings Thus far that Politique Reformer Whose words are so full and pertinent to the scope and drift of this whole Treatise that there is no need of any Commentary to draw them to my sense The
is expresly and fully the judgement of that most Reverend and Learned man Th. Beza as he declares it himself Essentialefuit in eo de quo hic agimus quod ex Dei Ordinatione perpetud necesse fuit est erit ut in Presbyterio quispiam loco dignitate primus actioni gubernandae praesit cum eo quod ipsi divinitus attributum est jure Accidentale autem fuit quod Presbyteri in hac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alii aliis per vices initio succedebant qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 modus paulatim postea visus est mutandus ut unus quispiam judicio caeterorum compresbyterorum delectus Presbyterio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esset permaneret It will be worth our while truly to state the Question of Church Government between the Church of England and that of Geneva in the time of Queen Elizabeth and thereby we shall see how small the difference was between them That the Churches in the Primitive times did take in the Christians in whole Cities and adjoyning Territories is acknowledged on both sides Calvin and Beza being both express in it and the Constitution of the Church of Geneva speaks as much Vnicuique civitati saith Calvin erat attributa certa regio quae Presbyteros inde sumeret velut corpori Ecclesiae illius accenserentur In oppido cujusque Dioeceseos saith Beza praecipuo primus Presbyter c. in quotidianâ communi jurisdictione praeerat caeteris tum urbanis tum aliis ejus regionis compresbyteris i. e. toti Dioecesi That the Government of the City did take in the City and Territories is likewise acknowledged by them That for more convenient order there was one to preside over the Ecclesiastical Senate is confessed as essential by Beza and Calvin acknowledgeth that even in Apostolical times non eam fuisse tunc aequalitatem inter Ecclesiae ministros quin unus aliquis authoritate consilio praeâ—sset There was no such equality among the Ministers of the Church but that some one was over the rest in authority and counsell Wherein then lay the difference For we have already seen that our Great Divines then did not look upon their form of Government as necessary but only lawfull and Calvin and Beza would not be thought to prescribe their form to other Churches All the difference then was not Whether their form of Government was founded on Divine Right not Whether Episcopacy in the Church was lawfull or no not Whether Diocesan Churches were unlawfull or Whether every Congregation should have an Ecclesiastical Senate But Whether it were more agreeable to the Primitive form that the President of the Ecclesiastical Senate should have only an order among or a degree above the Senate its self But chiefly it was Whether in the present state of the Reformed Churches it were more convenient wholly to lay aside the form of Government by Bishops which had been so much abused in the Roman Church and to reduce all Ministers of the Gospel to an equality with only a Presidency of order thereby to free themselves from the imputation of Ambition and to prevent it in others or else it were more prudent only to retrench the abuses of Episcopacy under the Papacy and to reduce it to that form wherein it was practiced in the Church before the tyranny and Usurpation of the Roman Bishop had ingrossed all Ecclesiastical power into his own hands The former part was embraced generally by the Reformed Churches the latter by our Church of England so that the Question was not about Divine Right but about a matter of prudence not What form was setled by a Law of Christ but what form was suitable to the present state of the Churches of the Reformation Therefore we see none of these forraign Divines did charge the Government of this Church with unlawfulness but inconveniency as it was a step to pride and ambition and an occasion whereby men might do the Church injury by the excess of their power if they were not men of an excellent temper and moderation Thence that prediction of Padre Paule that the Church of England would then find the inconveniency of Episcopacy when a high-spirited Bishop should once come to rule that Church and so Beza when he had freed the Bishops of the Reformation from that imputation of Lording it over their Brethren which he had charged the Roman Bishops with yet he adds that he would beg them rather to lay down their power then to transmit that power to those after them hanc ipsorum moderationem aequitatem minimè forsan sequuturis Who it may be were not like to succeed them in their meekness and moderation What just reason there was for such fears or may be still let those judge who are fittest to do it those I mean who have the power not only to redress but prevent abuses incroaching by an irregular power It was not then any unlawfulness in the Government of Episcopacy its self but its lyableness to abuses which made the Reformed Churches reduce Modern Episcopacy into a meer Presidency of Order which was not so lyable to the same inconveniences A clear evidence that they judged not the Government unlawfull is their often profession of a ready and chearfull obedience to Bishops if they would embrace the Gospel and stand up in defence of the true Doctrine For which we have the testimony of George Prince of Anhalt in the Preface to his Sermon about false Prophets speaking of Bishops and Arch-Bishops Utinam sicut nomina gerunt titulos ita se reipsa praestarent Episcopos Ecclesia Utinam Evangelio docerent consona ipsoque Ecclesias fideliter regerent O quam libenter quantaque cum cordis laetitia pro Episcopis ipsos habere revereri morem gerere debitam jurisdictionem ordinationem eis tribuere eaque sine recusatione frui vellemus id quod nos semper D. Lutherus etiam saepissime tam ore quam scriptis imo in concione publica in Cathedrali Templâ— Marsburgensi contestati promisimusâ— He professeth it to be both his own judgement and Luthers that if Bishops would but teach and rule their Churches according to the Word of God they would obey them with all chearfulness and joy of heart To the same purpose Melancthon writing to Camerarius By what right or Law may we dissolve the Ecclesiastical Polity if the Bishops will grant us that which in reason they ought to grant and though it were lawful for us so to do yet surely it were not expedient Luther was ever of this opinion The same is professed by Calvin and that according to his temper in a higher manner Verum autem nobis si contribuant Hierarchiam in qua emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent ut ab illo tanquam ab unico Capite pendeant ad ipsum referantur in qua si fraternam charitatem inter se colant
of necessity is valid which I have already shewed doth evidently prove that Episcopal Government is not founded upon any unalterable Divine Right For which purpose many evidences are produced from Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 39 B. Downam l. 3. c. 4. B. Iewâ—l P. 2. p. 131. Saravia cap. 2. p. 10. 11. B. Alley Praelect 3. 6. B. Pilkinton B. Bridges B. Bilson D. Nowel B. Davenant B. Prideaux B. Andrews and others by our Reverend and learned M. Baxter in his Christian Concord to whom may be added the late most Reverend and eminent the Bishop of Durham Apolog. Cathol p. 1. l. 1. c. 21. and the Primat of Armagh whose judgement is well known as to the point of Ordination So much may suffice to shew that both those who hold an equality among Ministers to be the Apostolical Form and those that do hold Episcopacy to have been it do yet both of them agâ—ee at last in this that no one Form is setled by an unalterable Law of Christ nor consequently founded upon Divine Right For the former notwithstanding their opinion of the primitive Form do hold Episcopacy lawfull and the latter who hold Episcopacy to have been the primitive Form do not hold it perpetually and immutably necessary but that Presbyters where Bishops cannot be had may lawfully discharge the offices belonging to Bishops both which Concessions do necessarily destroy the perpetual Divine Right of that Form of Government they assert Which is the thing I have been so long in proving and I hope made it evident to any unprejudicated mind Having laid down this now as a sure foundation for peace and union it were a very easie matter to improve it in order to an Accommodation of our present differences about Church Government I shall only lay down three general Principles deducible from hence and leave the whole to the mature consideration of the Lovers of Truth and Peace The first Principle is That Prudence must be used in setling the Government of the Church This hath been the whole design of this Treatise to prove that the Form of Church-government is a meer matter of prudence regulated by the Word of God But I need not insist on the Arguments already brought to prove it for as far as I can find although the several parties in their contentions with one another plead for Divine Right yet when any one of them comes to settle their own particular Form they are fain to call in the help of Prudence even in things supposed by the several parties as necessary to the establishment of their own Form The Congregational men may despair of ever finding Elective Synods an explicite Church-Covenant or positive signs of Grace in admission of Church-members in any Law of Christ nay they will not generally plead for any more for them then general rules of Scripture fine Similitudes and Analogies and evidence of natural Reason and what are all these at last to an express Law of Christ without which it was pretended nothing was to be done in the Church of God The Presbyterians seem more generally to own the use of General Rules and the Light of Nature in order to the Form of Church Government as in the subordination of Courts Classical Assemblies and the more moderate sort as to Lay elders The Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or the practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for worship under the charge of one Person nor in the Primitive Church for the ordination of a Bishop without the preceding election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the people and neither in Scripture nor antiquity the least footstep of a delegation of church-Church-power So that upon the matter at last all of them make use of those things in Church Government which have no other foundation but the Principles of Humane prudence guided by the Scriptures and it were well if that were observed still The second Principle is That Form of Government is the best according to principles of Christian Prudence which comes the nearest to Apostolical practice and tends most to the advancing the peace and unity of the Church of God What that Form is I presume not to define and determine but leave it to be gather'd from the evidence of Scripture and Antiquity as to the Primitive practice and from the nature state and condition of that Church wherein it is to be setled as to its tendency to the advancement of peace and unity in it In order to the finding out of which that proposal of his late most excellent Majesty of glorious memory is most highly just and reasonable His Majesty thinketh it well worthy the studies and endeavours of Divines of both opinions laying aside emulation and private interests to reduce Episcopacy and Presbyteriâ— into such a well-proportion'd Form of superiority and subordination as may best resemble the Apostolical and Primitive times so far forth as the different condition of the times and the exigences of all considerable circumstances will admit If this Proposal be embraced as there is no reason why it should not then all such things must be retrieved which were unquestionably of the Primitive practice but have been grown out of use through the length and corruption of times Such are the restoring of the Presbyteries of several Churches as the Senate to the Bishop with whole counsel and advice all things were done in the Primitive Church The contracting of Dioceses into such a compass as may be fitted for the personal inspection of the Bishop and care of himself and the Senate the placing of Bishops in all great Towns of resort especially County Towns that according to the ancient course of the Church its Government may be proportioned to the Civil Government The constant preaching of the Bishop in some Churches of his charge and residence in his Diocese The solemnity of Ordinations with the consent of the people The observing Provincial Synods twice every year The employing of none in judging Church matters but the Clergy These are things unquestionably of the Primitive practice and no argument can be drawn from the present state of things why they are not as much if not more necessary then ever And therefore all who appeal to the practice of the Primitive Church must condemn themselves if they justifie the neglect of them But I only touch at these things my design being only to lay a foundation for a happy union Lastly What Form of Government is determined by lawfull authority in the Church of God ought so far to be submitted to as it contains nothing repugnant to the Word of God So that let mens judgements be what they will concerning the Primitive Form seeing it hath been proved that that Form doth not bind unalterably and necessarily it remains that the determining of the Form of Government is a matter of liberty in the Church and what is so
may be determined by lawfull authority and what is so determined by that authority doth bind men to obedience as hath been proved by the 5. Hypothesis in the entrance of this Treatise I conclude all with this earnest desire That the wise and Gracious God would send us one heart and one way that he would be the Composer of our differences and the repairer of our breaches that of our strange divisions and unchristian animosities While we pretend to serve the Prince of peace we may at last see THE END Glory to God on high on earth peace good will towards men Luke 2. 14. A Discourse concerning the Power of EXCOMMUNICATION in a Christian Church The Name of Power in a Church explained The mistake of which the Foundation of Erastianism The Notion of the Church opened as it is the subject of Power The Church proved to be a Society distinct from the Common-wealth by reason of its different Nature and divine Institution distinct Officers different Rights and Ends and peculiar Offences The Power of the Church doth not arise from meâ—r confederation The Churches Power founded on the nature of the Christian Society and not on particular Precepts The Power of Church-Officers not meerly Doctrinal proved by several Arguments Church-Power as to particular persons antecedent to confederation The Power of the Keys relates to Baptism The Churches Power extends to Excommunication what it is and what grounds it had under the Law No exclusion from Temple-worship among the Iews Excommunication necessary in a Christian Church because of the conditions supposed to communion in it Of the Incestuous person and the Grounds of the Apostolical censure Objections against Excommunication answered The fundamental Rights of the Church continue after its being incorporated into the civil State The Magistrates Power as to Excommunication cleared IT is a matter of daily observation and experience in the World how hard it is to keep the eyes of the understanding clear in its judgement of things when it is too far engaged in the dust of Controversie It being so very difficult to well manage an impetuous pursuit after any Opinion nothing being more common than to see men out-run their mark and through the force of their speed to be carried as far beyond it as others in their Opinion fall short of it There is certainly a kind of ebriety of the mind as well as of the body which makes it so unstable and pendulous that it oft times reels from one extream unto the quite contrary This as it is obvious in most eager controvertists of all Ages so especially in such who have discovered the â—alsity of an opinion they were once confident of which they think they can never after run far enough from So that while they start at an apparition they so much dread they run into those untroden paths wherein they lose both themselves and the Truth they sought for Thus we find it to be in the present controversie for many out of their just zeal against the extravagancies of those who scrued up Church-Power to so high a peg that it was thought to make perpetual discord with the Common wealth could never think themselves free from so great an inconvenience till they had melted down all Spiritual Power into the civil State and dissolved the Church into the Common-wealth But that the World way see I have not been more forward to assert the just power of the Magistrate in Ecclesiasticals as well as Civils than to defend the Fundamental Rights of the Church I have taken this opportunity more fully to explain and vindicate that part of the churches-Churches-Power which lies in reference to Offenders It being the main thing struck at by those who are the followers of that noted Physician who handled the Church so ill as to deprive her of her expulsive faculty of Noxious humours and so left her under a Miserere meî I shall therefore endeavour to give the Church her due as well as Caesar his by making good this following Principle or Hypothesis upon which the whole hinge of this Controversie turns viz. That the power of inflicting censure upon Offenders in a Christian Church is a fundamental Right resuâ—â—â—â—g from the constitution of the Church as a Society by Jesus Christ and that the seat of this Power is in those Officers of the Church who have derived their power Originally from the Founder of this Society and act by vertue of the Laws of it For the clear stating of this Controversie it will be necessary to explain what that Power is which I attribute to the Church and in what notion the Church is to be considered as it exerciseth this Power First concerning the proper notion of Power by it I cannot see any thing else to be understood than a right of governing or ordering things which belong to a Society And so Power implies onely a moral faculty in the person enjoying it to take care ne quid civitas detrimenti capiat whereby it is evident that every well constituted Society must suppose a Power within its self of ordering things belonging to its welfare or else it were impossible either the being or the rights and priviledges of a Society could be long preserved Power then in its general and abstracted notion doth not necessarily import either meer Authority or proper Coaction for these to any impartial judgement will appear to be rather the several modes whereby power is exercised than any proper ingredients of the specifick Nature of it which in general imports no more then a right to govern a constituted Society but how that right shall be exercised must be resolved not from the notion of Power but from the nature and constitution of that particular Society in which it is lodged and inherent It appears then from hence to be a great mistake and abuse of well-natured Readers when all Power is necessarily restrained either to that which is properly Coâ—rcive or to that which is meerly Arbitrary and onely from consent The Original of which mistake is the stating the Notion of Power from the use of the Word either in ancient Roman Authours or else in the Civil Laws both which are freely acknowledged to be strangeâ— to the exercise of any other Power than that which iâ— meerly authoritative and perswasive or that which is Coactive and Penal The ground of which is because they were ignorant of any other way of conveyance of power besides external force and Arbitrary consent the one in those called Legal Societies or Civitates the other Collegia and Hetaeriae But to as that do acknowledge that God hath a right of commanding men to what Duty he please himself and appointing a Society upon what terms best please him and giving a Power to particular persons to govern that Society in what way shall tend most to advance the Honour of such a Society may easily be made appear that there is a kind of Power neither properly
Coactive nor meerly Arbitrary viz. such a one as immediately results from Divine Institution and doth suppose consent to submit to it as a necessary Duty in all the members of this Society This Power it is evident is not meerly Arbitrary either in the Governours or Members for the Governours derive their Power or right of Governing from the institution of Christ and are to be regulated by his Laws in the execution of it and the Members though their consent be necessarily supposed yet that consent is a Duty in them and that duty doth imply their submission to the Rulers of this Society neither can this power be called Coactive in the â—ense it is commonly taken for coactive power and external force are necessary correlates to each other but we suppose no such thing as a power of outward force to be given to the Church as such for that properly belongs to a Common-wealth But the power which I suppose to be lodged in the Church is such a power as depends upon a Law of a Superiour giving right to Govern to particular persons over such a Society and making it the Duty of all Members of it to submit unto it upon no other penalties then the exclusion of them from the priviledges which that Society enjoyes So that supposing such a Society as the Church is to be of Divine Institution and that Christ hath appointed Officers to rule it it necessarily follows that those Officerâ— must derive 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 â—â—ht of understanding the right notion of power in the sense here â—â—â— down is certainly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Erastianism 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 doubtfull places of Scripture then on the very Naturâ— and Constitution of the Christian Church as a Society instituted by Iesus 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 be 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 Church Power 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 freedom 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 freedom already cannot reassume it when he please for then he is under an Obligation to stand to the Covenants made at his entrance and consâ—quently his undergoing what shall be laid upon him by the Lawes of this Society must be supposed to be voluntary as depending upon his consent at first entrance which in all Societies must be 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 he out of some private design would be 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 we are to consider the Church which is made the subject of this Power As to which we are to consider This Power either as to its right or in actu primo or as to its exercise or in actu secundo Now if we 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 we consider this Power in the exercise of it then it being impossible that the Universall 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 sâ—me 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 speciall 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 settled by the Founder of the Church it 's self This Society of the Church may be 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 be absolutely necessary for the subsistence of this Christian Society to be 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 onely when not upheld but when most violently opposed by the Civil Power If so then it 's being united with the Civil State is onely accidental as to the constitution a Church and if this be onely accidental then it must be supposed furnished with every thing requisite to it 's well ordering accidentally to
any such Union and abstractly from it For can we imagine our Blâ—ssed 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 he left every thing tending thereto meerly to Prudence and the Arbitrary constitutions of the persons joyning together in this Society Did our Saviour take care there should be a Society and not provide for means to uphold it Nay it is evident he not onely 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 we will suppose that either there can be no Offenders in a Christian Church or that those Offenders do not vâ—olate the Laws of the Society or there be 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 be 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 Subjâ—ct 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 be 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 be 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 be a substance really distinct from the body to which it is united although we are often fain to go the other way to work and to prove possibility of separation from other Arguments evincing the Soul to be a distinct substance but the reason of that is for want of evidence as to the state of separate Souls and theiâ— visible existence which is repugnant to the immateriality of their natures But now as to the matter in hand we have all evidence desirable for we are not put to prove possibility of separation meerly from the different constitution of the thingâ— united but we have evidence to Sense of it that the Church 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 Hippocrates his Twins they laugh and weep together they are shrewdly put to it how to fancy the Soul to be any thing else than 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 be 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 be 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 speâ—ks them to be a society is the mutual consent of the several partyes joyning together whereby they make themselves to bee one Body and to have one Common Interest So Cicero de Repub. defines Populus to bee coe'us multitudinis juris consensu 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 mankind 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 enactiâ—g the beeing of Civil Societies because Nature its 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 â—ssociating for the preserving of such may be a Philosophical Society but a Christian it cannot be And they that would make a Christian Church to be nothing else but a Society of Essens or an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Pythagoreans 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 be driven to for it is evident that in matters meerly voluntary and depending
themselves members of it Whereas were the Church and Commonwealth really and formally the same all obligation to Church society would arise meerly from the Legislative Power of the Common wealth But now there being a Divine Law binding in conscience whose obligation cannot bee superseded by any Humane Law it is plain and evident where are such vastly different obligations there are different Powers and in this sense I know no incongruity in admitting imperium in imperio if by it wee understand no external coactive power but an internal power laying obligation on conscience distinct from the power lodged in a Commonwealth considered as such An outward coactive power was alwayes disowned by Christ but certainly not an internal Power over conscience to oblige all his Disciples to what Duties hee thought fit Secondly I argue from those Officers whose rights to govern this Society are founded on that Charter whereby the Society it self subsists Now I would willingly know why when our Saviour disowned all outward power in the World yet hee should constitute a Society and appoint Officers in it did hee not intend a peculiar distinct Society from the other Societies of the world And therefore the argument frequently used against Church-power because it hath no outward force with it by the constitution of Christ is a strong argument to me of the peculiarity of a Christian society from a Commonwealth because Christ so instituted it as not to have it ruled at first by any outward force or power When Christ saith his Kingdome was not of this world he implies that he had a Society that was governed by his Laws in the world yet distinct from all mundane Societies had not our Saviour intended his Church to have been a peculiar Society distinct from a Commonwealth it is hard to conceive why our Saviour should interdict the Apostles the use of a civil coactive power Or why instead of sending abroad Apostles to preach the Gospel hee did not employ the Governours of Commonwealths to have inforced Christianity by Laws and temporal edicts and the several Magistrates to have impowred several persons under them to preach the Gospel in their several Territories And can any thing bee more plain by our Saviours taking a contrary course than that hee intended a Church society to bee distinct from civil and the power belonging to it as well as the Officers to bee of a different nature from that which is settled in a Commonwealth I here suppose that Christ hath by a positive Law established the Government of his Church upon Officers of his own appointment which I have largely prove â—â—sewhere and therefore suppose it now Thirdly I arguâ—â—â—om the peculiar rights belonging to these Societies For if every one born in the Commonwealth have not thereby a right to the priviledges of the Church nor every one by being of the Church any right to the benefits of the Commonwealth it must necessarily follow that these are distinct from one another If any one by being of the Common-wealth hath right to Church-priviledges then every one born in a Common-wealth may challenge a right to the Lords Supper without Baptism or open professing Christianity which I cannot think any will be very ready to grant Now there being by Divine appointment the several rights of Baptism and the Lords Supper as peculiar badges of the Church as a visible Society it is evident Christ did intend it a Society distinct from the Common wealth Fourthly I argue from the different ends of these societies A Common-wealth is constituted for civil ends and the Church for spiritual for ends are to be judged by the primary constitution but now it is plain the end of civil society is for preservation of mens rights as men therefore Magistracy is called by St. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this Christian society doth not respect men under the connotation of men but as Christians The answer given to this is very short and insufficient when it is said that every man in a Commonwealth is to act upon spiritual accounts and ends For there is a great deal of difference between Christianities having an influence upon mens actings in a Commonwealth and making a society the same with a Commonwealth To argue therefore from one to another is a shortness of discourse I cannot but wonder at unless it could be proved that Christianity aymed at nothing else but regulating men in the affairs of a Commonwealth which is a task I suppose will not be undertaken Lastly I argue from the peculiar offences against this society which are or â—ay bee distinct from those against a Commonwealth I deny not but most times they are the same but frequently they differ and when they are the same yet the consideration of them is different in the Church and Common wealth for which I shall suppose the six arguments produced in the last chapter of the first part to stand good which will strongly hold to exâ—â—â—â—unication in the Christian Church though there produce 〈…〉 ly for the Iewish I would fain know what is to bee done in many offences known to bee against the Laws of Christ and which tend to the dishonour of the Christian society which the civil and Municipal Laws either do not or may not take cognizance of Thus much may serve as I think to make evident that the Church in its own nature is a peculiar society distinct from a Commonwealth which was the first proposition to bee proved The second is That the power of the Church over it's members in case of offences doth not arise meerly from confederation and consent though it doth suppose it This Church power may be considered two wayes Either first as it implyes the right in some of inflicting censures Or secondly as it implyes in others the duty of submitting to censures inflicted now as to both these I shall prove that their original is higher than meer confederation 1. As to the right of inflicting censures on these accounts First What ever society doth subsist by vertue of a divine constitution doth by vertue thereof derive all power for it's preservation in peace unity and purity but it is plain that a power of censuring offenders is necessary for the Churches preservation in peace and purity and it is already proved that the Church hath its Charter from Christ and therefore from him it hath a power to inflict punishments on Offenders suitable to the Nature of the Society they are of I am very prone to think that the ground of all the mistakes on this subject have risen from hence that some imprudently enough have fixt the original of this Power on some ambiguous places of Scripture which may and it may bee ought to bee taken in a different sense and their adversaries finding those places weak and insufficient proofs of such a power have from thence rejected any such kind of power at all But certainly if wee should reject every truth that is weakly
Holy Ghost hath made them Over-seers 3. I argue that church-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 generall 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 denied 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 arise from meer consent is that Deed of Gift whereby our Blessed Saviour did confer the Power of the Keyes on the Apostle Peter as the representative in that action of the whole Colledge of the Apostles and Governours of the Church of which power all the Apostles were actually infeoffed John 20. 23. By which Power of the Keyes is certainly meant some Administration in the Church which doth respect it as a visible Society in which Sense the Church is so frequently called as in that place the Kingdome of Heaven and in all probability the Administration intended here by the Power of the Keyes is that we are now discoursing of viz. the Power of Admission into the Church of Christ in order to the pardon of the sins of all penitent Believers and the shutting out of such who were manifestly unworthy of so holy a communion So that the power of the Keyes doâ—h not primarily respect exclusion out of the Church and receiving into it again upon Absolution but it chiefly respects the power of Admission into the Church though by way of connotation and Analogy of Reason it will carry the other along with it For if the Apostles as Governours of the Church were invested with a power of judging of mens fitness for Admission into the Church as members of it it stands to the highest Reason that they should have thereby likewise a power conveyed to them of excluding such as are unworthy after their Admission to maintain communion with the Church So that this interprâ—tation of the Power of the Keyes is far from invalidating the Power of the Church as to its censuring Offenders all that it pretends to is onely giving a more natural and genuine Sense of the Power of the Keyes which will appear so to be if we consider these things 1. That this Power was given to Saint Peter before any Christian Church was actually formed which as I have elsewhere made manifest was not done till after Christs Resurrection when Christ had given the Aposâ—les their commission to go to Preach and baptize c. Matth. 28. 19. Is it not therefore farr more rational that the Power of the Keyes here given should respect the founding of a Church and admission into it than ejection out of it before it was in being and receiving into it again And this we find likewise remarkably fulfilled in the Person of the Apostle Peter who opened the door of admission into the Christian Church both to Iewes and Gentiles To the Iewes by his Sermon at Pentecost when about 3000. Souls were brought into the Church of Christ. To the Gentiles as is most evident in the story of Corneliuâ— Acts 10. 28. who was the first-fruits of the Gentiles So that if we should yield so far to the great Inhancers of Saint Petesâ— Power that something was intended peculiar to his person in the Keyes given him by our Saviour we hereby see how rationally it may be understood without the least advantage to the extravagant pretensions of Saint Peters pretended Successours 2. The pardon of sin in Scripture is most annexed to Baptism and Admission into the Church and thence it seems evident that the loosing of sin should be by admitting into the Church by Baptism in the same Sense by which Baptism is said to save us and it is called the washing of Regeneration respecting the Spiritual advantages which come by Admission into the Church of Christ and so they are said to have their sins bound upon them who continue refractory in their sins aâ— Simon Magus is said to be in the bond of iniquity 3. The Metaphor of the Keyes refers most to Admission into the House and excluding out of it rather than ejecting any out of it and re-admitting them Thus when Eliakim is said to have the Keyes of the House of David it was in regard of his Power to open and shut upon whom he pleased And thus Cyprian as our learned Mr. Thorndike observes understands the power of binding and loosing in this sense in his Epistle to Iubaianus where speaking of the Remission of sins in Baptism he brings these very words of our Saviour to Peter as the evidence of it That what he should loose on Earth should be loosed in Heaven and concludes with this Sentence Unde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesiâ praeposit is in Evangeliâ—â lege ac Dominicâ ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare remissam peccatorum dare for is autem nec ligari aliquid posse nec solvi ubi non sit qui ligare possit aut solvere That which I now infer from this Discourse is that the power of the Church doâ—h not arise from meer consent and confederation both because this power doth respect those who have not actually consented to it and because it is settled upon the Governours of the Church by Divine Institution Thus it appears that the right of inflicting censures doth not result meerly â—â—â— confoederatd Disciplind which was the thing to be proved The lâ—ke evidence may be given for the duty of submitting to penalties or Church-censures in the members of the Church which that it ariseth not from meer consent of parties will appear on these accounts 1. Every person who enters this Society is bound to consent before he doth it because of the Obligation lying upon Conscience to an open profâ—ssion of Christianity presently upon conviction of the
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-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
Ordinances which suppose admission into the Church by Baptism do thereby suppose an all-sufficient Sacrifice offered for the expiation of sin and consequently â—he subsequent priviledges do not immediately Relate to the obtaining of that but a gratefull commemoration of the Deatâ— of Christ and a celebration of the infinite mercy and goodness of God in the way of Redemption found out by the death of his Son And therefore it stands to great reason that such Persons who by their profane and unworthy lives dishonour so Holy a profession should not be owned to be as good and sound Members of the Society â—ounded on so Sacred a Foundation as the most Christian and Religious Persons To this I know nothing can be objected but that first The Passover was commemorative among the Iews and Secondly That the priviledges of that people were then very great above other people and therefore if God had intended any such thing as Excommunication among his peoplè it would have been in use then To these I answer 1. I grant the Passeover was commemorative as to the occasion of its Institution but then it was withal Typical and annunciative of that Lamb of God who was to take away the sins of the world and therefore no person who desired expiation of sins was to bee debarred from it but the Lords-supper under the Gospel hath nothing in it propitiatory but is intended as a Feast upon a Sacrifice and a Federal Rite as hath been fully cleared by a very learned person in his discourse about the true notion of the Lords Supper 2. I grant the Iews 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 inferr that whatever exclusion was among the people of the Iews from their society will far better hold as an argument for Excommunication under the Christian Church than 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 proâ—ligated Argument and so the Exclusion out of the Camp of Israel and the Cerith among the Iews whatever we understand by it may à pari hold to be 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 Civil 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 bee of Divine Institution if I prove it to bee fundamentally and intrinsecally resident in the Society its self For whatever doth immediately result from the Society its 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 bee no true member of the Society hee 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 it 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 bee performed by every member of which the Society is Iudge there is a power in the Rulers of that Society to debar 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 reference 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 iâ— 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 upon the performance of some Conditions of which the Governours of it are the competent Iudges 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 pre-requisite of which the Pastors are Iudges 2. Because the priviledges of this Society do require a separation from other Societies in the world and call 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 bee 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. Wee 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 â—ix 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 w 〈…〉 dmit 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 an 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 4. 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 oâ— 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 hee 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 bee 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 mee at all material whether they did immediately relate to Civil or Sacred converse concerning which there is so much dispute for in which soever we place it if Church-officers have a power to pronounce such a person to be withdrawn from they have a power of excommunication so we consider this penalty as inflicted on the person in his relation to the Society as a Christian and wiâ—hall how neerly conjoyned their civil and spiritual eating were together 1 Corinth 11. 20 21. and how strongly the argument will hold from Civil to Sacred viz. à remotione unius ad remotionem alterius not from any fancied pollution in Sacris from the company of wicked men but from the dishonour reflecting on the Society from such unworthy persons parâ—aking of the hâ—ghest priviledges of it Thus from these three Hypotheses this Corollary follows that where any persons in a Church do by their open and contumacious offences declare to the world that they are far from being the persons they were supposed to be in their admission into the Church there is a power resident in the Pastors of the Church to debar such persons from the priviledges of it and consequently from Communion in the Lords Supper 1. Because this expresseth the nearest union and closest confederation as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Grecians Commonwealths did 2. Because this hath been alwayes looked on with greatest veneration in the Church of God and therefore it is least of all fit those persons should be admitted to the highest priviledges of the Church which are unworthy of the lowest of them There remain only some few Objections which are levelled against this opinion concerning the power of excommunication which from the Question being thus stated and proved will be soon removed The first is that this excommunication is an outward punishment and therefore belongs not to Church officers but to the Magistrate 2. Because it neither is nor ever was in the power of any Church officer to debar any offending member from publick worship because any Heathens may come to it 3. It cannot lye as to exclusion from the Lords Supper because Christ is offered as spiritual food as well in the Word Preached as in the Sacrament To these I answer 1. I do not well understand what the Objectors mean by an outward punishment for there can be no punishment belonging to a visible Society such as the Church is here considered to be but it must be visible i. e. outward or a thing to be taken notice of in the World and in this sense I deny that all visible punishment belongs only to the Magistrate but if by outward be meanâ— forcible punishment then I grant that all coactive power belongs to the Magistrate but I deny that excommunication formally considered is a forcible punishment 1. Because every person at his entrance into this Society is supposed to declare his submission to the rules of the Society and therefore whatever he after undergoes by way of penalty in this Society doth depend upon that consent 2. A person stands excommunicate legally and de jure who is declared authoritatively to be no member of the Society though he may be present at the acts of it as a defranchised person may be at those of a Corporation 3. A person falling into those offences which merit excommunication is supposed in so doing voluntarily to renounce his interest in those priviledges the enjoyment of which doth depend upon abstaining from those offences which he wilfully falls into especially if contumacy be joyned with them a 〈…〉 is before excommunication for then nothing is done forcibly towards him for he first relinquisheth his right before the Church-Governor declares him excluded the Society So that the offender doth meritoriously excommunicate himself the Pastor doth it formally by declaring that he hath made himself no member by his offences and contumacy joyned with them To the second I answer That I do not place the formality of excommunication in exclusion from hearing the Word but in debarring the person from hearing tanquam pars Ecclesiae as a member of the Church and so his hearing may be well joyned with that of Heathens and Infidels and not of members of the Church To the third I answer That exclusion from the Lords Supper is not on the accounts mentioned in the Objection but because it is one of the chiefest priviledges of the Church as it is a visible Society Having thus cleared and asserted the power of Excommunication in a Christian church there remains only one enquiry more which is Whether this power doth remain formally in the Church after its being incorporated into the Common wealth or else doth it then escheate wholly into the Civil Power The resolution of which question mainly depends on another spoken to already viz. Whether this power was only a kind of Widows estate which belonged to it only during its separation from the Civil Power or was the Church absolutely infeoffed of it as its perpetual Right belonging to it in all conditions whatsoever it should be in Now that must appear by the Tenure of it and the grounds on which it was conveyed which having been proved already to be perpetual and universal it from thence appears that no accession to the Church can invalidate its former title But then as in case of marriage the right of disposal and well management of the estate coming by the wife belongs to the husband so after the Church is married into the Common-wealth the
right of supream management of this power in an external way doth fall into the Magistrates hands Which may consist in these following things 1. A right of prescribing Laws for the due management of Church-censures 2. A right of bounding the manner of proceeding in câ—â—â—â—â—res that in a seâ—â—led Christian-state matters of so great weight bee not left to the arbitrary pleasure of any Church-Officers nor such censures inflicted but upon an evident conviction of such great offences which tend to the dishonour of the Christian-church and that in order to the amendment of the offenders life 3. The right of adding temporal and civil sanctions to Church-censures and so enforcing the spiritual weapons of the Church with the more keen and sharp ones of the Civil State Thus I assert the force and efficacy of all Church censures in foro humano to flow from the Civil power and that there is no proper effect following any of them as to Civil Rights but from the Magistrates sanction 4 To the Magistrate belongs the right of appeals in case of unjust censures not that the Magistrate can repeal a just censure in the Church as to its spiritual effectâ— but he may suspend the temporal effect of it in which case it is the duty of Pastors to discharge their office and acquiesce But this power of the Magistrate in the supream ordering of Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Causes I have fully asserted and cleared already From which it follows That as to any outward effects of the power of excommunication the person of the Supream Magistrate must be exempted both because the force of these censures doth flow from him in a Christian State and that there otherwise would be a progress in infinitum to know whether the censure of the Magistrate were just or no. I conclude then that though the Magistrate hath the main care of ordering things in the Church yet the Magistrates power in the Church being cumulative and not privative the Church and her Officers retain the fundamental right of inflicting censures on offenders Which was the thing to be proved Dedit Deus his quoque Finem Books sold by Henry Mortlocke at the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard near the little North door A Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Arch bishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer by T. C. By Edward Stilling fleet Origines Sacrae or A Rational account of the grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained by the same Author in 4o. Bainâ— upon the Ephesians Trapp on the Proverbs Ecclesiastes Canticles with the Major Prophets being his third Volume of Annotations on the whole Bible Greenhill upon Ezekiel Hall upon Anos Brooks on the Necessity Excellency Rarity and Beauty of Holiness Knowledge and Practice or A plain Discourse of the Chief things necessary to be Known Believed and Practised in order to Salvation by Samuel Cradock Scheciâ—ah or A Demonstration of the Divine Presence in Places of Religious Worship By Iohn Stillingfleet A Treatise of Divine Meditation by Iohn Ball published by Mr. Simeon Ash. The Morall Philosophy of the Stoicks turned out of French into English by Charles Cotton Esq An Improvement of the Sea upon the 9 Nauâ—icall Verses of the 107. Psalm Wherein among other things you have A full and delightfull Description of all those many various and multitudinous Objects which are beheld through the Lords Creation both on Sea in Sea and on Land viz. All sorts and kinds of Fish Fowl and Beasts whether Wild or Tâ—me all sorts of Trees and Fruits all sorts of People Cities Towns and Countreys by Daniel Pell Baxters Call c. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 19. § 1. §. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist Ethic l. 5. c. 6 Grot. de jure bâ—lli pac lib. 1. cap. 1. Sect. 4. Lâ—ss de justit jure l. 2. c. 2. Dub. 1. Etymol Philol. voc jus Etymol l. 5. cap. 3. Ethic. l. 5. cap. 2. Mat. 15 9. Isa. 29. 11. Tertull. de Orat. cap. 12 v. Herald digress lib. 2. cap. 2. in Tertull. Alex. Alensis part 3. q. 27. m. 3. §. 3. Rom. 4. 8. §. 4. Ethic. l. 5. cap. 10. V. Selden de jure Nat. apud Ebâ—ae lib. 1. c. 7 8. Mol. de just Iur. p. 1 disp 3. Alphons de leg pur l. 2. c. 14. §. 5. Exercit. Eccles. advers Baâ— exer 16. sect 43. Sâ—id de jure Nat. apud Ebr. l. 1. cap. 10. Colloq â—um Tryph. Judâ—o Origin lib. 16. cap. 10. V. Gâ—ot in Luc. 1. 6. Maimon de fundam legis cap. 9. sect 1. Abarb. de Capit. fidei cap. 8. p. 29. Ed. Vorstii Gal. 3. 24. §. 6. Gen. 22. Deut. 5. 15 Act 15. 29. Oraâ— â—â—â—â— Caeâ—iu §. 7. Heb. 6. 1â— Catech. Racov cap. 4. Acts 3. 38. § 8â— Matth. 11. 21. 1 John 2. 6. 1 Peâ— 2â— 22. Gen. 2. 2. Matth. 16. 19. 18. 18. § 1. Hypoth 1. Grot. de jure bellâ— c. lib 1. câ—p 1. s. 10. Prâ—sat in Cod. Canon Eccl. Aâ—ric p. 14. Less de just jure l. 2. c. 19. dâ—b 3. n. 12. Suarez de leg lib. 2 cap. 9. sect 6. Orig. lib. 3. C. Celsum p. 154. ed. Coâ— â— C. Celsum l. 5. p. 147. § 2. Covarr c. 10. de tesiâ—mâ—n 11â— Hobs de civ cap. 1 s. 11. Ann. §. 3. Prop. 3. Paulus l. 1. D. de â—urtis Vâ—pian lib. Post. D. de verb sig V. Grot. de jure belli c. lib. 2. cap. 4 sect 8. §. 4. Judg. 6. 18 1 Sam. 7. 1 4. 16. 9. 10. 3. 2 Sam. 15. 18 c. Exerciâ— in Gen. 42. Isa. 66. 3. Gen. 4 3 4. Heb. 1â— 4. §. 5. Isa. 49. 23. Euseb. vit Constant. l. 4. c. 24. De Imp. sum Potest cap. 2. l. 1. In Iud. c. 19. Panstrat Cath. Tom. 2. l 15. cap. 6. In loc To. 3. Ed. Aeâ—on p. 189. Ed. 1607. De Episcop Const. Magn. § 7. Aristot. Ethic. lib. 6. c. 6. Matth. 28. 18. Heb. 13. 17. V. Peâ—â— Maâ—tyr in 1 Sam. 14. Whitaker â— cont 4. q. 7. Cameron de Eccles. p. 386. To. 1. op Lib. 2. c. Parmen â—a 1 Sam. 8. Loc. Com. Class 4. c. 5â— sect 11. Papin l. 41 D. de poenis Hotâ—oman Com. v. juris v sanct Cicero ad Arâ—ic l. 3. ep 23. §. 8. Institut l. 4. cap. 17. s. 43. cap. 15. s. 19. Nature of Episc. chap. 5. V. Forbes Iren. lib. 1. cap. 13. Rom 14. 23. §. 9. Grat. de jure belli pacis lib. 2. cap 13. sect 7. §. 10. Gal. 5. 1. D. Sanderson de oblig cons. prael 6. s. 5. Gal. 5. 2. Acts 16. 3. Gal. 4. 9 10 11. Coloss. 2. 16 18 19. Rom. 14. 3 6 21. 1 Cor. 10. 24. Controv. 4. quaest 7. cap. 2. In 1 Sam. 14. Aug. eâ— 118. ad Ianuar. §. 11. Gal. 5. 2.