Holy Ghost hath made them Over-seers 3. I argue that Church-Power ariseth not meerly from consent because the Church may exercise her Power on such who have not actually confederated with her which is in admitting members into the Church For if the Church-Officers have power to judge whether persons are fit to be admitted they have power to exclude from admission such whom they judge unfit and so their power is exercised on those who are not confederated To this it may be answered That the consent to be judged gives the Church power over the person suing for admission I grant it doth as to that particular person but the Right in 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
binds necessarily but that rule which makes it a duty to follow it for examples in indifferent things do not bind without a Law making it to be a duty And so it evidently appears that all obligatory force is taken off from the examples themselves and resolved into one of the two former the morall nature of the action or a positive Law And therefore those who plead the obligatory nature of Scripture-examples must either produce the morall nature of these examples or else a rule binding us to follow those examples Especially when these examples are brought to found a New positive Law obliging all Christians necessarily to the end of the world Concerning the binding nature of Apostolicall practice I shall discourse largely afterwards The next thing pleaded for a Divine Right is by Divine Acts. As to this â—t is again evident that all Divine Acts do not constitute such a Right therefore there must be something expressed in those Acts when such a Divine Right follows them whence we may infallibly gather it was Gods intention they should perpetually oblige as is plain in the cases instanced in the most for this purpose as Gods resting on the seventh day making the Sabbath perpetual For it was not Gods resting that made it the Sabbath for that is only expressed as the occasion of its institution but it was Gods sanctifying the day that is by a Law setting it apart for his own service which made it a duty And so Christs resurrection was not it which made the Lords day a Sabbath of Divine Right but Christs resurrection was the occasion of the Apostles altering only a circumstantiall part of a morall duty already which being done upon so great reasons and by persons indued with an insallible spirit thereby it becomes our duty to observe that morall command in this limitation of time But here it is further necessary to distinguish between acts meerly positive and acts donative or legall The former conâ—er no right at all but the latter do not barely as acts but as legall acts that is by some declaration that those acts do conserr right And so it is in all donations and therefore in Law the bare delivery of a thing to another doth not give a legall title to it without express transferring of dominion and propriety with it Thus in Christs delivering the Keys to Peter and therest of the Apostles by that act I grant the Apostles had the power of the Keyes by Divine Right but then it was not any bare act of Christ which did it but it was only the declaration of Christs will conferring that authority upon them Again we must distinguish between a right conferâ—'d by a donative act and the unalterable nature of that Right for it is plain there may be a Right personall as well as successive derivative and perpetuall And therefore it is not enough to prove that a Right was given by any act of Christ unless it be made appear it was Christs intention that Right should be perpetuall if it oblige still For otherwise the extent of the Apostolical Commission the power of working miracles as well as the power of the Keyes whether by it we mean a power declarative of duty or a power authoritative and penall must continue still if a difference be not made between these two and some rule sound out to know when the Right conferr'd by Divine Acts is personall when successive Which rule thus found out must make the Right unalterable and so concerning us and not the bare donative act of Christ For it is evident they were all equally conferr'd upon the Apostles by an act of Christ and if some continue still and others do not then the bare act of Christ doth not make an unalterable Divine Right And so though it be proved that the Apostles had superiority of order and jurisdiction over the Pastors of the Church by an act of Christ yet it must further be proved that it was Christs intention that superiority should continue in their successors or it makes nothing to the purpose But this argument I confess I see not how those who make a necessary Divine Right to follow upon the acts of Christ can possibly avoid the force of The last thing pleaded for Divine Right is Divine approbation but this least of all constitutes a Divine Right For if the actions be extraordinary Gods approbation of them as such cannot make them an ordinary duty In all other actions which are good and therefore only commendable they must be so either because done in conformity to Gods revealed Will or to the nature of things good in themselves In the one it is the positive Law of God in the other the Law of Nature which made the action good and so approved by God and on that account we are bound to do it For God will certainly approve of nothing but what is done according to his Will revealed or natural which Will and Law of his is that which makes any thing to be of Divine Right i. e. perpetually binding as to the observation of it But for acts of meerly positive nature which we read Gods approbation of in Scripture by vertue of which approbation those actions do oblige us in this case I say it is not Gods meer approbation that makes the obligation but as that approbation so recorded in Scripture is a sufficient testimony and declaration of Gods intention to oblige men And so it comes to be a positive Law which is nothing else but a sufficient declaration of the Legislators will and intention to bind in particular actions and cases Thus now we have cleared whereon a necessary and unalterable Divine Right must be founded either upon the Law of Nature or some positive Law of God sufficiently declared to be perpetually binding 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 Laws in things immediately flowing from it 2. Things agreeable to the Law of Nature may be lawfully practised in the Church of God where there is no prohibition by positive Laws inlarged into 5 subservient Propositions 3. Divine positive Laws concerning 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 naturall and positive Laws of God may be lawfully determined by the supream authority in the Church of God 5. What is thâ—â— determined by lawfull authority doth bind the consciences of men subject to that authority to obedience to those determinations 6. Things thus determined by lawfull authority are not thereby made unalterable but may be revoked limited and changed by the same authority HAving shewed what a Divine Right is and whereon it is founded our next great inquiry will be How far Church-Government is founded upon Divine Right taken either of these two wayes
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-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
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-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