So Acts XV. 35. Paul and Barnabas continued at Antiochia Teaching that is the Church and preaching the Gospell to wit to Unbeleevers And with the same difference it is said of our Lord in the Gospels Mat. IV. 23. IX 35. XI 1. that he Taught to wit as a Prophet who had always the Privilege of Teaching in the Synagogues as his Disciples also by the same Title and preached the Gospel as sent by God for that extraordinary purpose But though the Apostles being sent to preach the Gospel were by consequence to Teach the Church yet is it never said that Presbyters being appointed to Teach the Church were also called to Preach the Gospel For their Relation being to Churches as much perswaded of the truth of Christianity as themselves they needed no such qualities as might make evidence that they were sent immediately from God to convince the world of the truth of it But onely such understanding in it above the people of their respective Churches as might inable them to conduct the People thereof in it And therefore what hindreth their Inferiours also to be imploied in Teaching the Church which now we call Preaching For if our Lord and his Apostles imploied their respective Ministers in Teaching those whom they could not attend upon themselves and in all Churches after the example of the first at Jerusalem Deacons or Ministers were Ordained to wait upon the Bishops and Presbyters of the same in the execution of their Office is it not the same thing for Bishops and Presbyters to imploy their Deacons in Preaching to those of their own Church as it is for the Apostles at Jerusalem to imploy S. Steven and S. Philip S. Paul Timothy or Erastus or Tychieus or Epaphroditus in Preaching to Unbeleevers for there remains as much difference in their Charges as in their Chiefs from whom they are imploied Besides who is able to prove by the Scriptures that those who are called Doctors 1 Cor. XII 28. Eph. IV. 12. were all of them men Ordained by Imposition of Hands as Presbyters Between whom and Evangelists there seems to be the same difference as between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the one part and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other this relating to Assemblies of Christians and importing the instructing of them in the right understanding of that Christianity which they already beleeve and professe that to those who are not Christians as undertaking to reduce them to Christianity which supposeth Commission and abilities answerable Further the supposed S. Ambrose upon Eph. IV. 12. comparing Evangelists with Deacons says that Deacons also taught without a Chair The custome of the Church then admitting them to Preach upon occasions but not sitting as the Bishop and Presbyters did Because they did not sit but stand in the Church as the Angels in the Revelation about the Presbyters Chairs as attending upon their commands And what is this but the same which you finde in use in the Synagogue Acts XIII 14. where Paul stands up to Preach whereas our Lord sits down like a Doctor when he goes to Preach in the Synagogue Luc. IV. 20 by which it appears that it was of custome drawn from the Synagogue for Deacons to Preach in the Church And indeed in the last place the practice of the Synagogue together with the reason of it and the Primitive practice of the Church agreeable to the same seems to make as full proof as a reasonable man can desire in a matter of this nature For in the Synagogue it is so manifest that Jurisdiction is above Doctrine and the Power of Governing above the Office of Teaching that the Prophets themselves who were Doctors of the Law immediately sent by God were subject to the Power and Jurisdiction of the Consistory setled by the Law Deut. XVII 8 12. So that though by the Law of Deut. XVIII 18. the whole Synagogue are subject to Gods curse if they obey not the Prophet by whom God speaks yet because it was possible that false Prophets might pretend to be sent from God therefore in the next words of the Law a mark is given to discern who was sent by God and who was not and he that pretended to be sent by God and was not being tried by this mark became liable to capitall punishment by the Law of Deut. XVII 8 12. for teaching contrary to that which the Consistory taught So that by this Law the Consistory hath Power of life and death even over Prophets whom they judged to teach things destructive to the Law And by this Power not usurped but abused our Lord also suffered under Pilate according to that which he had said in respect of this Power It is unpossible that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem Luc. XIII 33. that is not condemned by the Consistory The Successors of the Prophets after the Spirit of Prophesie ceased that is their Scribes and Wise men and Doctors received the Privilege of Teaching the Law from their Masters For whosoever had learned in the School of a Doctor till forty years of age was thenceforth counted a Doctor as the Talmud Doctors determine and thereby privileged to decide matters of Conscience in the Law provided that he did it not while his Master lived and where he was R. Solomon upon the Title Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Title of Learning the Law cap. V. But if I mistake not in our Lords time they were counted so at thirty years of age For Irenaeus II. 39. says that our Lord began to Preach at the same age at which men were counted Doctors manifestly referring to this Rule of the Synagogue And this is the Reason which the Church afterwards followed in all those Canons by which it is forbidden that any man be made Presbyter being lesse then thirty years of age because at those years our Lord and S. John Baptist began to Preach though by an extraordinary Commission yet according to the custome of the Synagogue in their time saith Irenaeus But by Imposition of Hands they were further qualified to sit and Judge in their Consistories Whereby we see how Jurisdiction includes Doctrine but is not included in it So that the Metaphoricall Jurisdiction of the Church by the power of the Keys belonging as all sides agree to Presbyters it is agreeable to the perpetuall custome of Gods people that the Office of Teaching be communicable to their inferiours But with such dependence upon the Bishop and Presbyters as may be correspondent to the Rule of the Synagogue In which he that taught any thing as of Gods Law contrary to the Consistory and persisted in it was liable to capitall punishment by the Law so often quoted of Deut. XVII 8 Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Title of Rebels cap. III. And therefore he that Teaches contrary to the Church it behoveth that he be liable to Excommunication from it And upon these terms I suppose those of the Congregations will give
out of the Scriptures it will be easie to drive a worse Trade of Preaching then ever Priests did of private Masses The one tending only to feed themselves the other to turn the good order of the world which is the Harbour of the Church into publique confusion to feed themselves the profaning of Gods Ordinance being common to both And if the taking away of private Masses must be by turning the Eucharist out of doors saving twice or thrice a year for fashions sake it is but Lycurgus his Reformation to stock up the Vines for fear men be drunk with the wine The Church of England is clear in this businesse The Order whereof as it earnestly sighs and grones toward the restoring of publique Penance the onely mean established by the Apostles to maintain the Church in estate to communicate continually so it recommendeth the continuall celebration of the Eucharist at all the more solemne Assemblies of Lords days and Festivals As for the Sermon it is to be when it can be had and were it now abated when such Sermons cannot bee had as were fitting it is easie to undertake that there would be room enough left for the celebration of the Eucharist In the mean time the Reformers of this Age had they considered so well as it behoved them what they undertook should easily have found that the continuall celebration of the Eucharist at all the more solemne Assemblies of the Church and the Discipline of Penance to maintain the people in a disposition fit to communicate in it is such a point of Reformation in the Church that without restoring it all the rest is but meer noise and pretence if not mischief Now the reason why the celebration of the Eucharist is reserved to Presbyters alone in consequence to the premises is very reasonable and will be effectuall to shew that it is common to all Presbyters and therefore that there is no such thing as Lay Elders For seeing all agree that Presbyters have their share in the Power of the Keys though the Chief Interess in it be the Bishops according to the Doctrine of the Church and seeing the work of this Power is to admit to the Prayers of the Church as S. John sheweth when he describeth Excommunication by not praying for the sins of the excommunicate and seeing it appeareth by S. James that the Prayers of the Church for the sins of them whom the Church prayeth for are the Prayers of the Presbyters what can we conceive more reasonable and consequent to the premises then that the Power of the Keys is convertible with the Office of celebrating the Eucharist belonging to the Bishop and Presbyters by virtue of it For what can be more agreeable then that the Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is celebrated with be offered by those that are to discern who is to be admitted who excluded from the same This is the meaning of Josephus the Jew in Epiphanius against the Ebionites where being baptized by the Bishop of Tiberias at his parting he gives him money saying Offer for me for it is written Whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained Expressing thereby the sense of Primitive Christians who when they were admitted to the Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is offered to God with made account thereby that the Power of the Keys was passed and continually did passe upon them to the remission of sins Whereupon we see that it is an ordinary censure of the ancient Canons that he which did so or so his oblations be not received that is that he be out of the number of those for whom the Prayers of the Church are made which the Eucharist is offered with Therefore Ignatius thus prosecuteth the words last quoted He that is without the Sanctuary saith he comes short of the Bread of God For if the Prayer of one or two be so forcible with God what shall we think of the Prayer of the Bishop and the whole Church For the efficacy of the Prayers of the Church dependeth upon the Unity of the Church And the Power of the Keys is that which containeth that Unity It is therefore agreeable that those Prayers which are of this efficacy be the Prayers of them whom this Unity and the Power which preserves it is trusted with And for this reason though all Christians be Priests as the Scripture says 1 Pet. II. 5. Apoc. I. 6. by a far better title then Moses promises the Israelites Ex. XIX 6. The Sacrifice of Prayer being the act of the whole Church Yet notwithstanding it is by good right that Bishops and Presbyters are called Sacerdotes or Sacrificers in regard of the same Sacrifice of Prayer and Thanksgiving for which all Christians are called Sacrificers That is to say by way of excellence because that which is the act of all is by ordinance of the Apostles passed upon the whole Church reserved to be executed and ministred by them whom that Power which preserveth that Unity which inforceth the Prayers of the Church is trusted with He that refuseth this reason as built upon consequences that convince not must by consequence acknowledge that the celebration of the Eucharist is peculiar to Presbyters meerly by universall and perpetuall practice of the Church derived from the Order setled by the Apostles Which whether those of the Presbyteries will admit I leave to themselves to advise For as for their pretense that the Ministery of both Sacraments is convertible with the Office of Preaching upon which they style their Pastors or Preaching Elders Ministers of the Word and Sacraments it appears to be as void of any ground from the Scriptures as it is wide from the originall and Universall practice of the Church The Ministery of the Word being the Office of Apostles and Evangelists according to the Scriptures The Ministery of Baptism and Preaching communicable to Deacons and possibly to Lay men onely the celebration of the Eucharist proper to the Power of the Keys in Bishops and Presbyters But putting all the reasons that here are advanced to compromise yet out of the premises we have two effectuall arguments to convince the nullity of Lay Elders The first from the manner of sitting in the Church In as much as it hath been shewed that the Order and custome of it is to be derived from the Apostles themselves as being in use in their time For if the manner of their sitting in the Church were so distinguished that all the Presbyters sate in one Rank in the uppermost Room with the Bishop in the midst that is in the Head of them his Seat advanced above theirs as S. Hierome witnesseth of the Bishops of Alexandria from S. Mark from which manner of sitting they are called by the Greek Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Tertullian praesidentes how can common sense desire better evidence that there are but two qualities
then common Presbyters CHAP. III. THat it is no new reason that here is rendred p. 91. why the name of Episcopus under the Apostles was common to those that are since distinctly called Bishops and Presbyters may appear by a passage in Amalarius de divinis Officiis quoted out of the supposed S. Ambrose upon the Epistles produced by Salmasius In Apparatu quia beatis Apostolis decedentibus illi qui post illos ordinati sunt ut praeessent Ecclesiis illis primis exaequari non poterant neque miraculorum testimonium par illis habere sed in multis aliis inferiores illis esse videbantur grave illis videbatur Apostolorum sibi vendicare nuncupationem Diviserunt ergo nomina ipsa iisdem Presbyterorum nomen reliquerunt alii verò Episcopi sunt nuncupati hique Ordinationis praediti potestate ita ut plenissimè iidem praepositos se Ecclesiarum esse cognoscerent This is manifestly the very reason that I insist upon For saith he because the blessed Apostles deceasing those that were ordained to be over Churches after them could not be equalled to those first nor attain to the like grace of miracles but appeared to be beneath them in many other things it seemed too much for them to challenge to themselves the name of Apostles Hereupon they divided the names and left them the name of Presbyters and the others were called Bishops and they endowed with the Power of Ordaining that they might know themselves to be set over the Churches in the fullest right I marvell what pleasure Salmasius had to allege this passage which if it be admitted is enough alone to overthrow all that he hath said in this point For first he supposeth as the received Doctrine of the Church that Bishops in their severall Churches succeeded the Apostles Secondly he answers all S. Hieromes reasons to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are all one because they are called by the same name in the Scriptures by giving another reason even that which you have here Lastly he saith that Bishops are set over their Churches plenissimè in the fullest right and that therefore Ordination was reserved to them which is to say that in all things they have a speciall Interesse but especially Ordination is their peculiar And with this reason agrees Theodoret when he says that at such time as the name of Bishops was common to Presbyters those who were called Bishops afterwards were called Apostles extending the name of Apostles to others besides the Apostles of Christ This is then a sufficient reason why the name of Bishops should be afterwards appropriated to that rank wherein they succeed the Apostles and Evangelists in their respective Churches because they could not be called by the same which their predecessors had born though formerly common both to Bishops and Presbyters And this is the meaning of those words of S. Augustine which seemed difficult in the Councell of Trent because the opinion which derived all the power of Bishops from the Pope was so strong there Etsi secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit in multis tamen Augustinus Episcopus Hieronyme Presbyters minor est Let not the humility of S. Augustine be drawn into consequence and the property of his words shall enforce no more then I say He knew well enough how stiffely S. Hierome had argued that a Bishop and a Priest is all one in the terms of divine Right because the name of Episcopus is attributed to Presbyters by the Apostles Is it to be presumed that S. Augustine acknowledges this to be his own opinion because it is plain he intends not to crosse S. Hierome in it having other differences with him afore On the contrary it hath been shewed by other passages of his writings that his opinion was otherwise To use therefore that civility which his meeknesse prompted him to condescend to S. Hierome with he granteth his premises neither refusing nor admitting the consequence saying Though according to the titles of honour which now have prevailed in the Church a Bishop be greater then a Presbyter notwithstanding in many things Jerome the Priest is greater then Augustine the Bishop Where by naming the titles of Honour which now have prevailed in the Church he insinuates the reason for which I here maintain that they were thus distinguished afterwards and therefore supposes the ground of it Otherwise he might as easily have granted S. Hieromes consequence and pleased him more And yet I conceive that when he says a Priest may be greater then a Bishop it may very well be admitted not onely as a condescension of humility but as an expression of truth not onely in respect of learning or other personall considerations but of authority in the Church by reason of the dependence of Churches here premised The state and government of Churches is very properly compared by Origen contra Celsum VII to the State of Greekish Commonalties the Bishop bearing the place of the Magistrate and the Bench of Presbyters of the Senate as I have hitherto compared them to the Jews Consistories and as Pope Pius in his Epistle to Justus of Vienna calls the Presbytery of the Church at Rome Pauperem Senatum Christi in Vrbe Româ The poore Senate of Christ in the City of Rome In this estate and condition the eminence of the Bishop above the Presbyters is visible though not by the humility of Pope Pius who perhaps comprises both Bishop and Presbyters in the same quality of a Senate yet by the comparison of Origen the eminence of the Magistrate above his Councell in all Commonalties being so visible as it is But when congregations come to be distinguished as well as Churches and a greater flock assigned to some Presbyters then to Bishops in other parts of the Church and those Presbyters to doe all Offices to their Flock which those Bishops did saving that they depended on the City Church whereas those Bishops depended onely on the Church of the Mother City and therefore had Power to make Ordinations within their own Churches which Presbyters never could doe what hinders in this case I say not S. Augustine for I suppose he names himself but for an instance being indeed Bishop of an eminent City to be lesse then S. Hierome but some Bishop to be lesse then some Priest even for his lawfull authority in the Church A consideration of great consequence to the right constitution of Councels especially the most Generall and for which there is not wanting a valuable reason intimated in the proceedings of divers of the ancient Councels of the Church that is that the Church cannot be reasonably concluded by number of present votes as the Councell of Trent imposes upon us but by the consideration of Christian Nations and Provinces of the Church represented in those Councels For as we see that in the ancient Councels a few Bishops were many times admitted to act in behalf of their
must needs remain distinct bodies when the Church is ingraffed into the State and the same Christians members of both in regard of the Relations Rights and Obligations which in the same persons remain distinct according to the distinct Societies and qualities of severall persons in the same Therefore as I said in the beginning that no Christian as a Christian can challenge any temporall Right by his Christianity which the State wherein he is called to be a Christian giveth him not So on the other side no man by his rank in any State is invested with any power proceeding from the foundation of the Church as it is the Church So that which is true in the parts holds in the whole The Church is indowed with no temporall Right therefore the State is indowed with no Ecclesiasticall Right though it hath great Right in Ecclesiasticall matters of which in due time For all this Right supposeth the Church already established by that power on which it standeth and so must maintain it upon the same terms which it findeth The homage which the Church paieth to God for the protection of the State is not to betray the Right founded on the expresse Charter of God to Powers subsisting by the works of his mediate Providence But to subdue subjects to that obedience for conscience which the State exacteth by force For there is necessarily this difference between the principles upon which the Church and civill Communities subsist The Charter of the one is revealed by Grace The others stand upon the Laws of Nature and Nations and acts which Providence inables men to doe agreeable to the same Therefore as no State stands by the Gospel so no right setled by the Gospel can belong to any State or person as a member of any State Besides Kingdomes and States have their severall bounds Many Soveraignties are contained in Christendom whereas the Church is by Gods Ordinance one Visible Society of all Christians Now it is manifest first that there are some things which equally concern the whole Church and all parts of it Secondly that in things which concern the whole Church no part thereof in any State or Kingdome can be concluded by that State or Kingdome Again the Apostles Rule is 1 Cor. VII 24. that every man abide in the State wherein he is called to be a Christian And this proves that no Christian can challenge any temporall right by his Christianity because States subsist before they are Christian Therefore it proves also that no State or member of it is by being such endowed with any Right grounded on the constitution of the Church And therefore seeing the Church subsisted three hundreth years before any State professed Christianity whatsoever Rights it used during that time manifestly it ought therefore still to use and enjoy this being the most pertinent evidence to shew the bounds of it In particular as to the Power of the Keys and Excommunication the act of it seeing the intent of it is to admit into the Visible Society of the Church upon presumption that by the right use of it sinne is taken away and the person admitted to the invisible Society of life everlasting and seeing no Common-wealth no quality in any pretendeth to take away sinne or to judge in whom it is taken away it followeth that no man whatsoever by virtue of any rank in any State is qualified to manage this Power or can presume so to doe CHAP. II. That the whole Bodies of Christians contained in severall Cities and the Territories of them make severall Churches depending upon the Churches of greater Cities Therefore the People is not endowed with the Chief Power in any Church HAving seen thus farre upon what Patent the community of the Church is established and the Power thereof founded it will be necessary farther to dispute in what Hands this Power is deposited by the Apostles and what persons are trusted with it Which point before it be voided we can neither determine what Form of Government God hath ordained in his Church nor how it may be exercised in Christian States without crossing the Right which they challenge in Church matters The Presbyterians having designed severall Presbyteries for the Government of severall Congregations that assemble together for the service of God and having cried up this design for the Throne of Christ the new Jerusalem and the Kingdome of God seeing there is no question made that where there is a Presbytery there is a Church and where there is a Church there is the Power of the Keyes which God hath endowed his Church with seem to have given those of the Congregations occasion to inferre that every Congregation that assembles for the common Service of God is by consequence to have the Power of the Keys to excommunicate whereunto adding another principle that the chief Power of every Congregation is in the People it follows that they are all absolute without dependence on the rest of the Church But all this while both run away with a presumption for which they can shew us never a title or syllable of evidence in all the Scriptures For Presbyters and Presbyteries they may shew us in the Scriptures and no grandmercy unlesse they can shew us how to understand them better then they doe But that every congregation that assembles together to serve God in common should have a company of Presbyters for the Government of it is a thing so contrary to all the Intelligence we have concerning the State of the Church either under the Apostles themselves by the Scriptures or any Primitive Records of the Church or in the succeeding ages of the Church that they must demand of all men to renounce common sense and all Faith of Historicall as well as Divine Truth before they can beleeve it Whereas by the same evidence by which the rest of Christianity is conveyed and commended unto us that is by the Scriptures interpreted by the Originall and universall practise of the Church it will appear that the Apostles planting Christianity not onely in those Cities where they preached most because there the harvest was greatest but in the Countries adjoining which by the custome of all civile Nations every where resort to their Cities for Justice designed the severall Bodies of Christians that should be found abiding in severall Cities and the Territories of the same to make severall Churches the Government whereof they planted in those Cities both for themselves and for the Countries that resorted unto them And as in the civile Government of all civile people particular Cities depend upon Mother Cities Heads of Provinces Governments or Soveraignties so the Churches of particular Cities to depend upon the Churches of those Mother Cities that by the union and correspondence of those Churches drawing along with them all the Churches under them the unity of the whole Church consisting of them all might be established and entertained This is the effect of that observation which I advanced in the little
convertible with the Office of Consecrating the Eucharist And therefore that there are no Lay Elders The Right of the Bishop Presbyters and People in Church matters THese things premised I shall here suppose that the reasons heretofore advanced are sufficient to prove that by Ordinance of the Apostles the Government of every such Church consisting of the Body of Christians in a City and the Territory thereof is to rest in a Bishop and a Company or College of Presbyters his Counsell and Assistants in the exercise of the Chief Power thereof to whom are added the Deacons to attend them in executing their commands Adding onely for the present in confirmation of those reasons as followeth First that there is an ordinary Power of Governing Churches of their own planting in the Apostles easily to be distinguished from the power of other Apostles because whereas the generall Commission extends the power of every Apostle to the whole Church those things which we finde recorded either in the Scriptures or in other monuments of Historicall truth which common sense cannot refuse to credit do shew manifest arguments of the speciall exercise thereof de facto in speciall places either by contract when a Christian may think that an agreement might be requisite among such holy persons as we see Gal. II. 9. Or otherwise by occupation and use And this ordinary Power of the Apostles is as easie to be distinguished from the Power of Bishops by the extent of it this of Bishops reaching onely to the Church whereof they are made Bishops Now to make good the proof that Iames Bishop of Jerusalem was one of the Apostles I must here answer two questions which seem to make this opinion hard to beleeve The first because Hegesippus in Eusebius oftentimes mentioning Simeon the son of Cleopas and that he succeeded this James in the Government of that Church never mentions in one syllable any relation of his to this James whom he succeeded which if they had been so near as brothers it seems he would have done The second is this because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is manifestly a Greek name being the diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore nothing to Alphaeus which hath another both Originall and signification in the Hebrew The first makes no proof because we have not Hegesippus and therefore cannot presume that he no where said this because we finde it not in those shreds which Eusebius hath related out of him Neither are we bound to presume that either he would write or Eusebius relate out of him that which we at this present conceive to be most necessary to be related because of the dispute presently on foot which to them perhaps was no dispute In fine from that which he says not we cannot conclude the negative but from that which he says we may conclude the tantamount of the affirmative For when Hegesippus in Eusebius Eccles Hist IV. 22. says that Simeon was the second of our Lords Cousins that was made Bishop of Jerusalem to them that knew by the Gospel that the Cousins of our Lord which it cals brothers were James and Joses Judas and Simon Mat. XIII 55. he says in effect that James and Simon were brothers especially Eusebius making the same Simeon the son of Cleopas and Mary Eccles Hist III. 32. which he seems to have from Hegesippus For seeing Mary Cleopas John XIX 25. is in all probability Mary the mother of James the lesse and Joses Mar. XV. 40. Mat. XXVII 55. because we read but of two Maries in the Gospel that followed our Lord beside the blessed Virgin Mat. XXVII 61. And seeing S. Jude cals himself the brother of James Jude 1. And seeing James and Simeon Bishops of Jerusalem are both Cousins to our Lord that is brothers in the language of the Scripture according to Hegesippus it is to be thought that he intended there to signifie that Simeon the son of Cleopas and James Bishop of Jerusalem were brothers The age of Simeon suffering an hundred and twenty years old Euseb Eccles Hist III 32. being so great that he might well succeed his brother in the charge Now James the son of Alphaeus might well be also son of Cleopas and the same mans name Alphaeus and Cleopas because of the custom which we find to have been among the Jews of calling themselves by one name among their own Country men and by another oftentimes near the other in sound among the Greeks and Romanes For if Jason in the Maccabees were called Jesus among the Jews as it appears by Josephus Antiq. XII 6. if Saul and Paul were one Apostle if the first Bishop of Alexandria who is called Ananias in the Antiquities of that Church out of Eutychius be called Anianus in Eusebius if Silas be nothing else but Sylvanus Luke Lucius as learned men cannot choose but beleeve why shall we not beleeve that the same man was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew then used as his name is now written in the Syriack Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek being the diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ordinary proper name at that time And thus it cannot be contradicted that the Church of Jerusalem had one of the Apostles for the first Bishop of it Now whereas it is said that Timothy and Titus had that power which the Scripture witnesseth as Evangelists it is to be demanded by what Scripture it can appear that Evangelists as Evangelists had any Power in any Church That they were near in rank and esteem to the Apostles I grant because of the Scriptures 1 Cor. XII 28. Eph. IV. 12. that Titus was an Evangelist as well as Timothy 2 Tim. IV. 5. I do beleeve because S. Paul says there that he was gone into Dalmatia which being part of Illyricum whither S. Paul had purpose to advance the Gospel as you saw afore there is great appearance that being in durance he imploied Titus to Preach the Gospel and plant Churches there as well as to govern the Churches already setled in Crete And that by the same reason as himself governed all the Churches of his Charge But having shewed such probabilities to think that Evangelists were no more then a secondary rank of Apostles that is men imploied by the Apostles upon any work it cannot be said that by the quality of Evangelists they had power to govern any Church unlesse it can be shewed that the work on which they were imploied was the governing of setled Churches Which cannot be shewed of any but Timothy and Titus by the Epistles to them which shew that they two were appointed in that quality at Ephesus and in Crete For Epaphras that is Epaphroditus for the names are both one that was imploied by the Philippians to S. Paul Phil. II. 25 30. was also imploied no doubt by S. Paul or by some other of the Apostles unlesse we will say that he depended not on them contrary to that which hath
me no great thanks for saying that it is not against Gods Law that those who are not in Holy Orders do Preach For that which I have alleged for this in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 420. out of that notable Epistle in Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 20. in behalf of Origen who before he was Presbyter was imploied in Preaching by the Bishop of Caesarea consists in divers instances of other persons of Origens rank which Preached indeed but all by Commission from their respective Bishops who were themselves by their Places the Doctors in Chief of their respective Churches And if this be against Divine Right as we agree it is for any under the rank of a Presbyter to celebrate the Eucharist how shall any Church allow men to Preach for triall of their abilities before they attain that rank in which they are ordinarily to doe it That which hath been said of Preaching is to be said much more in my opinion of Baptism If the charge of Baptizing given the Apostles had been meant of the Office of Ministring not of the power of granting it what reason could there be that S. Peter having converted Cornelius and his company should not baptize them in person but command them to be baptized Acts IX 48 And if the Apostles imploy their Deacon S. Philip to Preach and to Baptize is it not by consequence that the Governours of particular Churches imploy their Deacons about the same In the Synagogue it cannot be said that the office of Circumcising ever required any higher quality then that of a person circumcised And therefore in the Church if there can be any question whether a person is to be admitted to Baptism or not it is the Chief Power of the Church that must determine it Or if the occasion require Solemnity which may argue him that Officiates it to be Chief in the Church no Deacon nor Presbyter must presume to doe it before the Bishop But because Baptisme is the gate as well of the invisible Church as of the visible and because the occasions are many and divers which indanger the preventing of so necessary an Office by death in this regard the practice of the Primitive Church alleged by Tertullian de Bapt. cap. XVIII must not be condemned whereby Baptism given by him that is only baptized is not onely valid but well done Though my intent hereby is not to say that it may not be restrained to Presbyters and Deacons when the Church is so provided of them that there is no appearance that Baptisme can be prevented for want of one But though I doe for these causes refuse the reason that Presbyterians can give why onely Presbyters may celebrate the Eucharist I am not therefore much more in love with that which the School Doctors give when they conceive that the Apostles were made Priests by our Lord at his last Supper when he said Do this For we do not find this exposition of these words authorized by the first ages of the Church or any Writers of that time And where the School Doctors speak not out of the mouth of the Primitive Church I make no difficulty to take them for none of my Authors And truly in this case the Text of the Scripture seems to be plain enough for the Command of our Lord Doe this in remembrance of me must needs speak to the same persons as the rest that goes afore Take eate drink divide this among you which belonging to the whole Church it is manifest the Precept Do this belonging also to the whole Church cannot make any difference of qualities in it In this difficulty then it will be hard to find any anchor so sure as that of Tertullian De Cor. cap. III. where making a Catalogue of Orders and Rules observed in the Church which are not found delivered in terms of Precept in the Scriptures he prosecuteth it thus Eucharistiae Sacramentum in tempore victus omnibus à Domino mandatum etiam antelucanis coetibus nec nisi de manu Praesidentium sumimus The Sacrament of the Eucharist was commended to the Church at meat saith Tertullian Is not this the expresse word of our Lord for when he saith Doe this is it not manifest that he commandeth to celebrate the Eucharist at the end of Supper as himself presently had done Sure enough the Primitive Church understood it so for the Ministery of Tables in the Acts of the Apostles for which the Apostles provide themselves Deacons and the Feasts of Love which S. Paul regulates at Corinth are enough to shew us that the Eucharist came at the end of them And so Tertullian shews that it was in his time when he sayes that they received the Eucharist at their Assemblies before day also that is to say as well as at their Feasts of Love at which our Lord ordained it But though there be no Precept extant in the Scripture that the Eucharist be used at those Assemblies of the Church which are held meerly for the Service of God besides those Feasts of Love yet if my reasons propounded in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 291. have not failed which hitherto so far as I know are not contradicted it doth appear by the Scripture that it was so under the Apostles And therefore that onely Presbyters are to celebrate the Eucharist the Church will be confidently assured because it appears by these words of Tertullian that this was the Primitive practice of the Church Especially if by any circumstance of Scripture it may appear to have been derived from the Apostles Which perhaps comparing the premises with the nature of the Eucharist will not fail us To shew that those who did eat of the Sacrifices of the Gentiles were accessory to their Idolatries the Apostle 1 Cor. X. 16 instanceth in the Jews who by eating of their Sacrifices did communicate with the Altar that is with God to whom that which was consumed upon the Altar belonged And because Christianity supposeth that the Gentiles Sacrifices were offered to Devils therefore the Gentiles communicating with Devils by eating the remains of their Sacrifices as the Jews with God that it was not lawfull to eat of their Sacrifices for them that communicated with God in the Eucharist as the Jews did with the same true God and the Gentiles with the Devils by their Sacrifices Thus the Apostles argument supposeth that in the Eucharist Christians do participate of the Sacrifice of the Crosse as Jews and Gentiles do of their Sacrifices and so that the purpose thereof is that by it we may participate of the Sacrifice offered to God upon the Crosse Which being carried by our Lord within the Vail into the most Holy Place of the Heavens to be presented to God as it is declared at large Hebr. IX 11 is notwithstanding no lesse participated by Christians then the Jews do participate of their peace-Offerings Which the Apostle teaches again when he tels the Hebrews XIII 10. that
generally distinguishable in the Church the one of Presbyters sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. V. 17. 1 Thess V. 14. sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. XIII 14 17. somtimes Episcopi 1 Tim. II. 2. Tit. I. 5 7. comprehending Bishop and Presbyters for the reasons alleged for to these the Deacons as their Ministers are to be referred the other of the People The same that in Tertullian are called Ordo Plebs in all ages of the Church since the Apostles the Clergy and People Secondly seeing it is manifest that the Power of the Keys is above the Office of Preaching to a Christian Church indeed equall to that of celebrating the Eucharist it followeth that it is against the Order declared by the Scripture that the Power of the Keys should be in any man that is not allowed to Preach and celebrate the Eucharist and therefore that by having the Power of the Keys a man is by Right qualified to doe it And truly I doe much marvell how this consequence can be refused as to the Office of Preaching when as S. Paul requires both of Timothy and Titus that the Presbyters which they ordain be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is fit to teach For no common sense can allow that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having the signification not from Preaching but from Governing is not to comprehend Governing Elders as well as Preachers Therefore the Scriptures make those Preachers whom the Presbyteries make Governing Elders Here follows a third argument drawn from that onely Text of the Apostle upon which their Lay Elders are grounded with any appearance 1 Tim. V. 17. Let the Elders that Rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially those that labour in the Word and Doctrine For by the Apostles Discourse it is manifest and so far as I perceive agreed on all hands that the word Honour here spoken of is maintenance S. Pauls instruction supposing the Order setled by the Apostles to be this that there should be in all Churches setled in Cities as aforesaid a common stock at the disposing of Bishop and Presbyters rising from the Oblations of the faithfull out of which first those that attended upon the Government of the Church and the Offices of Divine Service then those that could not attend the Service of God without maintenance from the Publique might finde subsistence For hereupon it is that S. Paul chargeth Timothy to honour widows indeed that were destitute of maintenance from their friends that they might abide in prayers and supplications as Anna the Prophetesse Luc. II. 36. and Iudith VIII 5. and the good women that waited at the Tabernacle Ex. XXXVIII 8. 1 Sam. II. 24. And when he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shews that there was then a List of them called here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Church Writers afterwards Canon which whosoever was entred into received appointment from the Church 1 Tim. V. 5 9 16. Let it therefore be said no more that the distinction between Clergy and people is not found in the Scriptures For how can the Office be more expresly distinguished then by the appointment that is allowed for the execution of it And therefore when S. Peter charges the Presbyters 1 Pet. V. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means not the people but he means the same which Clemens in Eusebius when he says that S. Iohn was wont to go abroad from Ephesus to forein Churches on purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to Ordain some Clergy man that should be signified by the Spirit For in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so S. Peters precept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consists of two members not to domineer over the Clergy that were under them that is the Deacons Widows and Deaconesses and to be a Pattern to the Flock In this Discourse of S. Paul we have a further reason of difference between the Clergy and people from that Rule of life and conversation to which the Clergy was subject by the Primitive Discipline of the Church For if the Church allowed Widows an appointment in consideration of their daily attendance upon the Service of God much more are we bound to conceive that Presbyters whom the Apostle allows a double appointment are tied to double attendance on the same Service A thing which cannot be expected of those who are tied to the World and therefore Tertullian De Praescript cap. XLI condemneth the Hereticks because their fashion was to make secular men Presbyters Seeing then that the Apostle alloweth the same double appointment to the whole Order of Presbyters let them that set up Lay Elders ask their own Consciences whether they can be content to allow them the same maintenance from the Church as themselves receive otherwise let them not imagine that they can set them up by this Scripture For that some Presbyters should labour in Preaching though all are required to be apt to Preach is no inconvenience in that State when Congregations were not distinguished but the whole Office rested in the whole Order of the Clergy in relation to the whole Body of the People of a Church You see by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV that one Assembly whereof he speaks there furnished with a great number of Prophets whether Presbyters or over and above them In the Records of the Church we find divers times a whole Bench of Presbyters presiding at one Assembly Is any man so unsatiable of Preaching as to think the Church unprovided of it unlesse all those Preached at all times Is it not enough that Timothy is required to count them especially worthy double honour that labour in it for by this means those that laboured not in it when and how Timothy finds it requisite must know that their maintenance must come harder from his hands For the last argument I must not forget the perpetuall practice of the Church though I name for the present but the words of Clemens Disciple to the Apostles who in his Epistle to the Corinthians to compose a difference among the Presbyters of that Church partly about the celebration of the Eucharist advises them to agree and take their turns in it If all the Presbyters might take their turns in it then all might celebrate the Eucharist if in that Church then in all Churches I know many Church Writers are quoted to prove Lay Elders For that also is grown a point of Learning to load the Margin with Texts of Scripture and allegations of Authors in hope no man will take the pains to compare them because if he do he shall easily finde them nothing to the purpose For instance My self have the honour to be alleged for one that approve Lay Elders even in that place of that very Discourse where I answer the best arguments that ever I heard made for them onely because I said then as now that we are not bound to think that all Presbyters
the Apostles were at first their own Deacons before the Church allowed them some to wait on them and yet their whole function was then holy though some parts of it nearer to the end of the souls health So when Deacons were made reason inforces that they should attend on the meanest part of the Office of the Apostles but always on holy duties For the Tables which the Apostles saw first furnished themselves but were attended by the Deacons in doing it when they were made were the same which S. Paul speaks of 1 Cor. XI 20 which the Eucharist was celebrated at as the custome was daily to doe at Jerusalem Acts II. 42 46. and therefore their office by this was the same then as always it hath been since to wait upon the celebration of the Eucharist Secondly I have shewed afore that even the Apostles and their followers the Evangelists were also Deacons with as much difference as there is between the persons whom they served that is between our Lord and his Apostles on one side and the Bishop and Presbyters of a Church on the other Whereupon the Ministers of Bishops and Presbyters are called Deacons absolutely and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any addition signifies to execute a Deacons Office 1 Tim. III 10. But the Apostles and Evangelists are called Deacons with additions signifying whose Ministers or to what speciall purpose as hath been said Thirdly when S. Paul says They that doe the office of a Deacon well purchase themselves a good step 1 Tim. II. 13. Clemens Alexandrinus and the practice of the Church interprets this step to be the rank of Presbyters Therefore they were in the next degree to it afore Fourthly it hath been shewed that they sate not but stood in the Church as attending the Bishop and Presbyters sitting and yet were imploied in the Offices of Preaching and Baptizing And accordingly in the Primitive Church a great part of the Service reading Lessons singing Psalms and some part of the Prayers were ministred by them as I have shewed in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service cap. X. Which held correspondently in the Synagogue For the Ministers and Apparitors of their Consistories were also their Deacons and ministred Divien Service in the Synagogue Whereby it appears to be the Ordinance of the Apostles that the younger sort of those that dedicated themselves to the service of the Church should be trained up in the service of the Bishop and Presbyters as well to the understanding of Christianity as to the right exercise of Ecclesiasticall Offices that in their time such as proved capable might come to govern in the Church themselves That which remains concerning the Interesse of the People in the Church will be easily discharged if we remember that it must be such as may not prejudice either the dependence of Churches or the Chief Power of the Bishop with the Presbyters in each particular Church The Law of the XII Tables Salus populi suprema lex esto though it were made for a popular State not for a Kingdome yet admits a difference between populus and plebs and requires the chief Rule to be the good both of Senate and Commons not of one part alone So likewise that which is said in the Scriptures to have been done by the Church must not therefore be imagined to be done by the People Because the Church consists of two parts called by Tertullian Oâ—do and Plebs in the terms of latter times the Clergy and People but preserving the respective Interests of Clergy and People In the choice of Matthias it is said They set two Acts I. 23. what they but the Church in which the People were then better Christians then to abridge the Apostles but proportionably they are always to respect the Bishop and Presbyters if they will obey the Apostles that command it 1 Thess V. 12 13. Heb. XIII 7 17. So when S. Paul says Doe not ye judge those that are within 1 Cor. V. 12. speaks he to the People or to the Church that is to the Bench of Presbyters and the People in their severall interests and that not without dependence upon the Apostles The words of our Lord Dic Ecclesiae Mat. XVIII 18. make much noise At the end of my Book of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 428 you have a passage of S. Augustine Cont. Epist Parmen III. 2. that Excommunication is the sentence of the Church And yet I suppose no man hath the confidence to dispute that in S. Augustines time it was the sentence of the People So the Excommunication of Andronicus in Synesius his seven and fiftieth Epistle is intitled to the Church yet no man imagines that the People then did excommunicate Is not the case the same in the Synagogue Moses is commanded to speak to the Congregation of the children of Israel and he speaks to the Elders Exod. XII 2 25. does Moses disobey God in so doing or does he understand the command of God better then this opinion would have him in speaking to the Elders who he knew were to act on behalf of the People The Law commands the Congregation to offer for ignorance Lev. IV. 13 14. Num. XV. 22 24. how shall all the Congregation offer Maimoni answers in the Title of Errors cap. XII XIII that the great Consistory offers as often as they occasion the breach of the Law by Teaching that is interpreting it erroneously In the Law of the Cities of Refuge it is said The Congregation shall judge and the Congregation shall deliver the manslayer Num. XXXV 35 36. The Elders of the City of Refuge were to judge in presence and in behalf of the People whether the manslayer was capable of the privilege of the City of Refuge or not as you reade Joshua XX. 4 6. seeing then that these things being done by the Elders are said to be done by the Synagogue or Assembly of the People in behalf of whom they are done is it a wrong to the Scriptures when we say that which they report to be done by the Church was acted by the chief power of the Apostles and Presbyters with consent of the People For it is manifest in the Scriptures that in the Apostles times all publique Acts of the Church were passed at the publique Assemblies of the same as Ordinations Acts I. 23. VI. 3 6. Excommunications Mat. XVIII 18 19 20. 1 Cor. V. 4. 2 Cor. II. 10. Councels Acts XV. 4 27. Other Acts 2 Cor. VIII 19. And herewith agrees the Primitive custome of the Church for divers ages to be seen in a little Discourse of the Learned Blondell Of the Right of the People in the Church published of late And can this be thought to no purpose unlesse it dissolve the Unity of the Church or that obedience to the Clergy which God commandeth Is it nothing to give satisfaction to the People of the integrity of the proceedings of the Church and by the same mean
the advancement of godlinesse otherwise such had not been Ordained by the Apostles and Governors of Gods ancient People For of this nature is the vailing of women at Divine Service of which S. Paul writes to the Corinthians the Kisse of Charity so often mentioned in the writings of the Apostles which the Constitutions of the Apostles II. 57. and Origen upon the last to the Romanes shew to have been practised before the Consecration and the receiving of the Eucharist to signifie the Charity in which they came to communicate the many Ceremonies of Baptism to which S. Paul alludes in divers places Col. II. 11 12. III. 9 10. Rom. VI. 4 5. to wit putting off old clothes drenching in water so as to seem to be buried in it putting on new clothes at their comming out Which being used in the Primitive Church by these passages of S. Paul we are sure were Instituted by the Apostles Of this nature are the gestures of Prayer which we reade in the Scripture that it was always the custome of Gods people to make sitting kneeling or groveling as the inward dejection of the minde required a greater or lesse degree of outward humiliation of the body to produce and maintain as well as to signifie it Thus our Lord stands up to reade the Law but sits down to Preach Luc. IV. 16 20. the one to shew reverence to the Giver of the Law the other authority over the Congregation which he taught as a Prophet And therefore I make no doubt but that in receiving the Book of the Law he used that reverence which was and is used in the Synagogue the like whereof by the Acts of the Primitive Martyrs we understand to have been used to the Book of the Gospels for in the examination of one of them you have Qui sunt libri quos adoratis legentes as we now stand up at the reading of the Gospel Of this nature are the ceremonies of the Jews publick Fasts quoted afore out of the Prophet Joel which it seems the Prophet Jonas taught the Ninevites at their Fast Jon. III. 5 6. which sure have no force to move God to compassion but as they move men to that humiliation which procures it of this nature is Imposition of hands used in the Scripture in Blessing that is in solemne Prayers for other Persons as in the Gospel over children and sick persons as in the Law Jacob lays hands on Josephs children Moses on Joshua and the LXX Presbyters the Prophets on such as they cured 2 Kings VI. 11. whereupon it was received by the Ordinance of the Apostles in Confirmation Penance and Ordinations as also it is said to be still used in some Eastern Churches at the Blessing of Mariages In fine the Frontlets and the Scrols which God appoints the Jews to set upon their Fore-heads and the Posts of their doores Exod. XIII 9. Deut. VI. 8. XI 17. for my part I make a great question whether he obligeth them thereby to use according to the letter as they do But that commanding the effect the remembrance of the Law he should be thought to forbid the means that is the sensible wearing of such marks that I count utterly incredible Seeing it was easie for them to use such marks and yet to think themselves never a whit the holier for them without the thing signified though in our Lords time they did so as we see by his reproofs in the Gospel and though by their writings Maimoni by name in the Title of Finages cap. III. and in the Title of Phylacteries ca. XI XII we see that still they do And thus upon the reasons advanced that is of determining that which the Law of God determines not follows the whole Power of the Church in deciding matters of Doctrine in determining the circumstances and ceremonies of Gods publick worship and of all the Ordinances of God for the maintenance and exercise of the same For in instituting Ceremonies significative not of Christ to come that indeed and that onely is Judaism but of the Faith and devotion which we desire to serve God with it is enough that this power may be exercised to the advancement of godlinesse if it be exercised otherwise then it ought it is still to be obeyed because the Unity of the Church is of great consequence to maintain though we attain not that advancement of godlinesse which the use of this Power ought to procure but does not And if any Power should be void because it is not used for the best or absolutely not well used then could no humane society subsist either Sacred or Civile Which must subsist in all things wherein it commands not the contrary of a more ancient Law which is Gods Law in our case From the premises it will not be difficult to resolve whether Councels be of Divine Right or not distinguishing between substance and circumstance between the purpose and effect of them and the manner of procuring it For if we speak of giving Law to the Society of the Church it is proved that whether you take it for a Power or a Duty a Right or a Charge or rather both seeing the one cannot be parted from the other the Church may and ought to proceed to determine what is not determined but determinable by consent of particular Churches that is by the consent of such persons which have Power to conclude the consent of their respective Churches Whereof we have shewed that none can ever be concluded without the consent of their respective Bishops But if we speak of the circumstance and manner of assembling in one place certain persons in behalf of their severall Churches with authority to prejudice and foresway and preingage the consent of the same We have a precedent or rather precedents without a precept in the Acts of the Apostles where the Apostles are assembled to Ordain a twelfth Apostle Acts I. 13. where they are assembled to institute the Order of Deacons Acts VI. 2 where Paul and Barnabas come from Antiochia and the Churches depending thereupon to the Apostles and Church of Jerusalem to take resolution in their differences Acts XV. 1 where Paul goes in to James to advise how to behave himself without offence to the Christian Jews at Jerusalem Acts XXI 18 for the premises being admitted all these meetings are justly and necessarily counted Synods or Councels both in regard of the Persons whereof they consisted the consent of divers Apostles being of as much authority to the Church as the resolution of a Synod and in regard of the matter determined at them concerning the whole Church in a high degree especially at that time And we have a Canon among those of the Apostles which appears very ancient by the Canons of Nice containing the same and turning Custome into Statute Law commanding that Synods be held in every Province twice a year But when Tertullian tels us that in the parts of Greece they held Councels ordinarily he constrains us
in his Gospel hath left concerning Mariage For if this be peculiar to Christians as Christians then whatsoever becomes questionable upon the interpretation of this Law concerning the Church as it is the Church must needs fall under the sentence of those that are inabled to conclude the Society of the Church And therefore it is without question as ancient as Christianity that no Mariage be made which the Church alloweth not the Benediction whereof upon Mariages is a sign of the allowance of the Church presupposed as that upon the Mariage of Booz and Ruth Ruth IV. 11. presupposeth the act to be allowed by the Elders or Consistory of Bethlehem as you have it afore These difficulties thus voided it remains that the Secular Powers stand bound in conscience to inforce the Jurisdiction of the Church where the exercise of it produceth nothing contrary to the principles of Christianity or the quiet of the State As for the interesse of the State in Ordinations the same reason holds It is very manifest by many examples of commendable times under Christian Emperors that many Ordinations have been made at the instance and command of Emperors and Soveraign Princes And why not what hindreth them to make choice of fitter persons then the Clergy and People can agree to choose And what hindreth the Church upon consideration of their choice to reform their own But when Soveraign Powers by Generall Laws forbid Ordinations to proceed but upon persons nominated by themselves how then shall the Right of the Church take place or what shall be the effect of S. Pauls precept to Timothy To lay hands hastily on no man lest he partake of other mens sins Which cannot take place unlesse he that Ordain be free not to Ordain The President Thuanus writing of the Concordates between Leo the tenth and Francis the first by which the Canonicall way of Election of Bishops was abolished in France saith freely that that great Prince never prospered after that Act giving this for his reason because thereby that course of electing Bishops was taken away which had been introduced from the beginning by the Apostles In fine of this particular I shall need to say no more but this according to the generall reason premised that qualities ordained by the constitution of the Church are to be conferred by persons qualified so to doe by the constitution of the Church But with this moderation that Secular Powers be satisfied not onely that the persons promoted be not prejudiciall to the Peace of the State whereof they have charge by their proper qualities but also that as Christians they be not assistant to the promotion of those who professe the contrary of that which they as Christians professing are bound to maintain In the last place it will not be difficult from the premises to determine the interesse of the State in setling maintaining and disposing of the indowment of the Church For seeing the reasons premised which now are laught at by those that will not understand wherein Christianity consists have prevailed so far with all Christian people that all Tithes and many other Oblations and Indowments are and have been in all parts consecrated to God as the First-fruits of Christians goods for the maintenance of his Service it remains the duty of the Secular Sword to maintain the Church in that right For that publick Power that shall lay hands on such goods shall rob both God and the People God in respect of the Act of Consecration past upon such goods the People in respect of the Originall right and reason of the Church which first moved Christians to consecrate the same By virtue of which right that which first was consecrated being taken away by force Christian people remain no lesse obliged to separate from the remainder of their poverty that which shall be proportionable to that which all Christian people have always consecrated to God out of their estates And those that perswade good Christians that such consecrations have proceeded only from the cousenage of the Clergy for their own advantage may as well perswade them that they were cousened when they were perswaded to be Christians seeing such consecrations have been made by all Christian people As for the disposing of that which is given to the publick use of the Church I say not the same I hold it necessary that the Church satisfie the State that whatsoever is given to such use may be to the common good of the people and so leave the imperfection of Laws to blame that it is not A thing which I think may very reasonably be done For first all Cathedrall Churches being by the institution of the Apostles intire Bodies in themselves distinct from other Churches according to that which hath been proved of the dependence of Churches all Oblations to any Church originally belong to the Body thereof in common at the disposing of the Bishop and Presbyters thereof which is known to have been the Primitive Order of the Church derived from the practice of the Apostles which I have declared out of the Scriptures Though they have complied with the bounty of those that have indowed Parish Churches and consented to limit the indowments of every one of them to it self alone Secondly it is manifest that the Clergy are under such a Discipline of the Primitive Church that so long as they continue to live in such a discipline they can neither waste the indowment of the Church upon themselves nor use it to the advancement of their Families Which Discipline if the Secular Power be imploied to retrive it will not be thereby destructive to the Power of the Church but cumulative As likewise if it be imploied to the most advantageous distribution of that masse of Church goods which lies affected and deputed to any Cathedrall Church through the whole Diocese thereof in case the distribution made by Humane Right appear prejudiciall to those charitable purposes which are the means by which the Service of God through that Church or Diocese is maintained and advanced Provided always that a greater Sacrilege be not committed by robbing the Bishop and Presbyters of the Right and Power which they have from the Apostles in disposing of the indowment of their Church These things promised it is easie to undertake that there never was so great a part of the fruits of this Land mortified and put out of commerce and applied and affected to the Church but that it was in that estate more advantageous to the publick strength security and plenty of the Nation as well as to the service of God and the charitable maintenance of those that attend it in case the Secular Power had been improved to dispose of it for the best then it can be in any particular hands especially in the hands of Sacrilege CHAP. V. How the Church may be Reformed without violating Divine Right What Privileges and Penalties a Christian State may inforce Christianity with The Consent of the Church is the
Preach continually so as to edifie the Church by their Preaching as it was for Apostles Apostolicall persons and Prophets is not for a reasonable man to imagine And those that stand so much upon Preaching twice every Lords Day would finde themselves at a marvellous exigent if they should prove either the necessity of it in point of Right by the Scriptures or the utility of it in point of Fact by the abilities of the men whom themselves set about it As for Prayer I yeeld that it is a Precept of God that the Prayers of Christian Congregations be presented to God by the Presbyters But what Prayers none but those which the Eucharist was celebrated with of which I spoke afore All the world will never shew any title in the Scriptures or the originall practice of the Church to prove that the Apostles ordained these prayers before or after the Sermons of Presbyters which are now made the greatest part of the exercise of Christianity unlesse it be because the Sermon went before the Eucharist as Acts XX. 7. 1 Cor. XIV 16. The Prayers which the Presbyters offer to God in behalf of the Church being by the institution of the Apostles onely those which the Eucharist is celebrated with I acknowledge that under the Apostles the Prayers of the Church were not prescribed but conceived by those that were emploied in that office by the Church But in consideration of the Propheticall Revelations and immediate inspirations which the persons emploied about that Office were then graced with to shew the truth of Christianity and the presence of God in the Church And therefore since those graces ceased I have shewed in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 348. that those Prayers of the Church which went not with the Eucharist were ministred by Deacons because it was found necessary that both the one and the other should be done in a prescript form to avoid the scandals of Christianity that we see come by referring it to all persons that are trusted to officiate publick service And I am astonished that any Christian should imagine that God should be pleased with the conceptions of the minde or expressions of the tongue setting aside the affection of the heart that any man prays with But now by the pretense on foot which makes the exercise of Christianity to consist in a Sermon and a Prayer conceived before or after it not onely the celebration of the Eucharist which the Apostles ordained to be as frequent as the Prayers of the Presbyters and which the Church of England recommends on all Sundaies and Festivals is turned out of doors to three or four times a year But also all the publick Service of God by Prayer Reading the Scriptures and the Praises of God forbidden when the Preachers mouth opens not And by referring the form of Prayer and matter of Doctrine to each mans discretion the exercise of Religion is turned into a Lecture of State infused into the conscience of the hearers by desiring of God the interesse of that faction for which a man Preaches And by this means they that doe challenge to themselves the title of Apostles when they style themselves Ministers of Christ and of the Gospel are now discovered by their adversaries of the Congregations to be Ministers of that Power which set them up as indeed they must needs be when a double number of Votes in their Presbyteries is able to cast them out of the Church if they prove not faithfull Ministers The ruine of Christianity is yet greater in going about to Reform Religion by the Sword and taking up Arms upon the Title of Christianity whether it be pretended or not For they that say that the Christians of Tertullians time would have defended themselves by force against the persecutions of the Romane Emperors if they had been able must needs say that Christians may and ought to defend themselves upon the Title of their Christianity As both Buchanane and Bellarmine by consequence must doe when they say that the reason why S. Paul commands Christians to be subject to the Secular Powers of his time was because they were not able to resist But I doe remember to have read in Burroughs his Lectures on Hoses which I speak to doe him right that the Title of this War is not grounded on Religion as Religion but as professed by this Kingdome Which I conceive cannot be said by those that advance the Covenant or allow two clauses of it The first when it promiseth to maintain the Kings person and estate in maintenance of Religion For if the maintenance of the State be limited within the condition of Religion then it is professed by consequence that the Soveraign Power of the State is not to be maintained when Religion is not maintained by it which if it did maintain Religion were to be maintained Therefore Religion is the ground upon which those that enter into the Covenant undertake to maintain one another without any exception in the maintenance of the same Therefore that War is made upon the Title of Religion which maintains not the State but in the maintenance of it The second when it faith that this is done that those which grone under the yoke of Antichrist may be moved to do the like Which belonging to the Subjects of Popish Princes professeth Religion to be the Title of those Arms which all of like Religion may use what ever the State be under which they live Now would I fain know of any friend of the Covenant What is the difference between it and the Holy League of France under Henry the third as to this point and in this regard There is indeed difference enough between the subjects in which the two Leagues suppose Religion to consist and there is as much in the Rule of the same which both suppose But as to the right which Religion introduceth of maintaining it self by force both Covenants agree in supposing it And thereby found temporall right upon the Grace of Christianity contrary to that which I presuppose from the beginning seeing whatsoever is purchased by such Arms is the production of that Title under which they are born True it is that Religion is not the onely Title of that League or this Covenant both of them pretending as well abuse in Government But it is to be considered on the other side that these two Titles are not subordinate but concurrent That is that this Right of maintaining Religion by force of Arms riseth from the truth of Religion in it self presupposed and not by the establishment of Religion by the Laws of any State for the Religion of the same Because not by that Power by which these Laws were made And therefore by consequence makes those that take Arms and joyn in Covenant supreme Judges of all that is questioned in Religion Which being of much more consideration to all Christians then the good estate of any Commonwealth though both Titles concurre in this War yet it
to Baptize such as should submit to the Gospel And so to judge whether each man did so or not which they that were trusted with the Gospel were by consequence trusted to judge The effect of this trust is seen in the many Orders and Canons of the Primitive Church by which those that desired to be admitted into the Church by Baptisme are limited to the triall of severall years to examine their profession whether sincere or not And such as gained their living by such Trades as Christianity allowed not rejected untill they renounced them Not that my intent is to say that these Canons were limited by the Apostles But because it is an argument that always to judge who shall be admitted to Baptisme and who not is another manner of power then to baptize being the power of them that were able to settle such Canons Though it is plain by the Scriptures that those Rules had their beginning from the Apostles themselves For when S. Peter saith 1 Pet. III. 21. that the Baptisme which saveth us is not the laying down the filth of the flesh but the examination of a good conscience to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sheweth that the Interrogatories which the ancient Church used to propound to them that were to be baptized were then in use and established by the Apostles as the condition of a contract between the Church and them obliging themselves to live according to the Gospel as Disciples And the Apostle Heb. VI. 2. speaking of the foundation of repentance from dead works the doctrine of Baptisms and imposition of Hands manifestly shews the succeeding custome of the Church that they which sued for Baptisme should be catechized in the Doctrine of the Gospel and contract with the Church to forsake such courses of the world as stood not with it to be brought in by the Apostles This is it which is here called the doctrine of Baptisms in the plurall number not for that frantick reason which the distemper of this time hath brought forth because there are two Baptismes one of John by water another of Christ by the Spirit but because it was severally taught severall persons before they were admitted to their several Baptisms And therefore called also the Doctrine of Imposition of Hands because we understand by Clemens Alexandrinus Paedag. III. 11. and by the Apostolicall Constitutions VII 40. that when they came to the Church to be catechized and were catechized they were then dismissed by him that catechized them with Imposition of Hands that is with prayer for them that they might in due time become good Christians All visible marks of the power of the Church in judging whether a man were fit for Baptisme or not To which I will adde onely that of Eusebius De vitâ Constant IV. where speaking of the Baptisme of Constantine he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that confessing his sinnes hee was admitted to prayer with Imposition of hands If it be said that there were added to the Church three thousand in a day Acts II. 41. which could not be thus catechized and tried my answer is that two cases were always excepted from the Rule The first was in danger of death The second when by the eagernesse of those that desired Baptism the hand of God appeared extraordinary in the work of their conversion to Christianity Besides it is not said that they were baptized that day but that they were added to the Church that day Which is true though they onely professed themselves Disciples for the present passing neverthelesse their examination and instruction as the case required If therefore there be a power setled in the Church by God to judge who is fit to be admitted into it then is the same power inabled to refuse him that shall appear unfit then by the same reason to exclude him that proves himself unfit after he is admitted This is the next argument which I will ground upon the Discipline of Penance as it was anciently practised in the Church Which is opened by the observation advanced in the 127 p. of this little Discourse that those who contrary to this contract with the Church fell into sins destructive to Christianity were fain to sue to be admitted to Penance Which supposeth that till they had given satisfaction of their sincerity in Christianity they remained strangers to the Communion of the Church For it appeareth by the most ancient of Church Writers that for divers ages the greatest Sinners as Apostates Murtherers Adulterers were wholly excluded from Penance For though Tertullian was a Montanist when he cried out upon Zephyrinus Bishop of Rome for admitting Adulterers to Penance in his Book De Pudicitiâ yet it is manifest by his case that it had formerly been refused in the Church because the granting of it makes him a Montanist And S. Cyprian Epist ad Antonianum testifieth that divers African Bishops afore him had refused it maintaining communion neverthelesse with those that granted it Irenaeus also I. 9. saith of a certain woman that had been seduced and defiled by Marcus the Heretick that after she was brought to the sight of her sin by some Christians she spent all her days in bewalling it Therefore without recovering the communion of the Church again And he that shall but look upon the Canons of the Eliberitane Councell shall easily see many kindes of sins censured some of them not to be admitted to communion till the point others not at the point of death In this case and in this estate these onely who were excluded from being admitted to Penance were properly excommunicate neither could those that were admitted to Penance be absolutely counted so because in danger of death they were to receive the Communion though in case they recovered they stood bound to compleat their Penance And from hence afterwards also those that had once been admitted to Penance if they fell into the like sins again were not to be admitted to Penance the second time Concil Tolet. X. Can. XI Eliber Can. III. VII Ambros de Poenit. II. 10 11. Innoc. I. Ep. I. August Epist L. LIV. It is an easie thing to say that this Rigor was an infirmity in the Church of those times not understanding aright free Justification by Faith But as it is manifest that this rigor of discipline abated more and more age by age till that now it is come to nothing So if we goe upwards and compare the writings of the Apostles with the Originall practice of the Church it will appear that the rigor of it was brought in by them because it abated by degrees from age to age till at length it is almost quite lost that the Reformation of the Church consists in retaining it that we shall doe so much prejudice to Christianity as we shall by undue interpretation make Justification by Faith inconsistent with it And in fine it will appear that all Penance presupposeth Excommunication being onely some abatement of it There
may finde perhaps larger then it The Rule notwithstanding all this is the same that Cathedrall Churches be founded in Cities though Cities are diversly reckoned in severall Countries nay though perhaps some Countries where the Gospel comes have scarce any thing worth the name of Cities Where the Rule must be executed according to the discretion of men that have it in hand and the condition of times This we may generally observe that Churches were erected in greater number when they were erected without indowment established by temporall Law So that in one of the Africane Canons it is questionable whether a Bishop have many Presbyters under him Fewer still where they were founded by Princes professing Christianity upon temporall endowments And upon this consideration it will be no prejudice to this Rule that in Aegypt till the time of Demetrius there was no Cathedrall Church but that of Alexandria If it be fit to beleeve the late Antiquities of that Church published out of Eutychius because they seem to agree with that which S. Hierome reporteth of that Church As to this day if we beleeve the Jesuites whose relation you may see in Godignus de Rebus Abassinorum I. 32. there is but one for all Prester Johns Dominion or the County of the Abassines For though men would not or could not execute the Rule so as it took place in more civile Countries yet that such a Rule there was is easie to beleeve when we see Christianity suffer as it does in those Countries professing Christ by the neglect of it Before I leave this point I will touch one argument to the whole question drawn from common sense presupposing Historicall truth For they that place the chief power in Congregations or require at all severall Presbyteries for the government of severall Congregations are bound at least to shew us that Congregations were distinguished in the times of the Apostles if they will entitle their design to them Which I utterly deny that they were I doe beleeve the Presbyterians have convinced those of the Congregations that in S. Pauls time the Churches to whom he writes contained such numbers as could by no means assemble at once But severall Churches they could not make being not distinguished into severall Congregations but meeting together from time to time according to opportunity and order given About S. Cyprians time and not afore I finde mention of Congregations setled in the Country For in his XXVIII Epistle you have mention of one Gaius Presbyter Diddensis which was the name of some place near Carthage the Church whereof was under the cure of this Gaius and in the life of Pope Dionysius about this time it is said that he divided the Dioceses into Churches and in Epiphanius against the Manichees speaking of the beginning of them under Probus about this time there is mention of one Trypho Presbyter of Diodoris a Village as it seems by his relation there under Archelaus then Bishop of Caschara in Mesopotamia Likewise in an Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria reported by Eusebius Eccles Hist VII 24. there is mention of the Presbyters and Teachers of the brethren in the Villages And those Churches of the Country called Mareotes hard by Alexandria which Socrates Eccles Hist I. 27. saith were Parishes of the Church of Alexandria in the time of Constantine must needs be thought to have been established long before that time whereof he writes there After this in the Canons of Ancyra and Neocaesarea and those writings that follow there is oftentimes difference made between City and country Presbyters In Cities this must needs have been begun long afore as we find mention of it at Rome in the life of Pope Cains where it is said that he divided the Titles and Coemiteries among the Presbyters and the distribution of the Wards of Alexandria and the Churches of them mentioned by Epiphanius Haer. LXVIII LXIX seems to have been made long before the time whereof he speaks But when Justin Martyr says expresly Apol. II. that in his time those out of the Country and those in the City assembled in one farre was it from distinguishing setled Congregations under the Apostles Which if it be true the position which I have hitherto proved must needs be admitted that the Christians remaining in severall Cities and the Territories of them were by the Apostles ordered to be divided into severall distinct Bodies and Societies which the Scripture calls Churches and are now known by the name of Cathedrall Churches and the Dioceses of them constituting one whole Church This being proved I shall not much thank any man to quit me the Position upon which the Congregations are grounded to wit the chiefe Power of the people in the Church Though it seems they are not yet agreed themselves what the Power of the people should be Morellus in the French Churches disputed downright that the State of Government in the Church ought to be democratick the people to be Soveraign Wherein by Bezaes Epistles it appears that he was supported by Ramus For the man whom Beza calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and describes by other circumlocutions who put the French Churches to the trouble of divers Synods to suppresse this Position as there it appears can be no other then Ramus Perhaps Ramus his credit in our Universities was the first means to bring this conceit in Religion among us For about the time that he was most cried up in them Brown and Barow published it Unlesse it be more probable to fetch it from the troubles of Francford For those that would take upon them to exercise the Power of the Keys in that estate because they were a Congregation that assembled together for the Service of God which power could not stand unlesse recourse might be had to Excommunication did by expresse consequence challenge the publick power of the Church to all Congregations which I have shewed to be otherwise And the contest there related between one of the people and one of the Pastors shews that they grounded themselves upon the Right of the people So true it is that I said afore that the Presbyterians have still held the stirrup to those of the Congregations to put themselves out of the saddle As now the Design of the Congregations is refined they will not have it said that they make the People chief in the Church For they give them power which they will have subject to that Authority which they place in the Pastors Elders which serves not the turn We have an instance against it in the State of Rome after they had driven away the Tarquins They placed Authority in the Senate and Power in the People and I suppose the successe of time shewed that which Bodine disputes against Polybius De Repub. II. 2. to be most true that the State was thereby made a Democraty So the Congregations challenging to themselves Right to make themselves Churches and by consequence whom they please Pastors must needs by
consequence reduce the Authority they pretend to what measure the people shall please whom by their proceedings they inable to make and unmake members and Pastors at their pleasure But I dispute not the consequence of their design before they declare what they are agreed upon in it Besides they conceive they have this Right in the Church because they are Saints as Anabaptists conceive that by the same title they have Right to the Goods of this world and as Christians conceive they have those Rights which they pretend to in the Visible Church by lawfull Ordination and Baptism And that they are Saints they seem to presume upon this ground that they have been admitted to such a Congregation upon Covenant to live in such Society for which they separate from the Church It shall be enough to levell the grounds and reasons from Scripture upon which they have parted from the Church under pretence of recovering the freedom of Saints before they are agreed wherein this freedom consists and how far it extends And truly that which I have hitherto proved seems to be a peremptory prescription against their pretence For if the Apostles ordered the Bodies of severall Churches to consist of the whole numbers of Christians contained in severall Cities and in the Territories of them which no common sense can possibly imagine that they could assemble all together at any time for the service of God it follows of necessity that the power of Governing those Churches was not deposited by the Apostles in the Body of the People whereof those Churches did or should consist For where the Power is in the People there the whole Body of the People must have means to Assemble to take Order in such things as concern the state of it Wherefore the Assemblies of the Church being only for Divine Service and at those Assemblies it being impossible that all the people of those Churches should meet common sense must pronounce that the Power of taking Order in the common affairs of Churches is not deposited by the Apostles in the Body of the People Another exception there is to all or most of the particulars which they alledge out of the scriptures far more peremptory then his For those things upon which they ground the right interess of the people in the Church were done under the Apostles that is not only in their time but also in concurrence with their Right and Power in the Government of the Church So that if we beleeve or if we prove the chief Power to have been then in the Apostles it cannot by the Scriptures which they produce be proved to remain in the People because their evidence cannot prove any greater Power or Right to be now in the People then belonged to them when the Scriptures they allege were said or done under the Apostles Now I suppose I shall not need to intreat any man to grant me that the Soveraign Power of the Church was then in the Apostles which their Commission will easily evince The name of an Apostle seemeth to have been borrowed by our Lord from the ordinary use of that people For in their Law it ordinarily signifieth a mans Proxy or Commissary deputed to some purpose And therefore the signification of it in the Scriptures is very large So that when we reade of Epaphroditus Apostle of the Philippians Phil. II. 25 30. or of Luke and Titus Apostles of the Churches 2 Cor. VIII 19 20 23. we are not to conceive by this name any thing like the Office of the Apostles of Christ For these later are plainly called Apostles of the Churches as deputed by them to carry their Contributions to Jerusalem And Epaphroditus of the Philippians as imploied by them to wait upon and furnish S. Paul with his necessary charges at Rome The power of Christs Apostles then must not be valued by the name of Apostle nor by the person of our Lord Christ that sends them for he might have sent other manner of men upon inferiour errands and all been Apostles But by the work which they are trusted with expressed in their Commission As my Father sent me Whos 's soever sins ye remit and Goe preach and teach all Nations For if God ordain his Church to be one Visible Society to serve him in the Profession of the Gospel and trust onely his Apostles and the Church with the Power of the Keys the root of all Ecclesiasticall Power as hath been said either the Church must challenge it against the Apostles which is not but by them or it must be understood to have been then in the Church because it was in the Apostles in whom it was before the Church which was founded by them whereupon the Office of the Apostles is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishoprick before the Church was whereof they were Bishops to wit in Judas Acts I. 9. A meaning easie to be read in the number of them For the Church being the spirituall Israel as Israel according to the flesh coming of XII Patriarchs had always XII Princes of their Tribes and LXX Presbyters members of the great Consistory to govern them in the greatest matters concerning the State of the whole People under one King or Judge or under God when they had neither King nor Judge So did our Saviour appoint XII Patriarchs as it were of his spirituall People LXX Governours of another Rank both under the name of Apostles in whom should rest the whole Power of governing that People whereof himself in heaven remains always King A perfect evidence hereof is the deriving of other Power from them as theirs is derived from Christ We reade in the Scriptures of Euangelists and we reade of another sort of Apostles which if we understand not to be of the number of the LXX we must needs conceive to be so called because they were Apostles of the Apostles that is persons sent by the XII Apostles to assist them in the work committed to their trust which it is plain could not be executed by them in person alone And indeed those whom the Scripture cals false Apostles 2 Cor. XI 13. and that said they were Apostles and were not Apoc. II. 2. what can we imagine they were but such as pretended to be imploied by other Apostles perhaps by S. Peter to Corinth who had a hand in the founding of that Church as we learn by Dionysius of Corinth in Eusebius Eccles Histor II. 25. agreeing with the beginning of S. Pauls first Epistle but intended indeed under their names and authorities to pull down that which was built by their fellow Apostles And in this sense perhaps S. Paul calls Andronicus and Junias eminent among the Apostles Rom. XVI 7. because it may be they were imploied by himself or by S. Peter about the Gospel at Rome And hereby we may take measure what Euangelists were For seeing it appears by the Scripture that they were the Apostles Scholars deputed by them and limited to such imploiment as
they found most proper for their assistance it is manifest that they could have no authority but derived from the Apostles A thing perfectly agreeing with the Custome that had always been among Gods People For all Prophets whom God imploied upon his messages and may therefore properly be called his Apostles as our Lord Christ is called the Apostle of our Profession Heb. III. 1 had their Disciples to wait upon them which is called ministring to them in the language of the Scripture Thus Joshua the Minister of Moses Exod. XXIV 13. Elizeus poured water on the hands of Elias as the Chief of his Scholars that expected a double portion of his spirit 2 Reg. II. 9. III. 11. Thus the Baptist saith he is not worthy to loose or take away our Saviours shooes Mat. III. 11. Mar. I. 7. that is to be his Disciple for by Maimoni in the Title of learning the Law cap. V. we learn that the Disciples of the Jews Doctors were to do that service for their Masters Hereupon saith Christ Luc. XXII 26. I am among you as he that ministreth to wit not as a Master but as a Disciple Thus the chief of our Lords Disciples whom he had chosen from the beginning to be with him receiving his Commission became his Apostles having waited on his Person and by familiar conversation learned his doctrine better then others Whereupon I said in the Primitive Government of Churches p. 3. that to make an Apostle it was requisite to have seen our Lord in the flesh and that he appeared to S. Paul after death to advance him to that rank by this privilege Mar. III. 14. Mat. X. 1 4. And shall we think that the Apostles did not as their Lord and all the Prophets before him had done choose themselves Scholars that by waiting on them might learn their Doctrine and become fit to be imploied under them and after them If we do we shall mis-kenne the most remarkable circumstances of Scripture For we may easily observe that those who are called in the Scriptures Euangelists are such as first waited upon the Apostles as S. Mark upon S. Peter Timothy and S. Luke upon S. Paul Acts XVI 1. XIX 22. as Mark upon Paul and Barnabas Acts XIII 5. and Mark again whether the same or another upon S. Paul 2 Tim. IV. 11. And therefore I easily grant both Timothy and Titus to have been Euangelists though the Scripture says it but of one 2 Tim. IV. 5. because I see them both Companions of S. Paul that is his Scholars and Ministers And therefore find it very reasonable that he should imploy Titus into Dalmatia to Preach the Gospel in those parts where himself had left hoping to goe further and carry it beyond into Illyricum whereof Dalmatia was a part as you may see by comparing the Scriptures 2 Tim. IV. 10. Rom. XV. 19. 2 Cor. X 16. Tit. III. 12. For thus also of the seven Ministers to the Apostles at Jerusalem you see Steven and Philip imploied in Preaching the Gospel and this later called therefore expresly an Euangelist Acts VI. 9. VIII 5 12. XXI 8. And therefore it is not possible for any man out of the Scriptures to distinguish between the Office of Euangelists and those whom I shewed to have been Apostles of the Apostles And thereby the conclusion remains firm that all Ecclesiasticall Power at that time remained and for future times is to be derived from the Apostles when we see by the Scriptures that the Euangelists derived their Office and Authority from their appointment And indeed how can common sense indure to apprehend it otherwise especially admitting that which hath been discoursed of the Power of the Keys in admitting into the Church That being made Christians by the Apostles because by them convinced to beleeve that they were Gods Messengers whom they stood bound to obey should neverthelesse by being Christains obtain the Power of regulating and concluding the Apostles themselves in matters concerning the Community of the Church which what it meant or that such a Society should be they could not so much as imagine but by them is a thing no common sense can admit without prejudice Those that purchase dominion by lawfull Conquest in the world become thereby able to dispose of all their Subjects have because they give them their lives that is themselves The Church is a People subdued to Christ by the Apostles not by force but by the sword of the Spirit and though to freedome yet that freedome consists in the state of particular Christians towards God not in the publique Power of the Church otherwise then it is conveyed lawfully from them that had it before the Church Indeed visible Christianity is a condition requisite to make a man capable of Ecclesiasticall Power and the Church is then in best estate when that legall presumption of invisible Christianity is most reasonable But if Saints because Saints have Power and Right to govern the Church then follows the Position imposed on Wicleffe and Husse in the Councell of Constance and condemned by all Christians that Ecclesiasticall Power holds and fails with Grace which will not fail to draw after it the like consequence in Secular matters pernicious to all Civile Societies that the interesse of honest men is the interesse of Kingdomes and States contradicting the principle laid down at the beginning that Christianity calls no man to any advantage of this world but to the Crosse Therefore no Christian or Saint as Saint or Christian hath any Right or Power in the Church but that which can be lawfully derived from the Order of the Apostles Those of the Congregations use to allege S. Peters apology to the Jewish Christians for conversing with Cornelius and his Company Acts XI 9. as also that of S. Paul Col. IV. 17. speaking to the body of the Church at Colossae Say to Archippus look to the Ministery which thou hast received to fulfill it as if S. Peter or Archippus must be afraid of Excommunication if they render not a good account of their actions to the People By which it may appear how truly I have said that the Power they give the People is in check to that Power which was exercised by the Apostles But if we reason not amisse it would be a great prejudice to Christianity that S. Peter could not inform Christian People of the reason of his doings which they understood not but he must make them his Soveraign Or that S. Paul conveying his commands to Archippus by an Epistle directed to the whole Church should be thought to invest the People in that Power by which he commands Archippus They allege also the People of the Church of Jerusalem present at the Councell there and joyned in the letter by which the decree is signified and conveyed to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia Acts XV. 4 12 23. But of this I have spoken already and am very willing to leave all men to judge by the premises whether
it is probable that for resolution in a doubt which such persons as Paul and Barnabas could not determine as to the Body of the Church it can be thought that they resorted to Jerusalem as to the Brethren or as to the Apostles whether it can be imagined that the People of the Church at Jerusalem could prescribe in any way either of Power or of Authority or Illumination unto the Church of Antioch and the publique persons of it Lastly whether the arrow is not shot beyond the mark when it is argued that this Decree is the act of the People because it appears that they assent to it seeing we know by the premises that they were bound to consent to the Acts of the Apostles So in the Power of the Keys and Excommunication what can be so plain as that S. Paul gives sentence upon the incestuous person at Corinth and obliges the Church there to execute his Decree as he calls it in expresse terms 2 Cor. V. 3 4 I conceive I have read an answer to this in some of their writings that this Epistle is Scripture and therefore the matter of it commanded by God But let me instance in the result of the Councell at Jerusalem The Church of Jerusalem was tied by virtue of the Decree for to them there was no Epistle sent Therefore the Church of Antiochia and the rest of the Churches to whom that Epistle was sent which we have Acts XV 23. were tied by virtue of the Decree not by virtue of the Epistle by which they knew themselves tied And let me put the case here Had S. Paul been at Corinth and decreed that which he decreeth by this Epistle had not the Church been tied unlesse he had sent them an Epistle or otherwise made it appear to them that he had a Revelation from God on purpose having made appearance to them that he was the Apostle of Christ Beleeve himself in that case when he says he will doe as much absent as present 2 Cor. XI 11. And again When I come I shall bewail divers 2 Cor. XII 20 21. that is excommunicate them or put them to Penance as I have said Remember the miraculous effect of Excommunication in the Apostles time when by visible punishments inflicted on the excommunicate by evil Angels it appeared that they were cast out of the shadow of Gods Tabernacle and it will seem as probable that this is the Rod which S. Paul threatens the Corinthians with 1 Cor. IV. 21. 2 Cor. X. 2 8. as that many were sick there because they abused the Eucharist 1 Cor. XI 30. Therefore if this effect of the sentence came from the Apostles the sentence also came Here appears a necessary argument from the Legislative Power of the Apostles to the whole Church For as no Christian can deny that the Constitutions of the Apostles oblige the Church so it is manifest that they doe not oblige it because they are written in the Scripture for they were all in force in the Church before the Scriptures were written in which they are related neither doth it evidence that they were first delivered to the Church with assurance that they were by expresse Revelation commanded to be delivered to the Church or because they were passed by votes of the People But by virtue of the generall Commission of the Apostles being received in that quality by those that became Christians and so made a Church So in matter of Ordinations it is well known who they are that have made the People beleeve that Paul and Barnabas Ordained Presbyters in the Churches of their founding by voices of the People signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts XIV 22. which being admitted it is but an easie consequence to inferre that all Congregations are absolute because making their Presbyters they must needs first make themselves Churches But he that reads the Text without prejudice easily sees that the Act of Ordaining is here attributed to the Apostles not to the People They the Apostles ordained them to wit the Church or People Presbyters Therefore this Scripture speaks not of Election by Holding up of the Peoples hands but of Ordination by laying on the Hands of the Apostles And therefore in the choice of the seven Deacons it is manifest that the Apostles though they gave way to the People to nominate yet reserved themselves the approving of the persons otherwise the People might have sinned and the Apostles born the blame for it For when S. Paul saith Lay Hands suddenly on no man nor participate of other mens sins 2 Tim. V. 22. it is manifest that he who Imposes Hands ought to have power not to Impose because he sins Imposing amisse Last of all let us consider how liberally the Church of Jerusalem parted with whole estates the Church of Corinth maintained their Feasts of Love wherof we reade 1 Cor. XI 17. the same Corinthians with other Churches offered to the support of the Churches in Judaea 2 Cor. VIII 1 the Philippians sent to supply S. Paul Phil. II 25. 30. IV. 20. And all the rest which we finde recorded in the New Testament of the Oblations of the Faithfull to the maintenance of Gods Service Whence it shall appear in due time that the Indowment of the Church is estated upon it And then let common sense judge whether this came from the understanding and motion and proper devotion of the People or from their Christianity obliging them to follow that Order which the authority and doctrine of the Apostles should shew them to be requisite for their Profession and the support of the Church at that time By all this as it will easily appear that the Chief Interesse and Right in disposing of Church matters could not belong to the People under the Apostles so is it not my purpose to say that at any time the People ought to have no manner of Right or Interesse in the same For if the practice under the Apostles be the best evidence that we can ground Law upon to the Church then it is requisite to the good estate of the Church and necessary for those that can dispose of the publique Order of it to procure that it be such as may give the People reasonable satisfaction in those things wherein they are concerned Which what it requires and how farre it extends I will say somewhat in generall when we come to give bounds to the severall Interests in the publique Power of the Church In the mean time as no water can ascend higher then it descended afore so can no People have any further Right and Power in Church matters then that which the People had under the Apostles because that is all the evidence upon which their Interesse can be grounded and acknowledged Lesse is not to be granted more they must not require CHAP. III. That the Chief power of every Church resteth in the Bishop and Presbyters attended by the Deacons That onely the power of the Keys is
desired who having white Robes granted them in stead of that present justice which their Prayers sollicited are afterwards described standing with their faces toward the Throne the Lamb and the Elders as the People in the Church at Divine Service towards the Bishop and Presbyters Which particulars too long here to be deduced are easie to be observed by comparing Apoc. V. 8. VI. 9 10 11. VII 12 14. VIII 3 4 5. Adde hereunto the saying of Ignatius that the Bishop in his Church bears the figure of the Father of All to wit in the whole Church Triumphant and unto that the Ordinary expression of the Jews when they use the term of God and his House of Judgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his Court or Consistory to represent the Majesty of God sitting in Counsell or in Judgement upon the World with the Angels about him in the Old Testament but the Saints in the New attended by the Angels Mar. XIX 28. Luc. XXII 30. 1 Cor. VI. 2. Apoc. XX. 4. which expression of theirs is manifestly borrowed from the Scriptures of the old Testament every where representing the Majesty of God in this posture Ps LXXXIX 8. Dan. VII 9. Psal CXLIX 1. Deut. XXXII 2. and you have not onely a Commentary upon this whole passage but also a Confirfirmation of all that hath been or shall be said that the Bishop and Presbyters are the same in the Church as the Sanedrin and the Head of them in the Synagogue All this is yet more fortified by the testimony of Tertullian De Praescript cap. XXXVI that the very Chairs in which the Apostles sate in their Churches were extant in his time as saith he were also the very Originals of their Epistles in the Churches to whom they were sent and as the Chair of S. James at Jerusalem was extant in Eusebius his time Eccles Hist VII 19. Adde further The uppermost Seats in Synagogues which the Scribes and Pharisees desired Luc. XI 43. adde the Apostle 1 Cor. XIV 25 30. distinguishing between the Seats of private persons and Prophets which the supposed S. Ambrose expounds by the Custome of sitting in the Synagogue as I have shewed in the same place adde The Chair of Moses on which the Scribes and Pharisees sate in succession to him who taught the people in that posture with the Priests sitting about him as Philo expoundeth the Text Num. XV. 33. Mat. XXIII 2. and I suppose we have not only evidenced to common sense the Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyters by his Place in the Church but also the distinction of the Clergy from the People by the same Which Point that I may deduce with that care which the consequence of it requires it will be worth the inquiry first by what title of Right the Celebration and Consecration of the Eucharist belongs only to Presbyters which as it seems to be agreed upon on all sides so let the Reason also once be agreed upon why it belongs only to them and thereby it will appear that it is convertible with the Power of the Keys that is that the Power of the Keys also belongs only to Presbyters whereas the Offices of Preaching and baptizing are communicable to their inferiours and that it belongs also to all Presbyters and so by consequence that there is no such thing as Lay Elders The Presbyterians stiling their Pastors Ministers of the Word and Sacraments in opposition to their Lay Elders seem to ground this Right upon the Commission of our Lord to his Apostles Goe preach and make Disoiples all nations Baptizing them as if this were the Office wherein Presbyters succeed the Apostles though of the Eucharist there is here never a word But if they consider what it is to Preach the Gospel to Unbeleevers or rather what it was before the Gospel was received any where it will easily appear that unlesse they be mad men that go about it it is necessary that they be indowed with abilities to make it appear even to the enemies of the Gospel that they are sent by God to Preach it Therefore no man succeeds the Apostles in the Office of Preaching the Gospel to the Nations And therefore if they will take notice they shall easily observe that the Title of Minister of the Gospel Minister of the Word of the New Testament Minister of the Church and others equivalent are never given to any but the Apostles in the Scriptures unlesse it be to their Scholars and Substitutes the Evangelists because they were to the Apostles as the Apostles to Christ and Christ to God that is they were Ministers of the Apostles assumed by them to the work which Christ had trusted them in Person with of Preaching the Gospel and planting Christianity And therefore when need was were able to make their Commission appear by the works they did though in an inferiour degree because they proceeded upon that stock of reputation which the Apostles had won the Gospel by their Preaching and Miracles Such titles you shall finde attributed to the Apostles and their Followers and Substitutes 1 Cor. III. 5. 2 Cor. III. VI. 4. XI 23. Col. I. 23 25. Eph. III. 7. VI. 21. 1 Thess III. 2. Col. IV. 7. I. 7. Acts I. 17. VI. 4. XX. 24. XXI 19. but no where to Presbyters For the name of Presbyters as also of Bishops is Relative to the People of those Churches whereof they are Bishops and Presbyters signifying them to be the best qualified of all the Body of those Churches chosen and constitute to conduct the rest in Christianity And therefore the Apostles also are Presbyters as S. Peter and S. John style themselves 1 Pet. V. 1. 2 John 1. 3 John 1. because the greater includes the lesse and because they had power in all Churches as Presbyters in one But Presbyters are never called Apostles because the greater is not included in the lesse and because Presbyters never had Commission to preach the Word or the Gospel in the sense whereof I speak here that is to publish the Gospel to Unbeleevers And whereas there is the same difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the one part and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other as there is between Publishing the Gospel to Vnbeleevers and instructing Christian Assemblies in it we never finde the former attributed to any Presbyter in the Scriptures but we finde both attributed to the Apostles because their Commission was to Publish the Gospel to all Nations and to make them Disciples by Baptizing them and being such to Teach them further to observe all that our Lord commandeth Mat. XXVIII 19 20. Mar. XVI 15. Thus the Apostles Acts V. 42. ceased not to Teach and Preach Jesus Christ in Houses and in the Temple To Teach the Church in those Houses where the Christians assembled to serve God as Christians and to Preach to the Jews in the Temple whither they resorted for that Service Acts II. 42 46.
Preached during the Apostles times What reason then can any Reader have to presume that any of their dead witnesses make more for their purpose then I who am alive and stand to see my self alleged point blank against the position which I intended to prove because forsooth in their understanding the premises which I use stand not with the conclusion which I intended to prove But to speak plain English for the future if any man can shew by any writing of any Christian from the Apostles to this innovation any man indowed with the Power of the Keys that was not also qualified to Preach and to celebrate the Eucharist I am content to be of the Presbyteries the next morning though I am so well satisfied that it will never be shewed that I say confidently it will always be to morrow Now because the Power of the Keys that is the whole Power of the Church whereof that Power is the root and source is common to Bishop and Presbyters it is here demanded what Act we can shew peculiar to the Bishop by precept of Gods Word for which that Order may be said to be superiour to that of Presbyters A demand sutable to the definition of the Schoole wherein an Order is said to be a Power to doe some speciall Act But extremely wide of the Terms that have been held heretofore Have we been told all this while that the Presbyteries are the Throne and Scepter of Christ the force and Power of his Kingdome hath so much Christian blood been drawn for the Cause and now in stead of shewing that they are either commanded or consistent with the Word of God is it demanded that the Government in possession in the Church from the Apostles shew reason why it cannot be abolished though instituted by the Apostles Surely though this is possible to be shewed yet though it could not be shewed it might be beyond any Power on earth to abolish the Order of Bishops For my part I conceive I have shewed heretofore that the Power of every respective Church was deposited by the Apostles with the respective Bishop and Presbyters and that therefore in the ages next to the Apostles the advice and consent of the Presbyters did concurre with the Bishop in ordering of Ecclesiasticall matters whereas Congregations were not yet distinct but a Bishop and Presbyters over the common Body of each Church Over and above what hath been said the condemning of Marcion at Rome and of Noetus at Ephesus are expresly said by Epiphanius Haer. XLII num I II. Haer. LVII nu I. to have been done passed by the Act of the Presbyters of those Churches The difference between Alexander Bishop and Arius Presbyter of Alexandria is said to have risen at a meeting and debate of that Bishop and his Presbyters in the letter of Constantine to those two reported by Eusebius De Vitâ Constant II. cap. penult And Epiphanius Haer. LXIX num III. And which is of a later date the Excommunication of Andronicus in Synesius his fifty seventh Epistle I finde reported to have passed in the same sort And all this agreeable to the practice recorded in the Scriptures For when S. Paul instructeth Timothy saying 1 Tim. V. 19 20. Against a Presbyter receive not an accusation but under two or three witnesses Them that sin rebuke openly that the rest may fear Is it not easie to gather from hence that he commandeth such accusations to be brought and proved before Timothy with the rest of his Presbyters but the competent censure to be executed before the whole Congregation of the Church And is it not manifest that S. James first gives S. Paul audience in a Consistory of the Presbyters to advise what course to take before the Congregation be acquainted with the businesse Acts XXI 18 The same being the practice of S. Cyprians time when Cornelius of Rome writeth to him Epist XLVI placuit contrahi Presbyterium As also expressed in the Apostolicall Constitutions II. 47. by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Consistories appointed there to be held every week for composing all differences against the Lords Day And therefore as for my part the learned Blondell might have spared all his exact diligence to shew that Presbyters did concurre with the Bishop in acts of this nature The cunning would be in proving the consequence that therefore Bishop and Presbyters are all one which all common sense disavows For be it granted which he insisteth upon so much that as the Commentary upon S. Pauls Epistles under S. Ambrose his Name relateth Eph. IV. 11. at the first the eldest of the Presbyters was wont to be taken into the place of the Bishop For it is probable that this course was kept in some places though his conjectures will not serve to prove that it was a generall Rule what will this inable him to inferre as for the power of the Bishop being once received into the first place who knows very well the gallant speech of Valentinian recorded by Ammianus lib. XXVI to the very Army that had chosen him Emperour and at the instant of his inauguration began to mutiny about retracting their choice that it was in their power to choose an Emperour before they had done it Intimating that being chosen it was not in their power to withdraw their obedience For by the same reason whatsover be the means that promoted the Bishop the measure of the power to which he was promoted must be taken from the Law given the Church by the Apostles expressed by the practice of it As there is no doubt but the Romane Emperors were advanced to an absolute Power though by the choice of their Souldiers It is not my purpose to say that the Power of the Bishop in the Church is such But it is my purpose to appeal to common sense and daily experience and to demand whether in those Societies or Bodies which consist of a standing Councell and a Head thereof indowed with the Privilege of a Negative the Power of the Head and of the severall members be one and the same If not then is there the same difference between the Bishop and the Presbyters by the Scriptures interpreted by the Originall practice of the Church The Instructions addressed to Timothy Titus I suppose obliged not them alone but all that were concerned to yeeld obedience to what thereby they are commanded to doe If any thing concerning the subject of those instructions could have passed without Timothy and Titus they were all a meer nullity For instance if by the Presbyters Votes Ordination might have been made without Timothy they might commit sin and the blame thereof lie on Timothies score to which S. Paul if he lay hands suddenly on any man makes him liable So the Angels of the seven Churches as they are commended for the good so are they charged with the sins of their Churches Which how can it be reasonable but for the eminent power in them without
to oblige superiours to that integrity by making the proceedings manifest and so to preserve the Unity of the Church I say not that these times are capable of such satisfaction upon the like terms as them But from this practice under the Apostles I shall easily grant the people an Interesse in such things as may concern their particular Congregations of excepting against such proceedings as can appear to them to be against any Rule of the Scripture or of the whole Church For this Interesse it is upon which the people is demanded in the Church of England what they have to say against Ordinations and Mariages to be made And if their satisfaction in matter of Penance were to be returned it would be no more then the same reason inferres Especially because it hath been shewed that the prayers of the People or of the Church is one part of the means to take away sinne by the Keys of the Church the other being the Humiliation of the Penitent according to that Order and measure which the Bishop and Presbyters shall prescribe James V. 14 15. 2 Cor. XII 20 21. Mat. XVIII 21. 1 John V. 16. And if this Interesse were made effectuall by the Laws of Christian States and Kingdomes to the hindrance of such proceedings wherein the Power of the Church may be abused the Church shall have no cause to complain But that the Power should be taken from the Church because the Laws of the State are not so good as they might be is as unjust and pernicious a medicine as to put the Chief Power in the hands of the People For seeing it hath been demonstrated that as it was the custome to passe such Acts at the Assemblies of the whole Church so was it also to advise and resolve upon them at the Consistories of the Clergy it is manifest that the suffrage of the People often mentioned in Church Writers was not to resolve but to passe what was resolved afore because nothing appeared in barre to it For the Interesse of the People extending no further then their own Church and it being impossible that all the Christians within the Territories of Cities belonging to the respective Churches should all assemble at once it is manifest none of these matters could be resolved by number of Votes and therefore that the Power was not in the People but a Right to be satisfied of the right use of the Power by those that had it Which how it may be made effectuall to the benefit of the People in a Christian Church and State is not for me to determine But by virtue of this Right it is that as Justellus in his Notes upon the Greek and Africane Canons hath observed to us especially out of the Records of the Churches of Africk and of the West for divers Ages the Best of the People who as he shews were called Seniores Presbyteri Ecclesiarum were admitted to assist at the passing of the publique Acts of those Churches In all which as there is nothing to be found like the Power of the Keys which Lay Elders are created to manage So he that will consider the interesse in which it appears they did intervene comparing it with the intolerable trouble which the concurrence of the People was found to breed when the number of Christians was increased by the Emperours professing Christianity will easily judge that it was nothing else but the Interesse of the People which in succeeding ages was referred to some persons chosen out of them to manage in the publique Acts of the Church And this custome is sutable enough with the Office of Church-wardens in the Church of England if it had been established as well in the Mother and Cathedrall as in the Parish Churches CHAP. IV. Secular Persons as such have no Ecclesiasticall Power but may have Soveraign Power in Ecclesiasticall matters The Right of giving Laws to the Church and the Right of Tithes Oblations and all Consecrations how Originall how Accessory to the Church The Interesse of Secular Powers in all parts of the Power of the Church THese things thus determined and the whole Power of the Church thus limited in Bishops and Presbyters with reservation of the Interesse of the People specified it follows necessarily that no Secular person whatsoever endowed with Soveraign or subordinate Power in any State is thereby endowed with any part of this Ecclesiasticall Power hitherto described Because it hath been premised for a Principle here to be reassumed that no State by professing Christianity and the protection thereof can purchase to it self or defeat the Church of any part of the Right whereof it stands possessed by the Originall institution of our Lord and his Apostles and therefore no person indowed with any quality subsisting by the Constitution of any State can challenge any Right that subsisteth by the Constitution of the Church and therefore belongeth to some person qualified by the same For Ecclesiasticall Power I understand here to be onely that which subsisteth by the Constitution of the Church And therefore all by Divine Right to all that acknowledge no humane authority capable of founding the Church And therefore by Divine Right invested in the Persons of them that have received it mediately or immediately from the Apostles seeing it is no ways imaginable how any man can stand lawfully possessed of that Power which is effectually in some body else from whom he claimeth not And therefore not to be propagated but by the free act of them that so have it But I intend not hereby to exclude Secular Powers from their Right in Church matters But intend to distinguish between Ecclesiasticall Power and Power in Ecclesiasticall matters and these to distinguish by the originall from whence they both proceed because so we shall be best able to make an estimate of the effect which both of them are able to produce according to the saying observed afore that the water rises no higher then it descended afore For if by Ecclesiasticall Power we mean that which arises from the Constitution of the Church it is not possible that by any quality not depending on the same any man should be inabled to any act that doth But if Power in matters of Religion be a Power necessary to the subsistence of all States then have Christian States that Power in the disposing of Christianity which all States in generall have in the disposing of those things which concern that Religion which they suppose and professe And this to prove I will not be much beholding to the Records of Histories or to the opinions and reasons of Philosophers Seeing common sense alone is able to shew us that there is not any State professing any Religion that does not exercise an interesse in disposing of matters of Religion as they have relation to the publique peace tranquillity and happinesse of that people The Power of disposing in matters of Religion is one part and that a very considerable one of that publique
the Pharisee Luc. XVIII 12. that the Mundays and Thursdays were then and before then observed by the Jews as since they have been And as you see the like done in the Feast of Lots ordained in Esthers time and that of the Dedication in Judas Maccabcus his And in the same Prophet Zac. XII 12 13 14. you have a manifest allusion to the Jews ceremonies at their Funerals recorded by Maimont in the title of Mourners cap. IX clearly shewing that they were in force in that Prophets time As it is manifest that they began before the Law it self not only by that which we reade of the Funerals of Jacob in Genesis but chiefly because it required an expresse Law of God to derogate from it as to the Priests in the case of Aarons sons Levit. X. 6. XXI 1 10 11 12. Many more there are to be observed in the Old Testament if these were not enough to evidence that which cannot be denied that it appears indeed by Scripture that there were such Laws in force but that they were commanded by revelations from God is quite another thing Though men of learning sometimes make themselves ridiculous by mistaking as if all that is recorded in the Scriptures were commanded by God when all that comes from God is the record of them as true not the authority of them as divine The case is not much otherwise in the New Testament where it is manifest that many Constitutions Ordinances or Traditions as the Apostle sometimes calls them 1 Cor. XI 2. are recorded which no man can say that they obliged not the Church and yet this force of binding the Church comes not from the mention of them which we finde in severall places of Scripture For they must needs be in force before they could be mentioned as such in the Scriptures but from that Power which God had appointed to order and determine such things in his Church This difference indeed there is between the Old and New Testament that this being all written in the Apostles time can mention nothing of that nature but that which comming from the Apostles might come by immediate revelation from God Which of the Old cannot be said For though there were Prophets in all ages of it and those Prophets endowed with such trust that if they commanded to dispense with any of Gods own positive Laws they were to be obeyed as appears by Elias commanding to Sacrifice in Mount Carmell contrary to the Law of Levit. XVII 4. and this by virtue of the Law Deut. XVIII 18 19. because he that gave the Law by Moses might by another as well dispense with it yet it is manifestly certain that neverthelesse they had not the power of making those Constitutions which were to bind the people in the exercise of their Religion according to the Law For when the Law makes them subject to be judged by the Consistory whether true Prophets or not whereupon we see that they were many times persecuted and our Lord at last put to death by them that would not acknowledge them because they had not the grace to obey them as you saw afore it cannot be imagined that they were enabled to any such act of government as giving those Laws to the Synagogue Especially seeing by the Law of Deut. XVII 8-12 this power and this right is manifestly setled upon the Consistory For seeing that by the Law all questions arising about the Law are remitted to the place of Gods worship where the Consistory sate in all ages and the determination of a case doubtfull in Law to be obeyed under pain of death is manifestly a Law which all are obliged to live by of necessity therefore those who have power to determine what the written Law had not determined doe give Law to the people And this right our Lord himself who as a Prophet had right to reprove even the publick government where it was amisse establishes as ready to maintain them in it had they submitted to the Gospel when he says Mat. XXIII 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair all therefore that they teach you observe and doe The Scribes and Pharisees being either limbs and members or appendences of the Consistory who under pain of death were not to teach any thing to determine any thing that the Law had not determined contrary to that which the Consistory had first agreed Whereby it is manifest that all these Laws and Ordinances aforenamed and all others of like nature which all common sense must allow to have been more then the Scripture any where mentions are the productions of this Right and Power placed by God in the Consistory on purpose to avoid Schism and keep the body of the people in Unity by shewing them what to stand to when the Law had not determined So that this is nothing contrary to the Law of Deut. IV. 2. XII 32. which forbiddeth to adde to or take from Gods Law the Law remaining intire when it is supplied by the Power which it self appointeth And he that will see the truth of this with his eys let him look upon the Jews Constitutions compiled into the Body of their Talmud Which though they are now written and in our Saviours time were taught from hand to hand though by succession of time and change in the State of that People they cannot continue in all points the same as they were in our Saviours time yet it is manifest that the substance of them was then in force because whatsoever the Gospel mentions of them is found to agree with that which they have now in writing And are all manifestly the effect of the lawfull power of the Consistory Nor let any man object that they are the Doctrines of the Pharisees which they pretended that Moses received from God in Mount Sinai and delivered by word of mouth to his Successors and that the Sadduces were of another opinion who never acknowledged any such unwritten Law but tied themselves to the letter as doth at this day one part of the Jews which renounce the Talmud and rest in the letter of the Law who are therefore called Karaim that is Scripturaries For though all this be true yet neither Pharisees nor Sadduces then neither Talmudists nor Scripturaries now did or do make question of acknowledging such Laws and Constitutions as are necessary to determine that which grows questionable in the practice of the Law but are both in the wrong when as to gain credit to those Orders and Constitutions which both bodies respectively acknowledge the one will have them delivered by God to Moses the other will needs draw them by consequence out of the letter of the Scripture And so entitle them to God otherwise then he appointed which is only as the results and productions of that power which he ordained to end all matter of difference by limiting that which the Law had not The same reason necessarily takes place under the New Testament saving the difference
by the immediate dictate of the Spirit by the same reason can conclude nothing to be the will of God and the true intent of his Word without it This if it were meant onely of the testimony of the Spirit of God witnessing with our Spirit that we are the children of God and sealing the assurance of this favour to our persons and actions then would it not take away the grounds upon which and the means by which we are effectually moved and brought to be Christians both in profession and in deed So that by consequence means might be had whereby a man 's own Spirit might be enabled to discern between the dictates of Gods Spirit and that of the world But being advanced in answer to this difficulty as the first ground of faith and the last resolution of it cannot be so understood But of necessity importeth that no man can be assured by the assurance of faith of any truth without that means by which God reveals himself to them by whom he declares his will to others That either any person on behalf of the Church or any private spirit should pretend to any such endowment is contrary to common sense and their own proceedings When they use the like means to inform themselves both why to beleeve the Scripture and what the meaning of it and the will of God is as other men doe And if they doe pretend more they must shew such evidence as God hath ordained to convince the world before they can pretend to oblige any man to beleeve them Besides that so it would not be possible to render a reason why God hath given his Scriptures at all seeing that notwithstanding he must furnish either some persons in behalf of the Church or all beleevers with revelations to convince them what is his will and meaning by the Scriptures But if they admit of such means as God hath appointed Christians to decide whether it be the Spirit of God or of the world that witnesseth with their Spirit then is the question where it was Because as God gives his Spirit to those that are Christians upon such qualities and to such intents as they who pretend to the Spirit of God ought to finde in themselves and to propose to themselves and no other so are they assured that it is the Spirit of God that moves them because they are assured of those qualities and intentions in themselves and by no other meanes Now having shewed before upon what grounds Christianity is to be imbraced I demand whether it be in the compasse of any reason that is convinced of the truth of Christianity to question whether the Scriptures are to be received or not Certainly he were a strange man that should consent to be a Jew or a Mahumetane and yet make a question whether the Book of the Law came from Moses or the Alcoran from Mahomet or not Therefore supposing that we stand convict of the truth of Christianity by the same means we stand assured that God hath caused those great works to be done by Moses and the Prophets by our Lord and his Apostles by which the world stands convict that they were sent by God and by the same that the Scriptures wherein those works and their doctrine is related are from God Neither can the Church act to the assuring of any body herein as the Church but as a multitude of men endowed with common sense which cannot agree to deceive or to be deceived For if the profession of Christianity goe before the being of the Church and Christianity cannot be received till it be acknowledged with the records thereof to be from God then this assurance though it come from the agreement of the men that make the Church goes in nature before the quality of a Church and therefore comes as well from the consent of Jews for the Old Testament as of Christians for the New Nor let it trouble any man that by this means faith may seem to be the work of reason not the grace of God seeing it may very reasonably be demanded Where is the necessity of grace to enable a man to beleeve what he sees reason to beleeve For though the matter of faith be credible of it self yet it is not evident of it self though sufficient reason may be shewed why a man ought to beleeve yet on the other side there are many scandals and stumbling blocks in the way to hinder him from beleeving the chiefe of which is the offence of the Crosse whereof our Lord saith Happy is he that is not offended at me For it cannot seem strange that a man should refuse to beleeve that which he sees sufficient reason to convince him to beleeve when as by beleeving he becomes liable to bear the Crosse of Christ specially not being inforced by the light of reason evidencing the truth of Christianity and determining the assent of the minde as fire does wood to burn but swaied by externall motives working upon the minde according as they finde it disposed to goodnesse For when this disposition is not perfectly wrought by Gods grace nothing hinders sufficient motives to prove uneffectuall to them whom the Crosse of Christ scandalizeth This being resolved it follows by necessary consequence upon what reasons and by what means the meaning of the Scriptures or rather the will of God concerning all matters questioned in Christianity is determinable For it is not the same thing many times to know the meaning of the Scriptures as it is to know how far it is Gods will that it binde the Church The name of the Scripture inforceth no more but that all is true which it containeth Now it containeth many times the sayings and doings of evill men as well as of good of Satan himself sometimes wherein it intends onely to assure that such and such things were said and done And not to insist on the Law of Moses which is all the word of God and no part of it binding to us as the Law of Moses because another disposition of Gods will may appear by other Scriptures in the New Testament it self are found many things that now have not the force of precepts though it appear that they did sometimes binde the Church Such is the practice of the Feasts of Love which S. Paul presses so hard as I shewed afore such is his precept that women be vailed men bare when they pray in the Church the decree of the Apostles at Jerusalem against eating blood and things strangled and sacrificed to Idols the precept of S. James of anointing the sick the ceremonies of Baptism which I shewed afore out of S. Paul to have been in use in the Primitive Church yea the very custome of drenching in Baptism which no man doubts but the institution signifies and yet is now scarce any where in use If therefore there be question of the will of God what is the true meaning of the Scriptures and how far it bindes the Church the
same common sense of all men that assures the truth of the Scriptures must assure it The knowledge of originall languages the comparison of like passages the consideration of the consequence and text of the Scripture the records of ancient Writers describing affairs of the same times and if there be any other helps to understand the Scriptures by they are but the means to improve common sense to convince or be convinced of it If that will not serve to procure resolution there remains nothing else but the consent of the Church testifying the beleef and practice of the first times that received the Scriptures and thereby convincing common sense of the meaning of them as the intent of all Laws is evidenced by the originall practice of the same So that this whole question What Laws God hath given his Church fals under the same resolution by which matters of faith were determined in the ancient Councels in which that which originally and universally had been received in the Church that was ordained by them to be retained for the future as demonstrated to have been received from our Lord and his Apostles by the same kinde of evidence for which we receive Christianity though not so copious as of lesse importance And therefore it will not serve the turn to object that the mystery of iniquity was a working even under the Apostles as S. Paul saith 2 Thess II. 7. to cause the beleef and practice of the Primitive Church always to stand suspect as the means to bring in Antichrist For it is not enough to say that Antichrist was then a coming unlesse a man will undertake to specifie and prove by the Scriptures that the being of Antichrist consists in that which he disputes against For if we will needs presume that the government of the Church which was received in the next age to the Apostles is that wherein Antichristianism consists because the mystery of iniquity was a work under the Apostles why shall not the Socinians argue with as good right that the beleef of the Trinity and Incarnation is that wherein Antichristianism consists being received likewise in the next age to the Apostles under whom the mystery of iniquity was a work Or rather why is either the one or the other admitted to argue from such obscure Scriptures things of such dangerous consequence unlesse they will undertake further to prove by the Scriptures that Antichrist is Antichrist for that which they cry down Which I doe not see that they have endevoured to doe for the things in question among us about the Government of the Church Besides this my reason carries the answer to this objection in it because it challenges no authority but that of historicall truth to any record of the Church Appealing for the rest to common sense to judge whether that which is so evidenced to have been first in practice agreeing with that which is recorded in the Scriptures be not evidently the meaning of those things which we finde by the Scriptures to have been instituted by our Lord and his Apostles And this it is which for the present I have pretended to prove by this Discourse Which being spent chiefly in removing the difficulty of those Scriptures which have been otherwise understood in this businesse confesseth the strength of the cause to stand upon the originall generall and perpetuall practice of the Church determining the matters in difference by the same evidence as Christianity stands recommended to us proportionably to the importance of them Which as it is not such as is able to convince all judgements which are not all capable to understand the state of the whole Church yet is it enough to maintain the possession of right derived to this instant so that no power on earth can undertake to erect Ecclesiasticall authority without and against the succession of the Apostles upon the ground of a contrary perswasion without incurring the crime of Schism I will not leave this point without saying something of their case that have Reformed the Church without authority of Bishops that have abolished the Order and vested their Power in which I have shewed that they succeed the Apostles as to their respective Churches w th dependence on the whol upon Presbyteries or whatsoever besides Which to decline here might make men conceive that I have a better or worse opinion of them then indeed I have For a Rule and modell or Standard to measure what ought to be judged in such a case suppose we that which is possible in nature the terms being consistent together though not at all likely to come to passe in the course of the world a Christian people greater or lesse destitute of Pastors endowed with the Chief authority left by the Apostles in all Churches I suppose in this case no man can doubt but they are bound to admit the same course as those that are first converted to be Christians That is to receive Pastors from them that are able to found and erect Churches and to unite them to the Communion of the whole Church which is no lesse authority then that of a Synod of Bishops that onely or the equivalent of it in the person of an Apostle or Commissary of an Apostle being able to give a Chief Pastor to any Church But suppose further that this authority cannot be had shall we beleeve that they shall be tied to live without Ecclesiasticall communion When it is agreed that as the Unity of the Church is part of the substance of the Christian Faith necessary to the salvation of all so the first Divine Precept that those Christians shall be bound to is to live in the Society of a Church For where severall things are commanded by God whereof the one is the means whereby the other is attained it is manifest that the Chief Precept is that which commandeth the end and that which commandeth the means subordinate to the other Now it is manifest that all Powers and all Offices endowed with the same in the Church are Ordained by God and enjoined the Church to the end that good Order may be preserved in the Church And good Order is enjoined as the means to preserve Unity and the Unity of the Church commanded as the being of that Society whereby Christians are edified both to the knowledge and exercise of Christianity by communicating with the Church especially in the Service of God and in those Ordinances wherein he hath appointed it to consist Seeing then this edification is the end for which the Society of the Church subsisteth and all Pastors and Officers ordained as means to procure it as it is Sacrilege to seek the end without the means when both are possible so I conceive it would be Sacrilege not to seek the end without the means when both are not Now it is manifestly possible that the edification of the Church may be procured effectually by those that receive not their Power or their Office from persons endowed with
the Church originally always every where hath professed and used From them let them seek the communion of the Church not onely in the exercise of such Christian Ordinances as men cast upon desert coasts and utterly destitute of Ecclesiasticall Society for the present for so our distractions have made us can participate in but also in such acts of the Power of the Keys as passe not the inward court of the conscience Neither let them ever think themselves necessitated to communicate with Schisme while the Law which is the source of all Laws and the persons which are the seed of all publick persons of the Church continue And let them know further that in adhering to the Society of a Church never so much destroied by force no Secular Power whether lawfull or unlawfull shall ever have more rightfull title to persecute them then the Romane Emperours had to persecute the Apostles and Primitive Christians part of their profession being not to defend themselves by force grounded upon the title of Christianity but to suffer with patience what force shall inflict for it Which doing as the purchase is not of this world so let them not doubt to finde the effect of the promises which are to come A REVIEW CHAP. I. SInce the writing of this Discourse I have understood by relation and by some Pamphlets that there is one opinion on foot among the many of this time that there is no such thing as a Society of the Church by the Ordinance of our Lord and the institution of his Apostles That wheresoever we reade of the Church in the Scriptures there we are to understand no more but onely a number of men that are Christians who may or ought to assemble together for the service of God as they find opportunity and means But that there should be thought to be any condition of communicating in the Service of God which should make all Christians a Society called the Church as excluding those that are not qualified with it this they think to be an Imposture that hath made way for Antichrist And though this opinion be so groundlesse that very few Readers will expect any opposition to be made yet because my intent was by this Discourse to improve the Reasons heretofore advanced and to try the effect and consequence of them in destroying the grounds of the divisions framed among us And because if that which I propound be the truth it will with a little husbanding be effectuall to convince all manner of errors it will be requisite here to give notice that all the reasons which this first Chapter produceth to prove the Power of the Keys and the punishment of Excommunication the effect thereof to belong to the Church are effectuall to prove the Society of the Church which this Power constitutes and therefore the effect thereof evidenceth And truly though there is an infinite distance between the productions and consequences of this opinion and that of Erastus in as much as this manifestly tendeth to challenge to all Christians freedome of doing what they please in the exercise of their Christianity without any account to the State under which they live that of Erastus challenging to the State all Power to govern all Christians in their Christianity yet if we consider the ground on which both stand they will appear to be as the Rivers that rise out of Apenninus which empty themselves some into the Sea of Tuscany others into the Gulf of Venice For I suppose every mans common reason will furnish him so much of the metaphysicks as to make it appear that every thing which hath a beeing is by that beeing distinct from other things So that if there be no difference between the Society of the Church and that of the State when it professes Christianity but that both make one Community Corporation or Commonwealth as that of the ancient people of God under the Law then is there no Society of a Church when the State is Christian seeing it is agreed upon on all hands that there is one of the State and this opinion inforces that there is no more but one True it is that there are two things to say either that before Constantine the Power of Excommunication stood onely by Humane right that is by custome of the Church or that by the Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles it was to stand onely before Christianity were received by Kingdoms and Commonwealths but afterwards the Power of governing the Church hitherto in the Body of the Church to be dissolved into the Secular Power of the State But whether this or that in all cases he that taketh away the Power of the Keys in opening and that of Excommunication in shutting up the Church must needs appear to take away the Society and Communion of a Church either because it never was or because it ceaseth when the State becomes Christian This consideration improves very much the reasons of this Chapter against Erastus making his opinion liable to all those Scriptures which acknowledge a Society of the Church and the sense of all Christians which suppose the same And deserveth here to be represented because it may be observed that the proceeding of the Discourse did not give leave to presse it to this effect For the intent of it being to limit the concurrence of Secular and Ecclesiasticall Power in Church matters it was necessary to declare in the first place upon what ground God hath instituted the Society of the Church by Revelation from above having before constituted civile Societies of the same persons whereof the Church consisteth by the Law of Nature and Nations and the operation of his ordinary Providence Especially seeing that Christianity addresseth it self to all Nations and therefore intendeth to constitute one Church of all civile Societies which imbrace the same For seeing it is manifest that Religion hath always been a very generall Title of many Wars and commotions against the Publick peace and that therefore all States must needs be jealous of that Religion which asks no leave of the State to beleeve what it beleeves but professes an obligation of beleeving though never so contrary to the Laws of the State it appears to have been requisite that there should be in Christianity some condition that might clear it from this jealousie especially because one Society of the Church consisting of the persons which constitute many States must needs be concluded in point of conscience by a Power of the Church not derived from that of the State and so possibly the Subjects of a State be concluded in conscience by strangers to that State as they are members of the Church This is the difficulty which was to be removed in the beginning of this Discourse that it might appear no ways prejudiciall to civile Societies that God should institute one Society of the Church to consist of all persons of severall States that professe Christianity And the removing of this difficulty consists in the
Clergy by the Jurisdiction of the Church For in regard that as it hath been said on divers occasions in this Discourse the Clergy is promoted upon supposition of some degree of proficience in Christianity over and above that upon supposition whereof men are admitted to be only Christians it followeth not that those who by their conversation render themselves unworthy of that degree which they hold in the Clergy doe by the same means render themselves unworthy of the Communion of the Church Therefore the punishment of a Clergy man may be competent by onely voiding his degree when another Christian cannot be competently punished but by putting him from the Church Whereby it appears that the Power of Ordaining as well as censuring persons Ordained is grounded upon the Power of the Keys as giving or taking away not the communion of the Church but a degree and quality above it which supposeth it Again upon the constitution of the Society of the Church follows the Power of making Canons Constitutions and Ordinances obliging the respective body thereof correspondent to the Legislative Power of Kingdomes and Common-wealths wherein the justice of them most appears though the strength of them is more seen in the Power of the Sword which gives all Laws force And so it is no more inconvenience to all these Canons the Laws of the Church then it is to call the Power of Excommunication the spirituall Sword of the Church Neither is it any more for the Church to have this Power then that which States ordinarily allow the meanest Corporations which they Privilege to wit to give Laws to their own Bodies for the maintenance and execution of the Laws originally given them by those who are enabled to institute them In fine in correspondence to the Exchequer of a State is the Title that God hath given his Church to the Oblations of the Faithfull their First-fruits and Tithes The right whereof he hath endowed the Church with leaving the seizure to the voluntary tender of those whō he calleth to be voluntary Christians And thus and by this correspondence with a State the parts of Ecclesiasticall Power are more clearly and more intelligibly distinguished in my opinion then by the ordinary terms of Jurisdiction and Order For first these terms being introduced by the Canonists and School Doctors seem to presuppose a coactive Jurisdiction in the Church upon the constitution and originall Title of the Church such as the Church of Rome challenges and the Decretall Epistles of the Popes presuppose whereby they challenge to themselves that Power by Divine Right which by the sufferance of Princes and States they did exercise intangling the Schools of Divines with as inextricable difficulties to make it good as Christian States with commotions to shake off the consequences thereof meerly for neglect of the principle here presupposed that Christianity importeth no right of this world and therefore that the coactive Power of the State remains where it was before it Secondly it seemeth that the Power of Order and Jurisdiction are not contradistinct but subordinate the Power of Order being the production and consequence of the Power of Jurisdiction if it be rightly understood For by the same reason which proveth here p. 199 that the power of consecrating the Eucharist belongeth to Presbyters upon the Power of the Keys and that all Benedictions with Imposition of Hands whether in Confirmation Ordination Penance Mariage or whatsoever else are marks of that Power which alloweth those acts which are blessed to be done in the Church as you have it here p. 23. by the same reason it follows that the ministery of all Ordinances of God deposited with the Church is a mark of that superiority which those that minister the same have in the Church And therefore if the Power of Order be in respect of Christs own Body as ordinarily they describe it it proceeds from the Power over his mysticall Body which is that of Jurisdiction as they make it Or if as others will have it the Power of Order consists in the ministery of such divine Ordinances as are the means to procure and increase Gods grace in the persons to whom they are ministerd the same reason takes place Because they are not to be ministred but by them whom the Church trusteth to do it to that true intent which it teacheth Wherefore it seemeth that the term of Jurisdiction ought to expresse the common source of all Ecclesiasticall Power which it doth not because that as Jurisdictiis but a part of Soveraignty in a State so the Power from which the metaphoricall jurisdiction of the Church floweth which I conceive cannot be better expressed then by calling it the Power of the Keys as the Gospel hath done produceth other branches of Ecclesiasticall Power correspondent to other parts of Soveraignty in a State as hereby you have seen CHAP. II. HAving thus determined whereupon the Power of the Keys is founded and wherein it consisteth it remained to proceed and declare what persons it is trusted with For seeing the persons of whom Christian States consist are the same of whom the Churches or parts of the whole Church that are contained in those States consist if there be no provision of Gods Law tying the Right of managing this Power and the productions and branches thereof to some qualities consequent to the constitution of the Church it will necessarily fall as an escheat to the State and we shall be tied to grant it Power to conferre those qualities by which it is managed and all this will be truly said to no purpose Here in the first place I must insist upon a point the truth whereof the Presbyteries and Congregations have equally divided between them and left it entire to the Church For those of the Congregations finding that the design of the Presbyteries had ordered a Presbytery for the government of every Congregation that assembles together for the common service of God had reason to inferre that all those Presbyteries ought to be endowed with the Power of the Keys as to their own Bodies To which assuming another demand that the chief Power in every Congregation was that of the People it followeth that all Congregations are independent and absolute not to be concluded by any Church or Synod representative of Churches above themselves On the other side the Presbyterians finding that no Unity can be preserved without dependence and desiring to preserve Unity among themselves though not with the Church have designed the Power of the Keys as to the act of Excommunication to rest in Representatives of the Presbyteries of Congregations which neverthelesse they call by the same name of Presbyteries or Classes the same being subject to Synods of Presbyteries and those to Nationall Assemblies Whereas there is never any mention in all the Scriptures of any Presbytery or Company College or Bench of Presbyters as likewise there is no mention of any Church but in a City No mention of more Churches then
one in the greatest City and the most populous for number of Christians that is mentioned in all the Scriptures Though no common reason can question but there were more Congregations considering that it cannot be thought that all the Christians contained in the greatest and most Christian of all those Cities could assemble together at once for the common service of God Upon these premises it is necessary to inferre that the Apostles Order was that which we see was the Rule of their practice that the severall Bodies of those that should be converted to Christianity within severall Cities and the Territories thereof should constitute severall Churches to be governed by the severall Presbyteries thereof constituted and regulated as shall be declared in the consequences Which being established it will not be difficult to inferre that the Power of the Keys and the consequences thereof are deposited in the said Churches that is trusted with them that are endowed with the Power of Governing those Churches To which if you adde this that the Churches of particular Cities were to depend upon the Churches of Mother Cities upon which particular Cities depended for the civile Government you have a reason and Rule of the whole frame of Church Government designed by the Apostles as generall as could be given to a Society that was to consist of severall Nations and Soveraignties without limits but not more generall then the Originall constitution of the whole Church derived from their design will evidence to be agreeable to those impressions and marks of it which are here produced out of the Scriptures This Position is liable to an Objection from those which the ancient Canons of the Greekish Councels call Chorepiscopi which we may translate Country Bishops because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth the Country in opposition to or in difference from the City For if Churches constituted in Cities have their severall Presbyteries the Heads whereof being Bishops are by consequent Governors in chief of their respective Churches how are Bishops constituted in the Country that is in any of the chief Villages under any City For by this means either we have a Church in a Village or a Bishop without a Church and so the practise of the Church not to be reconciled with that which I make the design of the Apostles if either be true The answer to this in generall must come from that which you have here afterwards p. 62. that the Rule is as generally expressed in these terms as any Rule generall to those cases that may fall out so divers For the generall intent and reason of it is to preserve the Unity of the Whole Church by the subordination and dependence of the parts thereof to and from other parts and so the Whole If some particular provision prove necessary some time and place to attain this end it is not to be thought that the generall Rule holds not therefore For the particular here in hand one thing I conceive may be questionable in point of Fact and matter of Historicall Truth concerning these Country Bishops which the Canons quoted p. 146. speak of For in the beginning of the XI Canon of Antiochia it is said that they received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordination of Bishops In the end of it it is provided that they be Ordained by the Bishop of the City to whom they are subject The first clause seems to intimate that they have the same Ordination with other Bishops which is by the Synod of the Province or those that represent the same Besides that we finde by the subscriptions of the Councels that they were called to Councels as if they received their trust immediately from the Synods of their Provinces By the second clause it seems they receive their authority immediately from the Bishop of the Province whereupon they are called Vicarii Episcoporum the Bishops Deputies as you see in the place afore named What my judgement is in this point you may have seen before p. 146. neither do I see cause to repent me of it For howsoever they were Ordained and from whomsoever they received their trust it is manifest by the Canons of Ancyra and Laodicea there quoted that they received it upon such terms as to be subordinate to the Bishop of the City which otherwise Bishops were not but immediately to the Synod of the Province and the Bishop of the Mother City Neither is it contrary to the ground of that generall Rule which I maintain that it should be within the Power of the Church contained in any Province that is to say the Synod of the same to Ordain that in regard some Village under some City of that Province grew considerable for the extent of it and the multitude of Christian souls contained in it therefore it should have a Bishop beside the Bishop of the City Alway provided that the dependence of Churches might be preserved wherein the Unity of the whole consisted But it is manifest that this dependence might be maintained two severall ways supposing a Bishop to be constituted in a Village First Ordaining him to be subordinate to the Bishop of the City Which is the case of those whom we speak of whose Power is tied up as you have seen by the said Canons of Ancyra and Laodicea But should they be left free from all dependence on the City Bishop then were they absolute Bishops and their Churches though in Villages and therefore lesse yet for their respective Power and right the same with other Churches constituted in Cities Which seems to be the case of the Churches of Africk where Bishops were so plentifull that every good Village must needs be the Seat of an Episcopall Church Neither doth this destroy the Rule which I maintain that Cities and Churches were originally convertible but argues that Villages in some Countries had that privilege which in others was proper to Cities To that which is said p. 53. of the difference between Prophesies and between Apostles and Prophets I adde this consideration That the Apostles of our Lord were necessarily Prophets because of the promise of the Holy Ghost to lead them into all truth to remember them of our Lords Doctrine and to make them understand the Scriptures all which are contained in the thing signified by this word Prophesie though the originall thereof import onely foretelling things to come as it is manifest by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV But all Prophets are not necessarily Apostles that is sent by God to declare their Commission to his people or to charge them with those things which God revealed to themselves I grant that the Prophets under the Old Testament were such by reason of that Law by which God appointeth them to be obeyed and therefore giveth a Rule how to discern between true and false Prophets Deut. XVIII 18. And hereupon it is that their writings are the Word of God and that Prophesie is said to have failed after those whose Writings we
his Angels as the XII Standards of Israel is camped without the Tabernacle which is the Church containing all Christians But the XII Apostles and LXX Disciples must needs be understood to hold correspondence with the XII Heads of the Tribes and LXX Elders And the whole reason and ground of this correspondence to consist in the whole Power of governing the spirituall Israel of God which is his Church to remain in their hands as the Rulers and as the Counsell thereof while it was altogether in one Body from thence to be propagated into the like when it came to be divided into severall Bodies by the founding of severall Churches as you have seen that it was among the Jews in Palestine Aegypt and Babylonia Wherefore as there can no question be made that the Jews by virtue of Gods Law created themselves that Government which they established in their dispersions by sufferance of their Soveraigns according to the form designed by the Law by a Consistory in the Mother Cities of their dispersions with inferiour Consistories where the number of Jews was so great as to require a form of Government No more can it be doubted that when Churches were founded in the greatest Residences concurring with Churches founded in the like and depending on those of the Mother Cities for the maintenance of Unity in the Whole all this though executed by humane discretion was done by virtue of the Rule designed by the Apostles And as all Israel had no power to adde or take from the Law yet was to be concluded in that which the Law had not determined by the Consistory so all the Church having no Power to make any thing of divine Right that was not so from the beginning hath Power to determine what the Church shall either do or acknowledge for the preservation of Unity in it self in all matters not determined by Divine Right As for the Priests Office from which most men desire to derive the preeminences of the Clergy although it were manifestly peculiar to Israel after the flesh and to cease with the same seeing the Church hath no other Sacrifice but that one of Christ upon the Crosse not repeated but represented continually by the Prayers of the Church at the celebration of the Eucharist as the reason which must make all those Prayers effectuall by the peculiar Covenant of Christianity it follows that those that are intrusted with the Government and maintenance of Christianity are by consequence intrusted with the offering of this Sacrifice and of these Prayers of the Church unto God by the same reason for the which I said afore that the Consecration of the Eucharist floweth frō the Power of the Keys So that whether they be called Elders or Priests they have both denominations from the quality of Presbyters Seeing then that the Apostles are by their Commission the XII Patriarchs of the spirituall Israel of God which is his Church and so the Chief Governours of the same let not the Presbyterians imagine that they can degrade them to the rank of their buckram Elders or shew us what particulars mentioned in the Scriptures the Apostles acted as Apostles and what as Elders as that they concurred in the Councell at Jerusalem in the common quality of Elders unlesse they can produce other Scriptures of other Apostles superiour to these that appoint it All these recording the acts of chief Governours of the whole Church as founders of it by their Originall Commission and Lawgivers to it in whatsoever our Lord had not determined afore And though their proceedings are throughout a pattern of meeknesse and condescension to all ranks in the Church using their Power with that humility which our Lord had commanded to his Chief Disciples to give satisfaction to all of the reasonablenesse of their proceedings because there was then just presumption that others would use the like reverence to them in receiving satisfaction as they in tendring it yet by S. Paul to the Corinthians we see how far it reached when any pretense opposed it self against it Suppose now for the purpose that Barnabas was one of the LXX as Epiphanius affirms shall we indure it to be affirmed that when he is sent by the Church at Jerusalem to Antiochia Acts XI 20. he is sent by the appointment of certain of the people who had a Commission from our Lord before they were Christians even for the founding of that Church wherein they who are thought to send then received Christianity Surely the Commission of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 18 extendeth to the LXX as well as to the XII though in dependence on them as the XII Princes of Israel And therefore as it is manifest that Barnabas was sent to Antiochia because those that had made Christians at Antiochia had not power to found a Church there by ordering their Assemblies which Barnabas is said there to have done so is it manifest that he could not receive this power from the people of the Church at Jerusalem which may better challenge it then any Lay Elders whose Title must come from the People as I have shewed Chap III. and will shew by Gods help by and by more at large but that he must be understood to be sent by the Church because by the XII and by the LXX with the consent and concurrence of the Clergy and People And sent so to order a new plantation of the spirituall Israel that notwithstanding one of those that sent him taking the charge afterwards into his own hands might become Patriarch of that Tribe which should be planted in and under that City As also Barnabas himself to become the Head of another plantation in Cyprus or Paul who by virtue of the Power received by Barnabas at Jerusalem was by him assumed to his assistance being afterwards acknowledged to be called by God into the rank of the XII to become a Patriarch of those plantations which received Christianity by his means And thus it is no inconvenience which some of the Fathers have incurred by affirming that the XII have the rank of Bishops and the LXX of Presbyters if we refer them to the whole Church not to any particular Church but onely by correspondence For so were the XII Patriarchs to the people of Israel as the LXX were Presbyters and Elders to the same as I said of the Consistory Every part of the Church planted in and under any City having neverthelesse according to one and the same form a Ruler of a Bishop and a Councell of Presbyters And yet is it nothing inconvenient in another regard that the Councell of Neocaesarea Can. XIII compares Country Bishops to the LXX the City Bishops being by correspondence consequently compared to the XII Because on the one side those Country Bishops were to be subordinate to the Bishops of their Cities as the LXX were to the XII On the other side the LXX being answerable to the LXX Elders of Israel must needs be understood to be of a higher quality
of their lawfull Soveraigns the subject of their Sermons seeing that all parts of Christianity may be throughly taught the people and every person of the people as fully understand how grievous every sin is as if they be stirred to malign and detest their Superiours by being told of their sins How much more when the actions in their whole kinds are not sins but may be involved with such circumstances as make them consistent with Christianity Besides seeing it is not every Preacher that is to regulate the proceedings of the Church in such sins of publick persons as appear to destroy Christianity to run before the publick censure of the Church in declaring what it ought to doe is not the zeal of a Christian but such a scandall as leaves the person that does it liable himself to censure The sin of Will-worship which I acknowledge p. 188. is as far distant from that voluntary service of God under the Gospel which answers to the voluntary Sacrifices of the Law in my meaning as it is in deed For as the Law had voluntary Sacrifices or freewill offerings not commanded by it but to be offered according to it the price whereof consisted in the frank disposition of him that offered the same So can it not be doubted that the Sacrifices of Christians their Prayers and their Alms all the Works of Free bounty and goodnesse together with Fasting and single life with continence and whatsoever else gives men more means and advantages to abound in the same may be offered to God out of our free-will not being under any Law requiring it at our hands Onely the difference is this that whereas the Sacrifices of the Law are things neither good nor bad but as they are tendred to God either in obedience to the Law or according to the same all Sacrifice which we can tender to God under the Gospel must needs consist in the spirituall worship of God Not in the means whereby it is advanced that is more plentifully or cordially performed Now though the spirituall worship of God is always commanded yet seeing it is not commanded to be done and exercised always it is much in the disposition of Christians what times what places what manner what measure what circumstances they will determine to themselves being not always determined by Gods Law for the tendring of the Sacrifice of Christians which being so determined shall be as truly a voluntary Sacrifice or freewill Offering as any under the Law and so much more excellent as the Law is lesse excellent then the Gospel If this may be received to goe under the name of Will-worship I am so far from counting Will-worship a sin that I acknowledge that to be the height of Christianity from whence it proceedeth But I conceive the word is not improperly used to signifie that which the Jews are reproved by our Lord after the Prophet Esay for because they worshipped God according to Doctrines taught by Traditions of men Not because they practised the Law according to the determinations of the Greek Consistory which as I have many ways shewed they had expresse power by the Law to make and therefore our Lord also commands them to obey Mat. XXIII 2. But because they thought there was a great deal of holinesse in practicing the Precepts of the Law precisely as their Elders had determined which setting aside the obedience of Gods Ordinance was nothing in Gods esteem in comparison of that justice and mercy and piety wherein the service of God then as always consisted We cannot but observe that this sin is taxed by the Prophets oftentimes as well in the practice of those precepts which are expressed in the Scripture of Moses his Law as by our Lord and the Prophet Esay in the ptactice of those which were introduced by humane authority Psal XL. 7 L. 8 Es I. 12 Jerem. VII 21 and therefore consisteth not in observing things introduced by men but in tendring to God for the service of God that which was not necessarily joyned with the inward holinesse of the heart which God is to be served with This sin of the Jews I conceive is found correspondently in other professions not onely of Gentiles and Mahumetanes which cannot worship God without it but also of Christians professing true Christianity when they worship not God according to it But not because they acknowledge humane constitutions which by Gods Ordinance cannot be avoided but because they may vainly please themselves in imagining that they please God in observing them without that disposition of the heart which God is to be served with And this sin of the Jews as Eusebius cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Epiphanius also in some of the ancient Hereticks cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which satisfies me that it may be called Wil-worship in English Though whether the former voluntary and frank service of God is not also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I dispute not here The reason why the Ceremonies of Divine Service which are here p. 192. proved to have been used under the Apostles cannot continue the same in the Church of all times and places I have briefly expressed p. 325. so that notwithstanding the Ceremonies of the service of God in publick ought to be such as may conduce to the same end for which it may appear those were instituted which were in force under the Apostles That it is a mistake to think that Soveraign Powers are called Gods in the Scripture as is said p. 214. appears further by Exod. XXII 28. Thou shalt not curse Gods neither shalt thou speak evill of the Ruler of thy people For in this place the Prince of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a name common to Kings Judges and all their Governours in Chief that were of their own Nation whether absolute or under strangers Therefore the Sacrifice enjoyned Levit. IV. 22. belonged to the King when they were under Kings as the Jews agree Therefore it is given the King also Ezek. XII 10. VII 27. XIX 1. And therefore this Law is acknowledged by S. Paul to belong to the High Priest Acts XXIII 5. because as I said afore the High Priests had then the Chief Power within their own People as they had upon the return from Babylonia Wherefore seeing this Precept consists of two parts the second whereof belongs to the King the first must belong to the Judges of their Consistories according to the resolution of the Jews that all and onely Judges made by Imposition of Hands are called Gods in the Scriptures That which is here said p. 228. of the quality of Governour under the King of Persia in which and by which Nehemiah restoreth the Law and swears the people to it is to be compared with that which you finde here since in the 57 page of this Review Whereby it will rather appear that he was Governour of that Province by the like Commission as other Governours of
to come within the age of men then living perhaps at the fall of Jerusalem as the Apostles also imagined when they asked our Lord when the destruction of Jerusalem should be and what the signs of his comming and the end of the world Mat. XXV 3. to prevent the ill consequences of this opinion S. Paul having the truth further revealed tels them this must not be till a departure come first and the man of sin the son of perdition be revealed that opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or worshipped so as to seat himself in the Temple of God declaring himself to be God Which can be truly said of none but the Romane Emperours who did indeed exalt themselves above all called God that is all their imaginary idol Gods in that they took upon them to make Gods whom they would and were themselves worshipped with divine honours so much more devoutly as they were able to doe more good or harm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here as 1 Cor. VIII 5. a term of abatement signifying those that are called Gods and are not in which sense onely the Apostle could say there be Gods many and Lords many For it is a mistake to think that Princes are called Gods in Scripture as I have shewed afore Now the Religion of the Gentiles was this that when the Statue of a God was seated in a Temple built to him thenceforth they thought his Deity dwelt in it and the Temple thereby consecrated In which sense S. Paul speaking of the succession of Romane Emperours as of one person as Dantel S. John use to call the body of Chaldean Persian Grecian or Romane Emperours a Beast saith that he should exalt himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as to seat himself in the Temple of God Which as it may be understood of any of them who had all Temples built them and their Statues placed in those Temples as the Deities of the same so it may be particularly understood of Caligula who would have placed his Statue in the Temple of the true God at Jerusalem though we suppose the Epistle written long after his death And so that insoluble difficulty ceases which Grotius his exposition of this passage suffers to wit that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians must be written before the death of Caligula which no man can easily beleeve there being between the Baptism of our Lord upon the XV of Tiberius according to the Gospel and the death of Caligula but a matter of XI years whatsoever passed between the Baptism of Christ and his death and between the death of Caligula and the writing of this Epistle This is then the first of the two Beasts that S. Iohn sees in the thirteenth of his Revelations blaspheming God and persecuting his Church even the succession of the Romane Emperours The second is the same whereof S. Paul prophesies in the next words 2 Thess II. 8 9. representing in one person as before the Succession of the Romane Emperours so now the Succession of Magicians and Heathen Philosophers the Priests and the Divines whom Satan imploied to disguise interpret and maintain Heathenism in opposition to Christianity Simon Magus may well be reckoned inprimis of the list together with much of the fry of his Gnosticks who though wearing the name of Christians yet practising manifest Idolatries with their Magick occasioned the persecution of true Christianity by compounding a false out of it and Heathenism But Apollonius Tyaneus must needs be accounted of this Body who did many strange things in S. Iohns time to support Heathenism and was therefore by the Pagans opposed to our Lord Christ as you may see by Vopiscus in the life of Tacitus and Hieracles his Book to that purpose refuted by Eusebius After him came all those Pythagorean or Platonick Philosophers who after S. Iohns time as they were the maintainers of Heathenism against Christianity were doubtlesse also Magicians as their Father Pythagoras seems to have been by his travels in the East and many passages of his life Such were Apuleius Plotinus Porphyry Iamblichus Maximus and with such the Histories shew that the persecuting Emperours Maxentius Maximiane Licinius and Julian conversed Who both by learned writings and by strange works done by familiarity with unclean spirits laboured to support the credit of their Idols Two instances I must not conceal in this place the one recorded by Dionysius Alexandrinus in an Epistle to Hermammron produced by Eusebius Eccles Hist VII 10. where he relateth of Valeriane how he cherished the Christians at the first insomuch that his Court was a kinde of Church Unto which he addeth as followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now he that perswaded him to be rid of them was his Doctor the Ruler of the Synagogue of Aegyptian Magicians Who commanded the pure to be slain and persecuted as opposites and hinderers of their abominable and detestable inchantments which he proceeds to declare what they were and how they became of no effect wheresoever the Christians came And perhaps if we had the Epistle at length it would appear that Dionysius had interpreted the Beast and the false Prophet as I doe For the words which Eusebius quotes begin thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accordingly saith he is revelation made to S. John For he saith and there was given him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemy and it was granted him to continue two and forty moneths Proceeding to that which I reported afore of Valeriane in these terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We may well marvell at both in Valeriane and especially we may consider how he stood affected before him that is before the Magician whom he spoke of had accesse to him how gentle and kinde he was to the men of God For when he saith that Saint Johns Revelations were according to what he there relates he seems to make Valeriane the Beast the Magician the false Prophet whom he speaks of afterwards The other is out of an Edict of Constantine reported by Eusebius De Vitâ Constant II. 49 50. where the great Emperour declares to all the Empire that Apollo that gave answers at Delphi having answered out of the dark cave there that the just upon earth hindred him from speaking truth and that was the reason why his Oracles proved false Diocletian hereupon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being deceived in the errour of his soule curiously inquired of those about him who were the just upon the earth And one of the Priests about him answered the Christians But he swallowing the answer like honey drew those swords that were found out against injustice against blamelesse piety And this he professes afore God that he heard himself being then a youth in the Emperours presence By these two particulars we may make an estimate how the rest of the Persecutions were moved and therefore that the Body of these Philosophers and Magicians the Priests and Interpreters of Heathenism is called in the Revelution the
exercise of their Christianity then must it needs follow that by virtue of their Christianity they may lawfully use all Soveraign power by which force and the sword is maintained Contrary to the principle premised at the beginning that no good no right of this world accrues to any man by virtue of his Christianity or decrues from another for want of it As the power of the Sword which is used by Title of Christianity is necessarily taken from him who otherwise is possessed of it by them which defend themselves against the same upon the Title of Christianity And by consequence all goods all rights all estates and qualities of this World that accrue unto any man by the use and successe of such Arms are necessarily held and possessed by no Title but that of Christianity For they that have right to defend themselves cannot be subject to the Crosse whensoever they are able to defend themselves seeing they may as well impose it upon their enemies if they have successe as bear it themselves if they have not Though neither is it Christs Crosse which a man bears for want of successe And if this had not been the profession of the Primitive Christians how could they have defended themselves by reason and maintain that the Gentile Powers ought not to persecute them Seeing that all Powers are bound to maintain themselves because therein consists the maintenance of the world in peace So unreasonable is it which hath been said that Tertullian understood not himself when he affirmeth that the Christians were then able to defend themselves against persecution were it not contrary to their profession so to doe For as no man of common sense would tell the Romanes that the Christians were able to resist them if they were not because they knew well enough how able they were So no man zealous of Christianity would think to advantage it by such commendations as the enemies of it might discover to be false And therefore if we reason not amisse this is the difference between Christianity and Mahumetism For Mahomet also pretended to be persecuted for religion by the Gentiles of Arabia witnesse the computation of their years from the expulsion or Persecution or flight of Mahomet from Mecca But when we see that he took up arms thereupon and begun an order which all his Successors have observed to propagate their Religion by the same means we see by this means the difference between Christianity and Mahumetism And it is to be considered by them that bring Jews again into Christian States how they will secure those States against this danger from Judaism For since they have made it part of their profession to expect a Messias that shall conquer the Nations and restore them to the Land of Promise upon appearance that such a Messias is come they are not like to rest if they can hope to be his followers as they rested not under Adriane and at other times when they have disturbed the peace of the States under which they lived upon the like hope This also if we reason not amisse is the justest title of all the wars that Christians have made upon the Mahumetans for the holy Land because the title upon which the Mahumetans first subdued it makes them enemies to all civile Nations that are Christian seeing that the title of Religion is as good against all as against any and whatsoever person or people usurpeth Soveraign Power upon it proclaimeth thereby defiance to all States which he shall be able to deal with And therefore this is not the case of the people of Israel under Moses The Title whereupon they challenged the Land of Promise from the Nations presently in possession being the deed of Gods Gift and the consideration and condition upon which God granted it their undertaking his Law For though it is true that they claimed the Land of Promise upon Covenant with God to be ruled by his Laws in which their Religion is contained and though this deed of Gods gift could not be evident by naturall reason to other Nations yet seeing they professed themselves constituted onely Gods Commissaries to punish the sins of the seven Nations and to root them out for their Idolatries not to impose their Religion upon any other Nations or to seek any interesse out of the Land of Promise it followeth that by this profession they did not give other Nations just cause to resist them by force neither had they any right to hinder them in their pretended conquest of the Land of Promise And therefore the Kings of the Amorites beyond Jordan Sihon and Og hindring them by force to accomplish and execute this Commission of God we see they received an accessory command to subdue them by force and destroy them and thereupon an accessory grant of their dominions for an addition to their inheritance So my intent hereby is not to say that God may not dispose of the goods of this world to those that enter into Covenant of religion with him as the condition of the same Or that man may not lawfully make use of such a disposition of his made known by that Revelation which is unknown to those against whom it is granted for I avow that he did so to the children of Israel under Moses and that they lawfully did so against the seven Nations But that he did it not by the New Covenant of Christianity because it invites the Soveraign Powers of all Nations upon condition to enjoy the same Rights which they stand possest of when they embrace it And that he did not by any Revelation afterwards make the like grant to Mahomet as a privilege of the Religion which he pretendeth to have received from God because if Christianity be true no other Religion must succeed it Whereupon it follows that those Christians that shall take upon them to bear Armes and make War upon the Title of Christianity doe make themselves thereby enemies to all civile Nations that are Christian as Mahumetans are Because as we know that Mahumetism is not from God so we know that Christianity enables no man to use the Power of the Sword wherein Soveraignty consists And that if any might maintain themselves in their Religion by the Title of Christianity then all that might come to have the same opinion might doe the like and so all States might be troubled by fighting for Christianity within themselves though not subdued as by Mahumetans seeking to impose their Religion upon others Against this place there is onely one objection of moment so far as I can imagine out of the Scriptures and that is from the example of the Maccabees For on the one side it is manifest that the arms which they took up against Antiochus Epiphanes their lawfull Soveraign are approved by God not onely as foretold by Daniel and Ezekiel and other Prophets that by them God would give his people freedome and rule of the Land of Promise but also because the Apostle manifestly
commendeth their faith when he reckoneth their sufferings among those great effects which it brought forth Heb. XI 35 36. And upon this account it is that in propounding this objection I said that it is taken out of the Scriptures not meaning thereby the Books of the Maccabees but those Scriptures which by consequence seem to approve of the Maccabees proceedings For on the other side it is manifest that they justified their arms upon title of Religion by the first breaking out of it 1 Mac. II. 24 26 27. where the zeal of the Law and the example of Phinehas is expressed to be that which moved Mattathias to kill the Jew whom he saw sacrificing to Idols and to maintain it by arms Whereby it is manifest that out of zeal to the Law they took arms to defend it lest it should be extinguished by the Tyranny of Antiochus and therefore that when their arms took effect and purchased them freedome and the Soveraignty to the race of Mattathias all this they held by Religion and by no other title And for this reason it is that they are called Maccabees though other extravagant reasons have been imagined by men of excellent learning For it is to be observed that all those that suffered as well as fought in this cause are called Maccabees no lesse then Judas Maccabaeus and therefore the histories of their acts are called the Books of the Maccabees in which is comprised as well the story of the Mother the seven children and others that suffered for the Law as the acts of Judas and his Successors And Josephus his Book in praise of that Mother and her children is entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reason of which is found in the Syriack in which language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Zelotes as you have it in Ferrarius his Nomenclator Syriacus And that this was the Title of their arms is more manifest by the case of the Jews under Caligula when out of his madnesse he commanded to set up his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem For as by Philo de Legatione ad Caium we understand that they were willing to undergo any thing and continue in obedience so they might enjoy their Religion So Josephus dissembleth not in the relation of that business Antiq. XVIII 11. that they would have taken arms rather then endure it if Caligula had not been slain in the mean time The clearing of this difficulty is to be fetched from the difference between the Law and the Gospel expressed in the words of our Lord to his Disciples that required him to call for fire from heaven upon those that would not entertain him Luke IX 55 56. Ye know not of what spirit ye are For the Son of man is not sent to destroy mens souls that is their lives but to save them For the Law worketh wrath and where there is no Law there is no transgression and by Law is the knowledge of sin saith the Apostle Rom. IV. 20. V. 15. VII 7. Therefore the Law suffered him that was next of kin to any man that was slain to kill him that slew him before it was judged whether he was slain by chance or by malice Num. XXXV 16 Therefore the Law commanded him that was tempted to Idolatry to seek the death of him that tempted him were he his father or never so near of kin Deut. XIII 6 11. In fine the Law being the condition of a temporall estate assigned at first by God to the people of Israel observing it can there be any marvell that it might be lawfull for that people to defend it by force and by that defense to regain the same estate Or will this draw any consequence in Christianity to make it lawfull to take arms upon the title thereof and so to hold estates of this world by the same title in case those arms take effect For the Gospel is the condition of life everlasting promised to those that embrace it including the Crosse of Christ and therefore renouncing all advantage of this world and equally belonging to all people and therefore maintaining all in the same estate of this world which it finds Therefore the zeal of Elias when he punished with fire from heaven those that attempted to seize him at the unjust command of an Idolatrous King our Lord declares not to sute with the Spirit of the Gospel the profession thereof being to take up Christs Crosse and to bear it with patience though under the Law it might be commendable Whereunto agreeth that which I said before that Heresie and Schism upon causes onely contrary to Christianity and that are not against the Law of Nature and Nations are no capitall crimes in Christian States And that in stead of death which the Law inflicteth upon him that obeyeth not the Consistory but causeth Schism the punishment allotted by the Gospel is onely to bee least in the kingdome of Heaven For if Soveraign Powers lawfully established being Christian are not enabled by their Christianity to inflict death on the said crimes when setting aside Christianity they are not liable to it much lesse is any man under a Soveraign Power enabled by his Christianity to use the Sword wherein Soveraignty consists for the maintenance of it Neither is it contrary to this that under the Gospel S. Peter punishes Ananias and Saphira with death and the Apostles as I shewed before were endowed with a miraculous power of inflicting bodily punishment upon those which obeyed them not the effects whereof were seen upon those whom they cast out of the Church as also upon Elymas struck with blindnesse by S. Paul for resisting his Gospel Nor that the souls under the Altar Apoc. VI. 10. pray for the vengeance of their bloud to be shewed upon the inhabitants of the earth For that which this Propheticall Vision representeth is to be understood sutably to Christianity and to the Kingdome of God attained by it Since therefore revenge is contrary to the principles of Christianity we cannot imagine that blessed souls desire it but the cry which they make must be understood to be the provocation of God to vengeance which their sufferings produce So much more pertinently attributed to blessed souls in as much as being acquainted with Gods counsels they approve and rejoyce in his Justice and the advancement of his Church by the means of it Now the power granted the Apostles of inflicting bodily punishments upon those that disobeyed them tended first to manifest that God was present in the Church and by consequence to subdue the world to Christianity and to win authority to the Church and the censures of it Whereas Elias when he called for fire from heaven as the Apostles desired our Lord might have been secured himself by the like miracles without destroying his enemies So he caused Baals Priests to be put to death not to vindicate the cause in debate which was already done by a miracle but to doe vengeance on them as malefactors