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
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
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
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
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
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
Paul and Barnabas being Ordained by the immediate act of the Holy Ghost to Preach to the Gentiles the solemnity thereof is performed by those in whom we cannot imagine the Power of sending them to rest In which opinion I am much confirmed by the practice of the Synagogue For though it is manifest that the custome of promoting Judges by Imposition of Hands came from the example of Moses and the Ordaining of the LXX Elders and Joshua yet we must beleeve their Records compiled by Maimoni â—â— de Synedrio cap. IV. when they tell us that in processe of time it was done without that solemnity by an Instrument or so and yet still called neverthelesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Imposition of Hands And now let them that demand what is that speciall Act which Bishops are able to do and Presbyters not take their choice If they be content that the Bishops acting with this Interesse that without him nothing be done be counted a speciall Act they have the speciall Act which they demand in all things that are done in the Church If they be not though it is easie enough to dispute it everlastingly yet I will not contend with them about it seeing it is enough that nothing is done without him to make him a fair step above his Presbyters And yet I conceive there is an Act to be named peculiar to Bishops which is to sit in a Councell Which consisting of the representatives of all Churches and not capable of all Presbyters and the Bishops right being that without him nothing be done in his Church it follows that by the right by which he is a Bishop he is a member of his Synod which no Priest can be but by Privilege seeing the whole Order cannot And this according to the Scriptures For by the premises the Apostles had place in the Councell at Jerusalem as Ordinary Governours of the Churches concerned in it which Churches had there no other representatives but Paul and Barnabas as Heads of the Churches which they had founded so lately Acts XIII XIV as it appeares when by them the Decree is delivered to execution in the Churches Acts XVI 4. As for the Presbyters mentioned in it the same evidence which assures us that they were Presbyters assures us also that they were Presbyters of the Church at Jerusalem and none else This I conceive the fittest to be thought the speciall Act of a Bishop For the unity of the whole Church arises from the Power deposited in each Church By virtue whereof he that communicates with any one Church in any rank of it communicates with all Churches in the same Which was in the Primitive Church the effect of the literae formatae or letters of mark by which this Unity of the Ancient Church was maintained in as much as he that travelled with such a testimony of his rank in any one Church by virtue of the same was received in all Churches where he came And therefore Synesius in the sentence of excommunication against Andronicus which by his fifty seventh Epistle he publisheth to the Churches addeth that if any Church contemning the sentence of his Church as a small and a poor one should receive Andronieus to communion without satisfaction given to him and his Church thereby it shall become guilty of Schism This holds as such Acts are not questioned by any greater part of the Church as not concerning the State of other Churches Which if they be then as no Church can be concluded but by the Act to which themselves concur whereby all Excommunications Ordinations as wel as making of Canons are the subject of Synods so the chief Power must needs be most seen in that Act which concludes all Churches concerned which is the Act of a Synod As concerning the objection that there is no precept in the Scripture that Bishops govern all Churches and that many things Ordained by the Apostles are abolished in the Church It is a question whether it come from lesse skill or proceed to worse consequence For unlesse we will betray the advantages of the Church to very many and perhaps to all Heresies and Schisms that ever were we must confesse that as there are precepts in the Scripture that oblige not so there are many things not set down in the Scripture in the form of precepts that oblige What can be delivered in a more expresse form of precept then that of Saint Paul That women pray with their heads covered men with theirs uncovered and yet where is it in force The same is to be said of the Decree of Jerusalem against eating things strangled and blood On the other side we finde by the Scriptures that the Apostles kept the Lords Day but do not find there that they commanded it to be kept As for the fourth Commandement I suppose it is one thing to rest on the day that God ceased his work and another on the day that he began it And if there be precepts in the Scripture that now oblige not why may not Secinus dispute that the precept of Baptism was temporary for them that had been enemies to the Faith afore And though I say not that he shall have the better hand for the truth cannot be contrary to the truth yet it shall not be possible for every Christian to discern whether he hath it or no unlesse there be some more sensible ballast then nice consequences from the Text of the Scripture If it be thus of Baptism much more of the Eucharist which as you saw is not used any more in the Church as it was instituted As for the Power of the Keys it is absolutely by this answer betraied to the Socinians who would have it peculiar to the Apostles For it is no where delivered as a Precept but onely as a Privilege What means is there then to end everlasting difficulties Surely the same that there is to understand all positive Laws that ever were For if the ancient interruption of the practice of any Law secure the Church that it was not given to all times and places sure that which is not mentioned as a Precept and yet has been always in practice without interruption as it was in force afore it was mentioned so was intended to oblige not by the mention but by the act that first established it evidenced by practice Which if it be so then is there no Power on earth able to abolish the Order of Bishops having been in force in all Churches ever since the Apostles I must not passe this place of limiting all Interests without a word or two of the Office of Deacons in the Church In regard of two extreme opinions one of Geneva that makes them meer Lay men collectors of Alms by necessary consequence because under their Lay Elders the other of some that would have them understood to be Presbyters as oft as S. Paul mentions but two Orders of Bishops and Deacons Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. II. 9. But as
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
And so Elizeus curseth the children to death on purpose to punish the affront offered his person In all which particulars you have manifest characters of the Law inflicting death for the punishment of sin whereas under the Gospel which giveth life the inflicting of bodily punishment serveth to procure the good of the world by manifesting the truth of the Gospel and the presence of God in his Church which was known and supposed under the Law because those who had received the Law could not make any question that God was amongst his people and spoke to them by his Prophets When I say that it might be lawfull to take arms upon the title of Religion under the Law I say not that it was so in all cases or that it was not lawfull for the Jews to be subject to forein Powers which was the doctrine of Judas of Galilee complained of by Josephus but that it was possible for some case to fall out wherein it might be lawfull As for the conceit of Judas of Galilee it is manifestly taken away by Gods command to the Jews under Nabuchodorosor Jer. XXIX 7. Seek the peace of the City to which I have sent you Captives for in the peace thereof you shall have peace And it is most remarkable that our Lord being falsly accused of this doctrine to Pilate by the Jews it pleased God to suffer it so far to prevail afterwards that the arms which they took afterwards against the Romanes and the miseries which they endured by the Zelotes and finally the ruine of the City Temple and Nation must needs be imputed to this doctrine which they falsly accused our Lord of to gain the good will of the Romanes But of Christianity it must be said on the contrary that there is no case possible wherein it can be just to take arms for preservation or reformation of it upon the title thereof that is to say where there is not a Power of bearing arms established by some other title of humane right For where there is any such Power and Right established upon a title which the Law of Nations justifieth it is not to be said that Christianity voideth or extinguisheth the same seeing it hath been said that it preserveth the state of this world upon the same terms in which they are when it is imbraced But neverthelesse it moderateth the use of it so that it cannot with Christianity be imploied in very many cases in which the Law of Nature and Nations justifies the use of it These things thus premised it will be easie to shew that the Presbyterians offer wrong when they demand that the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters be proved to be of Divine Right by some Precept of Gods Law recorded in the Scriptures Supposing that otherwise it will be in the Secular Power of it self to erect an Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from them that have it and giving it to them that have it not and requiring that so it be done For it is notorious to the world that from the beginning they claimed that Presbyteries should be erected in stead of the Government of the Church of England upon this ground that the Presbyteries are commanded by God and that therefore the superiority of Bishops as contrary to his Law is to be abolished And that upon this pretense the people were drawn in to seek the innovation endevoured at this time So that to require now that it be proved that the superiority of Bishops is commanded by God to be unchangeable by men otherwise that it be changed is to require that the conclusion may stand without any premises to prove it Notwithstanding to passe by this advantage suppose we the superiority of Bishops neither forbidden nor commanded but introduced by Ecclesiasticall Right grounded upon the Power given the Church of giving Laws to the Church by determining that which Gods Law determineth not Supposing but not granting this to be true it will remain neverthelesse without the compasse of any Secular Power upon earth to erect this Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from them which have it and giving it to them which have it not For wheresoever there is a Church and the Government thereof not contrary to Gods Law in those hands which have it by mans there the Apostles precept of obeying the Governors of the Church 1 Thess V. 14. Heb. XIII 17. must needs oblige the People to those Governors that are established not against Gods Law And this Precept of the Apostle being of that Divine Right by which Christianity subsisteth cannot be voided by any Secular Power by which the Church subsisteth not in point of Right but onely is maintained in point of fact For the obligation which they have to the Church and the Unity thereof and the Order by which that Unity is preserved and the Government in which that Order consisteth being more ancient then the maintenance of Christianity by the State cannot be taken away by any obligation or interesse thereupon arising And therefore as the first Christians that were under Christian Powers in the time of Constantine were bound to adhere to the Pastors which they had by the Law of the Church for which reason neither did Constantine Constantius or Valens ever endevour to intrude those Bishops which they were seduced to think necessary for the quiet of some Churches being indeed dangerous to Christianity by their own Power but by a pretended legall Act of the Church after Constantine took Christianity into the protection of the Empire upon the same terms as afore So are all Christians to the worlds end obliged to adhere to the Pastors which they shall have by the Law of the Church not contrary to Gods Law against the command of any Secular Power to obey others And to demand that Ecclesiasticall Power not contrary to Gods Law be dissolved by Secular to which the persons endowed therewith are Subjects is to demand that there remain no Christians in England that can be content to suffer for their Christianity by obeying Gods Law before mans especially when they can obey both acting by Gods and suffering by mans But though I insist upon this right of the Church yet it is not my purpose to balk the fruit of the Divine Right of Bishops upon such terms as it hath been asserted That is to say as that which no man may lawfully destroy though not as that which being destroied voideth the being of a Church if it can be done without Schism because not commanded particular Christians as the substance of Christianity but the Society of the Church for the maintenance and support of it For if no Secular Power be able to give that Power to the Presbyteries which must be taken from the Bishops supposing that the superiority of Bishops stands neither by nor against the Law of God but onely by the Law of the Church according to Gods How much more when it is demonstrated that it subsisteth by the Act of 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
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