Isidore himself the Bishop of Sevill in Spain speaking of Presbyters His sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est praesunt eni◠Ecclesiis Christi in confectione corporis sanguinis consortes cum Episcopis sunt similiter in doctrina populi in Officio praedicandi sed sola propter auctoritatem summo sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae Disciplina vindicatae concordiam solueret scandala generaret What could be spoken more to our purpose then this is he asserts the identity of power as well as name in both Bishops and Presbyters in governing the Church in celebrating the Eucharist in the Office of preaching to the people onely for the greater Honour of the Bishop and for preventing Schisms in the Church the power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop by those words propter Auctoritatem he cannot possibly mean the Authority of a Divine Command for that his following words contradict that it was to prevent Schisms and Scandals and after produceth the whole place of Ierome to that purpose Agreeable to this is the judgment of the second Council of Sevil in Spain upon the occasion of the irregular proceeding of some Presbyters ordained by Agapius Bishop of Corduba Their words are these Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis Ministeriorum communis sit dispensatio quaedam novellis Ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterororum Diaconorum Virginum consecratio c. Haec enim omnia illicita esse Presbyteris quia Pontificatus apicem non habent quem solis deberi Episcopis authoritate Canonum praecipitur ut per hoc discretio graduum dignitatis fastigium summi Pontificis demonstretur How much are we beholding to the ingenuity of a Spanish Council that doth so plainly disavow the pretence of any divine right to the Episcopacy by them so strenuously asserted All the right they plead for is from the novellae Ecclesiasticae regula which import quite another thing from Divine institution and he that hath not learnt to distinguish between the authority of the Canons of the Church and that of the Scriptures will hardly ever understand the matter under debate with us and certainly it is another thing to preserve the honour of the different Degrees of the Clergy but especially of the chief among them viz. the Bishop than to observe a thing meerly out of Obedience to the command of Christ and upon the account of Divine institution That which is rejoyned in answer to these Testimonies as far as I can learn is onely this that the Council and Isidore followed Jerome and so all make up but one single Testimony But might it not as well be said that all that are for Episcopacy did follow Ignatius or Epiphanius and so all those did make up but one single Testimony on the other side Ye◠I do as yet despair of finding any one single Testimony in all Antiquity which doth in plain terms assert Episcopacy as it was setled by the practice of the Primitive Church in the ages following the Apostles to be of an unalterable Divine right Some expressions I grant in some of them seem to extoll Episcopacy very high but then it is in Order to the Peace and Unity of the Church and in that Sense they may sometimes be admitted to call it Divine and Apostolical not in regard of its institution but of its end in that it did in their Opinion tend as much to preserve the Unity of the Church as the Apostles Power did over the Churches while they were living If any shall meet with expressions seeming to carry the Fountain of Episcopal power higher let them remember to distinguish between the power it self and the restrained Exercise of that power the former was from the Apostles but common to all Dispensers of the Word the latter was appropriated to some but by an Act of the Church whereby an eminency of power was attributed to one for the safety of the whole And withall let them consider that every Hyperbolical expression of a Father will not bear the weight of an Argument and how common it was to call things Divine which were conceived to be of excellent use or did come from persons in authority in the Church One would think that should meet with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon it could be rendred by nothing short of the Scriptures whereas they mean no more by it but onely the Emperours Letters to the Council It hath been already observed how ready they were to call any custome of the Church before their times an Apostolical Tradition And as the Heathens when they had any thing which they knew not whence it came they usually called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it came immediately from Heaven So the Fathers when Traditions were convey'd to them without the names of the Authors they conclude they could have no other Fountain but the Apostles And thus we see many Traditions in several Churches directly contrary to one another were looked on as Apostolical onely from the prevalency of this perswasion that whatever they derived from their Fathers was of that nature But then for that answer to the Council and Isidore and Ierome that they make but one testimony I say that although the words be of the same Sense yet they have the nature of a different testimony upon these accounts First as produced by persons of different condition in the Church some think they are even with Ierome when they tell us what a pique there was between him and Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem and that he might have the better advantage of his adversary when he could not raise himself up to the Honour of Episcopacy he would bring that down to the State of Presbytery but as such entertain too unworthy thoughts of one of those Fathers whom they profess themselves admirers of so this prejudice cannot possibly lie against Isidore or the Council For the first was himself a Bishop of no mean account in the Church of God and the Council was composed of such it could be no biass then of that nature could draw them to this Opinion and no doubt they would have been as forward to maintain their own authority in the Church as the Truth and Conscience would give them leave Therefore on this account one Testimony of a single Bishop much more of a whole Council of them against their acting by Divine Authority in the Church is of more validity then ten for it in as much as it cannot but be in Reason supposed that none will speak any thing against the authority they are in or what may tend in the least to diminish it but such as make more Conscience of the Truth then of their own Credit and Esteem in the World Secondly in that it was done in different ages of the Church Ierome flourished about
of the Governours acting in it but that care which Paul had over all the Churches would have prompted him especially being assisted and guided by an infallible Spirit in the penning those Epistles to have laid down some certain Rules for the acting of the Pastors of the Churches after the departure of Timothy and Titus Considering especially that the Epistles then written by him were to be of standing perpetual use in the Church of God and by which the Churches in after-ages were to be guided as well as those that were then in being The Apostle in both Epistles takes care for a succession of Pastors in those Churches Timothy is charged to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others Had it not been as requisite to have charged him to have committed his power of Government to men fit for that had the Apostles looked on the form of Government to be as necessary as the office of preaching Paul saith he left Titus in Creete on purpose to settle the Churches and ordain Presbyters in every City had it not been as necessary to have shewed in what order the Churches must be setled and what power did belong to those Presbyters and how they should act in the governing their Churches had he thought the constitution of the Churches did depend upon the form of their acting We see here then that St. Paul doth not expresse any thing necessarily inferring any one constant form to be used in the Church of God And whence can we inferr any necessity of it but from the Scriptures laying it down as a duty that such a form and no other there must be used in the Church of God For all that we can see then by Pauls direction for Church-Government when if ever this should have been expressed it was left to the Christian wisdome and prudence of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet to consult and determine in what manner the government of their Churches should be provided for upon the departure of Timothy and Titus from them But here it will be soon replyed That though nothing be expressed in Pauls Epistles to Timothy and Titus yet Pauls appointing Timothy and Titus over those Churches did determine the form of Government and they were entrusted with a power to provide for future Governours after them To this â—answer First The superiority which Timothy and Titus had over those Churches doth not prove that form of Government necessary in all Churches I dispute not whether they were Evangelists or no or acted as such in that Superiority of that afterwards it is evident they might be so there being no convincing argument to the contrary And the bare possibility of the truth of the Negative destroys the necessity of the Affirmative of a Proposition As Si posibile est hominem non esse animal then that Proposition is false Necesse est hominem esse animal For Necesse est esse and Non possibile est non esse being â—quipollents on the one side and Possibile est non esse Et non necesse est esse being â—quipollents on the other Possibile est non esse must be contradictory to Necesse est esse as Non possibile est non esse is to Non necesse est esse So that if only the possibility of their acting as Evangelists that is by an extraordinary Commission be evicted which I know none will deny the necessity of their acting as fixed Bishops is destroyed and consequently the necessity of the continuance of their office too which depends upon the former For if they acted not as Bishops nothing can be drawn from their example necessarily inforcing the continuance of the Superiority which they enjoyed But though nothing can be inferred from hence as to the necessity of that office to continue in the Church which Timothy and Titus were invested in yet from the Superiority of that power which they enjoyed over those Churches whether as Evangelists or as fixed Bishops These two things may be inferred First That the superiority of some Church-Officers over others is not contrary to the Rule of the Gospel for all parties acknowledge the superiority of their power above the Presbyters of the several Cityes only the continuance of this power â—â— disputed by many But if they had any such power at all it is enough for my present design viz. that such a superiority is not contrary to the Gospel-Rule or that the nature of the Government of the Church doth not imply a necessary equality among the Governours of it Secondly Hence I infer that it is not repugnant to the constitution of Churches in Apostolical times for men to have power over more than one particular Congregation For such a power Timothy and Titus had which had it been contrary to the nature of the regiment of Churches we should never have read of in the first planted Churches So that if those popular arguments of a necessary relation between a Pastor and particular people of personal knowledge care and inspection did destroy the lawfulnesse of extending that care and charge to many particular Congregations they would likewise overthrow the nature end and design of the office which Timothy and Titus acted in which had a relation to a multitude of particular and Congregational Churches Whether their power was extraordinary or no I now dispute not but whether such a power be repugnant to the Gospel or no which from their practice is evident that it is not But then others who would make this office necessary urge further that Timothy or Titus might ordain and appoint others to succeed them in their places and care over all those Churches under their charge To which I answer First What they might do is not the question but what they did as they might do it so they might not do it if no other evidence be brought to prove it for Quod possibile est esse possibile â—st non esse Secondly Neither what they did is the whole question but what they did with an opinion of the necessity of doing it whether they were bound to do it or no and if so whether by any Law extant in Scripture and given them by Paul in his Epistles or some private command and particular instructions when he deputed them to their several charges If the former that Law and command must be produced which will hardly be if we embrace only the received Canon of the Scripture If the latter we must then fetch some standing Rule and Law from unwritten Traditions for no other evidence can be given of the Instructions by word of mouth given by Paul to Timothy and Titus at the taking their charges upon them But yet Thirdly Were it only the matter of fact that was disputed that would hold a Controversie still viz. Whether any did succeed Timothy and Titus in their Offices but this I shall leave to its proper place to be discussed when
exercise of this power is not any unlawfulnesse in the thing but the preserving of order and conveniency in the Church of God This being premised I say Secondly That the officers of the Church may in a peculiar manner attribute a larger and more extensive power to some particular persons for the more convenient exercise of their common power We have seen already that their power extends to the care of the Churches in common that the restraint of this power is a matter of order and decency in the Church of God Now in matters of common concernment without all question it is not unlawful when the Church judgeth it most for Edification to grant to some the executive part of that power which is Originally and Fundamentally common to them all For our better understanding of this we must consider a twofold power belonging to Church-Officers a power of Order and a power of jurisdiction for in every Presbyter there are some things inseparably joyned to his Function and belonging to every one in his personal capacity both in actu primo and in actu secundo both as to the right and power to do it and the exercise and execution of that power such are preaching the Word visiting the sick administring Sacraments c. But there are other things which every Presbyter hath an aptitude and a jus to in actu primo but the limitation and exercise of that power doth belong to the Church in common and belong not to any one personally but by a further power of choice or delegation to it such is the power of visiting Churches taking care that particular Pastors discharge their duty such is the power of ordination and Church censures and making Rules for decency in the Church this is that we call the power of jurisdiction Now this latter power though it belongs habitually and in actu primo to every Presbyter yet being about matters of publike and common concernment some further Authority in a Church constituted is necessary besides the power of order and when this power either by consent of the Pastors of the Church or by the appointment of a Christian Magistrate or both is devolved to some particular persons though quoad aptitudinem the power remain in every Presbyter yet quoad executionem it belongs to those who are so appointed And therefore Camero determins that Ordinatio non fit à pastore quatenus pastor est sed quatenus ad tempus singularem authoritatem obtinet i. e. That Ordination doth not belong to the Power of Order but to the Power of Jurisdiction and therefore is subject to Positive restraints by Prudential Determinations By this we may understand how lawfull the Exercise of an Episcopal Power may be in the Church of God supposing an equality in all Church-Officers as to the Power of Order And how incongruously they speak who supposing an equality in the Presbyters of Churches at first do cry out that the Church takes upon her the Office of Christ if she delegates any to a more peculiar Exercise of the power of Jurisdiction The last thing pleaded why an immutable Form of Church-Government must be laid down in Scripture is from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures because otherwise the Scriptures would be condemned of imperfection But this will receive an easie dispatch For First The Controversie about the perfection of the Scriptures is not concerning an essential or integral Perfection but a perfection ratione finis effectuum in order to its end now the end of it is to be an adaequate Rule of Faith and Manners and sufficient to bring men to salvation which it is sufficiently acknowledged to be if all things necessary to be believed or practised be contained in the Word of God now that which we assert not to be fully laid down in Scripture is not pleaded to be any wayes necessary nor to be a matter of Faith but something left to the Churches Liberty but here it is said by some that this is adding to the Law of God which destroyes the Scriptures perfection therefore I answer Secondly Whatever is done with an Opinion of the necessity of doing it destroyes the Scriptures perfection if it be not contained in it for that were to make it an imperfect Rule and in this sense every additio perficiens is additio corrumpens because it takes away from the perfection of the Rule which it is added to and thus Popish Traditions are destructive of the Scriptures sufficiency But the doing of any thing not positively determined in Scripture not looking upon it as a thing we are bound to do from the necessity of the thing and observing the general Rules of Scripture in the doing it is far from destroying the perfection or sufficiency of the Word of God Thirdly All essentials of Church-Government are contained clearly in Scripture The essentials of Church-Government are such as are necessary to the preservation of such a Society as the Church is Now all these things have been not only granted but proved to be contained in Scripture but whatever is not so necessary in its self can only become necessary by vertue of Gods express command and what is not so commanded is accidental and circumstantial and a matter of Christian liberty and such we assert the Form of Church-Government to be It is not our work to enquire why God hath determined some things that might seem more circumstantial than this and left other things at liberty but whether God hath determined these things or no. Which determination being once cleared makes the thing so commanded necessary as to our observance of it but if no such thing be made appear the thing remains a matter of liberty and so the Scriptures perfection as to necessaries in order to Salvation is no wayes impeached by it So much now for the necessity of Christs determining the particular form of Government We now proceed to the consideration of Christs Actions whether by them the form of Church-Government is determined or no CHAP. V. Whether any of Christs Actions have determined the Form of Government All Power in Christs hands for Governing his Church What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World Calling Apostles the first action respecting outward Government The Name and Office of Apostles cleared An equality among them proved during our Saviours life Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered with the nature and quality of their Office Matth. 20. 25 26 27. largely discussed and explained It makes not all inequality in Church Officers unlawful by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches Matth. 18. 15. How far that determins the Form of Church-Government No evidence of any exact Order for Church-Government from thence Matth. 16. 15 16 17 18. considered how far that concerns the Government of the Church HAving considered and answered the Arguments which are brought why Christ must
commanding one form and forbidding all other We have no way then left to know whether the Apostles did look upon themselves as bound to settle one form but by their practice this practice must be certain and uniform in them this uniformity must be made known to us by some unquestionable way the Scriptures they are very silent in it mentioning very little more then Pauls practice nor that fully and clearly therefore we must gather it from Antiquity and the Records of following ages if these now fall short of our expectation and cannot give us an account of what was done by the Apostles in their several Churches planted by them how is it possible we should attain any certainty of what the Apostles practice was Now that antiquity is so defective as to Places will appear from the general silence as to the Churches planted by many of the Apostles Granting the truth of what Eusebius tells us That Thomas went into Parthia Andrew into Scythia Iohn into the lesser Asia Peter to the Jews in Pontus Galatia Bithynia Cappadocia Asia besides what we read in Scripture of Paul what a pittiful short account have we here given in of all the Apostles Travels and their several fellow-labourers And for all these little or nothing spoke of the way they took in setling the Churches by them planted Who is it will undertake to tell us what course Andrew took in Scythiae in governing Churches If we believe the Records of after-ages there was but one Bishop viz. of Tomis for the whole Countrey how different is this from the pretended course of Paul setting up a single Bishop in every City Where do we read of the Presbyteries setled by Thomas in Parthia or the Indies what course Philip Bartholomew Matthew Simon Zelotes Matthias took Might not they for any thing we know settle another kind of Government from what we read Paul Peter or Iohn did unlesse we had some evidence that they were all bound to observe the same Nay what evidence have we what course Peter took in the Churches of the Circumcision Whether he left them to their Synagogue way or altered it and how or wherein These things should be made appear to give men a certainty of the way and course the Apostles did observe in the setling Churches by them planted But instead of this we have a general silence in antiquity and nothing but the forgeries of latter ages to supply the vacuity whereby they filled up empty places as Plutarch expresseth it as Geographers do Maps with some fabulous creatures of their own invention Here is work now for a Nicephorus Callisthus a Simeon Metaphrastes the very Iacobus de Voragine of the Greek Church as one well calls him those Historical Tinkers that think to mend a hole where they find it and make three instead of it This is the first defect in Antiquity as to places The second is as observable as to times and what is most considerable Antiquity is most defective where it is most useful viz. in the time immediately after the Apostles which must have been most helpfull to us in this inquiry For who dare with confidence believe the conjectures of Eusebius at three hundred years distance from Apostolical times when he hath no other Testimony to vouch but the Hypotyposes of an uncertain Clement certainly not he of Alexandria if Ios. Scaliger may be credited and the Commentaries of Hegesippus whose Relations and Authority are as questionable as many of the reports of Eusebius himself are in reference to those elder times For which I need no other Testimony but Eusebius in a place enough of its self to blast the whole credit of antiquity as to the matter now in debate For speaking of Paul and Peter and the Churches by them planted and coming to enquire after their Successours he makes this very ingenuous Confession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Say you so Is it so hard a matter to find out who succeeded the Apostles in the Churches planted by them unless it be those mentioned in the writings of Paul What becomes then of our unquestionable Line of Succession of the Bishops of several Churches and the large Diagramms made of the Apostolical Churches with every ones name set down in his Order as if the Writer had been Clarenceaulx to the Apostles themselves Is it come to this at last that we have nothing certain but what we have in Scriptures And must then the Tradition of the Church be our rule to interpret Scriptures by An excellent way to find out the Truth doubtless to bend the Rule to the crooked Stick to make the Judge stand to the Opinion of his Lacquey what sentence he shall pass upon the Cause in question to make Scripture stand cap in hand to Tradition to know whether it may have leave to speak or no! Are all the great outcries of Apostolical Tradition of personal Succession of unquestionable Records resolved at last into the Scripture its self by him from whom all these long pedegrees are fetched then let Succession know its place and learn to vaile Bonnet to the Scriptures And withall let men take heed of over-â—eaching themselves when they would bring down so large a Catalogue of single Bishops from the first and purest times of the Church for it will be hard for others to believe them when Eusebius professeth it is so hard to find them Well might Scaliger then complain that the Intervall from the last Chapter of the Acts to the middle of Trajan in which time Quadratus and Ignatius began to flourish was tempus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Varro speaks a meer Chaos of time filled up with the rude concept ons of Papias Hermes and others who like Hann ibal when they could not find a way through would make one either by force or fraud But yet Thirdly here is another defect consequent to that of Time which is that of Persons arising not onely from a defect of Records the Diptychs of the Church being lost which would have acquainted us with the times of suffering of the severall Martyrs by them called their Natalitia at which times their several names were inrolled in these Martyrologies which some as Iunius observes have ignorantly mistaken for the time of their being made Bishops of the places wherein their names were entered as Anacletus Clytus and Clemens at Rome I say the defect as to Persons not only ariseth hence but because the Christians were so much harassed with persecutions that they could not have that leisure then to write those things which the leisure and peace of our ages have made us so eagerly inquisitive after Hence even the Martyrologies are so full stuffed with Fables witness one for all the famous Legend of Catharina who suffered say they in Diocletian's time And truly the story of Ignatius as much as it is defended with his Epistles doth not seem to be any of the most probable For wherefore should
matter for truly religious and plain-hearted men to lay aside their Errour and to find out the Truth which is by returning to the head and spring of Divine Tradition viz. the Scriptures Which he expresseth further with an elegant similitude Si Canalis aquam ducens qui copiose prius largiter profluebat subito deficiat nonne ad fontem pergitur ut illic defectionis ratio noscatur utrumne arescentibus venis in capite unda siccaverit an verò integra deinde plena procurrens in medio itinere destiterit ut si vitio interrupti aut bibuli canalis effectum est quò minus aqua continua perseveranter jugiter flueret refecto confirmato canali ad usum atque ad potum civitatis aqua collecta eadem ubertate atque integritate repraesentaretur qua de fonte proficiscitur Quod nunc facere oportet Dei sacerdotes praecepta divina servantes ut si in aliquo mutaverit l. nutaverit vacillaverit veritas ad originem Dominicam Evangelicam Apostolicam Traditionem revertamur inde surgat actus nostri ratio unde ordo origo surrexit His meaning is That as when a channel suddenly fails we presently inquire where and how the breach was made and look to the Spring and Fountain to see the waters be fully conveyed from thence as formerly so upon any failure in the Tradition of the Church our onely recourse must be to the true Fountain of Tradition the Word of God and ground the Reason of our Actions upon that which was the Foundation of our profession And when Stephen the Bishop of Rome would tedder him to tradition Cyprian keeps his liberty by this close question Unde illa Traditio â— utrumne de Dominica Evangelica auctoritate descendens an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens Si ergo aut Evangelio praecipitur aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actibus continetur observetur Divina haec Sancta traditio We see this good man would not baulk his way on foot for the great bugbear of Tradition unless it did bear the Character of a Divine Truth in it and could produce the credentials of Scripture to testifie its authority to him To the same purpose that stout Bishop of Cappadocia Firmilian whose unhappiness with Cyprians was onely that of Iobs Friends that they excellently managed a bad Cause and with far more of the Spirit of Christianity then Stephen did who was to be justified in nothing but the Truth he defended Eos autem saith Firmilian qui Roma sunt non ea in omnibus observare quae sint ab origine tradita frustra Apostolorum auctoritatem prâ—tendere which he there makes out at large viz. That the Church of Rome had gathered corruption betimes which after broke out into an Impostume in the head of it Where then must we find the certain way of resolving the Controversie we are upon The Scriptures determine it not the Fathers tell us there is no believing tradition any further then it is founded in Scripture thus are we sent back from one to the other till at last we conclude there is no certain way at all left to find out a decision of it Not that we are left at such uncertainties as to matters of Faith I would not be so mistaken We have Archimedes his Postulatum granted us for that a place to fix our Faith on though the World be moved out of its place I mean the undoubted Word of God but as to matters of Fact not clearly revealed in Scripture no certainty can be had of them from the hovering light of unconstant Tradition Neither is it onely unconstant but in many things Repugnant to its self which was the last Consideration to be spoke to in reference to the shewing the incompetency of Antiquity for deciding our Controversie Well then suppose we our selves now waiting for the final Verdict of Church-Tradition to determine our present cause If the Iury cannot agree we are as far from satisfaction as ever and this is certainly the Case we are now in The main difficulty lyes in the immediate succession to the Apostles if that were but once cleared we might bear with interruptions afterwards but the main seat of the controversie lies there whether the Apostles upon their withdrawing from the Government of Churches did substitute single persons to succeed them or no so that uâ—less that be cleared the very Deed of Gift is questioned and if that could be made appear all other things would speedily follow Yes say some that is clear For at Ierusalem Antioch and Rome it is evident that single persons were entrusted with the Government of Churches In Ierusalem say they Iames the brother of our LORD was made Bishop by the Apostles But whence doth that appear It is said from Hegesippus in Eusebius But what if he say no such thing his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is there interpreted Ecclesiae administrationem una cum caeteris Apostolis suscepit And no more is thereby meant but that this Iames who is by the Antients conceived to be onely a Disciple before is now taken into a higher charge and invested in a power of governing the Church as the Apostles were His power it is plain was of the same nature with that of the Apostles themselves And who will go about to degrade them so much as to reduce them to the Office of Ordinary Bishops Iames in probability did exercise his Apostleship the most at Ierusalem where by the Scriptures we find him Resident and from hence the Church afterwards because of his not travelling abroad as the other Apostles did according to the Language of their own times they fixed the Title of Bishop upon him But greater difference we shall find in those who are pleaded to be successours of the Apostles At Antioch some as Origen and Eusebius make Ignatius to succeed Peter Ierome makes him the third Bishop and placeth Evodius before him Others therefore to solve that make them cotemporary Bishops the one of the Church of the Jewes the other of the Gentiles with what congruity to their Hypothesis of a single Bishop and Deacons placed in every City I know not but that Salvo hath been discussed before Come we therefore to Rome and here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber it self for here Tertullian Rufinus and several others place Clement next to Peter Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus Augustinus and Damasus with others make Anacletus Cletus and Linus all to precede him What way shall we find to extrica e our selves out of this Labyrinth so as to reconcile it with the certainty of the Form of Government in the Apostles times Certainly if the Line of Succession fail us here when we most need it we have little cause to pin our Faith upon it as to the certainty of
Presbyterii honore provexit What more plain and evident then that here a Presbyter ordained a Presbyter which we now here read was pronounced null by Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria or any others that at time It is a known instance that in the ordination of Pelagius first Bishop of Rome there were only two Bishops concurred and one Presbyter whereas according to the fourth Canon of the Nicene Council three Bishops are absolutely required for Ordinaâ—ion 〈…〉 Bishop either â—hen Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop and so the point of succession thereby fails in the Church of Rome or else a Presbyter hath the same intrinsecal power of Ordination which a Bishop hath but it is onely restrained by Ecclesiastical Lawes In the time of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch which was done A. D. 328 as Iacobus Gothâ—â—redus proves till the time of the ordination of Paulinus A. D. 362. which was for thirty four years space when the Church was governed by Paulinus and his Colleagues withdrawing from the publick Assemblies it will be hard to say by whom the Ordinations were performed all this while unless by Paulinus and his Collegues In the year 452. it appears by Leo in his Epistle to Rusticus Narbonensis that some Presbyters took upon them to ordain as Bishops about which he was consulted by Rusticus what was to be done in that Case with those so ordained Leo his resolution of that Case is observable Siqui autem Clerici ab ist is pseudo-Episcopis in iis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt quae ad prâ—prios Episcopos pertinebant ordinatio â—orum cum consensn judicio praesidentium facta est potest rata haberi ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent Those Clergy men who were ordained by such as took upon them the Office of Bishops in Churches belonging to proper Bishops if the Ordination were performed by the consent of the Bishops it may be looked on as valid and those Presbyters remain in their Office in the Church So that by the consent ex post facto of the true Bishops those Presbyters thus ordained were looked on as Lawful Presbyteâ—s which could not be unless their ordainers had an intrinsecal power of Ordination which was onely restrained by the Laws of the Church for if they have no power of Ordination it is impossible they should confer any thing by their Oâ—dâ—nation If to this it be answered that the validity of their Ordination did depend upon the consent of the Bishops and that Presbyters may ordain if delegated thereto by Bishops as Paulinus might ordain on that account at Antioch It is easily answered that this very power of doing it by delegation doth imply an intrinsecal power in themselves of doing it For iâ— Presbyters be forbidden ordaining others by Scriptures then they can neither do it in their own persons nor by delegation from others Fâ—â— Qâ—od alicui suo nomine â—on lices nec 〈…〉 Anâ—â—â—â—â— Rule oâ— Cyprian must hold true Non aliquid câ—i â—â—â—â— largiri potest humana indulgentia ubi intercâ—dit legâ—â— tribuit Divina â—râ—scriptio There can be no dispensing with Divine Lawes which must be if that may be delegated to other persons which was required of men in the Office wherein they are And if Presbyters have power of conferring nothing by their Ordination how can an after-consent of Bishops make that Act of theirs valid for conserring Right and Power by it It appears then that this Power was restrained by the Lawes of the Church for preserving Uâ—ity in its self but yet so that in case of necessity what was done by Presbyters was not looked on as invalid But against this the case of Ischyras ordained as it is said a Presbyter by Collutbus and pronounced null by the Council of Alexandria is commonly pleaded But there is no great difficulty in answering it For first the pronouncing such an Ordination null doth not evidence that they looked on the power of Ordination as belonging of Divine right onely to Bishops for we find by many instances that acting in a bare contempt of Ecclesiastical Canons was sufficient to degrade any from being Presbyters Secondly If Ischyras had been ordained by a Bishop there were câ—rcumstances enough to induce the Council to pronounce it null First as done out of the Diocess in which case Ordinations are nulled by Concil Arel cap. 13. Secondly done by open and pronounced Schismaticks Thirdly done sine titulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and â—o nulled by the Canons then Thirdly Colluthns did not act as a Presbyter in ordaining but as a Bishop of the Meletian party in Cynus as the Clergy of Mareotis speaking of Ischyras his ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Collytbus a Presbyter making shew of being a Bishop and is supposed to have been ordained a Bishop by Meletius More concerning this may be seen in Blondel who fully clears all the particulars here mentiâ—â—eâ— So that notwithstanding this Instance nothing appears but that the power of Ordination was restrained only by Ecclesiastical Lawâ— The last thing to prove that the Church did act upon prudence in Church-Government is from the many restraints in other cases made by the Church for restraint of that Liberty which was allowed by Divine Laws He must be a stranger to the ancient Canons and Constitutions of the Church that takes not notice of such restraints made by Canons as in reference to observation of several Rites and Customes in the Churches determined by the Provincial Synods of the several Churches for which purpose their Provincial Synods were still kept up in the Eastern Church as appears by the Testimony of Firmilian in his Epistle to Cyprian Qua ex causa necessariò apud nos fit ut per singulos annos Seniores Praepositi in unum conveniamus ad disponenda ea quae curae nostrae commissa sunt Ut si quae graviora sunt communi consilio dirigantur lapsis quoque fratribus c. medela quaeratur non quasi à nobis remissionem peccatorum consequâ—ntâ—r sed â—t per nos ad intelligentiam delictorum suorum convertantur Domino pleniùs satisfacere cogantur The several orders about the Discipline of the Church were detâ—rmined in these Synods as to which he that would find a command in Scripture for their ordeâ—s about the Catechumeni and Lapsi will take pains to no purpose the Church ordering things it self for the better Regulating the several Churches they were placed over A demonstrative Argument that these things came not from Divine command is from the great diversiâ—y of these customes in several places of which besides Socrates Sozomen largely speaks and may easily be gathered from the History of the several Churches When the Church began to enjoy ease and liberty and thereby had opportunity of enjoying greater conveniency for Councils we find what was detrrmined by those Councils were entred into a Codex Canonum for that purpose which
second is that the persons imployed in the Service of God should have respect answerable to their imployment which appears from their Relation to God as his Servants from the persons imployed in this work before positive Laws Masters of Families the first Priests The Priesthood of the first-born before the Law discussed The Arguments for it answered The Conjunction of Civil and Sacred Authothority largely shewed among Egyptians Grecians Romans and others The ground of Separation of them afterwards from Plutarch and others p. 85 CHAP. V. THE third thing dictated by the Law of Nature is the solemnity of all things to be performed in this Society which lyes in the gravity of all Rites and Ceremonies in the composed temper of mind Gods Worship rational His Spirit destroyes not the use of Reason The Enthusiastick spirit discovered The circumstantiating of fit times and place for Worship The seventh day on what account so much spoken of by Heathens The Romans Holy dayes Cessation of labour upon them The solemnity of Ceremonies used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 silence in devotions Exclusion of unfit persons Solemnity of Discipline Excommunication among the Iewes by the sound of a Trumpet among Christians by a Bell. p. 93 CHAP. VI. THE fourth thing dictated by the Law of Nature that there must be a way to end controversies arising which tend to break the peace of the Society The nature of Schisme considered The Churches Power as to Opinions explained When separation from a Church may be lawful Not till communion becomes sin Which is when corruptions are required as conditions of Communion Not lawful to erect new Churches upon supposition of corruption in a Church The ratio of a fundamental article explained it implyes both necessity and sufficiency in order to salvation Liberty of judgement and authority distinguished The latter must be parted with in religious Societies as to private persons What way the Light of nature directs to for ending Controversies First in an equality of power that the less number yield to the greater on what Law of Nature that is founded Secondly In a subordination of power that there must be a liberty of Appeals Appeals defined Independency of particular Congregations considered Elective Synods The Case paralleld between Civill and Church-Government Where Appeals finally lodge The power of calling Synods and confirming their Acts in the Magistrate p. 104. CHAP. VII THE fifth thing dictated by the Law of Nature That all that are admitted into this Society must consent to be governed by the Lawes and Rules of it Civil Societies founded upon mutual Consent express in their first entrance implicite in others born under Societies actually formed Consent as to a Church necessary the manner of Consent determined by Christ by Baptism and Profession Implicite consent supposed in all Baptized explicite declared by challenging the Priviledges and observing the Duties of the Covenant Explicite by express owning the Gospel when adult very useful for recovering the credit of Christia nity The Discipline of the primitive Church cleared from Origen Iustin Martyr Pliny Tertullian The necessary reâ—â—â—â—â—â—es of Church membership whether Positive signs of Grace nothing required by the Gospel beyand reality of profession Exâ—â—â—â—â—tâ— Coâ—â—â—â—â—â— how far necessary not the formal Constitution of a Church proved by severâ—â— arguments p. 132. CHAP. VIII THE last thing dictated by the Law of Nature is that every offender against the Lawes of this Society is bound to give an account of his actions to the Governours of it and submit to the censures inflicted upon him by them The original of penalties in Societies The nature of them according to the nature and ends of Societies The penalty of the Church no civil mulct because its Lawes and ends are different from civil Societies The practice of the Dâ—uâ—ds and Câ—rceâ—ae in e 〈…〉 n. Among the Iewes whether a meer civil or sacr 〈…〉 y. The latter proved by six Arguments Cherem Col Bo what Objections answered The original of the mistake shewed The first part concluded p. 141 PART II. CHAP. I. THE other ground of divine Right considered viz. Gods positive Lawes which imply a certain knowledge of Gods intention to bind men perpetuaâ—ly As to which the arguments drawn from Tradition and the practice of the Church in after ages proved invalid by several arguments In order to a right stating the Question some Concessions laid down First That there must be some form of Government in the Church is of divine right The notion of a Church explained whether it belongs only to particular Congregations which are manifested not to be of Gods primary intention but for our necessity Evidence for National Churches under the Gospel A National Church-Government necessary p. 150 CHAP. II. THE second Concession is That Church Government must be administred by officers of Divine appointment To that end the continuance of a Gospel Ministry fully cleared from all those arguments by which positive Laws are proved immutable The reason of its appointment continues the dream of a â—aeculum Spiritus sancti discussed first broached by the Mendicant Friers upon the rising of the Waldenses now embraced by Enthusiasts It s occasion and unreasonableness shewed Gods declaring the perpetuity of a Gospel Ministry Matth. 28. 20. explained A Novel interpretation largely refuted The world to come What A Ministry necessary for the Churches continuance Ephes. 4 12. explained and vindicated p. 158 CHAP. III. THE Question fully stated Not what Form of Government comes the nearest to the Primitive practice but whether any be absolutely determined Several things propounded for resolving the Question What the Form of Church-Government was under the Law How far Christians are bound to observe that Neither the necessity of a superiour Order of Church-Officers nor the unlawfulness can be proved from thence p. 170 CHAP. IV. WHether Christ hath determined the Form of Government by any positive Laws Arguments of the necessity why Christ must determine it largely answered as First Christs faithfulness compared with Moses answered and retorted and thence proved that Christ did not institute any Form of Government in the Church because he gave no such Law for it as Moses did And we have nothing but general Rules which are appliable to several Forms of Government The Office of Timothy and Titus What it proves in order to this question the lawfulness of Episcopacy shewed thence but not the necessity A particular form how far necessary as Christ was Governour of his Church the Similitudes the Church is set out by prove not the thing in question Nor the difference between civil and Church-Government nor Christ setting Officers in his Church nor the inconvenience of the Churches power in appointing new Officers Every Minister hath a power respecting the Church in common which the Church may determine and fix the bounds of Episcopacy thence proved lawful The argument from the Scriptures perfection answered p. 175 CHAP. V. WHether any of Christs actions have determined the Form of
our present case According to this sense of jus for that which is lawful those things may be said to be jure divino which are not determined one way or other by any positive Law of God but are left wholly as things lawful to the prudence of men to determine them in a way agreeable to natural light and the general Rules of the Word of God In which sense I assert any particular form of Government agreed on by the Governours of the Church consonant to the general Rules of Scripture to be by Divine Right i. e. God by his own Laws hath given men a power and liberty to determine the particular form of Church-Government among them And hence it may appear that though one form of Government be agreeable to the Word it doth not follow that another is not or because one is lawful another is unlawful but one form may be more agreeable to some parts places people and times then others are In which case that form of Government is to be setled which is most agreeable to the present state of a place and is most advantagiously conducible to the promoting the ends of Church-Government in that place or Nation I conclude then according to this sense of jus that the Ratio regiminis Ecclesiastici is juris divini naturalis that is that the reason of Church-Government is immutable and holds in all times and places which is the preservation of the peace and unity of the Church but the modus regiminis Ecclesiastici the particular form of that Government is juris divini permissivi that both the Laws of God and Nature have left it to the Prudence of particular Churches to determine it This may be cleared by a parallel Instance The reason and the Science of Physick is immutable but the particular prescriptions of that Science are much varied according to the different tempers of Patients And the very same reason in Physick which prescribes one sort of Physick to one doth prescribe a different sort to another because the temper or disease of the one calls for a different method of cure yet the ground and end of both prescriptions was the very same to recover the Patient from his distemper So I say in our present case the ground and reason of Government in the Church is unalterable by divine right yea and that very reason which determines the particular forms but yet these particular forms flowing from that immutable reason may be very different in themselves and may alter according to the several circumstances of times and places and persons for the more commodious advancing the main end of Government As in morality there can be but one thing to a man in genere summi boni as the chief good quò tendit in quod dirigit aroum to which he refers all other things yet there may be many things in genere boni conducentis as means in order to attaining that end So though Church-Government vary not as to the ground end and reason of it yet it may as to the particular forms of it As is further evident as to forms of Civil Government though the end of all be the same yet Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy are in themselves lawful means for the attaining the same common end And as Alensis determines it in the case of Community of goods by the Law of Nature that the same reason of the Law of Nature which did dictate Community of goods to be most suitable to man in the state of Innocency did in his faln estate prescribe a propriety of goods as most agreeable to it so that herein the modus observantiâ—â— dissered but the ratio praecepti was the same still which was mans comfortable enjoyment of the Accommodations of life which in Innocency might have been best done by Community but in mans degenerate condition must be by a Propriety So the same reason of Church-Government may call for an Equality in the persons acting as Governours of the Church in one place which may call for Superiority and subordination in another Having now dispatched the first sense of a Divine Right I come to the other which is the main seat of the Controversie and therefore will require a longer debate And so jus is that which makes a thing to become a duty so jus quasi jussum and jussa jura as Festus explains it i. e. that whereby a thing is not only licitum in mens lawful power to do it or no but is made dâ—bitum and is constituted a duty by the force and virtue of a Divine Command Now mans obligation to any thing as a duty doth suppose on the part of him from whose authority he derives his obligation both legislation and promulgation First there must be a Legislative Power commanding it which if it respects only the outward actions of a man in a Nation imbodied by Laws is the supreme Magistrate but if the obligation respect the consciences of all men directly and immediately then none have the power to settle any thing by way of an universal standing Law but God himself Who by being sole Creator and Governour of the World hath alone absolute and independent Dominion and Authority over the souls of men But besides Legislation another thing necessary to mans obligation to duty is a sufficient promulgation of the Law made Because though before this there be the ground of obedience on mans part to all Gods Commands yet there must be a particular Declaration of the Laws whereby man is bound in order to the determination of Mans duty Which in Positives is so absolutely necessary that unless there be a sufficient promulgation and declaration of the will of the Law-giver mans ignorance is excusable in reference to them and so frees from guilt and the obligation to punishment But it is otherwise in reference to the dictates of the natural Law wherein though man be at a loss for them yet his own contracted pravity being the cause of his blindness leaves him without excuse Hence it is said with good reason that though man under the Moral Law was bound to obey Gospel-precepts as to the reason and substance of the duties by them commanded as Faith Repentance from dead works and New Obedience yet a more full and particular revelation by the Gospel was necessary for the particular determination of the general acts of obedience to particular objects under their several Modifications expressed in the Gospel And therefore Faith and Repentance under the Moral Law taken as a transcript of the Law of Nature were required under their general notion as acts of obedience but not in that particular relation which those acts have under the Covenant of Grace Which particular determination of the general acts to special objects under different respects some call New Precepts of the Gospel others New Light but taking that light as it hath an influence upon the consciences of men the difference is so small that it deserves not to be
power is alwayes to be understood in all Laws to be reserved to God where he hath not himself declared that he will not use it which is done either by the annexing an Oath on a Promise which the Apostle calls the two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie For though God be free to promise yet when he hath promised his own nature and faithfulness binds him to performance in which sense I understand those who say God in making promises is bound only to himself and not to men that is that the ground of performance ariseth from Gods faithfulness For else if we respect the right coming by the promise that must immediately respect the person to whom it is made and in respect of which we commonly say that the promiser is bound to performance But the case is otherwise in penal Laws which thoughâ— never so strict do imply a power of relaxation in the Legislator because penall Laws do only constitute the debstum poenae and bind the sinner over to punishment but do not bind the Legislator to an actual execution upon the debt Which is the ground that the person of a Mediator was admittable in the place of faln man because it was a penal Law and therefore relaxable But because the debt of punishment is immediately contracted upon the breach of the Law therefore satisfaction was necessary to God as Law-giver either by the person himself or another for him because it was not consistent with the holiness of Gods nature and his wisdom as Governor to relax an established Law without valuable consideration Now for the third kind of Gods Laws besides promissory and penall viz such as are meerly positive respecting duties which become such by vertue of an express command these though they be revocable in themselves yet being revocable only by God himself and his own power since he hath already in his Word fully revealed his Will unlesse therein he hath declared when their obligation shall cease they continue irreversible This is the case as to the Sacraments of the New Testament which being commands meerly positive yet Christ commanding Christians as Christians to observe them and not as Christians of the first and second Ages of the Church his mind can be no otherwise interpreted concerning them then that he did intend immutably to bind all Christians to the observance of them For al though the Socinians say that Baptism was only a Rite instituted by Christ for the passing men from Judaism and Gentilism to Christianity yet we are not bound to look upon all as reason that comes from those who professe themselves the admirers of it For Christs Command nowhere implying such a limitation and an outward visible profession of Christianity being a duty now and the Covenant entred into by that Rite of initiation as obligatory as ever we have no reason to think that Christs command doth not reach us now especially the promise being made to as many as God shall call and consequently the same duty required which was then in order to the obtaining of the same ends A third way to discern the immutability of positive Laws is when the things commanded in particular are necessary to the being succession and continuance of such a Society of men professing the Gospel as is instituted and approved by Christ himself For Christ must be supposed to have the power himself to order what Society he please and appoint what Orders he please to be observed by them what Rites and Ceremonies to be used in admission of Members into his Church in their continuing in it in the way means manner of ejection out of it in the preserving the succession of his Church and the administration of Ordinances of his appointment These being thus necessary for the maintaining and upholding this Society they are thereby of a nature as unalterable as the duty of observing what Christ hath commanded is How much these things concern the resolution of the Question proposed will appear afterwards Thus we have gained a resolution of the second thing whereon an unalterable Divine Right is founded viz either upon the dictates of the Law of Nature concurring with the rules of the written word or upon express positive Laws of God whose reason is immutable or which God hath declared shall continue as necessary to the being of the Church The next thing is to examine the other pretences which are brought for a Divine Right which are either Scripture examples or Divine acts or Divine approbation For Scripture-examples First I take it for granted on all hands that all Scripture examples do not bind us to follow them such are the Mediatory acts of Christ the Heroical acts of extraordinary persons all accidentall and occasionall actions Example doth not bind us as an example for then all examples are to be followed and so we shall of necessity go quà itur non quà eundum walk by the most examples and not by rule There is then no obligatory force in example it self Secondly there must be then some rule fixed to know when examples bind and when not for otherwise there can be no discrimination put between examples which we are to follow and which to avoid This rule must be either immediately obligatory making it a duty to follow such examples or else directive declaring what examples are to be â—ollowed And yet even this latter doth imply as well as the former that the following these examples thus declared is become a duty There can be no duty without a Law making it to be a duty and consequently it is the Law making it to be a duty to follow such example which gives a Divine Right to those examples and not barely the examples themselves We are bound to follow Christs example not barely because he did such and such things for many things he did we are not bound to follow him in but because he himself hath by a command made it our duty to follow him in his humility patience self-denyal c. and in whatever things are set out in Scripture for our imitation When men speak then with so much confidence that Scripture-examples do bind us unalterably they either mean that the example it self makes it a duty which I have shewn already to be absurd or else that the morall nature of the action done in that example or else the Law making it our duty to follow the example though in its self it be of no morall nature If the former of these two then it is the morality of the action binds us without its being incarnate in the example For the example in actions not morall binds not at all and therefore the example binds only by vertue of the morality of it and consequently it is the morality of the action which binds and not the example If the latter the rule making it our duty then it it is more apparent that it is not the example which
highest reason and equity for since none can have command immediately over Conscience but God himself and what ever is imposed as necessary doth immediately bind Conscience And whatever binds mens conscienceâ— with an opinion of the necessity of it doth immediately destroy that Christian-liberty which men are necessarily bound to stand fast in and not be intangled with any yoke of bondage Not only the yoke of Jewish Ceremonies but whatever yoke pincheth and galls as that did with an opinion of the necessity of doing the thing commanded by any but the Word of God Which the Apostle calls Dogmatizing Coloss. 2. 20 and v. 16. Let no man judge you in meat and drink nè Praepositi quidem vestri saith Whitaker these impositions he calls v. 22. the commandments and doctrines of men And such he calls a Snare 1 Corinth 7. 23. which was the making an indifferent thing as Coelibate necessary Laqueus est quicquid praecipitur ut necessarium quod liberum esse debet So that though obedience be necessary to indâ—fferent things when commanded yet it must alwayes be liber â conscientiâ quoad res ipsas legum no obligation to be laid upon Conscience to look upon the things as necessary Secondly That nothing be required nor determin'd but what is sufficiently known to be indifferent in its own nature The former proposall was in reference to the manner of imposing this respects the nature of the things themselves The only difficulty here is How a thing may be sufficiently known to be indifferent because one man looks upon that as indifferent which another doth not The most equal way to decide this Controversie is to make choyce of such Judges as are not interested in the quarrel And those are the sense of the Primitive Church in the first 4 Centuries who were best able to judge whether they looked upon themselves as bound by any command of Scripture or no and withall the Judgement of the Reformed Churches So that what shall be made appear to be left indifferent by both the sense of the Primitive Church and the Churches of the Reformation may be a matter determinable by Law and which all may be required to conform in obedience to Thirdly That whatever is thus determined be in order only to a due performance of what is in general required in the Word of God and not to be looked on as any part of Divine Worship or Service This is that which gives the greatest occasion of offence to mens Consciences when any thing is either required or if not yet generally used and looked on as a necessary part or concomitant of Gods Worship so that without it the Worship is deemed imperfect And there is great difference to be made between things indifferent in their own nature and indifferent as to their use and practise And when the generality of those who use them do not use them as Indifferent but as necessary things it ought to be considered whether in this case such a use be allowable till men be better informed of the nature of the things they do As in the case of the Papists about Image-worship their Divines say that the Images are only as high teners of Devotion but the worship is fixed on God but we find it is quite otherwise in the general practâ—se of people who look at nothing beyond the Image So it may be bating the degrees of the offence when matters of indifferency in themselves are by the generality of people not looked on as such but used as a necessary part of divine Service And it would be considered whether such an abuse of matters supposed indifferent being known it be not scandalum datum to continue their use without an effectual remedy for the abuse of them Fourthly That no Sanctions be made nor mulcts or penalties be inflicted on such who only dissent from the use of some things whose lawfulnesse they at present scruple till sufficient time and means be used for their information of the nature and indifferency of the things that it may be seen whether it be out of wilfull contempt and obstinacy of spirit or only weaknesse of Conscience and dissatisfaction concerning the things themselves that they disobey And if it be made evident to be out of contempt that only such penalties be inflicted as answers to the nature of the offence I am sure it is contrary to the Primitive practise and the Moderation then used to suspend or deprive men of their ministerial function for not conforming in Habits Gestures or the like Concerning Habits Walafridus Strabo expresly tells us There was no distinction of Habits used in the Church in the Primitive times Vestes sacerdotales per incrementa ad eum qui nunc habetur aucta sunt ornatum Nam primis temporibus communi vestimento induti Missas agebant sicut hactenus quidam Orientalium facere perhibentur And therefore the Concilium Gangrense condemned Eustathius Sebastenus for making a necessity of diversity of habits among Christians for their profession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being acknowledged both by Salma sius and his great Adversary Petavius that in the Primitive times the Presbyters did not necessarily wear any distinct habit from the people although the former endeavours to prove that commonly they did in Tertullians time but yet that not all the Presbyters nor they only did use a distinct habit viz. the Pallium Philosophicum but all the Christians who did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Socrates said of Sylvanus Rhetâ—r all that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among them stricter Professors of Christianity among which most of the Presbyters were And Origen in Eusebius expresly speaks of Heraclas a Presbyter of Alexandria that for a long time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he used only the common Garment belonging to Christians and put on the Pallium Philosophicum for the study of the Grecian Learning after that Christianity began to lose in height what it got in breadth instead of the former simplicity of their garments as well as manners and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came in the use of the byrri Penulae Dalmaticae and so daily increasing as Strabo saith I say not this in the least to condemn any distinction of habit for meer decency and order but to shew it was not the custome of the Primitive times to impose any necessity of these things upon men nor to censure them for bare disuse of them He must be a great stranger in the Primitive Church that takes not notice of the great diversity of Rites and Customs used in particular Churches without any censuring those who differed from them or if any by inconsiderate zeal did proceed so far how ill it was resented by other Christians As Victor's excommunicating the Quarto-decimani for which he is so sharply reproved by Irenaeus who tells him that the Primitive Christians who differed in such things did not use to abstain from one anothers communion for them 〈◊〉
sit conditio Iudaeorum qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnoverint legalibus tamen sarcinis non humanis praesumptionibus subjiciuntur For although we cannot positively say how such things as these do manifestly iâ—â—pugn our Faith yet in that they load our Religion with such servile burdens which the mercy of God hath left free for all other observations but the celebration of some few and most clear Sacraments that they make our condition worse then that of the Iews for they although strangers to Gospel Liberty had no burdens charged upon them by the Constitutions of men but only by the Law and Commands of God Which Sentence and Reason of his I leave to the most Impartial Judgement of every true sober minded Christian. And thus I am at last come through this Field of Thorns and Thistles I hope now to find my way more plain and easie So much for the fourth Hypothesis The two next will be discharged with lesser trouble Hypoth 5. What is left undetermined both by Divine Positive Laws and by Principles deduced from the Natural Law if it be determined by lawful Authority in the Church of God doth bind the Conscience of those who are subject to that Authority to Obedience to those Determinations I here suppose that the matter of the Law be something not predetermined either by the Law of Nature or Divine Positive Lawâ— for against either of these no Humane Law can bind the Conscience For if there be any moral evil in the thing Commanded we are bound to obey God rather than men in which case we do not formally and directly disobey the Magistrate but we chuse to obey God before him And as we have already observed a former Obligation from God or Nature destroys a latter because God hath a greater Power and Authority over mens Consciences then any Humane Authority can have And my Obedience to the Magistrate being founded upon a Divine Law it must be supposed my duty to obey him first by virtue of whose Authority I obey another then the other whom I obey because the former hath commanded me If I am bound to obey an Inferiour Magistrate because the Supreme requires it if the Inferiour command me any thing contrary to the Will and Law of the Supreme I am not bound to obey him in it because both the derives his Power of Commanding and I my Obligation to Obedience from the Authority of the Supreme which must be supposed to do nothing against it self So it is between God and the Supreme Magistrate By him Kings reign God when he gives them a Legislative Power doth it cumulativè non privativè not so as to deprive himself of it nor his own Laws of a binding force against his So that no Law of a Magistrate can in reason bind against a Positive Law of God But what is enacted by a Lawful Magistrate in things left undetermined by Gods Laws doth even by virtue of them bind men to Obedience which require Subjection to the Higher Powers for Conscience sake So that whatsoever is left indifferent Obedience to the Magistrate in things indifferent is not And if we are not bound to obey in things undetermin'd by the Word I would â—ain know wherein we are bound to obey them or what distinct Power of Obligation belongs to the Authority the Magistrate hath over men For all other things we are bound to already by former Laws therefore either there must be a distinct Authority without Power to oblige or else we are effectually bound to whatsoever the Magistrate doth determine in lawful things And if it be so in general it must be so as to all particulars contained in that general and so in reference to matters of the Church unless we suppose all things concerning it to be already determined in Scripture which is the thing in Question and shall be largely discussed in its due place Sixthly Hypoth 6. Things undetermined by the Divine Law Natural and Positive and actually determined by lawful Authority are not thereby made unalterable but may be revoked limited and changed according to the different ages tempers inclinations of men by the same Power which did determine them All Humane Constitutions are reversible by the same Power which made them For the Obligation of them not arising from the matter of them but from the Authority of the Person binding are consequently alterable as shall be judged by that Power most sutable to the ends of its first promulgation Things may so much alter and times change that what was a likely way to keep men in Unity and Obedience at one time may only inrage them at another The same Physick which may at one time cure may at another only inrage the distemper more As therefore the Skill of a Physitian lies most in the application of Physick to the several tempers of his Patients So a wise Magistrate who is as Nicias said in Thucydides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Physitian to cure the distempers of the body Politick and considers as Spartian tells us Adrian used to say in the Senate Ita se Rempub. gesturum ut sciret populirem esse non propriam that the Peoples Interest is the main care of the Prince will see a necessity of altering reforming varying many Humane Constitutions according as they shall tend most to the ends of Government either in Church or State Thence it is said of the several Laws of Nature Divine and Humane that Lex naturae potest poni sed non deponi Lex divina nec poni nec deponi Lex humana poni deponi The Law of Nature may be laid down as in case of Marriage with Sisters in the beginning of the world but not laid aside the Law of God can neither be laid down nor laid aside but Humane Laws both may be laid down and laid aside Indeed the Laws of the Medes and Persians are said to be unalterable but if it be meant in the sense it is commonly understood in yet that very Law which made them unalterable for they were not so of their own Nature was an alterable Law and so was whatever did depend upon it I conclude then whatever is the subject of Humane Determination may lawfully be alter'd and changed according to the wisdome and prudence of those in whose hands the care of the Publick is Thus then as those things which are either of Natural or Christian Liberty are subjected to Humane Laws and restraints so those Laws are not irreversible but if the Fences be thrown down by the same Authority which set them up whatever was thereby inclosed returns to the Community of Natural Right again So much for these Hypotheses which I have been the longer in explaining and establishing because of the great influence they may have upon our present Peace and the neer concernment they have to this whole Discourse the whole Fabrick of which is erected upon these Foundations CHAP. III. How
parvoque beati Condita post frumenta levantes tempore festo Corpus ipsum animum spe finis dura ferentes Cum sociis operum pueris conjuge fidâ Tellurem porco Sylvanum lacte piabant Although he be not so expresse for offering the very fruits of the earth yet it is evident from him that their great festivals in honour of their gods were immediately after Harvest and that they had great Assemblies for that purpose and did then solemnly sacrifice And from these solemnities came the original of Tragedies and Comedies as Horace intimates and is largely shewed by Isaac Casaubon in his Treatise de Satyricâ Poesi But to fetch this yet a little higher and so bring it downwards The first sacrifice we read of in Scripture was this of the fruits of the earth unlesse the skins which Adam cloathed himself with were of the beasts sacrificed as some conjecture Cains sacrifice was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an oblation of the fruits of the earth in all probability the first-fruits as Abel offered the first-born of the Cattel to the Lord This seems to have been at some solemn time of sacrificing which is implyed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 At the end of dayes In process of time we render it but the Jews understand it at the end of the year Dayes in Scripture being often put for Years which Interpretation if we follow we find a very early observation of the Anniversary Festival of First-fruits But however this be we have by unquestionable tradition that no Festival was more anciently nor more universally observed then this of offering the First fruits to God of their increase The Jews were bound up so strictly to it by their Law Leviticus 23. 14. that they were to eat nothing of their crop till the offering of first-fruits was made And Porphyrius tells us out of Hermippus that one of the Laws made for the Athenians by Triptolemus was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To feast the gods with their fruits Of which Xenocrates there gives a twofold reason sense of gratitude to the gods and the easiness at all times to offer up these by which he supposed the custome would continue longer Draco afterwards puts this among his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his unalterable Laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To worship their gods with their first-fruits Besides which for other Greeks we have the testimony of Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most of the Grecians saith he in their most ancient sacrifices did use barley the first fruits being offered by the Citizens and therefore the Opuntii called their chief Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he gathered in the first-fruits The manner of offering the first-fruits among them was much of the same nature with the Mincha among the Jews which was of fine flower mingled with oyl for a burnt-offering to the Lord The word there used implyes the bruising the ears of Corn in a Morter because they were as yet moist and could not be ground hard as Corn was Whence because it was not all brought to flower the Cake was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is called by the Septâ—agint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So I suppose it should be read which in our great Bibles is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is call'd by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word is frequently used by Homer and Apollonius Rhodius whom I forbear to transcribe it being so obvious which is expounded both by the excellent Scholiast on Apollonius and by Eustathius and the short Scholiast on Homer to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Barley and Salt mixed together To which among the Romans the Mola salsa answered of which Festus Est far tostum sale conspersum as the Mincha under the Law was alwayes salted with salt Levit. 2. 13. This Mola salsa among the Romans had originally relation to the first-fruits For the custome of offering up first-fruits among them was as ancient as their institution of religious Rites as Pliny fully informs us Numa instituit Deos fruge colere molâ salsâ supplicare atque ut autor est Hemina far torrere which likewise answers to the Jewish Mincha which was to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tosta in igne parched in the fire For which purpose Numa instituted the Fornacalia which were farris torrendi feriae the feasts of first-fruits among them the parching the Corn being in order thereto For as Pliny adds ac ne â—egustabant novas fruges aut vina antequam sacerdotes primitias libassent which may be exactly rendred in the very words of the Law Leviticus 23. 14. But though the Mola salsa came originally from hence it afterwards came to be used in most sacrifices thence the word immolare to sacrifice again Parallel to the Mincha accessorium as some call it among the Jews which was used in other sacrifices and was distinct from the Mincha per se which of it self was an oblation to the Lord. From this offering up bruised Corn some derive the name of Ceres from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies as much and was required Leviticus 2. 14. thence Ovid l. 8 Met. Primitias frugum Cereri sua vina â—yaeo But besides Ceres they offered their first fruits among the Greeks to Hora Diana Apollo Vesta as may be seen in Meursius in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus we see how these three Nations did agree not only in the observation of the Feast of First-fruits but very much in the ceremonies of their offering too Only this difference may be observed between them The Romans did mix their Mola salsa with water the Jews their Mincha with oyl only The Greeks did not bruise the Corn in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but only mixed salt with the grains of Corn. But the Jews and Romans boâ—h bruiâ—ed and parched it before they offered it up for the first-fruits Thus much to shew the antiquity and observation of the offering up of the first-fruits among the most ancient and civilized Nations Which though it may seem a Digression yet I hope not wholly unacceptable it being likewise the offering of my First-fruits and therefore the more seasonable Proceed we now to other Festivall-solemnities to see what evidences of a Society for worship we find in them And for this it is apparent that the first originall of Festivals among the Heathen was for the honour of the Gods Upon which account a grave and prudent Author accounts the observation of some Festivalls naturall because Nature doth dictate the necessity of some Society for the worship of God For thus Strabo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was the custome of all Nations who are comprehended under his words to have Festival days for the honour of their Gods which Nature its self dictates Hence the Greeks as Athenaeus observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
with that Church in those things will be lawfull too and where non-communion is lawfull there can be no Schism in it Whatever difference will be thought of as to the things imposed by the Church of Rome and others will be soon answered by the proportionable difference between bare non-conformity and totall and positive separation What was in its self lawfull and necessary then how comes it to be unlawfull and unnecessary now Did that justifie our withdrawing from them because they required things unlawfull as conditions of communion and will not the same justifie other mens non-conformity in things supposed by them unlawfull If it be said here that the Popes power was an usurpation which is not in lawfull Governours of Churches it is soon replyed That the Popes usurpation mainly lyes in imposing things upon mens consciences as necessary which are doubtfull or unlawfull and where-ever the same thing is done there is an usurpation of the same nature though not in so high a degree and it may be as lawfull to withdraw communion from one as well as the other If it be said that men are bound to be ruled by their Governours in determining what things are lawfull and what not To this it is answered first no true Protestant can swear blind obedience to Church-Governours in all things It is the highest usurpation to rob men of the liberty of their judgements That which we plead for against the Papists is that all men have eyes in their heads as well as the Pope that every one hath a judicium privata discretionis which is the rule of practice as to himself and though we freely allow a ministeriall power under Christ in the Government of the Church yet that extends not to an obligation upon men to go against the dictates of their own reason and conscience Their power is only directive and declarative and in matters of duty can bind no more then reason and evidence brought from Scripture by them doth A man hath not the power over his own understanding much lâ—sse can others have it Nullus credit aliquid esse verum quia vult credere id esse verum non est enim in potestate hominis facere aliquid apparere intellectui suo verum quando voluerit Either therefore men are bound to obey Church-Governours in all things absolutely without any restriction or limitation which if it be not usurpation and dominion over others faith in them and the worst of implicite faith in others it is hard to define what either of them is or else if they be bound to obey only in lawfull things I then enquire who must be judge what things are lawfull in this case what not if the Governours still then the power will be absolute again for to be sure whatever they command they will say is lawfull either in it self or as they command it if every private person must judge what is lawfull and what not which is commanded as when all is said every man will be his owd judge in this case in things concerning his own welfare then he is no further bound to obey then he judgeth the thing to be lawfull which is commanded The plea of an erroneous conscience takes not off the obligation to follow the dictates of it for as he is bound to lay it down supposing it erroneous so he is bound not to go against it while it is not laid down But then again if men are bound to submit to Governours in the determination of lawfull things what plea could our Reformers have to withdraw themselves from the Popes yoke it might have still held true Boves arabant Asina Pascebantur simul which is Aquinas his argument for the submission of inferiours in the Church to their superiours for did not the Pope plead to be a lawfull Governour and if men are bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governours as to the lawfulnesse of things they were bound to believe him in that as well as other things and so separation from that Church was unlawfull then So that let men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same arguments that any will prove separation from the Church of Rome lawfull because she required unlawfull things as conditions of her communion it will be proved lawfull not to conform to any suspected or unlawfull practice required by any Church-Governours upon the same terms if the thing so required be after serious and â—ober inquiry judged unwarrantable by a mans own conscience And withall it would be further considered whether when our best Writers against the Papists do lay the imputation oâ— Schism not on those who withdraw communion but on them for requiring such conditions of communion whereby they did rather eject men out of their communion than the others separate from them they do not by the same arguments lay the imputation of Schism on all who require such conditions of communion and take it wholly off from those who refuse to conform for conscience sake To this I shall subjoyn the judgement of as learned and judicious a Divine as most our Nation hath bred in his excellent though little Tract concerning Schism In those Schisms saith he which concern fact nothing can be a just cause of refusing communion but only to require the execution of some unlawfull or suspected act for not only in reason but in Religion too that Maxim admits of no release Cantissimi cujusque praeceptum Quod dubitas nè feceris And after instanceth in the Schism about Image-worship determin'd by the second Council of Nice in which he pronounceth the Schismatical party to be the Synod its self and that on these grounds First because it is acknowledged by all that it is a thing unnecessary Secondly it is by most suspected Thirdly it is by many held utterly unlawfull Can then saith he the enjoyning of such a thing be ought else but abuse Or can the refusall of communion here be thought any other thing then duty Here or upon the like occasion to separate may peradventure bring personal trouble or danger against which it concerns any honest man to have pectus praeparatum further harm it cannot do so that in these cases you cannot be to seek what to think or what you have to do And afterwards propounds it as a remedy to prevent Schism to have all Liturgies and publike forms of service so framed as that they admit not of particular and private fancies but contain only such things in which all Christians do agree For saith he consider of all the Liturgies that are and ever have been and remove from them whatever is scandalous to any party and leave nothing but what all agree on and the evil shall be that the publike service and honour of God shall no wayes suffer Whereas to load our publike forms with the private fancies upon which we differ is the most soveraign way to perpetuate Schism unto the Worlds end Prayer Confession
Praetor Consul Tribune might be appealed to from the sentence of another The originall of Appeals then is that injuries may be redressed and in order to that nature dictates that there ought to be a subordination of Powers one to another lest any injury done through corruption or ignorance of the immediate Judges prove irremediable To which purpose our learned Whitaker saith that Appeals are juris divini naturalis in omni societate admodum necessariae propter multorum judicum vel iniquitatem vel ignorantiam alioqui actum esset de innocente si non liceret ab iniqua sententia appestare So that appeals are founded upon natural right lest men should be injured in any determination of a case by those that have the cognizance of it And in order to a redress of wrongs and ending controversies Nature tells us that Appeals must not be infinite but there must be some Power from whence Appeals must not be made What that should be must be determined in the same manner that it is in Civils not that every Controversie in the Church must be determined by an Oecumenical Council but that it is in the Power of the Supream Magistrate as Supream head in causes Ecclesiastical to limit and fix this Subordination and determine how far it shall go and no further The Determination being in order to the Peace of the Church which Christian Magistrates are bound to look after and see that causes hang not perpetually without Decision And so we find the Christian Emperours constituting to whom Appeals should be made and where they should be fixed as Iustinian and Theodostus did For when the Church is incorporated into the Common-wealth the chief Authority in a Common-wealth as Christian belongs to the same to which it doth as a Common-wealth But of that already It is then against the Law and Light of Nature and the natural right of every man for any particular company of men calling themselves a Church to ingross all Ecclesiastical Power so into their hands that no liberty of Appeals for redress can be made from it Which to speak within compass is a very high usurpation made upon the Civil and Religious rights of Christians because it leaves men under a causeless censure without any authoritative vindication of them from it As for that way of elective Synods substituted in the place of authoritative Power to determine Controversies it is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which will never be soveraign enough to cure the distemper it is brought for For elective Synods are but like that which the Lawyers call arbitrium boni viri which they distinguish from arbitrium ex compromisso and binds no further then the party concerned doth judge the Sentence equall and just So that this helps us with no way to end controversies in the Church any further then the persons engaged are willing to account that just which shall be judged in their Case Taking then a coercive Power onely for such a one as may authoritatively decide a controvâ—rsie we see what great Reason there is for what the Historian observes Arbitriis ii se debent interponere qui non parenteâ— coercere possunt That all Power of Arbitration should have some juridicall power going along with it to make a finall end of quarrels But that which seems yet more strange to me is this that by those who assert the Independency of particular Congregationâ— it is so hotly pleaded that Christ hath given every particular Congregation a Power over its own Members to determine controversies arising between them but that if one or many of these particular Congregations should erre or break the Rule he hath left no power Authoritatively to decide what should be done in such cases Can we conceive that Christ should provide more for the Cases of particular Persons then of particular Churches And that he should give Authority for Determining one and not the other Is there any more coactive Power given by any to Synods or greater Officers then there is by them to particular Churches which power is onely declarative as to the Rule though Authoritative as to persons where-ever it is lodged Is there not more danger to Gods People by the scandals of Churches then Persons Or did Christs Power of governing his People reach to them onely as particular Congregations Doth not this too strongly savour of the Pars Donati only the Meridies must be rendred a particular Congregationall Church where Christ causeth his Flock to rest But supposing the Scripture not expresly to lay down a Rule for governing many Churches are men outlawed of their natural Rights that supposing a wrong Sentence passed in the Congregation there is no hopes way or means to redress his injury and make his innocency known Doth this look like an Institution of Christ But that which I conceive is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Original of this mistake is that the Churches we read of first Planted in Scripture were onely particular Congregations and therefore there is no proper Church-power beyond them or above them I meddle not with the Antâ—cedent now which is largely discussed by others but the extream weakness of the consequence is that I am here obliged to discover For what a strange shortness of Discourse is it to Argue thus If when there was but one Congregation that Congregation had all Power within its self then when there are more particular congregations it must be so and yet this is the very Foundation of all those Kingdomes of Yvetos as one calls them those sole self-governing congregations When there was but one congregation in a Church it was necessary if it had any Church-power that it must be lodged in that one congregation But when this congregation was multiplyed into many more is it not as necessary for their mutual Government there should be a common power governing them together as a joynt-society Besides the first congregational Church in the New Testament viz. that of Ierusalem could be no particular Organical Church for it had many if not all Universall Officers in it and if they were the fixed Pastours of that Church they could not according to the Principles of those who thus speak Preach to any other congregation but their own by vertue of their Office And so either their Apostolicall Office and Commission must be destroyed if they were Pastors of particular Organical Churches or if their Apostolicall Office be asserted their Pastorship of particular Organicall Churches is destroyed by their own Principles who â—ssert that the Pastor of a Church can do no Pastorall Office out of his own congregation The case is the same as to other Churches planted by the Apostles and govern'd by themselves which two as far as I can find in the New Testament were of an equal extent viz. That all the Churches planted by Apostles were chiefly governed by themselves though they had subordinate officers under them These first Churches then
were not such particular Organized Churches but they were as the first matter of many congregations to be propagated out of them which after made one Society consisting of those several congregations imbodyed together and ruled by one common Government As in a Colledge every Tutor hath his own Pupils wich he rules and if we suppose but one Tutor at first in the Colledge with his Pupils all the power both common to the Society and peculiar to his Flock is joyned together but when there are many more Tutors having Pupils under their charge all these for their better ordering as a Society must be governed by the common Government of the Colledge to which the particular Government of every Tutor is and must be subordinate But this will be more fully made appear in the Original of Civil Government It is far more evident that all Civil power lay at first in Adam and his Family and afterwards in particular Families than that all Church-power lay in particular congregations at first We may then with as good Reason say that there is no lawfull civil Government now but that of particular Families and that no Nationall Government hath any right or power over particular Families because Families had once all civil Power within themselves as because it â—â— supposed that all Church-power lay first in particular congregations therefore there must be no Church-power above them nor that particular congregations are subject to such Government as is requisite for the Regulating of the Society in common as comprehending in it many particular congregations Let them shew then how any Government in the State is lawfull when Families had the first power and by what right now those Families are subordinate to the civill Magistrate and what necessity there is for it and by the very same Reasons will we shew the lawfulness of Government in the Church over many Congregations and that those are by the same right and upon the same necessity to subordinate themselves to the Government of the Church considereâ—â—â— a Society taking in many particular Congregations The Parallel runs on further and clearer still For as the heads of the severall Families after the Flood had the command over all dwelling under their Roofs while they remained in one Family and when that increased into more there power was extended over them too which was the first Original of Monarchy in the World So the Planters of the first Churches that while the Church was but one Congregation had power over it when this Congregation was multiplyed into more their Power equally extended over them all And as afterwards several heads of Families upon their increase did constitute distinct Civil Governments wherein were subordinate Officers but those Governments themselves were co-ordinate one with another So in the Church so many Congregations as make up one Provincial or National Society as succession and prudence doth order the bounds of them do make up several particular Churches enjoying their Officers ruling them but subordinare to the Governours of the Church in common Which Society National or Provincial is subordinate to none beyond its self but enjoyes a free Power within its self of ordering things for its own Government as it judgeth most convenient and agreeable to the Rules of Scripture The summe then of what I say concerning subordination of Officers and Powers in the Society of the Church is this That by the light and Law of Nature it appears that no individuall company or Congregation hath an absolute independent power within its self but that for the redressing grievances happening in them appeals are 〈…〉 to the parties aggrieved and a subordination of that particu 〈…〉 Congregation to the Government of the Society in common 〈…〉 at the right of Appealing and Originall of Subordination is from Nature the particular manner and form of subordinate and superiour Courts is to be fetched from positive Lawes the limitation of Appeals extent of jurisdiction the binding power of Sentence so far as concerns external Unity in the Church is to be fetched from the power of the Magistrate and civil Sanctions and Constitutions The Churches power as to Divine Law being onely directive and declarative but being confirmed by a civil Sanction is juridicall and obligatory Concerning the Magistrates power to call confirm alter repeal the Decrees of Synods see Grotius Chamier Whitaker Casaubon Mornay and others who fully and largely handle it To whom having nothing to add I will take nothing at all from them As for that time when the Church was without Magistrates ruling in it in those things left undetermined by the Rule of the Word they acted out of Principles of Christian Prudence agreeable to the Rules of Scripture and from the Principles of the Law of nature One of which we come in the next place to speak to So much for the Churches Power considered as a Society for ending controversies arising within its self tending to break the Peace and Unity of it CHAP. VII The fifth thing dictated by the Law of Nature That all that are admitted into this Society must consent to be governed by the Lawes and Rules of it Civil Societies founded upon mutual consent express in the first entrance implicite in others born under societies actually formed Consent as to a Church necessary the manner of Consent determined by Christ by Baptism and Profession Implicite Consent supposed in all baptized explicite declared by challenging the priviledges and observing the duties of the Covenant Explicite by express owning the Gospel when adult very usefull for recovering the credit of Christianity The Discipline of the Primitive Church cleared from Origen Iustin Martyr Pliny Tertullian The necessary requisites of Church Membership whether positive signs of Grace Explicite Covenant how far necessary not the formal Constitution of a Church * proved by several Arguments THe Law of Nature dictates That all who are admitted into this Society must consent to be governed by the Laws and Rules of that Society according to its Constitution For none can be looked upon as a Member of a Society but such a one as submits to the Rules and Laws of the Society as constituted at the time of his entrance into it That all civil Societies are founded upon voluntary consent and agreement of parties and do depend upon Contracts and Covenants made between them is evident to any that consider that men are not bound by the Law of Nature to associate themselves with any but whom they shall judge fit that Dominion and Propriety was introduced by free consent of men and so there must be Laws and Bonds fit agreement made and submission acknowledged to those Lawes else Men might plead their Naturall Right and Freedom still which would be destructive to the very Nature of these Societies When men then did first part with their natural Liberties two things were necessary in the most express terms to be declared First a free and voluntary consent to part with
And we find by Pliny that when the hetaeriae were forbidden he brought the Christians in under that Law the ground of those Societies was onely a mutual compact and agreement among the persons of it Such as among the Essens of the Jewes and the Schools of Philosophers among the Greeks Iosephus mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those who were admitted into the Society of the Essens And so in all other Societies which subsist onely from mutuall confederation in a Common-wealth Thus I acknowledge it to be in Christianity that there must be such a supposed contract or voluntary consent in the persons engaged in such Societies But with this observable difference that although there must be a consent in both yet the one is wholly free as to any pre-engagement or obligation to it as well as to the act its self but in religious societies though the Act of consent be free yet there is an antecedent Obligation upon men binding them to this voluntary consent The want of the understanding this Difference is the very Foundation of that Opinion men call Erastianism For the followers of Erastus when they finde that Christians did act ex confoederatâ disciplinâ they presently conclude all Church-power lay onely in mutuall consent It is granted Church-power doth suppose consent but then all Christians are under an Obligation from the Nature of Christianity to express this consent and to submit to all censures Legally inflicted About the hetaeriae and Societies among the Romans we may take notice of the Law of Twelve Tables So in the collection of Lud. Charondus Sodalibus qui ejusdem Collegii sunt jus cotundi habent potestas esto pactionis quam volent inter se ineunda dum nè quid ex publicâ lege corrumpant Ex Caio c. 4. D. de Collec corp I confesse when persons are entred into a visible Church-So ciety by Baptism if they will own that profession they were baptized into and are not guilty either of plain ignorance of it or manifest scandall and demand as their right the other Ordinances of the Gospel I see not by what power they may be excluded If we fix not in a serious visible prosession as the ground of giving right but require positive evidences of grace in every one to be admitted to Ordinances as the only thing giving right for my part setting aside the many inconveniences besides which attend that in reference to the persons to be admitted I see not how with a safe and good conscience Ordinances can be administred by any My reason is this Every one especially a Minister in that case ought to proceed upon certain grounds that the person admitted hath right to the Ordinance to be administred but if positive signs of grace be required a mans conscience cannot proceed upon any certainty without infallible knowledge of anothers spiritual state which I suppose none will pretend to My meaning is that which gives right must be something evident to the person admitting into it if it be his duty to enquire after it but if only positive signs of grace be looked on as giving right the ground of right can never be so evident to another person as to proceed with a good conscience i. e. with a full perswasion of another right to the administration of any Ordinance to him If it be said that these are required only as tokens of a true visible profession and it is that which gives the right I reply Our knowledge of and assent to the conclusion can be no stronger nor more certain then to the premisses from whenâ—â— it is inferred if therefore true profession gives right and our knowledge of that proceeds upon our knowledge of the work of grace we are left at the same uncertainty we were at before But if we say that an outward profession of the Gospel where there is nothing rendring men uncapable of owning it which is ignorance nor declaring they do not own it which is sâ—andall is that which gives a visible right to the Ordinances of the Church as visible we have something to fix our selves upon and to bottom a perswasion of the right of persons to Ordinances Christ when he instituted Churches did institute them as visible Societies that is to have marks whereby to be known and distinguished as other Societies in the world are now that which puts a difference between this and other Societies is an open profession of Christianity which profession is looked upon as the outward expression of the internal consent of the soul to the Doctrine and Laws of the Gospel Which outward evidence of consent where there is nothing evidently and directly oppugning it is that which the Church of God in admission of visible members is to proceed upon I nowhere find that ever Christ or his Apostles in making disciples or admitting to Church-membership did exact any more then a professed willingnesse to adhere to the Doctrine which they preached nor that they refused any who did declare their desire to joyn with them An owning Christianity is all we read of antecedent to admission of Church-members And if any thing else be further required as necessary we must either say the Word of God is defective in institutions of necessity to the Church which I suppose the assertors of it will not be so inconsistent to their own principles as to do or else must produce where any thing further is required by the Word of God By this we may see what to answer those who require an explicite Covenant from all members of the Church as that which gives the form and being to a Church If they mean only in the first constitution of a visible Church an expresse owning of the Gospel-covenant there is none will deny that to be necessary to make one a member of the visible Church of Christ. If they further mean that there must be a real confederation between those who joyn together in Gospel-Ordinances in order to their being a Church I know none will question it that know what it is that makes a Society to be so which is such a real confederation with one another If they mean further that though Christians be bound by vertue of their Gospel-covenant to joyn with some Church Society yet not being determined by Scripture to what particular Church they should joyn therefore for Christians better understanding what their mutuall duty is to one another and who that Pastor is to whom they owe the relation of member that there should be some significant declaration either by words or actions of their willingnesse to joyn with such a particular Society in Gospel-Ordinances I shall grant this to be necessary too But if beyond this their meaning be that a formal explicite covenant be absolutely necessary to make any one a member of a Church I see no reason for it For 1. If there may be a real confederation without this then this is not necessary but there
most eager Disputers of the controversie about Church-Government but how necessary they are to be proved before any form of Government be asserted so necessary that without it there can be no true Church any weak understanding may discern Secondly Supposing that Apostolicall practice be sufficiently attested by the following ages yet unless it be cleared from Scripture that it was Gods intention that the Apostles actions should continually bind the Church there can be nothing inferred that doth concern us in point of Conscience I say that though the matter of fact be evidenced by Posterity yet the obligatory nature of that fact must depend on Scripture and the Apostles intentions must not be built upon mens bare â—urmises nor upon after-practices especially if different from the constitution of things during the Apostles times And here those have somewhat whereon to exercise their understandings who assert an obligation upon men to any form of Government by vertue of an Apostolicall practice which must of necessity suppose a different state of things from what they were when the Apostles first established Governours over Churches As how those who were appointed Governours over particular Congregations by the Apostles come to be by vertue of that Ordination Governours over many Congregations of like nature and extent with that over which they were set And whether if it were the Apostles intention that such Governours should be alwayes in the Church is it not necessary that that intention of theirs be declared by a standing Law that such there must be for here matter of fact and practice can be no evidence when it is supposed to be different from the constitution of Churches afterward But of this more hereafter Thirdly Supposing any form of Government in its self necessary and that necessity not determined by a Law in the Word of God the Scripture is thereby apparently argued to be insufficient for its end for then deficit in necessariis some things are necessary for the Church of God which the Scripture is wholly silent in I say not that every thing about Church-Government must be written in Scripture but supposing any one form necessary it must be there commanded or the Scripture is an imperfect Rule which contains not all things necessary by way of Precept For there can be no other necessity universall but either by way of means to an end or by way of Divine Command I know none will say that any particular form of Government is necessary absolutely by way of means to an end for certainly supposing no obligation from Scripture Government by an equality of power in the Officers of the Church or by superiority of one order above another are indifferent in order to the generall ends of Government and one not more necessary then the other If any one form then be necessary it must be by that of command and if there be a command universally binding whose footsteps cannot be traced in the Word of God how can the Scriptures be a perfect Rule if it fails in determining binding Laws So that we must if we own the Scriptures sufficiency as a binding Rule appeal to that about any thing pleaded as necessary by vertue of any Divine command and if such a Law cannot be met with in Scripture which determines the case in hand one way or other by way of necessary obligation I have ground to look upon that which is thus left undetermined by Gods positive Laws to be a matter of Christian-liberty and that neither part is to be looked upon as necessary for the Church of God as exclusive of the other This I suppose is the case as to particular forms of Government in the Church of God but that I may not only suppose but prove it I now come to the stating of the Question which if ever necessary to be done any where it is in the Controversie of Church-Government the most of mens heats in this matter arising from want of right understanding the thing in question between them In the stating the Question I shall proceed by degrees and shew how far we acknowledge any thing belonging to Government in the Church to be of an unalterable Divine Right First That there must be a form of Government in the Church of God is necessary by vertue not only of that Law of Nature which provides for the preservation of Societies but likewise by vertue of that Divine Law which takes care for the Churches preservation in peace and unity I engage not here in the Controversie Whether a particular Congregation be the first Political Church or no it sufficeth for my purpose that there are other Churches besides particular Congregations I mean not only the Catholick visible Church which is the first not only in order of consideration but nature too as a totum Integrale before the similar parts of it but in respect of all other accidentall modifications of Churches from the severall wayes of their combination together They who define a Church by stated worshipping Congregations do handsomely beg the thing they desire by placing that in their definition of a Church which is the thing in question which is Whether there be no other Church but such particular Congregations Which is as if one should go about to prove that there were no civil Societies but in particular Corporations and to prove it should give such a definition of civill Society that it is A company of men joyned together in a Corporation for the preservation of their Rights and Priviledges under the Governours of such a place It must be first proved that no other company of men can be call'd a civill Society besides a Corporation and so that no other society of men joyning together in the profession of the true Religion can be call'd a Church but such as joyn in particular Congregations To which purpose it is very observable That particular Congregations are not de primariâ intentione divinâ for if the whole world could joyn together in the publike Worship of God no doubt that would be most properly a Church but particular Congregations are only accidental in reference to Gods intention of having a Church because of the impossibility of all mens joyning together for the convenient distribution of Church-priviledges and administration of Gospel-Ordinances For it is evident that the Priviledges and Ordinances do immediately and primarily belong to the Catholick visible Church in which Christ to that end hath set Officers as the Apostle clearly expresseth 1 Corinth 12. 28. for how Apostles should be set as Officers over particular Congregations whose Commission extended to the whole World is I think somewhat hard to understand but for the more convenient participation of Priviledges and Ordinances particular Congregations are necessary This will be best illustrated by Examples We read that Esther 1. 3. King Ahashuerus made a feast for all his Princes and Servants Doubtlesse the King did equally respect them all as a Body in the feasting of them
and did bestow his entertainment upon them all as considered together but by reason of the great multitude of them it was impossible that they should all be feasted together in the same Room and therefore for more convenient participation of the Kings bounty it was necessary to divide themselves into particular companies and to associate as many as conveniently could in order to that end So it is in the Church Christ in donation of priviledges equally respects the whole Church but because men cannot all meet together to participate of these priviledges a more particular distribution was necessary for that end But a clearer example of this kind we have yet in Scripture which is Mark 6. 39. in our Saviours feeding the multitude with five loaves and two fishes where we see our Saviours primary intention was to feed the whole multitude but for their more convenient partaking of this food our Saviour commands them to sit down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Hebraism of ingeminating the words to note the distribution of them and therefore the Vulg. Lat. renders it secundum contubernia that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Camerarius expounds it according to so many companies and divisions as might conveniently sit together as at a Table Where we plainly see this distribution was only accidentall as to Christs primary intention of feeding the multitude but was only necessary for their own conveniency Thus the case is evident as to the Church of God it is our necessity and conveniency which makes severall Congregations of the Catholike visible Church and not Gods primary intention when he bestowed such priviledges upon the Church that it should be understood of particular Congregations If then particular Congregations be only accidentall for our conveniency it evidently follows that the primary notion of a Church doth not belong to these nor that these are the first subject of Government which belongs to a Church as such and not as crumbled into particular Congregations although the actual exercise of Government be most visible and discernable there Because the joyning together for participation of Gospel-Ordinances must be in some particular company or other associated together for that end Where ever then we find the notion of a Church particular there must be government in that Church and why a National Society incorporated into one civil Government joyning in the profession of Christianity and having a right thereby to participate of Gospel-Ordinances in the convenient distributions of them in particular congregations should not be called a Church I confesse I can see no reason The main thing objected against it is that a Church implyes an actual joyning together for participation of all Gospel-Ordinances but as this as I said before is only a begging the Question so I say now that actual communion with any particular Congregation is not absolutely necessary to a member of a Church for supposing one baptized at Sea where no setled Congregation is nor any more Society then that which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet such a one is thereby a member of the Church of God though not of any Congregation so likewise a Church then may consist of such as have a right to Ordinances without the inserting their actual participation of them in fixed Congregations A particular Church then I would describe thus That it is A society of men joyning together in the visible profession of the true Faith having a right to and enjoying among them the Ordinances of the Gospel That a whole Nation professing Christianity in which the Ordinances of the Gospel are duly administred in particular Congregations is such a Society is plain and evident A clear instance of such a National constitution of a Church under the Gospel we have in the Prophesie of the Conversion of Egypt and Assyria in Gospel-times Isaiah 19. 19 21 24 25. We have Egypts professing the true Faith and enjoying Gospel Ordinances vers 19. 21. which according to the Prophetical stile are set down under the representation of such things as were then in use among the Jewes by an Altar in the midst of the Land ver 19. The Altar noting the true worship of God and being in the midst of the Land the universal owning of this worship by all the people of the land God owns them for a Church v. 25. Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless saying Blessed be Egypt my people The very name whereby Israel was called while it was a Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hosea 2. 1. And when God unchurched them it was under this name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye are not my people As much then as Israel was a Church when God owned it for his People so should Egypt be upon their conversion to the Faith of Christ which was done upon Marks preaching at Alexandria not long after the death of Christ. This then we have now briefly cleared that a Nation joyning in profession of Christianity is a true Church of God whence it evidently follows that there must be a Form of Ecclesiastical Government over a Nation as a Church as well as of Civil Government over it as a Society governed by the same Lawes Therefore some make this necessary to a Nationall Church National Union in one Ecclesiasticall body in the same Community of Ecclesiasticall Government For every Society must have its Government belonging to it as such a Society and the same Reason that makes Government necessary in any particular Congregation will make it necessary for all the particular Congregations joyning together in one visible society as a particular National Church For the unity and peace of that Church ought much more to be looked after then of any one particular Congregation in as much as the Peace of all the particular combinations of men for participation of Ordinances doth depend upon and is comprehended in the Peace of the whole But though I say from hence that some form of publike Government by the subordination of particular Assemblies to the Government of the whole body of them is necessary yet I am far from asserting the necessity of any one form of that Government much more from saying that no Nationall Church can subsist without one Nationall Officer as the High-Priest under the Law or one Nationall place of Worship as the Temple was The want of considering of which viz that Nationall Churches may subsist without that Form of them under the Jewes is doubtless the great Ground of Mens quarrelling against them but with what Reason let Men impartially judge This then we agree that some from of Government is necessary in every particular Church and so that Government in the Church of Divine and unalterable Right and that not onely of particular Congregations but of all Societies which may be called Churches whether Provinciall or Nationall CHAP. II. The second Concession is That Church-government formally considered must be administred by Officers of Divine appointment To that end
the continuance of a Gospel Ministry fully cleared from all those Arguments by which positive Lawes are proved immutable The reason of the appointment of it continues the dream of a seculum Spiritûs Sancti discussed first broached by the Mâ—ndicant Friers It s occasion and unreasonableness shewed Gods declaring the perpetuity of a Gospel Ministry Matth. 28. 19. explained A novell Interpretation largely refuted The world to come what A Ministry necessary for the Churches continuance Ephes. 4. 12. explained and vindicated SEcondly That the Government of the Church ought to be Administred by Officers of Divine appointment is another thing I will yield to be of Divine Right but the Church here I take not in that latitude which I did in the former Concession but I take it chiefly here for the Members of the Church as distinct from Officers as it is taken in Acts 15. 22. So that my meaning is that there must be a standing perpetuall Ministry in the Church of God whose care and imployment must be to oversee and Govern the People of God and to administer Gospel-Ordinances among them and this is of Divine and perpetuall Right That Officers were appointed by Christ in the Church for these ends at first is evident from the direct affirmation of Scripture God hath set in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers c. 1 Corinth 12. 28. Eph. 4. 8 11. and other places to the same purpose This being then a thing acknowledged that they were at first of Divine Institution and so were appointed by a Divine positive Law which herein determines and restrains the Law of Nature which doth not prescribe the certain qualifications of the persons to govern this Society nor the instalment or admission of them into this employment viz by Ordination The only enquiry then left is Whether a standing Gospel-ministry be such a positive Law as is to remain perpetually in the Church or no which I shall make appear by those things which I laid down in the entrance of this Treatise as the Notes whereby to know when positive Laws are unalterable The first was when the same reason of the command continues still and what reason is there why Christ should appoint Officers to rule his Church then which will not hold now Did the people of God need Ministers then to be as Stars as they are call'd in Scripture to lead them unto Christ and do they not as well need them now Had people need of guides then when the doctrine of the Gospel was confirmed to them by miracles and have they not much more now Must there be some then to oppose gainsayers and must they have an absolute liberty of prophecying now when it is foretold what times of seduction the last shall be Must there be some then to rule over their charge as they that must give an account and is not the same required still Were there some then to reprove rebuke exhort to preach in season out of season and is there not the same necessity of these things still Was it not enough then that there were so many in all Churches that had extraordinary gifts of tongues prophecying praying interpretation of tongues but besides those there were some Pastors by office whose duty it was to give attendance to reading to be wholly in these things and now when these extraordinary gifts are ceased is not there a much greater necessity then there was then for some to be set apart and wholly designed for this work Were Ordinances only then administred by those whom Christ commissioned and such as derived their authority from them and what reason is there that men should arrogate and take this imployment upon themselves now If Christ had so pleased could he not have left it wholly at liberty for all believers to have gone about preaching the Gospel or why did he make choice of 12. Apostles chiefly for that work were it not his Will to have some particularly to dispense the Gospel and if Christ did then separate some for that work what Reason is there why that Office should be thrown common now which Christ himself inclosed by his own appointment There can be no possible Reason imagined why a Gospel-Ministry should not continue still unless it be that Fanatick pretence of a Seculum Spiritus Sancti a Dispensation of the Spirit which shall evacuate the use of all means of Instruction and the use of all Gospel-Ordinances which pretence is not so Novell as most imagine it to be for setting aside the Montanistical spirit in the Primitive Times which acted upon Principles much of the same Nature with these we now speak of The first rise of this Ignis fatuus was from the bogs of Popery viz. from the Orders of the Dominicans and Franciscans about the middle of the twelfth Century For no sooner did the Pauperes de Lugduno or the Waldenses appear making use of the Word of God to confute the whole Army of Popish Traditions but they finding themselves worsted at every turn while they disputed that ground found out a Stratagem whereby to recover their own Credit and to beat their adversaries quite out of the field Which was that the Gospel which they adhered to so much was now out of date and instead of that they broached another Gospel out of the Writings of the Abbot Ioachim and Cyrils visions which they blasphemously named Evangelium Spiritus Sancti Evangelium Novum and Evangelium Aeternum as Gulielmus de Sancto Amore their great Antagonist relates in his Book de periculis noviss temporum purposely designed against the Impostures of the Mendicant Friers who then like Locusts rose in multitudes with their shaven crowns out of the bottomless pit This Gospel of the Spirit they so much magnified above the Gospel of Christ that the same Author relates these words of theirs concerning it Quod comparatum ad Evangelium Christi tanto plus perfectionis ac dignitatis habet quantum Sol ad Lunam comparatus aut ad nucleum testa that it exceeded it as much as the kernell doth the shell or the Light of the Sun doth that of the Moon We see then from what quarter of the World this new Light began to rise but so much for this digression To the thing it self If there be such a dispensation of the Spirit which takes away the use of Ministry and Ordinances it did either commence from the time of the effusion of the Spirit upon the Apostles or some time since Not then for even of those who had the most large portion of the Spirit poured upon them we read that they continued in all Gospel ordinances Acts 2. 42 and among the chief 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Apostles Ministry it may be better rendred than in the Apostles Doctrine And which is most observable the Prophecy of Ioel about the Spirit is then said to be fulfilled Acts 2. 17.
will be with his Disciples to the end of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we take it for a state of things or the Gospel-dispensation that is as long as the Evangelical Church shall continue For that in Scripture is sometime called The World to come and that Phrase among the Jews of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the world to come is set to express the times of the Messias and it may be the Apostle may referr to this when he speaks of Apostales tasting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the force and energy of the Gospel preached whence the Kingdom of God is said to be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in word but in power which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of by the Apostle elsewhere the powerfull demonstration of the Spirit accompanying the preaching of the Gospel When Christ is called by the Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the everlasting Father the Septuagint renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Vulgar Latin Pater futuri saeculi the Father of the World to Come that is the Gospel State and to this sense Christ is said to be made an High Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Law to be a shadow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of good things which should be under the new state of the Gospel And which is more plain to the purpose the Apostle expresseth what was come to passe in the dayes of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Ages to come where the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to this sense And according to this importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some very probably interpret that place of our Saviour concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost that it should not be forgiven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither in the present state of the Iewish Church wherein there is no sacrifice of expiation for contumacious sinners but they that despised Moses Law dyed without mercy so neither shall there be any under the World to come that is the dispensation of Gospel Grace any pardon proclaimed to any such sinners who â—â—ample under foot the blood of the Covenant and offer despight to the Spirit of grace Thus we see how properly the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may agree here to the Gospel-State and so Christs promise of his Presence doth imply the perpetuity of that Office as long as the Evangelical state shall remain which will be to the Worlds end The third thing whereby to know when positive institutions are unalterable is when they are necessary to the being succession and continuance of the Church of God Now this yields a further evidence of the perpetuity of Officers in the Church of God seeing the Church its self cannot be preserved without the Government and there can be no Government without some to Rule the members of the Church of God and to take care for a due administration of Church-priviledges and to inflict censures upon offenders which is the power they are invested in by the same authority which was the ground of their institution at first It is not conceivable how any Society as the Church is can be preserved without the continuance of Church-Officers among them As long as the Body of Christ must be edified there must be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fitted for the work of the Ministry which is appointed in order to that end For that I suppose is the Apostles meaning in Ephes. 4. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the Complutensian copy leaving out the comma between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes as though it were a distinct thing from the former whereas the Original carryes the sense on for otherwise it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and those who follow the ordinary reading are much at a loss how to explain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming in so in the midst without dependance upon the former Therefore the vulg Latin best renders it ad consummationem sanctorum ad opus ministerii for the compleating of the Saints for the work of the ministry in order to the building up of the body of Christ and to this purpose Musculus informs us the German version renders it And so we understand the enumeration in the verse before of Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers not for the persons themselves but for the gifts of those persons the office of Apostles Evangelists Pastors c. which is most suitable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the eighth verse He gave gifts to men now these gifts saith he Christ gave to men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the fitting the Saints for the work of the Ministry Not as a late Democratical Writer would perswade us as though all the Saints were thereby fitted for this Work of the Ministry for that the Apostle excludes by the former enumeration for are all the Saints fitted for Apostles are all Prophets are all Evangelists are all Pastors and Teachers as the Apostle himself elsewhere argues And in the 8 v. of that chapter he particularly mentions the several gifts qualifying men for several usefull employments in the Church of God the Spirit dividing to every man severally as he will Therefore it cannot be that all the Saints are hereby fitted for this Work but God hath scattered these gifts among the Saints that those who have them might be fitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because God would not leave his Church without persons qualified for the service of himself in the work of the Ministry in order to the building up of the Body of Christ. And by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here may be meant no other then those he speaks of in the chapter before when he speaks of the Revelation made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his holy Apostles and Prophets and so God gave these gifts for the fiitting the holy Apostles c. for the work of the Ministry It cannot be meant of all so as to destroy a peculiar function of the Ministry for Gods very giving these gifts to some and not to others is an evidence that the function is peculiar For else had the gifts been common to all every Saint had been an Apostle every believer a Pastor and Teacher and then where had the People been that must have been ruled and governed So that this very place doth strongly assert both the peculiarity of the Function from the peculiarity of gifts in order to fitting men for it and the perpetuity of the Function from the end of it the building up of the Body of Christ. Thus I have now asserted the perpetual divine Right of a Gospel-Ministry not only for teaching the Word but administration of Ordinances and governing the Church as a Society which work belongs to none but such as are appointed for it who are the same
with the dispencers of the Word as appears from the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governours Rulers Pastors all which necessarily imply a Governing power which having been largely proved by others and yeelded by me I pass over CHAP. III. The Question fully stated Not what form of Government comes the nearest to the Primitive practice but whether any be absolutely determined Several things propounded for resolving the Question What the form of Church-Government was under the Law How far Christians are bound to observe that Neither the necessity of superiority nor the unlawfulnesse can be proved thence ANd now I come to the main Subject of the present Controversie which is acknowledging a form of Government necessary and the Governours of the Church perpetuall Whether the particular form whereby the Church must be governed be determined by any positive Law of God which unalterably binds all Christians to the observation of it By Church here I mean not a particular Congregation but such a Society which comprehends in it many of these lesser Congregations united together in one body under a form of Government The forms of Government in controversie the Question being thus stated are only these two the particular officers of several Churches acting in an equality of Power which are commonly called a Colledge of Presbyters or a Superiour Order above the standing Ministry having the Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination belonging to it by vertue of a Divine Institution Which order is by an Antonomasia called Episcopacy The Question now is not which of these two doth come the nearest to Apostolical practice and the first Institution which hath hitherto been the controversie so hotly debated among us but whether either of these two forms be so setled by a jus divinum that is be so determined by a positive Law of God that all the Churches of Christ are bound to observe that one form so determined without variation from it or whether Christ hath not in setling of his Church provided there be some form of Government and a setled Ministry for the exercise of it left it to the prudence of every particular Church consisting of many Congregations to agree upon its own form which it judgdeth most conducing to the end of Government in that particular Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here now we fix our selves and the first thing we do is to agree upon our wayes of resolution of this Question whereby to come to an end of this debate And the most probable way to come to an issue in it is to go through all the wayes whereon men do fix an unalterable divine Right and to see whether any of these do evince a divine Right setled upon a positive Law or no for one of these forms The pleas then for such a divine Right are these Either some formal Law standing in force under the Gospel or some plain Institution of a New Law by Christ in forming his Church or the obligatory nature of Apostolical practice or the general sense of the Primitive Church to which we shall add by way of Appendix the Judgement of the chief Divines and Churches since the Reformation if we go happily through these we may content our selves with having obtained the thing we aim at The first inquiry then is Whether any formal Law of God concerning a form of government for his Church either by persons acting in an equality of Power or subordination of one Order to another under the Gospel doth remain in force or no binding Christians to the observing of it The Reason why I begin with this is because I observe the Disputants on both sides make use of the Pattern under the Law to establish their form by Those who are for Superiority of one Order above another in the government of the Church derive commonly their first argument from the Pattern under the Law Those who are for an equality of Power in the persons acting in government yet being for a subordination of Courts they bring their first argument for that from the Jewish Pattern So that these latter are bound by their own argument though used in another case to be ruled in this Controversie by the Jewish Pattern For why should it be more obligatory as to subordination of Courts then as to the superiority of Orders If it holds in one case it must in the other And if there be such a Law for Superiority standing unrepealed there needs no New Law to inforce it under the Gospel We shall therefore first enquire what foundation there is for either form in that Pattern and how far the argument drawn from thence is obligatory to us now For the practice then in the Jewish Church That there was no universal equality in the Tribe of Levi which God singled out from the rest for his own service is obvious in Scripture For there we find Priests above the Levites the family of Aaron being chosen out from the other families of Cohath one of the three sons of Levi to be employed in a nearer attendance upon Gods Service then any of the other families And it must be acknowledged that among both Priests and Levites there was a Superiority For God placed Eleazar over the Priests Elizaphan over the Cohathites Eliasaph over the Gershonites Zuriel over the Merarites and these are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rulers over their several families for it is said of every one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was Ruler over the house of his Father Neither were these equal for over Eliasaph and Zuriel God placed Ithamar over Elisaphan and his own family God set Eleazar who by reason of his authority over all the rest is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ruler of the Rulers of Levi and besides these there were under these Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Fathers of the several distinct families as they are called Exodus 6. 25. Thus we briefly see the subordination that there was in the Tribe of Levi the Levites first over them the heads of the Families over them the Rulers or the chief of the heads over them Ithamar over both Priests and Levites Eleazar Over all Aaron the High Priest There being then so manifest an inequality among them proceed we to shew how obligatory this is under the Gospel For that end it will be necessary to consider whether this imparity and Superiority were peculiarly appointed by God for the Ecclesiastical government of the Tribe of Levi as it consisted of persons to be employed in the service of God or it was only such an inequality and Superiority as was in any other Tribe If only common with other Tribes nothing can be inferred from thence peculiar to Ecclesiasticall government under the Gospel any more then from the government of other Tribes to the same kind of government in all civil States We must then take notice that Levi was a particular distinct Tribe of it self and
so not in subordination to any other Tribe for they had the heads of their Fathers as well as others Exodus 6. 25. and although when they were setled in Canaan their habitations were intermixt with other Tribes in their forty eight Cities yet they were not under the government of those Tribes among whom they lived but preserved their authority and government intire among themselves And therefore it was necessary there should be the same form of government among them which there was among the rest The whole body of the Nation then was divided into thirteen Tribes these Tribes into their several families some say seventy which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Families were divided into so many Housholds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Housholds into persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the several persons were the several Masters of Families over the several Housholds were the Captains of 1000 and 100 50 10. Over the Families I suppose were the heads of the Fathers And over the thirteen Tribes were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Fathers of the Tribes of the Children of Israel Numb 32. 28. and we have the names of them set down Numb 34. 17 c. So that hitherto we find nothing peculiar to this Tribe nor proper to it as employed in the service of God For their several Families had their several Heads and Eleazar over them as chief of the Tribe And so we find throughout Numbers 2. all the Heads of the several Tribes are named and appointed by God as Eleazar was The only things then which seem proper to this Tribe were the superiority of the Priests over the Levites in the service of God and the supereminent power of the High Priest as the type of Christ. So that nothing can be inferred from the order under the Law to that under the Gospel but from one of these two And from the first there can be nothing deduced but this that as there was a superiority of Officers under the Law so likewise should there be under the Gospel which is granted by all in the superiority of Priests over Deacons to whom these two answer in the Church of God in the judgement of those who contend for a higher order by divine Institution above Presbyters And withall we must consider that there was under that order no power of jurisdiction invested in the Priests over the Levites but that was in the heads of the Families and ordination there could not be because their office descended by succession in their several Families Those who would argue from Aarons power must either bring too little or too much from thence Too little if we consider his office was typical and ceremonial and as High Priest had more immediate respect to God then men Heb. 5. 1. and therefore Eleazar was appointed over the several Families during Aarons life-time and under Eleazar his son Phinehas Too much If a necessity be urged for the continuance of the same authority in the Church of God which is the argument of the Papists deriving the Popes Supremacy from thence Which was acutely done by Pope Innocentius the third the Father of the Lateran Council who proved that the Pope may exercise temporall jurisdiction from that place in Deuteronomy 17. 8. and that by this reason because Deuteronomy did imply the second Law and therefore what was there written in Novo Testamento debet observari must be observed under the Gospel which according to them is a new Law All that can be inferred then from the Jewish pattern cannot amount to any obligation upon Christians it being at the best but a judicial Law and therefore binds us not up as a positive Law but only declares the equity of the thing in use then I conclude then That the Jewish pattern is no standing Law for Church-Government now either in its common or peculiar form of Government but because there was some superiority of order then and subordination of some persons to others under that government that such a superiority and subordination is no wayes unlawfull under the Gospel for that would destroy the equity of the Law And though the form of Government was the same with that of other Tribes yet we see God did not bind them to an equality because they were for his immediate service but continued the same way as in other Tribes thence I inferr that as there is no necessary obligation upon Christians to continue that form under the Jews because their Laws do not bind us now so neither is there any repugnancy to this Law in such a subordination but it is very agreeable with the equity of it it being instituted for peace and order and therefore ought not to be condemned for Antichristian The Jewish pattern then of Government neither makes equality unlawfull because their Laws do not oblige now nor doth it make superiority unlawfull because it was practised then So that notwithstanding the Jewish pattern the Church of Christ is left to its own liberty for the choyce of its form of Government whether by an equality of power in some persons or superiority and subordination of one order to another CHAP. IV. Whether Christ hath determined the form of Government by any positive Laws Arguments of the necessity why Christ must determine it largely answered as First Christs faithfulness compared with Moses answered and retorted and proved that Christ did not institute any form of Church Government because no such Law for it as Moses gave and we have nothing but general Rules which are applyable to several forms of Government The office of Timothy and Titus what it proves in order to this question the lawfulnesse of Episcopacy shewn thence but not the necessity A particular form how far necessary as Christ was the Governour of his Church the similitudes the Church is set out by prove not the thing in question Nor the difference of Civil and Church Government nor Christ setting Officers in his Church nor the inconvenience of the Churches power in appointing new Officers Every Minister hath a power respecting the Church in common which the Church may restrain Episcoâ—acy thence proved lawfull the argument from the Scriptures perfection answered VVE come then from the Type to the Antitype from the Rod of Aaron to the Root of Iessâ— from the Pattern of the Jewish Church to the Founder of the Christian To see whether our Lord Saviour hath determined this controversie or any one form of government for his Church by any universally binding act or Law of his And here it is pleaded more hotly by many that Christ must do it than that he hath done it And therefore I shall first examine the pretences of the necessity of Christs determining the particular form and then the arguments that are brought that he hath done it The main pleas that there must be a perfect form of Church-government laid down by Christ for the Church of God are from the
comparison of Christ with Moses from the equal necessity of forms of Government now which there is for other Societies from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures all other arguments are reducible to these three Heads Of these in their order First From the comparison of Christ with Moses they argue thus If Moses was faithfull in his house as a servant much more Christ as a Son now Moses appointed a particular form of Government for the Church under the old Testament therefore Christ did certainly lay down a form of Church Government for the New Testament To this I answer first Faithfulnesse implyes the discharge of a trust reposed in one by another so that it is said vers 2. he was faithful to him that appointed him Christs faithfulnesse then lay in discharging the Work which his Father laid upon him which was the Work of mediation between God and us and therefore the comparison is here Instituted between Moses as typical Mediator and Christ as the true Mediator that as Moses was faithfull in his Work so was Christ in his Now Moses his faithfulnesse lay in keeping close to the Pattern received in the Mount that is observing the commands of God Now therefore if Christs being faithfull in his office doth imply the setling any one form of Goverment in the Church it must be made appear that the serling of this form was part of Christs Mediatory Work and that which the Father commanded him to do as Mediator and that Christ received such a form from the Father for the Christian Church as Moses did for the Jewish To this it is said That the Government is laid upon Christs shoulders and all power in his hands and therefore it belongs to him as Mediatour Christ I grant is the King of the Church and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws and inwardly by the conduct of his Spirit but shall we say that therefore any one form of Government is necessary which is neither contained in his Laws nor dictated by his Spirit the main original of mistakes here is the confounding the external and internal Government of the Church of Christ and thence whensoever men read of Christs power authority and government they fancy it refers to the outward Government of the Church of God which is intended of his internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men But withall I acknowledge that Christ for the better government of his Church and people hath appointed Officers in his Church invested them by vertue of his own power with an authority to preach and baptize and administer all Gospel-Ordinances in his own Name that is by his authority for it is clearly made known to us in the Word of God that Christ hath appointed these things But then whether any shall succeed the Apostles in superiority of power over Presbyters or all remain governing the Church in an equality of power is nowhere determined by the Will of Christ in Scripture which contains his Royal Law and therefore we have no reason to look upon it as any thing flowing from the power and authority of Christ as Mediator and so not necessarily binding Christians Secondly I answer If the correspondency between Christ and Moses in their work doth imply an equal exactnesse in Christs disposing of every thing in his Church as Moses did among the Jews then the Church of Christ must be equally bound to all circumstances of Worship as the Jews were For there was nothing appertaining in the least to the Worship of God but was fully set down even to the pins of the Tabernacle in the Law of Moses but we find no such thing in the Gospel The main Duties and Ordinances are prescribed indeed but their circumstances and manner of performance are left as matters of Christian-liberty and only couched under some general Rules which is a great difference between the legal and Gospel-state Under the Law all Ceremonies and Circumstances are exactly prescribed but in the Gospel we read of some general Rules of direction for Christians carriage in all circumstantial things These four especially contain all the directions of Scripture concerning Circumstantials All things to be done decently and in order All to be done for edification Give no offence Do all to the glory of God So that the particular circumstances are left to Christian-liberty with the observation of general Rules It is evident as to Baptism and the Lords Supper which are unquestionably of divine Institution yet as to the circumstances of the administration of them how much lesse circumstantial is Christ then Moses was As to circumcision and the pass-over under the Law the age time persons manner place form all fully set down but nothing so under the Gospel Whether Baptism shall be administred to Infants or no is not set down in expresse words but left to be gathered by Analogy and consequences what manner it shall be administred in whether by dipping or sprinkling is not absolutely determined what form of words to be used whether in the name of all three persons or sometimes in the Name of Christ only as in the Acts we read if that be the sense and not rather in Christs Name i. e. by Christs authority Whether sprinkling or dipping shall be thrice as some Churches use it or only once as others These things we see relating to an Ordinance of Divine Institution are yet past over without any expresse command determining either way in Scripture So as to the Lords Supper What persons to be admitted to it whether all visible professors or only sincere Christians upon what terms whether by previous examination of Church-officers or by an open profession of their faith or else only by their own tryal of themselves required of them as their duty by their Ministers whether it should be alwayes after Supper as Christ himself did it whether taking fasting or after meat whether kneeling or sitting or leaning Whether to be consecrated in one form of words or several These things are not thought fit to be determined by any positive command of Christ but left to the exercise of Christian-liberty the like is as to preaching the Word publike Prayer singing of Psalmes the duties are required but the particular Modes are left undetermined The case is the same as to Church-governwent That the Church be governed and that it be governed by its proper Officers are things of Divine appointment but whether the Church should be governed by many joyning together in an equality or by Subordination of some persons to others is left to the same liberty which all other Circumstances are this being not the Substance of the thing it self but onely the manner of performance of it 3. I answer That there is a manifest disparity between the Gospel and Jewish state and therefore Reasons may be given why all Punctilioes were determined then which are not now as 1. The perfection and
liberty of the Gospel-state above the Jewish The Law was onely as a Paedagogy the Church then in her Infancy and Nonage and therefore wanted the Fescues of Ceremonies to direct her and every part of her lesson set her to bring her by degrees to skill and exactness in her Understanding the mystery of the things represented to her But must the Church now grown up under Christ be still sub ferula and not dare to vary in any Circumstance which doth not concern the thing it self A Boy at School hath his Lesson set him and the manner of learning it prescribed him in every mode and circumstance But at the University hath his Lectures read him and his work set and general Directions given but he is left to his own liberty how to perform his work and what manner to use in the doing of it So it was with the Church under age Every mode and circumstance was Determined but when the fulnesse of Time was come the Church then being grown up the main Offices themselves were appointed and generall Directions given but a liberty left how to apply and make use of them as to every particular case and occasion Things Morall remain still in their full force but circumstantials are left more at liberty by the Gospel-liberty as a Son that is taught by his Father while he is under his instruction must observe every particular direction for him in his Learning but when he comes to age though he observes not those things as formerly yet his Son ship continues and he must obey his Father as a Childe still though not in the same manner The similitude is the Apostles Galat. 4. 1 2 3 4 5. 10. which he there largely amplifies to this very purpose of freeing Christians from Judaical ceremonies 2. The Form of Government among the Jewes in the tribe of Levi was agreeable to the Form of Government among the other Tribes and so Moses was not more exact in Reference to that then to any other and those persons in that Tribe who were the chief before the Institution of the Aâ—ronicall Priest-hood were so after but now under the Gospel people are not under the same Restrictions for civil Government by a Judicial Law as they were then For the Form of Ecclesiastical Government then took place among them as one of their Judicial Laws And therefore if the Argument hold Christ must as well Prescribe a Form for civil Government as Ecclesiastical if Christ in the Gospel must by his Faithfulnesse follow the Pattern of Moses But if Christ be not bound to follow Moses Pattern as to Judicial Law for his Church and People neither is he as to a Form of Ecclesiastical Government because that was a part of their Civil and Judicial Law 3. The people of the Jewes was a whole and entire people subsisting by themselves when one set Form of Government was prescribed them but it is otherwise now under the Gospel The Church of Christ was but Forming in Christs own time nor the Apostles in whose time we reade of but some Cities and no whole Nations converted to the Faith and therefore the same Form of Government would not serve a Church in its first constitution which is necessary for it when it is actually formed A Pastour and Deacons might serve the Church of a City while believers were few but cannot when they are increased into many Congregations And so proportionably when the Church is enlarged to a whole Nation there must be another Form of Government then Therefore they who call for a National Church under the Gospel let them first shew a Nation Converted to the Faith and we will undertake to shew the other And this is the chief Reason why the Churches Polity is so little described in the New Testament because it was onely growing then and it doth not stand to Reason that the coat which was cut out for one in his Infancy must of necessity serve him when grown a man which is the argument of those who will have nothing observed in the Church but what is expressed in Scripture The Apostles looked at the present state of a Church in appointing Officers and ordered things according to the circumstances of them which was necessary to be done in the founding of a Church and the reason of Apostolical practice binds still though not the individual action that as they Regulated Churches for the best conveniency of Governing them so should the Pastours of Churches now But of this largely afterwards 4. Another difference is that the People of the Jewes lived all under one civil Government but it is otherwise with Christians who live under different Forms of civil Government And then by the same reason that in the first institution of their Ecclesiastical Government it was formed according to the civil by the same reason must Christians doe under the Gospel if the argument holds that Christ must be faithful as Moses was And then because Christians do live under several and distinct Forms of civil Government they must be bound by the Law of Christ to contemperate the Government of the Church to that of the State And what they have gained by this for their cause who assert the necessity of any one Form from this Argument I see not but on the contrary this is evident that they have evidently destroyed their own principle by it For if Moses did prescribe a Form of Government for Levi agreeable to the Form of the Common-wealth and Christ be as faithfull as Moses was then Christ must likewise order the Government of Christian Churches according to that of the State and so must have different Forms as the other hath Thus much will serve abundantly to shew the weakness of the argument drawn from the agreement of Christ and Moses for the proving any one form of Government necessary but this shall not suffice I now shall ex abundanti from the answers to this argument lay down several arguments that Christ did never intend to institute any one Form of Government in his Church 1. Whatever binds the Church of God as an institution of Christ must bind as an universal standing Law but one form of Government in the Church cannot bind it as a standing Law For whatever binds as a standing â—aw must either be expressed in direct terms as such a Law or deduced by a necessary Consequence from his Lawes as of an universally binding Nature but any one particular form of Government in the Church is neither expressed in any direct terms by Christ nor can be deduced by just Consequence therefore no such form of Government is instituted by Christ. If there be any such Law it must be produced whereby it is determined in Scripture either that there must be Superiority or Equality among Church Officers as such after the Apostles decease And though the Negative of a Fact holds not yet the Negative of a Law doth else no superstition I have not yet met with
any such produced and therefore shall see what consequences can be made of a binding Nature To this I say that no consequences can be deduced to make an institution but onely to apply one to particular Cases because Positives are in themselves indifferent without Institution and Divine appointment and therefore that must be directly brought for the making a Positive universally binding which it doth not in its own Nature do Now here must be an Institution of something meerly Positive supposed which in its self is of an indifferent Nature and therefore no consequence drawn can suffice to make it unalterably binding without express Declaration that such a thing shall so bind for what is not in its own Nature moral binds only by vertue of a command which command must be made known by the Will of Christ so that we may understand its Obligatory nature So that both a consequence must be necessarily drawn and the Obligation of what shall be so drawn must be expressed in Scripture which I despair of ever finding in reference to any one Form of Government in the Church 2. If the standing Laws for Church-Government be equally applyable to several distinct Forms then no one Form is prescribed in Scripture but all the standing Lawes respecting Church-Government are equally applyable to several Forms All the Lawes occurring in Scripture respecting Church Government may be referred to these three heads Such as set down the Qualifications of the Persons for the Office of Government such as require a right management of their Office and such as lay down Rules for the management of their Office Now all these are equally applyable to either of these two forms we now discourse of We begin then with those which set down the qualifications of persons employed in Government those we have largely and fully set down by St. Paul in his Order to Timothy and Titus prescribing what manner of persons those should be who are to be employed in the Government of the Church A Bishop must be blamelesse as the Steward of God not self-willed not soon angry not given to wine no striker c. All these and the rest of the Qualifications mentioned are equally required as necessary in a Bishop whether taken for one of a Superiour Order above Presbyters or else only for a single Presbyter however that be if he hath a hand in Church-government he must be such a one as the Apostle prescribes And so these commands to Timothy and Titus given by Paul do equally respect and concern them whether we consider them as Evangelists acting by an extraordinary Commission or as fixed Pastors over all the Churches in their several precincts so that from the Commands themselves nothing can be inferred either way to determine the Question only one place is pleaded for the perpetuity of the Office Timothy was employed in which must now be examined The place is 1 Tim. 6. 13 14. I give thee charge in the sight of God c. that thou keep this commandement without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ. From hence it is argued thus The Commandment here was the Charge which Timothy had of governing the Church this Timothy could not keep personally till Christs second coming therefore there must be a Succession of Officers in the same kind till the second coming of Christ. But this is easily answered For first it is no wayes certain what this Command was which St. Paul speaks of Some understand it of fighting the good fight of Faith others of the precept of Love others most probably the sum of all contained in this Epistle which I confesse implies in it as being one great part of the Epistle Pauls direction of Timothy for the right discharging of his Office but granting that the command respects Timothy's Office yet I answer Secondly It manifestly appears to be something personal and not successive or at least nothing can be inferr'd for the necessity of such a Succession from this place which it was brought for Nothing being more evident then that this command related to Timothy's personal observance of it And therefore thirdly Christs appearing here is not meant of his second coming to judgement but it only imports the time of Timothy's decease So Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Estius understands it usque ad exitum vitae and for that end brings that Speech of Augustine Tun◠unicuique veniet dies adventûs Domini cum venerit ei dies ut talis hinc exeat qualis judicandus est illo die And the reason why the time of his death is set out by the coming of Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome and from him Theophylact observes to incite him the more both to diligence in his work and patience under sufferings from the consideration of Christs appearance The plain meaning of the words then is the same with that Revel 2. 10. Be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a Crown of life Nothing then can be hence inferred as to the necessary succession of some in Timothy's Office whatever it is supposed to be Secondly The precepts of the Gospel requiring a right management of the work are equally applyable to either form Taking heed to the flock over which God hath made them overseers is equally a duty whether by flock we understand either the particular Church of Ephesus or the adjacent Churches of Asia Whether by Overseers we understand some acting over others or all joyning together in an equality So exhorting reproving preaching in season and out of season doing all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without rash censures and partiality watching over the flock as they that must give an account Laying hands suddenly on no man rebuking not an Elder but under two or three witnesses And whatever precepts of this nature we read in the Epistles of Timothy and Titus may be equally applyable to men acting in either of these two forms of Government There being no precept occurring in all those Epistles prescribing to Timothy whether he must act only as a Consul in Senatu with the consent of the Presbytery or whether by his sole power he should determine what was the common interest and concern of those Churches he was the Superintendent over Neither doth the Apostle determine at all in those Epistles chiefly concerning Church-government whether upon the removal of Timothy or Titus thence as Evangelists as some pretend or upon their death as fixed Pastors and Bishops as others any should succeed them in the power they enjoyed or no nor in what manner the Pastors of the several Churches should order things of common concernment Which would seem to be a strange omission were either of these two forms so necessary taken exclusively of the other as both parties seem to affirm For we cannot conceive but if the being and right constitution of a Church did depend upon the manner
where by reading find In matters which concern the actions of God the most dutiful way on our part is to search what God hath done and with meekness to admire that rather then to dispute what he in congruâ—ty of reason ought to do Thus he with more to the same purpose The sum then of the answer to this Argument is this That nothing can be inferred of what Christ must do from his relation to his Church but what is absolutely necessary to the being of it as for all other things they being arbitrary constitutions we can judge no more of the necessity of them then as we find them clearly revealed in the Word of God And therefore the Plea must be removed from what Christ must do to what he hath done in order to the determining the particular form of Government in his Church But still it is argued for the necessity of a particular form of Government in the Church from the similitudes the Church is set out by in Scripture It is called a Vine and therefore must have Keepers an House and therefore must have Government a City and therefore must have a Polity a Body and therefore must have Parts I answer First All these Similitudes prove only that which none deny that there must be Order Power and Government in the Church of God we take not away the Keepers from the Vine nor the Government from the House nor Polity from the City nor distinction of parts from the Body we assert all these things as necessary in the Church of God The keepers of the Vine to defend and prune it the Governours of the House to rule and order it the Polity of the City to guide and direct it the parts of the Body to compleat and adorn it But Secondly None of these Similitudes prove what they are brought for viz. that any one immutable form of Government is determined For may not the Keepers of the Vine use their own discretion in looking to it so the flourishing of the Vine be that they aym at and if there be many of them may there not be different orders among them and some as Supervisors of the others work The House must have Governours but those that are so are entrusted with the power of ordering things in the House according to their own discretion and where there is a multitude is there not diversity of Offices among them and is it necessary that every House must have Offices of the same kind In great and large Families there must be more particular distinct Orders and Offices than in a small and little one The City must have its Polity but all Cities have not the like some have one form and some another and yet there is a City still and a Polity too A body must have all its parts but are all the parts of the body equal one to another it sufficeth that there be a proportion though not equality in them the several parts of the body have their several offices and yet we see the head is superintendent over them all and thus if we make every particular Church a Body yet it follows not that the form of cloathing that Body must alwayes be the same for the manner of Government is rather the cloathing to the Body than the parts of it the Governours indeed are parts of the Body but their manner of governing is not that may alter according to the proportion and growth of the Body and its fashion change for better conveniency But if these Similitudes prove nothing yet certainly say they the difference as to Civil and Ecclesiastical Government will for though there may be different forms in civil Government which are therefore call'd an Ordinance of man yet there must be but one in Church-Government which is an Ordinance of God and Christ hath appointed Officers to rule it I answer first We grant and acknowledge a difference between the Church and the Common-wealth they are constituted for other ends the one Political the other Spiritual one temporal the other eternal they subsist by different Charters the one given to men as men the other to men as Christians They act upon different principles the one to preserve civil Rights the other to promote an eternal Interest nay their formal constitution is different for a man by being a member of a Common-wealth doth not become a Member of the Church and by being excommunicated out of the Church doth not cease to be a Member of the Common-wealth The Officers of the one are clearly distinct from the other the one deriving their power from the Law of Christ the other from Gods general Providence the Magistrate hath no power to Excommunicate formally out of the Church any more then to admit into it nor have the Church-officers any power to cast men out of the common-wealth We see then there is a difference between Civil and Ecclesiastical Government But then I answer Secondly The power of the Magistrate is not therefore called an Ordinance of man because of the mutability of its Form and as distinguished from the Form of Church-government For First The Apostle speaks not of the Form of Government but of the Power Submit to every Ordinance of man c. the ground of Submission is not the form but the power of civil government and therefore there can be no opposition expressed here between the Forms of Civil and Ecclesiastical government but if any such opposition be it must be between the powers and if this be said as to civils that the power is an Ordinance of Man in that sense whereas Paul saith it is of God yet as to the Church it is freely acknowledged that the Power is derived from God Secondly The civil power is not called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is a creature of mans making and so subject to mens power but the ground of that Speech is because all civil power respects men as men without any further connotation Humana dicitur non quod ab hominibus sit excogitata sed quod hominum sit propria saith Beza And to the same purpose Calvin Humana dicitur Ordinatio non quod humanitùs inventa fuerit sed quod propria hominum est digesta ordinata vivendi ratio Piscator Humanam appellat non quod magistratus homines authores habeat sed quod Homines eam gerant So then the civil power is not called an Ordinance of man as it is of mans setting up but as it is proper to man and so if there be any opposition between the civil and Church power it is onely this that the one belongs to men as men the other to men as Christians Thirdly Although it be granted that Christ hath appointed and set up his own Officers in his Church yet it doth not thence follow that he hath determined in what manner they shall Rule his Church It is true Christ hath set up in his Church some Apostles some
Evangelists and some Pastours and Teachers but it doth not thence follow that Christ hath determined whether the Power of Apostles and Evangelists should continue in his Church or no as it implied Superiority over the ordinary Pastors of the Churches nor whether the Pastors of the Church should act in an equality in their Governing Churches I grant that all Church-Government must be performed by Officers of Christs appointing but that which I say is not determined in Scripture is the way and manner whereby they shall Govern Churches in common It is yet further argued That if the Form of Church Government be not immutably determined in Scripture then it is in the Churches Power to make new Officers which Christ never made which must be a plain addition to the Lawes of Christ and must argue the Scripture of Imperfection This being one of the main Arguments I have reserved it to the place of the Triarii and shall now examine what strength there lies in it To this therefore I answer First Those Officers are onely said to be new which were never appointed by Christ and are contrary to the first appointments of Christ for the Regulating of his Church such it is granted the Church hath no power to institute but if by new Officers be meant onely such as have a charge over more then one particular congregation by the consent of the Pastours themselves then it is evident such an Office cannot be said to be new For besides the general practice of the Church of God from the first Primitive times which have all consented in the use of such Officers we finde the Foundation of this Power laid by Christ himself in the Power which the Apostles were invested in which was extended over many both Churches and Pastours But if it be said The Apostolical Power being extraordinary must cease with the persons which enjoyed it I answer First What was extraordinary did cease but all the Dispute is what was extraordinary and what not some things were ordinary in them as Preaching Baptizing Ordaining Ruling Churches some things were again extraordinary as immediate mission from Christ the main distinguishing Note of an Apostle a Power of working Miracles to confirm the Truth of what they Preached Now the Question is whether the power which they enjoyed over Presbyters and Churches be to be reckoned in the first or the second number It must therefore be proved to be extraordinary before it can be said to cease with them and that must be done by some Arguments proper to their persons for if the Arguments brought be of a common and moral Nature it will prove the Office to be so too Secondly By ceasing may be meant either ceasing as to its necessity or ceasing as to its lawfulness I say not but that the necessity of the Office as in their persons for the first Preaching and propagating the Gospel did cease with them but that after their death it became unlawful for any particular persons to take the care and charge of Diocesan Churches I deny For to make a thing unlawfull which was before lawfull there must be some expresse prohibition forbidding any further use of such a power which I suppose men will not easily produce in the Word of God I answer therefore Secondly That the extending of any Ministerial power is not the appointing of any New Office because every Minister of the Gospel hath a Relation in actu primo to the whole Church of God the restraint and inlargement of which power is subject to Positive Determinations of prudence and conveniency in actu secundo and therefore if the Church see it fit for some men to have this power enlarged for better government in some and restrained in others that inlargement is the appointing no new Office but the making use of a power already enjoyed for the benefit of the Church of God This being a Foundation tending so fully to clear the lawfulnesse of that Government in the Church which implies a superiority and subordination of the Officers of the Church to one another and the Churches using her prudence in ordering the bounds of her Officers I shall do these two things First Shew that the power of every Minister of the Gospel doth primarily and habitually respect the Church in common Secondly that the Church may in a peculiar manner single out some of its Officers for the due Administration of Ecclesiastical power First that every Minister of the Gospel hath a power respecting the Church in common This I find fully and largely proved by those who assert the equality of the power of Ministers First from Christs bestowing the several Offices of the Church for the use of the whole Church Ephesians 4. 12 13. Christ hath set Apostles c. Pastours and Teachers in his Church now this Church must needs be the catholicke visible Church because indisputably the Apostles Office did relate thereto and consequently so must that of Pastours and Teachers too Again the end of these Offices is the building up the Body of Christ which cannot otherwise be understood then of his whole Church else Christ must have as many Bodies as the Church hath partiticular congregations Which is a new way of Consubstantiation Secondly The Ministerial Office was in being before any particular congregations were gathered For Christ upon his Ascension to Glory gave these Gifts to men and the Apostles were impowered by Christ before his Ascension Either then they were no Church Officers or if they were so they could have no other Correlate but the whole body of the Church of God then lying under the power of Darkness a few persons excepted Thirdly Because the main Designe of appointing a Gospel Ministry was the conversion of Heathens and Infidels and if these be the proper Object of the Ministerial Function then the Office must have reference to the whole Church of Christ else there could be no part of that Office performed towards those who are not yet converted Fourthly Else a Minister can perform no office belonging to him as such beyond the bounds of his particular congregation and so can neither Preach nor Administer the Sacraments to any other but within the Bounds of his own particular place and people Fifthly Because Ministers by Baptizing do admit men into the catholike visible Church else a man must be baptized again every time he removes from one Church to another and none can admit beyond what their office doth extend to therefore it is evident that every particular Pastor of a Church hath a Relation to the whole Church To which purpose our former observation is of great use viz. That particular congregations are not of Gods primary intention but for mens conveniency and so consequently is the fixedness of particular Pastors to their several places for the greater conveniency of the Church every Pastor of a Church then hath a Relation to the whole Church and that which hinders him from the
determine the particular Form of Government Our next task will be to enquire into those Actions of our Saviour which are conceived to have any plausible aspect towards the setling the Form of Government in his Church And were it not that men are generally so wedded to an hypothesis they have once drunk in by the prevalency of interest or education we might have been superseded from our former labour but that men are so ready to think that Opinion to be most necessary which they are most in love with and have appeared most zealous for Men are loth to be perswaded that they have spent so much breath to so little purpose and have been so hot and eager for somewhat which at last appears to be a matter of Christian liberty Therefore we finde very few that have been ever very earnest in the maintaining or promoting any matter of opinion but have laid more weight upon it than it would really bear lest men should think that with all their sweat and toile they only beat the ayr and break their Teeth in cracking a Nut with a hole in it which if they had been so wise as to discern before they might have saved their pains for somewhat which would have better recompenced them But thus it generally fares with men they suck in principles according as interest and education disposeth them which being once in have the advantage of insinuating themselves into the understanding and thereby raise a prejudice against whatever comes to disturb them which prejudice being the Yellow-jaundise of the Soul leaves such a tincture upon the eyes of the Understanding that till it be cured of that Icterism it cannot discern things in their proper colours Now this prejudice is raised by nothing more strongly than when the opinion received is entertained upon a presumption that there is a Divine stamp and Impress upon it though no such Effigies be discernable there Hence come all the several contending parties about Church-Government equally to plead an interest in this Ius Divinum and whatever opinion they have espoused they presently conceive it to be of no lesse than Divine extract and Original And as it sometimes was with great personages among the Heathens when their miscarriages were discernable to the eye of the World the better to palliate them among the vulgar they gave themselves out to be impreguated by some of their adored Deities so I fear it hath been among some whose Religion should have taught them better things when either faction design or interest hath formed some conceptions within them suitable thereunto to make them the more passable to the World they are brought forth under the pretence of Divine Truths Far be it from me to charge any sincere humble sober Christians with an offence of so high a nature who yet may be possessed with some mistakes and apprehensions of this nature but these are only wrought on by the Masters of parties who know unlesse they fly so high they shall never hit the game they aym at This is most discernable in the Factors for the Roman Omnipotency as Paulus the fifth was call'd Omnipotentiae Pontificiâ— Conservaton they who see not that Interest and Faction upholds that Court rather then Church may well be presumed to be hood-winked with more then an implicite Faith and yet if we believe the great supporters of that Interest the power they plead for is plainly given them from Christ himself and not only offer to prove that it was so but that it was not consistent with the Wisdom of Christ that it should be otherwise Lest I should seem to wrong those of any Religion hear what the Author of the Gloss upon the Extravagants so they may be well called saith to this purpose applying that place of our Saviour all power is given to me in heaven and earth Matthew 28. 18. to the Pope adds these words Non videretur Dominus discretas fuisse ut cum reverentia ejus loquar nisi unicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset qui hac omnia posset We see by this what blasphemies men may run into when they argue from their private fancies and opinions to what must be done by the Law of Christ. It therefore becomes all sober Christians impartially to enquire what Christ hath done and to ground their opinions only upon that without any such presumptuous intrusions into the Counsels of Heaven We here therefore take our leave of the Dispute Why it was necessary a form of Government should be established and now enter upon a survey of those grounds which are taken from any passages of our Saviour commonly produced as a Foundation for any particular Forms I shall not stand to prove that Christ as Mediator hath all the power over the Church in his own hands it being a thing so evident from Scripture and so beyond all dispute with those whom I have to deal with In which respect he is the only Head of the Church and from whom all divine Right for authority in the church must be derived Which Right can arise only from some actions or Laws of Christ which we therefore now search into The first publike action of Christ after his solemn entrance upon his Office which can be conceived to have any reference to the Government of his Church was the calling the Apostles In whom for our better methodizing this Discourse we shall observe these three â—everal steps First When they were called to be Christs Disciples Secondly When Christ sent them out with a power of Miracles Thirdly When he gave them their full commission of acting with Apostolical power all the world over These three seasons are accurately to be distinguished for â—he Apostles did not enjoy so great power when they were â—isciples as when they were sent abroad by Christ neither had â—hey any proper power of Church-government after that â—â—nding forth till after Christs Resurrection when Christ told â—hem All power was put into his hands and therefore gave them â—â—ll commission to go and preach the Gospel to all Nations The first step then we observe in the Apostles towards their power of Church-government was in their first calling to be Disciples Two several calls are observed in Scripture concerning the Apostles The first was more general when they were called only to follow Christ The second more special when Christ told them what he called them to and specified and described their Office to them by telling them he would make them Fishers of Men. We shall endeavour to digest the Order of their calling as clearly and as briefly as we â—an Our blessed Saviour about the thirtieth year of his age solemnly entering upon the discharge of his prophetical Office in making known himself to be the true Messias to the World to make his appearance more publike goes to Iordan and is there baptized of Iohn presently after he is led up by the Spirit into the Wildernesse where he
that there was a peculiar Government belonging to the Synagogue distinct from the civil Judicatures Having thus far proceeded in clearing that there was a peculiar Form of Government in the Synagogue we now inquire what that was and by what Law and Rule it was observed The Government of the Synagogue either relates to the Publick Service of God in it or the publick Rule of it as a society As for the Service of God to be performed in it as there were many parts of it so there were many Officers peculiarly appointed for it The main part of publick service lay in the Reading and Expounding the Scriptures For both the known place of Philo will give us light for understanding them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coming to their Holy places called Synagogues they sit down in convenient order acâ—â—â—ding to their several Forms ready to hear the young under 〈…〉 der then one taketh the Book and readeth another of those best skilled comes after and expounds it For so Grotius reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Eusebius We see two several Offices here the one of the Reader in the Synagogue the other of him that did interpret what was read Great difference I find among Learned men about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Synagogue some by him understand the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called sometimes in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so make him the under Reader in the Synagogue and hence I suppose it is and not from looking to the poor which was the Office of the Parnasim that the Office of Deacons in the Primitive Church is supposed to be answerable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Jewes for the Deacons Office in the Church was the publick Reading of the Scriptures And hence Epiphanius parallels the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Jewes to the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons among the Christians But others make the Office of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be of a higher nature not to be taken for the Reader himself for that was no office but upon every Sabbath day seven were call'd out to do that work as Buxtorf tells us first a Priest then a Levite and after any five of the people and these had every one their set-parts in every Section to read which are still marked by the numbers in some Bibles But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was he that did call out every one of these in their order to read and did observe their reading whether they did it exactly or no. So Buxtorf speaking of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic maximè oratione sive precibus cantu Ecclesiâ— praeibat praeerat lectioni legali docens quod quomodo legendum similibus quae ad sacra pertinebant So that according to him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Superintendent of all the publick service thence others make him parallel to him they call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angel of the Church Legatus Ecclesiae L'Empereur renders it as though the name were imposed on him as acting in the name of the Church which could only be in offering up publick prayers but he was Angelus Dei as he was inspector Ecclesiae because the Angels are supposed to be more immediately present in and Supervisors over the publick place and duties of worship see 1 Cor. 11. 10. this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by L'Empereur often rendred Concionator Synagogae as though it belonged to him to expound the meaning of what was read in the Synagogue but he that did that was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to enquire thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the enquirer or disputer of this world thence R. Moses Haddarsan but it is in vain to seek for several Offices from several Names nay it seems not evident that there was any set-Officers in the Jewish Church for expounding Scriptures in all Synagogues or at least not so fixed but that any one that enjoyed any repute for Religion or knowledge in the Law was allowed a free liberty of speaking for the instruction of the people as we see in Christ and his Apostles for the Rulers of the Synagogue sent to Paul and Barnabas after the reading of the Law that if they had any word of exhortation they should speak on From hence it is evident there were more then one who had rule over the Synagogues they being call'd Rulers here It seems very probable that in every City where there were ten wise men as there were supposed to be in every place where there was a Synagogue that they did all jointly concurr for the ruling the affairs of the Synagogue But what the distinct Offices of all these were it is hard to make out but all joyning together seem to make the Consistory or Bench as some call it which did unanimously moderate the affairs of the Synagogue whose manner of sitting in the Synagogues is thus described by Mr. Thorndike out of Maimonides whose words are these How sit the people in the Synagogue The Elders sit with their faces towards the people and their backs towards the Heâ—all the place where they lay the Copy of the Law and all the people sit rank before rank the face of every rank towards the back of the rank before it so the faces of all the people are towards the Sanctuary and towards the Elders and towards the Ark and when the Minister of the Synagogue standeth up to prayer he standeth on the ground before the Ark with his face to the Sanctuary as the rest of the people Several things are observable to our purpose in this Testimony of Maimonides First That there were so many Elders in the Synagogue as to make a Bench or Consistory and therefore had a place by themselves as the Governours of the Synagogue And the truth is after their dispersion we shall find little Government among them but what was in their Synagogues unlesse it was where they had liberty for erecting Schools of Learning Besides this Colledge of Presbyters we here see the publick Minister of the Synagogue the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Episcopus congregationis the Superintendent over the Congregation whose peculiar office it was to pray for and to blesse the people We are here further to take notice of the form of their sitting in the Synagogues The Presbyters sat together upon a Bench by themselves with their faces towards the people which was in an Hemicycle the form wherein all the Courts of Judicature among them sat which is fully described by Mr. Selden and Mr. Thorndike in the places above-cited This was afterwards the form wherein the Bishops and Presbyters used to sit in the primitive Church as the last named learned Author largely observes and proves Besides this Colledge of Presbyters there seems to be one particularly
toto orbe decretum ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris Quomodo enim saith a learned man fieri poâ—uit ut toto hoc orbe decerneretur nullo jam Oecumenico Concilio ad illud decernendum congregaâ—o si non ab Apostolis ipsis fidem toto orbe promulgantibiss cum fide hanc regendi Ecclesias formam constituentibus factum sit So that he conceives so general an order could not be made unless the Apostles themselves at that time were the authors of it But First Ieroms In toto orbe dicretâ—m est relates not to an antecedent order which was the ground of the institution of Episcopacy but to the universal establishment of that order which came up upon the occasion of so many schisms it is something therefore consequent upon the first setting up Episcopacy which is the general obtaining of it in the Churches of Christ when they saw its usefulness in order to the Churches peace therefore the Emphasis lies not in decretum est but in toto orbe noting how suddenly this order met with universal acceptance when it first was brought up in the Church after the Apostles death Which that it was Ieroms meaning appears by what he saith after Paulatim verò ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam Where he notes the gradual obtaining of it which I suppose was thus according to his opinion first in the Colledge of Presbyters appointed by the Apostles there being a necessity of order there was a President among them who had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the President of the Senate i. e. did moderate the affairs of the Assembly by proposing matters to it gathering voices being the first in all matters of concernment but he had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Casaubon very well distinguisheth them i. e. had no power over his fellow-Presbyters but that still resided in the Colledge or body of them After this when the Apostles were taken out of the way who kept the main power in their own hands of ruling the several Presbyteries or delegated some to do it who had a main hand in the planting Churches with the Apostles and thence are called in Scripture sometimes Fellow-labourers in the Lord and sometimes Evangelists and by Theodoret Apostles but of a second order after I say these were deceased and the main power left in the Presbyteries the several Presbyters enjoying an equal power among themselves especially being many in one City thereby great occasion was given to many schisms partly by the bandying of the Presbyters one against another partly by the sidings of the people with some against the rest partly by the too common use of the power of ordinations in Presbyters by which they were more able to increase their own party by ordaining those who would joyn with them and by this means to perpetuate schisms in the Church upon this when the wiser and graver sort considered the abuses following the promiscuous use of this power of ordination and withall having in their minds the excellent frame of the Government of the Church under the Apostles and their Deputies and for preventing of future schisms and divisions among themselves they unanimously agreed to choose one out of their number who was best qualified for the management of so great a trust and to devolve the exercise of the power of ordination and jurisdiction to him yet so as that he â—ct nothing of importance without the consent and concurrence of the Presbyters who were still to be as the Common Council to the Bishop This I take to be the true and just account of the Original of Episcopacy in the Primitive Church according to Ierome Which model of Government thus contrived and framed sets forth to us a most lively character of that great Wisdom and Moderation which then ruled the heads and hearts of the Primitive Christians and which when men have searched and studyed all other wayes the abuses incident to this Government through the corruptions of men and times being retrenched will be found the most agreeable to the Primitive form both as asserting the due interest of the Presbyteries and allowing the due honour of Episcopacy and by the joynt harmony of both carrying on the affairs of the Church with the greatest Unity Concord and Peace Which form of Government I cannot see how any possible reason can be produced by either party why they may not with chearfulness embrace it Secondly another evidence that Ierome by decretum est did not mean an order of the Apostles themselves is by the words which follow the matter of the decree viz. Ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris one chosen not only out of but by the Presbyters should be set above the rest for so Ierome must be understood for the Apostles could not themselves choose out of all Presbyteries one person to be set above the rest and withall the instance brought of the Church of Alexandria makes it evident to be meant of the choosing by the Presbyters and not by the Apostles Besides did Ierome mean choosing by the Apostles he would have given some intimations of the hand the Apostles had in it which we see not in him the least ground for And as for that pretence that Ecclesiae consuetudo is Apostolica traditio I have already made it appear that Apostolica traditio in Ierome is nothing else but Consuetudo Ecclesiae which I shall now confirm by a pregnant and unanswerable testimony out of Ierome himself Unaquaeque provincia abundet in sensu suo praecepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let every Province abound in its own sense and account of the ordinances of their Ancestors as of Apostolical Laws Nothing could have been spoken more fully to open to us what Ierome means by Apostolical traditions viz the practice of the Church in former ages though not coming from the Apostles themselves Thus we have once more cleared Ierome and the truth together I only wish all that are of his judgement for the practice of the primitive Church were of his temper for the practice of their own and while they own not Episcopacy as necessary by a divine right yet being duly moderated and joyned with Presbyteries they may embrace it as not only a lawful but very useful constitution in the Church of God By which we may see what an excellent temper may be found out most fully consonant to the primitive Church for the management of ordinations and Church power viz. by the Presidency of the Bishop and the concurrence of the Presbyterie For the Top-gallant of Episcopacy can never be so well managed for the right steering the ship of the Church as when it is joyned with the under-sails of a Moderate Presbyterie So much shall suffice to speak here as to the power of ordination which we have found to be derived from the Synagogue and the customes observed in
title above Presbyter but rather used by way of diminution and qualification of the power implyed in the name of Presbyter Therefore to shew what kind of power and Duty the name Presbyter imported in the Church the Office conveyed by that name is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Presbyters are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5 2. where it is opposed to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lording it over the people as was the custome of the Presbyters among the Jews So that if we determine things by importance of words and things signified by them the power of Ordination was proper to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the former name did then import that power and not the latter We come therefore from the names to the things then implyed by them and the Offices established by the Apostles for the ruling of Churches But my design being not to dispute the arguments of either party viz. those who conceive the Apostles setled the Government of the Church in an absolute parity or else by Superiority and Subordination among the setled Officers of the Church but to lay down those principles which may equally concern both in Order to accommodation I find not my self at present concerned to debate what is brought on either side for the maintaining their particular Opinion any further then thereby the Apostles intentions are brought to have been to bind all future Churches to observe that individual Form they conceived was in practice then All that â— have to say then concerning the course taken by the Apostles in setling the Government of the Churches under which will be contained the full Resolution of what I promised as to the correspondency to the Synagogue in the Government of Churches lies in these three Propositions which I now shall endeavour to clear viz. That neither can we have that certainty of Apostolical practice which is necessary to Constitute a Divine right nor Secondly Is it probable that the Apostles did tye themselves up to any one fixed course in modelling Churches nor thirdly if they did doth it necessarily follow that we must observe the same If these three considerations be fully cleared we may see to how little purpose it is to Dispute the Significancy and Importance of words and names as used in Scripture which hitherto the main quarrel hath been about I therefore begin with the first of these That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in Governing Churches as to inferr from thence the only Divine Right of that one Form which the several parties imagine comes the nearest to it This I shall make out from these following arguments First from the equivalency of the names and the doubtfulness of their signification from which the Form of Government used in the New Testament should be determined That the Form of Government must be derived from the Importance of the names of Bishop and Presbyter is hotly pleaded on both sides But if there can be no certain way sound out whereby to come to a Determination of what the certain Sense of those names is in Scripture we are never like to come to any certain Knowledge of the things signified by those names Now there is a fourfold equivalency of the names Bishop and Presbyter taken notice of 1. That both should signifie the same thing viz. a Presbyter in the modern Notion i. e. one acting in a parity with others for the Government of the Church And this Sense is evidently asserted by Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Acts 20. 28. Philip. 1. 1. Titus 1. 5. 1 Tim. 3. 1. doth by Bishops mean nothing else but Presbyters otherwise it were impossible for more Bishops to govern one City 2. That both of them should signifie promiscuously sometimes a Bishop and sometimes a Presbyter so Chrysostome and after him Occumenius and Theophylact in Phil. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Acts 20. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where they assert the Community and promiscuous use of the names in Scripture so that a Bishop is sometimes called a Presbyter and a Presbyter sometimes called a Bishop 3. That the name Bishop alwayes imports a singular Bishop but the name Presbyter is taken promiscuously both for Bishop and Presbyter 4. That both the names Bishop and Presbyter doe import onely one thing in Scripture viz. the Office of a singular Bishop in every Churchâ— which Sense though a stranger to antiquity is above all other embraced by a late very Learned Man who hath endeavoured by set Discourses to reconcile all the places of Scripture where the names occur to this sense but with what success it is not here a place to examine By this variety of Interpretation of the Equivalency of the names of Bishop and Presbyter we may see how far the argument from the promiscuous use of the names is from the Controversie in hand unless some evident arguments be withall brought that the Equivalency of the words cannot possibly be meant in any other Sense then that which they contend for Equivocal words can never of themselves determine what Sense they are to be taken in because they are Equivocal and so admit of different Senses And he that from the use of an Equivocal word would inferr the necessity onely of one sense when the word is common to many unless some other argument be brought inforcing that necessity will be so far from perswading others to the same belief that he will only betray the weakness and shortness of his own reason When Augustus would be called only Princeps Senatus could any one inferr from thence that certainly he was onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Senate or else that he had superiority of power over the Senate when that Title might be indifferent to either of those senses All that can be infer'd from the promiscuous sense of the words is that they may be understood only in this sense but it must be proved that they can be understood in no other sense before any one particular form of Government as necessâ—ry can be inferred from the use of them If notwithstanding the promiscuous use of the name Bishop and Presbyter either that Presbyter may mean a Bishop or that Bishop may mean a Presbyter or be sometimes used for one sometimes for the other what ground can there be laid in the equivalency of the words which can inferr the only Divine Right of the form of Government couched in any one of those senses So likewise it is in the Titles of Angels of the Churches If the name Angel imports no incongruity though taken only for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Jewish Synagogue the publick Minister of the Synagogue called the Angel of the Congregation what power can be inferred from thence any more then such an Officer was invested with Again if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President
any particular Form of Church-Government setled in the Apostles times which can be drawn from the help of the Records of the Primitive Church which must be first cleared of all Defectiveness Ambiguity Partiality and Confusion before the thing we inquire for can be extracted out of them Having thus far shewed that we have no absolute certainty of what Form of Government was setled by the Apostles in the several Churches of their Plantation The next Consideration which follows to be spoken to is that the Apostles in probability did not observe any one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches but setled it according to the several circumstances of places and persons which they had to deal with This will be ex abundanti as to the thing by me designed which would be sufficiently cleared without this and therefore I lay it not as the Foundation of my Thesis but onely as a Doctrine of Probability which may serve to reconcile the Controversies on foot about Church-Government For if this be made appear then it may be both granted that the Apostles did settle the Government in the Church in a Colledg of Presbyters and in a Bishop and Deacons too according to the diversity of places and the variety of circumstances It is easie to observe that as to Rites and Customes in the Church the Original of most mens mistakes is Concluding that to be the general Practice of the Church which they meet with in some places whereas that is most true which Firmiliam tells us In plurimis Provinciis multa pro locorum nominum l. hominum diversitate variantur nec tamen propter hoc ab Ecclesiae Catholicae pace atque unitate discossum est Those Rites varied in divers places retaining still the Unity of the Faith so as to matter of Government mens mistakes do arise from an universal conclusion deduced out of particular premises and what they think was done in one place they conclude must be done in all Whereas these are the grounds inducing me probably to conclude that they observed not the same course in all places Which when an impartial Reader hath soberly considered with what hath gone before I am in hopes the Novelty of this Opinion may not prejudicate its entertainment with him My grounds are these First From the different state condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles Secondly From the multitude of unfixed Officers in the Church then which acted with authority over the Church where they were resident Thirdly from the different customes observed in several Churches as to their Government after the Apostles decease I begin with the first The different State Condition and Quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles For which we are to consider these things First That God did not give the Apostles alike success of their labours in all places Secondly That a small number of believers did not require the same number which a great Church did to teach and govern them Thirdly That the Apostles did settle Church-Officers according to the probability of increase of believers and in order thereto in some great places First That God did not give the Apostles equal success to their labours in all places After God called them to be Fishers of men it was not every draught which filled their Net with whole shoals of Fishes sometimes they might toyle all Night still and catch nothing or very little It was not every Sermon of Peters which converted three thousand the whole world might at that rate soon have become Christian although there had been but few Preachers besides the Apostles God gave them strange success at first to encourage them the better to meet with difficulties afterwards In 〈…〉 es God told them he had much people in others we read but of few that believed At Corinth Paul Plants and Apollos Waters and God gives an abundant increase but at Athens where if moral dispositions had fitted men for Grace and the improvements of Nature we might have expected the greatest number of Converts yet here we read of many mocking and others delaying and but of very few believing Dionysius and Damaris and some others with them The Plantations of the Apostles were very different not from the Nature of the soile they had to deal with but from the different influence of the Divine Spirit upon their Endeavours in severall places We cannot think that the Church at Cenchrea for so it is called was as well stockt with Believers as that at Corinth Nay the Churches generally in the Apostles times were not so filled with Numbers as men are apt to imagine them to be I can as soon hope to find in Apostolical times Diocesan Churches as Classical and Provincial yet this doth not much advantage the Principles of the Congregational men as I have already demonstrated Yet I do not think that all Churches in the Apostles times were but one Congregation but as there was in Cities many Synagogues so there might be many Churches out of those Synagogues enjoying their former liberties and priviledges And they that will shew me where five thousand Jewes and more did ordinarily meet in one of their Synagogues for publike worship may gain something upon me in order to believing the Church of Ierusalem to be but one Congregation and yet not perswade me till they have made it appear that the Christians then had as publike solemn set meetings as the Jews had which he that understands the state of the Churches at that time will hardly yield to the belief of I confess I cannot see any rule in Scripture laid down for distributing Congregations but this necessity would put them upon and therefore it were needless to prescribe them and very little if any reason can I see on the other side why where there were so much people as to make distinct Congregations they must make distinct Churches from one another but of that largely in the next chapter All Churches then we see were not of an equal extent The second premisal Reason will grant viz. that a small Church did not require the same number of Officers to rule it which a great one did For the duty of Officers lying in Reference to the People where the People was but few one constant setled Officer with Deacons under him might with as much ease discharge the work as in a numerous Church the joynt help of many Officers was necessary to carry it on The same reason which tells us that a large flock of Sheep consisting of many thousands doth call for many Shepherds to attend them doth likewise tell us that a small flock may be governed with the care of one single Shepherd watching continually over them The third premisall was that in great Cities the Apostles did not onely respect the present guidance of those that were converted but established such as might be useful for the converting and bringing in of others to the Faith who were
as yet strangers to the Covenant of promise and aliens from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 society of Christians And here I conceive a mistake of some men lies when they think the Apostles respected onely the Ruling of those which were already converted for though this were one part of their work yet they had an eye to the main Design then on foot the subjecting the World to the Obedience of Faith in order to which it was necessity in places of great resort and extent to place not onely such as might be sufficient to superintend the Affairs of the Church but such as might lay out themselves the most in Preaching the Gospel in order to converting others Haveing laid down these things by way of premisal we will see what advantage we can make of them in order to our purpose First then I say that in Churches consisting of a small number of Believers where there was no great probability of a large increase afterwards One single Pastour With Deacons under him were onely constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of those Churches Where the work was not so great but a Pastour and Deacons might do it what need was there of having more and in the great scarcity of fit Persons for setled Rulers then and the great multitude and necessity of unfixed Officers for preaching the Gospel abroad many persons fit for that work could not be spared to be constantly Resident upon a place Now that in some places at first there were none placed but onely a Pastour and Deacons I shall confirm by these following Testimonies The first is that of Clement in his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles therefore preaching abroad through Countreys and Cities ordained the First-fruits of such as believed having proved them by the Spirit to be Bishops and Deacons for them that should afterwards believe Whether by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we understand Villages or Regions is not material for it is certain here the Author takes it as distinct from Cities and there is nothing I grant expressed where the Apostles did place Bishops and Deacons exclusive of other places i. e. whether onely in Cities or Countreys but it is evident by this that where-ever they planted Churches they ordained Bishops and Deacons whether those Churches were in the City or Countrey And here we find no other Officers setled in those Churches but Bishops and Deacons And that there were no more in those Churches then he speaks of appears from his Designe of paralleling the Church-Officers in the Gospel to those under the Law and therefore it was here necessary to enumerate all that were then in the Churches The main controversie is what these Bishops were whether many in one place or onely one and if but one whether a Bishop in the modern Sense or no. For the first here is nothing implying any necessity of having more then one in a place which will further be made appear by and by out of other Testimonies which will help to explain this As for the other thing we must distinguish of the Notion of a Bishop For he is either such a one as hath none over him in the Church or he is such a one as hath a power over Presbyters acting under him and by authority derived from him If we take it in the first Sense so every Pastor of a Church having none exercising jurisdiction over him is a Bishop and so every such single Pastor in the Churches of the Primitive times was a Bishop in this Sense as every Master of a Family before Societies for Government were introduced might be called a King because he had none above him to command him but if we take a Bishop in the more proper Sense for one that hath power over Presbyters and People such a one these single Pastors were not could not be For it is supposed that these were onely single Pastors But then it is said that after other Presbyters were appointed then these single Pastors were properly Bishops but to that I answer First they could not be proper Bishops by vertue of their first Constitution for then they had no power over any Presbyters but onely over the Deacons and People and therefore it would be well worth considering how a power of jurisdiction over Presbyters can be derived from those single Pastors of Churches that had no Presbyters joyned with them It must be then clearly and evidently proved that it was the Apostles intention that these single Pastors should have the power over Presbyters when the Churches necessity did require their help which intention must be manifested and declared by some manifestation of it as a Law of Christ or nothing can thence be deduced of perpetual concernment to the Church of Christ. Secondly either they were Bishops before or onely after the appointment of Presbyters if before then a Bishop and a Presbyter having no Bishop over him are all one if after onely then it was by his communicating power to Presbyters to be such or their choice which made him their Bishop if the first then Presbyters quoad ordinem are onely a humane institution it being acknowledged that no Evidence can be brought from Scripture for them and for any Act of the Apostles not recorded in Scripture for the constituting of them it must goe among unwritten Traditions and if that be a Law still binding the Church then there are such which occurre not in the Word of GOD and so that must be an imperfect coppy of Divine Lawes If he were made Bishop by an Act of the Presbyters then Presbyters have power to make a Bishop and so Episcopacy is an humane institution depending upon the voluntary Act of Presbyters But the clearest Evidence for one single Pastour with Deacons in some Churches at the beginning of Christianity is that of Epiphanius which though somewhat large I shall recite because if I mistake not the curtailing of this Testimony hath made it speak otherwise then ever Epiphanius meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Sense of Epiphanius is very intricate and obscure we â—hall endeavour to explain it He is giving Aerius an account why Paul in his Epistle to Timothy mentions onely Bishops and Deacons and passeth over Presbyters His account is this first he chaâ—geth Aerius with ignorance of the Series of History which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the profound and ancient Records the Church wherein it is expressed that upon the first Preaching of the Gospel the Apostle writ according to the present state of things Where Bishops were not yet appointed for so certainly it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then he must contradict himself the Apostle writes to Bishops and Deacons for the Apostles could not settle all things at first for there was a necessity of Presbyters and Deacons for by these two Orders all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed for where so I read it 〈◊〉
apt to think now the name of Christians will carry them to Heaven It is a too common and very dangerous deceit of men to look upon Religion more as a profession then matter of Life more as a Notion then an inward temper Men must be beat off from more things which they are apt to trust to for salvation now than in those times Men could not think so much then that diligence in publike assemblies and attendance at publick prayers was the main Religion Few would profess Christianity in those times but such as were resolved before hand rather to let go their lives then their profession but the more profess it now without understanding the terms of salvation by it the greater necessity of preaching to instruct men in it But I think more need not be said of this to those that know it is another thing to be a Christian then to be called so But however it is granted that in the Apostles times preaching was the great Work and if so how can we think one single person in a great City was sufficient both to preach to and rule the Church and to preach abroad in order to the conversion of more from their Gentilisme to Christianity Especially if the Church of every City was so large as some would make it viz. to comprehend all the Believers under the civil jurisdâ—ction of the City and so both City and Countrey the only charge of one single Bishop I think the vastness of the work and the impossibility of a right discharge of it by one single person may be argument enough to make us interpret the places of Scripture which may be understood in that sense as of more then one Pastour in every City as when the Apostles are said to ordain Elders in every City and Pauls calling for the Elders from Ephesus and his writing to the Bishops and Deacons of the Church of Philippi this consideration I say granting that the Texts may be otherwise understood will be enough to incline men to think that in greater Cities there was a society of Presbyters acting together for the carrying on the work of the Gospel in converting some to and building up of others in the faith of Christ. And it seems not in the least manner probable to me that the care of those great Churches should at first be intrusted in the hands of one single Pastour and Deacon and afterwards a new order of Presbyters erected under them without any order or rule laid down in Scripture for it or any mention in Ecclesiastical Writers of any such after institution But instead of that in the most populous Churches we have many remaining footsteps of such a Colledge of Presbyters there established in Apostolical times Thence Ignatius says The Presbyters are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sanhedrin of the Church appointed by God and the Bench of Apostles sitting together for ruling the affairs of the Church And Origen calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Colledge in every City of Gods appointing and Victor Bishop of Rome Colligium nostrum and Collegium fratrum Pius Pauperem Senatum Christi apud Romam constitutum Tertullian Probatos seniores Cyprian Cleri nostri sacrum venerandumque Concessum and to Cornelius Bishop of Rome and his Clergy Florentissimo Clero tecum praesidenti Ierome Senatum nostrum coetum Presbyterorum commune Concilium Presbyterorum quo Ecclesiae gubernabantur Hilary Seniores sinâ— quorum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia the author de 7 Ordinibus ad Rustiâ—um calls the Presbytâ—â—s negotiorum judices Enâ—ychius tells us there were twelve Presbyters at Alexandria to govern the Church and the author of the Iâ—inerary of Peter of as many constituted at Caesaria who though counterfeit must be allowed to speak though not verâ— yet verisimilia though not true yet likely things Is iâ— possible all these authors should thus speak of their several places of a Colledge of Presbyters acting in power with the Bishop if at first Churches were governed only by a single Bishop and afterwards by subject Presbyters that had nothing to do in the rule of the Church but were only deputed to some particular offices under him which they were impowered to do only by his authority But the joint-rule of Bishop and Presbyters in the Churches will be more largely deduced afterwards Thus we see a Company of Presbyters setled in great Churches now we are not to imagine that all these did equally attend to one part of their woâ—k but all of them according to their several abilities laid out themselves some in â—verseeing and guiding the Church but yet so as upon occasion to discharge all pastoral acts belonging to their function others betook themselves chiefly to the conversion of others to the faith either in the Cities or the adjacent countryes By which we come to a full clear and easie understanding of that so much controverted place 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders that rule well are counted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the Word and Doctrine Not as though it implyed a distâ—â—ct sort of Elders from the Pastors of Churches but among those Elders that were ordained in the great Churches some attended most to ruling the flock already converted others laboured most in converting others to the Faith by preaching though both these being entred into this peculiar function of laying themselves forth for the benefit of the Church did deserve both respect and maintenance yet especially those who imployed themselves in converting others in as much as their burden was greater their labours more abundant their sufferings more and their very Office coming the nearest to the Apostolical function So Chrysostome resolves it upon the fourth of the Ephesians that those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theodoret expresseth it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fixed Officers of particular Churches were inferiour to those who went abroad preaching the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An evident argument that the Apostle doth not intend any sort of Elders dictinct from these ordained Presbyters of the Cities is from that very argument which the greatest friends to Lay-Elders draw out of this Epistle which is from the promiscuous acception of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this very Epistle to Timothy The argument runs thus The Presbyters spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to Timothy are Scripture-Bishops but Lay-Elders are not Scripture-Bishops therefore these cannot here be meant The major is their own from 1 Tim. 3. 1. compared with 4. 14. Those which are called Presbyters in one place are Bishops in another and the main force of the argument lies in the promiscuous use of Bishop and Presbyter now then if Lay-Elders be not such Bishops then they are not Pauls Presbyters now Pauls Bishops must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fit to teach and therefore no
Lay-Elders Again we may consider where Timothy now was viz at Ephesus and therefore if such Lay-Elders anywhere they should be there Let us see then whether any such were here It is earnestly pleaded by all who are for Lay-Elders that the Elders spoken of Acts 20. 17. were the particular Elders of the Church of Ephesus to whom Paul spoke v. 28. where we may find their Office at large described Take heed therefore unto your selves and all the flock over which God hath made you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops or Overseers Here we see both the names Elders and Bishops confounded again so that he that was an Elder was a Bishop too and the Office of such Elders described to be a Pastoral charge over a flock which is inconsistent with the notion of a Lay-Elder Paul sent indefinitely for the Elders of the Church to come to him If any such then at Ephesus they must come at this summons all the Elders that came were such as were Pastors of Churches therefore there could be no Lay Elders there I insist not on the argument for maintenance implyed in double Honour which Chrysostome explains by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a supply of necessaries to be given to them as appears by ver 18. which argument Blondel saw such strength in that it brought him quite off from Lay-Elders in that place of Timothy And he that will remove the Controversie from the Scriptures to the Primitive Church as we have no reason to think that if such were appointed they should be so soon laid aside will find it the greatest dâ—fficulty to trace the foot-steps of a Lay-Elder through the Records of antiquity for the three first centuries especially The Writers of the Church speak of no Presbyters but such as preached as appears by Origen Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria Origen saith Omnes Episcopi atque omnâ—s Presbyteri vel Diaconi â—rudiunt nos erudientes adhibent correptionem verbis austerioribus increpant We see all Bishops Presbyters and Deacons wâ—re in his time Preachers So Cyprian Et creâ—ideram quidem Presbyteros Diaconos qui illic praesentes sunt monere vos instruere plenissimè circa Evangelii Legem sicut semper ab antecessoribus nostris factum est and in another Epistle about making Numidicus a Presbyter he thus expresseth it ut ascribatur Presbyterorum Carthaginensium numero nobiscum sedeat in Clero where to sit as one of the Clergy and to be a Presbyter are all one Again had there been any such Elders it would have belonged to them to lay hands on those that were reconciled to the Church after Censures now hands were onely laid on ab Episcopo Clero as the same Cyprian tells us Clemens Alexandrinus describing the Office of a Presbyter hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where Teaching is looked on as his proper work And elsewhere more fully and expresly discoursing of the service of God and distinguishing it according to the twofold service of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he applies these to the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The former he explains afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Presbyter is one that is ordained or appointed for the instruction of others in order to their amendment implying thereby the Office of a Presbyter to be wholly conversant about teaching others to whom on that account the art of making others better doth properly belong So much may suffice for those first times of the Church that there were no Presbyters then but such as had the Office of Teaching And for the times afterwards of the Church let it suffice at present to produce the Testimony of a Council held in the beginning of the seventh Century who absolutely Decree against all Lay-persons medling in Church-affairs Nova actione didicimus quosdam ex nostro Collegio contra mores Ecclesiasticos laicos habere in rebus Divinis constitutos Oeconomos Proinde pariter tractantes eligimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundum Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat Indecorum est enim Laicum esse vicarium Episcopi saculares in Ecclesia judicare iâ— uno enim eodemque Officiâ— non debet esse dispar professio A Canon directly leveld against all Lay-Chancellours in Bishops Courts and such Officials But doth with the same force take away all Lay-Elders as implying it to be wholly against the rule of the Church to have secular persons to judge in the Church But although I suppose this may be sufficient to manifest the no Divine right of Lay-Elders yet I do not therefore absolutely condemn all use of some persons chosen by the people to be as their representatives for managing their interest in the affairs of the Church For now the voice of the people which was used in the Primitive times is grown out of use such a constitution whereby two or more of the peoples choice might be present at Church debates might be very useful so they be looked on onely as a prudential humane constitution and not as any thing founded on Divine right So much may serve for the first Ground of the probability of the Apostles not observing one setled Form of Church-Government which was from the different state quantity and condition of the Churches by them planted The second was from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places who managed the Affairs of the Church in chief during their Residence Such were the Apostles and Evangelists and all persons almost of note in Scripture They were but very sew and those in probability not the ablest who were left at home to take care of the spoil the strongest and ablest like Commanders in an Army were not setled in any Troop but went up and down from this company to that to order them and draw them forth and while they were they had the chief authority among them but as Commandets of the Army and not as Officers of the Troop Such were Evangelists who were sent sometimes into this Countrey to put the Churches in order there sometimes into another but where ever they were they acted as Evangelists and not as fixed Officers And sâ—câ— were Timothy and Titus notwithstanding all the Opposition made against it as will appear to any that will take an impartial Survey of the arguments on both sides Now where there were in some places Evangelists in others not and in many Churches it may be no other Officers but these it will appear that the Apostles did not observe one constant Form but were with the Evangelists travelling abroad to the Churches and ordering things in them as they saw cause But as to this I have anticipated my self already The last ground was from the different custome observed in the Churches after the Apostles times For no other rational account can be given of the different opinions of Epiphanius Ierome and
propounded method to examine what light the practice of the Church in the ages succeeding the Apostles will cast upon the controversie we are upon For although according to the principles established and â—aid down by us there can be nothing setled as an universal Law for the Church but what we find in Scriptures yet because the general practice of the Church is conceived to be of â—o great use for understanding what the Apostles intentions as well as actions were we shall chearfully pass over this Rubicon because not with an intent to increase divisions but to find out some further evidence of a way to compose them Our Inquiry then is Whether the primitive Church did conceive its self obliged to observe unalterably one individual form of Government as delivered down to them either by a Law of Christ or an universal constitution of the Apostles or else did only settle and order things for Church-government according as it judged them tend most to the peace and settlement of the Church without any antecedent obligation as necessarily binding to observe onely one course This latter I shall endeavour to make out to have been the onely Rule and Law which the primitive Church observed as to Church-government viz. the tendency of its constitutions to the peace and unity of the Church and not any binding Law or practice of Christ or his Apostles For the demonstrating of which I have made choyce of such arguments as most immediately teâ—d to the proving of it For If the power of the Church and its officers did encrease meerly from the inlargement of the bounds of Churches if no one certain form were observed in all Churches but great varieties as to Officers and Diocesses if the course used in setling the power of the chief Officers of the Church was from agreement with the civil government if notwithstanding the superiority of Bishops the ordination of Presbyters was owned as valid if in all other things concernning the Churches Polity the Churches prudence was looked on as a sufficient ground to establish things then we may with reason conciude that nothing can be inferred from the practice of the primitive Church Demonstrative of any one fixed form of Church-government delivered from the Apostles â—o them Having thus by a lâ—ght 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drawn ouâ— the several lines of the pourtraiture of the Polity of the antient Church we now proceed to fill them up though not with that life which it deserves yet so far as the model of this Discourse will permit Our first argument then is from the rise of the extent of the power of Church-Governours which I assert not to have been from any order of the Apostles but from the gradual encrease of the Churches committed to their charge This will be best done by the observation of the growth of Churches and how proportionably the power of the Governours did increase with it As to that there â—re four observable steps or periods as so many ages of growth in the primitive Churches First when Churches and Cities were of the same extent Secondly when Churches took in the adjoyning Terriâ—ories with the Villages belonging to the Cities Thirdly when several Cities with their Villages did associate for Church-Government in the same Province Fourthly when several provinces did associate for Government in the Roman Empire Of these in their order The first period of Church government observable in the primitive Church was when Churches were the same with Christians in whole Cities For the clearing of this I shall first shew that the primitive constitution of Churches was in a society of Christians in the same City Secondly I shall consider the form and manner of Government then observed among them Thirdly consider what relation the several Churches in Cities had to one another First That the Primitive Churches were Christians of whole Cities It is but a late and novel acception of the word Church whereby it is taken for stated fixed congregations for publike Worship and doubtless the original of it is only from the distinction of Churches in greater Cities into their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike places for meeting whence the Scotch Kirk and our English Church so that from calling the place Church they proceed to call the persons there meeting by that name and thence some think the name of Church so appropriated to such a society of Christians as may meet at such a place that they make it a matter of Religion not to call those places Churches from whence originally the very name as we use it was derived But this may be pardoned among other the religioâ—s weaknesses of well meaning but lesse knowing people A Church in its primary sense as it answers to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applyed to Christians is a society of Christians living together in one City whether meeting together in many Congregations or one is not at all material because they were not called a Church as meeting together in one place but as they were a Society of Christians inhabiting together in such a City not but that I think a society of Christians might be called a Church where-ever they were whether in a City or Countrey but because the first and chief mention we meet with in Scripture of Churches is of such as did dwell together in the same Cities as is evident from many pregnant places of Scripture to this purpose As Acts 14. 23. compared with Titus 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other Ordaining Elders in every Church and ordaining Elders in every City which implyes that by Churches then were meant the body of Christians residing in the Cities over which the Apostles ordained Elders to rule them So Acts 16. 4. 5. As they went through the Cities c. and so were the Churches established in the faith The Churches here were the Christians of those Cities which they went through So Acts 20. 17. He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church If by the Elders we mean as all those do we now deal with the Elders of Ephesus then it is here evident that the Elders of the Church and of the City are all one but what is more observable ver 28. he calls the Church of that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take heed to your selves and to the flock over which God hath made you overseâ—rs to feed the Church of God Where several things are observable to our purpose first that the body of Christians in Ephesus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flock of the Church and not the several flocks and Churches over which God hath made you Bishops Secondly That all these spoken to were such as had a pastoral charge of this one flock Paul calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do the work of a Pastor towards it So
that either there must be several Pastors taking the pastoral charge of one Congregation which is not very suitable with the principles of those I now dispute against or else many congregations in one City are all called but one Church and one flock which is the thing I plead for And therefore it is an observation of good use to the purpose in hand that the New Testâ—ment speaking of the Churches in a Province alwayes speakes of them in the plural number as the Churches of Iudaea Gal. 1. 22 1 Thes. 2 14. The Churches of Samaâ—iâ— and Galilee Acts 9. 31. The Churches of Syria and Câ—icia Acts 15. 41. The Churches of Galatia 1 Cor. 16. 1. Gal 1. 1 2. The Churches of Asia Rom. 16. 16. Rev. 1. 11. But when it speaks of any particular City then it is alwayes used in the Singular number as the Church at Jerusalem Acts 8. 1. 15 4 22. The Church at Antioch Acts 11. 26 13. 1. The Church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1â— and so of all the seven Churches of Asia the Church of Ephesus Smyrna c. So that we cannot find in Scripture the least footstep of any difference between a Church and the Christians of such a City whereas had the notion of a Church been restrained to a particular congregation doubtlesse we should have found some difference as to the Scriptures speaking of the several places For it is scarce imaginable that in all those Cities spoken of as for example Ephesus where Paul was for above two years together that there should be no more converts then would make one Congregation Accordingly in the times immediately after the Apostles the same language and custom continued still So Clement inscribes his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God which is at Rome to the Church of God which is at Corinth So by that it is plain that all the Believers at that time in Rome made up but one Church as likewise did they at Corinth Sâ— Polycarp in the Epistle written by him from the Church at Smyrna to the Church at Phylomilium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so in his Epistle to the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polycarp and the Elders with him to the Church which is at Philippi Origen compares the Church of God at Athens Corinth Alexandria and oâ—her places with the people of those several Cities and so the Churches Senate with the peoples and the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his word chief Ruler with the Maior of those Cities implying thereby that as there was one civil Society in such places to make a City so there was a Society of Christians incorporated together to make a Church So that a Church setled with a full power belonging to it and exerc sing all acts of Church-discipline within its self was antiently the same with the Society of Christians in a City Not but that the name Church is attributed sometimes to Families in which sense Tertullian speaks Ubi duo aut tres sunt ibi Ecclesia est licet Laici And may on the same account be attributed to a small place such as many imagine the Church of Cenchrea to be it being a port to Corinth on the Sinus Sarònicus but Stephanus Byzantinus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suidas saith no more of it then that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strabo and Pausanias only speak of the scituation of it as one of the poâ—ts of Corinth lying in the way from Tegaea to Argos nor is any more said of it by Pliny then that it answers to Lechaeum the port on the other side upon the Sinus Corinthiacus Ubbo Emmius in his description of old Greece calls both of them oppidula duo cum duobus praeclaris portubus in ora utriusq maris but withall adds that they were duo urbis emporia the two Marts of Corinth therefore in probability because of the great Merchandise of that City they were much frequented Cenchrea was about twelve furlongs distance from Corinth Where Pareus conjectures the place of the meeting of the Church of Corinth was because of the troubles they met with in the City and therefore they retired thither for greater conveniency and privacy which conjecture will appear not to be altogether improbable when we consider the furious opposition made by the Iews against the Christians at Corinth Acts 18. 12. and withall how usual it was both for Jews and Christians to have their place of meeting at a distance from the City As Acts 16. 13. They went out from Philippi to the River side where there was a Proseucha or a place of prayer where the Iews of Philippi accustomed to meet According to this interpretation the Church at Cenchrea is nothing else but the Church of Corinth there assembling as the Reformed Church at Paris hath their meeting place at Charenton which might be called the Church of Charenton from their publick Assemblies there but the Church of Paris from the Residence of the chief Officers and people in that City So the Church of Corinth might be called the Church at Cenchrea upon the same account there being no evidence at all of any setled Government there at Cenchrea distinct from that at Corinth So that this place which is the only one brought against that position I have laid down hath no force at all against it I conclude then that Churches and Cities were originally of equal extent and that the formal constitution of a Church lyes not in their capacity of assembling in one place but acting as a society of Christians imbodyed together in one City having Officers and Rulers among themselves equally respecting the whole number of Believers Which leads to the second thing the way and manner then used for the modelling the government of these Churches Which may be considered in a double period of time either before several Congregations in Churches were setled or after those we now call Parishes were divided First before distinct Congregations were setled and this as far as I can find was not only during the Apostles times but for a competent time after generally during the persecution of Churches For we must distinguish between such a number of Believers as could not conveniently assemble in one place and the distributing of Believers into their several distinct congregations I cannot see any reason but to think that in the great Churches of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus and the like there were more Believers then could well meet together considering the state of those times but that they were then distributed into their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Centuries as the Athenians and Romans divided their people i. e. into several worshipping congregations with peculiar Officers I see no reason at all for it They had no such conveniences then of setling several congregations under their particular Pastors but all the Christians in a City looked upon
Metropolis of Macedonia and therefore the Bishops there mentioned could not be the Bishops of the several Cities under the jurisdiction of Philippi but must be understood of the Bishops resident in that City We begin with it in the Civil sense which is the foundation of the other It is confessed not to have been a Metropolis during its being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being by Pausanias called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Theophylact out of an old Geographer as it is supposed it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is it not very improbable that so small a City as it is acknowledged to be by Dio and others should be the Metropolis of Macedonia where were at least one hundred and fifty Cities as Pliny and Pomponius Mela tell us by boâ—h whom Philippi is plâ—ced in Thracia and not in Macedonia But two arguments are brought to prove Philippi to have been a Metropolis the first is from St. Luke calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 16. 12. The first City of that Part of Macedonia but rendred by the learned Doctor the prime City of the province of Macedonia but it would be worth knowing where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all the Notitiae of the Roman Empire was translated a Province and it is evident that Luke calls it the first City not ratione dignitatis but ratione 〈◊〉 in regard of its scituation and not its dignity So Camerarius understands Luke hanc esse primam coloniam paâ—tis seu Plagae Macedonicae nimirum a Thracia vicinia iter in Macedoniam ordiens It is the first City of that part of Macedonia when one goes from Thracia into it And so it appears by Dio describing the scituation of Philippi that it was the next town to Neapolis only the Mountain Symbolon comeing between them and Neapolis being upon the shore and Philippi built up in the plain near the Mountain Pangaeus where Brutus and Cassius incamped themselves its being then the first City of entrance into Macedonia proves no more that it was the Metropolis of Macodonia then that Calice is of France or Dover of England But it is further pleaded that Philippi was a Colonie and therefore it is most probable that the seat of the Roman Judicature was there But to this I answer first that Philippi was not the only Colonie in Macedonia for Pliny reckons up Cassandria Paria and others for which we must understand that Macedonia was long since made a Province by Paulus and in the division of the Roman Provinces by Augustus Strabo reckons it with Illyricum among the Provinces belonging to the Roman people and Senate and so likewise doth Dio. But it appears by Suetonius that Tiberius according to the custom of the Roman Emperours in the danger of War in the Provinces took it into his own hands but it was reâ—urned by Claudius to the Senatâ— again together with Achaia thence Dio speaking of Macedonia in the time of Tiberius saith it was governed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is by those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the praefecti Casaris such as were sent by the Emperour to be his Presidents in the provinces the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the Proconsuli who were chosen by lot after their Consulship into the several Provinces and therefore Dio expresseth Claudius his returning Macedonia into the Senates hands by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he put it to the choyce of the Senate again Now Macedonia having been thus long a Province oâ— the Roman Empire what probability is there because Philippi was a Colonie therefore it must be the Metropolis of Macedonia Secondly We find not the least evidence either in Scripture or elsewhere that the Proconsul of Macedonia had his residence at Philippi yea we have some evidence against it out of Scripture Acts 16 20 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and brought them to the Magistrates if there had been the Tribunal of a Proconsul here we should certainly have had it mentâ—oned as Gallio Proconsul of Achaia is mentioned in a like case at Corinth Acts 18. 12. Two sorts of Magistrates are here expressed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seem to be the Rulers of the City the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the Duumviri of the Colonie or else the Deputies of the Proconsul residing there but I incline rather to the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being only a Duumvir but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Praetor as Heinsius observes from the Glossary of H. Stephen For every Colonie had a Duumvirate to rule it answering to the Consuls and Praetors at Rome But all this might have been spared when we consider how evident it is that Thessalonica was the Metropolis of Macedonia as appears by Antipater in the Greek Epigram 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Praefectus prâ—torio Illyâ—ici had 〈…〉 dence aâ— Thâ—ssalonica as Theodoreâ— tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thâ—ssalonica was a great populous City where the Leiutenant of Illyricum did reside and so in probability did the Viâ—arius Macedonia It is called the Metropolis of Macedonia likewise by Socrâ—â—â—s and in the Ecclesiastical sense it is so called by Aetius the Bishop thereof in the Council of Sardicaâ— and Carolus à Sancto Paulo thinks it was not only the Metropolis of the Province of Macedonia but of the whole Diocèâ—s which in the East was much larger then the Province I suppose he means that which answered to the Vâ—carius Macedoniae And thence in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the subscription of the Bishop of Thâ—ssalonicâ— waâ— next to the Patriarchs But for Philippi the same Author acknowledgeth it not to have been a Metropolitan Church in the first six Centuries but after that Macedonia was divided into prima and secunda which was after the divâ—sion of it in the Empire into prima and salutaris then Philippi came to have the honorary Title of a Metropolitan although in Hierocles his Notitia Philippi is placed as the twenty first City under the Metropoles of Thâ—ssalonica So much to evidence the weakness of the first pillar viz. that these Cities were Metropoles in the civil sense and this being taken away the other falls of its self for if the Apostles did model the Ecclesiastical Government according to the Civil then Metropolitan Churches were planted only in Metropolitan Cities and these being cleared not to have been the latter it is evident they were not the former But however let us see what evidence is brought of such a subordination of all other Churches to the Metropolitans by the institution of the Apostles The only evidence produced out of Scripture for such a subordination and dependance of the Churches of lesser Cities upon the greater is from Actâ— 16. 1 4 compared with Acts 15. 23. the argument runs thus The
was observed next to the Scriptures not from any Obligation of the things themselves but from the conduceableneâ—s of those things as they judged them to the preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church CHAP. VIII An Inquiry into the Iudgement of Reformed Divines concerning the unalterable Divine Right of particular Forms of Church-Government wherein it is made appear that the most â—minent Dâ—vines of the Reformation did never conceive any one Form necessary manifested by three arguments 1. From the judgment of those who make the Form of Church-Government mutable and to depend upon the wisdom of the Magistrate and Church This cleared to have been the judgement of most Divines of the Church of England since the Reformation Archbishop Cranmers judgment with others of the Reformatiion in Edward the Sixth's time now first published from his authentick MS. The same ground of setling Episcopacy in Queen Elizabeth's time The judgement of Archbishop Wâ—itgift Bishop Bridges Dr. â—oe Mr. Hooker largely to that purpose in King Iames his time The Kings own Opinion Dr. Suâ—clâ—ffe Since of â—rakanâ—horp Mr. Hales Mr. Chillingworth The Testimony of Forraign Divines to the same purpose Chemnitius Zanchy French Divines Peter Moulâ—n Fregevil Blondel Bochartus Amyraldus Other learned men Groâ—â—uâ— Lord Bacon c. 2. Those who look upon equality as the Primitive Form yet judge Episcopacy lawful Augustane Confession Melâ—nchthon Arâ—icuâ—â— Smaâ—caldici Prince of Anhalt Hyperius Hemingius The practice of most Forraign Churches Câ—lvin and Beza both approving Episcopacy and Diocesan Churches Salmasius c. 3. Those who judge Episcopacy to be the Primitive Form yet look not on it as necâ—ssary Bishop Iewel Fulk Field Bishop Downam Bishop Bancâ—oâ—t Bishop Morton Bishop Andrews Saravia Francis Mason and others The Conclusion hence laid in Order to Peace Principles conducing thereto 1. Prudence must be used in Church-Government at last confessed by all parties Independents in elective Synods and Church Covenants admission of Members number in Congregations Presbyterians in Classes and Synods Lay-Elders c. Eâ—iscopal in Diocesses Causes Rites c. 2. That Prudence best which comes nearest Primitive practice A Presidency for life over an Ecclesiastical Senate shewed to be that Form in order to it Presbyteries to be restored Diocesses lâ—ssened Provincial Synods kept twice a year The reasonableness and easiness of accommodation shewed The whole concluded HAving thus far proceeded through Divine assistance in our intended method and having found nothing determining the necessity of any one Form of Government in the several Laws of Nature and Christ nor in the practice of Apostles or Primitive Church the only thing possible to raise a suspition of Novelty in this opinion is that it is contrary to the judgement of the several Churches of the Reformation I know it is the last Asylum which many run to when they are beaten off from their imaginary Fancies by pregnant Testimonies of Scripture and Reason to shelter themselves under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of some particular persons to whom their understandings are bored in perpetual slavery But if men would but once think their understandings at age to judge for themselves and not make them live under a continual Pupillage and but take the pains to travel over the several Churches of the Reformation they would find themselves freed of many strange misprisions they were possessed with before and understand far better the ground and reason of their pitching upon their several Forms than they seem to do who found all things upon a Divine Right I believe there will upon the most impartial survey scarce be one Church of the Reformation brought which doth imbrace any Form of Government because it looked upon that Form as onely necessary by an unalterable standing Law but every one took up that Form of Government which was judged most suitable to the state and condition of their severall Churches But that I may the better make this appear I shall make use of some Arguments whereby to demonstrate that the most eminent Divines that have lived since the Reformation have been all of this mind That no one Form is determined as necessary for the Church of God in all ages of the World For if many of them have in thesi asserted the Form of Church-Government mutable if those who have thought an equality among Ministers the Primitive Form have yet thought a Government by Episcopacy lawfull and usefull If lastly those who have been for Episcopacy have not judged it necessary then I suppose it will be evident that none of them have judged any one Form taken exclusively of others to be founded upon an unalterable Right For whatsoever is so founded is made a necessary duty in all Churches to observe it and it is unlawfull to vary from it or to change it according to the prudence of the Church according to the state and condition of it I now therefore undertake to make these things out in their order First I begin with those who have in thesi asserted the mutability of the Form of Church Government Herein I shall not follow the English humour to be more acquainted with the state of Forreign places then their own but it being of greatest concernment to know upon what accounts Episcopal Government was setled among our selves in order to our submission to it I shall therefore make inquiry into the judgement of those persons concerning it who either have been instrumental in setling it or the great defenders of it after its setlement I doubt not but to make it evident that before these late unhappy times the main ground for setling Episcopal Government in this Nation was not accounted any pretence of Divine Right but the conveniency of that Form of Church Government to the State and condition of this Church at the time of its Reformation For which we are to consider that the Reformation of our Church was not wrought by the Torrent of a popular fury nor the Insurrection of one part of the Nation against another but was wisely gravely and maturely debated and setled with a great deal of consideration I meddle not with the times of Henry 8. when I will not deny but the first quickning of the Reformation might be but the matter of it was as yet rude and undigested I date the birth of it from the first setlement of that most excellent Prince Edward 6. the Phosphorus of our Reformation Who A. D. 1547. was no sooner entred upon his Throne but some course was presently taken in order to Reformation Commissioners with Injunctions were dispatched to the several parts of the Land but the main business of the Reformation was referred to the Parliament call'd November 4. the same year when all former Statutes about Religion were recall'd as may be seen at large in Mr. Fox and Liberty allowed for professing the Gospel according to the principles of Reformation all banished persons for Religion being call'd home Upon this for the better establishing of
is sufficient It is not against Gods Law but contrary they ought in dede so to doe and there be historyes that witnesseth that some Christien Princes and other Lay men unconsecrate have done the same It is not forbidden by God's Law A Bishop or a Priest by the Scripture is neither commanded nor forbidden to excommunicate But where the Lawes of any Region giveth him authoritie to excommunicate there they ought to use the same in such crymes as the Lawes have such authority in And where the Lawes of the Region forbiddeth them there they have none authority at all And thei that be no Priests may alsoe excommunicate if the Law allow thereunto Thus faâ— that excellent Person in whose judgment nothing is more clear then his ascribing the particular Form of Government in the Church to the determination of the Supreme Magistrate This judgement of his is thus subscribed by him with his own hand T. Cantuariens This is mine opinion and sentence at this present which I do not temerariously define but do remit the judgment thereof holly to your Majesty Which I have exactly transcribed out of the Original and have observed generally the Form of writing at that time used In the same M S. it appears that the Bishop of S. Asaph Therleby Redman and Cox were all of the same Opinion with the Archbishop that at first Bishops and Presbyters were the same and the two latter expresly cite the Opinion of Ierome with approbation Thus we see by the Testimony chiefly of him who was instrumental in our Reformation that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct order from Presbytery of divine Right but only as a prudent constitution of the Civil Magistrate fâ—r the better governing in the Church We now proceed to the re-establishment of Church-Government under our most happy Queen Elizabeth After our Reformation had truly undergone the fiery trial in Queen Maries dayes and by those flames was made much more refined and pure as well as splendid and Illustrious In the articles of Religion agreed upon our English Form of Church-Government was onely determined to be agreeable to Gods Holy Word which had been a very low and diminishing expression had they looked on it as absolutely prescribed and determined in Scripture aâ— the onely necessary Form to be observed in the Church The first who solemnly appeared in Vindication of the English Hierarchy was Archbishop Whiâ—giâ—t a sage and prudent person whom we cannot suppose either ignorant of the Sense of the Church of England or afraid or unwilling to defend it Yet he frequently against Cartwrightâ—sserts â—sserts that the Form of Discipline is not particularly and by name set down in Scripture and again No kind of Government is expressed in the Word or can necessarily be concluded from thence which he repeats over again No Form of Church-Government is by the Scriptures prescribed to or commanded the Church of God And so Doctor Cosins his Chancellor in Answer to the Abstract All Churches have not the same Form of Discipline neither is it necessary that they should seeing it cannot be proved that any certain particular Form of Church-Government is commended to us by the Word of God To the same purpose Doctor Low Complaint of the Church No certain Form of Government is prescribed in the Word onely general Rules laid down for it Bishop Bridges God hath not expressed the Form of Church-Government at least not so as to bind us to it They who please but to consult the third book of Learned and Judicious Master Hookers Ecclesiastical Polity may see the mutability of the Form of Church-Government largely asserted and fully proved Yea this is so plain and evident to have been the chief opinion of the Divines of the Church of England that Parker looks on it as one of the main foundations of the Hierarchy and sets himself might and main to oppose it but with what success we have already seen If we come lower to the time of King Iames His Majesty himself declared it in Print as his judgment Christiano cuique Regi Principi ac Rèipublicae concessum externam in rebus Ecclesiasticis regiminis formam suis prascribere quae ad civilis administrationis formam quà m proximè accedat That the Civil power in any Nation hath the right of prescribing what external Form of Church Government it please which doth most agree to the Civil Form of Government in the State Doctor Sutcliffe de Presbyterio largely disputes against those who assert that Christ hath laid down certain immutable Lawes for Government in the Church Crakanthorp against Spalatensis doth assert the mutability of such things as are founded upon Apostolical Tradition Traditum igitur ab Apostolis sed traditum mutabile pro usu ac arbitrio Ecclesiae mutandum To the like purpose speak the forecited Authours as their Testimonies are extant in Parker Bishop Bridges Num unumquodque exemplum Ecclesiae Primitivae praeceptum aut mandatum faciat And again Forte rerum nonnullarum in Primitiva Ecclesia exemplum aliquod ostendere possunt sed nec id ipsum generale nec ejusdem perpetuam regulam aliquam quae omnes ecclesias aetates omnes ad illud exemplum astringat So Archbishop Whitgift Ex facto aut exemplo legem facere iniquúm est Nunquam licet inquit Zuinglius à facto ad jus argumentari By which Principles the Divine right of Episcopacy as founded upon Apostolical practice is quite subverted and destroyed To come nearer to our own unhappy times Not long before the breaking forth of those never sufficiently to be lamented Intestine broyls we have the judgement of two Learned Judicious rational Authours fully discovered as to the point in Question The first is that incomparable man Master Hales in his often cited Tract of Schism whose words are these But that other head of Episcopal Ambition concerning Supremacy of Bishops in divers See's one claiming Supremacy over another as is hath been from time to time a great Trespass against the Churches peace so it is now the final ruine of it The East and West through the fury of the two prime Bishops being irremediably separated without all hope of Reconcilement And besides all this mischief it is founded on a Vice contrary to all Christian Humility without which no Man shall see his Saviour For they doe but abase themselves and others that would perswade us that Bishops by Christs Institution have any Superiority over men further then of Reverence or that any Bishop is Superiour to another further then Positive Order agreed upon among Christians hath prescribed For we have believed him that hath told us that in Iesus Christ there is neither high nor low and that in giving Honour every Man should be ready to preferre another before himself Which saying cuts off all claim certainly of Superiority by Title of Christianity except Men think that these things were spoken
ad ordinem ad decorum ad aedificationem Ecclesiae pro co tempore pertinentibus And in the next Section Novimus enim Deum nostrum Deum esse Ordinis non confusionis Ecclesiam servari ordine perdi autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qua de causa multos etiam diversos non solum olim in Israele verum etiam post in Ecclesia ex Iudaeis Gentibus collecta ministrorum ordines instituit eandem etiam ob causam liberum reliquit Ecclesiis ut plures adderent vel non adderent modo ad aedificationem fieret He asserts it to be in the Churches power and liberty to add several orders of Ministers according as it judgeth them tend to edification and saith he is far from condemning the Course of the Primitive Church in erecting one as Bishop over the Presbyters for better managing Church Affairs yea Arch-Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs as instituted by the Primitive Church before the Nicene Council he thinks may be both excused and defended although afterward they degenerated into Tyranny and Ambition And in his Observations upon his Confession penned chiefly upon the occasion of the exceptions of Magnus quidam Vir some will guess who that was taken at the free delivery of his mind concerning the Polity of the Primitive Church he hath expressions to this purpose That what was unanimously determined by the Primitive Church without any contradiction to Scripture did come from the Holy Spirit Hinc fit saith he ut quae sint hujuscemodi ea ego improbare nec velim nec audeam bona conscientia Quis autem ego sim qui quod tota Ecclesia approbavit improbem Such things saith he as are so determined I neither will nor can with a safe Conscience condemn For who am I that I should condemn that which the whole Church of God hath approved A Sentence as full of judgement as modesty And that he might shew he was not alone in this opinion he produceth two large and excellent Discourses of Martin Bucer concerning the Polity of the ancient Church which he recites with approbation the one out of his Commentaries on the Ephesians the other de Disciplina Clericali whereby we have gained another Testimony of that famous and peaceable Divine whose judgement is too large to be here inserted The same opinion of Zanchy may be seen in his Commentaries upon the fourth Command wherein he asserts no particular Form to be prescribed but onely general Rules laid down in Scripture that all be done to Edification speaking of the Originall of Episcopacy which came not dispositione Divina but consuetudine Ecclesiastica atque ea quidem minime improbanda neque enim hunc ordinem prohibuit Christus sed potius regulam generalem reliquit per Apostolum nt in Ecclesia omnia fiant ad edificationem It is then most clear and evident that neither Bucer Chemnitius or Zanchy did look upon the Church as so bound up by any immutable Form of Church-Government laid down in Scripture but it might lawfully and laudably alter it for better edification of the Church For these Learned Divines conceiving that at first in the Church there was no difference between Bishop and Presbyter and commending the Polity of the Church when Episcopacy was set in a higher order they must of necessity hold that there was no obligation to observe that Form which was used in Apostolical times Our next inquiry is into the opinion of the French Church and the eminent Divines therein For Calvin and Bâ—zÌ„a we have designed them under another rank At present we speak of those who in Thesi assert the Form of Church-Government mutable The first wee meet with here who fully layes down his opinion as to this matter is Ioh. Fregevil who although in his Palma Christiana he seems to assert the Divine right of Primacy in the Church yet in his Politick Reformer he asserts both Forms of Government by equality and inequality to be lawful And we shall the rather produce his Testimony because of the high Character given of him by the late Reverend Bishop Hall Wise Fregevil a deep head and one that was able to cut even betwixt the League the Church and State His words are these As for the English Government I say it is grounded upon Gods Word so far forth as it keepeth the State of the Clergy instituted in the Old Testament and confirmed in the New And concerning the Government of the French Church so far as concerneth the equality of Ministers it hath the like foundation in Gods Word namely in the example of the Apostles which may suffice to authorize both these Forms of Estate albeit in several times and places None can deny but that the Apostles among themselves were equal as concerning authority albeit there were an Order for their precedency When the Apostles first planted Churches the same being small and in affliction there were not as yet any other Bishops Priests or Deacons but themselves they were the Bishops and Deacons and together served the Tables Those men therefore whom God raiseth up to plant a Church can do no better then after the examples of the Apostles to bear themselves in equal authority For this cause have the French Ministers planters of the Reformed Church in France usurped it howbeit provisionally reserving liberty to alter it according to the occurrences But the equality that rested among the Bishops of the primitive Church did increase as the Churches increased and thence proceeded the Creation of Deacons and afterwards of other Bishops and Priests yet ceased not the Apostles equality in authority but they that were created had not like authority with the Apostles but the Apostles remained as Soveraign Bishops neither were any greater then they Hereof I do inferr that in the State of a mighty and peaceable Church as is the Church of England or as the Church of France is or such might be if God should call it to Reformation the State of the Clergy ought to be preserved For equality will be hurtful to the State and in time breed confusion But as the Apostles continued Churches in their equality so long as the Churches by them planted were small so should equality be applyed in the planting of a Church or so long as the Church continueth small or under persecution yet may it also be admitted as not repugnant to Gods Word in those places where already it is received rather then to innovate anything I say therefore that even in the Apostles times the state of the Clergy increased as the Church increased Neither was the Government under the bondage of Egypt and during the peace of the Land of Canaan alike for Israelites had first Iudges and after their state increased Kings Thus far that Politique Reformer Whose words are so full and pertinent to the scope and drift of this whole Treatise that there is no need of any Commentary to draw them to my sense The
next I shall pitch upon in the French Church is a Triumvirate of three as learned persons in their several wayes as most that Church or any since the reformation hath bred they are Blondel Bochartus and Amyraldus The first is that great Church Antiquary Blondel the known and learned assertor of Ieromes opinion concerning the primitive equality of Presbyters who was likewise of Ieromes mind as to the mutability of that form if the Church saw fit as appears by these words of his speaking of that Form of Ecclesiastical Polity which Hilary speaks of viz. the Eldest Presbyters having the primacy of order above the rest Fac tamen saith he Apostolis non modo non improbantibus sed palam laudantibus ortam ego sanè liberè ab initio observatam Christianisque sive ab Apostolis sive ab eorum discipulis traditam sed ut mutabilem pro usu ac arbitrio Ecclesiae mutandam prout in causâ consimili piae memoriae Crakanthorpius sensis crediderim and not long after Nec concessus capite carentes aut multicipites minùs horremus quam fervidiores Hierarchici quibus indagandum curatiùs incumbit An pastorum cuiquam quocunque ritulo nunâ— gaudeat divino jure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eaque perpetua decreta sit An verò in Arbitrio Ecclesiae ipse qui praeest Ecclesiae Spiritus religuerit ut quocunque modo liberet sibi de capite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 collegia providerent Whereby that most learned Writer for Presbyterie as some have call'd him evidently asserts the mutability of the particular Form of Church Government and that it is left to the prudence and arbitrement of the Church to conclude and determine in what way and manner the Rulers of the Church shall act for moderating the common concernments of the Church The next is the learned and ingenuous Bochartus who ex professo doth assert the opinion I have been pleading thus long in the behalf of in his Epistle to Dr. Morley He having declared himself to be of Ieromes mind as to the Apostles times that the Churches were governed communi consilio Presbyterorum and withall asserting the great antiquity of Episcopacy as arising-soon after the Apostles times and that magno cum fructu as a very usefull Form of Government He subjoyns these words directly overthrowing the Dâ—vine Right of either Form of Government by Episcopacy or Presbyterie Nâ—â— Apostolorum praxim puto vim habuisse legis in rebus suâ— natura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proinde tam qui Presbyteralem quam Episcopalem ordinem juris divini esse asserunt videntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore asserts that the Form of Government must be determined as that in the State is according to the suitableness of it to the state temper and condition of the people it is intended for The last is judicious Amyraldus whom one deservedly calls One of the greatest wits of this Age. In his proposals for peace with the Lutherans speaking of the different Forms of Church-Government in the several Churches of the Reformation he layes down this for a foundation of union among the several Churches Quando igitur Christus quidem Apostoli hoc diserté constituerunt Debere particulares Ecclesias omnes gubernari à Pastoribus aliquâ regiminis forma temperari quod ipsa rei necessitas flagitat quae verò regiminis ista forma potissimùm esse debeat utrum alii aliis auctoritate praecellant necne neque rei natura definivit neque à Christo aut Apostolis aeque disertè constitutum est id primò in pacificatione statuendum esse videtur ut quo jure hactenus fuerunt Ecclesiarum Evangelicarum Pastores eodem porrò esse pergant neque aliae aliarum statum convellere nitantur That every Church be permitted freely to enjoy its own Form since some kind of Government is necessary in all Churches but no one Form is prescribed by Christ or his Apostles and more fully afterwards to the same purpose Quemadmodum igitur etsi Politiarum formae aliae aliis aptiores ad finem illum Politicum obtinendum accomodatiores esse videntur Deus tamen qui omnis societatis auctor est atque custos noluit omnes hominum coetus eodem jure teneri sed cuique communitati potestatem esse voluit suas leges sibi condendi quas ipse divinâ suâ auctoritate sancit sic dubitandum quidem non est quin ex variis illis administrandarum Ecclesiarum rationibus nonnullae sint aliquanto quam aliae conducibiliores ad eum finem adipiscendum quem religio constitutune habet At voluit tamen sapientissimus indulgentissimusque Deus cuique Ecclesiaejus esse sibi leges eas ferendi quae ad disciplinam spectant ad ordinem conservandum Whereby he grants as much freedome and liberty to every Church to prescribe Laws to its self for the regulating the affairs of the Church as to any State to pitch upon its particular rules and wayes of Government So the Church do in its orders but observe the general rules laid down in Scripture Having thus fully shewed how many of he most eminent Divines of the Reformation have embraced this opinion of the mutability of the Form of Church-Government both in our own and Forraign Churches who were far from being the Proselytes of Erastus it were easie to add Mantissae loco the concurrent judgement of many very learned men as the excellent Hugo Grotius my Lord Bacon Sir Will. Morice and others who have in print delivered this as their judgement but seeing such is the temper of ma ny as to cast by their judgements with an opinion of their partiality towards the Government of the Church I have therefore contented my self with the judgement of Divines most of them of the highest rank since the Reformation whose judgements certainly will be sufficient to remove that prejudice wherewith this opinion hath been entertained among the blind followers of the several parties So much for those who in terms assert the Form of Church-Government not to depend upon an unalterable Law but to be left to the prudence and discretion of every particular Church to determine it according to its suitableness to the state condition and temper of the people whereof it consists and conduceableness to the ends for which it is instituted We come now in the second place to those who though they look upon equality of Ministers as the Primitive Form yet do allow Episcopal Government in the Church as a very lawful and useful constitution By which it is evident that they did not judge the Primitive Form to carry an universal obligation along with it over all Churches ages and places Upon this account our learned Crakanthorp frees all the Reformed Churches from the charge of Aërianisin laid upon them by the Archbishop of Spalato when he licked up his former vomit in his Consilium reditûs Crakanthorps words are these speaking of
Luther Calvin Beza and all the Reformed Churches Non habent illi scio distinctos à Presbyteris eisque in ordinandi excommunicandi potestate superiores Episcopos At Imparitatem istam quod fecit Aërius non verbo Dei repugnare docent non damnant eam vel in nostrâ vel in universali per annos super mille quingentos Ecclesiâ Per verbum Dei Ius Divinum liberum licitum utrumvis censent vel Imparitatem istam admittere vel Paritatem In arbitrio hoc esse ac potestate cujusvis Ecclesiae censent utrum Paritatem ordinum admittant an Imparitatem So that according to the opinion of this learned Divine all the Reformed Churches were free from the Imputation of Aërianism because they asserted not an Imparity among the Ministers of the Gospel to be unlawful but thought it was wholly in the Churches liberty to settle either a Parity or Imparity among them as they judged convenient But to descend more particularly to the Heroes of the Reformation we have a whole Constellation of them together in the Augustane Confession where they fully express their minds to this purpose Hâc de re in hoc conveniâ— saepe testati sumus nos summâ voluntate cupere conservare Politiam Ecclesiasticam gradus in Ecclesiâ factos etiam humaná authoritate Scimus enim bono utili consilio à Patribus Ecclesiasticam disciplinam hoc modo ut veteres Canones describunt constit utam esse And afterwards Saevitia Episcoporum in causâ est quare alicubi dissolvitur illa Canonica Politia quam magnopere cupiebamus conservare And again Hîc iterum volumus testatum nos libenter conservaturos esse Ecclesiasticam Canonicam Politiam si modo Episcopi desinant in Ecclesias nostras saevire Haec nostra voluntas coram Deo apud omnes gentes ad omnem posteritatem excusabit nos nè nobis imputari possit quod Episcoporum authoritas labefactetur And yet further Saepe jam testati sumus nos non solùm potestatem Ecclesiasticam quae in Evangelio instituta est summâ pietate venerari sed etiam Ecclesiasticam Politiam gradus in Ecclesiâ magnoperé probare quantùm in nobis est conservare cupere We see with what industry they purge and clear themselves from the imputation of bearing any ill will to the several degrees that were instituted by the Church nay they profess themselves desirous of retaining them so the Bishops would not force them to do any thing against their consciences To the same purpose they speak in the Smaraldian Articles None speaks more fully of the agreeableness of the Form of Government used in the Ages after the Apostles to the Word of God then that excellent servant of God as Bishop Downam often calls him Calvin doth For in his Iustitutions he speaks thus of the Polity of the Primitive Church Tametsi enim multos Canones ediderunt illorum temporum Episcopi quibus plus viderentur exprimere quà m sacris literis expressum esset ea tamen cautione totam suam Oeconomiam composuerunt ad unicam illam verbi Dei normam ut facilè videas nihil ferè hac parte hâ—buisse à verbo Dei alienum Although the Bishops of those times did make many Canons wherein they did seem to express more then was in the word of God yet they used such caution and prudence in the establishing the Churches Polity according to the word of God that hardly will any thing be found in it disagreeing to Gods Holy word And afterwards speaking of the Institution of Arch-bishops and Patriarchs he saith it was ad-Disciplinae conservationem for preserving the Churches Discipline and again Si rem omisso vocabulo intuemur reperiemus Veteres Episcopos non aliam regendae Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam Deus verbo suo praescripsit If we consider the matter its self of the Churches Polity we shall find nothing in it discrepant from or repugnant to that Form which is laid down in the Word of God Calvin then what ever form of Government he judged most suitable to the state and temper of the Church wherein he was placed was far from condemning that Polity which was used in the Primitive Church by a difference as to degrees among the Ministers of the Gospel He did not then judge any form of Government to be so delivered in Scriptures as unalterably to oblige all Churches and ages to observe it Beza saith He was so far from thinking that the humane order of Episcopasy was brought into the Church through rashness or ambition that none can deny it to have been very usefull as long as Bishops were good And those that both will and can let them enjoy it still His words are these Absit autem ut hunc ordinem et si Apostolica mere divina dispositione non constitutum tamen ut temere aut superbe invectum reprehendam cujus potius magnum usum fuisse quamdiu boni sancti Episcopi Ecclesiis praefuerunt quis inficiari possit Fruantur igitur illo qui volent poterunt And elsewhere professeth all reverence esteem and honour to be due to all such modern Bishops who strive to imitate the example of the Primitive Bishops in a due reformation of the Church of God according to the rule of the word And looks on it as a most false and impudent Calumny of some that said as though they intended to prescribe their form of Government to all other Churches as though they were like some ignorant fellows who think nothing good but what they do themselves How this is reconcileable with the novell pretence of a Ius divinum I cannot understand For certainly if Beza had judged that only Form to be prescribed in the Word which was used in Geneva it had been but his duty to have desired all other Churches to conform to that Neither ought Beza then to be looked on as out-going his Master Calvin in the opinion about the right of Church-Government For we see he goes no further in it then Calvin did All that either of them maintained was that the form of Government in use among them was more agreeable to the primitive form then the modern Episcopacy was and that Episcopacy lay more open to Pride Laziness Ambition and Tyranny as they had seen and felt in the Church of Rome Therefore not to give occasion to snch incroachments upon the liberty of mens consciences as were introduced by the tyranny of the Roman Bishops they thought it the safest way to reduce the Primitive parity but yet so as to have an Ecclesiastical Senate for one Church containing City and Territories as is evident at Geneva and that Senate to have a President in it and whether that President should be for life or only by course they judged it an accidental and mutable thing but that there should be one essential and necessary This
of necessity is valid which I have already shewed doth evidently prove that Episcopal Government is not founded upon any unalterable Divine Right For which purpose many evidences are produced from Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 39 B. Downam l. 3. c. 4. B. Iewâ—l P. 2. p. 131. Saravia cap. 2. p. 10. 11. B. Alley Praelect 3. 6. B. Pilkinton B. Bridges B. Bilson D. Nowel B. Davenant B. Prideaux B. Andrews and others by our Reverend and learned M. Baxter in his Christian Concord to whom may be added the late most Reverend and eminent the Bishop of Durham Apolog. Cathol p. 1. l. 1. c. 21. and the Primat of Armagh whose judgement is well known as to the point of Ordination So much may suffice to shew that both those who hold an equality among Ministers to be the Apostolical Form and those that do hold Episcopacy to have been it do yet both of them agâ—ee at last in this that no one Form is setled by an unalterable Law of Christ nor consequently founded upon Divine Right For the former notwithstanding their opinion of the primitive Form do hold Episcopacy lawfull and the latter who hold Episcopacy to have been the primitive Form do not hold it perpetually and immutably necessary but that Presbyters where Bishops cannot be had may lawfully discharge the offices belonging to Bishops both which Concessions do necessarily destroy the perpetual Divine Right of that Form of Government they assert Which is the thing I have been so long in proving and I hope made it evident to any unprejudicated mind Having laid down this now as a sure foundation for peace and union it were a very easie matter to improve it in order to an Accommodation of our present differences about Church Government I shall only lay down three general Principles deducible from hence and leave the whole to the mature consideration of the Lovers of Truth and Peace The first Principle is That Prudence must be used in setling the Government of the Church This hath been the whole design of this Treatise to prove that the Form of Church-government is a meer matter of prudence regulated by the Word of God But I need not insist on the Arguments already brought to prove it for as far as I can find although the several parties in their contentions with one another plead for Divine Right yet when any one of them comes to settle their own particular Form they are fain to call in the help of Prudence even in things supposed by the several parties as necessary to the establishment of their own Form The Congregational men may despair of ever finding Elective Synods an explicite Church-Covenant or positive signs of Grace in admission of Church-members in any Law of Christ nay they will not generally plead for any more for them then general rules of Scripture fine Similitudes and Analogies and evidence of natural Reason and what are all these at last to an express Law of Christ without which it was pretended nothing was to be done in the Church of God The Presbyterians seem more generally to own the use of General Rules and the Light of Nature in order to the Form of Church Government as in the subordination of Courts Classical Assemblies and the more moderate sort as to Lay elders The Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or the practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for worship under the charge of one Person nor in the Primitive Church for the ordination of a Bishop without the preceding election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the people and neither in Scripture nor antiquity the least footstep of a delegation of Church-power So that upon the matter at last all of them make use of those things in Church Government which have no other foundation but the Principles of Humane prudence guided by the Scriptures and it were well if that were observed still The second Principle is That Form of Government is the best according to principles of Christian Prudence which comes the nearest to Apostolical practice and tends most to the advancing the peace and unity of the Church of God What that Form is I presume not to define and determine but leave it to be gather'd from the evidence of Scripture and Antiquity as to the Primitive practice and from the nature state and condition of that Church wherein it is to be setled as to its tendency to the advancement of peace and unity in it In order to the finding out of which that proposal of his late most excellent Majesty of glorious memory is most highly just and reasonable His Majesty thinketh it well worthy the studies and endeavours of Divines of both opinions laying aside emulation and private interests to reduce Episcopacy and Presbyteriâ— into such a well-proportion'd Form of superiority and subordination as may best resemble the Apostolical and Primitive times so far forth as the different condition of the times and the exigences of all considerable circumstances will admit If this Proposal be embraced as there is no reason why it should not then all such things must be retrieved which were unquestionably of the Primitive practice but have been grown out of use through the length and corruption of times Such are the restoring of the Presbyteries of several Churches as the Senate to the Bishop with whole counsel and advice all things were done in the Primitive Church The contracting of Dioceses into such a compass as may be fitted for the personal inspection of the Bishop and care of himself and the Senate the placing of Bishops in all great Towns of resort especially County Towns that according to the ancient course of the Church its Government may be proportioned to the Civil Government The constant preaching of the Bishop in some Churches of his charge and residence in his Diocese The solemnity of Ordinations with the consent of the people The observing Provincial Synods twice every year The employing of none in judging Church matters but the Clergy These are things unquestionably of the Primitive practice and no argument can be drawn from the present state of things why they are not as much if not more necessary then ever And therefore all who appeal to the practice of the Primitive Church must condemn themselves if they justifie the neglect of them But I only touch at these things my design being only to lay a foundation for a happy union Lastly What Form of Government is determined by lawfull authority in the Church of God ought so far to be submitted to as it contains nothing repugnant to the Word of God So that let mens judgements be what they will concerning the Primitive Form seeing it hath been proved that that Form doth not bind unalterably and necessarily it remains that the determining of the Form of Government is a matter of liberty in the Church and what is so
Coactive nor meerly Arbitrary viz. such a one as immediately results from Divine Institution and doth suppose consent to submit to it as a necessary Duty in all the members of this Society This Power it is evident is not meerly Arbitrary either in the Governours or Members for the Governours derive their Power or right of Governing from the institution of Christ and are to be regulated by his Laws in the execution of it and the Members though their consent be necessarily supposed yet that consent is a Duty in them and that duty doth imply their submission to the Rulers of this Society neither can this power be called Coactive in the â—ense it is commonly taken for coactive power and external force are necessary correlates to each other but we suppose no such thing as a power of outward force to be given to the Church as such for that properly belongs to a Common-wealth But the power which I suppose to be lodged in the Church is such a power as depends upon a Law of a Superiour giving right to Govern to particular persons over such a Society and making it the Duty of all Members of it to submit unto it upon no other penalties then the exclusion of them from the priviledges which that Society enjoyes So that supposing such a Society as the Church is to be of Divine Institution and that Christ hath appointed Officers to rule it it necessarily follows that those Officerâ— must derive their power i. e. their right of Governing this Society not meerly from consent and confederation of parties but from that Divine Institution on which the Society depends The â—â—ht of understanding the right notion of power in the sense here â—â—â— down is certainly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Erastianism and that which hath given occasion to so many to question any such thing as Power in the Church especially when the more zealous then judicious defenders of it have rather chosen to hang it upon some doubtfull places of Scripture then on the very Naturâ— and Constitution of the Christian Church as a Society instituted by Iesus Christ. This being then the nature of power in general it is I suppose clear that an outward coactive force is not necessary in order to it for if some may have a Right to Govern and others may be obliged to obedience to those persons antecedently to any Civil Constitution then such persons have a just power to inflict censures upon such as transgress the Rules of the Society without any outward force It is here very impertinent to dispute what effects such censures can have upon wilful persons without a Coactive power If I can prove that there is a right to inflict them in Church-Officers and an Obligation to submit to them in all Offenders I am not to trouble my self with the event of such things as depend upon Divine Institutions I know it is the great Objection of the followers of Erastus that Church censures are inflicted upon persons unwilling to receive them and therefore must imply external and coactive force which is repugnant to the nature of a Church But this admits according to the Principles here established of a very easie solution for I deny not that Church Power goes upon consent but then it 's very plain here was an antecedent consent to submit to censures in the very entrance into this Society which is sufficient to denominate it a voluntary act of the persons undergoing it and my reason is this every person entring into a Society parts with his own freedom and liberty as to matters concerning the governing of it and professeth submission to the Rules and Orders of it now a man having parted with his freedom already cannot reassume it when he please for then he is under an Obligation to stand to the Covenants made at his entrance and consâ—quently his undergoing what shall be laid upon him by the Lawes of this Society must be supposed to be voluntary as depending upon his consent at first entrance which in all Societies must be supposed to hold still else there would follow nothing but confusion in all Societies in the World if every man were at liberty to break his Covenants when any thing comes to lye upon him according to the Rules of the Society which he out of some private design would be unwilling to undergo Thus much may serve to settle aright the Notion of Power the want of understanding which hath caused all the confusion of this Controversie The next thing is In what Notion we are to consider the Church which is made the subject of this Power As to which we are to consider This Power either as to its right or in actu primo or as to its exercise or in actu secundo Now if we take this Power as to the fundamental Right of it then it belongs to that Universal Church of Christ which subsists as a visible Society by vertue of that Law of Christ which makes an owning the Profession of Christianity the Duty of all Church members If we consider this Power in the exercise of it then it being impossible that the Universall Church should perform the executive part of this power relating to offences I suppose it lodged in that particular Society of Christians which are united together in one body in the community of the sâ—me Government but yet so as that the administration of this Power doth not belong to the body of the Society considered complexly but to those Officers in it whose care and charge it is to have a peculiar oversight and inspection over the Church and to redress all disorders in it Thus the visive faculty is fundamentally lodged in the Soul yet all exterior acts of sight are performed by the Eyes which are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Overseers of the Body as the other are of the Church so that the exercise and administration of this power belongs to the speciall Officers and Governours of the Church none else being capable of exercising this Power of the Church as such but they on whom it is settled by the Founder of the Church it 's self This Society of the Church may be again considered either as subsisting without any influence from the Civil Power or as it is owned by and incorporated into a Christian State I therefore demand Whether it be absolutely necessary for the subsistence of this Christian Society to be upheld by the Civil Power or no And certainly none who consider the first and purest Ages of the Christian Church can give any entertainment to the Affirmative because then the Church flourished in it's greatest purity not onely when not upheld but when most violently opposed by the Civil Power If so then it 's being united with the Civil State is onely accidental as to the constitution a Church and if this be onely accidental then it must be supposed furnished with every thing requisite to it 's well ordering accidentally to
only on confederation such things being lyable to a Magistrates power there can be no plea from mutual consent to justifie any opposition to supream authority in a Common wealth But then how such persons can bee Christians when the Magistrates would have them to bee otherwise I cannot understand nor how the primitive Martyrs were any other then a company of Fools or mad-men who would hazard their lives for that which was a meer arbitrary thing and which they had no necessary obligation upon them to profess Mistake me not I speak not here of meer acts of discipline but of the duty of outward professing Christianity if this be a duty then a Christian society is setled by a positive Law if it be not a duty then they are fools who suffer for it So that this question resolved into its principles leads us higher than we think for and the main thing in debate must bee Whether there be an obligation upon conscience for men to associaâ—e in the profession of Christianity or no If there be then the Church which is nothing else but such an association is established upon a positive Law of Christ if there be not then those inconveniences follow which are already mentioned Wee are told indeed by the Leviathan with confidence enough that no precepts of the Gospel are Law till enacted by civil authority but it is little wonder that hee who thinks an immaterial substance implyes a contradiction should think as much of calling any thing a Law but what hath a civil sanction But I suppose all those who dare freely own a supream and infinite essence to have been the Creator and to be the Ruler of the World will acknowledge his Power to oblige conscience without being beholding to his own creature to enact his Laws that men might bee bound to obey them Was the great God sain to bee be holding to the civil authority hee had over the Iewish Common wealth their government being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make his Laws obligatory to the consciences of the Iews What had not they their beings from God and can there be any greater ground of obligation to obedience than from thence Whence comes civil power to have any Right to oblige men more than God considered as Governour of the World can have Can there be indeed no other Laws according to the Leviathans Hypothesis but only the Law of nature and civil Laws But I pray whence comes the obligation to either of these that these are not as arbitrary as all other agreements are And is it not as strong a dictate of nature as any can bee supposing that there is a God that a creature which receives its being from another should be bound to obey him not only in the resultancies of his own nature but with the arbitrary constitutions of his will Was Adam bound to obey God or no as to that positive precept of eating the forbidden fruit if no civil Sanction had been added to that Law The truth is such Hypotheses as these are when they are followed close home will be sound to Kennel in that black Den from whence they are loath to be thought to have proceeded And now supposing that every full Declaration of the will of Christ as to any positive Institution hath the force and power of a Law upon the consciences of all to whom it is sufficiently proposed I proceed to make appear that such a divine positive Laew there is for the existence of a Church as a visible body and society in the World by which I am far from meaning such a conspicuous society that must continue in a perpetual visibility in the same place I find not the least intimation of any such thing in Scripture but that there shall alwayes bee somewhere or other in the world a society owning and professing Christianity may bee easily deduced from thence and especially on this account that our Saviour hath required this as one of the conditions in order to eternal felicity that all those who believe in their hearts that Iesus is the Christ must likewise confess him with their mouths to the world and therefore as long at there are men to believe in Christ there must be men that will not be ashamed to associate on the account of the Doctrine he hath promulged to the world That one Phrase in the New Testament so frequently used by our blessed Saviour of the Kingdome of Heaven importing a Gospel-state doth evidently declare a society which was constituted by him on the principles of the Gospel Covenant Wherefore should our Saviour call Disciples and make Apostles and send them abroad with full commission to gather and initiate Disciples by Baptism did he not intend a visible society for his Church Had it not been enough for men to have cordially believed the truth of the Gospel but they must bee entred in a solemn visible way and joyn in participation of visible Symbols of bread and wine but that our Saviour required external profession and society in the Gospel as a necessary duty in order to obtaining the priviledges conveyed by his Magna Charta in the Gospel I would fain know by what argument wee can prove that any humane Legislator did ever intend a Common wealth to be governed according to his mode by which we cannot prove that Christ by a positive Law did command such a society as should be governed in a visible manner as other societies are Did he not appoint officers himself in the Church and that of many ranks and degrees Did he not invest those Officers with authority to rule his Church Is it not laid as a charge on them to take heed to that flock over which God had made them Over-seers Are there not Rules laid down for the peculiar exercise of their Government over the Church in all the parts of it Were not these Officers admitted into theâ—â— function by a most solemn visible Rite of Imposition of Hands And are all these solemn transactions a meer piece of sacred Pageantry And they will appear to bee little more if the Society of the Church bee a meer arbitrary thing depending only upon consent and confederation and not subsisting by vertue of any Charter from Christ or some positive Law requiring all Christians to joyn in Church society together But if now from hence it appears as certainly it cannot but appear that this Society of the Church doth subsist by vertue of a Divine positive Law then it must of necessity be distinct from a civil Society and that on these accounts First because there is an antecedent obligation on conscience to associate on the account of Christianity whether Humane Laws prohibit or command it From whence of necessity it follows that the constitution of the Church is really different from that of the Commonwealth because whether the Common wealth be for or against this Society all that own it are bound to profess it openly and declare
proved by some who have undertaken it I know no opinion would bid so saiâ— for acceptance as Scepticism and that in reference to many weighty and important truthâ— for how weakly have some proved the existence of a Deity the immortality of the soul and the truth of the Scriptures by such arguments that if it were enough to overthroâ—â— an opinion to bee able to answer some Arguments brought for it Atheisme it self would become plausible It can be then no evidence that a thing is not true because some Arguments will not prove it and truly as to the matter in hand I am fully of the opinion of the excellent H. Grotius speaking of Excommunication in the Christian Church Neque adâ—am râ—m peculiare praeceptum desideratur eum Ecclestae coetu à Christo semel constituto omnia illa imperata censeri debent sine quibus ejus coeiûs puritas retineri non potest And therefore men spend needless pains to prove an institution of this power by some positive precept when Christs founding his Church as a peculiar Society is sufficient proof hee hath endowed it with this fundamental Right without which the Society were arena sino calce a company of persons without any common tye of union among them for if there bee any such union it must depend on some conditions to bee performed by the members of that Society which how could they require from them if they have not power to exclude them upon non performance 2. I prove the divine original of this power from the special appointment and designation of particular Officers by Iesus Christ for the ruling of this Society Now I say that Law which provides there shall bee Officers to Govern doth give them power to govern suitably to the Nature of their society Either then you must deny that Christ hath by an unalterable Institution appointed a Gospel Ministry or that this Ministry hath no Power in the Church or that their Power extends not to excommunication The first I have already proved the second follows from their appointment for by all the titles given to Church Officers in Scripture it appears they had a Power over the Church as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All which as you well know do import a right to Govern the Society over which they are set And that this power should not extend to a power to exclude convict Offenders seems very strange when no other punishment can be more suitable to the nature of the Society than this is which is a debarring him from the priviledges of that Society which the offender hath so much dishonoured Can there be any punishment less imagined towards contumacious offenders then this is or that carries in it less of outward and coactive force it implying nothing but what the offender himself freely yielded to at his entrance into this Society All that I can find replyed by any of the Adversaryes of the opinion I here assert to the argument drawn from the Institution and Titles of the Officers of the Church is that all those titles which are given to the Ministers of the Gospel in the New Testament that do import Rule and Government are all to be taken in a Spiritual sense as they are Christs Ministers and Ambassadors to preach his Word and declare his Will to his Church So that all power such persons conceive to lye in those Titles is only Doctrinal and declarative but how true that is let any one judge that considers these things 1. That there was certainly a power of Discipline then in the Churches constituted by the Apostles which is most evident not onely from the passages relating to Offenders in Saint Pauls Epistles especially to the Corinthians and Thessalonians but from the continued Practice of succeeding Ages manifested by Tertullian Cyprian and many others There being then a power of Discipline in Apostolical Churches there was a necessity it should be administred by some Persons who had the care of those Churches and who were they but the severall Pastors of them It being then evident that there was such a Power doth it not stand to common sense it should be implyed in such Titles which in their Naturall Importance do signifie a Right to Govern as the names of Pastors and Rulers do 2. There is a diversity in Scripture made between Pastors and Teachers Ephes. 4. 11. Though this may not as it doth not imply a necessity of two distinct Offices in the Church yet it doth a different respect and connotation in the same person and so imports that Ruling carries in it somewhat more then meer Teaching and so the power implyed in Pastors to be more then meerly Doctrinal which is all I contend for viz. A right to govern the flock committed to their charge 3. What possible difference can be assigned between the Elders that Rule well and those which labour in the Word and Doctrine 1 Timothy 5. 17. if all their Ruling were meerly labouring in the Word and Doctrine and all their Governing nothing but Teaching I intend not to prove an Office of Rulers distinct from Teachers from hence which I know neither this place nor any other will do but that the formal conception of Ruling is different from that of Teaching 4. I argue from the Analogy between the Primitive Churches and the Synagogues that as many of the names were taken from thence where they carried a power of Discipline with them so they must do in some proportion in the Church or it were not easie understanding them It is most certain the Presbyters of the Synagogue had a power of Ruling and can you conceive the Bishops and Presbyters of the Church had none when the Societies were much of the same Constitution and the Government of the one was transscribed from the other as hath been already largely proved 5. The acts attributed to Pastor in Scripture imply a power of Governing distinct from meer Teaching such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for a right to Govern Matth. 2. 6. Revel 12. 5. 19. 15. which word is attributed to Pastors of Churches in reference to their flocks Acts 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed to Ministers when they are so frequently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notes praesidentiam cum potestate for Hesychius renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens had certainly a power of Government in them 6. The very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is attributed to those who have over-sight of Churches 1 Cor. 12. 8. by which it is certainly evident that a power more than Doctrinal is understood as that it could not then be understood of a power meerly civil And this I suppose may suffice to vindicate this Argument from the Titles of Church Officers in the New Testament that they are not insignificant things but the persons who enjoyed them had a right to govern the Society over which the
scandalous and had not repented 2 Cor. 12. 20 21. So in the Jewish Church which lay under great corruptions when our Saviour and his Apostles communicated with it Fourthly Although a Believer joyn with such a Church he is not therefore bound with the guilt nor defiled with the pollutions of others which he proves because it is lawfull to do it and so he contract no guilt by it Fifthly A Believer that hath joyned himself to such a Church is not bound to withdraw and separate from such a Church under pain of guilt if he doth it not because it implyes a contradiction to be lawfull to joyn to such a Church and yet unlawfull to continue in its communion for that speaks it to be a Church and this latter to be no Church and by that he doth imply it to be unlawfull to separate from any Society which is acknowledged to be a true Church Thus for that learned and Reverend man by whom we see that the received Principles of the sober and moderate part of those of that perswasion are not at such a distance from others as many imagine We see then that communicating with a Church not so pure as we desire iâ— no sin by the arguments by him produced And how it should be then lawfull to withdraw from such a Church meerly for purer communion I 〈…〉 stand not This I am sure was not the case of our Churches in their separation from the Church of Rome the main ground of which was the sin of communicating with that Church in her Idolatry and Superstition and the impossibility of communicating with her and not partaking of her sins because she required a profession of her errours and the practise of her Idolatry as the necessary conditions of her communion in which case it is a sin to communicate with her And this leads me now to a closer resolution of the case of withdrawing from Churches in which men have formerly been associated and the grounds which may make such a withdrawing lawfull In order to that we must distinguish between these things First Between corruptions in the doctrine of a Church and corruptions in the practice of a Church Secondly Between corruptions whether in doctrine or practise professed and avowed by a Church and required as conditions of communion in all members of it and corruptions crept in and only tolerated in a Church Thirdly Between non-Communion as to the abuses of a Church and a positive and totall separation from a Church as it is such From these things I lay down these following Propositions First Where any Church is guilty of corruptions both in doctrine and practice which it avoweth and professeth and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of communion with her there a non-communion with that Church is necessary and a totall and positive separation is lawfull and convenient I have said already that the necessity and lawfulnesse of this departing from communion with any Church is wholly to be resolved by an inquiry into the grounds and reasons of the action it self So that the matter of fact must of necessity be discussed before the matter of Law as to separation from the Church be brought into debate If there be a just and necessary cause for separation it must needs be just and necessary therefore the cause must be the ground of resolving the nature of the â—ction Schism then is a separation from any Church upon any slight triviall unnecessary cause but if the cause be great and important a Departure it may be Schism it cannot be They who define Schism to be a voluntary separation from the Church of God if by voluntary they mean that where the will is the cause of it the definition stands good and true for that must needs be groundless and unnecessary as to the Church it self but if by voluntary be meant a spontaneous departing from communion with a Church which was caused by the corruptions of that Church then a separation may be so voluntary and yet no Schism for though it be voluntary as to the act of departing yet that is only consequentially supposing a cause sufficient to take such a resolution but what is voluntary antecedently that it hath no other Motive but faction and humour that is properly Schism and ought so to be looked upon But in our present case three things are supposed as the causes and motives to such a forsaking communion First Corruption in Doctrine the main ligature of a religious Society is the consent of it in Doctrine with the rule of Religion the Word of God Therefore any thing which tends to subvert and overthrow the foundation of the gathering such a Society which is the profession and practice of the true Religion yields sufficient ground to withdraw from communion with those who professe and maintain it Not that every small errour is a just ground of separation for then there would be no end of separation and men must separate from one another till knowledge comes to its perfection which will only be in glory but any thing which either directly or consequentially doth destroy any fundamental article of Christian faith Which may be as well done by adding to fundamental articles as by plain denying them And my reason is this because the very ratio of a fundamentall article doth imply not only its necessity to be believed and practised and the former in reference to the latter for things are therefore necessary to be known because necessary to be done and not è contrà but likewise its sufficiency as to the end for which it is called Fundamentall So that the articles of faith called Fundamentall are not only such as are necessary to be believed but if they be are sufficient for salvation to all that do believe them Now he that adds any thing to be believed or done as fundamentall that is necessary to salvation doth thereby destroy the sufficiency of those former articles in order to salvation for if they were sufficient how can new ones be necessary The case wil be clear by an Instance Who assert the satisfaction of Christ for sinners to be a fundamentall article and thereby do imply the sufficiency of the belief of that in order to salvation now if a Pope or any other command me to believe the meritoriousnesse of good works with the satisfaction of Christ as necessary to salvation by adding this he destroyes the former as a fundamentall article for if Christs satisfaction be sufficient how can good works be meritorious and if this latter be necessary the other was not for if it were what need this be added Which is a thing the Papists with their new Creed of Pius the fourth would do well to consider and others too who so confidently assert that none of their errours touch the foundation of faith Where there is now such corruption in Doctrine supposed in a Church withdrawing and separation from such a Church is as necessary as the
avoiding of her errours and not partaking of her sins is Thence we read in Scripture of rejecting such as are hereticks and withdrawing from their society which will as well hold to Churches as to persons and so much the more as the corruption is more dangerous and the relation nearer of a member to a Church then of one man to another And from the reason of that command we read in Ecclesiasticall History that when Eulalius Euphronius and Placentius were constituted Bishops of Antioch being Arrians many both of the Clergy and people who resolved to adhere to the true faith withdrew from the publike meetings and had private Assemblies of their own And after when Leontius was made Bishop of Antioch who favour'd the Arrians Flavianus and Diodorus not only publikely reproved him for deserting the Orthodox faith but withdrew the people from communion with him and undertook the charge of them themselves So when Foelix was made Bishop of Rome none of the Church of Rome would enter into the Church while he was there And Vincentius Lyrinensis tells us a remarkable story of Photinus Bishop of Syrmium in Pannonia a man of great abilities and same who suddenly turned from the true faith and though his people both loved and admired him yet when they discerned his errours Quem antea quasi arietem gregis sequebantur eundem deinceps veluti lupum fugere coeperunt Whom they followed before as the leader of the flock they now run away from as a devouring woolf This is the first thing which makes separation and withdrawment of communion lawfull and necessary viz. corruption of Doctrine The second is Corruption of practice I speak not of practice as relating to the civil conversation of men but as it takes in the Agenda of Religion When Idolatrous customs and superstitious practices are not only crept into a Church but are the prescribed devotion of it Such as the adoration of the Eucharist chiefly insisted on by Mr. Daillé in his Apology as a cause of separation from the Church of Rome invocation of Saints and Angels worshipping Images and others of a like nature used among the Papists which are of themselves sufficient to make our separation from them necessary But then thirdly as an accession to these two is the publike owning and professing them and requiring them as necessary conditions of communion from all the members of their Church which makes our withdrawing from them unavoidably necessary as long as we judge them to be such corruptions as indeed they are For men not to forsake the belief of errours supposing them to be such is impossible and not to forsake the practice and profession of them upon such belief were the highest hypocrisie and to do so and not to forsake the communion of that Church where these are owned is apparently contradictious as Mr. Chilling worth well observes seeing the condition of communion with it is that we must professe to believe all the doctrines of that Church not only not to be errours but to be certain and necessary truths So that on this account to believe there are any errours in the Church of Rome is actually and ipso facto to forsake the communion of that Church because the condition of its communion is the belief that there are none And so that learned and rationall Author there fully proves that those who require unlawfull and unnecessary conditions of communion must take the imputation of Schism upon themselves by making separation from them just and necessary In this case when corruptions in opinion or practice are thus required as conditions of communion it is impossible for one to communicate with such a Church without sin both materially as the things are unlawfull which he joyns with them in and formally as he judgeth them so This is the first Proposition The second is Where a Church retains the purity of doctrine in its publick profession but hath a mixture of some corruptions as to practice which are only tolerated and not imposed it is not lawfull to withdraw communion from such a Church much lesse to run into totall separation from it For here is no just and lawfull cause given of withdrawing here is no owned corruption of doctrine or practice nor any thing required as a condition of communion but what is in its self necessary and therefore there can be no plea but only pollution from such a communion which cannot be to any who do not own any such supposed corruptions in the Church Men may communicate with a Church and not communicate with the abuses of a Church for the ground of his communicating is its being a Church and not a corrupt or defective Church And that men are not themselves guilty by partaking with those who are guilty of corruptions in a Church might be easily and largely proved both from the Church of the Jews in the case of Elies sons and the Christian Churches of Asâ—â— and Corinth where we read of many corruptions reproved yet nothing spoken of the duty of the members of those Churches to separate from them which would have been had it been a sin to communicate with those Churches when such corruptions were in it Besides what reason is there that one mans sins should defile another more then anothers graces sanctifie another and why corruption in another should defile him more then in himself and so keep him from communicating with himself and what security any one can have in the most refined Churches but that there is some scandalous or at least unworthy person among them and whether then it is not his duty to try and examine all himself particularly with whom he communicates and why his presence at one Ordinance should defile it more then at another and why at any more then in wordly converse and so turn at last to make men Anchorets as it hath done some Many other reasons might be produced against this which I forbear it being fully spoke to by others And so I come to the Third Proposition which is Where any Church retaining the purity of doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawfull or suspected practice men may lawfully deny conformity to and communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schism I say not men may proceed to positive Schism as it is call'd that is erecting of new Churches which from Cyprian is call'd erigere Altare contra Altare but only that withdrawing communion from a Church in unlawfull or suspected things doth not lay men under the guilt of Schism which because I know it may meet with some opposition from those men who will sooner call men Schismaticks then prove them so I shall offer this reason for it to consideration If our separation from the Church of Rome was therefore lawfull because she required unlawfull things as conditions of her communion then where-ever such things are required by any Church non-communion
call'd the Ruler of the Synagogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the importance of the New Testament Greek following that of the Alexandrian Iews in the version of the Old Testament implyes no more then a primacy of order in him above the rest he was joyned with And thence sometimes we read of them in the Plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 13. 15. implying thereby an equality of power in many but by reason of the necessary primacy of one in order above the rest the name may be appropriated to the President of the Colledge Acts 18. 8 17. we read of two viz. Crispus and Sosthenes and either of them is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which could not be did the name import any peculiar power of Jurisdiction lodged in one exclusive of the rest unlesse we make them to be of two Synagogues which we have no evidence at all for I confesse Beza his argument from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 5. 22. for a multitude of those so call'd in the same Synagogue is of no great force where we may probably suppose there were many Synagogues But where there is no evidence of more then one in a place and we find the name attributed to more then one we have ground to think that there is nothing of power or Jurisdiction in that one which is not common to more besides himself But granting some peculiarity of honour belonging to one above the rest in a Synagogue which in some places I see no great reason to to deny yet that implyes not any power over and above the Bench of which he was a Member though the first in order Much as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince of the Sanhedrin whose place imported no power peculiar to himself but only a Priority of dignity in himself above his fellow Senators as the Princeps Senatûs in the Roman Republick answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the great Sanhedrin who was next to the Nasi as the Princeps Senatûs to the Consuls which was only a Honorary Dignity and nothing else Under which disguise that Politick Prince Augustus ravished the Roman Commonwealth of its former liberty The name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may I suppose in propriety of speech be rendred in Latin Magister ordinis he being by his Office Praesul a name not originally importing any power but only dignity Those whom the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latins render Magistros sui ordinis and so Suetonius interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Magisterium sacerdotii They who meet then with the name Archisynagogues either in Lampridius Vopiscus Codex Theodosii Iustinians Novels in all whom it occurs and in some places as distinct from Presbyters will learn to understand thereby only the highest honour in the Synagogue considering how little yea nothing of power the Jews enjoyed under either the Heathen or Christian Emperours One thing more we add touching this honour of the Rulers of the Synagogue among the Jews that whatever honour title power or dignity is imported by that name it came not from any Law enforcing or commanding it but from mutual conâ—oederation and agreement among the persons imployed in the Synagogue whose natural reason did dictate that where many have an equality of power it is most convenient by way of accumulation upon that person of a power more then he had but not by deprivation of themselves of that inherent power which they enjoyed to entrust the management of the executive part of affairs of common concernment to one person specially chosen and deputed thereunto So it was in all the Sanhedrins among the Jews and in all well-ordered Senates and Councils in the World And it would be very strange that any Officers of a religious Society should upon that account be out-Lawed of those natural Liberties which are the results and products of the free actings of Reason Which things as I have already observed God hath looked on to be so natural to man as when he was most strict and punctual in ceremonial Commands he yet left these things wholly at liberty For we read not of any command that in the Sanhedrin one should have some peculiarity of honour above the rest this mens natural reason would prompt them to by reason of a necessary priority of Order in some above others which the very instinct of Nature hath taught irrational creatures much more should the Light of Reason direct men to But yet all order is not power nor all power juridical nor all juridical power a sole power therefore it is a meer Paralogism in any from Order to inferr power or from a delegated power by consent to inferr a juridical power by Divine Right or lastly from a power in common with others to deduce a power excluding others All which they are guilty of who meerly from the name of an Archisynagogue would fetch a perpetual necessity of jurisdiction in one above the Elders joyned with him or from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sanhedrin a power of a sole Ordination in one without the consent of his fellow Senators But of these afterwards Thus much may suffice for a draught in little of the Government of the Jewish Synagogue Having thus far represented the Jewish Synagogue that the Idea of its government may be formed in our understandings we now come to consider how far and in what the Apostles in forming Christian Churches did follow the pattern of the Jewish Synagogue Which is a notion not yet so far improved as I conceive it may be and I know no one more conducible to the happy end of composing our differences touching the government of the Church then this is I shall therefore for the full clearing of it premise some general considerations to make way for the entertainment of this hypothesis in mens minds at least as probable and then endeavour particularly to shew how the Apostles did observe the model of the Synagogue in its publike service in ordination of Church Officers in forming Presbyteries in the several Churches in ruling and governing those Presbyteries The general consideration I premise to shew the probability of what I am asserting shall be from these things from the community of name and customs between the believing Iews and others at the first forming of Churches from the Apostles forming Churches out of Synagogues in their travelling abroad from the agreeablenesse of that model of Government to the State of the Christian Churches at that time I begin with the first From the community of names and customs between the believing and unbelieving Iews at the first forming Churches All the while our blessed Saviour was living in the World Christ and his Disciples went still under the name of Jews they neither renounced the name nor the customs in use among them Our Saviour goes up to the