Besides if either that place of Ioel or that of Ieremy cited Heb. 8. 11. or the Unction of the Spirit 1 John 2. 20 27. did take away the use of preaching how did the Apostles themselves understand their meaning when they were so diligent in preaching and instructing others Iohn writes to those to try the Spirits of whom he saith They have an Unction to know all things and those to whom the Apostle writes that they need not teach every one his Neighbour of them he saith that they had need to be taught the first principles of the Oracles of God And even in that very Chapter where he seems to say they that are under the New Covenant need not be taught he brings that very Speech in as an argument that the old dispensation of the Law was done away And so goes about to teach when he seems to take away the use of it These Speeches then must not be understood in their absolute and literal sense but with a reflection upon and comparison with the state of things in the times wherein those Prophecies were utter'd For God to heighten the Jews apprehensions of the great blessings of the Gospel doth set them forth under a kind of Hyperbolical expressions that the dull capacity of the Jews might at least apprehend the just weight and magnitude of them which they would not otherwise have done So in that place of Ieremy God to make them understand how much the knowledge of the Gospel exceeded that under the Law doth as it were set it down in this Hyperbolicall way that it will exceed it as much as one that needs no teaching at all doth one that is yet but in his rudiments of learning So that the place doth not deny the use of teaching under the Gospel but because Teaching doth commonly suppose ignorance to shew the great measure of knowledge he doth it in that way as though the knowledge should be so great that men should not need be taught in such a way of Rudiments as the Jews were viz by Types and Ceremonies and such things We see then no such dispensation was in the Apostles times for the same Apostle after this in Chapt. 10. 25. bids them not to forsake the Assembling themselves together as some did Wherefore were these Assemblies but for Instruction and in the last Chapter bids them obey their Rulers What need Rulers if no need of Teaching But so sensless a dream will be too much honour'd with any longer confutation In the Apostles times then there was no such dispensation of the Spirit which did take away the use of Ministry and Ordinances If it be expected since their times I would know whence it appears that any have a greater measure of the Spirit then was poured out in the Apostles times for then the Ministry was joyned with the Spirit and what Prophecies are fulfilled now which were not then Or if they pretend to a Doctrine distinct from and above what the Apostles taught let them produce their evidences and work those miracles which may induce men to believe them Or let them shew what obligation any have to believe pretended new Revelations without a power of miracles attesting that those Revelations come from God Or whereon men must build their faith if it be left to the dictates of a pretended Spirit of Revelation Or what way is left to discern the good Spirit from the bad in its actings upon mens minds if the Word of God be not our Rule still Or how God is said to have spoken in the last dayes by his Son if a further speaking be yet expected For the Gospel-dispensation is therefore called the Last dayes because no other is to be expected Times being differenced in Scripture according to Gods wayes of revealing himself to men But so much for this The second way whereby to know when Positive Lawes are unalterable is when God hath declared that such Lawes shall bind still Two wayes whereby God doth express his own Will concerning the perpetuity of an Office founded on his own Institution First if such things be the work belonging to it which are of necessary and perpetual use Secondly if God hath promised to assist them in it perpetually in the doing of their work First the Object of the Ministerial Office are such things which are of necessary and perpetual use I mean the Administration of Gospel-Ordinances viz. the Word and Sacraments which were appointed by Christ for a perpetual Use. The Word as a means of Conversion and Edification the Sacraments not onely as notes of distinction of Professors of the true faith from others but as Seals to confirm the Truth of the Covenant on Gods part towards us and as Instruments to convey the blessings sealed in the Covenant to the hearts of Believers Now the very Nature of these things doth imply their perpetuity and continuance in the world as long as there shall be any Church of God in it For these things are not typi rerum futurarum only Ceremonies to represent somthing to come but they are symbola rerum invisibilium signs to represent to our Senses things invisible in their own Nature and between these two there is a great difference as to the perpetuity of them For Types of things as to come must of necessity expire when the thing typified appears but representation of invisible things cannot expire on that account because the thing represented as invisible cannot be supposed to be made visible and so to evacuate the use of the Signes which represents them to us Types represent a thing which is at present invisible but under the Notion of it as future Symbols represent a thing at present invisible but as present and therefore Symbols are designed by Gods Institution for a perpetuall help to the weakness of our Faith And therefore the Lords Supper is appointed to set forth the Lords Death till he come whereby the continuance of it in the Church of God is necessarily implied Now then if these things which are the proper object of the Ministerial Function be of a perpetual Nature when these things are declared to be of an abiding Nature it necessarily follows that that Function to which it belongs to administer these things must be of a perpetual Nature Especially if we consider in the second place that Christ hath promised to be with them continually in the administration of these things For that notwithstanding the dust lately thrown upon it we have a clear place Matth. 28. 19. Go teach and baptize c. Loe I am with you alwayes to the end of the World If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not signifie perpetuity yet certainly the latter words do for how could Christ be with the Apostles themselves personally to the end of the World It must be therefore with them and all that succeed them in the Office of Teaching and Baptizing to the Worlds end For that I
Worship we have reason to look upon as one of those planks which hath escaped the common shipwrack of humane nature by the fall of man And so though that argument from the generall consent of Nations owning a way of Worship though a false one in order to the proving the existence of God be slighted by some yet there is this double evidence in it to prove it more then is generally taken notice of and beyond the bare testimony its self given by that consent First From mens being so easily imposed upon by false Religions in that they are so soon gull'd into Idolatry it argues there are some Jewels in the World or else men would never be deceived with counterfeits It argues that a Child hath a Father who is ready to call every one that comes to him Father So it argues there is some naturall instinct in men towards the Worship of God when men are so easily brought to worship other things instead of God We see no other creatures can be so imposed upon we read of no Idolatry among the Brutes nor that the Bees though they have a King and honour him did ever bow their Knees to Baal or worship the Hive instead of him If men had no journeys to go others need not be sworn as the Athenians were not to put them out of their way If there were no inclinableness to Religion all cautions against Idolatry were superfluous there is then from mens proness to error as to the person and object of Worship an evidence of naturall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an instinct within towards the act of Worship And as when I see sheep flock together even in their wandrings I may easily gather that though they are out of their proper pastures yet they are of a tame and sociable nature So when we see Societies for Worship were preserved among men after they were degenerated into Idolatry it is an evident argument that such associating together for the generall nature of the act doth flow from the nature of man Secondly All mens agreeing in some kind of Worship though differing as to the object and manner of it is an evidence it comes from Nature because it plainly evinces it could be nothing taken up out of design received by custome nor convey'd by tradition because even among those whose interests and designs have been contrary to one another and could have no mutuall compacts to deceive their people have all agreed in this thing though almost in all other things they have strangely differ'd All other Customs and Traditions are either changed or lost among severall Nations as the rude barbarous Northern Nations that in their inrodes and incursions upon other places have left in process of time almost all other customs but only their Religion behind them This sticks closer then Saladines black shirt or the old Monks cloathes which they put not off till they dyed Nay even those Nations who openly and as by a Law violate the other received dictates of Nature do yet maintain and hold up this Those that have had the least of commerce and converse with civilized people have yet had their societies for worship And when they could find no gods to worship they would rather make then want them The Egyptians would rather spoyl their Sallets then be without gods and they that whipt their gods yet had them still They who had no sense of another life yet would pray to their gods for the good things of this and they that would not pray that the gods would do them good yet would that they might do them no hurt So that in the most prodigious Idolatry we have an argument for Religion and in the strange diversities of the wayes of worship we have an evidence how naturall a society for worship is This to shew the validity and force of the Argument drawn from Consent of Nations even in their Idolatry Three things I shall evidence these Societies for Worship among the Heathens by the solemnity of their Sacrifices their publick Festivals and their secret Mysteries all which were instituted peculiarly in honour of their gods It being necessary in such Societies for Worship to have some particular Rites whereby to testifie the end of such Societies to be for the honour of their Deity and to distinguish those solemnities from all other First then for Sacrifices Paulus Burgensis observing how this custome spread all the World over concludes from thence that it was naturall to men In qualibet aetate apud quaslibet hominum nationes semper fuit aliqua sacrificiorum oblatio Quod autem est apud omnes naturale est Thus far I confesse sacrificing naturall as it was a solemn and sensible Rite of Worship but if he meant by that the destroying of some living creatures to be offered up to God I both deny the universall practice of it and its being from the dictate of Nature and I rather believe with Fortunius Licetus that it was continued down by Tradition from the sacrifices of Cain and Abel before the flood or rather from Noahs after which might the easier be because Nature dictating there must be some way of worship and it being very agreeable to Nature it should be by sensible signs all Nations having no other Rule to direct them were willing to observe that Rite and Custome in it which was conveyed down to them from their Progenitors But let us see what reason Burgensis gives Ratio naturalis dictat ut secundum naturalem inclinationem homines ei quod est supra omnes subjectionem exhibeant secundum modum homini convenientem Qui quidem modus est ut sensibilibus signis utatur ad exprimendum interiorem conceptum sicut ex sensibilibus cognitionem accipit invisibilium Unde ex naturali ratione procedit quod homo sensibilibus signis utatur offerens eas Deo in signum subjectionis honoris ad similitudinem eorum qui Dominis suis aliquid offerunt in recognitionem Dominii But all this will extend no further then that it is very agreeable to naturall reason that as man attains the knowledge of invisible things by visible so he should expresse his sense of invisible things by some visible signs thereby declaring subjection to God as his Lord and Master as Tenants expresse their Homage to their Lord by offering something to them And I withall acknowledge that as to oblations without blood they seem indeed very naturall Whence we shall somewhat largely discover the antiquity of the Feasts of first-fruits which were the clearest acknowledgement of their dependance upon God and receiving these things from him Aristotle tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the most ancient sacrifices and Assemblies appear to have been upon the in-gathering of fruits such as the sacrifices of first-fruits to the gods were To the same purpose Porphyrius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first sacrifices were of first-fruits And Horace Agricolae prisci fortes
understanding of the truth and certainty of Christian Religion For when once the mind of any rational man is so far wrought upon by the influence of the Divine Spirit as to discover the most rational and undoubted evidences which there are of the truth of Christianity he is presently obliged to profess Christ openly to worship him solemnly to assemble with others for instruction and participation of Gospel Ordinances and thence it follows that there is an antecedent Obligation upon Conscience to associate with others and consequently to consent to be governed by the Rulers of the Society which he enters into So that this submission to the power of Church Officers in the exercise of Discipline upon Offenders is implyed in the very conditions of Christianity and the solemn professing and undertaking of it 2. It were impossible any Society should be upheld if it be not laid by the founder of the Society as the necessary Duty of all members to undergo the penalties which shall be inflicted by those who have the care of governing that Society so they be not contrary to the Laws Nature and Constitution of it Else there would be no provision made for preventing divisions and confusions which will happen upon any breach made upon the Laws of the Society Now this Obligation to submission to censures doth speak something antecedentaly to the confederation although the expression of it lies in the confederation its self By this I hope we have made it evident that it is nothing else but a mistake in those otherwise Learned persons who make the power of censures in the Christian Church to be nothing else but a Lex confederata Disciplinae whereas this power hath been made appear to be deâ—ived from a higher Original than the meer Arbitrary consent of the several members of the Church associating together And how farre the examples of the Synagogues under the Law are from reaching that of Christian Churches in reference to this because in these the power is conveyed by the Founder of the Society and not left to any arbitrary constitutions as it was among the Iews in their Synagogues It cannot be denied but consent is supposed and confederation necessary in order to Church power but that is rather in regard of the exercise then the original of it For although I affirm the original of thiâ— power to be of Divine Institution yet in order to the exercise of it in reference to particular persons who are not mentioned in the Charter of the power its self it is necessary that the persons on whom it is exerted should declare their consent and submission either by words or actions to the Rules and Orders of this Society Having now proved that the Power of the Church doth not arise from meer consent of parties the next grand Inquiry is concerning the extent of this power Whether it doth reach so far as to Excommunication For some men who will not seem wholly to deny all power in the Church over Offenders nor that the Church doth subsist by Divine Institution yet do wholly deny any such power as that of Excommunication and seem rather to say that Church-Officers may far more congrâ—ously to their Office inflict any other mulct upon Offenders then exclude them from participation of Communion with others in the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel In order therefore to the clearing of this I come to the third Proposition That the power which Christ hath given to the Officers of his Church doth extend to the exclusion of contumacious Offenders from the priviledges which this Society enjoyes In these terms I rather choose to fix it then in those crude expressions wherein Erastus and some of his followers would state the question and some of their imprudent adversaries have accepted it viz. Whether Church Officers have power to exclude any from the Eucharist ob moralem impuritatem And the reasons why I wave those terms are 1. I must confess my self yet unsatisfied as to any convincing Argument whereby it can be proved that any were denyed admission to the Lords Supper who were admitted to all other parts of Church-Society and owned as members in them I cannot yet see any particular Reason drawn from the Nature of the Lords-Supper above all other parts of Divine worship which should confine the censures of the Church meerly to that Ordinance and so to make the Eucharist bear the same Office in the Body of the Church which our new Anatomists tell us the parenchyme of the Liver doth in the natural Body viz. to be colâ—â—â— sanguinis to serve as a kind of strainer to separate the more gross and faeculent parts of the Blood from the more pure and spirituous so the Lord's Supper to strain out the more impure members of the Church from the more Holy and Spiritual My judgement then is that Excommunication relates immediately to the cutting a person off from Communion with the Churches visible Society constituted upon the ends it is but because Communion iâ— not visibly discerned but in Administration and Participation of Gospel Ordinances therefore Exclusion doth chiefly referre to these and because the Lords Supper is one of the highest privilledges which the Church enjoyes therefore it stands to reason that censures should begin there And in that sense suspension from the Lords Supper of persons apparently unworthy may be embraced as a prudent lawful and convenient abatement of the greater penalty of Excommunication and so to stand on the same general grounds that the other doth for Qui pâ—test majus potest etiam minus which will hold as well in moral as natural power iâ— there be no prohibition to the contrary nor peculiar Reason as to the one more then to the oâ—her 2. I dislike the terms ob moralem impuritatem on this account Because I suppose they were taken up by Erastus and from him by others as the Controversie was managed concerning Excommunication among the Iâ—wes viz. whether it were â—meerly because of Ceremonial or else likewise because of moral impurity As to which I must ingenuously acknowledge Erastus hath very much the advantage of his adversaries clearly proving that no persons under the Law were excluded the Temple Worship because of moral impurity But then withall I think he hath gained little advantage to his cause by the great and successfull pains he hath taken in the proving of that My reason is because the Temple-Worship or the sacrifices under the Law were in some sense propitiatory as they were the adumbrations of that grand Sacrifice which was to be offered up for the appeasing of Gods wrath viz. The Blood of Christ therefore to have excluded any from participation of them had been to exclude them from the visible way of obtaining pardon of sin which was not to be had without shedding of Blood as the Apostle tells us and from testifying their Faith towards God and Repentance from dead works But now under the Gospel those
which are the dishonour of the Society 1 Corinth 4. 1. the spreading of such corruptions further if they pass uncensured 1 Corinth 5. 6. and amendment of the person 1 Cor. 5. 5. Upon these pillars the power of censures rests it self in the Church of God which are the main grounds of penalties in all Societies whatsoever viz. the preservation of the honour of them and preventing of further mischief and doing good to the offending party And that which seems to add a great deal oâ— weight to this instance is that the Apostle checks the Corinthians that before the exercise of the Apostolical Rod they were not of themselves sensible of so great a dishonour to the Church as that was and had not used some means for the removing such a person from their Society And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that hee that hath done this deed may be taken away from among you 1 Corinth 5. 2. Therein implying that whether there had been such a thing in the Church or no as the Apostolical Rod it had been the duty of a Christian Society to have done their endeavour in order to the removing such a person from their number But further I cannot understand how it should bee a duty in Christians to withdraw from every brother who walketh disorderly and Church-Officers not to have power to pronounce such a person to be withdrawn from which amounts to excommunication It is not to mee at all material whether they did immediately relate to Civil or Sacred converse concerning which there is so much dispute for in which soever we place it if Church-officers have a power to pronounce such a person to be withdrawn from they have a power of excommunication so we consider this penalty as inflicted on the person in his relation to the Society as a Christian and wiâ—hall how neerly conjoyned their civil and spiritual eating were together 1 Corinth 11. 20 21. and how strongly the argument will hold from Civil to Sacred viz. à remotione unius ad remotionem alterius not from any fancied pollution in Sacris from the company of wicked men but from the dishonour reflecting on the Society from such unworthy persons parâ—aking of the hâ—ghest priviledges of it Thus from these three Hypotheses this Corollary follows that where any persons in a Church do by their open and contumacious offences declare to the world that they are far from being the persons they were supposed to be in their admission into the Church there is a power resident in the Pastors of the Church to debar such persons from the priviledges of it and consequently from Communion in the Lords Supper 1. Because this expresseth the nearest union and closest confederation as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Grecians Commonwealths did 2. Because this hath been alwayes looked on with greatest veneration in the Church of God and therefore it is least of all fit those persons should be admitted to the highest priviledges of the Church which are unworthy of the lowest of them There remain only some few Objections which are levelled against this opinion concerning the power of excommunication which from the Question being thus stated and proved will be soon removed The first is that this excommunication is an outward punishment and therefore belongs not to Church officers but to the Magistrate 2. Because it neither is nor ever was in the power of any Church officer to debar any offending member from publick worship because any Heathens may come to it 3. It cannot lye as to exclusion from the Lords Supper because Christ is offered as spiritual food as well in the Word Preached as in the Sacrament To these I answer 1. I do not well understand what the Objectors mean by an outward punishment for there can be no punishment belonging to a visible Society such as the Church is here considered to be but it must be visible i. e. outward or a thing to be taken notice of in the World and in this sense I deny that all visible punishment belongs only to the Magistrate but if by outward be meanâ— forcible punishment then I grant that all coactive power belongs to the Magistrate but I deny that excommunication formally considered is a forcible punishment 1. Because every person at his entrance into this Society is supposed to declare his submission to the rules of the Society and therefore whatever he after undergoes by way of penalty in this Society doth depend upon that consent 2. A person stands excommunicate legally and de jure who is declared authoritatively to be no member of the Society though he may be present at the acts of it as a defranchised person may be at those of a Corporation 3. A person falling into those offences which merit excommunication is supposed in so doing voluntarily to renounce his interest in those priviledges the enjoyment of which doth depend upon abstaining from those offences which he wilfully falls into especially if contumacy be joyned with them a 〈…〉 is before excommunication for then nothing is done forcibly towards him for he first relinquisheth his right before the Church-Governor declares him excluded the Society So that the offender doth meritoriously excommunicate himself the Pastor doth it formally by declaring that he hath made himself no member by his offences and contumacy joyned with them To the second I answer That I do not place the formality of excommunication in exclusion from hearing the Word but in debarring the person from hearing tanquam pars Ecclesiae as a member of the Church and so his hearing may be well joyned with that of Heathens and Infidels and not of members of the Church To the third I answer That exclusion from the Lords Supper is not on the accounts mentioned in the Objection but because it is one of the chiefest priviledges of the Church as it is a visible Society Having thus cleared and asserted the power of Excommunication in a Christian church there remains only one enquiry more which is Whether this power doth remain formally in the Church after its being incorporated into the Common wealth or else doth it then escheate wholly into the Civil Power The resolution of which question mainly depends on another spoken to already viz. Whether this power was only a kind of Widows estate which belonged to it only during its separation from the Civil Power or was the Church absolutely infeoffed of it as its perpetual Right belonging to it in all conditions whatsoever it should be in Now that must appear by the Tenure of it and the grounds on which it was conveyed which having been proved already to be perpetual and universal it from thence appears that no accession to the Church can invalidate its former title But then as in case of marriage the right of disposal and well management of the estate coming by the wife belongs to the husband so after the Church is married into the Common-wealth the
Government All Power in Christs hands for Governing the Church What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World Calling the Apostles the first action respecting outward Government Three steps of the Apostles calling to be Disciples in their first mission in their plenary Commission Several things observed upon them pertinent to our purpose The Name and Office of Apostles cleared An equality among them proved during our Saviours life Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The pleas for it answered The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered with the nature and quality of their Office Matth. 20. 25 26. largely discussed and explained It excludes all civil power but makes not all inequality in Church-Officers unlawful by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches Matth. 18. 15 16 17. fully inquired into No evidence for any one Form from thence because equally applyed to several What the offences are there spoken of What the Church spoken to Not an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Iews nor yet the civil Sanhedrin as Erastus and his followers explain it nor a Consistorial or Congregational Church under the Gospel but onely a select company for ending private differences among Christians p. 200 CHAP. VI. THe next and chief thing pleaded for determining the Form of Church-Government is Apostolical practice two things inquired into concerning that what it was how far it binds The Apostles invested with the power and authority of governing the whole Church of Christ by their Commission Iohn 20. 21. Matth. 28. 19. What the Apostles did in order to Church-Government before Pentecost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained No division of Provinces made among the Apostles then made appear by several Arguments Whether Paul and Peter were conâ—ined one to the circumcision the other to the uncircumcision and different Churches erected by them in the same Cities What course the Apostles took in setling the Government of particular Churches Largely proved that they observed the customs of the Iewish Synagogue The model of the Synagogue Government described Whether peculiar Ordination for the Synagogue Officers The service of the Synagogue set forth with the Officers belonging to it Grounds proving that the Apostles copied forth the the Synagogue modell Community of names and customs between Iews and Christians then Forming Churches out of Synagogues Whether any distinct Coetus of Jewish and Gentile Christians in the same Cities Correspondency of the Church with the Synagogue in the orders of publick Service In the custome of Ordination Ierom explained The power of Ordination in whom it lodgeth in the Christian Church The opinions of Ierom and Aerins considered The name of Presbyters and Bishops explained Three general considerations touching Apostolical practice 1. That we cannot attain to such a certainty of Apostolical practice as thereon to ground a divine right The uncertainty of Apostolical practice as to us fully discovered 1. From the equivalency of the names which should determine the controversie 2. In that the places in controversie may without incongruity be understood of the different forms 3. From the defectiveness ambiguity partiality and repugnancy of the Records of Antiquity which should inform us what the Apostolical practice was These fully discoursed upon The testimonies of Eusebius Irenaeus Tertullian Hilary Ierom and Ignatius discussed and these two last proved not to contradict each other Episcopacy owned as a humane Instituiion by the sense of the Church 2. Consideration That in all probability the Apostles did not observe any one fixed course of settling Church Government but settled it according to the several circumstances of time places and persons Several things premised for clearing it This Opinion though seemingly New is proved at large to be most consonant to antiquity by the several Testimonies of Clemens Rom. Alexandrinus Epiphanius whose Testimony is corrected explained and vindicated Hilary and divers others This Opinion of great consequence towards our present peace No foundation for Lay-Elders either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Consideration Meer Apostoliâ—al practice if supposed founds not any divine right proved by a fourfold Argument The right of Tithes resolved upon the same Principles with that of Church Government Rites and Institutions Apostolical grown quite out of use among the several contending parties p. 230. CHAP. VII THE Churches Polity in the ages after the Apostles considered Evidences thence that no certain unalterable Form of Church-Government was delivered to them 1. Because Church Power did inlarge as the Churches did Whether any Metropolitan Churches established by the Apostles Seven Churches of Asia whether Metropolitical Philippi no Metropolis either in Civil or Ecclesiastical sense Several degrees of inlargement of Churches Churches first the Christians in whole Cities proved by several arguments the Eulogiae an evidence of it Churches extended into the neighbour territories by the preaching there of City Presbyters thence comes the subordination between them Churches by degrees inlarged to Diocesses from thence to Provinces The Original of Metropolitans and Patriarches 2. No certain Form used in all Churches Some Churches without Bishops Scots Goths Some with but one Bishop in their whole Countrey Scythian Aethiopian Churches how governed Many Cities without Bishops Diocesses much altered Bishops discontinued in several Churches for many years 3. Conforming Ecclesiastical Government to the civil in the extent of Diocesses The suburbicarian Churches what Bishops answerable to the civil Governours Churches power rises from the greatness of Cities 4. Validity of Ordination by Presbyters in places where Bishops were The case of Ischyras discussed instances given of Ordination by Presbyters not pronounced null 5. The Churches prudence in managing its affairs by the several Canons Provincial Synods Codex Canonum p. 346 CHAP. VIII AN Inquiry into the Iudgement of Reformed Divines concerning the unalterable Divine Right of particular Forms of Church-Government wherein it is made appear that the most emine nt Divines of the Reformation did never conceive any one Form necessary manifested by three arguments 1. From the judgment of those who make the Form of Church-Government mutable and to depend upon the wisdom of the Magistrate and Church This cleared to have been the judgement of most Divines of the Church of England since the Reformation Archbishop Cranmers judgements with others of the Reformation in Edward the Sixth time now first published from his authentick MS. The same ground of setling Episcopacy in Queen Elizabeth's time The judgement of Archbishop Whitgift Bishop Bridges Dr. Loe Mr. Hooker largely to that purpose in King Iames his time The Kings own Opinion Dr. Sutâ—â—ffe Since of Grakanthorp Mr. Hales Mr. Chillingworth The Testimony of Forraign Divines to the same purpose Chemnitius Zanchy French Divines Peter Moulin Fregevil Blondel Bochartus Amyraldus Other learned men Grotius Lord Bacon c. 2. Those who look upon equality as the Primitive Form yet judge Episcopacy lawful Augâ—stane Confession Melanchthon Articuli Smalcaldici Prince of Anhalt Hyperius Hemingiâ—s The practice of most
our present case According to this sense of jus for that which is lawful those things may be said to be jure divino which are not determined one way or other by any positive Law of God but are left wholly as things lawful to the prudence of men to determine them in a way agreeable to natural light and the general Rules of the Word of God In which sense I assert any particular form of Government agreed on by the Governours of the Church consonant to the general Rules of Scripture to be by Divine Right i. e. God by his own Laws hath given men a power and liberty to determine the particular form of Church-Government among them And hence it may appear that though one form of Government be agreeable to the Word it doth not follow that another is not or because one is lawful another is unlawful but one form may be more agreeable to some parts places people and times then others are In which case that form of Government is to be setled which is most agreeable to the present state of a place and is most advantagiously conducible to the promoting the ends of Church-Government in that place or Nation I conclude then according to this sense of jus that the Ratio regiminis Ecclesiastici is juris divini naturalis that is that the reason of Church-Government is immutable and holds in all times and places which is the preservation of the peace and unity of the Church but the modus regiminis Ecclesiastici the particular form of that Government is juris divini permissivi that both the Laws of God and Nature have left it to the Prudence of particular Churches to determine it This may be cleared by a parallel Instance The reason and the Science of Physick is immutable but the particular prescriptions of that Science are much varied according to the different tempers of Patients And the very same reason in Physick which prescribes one sort of Physick to one doth prescribe a different sort to another because the temper or disease of the one calls for a different method of cure yet the ground and end of both prescriptions was the very same to recover the Patient from his distemper So I say in our present case the ground and reason of Government in the Church is unalterable by divine right yea and that very reason which determines the particular forms but yet these particular forms flowing from that immutable reason may be very different in themselves and may alter according to the several circumstances of times and places and persons for the more commodious advancing the main end of Government As in morality there can be but one thing to a man in genere summi boni as the chief good quò tendit in quod dirigit aroum to which he refers all other things yet there may be many things in genere boni conducentis as means in order to attaining that end So though Church-Government vary not as to the ground end and reason of it yet it may as to the particular forms of it As is further evident as to forms of Civil Government though the end of all be the same yet Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy are in themselves lawful means for the attaining the same common end And as Alensis determines it in the case of Community of goods by the Law of Nature that the same reason of the Law of Nature which did dictate Community of goods to be most suitable to man in the state of Innocency did in his faln estate prescribe a propriety of goods as most agreeable to it so that herein the modus observantiâ—â— dissered but the ratio praecepti was the same still which was mans comfortable enjoyment of the Accommodations of life which in Innocency might have been best done by Community but in mans degenerate condition must be by a Propriety So the same reason of Church-Government may call for an Equality in the persons acting as Governours of the Church in one place which may call for Superiority and subordination in another Having now dispatched the first sense of a Divine Right I come to the other which is the main seat of the Controversie and therefore will require a longer debate And so jus is that which makes a thing to become a duty so jus quasi jussum and jussa jura as Festus explains it i. e. that whereby a thing is not only licitum in mens lawful power to do it or no but is made dâ—bitum and is constituted a duty by the force and virtue of a Divine Command Now mans obligation to any thing as a duty doth suppose on the part of him from whose authority he derives his obligation both legislation and promulgation First there must be a Legislative Power commanding it which if it respects only the outward actions of a man in a Nation imbodied by Laws is the supreme Magistrate but if the obligation respect the consciences of all men directly and immediately then none have the power to settle any thing by way of an universal standing Law but God himself Who by being sole Creator and Governour of the World hath alone absolute and independent Dominion and Authority over the souls of men But besides Legislation another thing necessary to mans obligation to duty is a sufficient promulgation of the Law made Because though before this there be the ground of obedience on mans part to all Gods Commands yet there must be a particular Declaration of the Laws whereby man is bound in order to the determination of Mans duty Which in Positives is so absolutely necessary that unless there be a sufficient promulgation and declaration of the will of the Law-giver mans ignorance is excusable in reference to them and so frees from guilt and the obligation to punishment But it is otherwise in reference to the dictates of the natural Law wherein though man be at a loss for them yet his own contracted pravity being the cause of his blindness leaves him without excuse Hence it is said with good reason that though man under the Moral Law was bound to obey Gospel-precepts as to the reason and substance of the duties by them commanded as Faith Repentance from dead works and New Obedience yet a more full and particular revelation by the Gospel was necessary for the particular determination of the general acts of obedience to particular objects under their several Modifications expressed in the Gospel And therefore Faith and Repentance under the Moral Law taken as a transcript of the Law of Nature were required under their general notion as acts of obedience but not in that particular relation which those acts have under the Covenant of Grace Which particular determination of the general acts to special objects under different respects some call New Precepts of the Gospel others New Light but taking that light as it hath an influence upon the consciences of men the difference is so small that it deserves not to be
before Covenants made and things thereby determined may be so far from being lawful after that the doing of them may contradict a Principle of the Obligatory Law of Nature Thus in a state of liberty every one had right to what he thought fit for his use but Propriety and Dominion being introduced which was a free voluntary act by mens determining Rights it now becomes an offence against the Law of Nature to take away that which is another mans In which sense alone it is that Theft is said to be forbidden by the Law of Nature And by the same reason he that resists and opposeth the lawful Authority under which he is born doth not only offend against the Municipal Laws of the place wherein he lives but against that Original and Fundamental Law of Societies viz standing to Covenants once made For it is a gross mistake as well as dangerous for men to imagine That every man is born in a state of Absolute Liberty to chuse what Laws and Governours he please but every one being now born a Subject to that Authority he lives under he is bound to preserve it as much as in him lies Thence Augustus had some reason to say He was the best Citizen qui praesentem reipublicae statum mutari â—â—â— vult That doth not disturb the present state of the Commonwealth and who as Alcibiades saith in Thucydides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 endeavours to preserve that form of Government he was born under And the reason of it is that in Contracts and Covenants made for Government men look not only at themselves but at the benefit of Posterity if then one Party be bound to maintain the Rights of the others Posterity as well as of his person the other party must be supposed to oblige his Posterity in his Covenant to perform Obedience which every man hath power to do because Children are at their Parents disposal And Equity requires that the Covenant entred should be of equal extent to both parties And if a man doth expect Protection for his Posterity he must engage for the Obedience of his Posterity too to the Governorâ— who do legally protect them But the further prosecution of these things belongs to another place to consider of my purpose being to treat of Government in the Church and not in the State The sum of this is that the Obligation to the performance of what things are determined which are of the permissive Law of Nature by Positive Laws doth arise from the Obligatory Law of Nature As the Demonstration of the particular Problemes in the Mathematicks doth depend upon the Principles of the Theoremes themselves and so whoever denies the truth of the Probleme deduced by just Consequence from the Theoreme must consequentially deny the truth of the Theoreme its self So those who violate the particular Determinations of the Permissive Law of Nature do violate the Obligation of the Preceptive part of that Law Obedience to the other being grounded on the Principles of this 4. God hath Power by his Positive Laws to take in and determine as much of the Permissive Law of Nature as he please which being once so determined by an Universal Law is so far from being lawful to be done that the doing of them by those under an Obligation to his Positive Laws is an offence against the Immutable Law of Nature That God may restrain mans Natural Liberty I suppose none who own Gods Legislative Power over the world can deny especially considering that men have power to restrain themselves much more then hath God who is the Rector and Governor of the World That a breach of his positive Laws is an offence against the common Law of Nature appears hence because man being Gods creature is not only bound to do what is in general suitable to the principles of reason in flying evil and choosing good but to submit to the determinations of Gods will as to the distinction of good from evil For being bound universally to obey God it is implyed that man should obey him in all things which he discovers to be his will whose determination must make a thing not only good but necessary to be done by vertue of his supreme authority over men This then needs no further proof being so clear in its self 5. Lastly What things are left undetermined by divine positive Laws are in the Churches power to use and practise according as it judgeth them most agreeable to the rule of the Word That things undetermin'd by the Word are still lawfull evidently appears because what was once lawfull must have some positive Law to make it unlawfull which if there be none it remains lawfull still And that the Church of God should be debarr'd of any priviledge of any other Societies I understand not especially if it belong to it as a Society considered in its self and not as a particular Society constituted upon such accounts as the Church is For I doubt not but to make it evident afterwards that many parts of Government in the Church belong not to it as such in a restrained sense but in the general notion of it as a Society of men imbodyed together by some Laws proper to its self Although it subsist upon a higher foundation viz. of divine institution and upon higher grounds reasons principles ends and be directed by other Laws immediately then any other Societies in the World are The third Hypothesis is this Where the Law of Nature determines the thing and the Divine Law determines the manner and circumstances of the thing there we are bound to obey the divine Law in its particular determinations by vertue of the Law of Nature in its general obligation As for instance the Law of Nature bindeth man to worship God but for the way manner and circumstances of Worship we are to follow the positive Laws of God because as we are bound by Nature to worship him so we are bound by vertue of the same Law to worship him in the manner best pleasing to himself For the light of Nature though it determine the duty of worship yet it doth not the way and manner and though acts of pure obedience be in themselves acceptable unto God yet as to the manner of those acts and the positives of worship they are no further acceptable unto God then commanded by him Because in things not necessarily determined by the Law of Nature the goodnesse or evill of them lying in reference to Gods acceptance it must depend upon his Command supposing positive Laws to be at all given by God to direct men in their worship of him For supposing God had not at all revealed himself in order to his worship doubtlesse it had been lawfull for men not only to pray to God express their sense of their dependance upon him but to appoint waies times and places for the doing it as they should judge most convenient agreeable to natural light Which is evident from the
for the internal acts of Worship for he can neither add to that Rule nor dissolve the obligation of it nor yet can he force the consciences of men the chief seat of Religion it being both contrary to the nature of Religion its self which is a matter of the greatest freedom and internal liberty and it being quite out of the reach of the Magistrates Laws which respect only external actions as their proper object for the obligation of any Law can extend no further then the jurisdiction and authority of the Legislator which among men is only to the outward actions But then if we consider Religion as it is publikely owned and professed by a Nation the supreme Magistrate is bound by vertue of his office and authority not only to defend and protect it but to restrain men from acting any thing publikely tending to the subversion of it So that the plea for liberty of conscience as it tends to restrain the Magistrates power iâ— both irrationall and impertinent because liberty of conscience is the liberty of mens judgements which the Magistrate cannot deprive them of For men may hold what opinions they will in their minds the Law takes no cognizance of them but it is the liberty of practice and venting and broaching those opinions which the Magistrates power extends to the restraint of And he that hath the care of the publike good may give liberty to and restrain liberty from men as they act in order to the promoting of that good And as a liberty of all opinions tends manifestly to the subverting a Nations peace and to the embroyling it into continual confusions a Magistrate cannot discharge his office unlesse he hath power to restrain such a liberty Therefore we find plainly in Scripture that God imputes the increase and impunity of Idolatry as well as other vices to the want of a lawful Magistracy Iudges 17. 5 6. where the account given of Micahs Idolatry was because there was no King in Israel which implies it to be the care and duty of Magistrates to punish and restrain whatever tends to the opposing and subverting the true Religion Besides I cannot find any reason pleaded against the Magistrates power now which would not have held under David Solomon Asa Iehosophat Hezekias Iosias or other Kings of the Jews who asserted the publike profession to the extirpation to what opposed it For the plea of Conscience taken for mens judgements going contrary to what is publikely owned as Religion it is indifferently calculated for all Meridians and will serve for a Religion of any elevation Nay stiff and contumacious Infidels or Idolaters may plead as highly though not so truly as any that it goes against their judgements or their conscience to own that Religion which is established by authority If it be lawfull then to restrain such notwithstanding this pretence why not others whose doctrine and principles the Magistrate judgeth to tend in their degree though not so highly to the dishonouring God and subverting the profession entertained in a Nation For a mans own certainty and confidence that he is in the right can have no influence upon the Magistrate judging otherwise only if it be true it wil afford him the greater comfort and patience under his restraint which was the case of the primitive Christians under persecutions The Magistrate then is bound to defend protect and maintain the Religion he owns as true and that by vertue of his office as he is Custos utriusque tabulae The maintainer of the honour of Gods Laws which cannot be if he suffer those of the first Table to be broken without any notice taken of them Were it not for this power of Magistrates under the Gospel how could that promise be ever made good that Kings shall be nursing Fathers to the Church of God unlesse they mean such Nursing Fathers as Astyages was to Cyrus or Amulius to Romulus and Remus who exposed their nurslings to the Fury of wild Beasts to be devoured by them For so must a Magistrate do the Church unlesse he secure it from the incursion of Hereticks and the inundation of Seducers But so much for that which is more largely asserted and proved by others The Magistrate then hath power concerning Religion as owned in a Nation Secondly We must distinguish between an external and objective power about matters of Religion and an internal formal power which some call an Imperative and Elicitive power others a power of Order and a power of Jurisdiction others potestas Ecclesiastica and potestas circa Ecclesiastica or in the old distinction of Constantine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a power of things within and without the Church the sense of all is the same though the terms differ The internal formal Elicitive power of Order concerning things in the Church lies in authoritative exercise of the Ministerial Function in preaching the Word and administration of Sacraments but the external objective Imperative power of Jurisdiction concerning the matters of the Church lies in a due care and provision for the defence protection and propagation of Religion The former is only proper to the Ministry the latter to the Supreme Magistracy For though the Magistrate hath so much power about Religion yet he is not to usurp the Ministerial Function nor to do any proper acts belonging to it To which the instance of Uzzias is pertinently applied But then this takes nothing off from the Magistrates power for it belongs not to the Magistrate imperata facere but imperare facienda as Grotius truly observes not to do the things commanded but to command the things to be done From this distinction we may easily understand and resolve that so much vexed and intricate Question concerning the mutual subordination of the Civil and Ecclesiastical power For as Peter Martyr well observes these two powers are some wayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are conversant several wayes about the same thing but the Functions of both of them must be distinguished For the Pastors of the Church are not to administer Justice but it is their duty to declare how Justice should be rightly administred without partiality or oppression So on the other side the Magistrate must not preach the Gospel nor administer Sacraments but however must take care that these be duly done by â—hose to whose Function it belongs But for a clearer making it appear these things are to be considered both in a Magistrate and Minister of the Gospel In a Magistrate the Power it self and the Person bearing that Power The power it self of the Magistrate is no ways subordinate to the Power of the Ministry Indeed if we consider both Powers in reference to their objects and ends there may be an inferiority of Dignity as Chamier calls it in the civil power to the other considered abstractly but considering it concretely as lodged in the persons there is an inferiority of Subjection in the Ecclesiastical to the Civil But still the person
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 〈◊〉
the Greeks the old form continued from Orpheus or Onomacritus his Orphaica 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and those that sacrifice asked 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From all these things laid together we see the great solemnity used by them in their worship which considered in its self was not the product of superstition but a dictate of the Law of Nature And it seems most naturall to the acts of discipline that they should be performed in the most publick solemn manner and not in any private Câ—andestine way which being so done oft times lose the designed effect of them in making men sensible and ashamed of those miscarriages which made them deserve so sharp and severe a censure Thence among the Jews their solemn sentence of the greater excommunication was pronounced by the sound of a Trumpet and so they say Meroz was excommunicated with 400. Trumpets and the same number they report was used in excommunicating Iesus of Nazareth which was usually done by the Magistrate or the Rector of the University as they tell us a story of a man coming to buy flesh at Pombeditha which was one of the three Universities of the remaining Jews in Chaldea after the return from Captivity the other were Sora and Neharda but offering some opprobrious language to R. Iehuda then Governour of the University he makes no more to do but prolatus tubis hominem excommunicavit brings out his Trumpets and excommunicates him And as the use of Bells since their invention did supply the former use of Trumpets in calling the Congregation together which I suppose was the account of using Trumpets in excommunicating from the Congregation so it seems the Bells were sometimes used to ring men out of as well as into the Church thence the solemn Monkish curse cursing men with Bell Book and Candle which can have no other sense but from this practice So much shall suffice to shew the soundation which the solemnity of Worship and the acts belonging to it have in the dictates of Nature manifested by the voyce and consent of Nations for herein vox Populi is vox Naturae as at other times it is Vox Dei CHAP. VI. The fourth thing dictated by the Law of Nature that there must be a way to end Controversies arising which tend to break the peace of the Society The nature of schisâ—â— considered Liberty of judgement and authority distinguished the latter must be parted within religious Societies as to private persons What way the light of Nature directs to for ending Controversies in an equality of power that the lesse number yield to the greater on what Law of Nature that is founded In a subordination of power that there must be a liberty of Appeals defined Independency of particular Congregations considered Elective Synods The Original of Church-Government as to Congregations The case paralleld between Civil and Church Government Where Appeals finally lodge The power of calling Synods and confirming their acts in the Magistrate THe fourth thing which Nature dictates in reference to a Church-society is That there must be a way agreed upon to determine and decide all those Controversies arising in this Society which immediately tend to the breaking the peace and unity of it We have seen already that natural reason requires a disparity between persons in a society To form and constitute a Society there must be order and power in some there must be inferiority and subjection in others answering to the former And by these we suppose a Society to be now modeld But Nature must either be supposed defective in its designs and contrivements as to the necessaries required for the management of them or else there must likewise be implyed a sufficient provision for the maintenance and preservation of the Societies thus entred into It is no wise agreeable to the wisdom of Nature to erect a Fabrick with such materials which though they may lye one upon the other yet if not fitly compacted together will fall in pieces again assoon as it is set up nor yet to frame a body with meer flesh and bones and the superiority of some members above the other for unlesse there be joints and sinews and ligatures to hold the parts together the dissolution will immediately follow the formation of it The end and design of Nature is preservation and continuance and therefore things necessary in order to that must be implyed in the first design of the being of the thing so that at least as to its self there be no defect in order to that This must in reason be supposed in all Societies that when they are first entred it must be upon such terms as may be sufficient to maintain and keep up those Societies in that peace and order which is requisite in order to the continuance of them For what diseases are to bodies Age and fire are to buildings that divisions and animosities are to Societies all equally tending to the ruine and destruction of the things they seize upon And as bodies are furnished by Nature not only with a receptive and concoctive faculty of what tends to their nourishment but with an expulsive faculty of what would tend to the ruine of it So all civill bodies must not only have ways to strengthen them but must have likewise a power to expell and disperse those noxions humours and qualities which tend to dissolve the frame compages and constitution of them A power then to prevent mischiefs is as necessary in a Society as a power to settle things in order to the advancement of the common good of Society This therefore the Church as a religious Society must likewise he endowed with viz. a power to maintain its self and keep up peace and unity within its self which cannot otherwise be supposed considering the bilious humour in mens natures not wholly purged out by Christianity without some way to decide Controversies which will arise disturbing the peace of it For the clearing of this which much concerns the power and government of the Church we shall consider what the controversies are which tend to break the Churches peace and what way the Law of nature finds out for the ending of them Which we are the more necessitated to speak to because nothing hath begotten controversies more then the power of determining them hath done The Controversies then which tend to break the peace of a religious Society are either matter of different practice or matter of different opinion The former if it comes from no just and necessary cause and ends in a totall separation from that Society the person guilty of it was joyned with is justly call'd Schism which as 〈…〉 it is an Ecclefiasticall sedition as Sedition iâ— a Lay Schism both being directly contrary to that communion and friendlinesse which should be preserved in all Societies The latter if impugning somewhat fundamentall in order to the end of constituting religious Societies or being a
lesser matter if wilfully taken up and obstinately maintained is call'd Here sit which two are seldom seen out of each others company and when they are together are like the blind and same man in the Fable the one lent the other eyes and the other lent him feet one to find out what they desired the other to run away with it when they had it The Heretick he useth his eyes to spy out some cause or pretence of deserting Communion the Schismatick he helps him with his legâ— to run away from it but between them both they rob the Church of its peace and unity But in order to the making clear what the Churches power is in reference to these we are to take notice of these things First That the Church hath no direct immediate power over mens opinions So that a matter of meer different opinion lyes not properly within the cognizance of any Church power the reason of it is this because the end of power lodged in the Church is to preserve the peace and unity of its self now a meer different opinion doth not violate the bonds of Society for Opinionum diâ—er sitas opinantium unitas non sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men may preserve communion under different apprehensions So long then as diversity of opinion tends not to the breaking the quiet and tranquillity of the Church of God a man may safely enjoy his own private apprehensions as to any danger of molestation from Church Governours That is so long as a man keeps his opinion to himself and hath the power of being his own Counsellor It is not the difference of opinion formally considered when it is divulged abroad that is punishable but the tendency to Schism which lyes in the divâ—lging of it and drawing others away from the received Truths For the opinion its self is an internall act of the mind and therefore is punishable by no externall power as that of the Magistrate or Church is as no internall action is under the jurisdiction or authority of a Magistrate any further then as necessarily conjoyned with the outward action or as it hath a direct influence upon it The case of blasphemy which is a thing of the highest nature in this kind is not punishable by men as blasphemy implyes low and undervaluing thoughts of God but as being a thing divulged else no formal blaspemy it tends apparently to the dishonour of God and consequently to the breaking in pieces all such Societies whose great foundation is the belief of the Majesty and glory of God So Idolatry under the Law was punished as it was immediately destructive of that obedience which men did owe to the true God And under the Gospel it is not meer difference of opinion judgement and apprehension which layes men open to the Censures of that power which moderates and rules a religious Society but the endeavour by difference of opinion to alienate mens spirits one from another and thereby to break the Society into fractions and divisions is that which makes men liable to restraint and punishment From whence it follows that where the peace and unity of the Church may be preserved and yet men keep up different apprehensions of things there is nothing deserving any severe animadversion from the Rulers of that Society For a power corrective and vindictive must suppose something acted contrary to the Laws and Rules of the Society and the end of committing that power into the hands of Governours now here is nothing of that nature for the Laws of mutual Society are observed and the end of Church-Government is to see nè quid Ecclesia detrimenti capiat lest the Church as a Society be any wayes prejudiced which cannot be while men maintain that love affection and communion which becomes the members of such a Society The unity then required in the Church is not an unity of judgement and apprehension among the members of it which though it be their duty to endeavour after yet it is no further attainable by mens endeavours then perfection is and Unio Christianorum in this sense is one of the Jewels belonging to the Crown of Heaven There is no necessity then of inquiring after an infallible Judge of Controversies unlesse we had some promise and assurance from Christ that the members of his Church should never differ in their judgements from one another and then what need of an infallible Judge and if Christ had appointed an infallible Judg he would infallibly have discovered it to the minds of all sober men or else his infallibility could never attain its end For while I question whether my Judge be infallible or no I cannot infallibly assent to any of his determinations And where there is no ground for an infallible Judge for any to pretend to it is the worst of supposable errours because it renders all others incurable by that apprehension and takes away all possibility of repentance while men are under that perswasion The Unity then of the Church is that of Communion and not that of Apprehension and different opinions are no further lyable to censures then as men by the broaching of them do endeavour to disturb the peace of the Church of God That then which seems most lyable to censures in a Church is Schism as being immediately destructive of that communion which should be maintained in a religious Society But as to this too we must observe something further and not to think and judge every thing to deserve the name which is by many call'd Schism it being well observed by a very learned and judicious Divine that Heresie and Schism as they are commonly used are two Theologicall scare-crows with which they who use to uphold a party in Religion use to fright away such as making enquiry into it are ready to relinquish and oppose it if it appear either erroneous or suspitious For as Plutarch reports of a Painter who having unskilfully painted a Cock chased away all Cocks and Hens that so the imperfection of his Art might not appear by comparison with nature so men willing for ends to admit of no fancy but their own endeavour to hinder an enquiry into it by way of comparison of somewhat with it peradventure truer that so the deformity of their own might not appear Thus he Schism then as it imports a separation from communion with a Church-society is not a thing intrinsecally and formally evil in it self but is capable of the differences of good and evil according to the grounds reasons ends and circumstances inducing to such a separation The withdrawing from Society is but the materiality of Schism the formality of it must be fetched from the grounds on which that is built It is therefore a subject which deserve a strict inquiry what things those are which may make a withdrawing from a religious Society to which a man is joyned to be lawfull For as it is a great sin on the one hand unnecessarily to
with 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
home Our Saviour taking the word from common use but applying it in a special manner to a peculiar Sense which is the custome of the Scriptures The Original of the Word properly imports such as are imployed by Commission from another for the dispatch of some businesse in his Name So Casaubon who was sufficiently able to judg of the use of a Greek word In communi Graecorum usu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicebantur certi homines qui negotii gerendi gratiâ magis quam deferendi nuntii aliquò mittebantur And so it is taken Iohn 13. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that is sent is not greater then he that sent him Thence Epaphroditus when imployed upon a special message to Paul in the Name of the Churches is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philippians 2. 25. which we Translate your Messenger And so Titus and the two other sent to the Church of Corinth to gather their Charity are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Messengers of the Churches Thence Paul fully renders the Import and Sense of the word Apostle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Corinth 5. 20. We act as Ambassaduors for Christ. To which purpose it is observable that the Septuagint whose Greek is most followed by the New Testament doe render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it signifies to imploy a Messenger upon special Service by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 1 King 21. 11. 1 King 12. 18. Exod 4. 30. and the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in this Sense 1 King 14. 6. where Ahijah saith I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A sad Messenger to thee for thus saith the Lord c. Whereby the full Sense and Importance of the word Apostle appears to be one that is imployed by a peculiar Commission from him that hath authority over him for the doing some special service Thus were Christs disciples called Apostles from the immediate commission which they had from Christ for the discharge of that work which he imployed them in Thence our Saviour makes use of the word sending in the proper and peculiar sense when he gives the Apostles their commission in those remarkable words of Christ to them As the Father hath sent me even so send I you John 20. 21. Whereby our Saviour delegates his power and authority which he had as Doctour of the Church to his Apostles upon his leaving the World not in a privative way so as to destroy his own authority over the Church but in a cumulative way investing them with that authority which they had not before for both Teaching and Governing the Church No Argument then can be drawn for the Right or Form of Church-Government from Christs actions towards his Disciples before the last and full Commission was given unto them because they had no power of Church-government before that time Which will be further cleared if we consider their first sending out spoken of Matth. 10. 1. Mark 6. 7. Luke 9. 1. Several things lie in our way to be observed in reference to this Mission of the Apostles First that though the Apostles had been now for some competent time not onely called to their Office but solemnly chosen to it yet we no where read that they did ever exercise that Office till now they were sent forh by Christ. They remained still at Christs feet learning for their own instruction and fitting themselves for their future imployment and thought it no inconvenience while they lay for a wind to lay in sufficient lading and provision for their voyage Baptize indeed they did before Ioh. 4. 2. but that I suppose was done by them by an immediate present Order from Christ himself being by as the chief in the action thence Christ in one place is said to baptize Ioh. 3. 22. and yet he is said not to baptize but his Disciples Ioh. 4. 2. Christ did it authoritatively the Disciples ministerially Yet if we should grant the Disciples did then baptize as private men after the received custome of the Jews among whom onely a Confessus trium was requisite to Baptize a proselyte this doth not at all take off from the peculiarity of a Function both to Preach and Baptize because as yet the Gospel-Ministry was not instituted and therefore what might be lawfull before restraint doth not follow it should be so after when all those scattered rayes and beam which were dispersed abroad before were gathered into the Ministerial Office upon Christs appointing it as that great Hemisphere of Light in the creation was after swallowed up in the body of the Sun But now were the Apostles first sent out to Preach and now God first begins to null the Jewish Ministry and set up another instead of it and makes good that threatning That he was against the Shepherds and would require the flock at their hand and cause them to cease to feed the Flock c. Here then we have the first Exercise of the Apostles Ministry for which we see besides their former call and choice particular mission was after necessary Secondly we observe that the imployment Christ sent them upon now was onely a Temporary imployment confined as to work and place and not the full Apostolicall work The want of considering and understanding this hath been the ground of very many mistakes among Men when they argue from the Occasional Precepts here given the Apostles as from a standing perpetual Rule for a Gospel-Ministry Whereas our Saviour onely suited these instructions to the present case and the nature and condition of the Apostles present imployment which was not to preach the Gospel up and down themselves but to be as so many Iohn Baptists to call people to the hearing of Christ himself and therefore the Doctrine they were to Preach was the same with his The Kingdome of Heaven is at hand whereby it appears their Doctrine was only preparatory to Christ it being onely to raise up higher expectations of the Gospel-state under the Messias and these were they whom the King now sent into the high-wayes to invite men to the marriage Feast and to bid them to come in to him This was the only present imployment of the Apostles in their first mission in which they were confined to the Cities of Iudea that they might have the first refusal of the Gospel-Offers This mission then being occasional limited and temporary can yield no Foundation for any thing perpetual to be built upon it Thirdly we observe that those whom Christ imploied in the first dispersing of the Gospel abroad were furnished with arguments sufficient to evince not onely the credibility but the certain truth of what they preached Therefore Christ when he now sent them out gave them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only a meer power to work miracles but a right conferrèd on them to do it as the Apostles of Christ. These were the Credentials which the Apostles carried along with them to shew
But say they whatever becomes of this Order we have a strong Foundation for Saint Peters Power because Christ said he would build his Church upon him Matth. 16. 17. This were something indeed if it were proved but I fear this Rock will not hold water as it is brought by them nor Saint Peter prove to be that Rock For indeed Was the Church built upon Saint Peter then he must be the chief Foundation stone and Peter must build upon himself and not upon Christ and all the Apostles upon him and thus in exalting the Servant we depress the Master and in setting a new Foundation we take away the only Foundation Iesus Christ. If by being built upon Peter they mean no more then being built by him as the chief Instrument it is both a very incongruous Speech and implies nothing more then what was common to him and the rest of the Apostles who were all Master-builders in the Church of Christ as Paul calls himself and in that respect are set forth as the twelve Foundation stones in the walls of the New Ierusalem The Rock then spoken of by Christ in his Speech to Peter if taken Doctrinally was Saint Peters Confession as many of the Fathers interpret it if taken personally it was none other but Christ himself who used a like Speech to this when he said Destroy this Temple and in three dayes I will raise it up Which words though spoken by occasion of the material Temple as those were of Peters name yet Christ understood them of the Temple of his Body as here likewise he doth of his person But still they urge Christ put the Keyes into Saint Peters hands Matthew 16. 19. Now the power of the Keyes doth denote Regal Authority I answer First The Keyes may be given two wayes either from a Prince to a Subject or from a City to a Prince In this latter acception they denote principality in the Receiver but withall inferiority and subjection in the Given and in this sense I am so charitable as to think they will not say that Christ gave the Keyes to Peter it must be then as a Prince to a Subject and when they are so given it doth not imply an universal power in the persons to whom they are given but an investing them in that particular place he hath appointed them to the Office which the power of the Keyes implies is Ministerial and not Authoritative Delarative and not Iuridical over persons committed to their charge and not over Officers joyned inâ—equality of power with them For so were the rest of the Apostles with Peter in the same power of the Keyes Matth. 18. 18. Iohn 20. 23. This-power of the Keyes then was given to Peter in a peculiar manner but nothing peculiar to him given thereby But still there remains another Ward in Saint Peters Keyes and the last foot to the Popes Chair which is Pasce oves Feed my sheep a charge given particularly to Peter Iohn 21. 15. Thence they infer his Power over the whole Church But this foot hath neither joynts nor sinews in it and is as infirm as any of the rest sor neither did this Command rather then Commission belong onely to Peter for Christ had before given them all their general Commission As the Father hath sent me even so send I you John 20 21. whereby is implied an investing all the Apostles equally with the power and authority of Governing the Church of God although this charge be peculiarly renewed to Peter because as he had particularly faln so he should be particularly restored neither yet did we grant this doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imply such a Power and authority as they plead for viz. A Supream power over the Church of God for this even by Peter himself is attributed to the fixed Presbyters of the Churches who by this argument have as much authority conveyed them as Saint Peter had 1 Pet. 5. 2. and yet should we grant this it would not infer what they desire for these sheep were not the whole Church of Christ taken absolutely but Indefinitely For all the Apostles had a command to preach to every Creature Matth. 28. 18. which was as to the words larger as to the Sense the same with that to Saint Peter here And afterwards we find Peter called the Apostle of Circumcision and the Apostles sending him to Samaria and Paul in the right hand of fellowship with Peter which had been certainly dishonourable to Peter had he been invested with such an Universal Supream Power over the Apostles and the whole Church Such pretences then as these are for such an Extravagant power in the Church of God from such miserably weak Foundations for the upholding a corrupt Interest have given the occasion to that tart Sarcasm In Papatu sub Petri nudo nomine Satan non amplius Larva But that which would seem sufficient to awaken any out of this dream of Saint Peters power over the rest of the Apostles is the frequent contendings of the twelve Apostles one among another Who should be the greatest and that even after that Christ had said Upon this Rock will I build my Church as we may see Matthew 20 24. If Christ had conferred such a power on Saint Peter what little ground had there been for the request of Iames and Iohn and would not our Saviour rather have told them the chiefest place was conserred on Peter already then have curbed their ambition in seeking who should be greatest and would have bid them be subject to Peter as their Head and Ruler We see not then the least foundation for an universal Monarchy in the Church of God and so this form of Government is not determined by any actions or commands of Christ. We come now to consider the pleas of others who joyn in renouncing any Supream power under Christ over the Church of God but differ as to the particular forms of Government in the Church those who are for an inequality usually fix on the imparity between the Apostles and the LXX Those that are for a parity upon Matth. 20. 25. and Matth. 18. 17. I shall here proceed in the former method to shew that none of those can prove the Form they contend for as only necessary nor their adversaries prove it unlawful First then for the inequality between the Apostles and the LXX Disciples by that inequality is meant either only an inequality of order or else an inequality carrying superiority and subordination It is evident that the LXX disciples were not of the same Order with the twelve Apostles whom Christ had designed for the chief Government of his Church after his Ascension and in this respect the comparison of the twelve heads of the Tribes and the seventy Elders seems parallel with the twelve Apostles and the LXX disciples but if by imparity be meant that the twelve Apostles had a superiority of power and jurisdiction over the LXX disciples
Precept of Christ But with you it shall not be so But however an inequality of Power and Order for the Churches good is not thereby prohibited Which is sufficient for my purpose The next place to be considered is that in Matthew 18. 15 16 17. If thy brother shall trespass against thee go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone if he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother But if he will not hear thee then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a Publican It seems a very strange thing to consider that this one place hath been pressed by all parties to serve under them for the maintenance of their own particular form of Government so that as the Iews fable of the Manna it hath had a different taste according to the diversity of the palats of men Those that are for a Congregational Church being the first receptacle of Church power set this place in the front of their arguments Those who plead for Standing Presbyteries Lay-Elders subordination of Courts fetch all these out of this place Those that are for a Power of Church Discipline to be only lodged in a higher Order of Chur 〈…〉 Officers succeeding the Apostles derive the succession of that power from this place nay lest quidlibet should not be proved èquolibet the Papists despair not of proving the constant visibility of the Church the subordination of all to the Pope the infallibility of general Councils all out of this place Methinks then it might be argument enough of the incompetency of this place to determine any one particular form when it is with equal confidence on all sides brought to prove so many especially if it be made appear that the general Rule laid down in these words may be observed under a diversity of forms of Government For whether by the Church we mean the community of the faithful in a particular Congregation or the standing Officers of such a Church or a Consistorial Court or Synodical Assembly or higher Church-Officers it is still the duty of men in case of offences to tell the Church for redresse of grievances or vindication of the person himself that he hath discharged his duty This place then determines not what this Church is nor what the form of it◠Government should be when the sense of it holds good and true under such diversity of forms But we shall further enquire what influence this place can have upon the modelling the Government in the Church of God Fo◠Chamier tells us the prima Politia Ecclesiasticae origo is to be found in these words it will be then worth our enquiry to see what foundation for Church government can be drawn out of these words In which the variety of Expositions like a multitude of Physitians to a distempered Patient have left it worse then they found it I mean more difficult and obscure We shall therefore endeavour to lay aside all pre-conceptions by other mens judgements and opinions and see what innate Light there is in the Text it self to direct us to the full sense and meaning of it Two things the great difficulty of the place lyes in What the offences are here spoken of What the Church is which must b◠spoken to For the First I conceive it evident to any unprejudicated mind that the matter our Saviour speaks of is a matter of private offence and injury and not a matter of scandal as such considered in a Church-Society which I make appear thus First From the parallel place to this Luke 17. 3. 〈…〉 y Brother trespasse against thee rebuke him and if he repent forgive him This can be nothing else but a matter of private injury because it is in the power of every private person to forgive it which it was not in his power to do were it a matter of scandal to the whole Church unlesse we make it among Christians as it was among the Jews that every private person might excommunicate another and to release him afterward Secondly It manifestly appears from St. Peters words next after this Paragraph Matth. 18. 20. Lord how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him till seven times c. Christ answers him till seventy times seven that is as often as he doth it And thence Christ brings the parable of the King forgiving his Servants v. 23. Thirdly Were it meant of any scandalous sin committed with the privacy of any particular person as many understand trespassing against thee that is te conscio then this inconvenience must necessarily follow that matters of scandal must be brought to the Churches cognizance when there can be no way to decide them that is when one offends and only one person knows it here will be a single affirmation on one side and denyal on the other side and so there can be no way to decide it the matter here spoken of then is somewhat only relating to the offence or injury of some particular person and not a matter of scandal to the whole Church The Question then as propounded to be spoken to by our Saviour is What is to be done in case of private offences between man and man and not in case of secret sins against God and scandalous to the Church Now to this our Saviour layes down his answer gradually first there must be private admonition if that succeed not admonition before witnesses if not that telling the Church if not that neither reputing him as a Heathen and Publican Now in this answer we must conceive our Saviour speaks as to an ordinary case so in a way easie to be understood by all that heard him and therefore he must speak in allusion to what was at that time among the Jews in such cases which is freely acknowledged both by Calvin and Beza upon the place Nam certè tanquam de Iudais haec dici apparet saltem ex eo quod addit Sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus We must then see what the custom was among the Jews in such cases and how far our Saviour doth either approve the custome received or appoint new The Law was very strict in case of offences for every man in any wise to rebuke his Neighbour and not to suffer sin upon him Arguendo argues our old Translation renders it Thou shalt plainly rebuke thy Neighbour Now this piece of necessary Discipline our Saviour endeavours to recover among them which it seems was grown much out of use with them For Rabbi Chanina as Mr. Selden observes gave this as one reason of the destruction of Ierusalem because they left off reproving one another Non excisa fuissent Hierosolyma nisi quoniam alter alterum non coarguebat Our Saviour
therefore inforceth this Law upon them in case of offences first to deal plainly with their Neighbour in reproving him but our Saviour rests not here but being himself a pattern of Meeknesse and Charity he would not have them to rest in a bare private admonition but to shew their own readinesse to be reconciled and willingnesse to do good to the Soul of the offending party thereby he adviseth further to take two or three witnesses with them hoping thereby to work more upon him but if still he continues refractory and is not sensible of his miscarriage Tell it the Church What the Church here is is the great Controversie Some as Beza and his followers understand an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Jews which had the proper cognizance of Ecclesiastical causes but it will be hard to prove any such Sanhedrin in use among them the Priests and Levites indeed were very often chosen into the Sanhedrin which it may be is the ground of the mistake but there was no such Sanhedrin among them which did not respect matters criminal and civil So we must understand what Iosephus speaks of the Priests among the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Priests were alwayes very studious of the Law and other matters of concernment These were appointed as the Overseers of all things Iudges of Controversies and the punishers of condemned persons Thus we see he is so far from attributing a distinct Ecclesiastical Court to them that he seems to make them the only Judges in civil and criminal causes Others by the Church understand the Christian Church but herein they are divided some understanding by it only the Officers of the Church so Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euthemius Ecclesiam nunc vocat prasides fidelium Ecclesiae Others understand it not in its representative notion but in its diffusive capacity as taking in all the members But our Saviour speaking to a present case must be supposed to lay down a present remedy which could not be if he gave only Rules for governing his Church which was not as yet gathered nor formed there being then no Court Ecclesiastical for them to appeal unto Suppose then this case to have fallen out immediately after our Saviours speaking it that one brother should trespasse against another either then notwithstanding our Saviours Speech which speaks to the present time Go and tell the Church the offended brother is left without a power of redresse or he must understand it in some sense of the word Church which was then in use among the Jews And these who tell us That unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be understood for a Church as we understand it it would be no easie matter for us now to conceive what the Holy Ghost meant by it would do well withall to consider how those to whom Christ spoke should apprehend his meaning if he spoke in a sense they never heard of before And certainly our best way to understand the meaning of Scripture is to consider what of whom to whom the Scripture speaks for although the Scripture as a Rule of Faith for us be supposed to be so written as to be easily understood by us yet as the parcels of it were spoken upon several Occasions they must be supposed to be so spoken as to be apprehended by them to whom they were spoken in the common senss of the words if nothing peculiar be expressed in the Speech whereby to restrain them to another sense And therefore the Church must be understood in the same sense wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Syriack answering to it was apprehended among the Jewes in our Saviours time Which could not be for any new Consistory or Sanhedrin to be erected under the Gospel Thence others conceiving that Christ did speak according to the Custome of the Jewes by the Church understand nothing else but the Sanhedrin and so make the sense of the words to be this The Case our Saviour speaks to is that of private Quarrels wherein our Saviour layes down two Directions in a way of Charity private admonition and before witnesses but if the party continues refractory then it may be lawful to convent him before the Courts of Judicature among them the Triumvirate the 23. or the great Sanhedrin for although the Romans had taken away the power of the Iewes in Capital matters yet they allowed them liberty of judgeing in the case of private quarrels but if he neglect to hear the Sanhedrin then it may be lawful to implead him before the Governour of the Province in his Court of Judicature by which Heathens and Publicans were to be judged which is meant by Let him be to thee not as a brother Jew but as a Heathen and a Publican This Exposition is said to be first Broached by Erastus but much improved and enlarged by Reverend Bishop Bilson who spends a whole Chapter upon it But this Exposition though it seems fair and plausible yet there are several things in it which keep me from imbracing it as First It seems not very probable that our Saviour should send his Disciples to whom he speaks to the Jewish Sanhedrin for the ending any Controversies arising among themselves knowing how bitter Enemies they wer to all who were the followers of Christ. Secondly it seems not very agreeable with the scope of our Saviours Speech which was to take up differences as much as may be among his Disciples and to make them shew all lenity and forherance towards those that had offended them and to do good to the Souls of those that had injured and provoked them whereas this command of telling the Sanhedrin and inpleading offendors before Heathen Courts tends apparently to heighten the bitterness and animosities of Mens spirits one against another and layes Religion so open to Obloquies which makes Paul so severely reprove the Christians at Corinth for going to Law before Heathen Magistrates therefore to say that Christ allows there going to Law before Heathens and Paul to forbid it were instead of finding a way to end the differences among Christians to make one between Christ and Paul Thirdly the thing chiefly aimed at by Christ is not a mans Vindication of himself or recovering losses by injuries received but the recovering and gaining the offending brother which evidently appears by what our Saviour adds to the using admonition in private If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament is used for the Conversion and turning others from sin That I might gain them that are under the Law 1 Corinth 9. 19 20 c. So 1 Pet. 3. 1. explained by Iames 5. 20. Our Saviour then speaks not to the manner of proceeding as to civil injuries which call for Restitution but to such as call for Reconciliation And so the Case I conceive is that of private Differences and Quarrels between men and not Law-Suites nor civil Causes I
as poor Ierome lies in by a wound he is supposed to have given himself when the priest and the Levite hath passed him by it will be a piece of Charity in our passing by the way a little to consider his Case to see whether there be any hopes of recovery We take it then for granted that Ierome hath already said that Apostolus perspiâ—uè docet eosdem esse Presbytsros quos Episcopos in the same Epistle which he proves there at large and in another place Siâ—â—t ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praeposiâ—us fuerit esse subjectos it a Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam disposition is Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in commune debere Ecclesiam regere The difficulty now lyes in the reconciling this with what is before câ—ted out of the same Author Some solve it by saying that in Ieroms sense Apostolical Tradition and Ecclesiaestical Custome are the same as ad Marcellum he saith the observation of Lent is Apostolica traditio and advers Luciferian shith it is Ecclesiae consuâ—tudo so that by Apostolical Tradition he meant not an Apostolical Institution but an Ecclesiastical Custome And if Ierome speak according to the general Vogue this Solution may be sufficient notwithstanding what is said against it for according to that common rule of Austin Things that were generally in use and no certain Author assigned of them were attributed to the Apostles Two things therefore I shall lay down for reconciling Ierome to himself The first is the difference between Traditio Apostolica and Traditio Apostolorum this latter doth indeed imply the thing spoken of to have proceeded from the Apostles themselves but the former may be applyed to what was in practice after the Apostles times and the reason of it is that what ever was done in the Primitive Church supposed to be agreeable to Apostolical practice was called Apostolical Thence the Bishops See was called Sedes Apostolicâ— as Tertullian tells us ob consangâ—iâ—itatem doctrinae So Sidonius Apollinaris calls the See of Lâ—pâ—s the Bishop of Tricassium in France Sedem Apostolicam And the Bishops of the Church were called Viri Apostolici and thence the Constitutions which goe under the Apostles names were so called saith Albaspinaeus ab antiquitate â—nam cum corum aliquot ab Apostolorum successoribus qui teste Tertullianâ— Apostolici viri â—omiâ—ahantur facti essent Apostolicorum primùâ—â— Canones deinde nonnullorum Latinorum ignorantia aliquot literarum detractione Apostolorum dicti sunt By which we see what ever was conceived to be of any great antiquity in the Church though it was not thought to have come from the Apostles themselves yet it was called Apostolioal so that in this sense Traditio Apostolica is no more then Traditio autiqua or ab Apostolicis viris profecta which was meant rather of those that were conceived to succeed the Apostles then of the Apostles themselves But I answer Secondly that granting Traditio Apostolica to mean Traditio Apostolorum yet Ierome is far from contradicting himself which is obvious to any that will read the words before and consider their coherence The scope and drift of his Epistle is to chastise the arrogance of one who made Deacons superiour to Presbyters Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam ut Diaconos Presbyteris id est Episcopis anteferret and so spends a great part of the Epistle to prove that a Bishop and Presbyter are the same and at last brings in these words giving the account Why Paul to Timothy and Titus mentions no Presbyters Quia in Episcopo Presbyter continetur Aut igitur ex Presbytero ordinetur Diaconus ut Presbyter minor Diacono comprobetur in quem crescat ex parvâ— aut si ex Diacono ordinatur Presbyter noverit se lucris minorem Sacerdoâ—iâ— esse majorem And then presently adds Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento Quod Aaron Filii ejus atq Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesiâ It it imaginable that a man who had been proving all along the superiority of a Presbyter above a Deacon because of his Identity with a Bishop in the Aposties times should at the same time say that a Bishop was above a Presbyter by the Apostles institution and so directly overthrow all he had been saying before Much as if one should go about to prove that the Prâ—fectus urbis and the Curatores urbis in Alexander Severus his timeâ— were the same Office and to that end should make use of the Constitution of that Emperour whereby he appointed 14. Curatores urbis and set the Praefectus in an Office above them Such an incongruity is scarce incident to a man of very ordinary esteem for intellectuals much less to such a one as Ierome is reputed to be The plain meaning then of Ierome is no more but this that as Aaron and his sons in the order of Priesthood were above the Levites under the Law So the Bishops and Presbyters in the order of the Evangelical Priesthood are above the Deacons under the Gospel For the comparison runs not between Aaron and his sons under the Law and Bishops and Presbyters under the Gospel but between Aaron and his sonnes as one part of the comparison under the Law and the Levites under them as the other so under the Gospel Bishops and Presbyters make one part of the comparison answering to Aaron and his Sonnes in that wherein they all agree viz. The Order of Priest hood and the other part under the Gospel is that of Deacons answering to the Levites under the Law The Opposition is not then in the power of jurisdiction between Bishops and Priests but between the same power of Order which is alike both in Bishops and Presbyters according to the acknowledgement of all to the Office of Deacons which stood in Competition with them Thus I hope we have left Ierome at perfect Harmony with himself notwithstanding the attempt made to make him so palpably contradict himself which having thus done we are at liberty to proceed in our former course onely hereby we see how unhappily those arguments succeed which are brought from the Analogy between the Aaronical Priest hood to endeavour the setting up of a Ius Divinum of a parallel superiority under the Gospel All which arguments are taken off by this one thing we are now upon viz. that the orders and degrees under the Gospel were not taken up from Analogy to the Temple but to the Synagogue Which we now make out as to Ordination in three things the manner of conferring it the persons authorized to do it the remaining effect of it upon the person receiving it First For the manner of conferring it that under the Synagogue was done by laying on of hands Which was taken up among
it transplanted into the Church There are yet some things remaining as to Ordination wherein the Church did imitate the Synagogue which will admit of a quick dispatch as the number of the persons which under the Synagogue were alwaies to be at least three This being a fundamental constitution among the Jews as appears by their writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordination of Presbyters by laying on of hands must be done by three at the least To the same purpose Maimonides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did not ordain any by imposition of hands into a power of judicature without the number of three Which number Peter Galatinus and Postellus conceive necessary to be all ordained themselves but Master Selden thinks it was sufficient if there were but one of that number so ordained who was to be as principal in the action whose opinion is favoured by Maimonides who adds to the words last cited out of him Of which Three one at the least must be ordained himself Let us now see the Parallel in the Church of God The first solemn Ordination of Elders under the Gospel which some think to be set down as a Pattern for the Church to follow is that we read of Acts 13. 1 2 3. Which was performed by three for we read in the first verse that there were in the Church at Antioch five Prophets and Teachers Barnabas Simeon Lucius Manaen and Saul of these five the Holy-Ghost said that two must be separated for the work whereto God had called them which were Barnabas and Saul there remain onely the other three Simeon Lucius and Manaen to lay their hands on them and ordain them to their work Accordingly those who tell us that Iames was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem do mention the three Apostles who concurred in the ordaining of him But most remarkable for this purpose is the Canon of the Nicene Council wherein this number is set down as the regular number for the Ordination of Bishops without which it was not accounted Canonical The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Ordination of a Bishop should if possible be performed by all the Bishops of the Province which if it cannot easily be done either through some urgent necessity or the tediousness of the way three Bishops at least must be there for the doing it which may be sufficient for the Ordination if those that are absent do express their consent and by Letters approve of the doing of it To the same purpose Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canons injoyn all the Bishops of the Province to be present at the Ordination of one and forbid the Ordination of any without three being present at it Thus we see how the Constitution of the Synagogue was exactly observed in the Church as to the number of the persons concurring to a regular Ordination The last thing as to Ordination bearing Analogy to the Synagogue is the effect of this Ordination upon the person It was the Custom of the Jews to speak of all that were legally Ordained among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Divine Presence or Schecinah rested upon them which sometimes they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holy Spirit supposed to be in a peculiar manner present after this solemn Separation of them from others in the world and Dedication of them unto God Answerable to this may that of our Saviour be when he gives his Apostles authority to preach the Gospel he doth it in that Form of words Receive ye the Holy Ghost and then gives them the power of binding and loosing usually conveyed in the Jewish Ordinations Whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained So that as under the Law they by their Ordination received a moral Faculty or Right to exercise that power they were Ordained to so under the Gospel all who are Ordained according to Gospel Rules have a right authority and power conveyed thereby for the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments Which right and power must not be conceived to be an internal indelible Character as the Papists groundlesly conceive but a moral legal Right according to the Lawes of Christ because the persons Ordaining do not act in it in a natural but a moral Capacity and so the effect must be moral and not physical which they must suppose it to be who make it a Character and that indelible Thus much may serve to clear how Ordination in all its circumstances was derived from the Jewish Synagogue The other thing remaining to be spoken to as to the correspondence of the Church with the Synagogue in its constitution is what order the Apostles did settle in the several Churches of their Plantation for the Ruling and Ordering the Affairs of them Before I come to speak so much to it as will be pertinent to our present purpose and design we may take notice of the same name for Church-Rulers under the Gospel which there was under the Synagogue viz. that of Presbyters The name Presbyter as the Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it Originally import Age yet by way of connotation it hath been looked on as a name both of Dignity and Power Because Wisdome was supposed to dwell with a multitude of years therefore persons of age and experience were commonly chosen to places of honour and trust and thence the name importing age doth likewise cary dignity along with it Thence we read in the time of Moses how often the Elders were gathered together Thence Eliezer is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 24. 2. which the Greek renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Seignior Domo the chief Officer in his house and so we read Gen. 50. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elders of the Land of Egypt So the Elders of Mâ—dian the Elders of Israel the Elders of the Cities so among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Council of State and among the Latines Senatus and our Saxon Aldermen in all importing both age and honour and power together But among the Jewes in the times of the Apostles it is most evident that the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imported not only dignity but power the Presbyters among the Jewes having a power both of judgeing and teaching given them by their Semicha or Ordination Now under the Gospel the Apostles retaining the name and the manner of Ordination but not conferring that judiciary power by it which was in use among the Jewes to shew the difference between the Law and the Gospel it was requisite some other name should be given to the Governours of the Church which should qualifie the importance of the word Presbyters to a sense proper to a Gospel State Which was the Original of giving the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Governours of the Church under the Gospel A name importing Duty more then Honour and not a
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
of the assembly of Presbyters might be so called what superiority can be deduced thence any more then such a one enjoys Nay if in the Prophetical style an unity may be set down by way of representation of a multitude what evidence can be brought from the name that by it some one particular person must be understood And by this means Timothy may avoid being charged with leaving his first Love which he must of necessity be by those that make him the Angel of the Church of Ephesus at the time of writing these Epistles Neither is this any wayes solved by the Answer given that the name Angel is representative of the whole Church and so there is no necessity the Angel should be personally guilty of it For first it seems strange that the whole diffusive body of the Church should be charged with a crime by the name of the Angel and he that is particularly meant by that name should be free from it As if a Prince should charge the Maior of a Corporation as guilty of rebellion and by it should only mean that the Corporation was guilty but the Maior was innocent himself Secondly If mady things in the Epistles be directed to the Angel but yet so as to concern the whole body then of necessity the Angel must be taken as Representative of the Body and then why may not the word Angel be taken only by way of representation of the body its self either of the whole Church or which is far more probable of the Consessus or Order of Presbyters in that Church We see what miserably unconcluding arguments those are which are brought for any form of Government from Metaphorical or Ambiguous expressions or names promiscuously used which may be interpreted to different senses What certainty then can any rational man find what the form of Government was in the Primitive times when onely those arguments are used which may be equally accommodated to different forms And without such a certainty with what confidence can men speak of a Divine Right of any one particular form Secondly The uncertainty of the Primitive form is argued from the places most in controversie about the form of Government because that without any apparent incongruity they may be understood of either of the different forms Which I shall make out by going through the several places The Controversie then on foot is this as it is of late stated Whether the Churches in the Primitive times were governed by a Bishop only and Deacons or by a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a parity of power The places insisted on on both sides are these Acts 11. 30. Acts 14. 23. Acts 28. 17 1 Tim. 3. 1. Titus 1. 5. The thing in controversie is Whether Bishops with Deacons or Presbyters in a parity of power are understood in these places I begin then in order with Acts 11. 30. The first place wherein the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occurrs as applyed to the Officers of the Christian Church Those that are for a Colledge of Presbyters understand by these Elders those of the Church of Ierusalem who did govern the affairs of that Church those that are for a solitary Episcopacy by these Elders understand not the local Elders of Ierusalem but the several Bishops of the Churches of Iudea Let us now see whether there be any evidence from the place to determine which of these two must necessarily be understood There is nothing at all mentioned in the place but only that upon the occasion of the Famine they sent relief to the Brethren of Judea and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul Which might either be to the Elders of the Church at Ierusalem to be distributed to the several Churches of Iudea or else to the several Pastors of those Churches either collectively as met together at Ierusalem to receive this contribution or distributively as they were in their several Churches The relief might be sent to all the Brethren of Iudea and yet either be conveyed to the particular Elders of Ierusalem to send it abroad or to the several Elders of the Churches within the circuit of Iudea But other places are brought by both parties for their particular sense in this As Acts 15. 6. here indeed mention is made of the Apostles and Elders together at Ierusalem but nothing expressed whereby we may know whether the fixed Elders of that Church or else the Elders of all the Churches of Iudea assembled upon this solemn occasion of the Council of the Apostles there So Acts 21. 11. when Paul went in to Iames it is said That All the Elders were present No more certainty here neither for either they might be the fixed Officers of that Church meeting with Iames upon Pauls coming or else they might be the Elders of the several Churches of Iudea met together not to take account of Pauls Ministry as some improbably conjecture but assembled together there at the Feast of Pentecost at which Paul came to Ierusalem which is more probable upon the account of what we read v. 20. of the many thousand believing Iews then at Jerusalem who were zealous of the Law who in all probability were the believing Jews of Iudea who did yet observe the annual Festivals of Ierusalem and so most likely their several Elders might go up together with them and there be with Iames at Pauls coming in to him No certainty then of the Church of Ierusalem how that was governed whether by Apostles themselves or other unfixed Elders or onely by Iames who exercised his Apostleship most there and thence afterward◠called the Bishop of Ierusalem We proceed therefore to the government of other Churches and the next place is Acts 14. 23. And when they had ordained them Elders in every Church Here some plead for a plurality of Elders as fixed in every Church but it is most evident that the words hold true if there was but one in each Church For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Titus 1. 5. for both places will admit of the same answer doth signifie no more then oppidatim or Ecclesiatim as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gradatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viritim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particulatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vicatim No more then is imported than that Elders were ordained City by City or Church by Church as we would render i◠and thereby nothing is expressed but that no Church wanted an Elder but not that every Church had more Elders then one But the place most controverted is Acts 20. 17. And from Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Those that say these Elders were those only of the Church of Ephesus seem to be most favoured by the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as seeming to apply it to that particular Church of Ephesus and by the Syriack version which renders it Venire fecit Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesi to the same
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
380. Isidore succeeded Leander in Sevill 600. The Council sat 619. The Council of Aquen which tanscribes Isidore and owns his Doctrine 816. So that certainly supposing the words of all to be the same yet the Testimony is of greater force as it was owned in several Ages of the Church by whole Councils without any the least controul that we read of And if this then must not be looked on as the Sense of the Church at that time I know not how we can come to understand it if what is positively maintained by different persons in different ages of the Church and in different places without any opposing it by Writers of those ages or condemning it by Councils may not be conceived to be the Sense of the Church at that time So that laying all these things together we may have enough to conclude the Ambiguity at least and thereby incompetency of the Testimony of Antiquity for finding out the certain form which the Apostles observed in planting Churches We proceed to the third thing to shew the incompetency of Antiquity for deciding this Controversie which will be from the Partiality of the Testimony brought from thence Two things will sufficiently manifest the Partiality of the judgment of Antiquity in this Case First their apparent judging of the practice of the first Primitive Church according to the Customes of their own Secondly their stiffe and pertinacious adhering to private traditions contrary to one another and both sides maintaining theirs as Apostolical First judging the practice of the Apostles by that of their own times as is evident by Theodoret and the rest of the Greek Commentators assigning that as the Reason why the Presbyters spoken of in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in the Sense of their age because there could be but one Bishop in a City whereas there are more expressed in those places as being in the several Cities whereas this is denyed of Apostolical times by the late pleaders for Episcopacy and it is said of them that they spoke according to the custome of their own time And it is now thought there were two Bishops in Apostolical times in several Cities the one the head of the Jewish Coetus and the other of the Gentile I enter not the Dispute again here whether it were so or no onely I hence manifest how farr those persons themselves who plead for the judgement of the Fathers as deciding this Controversie are from thinking them impartial Judges when as to the grounds of their Sentence they are confessed to speak onely of the practice of their own time Who can imagine any force in Chrysostomes argument That the Presbyters who laid hands on Timothy must needs be Bishops because none do Ordain in the Church but Bishops unless he makes this the medium of his argument That whatever was the practice of the Church in his dayes was so in Apostolical times There is I know not what strange influence in a received custome if generally embraced that doth possess men with a â—ancy it was never otherwise then it is with them nay when they imagine the necessity of such a custome at present in the Church they presently think it could never be otherwise then it is But of this I have spoken somewhat already Secondly that which makes it appear how partial the judgement of Antiquity is in adhering to their particular Traditions and calling them Apostolical though contrary to one another How can we then fix upon the Testimony of Antiquity as any thing certain or impartial in this Case when it hath been found so evidently partial in a Case of less concernment then this is A witness that hath once betrayed his faithfulness in the open Court will hardly have his Evidence taken in a Case of moment especially when the Cause must stand or fall according to his single Testimony For my part I see not how any man that would see Reason for what he doth can adhere to the Church for an unquestionable Tradition received from the Apostles when in the case of keeping Easter whether with the Jewes on the fourteenth Moon or only on the Lords day there was so much unreasonable heat shewed on both sides and such confidence that on either side their Tradition was Apostolical The Story of which is related by Eusebius and Socrates and many others They had herein all the advantages imaginable in order to the knowing the certainty of the thing then in question among them As their nearness to Apostolical times being but one remove from them yea the persons contending pleaded personal acquaintance with some of the Apostles themselves as Polycarp with Iohn and Anicetus of Rome that he had his Tradition from Saint Peter and yet so great were the heats so irreconcilable the Controversie that they proceeded to dart the Thunderbolt of excommunication in one anothers faces as Victor with more zeal then piery threw presently the Asiatick Churches all out of Communion onely for differing as to this Tradition The small coals of this fire kindled a whole Aetna of contention in the Christian world the smoak and ashes nay the flames of which by the help of the Prince of the Aire were blown over into the bosome of the then almost Infant Northern Churches of Brittain where a solemn dispute was caused upon this quarrel between Colmannus on one side and Wilfride on the other The like contest was upon this Occasion between Augustine the Monk and the Brittish Bishops The Observation of this strange combustion in the Primitive Church upon the account of so vain frivolous unnecessary a thing as this was drew this note from a Learned and Judicious Man formerly quoted in his Tract of Schism By this we may plainly see the danger of our appeal to Antiquity for resolution in controverted points of Faith O how small relief are we to expect from thence For if the discretion of the chiefest Guides and Directors of the Church did in a point so trivial so inconsiderable so mainly fail them as not to see the Truth in a Subject wherein it is the greater marvel how they could avoid the fight of it Can we without the imputation of great grossness and folly think so poor-spirited persons competent Iudges of the questions now on foot betwixt the Churches Thus that person as able to make the best improvement of the Fathers as any of those who profess themselves the most superstitious admirers of Antiquity But if we must stand to the judgement of the Fathers let us stand to it in this that no Tradition is any further to be imbraced then as it is founded on the Word of GOD. For which purpose those words of Cyprian are very observable In compendio est autem apud religios as simplices mentes errorem deponere invenire atque eruere veritatem Nam si ad Divinae Traditionis caput Originem revertamur cessat error humanus He asserts it an easie
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 〈◊〉
goods was used at first by the Church oâ— Ierusalem as most sutable to the present state of that Church but as far as we can find did neither perpetually hold in that Church nor universally obtain among other Churches as is most clear in the Church at Corinth by their Law-suiâ—â— by the different offerings of the rich and poor at the Lords Supper and by their personal contributions So the Apostles Preaching from house to house was for want of conveniency then of more publick places as free onely for Christians although that practice binds now as far as the Reason doth viz. in its tendency the promoting the work of Salvation of mens Souls Laying on hands for conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost can never certainly bind where the Reason of it is ceased but may still continue â—s a rite of solemn Prayer and not by vertue of that practice Observing the Apostolical Decrees of abstaining from blood and things strangled and offered to Idols did hold as long as the ground of making them did which was condescension to the Jews although it must be withall acknowledged that the Primitive Christians of the second and third Centuries did generally observe them and the Greek Church to this day and some men of note and learning have pleaded for the necessary observation of them still as Christ. Beckman Steph. Curcellaeus in a Diatriba lately published to this purpose to which Grotius is likewise very inclinable The arguments are too large here to examine although I see not how possibly that place of Paul can be avoided Whatever is set in the shambles eat making no scruple for conscience sakâ— I conclude this with what I laid down at the entrance of this Treatise that where any Act or Law is founded upon a particular reason or occasion as the ground of it it doth no further oblige then the reason or occasion of it doth continue Therefore before an acknowledged Apostolical practice be looked on as Obligatory it must be made appear that what they did was not according as they saw reason and cause for the doing it depending upon the several circumstances of Time Place and Persons but that they did it from some unalterable Law of Chrâ—ist or from some such indispensable reasons as will equally hold in all Times Places and Persons And so the Obligation is taken off from Apostolical practice and laid upon that Law and Reason which was the ground of it Thirdly Offices that were of Apostolical appointment are grown wholly out of use in the Church without mens looking upon themselvs as bound now to observe them As the Widdows of the Churches afterwards from their Office called Deaconnesses of the Church of which number Phoebe was one whom Paul calls the Deaconness of the Church at Cenchrea so both Origen and Chrysostome understand it Of them and their continuance in the Church for some Centuries of years much is spoken by several Writers and resolved by several Councils and yet we see these are laid aside by the pâ—etenders to hold close to Apostolical practice if that binds certainly it doth in its plain institutions if it doth not bind in them how can it in that which is only gathered but by uncertain conjectures to have been ever their practice So that in the issue those who plead so much for the obligatory nature of Apostolical practice do not think it obligatory for if they did how comes this office of Widdows and Deaconesses to be neglected If it be answered that these are not usefull now then we must say that we look upon Apostolical practice to be binding no further then we judge it useful or the reason of it holds which is as much as to say of its self it binds not Fourthly Rites and customs Apostolical are altered therefore men do not think that Apostolical practice doth bind For if it did there could be no alteration of things agreeable thereunto Now let any one consider but these few particulars and judge how far the pleaders for a divine Right of Apostolical practice do look upon themselves as bound now to observe them as Dipping in baptism the use of Love Feasts community of goods the Holy kiss by Tertullian called Signaâ—ulum orationis yet none look upon themselves as bound to observe them now and yet all acknowledge them to have been the practice of the Apostles and therefore certainly though when it may serve for their purpose men will make Apostolical practice to found a divine Right yet when they are gone off from the matter in hand they change their opinion with the matter and can then think themselves free as to the observation of things by themselves acknowledged to be Apostolical Thus we are at last come to the end of this chapter which we have been the longer upon because the main hinge of this controversie did lyâ— in the practice of the Apostles which I suppose now so far cleared as not to hinder our progress towards what remains which we hope will admit of a quicker dispatch We come therefore from the Apostles to the Primitive Church to see whether by the practice of that we can find any thing whereby they looked on themselves as obliged by an unalterable Law to observe any one particular form of Church-Government CHAP. VII The Churches Polity in the ages after the Apostles considered Evidences thence that no certain unalterable Form of Church-Government was delivered to them 1. Because Church-Power did in large as the Churches did Whether any Metropolitan Churches established by the Apostles Seven Churches of Asia whether Metropolitical Philippi no Metropolis either in Civil or Ecclâ—siastical sense Several degrees of inlargemext of Churches Churches first the Christians in whole Cities proved by several arguments the Eulogiae an evidence of it Churches extended into the neighbour Territories by the preaching there of City Presbyters thence comes the subordination between then Churches by degrees inlarged to Diocesses from thence to Provinces The Original of Metropolitans and Patriarchs 2. No certain Form used in all Churches Some Churches without Bishops Scots Goths Some with but one Bishop in their whole Countrey Scythian Aethiopian Churches how governed Many Cities without Bishops Diocesses much altered Bishops discontinued in several Churches for many years 3. Conforâ—eing Ecclesiastical Government to the civil in the extent of Diocesses The suburbicarian Churches what Bishops answerable to the civil Governours Churches power rises from the greatness of Cities 4. Validity of Ordination by Presbyters in places where Bishops were The case of Ischyras discussed instances given of Ordination by Presbyters not pronounced null 5. The Churches prudence in managing its affairs by the several Canons Provincial Synods Codex Canonum HAving largely considered the actions of Christ and the practice of the Apostles so far as they are conceived to have reference to the determining the certain form of Government in the Church our next stage is according to our
propounded method to examine what light the practice of the Church in the ages succeeding the Apostles will cast upon the controversie we are upon For although according to the principles established and â—aid down by us there can be nothing setled as an universal Law for the Church but what we find in Scriptures yet because the general practice of the Church is conceived to be of â—o great use for understanding what the Apostles intentions as well as actions were we shall chearfully pass over this Rubicon because not with an intent to increase divisions but to find out some further evidence of a way to compose them Our Inquiry then is Whether the primitive Church did conceive its self obliged to observe unalterably one individual form of Government as delivered down to them either by a Law of Christ or an universal constitution of the Apostles or else did only settle and order things for Church-government according as it judged them tend most to the peace and settlement of the Church without any antecedent obligation as necessarily binding to observe onely one course This latter I shall endeavour to make out to have been the onely Rule and Law which the primitive Church observed as to Church-government viz. the tendency of its constitutions to the peace and unity of the Church and not any binding Law or practice of Christ or his Apostles For the demonstrating of which I have made choyce of such arguments as most immediately teâ—d to the proving of it For If the power of the Church and its officers did encrease meerly from the inlargement of the bounds of Churches if no one certain form were observed in all Churches but great varieties as to Officers and Diocesses if the course used in setling the power of the chief Officers of the Church was from agreement with the civil government if notwithstanding the superiority of Bishops the ordination of Presbyters was owned as valid if in all other things concernning the Churches Polity the Churches prudence was looked on as a sufficient ground to establish things then we may with reason conciude that nothing can be inferred from the practice of the primitive Church Demonstrative of any one fixed form of Church-government delivered from the Apostles â—o them Having thus by a lâ—ght 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drawn ouâ— the several lines of the pourtraiture of the Polity of the antient Church we now proceed to fill them up though not with that life which it deserves yet so far as the model of this Discourse will permit Our first argument then is from the rise of the extent of the power of Church-Governours which I assert not to have been from any order of the Apostles but from the gradual encrease of the Churches committed to their charge This will be best done by the observation of the growth of Churches and how proportionably the power of the Governours did increase with it As to that there â—re four observable steps or periods as so many ages of growth in the primitive Churches First when Churches and Cities were of the same extent Secondly when Churches took in the adjoyning Terriâ—ories with the Villages belonging to the Cities Thirdly when several Cities with their Villages did associate for Church-Government in the same Province Fourthly when several provinces did associate for Government in the Roman Empire Of these in their order The first period of Church government observable in the primitive Church was when Churches were the same with Christians in whole Cities For the clearing of this I shall first shew that the primitive constitution of Churches was in a society of Christians in the same City Secondly I shall consider the form and manner of Government then observed among them Thirdly consider what relation the several Churches in Cities had to one another First That the Primitive Churches were Christians of whole Cities It is but a late and novel acception of the word Church whereby it is taken for stated fixed congregations for publike Worship and doubtless the original of it is only from the distinction of Churches in greater Cities into their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike places for meeting whence the Scotch Kirk and our English Church so that from calling the place Church they proceed to call the persons there meeting by that name and thence some think the name of Church so appropriated to such a society of Christians as may meet at such a place that they make it a matter of Religion not to call those places Churches from whence originally the very name as we use it was derived But this may be pardoned among other the religioâ—s weaknesses of well meaning but lesse knowing people A Church in its primary sense as it answers to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applyed to Christians is a society of Christians living together in one City whether meeting together in many Congregations or one is not at all material because they were not called a Church as meeting together in one place but as they were a Society of Christians inhabiting together in such a City not but that I think a society of Christians might be called a Church where-ever they were whether in a City or Countrey but because the first and chief mention we meet with in Scripture of Churches is of such as did dwell together in the same Cities as is evident from many pregnant places of Scripture to this purpose As Acts 14. 23. compared with Titus 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other Ordaining Elders in every Church and ordaining Elders in every City which implyes that by Churches then were meant the body of Christians residing in the Cities over which the Apostles ordained Elders to rule them So Acts 16. 4. 5. As they went through the Cities c. and so were the Churches established in the faith The Churches here were the Christians of those Cities which they went through So Acts 20. 17. He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church If by the Elders we mean as all those do we now deal with the Elders of Ephesus then it is here evident that the Elders of the Church and of the City are all one but what is more observable ver 28. he calls the Church of that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take heed to your selves and to the flock over which God hath made you overseâ—rs to feed the Church of God Where several things are observable to our purpose first that the body of Christians in Ephesus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flock of the Church and not the several flocks and Churches over which God hath made you Bishops Secondly That all these spoken to were such as had a pastoral charge of this one flock Paul calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do the work of a Pastor towards it So
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
themselves as one body and met together as occasion served them where either the chief of the Governours of the Church the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Iustin Martyrs language did perform the solemn part of divine Worship or some other of the Elders that were present with them Is it not strange for men to dream of set-times and Canonical hours and publike places of assemblies at that time when their chief times of meeting were in the night or very early in the morning which Pliny calls conventus antelucanus whence they were called latebrosa lucifugax natio and were fain to make use of wax-lights which from that custome the Papists continue still in their Tapers alwayes burning upon the Altar from what reason I know not unless to shew the darkness of error and superstition which that Church lyes under still and the places of the Christians meetings were generally either some private rooms or some grotts or Cryptae Vaults under ground where they might be least discerned or taken notice of or in the Coemeteria the Martyrum memoriae as they called them where their common assemblies were Thence Pontius Paulinus speaking of the Edict of Valerian against the Christians Iussum est ut nulla conciliabula faciant neque coemeteria ingrediantur Indeed when they had any publick liberty granted them they were so mindful of their duties of publick profession of the Faith as to make use of publick places for the worship of God as appears by Lampridius in the life of Alexander Sâ—verus Quum Christiani quendam locum qui publicus fuerat occupassent contrà popinarii dicerent sibi cum deberi rescripsit melius esse ut quomâ—docunque illic Deus colatur quam popinariis dedatur But in times of persecution it is most improbable that there should be any fixed Congregations and places when the Christians were so much hunted after and inquired for as appears by the former Epistle of Pliny and the known Rescript of Trajan upon it so much exagitated by Tertullian They did meet often it is certain ad confaederandum disciplinam at which meetings Tertullian tells us Praesident probati quique seniores which he elsewhere explains by Consessus ordiâ—is the bench of officers in the Church which did in common consult for the good of the Church without any Cantonizing the Christians into severall distinct and fixed Congregations But after that believers were much increased and any peace or liberty obtained they then began to contrive the distribution of the work among the several Officers of the Church and to settle the several bounds over which every Presbyter was to take his charge but yet so as that every Presbyter retained a double aspect of his Office the one particular to his charge the other generall respecting the Church in common For it is but a weak conceit to imagine that after the setling of Congregations every one had a distinct presbytery to rule it which we find not any obseure footsteps of in any of the ancient Churches but there was still one Ecclesiastical Senate which ruled all the several Congregations of those Cities in common of which the several Presbyters of the Congregations were members and in which the Bishop acted as the President of the Senate for the better governing the affairs of the Church And thus we find Cornelius at Rome sitting there cum florentissimo Clero thus Cyprian at Carthage one who pleads as much as any for obedience to Bishops and yet none more evident for the presence and joint concurrence and assistance of the Clergy at all Church debates whose resolution from his first entrance into his Bâ—shoprick was to do all things communi concilio Clericorum with the Common-Council of the Clergy and sayes they were cum Episcopo sacerdotali honore conjuncti Victor at Rome decreed Easter to be kept on the Lords day collatione facta cum Presbyteris Diaconibus according to the Latine of that age as Damasus the supposed Authour of the lives of the Popes tells us In the proceedings against Novatus at Rome we have a clear Testimony of the concurrence of Presbyters where a great Synod was called as Eâ—sebius expresseth it of sixty Bishops but more Presbyters and Deacons and what is more full to our purpose not onely the several Presbyters of the City but the Country Pastours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did likewâ—se give their advice about that business At this time Cornelius tells us there were forty six Presbyters in that one City of Rome who concurred with him in condemning Novatus So at Antioch in the case of Paulus Samosatenus we find a Synod gathered consisting of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and in their name the Synodal Epistle is penned and directed to the same in all the Catholick Church At the Council of Eliberis in Spain were present but ninteen Bishops and twenty six Presbyters The case between Sylvanus Bishop of Cirta in Africk and Nundinaris the Deacon was referred by Purpuriuâ— to the Clergy to decide it For the presence of Presbyters at Synods instances are brought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Blondel in his Apology And that they concurred in governing the Church and not onely by their Counsel but Authority appears from the general Sense of the Church of God even when Episcopacy was at the highest Nazianzen speaking of the Office of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knew not whether to call it Ministry or Superintendency and those who are made Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from being ruled they ascend to be rulers themselves And their power by him is in several places called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostome gives this as the reason of Pauls passing over from Bishops to Deacons without naming Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because there is no great matter of difference between a Bishop and Presbyters for these likewise have the instruction and charge of the Church committed to them which words Theophylact Chrysostomes Eccho repeats after him which the Council of Aquen thus expresseth Presbyterorum verô qui praesunt Ecclesiâ— Christi ministerium esse videtur ut in doctrina praesint populis in Officio praedicandi nec in aliquo desides invâ—nti appareant Clemens Alexandrinus before all these speaking of himself and his fellow-Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are Pastors and Rulers of the Churches And that proper Acts of Discipline were performed by them appears both by the Epistles of the Roman Clergy about their preserving Discipline to Cyprian and likewise by the Act of that Clergy in excluding Marcion from communion with them So the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus excommunicated Noetus for after they had cited him before them and found him obstinate in his Heresie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they put both him and his Disciples out of the Church together Thus we see what the
third place to consider what relation these Churches in greater Cities had one to another and to the lesser Cities which were under them And here the grand question to be discussed is this Whether the Churches in greater Cities by Apostolical institution had the Government Ecclesiastical not only of the lesser Villages under them but likewise of all lesser Cities under the civil Jurisdiction of the Metropolis The affirmative is of late asserted by some persons of great renown and learning The first I find maintaining this Hypothesis of the divine right of Metropolitans is Fregevilaeus Gantius one of the Reformed Church of France who hath spent a whole Chapter in his Palma Christianâ— to that purpose and hath made use of the same Arguments which have been since improved by all the advantages which the learning of a Reverend Drâ— could add to them But because this principle manifestly destroyes the main foundation of this discourse it is here requisite to examine the grounds on which it stands that thereby it may be fully cleared whether the subordination of less Churches to greater did onely arise from the mutual association of Churches among themselves or from Apostolical appointment and institution The two pillars which the divine right of Metropolitans is built upon are these First that the Cities spoken of in the New Testament in which Churches are planted were Metropoles in the civil Sense Secondly that the Apostles did so far follow the model of the civil Government as to plant Metropolitan Churches in those Cities If either of these prove infirm the Fabrick erected upon them must needs fall and I doubt not but to make it appear that both of them are I begin with the first The notion of a Metropolis is confessed to be this A City wherein the Courts of a civill Judicature were kept by the Roman Governours under whose Jurisdiction the whole Province was contained The Cities chiefly insisted on are the seven Cities of the Lydian Asia and Philippi which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for the Cities of the Proconsular Asia although the bounds and limits of it are not so clear as certainly to know whether all these Cities were comprehended under it or no Strabo telling us that Phrygia Lydia Caria and Mysia are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very hard to be distinguished from one another it being true of all four which was said of Mysia and Phrygia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Phrygian and Mysian Borders are distinct but it iâ— is hard to find them out For Laodicea is by Ptolomy referred to Caria Strabo and many others place it in Phrygia onely Stephanus Bizantinus placeth it in Lydia but granting all that is produced by the late most excellent Primate of Armagh in his Learned Discourse of the Proconsular Asia to prove all these seven Cities to be in the bounds of this Lydian Asia yet it is far from being evident that all these Cities were Metropoles in the Civil Sense For Strabo tells us That the Romans did not divide these places by Nations â—but according to the Diocâ—sses wherein they kept their Courts and exercised Judicature These Cities wherein the Courts of Judicature were kept were the Metropoles and no other Of five of them Laodicea Smyrna Sardis Ephesus and Pergamus Pliny saith that the Conventus the Civil Courts were kept in them and they had Jurisdiction over the other places by him mentioned but for the other two Thyatira and Philadelphia Philadelphia is expresly mentioned as one of those Cities which was under the jurisdictio Sardiana so far was it from being a Metropoles of its self and Thyatira mentioned as one of the ordinary Cities without any addition of Honour at all to it And for Philadelphia it was so â—ar unlikely to be a Metropolis that Strabo tells us it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very subject to Earth-quakes and therefore had very few inhabitants those that â—â—â— live most part in the fields where they have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very rich soil but Strabo for all that wonders at the boldness of the men that durst to venture their lives there and most of all admires what was in those mens heads who first built a City there Is it then any wayes probable that this should be chosen for a Metropolis in such an abundance of fair and rich Cities as lay thereabout But a Salvo is found out for Plinyes not mentioning them as Metropoles because the addition of these two mother Cities seemeth to have been made when Vespasian added those many new Provinces to the old Government which Suâ—tonius speaks of but this Salvo doth not reach the sore For first Pliny wrote his natural History not in the beginning but toward the latter end of the Empire of Flavius Vespasianus when Titus had been six times Consul â—s he himself saith in his Preface therefore if there had been any such change Pliny would have mentioned it Secondly the Provinces added by Vespasian are expresly set down by Suâ—â—oniuâ— viz. Achaia Lysia Rhodus Byzantium Samos Thracia Cilivia Comagena not the least mention of the Lydian or Procoâ—sular Asia or any alteration made in the Metropolis there But yet there is a further attempt made to make Philadelphia a Metropolis which is from a subscription of Eustathius in the Council of Constantinople sub Menna Act 5. who calls himself the Bishop of the Metropolis of Philadelphia but what validity there is in such a subscription in the time of the fifth Century to prove a Metropolis in the first lâ—t any one judge that doth but consider how common â— thing it was to alter Metropoles especially after the new disposition of the Roman Empire by Constantinâ— But if we do stand to the Notitiâ— to determine this controversie which are certainly more to be valued then a single subscription the Metropolitanship of these Cities of the Lydian Asia will be irrecoverably overthrown For in the old Notitia taken out of the Vatican MS. and set forth with the rest by Caroâ—â—â—â— Sancto-Paulo in his Appendix to his Geographia sacra Ephesus is made the Metropolis of the Province of Asia Sardis of Lydia Laodicea of Phrygia Capatiana as it is there written for Pacatiana but Pergamus placed in the Province of Caesarla Cappadocia Philadelphia under Sardis with Thyatyra In the Notitia attributed to Hierâ—clâ—s under the Metropolis of Ephesus is placed Smyrna and Pergamuâ— under Sardiâ— Thyatyra and Philadelphia so likewise in the Notitia of the French Kings Library So that neither in the Civil noâ— Ecclesiastical sense can we find these seven Cities to be all Metropoles We therefore observe St. Pauls course and leaving Asia we come into Macedonia where we are told that Philippi was the Metropolis of Macedonia I know not whether with greater incongruity to the Civil or Ecclesiastical sense in â—oth which I doubt not but to make it appear that Philippi was not the
question was started at Antioch Acts 14. 26. with Acts 15. 2. from thence they sent to Ierusalem for a resolution the decree of the Council there concerns not only Aâ—tioch but Syria and Cilicia which were under the Jurisdiction of Antioch and therefore Metropolitan Church 〈…〉 e jure divino I am afraid the argument would sc 〈…〉 ow its self in the dress of a Syllogism Thus it runs If upon the occasion of the question at Antioch the decree of the Apostles made at Ierusalem concern all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia then all these Churches had a dependance upon the Metropolis of Antioch but the anâ—ecedent is true therefore the consequent Let us see how the argument will do in another â—orm If upon the occasion of the question at Antioch the decree of the Apostles concerned all the Churches of Christians conversing with Jews then all these Churches had dependance upon the Church of Antioch But c. How thankfull would the Papists have been if onely Rome had been put instead of Antiochâ— and then the conclusion had been true what ever the premises were But in good earnest doth the Churches of Syria and Cilicia being bound by this Decree prove their subordination to Antioch or to the Apostles Were they bound because Antioch was their Metropolis or because they were the Apostles who resolved the question but were not the Churches of Phrygia and Galatia bound to observe these decrees as well as others For of these it is said that the Apostles went through the Cities of them delivering the decrees to keep as it is expressed Acts 16. 4. compared with the 6. verse Or do the decrees of the Apostles concern only those to whom they are inscribed and upon whose occasion they are penned Then by the same reason Pauls Epistles being written many of them upon occasions as that to the Corinthians being directed to the Metropolis of Corinth doth only concern the Church of that City and those of Achaia that were subject to the jurisdiction of the City and so for the rest of the Epistles A fair way to make the Word of God of no effect to us because for sooth we live not in obedience to those Metropoles to which the Epistles were directed From whence we are told how many things we may understand by this notion of Metropolitans Especially why Ignatius superscribes his Epistle to the Romans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church which preâ—ides in the place of the Roman region or the suburbicariâ—n Provinces But let us see whether this place may not be understood better without the help of this notion Casaubon calls it locutionem barbarâ—m Vedelius is more favourable to it and thinks si non elegans saltem viâ—ii libera est and explains it by the suburbicarian Provinces and makes the sense of it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place which is the Roman region and parallels it with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 9. 10. Bellarmine thinks he hath â—ound the Popes universal power in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but methinks the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should hardly be rendred Orbis universus unless Bellarmine were no more skil'd in Greek then Casaubon thinks he was whom he calls in the pâ—ace forecited hominem Graecarum literarum prorsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most ingenuous conjecture concerning this place is that of our learned Mr. Thorndike The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he is here used as many times besides speaking of those places which a man would neither call Cities nor Towns as Acts 27 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to sail by the places of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is plain it signifies the countrey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then must necessarily signifie here the Vaticane lying in the Fields as a suburb to Rome and being the place where St. Peter was buried and where the Iews of Rome then dwâ—lt as we learn by Philo legatione ad Caium out of whom he produceth a large place to that purpose and so makes this the Church of the Jewish Christians the Vaticane being then the Iewry of Rome but there being no clear evidence of any such distinction of Churches there and as little reason why Ignatius should write to the Church of the Jewish Christians and not to the Church of the Gentile Christians I therefore embrace his sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Vatican but explain it in another way viz. as we have already shewed that the chief places of meeting for the Christians in Gentile Rome was in the Coemeteries of the Martyrs now these Coemeteria were all of them without the City and the Coemeteria where Peter Linus Cletus and some other of the Primitive Martyrs lay interr'd in the Vatican beyond the River Tiber. So Damasus in the life of Cletus Qui etiam sepultus est juxta corpus B. Petri in Vaticano The Church then in the pâ—ace of the region of the Romans is the Christian-Church of Rome assembling chiefly in the Coemeteries of the Vatican or any other of those Vaults which were in the Fields at a good distance from the City But yet there is one argument more for Metropolitans and that is from the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is taken to signifie both the City and Countrey and so the inscription of Clemens his Epistle is explained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Church of God dwelling about Rome to the Church dwelling about Corinth whereby is supposed to be comprehended the whole Territories which being these were Metropoles takes in the whole Province And so Polycarp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But all this ariseth from a mistake of the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies not so much accolere as incolere and therefore the old Latin Version renders it Ecclâ—siae Dei quae est Philippis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that removes from one City to sojourn in another And the ground of attributing that name to the Christian Churches was either because that many of the first Christians being Jews they did truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being as strangers out of their own countrey or else among the Christians because by reason of their continual persecutions they were still put in mind of their flitting uncertain condition in the World their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 countrey citizenship being in Heaven Of this the Apostles often tell them from hence iâ— came to signifie the Society of such Christians so living together which as it encreased so the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 encreased and so went from the City into the countrey and came not from the countrey into the City for if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for accolere then it necessarily follows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signifie the Church of Rome and the Territories belonging to it but the Church adjacent to
Rome distinct from the Citie and the Church in it For in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to living in the City and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are distinct from the Citizens as in Thucydides and others but I believe no instance can possibly be produced wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in that sense doth comprehend in it both City and Country But being taken in the former sense it was first applyed to the whole Church of the City but when the Church of the City did spread it self into the Countrey then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehended the Christians both in City and Countrey adjoyning to it Which leads me to the second step of Christian Churches when Churches took in the Villages and Territories adjoyning to the Cities For which we must understand that the ground of the subordination of the Villages and Territories about did primarily arise from hence that the Gospel was spread abroad from the several Cities into the Countreys about The Apostles themselves preachedmost as we read in Scripture in the Cities because of the great resort of people thither there they planted Churches and setled the Government of them in an Ecclesiastical Senate which not only took care for the government of Churches already constituted but for the gathering more Now the persons who were employed in the conversion of the adjacent Territories being of the Clergy of the City the persons by them converted were adjoyned to the Church of the City and all the affairs of those lesser Churches were at first determined by the Governours of the City Afterwards when these Churches encreased and had peculiar Officers set over them by the Senate of the City-church although these did rule and govern their flock yet it alwayes was with a subordination to and dependance upon the government of the City-church So that by this means he that was President of the Senate in the City did likewise superintend all the Churches planted in the adjoyning Territories which was the original of that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latins the Diocess of the Bishop The Church where the Bishop was peculiarly resident with the Clergy was called Matrix Ecclesia and Cathedra principaliâ— as the several Parishes which at first were divided according to the several regions of the City were called Tituli and those planted in the Territories about the City called Paroeciae when they were applyed to the Presbyters but when to the Bishop it noted a Diocess those that were planted in these country-parishes were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Greeks and by the Latins Presbyteri regionarii conregionales forastici ruriâ— agrorum Presbyteri from whom the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were distinct as evidently appears by the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Neocaesarea where the countrey Presbyters are forbidden to administer the Lords Supper in the presence of the Bishop on the Presbyters of the City but the Chorepiscopi were allowed to do it Salmasiuâ— thinks these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were so called as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopi villani such as were only Presbyters and were set over the Churches in Villages but though they were originally Presbyters yet they were â—aised to some higher authority over the rest of the Presbyters and the original of them seems to be that when Churches were so much multiplyed in the Countreys adjacent to the Cities that the Bishop in his own person could not be present to oversee the actions and carriages of the several Presbyters of the countrey Churches then they ordained some of the fittest in their several Dioceses to super intend the several Presbyters lying remore from the City from which office of theirs they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go about and visit the several Churches This is the account given of them by Beza and Blondel as well as others All those several places that were converted to the saith by the assistance of the Presbyters of the City did all make but one Church with the City Whereof we have this twofold evidence First from the Eulogiâ— which were at first parcels of the bread consecrated for the Lords Supper which were sent by the Deacons or Acâ—luthi to those that were absent in token of their communion in the same Church Iustin Martyr is the first who acquaints us with this custome of the Church After saith he the President of the Assembly hath consecrated the bread and wine the Deacons stand ready to distribute it to every one person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and carry it to those that are absent Damascus attributes the beginning of this custome to Miltiades Bishop of Rome Hic fecit ut Oblationes consecratâ— per Ecclesias ex consecratione Episcopi dirigerentur quod declaratur fermentum So Innocentius ad Decentium De fermento verò quod die Dominica per titulos mittimus c. ut se à nostra communione maxime illa die non judicent separaâ—osâ— Whereby it appears to have been the custome of Rome and other places to send from the Cathedral Church the bread consecrated to the several parish-Churches to note their joint-communion in the faith of the Gospel Neither was it sent only to the several tituli in the City but to the Villages round about as appears by the Question propounded by Dâ—centius although at Rome it seems they sent it only to the Churches within the City as appears by the answer of Innocentius but Albaspinus takes it for granted as a general custome upon some set-dayes to send these Eulogiâ— through the whole Diocess Nam cum per vicos agros sparsi diffusâ— ex â—adem non pâ—ssint sumere communione cuperentque sâ—mper union is Christianâ— Christi corporis speciem quam pâ—ssint maximam râ—tinere solâ—â—nissimis diâ—bus festivis ex matrice per parochias bene dictus mitâ—ebatur panis ex â—ujus pâ—rceptione communitas quae inter omnes fideles â—jusdem Dâ—oecesis intercedere debet intelligebatur repraesentabatur Surely then the Diocesses were not very large iâ— all the several parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church Afterwards they sent not part of the bread of the Lords-supper but some other in Analogy to that to denote their mutual contesseration in the saith and communion in the same Church Secondly It appears that still they were of the same Church by the presence of the Clergy of the Countrey or the choyce of the Bishop of the City and at Ordinations and in Councils So at the choyce of Boniface Relictis singuli titulis suis Presbyteri omnes aderunt qui voluntatem suam hoc est Dâ—i judicium proloquantur whereby it is evident that all the Clergy had their voyces in the choyce of the Bishop And therefore Pope Lâ—o requires these things as necessary to the
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
non alio modo quam ejus veritate colligati tum vero nullo non Anathemate dignos fatemur si qui erunt qui eam non reverenter sumnia cum obedientia observent If Bishops would but submit themselves to Christ those that would not then submit themselves to them he thinks there is no Anathema of which they are not worthy Iacobus Heerbrandus Divinity Professor at Tubinge professeth it to be the most found constitution of Church-government wherein every Diocess had its Bishop and every Province an Arch-bishop Saluberrimum esset si singulae Provinciae suos Episcopos Episcopi suos Archiepiscopos haberent Hemingius acknowledgeth a disparity among Church Officers and accounts it a piece of barbarism to remove it Quanquam enim potestas omnium eadem est ministrorum quantum ad spiritualem jurisdictionem attiâ—et tamen dispares dignitatis ordines gradus sunt idque partim Jure divino partim Ecclesia approbatione But he qualifies what he had said of Ius divinum by his following words Ecclesia cui Dominus potestatem dedit in aedificationem ordinem ministrorum instituit pro commodo suo ut omnia sint rite ordinata ad instaurationem corporis Christi Hinc Ecclesia purior secuta tempora Apostolorum fecit alios Patriarchas alios Chorepiscopos alios Pastores Catechetas and afterwards Inter ministros agnoscit etiam Ecclesia nostra gradus dignitatis ordines pro diversitate donorum laborum magnitudine ac vocationum diversitate ac judicat Barbaricum esse de Ecclesia hunc ordinem tollere velle Three things he placeth a superiority of Dignity in Excellency of gifts Greatness of labours difference of calling And the truth is the two former ought to be the measure of dignity in the Church the Eminency of mens abilities and the abundance of their labours above others The necessity of a Superintendent or an Inspector over other Ministers is largely discovered by Zepper de Politeid Ecclesiastica who likewise agrees with the former Divines in his judgement of the first institution of Episcopacy Eadem officia in primitiva etiam Ecclesia post Apostolorum tempora in usu manserunt paucis quibusdam gradibus pro illorum temporum necessitate additis qui tamen nihil fere à mente D. Pauli verbi divini alienum habuerunt Whereby he both assert it to be in the power of the Church to add distinct degrees from what were in the Primitive Church and that such so added are no wayes repugnant to the Word of God According to this judgement of their Divines is the practice of the forraign Protestant Churches In Sweden there is one Arch-Bishop and seven Bishops and so in Denmark though not with so great authority in Holstein Pomeren Mecklenburgh Brunswicke Luneburgh Bremen Oldenburgh East Frieseland Hessen Saxony and all the upper part of Germany and the Protestant Imperial Cities Church government is in the hands of Super-intendents In the Palatinate they had Inspectores and Praepositi over which was the Ecclesiastical Consistory of three Clergy men and three Counsellors of State with their President and so they have their Praepositos in Wetteraw Hessen and Anhalt In Transylvania Polonia and Bohemia they have their Seniores enjoying the same power with anclent Bishops So that we see all these Reformed Churches and Divines although they acknowledge no such thing as a divine Right of Episcopacy but stiffely maintain Ieromes opinion of the primitive equality of Gospel Ministers yet they are so far from accounting it unlawfull to have some Church Officers acting in a higher degree above others that they themselves embrace it under different names and titles in order to the Peace Unity and Government of their several Churches Whereby they give us an evident demonstration that they looked not upon the primitive form to be immutable but that the orders and degrees of Ministers is only a Prudential thing and left in the liberty of every particular Church to be determined according to their tendency to preserve the peace and settlement of a Church We come in the last place to those who hold Episcopacy to be the Primitive Form yet not unalterably binding all Churches and places but that those Churches who are without it are truly constituted Churches and Ministers are lawfully ordained by meer Presbyters This is largely proved by Mr. Francis Mason in his excellent Defence of the Ordination of Ministers beyond the Seas to which I refer the Reader Only I shall shew out of him how the State of the Question about the Ius divinum of Episcopacy is formed First If by jure divino you mean that which is according to Scripture then the preheminence of Bishops is jure divino for it hath been already proved to be according to Scripture Secondly If by jure divino you mean the Ordinance of God in this sense also it may be said to be jure divino For it is an ordinance of the Apostles whereunto they were directed by Gods Spirit even by the Spirit of Prophecy and consequently the ordinance of God But if by jure divino you understand a Law and Commandment of God binding all Christian Churches universally perpetually unchangeably and with such absolute necessity that no other form of Regiment may in any case be admitted in this sense neither may we grant it nor yet can you prove it to be jure divino Whereby we see this learned and moderate man was far from unchurching all who wanted Bishops and absolutely declares that though he look on Episcopacy as an Apostolical Institution yet that no unalterable Divine Right is founded thereupon So before him the both learned and pious Bishop G. Downham explains himself concerning the Right of Episcopacy in these remarkable words Though in respect of the first Institution there is small difference between an Apostolical and Divine Ordinance because what was ordained by the Apostles proceeded from God in which sense and no other I do hold the Episcopal function to be a divine Ordinance I mean in respect of of the first Institution yet in respect of perpetuity difference by some is made between those things which be divini and those which be Apostolici juris the former in their understanding being perpetually generally and immutably necessary the latter not so So that the meaning of my defence plainly iâ— that the Episcopal Government hath this commendation above other forms of Ecclesiastical Government that in respect of the first Institution it is a divine Ordinance but that it should be such a divine Ordinance as should be generally perpetually immutably necessarily observed so as no other form of Government may in no case be admitted I did not take upon me to maintain With more to the same purpose in several places of that defence And from hence it is acknowledged by the stoutest Champions for Episcopacy before these late unhappy divisions that ordination performed by Presbyters in cases
themselves members of it Whereas were the Church and Commonwealth really and formally the same all obligation to Church society would arise meerly from the Legislative Power of the Common wealth But now there being a Divine Law binding in conscience whose obligation cannot bee superseded by any Humane Law it is plain and evident where are such vastly different obligations there are different Powers and in this sense I know no incongruity in admitting imperium in imperio if by it wee understand no external coactive power but an internal power laying obligation on conscience distinct from the power lodged in a Commonwealth considered as such An outward coactive power was alwayes disowned by Christ but certainly not an internal Power over conscience to oblige all his Disciples to what Duties hee thought fit Secondly I argue from those Officers whose rights to govern this Society are founded on that Charter whereby the Society it self subsists Now I would willingly know why when our Saviour disowned all outward power in the World yet hee should constitute a Society and appoint Officers in it did hee not intend a peculiar distinct Society from the other Societies of the world And therefore the argument frequently used against Church-power because it hath no outward force with it by the constitution of Christ is a strong argument to me of the peculiarity of a Christian society from a Commonwealth because Christ so instituted it as not to have it ruled at first by any outward force or power When Christ saith his Kingdome was not of this world he implies that he had a Society that was governed by his Laws in the world yet distinct from all mundane Societies had not our Saviour intended his Church to have been a peculiar Society distinct from a Commonwealth it is hard to conceive why our Saviour should interdict the Apostles the use of a civil coactive power Or why instead of sending abroad Apostles to preach the Gospel hee did not employ the Governours of Commonwealths to have inforced Christianity by Laws and temporal edicts and the several Magistrates to have impowred several persons under them to preach the Gospel in their several Territories And can any thing bee more plain by our Saviours taking a contrary course than that hee intended a Church society to bee distinct from civil and the power belonging to it as well as the Officers to bee of a different nature from that which is settled in a Commonwealth I here suppose that Christ hath by a positive Law established the Government of his Church upon Officers of his own appointment which I have largely prove â—â—sewhere and therefore suppose it now Thirdly I arguâ—â—â—om the peculiar rights belonging to these Societies For if every one born in the Commonwealth have not thereby a right to the priviledges of the Church nor every one by being of the Church any right to the benefits of the Commonwealth it must necessarily follow that these are distinct from one another If any one by being of the Common-wealth hath right to Church-priviledges then every one born in a Common-wealth may challenge a right to the Lords Supper without Baptism or open professing Christianity which I cannot think any will be very ready to grant Now there being by Divine appointment the several rights of Baptism and the Lords Supper as peculiar badges of the Church as a visible Society it is evident Christ did intend it a Society distinct from the Common wealth Fourthly I argue from the different ends of these societies A Common-wealth is constituted for civil ends and the Church for spiritual for ends are to be judged by the primary constitution but now it is plain the end of civil society is for preservation of mens rights as men therefore Magistracy is called by St. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this Christian society doth not respect men under the connotation of men but as Christians The answer given to this is very short and insufficient when it is said that every man in a Commonwealth is to act upon spiritual accounts and ends For there is a great deal of difference between Christianities having an influence upon mens actings in a Commonwealth and making a society the same with a Commonwealth To argue therefore from one to another is a shortness of discourse I cannot but wonder at unless it could be proved that Christianity aymed at nothing else but regulating men in the affairs of a Commonwealth which is a task I suppose will not be undertaken Lastly I argue from the peculiar offences against this society which are or â—ay bee distinct from those against a Commonwealth I deny not but most times they are the same but frequently they differ and when they are the same yet the consideration of them is different in the Church and Common wealth for which I shall suppose the six arguments produced in the last chapter of the first part to stand good which will strongly hold to exâ—â—â—â—unication in the Christian Church though there produce 〈…〉 ly for the Iewish I would fain know what is to bee done in many offences known to bee against the Laws of Christ and which tend to the dishonour of the Christian society which the civil and Municipal Laws either do not or may not take cognizance of Thus much may serve as I think to make evident that the Church in its own nature is a peculiar society distinct from a Commonwealth which was the first proposition to bee proved The second is That the power of the Church over it's members in case of offences doth not arise meerly from confederation and consent though it doth suppose it This Church power may be considered two wayes Either first as it implyes the right in some of inflicting censures Or secondly as it implyes in others the duty of submitting to censures inflicted now as to both these I shall prove that their original is higher than meer confederation 1. As to the right of inflicting censures on these accounts First What ever society doth subsist by vertue of a divine constitution doth by vertue thereof derive all power for it's preservation in peace unity and purity but it is plain that a power of censuring offenders is necessary for the Churches preservation in peace and purity and it is already proved that the Church hath its Charter from Christ and therefore from him it hath a power to inflict punishments on Offenders suitable to the Nature of the Society they are of I am very prone to think that the ground of all the mistakes on this subject have risen from hence that some imprudently enough have fixt the original of this Power on some ambiguous places of Scripture which may and it may bee ought to bee taken in a different sense and their adversaries finding those places weak and insufficient proofs of such a power have from thence rejected any such kind of power at all But certainly if wee should reject every truth that is weakly
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
Holy Ghost hath made them Over-seers 3. I argue that Church-Power ariseth not meerly from consent because the Church may exercise her Power on such who have not actually confederated with her which is in admitting members into the Church For if the Church-Officers have power to judge whether persons are fit to be admitted they have power to exclude from admission such whom they judge unfit and so their power is exercised on those who are not confederated To this it may be answered That the consent to be judged gives the Church power over the person suing for admission I grant it doth as to that particular person but the Right in generall of judging concerning Admission doth argue an antecedent power to an actual confederation For I will suppose that Christ should now appoint some Officers to found a Church and gather a Society of Christians together where there hath been none before I now ask Whether these Officers have power to admit any into the Church or no This I suppose cannot be denied for to what end else were they appointed If it be granted they have power to admit persons and thereby make a Church then they had power antecedently to any confederation for the Confederation was subsequent to their Admission and therefore they who had power to admit could not derive their power from confederation This Argument to me puts the case out of dispute that all Church-power cannot arise from meer confederation And that which further evidenceth that the Power of the Church doth not arise from meer consent is that Deed of Gift whereby our Blessed Saviour did confer the Power of the Keyes on the Apostle Peter as the representative in that action of the whole Colledge of the Apostles and Governours of the Church of which power all the Apostles were actually infeoffed John 20. 23. By which Power of the Keyes is certainly meant some Administration in the Church which doth respect it as a visible Society in which Sense the Church is so frequently called as in that place the Kingdome of Heaven and in all probability the Administration intended here by the Power of the Keyes is that we are now discoursing of viz. the Power of Admission into the Church of Christ in order to the pardon of the sins of all penitent Believers and the shutting out of such who were manifestly unworthy of so holy a communion So that the power of the Keyes doâ—h not primarily respect exclusion out of the Church and receiving into it again upon Absolution but it chiefly respects the power of Admission into the Church though by way of connotation and Analogy of Reason it will carry the other along with it For if the Apostles as Governours of the Church were invested with a power of judging of mens fitness for Admission into the Church as members of it it stands to the highest Reason that they should have thereby likewise a power conveyed to them of excluding such as are unworthy after their Admission to maintain communion with the Church So that this interprâ—tation of the Power of the Keyes is far from invalidating the Power of the Church as to its censuring Offenders all that it pretends to is onely giving a more natural and genuine Sense of the Power of the Keyes which will appear so to be if we consider these things 1. That this Power was given to Saint Peter before any Christian Church was actually formed which as I have elsewhere made manifest was not done till after Christs Resurrection when Christ had given the Aposâ—les their commission to go to Preach and baptize c. Matth. 28. 19. Is it not therefore farr more rational that the Power of the Keyes here given should respect the founding of a Church and admission into it than ejection out of it before it was in being and receiving into it again And this we find likewise remarkably fulfilled in the Person of the Apostle Peter who opened the door of admission into the Christian Church both to Iewes and Gentiles To the Iewes by his Sermon at Pentecost when about 3000. Souls were brought into the Church of Christ. To the Gentiles as is most evident in the story of Corneliuâ— Acts 10. 28. who was the first-fruits of the Gentiles So that if we should yield so far to the great Inhancers of Saint Petesâ— Power that something was intended peculiar to his person in the Keyes given him by our Saviour we hereby see how rationally it may be understood without the least advantage to the extravagant pretensions of Saint Peters pretended Successours 2. The pardon of sin in Scripture is most annexed to Baptism and Admission into the Church and thence it seems evident that the loosing of sin should be by admitting into the Church by Baptism in the same Sense by which Baptism is said to save us and it is called the washing of Regeneration respecting the Spiritual advantages which come by Admission into the Church of Christ and so they are said to have their sins bound upon them who continue refractory in their sins aâ— Simon Magus is said to be in the bond of iniquity 3. The Metaphor of the Keyes refers most to Admission into the House and excluding out of it rather than ejecting any out of it and re-admitting them Thus when Eliakim is said to have the Keyes of the House of David it was in regard of his Power to open and shut upon whom he pleased And thus Cyprian as our learned Mr. Thorndike observes understands the power of binding and loosing in this sense in his Epistle to Iubaianus where speaking of the Remission of sins in Baptism he brings these very words of our Saviour to Peter as the evidence of it That what he should loose on Earth should be loosed in Heaven and concludes with this Sentence Unde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesiâ praeposit is in Evangeliâ—â lege ac Dominicâ ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare remissam peccatorum dare for is autem nec ligari aliquid posse nec solvi ubi non sit qui ligare possit aut solvere That which I now infer from this Discourse is that the power of the Church doâ—h not arise from meer consent and confederation both because this power doth respect those who have not actually consented to it and because it is settled upon the Governours of the Church by Divine Institution Thus it appears that the right of inflicting censures doth not result meerly â—â—â— confoederatd Disciplind which was the thing to be proved The lâ—ke evidence may be given for the duty of submitting to penalties or Church-censures in the members of the Church which that it ariseth not from meer consent of parties will appear on these accounts 1. Every person who enters this Society is bound to consent before he doth it because of the Obligation lying upon Conscience to an open profâ—ssion of Christianity presently upon conviction of the