should think as much of calling any thing a Law but what hath a civil sanction But I suppose all those who dare freely own a supreme and infinite essence to have been the Creator and to bee the ruler of the World will acknowledge his Power to oblige conscience without being beholding to his own creature to enact his Laws that men might bee bound to obey them Was the great God fain to bee beholding to the civil authority hee had over the Jewish Common-Wealth their government being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make his Laws obligatory to the consciences of the Jews What had not they their beings from God and can there bee any greater ground of obligation to obedience than from thence Whence comes civil power to have any Right to oblige men more than God considered as Governour of the World can have Can there bee indeed no other Laws according to the Leviathans Hypothesis but only the Law of nature and civil Laws But I pray whence comes the obligation to either of these that these are not as arbitrary as all other agreements are And is it not as strong a dictate of nature as any can bee supposing that there is a God that a creature which receives it's being from another should bee bound to obey him not only in the resultancies of his own nature but with the arbitrary constitutions of his will Was Adam bound to obey God or no as to that positive precept of eating the forbiden fruit if no civil Sanction had been added to that Law The truth is such Hypotheses as these are when they are followed close home will bee found to Kennel in that black Den from whence they are loath to bee thought to have proceeded And now supposing that every full Declaration of the Will of Christ as to any positive institution hath the force and power of a Law upon the consciences of all to whom it is sufficiently proposed I proceed to make appear that such a divine positive Law there is for the existence of a Church as a visible body and society in the World by which I am far from meaning such a conspicuous society that must continue in a perpetual visibility in the same place I finde not the least intimation of any such thing in Scripture but that there shall alwaies bee some where or other in the world a society owning and professing Christianity may bee easily deduced from thence and especially on this account that our Saviour hath required this as one of the conditions in order to eternal felicity that all those who beleeve in their hearts that Jesus is the Christ must likewise confess him with their mouths to the world and therefore as long as there are men to beleeve in Christ there must bee men that will not bee ashamed to associate on the account of the Doctrine hee hath promulged to the world That one Phrase in the New Testament so frequently used by our blessed Saviour of the Kingdome of Heaven importing a Gospel state doth evidently declare a society which was constituted by him on the principles of the Gospel Covenant Wherefore should our Saviour call Disciples and make Apostles and send them abroad with full commission to gather and initiate Disciples by Baptism did hee not intend a visible society for his Church Had it not been enough for men to have cordially beleeved the truth of the Gospel but they must bee enter'd in a solemn visible way and joyn in participation of visible Symbols of bread and wine but that our Saviour required external profession and society in the Gospel as a necessary duty in order to obtaining the priviledges conveyed by his Magna Charta in the Gospel I would fain know by what argument wee can prove that any humane Legislator did ever intend a Common-wealth to bee governed according to his mode by which wee cannot prove that Christ by a positive Law did command such a society as should be governed in a visible manner as other societies are Did he not appoint officers himself in the Church and that of many ranks and degrees Did hee not invest those officers with authority to rule his Church Is it not laid as a charge on them to take heed to that flock over which God had made them Overseers Are there not Rules laid down for the peculiar exercise of their Government over the Church in all the parts of it Were not these officers admitted into their function by a most solemn visible rite of imposition of hands And are all these solemn transactions a meer peece of sacred Pageantry and they will appear to bee little more if the Society of the Church bee a meer arbitrary thing depending onely upon consent and confederation and not subsisting by vertue of any Charter from Christ or some positive Law requiring all Christians to joyn in Church Society together But if now from hence it appears as certainly it cannot but appear that this Society of the Church doth subsist by vertue of a Divine positive Law then it must of necessity be distinct from any civil Society and that on these accounts First because there is an antecedent obligation on conscience to associate on the account of Christianity whether Humane Laws prohibit or command it From whence of necessity it follows that the constitution of the Church is really different from that of the Common-wealth because whether the Common-wealth bee for or against this Society all that own ir are bound to profess it openly and declare themselves members of it Whereas were the Church and Common-wealth 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 Common-wealth considered as such An outward coactive power was alwayes disowned by Christ but certainly not an internall 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 its self subsists Now I would willingly know why when our Saviour disowned all outward power in the world yet he 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 mee of the peculiarity of a Christian Society from a Common-wealth because Christ so instituted it as not to have it Ruled at
A DISCOURSE Concerning the POWER OF EXCOMMUNICATION IN A Christian Church By way of Appendix to the IRENICUM BY EDWARD STILLINGFLEET Rector of Sutton in Bedfordshire LONDON Printed for Henry Mortlock at the sign of the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard neer the Little North-door 1662. A DISCOURSE Concerning The Power of Excommunication IN A Christian Church IT is a matter of daily observation and experience in the world how hard it is to keep the eyes of the understanding clear in its judgement of things when it is too far engaged in the dust of controversie It being so very difficult to well manage an impetuous pursuit after any opinion nothing being more common then to see men outrun their mark and through the force of their speed to bee carryed as farr beyond it as others in their opinion fall short of it There is certainly a kind of ebriety of the mind as well as of the body which makes it so unstable and pendulous that it oft times reeles from one extream unto the quite contrary This as it is obvious in most eager controvertists of all ages so especially in such who have discovered the falsity of an opinion they were once confident of which they think they can never after run farr enough from So that while they start at an apparition they so much dread they run into those untroden paths wherein they lose both themselves and the truth they sought for Thus wee find it to be in the present controversie for many out of their just zeal against the extravagancies of those who scrued up Church power to so high a peg that it was thought to make perpetuall disâ—ord with the Common-wealth could never think themselves free from so great an inconvenience till they had melted down all Spiritual power into the Civil State and dissolved the Church into the Common-wealth But that the world may see I have not been more forward to assert the just power of the Magistrate in Ecclesiasticalls as well as Civills then to defend the fundamental Rights of the Church I have taken this opportunity more fully to explain and vindicate that part of the Churches power which lies in reference to offenders It being the main thing struck at by those who are the followers of that noted Physitian who handled the Church so ill as to deprive her of her expulsive faculty of Noxious humours and so left her under a miserere mei I shall therefore endeavour to give the Church her due as well as Caesar his by making good this following principle or hypothesis upon which the whole hinge of this controversie turnes viz. that the power of inflicting censures upon offenders in a Christian Church is a fundamentall right resulting from the constitution of the Church as a society by Jesus Christ and that the seat of this power is in those Officers of the Church who have derived their power originally from the Founder of this society and act by vertue of the Laws of it For the cleare stating of this controversie it will bee necessary to explain what that Power is which I attribute to the Church and in what notion the Church is to be considered as it Exerciseth this Power First concerning the proper notion of Power by it I cannot see any thing else to bee understood then a right of Governing or ordering things which belong to a Society And so Power implies only a moral faculty in the person enjoying it to take care ne quid civitas detrimenti capiat whereby it is evident that every well constituted Society must suppose a Power within its self of ordering things belonging to its welfare or else it were impossible either the being or the rights and priviledges of a Society could bee long preserved Power then in its general and abstracted notion doth not necessarily import either meer authority or proper coaction for these to any impartial judgement will appear to bee rather the severall modes whereby power is exercised then any proper ingredients of the specifick nature of it which in generall imports no more then a right to Govern a constituted Society but how that right shall bee exercised must bee resolved not from the notion of Power but from the nature and constitution of that particular Society in which it is lodged and inherent It appears then from hence to bee a great mistake and abuse of well natured readers when all Power is necessarily restrained either to that which is properly coercive or to that which is meerly arbitrary and onely from consent The originall of which mistake is the stating the notion of Power from the use of the Word either in ancient Roman authors or else in the Civil Laws both which are freely acknowledged to bee strangers to the exercise of any other Power then that which is meerly authoritative and perswasive or that which is Coactive and Penal The ground of which is because they were ignorant of any other way of conveyance of Power besides external force and arbitrary consent the one in those called Legal Societies or Civitates the other Collegia and hetaeriae But to us that do acknowledge that God hath a right of commanding men to what duty hee please himself and appointing a Society upon what terms best please him and giving a Power to particular persons to govern that Society in what way shall tend most to advance the honour of such a Society may easily bee made appear that there is a kind of power neither properly coactive nor meerly arbitrary viz. such a one as immediately results from Divine institution and doth suppose consent to submit to it as a necessary Duty in all the members of this Society This Power it is evident is not meerly arbitrary either in the Governours or members for the Governours derive their Power or right of Governing from the institution of Christ and are to bee regulated by his Laws in the execution of it and the members though their Consent bee necessarily supposed yet that consent is a Duty in them and that duty doth imply their submission to the Rulers of this Society neither can this power bee called coactive in the sense it is commonly taken for coactive power and external force are necessary correlates to each other but wee suppose no such thing as a power of outward force to bee given to the Church as such for that properly belongs to a Common-wealth But the power which I suppose to bee lodged in the Church is such a power as depends upon a Law of a superiour giving right to Govern to particular persons over such a Society and making it the Duty of all members of it to submit unto it upon no other penalties then the exclusion of them from the priviledges which that Society enjoys So that supposing such a Society as the Church is to bee of Divine institution and that Christ hath appointed Officers to rule it it necessarily follows that those Officers must derive
the subject is capable of these following things First that the Church is a peculiar Society in its own Nature distinct from the Common-wealth Secondly that the power of the Church over its members doth not arise from meer confederation or consent of parties Thirdly That this power of the Church doth extend to the exclusion of offenders from the priviledges of it Fourthly That the fundamental rights of the Church do not escheat to the Common-wealth upon their being united in a Christian State If these principles bee established the Churches power will stand upon them as on a firm and unmoveable basis I begin with the first That the Church is a peculiar Society in its own nature distinct from the Common-wealth which I prove by these arguments 1 Those Societies which are capable of subsisting apart from each other are really and in their own nature distinct from one another but so it is with the Church and Common-wealth For there can bee no greater evidence of a reall distinction than mutual separation and I think the proving the possibility of the souls existing separate from the body is one of the strongest arguments to prove it to bee a substance really distinct from the body to which it is united although wee are often fain to go the other way to work and to prove possibility of separation from other arguments evincing the soul to bee a distinct substance but the reason of that is for want of evidence as to the state of separate souls and their visible existence which is repugnant to the immateriality of their natures But now as to the matter in hand wee have all evidence desirable for wee are not put to prove possibilâ—â—y of separation meerly from the different constitution of the things united but wee have evidence to sense of it that the Churh hath subsisted when it hath been not onely separated from but persecuted by all civil power It is with many men as to the union of Church and State as it is with others as to the union of the Soul and Body when they observe how close the union is and how much the Soul makes use of the Animal Spirits in most of its operations and how great a sympathy there is between them that like Hyppocrates his Twins they laugh and weep ' together they are shrewdly put to it how to fancy the Soul to bee any thing else then a more vigorous mode of matter so these observing how close an Union and Dependence there is between the Church and State in a Christian Common-wealth and how much the Church is beholding to the civil power in the Administration of its functions are apt to think that the Church is nothing but a higher mode of a Common-wealth considered as Christian. But when it is so evident that the Church hath and may subsist supposing it abstracted from all Civil Power it may bee a sufficient demonstration that however neer they may be when united yet they are really and in their own nature distinct from each other Which was the thing to bee proved 2 Those are distinct societies which have every thing distinct in their nature from each other which belong to the constitution or government of them but this is evident as to the Church and Common-wealth which will appear because their Charter is distinct or that which gives them their being as a society Civil societies are founded upon the necessity of particular mens parting with their peculiar Rights for the preservation of themselves which was the impulsive cause of their entring into societies but that which actually speaks them to bee a society is the mutual consent of the several parties joyning together whereby they make themselves to bee one Body and to have one common interest So Cicero de Repub. defines populus to bee caetus multitudinis juris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus There is no doubt but Gods general providence is as evidently seen in bringing the World into societies and making them live under Government as in disposing all particular events which happen in those societies but yet the way which providence useth in the constitution of these societies is by inclining men to consent to associate for their mutual benefit and advantage So that natural reason consulting for the good of mankinde as to those Rights which men enjoy in common with each other was the main foundation upon which all civil societies were erected Wee finde no positive Law enacting the beeing of civil societies because nature it's self would prompt men for their own conveniencies to enter into them But the ground and foundation of that society which we call a Church is a matter which natural reason and common notions can never reach to and therefore an associating for the preserving of such may bee a Philosophical Society but a Christian it cannot bee And that would make a Christian Church to bee nothing else but a society of Essens or an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Pythagorians who do either not understand or not consider whereon this Christian society is founded for it is evident they look on it as a meerly voluntary thing that is not at all setled by any Divine positive Law The truth is there is no principle more consistent with the opinion of those who deny any Church power in a Christian state then this is and it is that which every one who will make good his ground must bee driven to for it is evident that in matters meerly voluntary and depending only on consideration such things being lyable to a Magistrates power there can be no plea from mutual consent to justifie any opposition to supream authority in a Common-Wealth But then how such persons can bee Christians when the Magistrates would have them to bee otherwise I cannot understand nor how the primitive Martyrs were any other then a company of Fools or Mad-men who would hazard their lives for that which was a meer arbritrary thing and which they had no necessary obligation upon them to profess Mistake mee not I speak not here of meer acts of discipline but of the duty of outward professing Christianity if this bee a duty then a Christian society is setled by a positive Law if it bee not a duty then they are fools who suffer for it So that this question resolved into it's principles leads us higher than wee think for and the main thing in debate must bee whether there bee an obligation upon conscience for men to associate in the profession of Christianity or no If there bee then the Church which is nothing else but such an association is established upon a positive Law of Christ if there bee not then those inconveniencies follow which are already mentioned Wee are told indeed by the Leviathan with confidence enough that no precepts of the Gospel are Law till enacted by civil authority but it is little wonder that hee who thinks an immaterial substance implies a contradiction