is a sin unto death saith the Apostle 1 John V. 16. I say not that ye pray for it This is commonly understood of denying Gods truth against that light which convinceth the conscience Which if it were true the Apostles precept could never come into practice seeing no man can know unlesse by Revelation against what light his Neighbour sinneth But the Novatians at the Councell of Nice as Socrates and Sozomenus both report Eccles Hist I. 7. I. 23. answering Constantine that they refused Penance onely to those that sinned the sin unto death doe give us to understand that S. John was understood by the Church not to command that Apostates be admitted to Penance And so also Tertullian in many places of his Book de Pudicit as cap. XIV argueth from this place that Penance was not to be granted to Adulterers Which sheweth that the Church understood the place in the same sense though it admitted not his consequence So also Origen in Mat. XVIII 18. Tract VII I was long doubtful of the truth of this Interpretation because the Apostle premising If any man see his brother sin a sin not unto death let him ask of God seems to speak of private Prayers of particular persons But the words of S. James V. 16. have cleared me of this doubt Confesse your sins one to another saith he and pray for one another that ye may be healed In which words I make no doubt but he speaketh of publique Penance For having premised that the Presbyters be sent for to the sick that they confesse their sins to the Presbyters that they pray for them anointing them with oil that their sins may be forgiven them to shew neverthelesse that according to the custome aforesaid in case they recovered they were to stand bound to Penance he addeth Confesse your sins to one another to signifie that this Confession and Penance remained due before the Church as we understand by the XII Canon of Nice that the practice was so long afterwards And this is proved by the precept of both Apostles to pray for one another For it is manifest that there were two means to obtain remission of sins in this case the Humiliation which the Church prescribed and the Penitent performed and the Prayers of the Church Which S. John prescribeth not to be granted to Apostates The very same is the meaning of the Apostle to the Hebrews VI. 6. when he pronounceth it unpossible that those that fall away be renued again to Repentance For as they that stood for Baptisme when they were catechized in Christianity were properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be instructed or dedicated to Repentance because of the Repentance from dead works which they professed so they that forfeited their Christianity by violating the contract of Baptisme are no lesse properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be renewed instructed and dedicated again to Repentance And the Apostles reason agrees For because the earth that receives rain and renders no fruit is near the curse therefore the Church will not easily beleeve that such a one shall lightly obtain of God the grace to become a sincere Christian And therefore the Apostle says not that it is unpossible that such a one should repent but that he should be instructed again to repentance to wit by the Church As the Novatians answered Constantine that they remitted such persons to God not prejudicing their salvation but not admitting them to the means of Reconciliation by the Church And herewith agreeth the example of Esau used by the Apostle again XII 17. saying that he found not place of Repentance alluding to that roome in the Church where Penitents were placed apart by themselves And again X. 26. the allusion which he maketh to the custome under the Law understood by the Hebrews to whom he writeth consisteth in this that as there was no sacrifice to be made for Apostates though for Ethnicks for this was the use of the Law as we understand by Moses Maimoni in the Title of Dressing Oblations cap. III. num 3 5. So the Christian Sacrifice of the Prayers of the Church was not to be offered for those that had renounced Christianity If it be thus you will ask What was the fault of the Novatians seeing they understood this Text right And my answer is that neverthelesse they are Hereticks extending the name of Hereticks to those whom now we call Schismaticks as I have shewed you in the little Discourse pag. 197. that it is often used For S. John as he commands not so he forbids not that they be admitted to Penance the other Apostle tels them it is impossible to let them know that they must not expect it But neither says that the Church could not give it When therefore the Church to preserve Unity was necessitated to grant it as we see by S. Cyprian the Novatians were no lesse Schismaticks in making separation upon the quarrell though perhaps the reason be not urged by their adversaries then if they had understood the Text amisse The Unity of the Church being of more moment then much understanding in the Scriptures And so perhaps S. Pauls words will belong to this purpose 1 Tim. 5. 19. as not onely the Socinians of late but Pacianus among the Ancients Paraen ad Poenitentiam and Matthaeus Galenus among modern Writers do expound them To wit that when he saith Lay hands suddenly on no men nor partake of other mens sins he leaves it to Timothies judgement whom to admit whom not to admit to Penance Because this Blessing with Imposition of hands was not the mark of Absolution but of admission to Penance as well as the ceremony of Ordinations And though this Text of the Apostle be understood in particular of Ordinations yet by the same reason which he allegeth it is to be extended to all Acts of the Church that are blessed by the Prayers of the Church with Imposition of Hands For if Timothy by Imposing hands upon those whom he Ordains become accessary to their sins if they be unfit to be Ordained by the same reason if he Impose Hands that is grant Penance unto them that are not fit for it he becomes accessory to the sins which they commit by being admitted to it Imposition of Hands being nothing else but a ceremony of that Benediction which signifieth that those Acts to which it is granted are allowed and authorized by the publique Power of the Church So Imposition of Hands in Confirmation is the admission of him that is confirmed to the communion of the Visible Church In Penance the restoring of him In Ordination to the exercise of this or that function in the Church Prayer over the sick which the Apostle commands James V. 14. and our Lord in the Gospel made with Imposition of Hands signified the admitting of the sick to Penance And it is said that in some Eastern Churches to this day mariages are blessed with Imposition of Hands in signification that the Church
me no great thanks for saying that it is not against Gods Law that those who are not in Holy Orders do Preach For that which I have alleged for this in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 420. out of that notable Epistle in Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 20. in behalf of Origen who before he was Presbyter was imploied in Preaching by the Bishop of Caesarea consists in divers instances of other persons of Origens rank which Preached indeed but all by Commission from their respective Bishops who were themselves by their Places the Doctors in Chief of their respective Churches And if this be against Divine Right as we agree it is for any under the rank of a Presbyter to celebrate the Eucharist how shall any Church allow men to Preach for triall of their abilities before they attain that rank in which they are ordinarily to doe it That which hath been said of Preaching is to be said much more in my opinion of Baptism If the charge of Baptizing given the Apostles had been meant of the Office of Ministring not of the power of granting it what reason could there be that S. Peter having converted Cornelius and his company should not baptize them in person but command them to be baptized Acts IX 48 And if the Apostles imploy their Deacon S. Philip to Preach and to Baptize is it not by consequence that the Governours of particular Churches imploy their Deacons about the same In the Synagogue it cannot be said that the office of Circumcising ever required any higher quality then that of a person circumcised And therefore in the Church if there can be any question whether a person is to be admitted to Baptism or not it is the Chief Power of the Church that must determine it Or if the occasion require Solemnity which may argue him that Officiates it to be Chief in the Church no Deacon nor Presbyter must presume to doe it before the Bishop But because Baptisme is the gate as well of the invisible Church as of the visible and because the occasions are many and divers which indanger the preventing of so necessary an Office by death in this regard the practice of the Primitive Church alleged by Tertullian de Bapt. cap. XVIII must not be condemned whereby Baptism given by him that is only baptized is not onely valid but well done Though my intent hereby is not to say that it may not be restrained to Presbyters and Deacons when the Church is so provided of them that there is no appearance that Baptisme can be prevented for want of one But though I doe for these causes refuse the reason that Presbyterians can give why onely Presbyters may celebrate the Eucharist I am not therefore much more in love with that which the School Doctors give when they conceive that the Apostles were made Priests by our Lord at his last Supper when he said Do this For we do not find this exposition of these words authorized by the first ages of the Church or any Writers of that time And where the School Doctors speak not out of the mouth of the Primitive Church I make no difficulty to take them for none of my Authors And truly in this case the Text of the Scripture seems to be plain enough for the Command of our Lord Doe this in remembrance of me must needs speak to the same persons as the rest that goes afore Take eate drink divide this among you which belonging to the whole Church it is manifest the Precept Do this belonging also to the whole Church cannot make any difference of qualities in it In this difficulty then it will be hard to find any anchor so sure as that of Tertullian De Cor. cap. III. where making a Catalogue of Orders and Rules observed in the Church which are not found delivered in terms of Precept in the Scriptures he prosecuteth it thus Eucharistiae Sacramentum in tempore victus omnibus à Domino mandatum etiam antelucanis coetibus nec nisi de manu Praesidentium sumimus The Sacrament of the Eucharist was commended to the Church at meat saith Tertullian Is not this the expresse word of our Lord for when he saith Doe this is it not manifest that he commandeth to celebrate the Eucharist at the end of Supper as himself presently had done Sure enough the Primitive Church understood it so for the Ministery of Tables in the Acts of the Apostles for which the Apostles provide themselves Deacons and the Feasts of Love which S. Paul regulates at Corinth are enough to shew us that the Eucharist came at the end of them And so Tertullian shews that it was in his time when he sayes that they received the Eucharist at their Assemblies before day also that is to say as well as at their Feasts of Love at which our Lord ordained it But though there be no Precept extant in the Scripture that the Eucharist be used at those Assemblies of the Church which are held meerly for the Service of God besides those Feasts of Love yet if my reasons propounded in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 291. have not failed which hitherto so far as I know are not contradicted it doth appear by the Scripture that it was so under the Apostles And therefore that onely Presbyters are to celebrate the Eucharist the Church will be confidently assured because it appears by these words of Tertullian that this was the Primitive practice of the Church Especially if by any circumstance of Scripture it may appear to have been derived from the Apostles Which perhaps comparing the premises with the nature of the Eucharist will not fail us To shew that those who did eat of the Sacrifices of the Gentiles were accessory to their Idolatries the Apostle 1 Cor. X. 16 instanceth in the Jews who by eating of their Sacrifices did communicate with the Altar that is with God to whom that which was consumed upon the Altar belonged And because Christianity supposeth that the Gentiles Sacrifices were offered to Devils therefore the Gentiles communicating with Devils by eating the remains of their Sacrifices as the Jews with God that it was not lawfull to eat of their Sacrifices for them that communicated with God in the Eucharist as the Jews did with the same true God and the Gentiles with the Devils by their Sacrifices Thus the Apostles argument supposeth that in the Eucharist Christians do participate of the Sacrifice of the Crosse as Jews and Gentiles do of their Sacrifices and so that the purpose thereof is that by it we may participate of the Sacrifice offered to God upon the Crosse Which being carried by our Lord within the Vail into the most Holy Place of the Heavens to be presented to God as it is declared at large Hebr. IX 11 is notwithstanding no lesse participated by Christians then the Jews do participate of their peace-Offerings Which the Apostle teaches again when he tels the Hebrews XIII 10. that
out of the Scriptures it will be easie to drive a worse Trade of Preaching then ever Priests did of private Masses The one tending only to feed themselves the other to turn the good order of the world which is the Harbour of the Church into publique confusion to feed themselves the profaning of Gods Ordinance being common to both And if the taking away of private Masses must be by turning the Eucharist out of doors saving twice or thrice a year for fashions sake it is but Lycurgus his Reformation to stock up the Vines for fear men be drunk with the wine The Church of England is clear in this businesse The Order whereof as it earnestly sighs and grones toward the restoring of publique Penance the onely mean established by the Apostles to maintain the Church in estate to communicate continually so it recommendeth the continuall celebration of the Eucharist at all the more solemne Assemblies of Lords days and Festivals As for the Sermon it is to be when it can be had and were it now abated when such Sermons cannot bee had as were fitting it is easie to undertake that there would be room enough left for the celebration of the Eucharist In the mean time the Reformers of this Age had they considered so well as it behoved them what they undertook should easily have found that the continuall celebration of the Eucharist at all the more solemne Assemblies of the Church and the Discipline of Penance to maintain the people in a disposition fit to communicate in it is such a point of Reformation in the Church that without restoring it all the rest is but meer noise and pretence if not mischief Now the reason why the celebration of the Eucharist is reserved to Presbyters alone in consequence to the premises is very reasonable and will be effectuall to shew that it is common to all Presbyters and therefore that there is no such thing as Lay Elders For seeing all agree that Presbyters have their share in the Power of the Keys though the Chief Interess in it be the Bishops according to the Doctrine of the Church and seeing the work of this Power is to admit to the Prayers of the Church as S. John sheweth when he describeth Excommunication by not praying for the sins of the excommunicate and seeing it appeareth by S. James that the Prayers of the Church for the sins of them whom the Church prayeth for are the Prayers of the Presbyters what can we conceive more reasonable and consequent to the premises then that the Power of the Keys is convertible with the Office of celebrating the Eucharist belonging to the Bishop and Presbyters by virtue of it For what can be more agreeable then that the Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is celebrated with be offered by those that are to discern who is to be admitted who excluded from the same This is the meaning of Josephus the Jew in Epiphanius against the Ebionites where being baptized by the Bishop of Tiberias at his parting he gives him money saying Offer for me for it is written Whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained Expressing thereby the sense of Primitive Christians who when they were admitted to the Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is offered to God with made account thereby that the Power of the Keys was passed and continually did passe upon them to the remission of sins Whereupon we see that it is an ordinary censure of the ancient Canons that he which did so or so his oblations be not received that is that he be out of the number of those for whom the Prayers of the Church are made which the Eucharist is offered with Therefore Ignatius thus prosecuteth the words last quoted He that is without the Sanctuary saith he comes short of the Bread of God For if the Prayer of one or two be so forcible with God what shall we think of the Prayer of the Bishop and the whole Church For the efficacy of the Prayers of the Church dependeth upon the Unity of the Church And the Power of the Keys is that which containeth that Unity It is therefore agreeable that those Prayers which are of this efficacy be the Prayers of them whom this Unity and the Power which preserves it is trusted with And for this reason though all Christians be Priests as the Scripture says 1 Pet. II. 5. Apoc. I. 6. by a far better title then Moses promises the Israelites Ex. XIX 6. The Sacrifice of Prayer being the act of the whole Church Yet notwithstanding it is by good right that Bishops and Presbyters are called Sacerdotes or Sacrificers in regard of the same Sacrifice of Prayer and Thanksgiving for which all Christians are called Sacrificers That is to say by way of excellence because that which is the act of all is by ordinance of the Apostles passed upon the whole Church reserved to be executed and ministred by them whom that Power which preserveth that Unity which inforceth the Prayers of the Church is trusted with He that refuseth this reason as built upon consequences that convince not must by consequence acknowledge that the celebration of the Eucharist is peculiar to Presbyters meerly by universall and perpetuall practice of the Church derived from the Order setled by the Apostles Which whether those of the Presbyteries will admit I leave to themselves to advise For as for their pretense that the Ministery of both Sacraments is convertible with the Office of Preaching upon which they style their Pastors or Preaching Elders Ministers of the Word and Sacraments it appears to be as void of any ground from the Scriptures as it is wide from the originall and Universall practice of the Church The Ministery of the Word being the Office of Apostles and Evangelists according to the Scriptures The Ministery of Baptism and Preaching communicable to Deacons and possibly to Lay men onely the celebration of the Eucharist proper to the Power of the Keys in Bishops and Presbyters But putting all the reasons that here are advanced to compromise yet out of the premises we have two effectuall arguments to convince the nullity of Lay Elders The first from the manner of sitting in the Church In as much as it hath been shewed that the Order and custome of it is to be derived from the Apostles themselves as being in use in their time For if the manner of their sitting in the Church were so distinguished that all the Presbyters sate in one Rank in the uppermost Room with the Bishop in the midst that is in the Head of them his Seat advanced above theirs as S. Hierome witnesseth of the Bishops of Alexandria from S. Mark from which manner of sitting they are called by the Greek Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Tertullian praesidentes how can common sense desire better evidence that there are but two qualities
of any man to beleeve them till they shewed him a reason to beleeve Indeed though there can no reason be given why matters of faith are true there may bee a reason given why they are credible Because many things are true the reason whereof mans understanding comprehends not yet God can shew him reason why he should beleeve Thus was the Law of Moses thus was the Gospel of Christ advanced to the world and received God having bestowed on them that advanced the one and the other a power to do works the greatnesse and strangenesse whereof might be able to prevail over the difficulty of those things which they propounded to be beleeved and obeyed For though it is no inconvenience that God should grant revelations to many persons to whom he granteth not the power of doing such works as may serve to convince the world that those revelations are sent by God yet that he should imploy any man to declare unto the world any thing that God requireth to be beleeved and obeyed without any means to make evidence of his Commission ordinary reason will shew to be too grosse an inconvenience This being the motive of Faith in generall the difficulty that remains will be how it becomes evident to the senses of all ages all places all persons of the world that can be obliged to receive the Faith being done and seen onely by those persons that were sent and to whom A difficulty endlesse to those that advise not as they should doe with their own common sense For it is manifest that we receive an infinite number of truths which never came under our own senses from the sense of others when we finde all those that have had the means to take sensible notice of them agree in the same Such are all things that are or are done in any distance from any mans senses whereof he cannot be informed but by Historicall faith For all that is related from them that have seen carries with it the credit of Historicall truth as far as common sense obliges to beleeve that all that relate can neither be deceived nor agree to deceive Whereupon that which all agree in becoms unquestionable because it is as easie to know what may be seen as it is unpossible that all that agree in a report should agree in a design to deceive The common notions in Euclide are unquestionable and is it more questionable that there is such a City as Rome or Constantinople such a Country as Persia and China to those that never were there Would Physitians and Astronomers build their studies or be suffered to build their practice upon experiments and observations related by particular persons did not common sense assure that men would not take the pains to abuse others onely to be laught at and detested themselves The question then being to suppose a question where there is none because there is a question what is the true answer whether the miracles recorded in the Scripture were done or not neither could they that first received them agree to deceive or be deceived but stood convict because they must have done violence to their own senses otherwise and being once admitted unquestionable to the worlds end they remain no otherwise For the effect of them continuing in that the Law or the Gospel is in force by virtue of them they remain as certain as he that sees a City builded a thousand years since knows that there were men alive at the building of it The Jews therefore are in the wrong when they argue for the Law against the Gospel that because there never was or indeed can ever be such an appearance of all them of one age to whom the Gospel is addressed as there was of the Israelites at the giving of the Law when all of that age that were to be tied by it were present at once to be witnesses that it was sent from God therefore no Law abrogating the same can by any means become credible For as for the love of this advantage against Christianity they deny that which the first sending of Moses expresly affirmeth Exod. IV. 5. that all the miracles which he was endowed with tended to win faith of the people that God sent him And will have all the credit of the Law to stand precisely upon the appearance and standing of Mount Sinai as they call it where they will have all the people of Israel to have been Prophets of Moses rank whom God spoke face to face with without any commotion or rapture of his or their senses So they consider not how the truth of this appearance of Mount Sinai is manifested to their posterity Seeing that by the same means as it becomes evident to those that live under other times the motives of Christianity may also be conveyed and evidenced to them that are not present at the doing of the works This for the evidence As for the sufficience of the motives to the Gospel in comparison of those of the Law the possibility thereof necessarily follows upon Gods omnipotence the actuality of it is sufficiently proved by the judgement of all Nations that have imbraced the Gospel in comparison of one that imbraced the Law Especially if we consider the predictions of the Law and the Prophets going before and the conversion of the Gentiles following upon the publication of the Gospel Which being reckoned among the miracles that render the Gospel to be beleeved doe necessarily bring all the motives of the Law to depose for the truth of the Gospel Thus much premised it will be possible to resolve in a few words the subject of voluminous disputes All men know how those of the Church of Rome would have us beleeve and receive the Scriptures upon the credit of the Church affirming them to come from God And consequently whatsoever the Church determines to be the true meaning of the Scriptures and the Word of God So that there can be no true faith in any man that disbeleeves any part of it Whether by the Church they mean the Pope or a Councell or whosoever they shall agree to have right to conclude the Church On the other side it were easie to say who they are that professe to beleeve the Scriptures upon the immediate dictate of the Spirit of God to their spirit that they come from God And though I cannot say that consequently they deny any man to have faith that beleeves not all that their Spirit dictates to be the meaning of Gods word because the dictates of severall Spirits are so contrary that this can be no Rule yet when the qualities of mens persons with the dictates of their Spirits are alledged in bar to the received doctrine of the Church it is manifest that men expect such light to be struck out of the darknesse and confusion of such dictates that the Church shall at length be convinced to beleeve and receive it And truly those that professe that they could not beleeve the Scriptures but
by the immediate dictate of the Spirit by the same reason can conclude nothing to be the will of God and the true intent of his Word without it This if it were meant onely of the testimony of the Spirit of God witnessing with our Spirit that we are the children of God and sealing the assurance of this favour to our persons and actions then would it not take away the grounds upon which and the means by which we are effectually moved and brought to be Christians both in profession and in deed So that by consequence means might be had whereby a man 's own Spirit might be enabled to discern between the dictates of Gods Spirit and that of the world But being advanced in answer to this difficulty as the first ground of faith and the last resolution of it cannot be so understood But of necessity importeth that no man can be assured by the assurance of faith of any truth without that means by which God reveals himself to them by whom he declares his will to others That either any person on behalf of the Church or any private spirit should pretend to any such endowment is contrary to common sense and their own proceedings When they use the like means to inform themselves both why to beleeve the Scripture and what the meaning of it and the will of God is as other men doe And if they doe pretend more they must shew such evidence as God hath ordained to convince the world before they can pretend to oblige any man to beleeve them Besides that so it would not be possible to render a reason why God hath given his Scriptures at all seeing that notwithstanding he must furnish either some persons in behalf of the Church or all beleevers with revelations to convince them what is his will and meaning by the Scriptures But if they admit of such means as God hath appointed Christians to decide whether it be the Spirit of God or of the world that witnesseth with their Spirit then is the question where it was Because as God gives his Spirit to those that are Christians upon such qualities and to such intents as they who pretend to the Spirit of God ought to finde in themselves and to propose to themselves and no other so are they assured that it is the Spirit of God that moves them because they are assured of those qualities and intentions in themselves and by no other meanes Now having shewed before upon what grounds Christianity is to be imbraced I demand whether it be in the compasse of any reason that is convinced of the truth of Christianity to question whether the Scriptures are to be received or not Certainly he were a strange man that should consent to be a Jew or a Mahumetane and yet make a question whether the Book of the Law came from Moses or the Alcoran from Mahomet or not Therefore supposing that we stand convict of the truth of Christianity by the same means we stand assured that God hath caused those great works to be done by Moses and the Prophets by our Lord and his Apostles by which the world stands convict that they were sent by God and by the same that the Scriptures wherein those works and their doctrine is related are from God Neither can the Church act to the assuring of any body herein as the Church but as a multitude of men endowed with common sense which cannot agree to deceive or to be deceived For if the profession of Christianity goe before the being of the Church and Christianity cannot be received till it be acknowledged with the records thereof to be from God then this assurance though it come from the agreement of the men that make the Church goes in nature before the quality of a Church and therefore comes as well from the consent of Jews for the Old Testament as of Christians for the New Nor let it trouble any man that by this means faith may seem to be the work of reason not the grace of God seeing it may very reasonably be demanded Where is the necessity of grace to enable a man to beleeve what he sees reason to beleeve For though the matter of faith be credible of it self yet it is not evident of it self though sufficient reason may be shewed why a man ought to beleeve yet on the other side there are many scandals and stumbling blocks in the way to hinder him from beleeving the chiefe of which is the offence of the Crosse whereof our Lord saith Happy is he that is not offended at me For it cannot seem strange that a man should refuse to beleeve that which he sees sufficient reason to convince him to beleeve when as by beleeving he becomes liable to bear the Crosse of Christ specially not being inforced by the light of reason evidencing the truth of Christianity and determining the assent of the minde as fire does wood to burn but swaied by externall motives working upon the minde according as they finde it disposed to goodnesse For when this disposition is not perfectly wrought by Gods grace nothing hinders sufficient motives to prove uneffectuall to them whom the Crosse of Christ scandalizeth This being resolved it follows by necessary consequence upon what reasons and by what means the meaning of the Scriptures or rather the will of God concerning all matters questioned in Christianity is determinable For it is not the same thing many times to know the meaning of the Scriptures as it is to know how far it is Gods will that it binde the Church The name of the Scripture inforceth no more but that all is true which it containeth Now it containeth many times the sayings and doings of evill men as well as of good of Satan himself sometimes wherein it intends onely to assure that such and such things were said and done And not to insist on the Law of Moses which is all the word of God and no part of it binding to us as the Law of Moses because another disposition of Gods will may appear by other Scriptures in the New Testament it self are found many things that now have not the force of precepts though it appear that they did sometimes binde the Church Such is the practice of the Feasts of Love which S. Paul presses so hard as I shewed afore such is his precept that women be vailed men bare when they pray in the Church the decree of the Apostles at Jerusalem against eating blood and things strangled and sacrificed to Idols the precept of S. James of anointing the sick the ceremonies of Baptism which I shewed afore out of S. Paul to have been in use in the Primitive Church yea the very custome of drenching in Baptism which no man doubts but the institution signifies and yet is now scarce any where in use If therefore there be question of the will of God what is the true meaning of the Scriptures and how far it bindes the Church the
one in the greatest City and the most populous for number of Christians that is mentioned in all the Scriptures Though no common reason can question but there were more Congregations considering that it cannot be thought that all the Christians contained in the greatest and most Christian of all those Cities could assemble together at once for the common service of God Upon these premises it is necessary to inferre that the Apostles Order was that which we see was the Rule of their practice that the severall Bodies of those that should be converted to Christianity within severall Cities and the Territories thereof should constitute severall Churches to be governed by the severall Presbyteries thereof constituted and regulated as shall be declared in the consequences Which being established it will not be difficult to inferre that the Power of the Keys and the consequences thereof are deposited in the said Churches that is trusted with them that are endowed with the Power of Governing those Churches To which if you adde this that the Churches of particular Cities were to depend upon the Churches of Mother Cities upon which particular Cities depended for the civile Government you have a reason and Rule of the whole frame of Church Government designed by the Apostles as generall as could be given to a Society that was to consist of severall Nations and Soveraignties without limits but not more generall then the Originall constitution of the whole Church derived from their design will evidence to be agreeable to those impressions and marks of it which are here produced out of the Scriptures This Position is liable to an Objection from those which the ancient Canons of the Greekish Councels call Chorepiscopi which we may translate Country Bishops because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth the Country in opposition to or in difference from the City For if Churches constituted in Cities have their severall Presbyteries the Heads whereof being Bishops are by consequent Governors in chief of their respective Churches how are Bishops constituted in the Country that is in any of the chief Villages under any City For by this means either we have a Church in a Village or a Bishop without a Church and so the practise of the Church not to be reconciled with that which I make the design of the Apostles if either be true The answer to this in generall must come from that which you have here afterwards p. 62. that the Rule is as generally expressed in these terms as any Rule generall to those cases that may fall out so divers For the generall intent and reason of it is to preserve the Unity of the Whole Church by the subordination and dependence of the parts thereof to and from other parts and so the Whole If some particular provision prove necessary some time and place to attain this end it is not to be thought that the generall Rule holds not therefore For the particular here in hand one thing I conceive may be questionable in point of Fact and matter of Historicall Truth concerning these Country Bishops which the Canons quoted p. 146. speak of For in the beginning of the XI Canon of Antiochia it is said that they received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordination of Bishops In the end of it it is provided that they be Ordained by the Bishop of the City to whom they are subject The first clause seems to intimate that they have the same Ordination with other Bishops which is by the Synod of the Province or those that represent the same Besides that we finde by the subscriptions of the Councels that they were called to Councels as if they received their trust immediately from the Synods of their Provinces By the second clause it seems they receive their authority immediately from the Bishop of the Province whereupon they are called Vicarii Episcoporum the Bishops Deputies as you see in the place afore named What my judgement is in this point you may have seen before p. 146. neither do I see cause to repent me of it For howsoever they were Ordained and from whomsoever they received their trust it is manifest by the Canons of Ancyra and Laodicea there quoted that they received it upon such terms as to be subordinate to the Bishop of the City which otherwise Bishops were not but immediately to the Synod of the Province and the Bishop of the Mother City Neither is it contrary to the ground of that generall Rule which I maintain that it should be within the Power of the Church contained in any Province that is to say the Synod of the same to Ordain that in regard some Village under some City of that Province grew considerable for the extent of it and the multitude of Christian souls contained in it therefore it should have a Bishop beside the Bishop of the City Alway provided that the dependence of Churches might be preserved wherein the Unity of the whole consisted But it is manifest that this dependence might be maintained two severall ways supposing a Bishop to be constituted in a Village First Ordaining him to be subordinate to the Bishop of the City Which is the case of those whom we speak of whose Power is tied up as you have seen by the said Canons of Ancyra and Laodicea But should they be left free from all dependence on the City Bishop then were they absolute Bishops and their Churches though in Villages and therefore lesse yet for their respective Power and right the same with other Churches constituted in Cities Which seems to be the case of the Churches of Africk where Bishops were so plentifull that every good Village must needs be the Seat of an Episcopall Church Neither doth this destroy the Rule which I maintain that Cities and Churches were originally convertible but argues that Villages in some Countries had that privilege which in others was proper to Cities To that which is said p. 53. of the difference between Prophesies and between Apostles and Prophets I adde this consideration That the Apostles of our Lord were necessarily Prophets because of the promise of the Holy Ghost to lead them into all truth to remember them of our Lords Doctrine and to make them understand the Scriptures all which are contained in the thing signified by this word Prophesie though the originall thereof import onely foretelling things to come as it is manifest by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV But all Prophets are not necessarily Apostles that is sent by God to declare their Commission to his people or to charge them with those things which God revealed to themselves I grant that the Prophets under the Old Testament were such by reason of that Law by which God appointeth them to be obeyed and therefore giveth a Rule how to discern between true and false Prophets Deut. XVIII 18. And hereupon it is that their writings are the Word of God and that Prophesie is said to have failed after those whose Writings we
under the Altar of Burnt Sacrifices but standing in the lower part of the Sanctuary beneath the Altar of Incense Unlesse we take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here for the Sanctuary as I shew that it is taken in the Apocalypse p. 115. and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The name of Ministers when it answers the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures if it be put absolutely without any addition signifies the Rank and Office of those that are ever since called Deacons in the Church But many times it is put with the additions here mentioned p. 99. of Ministers of the Word Ministers of the Gospel of the New Testament of the Church which serve as circumlocutions and descriptions of the Office of Apostles to the whole Church or their Deputies and Commissioners the Evangelists as when S. Paul writes to the Colossians I. 23 25. that he was made a Minister of the Gospel or of the Church according to the dispensation of God which is given me towards you to fulfill the Word of God that is the Mystery that hath been hidden from generations and ages and now is manifested to his Saints It is here manifest that he cals himself a Minister of God or of the Church in regard of publishing the Gospel and planting the Church which belongs not to the Presbyters of Churches whose name and office is respective to their particular Churches And this notion of the word is almost always to be gathered by the text and consequence of those passages where it is found Therfore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is absolutely put 1 Tim. III. 8 stands in relation to Bishops and Presbyters mentioned afore in the notion of Waiting upon them whereas when it is put with the addition here specified it stands in relation to God making as much difference between Ministers of the Word and barely Ministers as between executing the immediate commands of God as Apostles doe and executing the commands of Bishops in regard of whom mentioned afore they are called barely and without any addition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ministers in that place And so the VII at Jerusalem were first constituted to wait upon the Apostles by doing that Service which they did themselves at the first for the Church whereupon it was afterwards a custome in the Church that there should be VII Deacons in every Church as there were at Jerusalem Concil Neocaesar Can. XIV And therefore the Author of the Questions of the Old and New Testament in S. Augustines Works Q. CI. having observed that the Apostles call Presbyters their fellow Presbyters addeth Nunquid Ministros condiaconos suos diceret Apostolus Non utique quia multo inferiores sunt Et turpe est judicem dicere primicerium Would the Apostle call Deacons his fellow Deacons Surely no for they are much inferiour And it is absurd to call a Pronotary a Judge Where he makes the same difference between Presbyters and Deacons as Christian between Judges and Ministers of Courts and that according to the Originall custome of the Synagogue as well as of the Church as by and by it shall appeare Notwithstanding the Office of Bishops is called a Ministery very anciently by Pope Pius in his Epistle to Justus of Vienna as also the Office both of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Concil Eliber Can. XIX but in another notion in opposition to the coactive power of the World as proceeding originally not by constraint but by consent and so they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek because their office is for the behoof of the people and in their stead But they cannot therefore be called Ministers of the People as Deacons are Ministers of Bishops and Presbyters because then they should be ruled by the people and execute that which they prescribe as the Apostles being Ministers of God in Preaching the Gospel are bound to execute his Commission and nothing else which the Clergy of Christian Churches may not doe That it may be beyond any Power upon earth to abolish the Order of Bishops out of the Church of England without abolishing the Church also as is said here p. 129. I prove Chap. V. to wit that no Secular Power can take away Ecclesiasticall Power from them that lawfully have it according to the institution of the Apostles though not by virtue of it To shew that in the judgement and practise of the Primitive Church all Power of baptizing was derived from the Bishop as is said here p. 136. we have but to remember the custome of the Church mentioned in so many Canons of sending the Chrism to all Parish Churches from the Mother Church once a year By which Ceremony it appeared that the Bishop trusted his authority of admitting to the Church by Baptism with the respective Pastors of the same And therefore it is not unreasonably judged that this custome of Chrisming was many times in stead of Confirmation to those Churches that used it Besides in that from the beginning no Ecclesiasticall office was to be ministred by any but the Bishop in his presence the dependence of all Ecclesiasticall authority whereby the same are ministred upon the Bishop is evidenced to us Thus in the passage of Eusebius concerning Origens Preaching before he was of the Clergy mentioned p. 106. it is further to be observed that the instances there alleged seem to shew that the Primitive Bishops did many times admit those that were of no degree in the Clergy to preach in their own presence Which that it was a further privilege then onely to preach may appear by that which is related out of the life of S. Augustine in the Primitive government of Churches p. 113. that he was imploied by the Bishop his predecessor to preach to the people in his presence and stead because he had seen it so practised in the East though in those parts it were not done In like manner it is manifest by many Records of the Church that none might Baptize Celebrate the Eucharist or reconcile the Penitent in the Bishops presence but himself for of Confirmation and Ordaining I need say nothing The fourth reason against the vulgar reading of the XIII Canon of the Councell at Ancyra p. 141. will be more clearly understood by setting down the effect of the LVI Canon of Laodicea which comming after that of Ancyra and taking Order that for the future there should be no Country Bishops made any more provides further that those which were already constituted should do nothing without the consent of the Bishop as likewise the Presbyters to doe nothing without the same Which being the provision which the latter Canon establisheth leaveth it very probable that the other going afore and intending to take order in the same particulars should consist of two clauses correspondent to the same That there were other Churches and Bishops
persons whereof it consists now the State is it which hath Power to doe that For as it cannot be denied that all States must needs have Power to assemble themselves so it must not be granted that the Church hath not Power to doe the same because it hath been proved here from the beginning that the Church hath Power of assembling not from any State but immediately and originally from God whether for the service of God or for determining whatsoever shall become determinable for the maintenance of Unity among all those that are to communicate in the service of God and the Offices of the same Truly so long as by Circumcision men became both members of a State and of the Communion of Gods service the Church and the State were all one Society as hath often been observed here for the difference between the Law and the Gospel both subsisting by the same Act of God calling them to be his people and to inherit the Land of Promise both upon condition of keeping his Law and by the same act of the people imbracing the same Which holds not in Christianity addressing it self to all Nations and therefore preserving States in the condition which it findes and yet founding a Society of the Church upon the privilege and Charter of assembling for the service of God and the Power which is requisite to preserves the Unity of all that assemble in the condition upon which they communicate in the service of God Which Society as it was visibly distinct from all States for all the time between our Lord and Constantine so is it acknowledged by this author to have subsisted even under the Apostles when as he alleges their Writings to prove those rights which they attribute to the Church to belong to those States which are Christian Which for my part I very much marvell how he could think fit to doe knowing that such acts as the Apostles attribute to the Church are so far from being the acts of the State under which the Church then was that they were prohibited by it so often as the assemblies of Christians were forbidden as you have seen that many times they were By that which hath been said it may appear what reason Ecclesiasticall Writers had to make a difference between the names of the Synagogue and the Church appropriating the former to the Jews and this to the Christians which I for my part so far as custome will give leave desire to observe though for the originall signification I see the name of Ecclesia was at the first most properly attributed to the whole body of Gods people assembled together in the Wildernesse as for example at the giving of the Law For in all the divers significations in which it is used speaking of Christianity there is one and the same consideration of assembling together to be seen though upon severall reasons and to severall purposes from the Synagogue The whole company of those that shall meet and assemble together in the world to come is called sometimes the Church and so is the whole company of the Visible Church upon earth Because though they cannot meet bodily to communicate in the service of God yet they ought to meet with that judgement and disposition of minde that they may both communicate bodily in this world when occasion is and actually meet altogether in the world to come So is the company of Christians contained in either barely one City or the Head City of a Province or Nation called the Church of that City Province or Nation because they so meet severally that any of them may assemble with any because under the same conditions But when one Congregation is called a Church as somtimes it is in the Scriptures it is for the same manner of assembling as the whole people of Israel was assembled in the Wildernesse These things generally premised it will not be difficult to defeat the productions of this assumption in the particulars specified And first according to that which is here determined p. 192. I admit that the Power of interpreting the Scriptures is nothing else but the Power of determining controversies of Faith Though it is not as by consequence to be admitted that those interpretations which come from this Power are as much the Word of God as that which is interpreted by the same or infallible or that we are bound to stand to them as much as to the Scriptures themselves For the Word of God if we will understand it properly is that onely and all that which God giveth in Commission to be declared and enjoyned his people and therefore this author very skilfully observeth that the Word of God in the New Testament is as much as the Gospel which God gave in charge to our Lord Christ and he to his Apostles to be published to the world with a charge from God to imbrace it For so also the Law was the Word of God to Moses and all the Revelations granted the Patriarchs and Prophets were the Word of God to them because by them God declared how he would conduct his People Whereas after the Prophers of the Old Testament though we finde that there were Prophets that spoke by inspiration not onely by Josephus speaking of those times of Gods people whereof there is no mention in the Scriptures but also by that which is said in the New Testament of Simeon and Anna Zachary and the Blessed Virgin and of the Prophets of Churches yet we do not finde it said that the Word of the Lord came to any of them because they received nothing in charge from God to his People Wherefore that which the Church hath received from those persons that spoke not onely by inspiration and revelation but also by Commission from God the evidence of which Commission containeth all the motives to Christianity must not be compared with any thing which it may receive in charge any other way though it be such as may produce an obligation to receive and observe it of a nature answerable to the ground and intent of it which I have declared in the place afore quoted Neither is it to be said that God faileth his Church in any thing due to it upon those promises whereby it subsisteth if he have not provided it of such a Power to be received as infallible unlesse we will say that God hath tied himself to preserve it free from the temptation and triall of Heresies and Schisms which he hath sufficiently declared that he never intended to doe Now that having determined an infallible Power to be requisite for the determining of matters of faith by interpretation of the Scriptures this author in consequence to his assumptions which I have spoke of should challenge it to belong to all Christian States I cannot choose but marvell Seeing that as the Scriptures come by revelation and inspiration from God so whatsoever shall pretend to like authority must needs proceed from the same Which if the Church that is
necessary to the communion of the Church in his Dominions which the Soveraigns over other parts of the Church perhaps allow not But though as a Divine I admit this debate yet as a Christian and a Divine both I condemne the separation which they have made before it be decided The Church of England giveth to the King that power in Church matters which the Kings of Gods ancient people and Christian Emperours after them always practised This possession was enough to have kept Unity though the reason appeared not why Christian Princes should have the same right in the Church as the Kings of Judah had in the Synagogue For if they observe it well this right is no where established upon the Kings of Gods ancient people by way of precept in the Law For seeing the Law commanded them not to have a King but gave them leave to have a King when they would upon such terms as it requireth Deut. XVII 14. it cannot be said that any Right in matters of Religion is setled upon the King by that Law which never provided that there should be a King The question is then not whether the Kings of Judah had power in matters of Religion which is express in Scripture but upon what Title they had it which is not to be had but by Interpretation of the Law And this we shall finde if we consider that the Law was given to that people when they were freed from bondage and invested in the Soveraign power of themselves as to a Body Politick such as they became by submitting to it So that though many precepts thereof concern the conscience of particular persons yet there are also many that take hold of the community of the people for which particular persons cannot be answerable further then the Rate of that power by which they act in it As the destroying of Malefactors Idolaters in particular These Precepts then being given to the community of the People and the common Power of the People falling to the King constituted according to the Law aforesaid it followeth that being invested with the Power he stands thereby countable for the Laws to be inforced by it And then the question that remains will be no more but this Whether civill Societies and the Soveraign Powers of them are called to be Christian as such and not onely as particular persons A thing which Tertullian seems to have doubted of when he made an if of it Apologet. cap. XXI Si possent esse Caesares Christiani If Emperours could be Christians And Origen when he expounds the words of Moses I will provoke them to jealousie by a people which are not a people so he reads it of the Christians whereof there were some in all Nations and no whole Nation professed Christianity in X ad Rom. lib. VIII in Psal XXXVI Hom. I. seems to count this estate and condition essentiall to the Church But since Anabaptists are no more Anabaptists in denying the power of the Sword to be consistent with Christianity it seems there is no question left about this as indeed there ought to be none For the Prophesies which went before of the calling of the Gentiles to Christianity were not fulfilled till the Romane Empire professed to maintain it And thereby the will of God being fulfilled it is manifest that the will of God is that civill Societies the Powers of them should maintain Christianity by their Sword and the Acts to which it enableth But always with that difference from the Synagogue which hath been expressed For if the Church subsist in severall Soveraignties the power which each of them can have in Church matters must needs be concluded by that power which God hath ordained in his Church for the determining of such things the determining whereof shall become necessary to preserve the Unity of it Thus much premised the first point we are to debate is Whether Excommunication be a secular punishment amounting to an Outlawry or Banishment as Erastus would have it or the chiefe act of Ecclesiasticall Power the Power of the Spirituall Sword of the Church cutting from the visible communion thereof such as are lawfully presumed to be cut off from the invisible by sin For if there be a visible Society of the Church founded by God without dependence from man there must be in it a visible power to determine who shall be or not be members of it which by consequence is the Soveraign Power in the Society of the Church as the Power of the Sword is in civill Societies But Excommunication in the Synagogue was a temporall punishment such as I said and therefore it is argued that our Lord meant not of that when he said Dic Ecclesiae that terme in the Old Testament being used for the Congregation of Gods people in the quality of a civill Society And therefore when he addeth Let him he unto thee as a Heathen or a publican they say it is manifest that neither Ethnicks nor Publicans were excommunicate out of the Synagogue nor the Excommunicate excluded from the Service of God in the Temple or Synagogue And when our Lord addeth Whatsoever ye binde and loose on earth it is manifest say they in the language of the Jews used among the Talmud Doctors that bound and loose is nothing else but that which is declared to be bound or loose that is prohibited permitted and therefore the effect of the Keyes of the Church which is binding and loosing reaches no further then declaring what was lawfull and what unlawfull as to the Jews by the Law of Moses in point of conscience The first argument that I make against this opinion is drawn from the Power of Baptizing thereby understanding not the Office of ministring but the Right of granting that Sacrament Which we in this state of the Church doe not distinguish because all are born within the pale of the Church and by order thereof baptized infants But may see a necessary ground so to distinguish by S. Paul when he denies that he was sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel 1 Cor. I. 17. whereas the words of our Lord in the Gospel are manifest where he chargeth his Apostles to Preach and Teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost For the Baptizing of all that should turn Christians could not be personally commanded the Apostles but to preach to all Nations and to make Disciples out of all Nations this they might doe to those that might be Baptized by such as they should appoint We must note that it is in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples as the Syriack truly translates it Commanding first to bring men to be Disciples then to Baptize Now Disciples are those that were after called Christians such as we professe our selves Acts XI 26. those of whom our Lord saith in the Gospel that those that will doe his Fathers will are his Disciples Wherefore they are commanded
of the Priests and Doctors to determine all cases which the Law had not determined in dependence upon the great Consistory at Jerusalem by the Law of Deut. XVII 12. which Precepts and which Power being voided by the Gospel can any man think that the Power of binding and loosing here given the Church is to be understood of it Besides it is in the promise made to S. Peter Mat. XVI 19. said expresly to be the act of the Power of the Keys And what is that Is it not an expression manifestly borrowed from that which is said to Eliakim sonne of Hilkiah Es XXII 23. I will give thee the Keys of the House of David Whereupon our Lord Apoc. III. 7. is said to have the Key of David that is of the House of David whereby the Apostles under our Lord are made Stewards of the Church as Eliakim of the Court to admit and exclude whom he pleased And so it is manifest that the Power of the Keys given S. Peter Mat. XVI 19. as the Church Mat. XVIII 18. is that power which you have seen practised under the Apostles of admitting to and excluding from the Church by Baptism and Penance So S. Cyprian expresly understandeth the Power of the Keys to consist in Baptizing Ep. LXXIII And of Penance that which followeth is an expresse argument as I have observed p. 129. of that short Discourse For having said whatsoever ye binde he addeth immediately again I say to you that if two of you agree to ask any thing it shall be done you by my Father in heaven For the means of pardon being the Humiliation of the Penitent injoined by the Church and joined with the prayers thereof as hath been said the consequence of our Saviours discourse first of informing the Church then of binding and loosing lastly of granting the prayers of the Church shews that he speaks of those prayers which should be made in behalf of such as were bound for not hearing the Church And hereby we see how binding loosing of sins is attributed to the Keys of the Church Which being made a Visible Society by the power of holding Assemblies to which no man is to be admitted till there be just presumption that he is of the heavenly Jerusalem that is above As the power of judging who is and who is not thus qualified presupposes a profession so that an Instruction obliging the obedience of them which seek remission of sinnes by the Gospel and therefore confidently assuring it to them which conform themselves In a word because admitting to and excluding from the Church is or ought to be a just and lawfull presumption of admitting to or excluding from heaven it is morally and legally the same Act that intitleth to heaven and to the Church that maketh an heir of life everlasting and a Christian because he that obeyeth the Church in submitting to the Gospel is as certainly a member of the invisible as of the visible Church Herewith agree the words of our Lord Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican Not as if Heathens could be excommunicate the Synagogue who never were of it or as if the Jews then durst excommunicate Publicanes that levied Taxes for the Romanes But because by their usage of Publicanes and Gentiles it was proper for our Lord to signifie how he would have Christians to use the excommunicate there being no reason why he can be thought by these words to regulate the conversation of the Jews in that estate so long as the Law stood but to give his Church Rules to last till the worlds end The Jews then abhorred the company not onely of Idolaters to testifie how much they abhorred Idols and to maintain the people in detestation of them by ceremonies brought in by the Guides of the Synagogue for that purpose but all those that conversed with Idolaters For this cause we see they murmure against our Lord for eating with Publicans they wash when they come from market where commonly they conversed with Gentiles and which is strange such as Cornelius was being allowed to dwell among them by the Law professing one God and taking upon them the precepts of the sons of Noe yet are the converted Jews scandalized at S. Peter for eating with Cornelius Acts XI 2. These Rules are made void by the Gospel For S. Paul tells the Corinthians expresly that they are not to forbear the company of Gentiles for those sinnes which their Profession imported but if a Christian live in any of those Heathen vices with him they are not so much as to eate 1 Cor. V. 11. to wit as it followeth immediately being condemned by the Church upon such a cause For saith he What have I to doe to judge them that are without do not ye judge those that are within But those that are without God judgeth And ye shall take the evill man from among you That is are not you by the power you have of judging those that are within to take away him that hath done evill leaving to God to judge those without Here the case is plain there is power in the Church to judge and take away offenders Of which power the Apostle speaks Tit. III. 9. when he says that Hereticks are condemned of themselves if we follow S. Hieromes exposition which seems unquestionable For experience convinces that most Hereticks think themselves in the right so farre they are from condemning themselves in their consciences But they condemne themselves by cutting of themselves from the Church which other sinners are condemned to by the Church Neither is it any thing else then Excommunication which the Apostle signifieth by delivering to Satan 1 Cor. V. 6. saving that he expresseth an extraordinary effect that followed it in the Apostles time to wit that those which were put out of the Church became visibly subject to Satan inflicting Plagues and diseases on their bodies which might reduce them to repentance which the Apostle calleth the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus As he saith of Hymenaeus and Philetus 1 Tim. I. 21. whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme For it is not to be doubted that the Apostles had power like that which S. Peter exercised on Ananias and Sapphira thus to punish those that opposed them as S. Paul divers times intimates in the Texts which I have quoted in another place provided by God as the rest of miraculous Graces to evidence his presence in the Church These particulars which I huddle up together by the way might have been drawn out into severall arguments but I content my self with the consequence by which the Patent of this Power in the Gospel is cleared upon which Patent all the Power of the Church is grounded That is if Christians are onely to abstain from eating with excommunicate persons as Jews did with Publicanes and Gentiles then Excommunication is to be understood when
our Lord saith Let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publicane As for that which is said that the excommunicate among the Jews were not excluded either Temple or Synagogue therefore it was a secular punishment It is a mistake That which the Jews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not Excommunication no more then that which the Constitutions of the Apostles call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same being but a step to it like that which is now commonly called the lesse Excommunication And therefore he that was under this censure among the Jews was but in part removed from the communion as well of sacred as civill society For it hath been shewed very learnedly in the Book of the Power of the Keyes that hee stood as much removed from the one as from the other because that as well in the Synagogue as at home no man was to come within his four cubits But when the Talmud Doctors determine that the excommunicate dwell in a Cotage apart and have sustenance brought him such a one was past comming into the Temple or Synagogue And so I suppose was he that was put out of the Synagogue for acknowledging our Lord Christ to be a true Prophet John IX 35. For they which afterwards were wont to curse all his followers in their Synagogues as Justin Martyr Dial. cum Tryph. and Epiphanius Haer. XXX tell us that they did in their time are not like to endure in their society whether sacred or civill him that in their interpretation was fallen from Moses And thus is the Power of the Keys clearly grounded upon this Charter of the Gospel and all the Right of the Church upon it Onely one Objection yet remains which to me hath always seemed very difficult for it is manifest that our Lord speaketh here of matters of interesse between party and party when he saith If thy brother offend thee and it may justly seem strange that our Lord should give the Church power to excommunicate those that will not stand to the sentence of the Church in such matters But so it is The Jews in their dispersions were fain to have recourse to this penalty to inforce the Jurisdiction of their own Bodies lest if causes should be carried thence before Heathen Courts Gods name should be blasphemed and the Gentiles scandalized at his people saying See what peace and right there is among those that professe the true God! For the same causes our Lord here estateth the same Power upon the Church Whereof I cannot give a more sufficient and effectuall argument then by shewing that it was in use under the Apostles Though the place out of which I shall shew this is hitherto otherwise understood because men consider not that it is not against Christianity that there be severall seats for severall ranks and dignities of the world in the Church And therefore that it is not that which the Apostle findes fault with James II. 1. when he forbids them to have the Faith of God with respect of persons But the Synagogue which he speaketh of in the next words is to be understood of the Court where they judged the causes and differences between members of the Church For that the Jews were wont to keep Court in their Synagogues we learn not onely by the Talmud Doctors Maimoni by name in the Title of Oaths cap. IX where he speaketh particularly of the case of an Oath made in the Synagogue when the Court sate there but by that which we finde in the New Testament Mat. X. 17. XXIII 34. Mar. XIII 9. Acts XXII 19. XXVI 11. as wel as in Epiphanius Haer. XXX that they used to scourge in their Synagogues To wit where sentence was given there justice was executed Wherefore being converted to Christianity they held the same course as appears by the words of the Apostle that follow Doe ye not make a difference among your selves and are become Judges of evill thoughts and again If ye accept persons ye commit sin being reproved by the Law By what Law but by that which saith Thou shalt not accept persons in judgement Lev. XIX 15. For the execution of which Law it is expresly provided by the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni Sanedrin ca. XXI that when a poor man and a Rich plead together the Rich shall not be bid to sit down and the poor stand or sit in a worse place but both sit or both stand which you see is the particular for which the Apostle charges them to have the Faith of Christ with respect of persons That is to shew favour in the causes of Christians according to their persons The same course we may well presume was setled by the Apostles at Corinth by the blame S. Paul charges them with for going to Law before Infidels 1 Cor. VI. 1 2. For how should he blame them for doing that which they had not order before not to doe And therefore if our Lord in this place give the Church power to excommunicate those that stand not to the sentence of the Church much more those that violate the Christianity which they have professed And this is also here expressed when from the particular he goes to the generall saying Whatsoever ye binde on earth giving thereby the same power to the Church here which he gave to S. Peter Mat. XVI 19. and to the Apostles John XX. 22. And so we have here two Heads of the causes of Excommunication The first of such things as concern the conscience and salvation of particular Christians when they commit such sins as destroy Christianity The second of such as concern the community of the Church and the unity thereof in which not the act but the contumacy the not hearing of the Church makes them subject to this sentence It is not my purpose to say that these nice reasons are to be the Title upon which the right of the Church to this power standeth or falleth But that being in possession of it upon a Title as old as Christianity and demonstrable by the same evidence it cannot be ejected out of this possession by any thing in the Scripture when it is rightly understood One objection there is more in consequence to this last reason that if the Church have power to sentence civile causes of Christians and by Excommunication to inforce that sentence when States professe Christianity all civill Laws will cease and all Judicatories be resolved into one Consistory of the Church The answer to this I deferre till I come to shew the Right of the States that professe Christianity in Church matters where it will easily appear how this inconvenience ceaseth In the mean time the Soveraign power of the Church consisting in the Sword of Excommunication upon which the Society thereof is founded it is necessarily manifest that this power is not lost to the Church nor forfeit to the State that professes Christianity and undertakes the protection of the Church For the Church and civill Societies
Discourse p. 16. that whereas it is said Acts XIV 23. that Paul and Barnabas ordained Presbyters in every Church S. Paul saith that he left Titus in Crete to ordain Presbyters in every City Tit. I. 5. and again Acts XVI 4. As they passed by the Cities they delivered unto them the decrees determined by the Apostles and Presbyters at Jerusalem The Cities of which he had said before that they ordained Presbyters in every Church planted in those Cities as Titus in every City So nice as this evidence may seem to those that consider not the state of the whole Church when it shall appear to any man as to all that consider with their eyes open it must appear that always every where all congregations of Christians remaining in the Country adjoining to any City made one Church with the Christians of that City common sense will inforce that the Apostles designe was the modell from which this form was copied out in all parts of the Church To which purpose we are to consider in the next place an excellent Observation of that pious learned Prelate the L. Primate of Ireland published in a little Discourse of the Originall of Bishops upon the seven Churches of Asia to which S. Iohn is commanded to direct that Epistle contained in the II III Chapters of the Apocalypse The observation consists in this that the seven Cities wherein those seven Churches are said to be were seven chief Cities or Mother Cities of the Province of Asia whereby it is manifest that the chief Churches upon which inferiour Churches were to depend were planted in the chief Mother Cities to which the Countries about them resorted for Justice For certainly no man will offer such violence to his own common sense as to say that there were at the time of writing this Epistle but seven Congregations of Christians in that Province where S. Paul first and after him S. John had taken such pains And if more Congregations but onely seven Churches for what reason but because many Congregations make but one Church when they are under the City in which that Church is planted There hath been indeed an Objection made from the words of this Epistle when it is said at the end of the addresse to every particular Church He that hath eares to hear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches The addresse beginning always thus To the Church of Ephesus thus saith the Spirit To the Church of Smyrna thus saith the Spirit and so of the rest The objection pretendeth that by these words it appears that there were in Ephesus for example many Churches constituting the Presbytery of that City which is there called the Church of Ephesus For if this were so I would acknowledge that this argument were overthrown and that Churches were not convertible with Cities but that many Churches are here called the Church of Ephesus because the Seat of the Presbytery was at Ephesus according to the Presbyterian Design But this objection both carries with it an answer to discover the mistake upon which it is grounded and draws after in an effectuall argument to choke the opinion which it supports For is not S. John expresly commanded Apoc. I. 11. to write and send one letter to all those seven Churches And can any man be so senslesse as when it is said What the Spirit saith to the Churches to understand severall Churches of Ephesus Smyrna and the rest and not the seven Churches to which the one letter is directed And therefore the argument stands good that in these seven Cities there were but seven Churches and that the letter is directed to these Mother Churches planted in the Mother Cities because inferiour Cities receiving their Christianity from them were to depend upon them for the regulating of all things concerning the exercise of it As the Originall and Universall condition and State of the Church convinces Now the argument which this objection and the answer draws after it is this That in all the New Testament you shall never finde any mention of severall Churches in any City as Rome Ephesus Antiochia Jerusalem But when there is speech of any Province be it never so small you shall finde mention of a plurall number of Churches in it For of the Churches of Asia Syria Cilicia Macedonia Achaia Galatia Judaea and Samaria and of the Hebrews in their dispersions we finde expresse mention upon severall occasions Acts IX 31. VIII 5 40. XV. 41. 1 Cor. XVI 1. 2 Cor. VIII 2. 1 Thessal II. 14. Apoc. I. 11. II. 7 11 17 29. III. 6 13 22. Though Samaria among the rest were a Province of no great extent yet for example you have in that Province the City whereof Simon Magus was called Gittha saith Epiphan Haer. XXI now a Village but in those days a City saith he of which Acts VIII 5. And Philip went down to a City of Samaria not the City as we translate it and Caesarea which Ioseph shews us was in that Province XXI 7. Now tell me what reason can be given for this by any man that will pretend to understand either Scripture or any record of learning but that Churches are convertible with Cities For had there been many Churches within the City of Ephesus for example of parallel power and privilege making up one Classis or Presbytery or whatsoever new name can be given a new thing without the least syllable of example from the Apostles to Calvin must not these have been called the Churches not the Church of Ephesus I come now to a very expresse mark of this dependence during the time and in the actions of the Apostles and therefore by their Order acknowledged not onely by themselves but by all imploied by them in the planting of the Churches And it is the going of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem in behalf of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia troubled by some that taught at Antiochia from whence those Churches received their Christianity that Christians are to keep the Law of Moses Acts XIII 1. XV. 1. For were not Paul and Barnabas able to resolve this question at Antiochia Paul especially protesting That he received not the doctrine of the Gospel which he preached from man or by man Gal. I. 1. who is constrained both to the Galatians and elsewhere to oppose his calling as a Bulwark against all that laboured to bring Judaisme into the Church Surely in regard of the thing they were but in regard of authority to the Church they were not Barnabas was imploied by the Apostles to Antiochia who found Christians there but made them a Church by ordering their Assemblies Acts XI 20 24 25 26. And he it was that first brought Saul into that service by his authority from the Apostles Though afterwards both of them were extraordinarily imploied by the Holy Ghost to preach the Gospel and plant Churches Acts XIII 1. All this while the Church could not look upon Saul in the quality and
rank of the XII Apostles which afterwards he shews us was acknowledged by the XII themselves at Jerusalem Gal. II. 8 9. to wit when he went to Jerusalem with Barnabas about this question Acts XV. 1. for I can see no reason to doubt that all that he speaks of there passed during the time of this journey And in the mean time it was easie for those that stood for the Law to pretend Revelation from God and authority from the Apostles in matter of Christianity as well as Paul and Barnabas What possible way was there then to end this difference but that of the Apostle 1 Cor. XIV 32 33. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets for God is not the God of unquietnesse but of peace as in all Churches of the Saints Whereupon vindicating his authority and challenging obedience to his Order even from Prophets which might be lifted up with Revelations to oppose he addeth Came the word of God from you or came it to you alone If any man think himself a Prophet or spirituall let him acknowledge the things that I write you to be the Commandements of God That is that Apostles being trusted to convey the Gospel to the world were to be obeyed even by Prophets themselves as the last resolution of the Church in the will of God granting his Revelations with that temper that as one Prophet might see more in the sense effect and consequence of Revelations granted to another then himself could doe in which regard the spirits of the Prophets were to be subject to the Prophets so for the publick order of the Church all were to have recourse to the Apostles whom he had trusted with it If then the Church of Antiochia in which were many Prophets and among them such as Paul and Barnabas indowed with the immediate Revelations of the Holy Ghost Acts XIII 1. must resort to Jerusalem the seat of the Apostles to be resolved in matters concerning the state of the Church how much more are we to beleeve that God hath ordained that dependence of Churches without which the Unity of no other humane Society can be preserved when he governeth them not but by humane discretion of reasonable persons Besides we are here to take notice that the Church of Antiochia being once resolved the Churches of Syria and Cilicia are resolved by the same Decree Acts XVI 4. Because being planted from thence they were to depend upon it for the Rule and practice of Christianity Therefore it is both truly and pertinently observed that the Decree made at Jerusalem was locall and not universall which had it been made for the whole Church there could not have been that controversie which we finde was at Corinth by S. Paul 1 Cor. VIII 1. about eating things offered to Idols Neither could the Apostle give leave to the Corinthians to eat them materially as Gods creatures not formally as things offered to Idols as he does 1 Cor. VIII 7. had the Body of the Apostles at Jerusalem absolutely forbid the eating of them to Gentile Christians for avoiding the scandall of the Jewish Christians But because the Decree concerned onely the Church of Antiochia and so by consequence the Churches depending upon it therefore among those that depended not upon it for whom the Rule was not intended it was not to be in force There is yet one reason behinde which is the ground of all from the Originall constitution of the Synagogue Moses by the advice of Jethro ordained the Captains of Thousands Hundreds Fifties and Tens to judge the Causes of the people under himself Ex. XVIII 24 25. To himself God joyned afterwards LXX persons for his assistance Num. XI 16. But these Captains were to be in place but during the pilgrimage of the wildernesse For when they came to be setled in the land of Promise the Law provideth that Judges and Ministers be ordained in every City Deut. XVI 18. Who if there fell any difference about the Law were to repair to Jerusalem to the successors of Moses and his Consistory for resolution in it Deut. XVII 12. by which Law wheresoever the Ark should be this Consistory was to sit as inferiour Consistories in all inferiour Cities Most men will marvell what this is to my purpose because most men have a prejudice that the power of the Church is to be derived from the Rights and Privileges of the Priests and Levites during the Law though there be no reason for it For these Rights and Privileges were not onely temporary to vanish when the Gospel was published but also while the Law stood but locall and personall not extending beyond the Temple or land of Promise over any but their own Tribe But it is very well known that from the time of the Greekish Empire and partly afore it Judaisme subsisted in all parts wheresoever the Jews were dispersed and that wheresoever it subsisted there were the people to be governed and regulated in the observation of the Law and the publique worship of God according to the same frequented also all over the land of Promise whereas the Temple stood but in one place It is also manifest that this Law which gave the Consistory power of life and death to preserve the Body of that people in Unity and to prevent Schisms upon different Interpretations of the Law was found requisite to be put in practice in their Dispersions to wit as to the determining of all differences arising out of the Law not as to the power of life and death to inforce such sentences this power being seldome granted them by their Soveraigns For at Alexandria we understand by Philo in his Book de Legatione ad Caium that there was such a Consistory as also in Babylonia there was the like as the Jews writings tell us for the little Chronicle which they call Seder Olam Zuta gives us the names of the Heads thereof for many ages And after the destruction of the Temple it is manifest not onely by their writings as Semach David Sepher Juchasin and the like but by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites and the Constitutions of the Emperors remaining in the Codes Tit. de Judaeis Coelicolis that there continued a Consistory at Tiberias for many ages the Heads whereof were of the family of David as Epiphanius agreeing with the Jews informeth us in the place aforenamed And as by the story of Saul in the Acts it appears that the Jews of Damascus were subject to the Government at Jerusalem so by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites it appears that the Synagogues of Syria and Cilicia were subject to the Consistory at Tiberias as I have shewed out of Benjamins Itinerary in the Discourse of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 67. that the Synagogues of the parts of Assyria and Media were to that in Bagdat and without doubt that great Body of Jews dispersed through Aegypt was to that at Alexandria As for the Law
it is probable that for resolution in a doubt which such persons as Paul and Barnabas could not determine as to the Body of the Church it can be thought that they resorted to Jerusalem as to the Brethren or as to the Apostles whether it can be imagined that the People of the Church at Jerusalem could prescribe in any way either of Power or of Authority or Illumination unto the Church of Antioch and the publique persons of it Lastly whether the arrow is not shot beyond the mark when it is argued that this Decree is the act of the People because it appears that they assent to it seeing we know by the premises that they were bound to consent to the Acts of the Apostles So in the Power of the Keys and Excommunication what can be so plain as that S. Paul gives sentence upon the incestuous person at Corinth and obliges the Church there to execute his Decree as he calls it in expresse terms 2 Cor. V. 3 4 I conceive I have read an answer to this in some of their writings that this Epistle is Scripture and therefore the matter of it commanded by God But let me instance in the result of the Councell at Jerusalem The Church of Jerusalem was tied by virtue of the Decree for to them there was no Epistle sent Therefore the Church of Antiochia and the rest of the Churches to whom that Epistle was sent which we have Acts XV 23. were tied by virtue of the Decree not by virtue of the Epistle by which they knew themselves tied And let me put the case here Had S. Paul been at Corinth and decreed that which he decreeth by this Epistle had not the Church been tied unlesse he had sent them an Epistle or otherwise made it appear to them that he had a Revelation from God on purpose having made appearance to them that he was the Apostle of Christ Beleeve himself in that case when he says he will doe as much absent as present 2 Cor. XI 11. And again When I come I shall bewail divers 2 Cor. XII 20 21. that is excommunicate them or put them to Penance as I have said Remember the miraculous effect of Excommunication in the Apostles time when by visible punishments inflicted on the excommunicate by evil Angels it appeared that they were cast out of the shadow of Gods Tabernacle and it will seem as probable that this is the Rod which S. Paul threatens the Corinthians with 1 Cor. IV. 21. 2 Cor. X. 2 8. as that many were sick there because they abused the Eucharist 1 Cor. XI 30. Therefore if this effect of the sentence came from the Apostles the sentence also came Here appears a necessary argument from the Legislative Power of the Apostles to the whole Church For as no Christian can deny that the Constitutions of the Apostles oblige the Church so it is manifest that they doe not oblige it because they are written in the Scripture for they were all in force in the Church before the Scriptures were written in which they are related neither doth it evidence that they were first delivered to the Church with assurance that they were by expresse Revelation commanded to be delivered to the Church or because they were passed by votes of the People But by virtue of the generall Commission of the Apostles being received in that quality by those that became Christians and so made a Church So in matter of Ordinations it is well known who they are that have made the People beleeve that Paul and Barnabas Ordained Presbyters in the Churches of their founding by voices of the People signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts XIV 22. which being admitted it is but an easie consequence to inferre that all Congregations are absolute because making their Presbyters they must needs first make themselves Churches But he that reads the Text without prejudice easily sees that the Act of Ordaining is here attributed to the Apostles not to the People They the Apostles ordained them to wit the Church or People Presbyters Therefore this Scripture speaks not of Election by Holding up of the Peoples hands but of Ordination by laying on the Hands of the Apostles And therefore in the choice of the seven Deacons it is manifest that the Apostles though they gave way to the People to nominate yet reserved themselves the approving of the persons otherwise the People might have sinned and the Apostles born the blame for it For when S. Paul saith Lay Hands suddenly on no man nor participate of other mens sins 2 Tim. V. 22. it is manifest that he who Imposes Hands ought to have power not to Impose because he sins Imposing amisse Last of all let us consider how liberally the Church of Jerusalem parted with whole estates the Church of Corinth maintained their Feasts of Love wherof we reade 1 Cor. XI 17. the same Corinthians with other Churches offered to the support of the Churches in Judaea 2 Cor. VIII 1 the Philippians sent to supply S. Paul Phil. II 25. 30. IV. 20. And all the rest which we finde recorded in the New Testament of the Oblations of the Faithfull to the maintenance of Gods Service Whence it shall appear in due time that the Indowment of the Church is estated upon it And then let common sense judge whether this came from the understanding and motion and proper devotion of the People or from their Christianity obliging them to follow that Order which the authority and doctrine of the Apostles should shew them to be requisite for their Profession and the support of the Church at that time By all this as it will easily appear that the Chief Interesse and Right in disposing of Church matters could not belong to the People under the Apostles so is it not my purpose to say that at any time the People ought to have no manner of Right or Interesse in the same For if the practice under the Apostles be the best evidence that we can ground Law upon to the Church then it is requisite to the good estate of the Church and necessary for those that can dispose of the publique Order of it to procure that it be such as may give the People reasonable satisfaction in those things wherein they are concerned Which what it requires and how farre it extends I will say somewhat in generall when we come to give bounds to the severall Interests in the publique Power of the Church In the mean time as no water can ascend higher then it descended afore so can no People have any further Right and Power in Church matters then that which the People had under the Apostles because that is all the evidence upon which their Interesse can be grounded and acknowledged Lesse is not to be granted more they must not require CHAP. III. That the Chief power of every Church resteth in the Bishop and Presbyters attended by the Deacons That onely the power of the Keys is
desired who having white Robes granted them in stead of that present justice which their Prayers sollicited are afterwards described standing with their faces toward the Throne the Lamb and the Elders as the People in the Church at Divine Service towards the Bishop and Presbyters Which particulars too long here to be deduced are easie to be observed by comparing Apoc. V. 8. VI. 9 10 11. VII 12 14. VIII 3 4 5. Adde hereunto the saying of Ignatius that the Bishop in his Church bears the figure of the Father of All to wit in the whole Church Triumphant and unto that the Ordinary expression of the Jews when they use the term of God and his House of Judgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his Court or Consistory to represent the Majesty of God sitting in Counsell or in Judgement upon the World with the Angels about him in the Old Testament but the Saints in the New attended by the Angels Mar. XIX 28. Luc. XXII 30. 1 Cor. VI. 2. Apoc. XX. 4. which expression of theirs is manifestly borrowed from the Scriptures of the old Testament every where representing the Majesty of God in this posture Ps LXXXIX 8. Dan. VII 9. Psal CXLIX 1. Deut. XXXII 2. and you have not onely a Commentary upon this whole passage but also a Confirfirmation of all that hath been or shall be said that the Bishop and Presbyters are the same in the Church as the Sanedrin and the Head of them in the Synagogue All this is yet more fortified by the testimony of Tertullian De Praescript cap. XXXVI that the very Chairs in which the Apostles sate in their Churches were extant in his time as saith he were also the very Originals of their Epistles in the Churches to whom they were sent and as the Chair of S. James at Jerusalem was extant in Eusebius his time Eccles Hist VII 19. Adde further The uppermost Seats in Synagogues which the Scribes and Pharisees desired Luc. XI 43. adde the Apostle 1 Cor. XIV 25 30. distinguishing between the Seats of private persons and Prophets which the supposed S. Ambrose expounds by the Custome of sitting in the Synagogue as I have shewed in the same place adde The Chair of Moses on which the Scribes and Pharisees sate in succession to him who taught the people in that posture with the Priests sitting about him as Philo expoundeth the Text Num. XV. 33. Mat. XXIII 2. and I suppose we have not only evidenced to common sense the Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyters by his Place in the Church but also the distinction of the Clergy from the People by the same Which Point that I may deduce with that care which the consequence of it requires it will be worth the inquiry first by what title of Right the Celebration and Consecration of the Eucharist belongs only to Presbyters which as it seems to be agreed upon on all sides so let the Reason also once be agreed upon why it belongs only to them and thereby it will appear that it is convertible with the Power of the Keys that is that the Power of the Keys also belongs only to Presbyters whereas the Offices of Preaching and baptizing are communicable to their inferiours and that it belongs also to all Presbyters and so by consequence that there is no such thing as Lay Elders The Presbyterians stiling their Pastors Ministers of the Word and Sacraments in opposition to their Lay Elders seem to ground this Right upon the Commission of our Lord to his Apostles Goe preach and make Disoiples all nations Baptizing them as if this were the Office wherein Presbyters succeed the Apostles though of the Eucharist there is here never a word But if they consider what it is to Preach the Gospel to Unbeleevers or rather what it was before the Gospel was received any where it will easily appear that unlesse they be mad men that go about it it is necessary that they be indowed with abilities to make it appear even to the enemies of the Gospel that they are sent by God to Preach it Therefore no man succeeds the Apostles in the Office of Preaching the Gospel to the Nations And therefore if they will take notice they shall easily observe that the Title of Minister of the Gospel Minister of the Word of the New Testament Minister of the Church and others equivalent are never given to any but the Apostles in the Scriptures unlesse it be to their Scholars and Substitutes the Evangelists because they were to the Apostles as the Apostles to Christ and Christ to God that is they were Ministers of the Apostles assumed by them to the work which Christ had trusted them in Person with of Preaching the Gospel and planting Christianity And therefore when need was were able to make their Commission appear by the works they did though in an inferiour degree because they proceeded upon that stock of reputation which the Apostles had won the Gospel by their Preaching and Miracles Such titles you shall finde attributed to the Apostles and their Followers and Substitutes 1 Cor. III. 5. 2 Cor. III. VI. 4. XI 23. Col. I. 23 25. Eph. III. 7. VI. 21. 1 Thess III. 2. Col. IV. 7. I. 7. Acts I. 17. VI. 4. XX. 24. XXI 19. but no where to Presbyters For the name of Presbyters as also of Bishops is Relative to the People of those Churches whereof they are Bishops and Presbyters signifying them to be the best qualified of all the Body of those Churches chosen and constitute to conduct the rest in Christianity And therefore the Apostles also are Presbyters as S. Peter and S. John style themselves 1 Pet. V. 1. 2 John 1. 3 John 1. because the greater includes the lesse and because they had power in all Churches as Presbyters in one But Presbyters are never called Apostles because the greater is not included in the lesse and because Presbyters never had Commission to preach the Word or the Gospel in the sense whereof I speak here that is to publish the Gospel to Unbeleevers And whereas there is the same difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the one part and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other as there is between Publishing the Gospel to Vnbeleevers and instructing Christian Assemblies in it we never finde the former attributed to any Presbyter in the Scriptures but we finde both attributed to the Apostles because their Commission was to Publish the Gospel to all Nations and to make them Disciples by Baptizing them and being such to Teach them further to observe all that our Lord commandeth Mat. XXVIII 19 20. Mar. XVI 15. Thus the Apostles Acts V. 42. ceased not to Teach and Preach Jesus Christ in Houses and in the Temple To Teach the Church in those Houses where the Christians assembled to serve God as Christians and to Preach to the Jews in the Temple whither they resorted for that Service Acts II. 42 46.
we have an Altar that is a Sacrifice of which they that serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat that is no Jews For seeing the Priests only eat the remains of burnt Sacrifices whereas the remains of peace Offerings are eaten also by the Sacrificers that which the Priests touch not it is manifest that no Jew can have right to touch And that the Sacrifice of the Crosse is such he proceedeth to prove because as he had declared in the premises it is of that kinde that was carried within the Vail and again because in correspondence to the burning of the rest of those Sacrifices without the Camp which the Law enjoyned Levit. IV. 12 20. VI. 30. XVI 21. our Lord suffered without Jerusalem Now because it concerned the discourse propounded by the Apostle to shew how Christians participate of that Sacrifice whereof he hath proved that Jews do not he addeth Let us therefore goe forth to him out of the Camp bearing his reproach for we have here no abiding City but seek one to come Let us therefore by him offer the Sacrifice of Praise continually to God even the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his Name Which if we will have to be pertinent to the premises must all be meant of the Eucharist in which the Sacrifice of the Crosse is communicated to Christians Not as if thereby the Apostle did establish that strange prodigious conceit of repeating the Sacrifice of the Crosse and sacrificing Christ anew in every Masse In as much as the Apostle clearly declareth that the same one individuall Sacrifice which Christ carried into the Holy of Holies through the Vail to present to God is that which all Christians participate of in the Eucharist always And therefore the Eucharist is a Sacrifice no otherwise then as all Eucharists that have been or shall be to the worlds end can be understood to be the same one individuall Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse Which how it is to be understood this is not the place to dispute Here is further to be remembred that which I have proved in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 343 373. that it is Ordained by the Apostles which hath been practised by the Church after them in all ages that at the celebration of the Eucharist supplications and prayers be made for all estates and ranks in the Church for all things concerning the common necessities of it The reason and intent whereof is still more manifest by the premises For if the prayers of the Church be accepted of God in consideration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse appearing always before the Throne of God within the Vail to intercede for us Is it not all reason that the Church when it celebrateth the remembrance thereof upon earth should offer and present it to God as the only powerfull means to commend the Prayers of the Church unto God and to obtain our necessities at his hands If these things then be so let us call to minde the Propheticall Vision represented to S. John in the Apocalypse of the Throne of God and of the Church Triumphant divided into XXIV Presbyters sitting about the Throne of God and the people of the Church standing and beholding the Throne and the Elders in the very same manner as they did at the Assemblies of the Church Militant at Divine Service Whereby it is manifest that God granteth the Decrees which are foretold in that Prophecy at the Prayers of the Church Triumphant presented to his Throne in the same manner as the Prayers of the Church Militant here upon earth And upon these premises I suppose it will be no hard thing to make the consequence from that which is said Apoc. IV. 8. The XXIV Elders fell down before the Lamb having every one Harps and golden Vials full of incense which are the Prayers of the Saints The consequence being no more but this that seeing all things else in this Vision are correspondent to the order of the Militant Church therefore it is plain that the Presbyters in the Church Triumphant are said to hold in their hands the Prayers of the Saints because in the Church Militant the Presbyters were to present the Prayers of the Church to God and by consequence to celebrate the Eucharist which the Prayers of the Church were always presented to God with Which is further confirmed in that the Church or the place in Heaven where this Assembly of the Church Triumphant is represented to S. John is called divers times in the Apocalypse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in the notion of an Altar which notwithstanding it signifies more then once in this very Prophecy when the Altar of Incense before the Throne is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apoc. VI. 9. VIII 3 5. but of a Sanctuary or Place of Sacrificing So Apoc XI 2. Rise measure the Temple of God and the Sanctuary which in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it follows and those that worship in it For in an Altar no man worships Again Apoc. XIV 18. Another Angel came forth out of the Sanctuary For out of the Altar he could not come and yet it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again Apoc XVI 7. And I heard one speak out of the Sanctuary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This signification is expounded in H. Stevens Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Altarium Sacrarium and in those of Philoxenus Sacrarium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so it is Translated in the Latine of Polycarpus his Epistle to the Philippians where he cals the Widows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As also in that noted passage of Ignatius to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it is manifest that the Church is called a Sanctuary or Place of Sacrificing seeing no man can be said to be without the Altar because not within it Neither is it any marvell that in the representation of the Triumphant Church in this Propheticall Vision by correspondence with the Assembly of the Church upon earth regard is had chiefly to the celebration of the Eucharist Because as it is that part of the Service of God which is altogether peculiar to the Church as the Sacrifice of the Crosse is peculiar to Christianity whereas other Offices of Divine Service Prayer the Praises of God and Teaching of the People are common not only to Judaism but in some sort to other Religions never Ordained by God So is it the Chief and principall part of it though in this Age where so much hath been said of Reforming the Church we hear not a word of restoring the frequent celebration and communion of it It is to be wished indeed that continuall Preaching be maintained in all Churches as it is to be wished that all Gods people were Prophets And it is to be commended that the abuse of private Masses is taken away But if order be not taken that those which are set up to Preach may Preach no more then they have learned
generally distinguishable in the Church the one of Presbyters sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. V. 17. 1 Thess V. 14. sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. XIII 14 17. somtimes Episcopi 1 Tim. II. 2. Tit. I. 5 7. comprehending Bishop and Presbyters for the reasons alleged for to these the Deacons as their Ministers are to be referred the other of the People The same that in Tertullian are called Ordo Plebs in all ages of the Church since the Apostles the Clergy and People Secondly seeing it is manifest that the Power of the Keys is above the Office of Preaching to a Christian Church indeed equall to that of celebrating the Eucharist it followeth that it is against the Order declared by the Scripture that the Power of the Keys should be in any man that is not allowed to Preach and celebrate the Eucharist and therefore that by having the Power of the Keys a man is by Right qualified to doe it And truly I doe much marvell how this consequence can be refused as to the Office of Preaching when as S. Paul requires both of Timothy and Titus that the Presbyters which they ordain be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is fit to teach For no common sense can allow that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having the signification not from Preaching but from Governing is not to comprehend Governing Elders as well as Preachers Therefore the Scriptures make those Preachers whom the Presbyteries make Governing Elders Here follows a third argument drawn from that onely Text of the Apostle upon which their Lay Elders are grounded with any appearance 1 Tim. V. 17. Let the Elders that Rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially those that labour in the Word and Doctrine For by the Apostles Discourse it is manifest and so far as I perceive agreed on all hands that the word Honour here spoken of is maintenance S. Pauls instruction supposing the Order setled by the Apostles to be this that there should be in all Churches setled in Cities as aforesaid a common stock at the disposing of Bishop and Presbyters rising from the Oblations of the faithfull out of which first those that attended upon the Government of the Church and the Offices of Divine Service then those that could not attend the Service of God without maintenance from the Publique might finde subsistence For hereupon it is that S. Paul chargeth Timothy to honour widows indeed that were destitute of maintenance from their friends that they might abide in prayers and supplications as Anna the Prophetesse Luc. II. 36. and Iudith VIII 5. and the good women that waited at the Tabernacle Ex. XXXVIII 8. 1 Sam. II. 24. And when he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shews that there was then a List of them called here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Church Writers afterwards Canon which whosoever was entred into received appointment from the Church 1 Tim. V. 5 9 16. Let it therefore be said no more that the distinction between Clergy and people is not found in the Scriptures For how can the Office be more expresly distinguished then by the appointment that is allowed for the execution of it And therefore when S. Peter charges the Presbyters 1 Pet. V. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means not the people but he means the same which Clemens in Eusebius when he says that S. Iohn was wont to go abroad from Ephesus to forein Churches on purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to Ordain some Clergy man that should be signified by the Spirit For in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so S. Peters precept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consists of two members not to domineer over the Clergy that were under them that is the Deacons Widows and Deaconesses and to be a Pattern to the Flock In this Discourse of S. Paul we have a further reason of difference between the Clergy and people from that Rule of life and conversation to which the Clergy was subject by the Primitive Discipline of the Church For if the Church allowed Widows an appointment in consideration of their daily attendance upon the Service of God much more are we bound to conceive that Presbyters whom the Apostle allows a double appointment are tied to double attendance on the same Service A thing which cannot be expected of those who are tied to the World and therefore Tertullian De Praescript cap. XLI condemneth the Hereticks because their fashion was to make secular men Presbyters Seeing then that the Apostle alloweth the same double appointment to the whole Order of Presbyters let them that set up Lay Elders ask their own Consciences whether they can be content to allow them the same maintenance from the Church as themselves receive otherwise let them not imagine that they can set them up by this Scripture For that some Presbyters should labour in Preaching though all are required to be apt to Preach is no inconvenience in that State when Congregations were not distinguished but the whole Office rested in the whole Order of the Clergy in relation to the whole Body of the People of a Church You see by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV that one Assembly whereof he speaks there furnished with a great number of Prophets whether Presbyters or over and above them In the Records of the Church we find divers times a whole Bench of Presbyters presiding at one Assembly Is any man so unsatiable of Preaching as to think the Church unprovided of it unlesse all those Preached at all times Is it not enough that Timothy is required to count them especially worthy double honour that labour in it for by this means those that laboured not in it when and how Timothy finds it requisite must know that their maintenance must come harder from his hands For the last argument I must not forget the perpetuall practice of the Church though I name for the present but the words of Clemens Disciple to the Apostles who in his Epistle to the Corinthians to compose a difference among the Presbyters of that Church partly about the celebration of the Eucharist advises them to agree and take their turns in it If all the Presbyters might take their turns in it then all might celebrate the Eucharist if in that Church then in all Churches I know many Church Writers are quoted to prove Lay Elders For that also is grown a point of Learning to load the Margin with Texts of Scripture and allegations of Authors in hope no man will take the pains to compare them because if he do he shall easily finde them nothing to the purpose For instance My self have the honour to be alleged for one that approve Lay Elders even in that place of that very Discourse where I answer the best arguments that ever I heard made for them onely because I said then as now that we are not bound to think that all Presbyters
Preached during the Apostles times What reason then can any Reader have to presume that any of their dead witnesses make more for their purpose then I who am alive and stand to see my self alleged point blank against the position which I intended to prove because forsooth in their understanding the premises which I use stand not with the conclusion which I intended to prove But to speak plain English for the future if any man can shew by any writing of any Christian from the Apostles to this innovation any man indowed with the Power of the Keys that was not also qualified to Preach and to celebrate the Eucharist I am content to be of the Presbyteries the next morning though I am so well satisfied that it will never be shewed that I say confidently it will always be to morrow Now because the Power of the Keys that is the whole Power of the Church whereof that Power is the root and source is common to Bishop and Presbyters it is here demanded what Act we can shew peculiar to the Bishop by precept of Gods Word for which that Order may be said to be superiour to that of Presbyters A demand sutable to the definition of the Schoole wherein an Order is said to be a Power to doe some speciall Act But extremely wide of the Terms that have been held heretofore Have we been told all this while that the Presbyteries are the Throne and Scepter of Christ the force and Power of his Kingdome hath so much Christian blood been drawn for the Cause and now in stead of shewing that they are either commanded or consistent with the Word of God is it demanded that the Government in possession in the Church from the Apostles shew reason why it cannot be abolished though instituted by the Apostles Surely though this is possible to be shewed yet though it could not be shewed it might be beyond any Power on earth to abolish the Order of Bishops For my part I conceive I have shewed heretofore that the Power of every respective Church was deposited by the Apostles with the respective Bishop and Presbyters and that therefore in the ages next to the Apostles the advice and consent of the Presbyters did concurre with the Bishop in ordering of Ecclesiasticall matters whereas Congregations were not yet distinct but a Bishop and Presbyters over the common Body of each Church Over and above what hath been said the condemning of Marcion at Rome and of Noetus at Ephesus are expresly said by Epiphanius Haer. XLII num I II. Haer. LVII nu I. to have been done passed by the Act of the Presbyters of those Churches The difference between Alexander Bishop and Arius Presbyter of Alexandria is said to have risen at a meeting and debate of that Bishop and his Presbyters in the letter of Constantine to those two reported by Eusebius De Vitâ Constant II. cap. penult And Epiphanius Haer. LXIX num III. And which is of a later date the Excommunication of Andronicus in Synesius his fifty seventh Epistle I finde reported to have passed in the same sort And all this agreeable to the practice recorded in the Scriptures For when S. Paul instructeth Timothy saying 1 Tim. V. 19 20. Against a Presbyter receive not an accusation but under two or three witnesses Them that sin rebuke openly that the rest may fear Is it not easie to gather from hence that he commandeth such accusations to be brought and proved before Timothy with the rest of his Presbyters but the competent censure to be executed before the whole Congregation of the Church And is it not manifest that S. James first gives S. Paul audience in a Consistory of the Presbyters to advise what course to take before the Congregation be acquainted with the businesse Acts XXI 18 The same being the practice of S. Cyprians time when Cornelius of Rome writeth to him Epist XLVI placuit contrahi Presbyterium As also expressed in the Apostolicall Constitutions II. 47. by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Consistories appointed there to be held every week for composing all differences against the Lords Day And therefore as for my part the learned Blondell might have spared all his exact diligence to shew that Presbyters did concurre with the Bishop in acts of this nature The cunning would be in proving the consequence that therefore Bishop and Presbyters are all one which all common sense disavows For be it granted which he insisteth upon so much that as the Commentary upon S. Pauls Epistles under S. Ambrose his Name relateth Eph. IV. 11. at the first the eldest of the Presbyters was wont to be taken into the place of the Bishop For it is probable that this course was kept in some places though his conjectures will not serve to prove that it was a generall Rule what will this inable him to inferre as for the power of the Bishop being once received into the first place who knows very well the gallant speech of Valentinian recorded by Ammianus lib. XXVI to the very Army that had chosen him Emperour and at the instant of his inauguration began to mutiny about retracting their choice that it was in their power to choose an Emperour before they had done it Intimating that being chosen it was not in their power to withdraw their obedience For by the same reason whatsover be the means that promoted the Bishop the measure of the power to which he was promoted must be taken from the Law given the Church by the Apostles expressed by the practice of it As there is no doubt but the Romane Emperors were advanced to an absolute Power though by the choice of their Souldiers It is not my purpose to say that the Power of the Bishop in the Church is such But it is my purpose to appeal to common sense and daily experience and to demand whether in those Societies or Bodies which consist of a standing Councell and a Head thereof indowed with the Privilege of a Negative the Power of the Head and of the severall members be one and the same If not then is there the same difference between the Bishop and the Presbyters by the Scriptures interpreted by the Originall practice of the Church The Instructions addressed to Timothy Titus I suppose obliged not them alone but all that were concerned to yeeld obedience to what thereby they are commanded to doe If any thing concerning the subject of those instructions could have passed without Timothy and Titus they were all a meer nullity For instance if by the Presbyters Votes Ordination might have been made without Timothy they might commit sin and the blame thereof lie on Timothies score to which S. Paul if he lay hands suddenly on any man makes him liable So the Angels of the seven Churches as they are commended for the good so are they charged with the sins of their Churches Which how can it be reasonable but for the eminent power in them without
Paul and Barnabas being Ordained by the immediate act of the Holy Ghost to Preach to the Gentiles the solemnity thereof is performed by those in whom we cannot imagine the Power of sending them to rest In which opinion I am much confirmed by the practice of the Synagogue For though it is manifest that the custome of promoting Judges by Imposition of Hands came from the example of Moses and the Ordaining of the LXX Elders and Joshua yet we must beleeve their Records compiled by Maimoni â—â— de Synedrio cap. IV. when they tell us that in processe of time it was done without that solemnity by an Instrument or so and yet still called neverthelesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Imposition of Hands And now let them that demand what is that speciall Act which Bishops are able to do and Presbyters not take their choice If they be content that the Bishops acting with this Interesse that without him nothing be done be counted a speciall Act they have the speciall Act which they demand in all things that are done in the Church If they be not though it is easie enough to dispute it everlastingly yet I will not contend with them about it seeing it is enough that nothing is done without him to make him a fair step above his Presbyters And yet I conceive there is an Act to be named peculiar to Bishops which is to sit in a Councell Which consisting of the representatives of all Churches and not capable of all Presbyters and the Bishops right being that without him nothing be done in his Church it follows that by the right by which he is a Bishop he is a member of his Synod which no Priest can be but by Privilege seeing the whole Order cannot And this according to the Scriptures For by the premises the Apostles had place in the Councell at Jerusalem as Ordinary Governours of the Churches concerned in it which Churches had there no other representatives but Paul and Barnabas as Heads of the Churches which they had founded so lately Acts XIII XIV as it appeares when by them the Decree is delivered to execution in the Churches Acts XVI 4. As for the Presbyters mentioned in it the same evidence which assures us that they were Presbyters assures us also that they were Presbyters of the Church at Jerusalem and none else This I conceive the fittest to be thought the speciall Act of a Bishop For the unity of the whole Church arises from the Power deposited in each Church By virtue whereof he that communicates with any one Church in any rank of it communicates with all Churches in the same Which was in the Primitive Church the effect of the literae formatae or letters of mark by which this Unity of the Ancient Church was maintained in as much as he that travelled with such a testimony of his rank in any one Church by virtue of the same was received in all Churches where he came And therefore Synesius in the sentence of excommunication against Andronicus which by his fifty seventh Epistle he publisheth to the Churches addeth that if any Church contemning the sentence of his Church as a small and a poor one should receive Andronieus to communion without satisfaction given to him and his Church thereby it shall become guilty of Schism This holds as such Acts are not questioned by any greater part of the Church as not concerning the State of other Churches Which if they be then as no Church can be concluded but by the Act to which themselves concur whereby all Excommunications Ordinations as wel as making of Canons are the subject of Synods so the chief Power must needs be most seen in that Act which concludes all Churches concerned which is the Act of a Synod As concerning the objection that there is no precept in the Scripture that Bishops govern all Churches and that many things Ordained by the Apostles are abolished in the Church It is a question whether it come from lesse skill or proceed to worse consequence For unlesse we will betray the advantages of the Church to very many and perhaps to all Heresies and Schisms that ever were we must confesse that as there are precepts in the Scripture that oblige not so there are many things not set down in the Scripture in the form of precepts that oblige What can be delivered in a more expresse form of precept then that of Saint Paul That women pray with their heads covered men with theirs uncovered and yet where is it in force The same is to be said of the Decree of Jerusalem against eating things strangled and blood On the other side we finde by the Scriptures that the Apostles kept the Lords Day but do not find there that they commanded it to be kept As for the fourth Commandement I suppose it is one thing to rest on the day that God ceased his work and another on the day that he began it And if there be precepts in the Scripture that now oblige not why may not Secinus dispute that the precept of Baptism was temporary for them that had been enemies to the Faith afore And though I say not that he shall have the better hand for the truth cannot be contrary to the truth yet it shall not be possible for every Christian to discern whether he hath it or no unlesse there be some more sensible ballast then nice consequences from the Text of the Scripture If it be thus of Baptism much more of the Eucharist which as you saw is not used any more in the Church as it was instituted As for the Power of the Keys it is absolutely by this answer betraied to the Socinians who would have it peculiar to the Apostles For it is no where delivered as a Precept but onely as a Privilege What means is there then to end everlasting difficulties Surely the same that there is to understand all positive Laws that ever were For if the ancient interruption of the practice of any Law secure the Church that it was not given to all times and places sure that which is not mentioned as a Precept and yet has been always in practice without interruption as it was in force afore it was mentioned so was intended to oblige not by the mention but by the act that first established it evidenced by practice Which if it be so then is there no Power on earth able to abolish the Order of Bishops having been in force in all Churches ever since the Apostles I must not passe this place of limiting all Interests without a word or two of the Office of Deacons in the Church In regard of two extreme opinions one of Geneva that makes them meer Lay men collectors of Alms by necessary consequence because under their Lay Elders the other of some that would have them understood to be Presbyters as oft as S. Paul mentions but two Orders of Bishops and Deacons Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. II. 9. But as
the Apostles were at first their own Deacons before the Church allowed them some to wait on them and yet their whole function was then holy though some parts of it nearer to the end of the souls health So when Deacons were made reason inforces that they should attend on the meanest part of the Office of the Apostles but always on holy duties For the Tables which the Apostles saw first furnished themselves but were attended by the Deacons in doing it when they were made were the same which S. Paul speaks of 1 Cor. XI 20 which the Eucharist was celebrated at as the custome was daily to doe at Jerusalem Acts II. 42 46. and therefore their office by this was the same then as always it hath been since to wait upon the celebration of the Eucharist Secondly I have shewed afore that even the Apostles and their followers the Evangelists were also Deacons with as much difference as there is between the persons whom they served that is between our Lord and his Apostles on one side and the Bishop and Presbyters of a Church on the other Whereupon the Ministers of Bishops and Presbyters are called Deacons absolutely and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any addition signifies to execute a Deacons Office 1 Tim. III 10. But the Apostles and Evangelists are called Deacons with additions signifying whose Ministers or to what speciall purpose as hath been said Thirdly when S. Paul says They that doe the office of a Deacon well purchase themselves a good step 1 Tim. II. 13. Clemens Alexandrinus and the practice of the Church interprets this step to be the rank of Presbyters Therefore they were in the next degree to it afore Fourthly it hath been shewed that they sate not but stood in the Church as attending the Bishop and Presbyters sitting and yet were imploied in the Offices of Preaching and Baptizing And accordingly in the Primitive Church a great part of the Service reading Lessons singing Psalms and some part of the Prayers were ministred by them as I have shewed in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service cap. X. Which held correspondently in the Synagogue For the Ministers and Apparitors of their Consistories were also their Deacons and ministred Divien Service in the Synagogue Whereby it appears to be the Ordinance of the Apostles that the younger sort of those that dedicated themselves to the service of the Church should be trained up in the service of the Bishop and Presbyters as well to the understanding of Christianity as to the right exercise of Ecclesiasticall Offices that in their time such as proved capable might come to govern in the Church themselves That which remains concerning the Interesse of the People in the Church will be easily discharged if we remember that it must be such as may not prejudice either the dependence of Churches or the Chief Power of the Bishop with the Presbyters in each particular Church The Law of the XII Tables Salus populi suprema lex esto though it were made for a popular State not for a Kingdome yet admits a difference between populus and plebs and requires the chief Rule to be the good both of Senate and Commons not of one part alone So likewise that which is said in the Scriptures to have been done by the Church must not therefore be imagined to be done by the People Because the Church consists of two parts called by Tertullian Oâ—do and Plebs in the terms of latter times the Clergy and People but preserving the respective Interests of Clergy and People In the choice of Matthias it is said They set two Acts I. 23. what they but the Church in which the People were then better Christians then to abridge the Apostles but proportionably they are always to respect the Bishop and Presbyters if they will obey the Apostles that command it 1 Thess V. 12 13. Heb. XIII 7 17. So when S. Paul says Doe not ye judge those that are within 1 Cor. V. 12. speaks he to the People or to the Church that is to the Bench of Presbyters and the People in their severall interests and that not without dependence upon the Apostles The words of our Lord Dic Ecclesiae Mat. XVIII 18. make much noise At the end of my Book of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 428 you have a passage of S. Augustine Cont. Epist Parmen III. 2. that Excommunication is the sentence of the Church And yet I suppose no man hath the confidence to dispute that in S. Augustines time it was the sentence of the People So the Excommunication of Andronicus in Synesius his seven and fiftieth Epistle is intitled to the Church yet no man imagines that the People then did excommunicate Is not the case the same in the Synagogue Moses is commanded to speak to the Congregation of the children of Israel and he speaks to the Elders Exod. XII 2 25. does Moses disobey God in so doing or does he understand the command of God better then this opinion would have him in speaking to the Elders who he knew were to act on behalf of the People The Law commands the Congregation to offer for ignorance Lev. IV. 13 14. Num. XV. 22 24. how shall all the Congregation offer Maimoni answers in the Title of Errors cap. XII XIII that the great Consistory offers as often as they occasion the breach of the Law by Teaching that is interpreting it erroneously In the Law of the Cities of Refuge it is said The Congregation shall judge and the Congregation shall deliver the manslayer Num. XXXV 35 36. The Elders of the City of Refuge were to judge in presence and in behalf of the People whether the manslayer was capable of the privilege of the City of Refuge or not as you reade Joshua XX. 4 6. seeing then that these things being done by the Elders are said to be done by the Synagogue or Assembly of the People in behalf of whom they are done is it a wrong to the Scriptures when we say that which they report to be done by the Church was acted by the chief power of the Apostles and Presbyters with consent of the People For it is manifest in the Scriptures that in the Apostles times all publique Acts of the Church were passed at the publique Assemblies of the same as Ordinations Acts I. 23. VI. 3 6. Excommunications Mat. XVIII 18 19 20. 1 Cor. V. 4. 2 Cor. II. 10. Councels Acts XV. 4 27. Other Acts 2 Cor. VIII 19. And herewith agrees the Primitive custome of the Church for divers ages to be seen in a little Discourse of the Learned Blondell Of the Right of the People in the Church published of late And can this be thought to no purpose unlesse it dissolve the Unity of the Church or that obedience to the Clergy which God commandeth Is it nothing to give satisfaction to the People of the integrity of the proceedings of the Church and by the same mean
the Pharisee Luc. XVIII 12. that the Mundays and Thursdays were then and before then observed by the Jews as since they have been And as you see the like done in the Feast of Lots ordained in Esthers time and that of the Dedication in Judas Maccabcus his And in the same Prophet Zac. XII 12 13 14. you have a manifest allusion to the Jews ceremonies at their Funerals recorded by Maimont in the title of Mourners cap. IX clearly shewing that they were in force in that Prophets time As it is manifest that they began before the Law it self not only by that which we reade of the Funerals of Jacob in Genesis but chiefly because it required an expresse Law of God to derogate from it as to the Priests in the case of Aarons sons Levit. X. 6. XXI 1 10 11 12. Many more there are to be observed in the Old Testament if these were not enough to evidence that which cannot be denied that it appears indeed by Scripture that there were such Laws in force but that they were commanded by revelations from God is quite another thing Though men of learning sometimes make themselves ridiculous by mistaking as if all that is recorded in the Scriptures were commanded by God when all that comes from God is the record of them as true not the authority of them as divine The case is not much otherwise in the New Testament where it is manifest that many Constitutions Ordinances or Traditions as the Apostle sometimes calls them 1 Cor. XI 2. are recorded which no man can say that they obliged not the Church and yet this force of binding the Church comes not from the mention of them which we finde in severall places of Scripture For they must needs be in force before they could be mentioned as such in the Scriptures but from that Power which God had appointed to order and determine such things in his Church This difference indeed there is between the Old and New Testament that this being all written in the Apostles time can mention nothing of that nature but that which comming from the Apostles might come by immediate revelation from God Which of the Old cannot be said For though there were Prophets in all ages of it and those Prophets endowed with such trust that if they commanded to dispense with any of Gods own positive Laws they were to be obeyed as appears by Elias commanding to Sacrifice in Mount Carmell contrary to the Law of Levit. XVII 4. and this by virtue of the Law Deut. XVIII 18 19. because he that gave the Law by Moses might by another as well dispense with it yet it is manifestly certain that neverthelesse they had not the power of making those Constitutions which were to bind the people in the exercise of their Religion according to the Law For when the Law makes them subject to be judged by the Consistory whether true Prophets or not whereupon we see that they were many times persecuted and our Lord at last put to death by them that would not acknowledge them because they had not the grace to obey them as you saw afore it cannot be imagined that they were enabled to any such act of government as giving those Laws to the Synagogue Especially seeing by the Law of Deut. XVII 8-12 this power and this right is manifestly setled upon the Consistory For seeing that by the Law all questions arising about the Law are remitted to the place of Gods worship where the Consistory sate in all ages and the determination of a case doubtfull in Law to be obeyed under pain of death is manifestly a Law which all are obliged to live by of necessity therefore those who have power to determine what the written Law had not determined doe give Law to the people And this right our Lord himself who as a Prophet had right to reprove even the publick government where it was amisse establishes as ready to maintain them in it had they submitted to the Gospel when he says Mat. XXIII 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair all therefore that they teach you observe and doe The Scribes and Pharisees being either limbs and members or appendences of the Consistory who under pain of death were not to teach any thing to determine any thing that the Law had not determined contrary to that which the Consistory had first agreed Whereby it is manifest that all these Laws and Ordinances aforenamed and all others of like nature which all common sense must allow to have been more then the Scripture any where mentions are the productions of this Right and Power placed by God in the Consistory on purpose to avoid Schism and keep the body of the people in Unity by shewing them what to stand to when the Law had not determined So that this is nothing contrary to the Law of Deut. IV. 2. XII 32. which forbiddeth to adde to or take from Gods Law the Law remaining intire when it is supplied by the Power which it self appointeth And he that will see the truth of this with his eys let him look upon the Jews Constitutions compiled into the Body of their Talmud Which though they are now written and in our Saviours time were taught from hand to hand though by succession of time and change in the State of that People they cannot continue in all points the same as they were in our Saviours time yet it is manifest that the substance of them was then in force because whatsoever the Gospel mentions of them is found to agree with that which they have now in writing And are all manifestly the effect of the lawfull power of the Consistory Nor let any man object that they are the Doctrines of the Pharisees which they pretended that Moses received from God in Mount Sinai and delivered by word of mouth to his Successors and that the Sadduces were of another opinion who never acknowledged any such unwritten Law but tied themselves to the letter as doth at this day one part of the Jews which renounce the Talmud and rest in the letter of the Law who are therefore called Karaim that is Scripturaries For though all this be true yet neither Pharisees nor Sadduces then neither Talmudists nor Scripturaries now did or do make question of acknowledging such Laws and Constitutions as are necessary to determine that which grows questionable in the practice of the Law but are both in the wrong when as to gain credit to those Orders and Constitutions which both bodies respectively acknowledge the one will have them delivered by God to Moses the other will needs draw them by consequence out of the letter of the Scripture And so entitle them to God otherwise then he appointed which is only as the results and productions of that power which he ordained to end all matter of difference by limiting that which the Law had not The same reason necessarily takes place under the New Testament saving the difference
between the Law and the Gospel For under the Law this power took place in the practice of all Ceremoniall and Judiciall Laws proper to the Synagogue As well as in determining the circumstances and ceremonies of the worship of God which still remains under the Gospel saving the difference thereof from the Law For under the Gospel there belong to Christianity two sorts of things The first whereof are of the substance of Christianity as concerning immediately the salvation of particular Christians And this kinde is further to be distinguished into matter of Faith and matter of life or manners The second concerns indeed the salvation of particular Christians as containing the Unity of the Church and the due exercise of all those Ordinances which God will be served with in the Unity of the Church but mediately as they are means to beget and preserve in all Christians those things of the former sort that concern Faith or good maners For if it were morally possible to imagine that a man blamelesly deprived of all means of Communion with the Church could be neverthelesse endowed with all parts of a Christian in Faith and good manners I doe not see how any discreet Christian could deny such a one the end of Christianity which is life everlasting All things therefore concerning Faith and good Works necessary to the salvation of particular Christians are so revealed or rather so commanded by our Lord and his Apostles that it is not possible for all the Church that succeeds to declare any thing to be such that is not expresly or by consequence contained in their writings For how shall all the Church be able to adde any thing to this number but by shewing the same motives which our Lord and his Apostles advanced to the World to perswade them not onely that what they spoke was revealed by God but also that they were sent to require the World to beleeve and obey them But as to that which concerns the Society of the Church and the publick service of God in the Unity of the same what can we say our Lord in Person commanded but the Power of the Keys upon which it is founded and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist in the Communion whereof the Unity of the Church consisteth And his Apostles how did they proceed in determining the rest Surely he that will say that they never enacted any thing till a revelation came on purpose from God will fall under the same inconveniencies which render the infallibility of the Pope or the Church ridiculous to common sense Which if they beleeved themselves sure they would never call Councels advise with Doctors debate with one another to finde what may truly be said or usefully determined in matters of difference In like manner when the Apostles assemble themselves at Jerusalem Acts XV. 1 to debate in a full meeting with Saul and Barnabas the Presbyters of Jerusalem and the rest what to resolve in the matter there questioned I say not they were no Prophets or had no revelations from God when he pleased But I say it is manifest that they proceeded not upon confidence of any revelation promised them at this time and in this place but upon the habituall understanding which as well by particular revelation from God as by the Doctrine of our Lord they had proportionable to the Chief Power over the whole Church which they were trusted with To speak ingenuously mine own opinion which I seek not to impose upon any mans Faith I do beleeve that some person of those that were then assembled in Councell had a present inspiration revealing that Gods will was that the Decree there enacted should be made My reason is because I observe by divers passages of the Old and New Testaments that God was wont to send revelations to his Prophets at the publick Assemblies of the Church of Synagogue As at the sending of Saul and Barnabas Acts XIII 2. At the Ordination of Timothy 1 Tim. IV. 14. At the Assemblies of the Corinthians 1 Cor. XIV 24 25 30. At Josaphats Fast 2 Chron. XVIII 14. At Saint Johns Ordinations whereof Clemens in the place afore alleged out of Eusebius his Ecclesiasticall Histories saith that the Apostle was wont to goe abroad to Ordain such as were signified by the Holy Ghost Whereupon S. Paul saith of the Presbyters of Ephesus That the Holy Ghost had set them over the flock Acts XX. 28. and therefore when it is said Acts XV. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us I take it that some such revelation is intimated But this notwithstanding when we see the message sent the Church assembled the cause debated without assurance of any such revelation to be made whereof no Prophet had assurance till it came we see they proceeded not upon presumption of it but upon the conscience of their ordinary power and the habituall abilities given them to discharge it So that from the premises we have two reasons serving to vindicate the same Power to the Church The first because the Constitutions in force under the Apostles cannot be said to come from particular extraordinary inspiration of the Holy Ghost but from the ordinary power of governing the Church which was to continue The second because by the proceedings of the Councell of Jerusalem it appears that no revelation was a ground or requisite to the determining of the matter there in difference To which I adde a third from S. Pauls words 1 Cor. XI 16. If any man be contentious we have no such custome neither the Churches of God Where having disputed by many reasons that women were to vail their faces at the Service of God in the Church he sets up his rest upon laudable custome of the Church Now if custome be available to create Right in the Church as in civile Societies then authority much more without which either prescribing or allowing neither that custome which the Apostle specifies nor any other could take place And a fourth from that observation so advanced and improved that no man can deny it but he that will make himself ridiculous to all men of learning besides the instances thereof in the premises which is this That the Orders which the Apostles setled in the Church saving the difference between the Law and the Gospel are always or at least most an end drawn from the pattern of the Synagogue Whereby it appeareth that the convenience of them was evident not by revelation but by humane discourse but the force of them comes from the authority of the Apostles prescribing or allowing them in the Church Both which are always in the Church though in lesse measure Fifthly this is proved by the premises Wherein I conceive it is proved that the Clergy in the Church succeeds into the Authority of the Jews Consistories in the Synagogue Wherefore having shewed that those Consistories did give Law to the Synagogue in all matters of Religion not determined by God it follows
that the same may be done in the Church Sixthly the same followeth from the dependence of Churches For if Congregations be made independent that no Christian may receive Law from man wherein he is not satisfied of the will of God then having proved that Congregations are not independent it follows that they are to receive Law in all things not contrary to the will of God Seventhly the exercise of this Power in all ages of the Church and the effects of it in great volumes of lawfull Canonicall decrees though it be a mark of contradiction to them that are resolved to hate that which hath been because it hath been yet to all whose senses are not maleficiated with prejudice it is the same evidence of this Power though not always of the right use of it by which Christianity it self stands recommended to us Lastly can those of the Congregations say that no publick act is done among them without the free and willing consent of all as satisfied in conscience that it is the will of God which is decreed Then are they not men For among all men there is difference of judgement If notwithstanding they are inforced to proceed why depart they from the Church For if those that place the Chiefe Power in Congregations cannot avoid to be tied by other mens acts why refuse they to be tied once for all by such generall acts as Laws are Which as they must needs be done by persons capable to judge what the common good of the Church requires which it is madnesse to imagine that members of Congregations can be so they have the force when they are once admitted to contain the whole body of the Church agreeing to them in Unity Whereas to acknowledge no such tends to create as many Religions as persons And now to the objection of wil-worship in the observation of humane constitutions the answer will not be difficult That sinne I doe truly beleeve to be of a very large extent as one of the extremes opposite to the Virtue of Religion understanding Religion to be all service of God with a good conscience Thus all the Idolatries of the Gentile all the superstitions of Judaism and Mahumetism are will-worships For man being convinced of his duty to serve God and neither knowing how to perform nor willing to render that service which he requires because inconsistent with his own inclinations it follows that by a voluntary commutation he tender God something which he is willing to part with in stead of his concupiscences Having condemnation both for neglecting to tender that which is due and for dishonouring God by thinking him to be bribed by his inventions to wink at his sins And therefore I do grant that the Constitutions which the Synagogue was by Gods Law enabled to make were capable to be made the matter of Superstition and will-worship as indeed in our Lords time they were made The reason because presuming to be justified by the works of the Law and the Law among them being not onely the written but that which was taught by word of mouth the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees which the Disciples of Christ shall never enter into the Kingdome of heaven unlesse they exceed consisted not only in the letter of the Ceremoniall and Judiciall precepts but in observing the determinations of their Consistories And accordingly I doe grant that the Rules Decrees and Constitutions of the Church are capable to be made the matter of the same sin and that they are made so visibly in divers customs and practises of the Church of Rome But is it a good reason to say that because humane Constitutions may be made the subject of superstition and will-worship therefore the Church hath no Power to make any therefore the members of the Church are not tied to obey any Or may there not be superstition and will-worship in abhorring as well as in observing humane Constitutions If S. Paul be in the right there may For if the Kingdome of God consist in righteousnesse and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost not in eating or not eating in observing or not observing days by the same reason it consists no more in not doing then in doing that which the Law of God determineth not Wherefore if any man imagine that he shall please God in not observing in refusing in opposing in destroying humane Constitutions regulating the publick order of the Church it is manifest that this is because he thinks he shall be the better Christian by forbearing that which God commands him not to forbear seeing he can finde in his heart to violate Unity and Charity that he may forbear it Here it may be demanded of me why I expresse no other ground of this Power in the Church then the indetermination of those things which Order and Unity requires to be determined in the Church For seeing matters of Faith are determined by Gods Word it seems to follow that the Church hath nothing to do to determine of matters of Doctrine in difference And seeing the Ceremonies of Divine Service besides the determining of that which the Scripture determineth not pretend further to advance and improve devotion in the publick Worship of God as I have discoursed more at large in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service ca. IX It seems if there be no other ground for the Legislative Power of the Church that the Church hath nothing to do to institute such Ceremonies To which I answer that it is one thing to make that matter of Faith which was not another to determine matter of Faith that is to determine what members of the Church shall do in acknowledging or not acknowledging that which is in question to be or not to be matter of Faith For if there be a Society of the Church then must there be in the Church a Power to determine what the members thereof shall acknowledge and professe when it comes in difference Which is not to qualifie the subject that is to make any thing matter of Faith or not but to determine that those which will not stand to the Act of the Whole that is of those persons that have right to conclude the Whole shall not be of it So the obligation that such Acts produce as it comes from the Word of God which the Church acknowledges is a duty of Faith but as it relates to the determination of the Church as a duty of charity obliging to concurre with the Church where it determineth not the contrary of that which the Word of God determineth Again when I say the Church hath Power to determine that which Gods Law determines not I must needs be understood to mean that which shall seem to make most for the advancement of godlinesse Now the Scripture shews by store of examples of Ceremonies in the Publick Service of God under the Church as well as under the Synagogue that the institution of significative Ceremonies in the Publick worship of God doth make for
Jude ver 12. calls their Feasts of Love And the attendance upon this entertainment was the cause of making the Deacons which is called therefore the daily ministration and attendance at Tables Acts VI. 1 ◠Now will any man say that those Primitive Christians held not themselves tied to pay Tithes that offered all their estates At Corinth I beleeve S. Chrysostome that this course was not frequented every day as at Jerusalem but probably the first day of the week because upon that the Disciples assembled at Troas Acts XX. 7. or perhaps upon other occasions also for to have done always every where as at Jerusalem would have destroied civile Society which the Gospel pretendeth to preserve But those that offer the First-fruits of their goods to this purpose when Secular Laws enable them not to endow the Church with their Tithes doe they not acknowledge that duty and that as taught by the Apostles so to acknowledge it For can any living man imagine that they were weary of their estates if the Apostles from whom they received their Christianity had not informed them that Christianity required it at their hands In the next place let us consider the contributions which the Churches of the Gentiles were wont to send to the Christians at Jerusalem being brought low by parting with their estates It is to be understood that the Jews that lived out of their own Country dispersed in the Romane and Parthian Empires not being under the Law of Tithes which was given to the Land of Promise nor resorting to the Temple were notwithstanding in recompense of the same wont to make a stock out of which they sent their Oblations from time to time to maintain the Service of God as is to be seen up and down in Josephus besides Philo and the Talmud Doctors If then the Churches of the Gentiles in imitation hereof contribute their Oblations to support the Church of Jerusalem and the Service of God there being then the Mother City of Christianity before it was setled in the Capitall Cities of the Romane Empire as by all those passages appears which mention the Oblations of the Churches sent to Jerusalem Acts XI 30. XII 25. Rom. XV. 26. 2 Cor. VIII IX per tot 1 Cor. XVI 1. Gal. II. 10. do they not therby openly professe themselves taught by the Apostles that they were under the same obligation of maintaining the service of God in the Church as the Jews in the Temple Again the Apostle having shewed that Christians have the same right of communicating in the Sacrifice of Christ crucified as the Jews in the Sacrifices that were not wholly consumed by fire in the passage handled afore of Heb. XIII 8-14 pursues it thus in the next words By him then let us offer continually to God the Sacrifice of Praise which is the fruit of the lips giving thanks to his Name But to doe good and communicate forget not for with such sacrifices God is well pleased Where by the Sacrifice of Praise he means the Eucharist as it is called usually in the ancient Liturgies and writings of the Fathers For to this purpose is the whole dispute of that place that in that Sacrament Christians communicate in the Sacrifice of Christ crucified which Jews can have no right to in stead of all the Sacrifices of the Law And therefore by doing good and communicating he means the Oblations of the faithfull out of which at the beginning the poor and the rich lived in common at the Assemblies of the Church and when that course could no more stand with the succeeding state of the Church both the Eucharist was celebrated and the persons that attended on the service of God were maintained Therefore this obligation ceaseth not though the Ceremoniall Law be taken away The next argument is from the words of S. Paul Ephes IV. 11 in which few or none take notice of any thing to this purpose but to me comparing them with the premises it seemeth so expresse that it were a wrong to the Church so much concerned in them to let them goe any longer without notice He hath made saith S. Paul some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Doctors For the compacting of the Saints for the work of ministery for the edification of the Body of Christ That is as it follows that being sincere in love we may grow in all things in him who is the Head even Christ From whom the whole Body compacted and put together by the furnishing of every limb according to the working proportionable in every part causeth the body to waxe unto the edification of it self in love Here you are to mark these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament signifies in a vulgar sense to furnish any man maintenance as Mat. XXV 44. 1 Tim. II. 18. Heb. VI. 10. Luc. VIII 2. 1 Pet. IV. 10. In another sense it is used to signifie the Service of God in publishing the Gospel but almost always with some addition discovering the metaphor by expressing the subject of that service to wit the Word the Gospell the Spirit the New Covenant Acts VI. 6. 2 Cor. V. 18 19. III. 8. In this sense it is commonly taken here but it seems a mistake For when the Apostle saith that God hath given his Church Governours and Teachers for the Compacting of the Saints for the work of ministery for the edification of the Body of Christ his meaning is that the Body of the Church is compacted and held together to frequent publick Assemblies by the Contribution of the rich to the maintenance of those that attend upon the service of God which is here called the work of ministery to the end that by the Doctrine of the Governors and Teachers of the Church at the said Assemblies it may be built up to a full measure of Christianity This sense the words that follow require From whom the whole Body compacted that is that the Body of the Church being inabled frequently to assemble by the operation of those that are able furnishing every member proportionably to his want commeth by Christ to perfection in Christianity This sense the parallel places of Rom. XII 4 7 8. 1 Pet. IV. 4. necessarily argue Where having speech of those things which particular members of the Church are to contribute to the improvement of the whole both Apostles expresse two kinds of them one spirituall of instruction in Christianity the other corporall of means to support the Church in holding their Assemblies For as those that want cannot balk the necessities of this life to attend upon Divine Service unlesse they be furnished by the body of the Church So much more those that minister the Service of the Church cannot attend upon the same unlesse they be secured of their support And for this cause the first Christians at Jerusalem and by their example they that sent their Oblations to the Church
by the Heathen Emperour Aureliane as you may see in Eusebius his Histories VII 30. For though the matter thereof were not evident to him that was no Christian yet the authority might be the support whereof concerned the Peace of the Empire And so it was evident in that case For there being a difference in the Church of Antiochia between the Bishop and some of the Clergy and People and the Synod there assembled having condemned and deposed the Bishop if this deposition were allowed by the Synod of the Church of Rome no man will deny that there was thereby sufficient ground for him that was no Christian to proceed and take away possession of the Church and Bishops house from him that by such authority was deposed And thus you see how true it is which I said that in Christian States the Power of the Church cannot be in force without the Soveraign because Excommunication which is the Sword thereof and the last execution of this spirituall Jurisdiction might be made void otherwise As for the prejudice which may come to a Christian State by a Jurisdiction not depending upon it in point of right but only in point of fact there seem to be two considerable difficulties made The first the Excommunication of the Soveraign Ormore generally thus that the Keys of the Church may then interpose in State matters The second in regard that I have shewed that by the words of our Lord this Power may take place in matters of interesse between party and party For if in any why not in all and if in all where shall the secular Power become that Power that is able to judge all causes being able to govern any State To the first the answer is evident that so farre as Excommunication concerns barely the Society of the Church any person capable of Soveraign Power is liable to it upon the same terms as other Christians are because comming into the communion of the Church upon the same condition as other Christians the failing of this condition must needs render the effect void But if we consider either the temporall force by which it comes to effect or the temporall penalties which attend on it to these which cannot proceed but by the will of the Soveraign it is not possible that he should be liable Thus I had rather distinguish then between the greater Excommunication and the lesse as some doe who conclude that the Soveraign cannot be subject to the greater but to the lesse For there is indeed but one Excommunication as there is but one Communion abstinence from the Eucharist being no permanent but a transient estate under which whosoever comes if he give not satisfaction to the Church becomes contumacious and so liable to the last sentence Let no man marvell at the good Emperour Theodosius giving satisfaction of his penitence to the holy Bishop S. Ambrose The reason was because Christianity then fresh from the Apostles was understood and uncorrupt It was understood that he held not his Empire by being of the Church nor that his subjects ought him any lesse obedience for not being of it He that taught him to be subject to God taught his people also to be subject to him for Gods sake as Christians always were to Heathen Emperours even Persecutors Which if it were received it is not imaginable that the Powers of the world could be prejudiced by any censure of the Church As for the objection that excommunicate persons are not to be conversed with by S. Pauls rule it is answered by all Divines that it ceases in such relations for example of Parents and children as are more ancient then the Society of the Church which it therefore presupposeth and so is to cease in things necessary to civile Society which Christianity as it presupposeth so it inforceth and not overthroweth In like manner it is to be said that all proceedings either of the Popes or of the Scottish Presbyteries in those cases which the burthen of Issachar mentions are the productions of the corruption or misunderstanding of Christianity For as Aristotle says that some things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so must we say that those things onely exclude from the Church which by the very nature and essence of them are inconsistent with Christianity being those things which a Christian renounces when he is admitted into the Church Now the affairs of States such as are Treaties and alliances with forein States reason of Government at home in Jurisdiction giving Laws and commands of State are such things as are not necessarily bad or good but may be the subject either of virtue or vice much lesse can it be manifest not only to the Body of Christians but even to the Guides of the Church when Governours forsake and when they cleave to their Christianity though it is certain that they doe either the one or the other always Wherefore for particular actions of the same kinde with those for which private persons are liable when they become notorious Princes also and publick Persons are subject to the censure of the Church But for publick Government the reason whereof must not be known the kinde thereof in the whole exrent being capable of good as well as bad it is nothing but the misunderstanding and corruption of Christianity that ingages the Church in them by the fault of those that by their quality in the Church seek to themselves some interesse in publick affairs which Christianity generally denies to be due And the same is to be said of them that make publick affairs the subject of their prayers and Preaching Which though it may be done to good purpose and in opposition to worse yet seeing Christianity requires not only that it may be so in the Church but also that it may not be otherwise as it must needs proceed from a decay of Christianity so it must needs tend to the utter ruine of it As for the drawing of Civile causes to the cognisance of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories by some things that have been said or done to the advancement of the Presbyteries in Scotland or here it appears there is cause of scruple But it is because the reason is overseen upon which our Lords saying proceeds For if the reason why our Lord will have the differences of Christians ended within the Church is that those that are without may not take notice of the offences that are among Christians this will not hinder Christians to plead before Christians and therefore will hinder no Jurisdiction of civile States as ceasing so farre as the State becomes Christian Wherefore it is not without cause that the Audiences of Bishops have been by the Laws of the Empire and other Christian States succeeding the same limited to such kinds of causes as seemed to stand most upon consideration of charity and so fittest to be sentenced by the Church But Matrimoniall causes seem to me necessarily to belong to this cognisance Because of that particular disposition which our Lord
Church And this is the reason of that which I say here p. that the estate of the Church is then most happy and most pure when this legall presumption is most reasonable It is not onely true which I say p. 30. that the Power of binding and loosing which the Priests and Doctors exercised under the Law that is of declaring this or that to be bound or loose that is unlawfull or lawfull by the Precepts of the Law cannot be that which our Lord meaneth Mat. XVIII 18. when he saith Whatsoever ye binde on earth but also that the reason holdeth not under the Gospel to ground a generall Commission correspondent to the Power in force under the Law upon which it may be thought to be said Whatsoever ye binde For the reason of this Power under the Synagogue was the matter of positive Precepts not commanded because it was good but good because it was commanded Which where it was not determined by the Law was to be supplied by the Power of the Consistory established Deut. XVII 8 12. the determination whereof being declared by authority derived from thence made any thing lawfull or unlawfull before God by virtue of the generall Precept by which the authority subsisted For which reason the Consistory is to offer sacrifice for the transgression of private persons as you see here p. 158. so often as they are led into transgression by the Consistory deciding amisse And this reason holds under the Gospel in regard of matters of Positive right concerning the Society of the Church not determined by any divine Precept For if the Church have determined the matter of them further then it is determined by Divine right then is that bound or unlawfull which is so determined unlesse the authority by which it is determined declare that the determination is not to take place This is the effect of that Legislative Power which I challenge for the Church Chap. IV. from p. 170. and concerns onely those positive Precepts which tend to maintain the Society of the Church in Unity But in those things which concern the substance of Christianity because they are commanded as good the obligation being more ancient then the Constitution of the Church as grounded upon the nature of the subject and the eternall will of God this power hath no place And therefore cannot be understood to be signified by the terms of binding and loosing as borrowed from the language of the Talmud Doctors But whereas in the Synagogue it was things or cases under the Gospel it is persons that are said to be bound or loose For of every case questionable in point of Christianity there is no infallible authority given to assure all Christians that following it they shall always please God in all actions But as it is possible to judge of the state of all persons toward God upon supposition of their profession so there is authority founded in the Church of binding and loosing that is of remitting and retaining sins by admitting to or excluding from the Church In fine this interpretation is inconsequent to the words that went afore Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publicane if we take them in Erastus his sense that thereby our Lord gives leave to sue such before the Secular Powers of the Romanes as would not stand to the sentence of their own Consistories For this plainly concerns matter of Interesse not matter of Office seeing it would be very impertinent so to understand our Lord as to command them to be sued in the Gentiles Courts that would not stand to the sentence of the Jews Consistories in matters of Conscience But if we understand binding and loosing according to this opinion to be declaring this or that to be lawfull or unlawfull before God then doth it not concern matter of Interesse but matter of Conscience or Office Besides this interpretation is impertinent to that which follows Again I say unto you if two of you agree upon earth about any thing to ask it it shall be done for them by my Father which is in heaven For where two or three are assembled in my Name there am I in the midst of them Whereas the interpretation which here is advanced of binding and loosing the persons of them that are admitted to or excluded from the Communion of the Church agreeth with that which went afore Let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican and no lesse with that which followeth tending to declare the means of loosing such as should be so bound to wit the Prayers of the Church as hath been declared As for the conceit of Erastus that this Precept of our Lord should concern onely the Jews that lived under the Romanes and not be intended for an Order to be observed in all ages of the Church it is so unreasonable that I finde no cause to spend words in destroying it Onely be it remembred that it is contrary to the Order instituted by our Lord and his Apostles that the differences of Christians should be caried out of the Church to be pleaded and heard in the Courts of the Gentiles according to that which was practised afore in the Synagogue as hath been said So that this sense of Erastus as you see by that which follows it is contrary to the practise of the Church under the Apostles As for the reason touched p. 43. that the practise of the Church before Constantine is the best evidence to shew the proper Power and Right of it it is here opportune to resume the distinction made afore and upon it to frame a generall argument against both Which shall be this Either there was a Society of the Church by right as we know there was in point of fact before Constantine or there is no such thing to be grounded upon the Scriptures in point of right but was onely an usurpation and imposture of the Primitive Clergy of the Church This later assertion is that which hath been refuted by the premises proving first a privilege or a precept of communicating in the service of God given to the community of Christians secondly a condition under which they were admitted to communicate and to be Christians and continued in the same estate But if there were a Society of the Church before Constantine constituted by Divine right then could not the same have been dissolved but by the same Power that constituted it from the beginning neither can it be known to be dissolved but by the same evidence by which it appears to have been constituted that is unlesse it can be made to appear by the Scriptures that God ordained it to subsist onely till the Romane Empire and other States and Kingdomes received Christianity then to be dissolved into the Power of those States being become Christian which I am confident no man will undertake to shew out of the Scriptures If it be said that it subsisted till Constantine not by Divine right but according to Divine right
that is to say by the Power given the Church by God of ordering those things which were not determined by any Divine Precept and yet became determinable the case is the same and the reason is where it was For if the Church by the Power given it by God immediately be enabled to make it self a Society for the better maintenance and propagation of Christianity and have executed that Power by enabling every part of the Church to maintain it self in the Unity of the Whole by the same Power in order to and dependence upon the Whole then are all Christians bound by a Divine Precept of obeying the Governours of the Church before they can be bound to obey the Secular Powers in Church matters The one Power being constituted by the immediate revelation and appointment of God in matters concerning the Society of the Church the other constituted indeed by the Providence of God executed by man but enforced by the Law of Christianity to be obeyed in all things not excepted by the same whereof this is one And if the consent of the Christian world can be of any moment in a matter wherein the Clergy are parties indeed as they must needs be but must challenge their right at their utmost hazard it is not possible to give a more pregnant instance for the right of Excommunication in the Church then the troubles of Athanasius of Alexandria and Alexander of Constantinople for refusing to admit Arrius to communicate with the Church being cast out by the Councell of Nice the act whereof they could not void the good Emperour being seduced to think it necessary for the quiet of the Church And not onely by this particular but by all the proceedings of the first Christian Emperours in the affairs of the Church who had great advantage in discerning the true Interesse of the State and the Church not onely by the advise of those Bishops which had received it fresher from the source but by sensible knowledge of the whole right which they found the Church in possession of when they came to be members of it it is manifest that they never sought to bring to effect that which they were perswaded to be necessary for the establishment of Christianity whether truly or falsly as well as for the quiet of their Estates and People by the immediate act of their own Soveraign Power but by the act of those that were then held able to conclude the Church Imploying their Secular Power in consequence to the same to inforce such acts though not always valid to oblige the Church by temporall Penalties on them that refused as enemies to the publick Peace Seeing then that the Church is a Society Community Corporation or spirituall Commonwealth subsisting by the immediate revelation and appointment of God without dependence upon those Christian States wherein it is harboured as to the Right by which it subsisteth and the matter wherein it communicateth but depending upon them for the force which is necessarily requisite to maintain the whole People of all Christian States in the communion of their respective Churches and by them of the whole it followeth of necessity that it is endowed with Rights correspondent to those wherein the Soveraignty of States consisteth The Power of the Sword is the principall of those Rights into which the rest are resolved when they are enforced to have recourse unto it for the execution of that which becomes requisite to make them available And the Church hath the Sword of the Spirit which is the word of God which is used two manner of ways as the Sword is either to subdue strangers or to cut off malefactors Let no man imagine that any private person is enabled to propagate the Gospel and constitute new Churches of persons newly converted to Christianity without competent Commission from the Church To bring men to be Christians indeed is that which not onely any of the Clergy but any Christian may doe and is to doe when he findes himself able to act towards it without disadvantage to Christianity It is that which the Ecclesiasticall Histories informe us that Frumentius and Aedesius did in India and the captive maid in Iberia as well as those of the dispersion of Jerusalem in Phoenice and Cyprus and at Antiochia Acts XI 19 20. But the authority by which they became a Church they were to seek where it was before at Alexandria and Constantinople as well as those at Jerusalem Acts XI 22. Because in the Church the Sword of the Spirit which is the word of God is deposited and trusted with the Church for the propagation as well as the maintenance of it and though all Christians must needs understand themselves to be under an habituall trust or a commission dormant to perswade all that they can to the Christianity which they have themselves yet the expresse commission of the Church imports further the exercise of that Power which the Society thereof already useth towards them that by virtue of the said Commission shall be brought to be Christians At least it may import so much if we suppose it granted to such purpose The Sword of the Spirit is used within the Church to the punishment of malefactors upon two sorts of causes For if any man forfeit his Christianity either by denying the Faith upon profession whereof he was admitted to Christianity or by living contrary to the same the same Sword of the Spirit which pronounces him cut off from God cuts him off from the Church And in regard that it is part of Christianity to beleeve that God hath ordained a Church the consequence whereof is to oblige all Christians to maintain themselves in the Unity of the same which cannot be done by those that refuse to be concluded by it in all things not contrary to Gods Law the same Sword of the Spirit that subdues all men to be Christians upon condition to live members of the Church cuts them off from the Communion of the Church that will not live within compasse of the Unity of it The Power of the Sword being supposed in the Church Jurisdiction follows which consists not so much in judging as in executing the sentence Not that there is any such thing as Jurisdiction such as the Civile Laws of the Romanes and all other People understand which proceeds by constraint of outward force in the Church But because the Church being constituted of such as desire to continue Christians upon supposition of this will to continue a Christian he may be said to be constrained to hear the Church that cannot communicate with the Church unlesse he doe so as it requires Upon the same ground subsists the Right of Ordinations answerable to that part of Soveraignty in States which consists in creation of Magistrates and Officers for it is without doubt beside the intent of the Romane Laws to call the Soveraign a Magistrate Magistrates being generally Ministers of the Soveraign which creates a particular Power over the
then common Presbyters CHAP. III. THat it is no new reason that here is rendred p. 91. why the name of Episcopus under the Apostles was common to those that are since distinctly called Bishops and Presbyters may appear by a passage in Amalarius de divinis Officiis quoted out of the supposed S. Ambrose upon the Epistles produced by Salmasius In Apparatu quia beatis Apostolis decedentibus illi qui post illos ordinati sunt ut praeessent Ecclesiis illis primis exaequari non poterant neque miraculorum testimonium par illis habere sed in multis aliis inferiores illis esse videbantur grave illis videbatur Apostolorum sibi vendicare nuncupationem Diviserunt ergo nomina ipsa iisdem Presbyterorum nomen reliquerunt alii verò Episcopi sunt nuncupati hique Ordinationis praediti potestate ita ut plenissimè iidem praepositos se Ecclesiarum esse cognoscerent This is manifestly the very reason that I insist upon For saith he because the blessed Apostles deceasing those that were ordained to be over Churches after them could not be equalled to those first nor attain to the like grace of miracles but appeared to be beneath them in many other things it seemed too much for them to challenge to themselves the name of Apostles Hereupon they divided the names and left them the name of Presbyters and the others were called Bishops and they endowed with the Power of Ordaining that they might know themselves to be set over the Churches in the fullest right I marvell what pleasure Salmasius had to allege this passage which if it be admitted is enough alone to overthrow all that he hath said in this point For first he supposeth as the received Doctrine of the Church that Bishops in their severall Churches succeeded the Apostles Secondly he answers all S. Hieromes reasons to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are all one because they are called by the same name in the Scriptures by giving another reason even that which you have here Lastly he saith that Bishops are set over their Churches plenissimè in the fullest right and that therefore Ordination was reserved to them which is to say that in all things they have a speciall Interesse but especially Ordination is their peculiar And with this reason agrees Theodoret when he says that at such time as the name of Bishops was common to Presbyters those who were called Bishops afterwards were called Apostles extending the name of Apostles to others besides the Apostles of Christ This is then a sufficient reason why the name of Bishops should be afterwards appropriated to that rank wherein they succeed the Apostles and Evangelists in their respective Churches because they could not be called by the same which their predecessors had born though formerly common both to Bishops and Presbyters And this is the meaning of those words of S. Augustine which seemed difficult in the Councell of Trent because the opinion which derived all the power of Bishops from the Pope was so strong there Etsi secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit in multis tamen Augustinus Episcopus Hieronyme Presbyters minor est Let not the humility of S. Augustine be drawn into consequence and the property of his words shall enforce no more then I say He knew well enough how stiffely S. Hierome had argued that a Bishop and a Priest is all one in the terms of divine Right because the name of Episcopus is attributed to Presbyters by the Apostles Is it to be presumed that S. Augustine acknowledges this to be his own opinion because it is plain he intends not to crosse S. Hierome in it having other differences with him afore On the contrary it hath been shewed by other passages of his writings that his opinion was otherwise To use therefore that civility which his meeknesse prompted him to condescend to S. Hierome with he granteth his premises neither refusing nor admitting the consequence saying Though according to the titles of honour which now have prevailed in the Church a Bishop be greater then a Presbyter notwithstanding in many things Jerome the Priest is greater then Augustine the Bishop Where by naming the titles of Honour which now have prevailed in the Church he insinuates the reason for which I here maintain that they were thus distinguished afterwards and therefore supposes the ground of it Otherwise he might as easily have granted S. Hieromes consequence and pleased him more And yet I conceive that when he says a Priest may be greater then a Bishop it may very well be admitted not onely as a condescension of humility but as an expression of truth not onely in respect of learning or other personall considerations but of authority in the Church by reason of the dependence of Churches here premised The state and government of Churches is very properly compared by Origen contra Celsum VII to the State of Greekish Commonalties the Bishop bearing the place of the Magistrate and the Bench of Presbyters of the Senate as I have hitherto compared them to the Jews Consistories and as Pope Pius in his Epistle to Justus of Vienna calls the Presbytery of the Church at Rome Pauperem Senatum Christi in Vrbe Româ The poore Senate of Christ in the City of Rome In this estate and condition the eminence of the Bishop above the Presbyters is visible though not by the humility of Pope Pius who perhaps comprises both Bishop and Presbyters in the same quality of a Senate yet by the comparison of Origen the eminence of the Magistrate above his Councell in all Commonalties being so visible as it is But when congregations come to be distinguished as well as Churches and a greater flock assigned to some Presbyters then to Bishops in other parts of the Church and those Presbyters to doe all Offices to their Flock which those Bishops did saving that they depended on the City Church whereas those Bishops depended onely on the Church of the Mother City and therefore had Power to make Ordinations within their own Churches which Presbyters never could doe what hinders in this case I say not S. Augustine for I suppose he names himself but for an instance being indeed Bishop of an eminent City to be lesse then S. Hierome but some Bishop to be lesse then some Priest even for his lawfull authority in the Church A consideration of great consequence to the right constitution of Councels especially the most Generall and for which there is not wanting a valuable reason intimated in the proceedings of divers of the ancient Councels of the Church that is that the Church cannot be reasonably concluded by number of present votes as the Councell of Trent imposes upon us but by the consideration of Christian Nations and Provinces of the Church represented in those Councels For as we see that in the ancient Councels a few Bishops were many times admitted to act in behalf of their
Provinces as having Commission to conclude them in which case they must needs be considerable according to the Provinces for which they stood So in all things which may concern the Whole not onely every mans rank of Bishop Presbyter or Deacon is to be considered but also the eminence of the Church in which he bears the same So that by this reason nothing hinders a Presbyter of some chief Church to be of more consideration to the Whole then a Bishop of some mean Church such as we spoke of in Africk And therefore it would be inconsequent that the determinations of Synods should passe indifferently by the Votes of Bishops unlesse we suppose that consideration is had of the chief Churches and this consideration answered in the eminence of that respect which the Bishops of those chief Churches enjoy inswaying the determinations of those Synods to which they concur And this consideration might perhaps have served to take off part of S. Hieromes displeasure against Bishops grounded upon the Power which their Deacons had by their means above Presbyters which he in regard of the great difference between the two degrees in generall thinks to be so great an inconvenience Epist LXXXV ad Euagrium For though it is most true in regard of the Presbyters and Deacons of the same Church that it was a disorder that Deacons in regard of their neernesse to the Bishops should take upon them above Presbyters yet if we compare the Deacon of a chief Church with the Presbyter of a small country Parish no man can say that he is of lesse consideration to the Whole Church in regard of his rank unlesse he mean to make Steven or Philip Titus or Timothy or any of those that waited on the Apostles in person and were properly their Deacons as I have said in assisting them to preach the Gospel where they came to be meaner persons in the Church then one of those Presbyters which Paul and Barnabas Titus or Timothy Ordained in the Churches of those Cities where they came To that which I say p. 92. to prove that the word Angel in the Epistle to the VII Churches Apoc. II III. being an obvious and proper metaphor to signifie a Bishop or Presbyter cannot therefore be used to signifie a College of Presbyters the word being no collective nor any construction inforcing it to be used for a collective in all that Epistle I adde here the comparison of two passages by which it may be gathered for what reason and in what consideration the Spirit speaketh to the Body of those Churches in the Epistle directed to the Angels of them and by consequence who those Angels are The first is that of S. Paul to Titus II. 10. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid For is it S. Pauls purpose to command that onely Titus avoid those whom he should declare Hereticks Surely that would be to no great effect unlesse we understand that by virtue of this precept both Titus is enabled to charge the Churches under him to avoid them and they thereupon obliged to doe it The other is the Epistle under the name of Ignatius to Polycarpus wherein after such advise as he thought fit for Polycarpus without turning his speech from him to another person he proceeds to exhort his people with such instructions as he found to bee most requisite Which feems to be the reason why many count that Epistle counterfeit and none of Ignatius his own though for my part I confesse I am not yet perswaded to think so not onely because of the character both of the matter and language of it which seemeth to me to carry the stamp of Apostolicall upon it as the rest of Ignatius but also particularly because of the example of this Epistle of S. John to the VII Churches wherein it is plain he involves both Pastor and flock in the same praises reproofs advises and exhortations the reasons being the same in both because both sent to be read to the People in the Church as the Epistle to the Colossians and the Laodiceans Coloss IV. 15. and as the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians Eusebius says was wont to be read in that Church in his time Now if the instructions concerning the people be addressed to Titus and Polycarp is it not because of some eminence of authority in them by which they might be brought into effect among their people How much more that which is addressed unto the Angels of VII Churches being a style apt to signifie a person of eminent authority over others but never used to signifie a Body of persons much lesse with parallel authority among themselves It is commonly conceived that the Souls under the Altar which we reade of Apoc. VI. 10. were seen by S. John lying under the Altar of Burnt Sacrifices at the foot whereof the rest of the blood that was not sprinkled on the Altar was poured out and the blood being the life or Soul of living creatures in the language of the Scriptures that therefore the souls of those that were slain for the profession of Christianity are seen by S. John under the Altar Against this apprehension I allege p. 95. that it is not the Altar of burnt Sacrifices but the Altar of Incense within the Tabernacle but without the Vail which is represented in these Visions correspondent to the Primitive fashion of Churches where the Communion Table called also the Altar because of the Sacrifice of the Crosse represented upon it stood in the midst of that compasse which the Seats of the Bishop and Priests did enclose For though in the Temple the people prayed without the Sanctuary the Priest whose Office it was at the same time offering Incense with their Prayers yet in the Church where all the people are within the Sanctuary as Priests the XXIV Presbyters are described with golden Vials full of Incense which is the peoples prayers as David saith Let my prayer be set forth in thy presence as the Incense Apoc. V. 8. and besides the Angel puts Incense upon his Censer to the prayers of the Saints Apoc. VIII 3. therefore his fire is from the Altar of Incense within the Tabernacle though without the Vail Besides it is not imaginable how the souls of those that were slain could appear to S. John in Vision of Prophesie lying under the Altar of Burnt Sacrifices where the bloud of Sacrifices was poured out and that in such a multitude as we know there was of the Primitive Martyrs Especially seeing the circumstances of the Text inforces that they are the same Souls which first cry for vengeance and have long white Robes given them because they are not presently satisfied Apoc. VI. 9 10 11. and which are afterwards described standing and praising God in the white Robes that were given them afore Apoc. VII 9. And therefore when they are said to be seen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaning is not that they were seen lying
in Aegypt besides that of Alexandria before the time of Demetrius besides that which hath been said p. 142 143. stands more probable by the Emperour Adrians Epistle related by Vopiscus in the life of Saturninus Illi qui Serapin colunt Christiani sunt Et devoti sunt Serapi qui se Christi Episcopos dicunt Nemo illic Archisynagogus Judaeorum nemo Samarites nemo Christianorum Presbyter non mathematicus non aruspex non aliptes Here he names Bishops at Alexandria to wit such as resorted thither from other Cities of Aegypt And though a man would be so contentious as to stand in it that the name Episcopus might then be common to Bishops and Presbyters both yet when he speaks of Presbyter Christianorum in the very next words he cannot reasonably be thought to speak of Presbyters in those that went afore And when Tertullian saith that Valentine the Father of the Valentinians expected to have been made a Bishop for his wit and eloquence and because he failed of it applied his minde to make a Sect apart whereof himself might be the Head adversus Valentin cap. IV. unlesse we suppose more Bishops then one in Aegypt at that time we tie our selves to say that he would have been Bishop of Alexandria Which had it been so Tertullian probably would have expressed for the eminence of the Place The correspondence between the Office of Deacons in the Synagogue and the Church mentioned p. 156. may thus appear Judges and Officers shalt thou appoint thee in all thy Gates that is in all thy Cities saith the Law Deut. XVI 18. joyning together Judges and Officers in divers other places Num. XI 16. Deut. I. 15 16. These Officers the Greek translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Vulgar Latine Doctores for what reason I doe not see that any man hath declared By the Talmud Doctors they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seems to import Appparitores Synagogae which Maimoni describes to be young men that have not attained the years and knowledge of Doctors And the punishment of scourging he saith was executed by these He reporteth also an old saying of their Talmud Doctors that the reason why Samuels sons would not ride circuit as their Father did was because they would inflame the Fees of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is their Ministers or Apparitors and Scribes or Clerks And Buxtorfe in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reports another of their sayings That at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem the Wise were imbased to the learning of Apparitors and Apparitors to that of Clerks So then they were next under their Wise men or Doctors but above Scribes or Clerks by this account But seeing there was no more difference between them it is no marvell if sometimes it be not considered Maimoni in the Title of learning the Law sheweth that the Jews had every where Schoolmasters appointed to teach yong children to read of the condition of whom he writeth there at large cap. III. these are they whom the Vulgar Latine meaneth by Doctores as appears by the supposed S. Ambrose upon 1 Cor. XII 25. who would have those whom S. Paul there cals Doctors to be the very same And therefore they are the very same that the LXX meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Jews say that they were of the Tribe of Simeon and that so the Prophesie of Jacob was fulfilled Divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel the Levites being dispersed throughout all the Tribes to take Tiths at the barn door and the Simeonites to teach to write and reade S. Hierome Tradit Heb. in Genesin Jarchi in Gen. XLIX 7. And indeed the name by which the Scripture calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the Originall of it be not found in the Scriptures as how should any language be all found in so small a Volume yet in the Jews writings and also in the Syriack Testament the word from whence it is derived signifieth contracts as Coloss II. 14. So that by their name they must be such as write contracts that is Clerks or Notaries Therefore if the Judges and Doctors of the Jews Consistories are correspondent to the Presbyters of Christian Churches which by many arguments hath been declared then the Apparitors and Notaries of the same must by consequence be answerable to our Deacons And so Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites maketh the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons of the Christians to be the same that among the Jews were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Rulers of Synagogues Presbyters and Deacons For as the Deacons were wont to minister a great part of the Service in the Church so still the Service in the Synagogue is performed by him whom still they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Minister of the Synagogue To this III Chapter I must adde two considerations The one is of the scope of that little Piece of the Right of the People in the Church which the learned Blondell hath lately added to Grotius his Book De Imperio Summarum Patestatum in Sacris Which is in brief to derive the right and Title of Lay Elders from the people and from that Interesse which by the Scriptures it appears that they had from the beginning under the Apostles in Church matters Whereby he hath given us cause to cry aloud Victory as quitting the reason and ground upon which the bringing of Lay Elders into the Church was first defended and is hitherto maintained among us to wit that onely Text of 1 Tim. V. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double Honour especially those that labour in the Word and Doctrine For this Scripture being abandoned the rest that are pretended are so far from concluding that they cannot stand by themselves Now that this Text cannot be effectuall to prove that purpose he argueth there upon the same reason which here I have advanced p. 123. to wit because the same Honour that is maintenance is thereby allowed to those that labour in the Word and Doctrine and those that doe not Whereupon it must needs appear to him that knows a great deal lesse of the Antiquity of the Church then Blondell does that they are Clergy men whose maintenance is provided for by the Apostle Now to comply with him that hath so ingenuously yeelded us the Fort I doe avow that he hath reason to beleeve that there being so great difference between the State of the Church since whole Nations professe Christianity and that which was under the Apostles and the confusion appearing so endlesse and unavoidable that must needs arise in Church matters by acquainting all the People with the proceeding of them and expecting their satisfaction and consent in the same it cannot be contrary to Gods Law to delegate the Interesse of the People to some of the discreetest and most pious of them chosen by them to concur in
all that act upon the interesse and title thereof derived from the immediate appointment of God doe by their proceedings disclaim as I have declared much more is it to be presumed that all States notwithstanding the profession of Christianity must needs stand obliged to doe For all States content themselves with the procuring of civile justice for which they are instituted not tying themselves to question whether that which is done be agreeable to the will of God which the Gospel declareth either for the thing that is done which the Gospel many times determineth more strictly then the Laws of civile States doe or for the sincerity of intention which it is to be done with Wherefore if Christianity come to be limited by the determinations of civile Powers then must the truth of the Gospel and the spirituall righteousnesse which it requireth be measured by those reasons which the publick peace and civile justice which preserveth the same may suggest Whereas it hath been declared that it is not the bare profession of Christianity that intitleth any man to any degree of superiority in the Church but that promotion to all degrees of the Clergy doth by the originall institution and appointment thereof presuppose some degree of proficience in the understanding and practice of Christianity rendring them both able and willing to regulate all controversies of Christianity not according to Interesse of State but according to the will of Christ and that spirituall righteousnesse which he advanceth And though it is many times seen that Secular persons are more learned and pious in Christianity then others of the Clergy yet I suppose no man of common sense will presume it so soon of him that is not inabled nor obliged to it by his profession as of him that is And when the question is what is agreeable to the appointment of God in such matters as these I suppose it is no presumption that God hath instituted any thing because it is possible for in morall matters what is absolutely and universally impossible but because it is most conducible to the intent purposed And that to the purposed end of maintaining the truth of the Gospel and that spirituall righteousnesse which it advanceth it is more conducible that those things which concern it be determined by those that are inabled by their profession to spend their time in searching the truth and engaged by the same to advance the spirituall righteousnesse of Christ then barely Christians as Secular Powers As for the reason of this resolution because if the Power of determining matters of Faith might be in any person not subject to the State which the determination must oblige all that are to be obliged by it must become thereby subjects to the Power that maketh it As supposing the temporall Power of the Pope it is insoluble so supposing what hath been premised it ceaseth For seeing nothing prejudiciall to the publick Peace or to the Powers of the World that maintain the same can be within the Power of the Church to determine it cannot be prejudiciall to any Christian State to receive the resolutions and determinations of Ecclesiasticall matters from Councels which may consist of persons not subject to them as well as of such as are For if any thing prejudiciall to the publick peace and lawfull Powers that maintain it be advanced under pretense of Christianity that is if this Power be abused then have the Secular Powers right to God as well as Power to the world to punish such attempts But the Church neither right to God nor Power to the world of resisting them though their Power be ill used to the suppression of Christianity and of that Ecclesiasticall Power that standeth by it because it is to be maintained by suffering the Crosse and not by force As for the Power of binding and loosing it is very well understood to consist as well in judging that which is questioned to be consistent or inconsistent with that Christianity which a man professeth as in remitting or retaining sin that is in allowing or voiding the effect of Baptism which is the Communion of the Church But whereas it is said that the first is the right of the State the second the office of the Pastors of the Church I demand whether these Pastors shall have Power to dissent in case the judgement of the State agree not with their own or not For that this may fall out it is manifest and that any man by his quality in the Church should be bound to proceed in remitting and retaining sin according to his own judgement when as by his subjection to the State he is bound to proceed according to the judgement thereof is an inconvenience as manifest Whereas that a man should be bound by his obligation to the Church to proceed according to his own judgement in Church matters and by his subjection to the State to suffer for it when it is contrary to the judgement thereof is so farre from being an inconvenience that it is the necessary consequence of bearing Christs Crosse The same reason takes place in that which is said that the election of Pastors belongs to the State and the Consecration to Pastors For I have often shewed in the premises that Imposition of Hands is a sign of consent to the constituting of those who receive the same implying a Power of dissenting for the use whereof they are to render account if it be used amisse And truly that Paul and Barnabas should be called Apostles Acts XIV 4 13. in regard of their sending by the Holy Ghost Acts XIII 1 I count it not strange For the extent of the word and the use thereof will bear it Though it is manifest that otherwise Barnabas had Commission from the Church at Jerusalem Acts XI 22. that is from the Apostles Paul not from men nor by men but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him from the dead Gal. I. 1. though acknowledged first as to the Commission which he received with Barnabas Acts XIII 2. by the Church of Antiochia but afterwards in the right of the XII Apostles by themselves at Jerusalem Gal. II. 9. But I count it strange that to prove the Power of the State in choosing Pastors it should be alleged that this dictate of the Holy Ghost by which Paul and Barnabas were set apart to the work for which they were designed Acts XIII 2. was to be acknowledged for the dictate of the Holy Ghost by the Church of Antiochia I have shewed that under the Old Testament the Consistory were to judge of Prophets and to obey them being received which power was sufficiently abused among them I doe beleeve also that there was means given the Church to be resolved in the same that the precept of the Apostle 1 Cor. XII 3. 1 John IV. 1 tendeth to that effect that the grace of discerning Spirits 1 Cor. XII 9. was to such a purpose I remember the words of S. Ambrose upon
the beginning of Saint Luke speaking of the Old Testament Erat autem populi gratia discernere spiritus ut sciret quos in Prophetarum numerum referre deberet quos tanquam bonus nummularius reprobare Now saith he it was a grace that the people had to discern spirits so as to know whom to reckon among the Prophets whom like a good Banker to refuse And I have found in a written copy containing expositions of divers Greek words of the Old and New Testament this Glosse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is discerning of Spirits spoken of 1 Cor. XII 9. is the distinguishing between those that prophesied truly and falsly And this I beleeve to be S. Pauls meaning because of the correspondence of that which S. Ambrose relateth of the Synagogue I must therefore needs beleeve that the Church was provided by God of means to be resolved who spoke by the Holy Ghost who onely pretended so to doe But that Christian States should have Power to elect Pastors because Christian Churches were able to judge whom the Holy Ghost had elected whom not is a consequence which I understand not For as it was then one thing to elect another to discern whom the Holy Ghost had elected so a Christian State is now far another thing then the Church of Antiochia was at that time Neither is it any thing available to this purpose which this author laboureth to prove that the Soveraign Power together with the Power of interpreting the Word of God were both in the High Priests of the Jews and afterwards in the Kings of Gods people after that they were established For by the particulars here declared from p. 225. it will appear that it was no otherwise in the Kings of Gods people then it is now in Christian Princes and States excepting that the Law was given to one People the Gospel sent to all Nations to wit as for the Power of inforcing Gods Law in the way of Fact Whereas the Power of determining the Law of God in the way of Right was as much estated upon the Consistories of that People by Gods Laws as the Power of giving Rules to the Church is now upon the Synods of the same Neither is the People of Israel a Priestly Kingdome as Moses cals them Exod. XIX 6. because the Priests were to be Kings of them For the Originall imports a Kingdome of Priests which Onkelus translates Kings and Priests as also the New Testament Apoc. I. 6. V. 10. Which if it signifie that all the Israelites should be both Kings and Priests then certainly it inforceth not that their High Priests should be their Kings But that they should be Kings because redeemed from the servitude of strangers to be a people Lords of themselves and Priests because redeemed to spend their time in sacrificing and feasting upon their sacrifices which is the estate under the figure whereof God promiseth unto them that which he meant to his Church and they still expect under their Messias Es LXI 6. though they sacrificed not in person but by their Priests appointed in their stead by Imposition of the Elders hands Num. VIII 10. As for the charge of Josuah to goe in and out at the word of Eleazar Num. XXVII 21. it is expresly declared there to be said in regard of the Oracle of God by Vrim and Thummim which the High Priest was to declare as you see by Deut. XXXIII 8. and Josuah to consult in all his undertakings For this is one of the principall reasons why the government of that people before they had Kings was as Josephus cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Empire of God because he by his Oracles of Vrim and Thummim prescribed how they were to proceed in their publick affairs Another reason being this because he stirred them up Judges when he pleased which being of his immediate appointment are so far acknowledged by him that when they were weary of Samuel and desired a King God declareth that it was not Samuel but himself whom they refused And therefore it is not to be said that of Right the High Priests ought to have had the Power though de facto the Judges had it during their time For if it be said that the Israelites cast off God Jud. II. 10. because they would not be subject to the High Priest but imbraced the Judges it could not be understood how they should refuse God by refusing Samuel that was one of the Judges Therefore the Soveraign Power was of right in the Judges for which it is said Jud. XVII 7. as also XVIII 1. XIX 1. XXI 25. that there was no King in Israel speaking of the time before the Judges when Josephus and all the circumstance shews these things fell out though they were not always obeyed Jud. II. 17. because as Prophets they laboured to recall the people from their Idolatries That which is here said of the Mariage of Booz and Ruth p. 241. seems to be confirmed by the opinion of Epiphanius that our Lord was invited to the Mariage at Cana in Galilee that as a Prophet he might blesse the Mariage For what is this but the same that the Church always practised afterwards in Blessing Mariages to signifie that they were approved to be made according to the Law of God For which reason also the custome of celebrating Mariages with the Sacrament of the Eucharist was established that the Power of the Keys from which the Communion of the Eucharist proceeds might declare thereby an approbation of that which was done CHAP. V. SEeing it is here declared p. 255. that whosoever thinks himself authorized by his Religion to unsettle the publick peace or to maintain his Religion by force his civile obedience being dispensed with by the same is thereby an enemy to the State and liable to temporall punishment according to the degree of that which he doth it may be thought requisite here to resolve two cases that may be put in this point The one whether the enemies of the Religion in force may become liable to punishment for blasphemies and slanders upon the Religion of the State The other to what temporall punishment men may become liable by exercising their Religion not being expresly permitted by the State to be exercised To the first my answer is resolutely affirmative For seeing that Christianity enjoyneth us to seek the good of all that are enemies to it it is not imaginable that it should oblige any Christian to defame or blaspheme any contrary Religion seeing that must needs redound to the disgrace of them that professe it most of all if they be the publick Powers that maintain it all irreverence of whom upon what cause soever must needs tend to weaken the arm of Government and thereby to unsettle the publick peace And therefore you see what testimony the Apostles have from a stranger Acts XIX 37. You have brought these men that are neither Church robbers nor
to come within the age of men then living perhaps at the fall of Jerusalem as the Apostles also imagined when they asked our Lord when the destruction of Jerusalem should be and what the signs of his comming and the end of the world Mat. XXV 3. to prevent the ill consequences of this opinion S. Paul having the truth further revealed tels them this must not be till a departure come first and the man of sin the son of perdition be revealed that opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or worshipped so as to seat himself in the Temple of God declaring himself to be God Which can be truly said of none but the Romane Emperours who did indeed exalt themselves above all called God that is all their imaginary idol Gods in that they took upon them to make Gods whom they would and were themselves worshipped with divine honours so much more devoutly as they were able to doe more good or harm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here as 1 Cor. VIII 5. a term of abatement signifying those that are called Gods and are not in which sense onely the Apostle could say there be Gods many and Lords many For it is a mistake to think that Princes are called Gods in Scripture as I have shewed afore Now the Religion of the Gentiles was this that when the Statue of a God was seated in a Temple built to him thenceforth they thought his Deity dwelt in it and the Temple thereby consecrated In which sense S. Paul speaking of the succession of Romane Emperours as of one person as Dantel S. John use to call the body of Chaldean Persian Grecian or Romane Emperours a Beast saith that he should exalt himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as to seat himself in the Temple of God Which as it may be understood of any of them who had all Temples built them and their Statues placed in those Temples as the Deities of the same so it may be particularly understood of Caligula who would have placed his Statue in the Temple of the true God at Jerusalem though we suppose the Epistle written long after his death And so that insoluble difficulty ceases which Grotius his exposition of this passage suffers to wit that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians must be written before the death of Caligula which no man can easily beleeve there being between the Baptism of our Lord upon the XV of Tiberius according to the Gospel and the death of Caligula but a matter of XI years whatsoever passed between the Baptism of Christ and his death and between the death of Caligula and the writing of this Epistle This is then the first of the two Beasts that S. Iohn sees in the thirteenth of his Revelations blaspheming God and persecuting his Church even the succession of the Romane Emperours The second is the same whereof S. Paul prophesies in the next words 2 Thess II. 8 9. representing in one person as before the Succession of the Romane Emperours so now the Succession of Magicians and Heathen Philosophers the Priests and the Divines whom Satan imploied to disguise interpret and maintain Heathenism in opposition to Christianity Simon Magus may well be reckoned inprimis of the list together with much of the fry of his Gnosticks who though wearing the name of Christians yet practising manifest Idolatries with their Magick occasioned the persecution of true Christianity by compounding a false out of it and Heathenism But Apollonius Tyaneus must needs be accounted of this Body who did many strange things in S. Iohns time to support Heathenism and was therefore by the Pagans opposed to our Lord Christ as you may see by Vopiscus in the life of Tacitus and Hieracles his Book to that purpose refuted by Eusebius After him came all those Pythagorean or Platonick Philosophers who after S. Iohns time as they were the maintainers of Heathenism against Christianity were doubtlesse also Magicians as their Father Pythagoras seems to have been by his travels in the East and many passages of his life Such were Apuleius Plotinus Porphyry Iamblichus Maximus and with such the Histories shew that the persecuting Emperours Maxentius Maximiane Licinius and Julian conversed Who both by learned writings and by strange works done by familiarity with unclean spirits laboured to support the credit of their Idols Two instances I must not conceal in this place the one recorded by Dionysius Alexandrinus in an Epistle to Hermammron produced by Eusebius Eccles Hist VII 10. where he relateth of Valeriane how he cherished the Christians at the first insomuch that his Court was a kinde of Church Unto which he addeth as followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now he that perswaded him to be rid of them was his Doctor the Ruler of the Synagogue of Aegyptian Magicians Who commanded the pure to be slain and persecuted as opposites and hinderers of their abominable and detestable inchantments which he proceeds to declare what they were and how they became of no effect wheresoever the Christians came And perhaps if we had the Epistle at length it would appear that Dionysius had interpreted the Beast and the false Prophet as I doe For the words which Eusebius quotes begin thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accordingly saith he is revelation made to S. John For he saith and there was given him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemy and it was granted him to continue two and forty moneths Proceeding to that which I reported afore of Valeriane in these terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We may well marvell at both in Valeriane and especially we may consider how he stood affected before him that is before the Magician whom he spoke of had accesse to him how gentle and kinde he was to the men of God For when he saith that Saint Johns Revelations were according to what he there relates he seems to make Valeriane the Beast the Magician the false Prophet whom he speaks of afterwards The other is out of an Edict of Constantine reported by Eusebius De Vitâ Constant II. 49 50. where the great Emperour declares to all the Empire that Apollo that gave answers at Delphi having answered out of the dark cave there that the just upon earth hindred him from speaking truth and that was the reason why his Oracles proved false Diocletian hereupon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being deceived in the errour of his soule curiously inquired of those about him who were the just upon the earth And one of the Priests about him answered the Christians But he swallowing the answer like honey drew those swords that were found out against injustice against blamelesse piety And this he professes afore God that he heard himself being then a youth in the Emperours presence By these two particulars we may make an estimate how the rest of the Persecutions were moved and therefore that the Body of these Philosophers and Magicians the Priests and Interpreters of Heathenism is called in the Revelution the