Government All Power in Christs hands for Governing the Church What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World Calling the Apostles the first action respecting outward Government Three steps of the Apostles calling to be Disciples in their first mission in their plenary Commission Several things observed upon them pertinent to our purpose The Name and Office of Apostles cleared An equality among them proved during our Saviours life Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The pleas for it answered The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered with the nature and quality of their Office Matth. 20. 25 26. largely discussed and explained It excludes all civil power but makes not all inequality in Church-Officers unlawful by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches Matth. 18. 15 16 17. fully inquired into No evidence for any one Form from thence because equally applyed to several What the offences are there spoken of What the Church spoken to Not an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Iews nor yet the civil Sanhedrin as Erastus and his followers explain it nor a Consistorial or Congregational Church under the Gospel but onely a select company for ending private differences among Christians p. 200 CHAP. VI. THe next and chief thing pleaded for determining the Form of Church-Government is Apostolical practice two things inquired into concerning that what it was how far it binds The Apostles invested with the power and authority of governing the whole Church of Christ by their Commission Iohn 20. 21. Matth. 28. 19. What the Apostles did in order to Church-Government before Pentecost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained No division of Provinces made among the Apostles then made appear by several Arguments Whether Paul and Peter were conâ—ined one to the circumcision the other to the uncircumcision and different Churches erected by them in the same Cities What course the Apostles took in setling the Government of particular Churches Largely proved that they observed the customs of the Iewish Synagogue The model of the Synagogue Government described Whether peculiar Ordination for the Synagogue Officers The service of the Synagogue set forth with the Officers belonging to it Grounds proving that the Apostles copied forth the the Synagogue modell Community of names and customs between Iews and Christians then Forming Churches out of Synagogues Whether any distinct Coetus of Jewish and Gentile Christians in the same Cities Correspondency of the Church with the Synagogue in the orders of publick Service In the custome of Ordination Ierom explained The power of Ordination in whom it lodgeth in the Christian Church The opinions of Ierom and Aerins considered The name of Presbyters and Bishops explained Three general considerations touching Apostolical practice 1. That we cannot attain to such a certainty of Apostolical practice as thereon to ground a divine right The uncertainty of Apostolical practice as to us fully discovered 1. From the equivalency of the names which should determine the controversie 2. In that the places in controversie may without incongruity be understood of the different forms 3. From the defectiveness ambiguity partiality and repugnancy of the Records of Antiquity which should inform us what the Apostolical practice was These fully discoursed upon The testimonies of Eusebius Irenaeus Tertullian Hilary Ierom and Ignatius discussed and these two last proved not to contradict each other Episcopacy owned as a humane Instituiion by the sense of the Church 2. Consideration That in all probability the Apostles did not observe any one fixed course of settling Church Government but settled it according to the several circumstances of time places and persons Several things premised for clearing it This Opinion though seemingly New is proved at large to be most consonant to antiquity by the several Testimonies of Clemens Rom. Alexandrinus Epiphanius whose Testimony is corrected explained and vindicated Hilary and divers others This Opinion of great consequence towards our present peace No foundation for Lay-Elders either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Consideration Meer Apostoliâ—al practice if supposed founds not any divine right proved by a fourfold Argument The right of Tithes resolved upon the same Principles with that of Church Government Rites and Institutions Apostolical grown quite out of use among the several contending parties p. 230. CHAP. VII THE Churches Polity in the ages after the Apostles considered Evidences thence that no certain unalterable Form of Church-Government was delivered to them 1. Because Church Power did inlarge as the Churches did Whether any Metropolitan Churches established by the Apostles Seven Churches of Asia whether Metropolitical Philippi no Metropolis either in Civil or Ecclesiastical sense Several degrees of inlargement of Churches Churches first the Christians in whole Cities proved by several arguments the Eulogiae an evidence of it Churches extended into the neighbour territories by the preaching there of City Presbyters thence comes the subordination between them Churches by degrees inlarged to Diocesses from thence to Provinces The Original of Metropolitans and Patriarches 2. No certain Form used in all Churches Some Churches without Bishops Scots Goths Some with but one Bishop in their whole Countrey Scythian Aethiopian Churches how governed Many Cities without Bishops Diocesses much altered Bishops discontinued in several Churches for many years 3. Conforming Ecclesiastical Government to the civil in the extent of Diocesses The suburbicarian Churches what Bishops answerable to the civil Governours Churches power rises from the greatness of Cities 4. Validity of Ordination by Presbyters in places where Bishops were The case of Ischyras discussed instances given of Ordination by Presbyters not pronounced null 5. The Churches prudence in managing its affairs by the several Canons Provincial Synods Codex Canonum p. 346 CHAP. VIII AN Inquiry into the Iudgement of Reformed Divines concerning the unalterable Divine Right of particular Forms of Church-Government wherein it is made appear that the most emine nt Divines of the Reformation did never conceive any one Form necessary manifested by three arguments 1. From the judgment of those who make the Form of Church-Government mutable and to depend upon the wisdom of the Magistrate and Church This cleared to have been the judgement of most Divines of the Church of England since the Reformation Archbishop Cranmers judgements with others of the Reformation in Edward the Sixth time now first published from his authentick MS. The same ground of setling Episcopacy in Queen Elizabeth's time The judgement of Archbishop Whitgift Bishop Bridges Dr. Loe Mr. Hooker largely to that purpose in King Iames his time The Kings own Opinion Dr. Sutâ—â—ffe Since of Grakanthorp Mr. Hales Mr. Chillingworth The Testimony of Forraign Divines to the same purpose Chemnitius Zanchy French Divines Peter Moulin Fregevil Blondel Bochartus Amyraldus Other learned men Grotius Lord Bacon c. 2. Those who look upon equality as the Primitive Form yet judge Episcopacy lawful Augâ—stane Confession Melanchthon Articuli Smalcaldici Prince of Anhalt Hyperius Hemingiâ—s The practice of most
from whom they derived their power and by whose authority they acted And these were the most suitable to them as making it appear that a Divine presence went along with them and therefore they could not salsifie to the world in what they Declared unto them which was the best way for them to evidence the Truth of their Doctrine because it was not to be discovered by the Evidence of the things themselves but it depended upon the Testimony of the Authour and therefore the onely way to confirm the truth of the Doctrine was to confirm the credibility of the Authour which was best done by doing something above what the power of nature could reach unto And this was the prerogative of the Apostles in their first mission above Iohn the Baptist For of him it is said that he did no miracle Fourthly we observe that the Apostles in this mission were invested in no power over the Church nor in any Superiority of Order one over another The first is evident because Christ did not now send them abroad to gather Churches but onely to call persons to the Doctrine of the Messias and while Christ was in the World among them he retained all Church power and authority in his own hand When this temporary mission expired the Apostles lived as private persons still under Christs Tutorage and we never read them acting in the least as Church-Officers all that while Which may appear from this one argument because all the time of our Saviours being in the World he never made a total separation from the Iewish Church but frequented with his Disciples the Temple worship and Service to the last although he super-added many Gospel Observations to those of the Law And therefore when no Churches were gathered the Apostles could have no Church power over them All that can be pleaded then in order to Church-Government from the consideration of the Form of Government as setled by our Saviour must be either from a supposed inequality among the Apostles themselves or their superiority over the LXX Disciples or from some Rules laid down by Christ in order to the Government of his Church of which two are the most insisted on Matthew 20. 25. Matth. 18. 17. Of these in their Order The first argument drawn for an established form of Government in the Church from the state of the Apostles under Christ is from a supposed inequality among the Apostles and the superiority of one as Monarch of the Church which is the Papists Plea from Saint Peter as the chief and head of the Apostles Whose loud Exclamations for Saint Peters authority aâ—â— much of the same nature with those of Demetrius the Silver-Smith at Ephesus with his fellow craftsmen who cried up Great is Diana of the Ephesians not from the honor they bore to her as Diana but from the gain which came to them from her worship at Ephesus But I dispute not now the entail of Saint Peters power what ever it was to the Roman Bishop but I onely inquire into the Pleas drawn for his authority from the Scriptures which are written in so small a character that without the spectacles of an implicite Faith they will scarce appear legible to the Eyes of men For what though Christ changed Saint Peters name must it therefore follow that Christ baptized him Monarch of his Church Were not Iohn and Iames called by Christ Boanerges and yet who thinks that those sons of Thunder must therefore overturn all other power but their own Christ gave them new names to shew his own authority over them and not their authority over others to be as Monitors of their Duty and not as Instruments to convey power So Chrysostome speaks of the very name Peter given to Simon it was to shew him his duty of being fixed and stable in the Faith of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this name might be as a string upon his finger a continual remembrancer of his duty And likewise I conceive as an incouragement to him after his fall that he should recover his former stability again else it should seem strange that he alone of the Apostles should have his name from firmness and stability who fell the soonest and the foulest of any of the Apostles unlesse it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would be worse Divinity then Rhetorick The change then of St Peters name imports no such Universall Power neither from the change nor from the name But why then hath Saint Peter the honour to be named first of all the Apostles First it seems to be implyed as an honour given to Peter above the rest But doth all honour carry an Universal power along with it there may be order certainly among equals and there may be first second and third c. where there is no imparity and jurisdiction in the first over all the rest Primacy of Order as among equals I know none will deny Saint Peter A Primacy of Power as over Inferiours I know none will grant but such as have subdued their Reason to their Passion and Interest Nay a further Order then of mâ—er place may without danger be attributed to him A Primacy in Order of Time as being of the first called and it may be the first who adhered to Christ in Order of Age of which Ierome aetati delatum quia Petrus senior erat speaking of Peter and Iohn nay yet higher some Order of Dignity too in regard of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greek Fathers speak so much of the servency and heat of his spirit whence by Eusebius he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prolocutor among the Apostles who was therefore most forward to inquire most ready to answer which Chrysostome elegantly calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are frequently given to Peter by the Fathers which import no more then praesultor in choreâ he that that led the dance among the Disciples but his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies no Superiority of Power For Dyonys Haliarnass calls Appius Claâ—dius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas all know that the Decemviri had an equality of power among themselves Neither doth his being as the mouth of the Disciples imply his power For Aaron was a mouth to Moses but Moses was Aarons Master Neither yet doth this Primacy of Order alwayes hold in reference to Peter For although generally he is named first of the Aposties as Matthew 10. 2. Mark 3. 16. Acts 1. 13. Mark 1. 36. Luk 8. 45. Acts 2. 14. 37. Yet in other places of Scripture we finde other Apostles set in Order before him as Iames Galat. 2. 9. Paul and Apollos and others 1 Cor. 3. 22. 1 Cor. 1. 12. 9. 5. No Argument then can be drawn hence if it would hold but onely a Primacy of Order and yet even that fails too in the Scriptures changing of the Order so often
But say they whatever becomes of this Order we have a strong Foundation for Saint Peters Power because Christ said he would build his Church upon him Matth. 16. 17. This were something indeed if it were proved but I fear this Rock will not hold water as it is brought by them nor Saint Peter prove to be that Rock For indeed Was the Church built upon Saint Peter then he must be the chief Foundation stone and Peter must build upon himself and not upon Christ and all the Apostles upon him and thus in exalting the Servant we depress the Master and in setting a new Foundation we take away the only Foundation Iesus Christ. If by being built upon Peter they mean no more then being built by him as the chief Instrument it is both a very incongruous Speech and implies nothing more then what was common to him and the rest of the Apostles who were all Master-builders in the Church of Christ as Paul calls himself and in that respect are set forth as the twelve Foundation stones in the walls of the New Ierusalem The Rock then spoken of by Christ in his Speech to Peter if taken Doctrinally was Saint Peters Confession as many of the Fathers interpret it if taken personally it was none other but Christ himself who used a like Speech to this when he said Destroy this Temple and in three dayes I will raise it up Which words though spoken by occasion of the material Temple as those were of Peters name yet Christ understood them of the Temple of his Body as here likewise he doth of his person But still they urge Christ put the Keyes into Saint Peters hands Matthew 16. 19. Now the power of the Keyes doth denote Regal Authority I answer First The Keyes may be given two wayes either from a Prince to a Subject or from a City to a Prince In this latter acception they denote principality in the Receiver but withall inferiority and subjection in the Given and in this sense I am so charitable as to think they will not say that Christ gave the Keyes to Peter it must be then as a Prince to a Subject and when they are so given it doth not imply an universal power in the persons to whom they are given but an investing them in that particular place he hath appointed them to the Office which the power of the Keyes implies is Ministerial and not Authoritative Delarative and not Iuridical over persons committed to their charge and not over Officers joyned inâ—equality of power with them For so were the rest of the Apostles with Peter in the same power of the Keyes Matth. 18. 18. Iohn 20. 23. This-power of the Keyes then was given to Peter in a peculiar manner but nothing peculiar to him given thereby But still there remains another Ward in Saint Peters Keyes and the last foot to the Popes Chair which is Pasce oves Feed my sheep a charge given particularly to Peter Iohn 21. 15. Thence they infer his Power over the whole Church But this foot hath neither joynts nor sinews in it and is as infirm as any of the rest sor neither did this Command rather then Commission belong onely to Peter for Christ had before given them all their general Commission As the Father hath sent me even so send I you John 20 21. whereby is implied an investing all the Apostles equally with the power and authority of Governing the Church of God although this charge be peculiarly renewed to Peter because as he had particularly faln so he should be particularly restored neither yet did we grant this doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imply such a Power and authority as they plead for viz. A Supream power over the Church of God for this even by Peter himself is attributed to the fixed Presbyters of the Churches who by this argument have as much authority conveyed them as Saint Peter had 1 Pet. 5. 2. and yet should we grant this it would not infer what they desire for these sheep were not the whole Church of Christ taken absolutely but Indefinitely For all the Apostles had a command to preach to every Creature Matth. 28. 18. which was as to the words larger as to the Sense the same with that to Saint Peter here And afterwards we find Peter called the Apostle of Circumcision and the Apostles sending him to Samaria and Paul in the right hand of fellowship with Peter which had been certainly dishonourable to Peter had he been invested with such an Universal Supream Power over the Apostles and the whole Church Such pretences then as these are for such an Extravagant power in the Church of God from such miserably weak Foundations for the upholding a corrupt Interest have given the occasion to that tart Sarcasm In Papatu sub Petri nudo nomine Satan non amplius Larva But that which would seem sufficient to awaken any out of this dream of Saint Peters power over the rest of the Apostles is the frequent contendings of the twelve Apostles one among another Who should be the greatest and that even after that Christ had said Upon this Rock will I build my Church as we may see Matthew 20 24. If Christ had conferred such a power on Saint Peter what little ground had there been for the request of Iames and Iohn and would not our Saviour rather have told them the chiefest place was conserred on Peter already then have curbed their ambition in seeking who should be greatest and would have bid them be subject to Peter as their Head and Ruler We see not then the least foundation for an universal Monarchy in the Church of God and so this form of Government is not determined by any actions or commands of Christ. We come now to consider the pleas of others who joyn in renouncing any Supream power under Christ over the Church of God but differ as to the particular forms of Government in the Church those who are for an inequality usually fix on the imparity between the Apostles and the LXX Those that are for a parity upon Matth. 20. 25. and Matth. 18. 17. I shall here proceed in the former method to shew that none of those can prove the Form they contend for as only necessary nor their adversaries prove it unlawful First then for the inequality between the Apostles and the LXX Disciples by that inequality is meant either only an inequality of order or else an inequality carrying superiority and subordination It is evident that the LXX disciples were not of the same Order with the twelve Apostles whom Christ had designed for the chief Government of his Church after his Ascension and in this respect the comparison of the twelve heads of the Tribes and the seventy Elders seems parallel with the twelve Apostles and the LXX disciples but if by imparity be meant that the twelve Apostles had a superiority of power and jurisdiction over the LXX disciples
28. 18. What the Apostles did in order to the Church Government before Pentecost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained How the Apostles did divide Provinces whether Paul and Peter were confined to the circumcision and uncircumcision and different Churches erected by them in the same Cities What the Apostles did in order to settling particular Churches The Names and Office of Bishops Presbyters Deacons considered Four general Considerations laid down about the Apostles practice First It cannot be fully known what is was 2. Great probability they observe no one certain Form in setling Churches proved from Epiphanius Ierome Ambrose or Hilary 3. Their Case different from ours in regard of the paucity of Believers 4. If granted for any Form yet proves not the thing in question For 1. Offices appointed by them are ceased Widdows Deaconesses abolished 2. Rites and Customs Apostolical grown out of use 1. Such as were founded upon Apostolical Precepts Acts 15. 29. considered 2. Such as were grounded on their practice Holy kiss Love-feasts dipping in Baptism community of goods with several others HAving found nothing either in our Saviours practice or in the rules laid down by him conceived to respect Church-Government which determines any necessity of one particular Form the onely argument remaining which can be conceived of sufficient strength to found the necessity of any one form of Government is the practice of the Apostles who were by their imployment and commission entrusted with the Government of the Church of God For our Saviour after his Resurrection taking care for the Planting and Governing of his Church after his Ascension to Glory doth at two several times call his Apostles together and gives now their full Charter and Commission to them the first containing chiefly the power it self conferred upon them Iohn 20. 21. The other the Extent of that power Matth. 28. 19. In the former our Saviour tells them As the Father had sent him so did he send them Which we must not understand of a parity and equality of Power but in a similitude of the mission that as Christ before had managed the great affairs of his Church in his own Person so now having according to the Prophecies made of him at the end of seventy weeks made Reconciliation for iniquity by his Death and brought in everlasting Righteousness by his Resurrection He dispatcheth abroad his Gospel Heralds to proclaim the Iubilee now begun and the Act of Indempnity now past upon all penitent Offendors which is the Sense of the other part of their Commission Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained John 20. 23. i. e. as many as upon the Preaching the Gospel by you shall come in and yield up themselves to the tenders of Grace proclaimed therein shall have their former Rebellions pardoned but such as will still continue obstinate their former guilt shall still continue to bind them over to deserved punishment And to the end the Apostles might have some Evidence of the power thus conferred upon them He breathes the Holy Ghost on them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost which we are not to understand of the Extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which were not received till the day of Pentecost Act. 2. 1. but of the Authoritative power of preaching the Gospel which was now conferred upon them by the solemn Rite of breathing the Holy Ghost on the Apostles In which Sense the Church of England understands that Expression in the Ordination of Ministers as it implies onely the conferring thereby an authority for the preaching of the Gospel which being conveyed by Ordination is fitly expressed by the same wordâ— which our Saviour used in the conferring the same Power upon his Apostles at his sending them forth to be Gospel-Preachers After this comes the solemn appointed meeting of Christ with his Disciples at the mountain of Galilee where in probability besides the eleven were present the five hundered Brethren at once And here Christ more solemnly inaugurates the Apostles in their Office declaring all power to be in his hands and therefore appoints the Apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature that is to all men indefinitely Gentiles as well as Jewes which Matthew fully expresseth by all Nations Now are the Apostles left as chief Governours of the Church under Christ and in this last Commission wherein the extent of the Apostles power is more fully expressed there is nothing mentioned of any order for the Government of the Church under them not what course should be taken by the Church after their decease All that remains then to be inquired into is what the Apostles practice was and how far they acted for the determining any one form of Government as necessary for the Church The Apostles being thus invested in their authority we proceed to consider the Exercise of this authority for the Governing of the Church And here we are to consider that the Apostles did not presently upon their last Commission from Christ goe forth abroad in the World to Preach but were commanded by Christ to go first to Ierusalem and there to expect the coming of the Holy Ghost according to our Saviours own appointment Luke 24. 49. And therefore what Mark adds Mark 16. 20. that after Christs appearance to them the Apostles went abroad and preached every where working Miracles must either be understood of what they did onely in their way returning from Galile oo Ierusalem or else more probably of what they did indefinitely afterwarps For presently after we find them met together at Ierusalem whence they came from Mount Olivet where Christs Ascension was Here we find them imployed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint Luke in his Gospel which we render the Temple but I understand it rather as referring to the action than the place and is best explained by what Luke saith in Acts 1. 14. they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continuing in Prayer and Supplication And that it cannot be meant of the Temple appears by the mention of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an upper room where they continued together For that it should be meant of any of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Temple is most improbable to conceive because not only those ninty Cells about the Temple were destined and appointed for the Priests in their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or times of Ministration and it is most unlikely the chief Priests and Masters of the Temple should suffer those whom they hated so much to continue â—o near them without any molestation or disturbance While the Apostles continue here they proceed to the choice of a new Apostle instead of Iudas thereby making it appear now necessary that number was to the first forming of Churches when the vacant place must be supplyed with so great solemnity Which office of Apostleship which Iudas once had and Matthias was now chosen into is call'd by Peter
comparison of Christ with Moses from the equal necessity of forms of Government now which there is for other Societies from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures all other arguments are reducible to these three Heads Of these in their order First From the comparison of Christ with Moses they argue thus If Moses was faithfull in his house as a servant much more Christ as a Son now Moses appointed a particular form of Government for the Church under the old Testament therefore Christ did certainly lay down a form of Church Government for the New Testament To this I answer first Faithfulnesse implyes the discharge of a trust reposed in one by another so that it is said vers 2. he was faithful to him that appointed him Christs faithfulnesse then lay in discharging the Work which his Father laid upon him which was the Work of mediation between God and us and therefore the comparison is here Instituted between Moses as typical Mediator and Christ as the true Mediator that as Moses was faithfull in his Work so was Christ in his Now Moses his faithfulnesse lay in keeping close to the Pattern received in the Mount that is observing the commands of God Now therefore if Christs being faithfull in his office doth imply the setling any one form of Goverment in the Church it must be made appear that the serling of this form was part of Christs Mediatory Work and that which the Father commanded him to do as Mediator and that Christ received such a form from the Father for the Christian Church as Moses did for the Jewish To this it is said That the Government is laid upon Christs shoulders and all power in his hands and therefore it belongs to him as Mediatour Christ I grant is the King of the Church and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws and inwardly by the conduct of his Spirit but shall we say that therefore any one form of Government is necessary which is neither contained in his Laws nor dictated by his Spirit the main original of mistakes here is the confounding the external and internal Government of the Church of Christ and thence whensoever men read of Christs power authority and government they fancy it refers to the outward Government of the Church of God which is intended of his internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men But withall I acknowledge that Christ for the better government of his Church and people hath appointed Officers in his Church invested them by vertue of his own power with an authority to preach and baptize and administer all Gospel-Ordinances in his own Name that is by his authority for it is clearly made known to us in the Word of God that Christ hath appointed these things But then whether any shall succeed the Apostles in superiority of power over Presbyters or all remain governing the Church in an equality of power is nowhere determined by the Will of Christ in Scripture which contains his Royal Law and therefore we have no reason to look upon it as any thing flowing from the power and authority of Christ as Mediator and so not necessarily binding Christians Secondly I answer If the correspondency between Christ and Moses in their work doth imply an equal exactnesse in Christs disposing of every thing in his Church as Moses did among the Jews then the Church of Christ must be equally bound to all circumstances of Worship as the Jews were For there was nothing appertaining in the least to the Worship of God but was fully set down even to the pins of the Tabernacle in the Law of Moses but we find no such thing in the Gospel The main Duties and Ordinances are prescribed indeed but their circumstances and manner of performance are left as matters of Christian-liberty and only couched under some general Rules which is a great difference between the legal and Gospel-state Under the Law all Ceremonies and Circumstances are exactly prescribed but in the Gospel we read of some general Rules of direction for Christians carriage in all circumstantial things These four especially contain all the directions of Scripture concerning Circumstantials All things to be done decently and in order All to be done for edification Give no offence Do all to the glory of God So that the particular circumstances are left to Christian-liberty with the observation of general Rules It is evident as to Baptism and the Lords Supper which are unquestionably of divine Institution yet as to the circumstances of the administration of them how much lesse circumstantial is Christ then Moses was As to circumcision and the pass-over under the Law the age time persons manner place form all fully set down but nothing so under the Gospel Whether Baptism shall be administred to Infants or no is not set down in expresse words but left to be gathered by Analogy and consequences what manner it shall be administred in whether by dipping or sprinkling is not absolutely determined what form of words to be used whether in the name of all three persons or sometimes in the Name of Christ only as in the Acts we read if that be the sense and not rather in Christs Name i. e. by Christs authority Whether sprinkling or dipping shall be thrice as some Churches use it or only once as others These things we see relating to an Ordinance of Divine Institution are yet past over without any expresse command determining either way in Scripture So as to the Lords Supper What persons to be admitted to it whether all visible professors or only sincere Christians upon what terms whether by previous examination of Church-officers or by an open profession of their faith or else only by their own tryal of themselves required of them as their duty by their Ministers whether it should be alwayes after Supper as Christ himself did it whether taking fasting or after meat whether kneeling or sitting or leaning Whether to be consecrated in one form of words or several These things are not thought fit to be determined by any positive command of Christ but left to the exercise of Christian-liberty the like is as to preaching the Word publike Prayer singing of Psalmes the duties are required but the particular Modes are left undetermined The case is the same as to Church-governwent That the Church be governed and that it be governed by its proper Officers are things of Divine appointment but whether the Church should be governed by many joyning together in an equality or by Subordination of some persons to others is left to the same liberty which all other Circumstances are this being not the Substance of the thing it self but onely the manner of performance of it 3. I answer That there is a manifest disparity between the Gospel and Jewish state and therefore Reasons may be given why all Punctilioes were determined then which are not now as 1. The perfection and
home Our Saviour taking the word from common use but applying it in a special manner to a peculiar Sense which is the custome of the Scriptures The Original of the Word properly imports such as are imployed by Commission from another for the dispatch of some businesse in his Name So Casaubon who was sufficiently able to judg of the use of a Greek word In communi Graecorum usu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicebantur certi homines qui negotii gerendi gratiâ magis quam deferendi nuntii aliquò mittebantur And so it is taken Iohn 13. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that is sent is not greater then he that sent him Thence Epaphroditus when imployed upon a special message to Paul in the Name of the Churches is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philippians 2. 25. which we Translate your Messenger And so Titus and the two other sent to the Church of Corinth to gather their Charity are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Messengers of the Churches Thence Paul fully renders the Import and Sense of the word Apostle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Corinth 5. 20. We act as Ambassaduors for Christ. To which purpose it is observable that the Septuagint whose Greek is most followed by the New Testament doe render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it signifies to imploy a Messenger upon special Service by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 1 King 21. 11. 1 King 12. 18. Exod 4. 30. and the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in this Sense 1 King 14. 6. where Ahijah saith I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A sad Messenger to thee for thus saith the Lord c. Whereby the full Sense and Importance of the word Apostle appears to be one that is imployed by a peculiar Commission from him that hath authority over him for the doing some special service Thus were Christs disciples called Apostles from the immediate commission which they had from Christ for the discharge of that work which he imployed them in Thence our Saviour makes use of the word sending in the proper and peculiar sense when he gives the Apostles their commission in those remarkable words of Christ to them As the Father hath sent me even so send I you John 20. 21. Whereby our Saviour delegates his power and authority which he had as Doctour of the Church to his Apostles upon his leaving the World not in a privative way so as to destroy his own authority over the Church but in a cumulative way investing them with that authority which they had not before for both Teaching and Governing the Church No Argument then can be drawn for the Right or Form of Church-Government from Christs actions towards his Disciples before the last and full Commission was given unto them because they had no power of Church-government before that time Which will be further cleared if we consider their first sending out spoken of Matth. 10. 1. Mark 6. 7. Luke 9. 1. Several things lie in our way to be observed in reference to this Mission of the Apostles First that though the Apostles had been now for some competent time not onely called to their Office but solemnly chosen to it yet we no where read that they did ever exercise that Office till now they were sent forh by Christ. They remained still at Christs feet learning for their own instruction and fitting themselves for their future imployment and thought it no inconvenience while they lay for a wind to lay in sufficient lading and provision for their voyage Baptize indeed they did before Ioh. 4. 2. but that I suppose was done by them by an immediate present Order from Christ himself being by as the chief in the action thence Christ in one place is said to baptize Ioh. 3. 22. and yet he is said not to baptize but his Disciples Ioh. 4. 2. Christ did it authoritatively the Disciples ministerially Yet if we should grant the Disciples did then baptize as private men after the received custome of the Jews among whom onely a Confessus trium was requisite to Baptize a proselyte this doth not at all take off from the peculiarity of a Function both to Preach and Baptize because as yet the Gospel-Ministry was not instituted and therefore what might be lawfull before restraint doth not follow it should be so after when all those scattered rayes and beam which were dispersed abroad before were gathered into the Ministerial Office upon Christs appointing it as that great Hemisphere of Light in the creation was after swallowed up in the body of the Sun But now were the Apostles first sent out to Preach and now God first begins to null the Jewish Ministry and set up another instead of it and makes good that threatning That he was against the Shepherds and would require the flock at their hand and cause them to cease to feed the Flock c. Here then we have the first Exercise of the Apostles Ministry for which we see besides their former call and choice particular mission was after necessary Secondly we observe that the imployment Christ sent them upon now was onely a Temporary imployment confined as to work and place and not the full Apostolicall work The want of considering and understanding this hath been the ground of very many mistakes among Men when they argue from the Occasional Precepts here given the Apostles as from a standing perpetual Rule for a Gospel-Ministry Whereas our Saviour onely suited these instructions to the present case and the nature and condition of the Apostles present imployment which was not to preach the Gospel up and down themselves but to be as so many Iohn Baptists to call people to the hearing of Christ himself and therefore the Doctrine they were to Preach was the same with his The Kingdome of Heaven is at hand whereby it appears their Doctrine was only preparatory to Christ it being onely to raise up higher expectations of the Gospel-state under the Messias and these were they whom the King now sent into the high-wayes to invite men to the marriage Feast and to bid them to come in to him This was the only present imployment of the Apostles in their first mission in which they were confined to the Cities of Iudea that they might have the first refusal of the Gospel-Offers This mission then being occasional limited and temporary can yield no Foundation for any thing perpetual to be built upon it Thirdly we observe that those whom Christ imploied in the first dispersing of the Gospel abroad were furnished with arguments sufficient to evince not onely the credibility but the certain truth of what they preached Therefore Christ when he now sent them out gave them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only a meer power to work miracles but a right conferrèd on them to do it as the Apostles of Christ. These were the Credentials which the Apostles carried along with them to shew
there is not the least evidence or foundation in Reason or Scripture for it For the LXX did not derive their power from the Apostles but immediately from Christ they enjoyed the same priviledges were sent upon the same message making way for Christs entertainment in the several Cities they went to yea all things were parallel between them and the Apostles in their mission unlesse any difference be made in the Cities they went to and their number So that there is no superiority of office in the Apostles above the LXX nor of power and jurisdiction over them their Commissions being the same And it seems most probable that both their missions were only temporary and after this the LXX remained in the nature of private Disciples till they were sent abroad by a new Commission after the Resurrection for preaching the Gospel and planting Churches For we see that the Apostles themselves were only Probationers till Christ solemnly authorized them for their Apostolical employment Matth. 28. 18. Iohn 20. 21. when their full Commissions were granted to them and then indeed they acted with a plenitude of power as Governours of the Church but not before Nothing can be inferred then for any necessary standing Rule for Church-government from any comparison between the Apostles and the LXX during the life of Christ because both their missiors were temporary and occasional Only we see that because Christ did keep up the number of the twelve so strictly that as the LXX were a distinct number from them so when one was dead another was to be chosen in his stead which had been needlesse if they had not been a distinct Order and Colledge by themselves it is thence evident that the Apostolical power was a superiour power to any in the Church and that such an inequality in Church-Officers as was between them and particular Pastors of Churches is not contrary to what our Saviour saith when he forbids that dominion and authority in his Disciples which was exercised by the Kings of the earth Matthew 20. 25. Luke 22. 25. which places because they are brought by some to take away all inequality among Church-Officers I shall so far examine the meaning of them as they are conceived to have any influence thereupon First then I say that it is not only the abuse of civil power which our Saviour forbids his Disciples but the exercise of any such power as that is And therefore the Papists are mistaken when from the words of Luke Vos autem non sic they conclude All power is not forbidden but only such a tyrannical power as is there spoken of For those words are not a limitation and modification of the power spoken of but a total prohibition of it for first the comparison is not between the Apostles and Tyrants but between them and Princes yea such as Luke câ—lls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indeed had Christ said The Kings of the earth abuse their authority vos autem non sic then it would have been onely a limitation of the exercise of power but the meer exercise of civil authority being spoken of before and then it being subjoyned but you not so it plainly implyes a forbidding of the power spoken of in the persons spoken to But say they the words used in Matthew are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which import the abuse of their power which is forbidden But I answer first in Luke it is otherwise for there it is the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if the abuse be forbidden in one the use is in the other but secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the LXX is used frequently for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendred by that word as Psalm 72. 7. He shall have dominion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psalm 110. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies in both which places it is spoken of christs Kingdom So in Genesis 1. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Replenish the earth and have dominion over it In all which places it is used simply for Dominion and not for Tyrannical Power It is not then the abuse of civil Power but the use of it which is here forbidden which will be more evident secondly from the importance of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and simply denyes what went before as when Cain expresseth his fear of being kill'd Genesis 4. 14. The Septuagint render Gods answer by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby is not denyed only the manner of his death to be as Abels was but it is simply denyed and so Psalm 1. 4. the LXX render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wicked are not so So when Christ saith Matthew 19. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning it was not so it imports an absolute denyal of giving bills of divorce from the beginning Thirdly This no wayes answers to the scope of the Apostles contention which was meerly about Primacy and Power and not at all about the abuse of this Power So that by this place all affectation and use of a civil co active external power is forbidden to the Officers of the Church the power of the Church being only a directive voluntary power and is rather a Ministry then a Power as our Saviour expresseth there Matthew 20. 26. Luke 22. 26. But having thus excluded all Civil Power from the Governours of the Church as such I say secondly That this place doth no wayes imply a prohibition of all inequality among the Governours of the Church which is abundantly cleared by this reason because by the acknowledgement of all parties the Apostles had a Superiour power over the ordinary Pastors of Churches Now if the exercise of all Superiority had been forbidden this must have been forbidden too as implying plainly an exercise of authority in some over others in the Church And therefore Musculus thus explains the place Non exigit hoc Christus ut omnes in regno suo sint aequales sed nè quispiam cupiat magnus primus haberi videri It is not an inequality of Order but ambition which Christ forbids and therefore he observes that Christ saith not Let none be great among you and none first which should have been if all Primacy and Superiority had been forbidden and a necessity of an equality among Church-Officers but he that will be great among you let him be your Minister Let those that are above others look upon themselves as the servants of others and not as their masters For God never bestows any power on any for the sake of those that have it but for the sake of those for whom they are employed When men seek then their own greatnesse and not the service of the Church they flatly contradict this
mean such Differences as respect persons and not things which our Saviour layes down these Rules for the ending of And therefore I cannot but wonder to see some men insist so much on that place against such an Exposition of this Luke 12. 14. where Christ saith Who made me a Iudge and a Divider among you For doth it any wayes follow Because Christ would not take upon him to be a temporal Judge among the Jewes therefore he should take no course for the ending differences among his Disciples and the taking away all animosities from among them Nay on the contrary doth not our Saviour very often designedly speak to this very purpose to root out all bitterness malice envy and rancour from mens spirits and to perswade them to forgive injuries even to pray for persecutours and by any means to be reconciled to their Brethren Which he makes to be a Duty of so great necessity that if a man had brought his gift to the Altar and remembred his brother had ought against him he bids him leave his gift there and go be reconciled to his Brother and then offer up the Gift We see hereby how suitable it was to our Saviours Doctrine and Design to lay down Rules for the ending of any differences arising among his Disciples and this being now cleared to be the state of the Case it will not be difficult to resolve what is meant by telling the Church Which I make not to be any appeal to a juridical court acting authoritatively over the persons brought before it but the third and highest step of Charity in a man towards a person that hath offended him viz. That when neither private admonition nor before two or three witnesses would serve to reclaim the offendor then to call a select company together which is the Natural importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and before them all to lay open the cause of the breach and difference between them and to refer it to their Arbitration to compose and end it Which Sense of the place I humbly conceive to have the least force in it and in every part of it to be most genuine and natural and fully agreeable to the received practice among the Jewes which the Author of the Book Musar cited by Drusius fully acquaints us with whose words I shall Transcribe as being a plain Paraphrase on these of our Saviour Qui arguit socium suum debet primum hoc facere placide inter se ipsum solum verbis mollibus ita ut non pudefaciat eum Si resipiscit bene est sin debet eum acritèr arguere pudefacere inter se ipsum Si non resipiscit debet adhibere socios ipsumque coram illis pudore afficere si nec modo quicquam proficit debet eum pudefacere coram multis ejusque delictum publicare Nam certe detegendi sunt hypocritae That which this Authour calls pudefacere eum coram multis is that which our Saviour means when he bids him tell the Church or the Congregation as our Old Translation renders it This the Jews called reproving of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before a multitude as the Vulg. Latin though falsly renders that place Lâ—viticus 19. 17. publicè argue eum and to this the Apostle may allude when he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Corinth 2. 6. censure of many and the reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. which was to be in matters of publike scandal upon Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Jewes call them but in case the offendor should still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 slight this overture of Reconciliation before the company selected for hearing the Case then saith our Saviour look upon him as an obstinate refractory creature and have no more to do with him then with a Heathen and a Publican by which terms the most wilful obstinate sinners were set out among the Jewes and by which our Saviour means a mans withdrawing himself as much as in him lies from all familiar society with such a person And thus saith Christ Whatsoever you bind in Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven v. 18. that is If after all your endeavours of Reconciliation the offender will hearken to no agreement it is an evidence and token that mars sin is bound upon him that is shall not be pardoned so long as he continues impenitent but if he repent of his offence and you be reconciled as the offence is removed on Earth thereby so the sin is loosed in Heaven that is forgiven The guilt of sin that binds it being an Obligation to punishment and so the pardon of sin that looseth as it cancels that Obligation And so Grotius observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is called retaining in one place is binding in another and what is loosing in one place is remitting in the other But now although I assert this to be the true proper genuine meaning of this difficult place yet I deny not but that this place hath influence upon Church-Government but I say the influence it hath is onely by way of Accommodation and by Analogy deduced from it According to which these things I conceive have Foundation in these words First gradual appeals from the Method here laid down by our Saviour Secondly Church censures and the Duty of submitting to Church-authority For although before any Church Power was actually set up as when our Saviour spake these words then there was none yet after that Church-Government was fixed and set up it must in Reason be supposed that all matters of the Nature of scandals to the Church must be decided there Thirdly The lawfulness of the Use of excommunication in Christian Churches for if every particular person might withdraw from the Society of such a one as continues refractory in his Offences then much more may a whole Society and the Officers of it declare such a one to be avoided both in religious and familiar civil Society which is the formal Nature of Excommunication Herein we see the wisdom of our Saviour who in speaking to a particular case hath laid down such general Rules as are of perpetual use in the Church of God for accommodating differences arising therein Thus have we hitherto cleared that our Saviour hath determined no more of Church-Govern-ment then what is appliable to a diversity of particular Forms and so hath not by any Law or practice of his own determined the necessity of any one form CHAP. VI. The next thing pleaded for determining the Form of Government is Apostolical practice two things inquired into concerning that What it was How far it binds The Apostles invested with the power and authority of Governing the whole Church of Christ by their Commission Io. 20. 21. Matth.
Isidore himself the Bishop of Sevill in Spain speaking of Presbyters His sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est praesunt eni◠Ecclesiis Christi in confectione corporis sanguinis consortes cum Episcopis sunt similiter in doctrina populi in Officio praedicandi sed sola propter auctoritatem summo sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae Disciplina vindicatae concordiam solueret scandala generaret What could be spoken more to our purpose then this is he asserts the identity of power as well as name in both Bishops and Presbyters in governing the Church in celebrating the Eucharist in the Office of preaching to the people onely for the greater Honour of the Bishop and for preventing Schisms in the Church the power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop by those words propter Auctoritatem he cannot possibly mean the Authority of a Divine Command for that his following words contradict that it was to prevent Schisms and Scandals and after produceth the whole place of Ierome to that purpose Agreeable to this is the judgment of the second Council of Sevil in Spain upon the occasion of the irregular proceeding of some Presbyters ordained by Agapius Bishop of Corduba Their words are these Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis Ministeriorum communis sit dispensatio quaedam novellis Ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterororum Diaconorum Virginum consecratio c. Haec enim omnia illicita esse Presbyteris quia Pontificatus apicem non habent quem solis deberi Episcopis authoritate Canonum praecipitur ut per hoc discretio graduum dignitatis fastigium summi Pontificis demonstretur How much are we beholding to the ingenuity of a Spanish Council that doth so plainly disavow the pretence of any divine right to the Episcopacy by them so strenuously asserted All the right they plead for is from the novellae Ecclesiasticae regula which import quite another thing from Divine institution and he that hath not learnt to distinguish between the authority of the Canons of the Church and that of the Scriptures will hardly ever understand the matter under debate with us and certainly it is another thing to preserve the honour of the different Degrees of the Clergy but especially of the chief among them viz. the Bishop than to observe a thing meerly out of Obedience to the command of Christ and upon the account of Divine institution That which is rejoyned in answer to these Testimonies as far as I can learn is onely this that the Council and Isidore followed Jerome and so all make up but one single Testimony But might it not as well be said that all that are for Episcopacy did follow Ignatius or Epiphanius and so all those did make up but one single Testimony on the other side Ye◠I do as yet despair of finding any one single Testimony in all Antiquity which doth in plain terms assert Episcopacy as it was setled by the practice of the Primitive Church in the ages following the Apostles to be of an unalterable Divine right Some expressions I grant in some of them seem to extoll Episcopacy very high but then it is in Order to the Peace and Unity of the Church and in that Sense they may sometimes be admitted to call it Divine and Apostolical not in regard of its institution but of its end in that it did in their Opinion tend as much to preserve the Unity of the Church as the Apostles Power did over the Churches while they were living If any shall meet with expressions seeming to carry the Fountain of Episcopal power higher let them remember to distinguish between the power it self and the restrained Exercise of that power the former was from the Apostles but common to all Dispensers of the Word the latter was appropriated to some but by an Act of the Church whereby an eminency of power was attributed to one for the safety of the whole And withall let them consider that every Hyperbolical expression of a Father will not bear the weight of an Argument and how common it was to call things Divine which were conceived to be of excellent use or did come from persons in authority in the Church One would think that should meet with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon it could be rendred by nothing short of the Scriptures whereas they mean no more by it but onely the Emperours Letters to the Council It hath been already observed how ready they were to call any custome of the Church before their times an Apostolical Tradition And as the Heathens when they had any thing which they knew not whence it came they usually called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it came immediately from Heaven So the Fathers when Traditions were convey'd to them without the names of the Authors they conclude they could have no other Fountain but the Apostles And thus we see many Traditions in several Churches directly contrary to one another were looked on as Apostolical onely from the prevalency of this perswasion that whatever they derived from their Fathers was of that nature But then for that answer to the Council and Isidore and Ierome that they make but one testimony I say that although the words be of the same Sense yet they have the nature of a different testimony upon these accounts First as produced by persons of different condition in the Church some think they are even with Ierome when they tell us what a pique there was between him and Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem and that he might have the better advantage of his adversary when he could not raise himself up to the Honour of Episcopacy he would bring that down to the State of Presbytery but as such entertain too unworthy thoughts of one of those Fathers whom they profess themselves admirers of so this prejudice cannot possibly lie against Isidore or the Council For the first was himself a Bishop of no mean account in the Church of God and the Council was composed of such it could be no biass then of that nature could draw them to this Opinion and no doubt they would have been as forward to maintain their own authority in the Church as the Truth and Conscience would give them leave Therefore on this account one Testimony of a single Bishop much more of a whole Council of them against their acting by Divine Authority in the Church is of more validity then ten for it in as much as it cannot but be in Reason supposed that none will speak any thing against the authority they are in or what may tend in the least to diminish it but such as make more Conscience of the Truth then of their own Credit and Esteem in the World Secondly in that it was done in different ages of the Church Ierome flourished about
any particular Form of Church-Government setled in the Apostles times which can be drawn from the help of the Records of the Primitive Church which must be first cleared of all Defectiveness Ambiguity Partiality and Confusion before the thing we inquire for can be extracted out of them Having thus far shewed that we have no absolute certainty of what Form of Government was setled by the Apostles in the several Churches of their Plantation The next Consideration which follows to be spoken to is that the Apostles in probability did not observe any one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches but setled it according to the several circumstances of places and persons which they had to deal with This will be ex abundanti as to the thing by me designed which would be sufficiently cleared without this and therefore I lay it not as the Foundation of my Thesis but onely as a Doctrine of Probability which may serve to reconcile the Controversies on foot about Church-Government For if this be made appear then it may be both granted that the Apostles did settle the Government in the Church in a Colledg of Presbyters and in a Bishop and Deacons too according to the diversity of places and the variety of circumstances It is easie to observe that as to Rites and Customes in the Church the Original of most mens mistakes is Concluding that to be the general Practice of the Church which they meet with in some places whereas that is most true which Firmiliam tells us In plurimis Provinciis multa pro locorum nominum l. hominum diversitate variantur nec tamen propter hoc ab Ecclesiae Catholicae pace atque unitate discossum est Those Rites varied in divers places retaining still the Unity of the Faith so as to matter of Government mens mistakes do arise from an universal conclusion deduced out of particular premises and what they think was done in one place they conclude must be done in all Whereas these are the grounds inducing me probably to conclude that they observed not the same course in all places Which when an impartial Reader hath soberly considered with what hath gone before I am in hopes the Novelty of this Opinion may not prejudicate its entertainment with him My grounds are these First From the different state condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles Secondly From the multitude of unfixed Officers in the Church then which acted with authority over the Church where they were resident Thirdly from the different customes observed in several Churches as to their Government after the Apostles decease I begin with the first The different State Condition and Quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles For which we are to consider these things First That God did not give the Apostles alike success of their labours in all places Secondly That a small number of believers did not require the same number which a great Church did to teach and govern them Thirdly That the Apostles did settle Church-Officers according to the probability of increase of believers and in order thereto in some great places First That God did not give the Apostles equal success to their labours in all places After God called them to be Fishers of men it was not every draught which filled their Net with whole shoals of Fishes sometimes they might toyle all Night still and catch nothing or very little It was not every Sermon of Peters which converted three thousand the whole world might at that rate soon have become Christian although there had been but few Preachers besides the Apostles God gave them strange success at first to encourage them the better to meet with difficulties afterwards In 〈…〉 es God told them he had much people in others we read but of few that believed At Corinth Paul Plants and Apollos Waters and God gives an abundant increase but at Athens where if moral dispositions had fitted men for Grace and the improvements of Nature we might have expected the greatest number of Converts yet here we read of many mocking and others delaying and but of very few believing Dionysius and Damaris and some others with them The Plantations of the Apostles were very different not from the Nature of the soile they had to deal with but from the different influence of the Divine Spirit upon their Endeavours in severall places We cannot think that the Church at Cenchrea for so it is called was as well stockt with Believers as that at Corinth Nay the Churches generally in the Apostles times were not so filled with Numbers as men are apt to imagine them to be I can as soon hope to find in Apostolical times Diocesan Churches as Classical and Provincial yet this doth not much advantage the Principles of the Congregational men as I have already demonstrated Yet I do not think that all Churches in the Apostles times were but one Congregation but as there was in Cities many Synagogues so there might be many Churches out of those Synagogues enjoying their former liberties and priviledges And they that will shew me where five thousand Jewes and more did ordinarily meet in one of their Synagogues for publike worship may gain something upon me in order to believing the Church of Ierusalem to be but one Congregation and yet not perswade me till they have made it appear that the Christians then had as publike solemn set meetings as the Jews had which he that understands the state of the Churches at that time will hardly yield to the belief of I confess I cannot see any rule in Scripture laid down for distributing Congregations but this necessity would put them upon and therefore it were needless to prescribe them and very little if any reason can I see on the other side why where there were so much people as to make distinct Congregations they must make distinct Churches from one another but of that largely in the next chapter All Churches then we see were not of an equal extent The second premisal Reason will grant viz. that a small Church did not require the same number of Officers to rule it which a great one did For the duty of Officers lying in Reference to the People where the People was but few one constant setled Officer with Deacons under him might with as much ease discharge the work as in a numerous Church the joynt help of many Officers was necessary to carry it on The same reason which tells us that a large flock of Sheep consisting of many thousands doth call for many Shepherds to attend them doth likewise tell us that a small flock may be governed with the care of one single Shepherd watching continually over them The third premisall was that in great Cities the Apostles did not onely respect the present guidance of those that were converted but established such as might be useful for the converting and bringing in of others to the Faith who were
ad ordinem ad decorum ad aedificationem Ecclesiae pro co tempore pertinentibus And in the next Section Novimus enim Deum nostrum Deum esse Ordinis non confusionis Ecclesiam servari ordine perdi autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qua de causa multos etiam diversos non solum olim in Israele verum etiam post in Ecclesia ex Iudaeis Gentibus collecta ministrorum ordines instituit eandem etiam ob causam liberum reliquit Ecclesiis ut plures adderent vel non adderent modo ad aedificationem fieret He asserts it to be in the Churches power and liberty to add several orders of Ministers according as it judgeth them tend to edification and saith he is far from condemning the Course of the Primitive Church in erecting one as Bishop over the Presbyters for better managing Church Affairs yea Arch-Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs as instituted by the Primitive Church before the Nicene Council he thinks may be both excused and defended although afterward they degenerated into Tyranny and Ambition And in his Observations upon his Confession penned chiefly upon the occasion of the exceptions of Magnus quidam Vir some will guess who that was taken at the free delivery of his mind concerning the Polity of the Primitive Church he hath expressions to this purpose That what was unanimously determined by the Primitive Church without any contradiction to Scripture did come from the Holy Spirit Hinc fit saith he ut quae sint hujuscemodi ea ego improbare nec velim nec audeam bona conscientia Quis autem ego sim qui quod tota Ecclesia approbavit improbem Such things saith he as are so determined I neither will nor can with a safe Conscience condemn For who am I that I should condemn that which the whole Church of God hath approved A Sentence as full of judgement as modesty And that he might shew he was not alone in this opinion he produceth two large and excellent Discourses of Martin Bucer concerning the Polity of the ancient Church which he recites with approbation the one out of his Commentaries on the Ephesians the other de Disciplina Clericali whereby we have gained another Testimony of that famous and peaceable Divine whose judgement is too large to be here inserted The same opinion of Zanchy may be seen in his Commentaries upon the fourth Command wherein he asserts no particular Form to be prescribed but onely general Rules laid down in Scripture that all be done to Edification speaking of the Originall of Episcopacy which came not dispositione Divina but consuetudine Ecclesiastica atque ea quidem minime improbanda neque enim hunc ordinem prohibuit Christus sed potius regulam generalem reliquit per Apostolum nt in Ecclesia omnia fiant ad edificationem It is then most clear and evident that neither Bucer Chemnitius or Zanchy did look upon the Church as so bound up by any immutable Form of Church-Government laid down in Scripture but it might lawfully and laudably alter it for better edification of the Church For these Learned Divines conceiving that at first in the Church there was no difference between Bishop and Presbyter and commending the Polity of the Church when Episcopacy was set in a higher order they must of necessity hold that there was no obligation to observe that Form which was used in Apostolical times Our next inquiry is into the opinion of the French Church and the eminent Divines therein For Calvin and Bâ—zÌ„a we have designed them under another rank At present we speak of those who in Thesi assert the Form of Church-Government mutable The first wee meet with here who fully layes down his opinion as to this matter is Ioh. Fregevil who although in his Palma Christiana he seems to assert the Divine right of Primacy in the Church yet in his Politick Reformer he asserts both Forms of Government by equality and inequality to be lawful And we shall the rather produce his Testimony because of the high Character given of him by the late Reverend Bishop Hall Wise Fregevil a deep head and one that was able to cut even betwixt the League the Church and State His words are these As for the English Government I say it is grounded upon Gods Word so far forth as it keepeth the State of the Clergy instituted in the Old Testament and confirmed in the New And concerning the Government of the French Church so far as concerneth the equality of Ministers it hath the like foundation in Gods Word namely in the example of the Apostles which may suffice to authorize both these Forms of Estate albeit in several times and places None can deny but that the Apostles among themselves were equal as concerning authority albeit there were an Order for their precedency When the Apostles first planted Churches the same being small and in affliction there were not as yet any other Bishops Priests or Deacons but themselves they were the Bishops and Deacons and together served the Tables Those men therefore whom God raiseth up to plant a Church can do no better then after the examples of the Apostles to bear themselves in equal authority For this cause have the French Ministers planters of the Reformed Church in France usurped it howbeit provisionally reserving liberty to alter it according to the occurrences But the equality that rested among the Bishops of the primitive Church did increase as the Churches increased and thence proceeded the Creation of Deacons and afterwards of other Bishops and Priests yet ceased not the Apostles equality in authority but they that were created had not like authority with the Apostles but the Apostles remained as Soveraign Bishops neither were any greater then they Hereof I do inferr that in the State of a mighty and peaceable Church as is the Church of England or as the Church of France is or such might be if God should call it to Reformation the State of the Clergy ought to be preserved For equality will be hurtful to the State and in time breed confusion But as the Apostles continued Churches in their equality so long as the Churches by them planted were small so should equality be applyed in the planting of a Church or so long as the Church continueth small or under persecution yet may it also be admitted as not repugnant to Gods Word in those places where already it is received rather then to innovate anything I say therefore that even in the Apostles times the state of the Clergy increased as the Church increased Neither was the Government under the bondage of Egypt and during the peace of the Land of Canaan alike for Israelites had first Iudges and after their state increased Kings Thus far that Politique Reformer Whose words are so full and pertinent to the scope and drift of this whole Treatise that there is no need of any Commentary to draw them to my sense The
binds necessarily but that rule which makes it a duty to follow it for examples in indifferent things do not bind without a Law making it to be a duty And so it evidently appears that all obligatory force is taken off from the examples themselves and resolved into one of the two former the morall nature of the action or a positive Law And therefore those who plead the obligatory nature of Scripture-examples must either produce the morall nature of these examples or else a rule binding us to follow those examples Especially when these examples are brought to found a New positive Law obliging all Christians necessarily to the end of the world Concerning the binding nature of Apostolicall practice I shall discourse largely afterwards The next thing pleaded for a Divine Right is by Divine Acts. As to this â—t is again evident that all Divine Acts do not constitute such a Right therefore there must be something expressed in those Acts when such a Divine Right follows them whence we may infallibly gather it was Gods intention they should perpetually oblige as is plain in the cases instanced in the most for this purpose as Gods resting on the seventh day making the Sabbath perpetual For it was not Gods resting that made it the Sabbath for that is only expressed as the occasion of its institution but it was Gods sanctifying the day that is by a Law setting it apart for his own service which made it a duty And so Christs resurrection was not it which made the Lords day a Sabbath of Divine Right but Christs resurrection was the occasion of the Apostles altering only a circumstantiall part of a morall duty already which being done upon so great reasons and by persons indued with an insallible spirit thereby it becomes our duty to observe that morall command in this limitation of time But here it is further necessary to distinguish between acts meerly positive and acts donative or legall The former conâ—er no right at all but the latter do not barely as acts but as legall acts that is by some declaration that those acts do conserr right And so it is in all donations and therefore in Law the bare delivery of a thing to another doth not give a legall title to it without express transferring of dominion and propriety with it Thus in Christs delivering the Keys to Peter and therest of the Apostles by that act I grant the Apostles had the power of the Keyes by Divine Right but then it was not any bare act of Christ which did it but it was only the declaration of Christs will conferring that authority upon them Again we must distinguish between a right conferâ—'d by a donative act and the unalterable nature of that Right for it is plain there may be a Right personall as well as successive derivative and perpetuall And therefore it is not enough to prove that a Right was given by any act of Christ unless it be made appear it was Christs intention that Right should be perpetuall if it oblige still For otherwise the extent of the Apostolical Commission the power of working miracles as well as the power of the Keyes whether by it we mean a power declarative of duty or a power authoritative and penall must continue still if a difference be not made between these two and some rule sound out to know when the Right conferr'd by Divine Acts is personall when successive Which rule thus found out must make the Right unalterable and so concerning us and not the bare donative act of Christ For it is evident they were all equally conferr'd upon the Apostles by an act of Christ and if some continue still and others do not then the bare act of Christ doth not make an unalterable Divine Right And so though it be proved that the Apostles had superiority of order and jurisdiction over the Pastors of the Church by an act of Christ yet it must further be proved that it was Christs intention that superiority should continue in their successors or it makes nothing to the purpose But this argument I confess I see not how those who make a necessary Divine Right to follow upon the acts of Christ can possibly avoid the force of The last thing pleaded for Divine Right is Divine approbation but this least of all constitutes a Divine Right For if the actions be extraordinary Gods approbation of them as such cannot make them an ordinary duty In all other actions which are good and therefore only commendable they must be so either because done in conformity to Gods revealed Will or to the nature of things good in themselves In the one it is the positive Law of God in the other the Law of Nature which made the action good and so approved by God and on that account we are bound to do it For God will certainly approve of nothing but what is done according to his Will revealed or natural which Will and Law of his is that which makes any thing to be of Divine Right i. e. perpetually binding as to the observation of it But for acts of meerly positive nature which we read Gods approbation of in Scripture by vertue of which approbation those actions do oblige us in this case I say it is not Gods meer approbation that makes the obligation but as that approbation so recorded in Scripture is a sufficient testimony and declaration of Gods intention to oblige men And so it comes to be a positive Law which is nothing else but a sufficient declaration of the Legislators will and intention to bind in particular actions and cases Thus now we have cleared whereon a necessary and unalterable Divine Right must be founded either upon the Law of Nature or some positive Law of God sufficiently declared to be perpetually binding CHAP. II. Six Hypotheses laid down as the basis of the following Discourse 1. The irreversible obligation of the Law of Nature either by humane or Divine positive Laws in things immediately flowing from it 2. Things agreeable to the Law of Nature may be lawfully practised in the Church of God where there is no prohibition by positive Laws inlarged into 5 subservient Propositions 3. Divine positive Laws concerning the manner of the thing whose substance is determined by the Law of Nature must be obeyed by vertue of the obligation of the natural Law 4. Things undetermined both by the naturall and positive Laws of God may be lawfully determined by the supream authority in the Church of God 5. What is thâ—â— determined by lawfull authority doth bind the consciences of men subject to that authority to obedience to those determinations 6. Things thus determined by lawfull authority are not thereby made unalterable but may be revoked limited and changed by the same authority HAving shewed what a Divine Right is and whereon it is founded our next great inquiry will be How far Church-Government is founded upon Divine Right taken either of these two wayes
though it were lawful not to do them before that Command The truth of the Proposition appears because Lawful Authority may command any thing that may be lawfully done Because nothing can exempt from obedience to a lawful Magistrate but the unlawfulness of the thing commanded and therefore nothing can debar the Magistrate from commanding these things for nothing can hinder him from Commanding but what may hinder the Subject from Obedience I grant in many cases it may be lawful to obey when it is very inconvenient for the Magistrate to command but inconveniency and unlawfulness are two things nay and in some cases a man may lawfully obey when he is unlawfully commanded but then the matter of the Command it self is unlawful As in executing an unjust Sentence granting that a Princes Servants may lawfully do it especially when they know it not yet in that case the ground of their lawful obedience is the ground of the Magistrates lawful Command which is the supposed Justice of the Execution But that which makes the Magistrates Command unlawful is the intrinsecal evil of the thing its self So for unlawful Wars though the Subjects may lawfully obey yet the Prince sins in commanding not but that he hath right to command so far as they are bound to obey which is only in things lawful but that which in this case alters the matter is the Princes knowing his cause to be unjust So that however the Proposition holds in things not manifestly unjust But however this be it is hereby granted that the things may be lawfully done when they are restrained by the Magistrates Command and by that it appears that liberty may be restrained else it could not be lawful to act under that restraint not as it respects the things themselves but under that formality as they are the restraint of that which ought to be left free The Restraint however then is lawful as to the persons acting under Authority who are the Subjects of this liberty though it were granted unlawfull as to the authority doing it Which former is sufficient for my purpose viz. that Christian liberty as to the subjects of it may be lawfully restrained Secondly A lesser duty ceaseth to be a duty when it hinders from the performance of greater but the preserving Christian liberty is a lesser duty which may hinder the peace of the Church which is a greater therefore in that case it may be restrained The Major is granted by Divines and Casuists when duties stand in competition the lesser ceaseth to bind as is evident in that God will have mercy rather then sacrifice Positives yield to morals and naturals Thence the obligation of an Oath ceaseth when it hinders from a natural duty as the Corban among the Jews from relief of Parents And therefore Grotius saith that an Oath taken concerning a thing lawfull if it doth hinder majus bonum morale the obligation of that Oath ceaseth Now that preserving-liberty is a lesser duty then the looking after the peace of the Church is evident because the one is only a matter of liberty and left undetermin'd by the Word and the other a matter of necessity and absolutely and expresly required of all as a duty as much as possibly lyes in them to endeavour after Thirdly If an occasional offence of weaker Brethren may be a ground for restraining Christian liberty then much more may commands from lawfull authority do it but the offence of weaker Brethren may restrain Christian liberty as to the exercise of it as appears by the Apostles discourse Rom. 14. 21. The reason of the consequence lies here that a case of meer offence which is here pleaded towards weak Brethren cannot have that obligation upon Conscience which a known duty of obeying lawfull Authority in things in themselves lawfull hath Nay further insisting only on the Law of scandall I would fain know whether it be a greater offence and scandall to Christians consciences to infringe the lawfull authority of the Magistrate and to deny obedience to his commands in things undetermin'd by the Law of God or else to offend the Consciences that is go against the judgements of some well-meaning but less-knowing Christians Or thus whether in the matter of scandall it be a greater offence to go against the judgements of the weaker and more ignorant or the more knowing and able when the one have only their own weak apprehension to byasse them the other are backed by and grounded upon an established Law And whether it be not a greater scandall to Religion to disobey a Christian Magistrate then it is to offend some private Christians Let these things be examined and then let us see whether the argument will not hold à majori if the Law of scandall as to private Christians may restrain liberty then may a command from the Magistrate do it Fourthly I argue thus If the nature of Christian-liberty may be preserved under the restraint of the exercise of it then it is not against the nature of Christian-liberty to have the exercise restrained but the former is true and therefore the latter Now that the nature of Christian-liberty may be preserved under the restraint of its exercise I prove by these arguments First Because the nature of Christian-liberty is founded upon the freedom of judgement and not the freedom of practice The case is the same in moral and natural liberty as in Christian. Now we say truly that the radical liberty of the soul is preserved though it be determined to a particular action For the liberty of the Will lying in the power of determining its self either way as it is generally thought the actuall determination of the Will doth not take away the internal power in the soul and in that respect there may be a potentia faciendi where there is not possibilit as effectûs a power of doing when there is no possibility the thing should be done when the event is otherwise determined by a divine decree as in breaking the bones of Christ upon the Crosse. So it is in reference to Christian liberty though the exercise of it be restrained yet the liberty remains because Christian-liberty lyes in the freedom of judgement that is in judging those things to be free which are so so that if any thing that is in its self free be done by a man with an opinion of the necessity of doing it antecedent to the Law commanding it or without any Law prescribing it thereby his Christian liberty is destroyed but if it be done with an opinion of the freedom and indifferency of the thing it self but only with a consequential necessity of doing it supposing the Magistrates command he retains the power of his Christian-liberty still though under the restraint of the exercise of it And therefore it would be well observed that the opinion of the necessity of any one thing undetermined by Scripture destroys Christian-liberty more then a Magistrates command doth And by this
the Jewes as a significative rite in the ordaining the Elders among them and thereby qualifying them either to be members of their Sanhedrins or Teachers of the Law Aâ— twofold use I find of this Symbolical Rite beside the solemn designation of the person on whom the hands are laid The first is to denote the delivery of the person or thing thus laid hands upon for the right use and peculiar service of God And that I suppose was the reason of laying hands upon the Beast under the Law which was to be sacrificed thereby noting their own parting with any right in it and giving it up to be the Lords for a sacrifice to him Thus in the Civill Law this delivery is requisite in the transferring Dominion which they call translatio de manu in manum The second end of laying on of hands was the solemn Iuvocation of the Divine presence and assistance to be upon and with the person upon whom the hands are thus laid For the hands with us being the instruments of action they did by stretching out their hands upon the person represent the efficacy of Divine Power which they implored in behalf of the perâ—on thus designed Tunc enim â—rabant ut sic Dei efficacia esset super illum sicut manus efficaciae symbolum ei imponebatur as Grotius observes Thence in all solemn Prayers wherein any person was particularly designed they made use of this Custome of imposition of Hands from which Custome Augustine speaks Quid aliud est manuum impositio nisi oratio super hominem Thence when Iacob prayed over Iosephs Children he laid his hands upon them so when Moses prayed over Ioshua The practice likewise our Saviour used in blessing Children healing the Sick and the Apostles in conferring the Gifts of the Holy-Ghost and from thence it was conveyed into the practice of the Primitive Church who used it in any more solemn invocation of the name of God in behalf of any particular persons As over the sick upon Repentance and Reconciliation to the Church in Confirmation and in Matrimony which as Grotius observes is to this day used in the Abissine Churches But the most solemn and peculiar use of this Imposition of hands among the Jews was in the designing of any Persons for any publike imployment among them Not as though the bare Imposition of hands did conferre any power upon the Person no more then the bare delivery of a thing in Law gives a legall Title to it without express transferring Dominion with it but with that Ceremony they joyned those words whereby they did confer that Authority upon them Which were to this purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce sis tu Ordinatus or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ego ordino te or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sis ordinatus to which they added according to the authority they ordained them to some thing peculiarly expressing it whether it was for causes finable or pecuniary or binding and loosing or ruling in the Synagogue Which is a thing deserving consideration by those who use the rite of imposing hands in Ordination without any thing expressing that authority they convey by that Ordination This custome being so generally in use among the Jews in the time when the Apostles were sent forth with Authority for gathering and setling Churches we find them accordingly making use of this according to the former practice either in any more solemn invocation of the presence of God upon any persons or designation and appointing them for any peculiar service or function For we have no ground to think that the Apostles had any peculiar command for laying on their hands upon persons in Prayer over them or Ordination of them But the thing its self being enjoyned them viz. the setting apart some persons for the peculiar work of attendance upon the necessities of the Churches by them planted they took up and made use of a laudable Rite and Custome then in use upon such occasions And so we find the Apostles using it in the solemn designation of some persons to the Office of Deacons answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Synagogue whose Office was to collect the moneys for the poor and to distribute it among them Afterwards we read it used upon an occasion not heard of in the Synagogue which was for the conferring the gifts of the Holy-Ghost but although the occasion was extraordinary yet supposing the occasion the use of that rite in it was very suitable in as much as those gifts did so much answer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Jewes conceived did rest upon those who were so ordained by imposition of hands The next time we meet with this rite was upon a peculiar Designation to a particular service of persons already appointed by God for the work of the Ministry which is of Paul and Barnabas by the Prophets and Teachers at Antioch whereby God doth set forth the use of that Rite of Ordination to the Christian Churches Accordingly we find it after practised in the Church Timothy being ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery And Timothy hath direction given him for the right management of it afterwards Lay hands suddenly on no man For they that would interpret that of reconciling men to the Church by that Rite must first give us Evidence of so early an use of that Custome which doth not yet appear But there is one place commonly brought to prove that the Apostles in Ordaining Elders in the Christian Churches did not observe the Jewish Form of laying on of hands but observed a way quite different from the Jewish practice viz. appointing them by the choice consent and suffrages of the people Which place is Acts 14 23. where it is said of Paul and Barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We render it Ordaining them Elders in every Church But others from the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have it rendered When they had appointed Elders by the suffrages of the people But how little the peoples power of Ordination can be inferred from these words will be evident to any one that shall but consider these things First that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did originally signifie the choosing by way of suffrage among the Greeks yet before the time of Lukes writing this the word was used for simple designation without that Ceremony So Hesychius interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used of Titus for ordaining Elders in every City and in Demosthenes and others it occurs for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to decree and appoint and that sense of the word appears in Saint Luke himself Acts 10. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Witnesses foreappointed of God Many examples of this signification are brought by Learned men of Writers before and about the time when Luke Writ
it transplanted into the Church There are yet some things remaining as to Ordination wherein the Church did imitate the Synagogue which will admit of a quick dispatch as the number of the persons which under the Synagogue were alwaies to be at least three This being a fundamental constitution among the Jews as appears by their writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordination of Presbyters by laying on of hands must be done by three at the least To the same purpose Maimonides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did not ordain any by imposition of hands into a power of judicature without the number of three Which number Peter Galatinus and Postellus conceive necessary to be all ordained themselves but Master Selden thinks it was sufficient if there were but one of that number so ordained who was to be as principal in the action whose opinion is favoured by Maimonides who adds to the words last cited out of him Of which Three one at the least must be ordained himself Let us now see the Parallel in the Church of God The first solemn Ordination of Elders under the Gospel which some think to be set down as a Pattern for the Church to follow is that we read of Acts 13. 1 2 3. Which was performed by three for we read in the first verse that there were in the Church at Antioch five Prophets and Teachers Barnabas Simeon Lucius Manaen and Saul of these five the Holy-Ghost said that two must be separated for the work whereto God had called them which were Barnabas and Saul there remain onely the other three Simeon Lucius and Manaen to lay their hands on them and ordain them to their work Accordingly those who tell us that Iames was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem do mention the three Apostles who concurred in the ordaining of him But most remarkable for this purpose is the Canon of the Nicene Council wherein this number is set down as the regular number for the Ordination of Bishops without which it was not accounted Canonical The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Ordination of a Bishop should if possible be performed by all the Bishops of the Province which if it cannot easily be done either through some urgent necessity or the tediousness of the way three Bishops at least must be there for the doing it which may be sufficient for the Ordination if those that are absent do express their consent and by Letters approve of the doing of it To the same purpose Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canons injoyn all the Bishops of the Province to be present at the Ordination of one and forbid the Ordination of any without three being present at it Thus we see how the Constitution of the Synagogue was exactly observed in the Church as to the number of the persons concurring to a regular Ordination The last thing as to Ordination bearing Analogy to the Synagogue is the effect of this Ordination upon the person It was the Custom of the Jews to speak of all that were legally Ordained among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Divine Presence or Schecinah rested upon them which sometimes they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holy Spirit supposed to be in a peculiar manner present after this solemn Separation of them from others in the world and Dedication of them unto God Answerable to this may that of our Saviour be when he gives his Apostles authority to preach the Gospel he doth it in that Form of words Receive ye the Holy Ghost and then gives them the power of binding and loosing usually conveyed in the Jewish Ordinations Whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained So that as under the Law they by their Ordination received a moral Faculty or Right to exercise that power they were Ordained to so under the Gospel all who are Ordained according to Gospel Rules have a right authority and power conveyed thereby for the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments Which right and power must not be conceived to be an internal indelible Character as the Papists groundlesly conceive but a moral legal Right according to the Lawes of Christ because the persons Ordaining do not act in it in a natural but a moral Capacity and so the effect must be moral and not physical which they must suppose it to be who make it a Character and that indelible Thus much may serve to clear how Ordination in all its circumstances was derived from the Jewish Synagogue The other thing remaining to be spoken to as to the correspondence of the Church with the Synagogue in its constitution is what order the Apostles did settle in the several Churches of their Plantation for the Ruling and Ordering the Affairs of them Before I come to speak so much to it as will be pertinent to our present purpose and design we may take notice of the same name for Church-Rulers under the Gospel which there was under the Synagogue viz. that of Presbyters The name Presbyter as the Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it Originally import Age yet by way of connotation it hath been looked on as a name both of Dignity and Power Because Wisdome was supposed to dwell with a multitude of years therefore persons of age and experience were commonly chosen to places of honour and trust and thence the name importing age doth likewise cary dignity along with it Thence we read in the time of Moses how often the Elders were gathered together Thence Eliezer is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 24. 2. which the Greek renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Seignior Domo the chief Officer in his house and so we read Gen. 50. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elders of the Land of Egypt So the Elders of Mâ—dian the Elders of Israel the Elders of the Cities so among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Council of State and among the Latines Senatus and our Saxon Aldermen in all importing both age and honour and power together But among the Jewes in the times of the Apostles it is most evident that the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imported not only dignity but power the Presbyters among the Jewes having a power both of judgeing and teaching given them by their Semicha or Ordination Now under the Gospel the Apostles retaining the name and the manner of Ordination but not conferring that judiciary power by it which was in use among the Jewes to shew the difference between the Law and the Gospel it was requisite some other name should be given to the Governours of the Church which should qualifie the importance of the word Presbyters to a sense proper to a Gospel State Which was the Original of giving the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Governours of the Church under the Gospel A name importing Duty more then Honour and not a
in by every one of them singly and subscribed with their own hands all which I have perused these following persons Thomas Arch Bishop of Canterbury Edward Arch-bishop of Yorke the Bishop of Rochester Edmund Bishop of London Robert Bishop of Carlisle Dr. George Day Dr. Thomas Robertson Dr. I. Redmayne Dr. Edward Leighton Dr. Symon Matthew Dr. William Tresham Dr. Richard Cozen Dr. Edgeworth Dr. Owen Oglethorp Dr. Thyrleby These all gave in their several resolutions in papers to the Questions propounded with their names subscribed a far more prudent way then the confusion of verbal and tedious disputes all whose judgements are accurately summed up and set down by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury himself Their resolutions contain distinct answers to several Sets of questions propounded to them The first Set contained several Questions about the Mass about the instituting receiving nature celebration of it and whether in the Mass it be convenient to use such speech as the people may understand whether the whole were fit to be translated or only some part of it with several other questions of the same nature The second Set is more pertinent to our purpose wherein are 17 Questions proposed to be resolved Ten of them belong to the number of Sacraments the other 7. concern Church Government The Questions are these Whether the Appostells lacking a higher power as in not having a Christian-King among them made Bishoppes by that necessity or by auctorite given them of God Whether Bishops or Priests were first and if the Priests were first then the Priest made the Bishop Whether a Bishop hath auctorite to make a Priest by the Scripture or no and whether any other but onely a Bishop may make a Priest Whether in the New Testament be required any consecration of a Bishop and Priest or onely appointeinge to the office be sufficient Whether if it fortuned a Prince Christien lerned to conquer certen domynyons of Infidells having non but the temporall lerned men with him it be defended by Gods Law that be and they should preche and teche the word of God there or no and also make and constitute Priests or noe Whether it be forefended by Goddes Law that if it so fortuned that all the Bishopps and Priests were dedde and that the word of God shuld there unpreached the Sacrament of baptisme and others unministred that the King of that region shulde make Bishoppes and Priests to supply the same or noe Whether a Bishop or a Priest may excommunicate and for what crimes and whether they only may excommunicate by Goddes Law These are the questions to which the answers are severally returned in distinct papers all of them bound together in a large Volume by Archbishop Cranmer and every one subscribed their names and some their seals to the Papers delivered in It would be too tedious a work to set down their several opinions at large only for the deserved reverence all bear to the name and memory of that most worthy Prelate and glorious Martyr Archbishop Cranmer I shall set down his answer distinctly to every one of these questions and the answers of some others to the more material questions to our purpose To the 9. Q. All Christian Princes have committed unto them immediately of God the holle cure of all their subjects as well concerning the administration of Goddes word for the cure of soul as concerning the ministration of things Political and civil governaunce And in both theis ministrations thei must have sundry ministers under them to supply that which is appointed to their several office The Cyvile ministers under the Kings Majesty in this realme of England be those whom yt shall please his highness for the tyme to put in auctorite under him as for example the Lord Chancellour Lord Treasurer Lord Greate Master Lord privy seal Lord Admyral Mayres Shryves c. The Ministers of Gods wourde under his Majesty be the Bishops Parsons Vicars and such other Priests as be appointed by his highnes to that ministration as for example the Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Duresme the Bishop of Winchester the Parson of Wynwicke c. All the said officers and ministers as well of th' one sorte as the other be appointed assigned and elected in every place by the Laws and orders of Kings and Princes In the admission of many of these officers bee diverse comely ceremonies and solemnities used which be not of necessity but only for a good order and semely fashion For if such offices and ministrations were committed without such solemnitye thei were nevertheles truely committed And there is no more promise of God that grace is given in the committing of the Ecclesiastical office then it is in the committing of the Cyvile In the Apostles time when there was no Christien Princes by whose authority Ministers of Gods Word might be appointed nor synnes by the sword corrected there was no remedie then for the correction of vice or appoynteinge of ministers but onely the consent of Christien multitude amonge themselfe by an uniforme consent to follow the advice and perswasion of such persons whom God had most endued with the spirit of wisdome and counsaâ—le And at that time for as much as Christian people had no sword nor Governer among them thei were constrained of necessity to take such Curates and Priests as either they knew themselfes to bee meet thereunto or else as were commended unto them by other that were so replete with the spirit of God with such knowledge in the profession of Christ such wisdome such conversation and counsell that they ought even of very conscience to give credit unto them and to accept such as by theym were presented And so some tyme the Appostles and other unto whom God had given abundantly his spirit sent or appointed Ministers of Gods word sometime the people did chose such as they thought meete thereunto And when any were appointed or sent by the Appostles or other the people of their awne voluntary will with thanks did accept them not for the supremitie Imperie or dominion that the Apostells had over them to command as their Princes or Masters but as good people readie to obey the advice of good counsellours and to accept any thing that was necessary for their edification and benefit The Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one office in the beginning of Christs Religion A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scriptures and so may Princes and Governours alsoe and that by the auctoritie of God committed them and the people alsoe by their election For as we reade that Bishops have done it so Christien Emperours and Princes usually have done it And the people before Christien Princes were commonly did elect their Bishops and Priests In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no consecration by the Scripture for election or appointeing thereto