not oppose Sect. XVIII We find proof thar ordinarily Churches were first planted in Cities there being not then in the Villages Christians enough to make Churches But we find no proof that when there are Christians enough to constitute Churches they may not be planted in Villages also Nor yet that there may not be more Churches than one in the same City For so Grotius saith There were even then when Christians were comparatively but few and that they were as the Jewish Synagogues in this respect And Dr. Hamond largely asserteth that Peter had a Church of Jews and Paul another of Gentiles at Rome and that so it was in other Cities Sect. XIX Much less is it by Divine Institution that Bishops and their Churches or Seats be only in such as we now call Cities which by their priviledges are distinct from other great Towns and Corporations whenas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then signified a great Town or Corporation such as our Market-Towns and Corporations now are Sect. XX. But it is the Law of God that all things about Churches and Church-affairs which he hath left to humane prudence should be done according to such general Rules as he hath prescribed for their regulation SECT IV What Princes and Pastors may do in such matters I. THese foresaid General Laws of God do both give the Rulers their Power for determining things committed to them and also limit their power therein II. These General Laws are that All things be done to Edification the circumstances fitted to the End the Glory of God and the Publick Good the promoting of Truth and Godliness that all be done in Love to the promoting of Love and Unity and that all be done in Order and Decently and as may avoid offence or scandal to all both those without and those within Gal. 6. 15 16. Phil. 3. 15 16. 1 Cor. 14. 3 5 12. 26. 17. Rom. 14. 19. 15. 2. 1 Cor. 10. 23. Ephes 4 12 16 19. 2 Cor. 12. 19. 6. 3. 11. 7. 1 Cor. 8. 13. III. Therefore no Rulers Civil or Ecclesiastical have their power to scandalize and destroy but only to edifie being the Ministers of God for good Rom. 13. 3 4 5. 2 Cor. 10. 8. 13. 10. IV. The great Dispute is handled excellently against the Papists for Kings by Bishop Bilson of Christian Obedience Bishop Andrews Tortura Torti Bishop Buckeridge Spalatensis and many more whether the Kings of Christian Kingdoms have not the same power about Church-matters as the Kings of Israel and Judah had David Solomon Hezekiah Josiah c. which cannot be answered by an only Yea or Nay without a more particular consideration of the compared Cases V. We suppose it certain that Christian Kings have no lesser power than the Kings of Israel except 1. What any such King had as a Prophet or in peculiar by an extraordinary grant 2. And what alteration is made by alteration of Church-offices Laws and Worship which may make a difference of which hereafter VI. And 1. It must be remembred that God then reserved the Legislation to himself which he exercised by Revelation and by special Prophets And so the Prophet Moses delivered them that Law which no King had power to abrogate suspend or alter by adding or diminishing Deut. 12. 32. Jos 1. But they had a mandatory power and of making some subordinate By-laws as Cities and Corporations have from and under the King VII 2. Yea great and special Mandates were oft sent from God by Prophets against which the Kings of Israel had no power VIII 3. The Executive or Judicial Power was divided part was in the Kings and Magistrates and part was in the Priests and Levites which the King could not usurp himself as appeareth in Uzziahs offering Incense nor yet forbid the Priests to use it according to God's Law nor change or abrogate their Office For he and they were subject to God's Laws IX 4. God himself settled the High Priesthood on the line of Aaron and all the Priesthood on the Tribe of Levi and it was not in the power of the King to alter it X. 5. God stated the High Priesthood on the Priests during life Numb 35. 25 28. Jos 20 6 c. which Law the Kings had no power to violate XI 6. There are more particular Laws made by God for the duty of the Priests describing their office and work than for any other particular case as many hundred Texts will tell us And none of these Laws might be altered or suspended by the Kings of Israel Nor those by which God stated some of the Judicial Power in the Congregation Num. 35. 12. to 26. XII 7. Solomon's putting out Abiathar and putting in Zadok is not contrary to any of this For supposing the words 1 King 2 35. to be not only a history of the bare matter of fact but a justification of it de jure 1. It poseth learned men to resolve how Zadok and Abiathar are oft said to be both High Priests before and Zadok still put before Abiathar 2. It is certain that Zadok had the right both of Inheritance and especial Promise Numb 25. 11 12 13. 1 Chron. 6. 3 4 c. And what Solomon did was that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled How the possession came into the hands of the line of Ithamar Expositors cannot find It is like it was by occasion of the confusions of their oft Captivity and Anarchy in the interspace of the Judges 3. Even the Priests were the King's subjects and might be punished for their crimes so it were according to God's Laws And if Abiathar forfeited his life he forfeited his Office XIII 8. The Priesthood then depended not on the institution or will of the King or People He might not put out a lawful Priest that had not forfeited his Life or Office He might not have put any one in his place that had not right from God or that was unqualified He might not have forbid the Priests the work appointed them by God But yet if he had injurioâ—slâ— deposed one Abiathar and put in a Zadok the loss had been little to the Church But if he had deposed so great a number of the Priests and Levites as that a great part of God's commanded work must needs thereby have been lest undone and Religion so far destroyed or had as Jeroboam put of the basest of the people or uncapable persons into the Priesthood the loss had been greater and the thing unwarrantable and such as he had not power from God to do XIV And the quality of Moses Law and its Works as different from the Laws of Christ and the Works thereof must be considered that we may discern the difference of the Cases A man that did attempt to draw the people to Idolatry was then to be put to death yea the City to be destroyed that concealed him Deut. ch â—3 so were they that blasphemed and such as committed other heinous
of preserving Truth Charity and Peace But it is but a Means to the Ends of the things Ordered and the publick good Therefore if Order should be made the advantage of Heresie Church-Tyranny or Iniquity and be turned against the good of Church and Souls as it is in the Policy of the Roman Church and in well ordered Armies of Rebels or such as have unlawful wars this would make it no Schism or sin â—o break such order These notices interposed we add 4. That it hath been the Judgement of the most honoured Ages of the Church that it is no Schism in the forementioned Cases to cleave to the faithful Pastors that were duly ordained and consented to and to refuse subjection to such as lawful Princes have imposed in their steads 1. That even in the Jewish State the Kings had not the Election of all the Priests and Levites much less the Prophets is before proved though they had the Government of them according to God's Laws 2. That the Apostles sent by Christ performed their Office against the will of the Roman and Jewish Rulers is not denied 3. And because some think that this was proper only to Apostles or men sent immediately by Christ we add that it is not denied that this was the case of others in that Age As Timothy who is charged before God and Angels to Preach in season and out of season 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. Titus Apollo Silas and such others and of all the setled Elders of the Churches Act. 14. v. 23. Tit. 1. 5. 2 Thes 5. 12 13. Heb. 13. 17 c. 4. And it is not denied that this was the case of all the ordinary Pastors for the first three hundred years under the unbelieving Emperors And as is aforesaid even these were Governours of the Christian Pastors and Churches who are commanded Rom. 13. to obey them and they wanted not Governing power though in part they wanted aptitude to use it well so that Christians were to obey even Heathen Governours in lawful things 5. And it is undeniable that this was the judgment and case of the Fathers and People of the Church under the Christian Emper ours that were Arrians or favoured the Arrians And as is aforesaid the Arrians would have subscribed to all the Nicene Creed that Christ is Light of Light God of God very God of very God begotten not made till they came to that one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea Eusebius subscribed to that also and to the whole who yet notwithstanding Socrates's charitable excuse is by his own Epistle from that Council to his People plainly proved to be an Arrian as Petavius hath fully manifested And yet how the Churches of the East did commonly cleave to their Pastors when Constantius and Valens ejected them and how they resolutely refused the imposed Bishops some as Arrians and some but as suspected saying We have lawful Bishops already and how stifly they refused to forbear their forbidden Meetings and Publick Worship with their former Pastors Church-history puts us out of doubt Athanasius oft stayed with his flock till banished by violence by Constantine Constantius and Valens Eustathius Bishop of Antioch did the like yea came to the Imperial City Constantinople and there lived in secret to confirm the People and presumed to ordain a Patriarch of that City chosen against the Emperours will For when Eudoxius was dead the orthodox people chose Evagrius a man of their own judgement and refused Demophilus Socr. l. 4. c. 13. Both the consecrator and the consecrated Bishop stayed with them till the Emperour sent souldiers from Nicomedia to master the people and banished them both into several Countries and at once put fourscore Priests to death burning them in a ship at Sea to whom the people adhered who came to petition him for justice and forbearance Saith Socr. cap. 14. When the Emperour at Edessa gave the Lieutenant a blow with his fist because he had not scattered the Conventicles as he had charged him the Lieutenant for all this great disgrace set himself though unwillingly to obey the Emperours wrath and displeasure but gave notice secretly of it to the people for it was far from his mind to fall a murthering so many godly Citizens that none should shew his face in the Temple that none should be found raising of any Conventicle But not one made account of his advice nor regarded his threats for the day following all flocked in great companies to the Temple Then followeth the mention of a woman that with her little Child hastned through the crowd to the meeting hoping to die with the rest The citizens of Cyzicum banished Eunomius from their City whom Eudoxius had preferred to that Bishoprick not so much for his Errours as for his arrogant and insolent manner of Preaching with Logical tricks and sophisms which they could not bear and so they drove him to Constantinople where he layd by his Bishops Office Id. c. 7. And when Eleusius repenting of his sin in a forced subscribing to the Ariminum faith would have had them have chosen another Bishop they would have or acknowledg no other but him being the undoubted Chusers of their own Bishop Ib. c. 7. The City of Antioch sell into two parties of the Orthodox besides the Arrians and chose two Bishops Paulinus and Meletirs Though it was then contrary to the Canons that one City should have two Bishops none questioned the peoples right to chuse nor denied either of them to be true Bishops And though the Emperour forbore Paulinus for his rare parts and virtues and banished only Meletius the people would not obey his Orders but still assembled as before We are not ignorant what tumults popular Elections of Bishops have oft caused But two things all acquainted with antiquity know which much serve to counterballance this objection 1. That where Emperours and Synods of Bishops have made themselves the Electors the tumults or confusions or at least the consequent evills were not less but greater 2. And when they did thus assume the Election which was for the most part but in a few great seats and not of ordinary Bishops still they suppose a necessity of the peoples consent When the Emperour chose the Patriarchs what one Emperour did another undid And the peoples dissent undid it sooner and the Ruling Bishops so oft disagreed that their synods and Churches were lamentably militant By the favour of the Emperour Dioscorus was the strongest at Ephesus having the Souldiers and Rulers on his side and by them the Major Vote of the Bishops But it was more Theodosius and his Officers that carryed it than equity even to the condemning of Eusebius and such others and the beating of Flâ—vianus the Patriarch of Const unto death And when by the Emperour and prevailing Bishops will new Bishops were placed Anatâ—lâ—us at Const Maximus at Antioch Nonus at Edessa Athanasius for Savinian c saith Liberatus in Breviaro cap. 12 schisma factum est inter
may use it in other Churches when called thereto and by consequence it may reach further For few Bishops will think if another Bishop come into their Diocesses or Parishes and excommunicate divers of their flocks that they and all others are bound to stand to such mens sentence and to hold such excommunicate That which a Pastor doth in ordinary Excommunicating is to declare after proof that This person is by his sin and impenitency made uncapable of Communion with the Church and therefore to require him to forbear it and the people to avoid Communion with him and to pronounce him unpardoned before God till he repent Now if this be done by one known to be heretical with whom the other Churches have no Communion those other Churches are not bound to deny that man Communion Nor yet if he offer himself to their Communion and they examine the matter and find him wronged It is concord in good and not in evil that we are bound to by the command of God Therefore if any man be wrongfully put out of this Church the next may and should receive him And what necessity is there then of going a thousand or an hundred miles to a Pope or Patriarch or Diocesan to right him And whoever thought that there was need of an Universal Physician or Schoolmaster or a General Council of such to receive appeals from Patients and Scholars that are wrongfully turned out of the Hospital or School The Caviller will here tell you of disparities in the cases but the question is whether the disrities be such as alter the reason of the Conclusion What man of conscience will be a Physician Schoolmaster or Pastor that hath not power to judge whom to receive for his Patient Scholar or part of his flock but must take all that some other man shall send to him or command him to receive and give them what others command him to give An Apothecary may do so but not a Physician What if a man had no other scandal but to say I will not take you for my Pastor nor take my self obliged to answer you speak with you give you any account of my self nor be questioned by you on any accusation must I be constrained to suppose this man to be one of my flock In despite of his own denyal If the freedom of consent be not mutual but I must be constrained to take those for my charge as Christians that renounce such a relation or will not own it a Pastor is not a free man nor hath any power of the Church-Keys but is as an irrational Slave a Cryer or Executioner that must but execute another mans commands 2. But if there be need of appeals and our own actions must not be free why will not the Synods of Neighbour-Pastors met only for Counsel and Concord and not to command the Pastors suffice for such persons to appeal to And what if I turn a servant out of my house or from his meat and he may take another Master when he will must there be an universal Judge of all family cases that shall force me to keep my servant against my will Is it not enough that I know why I am unwilling to keep him who am no way more bound to him than to others but by my own consent What if as Nazianzen left Sasimis Constantinople and Nazianzum at last I should give up my whole Charge and Bishoprick and say I will be a Pastor to none of them any more upon sufficient reasons as Latimer did Is it not better for the people to take another than to accuse me at Rome or Canterbury as wronging them 3. But if all this serve not neither the sufficiency of Pastors for one single Parish nor yet the Counsel of all the Neighbour-Pastors or Bishops what is there more to be done which the authority of Princes and Magistrates may not do All Christians confess almost that no Bishops or Pastors as such have from Christ any forcing power over the flocks that belongeth to the Magistrates only And they are to keep peace and force us to our certain duty And I would ask the contrary-minded whether if Bishops Patriarchs and Councils had no forcing power but only to excommunicate by the application of Gods word and leaving all men to their consciences would this sort of Government serve their turn and keep out Heresies or maintain order and unity They say no themselves And next whether it be not certain and confessed that the Pastors have no other power but the Magistrates only Obj. But shall all men gather Churches and teach Heresie and do what they will Answ 1. The power of Popes Patriarchs or Councils did not prevent it when there were all the Heresies that fill Epiphanius Volumns And when the far greatest part of the Clergy was long Arrian And when the Nestorians and Futychians so greatly multiplied after the condemnation of the Councils And when the Novatians lived so many years in reputation and when the Donatists nor they were not diminished by Prelates or Councils Censures till the sword dispersed them And cannot the Sword be drawn without such as have no power of it 3. And as to the last and greatest reason that the Apostles have successors who must orderly exercise their Government it is answered 1. The common doctrine of the Church was that all Bishops are their Successors so far as they have successions and every Church of one Altar had a Bishop in the daies of Ignatius and long after 2. The Council of Carthage said None of us calleth himself Bishop of Bishops 3. But if any be set as the Bishop of many Bishops and Churches so be it they use no violence but govern volunteers as all the old Bishops did and sorbid them nothing commanded of God nor command them any thing which God forbiddeth and destroy not the order doctrine worship or discipline of the lesser particular Churches we have before said that we shall submit to such §41 IV. As to the question whether the Government setled by Christ in National Churches be as to the Clergy from all parts Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and who must have the summam potestatem The disagreement of the persons that we have herein to do with puts us into utter despair of any solution And what good will it do us to believe that some must be obeyed if we cannot be certain who it is §42 V. And to the question Whether the King be the formal or only the accidental Church-head We find no more agreement 1. Some think that the King as Melchizedek is a mixt person secular and Clergy and hath both Offices to use and communicate as they say the Princes before Aaron had 2. Others say that this is not so but that the Clergy-jurisdiction distinct from the Priestly common power is a branch of the Christian Magistrates power and so derived from the King 3. Others say that the Church formally is distinct from the Civil