necessary to the communion of the Church in his Dominions which the Soveraigns over other parts of the Church perhaps allow not But though as a Divine I admit this debate yet as a Christian and a Divine both I condemne the separation which they have made before it be decided The Church of England giveth to the King that power in Church matters which the Kings of Gods ancient people and Christian Emperours after them always practised This possession was enough to have kept Unity though the reason appeared not why Christian Princes should have the same right in the Church as the Kings of Judah had in the Synagogue For if they observe it well this right is no where established upon the Kings of Gods ancient people by way of precept in the Law For seeing the Law commanded them not to have a King but gave them leave to have a King when they would upon such terms as it requireth Deut. XVII 14. it cannot be said that any Right in matters of Religion is setled upon the King by that Law which never provided that there should be a King The question is then not whether the Kings of Judah had power in matters of Religion which is express in Scripture but upon what Title they had it which is not to be had but by Interpretation of the Law And this we shall finde if we consider that the Law was given to that people when they were freed from bondage and invested in the Soveraign power of themselves as to a Body Politick such as they became by submitting to it So that though many precepts thereof concern the conscience of particular persons yet there are also many that take hold of the community of the people for which particular persons cannot be answerable further then the Rate of that power by which they act in it As the destroying of Malefactors Idolaters in particular These Precepts then being given to the community of the People and the common Power of the People falling to the King constituted according to the Law aforesaid it followeth that being invested with the Power he stands thereby countable for the Laws to be inforced by it And then the question that remains will be no more but this Whether civill Societies and the Soveraign Powers of them are called to be Christian as such and not onely as particular persons A thing which Tertullian seems to have doubted of when he made an if of it Apologet. cap. XXI Si possent esse Caesares Christiani If Emperours could be Christians And Origen when he expounds the words of Moses I will provoke them to jealousie by a people which are not a people so he reads it of the Christians whereof there were some in all Nations and no whole Nation professed Christianity in X ad Rom. lib. VIII in Psal XXXVI Hom. I. seems to count this estate and condition essentiall to the Church But since Anabaptists are no more Anabaptists in denying the power of the Sword to be consistent with Christianity it seems there is no question left about this as indeed there ought to be none For the Prophesies which went before of the calling of the Gentiles to Christianity were not fulfilled till the Romane Empire professed to maintain it And thereby the will of God being fulfilled it is manifest that the will of God is that civill Societies the Powers of them should maintain Christianity by their Sword and the Acts to which it enableth But always with that difference from the Synagogue which hath been expressed For if the Church subsist in severall Soveraignties the power which each of them can have in Church matters must needs be concluded by that power which God hath ordained in his Church for the determining of such things the determining whereof shall become necessary to preserve the Unity of it Thus much premised the first point we are to debate is Whether Excommunication be a secular punishment amounting to an Outlawry or Banishment as Erastus would have it or the chiefe act of Ecclesiasticall Power the Power of the Spirituall Sword of the Church cutting from the visible communion thereof such as are lawfully presumed to be cut off from the invisible by sin For if there be a visible Society of the Church founded by God without dependence from man there must be in it a visible power to determine who shall be or not be members of it which by consequence is the Soveraign Power in the Society of the Church as the Power of the Sword is in civill Societies But Excommunication in the Synagogue was a temporall punishment such as I said and therefore it is argued that our Lord meant not of that when he said Dic Ecclesiae that terme in the Old Testament being used for the Congregation of Gods people in the quality of a civill Society And therefore when he addeth Let him he unto thee as a Heathen or a publican they say it is manifest that neither Ethnicks nor Publicans were excommunicate out of the Synagogue nor the Excommunicate excluded from the Service of God in the Temple or Synagogue And when our Lord addeth Whatsoever ye binde and loose on earth it is manifest say they in the language of the Jews used among the Talmud Doctors that bound and loose is nothing else but that which is declared to be bound or loose that is prohibited permitted and therefore the effect of the Keyes of the Church which is binding and loosing reaches no further then declaring what was lawfull and what unlawfull as to the Jews by the Law of Moses in point of conscience The first argument that I make against this opinion is drawn from the Power of Baptizing thereby understanding not the Office of ministring but the Right of granting that Sacrament Which we in this state of the Church doe not distinguish because all are born within the pale of the Church and by order thereof baptized infants But may see a necessary ground so to distinguish by S. Paul when he denies that he was sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel 1 Cor. I. 17. whereas the words of our Lord in the Gospel are manifest where he chargeth his Apostles to Preach and Teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost For the Baptizing of all that should turn Christians could not be personally commanded the Apostles but to preach to all Nations and to make Disciples out of all Nations this they might doe to those that might be Baptized by such as they should appoint We must note that it is in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples as the Syriack truly translates it Commanding first to bring men to be Disciples then to Baptize Now Disciples are those that were after called Christians such as we professe our selves Acts XI 26. those of whom our Lord saith in the Gospel that those that will doe his Fathers will are his Disciples Wherefore they are commanded
though to an invisible purpose and the Power of giving Laws either to the whole or to severall parts of it of Divine Right But neither the whole nor the parts of it are necessarily convertible with any one State and yet the Church under severall States many times in extreme need of the use of that power which God hath given his Church to determine matters determinable Therefore this power cannot be vested in any of the States under which the Church is concerned but in those that have Power in behalf of the Churches respectively concerned The fourth argument is very copious from the exercise of this power in the Religion instituted by God among his ancient people of which nature there is nothing in the New Testament because in the times whereof it speaks Soveraign Powers were not Christian I have shewed in divers places of this Discourse that the High Consistory of the Jews at Jerusalem had power to determine all questions that became determinable in the matter of Laws given by God And yet there is great appearance that this Consistory it self was not constantly setled there according to Law till Josaphats time at least not the inferiour Consistories appointed by the Law of Deut. XVI 18. as the Chief by the Law of Deut. XVII 8 to be setled in the severall Cities For if so why should the Judges and Samuel ride circuit up and down the Country to minister justice according to the Law as we reade they did then Jud. V. 10. X. 4. XII 14. 1 Sam. VII 16. but not after Josaphats time And for this reason it seems Josaphat himself being to put this Law in force first sent Judges up and down the Cities 2 Chron. XVII 8 9. afterwards setled them according to the Law in the Cities of Juda as well as at Jerusalem 2 Chron. XIX 5 8. Besides Josephus in expresse terms rendring a reason of the disorder upon which the warre against Benjamin followed attributes it to this that the Consistories were not established according to Law Antiq. V. 2. And again Antiq. V. 5. he gives this for the cause why Eglon undertook to subdue the Israelites that they were in disorder and the Laws were not put in use And therefore it is justly to be presumed that the exact practice of this Law on which that of all the rest depended took not place till Josaphat applied the coactive power then in his hands to bring to effect that which God had established in point of Divine right The Consistory then by the Law is commanded to judge the People That is the Soveraign Power of the people is commanded to establish the Consistory Josaphat finds this command to take hold upon him as having the Power of that People in his hands So again God had commanded that Idolaters should be put to death and their Cities destroied the Consistory inquiring and sentencing as appears by the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni of Idolatry cap. IV. Deut. XIII 2 13 14. But suppose the disease grown too strong for the cure as we must needs suppose the Consistory unable to destroy an Idolatrous City when most Cities doe the like or to take away High Places when the Land is over-run with them then must the coactive Power of the Secular arm either restore the Law or be branded to posterity for not doing it as you see the Kings of Gods people are The Precept of building the Temple was given to the Body of the People therefore it takes hold upon David and the Powers under him his Princes his Officers and Commanders 1 Chro. XIII 2. XXVIII 1. In fine the Consistory by the Law was to determine matters undetermined in the Law whether in generall by giving Laws in questionable cases or in particular by sentencing causes But if the people slide back and cast away the yoke of the Law none but the Soveraign Power can reduce them under the Covenant of the Law to which they are born Therefore that Covenant is renued by Asa by Hezekiah by Josias by none but the King as first it was established by Moses King in Jesurun Deut. XXIX 1. XXXIII 5. 2 Chron. XV. 12 14. XXIX 10. XXXIV 31. And it is a very grosse mistake to imagine that the people renued it or any part of it without the consent of the Soveraign under Esdras and Nehemias Esd XI 1 Neh. X. 29 V. 12. For Esdras having obtained that Commission which we see Es VII 11 may well be thought thereby established in the quality of Head of the Consistory by the Soveraign Power as the Jews all report him But howsoever by that Commission we cannot doubt that he was inabled to swear them to the Law by which he was inabled to govern them in it his commission supposing a grant of full leave to live according to their Law But in Nehemias we must acknowledge a further power of Governor under the King of Persia as he cals himself expresly Neh. V. 14 15. which quality seems to me answerable to that of the Heads of the Captive Jews in Babylonia of whom we reade divers times in Josephus as well as in the Jews writings that they were Heads of their Nation in that Country having Heads of their Consistories under them at the same time as Esdras under Nehemias The proceedings then of Esdras and Nehemias as well as of the Kings of Juda prove no more then that which I said in the beginning of this Chapter that Soveraign Powers have Right to establish and restore all matters of Religion which can appear to be commanded by God For it is not in any common reason to imagine that by any Covenant of the Law renued by Esdras and Nehemias they conceived themselves inabled or obliged to maintain themselves by force in the profession and exercise of their Religion against their Soveraign in case he had not allowed it them Therefore of necessity that which they did was by Power derived by Commission from the Kings of Persia and so with reservation of their obedience to them who granting Nehemias and Esdras Power to govern the People in their Religion must needs be understood to grant them both the free profession and exercise of the same But having shewed that the Church hath Power by Divine Right to establish by a generall Act which you may call a Canon Constitution or Law all that Gods Law determineth not mediately and by consequence I conceive it remains proved by these particulars done under the Old Testament that the Church is to determine but the determinations of the Church to be maintained by the coactive Power of the Secular arm seeing they cannot come to effect in any Christian State otherwise Which also is immediately proved by some acts recorded in Scripture whereby that is limited which Gods Law had not determined It is said 1 Chro. XXV 1. That David and the Captains of the Militia divided the sonnes of Asaph Heman and Jeduthun to the service of God Here it were an
to persecute it For if it preserve the power of the Sword in those hands wherein it is found when the Gospel is preached and received any where then of necessity all Rights all goods of this world in the possession whereof the Power of the Sword professes to maintain all Subjects are by the Gospel maintained in those hands that have them by just title of Humane Right And so that which I here suppose is no more then the received Position of Divines That temporall dominion is not founded in Grace For mens Rights Powers and Priviledges in civill Societies are no lesse their own and concern their estate no lesse then their Goods and Possessions Therefore though much more evidence might be brought to prove this from the Apostles commanding Christians to obey secular Powers children their Parents slaves their Masters wives their Husbands and the like according to the Laws but above the Laws for conscience to God obliging thereby all States to maintain Christianity yet this being a point which no party professes to stick at I will hereupon presume to take it for granted But though the Church is not endowed with any coactive power by Divine Right yet by Divine Right and by Patent from God it is endowed with a Power of holding Assemblies for the Common Service of God before any grant of the Powers of the world and against any Interdict of them if so it fall out For the Communion which the Gospel establisheth among Christians is not onely invisible in the heart beleeving the same Faith and disposed to live according to it but also outwardly visible not only in the Profession of the same Faith which may be common to those that communicate in nothing else but also in the Common Service of God For seeing God hath given his Church the Ordinances of his worship wherewith he requireth to be served in common by his Church some of them common both to the Church and the Synagogue that is to Jews and Christians others delivered by the Gospel onely to the Church it is manifest that the Church is priviledged by God because commanded to join in serving him according to those Ordinances And therefore we are not to ask an expresse warrant in Scripture for this whether duty or priviledge because it was always in force among the people of God though not always free from the bondage of strangers The Apostle truly writing to the Hebrews not to fall away from Christianity to Judaisme for the persecutions which the Jews their natives brought upon them which he that will diligently observe shall finde to be the full scope of that Epistle inferreth as a consequence Heb. X. 25. not to forsake the assembling of themselves Shewing that Christianity cannot be professed without so doing though it bring persecution with it As we know the Primitive Christians frequented the Service of God when they were in danger of the Laws because that which the Laws forbade was their Assemblies Wherefore as within severall Commonwealths there are particular Societies Colleges and Corporations subsisting by grant of their Soveraigns And as by the Law of Nations there is a kinde of Society and Commonwealth among those that are bound in the same vessell upon the same voyage which Aristotle cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as there is also among them that travell together in the Caravans of the East because they submit to some Rule in regard of some common interess So must we understand the Church to be a humane though not a civill Society Corporation or Commonwealth Not as these last named which consist of Subjects to severall States warranted and protected by the Law of Nations nor as the former by Charter from some Soveraign but by that Law of God whereby all Nations are called to serve him by those Ordinances which he hath established in the Church Therefore the main point of that Charter which makes the Church such a Society or Commonwealth is the right of Assembling and holding such Assemblies without warrant against all Law of the world that forbids it The particulars of it are those rights which God hath given his Church to preserve unity and communion in the celebration of those Ordinances for which it assembleth For since the principles of Christianity professe one Church and that the unity thereof extendeth to this visible communion it is manifest hereby that the will of God is that all Christians communicate with all Christians in all Ordinances of his service when occasion requires a thing which the practice of all sides confesses For though this communion be interrupted with so many Schismes yet since all parties labour to shew that the cause of separation is not on their side they acknowledge all separation to be against Gods Ordinance when they labour to clear themselves of the blame of it In the next place we are to inquire upon what Title of Right the Church is ingraffed into civill Societies and Soveraignties by vertue whereof secular Powers exercise that right to which they pretend in Church matters For I perceive those of the Congregations oftentimes demand what ground we have in Scripture for Nationall Churches Now the term of Nationall Churches it seems is something unproper because as one and the same Nation may be divided into severall Soveraignties and the Churches thereof by consequence subject to severall Soveraigns so may the same Soveraignty contain severall Nations and the Churches of them which in these cases are not properly Nationall Churches and yet are properly that which is signified by the term of Nationall Churches But setting aside this exception I conceive those of the Congregations have reason to make the demand and that the answer to it if once well made will be of consequence to settle many things in debate For that the same right in matters of Religion is due to Christian Princes and States which the Kings of Iudah practised under the Law of it self no way appears because of the generall difference between the Law and the Gospel To which may be added to tie the knot faster that there is this clear difference between them in the particular in hand that the Law was confined to one People as being the condition of that Covenant whereby God undertook to give them the Land of promise and to maintain them in the free and happy possession of it they undertaking on their part to serve him and rule themselves by it But the Gospell is the New Covenant by which God undertakes to give life everlasting to those that take up Christs Crosse to perform it The persons therefore of whom the Church consists being of all Nations all of them of equall interesse in that wherein they communicate and therefore in the Rules by which It is manifest that no Soveraign can have more interesse then another in creating that right by vertue whereof the Subjects of severall Soveraignties communicate Otherwise the Unity of the Church must needs suffer one Soveraign prescribing that as
Power wherein Soveraignty consists which subordinate Powers enjoy not by any title but as derived from the Soveraign Wherefore having premised for a principle in the beginning that Christianity makes no alteration in the state of civile Societies but establishes all in the same Right whereof they stand possest when they come to imbrace Christianity I must inferre that the publique Powers of Christian States have as good Right to the disposing of matters of Christianity so that according to the institution of Christ nothing done by the Church may prove prejudiciall to the State as any Soveraign Power that is not Christian hath in the disposing of matters of that Religion which they professe For seeing it is part of the profession of Christianity to confirm and establish not to question or unsettle any thing which is done by civile Justice in any State whatsoever secular Powers shall doe towards maintaining the State of this world in tranquillity cannot be prejudiciall to Christianity rightly understood Neither can it be true Christianity which cannot stand with the course of true civile Justice It hath been effectually proved by Church Writers against the Gentiles that supposing them not to beleeve the Christian Faith notwithstanding they cannot with civile Justice persecute the Christians And all upon this score that Christianity containeth nothing prejudiciall to civile Society but all advantageous But though the Christian Religion be grounded upon truth indeed revealed from God yet Religion in generall is a morall virtue and part of the profession of all civile Nations In so much as that people which should professe to fear no God would thereby put themselves out of the protection of the Law of Nations and give all civile people a Right and Title to seek to subdue them for their good and to constrain them to that which the light of nature is able to demonstrate to be both true and due For how can any of them expect Faith and Troth in civile commerce from them that acknowledge no reason for it Or how can they be thought to acknowledge any reason for it that acknowledge no God to punish the contrary Or how can they be but enemies of mankinde from whom that cannot be expected But in Christianity there is that particularity which I declared afore that God hath declared his will and pleasure to be that it be received into the protection of all Kingdomes and Commonwealths Wherefore it is further the will of God that secular Powers that are Christian act in the protection of Christianity not onely as secular Powers but as Christians And by consequence that they hold themselves obliged to the maintenance of all parts of Christianity That is whatsoever is of Divine Right in the Profession and Exercise of it But it is very well said otherwise that this whole Right of secular Powers in Ecclesiasticall matters is not destructive but cumulative That is that it is not able to defeat or abolish any part of that Power which by the Constitution of the Church is setled upon Ecclesiastical persons but stands obliged to the maintenance and protection of it For seeing this Power in the persons endowed with it by the Constitution of the Church is a very considerable part of that Right which God hath established in his Church it follows necessarily that no Power ordained to the maintenance of all parts thereof can extinguish this And truly he that advises but with his own common sense shall easily perceive that Ecclesiasticall Power may be able to preserve Order and Discipline in the Church by it self so long as the World that is the State professes not Christianity as we see it was before the Romane Empire was Christian But when the State professes Christianity it cannot be imagined that persons qualified by the State will ever willingly submit to acknowledge and ratifie the Power of the Church in all the acts and proceedings thereof unlesse the coactive Power of the Soveraign inforce it All States therefore have Soveraign Power as well in matters of Christian Religion as in other points of Soveraignty That is they are able to do all acts of Soveraign Power in Church matters To give Laws as well concerning matters of Religion as civile affairs To exercise Jurisdiction about Ecclesiasticall causes To Command in the same which seems to be the most eminent act of Soveraignty seeing that giving of Laws and Jurisdiction are but particulars of that generall the one that is giving Laws in Generals the other that is Jurisdiction in particular causes And both of them tending to limit that Power of Command or Empire which otherwise is absolute in the disposition and will of the Soveraign And therefore the most civile people that ever was the Romanes have denominated Soveraignty by this act of Command Imperium or Empire But all these acts of Soveraign Power in Church matters being distinguished from the like acts of Ecclesiasticall Power not by their materiall but formall objects that is not by the Things Persons or Causes in which but by the reasons upon which and the intents to which they are exercised must needs leave the Powers of the Church intire to all purposes as it finds the same in those that have it by the constitutions of the Church Here are two Points of the Power of the Church to be setled before we go any further Not because of any affinity or dependence between them but because the reason is the same which causes the difficulty in both Whether there be an Originall Power in the Church to give Laws as to the Society of the Church Whether there be an Originall Right in the Church to Tithes Oblations First-fruits and generally to all consecrate things seems to most men more then disputable because the accessory acts of secular Powers which in all Christian States have made the Laws by which Christianity is exercised the Laws of those severall States have established the endowment of the Church upon it by that coactive Power which they onely in Chief are endowed with being most visible to common sense seem to have obscured the Originall Right of the Church in both particulars Over and besides all this those of the Congregations deny the Church all Power of giving Laws Rules Canons or however you please to call them to the Church For to this purpose they make all Congregations absolute and Soveraign that nothing be done in the Church without the consent of every member of it Not acknowledging so much as that Rule which all humane Society besides acknowledges the whole to be bound by the act of the greater part But requiring that every mans conscience be satisfied in every thing that the Church does unlesse some happily appear wilfull whom by way of penalty they neglect for that time As for those of the Presbyteries I cannot deny that they grant the Church this Power But it seems upon condition that it may rest in themselves For to the Laws of this Church in which they received
the Pharisee Luc. XVIII 12. that the Mundays and Thursdays were then and before then observed by the Jews as since they have been And as you see the like done in the Feast of Lots ordained in Esthers time and that of the Dedication in Judas Maccabcus his And in the same Prophet Zac. XII 12 13 14. you have a manifest allusion to the Jews ceremonies at their Funerals recorded by Maimont in the title of Mourners cap. IX clearly shewing that they were in force in that Prophets time As it is manifest that they began before the Law it self not only by that which we reade of the Funerals of Jacob in Genesis but chiefly because it required an expresse Law of God to derogate from it as to the Priests in the case of Aarons sons Levit. X. 6. XXI 1 10 11 12. Many more there are to be observed in the Old Testament if these were not enough to evidence that which cannot be denied that it appears indeed by Scripture that there were such Laws in force but that they were commanded by revelations from God is quite another thing Though men of learning sometimes make themselves ridiculous by mistaking as if all that is recorded in the Scriptures were commanded by God when all that comes from God is the record of them as true not the authority of them as divine The case is not much otherwise in the New Testament where it is manifest that many Constitutions Ordinances or Traditions as the Apostle sometimes calls them 1 Cor. XI 2. are recorded which no man can say that they obliged not the Church and yet this force of binding the Church comes not from the mention of them which we finde in severall places of Scripture For they must needs be in force before they could be mentioned as such in the Scriptures but from that Power which God had appointed to order and determine such things in his Church This difference indeed there is between the Old and New Testament that this being all written in the Apostles time can mention nothing of that nature but that which comming from the Apostles might come by immediate revelation from God Which of the Old cannot be said For though there were Prophets in all ages of it and those Prophets endowed with such trust that if they commanded to dispense with any of Gods own positive Laws they were to be obeyed as appears by Elias commanding to Sacrifice in Mount Carmell contrary to the Law of Levit. XVII 4. and this by virtue of the Law Deut. XVIII 18 19. because he that gave the Law by Moses might by another as well dispense with it yet it is manifestly certain that neverthelesse they had not the power of making those Constitutions which were to bind the people in the exercise of their Religion according to the Law For when the Law makes them subject to be judged by the Consistory whether true Prophets or not whereupon we see that they were many times persecuted and our Lord at last put to death by them that would not acknowledge them because they had not the grace to obey them as you saw afore it cannot be imagined that they were enabled to any such act of government as giving those Laws to the Synagogue Especially seeing by the Law of Deut. XVII 8-12 this power and this right is manifestly setled upon the Consistory For seeing that by the Law all questions arising about the Law are remitted to the place of Gods worship where the Consistory sate in all ages and the determination of a case doubtfull in Law to be obeyed under pain of death is manifestly a Law which all are obliged to live by of necessity therefore those who have power to determine what the written Law had not determined doe give Law to the people And this right our Lord himself who as a Prophet had right to reprove even the publick government where it was amisse establishes as ready to maintain them in it had they submitted to the Gospel when he says Mat. XXIII 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair all therefore that they teach you observe and doe The Scribes and Pharisees being either limbs and members or appendences of the Consistory who under pain of death were not to teach any thing to determine any thing that the Law had not determined contrary to that which the Consistory had first agreed Whereby it is manifest that all these Laws and Ordinances aforenamed and all others of like nature which all common sense must allow to have been more then the Scripture any where mentions are the productions of this Right and Power placed by God in the Consistory on purpose to avoid Schism and keep the body of the people in Unity by shewing them what to stand to when the Law had not determined So that this is nothing contrary to the Law of Deut. IV. 2. XII 32. which forbiddeth to adde to or take from Gods Law the Law remaining intire when it is supplied by the Power which it self appointeth And he that will see the truth of this with his eys let him look upon the Jews Constitutions compiled into the Body of their Talmud Which though they are now written and in our Saviours time were taught from hand to hand though by succession of time and change in the State of that People they cannot continue in all points the same as they were in our Saviours time yet it is manifest that the substance of them was then in force because whatsoever the Gospel mentions of them is found to agree with that which they have now in writing And are all manifestly the effect of the lawfull power of the Consistory Nor let any man object that they are the Doctrines of the Pharisees which they pretended that Moses received from God in Mount Sinai and delivered by word of mouth to his Successors and that the Sadduces were of another opinion who never acknowledged any such unwritten Law but tied themselves to the letter as doth at this day one part of the Jews which renounce the Talmud and rest in the letter of the Law who are therefore called Karaim that is Scripturaries For though all this be true yet neither Pharisees nor Sadduces then neither Talmudists nor Scripturaries now did or do make question of acknowledging such Laws and Constitutions as are necessary to determine that which grows questionable in the practice of the Law but are both in the wrong when as to gain credit to those Orders and Constitutions which both bodies respectively acknowledge the one will have them delivered by God to Moses the other will needs draw them by consequence out of the letter of the Scripture And so entitle them to God otherwise then he appointed which is only as the results and productions of that power which he ordained to end all matter of difference by limiting that which the Law had not The same reason necessarily takes place under the New Testament saving the difference
laid them down at the Apostles feet to signifie that they submitted them to their disposing For this cause Deacons were created to execute their disposition of the same For this cause the contributions of the Church of Antiochia are consigned to the Presbyters of Jerusalem Acts XI 30. that they who were Ordained by that time for afore there is no mention of them might dispose of them under the Apostles For this cause Timothy is directed how to bestow this stock among the Widows and Presbyters that the Widows might attend upon prayer day and night and upon other good works concerning the community of the Church 1 Tim. V. 5 10. as Anna the Widow in the Gospel Luc. II. 36 37. and as the good women that kept guard about the Tabernacle Ex. XXXVIII 8. 1 Sam. II. 22. And for this cause S. Peter forbiddeth the Presbyters to domineer over the Clergy 1 Pet. V. 3. to wit in disposing of their maintenance out of this common stock of the Church Here it will be said that all this expresses no quantity ot part of every mans estate to ground a right of Tithes and that no man desires better then to give what he list And the answer is as ready that no man desires more provided he list to give what Christianity requires And that for the determination of what Christianity requires he list to stand to the perpetuall practice of the Church when as by those things which we finde recorded in the Scriptures it appears to be derived from the Apostles themselves First it is not the Law that first commanded to pay Tithes Because we know they were paid by Abraham and Jacob they that think they were not due by Right before the Law because Jacob vows them Gen. XXVIII 20. doe not remember our Vow of Baptism the subject whereof is things due before God requires them as his own before For God saith first that Tithes are his own Lev. XXVII 30. to wit by a Law in force afore the Law of Moses and then gives them to the Priests for their Service in the Tabernacle Then it cannot stand with Christianity which supposeth greater grace of God then the Law to allow a scarcer proportion to the maintenance of Gods Service then the Law requires Now the Law requires first two sorts of First fruits the one to be taken by the Priest at the Barn Num. XVIII 12. the other to be brought to the Sanctuary Exod. XXII 29. XXIII 19. Deut. XXVI 1 the quantity of either being in the moderate Account a fiftieth as S. Hierome upon Ezek. XLV agreeing with the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni of First-fruits cap. II. and of Separations cap. III. determineth it though the Scripture Ezek. XLV 13. require but the sixtieth After that a Tith of the remainder to the Levites then another Tith of the remainder to be spent in sacrificing at Jerusalem that is for the most part upon the Priests and Levites to whom and to the poor it wholly belonged every third year Deut. XIV 22 28. Ex. XXIII 19. XXXIV 20. Adde hereunto the first-born all sinne-offerings and the Priests part of peace-offerings the skins of Sacrifices which alone Philo makes a chief part of their revenue all consecrations and the Levites Cities and it will easily appear it could not be so little as a fift part of the fruit of the land that came to their share Now that any rate should be determined by the Gospel agrees not with the difference between it and the Law This constraining obedience by fear commands under penalty of vengeance from heaven to pay somuch That perswading men first freely to give themselves to God cannot doubt that they which doe so will freely part with their goods for his service And therefore if the perpetuall practice of Christians must limit the sense of those Laws which the Scripture limits not we see the first Christians at Jerusalem farre outdoe any thing that ever was done under the Law and we see that all Christian people in all succeeding ages have done what the Church now requires but to be continued To this originall Title accrues another by Consecration which is an act of man inforced by the Law of God There is in the Law of Moses one kinde of Ceremoniall Holinesse proper to persons consisting in a distance from things not really unclean but as signs of reall uncleannesse As from meats and drinks and touching creatures men and women in some diseases of which our Lord hath said that what goeth into the mouth polluteth not much lesse what a man onely toucheth and so hath shewed that all this ceaseth under the Gospel But there is another kinde of Holinesse belonging to Times and Places as well as Persons commanded in the Law upon a reason common to the Gospel when it is said Lev. XIX 30. Observe my Sabbaths and reverence my Sanctuaries For did this belong onely to the Temple or Tabernacle instituted by Gods expresse command for that ceremoniall service of God which was unlawfull any where else it might seem to be proper to the ceremoniall Law and to vanish with the Gospel But the perpetuall practice of that people shews that hereby they are commanded to use reverence in their Synagogues which were neither instituted by any written precept of the Law nor for the ceremoniall service of God which was confined to the Temple but for publick Assemblies to hear the Law read and expounded and to offer the Prayers of the people to God For in the Psalms of Asaph which is the only mention of Synagogues in the Old Testament they are called not onely Houses and Assemblies of God but also Sanctuaries as here Ps LXXIII 17. LXXIV 4 7 8. LXXXIV 13. And the Talmud Doctors related by Maimoni extend this Precept to them shewing at large the reverence which they required whereupon Philo in his Book De Legatione ad Caium cals them places of secondary Holinesse to wit in respect of the Temple And in Maimoni in the Title of Praier and the Priests Blessing cap. XI you have at large of the Holinesse of Synagogues and Schools which they esteem more Holy then Synagogues They may have joy of their Doctrine that endeavour to shew that the Jews Synagogues were not counted Holy Places because in the Gospels as well as in Eusebius Histories IV. 16. where he allegeth out of a certain ancient writing against the Montanists that none of them was ever scourged by the Jews in their Synagogues and Epiphanius against the Ebionites it appears that the Jews used to punish by scourging in their Synagogues For it hath taken so good effect as to turn Churches to Stables But he that understands their reason right will inferre the contradictory of their conclusion from it For because Synagogues were the places where matters of Gods Law were sentenced as I shewed afore therefore was that sentence to be executed in Synagogues The like reason there is for the Holinesse of Persons consecrate
Law of his Country pretendeth to be for his good and to relish it aright when upon due consideration it appears to be no otherwise And so the punishment of the Law tends to the same purpose as all afflictions are sent by God to drive men to their good against their will And that those who fainedly submit to Christianity may as Aristotle says be Sun-burnt by walking in the Sun though they walk not in the Sun for that purpose That is by trying the effect of Christianity in the worship of God and reformation of mens lives among whom they live by being under such Laws may be won to imbrace it for it self which at first they imbraced for the worldly privilege of it To which purpose there can be no mean so effectuall as the restoring of the publick discipline of Penance in the Church By which it becomes most evident what inward esteem men set upon Christianity by the esteem they set upon the Communion of the Church And that the sentence of Excommunication is abhorred not for the temporall Penalties which by civile Laws attend upon it but for the Society of the Church which it intercepteth And truly this last inconvenience of Hypocriticall profession can by no means be avoided wheresoever Christianity or any opinion supposed to be a necessary part of it is made the Religion of any State For evidence whereof I must repeat first that which was supposed afore that there are but two reasons for which any Religion can be said to be the Religion of any State to wit Privileges and Penalties In the second place I must suppose here that as exemption from any penalty is a privilege so exemption from a privilege is a penalty Wherefore seeing no Religion can be the Religion of any State but by such privileges as another Religion is not capable of it is manifest that Toleration of Religion as it is a Privilege in comparison of punishment so it is a punishment in comparison of that Religion which is privileged These things supposed it will not be difficult to render a reason why Christianity must of necessity decay and why the power of it is so decaied since the world came into the Church For when men came not to Christianity till they had digested the hardship of the Crosse and resolved to preferre the next world afore this it is no marvell if they endured what they had foreseen and resolved against But seeing temporall privilege as well as temporall punishment may belong to true Christianity no marvell if men follow the reason of privilege not of Christianity when they goe both together though by consequence they will be ready to change as the privilege changes Now as to the Privileges which Christianity is endowed with by the Act of God or made capable of by the same from Soveraign Powers when they make Christianity the Religion of those States which they govern It is very easie to resolve from the premises that the Clergy are not exempt by Divine Right from any Law of those States under which they live For seeing the Clergy is a quality which presupposeth Christianity and subsisteth by virtue thereof and that no quality subsisting by the constitution of the Church or by Christianity endoweth any man with any temporall right wherewith he is not invested by the quality which he holdeth in his own Country it followeth that no man by being of the Clergy can be privileged against Secular Power or against those Laws which are the Acts of it And therefore the example of Abiathar High Priest removed from his Office by Solomon for Rebellion and Treason 1 Kings II. 26. to wit because as it is there expressed he had deserved to be removed out of the world is an effectuall argument to this purpose For if that Office to which his person was designed by Gods expresse Law supposing him to be lawfull High Priest might be taken away for a crime committed against the Majesty of the King subsisting by an Act subsequent to the Law established by God because the Law which allowed a King enjoined obedience by all the Penalties of the Law And indeed seeing the Clergy is but a degree qualifying men in Christianity above the People those temporall privileges which by Divine right are pretended to belong to the Clergy must needs belong to the People in an inferiour degree by the same right much more the Clergy presupposing the Church as the Church the State must needs leave all men that are qualified by it obliged upon the same termes as it findes them to the States wherein they professe themselves Christians Which cannot be when both Societies of the Church and the Commonwealth consist of the same persons But though the Clergy be not exempt from any Secular Jurisdiction by Divine Right yet they are so capable of exemption by Divine Right that no man can deny the Privilege granted by the first Christian Emperors the Causes of the Clergy to be heard and determined within the Clergy themselves to be very agreeable to reason of Christianity For if our Lord hath commanded and the Apostles ordained the differences of Christians to be ended within themselvs that they might not prove a scandall to Christianity it is but correspondent consequent thereunto that for avoiding the scandalls which the differences of the Clergy may occasion or to make them lesse publick they be ended within themselves seeing it is manifest to all understandings that the reverence of the Clergy is of great interesse to the advancement of Christianity On the other side seeing the Discipline which the Clergy are liable to by Christianity is so much stricter then that which the Civile Laws of any Commonwealth whatsoever can require and determine that Clergy men cannot incurre the penalties of Criminall Laws but they must be supposed to have violated the stricter discipline of the Church which they are under afore It follows that it is so farre from Christianity to privilege them against such Laws that the Church cannot otherwise be cleared of the scandall then by Ecclesiasticall censures correspondent to the temporall punishments which they incurre But if thus it be true that no man by virtue of his Christianity is endowed with any Secular Privilege of that Civile Society wherein he liveth By the same reason it must be true that no man is by his Christianity uncapable of any Right common to all members of the State in which he liveth unlesse some Law of Christianity can be produced whereby it may appear to be incompetible with the quality he holdeth in the Church Which hath been pretended with much noise to render the Clergy of this Church uncapable of imploiment in Secular affairs in point of Divine Right but will be very difficult to prove by the Scriptures in regard that Christianity containeth nothing but that which tendeth to the maintenance of Civile Society as on the other side Civile Society and the Powers thereof tendeth to the maintenance of
commendeth their faith when he reckoneth their sufferings among those great effects which it brought forth Heb. XI 35 36. And upon this account it is that in propounding this objection I said that it is taken out of the Scriptures not meaning thereby the Books of the Maccabees but those Scriptures which by consequence seem to approve of the Maccabees proceedings For on the other side it is manifest that they justified their arms upon title of Religion by the first breaking out of it 1 Mac. II. 24 26 27. where the zeal of the Law and the example of Phinehas is expressed to be that which moved Mattathias to kill the Jew whom he saw sacrificing to Idols and to maintain it by arms Whereby it is manifest that out of zeal to the Law they took arms to defend it lest it should be extinguished by the Tyranny of Antiochus and therefore that when their arms took effect and purchased them freedome and the Soveraignty to the race of Mattathias all this they held by Religion and by no other title And for this reason it is that they are called Maccabees though other extravagant reasons have been imagined by men of excellent learning For it is to be observed that all those that suffered as well as fought in this cause are called Maccabees no lesse then Judas Maccabaeus and therefore the histories of their acts are called the Books of the Maccabees in which is comprised as well the story of the Mother the seven children and others that suffered for the Law as the acts of Judas and his Successors And Josephus his Book in praise of that Mother and her children is entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reason of which is found in the Syriack in which language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Zelotes as you have it in Ferrarius his Nomenclator Syriacus And that this was the Title of their arms is more manifest by the case of the Jews under Caligula when out of his madnesse he commanded to set up his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem For as by Philo de Legatione ad Caium we understand that they were willing to undergo any thing and continue in obedience so they might enjoy their Religion So Josephus dissembleth not in the relation of that business Antiq. XVIII 11. that they would have taken arms rather then endure it if Caligula had not been slain in the mean time The clearing of this difficulty is to be fetched from the difference between the Law and the Gospel expressed in the words of our Lord to his Disciples that required him to call for fire from heaven upon those that would not entertain him Luke IX 55 56. Ye know not of what spirit ye are For the Son of man is not sent to destroy mens souls that is their lives but to save them For the Law worketh wrath and where there is no Law there is no transgression and by Law is the knowledge of sin saith the Apostle Rom. IV. 20. V. 15. VII 7. Therefore the Law suffered him that was next of kin to any man that was slain to kill him that slew him before it was judged whether he was slain by chance or by malice Num. XXXV 16 Therefore the Law commanded him that was tempted to Idolatry to seek the death of him that tempted him were he his father or never so near of kin Deut. XIII 6 11. In fine the Law being the condition of a temporall estate assigned at first by God to the people of Israel observing it can there be any marvell that it might be lawfull for that people to defend it by force and by that defense to regain the same estate Or will this draw any consequence in Christianity to make it lawfull to take arms upon the title thereof and so to hold estates of this world by the same title in case those arms take effect For the Gospel is the condition of life everlasting promised to those that embrace it including the Crosse of Christ and therefore renouncing all advantage of this world and equally belonging to all people and therefore maintaining all in the same estate of this world which it finds Therefore the zeal of Elias when he punished with fire from heaven those that attempted to seize him at the unjust command of an Idolatrous King our Lord declares not to sute with the Spirit of the Gospel the profession thereof being to take up Christs Crosse and to bear it with patience though under the Law it might be commendable Whereunto agreeth that which I said before that Heresie and Schism upon causes onely contrary to Christianity and that are not against the Law of Nature and Nations are no capitall crimes in Christian States And that in stead of death which the Law inflicteth upon him that obeyeth not the Consistory but causeth Schism the punishment allotted by the Gospel is onely to bee least in the kingdome of Heaven For if Soveraign Powers lawfully established being Christian are not enabled by their Christianity to inflict death on the said crimes when setting aside Christianity they are not liable to it much lesse is any man under a Soveraign Power enabled by his Christianity to use the Sword wherein Soveraignty consists for the maintenance of it Neither is it contrary to this that under the Gospel S. Peter punishes Ananias and Saphira with death and the Apostles as I shewed before were endowed with a miraculous power of inflicting bodily punishment upon those which obeyed them not the effects whereof were seen upon those whom they cast out of the Church as also upon Elymas struck with blindnesse by S. Paul for resisting his Gospel Nor that the souls under the Altar Apoc. VI. 10. pray for the vengeance of their bloud to be shewed upon the inhabitants of the earth For that which this Propheticall Vision representeth is to be understood sutably to Christianity and to the Kingdome of God attained by it Since therefore revenge is contrary to the principles of Christianity we cannot imagine that blessed souls desire it but the cry which they make must be understood to be the provocation of God to vengeance which their sufferings produce So much more pertinently attributed to blessed souls in as much as being acquainted with Gods counsels they approve and rejoyce in his Justice and the advancement of his Church by the means of it Now the power granted the Apostles of inflicting bodily punishments upon those that disobeyed them tended first to manifest that God was present in the Church and by consequence to subdue the world to Christianity and to win authority to the Church and the censures of it Whereas Elias when he called for fire from heaven as the Apostles desired our Lord might have been secured himself by the like miracles without destroying his enemies So he caused Baals Priests to be put to death not to vindicate the cause in debate which was already done by a miracle but to doe vengeance on them as malefactors
And so Elizeus curseth the children to death on purpose to punish the affront offered his person In all which particulars you have manifest characters of the Law inflicting death for the punishment of sin whereas under the Gospel which giveth life the inflicting of bodily punishment serveth to procure the good of the world by manifesting the truth of the Gospel and the presence of God in his Church which was known and supposed under the Law because those who had received the Law could not make any question that God was amongst his people and spoke to them by his Prophets When I say that it might be lawfull to take arms upon the title of Religion under the Law I say not that it was so in all cases or that it was not lawfull for the Jews to be subject to forein Powers which was the doctrine of Judas of Galilee complained of by Josephus but that it was possible for some case to fall out wherein it might be lawfull As for the conceit of Judas of Galilee it is manifestly taken away by Gods command to the Jews under Nabuchodorosor Jer. XXIX 7. Seek the peace of the City to which I have sent you Captives for in the peace thereof you shall have peace And it is most remarkable that our Lord being falsly accused of this doctrine to Pilate by the Jews it pleased God to suffer it so far to prevail afterwards that the arms which they took afterwards against the Romanes and the miseries which they endured by the Zelotes and finally the ruine of the City Temple and Nation must needs be imputed to this doctrine which they falsly accused our Lord of to gain the good will of the Romanes But of Christianity it must be said on the contrary that there is no case possible wherein it can be just to take arms for preservation or reformation of it upon the title thereof that is to say where there is not a Power of bearing arms established by some other title of humane right For where there is any such Power and Right established upon a title which the Law of Nations justifieth it is not to be said that Christianity voideth or extinguisheth the same seeing it hath been said that it preserveth the state of this world upon the same terms in which they are when it is imbraced But neverthelesse it moderateth the use of it so that it cannot with Christianity be imploied in very many cases in which the Law of Nature and Nations justifies the use of it These things thus premised it will be easie to shew that the Presbyterians offer wrong when they demand that the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters be proved to be of Divine Right by some Precept of Gods Law recorded in the Scriptures Supposing that otherwise it will be in the Secular Power of it self to erect an Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from them that have it and giving it to them that have it not and requiring that so it be done For it is notorious to the world that from the beginning they claimed that Presbyteries should be erected in stead of the Government of the Church of England upon this ground that the Presbyteries are commanded by God and that therefore the superiority of Bishops as contrary to his Law is to be abolished And that upon this pretense the people were drawn in to seek the innovation endevoured at this time So that to require now that it be proved that the superiority of Bishops is commanded by God to be unchangeable by men otherwise that it be changed is to require that the conclusion may stand without any premises to prove it Notwithstanding to passe by this advantage suppose we the superiority of Bishops neither forbidden nor commanded but introduced by Ecclesiasticall Right grounded upon the Power given the Church of giving Laws to the Church by determining that which Gods Law determineth not Supposing but not granting this to be true it will remain neverthelesse without the compasse of any Secular Power upon earth to erect this Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from them which have it and giving it to them which have it not For wheresoever there is a Church and the Government thereof not contrary to Gods Law in those hands which have it by mans there the Apostles precept of obeying the Governors of the Church 1 Thess V. 14. Heb. XIII 17. must needs oblige the People to those Governors that are established not against Gods Law And this Precept of the Apostle being of that Divine Right by which Christianity subsisteth cannot be voided by any Secular Power by which the Church subsisteth not in point of Right but onely is maintained in point of fact For the obligation which they have to the Church and the Unity thereof and the Order by which that Unity is preserved and the Government in which that Order consisteth being more ancient then the maintenance of Christianity by the State cannot be taken away by any obligation or interesse thereupon arising And therefore as the first Christians that were under Christian Powers in the time of Constantine were bound to adhere to the Pastors which they had by the Law of the Church for which reason neither did Constantine Constantius or Valens ever endevour to intrude those Bishops which they were seduced to think necessary for the quiet of some Churches being indeed dangerous to Christianity by their own Power but by a pretended legall Act of the Church after Constantine took Christianity into the protection of the Empire upon the same terms as afore So are all Christians to the worlds end obliged to adhere to the Pastors which they shall have by the Law of the Church not contrary to Gods Law against the command of any Secular Power to obey others And to demand that Ecclesiasticall Power not contrary to Gods Law be dissolved by Secular to which the persons endowed therewith are Subjects is to demand that there remain no Christians in England that can be content to suffer for their Christianity by obeying Gods Law before mans especially when they can obey both acting by Gods and suffering by mans But though I insist upon this right of the Church yet it is not my purpose to balk the fruit of the Divine Right of Bishops upon such terms as it hath been asserted That is to say as that which no man may lawfully destroy though not as that which being destroied voideth the being of a Church if it can be done without Schism because not commanded particular Christians as the substance of Christianity but the Society of the Church for the maintenance and support of it For if no Secular Power be able to give that Power to the Presbyteries which must be taken from the Bishops supposing that the superiority of Bishops stands neither by nor against the Law of God but onely by the Law of the Church according to Gods How much more when it is demonstrated that it subsisteth by the Act of the
is manifest that he which requireth the Unity of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies supposeth a Society of the Church to procure and maintain the same But it is not this passage of S. Paul alone wherein this privilege is supposed intimated or expressed but wheresoever there is mention in any part of Scriptures of any Ordinance of the Service of God instituted or exercised at the Assemblies of Gods faithfull people provided that it may appear otherwise by the Scripture to be common to the Law and the Gospel there you have the Charter or Patent of this grant and privilege and by consequence of the Society of the Church founded upon it But though Erastus securely taketh it for granted that Christian States have right to exercise their Soveraign Power in Church matters because it was so in the Synagogue yet I doe not understand how he would convince them that at this time deny this consequence among us Seeing there is so much difference between the Law and the Gospel between the Church and the Synagogue that that which is held in the one cannot be presumed to hold under the other without a reason common to both And so far as that reason prevails and no further must the Power and Interesse of States in Church matters be understood to prevail And truly there is a saying of S. Jeromes which may justly move a tender spirit to doubt whether this Interesse of States in Church matters be from God or not For seeing it is most true and visible to experience which he says Ecclesiam postquam coepit habere Christianos Magistratus factam esse opibus majorem virtutibus autem minorem That the Church since it began to have Christian Magistrates is become greater in wealth or power but lesse in virtues And that it is a presumption in reason that that which goeth before is the cause of that which followeth upon it when no other cause appeareth well may it be doubted that the Interesse of Secular Powers in Church matters is not from God from which so great a decay of Christianity proceedeth which must not be imputed to any thing which God hath appointed To which agreeth that Legend in the life of Pope Sylvester which saith that when Constantine had endowed the Church so largely there was a voice from heaven heard to say Hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam To day is there poison poured out upon the Church The reason then which here I render upon which the Kings of Gods ancient people had that power in maters of Religion which by the Scriptures we know they did exercise I hope will appear reasonable to them that have perused the IV Chapter and seen how it is not destructive but cumulative to that which by the Law in matters of the Law is given to the Consistory And since it accrued to the King not by the Law because not constituted by it but by the desire of the People admitted and assented unto by God by which he became Head of a People already in Covenant with God what difference is there between this case and the case of a whole people together with the Powers of the same converted to Christianity but this that the Israelites were in Covenant with God before they were under Kings for though Moses and the Judges had Regall Power yet it was not by a standing Law Christian Nations under the Powers of the World before they became Christian Unlesse it be further that the Church is one of all Nations the Synagogue of equall extent with the People of Isâ—ael which is not of consequence to this purpose The Apostle rendring a reason why he commands Secular Powers to be prayed for at the Assemblies of the Church 1 Tim. II. 2 3 4. assigneth the end of them to be That we may lead a quiet life in all godlinesse and honesty Which is manifestly said in respect of Secular Powers that are not Christian For of them the Church justly expects protection and quietnesse paying them prayers subjection and duties But he addes further this reason Because this is good and acceptable to God our Saviour who would have no man to perish but to come to the knowledge of his truth If then the will of God be that the Soveraign Powers of the Gentiles be converted to Christianity is it not his will that they imploy themselves to the advancement of it not onely as Christians but as Soveraigns which cannot be expected from Gentiles There is reason therefore to ground this Interesse upon the declared will of God concerning the calling of the Gentiles the Apostle having declared that their Secular Powers are invited to the Faith and the Prophesies of the Old Testament having declared that their Kings Queens should come to the Church and advance it Psal II. 10 11 12. LXXII 10 11. Es XLIX 23. LX. 13. This reason is far more effectuall to me by the Prophesies left the Church in the Apocalypse The main scope and drift whereof I am much perswaded to be nothing else but to foretell the conversion of the Romane Empire to Christianity and the punishment of the Heathens that persecuted the same For if the intent of those Prophesies be to shew that it was Gods will that the Empire should become Christian and that the reign of the Saints upon earth there foretold is nothing else but the advancement of Christianity to the Government of the Empire and by consequence of other Kingdomes into which the Empire was to be dissolved it cannot be doubted that Christian Powers attain the same right in matters of Religion which the Kings of Gods ancient People always had by the making of Christianity the Religion of any State This opinion it was not my purpose to publish at the writing of this Discourse because it is like to become a mark of contradiction to the most part being possessed more or lesse of a far other sense But having considered since how many and horrible scandals are on foot by the consequences of that sense so that I cannot condemne my self of giving scandall by publishing the best means I can see to take it away and having met with another reason necessitating me to declare it for the effectuall proceeding of this Discourse I will put it down in the Review of the last Chapter where that necessity rises desiring those that seek further satisfaction in this reason to reade it there for that purpose As for the objection that was made from the decay of Christianity after the Powers of the World protected it and enriched the Church it is a meer mistake of that which is accidentall for the true cause For the coming in of the World to the Church is one thing and the Power of the State in Church matters is another though this depend upon that And it is true that the coming of the World into the Church was the decay of Christianity but the Power of the State in the Church is a prop to sustain it from
of their lawfull Soveraigns the subject of their Sermons seeing that all parts of Christianity may be throughly taught the people and every person of the people as fully understand how grievous every sin is as if they be stirred to malign and detest their Superiours by being told of their sins How much more when the actions in their whole kinds are not sins but may be involved with such circumstances as make them consistent with Christianity Besides seeing it is not every Preacher that is to regulate the proceedings of the Church in such sins of publick persons as appear to destroy Christianity to run before the publick censure of the Church in declaring what it ought to doe is not the zeal of a Christian but such a scandall as leaves the person that does it liable himself to censure The sin of Will-worship which I acknowledge p. 188. is as far distant from that voluntary service of God under the Gospel which answers to the voluntary Sacrifices of the Law in my meaning as it is in deed For as the Law had voluntary Sacrifices or freewill offerings not commanded by it but to be offered according to it the price whereof consisted in the frank disposition of him that offered the same So can it not be doubted that the Sacrifices of Christians their Prayers and their Alms all the Works of Free bounty and goodnesse together with Fasting and single life with continence and whatsoever else gives men more means and advantages to abound in the same may be offered to God out of our free-will not being under any Law requiring it at our hands Onely the difference is this that whereas the Sacrifices of the Law are things neither good nor bad but as they are tendred to God either in obedience to the Law or according to the same all Sacrifice which we can tender to God under the Gospel must needs consist in the spirituall worship of God Not in the means whereby it is advanced that is more plentifully or cordially performed Now though the spirituall worship of God is always commanded yet seeing it is not commanded to be done and exercised always it is much in the disposition of Christians what times what places what manner what measure what circumstances they will determine to themselves being not always determined by Gods Law for the tendring of the Sacrifice of Christians which being so determined shall be as truly a voluntary Sacrifice or freewill Offering as any under the Law and so much more excellent as the Law is lesse excellent then the Gospel If this may be received to goe under the name of Will-worship I am so far from counting Will-worship a sin that I acknowledge that to be the height of Christianity from whence it proceedeth But I conceive the word is not improperly used to signifie that which the Jews are reproved by our Lord after the Prophet Esay for because they worshipped God according to Doctrines taught by Traditions of men Not because they practised the Law according to the determinations of the Greek Consistory which as I have many ways shewed they had expresse power by the Law to make and therefore our Lord also commands them to obey Mat. XXIII 2. But because they thought there was a great deal of holinesse in practicing the Precepts of the Law precisely as their Elders had determined which setting aside the obedience of Gods Ordinance was nothing in Gods esteem in comparison of that justice and mercy and piety wherein the service of God then as always consisted We cannot but observe that this sin is taxed by the Prophets oftentimes as well in the practice of those precepts which are expressed in the Scripture of Moses his Law as by our Lord and the Prophet Esay in the ptactice of those which were introduced by humane authority Psal XL. 7 L. 8 Es I. 12 Jerem. VII 21 and therefore consisteth not in observing things introduced by men but in tendring to God for the service of God that which was not necessarily joyned with the inward holinesse of the heart which God is to be served with This sin of the Jews I conceive is found correspondently in other professions not onely of Gentiles and Mahumetanes which cannot worship God without it but also of Christians professing true Christianity when they worship not God according to it But not because they acknowledge humane constitutions which by Gods Ordinance cannot be avoided but because they may vainly please themselves in imagining that they please God in observing them without that disposition of the heart which God is to be served with And this sin of the Jews as Eusebius cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Epiphanius also in some of the ancient Hereticks cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which satisfies me that it may be called Wil-worship in English Though whether the former voluntary and frank service of God is not also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I dispute not here The reason why the Ceremonies of Divine Service which are here p. 192. proved to have been used under the Apostles cannot continue the same in the Church of all times and places I have briefly expressed p. 325. so that notwithstanding the Ceremonies of the service of God in publick ought to be such as may conduce to the same end for which it may appear those were instituted which were in force under the Apostles That it is a mistake to think that Soveraign Powers are called Gods in the Scripture as is said p. 214. appears further by Exod. XXII 28. Thou shalt not curse Gods neither shalt thou speak evill of the Ruler of thy people For in this place the Prince of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a name common to Kings Judges and all their Governours in Chief that were of their own Nation whether absolute or under strangers Therefore the Sacrifice enjoyned Levit. IV. 22. belonged to the King when they were under Kings as the Jews agree Therefore it is given the King also Ezek. XII 10. VII 27. XIX 1. And therefore this Law is acknowledged by S. Paul to belong to the High Priest Acts XXIII 5. because as I said afore the High Priests had then the Chief Power within their own People as they had upon the return from Babylonia Wherefore seeing this Precept consists of two parts the second whereof belongs to the King the first must belong to the Judges of their Consistories according to the resolution of the Jews that all and onely Judges made by Imposition of Hands are called Gods in the Scriptures That which is here said p. 228. of the quality of Governour under the King of Persia in which and by which Nehemiah restoreth the Law and swears the people to it is to be compared with that which you finde here since in the 57 page of this Review Whereby it will rather appear that he was Governour of that Province by the like Commission as other Governours of
the beginning of Saint Luke speaking of the Old Testament Erat autem populi gratia discernere spiritus ut sciret quos in Prophetarum numerum referre deberet quos tanquam bonus nummularius reprobare Now saith he it was a grace that the people had to discern spirits so as to know whom to reckon among the Prophets whom like a good Banker to refuse And I have found in a written copy containing expositions of divers Greek words of the Old and New Testament this Glosse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is discerning of Spirits spoken of 1 Cor. XII 9. is the distinguishing between those that prophesied truly and falsly And this I beleeve to be S. Pauls meaning because of the correspondence of that which S. Ambrose relateth of the Synagogue I must therefore needs beleeve that the Church was provided by God of means to be resolved who spoke by the Holy Ghost who onely pretended so to doe But that Christian States should have Power to elect Pastors because Christian Churches were able to judge whom the Holy Ghost had elected whom not is a consequence which I understand not For as it was then one thing to elect another to discern whom the Holy Ghost had elected so a Christian State is now far another thing then the Church of Antiochia was at that time Neither is it any thing available to this purpose which this author laboureth to prove that the Soveraign Power together with the Power of interpreting the Word of God were both in the High Priests of the Jews and afterwards in the Kings of Gods people after that they were established For by the particulars here declared from p. 225. it will appear that it was no otherwise in the Kings of Gods people then it is now in Christian Princes and States excepting that the Law was given to one People the Gospel sent to all Nations to wit as for the Power of inforcing Gods Law in the way of Fact Whereas the Power of determining the Law of God in the way of Right was as much estated upon the Consistories of that People by Gods Laws as the Power of giving Rules to the Church is now upon the Synods of the same Neither is the People of Israel a Priestly Kingdome as Moses cals them Exod. XIX 6. because the Priests were to be Kings of them For the Originall imports a Kingdome of Priests which Onkelus translates Kings and Priests as also the New Testament Apoc. I. 6. V. 10. Which if it signifie that all the Israelites should be both Kings and Priests then certainly it inforceth not that their High Priests should be their Kings But that they should be Kings because redeemed from the servitude of strangers to be a people Lords of themselves and Priests because redeemed to spend their time in sacrificing and feasting upon their sacrifices which is the estate under the figure whereof God promiseth unto them that which he meant to his Church and they still expect under their Messias Es LXI 6. though they sacrificed not in person but by their Priests appointed in their stead by Imposition of the Elders hands Num. VIII 10. As for the charge of Josuah to goe in and out at the word of Eleazar Num. XXVII 21. it is expresly declared there to be said in regard of the Oracle of God by Vrim and Thummim which the High Priest was to declare as you see by Deut. XXXIII 8. and Josuah to consult in all his undertakings For this is one of the principall reasons why the government of that people before they had Kings was as Josephus cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Empire of God because he by his Oracles of Vrim and Thummim prescribed how they were to proceed in their publick affairs Another reason being this because he stirred them up Judges when he pleased which being of his immediate appointment are so far acknowledged by him that when they were weary of Samuel and desired a King God declareth that it was not Samuel but himself whom they refused And therefore it is not to be said that of Right the High Priests ought to have had the Power though de facto the Judges had it during their time For if it be said that the Israelites cast off God Jud. II. 10. because they would not be subject to the High Priest but imbraced the Judges it could not be understood how they should refuse God by refusing Samuel that was one of the Judges Therefore the Soveraign Power was of right in the Judges for which it is said Jud. XVII 7. as also XVIII 1. XIX 1. XXI 25. that there was no King in Israel speaking of the time before the Judges when Josephus and all the circumstance shews these things fell out though they were not always obeyed Jud. II. 17. because as Prophets they laboured to recall the people from their Idolatries That which is here said of the Mariage of Booz and Ruth p. 241. seems to be confirmed by the opinion of Epiphanius that our Lord was invited to the Mariage at Cana in Galilee that as a Prophet he might blesse the Mariage For what is this but the same that the Church always practised afterwards in Blessing Mariages to signifie that they were approved to be made according to the Law of God For which reason also the custome of celebrating Mariages with the Sacrament of the Eucharist was established that the Power of the Keys from which the Communion of the Eucharist proceeds might declare thereby an approbation of that which was done CHAP. V. SEeing it is here declared p. 255. that whosoever thinks himself authorized by his Religion to unsettle the publick peace or to maintain his Religion by force his civile obedience being dispensed with by the same is thereby an enemy to the State and liable to temporall punishment according to the degree of that which he doth it may be thought requisite here to resolve two cases that may be put in this point The one whether the enemies of the Religion in force may become liable to punishment for blasphemies and slanders upon the Religion of the State The other to what temporall punishment men may become liable by exercising their Religion not being expresly permitted by the State to be exercised To the first my answer is resolutely affirmative For seeing that Christianity enjoyneth us to seek the good of all that are enemies to it it is not imaginable that it should oblige any Christian to defame or blaspheme any contrary Religion seeing that must needs redound to the disgrace of them that professe it most of all if they be the publick Powers that maintain it all irreverence of whom upon what cause soever must needs tend to weaken the arm of Government and thereby to unsettle the publick peace And therefore you see what testimony the Apostles have from a stranger Acts XIX 37. You have brought these men that are neither Church robbers nor
alloweth of them which as it was alwayes the right of the Church to doe as I shall observe in another place so it appeareth so to be in that mariage was never celebrated among Christians without the Prayers of the Church And this observation I insist upon the more chearfully because it much strengtheneth the argument which the Church maketh for the Baptism of Infants from the Act of our Saviour in the Gospel when he blessed the Infants with Imposition of Hands For if all Imposition of Hands be an act of the publique Power of the Church allowing that which is done with it then can this Imposition of Hands signifie no lesse then that those to whom our Lord granteth it belong to his Kingdome of the Visible Church One little objection there lies against this from the incestuous person at Corinth whom S. Paul in his second Epistle seems to readmit to communion his crime being as deep as Adultery which we say the rigor of Apostolicall Discipline admitted not to Penance To which I have divers things to answer That this cannot be objected but by him that acknowledges that he was excommunicate by the former Epistle That Tertullian in his Book de Pudicitiâ disputes at large that it is not the same case which is spoken of in both Epistles That the crime here specified perhaps is not of the number of those which from the beginning were excluded from Penance But waving all this as I excepted two cases in which men were baptized without regular triall so supposing the Rule to take hold in this case it is no inconvenience to grant that S. Paul might wave the rigor of Discipline so setled as supposing there might be cause to wave it If this opinion seem new my purpose requires but these two Points that the Penance practised by the ancient Church supposed Excommunication which it only abateth and that it was instituted by the Apostles and for that there is enough said I suppose even to them that beleeve not that the Apostles excluded any kinde of crimes from Penance Besides that of S. Paul blaming the Corinthians that they were puffed up and had not rather lamented that he that had done the evil might be put from among them 1 Cor. V. 2. And again fearing that when he returned he should be forced to lament many 2 Cor. XII 21. Which if we compare with the Primitive solemnity of Excommunication which by the constitutions of the Apostles II. 16. and other ways we understand was to put the person out of the Church doors with mourning it will appear that Epiphanius is in the right in expounding this later Text to this purpose Haer. LIX num 5. The power of Excommunication then by all this is no more then the necessary consequence of the Power of admitting to Communion by Baptism Which if it imply a contract with the Church to live according to the rule of Christianity then it is forfeit to him that evidently does that which cannot stand with that rule and the Church not tied to restore it but as the person can give satisfaction to observe it for the future Now I will make short work with Erastus his long labour to prove that there is no Excommunication commanded by the Law I yeeld it And make a consequence which will be thought a strange one But I have it from the speculation of Origen in Levit Hom. XI and others why the Church should onely be inabled to Excommunicate whereas the Synagogue was inabled to put to death From the observation of S. Augustine Quaest in Deuteronom V. 38. de Fide Operibus cap. VI. and others that Excommunication in the Church is the same that the power of life and death in the Synagogue My argument is then that the Church is to have the power of Excommunication because the Synagogue had the power of life and death And the reason of the consequence this Because as the Law being the condition of the Covenant by which the benefit of the Commonwealth of Israel was due inabled to put to death such as destroyed it So the Gospel being the condition of the Covenant that makes men denizons of the spirituall Jerusalem must inable to put them from the society thereof that forfeited it It is not my intent hereby to say that there was no Excommunication under the Law For I doe beleeve that we have mention of it in Ezra X. 8. grounded if I mistake not upon the Commission of the King of Persia recorded Ezr. VII 26. for that which is here called rooting out seems to be the same that is called in the other place dividing from the Synagogue of the Captives Being indeed a kinde of temporall Outlawry to which is joined confiscation of Goods For so saith Luther truly that the greater Excommunication among Christians is every where a temporall punishment to wit in regard of some temporall punishment attending it in Christian States which in Christianity is accidentall by Act of those States in Judaisme essentiall so long as those temporall advantages which were the essentiall condition of the Law were not forfeited And this without doubt is the same punishment which the Gospels call putting out of the Synagogue Though I cannot say so peremptory for the temporall effects of it Which severall Soveraigns could easily limit to severall terms For the right that Ezra might have to introduce this penalty is clear by the Law of Deut. XVII 12. which inabling to put them to death that obeyed not the Synagogue inabled to Excommunicate to Banish to Outlaw them much more But as we see the Romanes allowed them not the power of life and death which the Persians granted them so I am not to grant that putting out of the Synagogue in the Gospel implieth the extinguishing of the civill being of any Jew The Talmud Doctors say that those that were under the greater Excommunication were to dwell in a cotage alone and to have meat and drink brought them till they died Arba Turim or Shulchan Auroh in Jore Dea Hilcoth Niddui Voherem A speculation sutable to their condition in their dispersions which no man is bound to beleeve how far it was in force and practice But suppose the Synagogue in the same condition with the Church afore Constantine injoying no privilege but to serve God according to the Law as the Church according to the Gospel And then as the Synagogue must always have power to excommunicate which had power to put to death so I say is the Church inabled by our Lord to doe what I have shewed the Apostles did doe by Mat. XVIII 18. I yeeld that the terms of binding and loosing are used by the Jews to signifie the declaring of what is prohibited and permitted by the Law But I yeeld not that it can be so understood here because the ground of this declaration ceaseth under the Gospel being derived from the sixe hundreth and thirteen Precepts of the Law and from the power
of the Priests and Doctors to determine all cases which the Law had not determined in dependence upon the great Consistory at Jerusalem by the Law of Deut. XVII 12. which Precepts and which Power being voided by the Gospel can any man think that the Power of binding and loosing here given the Church is to be understood of it Besides it is in the promise made to S. Peter Mat. XVI 19. said expresly to be the act of the Power of the Keys And what is that Is it not an expression manifestly borrowed from that which is said to Eliakim sonne of Hilkiah Es XXII 23. I will give thee the Keys of the House of David Whereupon our Lord Apoc. III. 7. is said to have the Key of David that is of the House of David whereby the Apostles under our Lord are made Stewards of the Church as Eliakim of the Court to admit and exclude whom he pleased And so it is manifest that the Power of the Keys given S. Peter Mat. XVI 19. as the Church Mat. XVIII 18. is that power which you have seen practised under the Apostles of admitting to and excluding from the Church by Baptism and Penance So S. Cyprian expresly understandeth the Power of the Keys to consist in Baptizing Ep. LXXIII And of Penance that which followeth is an expresse argument as I have observed p. 129. of that short Discourse For having said whatsoever ye binde he addeth immediately again I say to you that if two of you agree to ask any thing it shall be done you by my Father in heaven For the means of pardon being the Humiliation of the Penitent injoined by the Church and joined with the prayers thereof as hath been said the consequence of our Saviours discourse first of informing the Church then of binding and loosing lastly of granting the prayers of the Church shews that he speaks of those prayers which should be made in behalf of such as were bound for not hearing the Church And hereby we see how binding loosing of sins is attributed to the Keys of the Church Which being made a Visible Society by the power of holding Assemblies to which no man is to be admitted till there be just presumption that he is of the heavenly Jerusalem that is above As the power of judging who is and who is not thus qualified presupposes a profession so that an Instruction obliging the obedience of them which seek remission of sinnes by the Gospel and therefore confidently assuring it to them which conform themselves In a word because admitting to and excluding from the Church is or ought to be a just and lawfull presumption of admitting to or excluding from heaven it is morally and legally the same Act that intitleth to heaven and to the Church that maketh an heir of life everlasting and a Christian because he that obeyeth the Church in submitting to the Gospel is as certainly a member of the invisible as of the visible Church Herewith agree the words of our Lord Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican Not as if Heathens could be excommunicate the Synagogue who never were of it or as if the Jews then durst excommunicate Publicanes that levied Taxes for the Romanes But because by their usage of Publicanes and Gentiles it was proper for our Lord to signifie how he would have Christians to use the excommunicate there being no reason why he can be thought by these words to regulate the conversation of the Jews in that estate so long as the Law stood but to give his Church Rules to last till the worlds end The Jews then abhorred the company not onely of Idolaters to testifie how much they abhorred Idols and to maintain the people in detestation of them by ceremonies brought in by the Guides of the Synagogue for that purpose but all those that conversed with Idolaters For this cause we see they murmure against our Lord for eating with Publicans they wash when they come from market where commonly they conversed with Gentiles and which is strange such as Cornelius was being allowed to dwell among them by the Law professing one God and taking upon them the precepts of the sons of Noe yet are the converted Jews scandalized at S. Peter for eating with Cornelius Acts XI 2. These Rules are made void by the Gospel For S. Paul tells the Corinthians expresly that they are not to forbear the company of Gentiles for those sinnes which their Profession imported but if a Christian live in any of those Heathen vices with him they are not so much as to eate 1 Cor. V. 11. to wit as it followeth immediately being condemned by the Church upon such a cause For saith he What have I to doe to judge them that are without do not ye judge those that are within But those that are without God judgeth And ye shall take the evill man from among you That is are not you by the power you have of judging those that are within to take away him that hath done evill leaving to God to judge those without Here the case is plain there is power in the Church to judge and take away offenders Of which power the Apostle speaks Tit. III. 9. when he says that Hereticks are condemned of themselves if we follow S. Hieromes exposition which seems unquestionable For experience convinces that most Hereticks think themselves in the right so farre they are from condemning themselves in their consciences But they condemne themselves by cutting of themselves from the Church which other sinners are condemned to by the Church Neither is it any thing else then Excommunication which the Apostle signifieth by delivering to Satan 1 Cor. V. 6. saving that he expresseth an extraordinary effect that followed it in the Apostles time to wit that those which were put out of the Church became visibly subject to Satan inflicting Plagues and diseases on their bodies which might reduce them to repentance which the Apostle calleth the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus As he saith of Hymenaeus and Philetus 1 Tim. I. 21. whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme For it is not to be doubted that the Apostles had power like that which S. Peter exercised on Ananias and Sapphira thus to punish those that opposed them as S. Paul divers times intimates in the Texts which I have quoted in another place provided by God as the rest of miraculous Graces to evidence his presence in the Church These particulars which I huddle up together by the way might have been drawn out into severall arguments but I content my self with the consequence by which the Patent of this Power in the Gospel is cleared upon which Patent all the Power of the Church is grounded That is if Christians are onely to abstain from eating with excommunicate persons as Jews did with Publicanes and Gentiles then Excommunication is to be understood when
rank of the XII Apostles which afterwards he shews us was acknowledged by the XII themselves at Jerusalem Gal. II. 8 9. to wit when he went to Jerusalem with Barnabas about this question Acts XV. 1. for I can see no reason to doubt that all that he speaks of there passed during the time of this journey And in the mean time it was easie for those that stood for the Law to pretend Revelation from God and authority from the Apostles in matter of Christianity as well as Paul and Barnabas What possible way was there then to end this difference but that of the Apostle 1 Cor. XIV 32 33. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets for God is not the God of unquietnesse but of peace as in all Churches of the Saints Whereupon vindicating his authority and challenging obedience to his Order even from Prophets which might be lifted up with Revelations to oppose he addeth Came the word of God from you or came it to you alone If any man think himself a Prophet or spirituall let him acknowledge the things that I write you to be the Commandements of God That is that Apostles being trusted to convey the Gospel to the world were to be obeyed even by Prophets themselves as the last resolution of the Church in the will of God granting his Revelations with that temper that as one Prophet might see more in the sense effect and consequence of Revelations granted to another then himself could doe in which regard the spirits of the Prophets were to be subject to the Prophets so for the publick order of the Church all were to have recourse to the Apostles whom he had trusted with it If then the Church of Antiochia in which were many Prophets and among them such as Paul and Barnabas indowed with the immediate Revelations of the Holy Ghost Acts XIII 1. must resort to Jerusalem the seat of the Apostles to be resolved in matters concerning the state of the Church how much more are we to beleeve that God hath ordained that dependence of Churches without which the Unity of no other humane Society can be preserved when he governeth them not but by humane discretion of reasonable persons Besides we are here to take notice that the Church of Antiochia being once resolved the Churches of Syria and Cilicia are resolved by the same Decree Acts XVI 4. Because being planted from thence they were to depend upon it for the Rule and practice of Christianity Therefore it is both truly and pertinently observed that the Decree made at Jerusalem was locall and not universall which had it been made for the whole Church there could not have been that controversie which we finde was at Corinth by S. Paul 1 Cor. VIII 1. about eating things offered to Idols Neither could the Apostle give leave to the Corinthians to eat them materially as Gods creatures not formally as things offered to Idols as he does 1 Cor. VIII 7. had the Body of the Apostles at Jerusalem absolutely forbid the eating of them to Gentile Christians for avoiding the scandall of the Jewish Christians But because the Decree concerned onely the Church of Antiochia and so by consequence the Churches depending upon it therefore among those that depended not upon it for whom the Rule was not intended it was not to be in force There is yet one reason behinde which is the ground of all from the Originall constitution of the Synagogue Moses by the advice of Jethro ordained the Captains of Thousands Hundreds Fifties and Tens to judge the Causes of the people under himself Ex. XVIII 24 25. To himself God joyned afterwards LXX persons for his assistance Num. XI 16. But these Captains were to be in place but during the pilgrimage of the wildernesse For when they came to be setled in the land of Promise the Law provideth that Judges and Ministers be ordained in every City Deut. XVI 18. Who if there fell any difference about the Law were to repair to Jerusalem to the successors of Moses and his Consistory for resolution in it Deut. XVII 12. by which Law wheresoever the Ark should be this Consistory was to sit as inferiour Consistories in all inferiour Cities Most men will marvell what this is to my purpose because most men have a prejudice that the power of the Church is to be derived from the Rights and Privileges of the Priests and Levites during the Law though there be no reason for it For these Rights and Privileges were not onely temporary to vanish when the Gospel was published but also while the Law stood but locall and personall not extending beyond the Temple or land of Promise over any but their own Tribe But it is very well known that from the time of the Greekish Empire and partly afore it Judaisme subsisted in all parts wheresoever the Jews were dispersed and that wheresoever it subsisted there were the people to be governed and regulated in the observation of the Law and the publique worship of God according to the same frequented also all over the land of Promise whereas the Temple stood but in one place It is also manifest that this Law which gave the Consistory power of life and death to preserve the Body of that people in Unity and to prevent Schisms upon different Interpretations of the Law was found requisite to be put in practice in their Dispersions to wit as to the determining of all differences arising out of the Law not as to the power of life and death to inforce such sentences this power being seldome granted them by their Soveraigns For at Alexandria we understand by Philo in his Book de Legatione ad Caium that there was such a Consistory as also in Babylonia there was the like as the Jews writings tell us for the little Chronicle which they call Seder Olam Zuta gives us the names of the Heads thereof for many ages And after the destruction of the Temple it is manifest not onely by their writings as Semach David Sepher Juchasin and the like but by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites and the Constitutions of the Emperors remaining in the Codes Tit. de Judaeis Coelicolis that there continued a Consistory at Tiberias for many ages the Heads whereof were of the family of David as Epiphanius agreeing with the Jews informeth us in the place aforenamed And as by the story of Saul in the Acts it appears that the Jews of Damascus were subject to the Government at Jerusalem so by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites it appears that the Synagogues of Syria and Cilicia were subject to the Consistory at Tiberias as I have shewed out of Benjamins Itinerary in the Discourse of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 67. that the Synagogues of the parts of Assyria and Media were to that in Bagdat and without doubt that great Body of Jews dispersed through Aegypt was to that at Alexandria As for the Law
of Deut. XVII 18. the Jews need not tell us as they doe Maimoni by name Tit. de Syncdrio that they were not bound to observe that in their dispersions for how could there be Consistories for the Jews in all Cities all over the world but this they tell us withall in particular Arba Thurim in the same title Sub init that thereby they hold themselves bound to erect Consistories in the chief Cities of their dispersions In this condition what is the difference between the state of the Synagogue and the Church setting aside that essentiall difference between the Law and the Gospel by which Judaism was confined to one Nation but Christianity had a promise to be received by the Gentiles By reason whereof the Law ceased as it was proper to the Jews and Christians became obliged only to the perpetual Law of God besides a very few positive precepts of our Lord as of Baptism the Eucharist and the Power of the Keys by virtue whereof and by the generall Commission of the Apostles all Ordinances whereby they should regulate the Society of the Church were to be received as the Commandements of God Here is the reason for which it is probable that the Apostles in designing the Government of the Church should follow no other pattern then that which they saw in use by the Law in the Synagogue For the design in both being to maintain the Law of God and the unity of his people in his service saving the difference between them what form should they follow but that which the Law had taught their Fore-fathers But when the effect hereof appears in the first lines of this modell traced by the Apostles and filled up by their Successors it is manifest that these Laws were the pattern but the Order of the Apostles the Act which put it in being and force The Churches of Jerusalem Antiochia Rome and Alexandria no man can deny were planted by the Apostles in person and by their Deputies That they became afterwards Heads of the Churches that lay about them is no more then that which the Consistories planted at Jerusalem or Tiberias and in the chief Cities of the Jews dispersions were to the Synagogues underneath them by virtue of the Law This is therefore the Originall of the dependence of Churches upon the greatest Mother Churches And therefore it is no marvell that Jerusalem once the Mother City of Christianity became afterwards the seat of a Patriarch indeed in remembrance of that privilege but inferiour in dignity and nothing comparable in bounds to the rest because it was none of the greatest and most Capitall Cities The Rule of the Apostles design being this that the greatest Cities should be the Seats of the greatest Churches And that Constantinople when it came afterwards to be a Seat of the Empire was put in the next place to the Chief as it was no act of the Apostles so it is an argument of the Rule by which the rest had been ordered for the same reason As for the other Law of Deu. XVI 18. I know not what could be more agreeable to it then that Rule of the ancient Church which is to be seen not only in those few ancient Canons alledged in the discourse of the Primitive Government of Churches p. 67. but in innumerable passages of Church Writers that Cathedrall Churches and Cities be convertible that is both of the same extent Thus the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romanes is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The presidence here expressed argueth the eminence of that Church above the rest of the Churches about it But Clemens directeth his Epistle from the Church of Rome to that of Corinth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby we understand that the Country lying under the City belonged to the Church founded in the City and was therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that which we now call the Diocese in opposition to the Mother Church That this is the reason of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears because Polycarp addresses his Epistle to the Philippians in this style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if the Church of the Philippians dwelt near Philippi then the Country adjoining belonged to the Church of that City This reason therefore was well understood by him that writ the Epistle to the Antiochians in Ignatius his name granting it to be of an age much inferiour to his For he inscribeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Signifying thereby that all the Christians of Syria belonged to the Church of Antiochia for which reason Ignatius himself in his Epistle to the Romanes calls himself Bishop of Syria not of Antiochia because being Bishop of the Head City Church the Christians of Syria either belonged to his Church or to the Churches that were under it A thing so necessary to be beleeved that there are many marks in his Epistles to shew that the Churches also of Cilicia belonged to his charge as we saw they did by their foundation in the Apostles time and as the reason of the civile Government required those parts where Paul and Barnabas first preached having continued longest in the Dominion of the Kings of Syria and therefore continuing under the Government that resided at Antiochia And thus are the words of Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians fulfilled where he saith that the Apostles having preached the Gospel in Cities and Countries constituted Bishops and Ministers of those that should beleeve to wit according to the Cities and Countries adjoining to them Those marks come from the ancientest Records the Church hath after the writings of the Apostles Of the rest there would be no end if a man would allege them If any man object that it cannot be made to appear how this Rule was ever observed in the Church the extent of Cathedrall Churches being in some Countries so strait in other so large The answer is that it ceaseth not to be a Rule though the execution of it was very different in severall Countries either because not understood so well as it should have been or because the condition of some Countries was not appliable to it so as that of others For the East we have these words of Walafridus Strabo libs de Rebus Ecclesiasticis Fertur in Orientis partibus per singulas Vrbes Praefecturas singulas esse Episcoporum gubernationes Whereby we understand that Cathedrall Churches stood very much thicker in the Eastern parts then in the West For thereupon it became observable to Walafridus In Africk if we look but into the writings of S. Augustine we shall finde hundreds of Bishops resorting to one Councell In Ireland alone S. Patrick is said by Ninius at the first plantation of Christianity to have founded three hundreth threescore and five Bishopricks On the other side in England we see still how many Counties remain in one Diocese of Lincoln and yet if we look into Almain and those mighty foundations of Charles the Great we
it is probable that for resolution in a doubt which such persons as Paul and Barnabas could not determine as to the Body of the Church it can be thought that they resorted to Jerusalem as to the Brethren or as to the Apostles whether it can be imagined that the People of the Church at Jerusalem could prescribe in any way either of Power or of Authority or Illumination unto the Church of Antioch and the publique persons of it Lastly whether the arrow is not shot beyond the mark when it is argued that this Decree is the act of the People because it appears that they assent to it seeing we know by the premises that they were bound to consent to the Acts of the Apostles So in the Power of the Keys and Excommunication what can be so plain as that S. Paul gives sentence upon the incestuous person at Corinth and obliges the Church there to execute his Decree as he calls it in expresse terms 2 Cor. V. 3 4 I conceive I have read an answer to this in some of their writings that this Epistle is Scripture and therefore the matter of it commanded by God But let me instance in the result of the Councell at Jerusalem The Church of Jerusalem was tied by virtue of the Decree for to them there was no Epistle sent Therefore the Church of Antiochia and the rest of the Churches to whom that Epistle was sent which we have Acts XV 23. were tied by virtue of the Decree not by virtue of the Epistle by which they knew themselves tied And let me put the case here Had S. Paul been at Corinth and decreed that which he decreeth by this Epistle had not the Church been tied unlesse he had sent them an Epistle or otherwise made it appear to them that he had a Revelation from God on purpose having made appearance to them that he was the Apostle of Christ Beleeve himself in that case when he says he will doe as much absent as present 2 Cor. XI 11. And again When I come I shall bewail divers 2 Cor. XII 20 21. that is excommunicate them or put them to Penance as I have said Remember the miraculous effect of Excommunication in the Apostles time when by visible punishments inflicted on the excommunicate by evil Angels it appeared that they were cast out of the shadow of Gods Tabernacle and it will seem as probable that this is the Rod which S. Paul threatens the Corinthians with 1 Cor. IV. 21. 2 Cor. X. 2 8. as that many were sick there because they abused the Eucharist 1 Cor. XI 30. Therefore if this effect of the sentence came from the Apostles the sentence also came Here appears a necessary argument from the Legislative Power of the Apostles to the whole Church For as no Christian can deny that the Constitutions of the Apostles oblige the Church so it is manifest that they doe not oblige it because they are written in the Scripture for they were all in force in the Church before the Scriptures were written in which they are related neither doth it evidence that they were first delivered to the Church with assurance that they were by expresse Revelation commanded to be delivered to the Church or because they were passed by votes of the People But by virtue of the generall Commission of the Apostles being received in that quality by those that became Christians and so made a Church So in matter of Ordinations it is well known who they are that have made the People beleeve that Paul and Barnabas Ordained Presbyters in the Churches of their founding by voices of the People signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts XIV 22. which being admitted it is but an easie consequence to inferre that all Congregations are absolute because making their Presbyters they must needs first make themselves Churches But he that reads the Text without prejudice easily sees that the Act of Ordaining is here attributed to the Apostles not to the People They the Apostles ordained them to wit the Church or People Presbyters Therefore this Scripture speaks not of Election by Holding up of the Peoples hands but of Ordination by laying on the Hands of the Apostles And therefore in the choice of the seven Deacons it is manifest that the Apostles though they gave way to the People to nominate yet reserved themselves the approving of the persons otherwise the People might have sinned and the Apostles born the blame for it For when S. Paul saith Lay Hands suddenly on no man nor participate of other mens sins 2 Tim. V. 22. it is manifest that he who Imposes Hands ought to have power not to Impose because he sins Imposing amisse Last of all let us consider how liberally the Church of Jerusalem parted with whole estates the Church of Corinth maintained their Feasts of Love wherof we reade 1 Cor. XI 17. the same Corinthians with other Churches offered to the support of the Churches in Judaea 2 Cor. VIII 1 the Philippians sent to supply S. Paul Phil. II 25. 30. IV. 20. And all the rest which we finde recorded in the New Testament of the Oblations of the Faithfull to the maintenance of Gods Service Whence it shall appear in due time that the Indowment of the Church is estated upon it And then let common sense judge whether this came from the understanding and motion and proper devotion of the People or from their Christianity obliging them to follow that Order which the authority and doctrine of the Apostles should shew them to be requisite for their Profession and the support of the Church at that time By all this as it will easily appear that the Chief Interesse and Right in disposing of Church matters could not belong to the People under the Apostles so is it not my purpose to say that at any time the People ought to have no manner of Right or Interesse in the same For if the practice under the Apostles be the best evidence that we can ground Law upon to the Church then it is requisite to the good estate of the Church and necessary for those that can dispose of the publique Order of it to procure that it be such as may give the People reasonable satisfaction in those things wherein they are concerned Which what it requires and how farre it extends I will say somewhat in generall when we come to give bounds to the severall Interests in the publique Power of the Church In the mean time as no water can ascend higher then it descended afore so can no People have any further Right and Power in Church matters then that which the People had under the Apostles because that is all the evidence upon which their Interesse can be grounded and acknowledged Lesse is not to be granted more they must not require CHAP. III. That the Chief power of every Church resteth in the Bishop and Presbyters attended by the Deacons That onely the power of the Keys is
the Apostles were at first their own Deacons before the Church allowed them some to wait on them and yet their whole function was then holy though some parts of it nearer to the end of the souls health So when Deacons were made reason inforces that they should attend on the meanest part of the Office of the Apostles but always on holy duties For the Tables which the Apostles saw first furnished themselves but were attended by the Deacons in doing it when they were made were the same which S. Paul speaks of 1 Cor. XI 20 which the Eucharist was celebrated at as the custome was daily to doe at Jerusalem Acts II. 42 46. and therefore their office by this was the same then as always it hath been since to wait upon the celebration of the Eucharist Secondly I have shewed afore that even the Apostles and their followers the Evangelists were also Deacons with as much difference as there is between the persons whom they served that is between our Lord and his Apostles on one side and the Bishop and Presbyters of a Church on the other Whereupon the Ministers of Bishops and Presbyters are called Deacons absolutely and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any addition signifies to execute a Deacons Office 1 Tim. III 10. But the Apostles and Evangelists are called Deacons with additions signifying whose Ministers or to what speciall purpose as hath been said Thirdly when S. Paul says They that doe the office of a Deacon well purchase themselves a good step 1 Tim. II. 13. Clemens Alexandrinus and the practice of the Church interprets this step to be the rank of Presbyters Therefore they were in the next degree to it afore Fourthly it hath been shewed that they sate not but stood in the Church as attending the Bishop and Presbyters sitting and yet were imploied in the Offices of Preaching and Baptizing And accordingly in the Primitive Church a great part of the Service reading Lessons singing Psalms and some part of the Prayers were ministred by them as I have shewed in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service cap. X. Which held correspondently in the Synagogue For the Ministers and Apparitors of their Consistories were also their Deacons and ministred Divien Service in the Synagogue Whereby it appears to be the Ordinance of the Apostles that the younger sort of those that dedicated themselves to the service of the Church should be trained up in the service of the Bishop and Presbyters as well to the understanding of Christianity as to the right exercise of Ecclesiasticall Offices that in their time such as proved capable might come to govern in the Church themselves That which remains concerning the Interesse of the People in the Church will be easily discharged if we remember that it must be such as may not prejudice either the dependence of Churches or the Chief Power of the Bishop with the Presbyters in each particular Church The Law of the XII Tables Salus populi suprema lex esto though it were made for a popular State not for a Kingdome yet admits a difference between populus and plebs and requires the chief Rule to be the good both of Senate and Commons not of one part alone So likewise that which is said in the Scriptures to have been done by the Church must not therefore be imagined to be done by the People Because the Church consists of two parts called by Tertullian Oâ—do and Plebs in the terms of latter times the Clergy and People but preserving the respective Interests of Clergy and People In the choice of Matthias it is said They set two Acts I. 23. what they but the Church in which the People were then better Christians then to abridge the Apostles but proportionably they are always to respect the Bishop and Presbyters if they will obey the Apostles that command it 1 Thess V. 12 13. Heb. XIII 7 17. So when S. Paul says Doe not ye judge those that are within 1 Cor. V. 12. speaks he to the People or to the Church that is to the Bench of Presbyters and the People in their severall interests and that not without dependence upon the Apostles The words of our Lord Dic Ecclesiae Mat. XVIII 18. make much noise At the end of my Book of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 428 you have a passage of S. Augustine Cont. Epist Parmen III. 2. that Excommunication is the sentence of the Church And yet I suppose no man hath the confidence to dispute that in S. Augustines time it was the sentence of the People So the Excommunication of Andronicus in Synesius his seven and fiftieth Epistle is intitled to the Church yet no man imagines that the People then did excommunicate Is not the case the same in the Synagogue Moses is commanded to speak to the Congregation of the children of Israel and he speaks to the Elders Exod. XII 2 25. does Moses disobey God in so doing or does he understand the command of God better then this opinion would have him in speaking to the Elders who he knew were to act on behalf of the People The Law commands the Congregation to offer for ignorance Lev. IV. 13 14. Num. XV. 22 24. how shall all the Congregation offer Maimoni answers in the Title of Errors cap. XII XIII that the great Consistory offers as often as they occasion the breach of the Law by Teaching that is interpreting it erroneously In the Law of the Cities of Refuge it is said The Congregation shall judge and the Congregation shall deliver the manslayer Num. XXXV 35 36. The Elders of the City of Refuge were to judge in presence and in behalf of the People whether the manslayer was capable of the privilege of the City of Refuge or not as you reade Joshua XX. 4 6. seeing then that these things being done by the Elders are said to be done by the Synagogue or Assembly of the People in behalf of whom they are done is it a wrong to the Scriptures when we say that which they report to be done by the Church was acted by the chief power of the Apostles and Presbyters with consent of the People For it is manifest in the Scriptures that in the Apostles times all publique Acts of the Church were passed at the publique Assemblies of the same as Ordinations Acts I. 23. VI. 3 6. Excommunications Mat. XVIII 18 19 20. 1 Cor. V. 4. 2 Cor. II. 10. Councels Acts XV. 4 27. Other Acts 2 Cor. VIII 19. And herewith agrees the Primitive custome of the Church for divers ages to be seen in a little Discourse of the Learned Blondell Of the Right of the People in the Church published of late And can this be thought to no purpose unlesse it dissolve the Unity of the Church or that obedience to the Clergy which God commandeth Is it nothing to give satisfaction to the People of the integrity of the proceedings of the Church and by the same mean
to oblige superiours to that integrity by making the proceedings manifest and so to preserve the Unity of the Church I say not that these times are capable of such satisfaction upon the like terms as them But from this practice under the Apostles I shall easily grant the people an Interesse in such things as may concern their particular Congregations of excepting against such proceedings as can appear to them to be against any Rule of the Scripture or of the whole Church For this Interesse it is upon which the people is demanded in the Church of England what they have to say against Ordinations and Mariages to be made And if their satisfaction in matter of Penance were to be returned it would be no more then the same reason inferres Especially because it hath been shewed that the prayers of the People or of the Church is one part of the means to take away sinne by the Keys of the Church the other being the Humiliation of the Penitent according to that Order and measure which the Bishop and Presbyters shall prescribe James V. 14 15. 2 Cor. XII 20 21. Mat. XVIII 21. 1 John V. 16. And if this Interesse were made effectuall by the Laws of Christian States and Kingdomes to the hindrance of such proceedings wherein the Power of the Church may be abused the Church shall have no cause to complain But that the Power should be taken from the Church because the Laws of the State are not so good as they might be is as unjust and pernicious a medicine as to put the Chief Power in the hands of the People For seeing it hath been demonstrated that as it was the custome to passe such Acts at the Assemblies of the whole Church so was it also to advise and resolve upon them at the Consistories of the Clergy it is manifest that the suffrage of the People often mentioned in Church Writers was not to resolve but to passe what was resolved afore because nothing appeared in barre to it For the Interesse of the People extending no further then their own Church and it being impossible that all the Christians within the Territories of Cities belonging to the respective Churches should all assemble at once it is manifest none of these matters could be resolved by number of Votes and therefore that the Power was not in the People but a Right to be satisfied of the right use of the Power by those that had it Which how it may be made effectuall to the benefit of the People in a Christian Church and State is not for me to determine But by virtue of this Right it is that as Justellus in his Notes upon the Greek and Africane Canons hath observed to us especially out of the Records of the Churches of Africk and of the West for divers Ages the Best of the People who as he shews were called Seniores Presbyteri Ecclesiarum were admitted to assist at the passing of the publique Acts of those Churches In all which as there is nothing to be found like the Power of the Keys which Lay Elders are created to manage So he that will consider the interesse in which it appears they did intervene comparing it with the intolerable trouble which the concurrence of the People was found to breed when the number of Christians was increased by the Emperours professing Christianity will easily judge that it was nothing else but the Interesse of the People which in succeeding ages was referred to some persons chosen out of them to manage in the publique Acts of the Church And this custome is sutable enough with the Office of Church-wardens in the Church of England if it had been established as well in the Mother and Cathedrall as in the Parish Churches CHAP. IV. Secular Persons as such have no Ecclesiasticall Power but may have Soveraign Power in Ecclesiasticall matters The Right of giving Laws to the Church and the Right of Tithes Oblations and all Consecrations how Originall how Accessory to the Church The Interesse of Secular Powers in all parts of the Power of the Church THese things thus determined and the whole Power of the Church thus limited in Bishops and Presbyters with reservation of the Interesse of the People specified it follows necessarily that no Secular person whatsoever endowed with Soveraign or subordinate Power in any State is thereby endowed with any part of this Ecclesiasticall Power hitherto described Because it hath been premised for a Principle here to be reassumed that no State by professing Christianity and the protection thereof can purchase to it self or defeat the Church of any part of the Right whereof it stands possessed by the Originall institution of our Lord and his Apostles and therefore no person indowed with any quality subsisting by the Constitution of any State can challenge any Right that subsisteth by the Constitution of the Church and therefore belongeth to some person qualified by the same For Ecclesiasticall Power I understand here to be onely that which subsisteth by the Constitution of the Church And therefore all by Divine Right to all that acknowledge no humane authority capable of founding the Church And therefore by Divine Right invested in the Persons of them that have received it mediately or immediately from the Apostles seeing it is no ways imaginable how any man can stand lawfully possessed of that Power which is effectually in some body else from whom he claimeth not And therefore not to be propagated but by the free act of them that so have it But I intend not hereby to exclude Secular Powers from their Right in Church matters But intend to distinguish between Ecclesiasticall Power and Power in Ecclesiasticall matters and these to distinguish by the originall from whence they both proceed because so we shall be best able to make an estimate of the effect which both of them are able to produce according to the saying observed afore that the water rises no higher then it descended afore For if by Ecclesiasticall Power we mean that which arises from the Constitution of the Church it is not possible that by any quality not depending on the same any man should be inabled to any act that doth But if Power in matters of Religion be a Power necessary to the subsistence of all States then have Christian States that Power in the disposing of Christianity which all States in generall have in the disposing of those things which concern that Religion which they suppose and professe And this to prove I will not be much beholding to the Records of Histories or to the opinions and reasons of Philosophers Seeing common sense alone is able to shew us that there is not any State professing any Religion that does not exercise an interesse in disposing of matters of Religion as they have relation to the publique peace tranquillity and happinesse of that people The Power of disposing in matters of Religion is one part and that a very considerable one of that publique
and professed Christianity they oppose the saying of the Apostle that it stands not with charity for the Church to injoin any thing which weak consciences may be offended at And that of our Lord that this would be will-worship and serving of God according to humane traditions which are all the arguments which those of the Congregations allege for their opinion so farre as I can learn It will be therefore worth the while to consider the cases which the Apostle decides upon that principle though I have done it in part already in my larger Discourse p. 309. for so long as the case is not understood in which the Apostle alleges it no marvell if it be brought to prove that which he never intended by it We know he resolves both the Romanes and the Corinthians by this sentence With the Corinthians the case was concerning the eating of things sacrificed to Idols which the Apostle manifestly distinguishes that it may be done two ways materially and formally materially when a man eats it as a creature of God giving him thanks for it which the Apostle therefore determines to be agreeable to Christianity 1 Cor. VIII 7. formally when a man eats it with conscience of the Idoll as a thing sacrificed to it as the Apostle expresses it that is with a religious respect to it which therefore he shews at large to be Idolatry 1 Cor. X. 7 14 Wherefore though things sacrificed to Idols be as free for Christians to eat as any men else yet in some cases and circumstances it so fell out that a Christian eating with a Gentile of their Sacrifices the remains whereof were the cheer which they feasted upon and their Feasts part of the Religion which they served their Idols with might be thought by a weak Christian to hold their Sacrificing as indifferent as their meat and he that thus thought be induced to eat them formally as things offered to Idols As eating them in the Temples of Idols or at a Feast made by a Gentile upon occasion of some Sacrifices 1 Cor. VIII 10. X. 27. In this case the Apostle determines that charity requires a Christian to forbear the use of his freedome when the use of it may occasion a weak Christian to fall into misprision of Idolatry But among the Romanes the case which S. Paul speaks to was between Christians converted from Jews and from Gentiles as appears by the particulars which he mentions to be scrupled at to wit days and meats kom XIV 2 5. and the offence likely thereby to come to passe this that Jewish Christians seeing the Heathenish eat things forbidden by the Law and perhaps among the rest things sacrificed to Idols forbidden not by the letter of the Law but by the interpretation and determination of it in force by the authority of the Synagogue or Consistory might imagine that Christians renounced the Law of God and by consequence the God of the Law and so out of zeal to the true God fall from Christianity and perish For this is manifestly the offence and stumbling which the Apostle speaks of Rom. XIV 13 15 20. as I have shewed out of Origen in the place afore quoted Here is then the sentence of the Apostle that when the use of those things wherein Christians are not limited by the Law of God becomes an occasion of falling into sin to those that understand not the reason of the freedome of Christians charity requires a Christian to forbear the use of this freedom From whence who so inferres that therefore no Ecclesiasticall Law can be of force when it meets with a weak conscience and therefore never because it may always meet with such will conclude the contrary of the Apostles meaning For when Christianity makes all things free to a Christian that are not limited by Gods Law it makes not the use of this freedome necessary to Christianity the Apostle saying expresly that the Kingdome of God is not meat and drink Rom. XIV 17. by consequence not the observing or not observing of days That is consists no more in not eating or not observing days then in eating in observing them So that as he that submits unto the Law of charity must forbear his freedome once and as often as the use of it ministreth offence so for the same reason must he always forbear the use of it whensoever the use of it comes to be restrained though not by Gods Law yet by the Law of the Church Because the greatest offence the greatest breach of charity is to call in question the Order established in the Church in the preservation whereof the Unity of the Church consisteth Whereunto thus much may be added that as the things that are determined by the Canons of the Church are not determined by Gods Law as to the species of the matter and subject of them yet as to the authority from whence the determination of them may proceed they may be said to be determined by Gods Law in as much as by Gods Law that authority is established by which those things are determinable which the good Order and Unity of the Church requires to be determined The evidence of which authority is as expresse in Gods Book as it can be in any Book inspired by God Those of the Congregations indeed betake themselves here to a Fort which they think cannot be approached when they say that what is written in the Scripture is revealed from above and therefore the Laws that are there recorded are no precedents to the Church to use the like right For it is manifest by the Scriptures of the Old Testament that there were many Laws Ordinances Constitutions or what you please to call them in force at that time which no Scripture can shew to have been commanded by revelation from God as the Law of God Daniel forbore the Kings meat because a portion of it was sacrificed to their Idols dedicating the whole to the honour of the same That is he forbore to eate things sacrificed to Idols materially Therefore that Order which we see was afterwards in force among the Jews was then in use and practice Not by the written Law of God therefore by the determination of those whom the Law gave Power to determine such matters The Prophet Joel reckons up many circumstances and ceremonies of the Jews publick Fasts and Humiliations Joel II. 15 16 17. which are so farre from being commanded by the law that the Jews Doctors confesse there is no further Order for any Fasts in the Law then that which they draw by a consequence far enough fetched out of Num. X. 9. where Order is given for making the Trumpets which they say and the Prophet supposes that their Fasts were proclaimed with Maimoni Tit. Taanith cap. I. In another Prophet Zac. VII 3. VIII 19. it appears that there were set Fasts which they were bound to solemnize every year on the fourth fifth seventh and tenth moneths As also it appears by the words of
the advancement of godlinesse otherwise such had not been Ordained by the Apostles and Governors of Gods ancient People For of this nature is the vailing of women at Divine Service of which S. Paul writes to the Corinthians the Kisse of Charity so often mentioned in the writings of the Apostles which the Constitutions of the Apostles II. 57. and Origen upon the last to the Romanes shew to have been practised before the Consecration and the receiving of the Eucharist to signifie the Charity in which they came to communicate the many Ceremonies of Baptism to which S. Paul alludes in divers places Col. II. 11 12. III. 9 10. Rom. VI. 4 5. to wit putting off old clothes drenching in water so as to seem to be buried in it putting on new clothes at their comming out Which being used in the Primitive Church by these passages of S. Paul we are sure were Instituted by the Apostles Of this nature are the gestures of Prayer which we reade in the Scripture that it was always the custome of Gods people to make sitting kneeling or groveling as the inward dejection of the minde required a greater or lesse degree of outward humiliation of the body to produce and maintain as well as to signifie it Thus our Lord stands up to reade the Law but sits down to Preach Luc. IV. 16 20. the one to shew reverence to the Giver of the Law the other authority over the Congregation which he taught as a Prophet And therefore I make no doubt but that in receiving the Book of the Law he used that reverence which was and is used in the Synagogue the like whereof by the Acts of the Primitive Martyrs we understand to have been used to the Book of the Gospels for in the examination of one of them you have Qui sunt libri quos adoratis legentes as we now stand up at the reading of the Gospel Of this nature are the ceremonies of the Jews publick Fasts quoted afore out of the Prophet Joel which it seems the Prophet Jonas taught the Ninevites at their Fast Jon. III. 5 6. which sure have no force to move God to compassion but as they move men to that humiliation which procures it of this nature is Imposition of hands used in the Scripture in Blessing that is in solemne Prayers for other Persons as in the Gospel over children and sick persons as in the Law Jacob lays hands on Josephs children Moses on Joshua and the LXX Presbyters the Prophets on such as they cured 2 Kings VI. 11. whereupon it was received by the Ordinance of the Apostles in Confirmation Penance and Ordinations as also it is said to be still used in some Eastern Churches at the Blessing of Mariages In fine the Frontlets and the Scrols which God appoints the Jews to set upon their Fore-heads and the Posts of their doores Exod. XIII 9. Deut. VI. 8. XI 17. for my part I make a great question whether he obligeth them thereby to use according to the letter as they do But that commanding the effect the remembrance of the Law he should be thought to forbid the means that is the sensible wearing of such marks that I count utterly incredible Seeing it was easie for them to use such marks and yet to think themselves never a whit the holier for them without the thing signified though in our Lords time they did so as we see by his reproofs in the Gospel and though by their writings Maimoni by name in the Title of Finages cap. III. and in the Title of Phylacteries ca. XI XII we see that still they do And thus upon the reasons advanced that is of determining that which the Law of God determines not follows the whole Power of the Church in deciding matters of Doctrine in determining the circumstances and ceremonies of Gods publick worship and of all the Ordinances of God for the maintenance and exercise of the same For in instituting Ceremonies significative not of Christ to come that indeed and that onely is Judaism but of the Faith and devotion which we desire to serve God with it is enough that this power may be exercised to the advancement of godlinesse if it be exercised otherwise then it ought it is still to be obeyed because the Unity of the Church is of great consequence to maintain though we attain not that advancement of godlinesse which the use of this Power ought to procure but does not And if any Power should be void because it is not used for the best or absolutely not well used then could no humane society subsist either Sacred or Civile Which must subsist in all things wherein it commands not the contrary of a more ancient Law which is Gods Law in our case From the premises it will not be difficult to resolve whether Councels be of Divine Right or not distinguishing between substance and circumstance between the purpose and effect of them and the manner of procuring it For if we speak of giving Law to the Society of the Church it is proved that whether you take it for a Power or a Duty a Right or a Charge or rather both seeing the one cannot be parted from the other the Church may and ought to proceed to determine what is not determined but determinable by consent of particular Churches that is by the consent of such persons which have Power to conclude the consent of their respective Churches Whereof we have shewed that none can ever be concluded without the consent of their respective Bishops But if we speak of the circumstance and manner of assembling in one place certain persons in behalf of their severall Churches with authority to prejudice and foresway and preingage the consent of the same We have a precedent or rather precedents without a precept in the Acts of the Apostles where the Apostles are assembled to Ordain a twelfth Apostle Acts I. 13. where they are assembled to institute the Order of Deacons Acts VI. 2 where Paul and Barnabas come from Antiochia and the Churches depending thereupon to the Apostles and Church of Jerusalem to take resolution in their differences Acts XV. 1 where Paul goes in to James to advise how to behave himself without offence to the Christian Jews at Jerusalem Acts XXI 18 for the premises being admitted all these meetings are justly and necessarily counted Synods or Councels both in regard of the Persons whereof they consisted the consent of divers Apostles being of as much authority to the Church as the resolution of a Synod and in regard of the matter determined at them concerning the whole Church in a high degree especially at that time And we have a Canon among those of the Apostles which appears very ancient by the Canons of Nice containing the same and turning Custome into Statute Law commanding that Synods be held in every Province twice a year But when Tertullian tels us that in the parts of Greece they held Councels ordinarily he constrains us
to beleeve that in other parts of the Church they did not and when we reade of persecutions against the ordinary assemblies of the Church we must presume that as the persecution of Councells would have made greater desolation in the Church so must they needs be more subject to be persecuted And by Eusebius and the rest of the Ecclesiasticall Histories and by the communication of the Primitive Bishops Clemens Ignatius Polycarpus S. Cyprian and the rest as they follow still extant in their Epistles we understand that their personall Assemblies were supplied by their Formatae or letters of mark whereby the acts of some Churches the most eminent being approved by the rest after they were sent to them purchased the same force with the Acts of Councels Wherefore the holding of Councels is of Divine right so farre as it is manifest to common sense that it is a readier way to dispatch matters determinable though when it cannot be had not absolutely necessary But it is always necessary that seeing no Church can be concluded without the Bishop thereof the Bishops of all Churches concurre to the Acts that must oblige their Churches Not so their Presbyters because it is manifest that all Presbyters cannot concurre though upon particular occasion some may as the Presbyters of the Church where a Councell is held as at Jerusalem Acts XV. 6. which we finde therefore practised in divers Councels of the Church As to supply the place of their Bishops by deputation in their absence or perhaps as to propound matters of extraordinary consequence As for the whole People to be concluded by the Act of a Councell as all cannot always be present supposing the dependence of Churches so nothing hinders any part thereof to intercede in any thing contrary to Christianity that is of the substance thereof or of Divine right Therefore in the Order of holding Councels which is wont to be put before the Volumes of the Councels the people is allowed to be present as they were at Jerusalem Acts XV. 12 13 22. I come now to a nice Point of the Originall Right of the Church to Tithes First-fruits and Oblations For as it cannot be pretended that the same measure which the Law provideth is due under the Gospel so it is manifest that the quality of Priests and Levites to whom they were due is ceased as much as the Sacrifices which they were to attend and it is certain that they were maintained expresly in consideration of that attendance This difficulty must be resolved by the difference between the Law and the Gospel The Law expresly provideth onely for the Ceremoniall Service of God in the Temple by Sacrifices and Figures of good things to come But no man doubteth that there were always assemblies for the Service of God all over the Country for the opportunity whereof in time Synagogues were built where the Law was taught and publick Prayers offered to God This Office of Teaching the Law cannot be restrained to the Tribe of Levi. So farre as the Prophets and their Schools of Disciples furnished it not their Consistories which had the Authority to determine what was lawfull what unlawfull were consequently charged with this Office Now they consisted not onely of the Tribe of Levi but in the first place of the best of their Cities to whom were added as assistant some of that Tribe unlesse we speak of the Priests Cities in particular for credibly the Consistories of them consisted only of Priests For that Tribe being dispersed all over the Land to gather their revenue were by that means ready to attend on this Office of assisting in Judgement and Teaching the Law So saith Josephus Antiq. IV. 8. that the Consistories of particular Cities consisted of seven Chief of every City assisted each with two of the Tribe of Levi which with a President and his Deputy or Second such as we know the High Consistory at Jerusalem had makes up the number of XXIII which the Talmud Doctors say they consisted of Therefore it is a mistake of them that think the Scribes and Pharisees whom our Lord commands to obey had usurped the Office of the Priests and Levites For what hinders the Priests and Levites to be Scribes and Pharisees themselves though other Israelites were Scribes and Pharisees besides Priests and Levites Neither Pharisees nor Priests and Levites had this authority as Pharisees or as Priests and Levites but as members or assistants of the Consistories The reason because Gods Law whereby his worship was determined was also the Civile Law of that People because the Land of Canaan was promised them upon condition of living according to it therefore the Teaching of the Law must belong to them who by the Law were to Judge and Govern the People God stirring up Prophets from time to time to clear the true meaning thereof from humane corruptions So onely the Service of the Temple and only that Tribe which attended on the Service of the Temple was to be provided for the rest being provided for by the possession of the Land of Promise But when the service of God in Spirit and Truth was to be established in all places as well as at Jerusalem and the Church incorporated by God into one Society and Common-wealth for the exercise thereof what endowment God appointed this Corporation for the Exchequer of it is best judged by what appears to have been done in the Scriptures which cannot be attributed but to the authority of the Apostles the Governours of the Church at that time At Jerusalem the Contributions were so great in the beginning of Christianity that many offered their whole estates to maintain the community of the Church Was this to oblige all Christians ever after to destroy civile society by communion of goods As if there could be no other reason why Christians should strip themselves of their estates at that time The advancement of Christianity then in the shell required continuall attendance of the whole Church upon the Service of God This withdrawing the greater part of Disciples which were poor from the means of living required greater oblations of the rich The Scripture teaches us that the whole Church continued in the Service of God So that out of the common stock of the Church common entertainment was provided for rich and poor at which entertainment the Sacrament of the Eucharist was celebrated as it was instituted by our Lord at his last Supper This is that which is called Breaking of Bread Acts II. 42 46. XX. 7. and by the Apostle 1 Cor. XI 20. the Supper of the Lord not meaning thereby the Sacrament of the Eucharist but this common entertainment at which that Sacrament was celebrated which therefore is truly called the Sacrament of the Lords Supper not the Supper of the Lord for you see the Apostle complains that because the rich and the poor supped not together therefore they did not celebrate the Supper of the Lord. The same thing it is which S.
to the service of God in the like precept Levit. XIX 32. Stand up before the gray head and reverence the Presbyters and fear thy Gods I am the Lord. Where the gradation shews that this Text concerns not the fear of God but the reverence due to their Judges and Doctors of the Law It is a vulgar mistake that Soveraign Powers are called Gods in the Scriptures The Jews are in the right that their Judges made by Imposition of Hands are they whom the Scripture calls Gods For so it is used to signifie those that were to judge Gods people by Gods Law Exod. XXI 6. XXII 8 9. Neither doth it signifie any but the Consistory Ps LXXXII 1 6. being it seems at that time when this Psalm was penned for Absalom or for Saul against David For these are they to whom the word of the Lord came as our Saviour says Iohn IX 35. that is whom the execution of the Law was trusted with Now you have seen that Presbyters were a degree under Judges and therefore the gradation can hold onely thus First stand up before the gray hairs that is them who are onely honourable for their age Secondly reverence Presbyters which besides years having studied the Law till thirty or forty years of age had authority to Teach the Law And lastly fear your Judges who have power to sentence matters of difference Thus the gradation continues in the same kinde and thus this precept is interpreted by the Talmud Doctors in Maimoni in the Title of Learning the Law c. 6. Moses of Kotzi upon this Precept Having therefore shewed that the Clergy in the Church succeed into the authority which the Consistories bore under the Synagogue it follows that the precept of the Apostle 1 Thess V. 12 13. Heb. XIII 17. imports this reverence due to them as persons consecrate to the service of God And so this holinesse is the same in Persons as in Places consecrate to that purpose There is no man so simple as to think Churches capable of that holinesse by which Christian souls are holy But because the actions of Gods service proceeding from souls so qualified are presumed to be Holy therefore the Times the Places the Persons deputed to such actions in publick are to be reverenced in regard of that deputation for their works sake saith the Apostle in an Ecclesiasticall not in any spirituall capacity common to Persons with Times and Places Because this qualification serves to maintain in the minds of people the reverence they owe to those acts of Gods service whereunto they are deputed Which those that never beleeved heretofore do now see by that ruine of Christianity which these few years have brought to passe amongst us This ground the Jews Doctors seem very well to understand when they question why the open street or Piazza is not Holy seeing the Publick Fasts of the Jews were many times held in them Those Assemblies being it seems so great that the Synagogue would not contain the people Where by the way you see why our Lord reproves the Pharisees because they loved to pray standing in the corners of streets and to sound a trumpet before their alms Mat. VI. 2 5. because those Fasts were solemnized in the street with sound of Trumpet Their answer is that the market place or street or Piazza is used accidentally to this purpose but the Synagogue is deputed expresly to it Maimoni Of Prayer and the Priests Blessing cap. XI The reason then of this Ecclesiasticall or morall holinesse is the deputation to the holy Ordinances of Divine Service which deputation if it be by Ordinance of the Apostles solemnized upon persons by prayer with Imposition of Hands why shall it not be solemnized by Consecration of Places which is nothing else but the solemne deputation of them to their purpose by prayer to God as persons are consecrated when they are deputed to the service of God And is it not strange that any man should finde a negative reverence due to the places of Gods service but all positive reverence nothing else then superstition revived For what reason can be given why men should abstain from light or vain or secular businesse imploiment or cariage in Churches but because the minde is to be possessed and exercised about the contrary And what reverence and devotion to God in the Ordinances of his Service can be maintained without making difference between common and Consecrate Places is not to be seen by the practice of this time that hath laid all reverence and devotion aside and therefore it seems will never be seen again untill that reverence be revived again and sensibly expressed to Persons and Places dedicated to Gods service for Times deputed to Gods service are not subject to sense therefore not capable of the like by such solemnities as may be fit to maintain that inward devotion which the Ordinances of Gods service to which they are deputed are to be performed with And not only Times Places and Persons are capable of this morall quality of relative Ecclesiasticall Holinesse but whatsoever either by disposition of Gods Law or by mans act is affected to the service of God For so saith our Saviour That the Temple consecrates the gold which it is adorned with and the Altar the gift that is offered upon it and that therefore He that sweareth by the Temple or the Altar sweareth by God to whose service they were offered Mat. XXIII 17 19 20 And the Jews Corban which our Lord reproveth as used to binde that which was against Gods Law Mat. XV. 5. was nothing but an Oath by the Oblations consecrated to the reparations of the Temple as you may see in Grotius And as First-fruits and Tithes which the Law consecrates to God render him sacrilegious and accursed that touches them against the intent of the Law as you see by that allegory of the Prophet Jer. II. 3. Israel is a thing consecrate to the Lord the First-fruit of his revenue all that devoure him are guilty evill haunts them So the Law in obliging men to consecrate what they would to the Lord makes the consecrate thing anathema that is the person accursed that applies it to any other use Levit. XXVII 28. Under the Gospel the difference is onely this that nothing is consecrate by disposition of the Law without the act of man moved by the Law of Christianity to consecrate it According to that difference between the Law and the Gospel alleged before that because the Law constraineth to obedience for fear of mischief the Gospel winneth obedience by love of goodness therefore in correspondence thereunto the Law was to require the maintenance of Gods service under such Penalties as they should not dare to incurre the Gospel by the same freedome of minde which constrained men to give themselves to God was to constrain them to give their goods to the maintenance of his Service For the rest as under the Law the Gold is consecrated by the Temple
and the Sacrifice by the Altar and so all consecration tended to communion with God by the participation of Sacrifices offered to God So having shewed how the Gospel ordaineth that Christians also communicate with God in the Sacrifice of the Crosse by the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the same reason it follows that what is given to build and repair and beautifie Churches to maintain the Assemblies of the Church to support them that minister Gods Ordinances to inable the poor to attend upon the Communion of the same is consecrated by the Altar of the Crosse and the Sacrifice thereof represented in the Eucharist being the chief part of that service which the Church tenders to God and that which is peculiar to Christianity S. Chrysostome truly construes the reason why our Lord would not have Mary Magdalen reproved for pouring out such an expense on his body to no purpose which might have done so much good among the poore Mat. XXVI 11. to be this that Christians might understand themselves to be bound as well to maintain the means of Gods service as the poor that attend upon it And let any man shew me the difference of the sin of Achan from that of Ananias and Sapphira For as he became accursed by touching that which was deputed to maintain Gods service and was so before he denied it So no man can imagine that these had been guiltlesse if they had confessed For they are charged by the Apostle not only for lying to the Holy Ghost but for withdrawing part of the price Acts V. 3. And therefore by the premises having shewed that the goods which were laid down at the Apostles feet were thereby affected applied and deputed to maintain the Body of the Church in the daily Communion of the Service of God especially of the Eucharist which they frequented Acts II. 42 46. it followeth that they were consecrated to God by the Altar as all Oblations of Christians to the maintenance of Gods service are by the Sacrifice of the Crosse represented and commemorated in the Sacrament of the Eucharist being the chief part of the service of God under the Gospel and that which is onely proper to Christians And by consequence that which is consecrate to the service of God under the Gospel is anathema for the same reason as under the Law because they are accursed that take upon them to apply it to any other use These things premised it will not be difficult to determine the limits of Soveraign and Ecclesiasticall Power in the conduct and establishment of matters of Religion in a Christian State Which seeing it chiefly consists in the Right of giving those Laws by which this establishment and conduct is executed and having shewed that the Right of Soveraign Power in Church matters is not destructive but cumulative to the Power of the Church and that there is an Originall Right in the Church of giving Laws as to the Society of the Church It follows that the Right of making those Laws whereby Religion is established in a Christian State belonging both to the Soveraign Power and to the Church are not distinguishable by the subject for I have premised that Soveraign Powers may make Laws of Church matters but by the severall reasons and grounds and intents of both That is to say that the determining of the matter of Ecclesiasticall Laws in Order to the sentence of Excommunication which the Church is able to inforce them with belongs to the Church that is to those whom we have shewed to have that power on behalf of the Church But the enacting of them as Laws of Civile Societies in order to those Privileges and Penalties which States are able to inforce Religion with belongs to the Soveraign Powers that give Law to those States For here it is to be known that any Religion is made the Religion of any State by two manner of means that is of temporall Privileges and temporall Penalties For how much toleration soever is allowed severall Religions in any State none of them can be counted the Religion of the State till it be so privileged as no other can be privileged in that State Though it becomes the Religion of that State still more manifestly when Penalties are established either upon the not exercise of the Religion established or upon the exercise of any other besides it Those of the Congregations seem indeed hitherto to maintain that no Penalty can be inflicted by any State upon any cause of Religion to which Point I will answer by and by Which if it were so then could no Religion be the Religion of any State but by temporall Privileges In the mean time having determined that by the Word of God Christianity is to be maintained by Secular Power and seeing it cannot be ingraffed into any State but by making the Laws thereof the Laws of that State in this doing my conclusion is that the matter of Ecclesiasticall Laws is determinable by the Church the force of them as to such means as the State is able to enact them with must come from the State The reason is first from that of the Apostle pronounced by him in one particular case but which may be generalized to this purpose 1 Cor. VII 20 24. Every one in what state he is called to be a Christian therein let him continue Which if it hold neither can any quality in any Civile Society give any man that Right which ariseth from the Constitution of the Church nor on the contrary Wherefore seeing it is manifest that there is in the Church a Power of giving Laws to every respective part of it as it is granted that there is in all Soveraign Powers in respect of all persons and causes it follows that they are distinguishable by the severall reasons on which they stand and arise and the severall intents to which they operate and the effects they are able to produce Secondly no Religion but Judaism was ever given immediately by God to any State and that by such Laws as determine both the exercise of Religion and the Civile Government of that people But all Nations think they have received Religion from some Divinity which they beleeve and therefore by the Law of Nations the ordering of matters of Religion must needs belong to those by whom and from whom severall Nations beleeve they have received it Much more Christianity received from and by our Lord and his Apostles must needs be referred to the conduct of those whom we have shewed they left trusted with it But the Power to dispose of the exercise of Religion is a point of Soveraignty used by all States according to severall Laws Wherefore Christianity much more obliging all Soveraigns to use this Power to the advancement of it the coactive Power of secular Societies must needs take place much more in establishing Christianity by such constitutions as Christianity may be established with Thirdly the whole Church is by Divine Right one Visible Society
in his Gospel hath left concerning Mariage For if this be peculiar to Christians as Christians then whatsoever becomes questionable upon the interpretation of this Law concerning the Church as it is the Church must needs fall under the sentence of those that are inabled to conclude the Society of the Church And therefore it is without question as ancient as Christianity that no Mariage be made which the Church alloweth not the Benediction whereof upon Mariages is a sign of the allowance of the Church presupposed as that upon the Mariage of Booz and Ruth Ruth IV. 11. presupposeth the act to be allowed by the Elders or Consistory of Bethlehem as you have it afore These difficulties thus voided it remains that the Secular Powers stand bound in conscience to inforce the Jurisdiction of the Church where the exercise of it produceth nothing contrary to the principles of Christianity or the quiet of the State As for the interesse of the State in Ordinations the same reason holds It is very manifest by many examples of commendable times under Christian Emperors that many Ordinations have been made at the instance and command of Emperors and Soveraign Princes And why not what hindreth them to make choice of fitter persons then the Clergy and People can agree to choose And what hindreth the Church upon consideration of their choice to reform their own But when Soveraign Powers by Generall Laws forbid Ordinations to proceed but upon persons nominated by themselves how then shall the Right of the Church take place or what shall be the effect of S. Pauls precept to Timothy To lay hands hastily on no man lest he partake of other mens sins Which cannot take place unlesse he that Ordain be free not to Ordain The President Thuanus writing of the Concordates between Leo the tenth and Francis the first by which the Canonicall way of Election of Bishops was abolished in France saith freely that that great Prince never prospered after that Act giving this for his reason because thereby that course of electing Bishops was taken away which had been introduced from the beginning by the Apostles In fine of this particular I shall need to say no more but this according to the generall reason premised that qualities ordained by the constitution of the Church are to be conferred by persons qualified so to doe by the constitution of the Church But with this moderation that Secular Powers be satisfied not onely that the persons promoted be not prejudiciall to the Peace of the State whereof they have charge by their proper qualities but also that as Christians they be not assistant to the promotion of those who professe the contrary of that which they as Christians professing are bound to maintain In the last place it will not be difficult from the premises to determine the interesse of the State in setling maintaining and disposing of the indowment of the Church For seeing the reasons premised which now are laught at by those that will not understand wherein Christianity consists have prevailed so far with all Christian people that all Tithes and many other Oblations and Indowments are and have been in all parts consecrated to God as the First-fruits of Christians goods for the maintenance of his Service it remains the duty of the Secular Sword to maintain the Church in that right For that publick Power that shall lay hands on such goods shall rob both God and the People God in respect of the Act of Consecration past upon such goods the People in respect of the Originall right and reason of the Church which first moved Christians to consecrate the same By virtue of which right that which first was consecrated being taken away by force Christian people remain no lesse obliged to separate from the remainder of their poverty that which shall be proportionable to that which all Christian people have always consecrated to God out of their estates And those that perswade good Christians that such consecrations have proceeded only from the cousenage of the Clergy for their own advantage may as well perswade them that they were cousened when they were perswaded to be Christians seeing such consecrations have been made by all Christian people As for the disposing of that which is given to the publick use of the Church I say not the same I hold it necessary that the Church satisfie the State that whatsoever is given to such use may be to the common good of the people and so leave the imperfection of Laws to blame that it is not A thing which I think may very reasonably be done For first all Cathedrall Churches being by the institution of the Apostles intire Bodies in themselves distinct from other Churches according to that which hath been proved of the dependence of Churches all Oblations to any Church originally belong to the Body thereof in common at the disposing of the Bishop and Presbyters thereof which is known to have been the Primitive Order of the Church derived from the practice of the Apostles which I have declared out of the Scriptures Though they have complied with the bounty of those that have indowed Parish Churches and consented to limit the indowments of every one of them to it self alone Secondly it is manifest that the Clergy are under such a Discipline of the Primitive Church that so long as they continue to live in such a discipline they can neither waste the indowment of the Church upon themselves nor use it to the advancement of their Families Which Discipline if the Secular Power be imploied to retrive it will not be thereby destructive to the Power of the Church but cumulative As likewise if it be imploied to the most advantageous distribution of that masse of Church goods which lies affected and deputed to any Cathedrall Church through the whole Diocese thereof in case the distribution made by Humane Right appear prejudiciall to those charitable purposes which are the means by which the Service of God through that Church or Diocese is maintained and advanced Provided always that a greater Sacrilege be not committed by robbing the Bishop and Presbyters of the Right and Power which they have from the Apostles in disposing of the indowment of their Church These things promised it is easie to undertake that there never was so great a part of the fruits of this Land mortified and put out of commerce and applied and affected to the Church but that it was in that estate more advantageous to the publick strength security and plenty of the Nation as well as to the service of God and the charitable maintenance of those that attend it in case the Secular Power had been improved to dispose of it for the best then it can be in any particular hands especially in the hands of Sacrilege CHAP. V. How the Church may be Reformed without violating Divine Right What Privileges and Penalties a Christian State may inforce Christianity with The Consent of the Church is the
two cases of Religion the first of Idolaters the second of those that disobey the Consistory But it is to be considered that Idolatry is a sin which the light of nature convinceth and is always attended with the consequences of such horrible sins as the Apostle declareth that God suffered the Gentiles to fall into for their Idolatries in the beginning of the Epistle to the Romanes Besides that Penalty by the Law lies but in respect of the seven Nations whom God for their Idolatries and the consequences thereof such as I have mentioned gave up to destruction by the sword of his people on whom he bestowed their inheritance And in respect of Israelites whom God having entred into Covenant with on condition to serve him alone had thereupon endowed with Secular power to punish the transgressors of it So that the power of inflicting death in these cases proceedeth upon the sentence of destruction and death pronounced by God against the seven Nations and committed to the execution of his People And upon the Soveraign power estated upon the people by virtue of their Covenant with God Which though more then Humane for the Originall yet must needs be available according to Humane Right to the same effect which the same Power established by Title of Humane Right is able to produce And therefore this Penalty by these Laws cannot belong to any that absolutely refuse to submit to Christianity Besides it is to be observed that those acts which this Law punishes with death are specified by the Law to be the worshipping of the Sun and Moon and other Gods Exod. XXII 20. Deut. XVII 3. the perswading to worship other Gods and for Cities to fall from God to doe it Deut. XIII 5 6 12. and therefore this punishment cannot be extended to other Acts which by interpretation and consequence may be argued into the generall nature or rather notion of Idolatries A thing necessary to be said because it is manifest that there have been those that have made reading Service or a Sermon much more kneeling at the Communion Idolatry who if they should proceed to improve their madnesse to that consequence which naturally it produceth must proceed to destroy Civile Society by destroying all them whom in their madnesse they take for Idolaters as that wretched person did his Father for perswading him to receive the Communion kneeling As for those that disobeyed the Consistory it is to be remembred that hath been formerly observed that Religion and the Civile State of Gods ancient people made but one Society by virtue of the Law that estated them in the Land of Promise upon condition of worshipping God and governing themselves in their Civile life according to the same By consequence whereof whosoever should refuse to stand to that judgement which God by the Law appointeth to determine the differences which should arise about the interpretation and limitation of that which the Law had not expressed must indanger a breach among the people which it is all one whether you call Rebellion or Schism Now it is no inconvenience to grant that whosoever shall pretend under the Title of Christianity to trouble the Civile peace of that people and State wherein he liveth be thought guilty of such punishment as the height of his offence shall deserve Because as this crime is most capitall as nearest concerning the publick so is it most manifest that Christianity cannot be wronged by the punishment of it seeing it hath been shewed that Christianity enableth no man to trouble the publick peace So that if any man make it a part of his Religion to maintain his Religion by force being by such profession fallen from the innocence of Christianity he is justly exposed to the violence of all temporall Laws that punish those which trouble the publick peace This is the case of them that thought themselves tied in conscience by the Bull of Pius the fift against Q. Elizabeth and it is the case of all them that under any title of Religion whatsoever pretend to maintain the profession or exercise thereof by faction or force For it is easie to see that the Primitive Christians maintain themselves so against the Gentiles that supposing them no Christians yet it doth appear that they could not rightfully persecute them for their Christianity Which none can maintain but those that professe to assert their Christianity by nothing else but by suffering for it And here it is worth our noting that about the time of our Lord there was a Constitution of the Consistory against Rebellious Elders as they call them that is such as having attained the degree of Doctors of the Law should Teach any thing to be lawfull or unlawfull by the Law contrary to the determination of the Consistory that they should be put to death as you may see in Maimoni in that Title Which how far it was ever in force is hard to be said because by the Gospels we understand that the Nation had not power of life and death at that time For that it was about that time that they say it was established appears because they report it to have been made in regard of the differences then on foot between the Scholars of Hillel and Sammai which we know were not long before our Lords time This Constitution is nothing else but the limitation of that which the Law of Deut. XVII 8. establisheth to particular circumstances And upon supposition of this Constitution it is that our Lord expresseth the difference between Moses Law and his Gospel when he saith Mat. V. 19. He that shall break the least of these Commandements and teach men so shall be least in the Kingdome of heaven but he that teacheth and doeth them shall be great in the Kingdome of heaven For the very terms of that Constitution being death to him that should both teach and doe contrary to the determination of the Consistory it is manifest that our Lord alluding to that Constitution of the Synagogue declareth hereby that on the contrary there is no penalty of death upon him that should teach and doe contrary to his precepts as those of the Consistory but greater that is to be least in the Kingdome of heaven Whereby he sheweth that the Gospel appointeth no temporall punishment to those that break Christs precepts but denies not that Civile States might For the Gospel supposing and establishing Civile Society supposeth also those Penalties without which it subsisteth not And the punishment of those that violate Civile Society under the title of Christianity is not by the Gospel but by the Civile Power which it presupposeth and voideth not because Preaching that Christianity cannot be prejudiciall to States it confirmeth as to Christianity that power which all States have towards all Religions to see that they prove not prejudiciall to the publick peace We have then two cases of Religion punishable with death The first when that which is contrary to the Law of Nature is by the
corruption of naturall light made matter of Religion as hath been said of Idolaters and as it may be said of the whole spawn of Gnosticks from Simon Magus to the Manichees their Heires and Successors which as they corrupted Christianity with Heathenisme so they tooke away the difference of good and bad and brought in under pretense of Religion such horrible uncleannesse as nature abhorres Which being by mistake of the Gentiles imposed upon the Primitive Christians as by the defense which they make for themselves they doe evidence sufficiently that they are wronged by those reports so they declare that if they were true they would not refuse the persecutions which they plead against The 2d case is when any thing prejudiciall to Civile Society is held and professed as part of Christianity For as that which is prejudiciall to the publick Peace must needs be punishable by those Powers which are trusted with the maintenance of publicke Peace and that with the utmost punishment when the case deserves it So it is certain that it is not Christianity which is punished in so doing because Christianity contains nothing prejudiciall to Civile Society and publick Peace Setting these cases aside if no man can be constrained by capitall punishment to become a Christian it followeth that no Heretick Schismatick or Apostate from Christianity can be punishable with death meerly for the opinion which he professeth The same reasons rightly improved seem to conclude that no man is punishable by the civile death of Banishment from his native Country and People meerly for an opinion which he beleeveth and professeth though falsly to be part of Christianity For you see there is a great difference between the case of the Law and the Gospel The Law is the condition of a Covenant between God and the People of Israel by which they were all estated in the Land of Promise and every one in his severall interesse in the same So that whosoever should renounce or violate the condition of this Covenant which is the Law must needs become liable to the punishment of Death when the Law establisheth it and therefore to that of Banishment or civile Death or any lesse punishment when the Law enableth to establish it But the Gospel is the condition of a Covenant which tenders the Kingdome of heaven to all those that imbrace and observe it And therefore requires all Nations Kingdomes States and Commonwealths to enter into one Society of the Church meerly for the common service of God upon conscience of the same Faith and duty of the same obedience But otherwise acknowledging the same obligation both of Civile and Domestick Society as afore Whereupon it follows that as Christians imbracing Christianity freely because it cannot be truly imbraced otherwise purchase themselves thereby no Right or Privilege against the Secular Powers which were over them afore So no Secular Powers that are Soveraign by professing Christianity themselves purchase any Right and Power as to God of inforcing Christianity upon their Subjects by such Penalties as the Constitution of those Civile Societies which they govern enables them not to inflict according to the common Law of all Nations Wherefore seeing common reason discovereth not the truth of Christianity to us and therefore the common Law of Nations enjoineth not Christianity as the condition of Civile Society but that Civile Societies as they subsisted before Christianity so still subsist upon principles which for their Originall are afore it though for their perfection after it it seems that the Soveraign Powers of Civile Societies are not enabled to make Christianity the condition of being a member of those States which they govern But if Secular Powers be not enabled to punish the renouncing of Christianity or of any part of it with Naturall or Civile death doth it therefore follow that all men are by Gods Law to be left to their freedome to beleeve and professe what they please I suppose there are very great Penalties under the rate of those which the Constitution of Civile Societies by the Common Law of Nations will enable the Soveraign Powers thereof to punish the neglect of Christianity with when they have avowed it for the Religion of the States which they govern For in that case the neglect of Christianity is not onely a sin against God and a good conscience but against Civile Society and that reverence which every man owes the Powers that conclude his own People in thankfulnesse to the invaluable benefit of peaceable protection which he enjoies by the same Secondly seeing that all Religion excepting true Christianity is a most powerfull means of disturbing the publick peace of civile Societies though perhaps it professe no such thing expresly it follows by consequence that all Powers that are trusted with the preservation of publick Peace are enabled to forbid that which is not true Christianity by all penalties under those that have been excepted So that when true Christianity is forbidden under such penalties the fault shall be not in usurping but in abusing the Power in applying it to a wrong subject not in straining it to that which it extendeth not to And in so doing that is in suffering that which is so done it is not to be thought that Christianity can be wronged though wrong be done to the men that are Christians For seeing it is the common profession of Christians to bear Christs Crosse and seeing it was the disposition of God to advance Christianity to the Stern of the Romane Empire and to the Rule of other Christian Kingdomes and Commonwealths by demonstrating that it was not prejudiciall to Civile Society by the sufferings of the Primitive Christians it followeth that whatsoever a man holds for true Christianity cannot be demonstrated to be so as God hath appointed Christianity to be demonstrated but by the sufferings of them that professe it And therefore it remains agreeable to reason that God hath given Secular Powers such right to restrain pretended Christianity that when it is used against the true it cannot be said to be usurped but abused It will be said for it is said already that any constraint to Christianity by temporall punishment will serve but to confirm some and engage them to that which they have once professed contrary to truth and that others who to avoid punishment shall outwardly submit to what inwardly they approve not must needs forfeit all power of Christianity by preferring the world before any part of it To which it must be answered that all this granted proves not that it is unjust or that civile Powers have no right to make such Laws but that it is not expedient the exercise of it being probably to no good purpose which defeats not the right till it be proved that it cannot be exercised to any good purpose which in this point cannot be done For it is as probably said on the other side that by temporall Penalties a man is induced to consider with lesse prejudice that which the
and effect to the acts of the same But in matters already determined by them as Laws given to the Church if by injury of time the practice become contrary to the Law the Soveraign Power being Christian and bound to protect Christianity is bound to imploy it self in giving strength first to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles By consequence if those whom the power of the Church is trusted with shall hinder the restoring of such Laws it may and ought by way of penalty to such persons to suppresse their power that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superiour Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles A thing throughly proved both by the Right of Secular Powers in advancing Christianity with penalties and in establishing the exercise of it and in particular by all the examples of the pious Kings of Gods people reducing the Law into practice and suppressing the contrary thereof Seeing then that it is agreed upon by all that professe the Reformation that many and divers things ordained by our Lord and his Apostles whether to be beleeved or to be practised in the Church were so abolished by injury of time that it was requisite they should be restored though against the will of those that bore that power which the Apostles appointed necessary to conclude the Church it followeth that the necessity of Reformation inferreth not the abolishing of the Succession of the Apostles but that more Laws of our Lord and his Apostles and of more moment were preferred before it where it could not regularly be preserved Which when it may be preserved is to be so far preserved before all designs which may seem to humane judgement expedient to the advancement of Christianity that whosoever shall endevour without such cause to destroy the power derived from the Apostles by conferring it upon those that succeed them not in it and much more whosoever shall doe it to introduce Laws contrary to the Ordinance of the Apostles shall be thereby guilty of the horrible crime of Schism For it is to be remembred that there are some things immediately necessary to the salvation of particular Christians whether concerning Faith or good manners and there are other things necessary to the publick order and peace of the Church that by it Christians may be edified in all matters of the first kinde The denying of any point of the first kinde may for distinctions sake be called Heresie when a man is resolute and obstinate in it But in the other kinde it is not a false opinion that makes a man a Schismatick till he agree to destroy the Unity of the Church for it It can scarce fall out indeed that any man proceed to destroy the Unity of the Church without some false opinion in Christianity Yet it is not the opinion but the destroying of a true or erecting of a false power in the Church that makes Schism And it can scarce fall out that any man should broach a doctrine contrary to Christianity without an intent to make a Sect apart yet onely a false perswasion in matters necessary to salvation is enough to make an Heretick This is the reason that both Heresie and Schism goes many times under the common name of Heresies or Sects among the ancient Fathers of the Church Otherwise it is truly said that Heresie is contrary to Faith Schism to Charity because the crime of Heresie is found in a single person that denies some point of Faith though the name of it be generall onely to those and to all those that make Sects apart In the mean time we must consider that the word Schism signifies the state as well as the crime in which sense all that are in the state of Schism are not in the crime of Schism but those that give the cause of it For as it is resolved that Warre cannot be just on both sides that make War so is it true that the cause of all divisions in the Church must needs be only on one side and not on both And that side which gives the cause are rightfully called Schismaticks though both sides be in the state of Schism as he in S. Augustine said of Tarquin and Lucrece that being two in one act yet one of them onely committed Adultery If then the Laws given by our Lord and his Apostles be restored by consent of some part of the Councell and Synod requisite to oblige any respective part of the Church and the Succession of the Apostles propagated by them alone in opposition to the rest that consent not unto them the cause of Schism cannot lie on this side which concurreth with the Primitive Succession of our Lord and his Apostles but upon them that violate the Communion of the Church by refusing such Laws and the right of such persons as acknowledge the same the condition of the Unity and Communion of the Church consisting as much in the rest of Laws given by our Lord and the Apostles as in that of the Succession and power of the Apostles Which is the case of the Church of England But whoever by virtue of any authority under heaven shall usurp Ecclesiasticall Power shall usurp the Succession of the Apostles and take it from them that rightfully stand possest of it upon pretense of governing the Church by such Laws as he is really perswaded but falsly to be commanded the Church by our Lord and his Apostles this whosoever shall doe or be accessory to is guilty of Schism The issue then of this whole dispute stands upon this point how and by what means it may be evidenced what Laws of the Faith and Manners of particular Christians of the publick Order of the Church have been given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles A point which cannot be resolved aright but by them which resolve aright for what reasons and upon what grounds and motives they are Christians For without doubt the true reasons and motives of Christianity if they be pursued and improved by due consequence will either discover the truth of any thing disputable in the matter of Christianity or that it is not determinable by any revealed truth Here it is much to be considered that the truth of things revealed by God is not manifested to the mindes of them to whom and by whom God reveals them to the World by the same means as to them whom he speaks to by their means Moses and the Prophets our Lord and his Apostles when they were sent to declare the will of God to his People were first assured themselves that what they were sent to declare to the world was first revealed to themselves by God and then were enabled to assure the world of the same By what means they were assured themselves concerns me not here to enquire It is enough that they were always enabled to do such works as might assure the world that they were sent by God For how could they demand
of any man to beleeve them till they shewed him a reason to beleeve Indeed though there can no reason be given why matters of faith are true there may bee a reason given why they are credible Because many things are true the reason whereof mans understanding comprehends not yet God can shew him reason why he should beleeve Thus was the Law of Moses thus was the Gospel of Christ advanced to the world and received God having bestowed on them that advanced the one and the other a power to do works the greatnesse and strangenesse whereof might be able to prevail over the difficulty of those things which they propounded to be beleeved and obeyed For though it is no inconvenience that God should grant revelations to many persons to whom he granteth not the power of doing such works as may serve to convince the world that those revelations are sent by God yet that he should imploy any man to declare unto the world any thing that God requireth to be beleeved and obeyed without any means to make evidence of his Commission ordinary reason will shew to be too grosse an inconvenience This being the motive of Faith in generall the difficulty that remains will be how it becomes evident to the senses of all ages all places all persons of the world that can be obliged to receive the Faith being done and seen onely by those persons that were sent and to whom A difficulty endlesse to those that advise not as they should doe with their own common sense For it is manifest that we receive an infinite number of truths which never came under our own senses from the sense of others when we finde all those that have had the means to take sensible notice of them agree in the same Such are all things that are or are done in any distance from any mans senses whereof he cannot be informed but by Historicall faith For all that is related from them that have seen carries with it the credit of Historicall truth as far as common sense obliges to beleeve that all that relate can neither be deceived nor agree to deceive Whereupon that which all agree in becoms unquestionable because it is as easie to know what may be seen as it is unpossible that all that agree in a report should agree in a design to deceive The common notions in Euclide are unquestionable and is it more questionable that there is such a City as Rome or Constantinople such a Country as Persia and China to those that never were there Would Physitians and Astronomers build their studies or be suffered to build their practice upon experiments and observations related by particular persons did not common sense assure that men would not take the pains to abuse others onely to be laught at and detested themselves The question then being to suppose a question where there is none because there is a question what is the true answer whether the miracles recorded in the Scripture were done or not neither could they that first received them agree to deceive or be deceived but stood convict because they must have done violence to their own senses otherwise and being once admitted unquestionable to the worlds end they remain no otherwise For the effect of them continuing in that the Law or the Gospel is in force by virtue of them they remain as certain as he that sees a City builded a thousand years since knows that there were men alive at the building of it The Jews therefore are in the wrong when they argue for the Law against the Gospel that because there never was or indeed can ever be such an appearance of all them of one age to whom the Gospel is addressed as there was of the Israelites at the giving of the Law when all of that age that were to be tied by it were present at once to be witnesses that it was sent from God therefore no Law abrogating the same can by any means become credible For as for the love of this advantage against Christianity they deny that which the first sending of Moses expresly affirmeth Exod. IV. 5. that all the miracles which he was endowed with tended to win faith of the people that God sent him And will have all the credit of the Law to stand precisely upon the appearance and standing of Mount Sinai as they call it where they will have all the people of Israel to have been Prophets of Moses rank whom God spoke face to face with without any commotion or rapture of his or their senses So they consider not how the truth of this appearance of Mount Sinai is manifested to their posterity Seeing that by the same means as it becomes evident to those that live under other times the motives of Christianity may also be conveyed and evidenced to them that are not present at the doing of the works This for the evidence As for the sufficience of the motives to the Gospel in comparison of those of the Law the possibility thereof necessarily follows upon Gods omnipotence the actuality of it is sufficiently proved by the judgement of all Nations that have imbraced the Gospel in comparison of one that imbraced the Law Especially if we consider the predictions of the Law and the Prophets going before and the conversion of the Gentiles following upon the publication of the Gospel Which being reckoned among the miracles that render the Gospel to be beleeved doe necessarily bring all the motives of the Law to depose for the truth of the Gospel Thus much premised it will be possible to resolve in a few words the subject of voluminous disputes All men know how those of the Church of Rome would have us beleeve and receive the Scriptures upon the credit of the Church affirming them to come from God And consequently whatsoever the Church determines to be the true meaning of the Scriptures and the Word of God So that there can be no true faith in any man that disbeleeves any part of it Whether by the Church they mean the Pope or a Councell or whosoever they shall agree to have right to conclude the Church On the other side it were easie to say who they are that professe to beleeve the Scriptures upon the immediate dictate of the Spirit of God to their spirit that they come from God And though I cannot say that consequently they deny any man to have faith that beleeves not all that their Spirit dictates to be the meaning of Gods word because the dictates of severall Spirits are so contrary that this can be no Rule yet when the qualities of mens persons with the dictates of their Spirits are alledged in bar to the received doctrine of the Church it is manifest that men expect such light to be struck out of the darknesse and confusion of such dictates that the Church shall at length be convinced to beleeve and receive it And truly those that professe that they could not beleeve the Scriptures but
it themselves afore Especially if we suppose them to receive the same Power to be exercised by the same Laws which those that received it from the Apostles themselves had and acknowledged from the beginning The consequence of all this is plain enough The resolution of Gulielmus Antissiodorensis among the Schoole Doctors is well known and approved That the Order of Bishops in case of necessity may be propagated by Presbyters supposing that they never received Power to do such an Act from them that had it My reason makes me bold to resolve further that in the case which is put Christian people may appoint themselves Bishops Presbyters and Deacons provided it be with such limits of Power to be exercised under such Laws as are appointed before by our Lord and his Apostles And that upon these terms they ought to be acknowledged by the rest of the Church whensoever there is opportunity of communicating with the same provided that they and their Churches submit to such further Laws as the rest of the Church hath provided for the further regulating of it self according as the part is to submit to the determination of the whole And that this acknowledgement of them would be effectuall in stead of solemne Ordination by Imposition of Hands of persons endowed with that Power which is intended to be conveyed by the same Whereby I make not personall succession to be no Precept of God which if it were not then no Schism were necessarily a Sin and by consequence all that can be said of the Society of the Church would be a Fable but commanded in Order to another of living in the Society of a Church and therefore not binding when both are not possible but the Chief is Beside this main reason included in my resolution drawn from the Rank of Precepts given by God as these are the same may be concluded by this consequence That whosoever will consider how many Ordinances instituted by the Apostles have been either totally abolished or very much changed by the necessity of time rendring them uselesse to the succeeding condition of the Church will not marvell to see their authority maintained in the rest of the Laws wherewith they have regulated the Church without perpetuall succession where it cannot be had though otherwise not to be abolished without sacrilege How far this was the case of those whom I speak of I will not undertake It seems they could not have this authority propagated by them that then had it not consenting to those Apostolical Laws which as it is agreed among us were necessarily to be restored in the Church It seems also that authority was not altogether wanting to the authors of such reformations being still of some Order in the Church For Presbyters though they succeed not the Apostles in the Chief authority established by them in all Churches yet their office was from the beginning to assist them in the government of those Churches whereof they were made Presbyters not by way of execution of their commands onely as Deacons but by exercising the same power where they could not discharge it themselves though with dependence on them in all matters not determined afore Here was some degree of necessity to bar the personall Succession of the Apostles But no necessity can be alleged why they erected not Bishops Presbyters and Deacons over themselves with such limits of Power as the Apostles from the beginning determined seeing it is manifest that the superiority of them was generally thought to come from the corruption of the Papacy not from the institution of the Apostles And therefore cannot be excused by necessity because they did not finde themselves in necessity but by their own false perswasion created it to themselves Which notwithstanding seeing they professe all that is necessary to the salvation of all Christians either in point of Faith or Manners seeing as to the publick Order of the Church they intended and desired and sought to restore that which to their best understanding came from the institution of our Lord and his Apostles they cannot easily be condemned to have forfeited the being of a Church out of which there is no salvation by this or other mistakes of like consequence of them that consider the abuses from whence they departed For the Church is necessarily a Humane though no Civile Society which we are commanded by God in the first place to entertain And as there is no Society of men wherein a particular member can prevail to settle such Laws and such Order as are properest to the end of it so must he live and die out of Communion with the Church that staies till he finde a Church that maintains all that was instituted by our Lord and his Apostles Wherefore though that which they have done contrary to the Apostles order cannot be justified yet there is a reasonable presumption that God excuses it being no part of that which he hath commanded all to beleeve to salvation or which he hath commanded particular men to doe Because the publick order of the Church is commanded particular persons as members of the Church which cannot be done without consent of the whole that is of them that are able to conclude it But if any Secular Power upon earth shall presume to erect this Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it away from them that lawfully have it that is by an Act of those that have the Power before done by virtue of some Humane Law which Act the Law of God doth not make void and giving it to those that have it not by any such Act And that upon another ground then that which hath been specified of bringing back into force and use such Laws of our Lord and his Apostles as have by neglect of time been abolished and brought out of use this Power whatsoever it is shall not fail in so doing to incurre the Crime of Schism and all that concurre or consent to the bringing of such an Act into effect shall necessarily incurre the same Much more if it be done with a further intent by the means of persons thus invested with Ecclesiasticall Power to introduce Laws contrary to the institution of our Lord and his Apostles But though it is possible to imagine a case in which the consent of Christians may erect an Ecclesiasticall authority over themselves by means whereof they may live in the Society of a Church yet there is no manner of case imaginable in which any people or any power but the Soveraign can establish or maintain the exercise of Religion in any thing which they conceive never so necessary to Christianity by the power of the Sword which is the force of the Seculararm The reason is peremptory because the profession of Christ his Crosse is essentiall to Christianity or rather the whole substance and marrow of it For if it were lawfull for any persons whatsoever to defend themselves by force upon no other title but for the maintenance of themselves in the
Apostles shall it be without the compasse of any Secular Power to dissolve it And therefore the consequence hereof in the present state of Christianity among us is further to be deduced because many men may be perswaded of their obligation to the Church upon supposition of the Divine Right of Bishops who perhaps perceive not the former reason of their obligation to them here asserted as to the Ordinary Pastors of the Church To proceed then out of the premises to frame a judgement of the state and condition of Christianity in England at the present and from that judgement to conclude what they that will preserve the conscience of good Christians are to doe or to avoid in maintaining the Society and Communion of the Church Put the case that an Ecclesiasticall Power be claimed and used upon some perswasions contrary to the substance of true Christianity and pretending thereby to govern those that adhere to the same perswasion in the Communion of those Ordinances which God requireth to be served with by his Church according to the same perswasion I suppose no man will deny this to be the crime of Heresie containing not onely a perswasion contrary to the foundation of Faith but also an Ecclesiasticall Power founded upon it and thereby a separation from the Communion of the Church which acknowledgeth not the same Put the case again that an Ecclesiasticall Power is claimed and used not upon a perswasion contrary to any thing immediately necessary to the salvation of all Christians as the foundation of Faith and all that belongeth to it is but upon a perswasion contrary to something necessary to the Society of the whole Church as commanded by our Lord Christ or his Apostles to be regulated thereby and this with a pretense to govern those that adhere to the same perswasion in the Communion of all Ecclesiasticall Ordinances according to it this I cannot see how it can be denied to be the crime of Schism And this God be blessed that I cannot say it is done in England but in consequence to the premises I must say that this is it which hath been and is endevoured to be done in it and therefore to be avoided by all that will not communicate in an act of Schism I doe not deny that Presbyters have an interesse in the Power of the Keys and by consequence in all parts of Ecclesiasticall Power being all the productions thereof But I have shewed that their Interesse is in dependence upon their respective Bishops without whom by the Ordinance of the Apostles and the practice of all Churches that are not parties in this cause nothing is to be done When as therefore Presbyters dividing among themselves the eminent Power of their Bishops presume to manage it without acknowledgement of them out of an opinion that the eminence of their Power is contrary to the Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles or that not being contrary to the same it is lawfull for Presbyters to take it out of the hands either of Bishops or of simple Presbyters had they been so possessed of it When as they joyn with themselves some of the People in the quality of Lay Elders or what ever they will have them called and of these constitute Consistories for all severall Congregations endowed with the Power of the Keys over the same though in dependence upon greater Assemblies out of the opinion that this is the Ordinance of our Lord his Apostles and this not to manage the Interesse of the People that nothing passe contrary to the Laws given the Church by God which are their inheritance as well as the Clergies but in a number double to that of the Presbyters in all Consistories and in a right equall to them man for man so that it may truly be said that the whole Power of Clergy and People is vested in these Lay Elders that one quality consenting being able to conclude the whole When as the determination who shall or shall not be admitted to Communion returneth at last to a number of Secular persons making them thereby Judges of the Laws of Christianity and enabling them thereby to give and take away the Ecclesiasticall being of any member of the Church in those cases to which that power extendeth and investing a Civile Court with the Power of the Keys in the same All these points being members of the Ordinance for the establishment of the Presbyteries I say then that by that Ordinance an Ecclesiasticall Power is erected upon so many perswasions of things concerning the publick Order of the Society of the Church contrary to the Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles by a Secular Power interessed onely in point of Fact in Church matters without any ground of Right to do it and that therefore the endevouring to establish these Presbyteries is an act of Schism which particular Christians though they never by any expresse act of their own tied themselves to be subject to Bishops are neverthelesse bound not to communicate in because they are bound upon their salvation to maintain the Unity of the Church and the Unity of the Church established upon these Laws whereof the Succession of Bishops is one As for the design of the Congregations it is easily perceived to come to this effect That to the intent that Christian people may be tied to no Laws but such as the Spirit of God which is in them convinces them to be established upon the Church by the Scripture and that thereupon the ordering of all matters concerning the Society of the Church may proceed upon conviction of every mans judgement Therefore every Congregation of Christians assembling to the Service of God to be absolute and independent on any other part or the whole Church the Power being vested in the members of the said Congregation under the Authority of the Pastor and Elders as aforesaid And that therefore every Congregation constituting it self a Church constitutes by consequence and destitutes Pastors Elders and Members So that by this design an Ecclesiasticall Power being erected upon so many perswasions contrary to the Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles the act of Schism is more visible Though for the claim and Title by which this Ecclesiasticall Power is erected in both ways that of the Congregations is more sutable to Christianity because that of the Presbyteries more forcible both equally destructive to the right of the Church For that a Parliament by which Power the Assembly of Divines was called not disputing now the Power of a Parliament in England but supposing it to be as great for the purpose as any Christian State can exercise should erect an Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from those that have it and giving it to those that have it not is without the Sphere of any Power which stands not by the Constitution of the Church For if the Church subsisted before any Secular Power was Christian by a Power vested by our Lord in
or spirituall Commonwealth by the Power of doing it Now the Law which is the condition upon which men are admitted to communicate with the Church is nothing else but the profession of Christianity upon which the Apostles of our Lord were first enabled to constitute Churches by baptizing them whom they should win to be Disciples according to the Commission of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 19. those onely being Disciples which undertook Christianity and therefore were afterwards called Christians being first called Disciples even after their Baptism Now Christianity consisting not onely in beleeving whatsoever our Lord Christ revealed but in the acknowledgement of an obligation to doe whatsoever he commanded it follows that this Law of Christianity consists of all Precepts of things to be beleeved and things to be done which our Lord Christ hath declared to his Church And not in these alone in regard that our Lord hath commanded Christianity not onely to be beleeved but also to be professed at the utmost perill of life and estate Therefore I said that the Law which is the condition of communicating with the Church is the profession of Christianity which entitleth to Baptism This profession seeing it cannot be made but to Christians that know what Christianity is and thereby are able to judge of the profession made how agreeable to Christianity of the person making the profession how sincerely how cordially he does it it followeth that the Power of the Church is committed to them that are trusted to judge of the profession of Christianity every one according to the Interesse which he justly pretendeth in that judgement Therefore is this Power called the Power of the Keys because it openeth the doore to the Communion of all Ordinances of Divine Service in the Church when it findeth the profession both agreeable to Christianity and to the heart life of him that makes it and shuts the same when it findeth things otherwise Therefore is it called the Power of remitting and retaining sinnes because God hath promised the free grace of remission of sins to all that make true profession of Christianity The benefit of which promise as it is good to him that makes such profession by virtue of his own act as to God so by virtue of the act that admits of the same it is good as to the Church Though it cannot be good as to God unlesse it be good also as to the Church by reason of the command of God that every Christian be a member of the Church For if it were morally possible that any man should attain to the knowlege and submit to the obedience of Christianity in such an estate of life and such Society of this World wherein it were not morally possible for him to hold Communion with the Church or those who in behalfe of the Church by the Laws of it are enabled to admit him to the Communion of the same by Baptism I would make no scruple to think that man in the state of salvation without Baptism or the Church And the same is to be said of all those that cannot be admitted to the Communion of the Church without professing or doing something contrary to Christianity which is the case of all that stand excommunicate upon unjust causes so that their Christianity obligeth them to communicate with no part of the true Church For seeing the Unity of the Church requires that he that is excommunicate to one part of the Church be excommunicate to all the Church seeing the Unity of the Whole cannot be preserved unlesse the Whole make good each act of the part which it hath power to doe it follows that he who is excommunicate for an unjust cause cannot with his Christianity communicate with any part of the Church his title to heaven remaining entire But this case ceasing the remission of sins depends upon the Church by reason of the profession of Christianity which as God requires every Christian to make so he enables the Church to admit And this is the Argument for the Power of Excommunication which is drawn from the Power of admitting to Baptism evidenced by divers Scriptures and divers particulars in the Primitive practice of the Church agreeable to the same And truly it was enough to point at some particulars for he that would undertake to produce all that is to be had in the records of the Church to depose for this reason and this right of the Church might easily fill great Volumes with nothing else Neverthelesse I will here adde one particular more because it seems this reason of the right and interesse of the Church is evidently seen in it And it will not require many allegations seeing it is a known Rule of the ancient Church that Clinicks should not be admitted to the Clergy alleged by Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antiochia in Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 43. against Novatianus the Father of the Novatians to shew that he could not be Bishop of Rome in opposition to him being made Presbyter contrary to that Rule What was then the reason of this Rule and what were they that were called Clinicks It is very evident that there were very many in the Primitive times that beleeved Christianity but durst not professe it because it was no prejudice to beleeve it but to professe it so as to be baptized and come under the Discipline of the Church might be a matter of life and death in case of persecution Besides beleeving and not professing that is not pretending to Baptism they avoided the strictnesse of Ecclesiasticall Discipline What should the Church doe in the case of these men when they came to demand their Baptism undertaking the Rule of Christianity Surely as they could not utterly exclude them from the Church that had never offended or failed in that which they had undertook to it so of necessity they must stand at a greater distance to such persons as having their Christianity more in suspition then otherwise Wherefore in danger of death they were not to refuse them Baptism but in case they recovered again it was very reasonable that they which had attained their Baptism onely in consideration of the danger of death and must have given better triall of themselves otherwise before they were admitted should therefore stand so far suspected afterwards as not to be admitted to the Clergy which required a greater proficience in Christianity then that which qualified a man onely for Baptism These then are they which were called Clinici because they were baptized in bed as requiring their Baptism when they found themselves upon the bed of their sicknesse which might be that of their death And this is the reason of the Rule that they should not be admitted to the Clergy And by this reason the right and interesse of the Church is evident in admitting the profession of Christianity in those that thereby demanded to be admitted to Baptism In the next argument drawn from the Discipline of Penance it may be
Church And this is the reason of that which I say here p. that the estate of the Church is then most happy and most pure when this legall presumption is most reasonable It is not onely true which I say p. 30. that the Power of binding and loosing which the Priests and Doctors exercised under the Law that is of declaring this or that to be bound or loose that is unlawfull or lawfull by the Precepts of the Law cannot be that which our Lord meaneth Mat. XVIII 18. when he saith Whatsoever ye binde on earth but also that the reason holdeth not under the Gospel to ground a generall Commission correspondent to the Power in force under the Law upon which it may be thought to be said Whatsoever ye binde For the reason of this Power under the Synagogue was the matter of positive Precepts not commanded because it was good but good because it was commanded Which where it was not determined by the Law was to be supplied by the Power of the Consistory established Deut. XVII 8 12. the determination whereof being declared by authority derived from thence made any thing lawfull or unlawfull before God by virtue of the generall Precept by which the authority subsisted For which reason the Consistory is to offer sacrifice for the transgression of private persons as you see here p. 158. so often as they are led into transgression by the Consistory deciding amisse And this reason holds under the Gospel in regard of matters of Positive right concerning the Society of the Church not determined by any divine Precept For if the Church have determined the matter of them further then it is determined by Divine right then is that bound or unlawfull which is so determined unlesse the authority by which it is determined declare that the determination is not to take place This is the effect of that Legislative Power which I challenge for the Church Chap. IV. from p. 170. and concerns onely those positive Precepts which tend to maintain the Society of the Church in Unity But in those things which concern the substance of Christianity because they are commanded as good the obligation being more ancient then the Constitution of the Church as grounded upon the nature of the subject and the eternall will of God this power hath no place And therefore cannot be understood to be signified by the terms of binding and loosing as borrowed from the language of the Talmud Doctors But whereas in the Synagogue it was things or cases under the Gospel it is persons that are said to be bound or loose For of every case questionable in point of Christianity there is no infallible authority given to assure all Christians that following it they shall always please God in all actions But as it is possible to judge of the state of all persons toward God upon supposition of their profession so there is authority founded in the Church of binding and loosing that is of remitting and retaining sins by admitting to or excluding from the Church In fine this interpretation is inconsequent to the words that went afore Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publicane if we take them in Erastus his sense that thereby our Lord gives leave to sue such before the Secular Powers of the Romanes as would not stand to the sentence of their own Consistories For this plainly concerns matter of Interesse not matter of Office seeing it would be very impertinent so to understand our Lord as to command them to be sued in the Gentiles Courts that would not stand to the sentence of the Jews Consistories in matters of Conscience But if we understand binding and loosing according to this opinion to be declaring this or that to be lawfull or unlawfull before God then doth it not concern matter of Interesse but matter of Conscience or Office Besides this interpretation is impertinent to that which follows Again I say unto you if two of you agree upon earth about any thing to ask it it shall be done for them by my Father which is in heaven For where two or three are assembled in my Name there am I in the midst of them Whereas the interpretation which here is advanced of binding and loosing the persons of them that are admitted to or excluded from the Communion of the Church agreeth with that which went afore Let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican and no lesse with that which followeth tending to declare the means of loosing such as should be so bound to wit the Prayers of the Church as hath been declared As for the conceit of Erastus that this Precept of our Lord should concern onely the Jews that lived under the Romanes and not be intended for an Order to be observed in all ages of the Church it is so unreasonable that I finde no cause to spend words in destroying it Onely be it remembred that it is contrary to the Order instituted by our Lord and his Apostles that the differences of Christians should be caried out of the Church to be pleaded and heard in the Courts of the Gentiles according to that which was practised afore in the Synagogue as hath been said So that this sense of Erastus as you see by that which follows it is contrary to the practise of the Church under the Apostles As for the reason touched p. 43. that the practise of the Church before Constantine is the best evidence to shew the proper Power and Right of it it is here opportune to resume the distinction made afore and upon it to frame a generall argument against both Which shall be this Either there was a Society of the Church by right as we know there was in point of fact before Constantine or there is no such thing to be grounded upon the Scriptures in point of right but was onely an usurpation and imposture of the Primitive Clergy of the Church This later assertion is that which hath been refuted by the premises proving first a privilege or a precept of communicating in the service of God given to the community of Christians secondly a condition under which they were admitted to communicate and to be Christians and continued in the same estate But if there were a Society of the Church before Constantine constituted by Divine right then could not the same have been dissolved but by the same Power that constituted it from the beginning neither can it be known to be dissolved but by the same evidence by which it appears to have been constituted that is unlesse it can be made to appear by the Scriptures that God ordained it to subsist onely till the Romane Empire and other States and Kingdomes received Christianity then to be dissolved into the Power of those States being become Christian which I am confident no man will undertake to shew out of the Scriptures If it be said that it subsisted till Constantine not by Divine right but according to Divine right
that is to say by the Power given the Church by God of ordering those things which were not determined by any Divine Precept and yet became determinable the case is the same and the reason is where it was For if the Church by the Power given it by God immediately be enabled to make it self a Society for the better maintenance and propagation of Christianity and have executed that Power by enabling every part of the Church to maintain it self in the Unity of the Whole by the same Power in order to and dependence upon the Whole then are all Christians bound by a Divine Precept of obeying the Governours of the Church before they can be bound to obey the Secular Powers in Church matters The one Power being constituted by the immediate revelation and appointment of God in matters concerning the Society of the Church the other constituted indeed by the Providence of God executed by man but enforced by the Law of Christianity to be obeyed in all things not excepted by the same whereof this is one And if the consent of the Christian world can be of any moment in a matter wherein the Clergy are parties indeed as they must needs be but must challenge their right at their utmost hazard it is not possible to give a more pregnant instance for the right of Excommunication in the Church then the troubles of Athanasius of Alexandria and Alexander of Constantinople for refusing to admit Arrius to communicate with the Church being cast out by the Councell of Nice the act whereof they could not void the good Emperour being seduced to think it necessary for the quiet of the Church And not onely by this particular but by all the proceedings of the first Christian Emperours in the affairs of the Church who had great advantage in discerning the true Interesse of the State and the Church not onely by the advise of those Bishops which had received it fresher from the source but by sensible knowledge of the whole right which they found the Church in possession of when they came to be members of it it is manifest that they never sought to bring to effect that which they were perswaded to be necessary for the establishment of Christianity whether truly or falsly as well as for the quiet of their Estates and People by the immediate act of their own Soveraign Power but by the act of those that were then held able to conclude the Church Imploying their Secular Power in consequence to the same to inforce such acts though not always valid to oblige the Church by temporall Penalties on them that refused as enemies to the publick Peace Seeing then that the Church is a Society Community Corporation or spirituall Commonwealth subsisting by the immediate revelation and appointment of God without dependence upon those Christian States wherein it is harboured as to the Right by which it subsisteth and the matter wherein it communicateth but depending upon them for the force which is necessarily requisite to maintain the whole People of all Christian States in the communion of their respective Churches and by them of the whole it followeth of necessity that it is endowed with Rights correspondent to those wherein the Soveraignty of States consisteth The Power of the Sword is the principall of those Rights into which the rest are resolved when they are enforced to have recourse unto it for the execution of that which becomes requisite to make them available And the Church hath the Sword of the Spirit which is the word of God which is used two manner of ways as the Sword is either to subdue strangers or to cut off malefactors Let no man imagine that any private person is enabled to propagate the Gospel and constitute new Churches of persons newly converted to Christianity without competent Commission from the Church To bring men to be Christians indeed is that which not onely any of the Clergy but any Christian may doe and is to doe when he findes himself able to act towards it without disadvantage to Christianity It is that which the Ecclesiasticall Histories informe us that Frumentius and Aedesius did in India and the captive maid in Iberia as well as those of the dispersion of Jerusalem in Phoenice and Cyprus and at Antiochia Acts XI 19 20. But the authority by which they became a Church they were to seek where it was before at Alexandria and Constantinople as well as those at Jerusalem Acts XI 22. Because in the Church the Sword of the Spirit which is the word of God is deposited and trusted with the Church for the propagation as well as the maintenance of it and though all Christians must needs understand themselves to be under an habituall trust or a commission dormant to perswade all that they can to the Christianity which they have themselves yet the expresse commission of the Church imports further the exercise of that Power which the Society thereof already useth towards them that by virtue of the said Commission shall be brought to be Christians At least it may import so much if we suppose it granted to such purpose The Sword of the Spirit is used within the Church to the punishment of malefactors upon two sorts of causes For if any man forfeit his Christianity either by denying the Faith upon profession whereof he was admitted to Christianity or by living contrary to the same the same Sword of the Spirit which pronounces him cut off from God cuts him off from the Church And in regard that it is part of Christianity to beleeve that God hath ordained a Church the consequence whereof is to oblige all Christians to maintain themselves in the Unity of the same which cannot be done by those that refuse to be concluded by it in all things not contrary to Gods Law the same Sword of the Spirit that subdues all men to be Christians upon condition to live members of the Church cuts them off from the Communion of the Church that will not live within compasse of the Unity of it The Power of the Sword being supposed in the Church Jurisdiction follows which consists not so much in judging as in executing the sentence Not that there is any such thing as Jurisdiction such as the Civile Laws of the Romanes and all other People understand which proceeds by constraint of outward force in the Church But because the Church being constituted of such as desire to continue Christians upon supposition of this will to continue a Christian he may be said to be constrained to hear the Church that cannot communicate with the Church unlesse he doe so as it requires Upon the same ground subsists the Right of Ordinations answerable to that part of Soveraignty in States which consists in creation of Magistrates and Officers for it is without doubt beside the intent of the Romane Laws to call the Soveraign a Magistrate Magistrates being generally Ministers of the Soveraign which creates a particular Power over the
in Aegypt besides that of Alexandria before the time of Demetrius besides that which hath been said p. 142 143. stands more probable by the Emperour Adrians Epistle related by Vopiscus in the life of Saturninus Illi qui Serapin colunt Christiani sunt Et devoti sunt Serapi qui se Christi Episcopos dicunt Nemo illic Archisynagogus Judaeorum nemo Samarites nemo Christianorum Presbyter non mathematicus non aruspex non aliptes Here he names Bishops at Alexandria to wit such as resorted thither from other Cities of Aegypt And though a man would be so contentious as to stand in it that the name Episcopus might then be common to Bishops and Presbyters both yet when he speaks of Presbyter Christianorum in the very next words he cannot reasonably be thought to speak of Presbyters in those that went afore And when Tertullian saith that Valentine the Father of the Valentinians expected to have been made a Bishop for his wit and eloquence and because he failed of it applied his minde to make a Sect apart whereof himself might be the Head adversus Valentin cap. IV. unlesse we suppose more Bishops then one in Aegypt at that time we tie our selves to say that he would have been Bishop of Alexandria Which had it been so Tertullian probably would have expressed for the eminence of the Place The correspondence between the Office of Deacons in the Synagogue and the Church mentioned p. 156. may thus appear Judges and Officers shalt thou appoint thee in all thy Gates that is in all thy Cities saith the Law Deut. XVI 18. joyning together Judges and Officers in divers other places Num. XI 16. Deut. I. 15 16. These Officers the Greek translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Vulgar Latine Doctores for what reason I doe not see that any man hath declared By the Talmud Doctors they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seems to import Appparitores Synagogae which Maimoni describes to be young men that have not attained the years and knowledge of Doctors And the punishment of scourging he saith was executed by these He reporteth also an old saying of their Talmud Doctors that the reason why Samuels sons would not ride circuit as their Father did was because they would inflame the Fees of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is their Ministers or Apparitors and Scribes or Clerks And Buxtorfe in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reports another of their sayings That at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem the Wise were imbased to the learning of Apparitors and Apparitors to that of Clerks So then they were next under their Wise men or Doctors but above Scribes or Clerks by this account But seeing there was no more difference between them it is no marvell if sometimes it be not considered Maimoni in the Title of learning the Law sheweth that the Jews had every where Schoolmasters appointed to teach yong children to read of the condition of whom he writeth there at large cap. III. these are they whom the Vulgar Latine meaneth by Doctores as appears by the supposed S. Ambrose upon 1 Cor. XII 25. who would have those whom S. Paul there cals Doctors to be the very same And therefore they are the very same that the LXX meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Jews say that they were of the Tribe of Simeon and that so the Prophesie of Jacob was fulfilled Divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel the Levites being dispersed throughout all the Tribes to take Tiths at the barn door and the Simeonites to teach to write and reade S. Hierome Tradit Heb. in Genesin Jarchi in Gen. XLIX 7. And indeed the name by which the Scripture calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the Originall of it be not found in the Scriptures as how should any language be all found in so small a Volume yet in the Jews writings and also in the Syriack Testament the word from whence it is derived signifieth contracts as Coloss II. 14. So that by their name they must be such as write contracts that is Clerks or Notaries Therefore if the Judges and Doctors of the Jews Consistories are correspondent to the Presbyters of Christian Churches which by many arguments hath been declared then the Apparitors and Notaries of the same must by consequence be answerable to our Deacons And so Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites maketh the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons of the Christians to be the same that among the Jews were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Rulers of Synagogues Presbyters and Deacons For as the Deacons were wont to minister a great part of the Service in the Church so still the Service in the Synagogue is performed by him whom still they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Minister of the Synagogue To this III Chapter I must adde two considerations The one is of the scope of that little Piece of the Right of the People in the Church which the learned Blondell hath lately added to Grotius his Book De Imperio Summarum Patestatum in Sacris Which is in brief to derive the right and Title of Lay Elders from the people and from that Interesse which by the Scriptures it appears that they had from the beginning under the Apostles in Church matters Whereby he hath given us cause to cry aloud Victory as quitting the reason and ground upon which the bringing of Lay Elders into the Church was first defended and is hitherto maintained among us to wit that onely Text of 1 Tim. V. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double Honour especially those that labour in the Word and Doctrine For this Scripture being abandoned the rest that are pretended are so far from concluding that they cannot stand by themselves Now that this Text cannot be effectuall to prove that purpose he argueth there upon the same reason which here I have advanced p. 123. to wit because the same Honour that is maintenance is thereby allowed to those that labour in the Word and Doctrine and those that doe not Whereupon it must needs appear to him that knows a great deal lesse of the Antiquity of the Church then Blondell does that they are Clergy men whose maintenance is provided for by the Apostle Now to comply with him that hath so ingenuously yeelded us the Fort I doe avow that he hath reason to beleeve that there being so great difference between the State of the Church since whole Nations professe Christianity and that which was under the Apostles and the confusion appearing so endlesse and unavoidable that must needs arise in Church matters by acquainting all the People with the proceeding of them and expecting their satisfaction and consent in the same it cannot be contrary to Gods Law to delegate the Interesse of the People to some of the discreetest and most pious of them chosen by them to concur in
their Right For in this quality doe those Elders of the People of which Justellus writeth act in Ecclesiasticall matters as you may see by that which I have said in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 96. and in all other the particulars which he allegeth And if this be it which the Presbyterians demand in behalf of their Lay Elders let them first accord themselves with those of the Congregations concerning the due Interesse of the People in Church matters and my opinion shall be that the Church may safely joyn issue with them not to yeeld a double number of Votes to Lay Elders in the proceeding of all Church matters as the Ordinance for establishing the Presbyteries appoints which is to make the Clergy truly Ministers not of God but of the People but to grant them a right of Intercession in behalf of the People when as the proceeding may be argued to be contrary to Gods Law grounded upon the practice recorded in the Scriptures and continued under the Primitive Church by which the people were satisfied even of the proceedings of the Apostles themselves in Church matters For by this Right and Interesse the Acts of the Church shall not be done by any Vote of the People but the Rule of Christianity and the Constitution of the Church according to Gods Law shall be preserved which are the inheritance of Christian people The second is concerning the different interesse of Clergy and People in judging the causes of Christians before any State professed Christianity supposing that which hath been proved in the first Chapter that our Lord and his Apostles ordain that they goe not forth of the Church to be judged in Heathen Courts upon pain of Excommunication to them that carry them forth For S. Paul seems to appoint that the least esteemed of the Church be constituted Judges in those causes 1 Cor. VI. 4. and therefore not Bishops nor Presbyters nor Deacons which must needs be of most esteem in the Society of the Church but the simplest of the people Which though it must needs be said by way of concession or supposition that is that they should rather appoint such men then carry their Causes to Secular Courts otherwise it were too grosse an inconvenience to imagine that the Apostle commandeth them to appoint the simplest to be their Judges yet seeing the truth of his words requires that the supposition be possible so that it might in some case come to effect it seems that his injunction comes to this that in case the chief of the Church the Clergy were so imploied that they could not attend to judge their controversies within themselves they should make Judges out of the People Which seemeth not sutable to the rest of the Interesse of the Clergy hitherto challenged This difficulty is to be answered by distinguishing as the Romane Laws distinguish between Jurisdiction and Judging though in far lesse matters For Jurisdiction is sometimes described in the Romane Laws to be the Power of appointing a Judge because it was never intended that the Magistrate which was endowed with Jurisdiction should judge all in person but should give execution and force to the sentences of such Judges as himself should appoint So that the advise of the Apostle supposeth indeed that some of the People might be appointed to judge the Causes of Christians within the Church but leaves the Jurisdiction in those hands by whom they should be appointed Judges Which though it be attributed to the Church indistinctly by the Apostle yet seeing by our Lords appointment the sentence was to be executed by Excommunication therefore of necessity the appointing of Judges must proceed upon the same difference of Interesses as it hath been shewed that Excommunication doth And though Saint Paul suppose that there might be cause to have recourse to Lay-men for the sentencing of differences in the Church as indeed the life of S. Peter in the Pontificall Book relateth that he did Ordain or appoint certain persons to attend upon this businesse that himself might be free for more spirituall imploiment which seemeth to be meant of Lay-men constituted Judges yet by the Apostolicall Constitutions we finde that it was usually done by the Clergy II. 47. And Polycarpus in his Epistle to the Philippians exhorting the Presbyters not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rigid in judgement must needs be thought to have respect to this Office And besides many more instances that might be produced of good antiquity in the Church it is manifest that this is the beginning of Bishops Audiences CHAP. IV. THat which is said p. 166. that Christian States have as good right to dispose of matters of Christianity as any State that is not Christian hath to dispose of matters of that Religion which it professeth proceedeth upon that ground of Interesse in matters of Religion which is common to all States to wit that the disposing of matters of Religion is a part of that Right wherein Soveraignty consists in as much as it concerneth all Civile Societies to provide that under pretense of Religion nothing prejudiciall to the publick peace thereof may be done And truly those Religions that come not from God may very well contain things prejudiciall to Civile Society in as much as those unclean Spirits which are the authors of counterfeit Religions doe also take delight in confounding the good order of humane affairs Notwithstanding in regard the obligation which we have to civile Society is more felt and better understood then that which we have to the Service of God therefore those that are seduced from true Religion are neverthelesse by the light of Nature enabled to maintain civile Society against any thing which under pretense of Religion may prove prejudiciall to the same This is then the common ground of the interesse of all States in matters of Religion which Christianity both particularly and expresly establisheth Particularly in as much as they that assure themselves to have received their Religion from the true God must needs rest assured that he who is the author of civile Society doth not require to be worshipped with any judgement or disposition of minde prejudiciall to his own ordinance Which reason because it taketh place also in Judaisme I have therefore as I found occasion endevoured to declare how that containeth nothing prejudiciall to the Law of Nations And expresly in as much as the Gospel addresseth it self to all Nations with this provision that nothing be innovated in the civile State of any upon pretense thereof but that all out of conscience to God submit to maintain that estate wherein they come to be Christians so far as it is not subject to change by some course of humane right For when S. Paul 1 Cor. VII 22 commands all men to serve God in that condition of circumcision or uncircumcision single life or wedlock bondage or freedome wherein they are called to be Christians his meaning is not to say that a slave may not
become free with his Christianity but that he must not think himself free by his Christianity And upon this ground common to all States it is verified that Christian States have as much right in Christianity as those States that are not Christian have in that Religion which they professe Another ground there is peculiar to Christianity by virtue of the will of God declared to be this that Christianity be received and maintained by the Soveraign Powers of the Gentiles to whom God appointed the Gospel to be preached Of which afterwards That when the World is come into the Church that is when States professe Christianity it is not to be expected that persons of great Quality in the State submit to the Power of the Church unlesse the coactive Power of the State enforce it as it is said p. 168. depends upon that which I said afore that the profession of Religion is common to all Nations insomuch that he deserves not the benefit of civile Society that renounces it For if the profession of Religion in generall be requisite for all them that will enjoy civile Society with any civile Nation then is the Communion of that Religion which the State wherein a man lives professes a temporall Privilege to all that enjoy it in as much as thereby they are reputed to have that Communion with God which the rest of that State must needs be reputed to have because the Religion of the State must needs be reputed to be true And this reputation being so necessary in civile Society that no man esteeming it as he ought can lightly abandon it it follows of necessity that many will be willing to professe Christianity when the State professes it that would not be willing to submit unto the Power of the Church by which they may be deprived of the privilege of Communion in it unlesse they perform as well as professe it in the judgement of those whom that Power is trusted with if the coactive Power of the State did not enforce it That which is said p. 169. that Soveraignty is called by the Romanes Imperium or Empire is chiefly meant of the Title of Imperator given Augustus and his Successors and the reason which I conceive it imports For when the People was Soveraign Generals of Armies received commonly from their Armies the Title of Imperatores upon any remarkable exploit of War done upon their Enemies But they received afore of the People that which they called Imperium or Empire to wit the Power of the Sword by a peculiar Act beside those by which they were either made Magistrates or set over their Provinces Wherefore the Title of Imperator given Augustus in another sense and notion then other Generals had it from their Armies or then Magistrates received their commands as Generals from the People saith Dion lib. XLIV seemeth to extend as far as the property of the word reacheth to all Acts of Soveraignty which a commanding Power can inforce All Laws being nothing else but Commands of that Will which hath Power to determine what shall be done in those things which those Laws do limit and determine All Magistracies Offices and Jurisdictions nothing else but Commands of that will which hath Power to entrust whom it chooseth with the execution of Laws or with Power of Commanding in such things wherein it hath determined nothing afore All these branches then and productions of Soveraign Power are in force and may be exercised by Christian States as well upon Ecclesiasticall matters and Persons interessed by the Church as others But not to defeat nor void that Ministeriall Power which the Church having received immediately from God enjoyeth thereby a Right answerable to all the branches of Soveraign Power in matters proper to the Church as you have seen it declared p. 32. The evidence of a Legislative Power in the Church is said p. 175. to be as expresse in Gods Book as it can be in any Book inspired by God not as if it were not possible that God should declare by inspiration more clearly that this Power belongeth to the Church then now it is declared in the Scriptures for then could there be no dispute about it but that it is as expresse as it can be in these Scriptures supposing them to be inspired by God For seeing those of the Congregations think that they have a sufficient answer to all that is brought for a Legislative Power in the Church out of the Scriptures by saying that the Scriptures are given from above and therefore the matters therein declared being immediately commanded by God are no ground of the like Power for the Church It was necessary to remonstrate unto them that if this answer were good not onely there were no such Power de facto declared but also no such Power could be declared by such Scriptures And therefore that we are to look about us and to consider by what circumstances of things expressed in such Scriptures it may appear to common reason that the Church practised it not without authority and warrant from the Scriptures If the Prophets of the Old Testament had this Power by the Law that if they dispensed with any positive precept of it that precept was to cease for the time which is not any dream of the Jews Doctors but an opinion received from their predecessors without which they involve themselves in most inextricable difficulties that either deny or give any other reason of the toleration of High Places before the Temple was built and after that of the Sacrificing of Elias in Carmell as also of the forbearance of Circumcision in the Wildernesse it is no marvell if the reproof of Ahab by Elias 1 Kings XXI 19 of his son by Elizeus 2 Kings VI. 32. of Herod by our Lord and S. John Baptist are imputed to the peculiar right of Prophets in Gods people p. 179. For seeing that the Law was the condition of the temporall happinesse of that people whereof those Princes were Soveraign and seeing the Prophets were stirred up by God to reduce and preserve the Law in force and practice as well as to point out the true intent and meaning of it which the Gospel was fully to declare it is very reasonable and consequent that their office should take place as well in regard of the Prince as of the people Especially seeing it was sufficiently understood that the people by acknowledging them Prophets were not tied to defend them by force against the publick power vested in the Prince in case it were abused to destroy them or bring their Doctrine to no effect as it is manifest by the sufferings of the Prophets in the Old Testament but to reform themselves according to their Doctrine in their own particulars and to expect the reformation of the people from those that had the power of it And therefore it is extremely inconsequent that by their example in the time of Christianity Preachers should make the personall actions or publick government
persons whereof it consists now the State is it which hath Power to doe that For as it cannot be denied that all States must needs have Power to assemble themselves so it must not be granted that the Church hath not Power to doe the same because it hath been proved here from the beginning that the Church hath Power of assembling not from any State but immediately and originally from God whether for the service of God or for determining whatsoever shall become determinable for the maintenance of Unity among all those that are to communicate in the service of God and the Offices of the same Truly so long as by Circumcision men became both members of a State and of the Communion of Gods service the Church and the State were all one Society as hath often been observed here for the difference between the Law and the Gospel both subsisting by the same Act of God calling them to be his people and to inherit the Land of Promise both upon condition of keeping his Law and by the same act of the people imbracing the same Which holds not in Christianity addressing it self to all Nations and therefore preserving States in the condition which it findes and yet founding a Society of the Church upon the privilege and Charter of assembling for the service of God and the Power which is requisite to preserves the Unity of all that assemble in the condition upon which they communicate in the service of God Which Society as it was visibly distinct from all States for all the time between our Lord and Constantine so is it acknowledged by this author to have subsisted even under the Apostles when as he alleges their Writings to prove those rights which they attribute to the Church to belong to those States which are Christian Which for my part I very much marvell how he could think fit to doe knowing that such acts as the Apostles attribute to the Church are so far from being the acts of the State under which the Church then was that they were prohibited by it so often as the assemblies of Christians were forbidden as you have seen that many times they were By that which hath been said it may appear what reason Ecclesiasticall Writers had to make a difference between the names of the Synagogue and the Church appropriating the former to the Jews and this to the Christians which I for my part so far as custome will give leave desire to observe though for the originall signification I see the name of Ecclesia was at the first most properly attributed to the whole body of Gods people assembled together in the Wildernesse as for example at the giving of the Law For in all the divers significations in which it is used speaking of Christianity there is one and the same consideration of assembling together to be seen though upon severall reasons and to severall purposes from the Synagogue The whole company of those that shall meet and assemble together in the world to come is called sometimes the Church and so is the whole company of the Visible Church upon earth Because though they cannot meet bodily to communicate in the service of God yet they ought to meet with that judgement and disposition of minde that they may both communicate bodily in this world when occasion is and actually meet altogether in the world to come So is the company of Christians contained in either barely one City or the Head City of a Province or Nation called the Church of that City Province or Nation because they so meet severally that any of them may assemble with any because under the same conditions But when one Congregation is called a Church as somtimes it is in the Scriptures it is for the same manner of assembling as the whole people of Israel was assembled in the Wildernesse These things generally premised it will not be difficult to defeat the productions of this assumption in the particulars specified And first according to that which is here determined p. 192. I admit that the Power of interpreting the Scriptures is nothing else but the Power of determining controversies of Faith Though it is not as by consequence to be admitted that those interpretations which come from this Power are as much the Word of God as that which is interpreted by the same or infallible or that we are bound to stand to them as much as to the Scriptures themselves For the Word of God if we will understand it properly is that onely and all that which God giveth in Commission to be declared and enjoyned his people and therefore this author very skilfully observeth that the Word of God in the New Testament is as much as the Gospel which God gave in charge to our Lord Christ and he to his Apostles to be published to the world with a charge from God to imbrace it For so also the Law was the Word of God to Moses and all the Revelations granted the Patriarchs and Prophets were the Word of God to them because by them God declared how he would conduct his People Whereas after the Prophers of the Old Testament though we finde that there were Prophets that spoke by inspiration not onely by Josephus speaking of those times of Gods people whereof there is no mention in the Scriptures but also by that which is said in the New Testament of Simeon and Anna Zachary and the Blessed Virgin and of the Prophets of Churches yet we do not finde it said that the Word of the Lord came to any of them because they received nothing in charge from God to his People Wherefore that which the Church hath received from those persons that spoke not onely by inspiration and revelation but also by Commission from God the evidence of which Commission containeth all the motives to Christianity must not be compared with any thing which it may receive in charge any other way though it be such as may produce an obligation to receive and observe it of a nature answerable to the ground and intent of it which I have declared in the place afore quoted Neither is it to be said that God faileth his Church in any thing due to it upon those promises whereby it subsisteth if he have not provided it of such a Power to be received as infallible unlesse we will say that God hath tied himself to preserve it free from the temptation and triall of Heresies and Schisms which he hath sufficiently declared that he never intended to doe Now that having determined an infallible Power to be requisite for the determining of matters of faith by interpretation of the Scriptures this author in consequence to his assumptions which I have spoke of should challenge it to belong to all Christian States I cannot choose but marvell Seeing that as the Scriptures come by revelation and inspiration from God so whatsoever shall pretend to like authority must needs proceed from the same Which if the Church that is
blasphemers of your Goddesse By which instance we may be assured that Christianity obligeth us not to seek by scorn to bring any man out of love of a false Religion if they did it not to Idolaters And truly though the Israelites are commanded to destroy all monuments of Idolatry with all the scorn possible yet that is to be understood in the Land of Promise which God made them masters of upon that condition but under other Dominions it is provided by the second Commandement Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them not thou shalt not blaspheme them or shew despite against them Josephus indeed interpreteth that precept of the Law Thou shalt not curse Gods to mean that they are forbidden thereby to blaspheme the Gods of the Gentiles Wherein though it seems he flattereth the Romanes for you may have seen another sense thereof before yet this interpretation is presumption enough that they were not commanded by the Law to doe it I will not therefore condemne the Christians of the East for singing to Julians face as the Ecclesiasticall Histories tell us Their Idols are silver and gold and confoundâ—d be all they that worship carved images Because we know particularly that the Christians of his time were resolved to surfer for their Christianity rather then to defend themselves by force And therefore cannot interpret it to be done in scorn to him but to protest their resolution against Heathenism as also many zealous acts of the Primitive Martyrs must be interpreted But I will make this inference to prove that in point of right which you have seen was true de facto that because Christianity preserveth the estate of the world in the same terms and under the same Powers which it findeth therefore it enjoyneth no man to blaspheme the Religion of the lawfull Powers of the world because thereby themselves would be brought into contempt to the undermining of the obedience due to them And therefore this inference proceedeth not upon supposition of the truth of Christianity but upon a reason common to all civile Societies whether Christian or otherwise which Christianity prejudiceth not but maintaineth As for the second doubt it must also be resolved that those whom Christian States hold themselves not enabled to put out of the World or out of the State for professing any Religion those they cannot so punish for the exercise of that Religion which they professe For if it be so necessary for all men to professe and exercise some Religion that they should be out of the protection of the Law of Nations that should professe to have none and that to professe a Religion and not to live according to it is a bare profession that is a presumption that he hath none that doth so it follows that civility and the Law of Nations will inable all men to live after the Religion which they professe And therefore inable no State so to punish men for so doing In the mean time no State is hereby obliged to leave the exercise of other Religions beside that which it self professeth either free or Publick For I conceive the exercise of Religion is understood to be free in regard of those Penalties which are in the Power of every State to inflict on those that conform not to their own according to that which hath been said And to be publick is a further privilege though it necessarily import no more then Toleration containeth For the Christians before Constantine had not only Churches and those endowed with Lands and Revenues as it appeareth by Eusebius but those Lands and Revenues were the common goods of those Churches meerly because it was counted Sacrilege to spoile that Religion which was not counted Sacrilege And yet this was no more then Toleration for when the Soveraign Power would have Christianity goe for Sacrilege immediately they were spoiled of all under Diocletian That which is here resolved p. 259. that meerly a false opinion in matter of Religion is not to be punished with Banishment which is civile death to the State whereof a man is occasions a question concerning Athanasius banished to Triers by Constantine and the same Athanasius and many more by Constantius Valens and others wherein the injustice of the punishment lay whether the Power was onely abused or also usurped Whereunto it is to be answered that the sentence of Constantine upon Athanasius neither imported Banishment nor passed meerly in consideration of his opinion in Religion For seeing the place of abode to which he was confined was within the State whereof he was so that not changing Laws or Language for he must needs be understood over all the Romane Empire he could not be said to live among them that were barbarous to him or he to them barbarous he continued free of the State whereof he was afore though not in possession and use of that rank and estate which he bore in it As for the cause of this sentence it is manifest by the relation that it passed in consideration of the publick peace which seemed to suffer because Athanasius submitted not the trust which he had from the Church to the judgement of the Emperour in abandoning that which the Councell of Nice had done in deposing Arius But the ground of Constantius his sentence upon Liberius of Rome and Eusebius of Vercellae was meerly for acting according to their opinion in Religion Liberius for not condemning Athanasius in the common cause of the Church Eusebius for voting according to his judgement in the Councell at Millane As for the sentence upon Liberius it is the same with that upon Athanasius but that upon Eusebius being condemned to live in the deserts of Aegypt seems to have as much difference from it as there was between relegatio and deportatio among the Romanes the one being but a confinement to a strange people under the same State the other to no people but to some desert Iland or inhabitable place such as the deserts of Aegypt were which is to be removed from the Society of civile people Wherefore as it is no inconvenience to grant that Constantine used ill the Power that he had so that Constantius usurped that which he had not seeing we know that the Arians under him so persecuted the Catholick Christians as I have proved that no Soveraign Power can allow any Subject to be persecuted for Religions sake neither ever did the Catholicks persecute them again By the premises it may appear that the punishment which is commonly called by the term of Banishment may by the disposition of Soveraign Powers be so aggravated or so lightned by the circumstances that the right of inflicting it may be sometimes said to be abused sometimes usurped Therefore my position as the reason of it proceeds onely upon that which amounts to civile Death depriving a man of his right of continuing free of the State whereof he is I cannot here passe by that passage of Synesius Epist LVII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉