which no publick thing could passe I do here willingly mention Ignatius because of the injustice of that exception that is made against him Surely had we none but the old Copy which for my part is freely confessed to be interpolated and mixed with passages of a later hand I would confidently appeal to the common sense of any man not fascinated with prejudice how that can be imagined to be always foisted in which is the perpetuall subject of all his Epistles Dwelling onely upon the avoiding of Heresy and Schism and the avoiding of Schism every where inculcated to consist in this that without the Bishop nothing be done and all with advice of the Presbyters But it seems to me a speciall act of Providence that the true Copy of these Epistles free from all such mixture is published during this dispute among us Which the L. Primate of Ireland having first smelt out by the Latine Translation which he published Isaak Vossius according as he presumed hath now found and published out of the Library at Florence farre enough from suspition of partiality in this cause Nor is the learned Blondell to be regarded presuming to stigmatize so clear a Record for forged It seemes that his Book was written before he saw this Copy and had he not condemned it in his Preface he must have suppressed and condemned his own work But when it appears that this Record is admitted as true and native of all that are able to judge of letters it must appear by consequence that he hath given sentence against his own Book In the mean time it is to be lamented that by the force of prejudice so learned a man had rather that the advantage of so many pregnant authorities of a companion of the Apostles against the Socinians should be lost to the Church then part with his own whether opinion or interesse condemned by the same evidence Certainly those weak exceptions from the style of Ignatius have more in them of will then of reason to all that have relished that simplicity of language which called by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be seen in the writings of Apostolicall persons Irenaeus Justine Clemens Romanus and after them Epiphanius and the Apostolicall Constitutions And he was very forward to finde exceptions that could imagine that Ignatius calleth the Order of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he so qualifieth the Ordination of Damas Bishop of the Magnesians being a young man when he was ordained Bishop As for the mention of the Valentinians Heresie in them he hath been fully told again and again that the seeds of it are extant before Ignatius in the writings of the Apostles But as to my present purpose he that considers of what consequence the Unity of the Church is to the advancement of Christianity and of what consequence not only Ignatius but S. Cyprian S. Hierome and all men of judgement professe the Power of Bishops to be to the preservation of Unity in the Church will not begge the question with Blondell by condemning Ignatius his Epistles because the one half of the subject of them is this one Rule nothing to be done without the Bishop all things to be done by advice of the Presbyters That to the Philadelphians is remarkable above the rest where he affirmeth that having no intelligence from any man of the divisions that were among them the Holy Ghost revealing it to him said within him for the means of composing them Without the Bishop let nothing be done If it be said that this Rule is ineffectuall hindring rather then expediting the course of businesse The answer is that it is enough that thus much is determined by the Apostles the rest remaining to be further limited by humane right as the state of the Church shall require According to this Rule it is justly said that Baptism is not given but by a Bishop as it is given only by those whom the Order of any Church which was never put in force without the Bishop inableth to give it A thing manifestly seen by Confirmation What reason can we imagine that Philip the Deacon being inabled to doe miracles for the conversion of the Samaritanes was not inabled to give the Holy Ghost but the Apostles must come down to do it Was it not to shew that all graces of that kinde were subject to the graces of the Apostles in the Visible Church whereof they were then Chief Governours So that as then those that received the Holy Ghost were thereby demonstrated to be members of the Visible Church in which God evidenced his presence by that grace So was it always found requisite that Christians be acknowledged members of the Visible Church by the Prayers and Blessing of their Successors Which Order as it serves to demonstrate this Succession to all that are void of prejudice so had it been improved to this Apostolicall intent what time as all Christians began to be baptized in infancy renuing the contract of Christianity that is the promise of Baptism and the Chief Pastors acknowledgement of them for members of the Church upon that contract by blessing them with Imposition of Hands without doubt it had been and were the most effectuall mean to retain and retrive the ancient Discipline of Church When men might see themselves by their own solemne profession obliged to forfeit the communion of the Church by forfeiting the terms on which they were admitted to it If it can thus be said that Baptism is not given without the Bishop much more will the same be said of other acts of the Power of the Keys whereof that is the first Presbyters have an interesse in it limitable by Canonicall Right but as to the Visible Church that any man be excommunicate without a Bishop is against this Rule of the Apostles About Ordinations divers matters of fact are in vain alleged by Blondell and others from the ancient Records of the Church tending to degrade Bishops into the rank of Presbyters If the Gothes from the time of Valeriane to the Councell of Nice for some LXX years as he conjectureth out of Philostorgius II. 5. if the Scots before Palladius as Fordone III. 8. and John Maire II. 2. relate retained Christianity under Presbyters alone without Bishops they had not in that estate the power of governing their own Churches in themselves but depended on their neighbours that ordained them those Presbyters and the Government of the Church among them then must be as now among the Abassines where their one Bishop does nothing but Ordain them Presbyters as Godignus ubi supra relates And as the Catholick Christians of Antiochia lived for some XXXIV years after the banishment of Eustathius Theodoret Eccles Hist I. 21. But if the Gothes had Bishops before Vlfitas at the Councell of Nice as he shews out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories is any man so mad as to grant him who never endeavours to prove it that they were made by their own Presbyters
may finde perhaps larger then it The Rule notwithstanding all this is the same that Cathedrall Churches be founded in Cities though Cities are diversly reckoned in severall Countries nay though perhaps some Countries where the Gospel comes have scarce any thing worth the name of Cities Where the Rule must be executed according to the discretion of men that have it in hand and the condition of times This we may generally observe that Churches were erected in greater number when they were erected without indowment established by temporall Law So that in one of the Africane Canons it is questionable whether a Bishop have many Presbyters under him Fewer still where they were founded by Princes professing Christianity upon temporall endowments And upon this consideration it will be no prejudice to this Rule that in Aegypt till the time of Demetrius there was no Cathedrall Church but that of Alexandria If it be fit to beleeve the late Antiquities of that Church published out of Eutychius because they seem to agree with that which S. Hierome reporteth of that Church As to this day if we beleeve the Jesuites whose relation you may see in Godignus de Rebus Abassinorum I. 32. there is but one for all Prester Johns Dominion or the County of the Abassines For though men would not or could not execute the Rule so as it took place in more civile Countries yet that such a Rule there was is easie to beleeve when we see Christianity suffer as it does in those Countries professing Christ by the neglect of it Before I leave this point I will touch one argument to the whole question drawn from common sense presupposing Historicall truth For they that place the chief power in Congregations or require at all severall Presbyteries for the government of severall Congregations are bound at least to shew us that Congregations were distinguished in the times of the Apostles if they will entitle their design to them Which I utterly deny that they were I doe beleeve the Presbyterians have convinced those of the Congregations that in S. Pauls time the Churches to whom he writes contained such numbers as could by no means assemble at once But severall Churches they could not make being not distinguished into severall Congregations but meeting together from time to time according to opportunity and order given About S. Cyprians time and not afore I finde mention of Congregations setled in the Country For in his XXVIII Epistle you have mention of one Gaius Presbyter Diddensis which was the name of some place near Carthage the Church whereof was under the cure of this Gaius and in the life of Pope Dionysius about this time it is said that he divided the Dioceses into Churches and in Epiphanius against the Manichees speaking of the beginning of them under Probus about this time there is mention of one Trypho Presbyter of Diodoris a Village as it seems by his relation there under Archelaus then Bishop of Caschara in Mesopotamia Likewise in an Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria reported by Eusebius Eccles Hist VII 24. there is mention of the Presbyters and Teachers of the brethren in the Villages And those Churches of the Country called Mareotes hard by Alexandria which Socrates Eccles Hist I. 27. saith were Parishes of the Church of Alexandria in the time of Constantine must needs be thought to have been established long before that time whereof he writes there After this in the Canons of Ancyra and Neocaesarea and those writings that follow there is oftentimes difference made between City and country Presbyters In Cities this must needs have been begun long afore as we find mention of it at Rome in the life of Pope Cains where it is said that he divided the Titles and Coemiteries among the Presbyters and the distribution of the Wards of Alexandria and the Churches of them mentioned by Epiphanius Haer. LXVIII LXIX seems to have been made long before the time whereof he speaks But when Justin Martyr says expresly Apol. II. that in his time those out of the Country and those in the City assembled in one farre was it from distinguishing setled Congregations under the Apostles Which if it be true the position which I have hitherto proved must needs be admitted that the Christians remaining in severall Cities and the Territories of them were by the Apostles ordered to be divided into severall distinct Bodies and Societies which the Scripture calls Churches and are now known by the name of Cathedrall Churches and the Dioceses of them constituting one whole Church This being proved I shall not much thank any man to quit me the Position upon which the Congregations are grounded to wit the chiefe Power of the people in the Church Though it seems they are not yet agreed themselves what the Power of the people should be Morellus in the French Churches disputed downright that the State of Government in the Church ought to be democratick the people to be Soveraign Wherein by Bezaes Epistles it appears that he was supported by Ramus For the man whom Beza calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and describes by other circumlocutions who put the French Churches to the trouble of divers Synods to suppresse this Position as there it appears can be no other then Ramus Perhaps Ramus his credit in our Universities was the first means to bring this conceit in Religion among us For about the time that he was most cried up in them Brown and Barow published it Unlesse it be more probable to fetch it from the troubles of Francford For those that would take upon them to exercise the Power of the Keys in that estate because they were a Congregation that assembled together for the Service of God which power could not stand unlesse recourse might be had to Excommunication did by expresse consequence challenge the publick power of the Church to all Congregations which I have shewed to be otherwise And the contest there related between one of the people and one of the Pastors shews that they grounded themselves upon the Right of the people So true it is that I said afore that the Presbyterians have still held the stirrup to those of the Congregations to put themselves out of the saddle As now the Design of the Congregations is refined they will not have it said that they make the People chief in the Church For they give them power which they will have subject to that Authority which they place in the Pastors Elders which serves not the turn We have an instance against it in the State of Rome after they had driven away the Tarquins They placed Authority in the Senate and Power in the People and I suppose the successe of time shewed that which Bodine disputes against Polybius De Repub. II. 2. to be most true that the State was thereby made a Democraty So the Congregations challenging to themselves Right to make themselves Churches and by consequence whom they please Pastors must needs by
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
out of the Scriptures it will be easie to drive a worse Trade of Preaching then ever Priests did of private Masses The one tending only to feed themselves the other to turn the good order of the world which is the Harbour of the Church into publique confusion to feed themselves the profaning of Gods Ordinance being common to both And if the taking away of private Masses must be by turning the Eucharist out of doors saving twice or thrice a year for fashions sake it is but Lycurgus his Reformation to stock up the Vines for fear men be drunk with the wine The Church of England is clear in this businesse The Order whereof as it earnestly sighs and grones toward the restoring of publique Penance the onely mean established by the Apostles to maintain the Church in estate to communicate continually so it recommendeth the continuall celebration of the Eucharist at all the more solemne Assemblies of Lords days and Festivals As for the Sermon it is to be when it can be had and were it now abated when such Sermons cannot bee had as were fitting it is easie to undertake that there would be room enough left for the celebration of the Eucharist In the mean time the Reformers of this Age had they considered so well as it behoved them what they undertook should easily have found that the continuall celebration of the Eucharist at all the more solemne Assemblies of the Church and the Discipline of Penance to maintain the people in a disposition fit to communicate in it is such a point of Reformation in the Church that without restoring it all the rest is but meer noise and pretence if not mischief Now the reason why the celebration of the Eucharist is reserved to Presbyters alone in consequence to the premises is very reasonable and will be effectuall to shew that it is common to all Presbyters and therefore that there is no such thing as Lay Elders For seeing all agree that Presbyters have their share in the Power of the Keys though the Chief Interess in it be the Bishops according to the Doctrine of the Church and seeing the work of this Power is to admit to the Prayers of the Church as S. John sheweth when he describeth Excommunication by not praying for the sins of the excommunicate and seeing it appeareth by S. James that the Prayers of the Church for the sins of them whom the Church prayeth for are the Prayers of the Presbyters what can we conceive more reasonable and consequent to the premises then that the Power of the Keys is convertible with the Office of celebrating the Eucharist belonging to the Bishop and Presbyters by virtue of it For what can be more agreeable then that the Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is celebrated with be offered by those that are to discern who is to be admitted who excluded from the same This is the meaning of Josephus the Jew in Epiphanius against the Ebionites where being baptized by the Bishop of Tiberias at his parting he gives him money saying Offer for me for it is written Whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained Expressing thereby the sense of Primitive Christians who when they were admitted to the Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is offered to God with made account thereby that the Power of the Keys was passed and continually did passe upon them to the remission of sins Whereupon we see that it is an ordinary censure of the ancient Canons that he which did so or so his oblations be not received that is that he be out of the number of those for whom the Prayers of the Church are made which the Eucharist is offered with Therefore Ignatius thus prosecuteth the words last quoted He that is without the Sanctuary saith he comes short of the Bread of God For if the Prayer of one or two be so forcible with God what shall we think of the Prayer of the Bishop and the whole Church For the efficacy of the Prayers of the Church dependeth upon the Unity of the Church And the Power of the Keys is that which containeth that Unity It is therefore agreeable that those Prayers which are of this efficacy be the Prayers of them whom this Unity and the Power which preserves it is trusted with And for this reason though all Christians be Priests as the Scripture says 1 Pet. II. 5. Apoc. I. 6. by a far better title then Moses promises the Israelites Ex. XIX 6. The Sacrifice of Prayer being the act of the whole Church Yet notwithstanding it is by good right that Bishops and Presbyters are called Sacerdotes or Sacrificers in regard of the same Sacrifice of Prayer and Thanksgiving for which all Christians are called Sacrificers That is to say by way of excellence because that which is the act of all is by ordinance of the Apostles passed upon the whole Church reserved to be executed and ministred by them whom that Power which preserveth that Unity which inforceth the Prayers of the Church is trusted with He that refuseth this reason as built upon consequences that convince not must by consequence acknowledge that the celebration of the Eucharist is peculiar to Presbyters meerly by universall and perpetuall practice of the Church derived from the Order setled by the Apostles Which whether those of the Presbyteries will admit I leave to themselves to advise For as for their pretense that the Ministery of both Sacraments is convertible with the Office of Preaching upon which they style their Pastors or Preaching Elders Ministers of the Word and Sacraments it appears to be as void of any ground from the Scriptures as it is wide from the originall and Universall practice of the Church The Ministery of the Word being the Office of Apostles and Evangelists according to the Scriptures The Ministery of Baptism and Preaching communicable to Deacons and possibly to Lay men onely the celebration of the Eucharist proper to the Power of the Keys in Bishops and Presbyters But putting all the reasons that here are advanced to compromise yet out of the premises we have two effectuall arguments to convince the nullity of Lay Elders The first from the manner of sitting in the Church In as much as it hath been shewed that the Order and custome of it is to be derived from the Apostles themselves as being in use in their time For if the manner of their sitting in the Church were so distinguished that all the Presbyters sate in one Rank in the uppermost Room with the Bishop in the midst that is in the Head of them his Seat advanced above theirs as S. Hierome witnesseth of the Bishops of Alexandria from S. Mark from which manner of sitting they are called by the Greek Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Tertullian praesidentes how can common sense desire better evidence that there are but two qualities
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
onely mark to discern what is the subject of Reformation and what not All Warre made upon the Title of Christianity is unjust and destructive to it Therefore Religion cannot be Reformed by force Of the present State of Christianity among us and the means that is left us to recover the Vnity of the Church THat which hath been said as it concerns the present case of this Church seems to be liable to one main Objection which is this That if the power of Bishops and Presbyters be such as hath been said by Divine Right that nothing can be done without them in their respective Churches it will follow that in case the State of the Church be corrupt by processe of time and their default especially so that the common good of the Church require Reformation by changing of Laws in force if they consent not it cannot be brought to passe without breach of Divine Right This may well seem to be the false light that hath misguided well affected persons to seek the Reformation presently pretended For seeing it is agreed upon among us that there was a time and a State of the Church which required Reformation and that if the Clergy of that time had been supported in that power which by the premises is challenged on behalfe of the Clergy this Reformation could not have been brought to passe It seems therefore to the most part of men that distinguish not between causes and pretenses that where Reformation is pretended there the power lawfully in force to the Society of the Church ought to cease that the Reformation may proceed either by Secular power or if that consent not by force of the People To strengthen this objection as to the Reformation of this Church it may further be said that though it is true that the Order of Bishops hath been propagated in this Church at and since the Reformation by Ordinations made according to the form of that Apostolicall Canon That a Bishop be Ordained by two or three Bishops yet if we judge of the Originall intent of that Canon by the generall practice of the Church it will appear that it is but the abridgement of the IV Canon of the Councell of Nice which requireth that all Bishops be Ordained by a Councell of the Bishops of the Province Which because it cannot always be had therefore it is provided that two or three may doe the work the rest consenting and authorizing the proceeding A thing which seems necessarily true by that which hath been said of the dependence of Churches consisting in this that the Act of part of the Church obliges the whole because that part which it concerns and the Unity of the whole which it produceth stands first obliged by it being done according to the Laws of the whole By which reason the Act of Ordination of a Bishop obliges the whole Church to take him for a Bishop because the Mother Church to which he belongs and the rest of Cathedrall Churches under the same do acknowledge it And this is that which the Ordinance of the Apostles hath provided to keep the Visible Communion of the whole Church in Unity To which it is requisite that a Christian communicate with the whole Church as a Christian a Bishop Presbyter or Deacon as such But when among the Bishops of any Province part consent to Ordinations part not the Unity of the Church cannot be preserved unlesse the consent of the whole follow the consent of the greater part And therefore though the Canon of Nice be no part of Divine Right yet seeing the precept of the Unity of the Church being the end which all the Positive Laws of Church Government aim at obligeth before any Positive precept of the Government thereof which we see are many ways dispensed with for preservation thereof and that it appears to be the generall custome of the Primitive Church to make Ordinations at those Provinciall Councels which by another Apostolicall Canon XXXVIII were to be held twice a year it seemeth that there can no valid Ordination be made where the greater number of the Bishops of the Province dissent Which is confirmed by the Ordination of Novatianus for Bishop of Rome which though done by three Bishops as the Letter of Cornelius to the Eastern Bishops recorded by Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 43. testifieth yet was the foundation of that great Schisme because Cornelius was Ordained on the other side by sixteen as we reade in S. Cyprian Now it is manifest that the Ordinations by which that Order is propagated in England at and since the Reformation were not made by consent of the greater part of Bishops of each Province but against their minde though they made no contrary Ordinations And by the same means it is manifest that all those Ecclesiasticall Laws by which the Reformation was established in England were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church if we set aside the Secular Power that gave force unto that which was done contrary to that Rule wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth But in other parts the Reformation established was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters or any consent able to conclude the Church by the Constitution of the Church that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot if not worse that is detested among them Upon which precedent it sounds plansibly with the greatest part among us that the Unity of the whole being dissolved by the Reformation the Unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us Before I come to resolve this difficulty it will be requisite to examine what Privileges and Penalties the Secular Power is enabled to enforce Religion within a Christian State Because it hath been part of the dispute of this time that some Privileges of the Church are contrary to Christianity as also some Penalties upon matter of Conscience And the resolution of it will make way to my answer Now the resolution hereof must come from the ground laid from the beginning of this Discourse that Christianity importeth no temporall Privilege or advantage of this present World and therefore that Christianity enableth no man to advance and propagate his Christianity by force For as it is contrary to the nature thereof to bee forced seeing the Service of God which it requireth is not performed by any man that is not willing to doe it nor the Faith beleeved but by them that are willing to beleeve it So seeing it gives no man any privilege of this world which he cannot challenge by a lawfull title of Humane Right and that no title of Humane Right can enable any man to impose upon another that Faith which Humane reason reveals not therefore can no Humane power force any man to be a Christian by the utmost penalty of death which is that which force endeth in to them that submit not It is true the Law of Moses imposeth death for a penalty in
same common sense of all men that assures the truth of the Scriptures must assure it The knowledge of originall languages the comparison of like passages the consideration of the consequence and text of the Scripture the records of ancient Writers describing affairs of the same times and if there be any other helps to understand the Scriptures by they are but the means to improve common sense to convince or be convinced of it If that will not serve to procure resolution there remains nothing else but the consent of the Church testifying the beleef and practice of the first times that received the Scriptures and thereby convincing common sense of the meaning of them as the intent of all Laws is evidenced by the originall practice of the same So that this whole question What Laws God hath given his Church fals under the same resolution by which matters of faith were determined in the ancient Councels in which that which originally and universally had been received in the Church that was ordained by them to be retained for the future as demonstrated to have been received from our Lord and his Apostles by the same kinde of evidence for which we receive Christianity though not so copious as of lesse importance And therefore it will not serve the turn to object that the mystery of iniquity was a working even under the Apostles as S. Paul saith 2 Thess II. 7. to cause the beleef and practice of the Primitive Church always to stand suspect as the means to bring in Antichrist For it is not enough to say that Antichrist was then a coming unlesse a man will undertake to specifie and prove by the Scriptures that the being of Antichrist consists in that which he disputes against For if we will needs presume that the government of the Church which was received in the next age to the Apostles is that wherein Antichristianism consists because the mystery of iniquity was a work under the Apostles why shall not the Socinians argue with as good right that the beleef of the Trinity and Incarnation is that wherein Antichristianism consists being received likewise in the next age to the Apostles under whom the mystery of iniquity was a work Or rather why is either the one or the other admitted to argue from such obscure Scriptures things of such dangerous consequence unlesse they will undertake further to prove by the Scriptures that Antichrist is Antichrist for that which they cry down Which I doe not see that they have endevoured to doe for the things in question among us about the Government of the Church Besides this my reason carries the answer to this objection in it because it challenges no authority but that of historicall truth to any record of the Church Appealing for the rest to common sense to judge whether that which is so evidenced to have been first in practice agreeing with that which is recorded in the Scriptures be not evidently the meaning of those things which we finde by the Scriptures to have been instituted by our Lord and his Apostles And this it is which for the present I have pretended to prove by this Discourse Which being spent chiefly in removing the difficulty of those Scriptures which have been otherwise understood in this businesse confesseth the strength of the cause to stand upon the originall generall and perpetuall practice of the Church determining the matters in difference by the same evidence as Christianity stands recommended to us proportionably to the importance of them Which as it is not such as is able to convince all judgements which are not all capable to understand the state of the whole Church yet is it enough to maintain the possession of right derived to this instant so that no power on earth can undertake to erect Ecclesiasticall authority without and against the succession of the Apostles upon the ground of a contrary perswasion without incurring the crime of Schism I will not leave this point without saying something of their case that have Reformed the Church without authority of Bishops that have abolished the Order and vested their Power in which I have shewed that they succeed the Apostles as to their respective Churches w th dependence on the whol upon Presbyteries or whatsoever besides Which to decline here might make men conceive that I have a better or worse opinion of them then indeed I have For a Rule and modell or Standard to measure what ought to be judged in such a case suppose we that which is possible in nature the terms being consistent together though not at all likely to come to passe in the course of the world a Christian people greater or lesse destitute of Pastors endowed with the Chief authority left by the Apostles in all Churches I suppose in this case no man can doubt but they are bound to admit the same course as those that are first converted to be Christians That is to receive Pastors from them that are able to found and erect Churches and to unite them to the Communion of the whole Church which is no lesse authority then that of a Synod of Bishops that onely or the equivalent of it in the person of an Apostle or Commissary of an Apostle being able to give a Chief Pastor to any Church But suppose further that this authority cannot be had shall we beleeve that they shall be tied to live without Ecclesiasticall communion When it is agreed that as the Unity of the Church is part of the substance of the Christian Faith necessary to the salvation of all so the first Divine Precept that those Christians shall be bound to is to live in the Society of a Church For where severall things are commanded by God whereof the one is the means whereby the other is attained it is manifest that the Chief Precept is that which commandeth the end and that which commandeth the means subordinate to the other Now it is manifest that all Powers and all Offices endowed with the same in the Church are Ordained by God and enjoined the Church to the end that good Order may be preserved in the Church And good Order is enjoined as the means to preserve Unity and the Unity of the Church commanded as the being of that Society whereby Christians are edified both to the knowledge and exercise of Christianity by communicating with the Church especially in the Service of God and in those Ordinances wherein he hath appointed it to consist Seeing then this edification is the end for which the Society of the Church subsisteth and all Pastors and Officers ordained as means to procure it as it is Sacrilege to seek the end without the means when both are possible so I conceive it would be Sacrilege not to seek the end without the means when both are not Now it is manifestly possible that the edification of the Church may be procured effectually by those that receive not their Power or their Office from persons endowed with
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
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
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
Discourse p. 16. that whereas it is said Acts XIV 23. that Paul and Barnabas ordained Presbyters in every Church S. Paul saith that he left Titus in Crete to ordain Presbyters in every City Tit. I. 5. and again Acts XVI 4. As they passed by the Cities they delivered unto them the decrees determined by the Apostles and Presbyters at Jerusalem The Cities of which he had said before that they ordained Presbyters in every Church planted in those Cities as Titus in every City So nice as this evidence may seem to those that consider not the state of the whole Church when it shall appear to any man as to all that consider with their eyes open it must appear that always every where all congregations of Christians remaining in the Country adjoining to any City made one Church with the Christians of that City common sense will inforce that the Apostles designe was the modell from which this form was copied out in all parts of the Church To which purpose we are to consider in the next place an excellent Observation of that pious learned Prelate the L. Primate of Ireland published in a little Discourse of the Originall of Bishops upon the seven Churches of Asia to which S. Iohn is commanded to direct that Epistle contained in the II III Chapters of the Apocalypse The observation consists in this that the seven Cities wherein those seven Churches are said to be were seven chief Cities or Mother Cities of the Province of Asia whereby it is manifest that the chief Churches upon which inferiour Churches were to depend were planted in the chief Mother Cities to which the Countries about them resorted for Justice For certainly no man will offer such violence to his own common sense as to say that there were at the time of writing this Epistle but seven Congregations of Christians in that Province where S. Paul first and after him S. John had taken such pains And if more Congregations but onely seven Churches for what reason but because many Congregations make but one Church when they are under the City in which that Church is planted There hath been indeed an Objection made from the words of this Epistle when it is said at the end of the addresse to every particular Church He that hath eares to hear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches The addresse beginning always thus To the Church of Ephesus thus saith the Spirit To the Church of Smyrna thus saith the Spirit and so of the rest The objection pretendeth that by these words it appears that there were in Ephesus for example many Churches constituting the Presbytery of that City which is there called the Church of Ephesus For if this were so I would acknowledge that this argument were overthrown and that Churches were not convertible with Cities but that many Churches are here called the Church of Ephesus because the Seat of the Presbytery was at Ephesus according to the Presbyterian Design But this objection both carries with it an answer to discover the mistake upon which it is grounded and draws after in an effectuall argument to choke the opinion which it supports For is not S. John expresly commanded Apoc. I. 11. to write and send one letter to all those seven Churches And can any man be so senslesse as when it is said What the Spirit saith to the Churches to understand severall Churches of Ephesus Smyrna and the rest and not the seven Churches to which the one letter is directed And therefore the argument stands good that in these seven Cities there were but seven Churches and that the letter is directed to these Mother Churches planted in the Mother Cities because inferiour Cities receiving their Christianity from them were to depend upon them for the regulating of all things concerning the exercise of it As the Originall and Universall condition and State of the Church convinces Now the argument which this objection and the answer draws after it is this That in all the New Testament you shall never finde any mention of severall Churches in any City as Rome Ephesus Antiochia Jerusalem But when there is speech of any Province be it never so small you shall finde mention of a plurall number of Churches in it For of the Churches of Asia Syria Cilicia Macedonia Achaia Galatia Judaea and Samaria and of the Hebrews in their dispersions we finde expresse mention upon severall occasions Acts IX 31. VIII 5 40. XV. 41. 1 Cor. XVI 1. 2 Cor. VIII 2. 1 Thessal II. 14. Apoc. I. 11. II. 7 11 17 29. III. 6 13 22. Though Samaria among the rest were a Province of no great extent yet for example you have in that Province the City whereof Simon Magus was called Gittha saith Epiphan Haer. XXI now a Village but in those days a City saith he of which Acts VIII 5. And Philip went down to a City of Samaria not the City as we translate it and Caesarea which Ioseph shews us was in that Province XXI 7. Now tell me what reason can be given for this by any man that will pretend to understand either Scripture or any record of learning but that Churches are convertible with Cities For had there been many Churches within the City of Ephesus for example of parallel power and privilege making up one Classis or Presbytery or whatsoever new name can be given a new thing without the least syllable of example from the Apostles to Calvin must not these have been called the Churches not the Church of Ephesus I come now to a very expresse mark of this dependence during the time and in the actions of the Apostles and therefore by their Order acknowledged not onely by themselves but by all imploied by them in the planting of the Churches And it is the going of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem in behalf of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia troubled by some that taught at Antiochia from whence those Churches received their Christianity that Christians are to keep the Law of Moses Acts XIII 1. XV. 1. For were not Paul and Barnabas able to resolve this question at Antiochia Paul especially protesting That he received not the doctrine of the Gospel which he preached from man or by man Gal. I. 1. who is constrained both to the Galatians and elsewhere to oppose his calling as a Bulwark against all that laboured to bring Judaisme into the Church Surely in regard of the thing they were but in regard of authority to the Church they were not Barnabas was imploied by the Apostles to Antiochia who found Christians there but made them a Church by ordering their Assemblies Acts XI 20 24 25 26. And he it was that first brought Saul into that service by his authority from the Apostles Though afterwards both of them were extraordinarily imploied by the Holy Ghost to preach the Gospel and plant Churches Acts XIII 1. All this while the Church could not look upon Saul in the quality and
rank of the XII Apostles which afterwards he shews us was acknowledged by the XII themselves at Jerusalem Gal. II. 8 9. to wit when he went to Jerusalem with Barnabas about this question Acts XV. 1. for I can see no reason to doubt that all that he speaks of there passed during the time of this journey And in the mean time it was easie for those that stood for the Law to pretend Revelation from God and authority from the Apostles in matter of Christianity as well as Paul and Barnabas What possible way was there then to end this difference but that of the Apostle 1 Cor. XIV 32 33. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets for God is not the God of unquietnesse but of peace as in all Churches of the Saints Whereupon vindicating his authority and challenging obedience to his Order even from Prophets which might be lifted up with Revelations to oppose he addeth Came the word of God from you or came it to you alone If any man think himself a Prophet or spirituall let him acknowledge the things that I write you to be the Commandements of God That is that Apostles being trusted to convey the Gospel to the world were to be obeyed even by Prophets themselves as the last resolution of the Church in the will of God granting his Revelations with that temper that as one Prophet might see more in the sense effect and consequence of Revelations granted to another then himself could doe in which regard the spirits of the Prophets were to be subject to the Prophets so for the publick order of the Church all were to have recourse to the Apostles whom he had trusted with it If then the Church of Antiochia in which were many Prophets and among them such as Paul and Barnabas indowed with the immediate Revelations of the Holy Ghost Acts XIII 1. must resort to Jerusalem the seat of the Apostles to be resolved in matters concerning the state of the Church how much more are we to beleeve that God hath ordained that dependence of Churches without which the Unity of no other humane Society can be preserved when he governeth them not but by humane discretion of reasonable persons Besides we are here to take notice that the Church of Antiochia being once resolved the Churches of Syria and Cilicia are resolved by the same Decree Acts XVI 4. Because being planted from thence they were to depend upon it for the Rule and practice of Christianity Therefore it is both truly and pertinently observed that the Decree made at Jerusalem was locall and not universall which had it been made for the whole Church there could not have been that controversie which we finde was at Corinth by S. Paul 1 Cor. VIII 1. about eating things offered to Idols Neither could the Apostle give leave to the Corinthians to eat them materially as Gods creatures not formally as things offered to Idols as he does 1 Cor. VIII 7. had the Body of the Apostles at Jerusalem absolutely forbid the eating of them to Gentile Christians for avoiding the scandall of the Jewish Christians But because the Decree concerned onely the Church of Antiochia and so by consequence the Churches depending upon it therefore among those that depended not upon it for whom the Rule was not intended it was not to be in force There is yet one reason behinde which is the ground of all from the Originall constitution of the Synagogue Moses by the advice of Jethro ordained the Captains of Thousands Hundreds Fifties and Tens to judge the Causes of the people under himself Ex. XVIII 24 25. To himself God joyned afterwards LXX persons for his assistance Num. XI 16. But these Captains were to be in place but during the pilgrimage of the wildernesse For when they came to be setled in the land of Promise the Law provideth that Judges and Ministers be ordained in every City Deut. XVI 18. Who if there fell any difference about the Law were to repair to Jerusalem to the successors of Moses and his Consistory for resolution in it Deut. XVII 12. by which Law wheresoever the Ark should be this Consistory was to sit as inferiour Consistories in all inferiour Cities Most men will marvell what this is to my purpose because most men have a prejudice that the power of the Church is to be derived from the Rights and Privileges of the Priests and Levites during the Law though there be no reason for it For these Rights and Privileges were not onely temporary to vanish when the Gospel was published but also while the Law stood but locall and personall not extending beyond the Temple or land of Promise over any but their own Tribe But it is very well known that from the time of the Greekish Empire and partly afore it Judaisme subsisted in all parts wheresoever the Jews were dispersed and that wheresoever it subsisted there were the people to be governed and regulated in the observation of the Law and the publique worship of God according to the same frequented also all over the land of Promise whereas the Temple stood but in one place It is also manifest that this Law which gave the Consistory power of life and death to preserve the Body of that people in Unity and to prevent Schisms upon different Interpretations of the Law was found requisite to be put in practice in their Dispersions to wit as to the determining of all differences arising out of the Law not as to the power of life and death to inforce such sentences this power being seldome granted them by their Soveraigns For at Alexandria we understand by Philo in his Book de Legatione ad Caium that there was such a Consistory as also in Babylonia there was the like as the Jews writings tell us for the little Chronicle which they call Seder Olam Zuta gives us the names of the Heads thereof for many ages And after the destruction of the Temple it is manifest not onely by their writings as Semach David Sepher Juchasin and the like but by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites and the Constitutions of the Emperors remaining in the Codes Tit. de Judaeis Coelicolis that there continued a Consistory at Tiberias for many ages the Heads whereof were of the family of David as Epiphanius agreeing with the Jews informeth us in the place aforenamed And as by the story of Saul in the Acts it appears that the Jews of Damascus were subject to the Government at Jerusalem so by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites it appears that the Synagogues of Syria and Cilicia were subject to the Consistory at Tiberias as I have shewed out of Benjamins Itinerary in the Discourse of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 67. that the Synagogues of the parts of Assyria and Media were to that in Bagdat and without doubt that great Body of Jews dispersed through Aegypt was to that at Alexandria As for the Law
consequence reduce the Authority they pretend to what measure the people shall please whom by their proceedings they inable to make and unmake members and Pastors at their pleasure But I dispute not the consequence of their design before they declare what they are agreed upon in it Besides they conceive they have this Right in the Church because they are Saints as Anabaptists conceive that by the same title they have Right to the Goods of this world and as Christians conceive they have those Rights which they pretend to in the Visible Church by lawfull Ordination and Baptism And that they are Saints they seem to presume upon this ground that they have been admitted to such a Congregation upon Covenant to live in such Society for which they separate from the Church It shall be enough to levell the grounds and reasons from Scripture upon which they have parted from the Church under pretence of recovering the freedom of Saints before they are agreed wherein this freedom consists and how far it extends And truly that which I have hitherto proved seems to be a peremptory prescription against their pretence For if the Apostles ordered the Bodies of severall Churches to consist of the whole numbers of Christians contained in severall Cities and in the Territories of them which no common sense can possibly imagine that they could assemble all together at any time for the service of God it follows of necessity that the power of Governing those Churches was not deposited by the Apostles in the Body of the People whereof those Churches did or should consist For where the Power is in the People there the whole Body of the People must have means to Assemble to take Order in such things as concern the state of it Wherefore the Assemblies of the Church being only for Divine Service and at those Assemblies it being impossible that all the people of those Churches should meet common sense must pronounce that the Power of taking Order in the common affairs of Churches is not deposited by the Apostles in the Body of the People Another exception there is to all or most of the particulars which they alledge out of the scriptures far more peremptory then his For those things upon which they ground the right interess of the people in the Church were done under the Apostles that is not only in their time but also in concurrence with their Right and Power in the Government of the Church So that if we beleeve or if we prove the chief Power to have been then in the Apostles it cannot by the Scriptures which they produce be proved to remain in the People because their evidence cannot prove any greater Power or Right to be now in the People then belonged to them when the Scriptures they allege were said or done under the Apostles Now I suppose I shall not need to intreat any man to grant me that the Soveraign Power of the Church was then in the Apostles which their Commission will easily evince The name of an Apostle seemeth to have been borrowed by our Lord from the ordinary use of that people For in their Law it ordinarily signifieth a mans Proxy or Commissary deputed to some purpose And therefore the signification of it in the Scriptures is very large So that when we reade of Epaphroditus Apostle of the Philippians Phil. II. 25 30. or of Luke and Titus Apostles of the Churches 2 Cor. VIII 19 20 23. we are not to conceive by this name any thing like the Office of the Apostles of Christ For these later are plainly called Apostles of the Churches as deputed by them to carry their Contributions to Jerusalem And Epaphroditus of the Philippians as imploied by them to wait upon and furnish S. Paul with his necessary charges at Rome The power of Christs Apostles then must not be valued by the name of Apostle nor by the person of our Lord Christ that sends them for he might have sent other manner of men upon inferiour errands and all been Apostles But by the work which they are trusted with expressed in their Commission As my Father sent me Whos 's soever sins ye remit and Goe preach and teach all Nations For if God ordain his Church to be one Visible Society to serve him in the Profession of the Gospel and trust onely his Apostles and the Church with the Power of the Keys the root of all Ecclesiasticall Power as hath been said either the Church must challenge it against the Apostles which is not but by them or it must be understood to have been then in the Church because it was in the Apostles in whom it was before the Church which was founded by them whereupon the Office of the Apostles is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishoprick before the Church was whereof they were Bishops to wit in Judas Acts I. 9. A meaning easie to be read in the number of them For the Church being the spirituall Israel as Israel according to the flesh coming of XII Patriarchs had always XII Princes of their Tribes and LXX Presbyters members of the great Consistory to govern them in the greatest matters concerning the State of the whole People under one King or Judge or under God when they had neither King nor Judge So did our Saviour appoint XII Patriarchs as it were of his spirituall People LXX Governours of another Rank both under the name of Apostles in whom should rest the whole Power of governing that People whereof himself in heaven remains always King A perfect evidence hereof is the deriving of other Power from them as theirs is derived from Christ We reade in the Scriptures of Euangelists and we reade of another sort of Apostles which if we understand not to be of the number of the LXX we must needs conceive to be so called because they were Apostles of the Apostles that is persons sent by the XII Apostles to assist them in the work committed to their trust which it is plain could not be executed by them in person alone And indeed those whom the Scripture cals false Apostles 2 Cor. XI 13. and that said they were Apostles and were not Apoc. II. 2. what can we imagine they were but such as pretended to be imploied by other Apostles perhaps by S. Peter to Corinth who had a hand in the founding of that Church as we learn by Dionysius of Corinth in Eusebius Eccles Histor II. 25. agreeing with the beginning of S. Pauls first Epistle but intended indeed under their names and authorities to pull down that which was built by their fellow Apostles And in this sense perhaps S. Paul calls Andronicus and Junias eminent among the Apostles Rom. XVI 7. because it may be they were imploied by himself or by S. Peter about the Gospel at Rome And hereby we may take measure what Euangelists were For seeing it appears by the Scripture that they were the Apostles Scholars deputed by them and limited to such imploiment as
they found most proper for their assistance it is manifest that they could have no authority but derived from the Apostles A thing perfectly agreeing with the Custome that had always been among Gods People For all Prophets whom God imploied upon his messages and may therefore properly be called his Apostles as our Lord Christ is called the Apostle of our Profession Heb. III. 1 had their Disciples to wait upon them which is called ministring to them in the language of the Scripture Thus Joshua the Minister of Moses Exod. XXIV 13. Elizeus poured water on the hands of Elias as the Chief of his Scholars that expected a double portion of his spirit 2 Reg. II. 9. III. 11. Thus the Baptist saith he is not worthy to loose or take away our Saviours shooes Mat. III. 11. Mar. I. 7. that is to be his Disciple for by Maimoni in the Title of learning the Law cap. V. we learn that the Disciples of the Jews Doctors were to do that service for their Masters Hereupon saith Christ Luc. XXII 26. I am among you as he that ministreth to wit not as a Master but as a Disciple Thus the chief of our Lords Disciples whom he had chosen from the beginning to be with him receiving his Commission became his Apostles having waited on his Person and by familiar conversation learned his doctrine better then others Whereupon I said in the Primitive Government of Churches p. 3. that to make an Apostle it was requisite to have seen our Lord in the flesh and that he appeared to S. Paul after death to advance him to that rank by this privilege Mar. III. 14. Mat. X. 1 4. And shall we think that the Apostles did not as their Lord and all the Prophets before him had done choose themselves Scholars that by waiting on them might learn their Doctrine and become fit to be imploied under them and after them If we do we shall mis-kenne the most remarkable circumstances of Scripture For we may easily observe that those who are called in the Scriptures Euangelists are such as first waited upon the Apostles as S. Mark upon S. Peter Timothy and S. Luke upon S. Paul Acts XVI 1. XIX 22. as Mark upon Paul and Barnabas Acts XIII 5. and Mark again whether the same or another upon S. Paul 2 Tim. IV. 11. And therefore I easily grant both Timothy and Titus to have been Euangelists though the Scripture says it but of one 2 Tim. IV. 5. because I see them both Companions of S. Paul that is his Scholars and Ministers And therefore find it very reasonable that he should imploy Titus into Dalmatia to Preach the Gospel in those parts where himself had left hoping to goe further and carry it beyond into Illyricum whereof Dalmatia was a part as you may see by comparing the Scriptures 2 Tim. IV. 10. Rom. XV. 19. 2 Cor. X 16. Tit. III. 12. For thus also of the seven Ministers to the Apostles at Jerusalem you see Steven and Philip imploied in Preaching the Gospel and this later called therefore expresly an Euangelist Acts VI. 9. VIII 5 12. XXI 8. And therefore it is not possible for any man out of the Scriptures to distinguish between the Office of Euangelists and those whom I shewed to have been Apostles of the Apostles And thereby the conclusion remains firm that all Ecclesiasticall Power at that time remained and for future times is to be derived from the Apostles when we see by the Scriptures that the Euangelists derived their Office and Authority from their appointment And indeed how can common sense indure to apprehend it otherwise especially admitting that which hath been discoursed of the Power of the Keys in admitting into the Church That being made Christians by the Apostles because by them convinced to beleeve that they were Gods Messengers whom they stood bound to obey should neverthelesse by being Christains obtain the Power of regulating and concluding the Apostles themselves in matters concerning the Community of the Church which what it meant or that such a Society should be they could not so much as imagine but by them is a thing no common sense can admit without prejudice Those that purchase dominion by lawfull Conquest in the world become thereby able to dispose of all their Subjects have because they give them their lives that is themselves The Church is a People subdued to Christ by the Apostles not by force but by the sword of the Spirit and though to freedome yet that freedome consists in the state of particular Christians towards God not in the publique Power of the Church otherwise then it is conveyed lawfully from them that had it before the Church Indeed visible Christianity is a condition requisite to make a man capable of Ecclesiasticall Power and the Church is then in best estate when that legall presumption of invisible Christianity is most reasonable But if Saints because Saints have Power and Right to govern the Church then follows the Position imposed on Wicleffe and Husse in the Councell of Constance and condemned by all Christians that Ecclesiasticall Power holds and fails with Grace which will not fail to draw after it the like consequence in Secular matters pernicious to all Civile Societies that the interesse of honest men is the interesse of Kingdomes and States contradicting the principle laid down at the beginning that Christianity calls no man to any advantage of this world but to the Crosse Therefore no Christian or Saint as Saint or Christian hath any Right or Power in the Church but that which can be lawfully derived from the Order of the Apostles Those of the Congregations use to allege S. Peters apology to the Jewish Christians for conversing with Cornelius and his Company Acts XI 9. as also that of S. Paul Col. IV. 17. speaking to the body of the Church at Colossae Say to Archippus look to the Ministery which thou hast received to fulfill it as if S. Peter or Archippus must be afraid of Excommunication if they render not a good account of their actions to the People By which it may appear how truly I have said that the Power they give the People is in check to that Power which was exercised by the Apostles But if we reason not amisse it would be a great prejudice to Christianity that S. Peter could not inform Christian People of the reason of his doings which they understood not but he must make them his Soveraign Or that S. Paul conveying his commands to Archippus by an Epistle directed to the whole Church should be thought to invest the People in that Power by which he commands Archippus They allege also the People of the Church of Jerusalem present at the Councell there and joyned in the letter by which the decree is signified and conveyed to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia Acts XV. 4 12 23. But of this I have spoken already and am very willing to leave all men to judge by the premises whether
me no great thanks for saying that it is not against Gods Law that those who are not in Holy Orders do Preach For that which I have alleged for this in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 420. out of that notable Epistle in Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 20. in behalf of Origen who before he was Presbyter was imploied in Preaching by the Bishop of Caesarea consists in divers instances of other persons of Origens rank which Preached indeed but all by Commission from their respective Bishops who were themselves by their Places the Doctors in Chief of their respective Churches And if this be against Divine Right as we agree it is for any under the rank of a Presbyter to celebrate the Eucharist how shall any Church allow men to Preach for triall of their abilities before they attain that rank in which they are ordinarily to doe it That which hath been said of Preaching is to be said much more in my opinion of Baptism If the charge of Baptizing given the Apostles had been meant of the Office of Ministring not of the power of granting it what reason could there be that S. Peter having converted Cornelius and his company should not baptize them in person but command them to be baptized Acts IX 48 And if the Apostles imploy their Deacon S. Philip to Preach and to Baptize is it not by consequence that the Governours of particular Churches imploy their Deacons about the same In the Synagogue it cannot be said that the office of Circumcising ever required any higher quality then that of a person circumcised And therefore in the Church if there can be any question whether a person is to be admitted to Baptism or not it is the Chief Power of the Church that must determine it Or if the occasion require Solemnity which may argue him that Officiates it to be Chief in the Church no Deacon nor Presbyter must presume to doe it before the Bishop But because Baptisme is the gate as well of the invisible Church as of the visible and because the occasions are many and divers which indanger the preventing of so necessary an Office by death in this regard the practice of the Primitive Church alleged by Tertullian de Bapt. cap. XVIII must not be condemned whereby Baptism given by him that is only baptized is not onely valid but well done Though my intent hereby is not to say that it may not be restrained to Presbyters and Deacons when the Church is so provided of them that there is no appearance that Baptisme can be prevented for want of one But though I doe for these causes refuse the reason that Presbyterians can give why onely Presbyters may celebrate the Eucharist I am not therefore much more in love with that which the School Doctors give when they conceive that the Apostles were made Priests by our Lord at his last Supper when he said Do this For we do not find this exposition of these words authorized by the first ages of the Church or any Writers of that time And where the School Doctors speak not out of the mouth of the Primitive Church I make no difficulty to take them for none of my Authors And truly in this case the Text of the Scripture seems to be plain enough for the Command of our Lord Doe this in remembrance of me must needs speak to the same persons as the rest that goes afore Take eate drink divide this among you which belonging to the whole Church it is manifest the Precept Do this belonging also to the whole Church cannot make any difference of qualities in it In this difficulty then it will be hard to find any anchor so sure as that of Tertullian De Cor. cap. III. where making a Catalogue of Orders and Rules observed in the Church which are not found delivered in terms of Precept in the Scriptures he prosecuteth it thus Eucharistiae Sacramentum in tempore victus omnibus à Domino mandatum etiam antelucanis coetibus nec nisi de manu Praesidentium sumimus The Sacrament of the Eucharist was commended to the Church at meat saith Tertullian Is not this the expresse word of our Lord for when he saith Doe this is it not manifest that he commandeth to celebrate the Eucharist at the end of Supper as himself presently had done Sure enough the Primitive Church understood it so for the Ministery of Tables in the Acts of the Apostles for which the Apostles provide themselves Deacons and the Feasts of Love which S. Paul regulates at Corinth are enough to shew us that the Eucharist came at the end of them And so Tertullian shews that it was in his time when he sayes that they received the Eucharist at their Assemblies before day also that is to say as well as at their Feasts of Love at which our Lord ordained it But though there be no Precept extant in the Scripture that the Eucharist be used at those Assemblies of the Church which are held meerly for the Service of God besides those Feasts of Love yet if my reasons propounded in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 291. have not failed which hitherto so far as I know are not contradicted it doth appear by the Scripture that it was so under the Apostles And therefore that onely Presbyters are to celebrate the Eucharist the Church will be confidently assured because it appears by these words of Tertullian that this was the Primitive practice of the Church Especially if by any circumstance of Scripture it may appear to have been derived from the Apostles Which perhaps comparing the premises with the nature of the Eucharist will not fail us To shew that those who did eat of the Sacrifices of the Gentiles were accessory to their Idolatries the Apostle 1 Cor. X. 16 instanceth in the Jews who by eating of their Sacrifices did communicate with the Altar that is with God to whom that which was consumed upon the Altar belonged And because Christianity supposeth that the Gentiles Sacrifices were offered to Devils therefore the Gentiles communicating with Devils by eating the remains of their Sacrifices as the Jews with God that it was not lawfull to eat of their Sacrifices for them that communicated with God in the Eucharist as the Jews did with the same true God and the Gentiles with the Devils by their Sacrifices Thus the Apostles argument supposeth that in the Eucharist Christians do participate of the Sacrifice of the Crosse as Jews and Gentiles do of their Sacrifices and so that the purpose thereof is that by it we may participate of the Sacrifice offered to God upon the Crosse Which being carried by our Lord within the Vail into the most Holy Place of the Heavens to be presented to God as it is declared at large Hebr. IX 11 is notwithstanding no lesse participated by Christians then the Jews do participate of their peace-Offerings Which the Apostle teaches again when he tels the Hebrews XIII 10. that
we have an Altar that is a Sacrifice of which they that serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat that is no Jews For seeing the Priests only eat the remains of burnt Sacrifices whereas the remains of peace Offerings are eaten also by the Sacrificers that which the Priests touch not it is manifest that no Jew can have right to touch And that the Sacrifice of the Crosse is such he proceedeth to prove because as he had declared in the premises it is of that kinde that was carried within the Vail and again because in correspondence to the burning of the rest of those Sacrifices without the Camp which the Law enjoyned Levit. IV. 12 20. VI. 30. XVI 21. our Lord suffered without Jerusalem Now because it concerned the discourse propounded by the Apostle to shew how Christians participate of that Sacrifice whereof he hath proved that Jews do not he addeth Let us therefore goe forth to him out of the Camp bearing his reproach for we have here no abiding City but seek one to come Let us therefore by him offer the Sacrifice of Praise continually to God even the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his Name Which if we will have to be pertinent to the premises must all be meant of the Eucharist in which the Sacrifice of the Crosse is communicated to Christians Not as if thereby the Apostle did establish that strange prodigious conceit of repeating the Sacrifice of the Crosse and sacrificing Christ anew in every Masse In as much as the Apostle clearly declareth that the same one individuall Sacrifice which Christ carried into the Holy of Holies through the Vail to present to God is that which all Christians participate of in the Eucharist always And therefore the Eucharist is a Sacrifice no otherwise then as all Eucharists that have been or shall be to the worlds end can be understood to be the same one individuall Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse Which how it is to be understood this is not the place to dispute Here is further to be remembred that which I have proved in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 343 373. that it is Ordained by the Apostles which hath been practised by the Church after them in all ages that at the celebration of the Eucharist supplications and prayers be made for all estates and ranks in the Church for all things concerning the common necessities of it The reason and intent whereof is still more manifest by the premises For if the prayers of the Church be accepted of God in consideration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse appearing always before the Throne of God within the Vail to intercede for us Is it not all reason that the Church when it celebrateth the remembrance thereof upon earth should offer and present it to God as the only powerfull means to commend the Prayers of the Church unto God and to obtain our necessities at his hands If these things then be so let us call to minde the Propheticall Vision represented to S. John in the Apocalypse of the Throne of God and of the Church Triumphant divided into XXIV Presbyters sitting about the Throne of God and the people of the Church standing and beholding the Throne and the Elders in the very same manner as they did at the Assemblies of the Church Militant at Divine Service Whereby it is manifest that God granteth the Decrees which are foretold in that Prophecy at the Prayers of the Church Triumphant presented to his Throne in the same manner as the Prayers of the Church Militant here upon earth And upon these premises I suppose it will be no hard thing to make the consequence from that which is said Apoc. IV. 8. The XXIV Elders fell down before the Lamb having every one Harps and golden Vials full of incense which are the Prayers of the Saints The consequence being no more but this that seeing all things else in this Vision are correspondent to the order of the Militant Church therefore it is plain that the Presbyters in the Church Triumphant are said to hold in their hands the Prayers of the Saints because in the Church Militant the Presbyters were to present the Prayers of the Church to God and by consequence to celebrate the Eucharist which the Prayers of the Church were always presented to God with Which is further confirmed in that the Church or the place in Heaven where this Assembly of the Church Triumphant is represented to S. John is called divers times in the Apocalypse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in the notion of an Altar which notwithstanding it signifies more then once in this very Prophecy when the Altar of Incense before the Throne is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apoc. VI. 9. VIII 3 5. but of a Sanctuary or Place of Sacrificing So Apoc XI 2. Rise measure the Temple of God and the Sanctuary which in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it follows and those that worship in it For in an Altar no man worships Again Apoc. XIV 18. Another Angel came forth out of the Sanctuary For out of the Altar he could not come and yet it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again Apoc XVI 7. And I heard one speak out of the Sanctuary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This signification is expounded in H. Stevens Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Altarium Sacrarium and in those of Philoxenus Sacrarium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so it is Translated in the Latine of Polycarpus his Epistle to the Philippians where he cals the Widows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As also in that noted passage of Ignatius to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it is manifest that the Church is called a Sanctuary or Place of Sacrificing seeing no man can be said to be without the Altar because not within it Neither is it any marvell that in the representation of the Triumphant Church in this Propheticall Vision by correspondence with the Assembly of the Church upon earth regard is had chiefly to the celebration of the Eucharist Because as it is that part of the Service of God which is altogether peculiar to the Church as the Sacrifice of the Crosse is peculiar to Christianity whereas other Offices of Divine Service Prayer the Praises of God and Teaching of the People are common not only to Judaism but in some sort to other Religions never Ordained by God So is it the Chief and principall part of it though in this Age where so much hath been said of Reforming the Church we hear not a word of restoring the frequent celebration and communion of it It is to be wished indeed that continuall Preaching be maintained in all Churches as it is to be wished that all Gods people were Prophets And it is to be commended that the abuse of private Masses is taken away But if order be not taken that those which are set up to Preach may Preach no more then they have learned
generally distinguishable in the Church the one of Presbyters sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. V. 17. 1 Thess V. 14. sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. XIII 14 17. somtimes Episcopi 1 Tim. II. 2. Tit. I. 5 7. comprehending Bishop and Presbyters for the reasons alleged for to these the Deacons as their Ministers are to be referred the other of the People The same that in Tertullian are called Ordo Plebs in all ages of the Church since the Apostles the Clergy and People Secondly seeing it is manifest that the Power of the Keys is above the Office of Preaching to a Christian Church indeed equall to that of celebrating the Eucharist it followeth that it is against the Order declared by the Scripture that the Power of the Keys should be in any man that is not allowed to Preach and celebrate the Eucharist and therefore that by having the Power of the Keys a man is by Right qualified to doe it And truly I doe much marvell how this consequence can be refused as to the Office of Preaching when as S. Paul requires both of Timothy and Titus that the Presbyters which they ordain be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is fit to teach For no common sense can allow that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having the signification not from Preaching but from Governing is not to comprehend Governing Elders as well as Preachers Therefore the Scriptures make those Preachers whom the Presbyteries make Governing Elders Here follows a third argument drawn from that onely Text of the Apostle upon which their Lay Elders are grounded with any appearance 1 Tim. V. 17. Let the Elders that Rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially those that labour in the Word and Doctrine For by the Apostles Discourse it is manifest and so far as I perceive agreed on all hands that the word Honour here spoken of is maintenance S. Pauls instruction supposing the Order setled by the Apostles to be this that there should be in all Churches setled in Cities as aforesaid a common stock at the disposing of Bishop and Presbyters rising from the Oblations of the faithfull out of which first those that attended upon the Government of the Church and the Offices of Divine Service then those that could not attend the Service of God without maintenance from the Publique might finde subsistence For hereupon it is that S. Paul chargeth Timothy to honour widows indeed that were destitute of maintenance from their friends that they might abide in prayers and supplications as Anna the Prophetesse Luc. II. 36. and Iudith VIII 5. and the good women that waited at the Tabernacle Ex. XXXVIII 8. 1 Sam. II. 24. And when he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shews that there was then a List of them called here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Church Writers afterwards Canon which whosoever was entred into received appointment from the Church 1 Tim. V. 5 9 16. Let it therefore be said no more that the distinction between Clergy and people is not found in the Scriptures For how can the Office be more expresly distinguished then by the appointment that is allowed for the execution of it And therefore when S. Peter charges the Presbyters 1 Pet. V. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means not the people but he means the same which Clemens in Eusebius when he says that S. Iohn was wont to go abroad from Ephesus to forein Churches on purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to Ordain some Clergy man that should be signified by the Spirit For in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so S. Peters precept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consists of two members not to domineer over the Clergy that were under them that is the Deacons Widows and Deaconesses and to be a Pattern to the Flock In this Discourse of S. Paul we have a further reason of difference between the Clergy and people from that Rule of life and conversation to which the Clergy was subject by the Primitive Discipline of the Church For if the Church allowed Widows an appointment in consideration of their daily attendance upon the Service of God much more are we bound to conceive that Presbyters whom the Apostle allows a double appointment are tied to double attendance on the same Service A thing which cannot be expected of those who are tied to the World and therefore Tertullian De Praescript cap. XLI condemneth the Hereticks because their fashion was to make secular men Presbyters Seeing then that the Apostle alloweth the same double appointment to the whole Order of Presbyters let them that set up Lay Elders ask their own Consciences whether they can be content to allow them the same maintenance from the Church as themselves receive otherwise let them not imagine that they can set them up by this Scripture For that some Presbyters should labour in Preaching though all are required to be apt to Preach is no inconvenience in that State when Congregations were not distinguished but the whole Office rested in the whole Order of the Clergy in relation to the whole Body of the People of a Church You see by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV that one Assembly whereof he speaks there furnished with a great number of Prophets whether Presbyters or over and above them In the Records of the Church we find divers times a whole Bench of Presbyters presiding at one Assembly Is any man so unsatiable of Preaching as to think the Church unprovided of it unlesse all those Preached at all times Is it not enough that Timothy is required to count them especially worthy double honour that labour in it for by this means those that laboured not in it when and how Timothy finds it requisite must know that their maintenance must come harder from his hands For the last argument I must not forget the perpetuall practice of the Church though I name for the present but the words of Clemens Disciple to the Apostles who in his Epistle to the Corinthians to compose a difference among the Presbyters of that Church partly about the celebration of the Eucharist advises them to agree and take their turns in it If all the Presbyters might take their turns in it then all might celebrate the Eucharist if in that Church then in all Churches I know many Church Writers are quoted to prove Lay Elders For that also is grown a point of Learning to load the Margin with Texts of Scripture and allegations of Authors in hope no man will take the pains to compare them because if he do he shall easily finde them nothing to the purpose For instance My self have the honour to be alleged for one that approve Lay Elders even in that place of that very Discourse where I answer the best arguments that ever I heard made for them onely because I said then as now that we are not bound to think that all Presbyters
Preached during the Apostles times What reason then can any Reader have to presume that any of their dead witnesses make more for their purpose then I who am alive and stand to see my self alleged point blank against the position which I intended to prove because forsooth in their understanding the premises which I use stand not with the conclusion which I intended to prove But to speak plain English for the future if any man can shew by any writing of any Christian from the Apostles to this innovation any man indowed with the Power of the Keys that was not also qualified to Preach and to celebrate the Eucharist I am content to be of the Presbyteries the next morning though I am so well satisfied that it will never be shewed that I say confidently it will always be to morrow Now because the Power of the Keys that is the whole Power of the Church whereof that Power is the root and source is common to Bishop and Presbyters it is here demanded what Act we can shew peculiar to the Bishop by precept of Gods Word for which that Order may be said to be superiour to that of Presbyters A demand sutable to the definition of the Schoole wherein an Order is said to be a Power to doe some speciall Act But extremely wide of the Terms that have been held heretofore Have we been told all this while that the Presbyteries are the Throne and Scepter of Christ the force and Power of his Kingdome hath so much Christian blood been drawn for the Cause and now in stead of shewing that they are either commanded or consistent with the Word of God is it demanded that the Government in possession in the Church from the Apostles shew reason why it cannot be abolished though instituted by the Apostles Surely though this is possible to be shewed yet though it could not be shewed it might be beyond any Power on earth to abolish the Order of Bishops For my part I conceive I have shewed heretofore that the Power of every respective Church was deposited by the Apostles with the respective Bishop and Presbyters and that therefore in the ages next to the Apostles the advice and consent of the Presbyters did concurre with the Bishop in ordering of Ecclesiasticall matters whereas Congregations were not yet distinct but a Bishop and Presbyters over the common Body of each Church Over and above what hath been said the condemning of Marcion at Rome and of Noetus at Ephesus are expresly said by Epiphanius Haer. XLII num I II. Haer. LVII nu I. to have been done passed by the Act of the Presbyters of those Churches The difference between Alexander Bishop and Arius Presbyter of Alexandria is said to have risen at a meeting and debate of that Bishop and his Presbyters in the letter of Constantine to those two reported by Eusebius De Vitâ Constant II. cap. penult And Epiphanius Haer. LXIX num III. And which is of a later date the Excommunication of Andronicus in Synesius his fifty seventh Epistle I finde reported to have passed in the same sort And all this agreeable to the practice recorded in the Scriptures For when S. Paul instructeth Timothy saying 1 Tim. V. 19 20. Against a Presbyter receive not an accusation but under two or three witnesses Them that sin rebuke openly that the rest may fear Is it not easie to gather from hence that he commandeth such accusations to be brought and proved before Timothy with the rest of his Presbyters but the competent censure to be executed before the whole Congregation of the Church And is it not manifest that S. James first gives S. Paul audience in a Consistory of the Presbyters to advise what course to take before the Congregation be acquainted with the businesse Acts XXI 18 The same being the practice of S. Cyprians time when Cornelius of Rome writeth to him Epist XLVI placuit contrahi Presbyterium As also expressed in the Apostolicall Constitutions II. 47. by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Consistories appointed there to be held every week for composing all differences against the Lords Day And therefore as for my part the learned Blondell might have spared all his exact diligence to shew that Presbyters did concurre with the Bishop in acts of this nature The cunning would be in proving the consequence that therefore Bishop and Presbyters are all one which all common sense disavows For be it granted which he insisteth upon so much that as the Commentary upon S. Pauls Epistles under S. Ambrose his Name relateth Eph. IV. 11. at the first the eldest of the Presbyters was wont to be taken into the place of the Bishop For it is probable that this course was kept in some places though his conjectures will not serve to prove that it was a generall Rule what will this inable him to inferre as for the power of the Bishop being once received into the first place who knows very well the gallant speech of Valentinian recorded by Ammianus lib. XXVI to the very Army that had chosen him Emperour and at the instant of his inauguration began to mutiny about retracting their choice that it was in their power to choose an Emperour before they had done it Intimating that being chosen it was not in their power to withdraw their obedience For by the same reason whatsover be the means that promoted the Bishop the measure of the power to which he was promoted must be taken from the Law given the Church by the Apostles expressed by the practice of it As there is no doubt but the Romane Emperors were advanced to an absolute Power though by the choice of their Souldiers It is not my purpose to say that the Power of the Bishop in the Church is such But it is my purpose to appeal to common sense and daily experience and to demand whether in those Societies or Bodies which consist of a standing Councell and a Head thereof indowed with the Privilege of a Negative the Power of the Head and of the severall members be one and the same If not then is there the same difference between the Bishop and the Presbyters by the Scriptures interpreted by the Originall practice of the Church The Instructions addressed to Timothy Titus I suppose obliged not them alone but all that were concerned to yeeld obedience to what thereby they are commanded to doe If any thing concerning the subject of those instructions could have passed without Timothy and Titus they were all a meer nullity For instance if by the Presbyters Votes Ordination might have been made without Timothy they might commit sin and the blame thereof lie on Timothies score to which S. Paul if he lay hands suddenly on any man makes him liable So the Angels of the seven Churches as they are commended for the good so are they charged with the sins of their Churches Which how can it be reasonable but for the eminent power in them without
at Rome a Dove lighting upon his head the people crying out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tooke him presently and set him in the Bishops Throne And yet it cannot be said that therefore the people Ordained him Bishop So likewise the Presbyters of Alexandria seated one of their number in the Bishops Chair saith S. Hierome This installing must needs have the force of a nomination by the Presbyters and so sway and prejudice the consent of the Bishops assembled to the Ordination which regularly was to be done by a Synod of Bishops that their choice was never known to have been void before the time of Dionysius and Heraclas which was enough to ground S. Hierome an argument though ineffectuall But seeing Eusebius shews us that there were other Bishops in Aegypt seeing the life of S. Mark in Photius saith that he planted Churches in Pentapolis which seem to be those over which the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria is established by the Councell of Nice Can. IX I must not grant that they received their chief from the Presbyters of Alexandria without their own consent expressed by Imposition of Hands This is my opinion of the credit which we are to give to these two passages in point of Historicall truth But supposing not granting them both I cannot see what can be inferred from either of them prejudiciall to the Order of Bishops and the necessity thereof above Presbyters For seeing it is acknowledged that S. Mark Ordained a Bishop always to be Head of that Church and that by virtue of this Ordinance the Presbyters finde themselves obliged to proceed to create one which they did sooner at Alexandria then in other Churches after the vacancy saith Epiphanius Haer. LXIX 11. it is manifest that the authority of a Bishop is necessary to the validity of all Acts of the Church by S. Marks Ordinance when they acknowledge themselves necessitated to make one in the first place that the Acts thereof may be valid Again as to the Canon of Ancyra suppose Presbyters were Ordained by Presbyters upon Commission from the Bishop is this any prejudice to the Rule that nothing be done without the Bishop Or is it any advantage to them that would have no Bishops and so do all against the Bishop To my reason it seems necessary to distinguish between the solemnity which an Act is executed with and the Power and Authority by which it is done And that it cannot be prejudiciall to any Power to doe that by another which seemeth not fit to be immediately and personally executed by it The dependence of the Church being safe by the Commission acknowledged and the Unity of the Church by that dependence Some acts of the Primitive Church seem to require this distinction As the making of Presbyters by the Chorepiscopi or Country Bishops mentioned in the ancient Greek Canons Which by all likelihood were not properly Bishops because not Heads of a City Church which is the Apostolicall Rule for Episcopall Churches For the aforesaid Arabick Paraphrase of the Canon of Ancyra describes them thus Interpretatio ejus est Episcopi Villarum hoc est Vicarii Episcopi per Villas habitatas qua fuerint in universa operatione id est Diocesi The meaning of Country Bishops is that they are Bishops of Villages that is the Bishops Vicars in the best inhabited Villages of all the Diocese So it seems that they were set over the greater Villages or Bodies of Villages which in regard of some secular Right resort to some one Village lying within the Territory of some Episcopall City Therefore the Councell of Antiochia saith expresly Can. X. that they and the Countries which they govern are both subject to the Bishop of the City Whereupon it seems they were Ordained by that one Bishop and so not properly Bishops which are Ordained by a Synod or the Representatives of it and that this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Canon there mentions And this is the reason why they are called Vicarii Episcoporum Bishops Deputies in the ancient Translation of the Canons as you have seen So if the Canon of Ancyra enable them to Ordain Presbyters within their own precinct for that must be the meaning of it when it says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying part of the Territory of the City assigned to their peculiar care it seems to delegate this Power of the Bishop not to be exercised without Letters under his hand and seal as the Canon expresseth Again I suppose no man will deny that all Ordinations in Schism are meer nullities though made by persons rightly Ordained because against the Unity of the Church And yet we finde such Ordinations made valid by the meer Decree of the Church without Ordaining anew As the Meletians in Aegypt by the Councell of Nice in Epiphanius and the Ecclesiasticall Histories and as Pope Melchiades much commended for it by S. Augustine offered to receive all the Donatists in their own ranks besides divers others that might be produced Among which that expressed in the Canons Antioch XIII Apost XXXVI deserves to be remembred whereby Ordinations made in another Bishops Diocese are made void For the only reason why some things though they be ill done yet are to stand good is because the Power that doth them extendeth to them but is ill used So when the Power is usurped as in all Schism or when that is done which the Law makes void it can be to no effect Therefore when the act of Schism is made valid it is manifest that the Order of Bishop Presbyter is conferred in point of Right by the meer consent of the Church which by the precedent Ordination was conferred only in point of Fact being a meer nullity in point of Right Adde hereunto that of the Apostolicall Constitutions VIII 27. that a Bishop may be Ordained by one Bishop being inabled by an Order of the rest of the Province when they cannot assemble in case of persecution or the like For here the Power is derived from all though the solemnity be executed by one By the same reason it is that Confirmation in Aegypt was done by the Presbyters As the supposed S. Ambrose upon Eph. IV. agreeing with the Author of the Quaestions in Vet. Novum Testam Quaest CI. among S. Augustines Works witnesseth For that is it which the one of them means by consignant the other by consecrat because both limit their assertion that it was onely done in the absence of the Bishop Which cannot be supposed at Ordinations because they were regularly to be made at a Synod of Bishops For seeing it was done onely in the absence of the Bishop by consequence it was done by Order and Commission from the Bishop by which the custome was established And therefore cannot be prejudiciall to that Power by virtue whereof it was done as by authority derived from it And to my understanding this is the reason of that which we finde done Acts XIII 1 where
Paul and Barnabas being Ordained by the immediate act of the Holy Ghost to Preach to the Gentiles the solemnity thereof is performed by those in whom we cannot imagine the Power of sending them to rest In which opinion I am much confirmed by the practice of the Synagogue For though it is manifest that the custome of promoting Judges by Imposition of Hands came from the example of Moses and the Ordaining of the LXX Elders and Joshua yet we must beleeve their Records compiled by Maimoni â—â— de Synedrio cap. IV. when they tell us that in processe of time it was done without that solemnity by an Instrument or so and yet still called neverthelesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Imposition of Hands And now let them that demand what is that speciall Act which Bishops are able to do and Presbyters not take their choice If they be content that the Bishops acting with this Interesse that without him nothing be done be counted a speciall Act they have the speciall Act which they demand in all things that are done in the Church If they be not though it is easie enough to dispute it everlastingly yet I will not contend with them about it seeing it is enough that nothing is done without him to make him a fair step above his Presbyters And yet I conceive there is an Act to be named peculiar to Bishops which is to sit in a Councell Which consisting of the representatives of all Churches and not capable of all Presbyters and the Bishops right being that without him nothing be done in his Church it follows that by the right by which he is a Bishop he is a member of his Synod which no Priest can be but by Privilege seeing the whole Order cannot And this according to the Scriptures For by the premises the Apostles had place in the Councell at Jerusalem as Ordinary Governours of the Churches concerned in it which Churches had there no other representatives but Paul and Barnabas as Heads of the Churches which they had founded so lately Acts XIII XIV as it appeares when by them the Decree is delivered to execution in the Churches Acts XVI 4. As for the Presbyters mentioned in it the same evidence which assures us that they were Presbyters assures us also that they were Presbyters of the Church at Jerusalem and none else This I conceive the fittest to be thought the speciall Act of a Bishop For the unity of the whole Church arises from the Power deposited in each Church By virtue whereof he that communicates with any one Church in any rank of it communicates with all Churches in the same Which was in the Primitive Church the effect of the literae formatae or letters of mark by which this Unity of the Ancient Church was maintained in as much as he that travelled with such a testimony of his rank in any one Church by virtue of the same was received in all Churches where he came And therefore Synesius in the sentence of excommunication against Andronicus which by his fifty seventh Epistle he publisheth to the Churches addeth that if any Church contemning the sentence of his Church as a small and a poor one should receive Andronieus to communion without satisfaction given to him and his Church thereby it shall become guilty of Schism This holds as such Acts are not questioned by any greater part of the Church as not concerning the State of other Churches Which if they be then as no Church can be concluded but by the Act to which themselves concur whereby all Excommunications Ordinations as wel as making of Canons are the subject of Synods so the chief Power must needs be most seen in that Act which concludes all Churches concerned which is the Act of a Synod As concerning the objection that there is no precept in the Scripture that Bishops govern all Churches and that many things Ordained by the Apostles are abolished in the Church It is a question whether it come from lesse skill or proceed to worse consequence For unlesse we will betray the advantages of the Church to very many and perhaps to all Heresies and Schisms that ever were we must confesse that as there are precepts in the Scripture that oblige not so there are many things not set down in the Scripture in the form of precepts that oblige What can be delivered in a more expresse form of precept then that of Saint Paul That women pray with their heads covered men with theirs uncovered and yet where is it in force The same is to be said of the Decree of Jerusalem against eating things strangled and blood On the other side we finde by the Scriptures that the Apostles kept the Lords Day but do not find there that they commanded it to be kept As for the fourth Commandement I suppose it is one thing to rest on the day that God ceased his work and another on the day that he began it And if there be precepts in the Scripture that now oblige not why may not Secinus dispute that the precept of Baptism was temporary for them that had been enemies to the Faith afore And though I say not that he shall have the better hand for the truth cannot be contrary to the truth yet it shall not be possible for every Christian to discern whether he hath it or no unlesse there be some more sensible ballast then nice consequences from the Text of the Scripture If it be thus of Baptism much more of the Eucharist which as you saw is not used any more in the Church as it was instituted As for the Power of the Keys it is absolutely by this answer betraied to the Socinians who would have it peculiar to the Apostles For it is no where delivered as a Precept but onely as a Privilege What means is there then to end everlasting difficulties Surely the same that there is to understand all positive Laws that ever were For if the ancient interruption of the practice of any Law secure the Church that it was not given to all times and places sure that which is not mentioned as a Precept and yet has been always in practice without interruption as it was in force afore it was mentioned so was intended to oblige not by the mention but by the act that first established it evidenced by practice Which if it be so then is there no Power on earth able to abolish the Order of Bishops having been in force in all Churches ever since the Apostles I must not passe this place of limiting all Interests without a word or two of the Office of Deacons in the Church In regard of two extreme opinions one of Geneva that makes them meer Lay men collectors of Alms by necessary consequence because under their Lay Elders the other of some that would have them understood to be Presbyters as oft as S. Paul mentions but two Orders of Bishops and Deacons Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. II. 9. But as
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
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
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
that the same may be done in the Church Sixthly the same followeth from the dependence of Churches For if Congregations be made independent that no Christian may receive Law from man wherein he is not satisfied of the will of God then having proved that Congregations are not independent it follows that they are to receive Law in all things not contrary to the will of God Seventhly the exercise of this Power in all ages of the Church and the effects of it in great volumes of lawfull Canonicall decrees though it be a mark of contradiction to them that are resolved to hate that which hath been because it hath been yet to all whose senses are not maleficiated with prejudice it is the same evidence of this Power though not always of the right use of it by which Christianity it self stands recommended to us Lastly can those of the Congregations say that no publick act is done among them without the free and willing consent of all as satisfied in conscience that it is the will of God which is decreed Then are they not men For among all men there is difference of judgement If notwithstanding they are inforced to proceed why depart they from the Church For if those that place the Chiefe Power in Congregations cannot avoid to be tied by other mens acts why refuse they to be tied once for all by such generall acts as Laws are Which as they must needs be done by persons capable to judge what the common good of the Church requires which it is madnesse to imagine that members of Congregations can be so they have the force when they are once admitted to contain the whole body of the Church agreeing to them in Unity Whereas to acknowledge no such tends to create as many Religions as persons And now to the objection of wil-worship in the observation of humane constitutions the answer will not be difficult That sinne I doe truly beleeve to be of a very large extent as one of the extremes opposite to the Virtue of Religion understanding Religion to be all service of God with a good conscience Thus all the Idolatries of the Gentile all the superstitions of Judaism and Mahumetism are will-worships For man being convinced of his duty to serve God and neither knowing how to perform nor willing to render that service which he requires because inconsistent with his own inclinations it follows that by a voluntary commutation he tender God something which he is willing to part with in stead of his concupiscences Having condemnation both for neglecting to tender that which is due and for dishonouring God by thinking him to be bribed by his inventions to wink at his sins And therefore I do grant that the Constitutions which the Synagogue was by Gods Law enabled to make were capable to be made the matter of Superstition and will-worship as indeed in our Lords time they were made The reason because presuming to be justified by the works of the Law and the Law among them being not onely the written but that which was taught by word of mouth the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees which the Disciples of Christ shall never enter into the Kingdome of heaven unlesse they exceed consisted not only in the letter of the Ceremoniall and Judiciall precepts but in observing the determinations of their Consistories And accordingly I doe grant that the Rules Decrees and Constitutions of the Church are capable to be made the matter of the same sin and that they are made so visibly in divers customs and practises of the Church of Rome But is it a good reason to say that because humane Constitutions may be made the subject of superstition and will-worship therefore the Church hath no Power to make any therefore the members of the Church are not tied to obey any Or may there not be superstition and will-worship in abhorring as well as in observing humane Constitutions If S. Paul be in the right there may For if the Kingdome of God consist in righteousnesse and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost not in eating or not eating in observing or not observing days by the same reason it consists no more in not doing then in doing that which the Law of God determineth not Wherefore if any man imagine that he shall please God in not observing in refusing in opposing in destroying humane Constitutions regulating the publick order of the Church it is manifest that this is because he thinks he shall be the better Christian by forbearing that which God commands him not to forbear seeing he can finde in his heart to violate Unity and Charity that he may forbear it Here it may be demanded of me why I expresse no other ground of this Power in the Church then the indetermination of those things which Order and Unity requires to be determined in the Church For seeing matters of Faith are determined by Gods Word it seems to follow that the Church hath nothing to do to determine of matters of Doctrine in difference And seeing the Ceremonies of Divine Service besides the determining of that which the Scripture determineth not pretend further to advance and improve devotion in the publick Worship of God as I have discoursed more at large in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service ca. IX It seems if there be no other ground for the Legislative Power of the Church that the Church hath nothing to do to institute such Ceremonies To which I answer that it is one thing to make that matter of Faith which was not another to determine matter of Faith that is to determine what members of the Church shall do in acknowledging or not acknowledging that which is in question to be or not to be matter of Faith For if there be a Society of the Church then must there be in the Church a Power to determine what the members thereof shall acknowledge and professe when it comes in difference Which is not to qualifie the subject that is to make any thing matter of Faith or not but to determine that those which will not stand to the Act of the Whole that is of those persons that have right to conclude the Whole shall not be of it So the obligation that such Acts produce as it comes from the Word of God which the Church acknowledges is a duty of Faith but as it relates to the determination of the Church as a duty of charity obliging to concurre with the Church where it determineth not the contrary of that which the Word of God determineth Again when I say the Church hath Power to determine that which Gods Law determines not I must needs be understood to mean that which shall seem to make most for the advancement of godlinesse Now the Scripture shews by store of examples of Ceremonies in the Publick Service of God under the Church as well as under the Synagogue that the institution of significative Ceremonies in the Publick worship of God doth make for
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.
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
Christianity Therefore the words of our Lord That his Disciples should not be as the Gentiles among whom the great ones domineer over the rest and in so doing were called Gracious Lords Mat. XX. 25. Mar. X. 42 43. Luc. XXII 25 26. being spoken to his Disciples as Christians not as Apostles in commendation of humility and meeknesse a quality concerning all Christians cannot prove the Clergy forbidden secular imploiment but they must by the same reason inforce all Civile Power to be unlawfull among Christians as also in the Society of the Church all superiority of power as unlawfull as that which is here challenged on behalf of Bishops and Presbyters On the other side that which they are supposed to destroy they manifestly presuppose that is to say a Superiority of power among the Disciples of Christ by the names of greater and lesse competible with the quality of his Disciples And therefore concern not the lawfulnesse of power but the right use of it and so forbid no sort of Christians any power whereof any Christian is capable The words of S. Paul are more pertinent to this purpose 2 Tim. II. 4. for it is a comparison that he borroweth from the custome of the Romane Empire wherein Soldiers as they were exempted from being Tutors to mens persons or Curators to their estates so they were forbidden to be Proctors of other mens causes to undertake husbandry or merchandise Therefore when S. Paul saith to Timothy No man that goeth to the army intangleth himself in businesse of the world that he may please him that imprested him He raises indeed a particular exhortation to Timothy upon a generall ground of reason appearing in the Romane Laws that those of Timothies quality oblige not themselves to businesse inconsistent with it But can he be understood hereby to make that a Law to the Militia of the Church which was a Law to the Militia of the Empire Or can an exhortation drawn from a comparison be thought to create a generall Law to all of Timothies quality in generall or in particular further then the reason of the comparison will inferre in every particular case It is true that Soldiers were forbidden businesse of profit were exempted emploiments of publick service as was that of Tutors and Curators because thereby they became obliged to the Laws or to their own profit to the prejudice of their attendance upon their colours That is to say that for the great distance between Civile and Military emploiment in that State the Laws had rendred Soldiers uncapable of such qualities And so it is confessed that the Laws of the Church the Canons rendred the Clergy uncapable of the like during the distance between the Church and the State not yet Christian For so we find that in S. Cyprians time Clergy men were forbidden to be Tutors or Curators for the like reason because their obligation to the Laws in that estate would have excused them to the Church And because that by reason of the distance between the State of the Church at that time it could not tend to any publick good of the Society of the Church But in States that professe Christianity can it be said that the attendance of Clergy men upon the affairs of the Commonwealth cannot be to the publick good of the Church consisting of all the same persons onely in a distinct reason and quality whereof the Commonwealth consisteth To me it seems farre otherwise that in all publick Assemblies of States whether for making Laws or for Jurisdiction or for Counsell or for preservation of publick Peace to banish those from them whose quality and profession entitles them to the most exact knowledge and practice of Christianity is to banish the consideration of Christianity from the conclusions and effects of those Assemblies For though it be seen by experience that the Clergy come short of the holinesse and exact conversation in Christianity which they professe yet it will be always seen likewise that the people fail more and before them and that they are first corrupted by and with the people then corrupters of the people And as for the service of the Church which they cannot attend upon in the mean time supposing the Order here challenged to be instituted by the Apostles the inconvenience ceaseth For supposing all Cathedrall Churches to be Corporations trusted to provide for the government of all Congregations contained in them in Church matters and the Ministery of the Offices of Divine Service at the same whatsoever Clergy man shall by publick imploiment destitute his Congregation shall leave it to the care of the Church originally entrusted with it Which Churches being all Nurseries and Seminaries of Clergy designed for the Service of their respective Bodies may easily by the means thereof see all Offices discharged from time to time to all Congregations which they contain And this is that which I desired to say here in generall to this most difficult point of the Privileges and Penalties which Christianity may be established and enforced with by a State that professes it As for the particulars which upon those generall reasons may be disputed in point of lawfull or unlawfull as also for the point of expedience whereby that which in generall may be done ought or ought not to be done when the case is put I leave to them that are qualified and obliged to proceed in determining the same To come then to the great difficulty proposed it is to be acknowledged that the Power of the Church in the persons of them to whom it is derived by continuall succession is a Law ordained by the Apostles for the unity and edification of the Church So that no part of the Whole can stand obliged by any Act that is not done by the Councell and Synod of Bishops respective to that part of the Church which it pretendeth to oblige But withall it is to be acknowledged that there are abundance of other Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles whether they concern matters of Faith or matter of Works whether immediately concerning the salvation of particular Christians or only the publick Order of the Church which proceeding from the same if not a greater power then the Succession of the Church are to be retained all and every one of them with the same Religion and conscience And with this limitation the distinction which the Church of Rome is usually answered with is to be admitted between succession of Persons and succession of Doctrine Not as if it were not a part of Christian doctrine that the Succession of the Apostles is to be obeyed as their Ordinance but because there are many other points of doctrine delivered the Church by our Lord and his Apostles all and every one of them equally to be regarded with it Again I have shewed that the Secular Power is bound to protect the Ecclesiasticall in determining all things which are not determined by our Lord and his Apostles and to give force
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
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
his Apostles extending it in one visible Society beyond the bounds of any Dominion with equall interesse in the parts of it through severall Dominions what title but force can any State have to doe it if we presuppose the Society of the Church as such unable to doe it Therefore by the Society of the Church and by Christians as Members thereof it must be done whatsoever is done either in Reforming the Church or in Separating from the Church And therefore the proceeding of the Congregations when they separate from the Church of England by a Right founded upon the Constitution of the Church is more agreeable to Christianity then the proceeding of the Presbyteries when they pretend to Reform the Church of England by the Power of the Parliament supposing it to be as great as any Secular Power can be in Church matters But I intend not hereby to grant that it is a rightfull Title upon which those of the Congregations separate from the Church of England For as men cannot make themselves Christians but the doing of it must presuppose a Church as at the first it presupposed the Power of constituting a Church estated by our Lord upon his Apostles Because our Lord hath required of those that will be saved not onely to beleeve his Gospel but also to professe Christianity and this Profession to be consigned in the hands of those whom he trusteth with the conduct of his Church and by them accepted because if not sincere and complete it is not to be admitted so the continuance in the Communion of the Church presupposing an acknowledgement of the Christianity professed therein to contain nothing destructive to salvation professeth an obligation of acknowledging the Governours thereof in order to the same And this obligation unavoidable by the premises unlesse Christian people by those Governours appear to be defeated of the benefit of such Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles as appear to be of greater consequence to the Service of God for which the Society of the Church subsists then the personall succession of Governours and the Unity of the Church wherein it consisteth can be imagined to be Which in our present case is so far from being true that the premises being true all the particulars for which the Congregations separate and which the Presbyteries would Reform the Chief Power of the Clergy over the People the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters the dependence of Congregations upon the City Church the Power of giving Laws to the Church the Right of First-fruits Tithes and all Consecrate things and above all the Unity of the Church and the Personall Succession of Governours in which it consisteth are all demonstrated to have been ordained by the Apostles The same is to be said of the Ceremonies as to the whole kinde though not to the particulars questioned For first it is proved that the Rule of Charity requires all Christians to forbear the use of that freedome which Christianity alloweth in all things determined by the Law of the Church not contrary to Gods Secondly though it be granted that the particulars questioned were not instituted by the Apostles for indeed the customes of severall Nations that have received Christianity are so different that for example that which the Apostle commandeth that men pray covered 1 Cor. XI 3. cannot be used among those Nations that uncover the head in sign of reverence which the Ancients did not And this is the true reason why the same Ceremonies of Divine Service are not in use now as under the Apostles yet whosoever shall separate from the Church upon this ground that significative Ceremonies are not to be used in the Service of God shall doe it to establish a Law contrary to the Apostles who ordained such to be used as I shewed afore Besides the Church of England and Governours thereof doe not maintain any infallible Power of conducting the Church professing themselves the Reformation which their Predecessors made and therefore are so far from refusing any Law of God to be a Law of this Church that if any Humane Constitution had been recommended to them evidently necessary or usefull to make the Laws of our Lord and his Apostles effectuall to this particular Church by such an authority as the Secular Power hath over them it is visible to all English that for the Peace of the Church and themselves they would not have refused it And therefore the true reason of this Separation or Reformation is because they will not part with that Power which is in them derived from the Apostles and at once with the Unity of the Church necessarily in this Case depending on the same I suppose what will be answered that all this is done to Reform the Church to bring in plentifull and powerfull Preaching and Praying as the Spirit shall indite for not knowing any thing else to be pretended and having shewed the rest of the change to be contrary to the Ordinances of the Apostles though I see no man is so hard hearted as not to think his own design to be the Reformation of the Church without ever proving it to be so yet I must needs think it part of my charge to say somewhat also to this I doe acknowledge then a charge upon the Church to provide that Christians made members of the Church by Baptisme be taught more and more in the true intent of their Christianity and exhorted to the performance of it by virtue of the Precept of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 19 20. Goe Preach and make Disciples all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you Which being given the Apostles is by the same reason given to all whom they should assume or Ordain or cause to be Ordained to exercise their Power or any part of it in dependence upon the same and according as the same should determine in time or place But that any thing is determined as of Divine Right or by the Scriptures when where how often how seldome in what manner and how frequent Preaching is by the Church to be furnished to the Church he will make himselfe ridiculous that undertakes to affirm That the Church is to endevour that this Office be as frequent as may be to the edification of the Church appears indeed by the Scriptures Not those which speak of publishing the Gospell under the terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any equivalent as Rom. X. 14-1 Tim. IV. 2 5. 1 Cor. IX 16. But those that expresse the diligence of the Apostles and Apostolicall persons of their time in teaching the Assemblies of Christians Acts II. 42 46. V. 42. VI. 2 4. XI 26. and the frequenting of this Office in those times 1 Cor. XIV 1 Tim. V. 17. Rom. XII 6. 7. But that it should be so easie for them that now are admitted to the Service of the Church to
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
Clergy by the Jurisdiction of the Church For in regard that as it hath been said on divers occasions in this Discourse the Clergy is promoted upon supposition of some degree of proficience in Christianity over and above that upon supposition whereof men are admitted to be only Christians it followeth not that those who by their conversation render themselves unworthy of that degree which they hold in the Clergy doe by the same means render themselves unworthy of the Communion of the Church Therefore the punishment of a Clergy man may be competent by onely voiding his degree when another Christian cannot be competently punished but by putting him from the Church Whereby it appears that the Power of Ordaining as well as censuring persons Ordained is grounded upon the Power of the Keys as giving or taking away not the communion of the Church but a degree and quality above it which supposeth it Again upon the constitution of the Society of the Church follows the Power of making Canons Constitutions and Ordinances obliging the respective body thereof correspondent to the Legislative Power of Kingdomes and Common-wealths wherein the justice of them most appears though the strength of them is more seen in the Power of the Sword which gives all Laws force And so it is no more inconvenience to all these Canons the Laws of the Church then it is to call the Power of Excommunication the spirituall Sword of the Church Neither is it any more for the Church to have this Power then that which States ordinarily allow the meanest Corporations which they Privilege to wit to give Laws to their own Bodies for the maintenance and execution of the Laws originally given them by those who are enabled to institute them In fine in correspondence to the Exchequer of a State is the Title that God hath given his Church to the Oblations of the Faithfull their First-fruits and Tithes The right whereof he hath endowed the Church with leaving the seizure to the voluntary tender of those whō he calleth to be voluntary Christians And thus and by this correspondence with a State the parts of Ecclesiasticall Power are more clearly and more intelligibly distinguished in my opinion then by the ordinary terms of Jurisdiction and Order For first these terms being introduced by the Canonists and School Doctors seem to presuppose a coactive Jurisdiction in the Church upon the constitution and originall Title of the Church such as the Church of Rome challenges and the Decretall Epistles of the Popes presuppose whereby they challenge to themselves that Power by Divine Right which by the sufferance of Princes and States they did exercise intangling the Schools of Divines with as inextricable difficulties to make it good as Christian States with commotions to shake off the consequences thereof meerly for neglect of the principle here presupposed that Christianity importeth no right of this world and therefore that the coactive Power of the State remains where it was before it Secondly it seemeth that the Power of Order and Jurisdiction are not contradistinct but subordinate the Power of Order being the production and consequence of the Power of Jurisdiction if it be rightly understood For by the same reason which proveth here p. 199 that the power of consecrating the Eucharist belongeth to Presbyters upon the Power of the Keys and that all Benedictions with Imposition of Hands whether in Confirmation Ordination Penance Mariage or whatsoever else are marks of that Power which alloweth those acts which are blessed to be done in the Church as you have it here p. 23. by the same reason it follows that the ministery of all Ordinances of God deposited with the Church is a mark of that superiority which those that minister the same have in the Church And therefore if the Power of Order be in respect of Christs own Body as ordinarily they describe it it proceeds from the Power over his mysticall Body which is that of Jurisdiction as they make it Or if as others will have it the Power of Order consists in the ministery of such divine Ordinances as are the means to procure and increase Gods grace in the persons to whom they are ministerd the same reason takes place Because they are not to be ministred but by them whom the Church trusteth to do it to that true intent which it teacheth Wherefore it seemeth that the term of Jurisdiction ought to expresse the common source of all Ecclesiasticall Power which it doth not because that as Jurisdictiis but a part of Soveraignty in a State so the Power from which the metaphoricall jurisdiction of the Church floweth which I conceive cannot be better expressed then by calling it the Power of the Keys as the Gospel hath done produceth other branches of Ecclesiasticall Power correspondent to other parts of Soveraignty in a State as hereby you have seen CHAP. II. HAving thus determined whereupon the Power of the Keys is founded and wherein it consisteth it remained to proceed and declare what persons it is trusted with For seeing the persons of whom Christian States consist are the same of whom the Churches or parts of the whole Church that are contained in those States consist if there be no provision of Gods Law tying the Right of managing this Power and the productions and branches thereof to some qualities consequent to the constitution of the Church it will necessarily fall as an escheat to the State and we shall be tied to grant it Power to conferre those qualities by which it is managed and all this will be truly said to no purpose Here in the first place I must insist upon a point the truth whereof the Presbyteries and Congregations have equally divided between them and left it entire to the Church For those of the Congregations finding that the design of the Presbyteries had ordered a Presbytery for the government of every Congregation that assembles together for the common service of God had reason to inferre that all those Presbyteries ought to be endowed with the Power of the Keys as to their own Bodies To which assuming another demand that the chief Power in every Congregation was that of the People it followeth that all Congregations are independent and absolute not to be concluded by any Church or Synod representative of Churches above themselves On the other side the Presbyterians finding that no Unity can be preserved without dependence and desiring to preserve Unity among themselves though not with the Church have designed the Power of the Keys as to the act of Excommunication to rest in Representatives of the Presbyteries of Congregations which neverthelesse they call by the same name of Presbyteries or Classes the same being subject to Synods of Presbyteries and those to Nationall Assemblies Whereas there is never any mention in all the Scriptures of any Presbytery or Company College or Bench of Presbyters as likewise there is no mention of any Church but in a City No mention of more Churches then
under the Altar of Burnt Sacrifices but standing in the lower part of the Sanctuary beneath the Altar of Incense Unlesse we take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here for the Sanctuary as I shew that it is taken in the Apocalypse p. 115. and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The name of Ministers when it answers the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures if it be put absolutely without any addition signifies the Rank and Office of those that are ever since called Deacons in the Church But many times it is put with the additions here mentioned p. 99. of Ministers of the Word Ministers of the Gospel of the New Testament of the Church which serve as circumlocutions and descriptions of the Office of Apostles to the whole Church or their Deputies and Commissioners the Evangelists as when S. Paul writes to the Colossians I. 23 25. that he was made a Minister of the Gospel or of the Church according to the dispensation of God which is given me towards you to fulfill the Word of God that is the Mystery that hath been hidden from generations and ages and now is manifested to his Saints It is here manifest that he cals himself a Minister of God or of the Church in regard of publishing the Gospel and planting the Church which belongs not to the Presbyters of Churches whose name and office is respective to their particular Churches And this notion of the word is almost always to be gathered by the text and consequence of those passages where it is found Therfore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is absolutely put 1 Tim. III. 8 stands in relation to Bishops and Presbyters mentioned afore in the notion of Waiting upon them whereas when it is put with the addition here specified it stands in relation to God making as much difference between Ministers of the Word and barely Ministers as between executing the immediate commands of God as Apostles doe and executing the commands of Bishops in regard of whom mentioned afore they are called barely and without any addition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ministers in that place And so the VII at Jerusalem were first constituted to wait upon the Apostles by doing that Service which they did themselves at the first for the Church whereupon it was afterwards a custome in the Church that there should be VII Deacons in every Church as there were at Jerusalem Concil Neocaesar Can. XIV And therefore the Author of the Questions of the Old and New Testament in S. Augustines Works Q. CI. having observed that the Apostles call Presbyters their fellow Presbyters addeth Nunquid Ministros condiaconos suos diceret Apostolus Non utique quia multo inferiores sunt Et turpe est judicem dicere primicerium Would the Apostle call Deacons his fellow Deacons Surely no for they are much inferiour And it is absurd to call a Pronotary a Judge Where he makes the same difference between Presbyters and Deacons as Christian between Judges and Ministers of Courts and that according to the Originall custome of the Synagogue as well as of the Church as by and by it shall appeare Notwithstanding the Office of Bishops is called a Ministery very anciently by Pope Pius in his Epistle to Justus of Vienna as also the Office both of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Concil Eliber Can. XIX but in another notion in opposition to the coactive power of the World as proceeding originally not by constraint but by consent and so they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek because their office is for the behoof of the people and in their stead But they cannot therefore be called Ministers of the People as Deacons are Ministers of Bishops and Presbyters because then they should be ruled by the people and execute that which they prescribe as the Apostles being Ministers of God in Preaching the Gospel are bound to execute his Commission and nothing else which the Clergy of Christian Churches may not doe That it may be beyond any Power upon earth to abolish the Order of Bishops out of the Church of England without abolishing the Church also as is said here p. 129. I prove Chap. V. to wit that no Secular Power can take away Ecclesiasticall Power from them that lawfully have it according to the institution of the Apostles though not by virtue of it To shew that in the judgement and practise of the Primitive Church all Power of baptizing was derived from the Bishop as is said here p. 136. we have but to remember the custome of the Church mentioned in so many Canons of sending the Chrism to all Parish Churches from the Mother Church once a year By which Ceremony it appeared that the Bishop trusted his authority of admitting to the Church by Baptism with the respective Pastors of the same And therefore it is not unreasonably judged that this custome of Chrisming was many times in stead of Confirmation to those Churches that used it Besides in that from the beginning no Ecclesiasticall office was to be ministred by any but the Bishop in his presence the dependence of all Ecclesiasticall authority whereby the same are ministred upon the Bishop is evidenced to us Thus in the passage of Eusebius concerning Origens Preaching before he was of the Clergy mentioned p. 106. it is further to be observed that the instances there alleged seem to shew that the Primitive Bishops did many times admit those that were of no degree in the Clergy to preach in their own presence Which that it was a further privilege then onely to preach may appear by that which is related out of the life of S. Augustine in the Primitive government of Churches p. 113. that he was imploied by the Bishop his predecessor to preach to the people in his presence and stead because he had seen it so practised in the East though in those parts it were not done In like manner it is manifest by many Records of the Church that none might Baptize Celebrate the Eucharist or reconcile the Penitent in the Bishops presence but himself for of Confirmation and Ordaining I need say nothing The fourth reason against the vulgar reading of the XIII Canon of the Councell at Ancyra p. 141. will be more clearly understood by setting down the effect of the LVI Canon of Laodicea which comming after that of Ancyra and taking Order that for the future there should be no Country Bishops made any more provides further that those which were already constituted should do nothing without the consent of the Bishop as likewise the Presbyters to doe nothing without the same Which being the provision which the latter Canon establisheth leaveth it very probable that the other going afore and intending to take order in the same particulars should consist of two clauses correspondent to the same That there were other Churches and Bishops
So Acts XV. 35. Paul and Barnabas continued at Antiochia Teaching that is the Church and preaching the Gospell to wit to Unbeleevers And with the same difference it is said of our Lord in the Gospels Mat. IV. 23. IX 35. XI 1. that he Taught to wit as a Prophet who had always the Privilege of Teaching in the Synagogues as his Disciples also by the same Title and preached the Gospel as sent by God for that extraordinary purpose But though the Apostles being sent to preach the Gospel were by consequence to Teach the Church yet is it never said that Presbyters being appointed to Teach the Church were also called to Preach the Gospel For their Relation being to Churches as much perswaded of the truth of Christianity as themselves they needed no such qualities as might make evidence that they were sent immediately from God to convince the world of the truth of it But onely such understanding in it above the people of their respective Churches as might inable them to conduct the People thereof in it And therefore what hindreth their Inferiours also to be imploied in Teaching the Church which now we call Preaching For if our Lord and his Apostles imploied their respective Ministers in Teaching those whom they could not attend upon themselves and in all Churches after the example of the first at Jerusalem Deacons or Ministers were Ordained to wait upon the Bishops and Presbyters of the same in the execution of their Office is it not the same thing for Bishops and Presbyters to imploy their Deacons in Preaching to those of their own Church as it is for the Apostles at Jerusalem to imploy S. Steven and S. Philip S. Paul Timothy or Erastus or Tychieus or Epaphroditus in Preaching to Unbeleevers for there remains as much difference in their Charges as in their Chiefs from whom they are imploied Besides who is able to prove by the Scriptures that those who are called Doctors 1 Cor. XII 28. Eph. IV. 12. were all of them men Ordained by Imposition of Hands as Presbyters Between whom and Evangelists there seems to be the same difference as between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the one part and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other this relating to Assemblies of Christians and importing the instructing of them in the right understanding of that Christianity which they already beleeve and professe that to those who are not Christians as undertaking to reduce them to Christianity which supposeth Commission and abilities answerable Further the supposed S. Ambrose upon Eph. IV. 12. comparing Evangelists with Deacons says that Deacons also taught without a Chair The custome of the Church then admitting them to Preach upon occasions but not sitting as the Bishop and Presbyters did Because they did not sit but stand in the Church as the Angels in the Revelation about the Presbyters Chairs as attending upon their commands And what is this but the same which you finde in use in the Synagogue Acts XIII 14. where Paul stands up to Preach whereas our Lord sits down like a Doctor when he goes to Preach in the Synagogue Luc. IV. 20 by which it appears that it was of custome drawn from the Synagogue for Deacons to Preach in the Church And indeed in the last place the practice of the Synagogue together with the reason of it and the Primitive practice of the Church agreeable to the same seems to make as full proof as a reasonable man can desire in a matter of this nature For in the Synagogue it is so manifest that Jurisdiction is above Doctrine and the Power of Governing above the Office of Teaching that the Prophets themselves who were Doctors of the Law immediately sent by God were subject to the Power and Jurisdiction of the Consistory setled by the Law Deut. XVII 8 12. So that though by the Law of Deut. XVIII 18. the whole Synagogue are subject to Gods curse if they obey not the Prophet by whom God speaks yet because it was possible that false Prophets might pretend to be sent from God therefore in the next words of the Law a mark is given to discern who was sent by God and who was not and he that pretended to be sent by God and was not being tried by this mark became liable to capitall punishment by the Law of Deut. XVII 8 12. for teaching contrary to that which the Consistory taught So that by this Law the Consistory hath Power of life and death even over Prophets whom they judged to teach things destructive to the Law And by this Power not usurped but abused our Lord also suffered under Pilate according to that which he had said in respect of this Power It is unpossible that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem Luc. XIII 33. that is not condemned by the Consistory The Successors of the Prophets after the Spirit of Prophesie ceased that is their Scribes and Wise men and Doctors received the Privilege of Teaching the Law from their Masters For whosoever had learned in the School of a Doctor till forty years of age was thenceforth counted a Doctor as the Talmud Doctors determine and thereby privileged to decide matters of Conscience in the Law provided that he did it not while his Master lived and where he was R. Solomon upon the Title Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Title of Learning the Law cap. V. But if I mistake not in our Lords time they were counted so at thirty years of age For Irenaeus II. 39. says that our Lord began to Preach at the same age at which men were counted Doctors manifestly referring to this Rule of the Synagogue And this is the Reason which the Church afterwards followed in all those Canons by which it is forbidden that any man be made Presbyter being lesse then thirty years of age because at those years our Lord and S. John Baptist began to Preach though by an extraordinary Commission yet according to the custome of the Synagogue in their time saith Irenaeus But by Imposition of Hands they were further qualified to sit and Judge in their Consistories Whereby we see how Jurisdiction includes Doctrine but is not included in it So that the Metaphoricall Jurisdiction of the Church by the power of the Keys belonging as all sides agree to Presbyters it is agreeable to the perpetuall custome of Gods people that the Office of Teaching be communicable to their inferiours But with such dependence upon the Bishop and Presbyters as may be correspondent to the Rule of the Synagogue In which he that taught any thing as of Gods Law contrary to the Consistory and persisted in it was liable to capitall punishment by the Law so often quoted of Deut. XVII 8 Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Title of Rebels cap. III. And therefore he that Teaches contrary to the Church it behoveth that he be liable to Excommunication from it And upon these terms I suppose those of the Congregations will give
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