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
would be possible that War might be made upon the Title of Religion alone contrary to the Premises The learned Casaubon once called the Doctrine of Gregory the VII Pope when he undertook to deprive Christian Princes of their Estates because they stood Excommunicate Haeresim Hildebrandinam The Heresie of Pope Hildebrand And not without cause For seeing the foundation of Christianity consisteth in things to be done as well as things to be beleeved and that the summe of that which Christians professe to do consists in bearing Christs Crosse how shall he be other then an Heretick that renounceth the profession of Christs Crosse Or how can he be understood to professe Christs Crosse that holds any thing purchased by the Arms which are born upon the Title of Christianity For as all is his that conquers in lawfull Arms so cannot he be understood to renounce all for Christs Crosse that holds any thing by it which he is bound to maintain with the Title whereby he holds it Thus that Pope is not unjustly called an Heretick by some as Heresie imports a vice of a particular mans minde not a Sect in the Society of the Church seeing it cannot be said that this position is enjoined though suffered in the Church of Rome as it must be said of that Church the Society whereof and the Power which governeth that Society subsisteth by Arms grounded on Christianity Therefore supposing an Ecclesiasticall Power and by consequence a Church constituted by force used upon this ground it would be hard to clear it of Heresie the constitution whereof cannot stand with the profession of Christs Crosse But not to aggravate consequences seeing it is manifest that all errors in Religion overthrow the foundation by consequence but to shew what regret I have to say that which I must not conceal I will advance the onely possible expedient that I can imagine to restore the Unity of the Church among us For that of a Nationall Synod which is most obvious and plausible seems to me unpossible to be used lawfully and effectually both in our case I am not so faintly in love with the Cause which I expose my self to so much offense to maintain as to make a question how the Church of England were to be re-established if right might take place that is by re-estating the Synod thereof in full possession of that right which hereby I have proved that they are outed of onely by force But I speak now upon supposition that there is force on their side that refuse this right upon opinions contrary to the same and with an intent to advance a course by which it may be discerned how farre the Church of England may abate of the right which is denied onely by force for so good a purpose as to reconcile unto it those who may otherwise fall into Churches in name but Schisms indeed And in this case my reason is because those who chalenge the right of a Synod must proceed as authorized to judge between or rather to give Law to all parties Now being divided as we are between Right and force or the opinion of either or both it is not imaginable that either those that think themselves to have Right can or those that think themselves to have force will submit to receive sentence or Law from their adversaries unlesse we think them either no men to change their judgement when they come to have Power on their side or no Christians to acknowledge that to be Right which they are assured is not What remains then to restore peace when no party can yeeld Surely in all bodily diseases those parts and principles and elements of nature which remain untainted must be the means to recover the whole And in this distemper of the Church so much of Christianity as remains commonly acknowledged by all parties rightly husbanded may serve to reunite them in one upon better intelligence And the despair which any party ought to have of reducing the rest to themselves ought to perswade all to condescend to this good husbandry What remains then common to all parts beside the profession of Christianity the Scriptures to agree them about the meaning and consequences of them in matters questionable being that which remains in debate Could I say that all parts acknowledged that which the Church from the beginning every where hath received and used to be agreeable to the Scripture I should think the businesse half done But since it is otherwise we must have recourse to a more remote ground or principle which may serve for a reason to produce those consequences which follow from the said Rule in matters in debate seeing we pretend not to make a Rule without cause And this must be by examining the first motives of Christianity for what reasons we undertake the profession of it which being well rendred and shot home to the mark will not fail either to decide any thing in controversie or to shew that it concerns no mans Christianity that it be decided Now the onely means to bring forth and discharge these reasons to publick satisfaction is an open and free Conference for space of time or persons executed by persons advanced by the severall parties to improve what any man can bring forth to the clearing of any thing in debate and managed by persons chosen for their discretion to keep the debate from wandring till all be said to all points For seeing it must needs appear what are the terms of agreement when all reasons are spent it will be lawfull for those in whom rests the Succession of the Apostles and all claiming under them to consent to estate the Ecclesiasticall Power and the Ministery of Ecclesiasticall Offices upon persons to be agreed upon according to terms agreed And this consent as effectuall to reunite the Church as ever anciently Schisms were lawfully restored to the Church by admitting Bishops Presbyters Deacons and People to communicate in their own ranks and making good all acts done in Separation by subsequent consent not as to God but as to the Church which I have shewed afore was many times done As for those which have used this Power already they shall condescend no further by this agreement but to use that part of it which shall be limited them by the agreement upon an unquestionable title for the future But if our sins be still so powerfull as not to suffer a lawfull course to take place let me admonish those infinite numbers of Christian souls that sigh and groan after the Unity of the Church what means God shews them to discharge the conscience of good Christians to him while the temporall Laws of the State which ought to actuate it doe suspend their Office Which are in effect the persons of those in whom the Succession of the Apostles is vested and the Clergy claiming under them And that generall Law of Christianity for which those things which we insist upon cannot be quitted of sticking to all that
is manifest that he which requireth the Unity of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies supposeth a Society of the Church to procure and maintain the same But it is not this passage of S. Paul alone wherein this privilege is supposed intimated or expressed but wheresoever there is mention in any part of Scriptures of any Ordinance of the Service of God instituted or exercised at the Assemblies of Gods faithfull people provided that it may appear otherwise by the Scripture to be common to the Law and the Gospel there you have the Charter or Patent of this grant and privilege and by consequence of the Society of the Church founded upon it But though Erastus securely taketh it for granted that Christian States have right to exercise their Soveraign Power in Church matters because it was so in the Synagogue yet I doe not understand how he would convince them that at this time deny this consequence among us Seeing there is so much difference between the Law and the Gospel between the Church and the Synagogue that that which is held in the one cannot be presumed to hold under the other without a reason common to both And so far as that reason prevails and no further must the Power and Interesse of States in Church matters be understood to prevail And truly there is a saying of S. Jeromes which may justly move a tender spirit to doubt whether this Interesse of States in Church matters be from God or not For seeing it is most true and visible to experience which he says Ecclesiam postquam coepit habere Christianos Magistratus factam esse opibus majorem virtutibus autem minorem That the Church since it began to have Christian Magistrates is become greater in wealth or power but lesse in virtues And that it is a presumption in reason that that which goeth before is the cause of that which followeth upon it when no other cause appeareth well may it be doubted that the Interesse of Secular Powers in Church matters is not from God from which so great a decay of Christianity proceedeth which must not be imputed to any thing which God hath appointed To which agreeth that Legend in the life of Pope Sylvester which saith that when Constantine had endowed the Church so largely there was a voice from heaven heard to say Hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam To day is there poison poured out upon the Church The reason then which here I render upon which the Kings of Gods ancient people had that power in maters of Religion which by the Scriptures we know they did exercise I hope will appear reasonable to them that have perused the IV Chapter and seen how it is not destructive but cumulative to that which by the Law in matters of the Law is given to the Consistory And since it accrued to the King not by the Law because not constituted by it but by the desire of the People admitted and assented unto by God by which he became Head of a People already in Covenant with God what difference is there between this case and the case of a whole people together with the Powers of the same converted to Christianity but this that the Israelites were in Covenant with God before they were under Kings for though Moses and the Judges had Regall Power yet it was not by a standing Law Christian Nations under the Powers of the World before they became Christian Unlesse it be further that the Church is one of all Nations the Synagogue of equall extent with the People of Isâ—ael which is not of consequence to this purpose The Apostle rendring a reason why he commands Secular Powers to be prayed for at the Assemblies of the Church 1 Tim. II. 2 3 4. assigneth the end of them to be That we may lead a quiet life in all godlinesse and honesty Which is manifestly said in respect of Secular Powers that are not Christian For of them the Church justly expects protection and quietnesse paying them prayers subjection and duties But he addes further this reason Because this is good and acceptable to God our Saviour who would have no man to perish but to come to the knowledge of his truth If then the will of God be that the Soveraign Powers of the Gentiles be converted to Christianity is it not his will that they imploy themselves to the advancement of it not onely as Christians but as Soveraigns which cannot be expected from Gentiles There is reason therefore to ground this Interesse upon the declared will of God concerning the calling of the Gentiles the Apostle having declared that their Secular Powers are invited to the Faith and the Prophesies of the Old Testament having declared that their Kings Queens should come to the Church and advance it Psal II. 10 11 12. LXXII 10 11. Es XLIX 23. LX. 13. This reason is far more effectuall to me by the Prophesies left the Church in the Apocalypse The main scope and drift whereof I am much perswaded to be nothing else but to foretell the conversion of the Romane Empire to Christianity and the punishment of the Heathens that persecuted the same For if the intent of those Prophesies be to shew that it was Gods will that the Empire should become Christian and that the reign of the Saints upon earth there foretold is nothing else but the advancement of Christianity to the Government of the Empire and by consequence of other Kingdomes into which the Empire was to be dissolved it cannot be doubted that Christian Powers attain the same right in matters of Religion which the Kings of Gods ancient People always had by the making of Christianity the Religion of any State This opinion it was not my purpose to publish at the writing of this Discourse because it is like to become a mark of contradiction to the most part being possessed more or lesse of a far other sense But having considered since how many and horrible scandals are on foot by the consequences of that sense so that I cannot condemne my self of giving scandall by publishing the best means I can see to take it away and having met with another reason necessitating me to declare it for the effectuall proceeding of this Discourse I will put it down in the Review of the last Chapter where that necessity rises desiring those that seek further satisfaction in this reason to reade it there for that purpose As for the objection that was made from the decay of Christianity after the Powers of the World protected it and enriched the Church it is a meer mistake of that which is accidentall for the true cause For the coming in of the World to the Church is one thing and the Power of the State in Church matters is another though this depend upon that And it is true that the coming of the World into the Church was the decay of Christianity but the Power of the State in the Church is a prop to sustain it from
A Discourse OF THE RIGHT OF THE CHURCH IN A Christian State BY HERBERT THORNDIKE LONDON Printed by M. F. for OCTAVIAN PULLEN at the sign of the Rose in S. Pauls Church-yard 1649. To the READER AT the beginning of these troubles I published a short Discourse of the Primitive government of Churches and after it a larger of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service at the Assemblies of the Church Thinking it easie to inferre what ought to be done if it could be made to appear what the Apostles had done Since that time Congregations have been erected and Presbyteries Ordained though with some tincture of Erastus his Doctrine which dissolveth all Ecclesiasticall Power into the Secular in States that are Christian Here I thought it worth the while to try how the reasons heretofore advanced might be improved not onely to establish the Society of the Church upon the Power of the Keys granted by our Lord or to declare what persons and upon what terms it is trusted with on behalf of the Church and every part of it which I had begun to doe afore but in what Right and Interest the Secular Power concurres to the effect of it in establishing or reforming the Church of any Christian State This is the reason that I referre so often to those two Discourses intending at the first but to supply and improve what I had said But finding by the processe that I could not compasse the brevity which I first aimed at I have added a Review whereby as some parts are inlarged so the whole perhaps remains not so sutable because other points that might seem to require the like enlargement are left as they were because an end must be made My reasons are generall to all States and all parts of the Church and that generality will make them obscure to such as consider them not as the consequence of the subject deserves But it is well if a subject containing so great difference of particulars can be comprised in any generall truth Many things might have been better said could all have been Copied again But a single heart will make the best of all that which is tendred with no other design but to remonstrate how hard it is and yet to shew how it is possible to keep or recover the Conscience of a good Christian in such a triall as this I had a desire to have added herewith to the other two Discourses a Review of some passages which those things which I have said here give me occasion to inlarge But the delaies of the Presse and my absence inforce me to deferre it till opportunity serve The Contents of the severall Chapters CHAP. I. THe Church hath no temporall power but stands by Gods privilege of holding Assemblies The ground of the Secular powers interesse in Church matters The power of the Keys what it is and that it cannot be taken from the Church Pag. I CHAP. II. That the whole Bodies of Christians contained in severall Cities and the Territories of them make severall Churches depending upon the Churches of greater Cities Therefore the People is not endowed with the Chief Power in any Church 44 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 convertible with the Office of Consecrating the Eucharist And therefore that there are no Lay Elders The Right of the Bishop Presbyters and People in Church matters 85 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 163 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 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 247 THE Right of the CHURCH IN A CHRISTIAN STATE CHAP. I. The Church hath no temporall power but stands by Gods priviledge of holding Assemblies The ground of the Secular powers interesse in Church matters The power of the Keys what it is and that it cannot be taken from the Church IT is visible to all understandings that there are two states of Gods Church For there must needs be a great difference between the Church as it was first established by the ordinances of the Apostles before the exercise of Christianity was allowed and priviledged by the Laws of the Romane Empire and as it now standeth protected by the Laws of Christian Kingdomes and Commonwealths And my purpose is here to debate what power the Church ought to have in this later state and what Right accrues to Secular powers in Church matters when they professe Christianity and the maintenance of it Which one dispute will necessarily conclude the chiefe matters now in compromise concerning the state of the Church in this Kingdome To understand this aright we must suppose that the Church is not endowed with any manner of the secular power of this world and the civill Societies of it which constraineth men to obedience by force For it will be easie for ordinary understandings after the miserable disputes which this civill Warre hath advanced to perceive that though there be many points of that Right wherein Soveraign Power consisteth yet all of them are resolved into the Power of the Sword Seeing that there is no manner of publick Act either of Soveraign Power or any derived from it that could be effectuall as the use of civill Society requires did not all mens senses tell them that there is force ready to reduce the refractary to obedience Now that our Saviour did and was to disclaim all Title to the Sword is manifest by the Gospell and the profession of it For being suspected in his life time by his enemies and lastly accused to Pilate as one that sought to usurp it his renouncing it so publickly because it clears him therefore convinces the injustice of the sentence against him And truly what entertainment shall we imagine his Gospel would have found in the world had it pretended to establish itself by force For this profession must needs have produced that effect which Mahumetisme did afterwards to wit the subversion of all States which it might prove able to justle with and to prevaile But Christianity being first initiated by the Crosse of Christ and professing nothing but to follow him in bearing his Crosse it is manifest that those which saw not reason to beleeve it must be convinced that they ought not
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
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
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
between the Law and the Gospel For under the Law this power took place in the practice of all Ceremoniall and Judiciall Laws proper to the Synagogue As well as in determining the circumstances and ceremonies of the worship of God which still remains under the Gospel saving the difference thereof from the Law For under the Gospel there belong to Christianity two sorts of things The first whereof are of the substance of Christianity as concerning immediately the salvation of particular Christians And this kinde is further to be distinguished into matter of Faith and matter of life or manners The second concerns indeed the salvation of particular Christians as containing the Unity of the Church and the due exercise of all those Ordinances which God will be served with in the Unity of the Church but mediately as they are means to beget and preserve in all Christians those things of the former sort that concern Faith or good maners For if it were morally possible to imagine that a man blamelesly deprived of all means of Communion with the Church could be neverthelesse endowed with all parts of a Christian in Faith and good manners I doe not see how any discreet Christian could deny such a one the end of Christianity which is life everlasting All things therefore concerning Faith and good Works necessary to the salvation of particular Christians are so revealed or rather so commanded by our Lord and his Apostles that it is not possible for all the Church that succeeds to declare any thing to be such that is not expresly or by consequence contained in their writings For how shall all the Church be able to adde any thing to this number but by shewing the same motives which our Lord and his Apostles advanced to the World to perswade them not onely that what they spoke was revealed by God but also that they were sent to require the World to beleeve and obey them But as to that which concerns the Society of the Church and the publick service of God in the Unity of the same what can we say our Lord in Person commanded but the Power of the Keys upon which it is founded and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist in the Communion whereof the Unity of the Church consisteth And his Apostles how did they proceed in determining the rest Surely he that will say that they never enacted any thing till a revelation came on purpose from God will fall under the same inconveniencies which render the infallibility of the Pope or the Church ridiculous to common sense Which if they beleeved themselves sure they would never call Councels advise with Doctors debate with one another to finde what may truly be said or usefully determined in matters of difference In like manner when the Apostles assemble themselves at Jerusalem Acts XV. 1 to debate in a full meeting with Saul and Barnabas the Presbyters of Jerusalem and the rest what to resolve in the matter there questioned I say not they were no Prophets or had no revelations from God when he pleased But I say it is manifest that they proceeded not upon confidence of any revelation promised them at this time and in this place but upon the habituall understanding which as well by particular revelation from God as by the Doctrine of our Lord they had proportionable to the Chief Power over the whole Church which they were trusted with To speak ingenuously mine own opinion which I seek not to impose upon any mans Faith I do beleeve that some person of those that were then assembled in Councell had a present inspiration revealing that Gods will was that the Decree there enacted should be made My reason is because I observe by divers passages of the Old and New Testaments that God was wont to send revelations to his Prophets at the publick Assemblies of the Church of Synagogue As at the sending of Saul and Barnabas Acts XIII 2. At the Ordination of Timothy 1 Tim. IV. 14. At the Assemblies of the Corinthians 1 Cor. XIV 24 25 30. At Josaphats Fast 2 Chron. XVIII 14. At Saint Johns Ordinations whereof Clemens in the place afore alleged out of Eusebius his Ecclesiasticall Histories saith that the Apostle was wont to goe abroad to Ordain such as were signified by the Holy Ghost Whereupon S. Paul saith of the Presbyters of Ephesus That the Holy Ghost had set them over the flock Acts XX. 28. and therefore when it is said Acts XV. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us I take it that some such revelation is intimated But this notwithstanding when we see the message sent the Church assembled the cause debated without assurance of any such revelation to be made whereof no Prophet had assurance till it came we see they proceeded not upon presumption of it but upon the conscience of their ordinary power and the habituall abilities given them to discharge it So that from the premises we have two reasons serving to vindicate the same Power to the Church The first because the Constitutions in force under the Apostles cannot be said to come from particular extraordinary inspiration of the Holy Ghost but from the ordinary power of governing the Church which was to continue The second because by the proceedings of the Councell of Jerusalem it appears that no revelation was a ground or requisite to the determining of the matter there in difference To which I adde a third from S. Pauls words 1 Cor. XI 16. If any man be contentious we have no such custome neither the Churches of God Where having disputed by many reasons that women were to vail their faces at the Service of God in the Church he sets up his rest upon laudable custome of the Church Now if custome be available to create Right in the Church as in civile Societies then authority much more without which either prescribing or allowing neither that custome which the Apostle specifies nor any other could take place And a fourth from that observation so advanced and improved that no man can deny it but he that will make himself ridiculous to all men of learning besides the instances thereof in the premises which is this That the Orders which the Apostles setled in the Church saving the difference between the Law and the Gospel are always or at least most an end drawn from the pattern of the Synagogue Whereby it appeareth that the convenience of them was evident not by revelation but by humane discourse but the force of them comes from the authority of the Apostles prescribing or allowing them in the Church Both which are always in the Church though in lesse measure Fifthly this is proved by the premises Wherein I conceive it is proved that the Clergy in the Church succeeds into the Authority of the Jews Consistories in the Synagogue Wherefore having shewed that those Consistories did give Law to the Synagogue in all matters of Religion not determined by God it follows
that the same may be done in the Church Sixthly the same followeth from the dependence of Churches For if Congregations be made independent that no Christian may receive Law from man wherein he is not satisfied of the will of God then having proved that Congregations are not independent it follows that they are to receive Law in all things not contrary to the will of God Seventhly the exercise of this Power in all ages of the Church and the effects of it in great volumes of lawfull Canonicall decrees though it be a mark of contradiction to them that are resolved to hate that which hath been because it hath been yet to all whose senses are not maleficiated with prejudice it is the same evidence of this Power though not always of the right use of it by which Christianity it self stands recommended to us Lastly can those of the Congregations say that no publick act is done among them without the free and willing consent of all as satisfied in conscience that it is the will of God which is decreed Then are they not men For among all men there is difference of judgement If notwithstanding they are inforced to proceed why depart they from the Church For if those that place the Chiefe Power in Congregations cannot avoid to be tied by other mens acts why refuse they to be tied once for all by such generall acts as Laws are Which as they must needs be done by persons capable to judge what the common good of the Church requires which it is madnesse to imagine that members of Congregations can be so they have the force when they are once admitted to contain the whole body of the Church agreeing to them in Unity Whereas to acknowledge no such tends to create as many Religions as persons And now to the objection of wil-worship in the observation of humane constitutions the answer will not be difficult That sinne I doe truly beleeve to be of a very large extent as one of the extremes opposite to the Virtue of Religion understanding Religion to be all service of God with a good conscience Thus all the Idolatries of the Gentile all the superstitions of Judaism and Mahumetism are will-worships For man being convinced of his duty to serve God and neither knowing how to perform nor willing to render that service which he requires because inconsistent with his own inclinations it follows that by a voluntary commutation he tender God something which he is willing to part with in stead of his concupiscences Having condemnation both for neglecting to tender that which is due and for dishonouring God by thinking him to be bribed by his inventions to wink at his sins And therefore I do grant that the Constitutions which the Synagogue was by Gods Law enabled to make were capable to be made the matter of Superstition and will-worship as indeed in our Lords time they were made The reason because presuming to be justified by the works of the Law and the Law among them being not onely the written but that which was taught by word of mouth the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees which the Disciples of Christ shall never enter into the Kingdome of heaven unlesse they exceed consisted not only in the letter of the Ceremoniall and Judiciall precepts but in observing the determinations of their Consistories And accordingly I doe grant that the Rules Decrees and Constitutions of the Church are capable to be made the matter of the same sin and that they are made so visibly in divers customs and practises of the Church of Rome But is it a good reason to say that because humane Constitutions may be made the subject of superstition and will-worship therefore the Church hath no Power to make any therefore the members of the Church are not tied to obey any Or may there not be superstition and will-worship in abhorring as well as in observing humane Constitutions If S. Paul be in the right there may For if the Kingdome of God consist in righteousnesse and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost not in eating or not eating in observing or not observing days by the same reason it consists no more in not doing then in doing that which the Law of God determineth not Wherefore if any man imagine that he shall please God in not observing in refusing in opposing in destroying humane Constitutions regulating the publick order of the Church it is manifest that this is because he thinks he shall be the better Christian by forbearing that which God commands him not to forbear seeing he can finde in his heart to violate Unity and Charity that he may forbear it Here it may be demanded of me why I expresse no other ground of this Power in the Church then the indetermination of those things which Order and Unity requires to be determined in the Church For seeing matters of Faith are determined by Gods Word it seems to follow that the Church hath nothing to do to determine of matters of Doctrine in difference And seeing the Ceremonies of Divine Service besides the determining of that which the Scripture determineth not pretend further to advance and improve devotion in the publick Worship of God as I have discoursed more at large in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service ca. IX It seems if there be no other ground for the Legislative Power of the Church that the Church hath nothing to do to institute such Ceremonies To which I answer that it is one thing to make that matter of Faith which was not another to determine matter of Faith that is to determine what members of the Church shall do in acknowledging or not acknowledging that which is in question to be or not to be matter of Faith For if there be a Society of the Church then must there be in the Church a Power to determine what the members thereof shall acknowledge and professe when it comes in difference Which is not to qualifie the subject that is to make any thing matter of Faith or not but to determine that those which will not stand to the Act of the Whole that is of those persons that have right to conclude the Whole shall not be of it So the obligation that such Acts produce as it comes from the Word of God which the Church acknowledges is a duty of Faith but as it relates to the determination of the Church as a duty of charity obliging to concurre with the Church where it determineth not the contrary of that which the Word of God determineth Again when I say the Church hath Power to determine that which Gods Law determines not I must needs be understood to mean that which shall seem to make most for the advancement of godlinesse Now the Scripture shews by store of examples of Ceremonies in the Publick Service of God under the Church as well as under the Synagogue that the institution of significative Ceremonies in the Publick worship of God doth make for
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
though to an invisible purpose and the Power of giving Laws either to the whole or to severall parts of it of Divine Right But neither the whole nor the parts of it are necessarily convertible with any one State and yet the Church under severall States many times in extreme need of the use of that power which God hath given his Church to determine matters determinable Therefore this power cannot be vested in any of the States under which the Church is concerned but in those that have Power in behalf of the Churches respectively concerned The fourth argument is very copious from the exercise of this power in the Religion instituted by God among his ancient people of which nature there is nothing in the New Testament because in the times whereof it speaks Soveraign Powers were not Christian I have shewed in divers places of this Discourse that the High Consistory of the Jews at Jerusalem had power to determine all questions that became determinable in the matter of Laws given by God And yet there is great appearance that this Consistory it self was not constantly setled there according to Law till Josaphats time at least not the inferiour Consistories appointed by the Law of Deut. XVI 18. as the Chief by the Law of Deut. XVII 8 to be setled in the severall Cities For if so why should the Judges and Samuel ride circuit up and down the Country to minister justice according to the Law as we reade they did then Jud. V. 10. X. 4. XII 14. 1 Sam. VII 16. but not after Josaphats time And for this reason it seems Josaphat himself being to put this Law in force first sent Judges up and down the Cities 2 Chron. XVII 8 9. afterwards setled them according to the Law in the Cities of Juda as well as at Jerusalem 2 Chron. XIX 5 8. Besides Josephus in expresse terms rendring a reason of the disorder upon which the warre against Benjamin followed attributes it to this that the Consistories were not established according to Law Antiq. V. 2. And again Antiq. V. 5. he gives this for the cause why Eglon undertook to subdue the Israelites that they were in disorder and the Laws were not put in use And therefore it is justly to be presumed that the exact practice of this Law on which that of all the rest depended took not place till Josaphat applied the coactive power then in his hands to bring to effect that which God had established in point of Divine right The Consistory then by the Law is commanded to judge the People That is the Soveraign Power of the people is commanded to establish the Consistory Josaphat finds this command to take hold upon him as having the Power of that People in his hands So again God had commanded that Idolaters should be put to death and their Cities destroied the Consistory inquiring and sentencing as appears by the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni of Idolatry cap. IV. Deut. XIII 2 13 14. But suppose the disease grown too strong for the cure as we must needs suppose the Consistory unable to destroy an Idolatrous City when most Cities doe the like or to take away High Places when the Land is over-run with them then must the coactive Power of the Secular arm either restore the Law or be branded to posterity for not doing it as you see the Kings of Gods people are The Precept of building the Temple was given to the Body of the People therefore it takes hold upon David and the Powers under him his Princes his Officers and Commanders 1 Chro. XIII 2. XXVIII 1. In fine the Consistory by the Law was to determine matters undetermined in the Law whether in generall by giving Laws in questionable cases or in particular by sentencing causes But if the people slide back and cast away the yoke of the Law none but the Soveraign Power can reduce them under the Covenant of the Law to which they are born Therefore that Covenant is renued by Asa by Hezekiah by Josias by none but the King as first it was established by Moses King in Jesurun Deut. XXIX 1. XXXIII 5. 2 Chron. XV. 12 14. XXIX 10. XXXIV 31. And it is a very grosse mistake to imagine that the people renued it or any part of it without the consent of the Soveraign under Esdras and Nehemias Esd XI 1 Neh. X. 29 V. 12. For Esdras having obtained that Commission which we see Es VII 11 may well be thought thereby established in the quality of Head of the Consistory by the Soveraign Power as the Jews all report him But howsoever by that Commission we cannot doubt that he was inabled to swear them to the Law by which he was inabled to govern them in it his commission supposing a grant of full leave to live according to their Law But in Nehemias we must acknowledge a further power of Governor under the King of Persia as he cals himself expresly Neh. V. 14 15. which quality seems to me answerable to that of the Heads of the Captive Jews in Babylonia of whom we reade divers times in Josephus as well as in the Jews writings that they were Heads of their Nation in that Country having Heads of their Consistories under them at the same time as Esdras under Nehemias The proceedings then of Esdras and Nehemias as well as of the Kings of Juda prove no more then that which I said in the beginning of this Chapter that Soveraign Powers have Right to establish and restore all matters of Religion which can appear to be commanded by God For it is not in any common reason to imagine that by any Covenant of the Law renued by Esdras and Nehemias they conceived themselves inabled or obliged to maintain themselves by force in the profession and exercise of their Religion against their Soveraign in case he had not allowed it them Therefore of necessity that which they did was by Power derived by Commission from the Kings of Persia and so with reservation of their obedience to them who granting Nehemias and Esdras Power to govern the People in their Religion must needs be understood to grant them both the free profession and exercise of the same But having shewed that the Church hath Power by Divine Right to establish by a generall Act which you may call a Canon Constitution or Law all that Gods Law determineth not mediately and by consequence I conceive it remains proved by these particulars done under the Old Testament that the Church is to determine but the determinations of the Church to be maintained by the coactive Power of the Secular arm seeing they cannot come to effect in any Christian State otherwise Which also is immediately proved by some acts recorded in Scripture whereby that is limited which Gods Law had not determined It is said 1 Chro. XXV 1. That David and the Captains of the Militia divided the sonnes of Asaph Heman and Jeduthun to the service of God Here it were an
inconvenience to imagine that Commanders of Warre should meddle with ordering the Tribe of Levi and the service of the Temple It is not so We are to understand there by the Militia the Companies of Priests that waited on the Service of the Temple the Captains of whom with David divided the Singers as they did the Priests 1 Chron. XXIV 3 6 7. Though elsewhere 1 Chron. XXIII 6. David alone is mentioned to doe it as by whose Power a businesse concerning the state of a Tribe in Israel was put in effect and force So Hezekias and his Princes and all the Synagogue advised about holding the Passeover in the second moneth 2 Chron. XXX 2. that is he advised with the Consistory who are there as in Jer. XXVI 10 11. called the Princes for so the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni in the Title of comming into the Sanctuary ca. IV. teach us to understand it So David and his Princes gave the Gibeonites to wait upon the Levites whereupon they are called Nethinim that is Given Esd VIII 20. where by David and the Princes we must understand by the same reason David and the great Consistory of his time So also Maimoni in the Title Erubin subinit or rather the Talmud Doctors whose credit he followeth tell us that Solomon and his Consistory brought that Constitution into practice concerning what rooms meats may be removed into upon the Sabbath Herewith agrees the practice of Christian Emperors if we consider the style and character of some of their Laws in the Codes by which the rest may be estimated seeing it is not possible to confider all in this abridgement There you shall finde a Law by which the Canons of the Church are inforced and the Governors of Provinces tied to observe and execute them long before the Code of Canons was made by Justinian a Law of the Empire There you shall finde the Audiences of Bishops established and the sentences of them inforced by the Secular arm the authority of them having been in force in the Society of the Church from the beginning as hath been said There you shall finde Laws by which men are judged Hereticks and Schismaticks as they acknowledged the Faith determined by such and such Councels or not as they communicated with such such Bishops or not which what is it but to take the Act of the Church for a Law and to give force to it by the Secular arm Which what prejudice can it import to any Christian State upon the face of the earth For first such Assemblies of the Church at which publick matters are determinable cannot meet but by allowance of the State In particular though the Church hath Right to assemble Councels when that appears the best course for deciding matters in difference yet it cannot be said that the Church was ever able to assemble a generall Councell without the command of Christian Princes after the example of Constantine the Great And this is the State of Religion for the present in Christendome The Power of determining matters of Religion rests as always it did in the respective Churches to be tied by those determinations But the Power to assemble in freedome those judgements which may be capable to conclude the Church must rest in the free agreement of the Soveraignties in Christendome Secondly it hath been cautioned afore that all Soveraign Powers have right to see not only that nothing be done in prejudice to their Estates but also in prejudice to that which is necessary to the salvation of all Christians or that which was from the beginning established in the Church by our Lord and his Apostles Therefore when Councels are assembled neither can they proceed nor conclude so as to oblige the Secular Powers either of Christendome or of their respective Soveraignties but by satisfying them that the determinations which they desire to bring to effect are most agreeable to that which is determined by Divine Right as well as to the Peace of the State And so the objection ceases that by making the Church independent upon the State as to the matter of their Laws and determinations we make two Heads in one Body For seeing there is by this determination no manner of coactive Power in the Church but all in the State for Excommunication constrains but upon supposition that a man resolves to be a Christian there remains but one Head in the Civile Society of every State so absolute over the persons that make the Church that the independent power thereof in Church matters will enable it to do nothing against but suffer all things from the Soveraign And yet so absolute and depending on God alone in Church matters that if a Soveraign professing Christianity should not onely forbid the profession of that Faith or the exercise of those Ordinances which God hath required to be served with but even the exercise of that Ecclesiasticall Power which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church it must needs be necessary for those that are trusted with the Power of the Church not only to disobey the commands of the Soveraign but to use that Power which their quality in the Society of the Church gives them to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular Powers A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the Ancient Church in all those Actions wherein they refused to obey their Emperors seduced by Hereticks and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them to the prejudice of Christianity Particularly in that memorable refusall of Athanasius of Alexandria and Alexander of Constantinople to admit the Heretick Arius to Communion at the instant command of Constantine the Great Which most Christian action whosoever justifies not besides the appearance of favour to such an Heresie he will lay the Church open to the same ruine whensoever the Soveraign Power is seduced by the like And such a difference falling out so that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the Right it will be requisite for Christians in a doubtfull case at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawfull Soveraigns though to no further effect then to suffer for the exercise of Christianity and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity Now what strength and force the exercise of the Keys which is the Jurisdiction of the Church necessarily requires from the Secular arm may appear in that this Power hath been and may be inforced by Soveraigns of contrary Religions The first mention of Excommunication among the Jews is as you have seen under Esdras who proceeded by Commission from the King of Persia In the Title of both Codes of Justinian and Theodosius De Judae is Coelicolis you have a Law of the Christian Emperors whereby the Excommunications of the Jews are enacted and enforced by forbidding inferiour powers to make them void And thus was the sentence of the Church against Paulus Samosatenus ratified
Law of his Country pretendeth to be for his good and to relish it aright when upon due consideration it appears to be no otherwise And so the punishment of the Law tends to the same purpose as all afflictions are sent by God to drive men to their good against their will And that those who fainedly submit to Christianity may as Aristotle says be Sun-burnt by walking in the Sun though they walk not in the Sun for that purpose That is by trying the effect of Christianity in the worship of God and reformation of mens lives among whom they live by being under such Laws may be won to imbrace it for it self which at first they imbraced for the worldly privilege of it To which purpose there can be no mean so effectuall as the restoring of the publick discipline of Penance in the Church By which it becomes most evident what inward esteem men set upon Christianity by the esteem they set upon the Communion of the Church And that the sentence of Excommunication is abhorred not for the temporall Penalties which by civile Laws attend upon it but for the Society of the Church which it intercepteth And truly this last inconvenience of Hypocriticall profession can by no means be avoided wheresoever Christianity or any opinion supposed to be a necessary part of it is made the Religion of any State For evidence whereof I must repeat first that which was supposed afore that there are but two reasons for which any Religion can be said to be the Religion of any State to wit Privileges and Penalties In the second place I must suppose here that as exemption from any penalty is a privilege so exemption from a privilege is a penalty Wherefore seeing no Religion can be the Religion of any State but by such privileges as another Religion is not capable of it is manifest that Toleration of Religion as it is a Privilege in comparison of punishment so it is a punishment in comparison of that Religion which is privileged These things supposed it will not be difficult to render a reason why Christianity must of necessity decay and why the power of it is so decaied since the world came into the Church For when men came not to Christianity till they had digested the hardship of the Crosse and resolved to preferre the next world afore this it is no marvell if they endured what they had foreseen and resolved against But seeing temporall privilege as well as temporall punishment may belong to true Christianity no marvell if men follow the reason of privilege not of Christianity when they goe both together though by consequence they will be ready to change as the privilege changes Now as to the Privileges which Christianity is endowed with by the Act of God or made capable of by the same from Soveraign Powers when they make Christianity the Religion of those States which they govern It is very easie to resolve from the premises that the Clergy are not exempt by Divine Right from any Law of those States under which they live For seeing the Clergy is a quality which presupposeth Christianity and subsisteth by virtue thereof and that no quality subsisting by the constitution of the Church or by Christianity endoweth any man with any temporall right wherewith he is not invested by the quality which he holdeth in his own Country it followeth that no man by being of the Clergy can be privileged against Secular Power or against those Laws which are the Acts of it And therefore the example of Abiathar High Priest removed from his Office by Solomon for Rebellion and Treason 1 Kings II. 26. to wit because as it is there expressed he had deserved to be removed out of the world is an effectuall argument to this purpose For if that Office to which his person was designed by Gods expresse Law supposing him to be lawfull High Priest might be taken away for a crime committed against the Majesty of the King subsisting by an Act subsequent to the Law established by God because the Law which allowed a King enjoined obedience by all the Penalties of the Law And indeed seeing the Clergy is but a degree qualifying men in Christianity above the People those temporall privileges which by Divine right are pretended to belong to the Clergy must needs belong to the People in an inferiour degree by the same right much more the Clergy presupposing the Church as the Church the State must needs leave all men that are qualified by it obliged upon the same termes as it findes them to the States wherein they professe themselves Christians Which cannot be when both Societies of the Church and the Commonwealth consist of the same persons But though the Clergy be not exempt from any Secular Jurisdiction by Divine Right yet they are so capable of exemption by Divine Right that no man can deny the Privilege granted by the first Christian Emperors the Causes of the Clergy to be heard and determined within the Clergy themselves to be very agreeable to reason of Christianity For if our Lord hath commanded and the Apostles ordained the differences of Christians to be ended within themselvs that they might not prove a scandall to Christianity it is but correspondent consequent thereunto that for avoiding the scandalls which the differences of the Clergy may occasion or to make them lesse publick they be ended within themselves seeing it is manifest to all understandings that the reverence of the Clergy is of great interesse to the advancement of Christianity On the other side seeing the Discipline which the Clergy are liable to by Christianity is so much stricter then that which the Civile Laws of any Commonwealth whatsoever can require and determine that Clergy men cannot incurre the penalties of Criminall Laws but they must be supposed to have violated the stricter discipline of the Church which they are under afore It follows that it is so farre from Christianity to privilege them against such Laws that the Church cannot otherwise be cleared of the scandall then by Ecclesiasticall censures correspondent to the temporall punishments which they incurre But if thus it be true that no man by virtue of his Christianity is endowed with any Secular Privilege of that Civile Society wherein he liveth By the same reason it must be true that no man is by his Christianity uncapable of any Right common to all members of the State in which he liveth unlesse some Law of Christianity can be produced whereby it may appear to be incompetible with the quality he holdeth in the Church Which hath been pretended with much noise to render the Clergy of this Church uncapable of imploiment in Secular affairs in point of Divine Right but will be very difficult to prove by the Scriptures in regard that Christianity containeth nothing but that which tendeth to the maintenance of Civile Society as on the other side Civile Society and the Powers thereof tendeth to the maintenance of
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
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
Preach continually so as to edifie the Church by their Preaching as it was for Apostles Apostolicall persons and Prophets is not for a reasonable man to imagine And those that stand so much upon Preaching twice every Lords Day would finde themselves at a marvellous exigent if they should prove either the necessity of it in point of Right by the Scriptures or the utility of it in point of Fact by the abilities of the men whom themselves set about it As for Prayer I yeeld that it is a Precept of God that the Prayers of Christian Congregations be presented to God by the Presbyters But what Prayers none but those which the Eucharist was celebrated with of which I spoke afore All the world will never shew any title in the Scriptures or the originall practice of the Church to prove that the Apostles ordained these prayers before or after the Sermons of Presbyters which are now made the greatest part of the exercise of Christianity unlesse it be because the Sermon went before the Eucharist as Acts XX. 7. 1 Cor. XIV 16. The Prayers which the Presbyters offer to God in behalf of the Church being by the institution of the Apostles onely those which the Eucharist is celebrated with I acknowledge that under the Apostles the Prayers of the Church were not prescribed but conceived by those that were emploied in that office by the Church But in consideration of the Propheticall Revelations and immediate inspirations which the persons emploied about that Office were then graced with to shew the truth of Christianity and the presence of God in the Church And therefore since those graces ceased I have shewed in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 348. that those Prayers of the Church which went not with the Eucharist were ministred by Deacons because it was found necessary that both the one and the other should be done in a prescript form to avoid the scandals of Christianity that we see come by referring it to all persons that are trusted to officiate publick service And I am astonished that any Christian should imagine that God should be pleased with the conceptions of the minde or expressions of the tongue setting aside the affection of the heart that any man prays with But now by the pretense on foot which makes the exercise of Christianity to consist in a Sermon and a Prayer conceived before or after it not onely the celebration of the Eucharist which the Apostles ordained to be as frequent as the Prayers of the Presbyters and which the Church of England recommends on all Sundaies and Festivals is turned out of doors to three or four times a year But also all the publick Service of God by Prayer Reading the Scriptures and the Praises of God forbidden when the Preachers mouth opens not And by referring the form of Prayer and matter of Doctrine to each mans discretion the exercise of Religion is turned into a Lecture of State infused into the conscience of the hearers by desiring of God the interesse of that faction for which a man Preaches And by this means they that doe challenge to themselves the title of Apostles when they style themselves Ministers of Christ and of the Gospel are now discovered by their adversaries of the Congregations to be Ministers of that Power which set them up as indeed they must needs be when a double number of Votes in their Presbyteries is able to cast them out of the Church if they prove not faithfull Ministers The ruine of Christianity is yet greater in going about to Reform Religion by the Sword and taking up Arms upon the Title of Christianity whether it be pretended or not For they that say that the Christians of Tertullians time would have defended themselves by force against the persecutions of the Romane Emperors if they had been able must needs say that Christians may and ought to defend themselves upon the Title of their Christianity As both Buchanane and Bellarmine by consequence must doe when they say that the reason why S. Paul commands Christians to be subject to the Secular Powers of his time was because they were not able to resist But I doe remember to have read in Burroughs his Lectures on Hoses which I speak to doe him right that the Title of this War is not grounded on Religion as Religion but as professed by this Kingdome Which I conceive cannot be said by those that advance the Covenant or allow two clauses of it The first when it promiseth to maintain the Kings person and estate in maintenance of Religion For if the maintenance of the State be limited within the condition of Religion then it is professed by consequence that the Soveraign Power of the State is not to be maintained when Religion is not maintained by it which if it did maintain Religion were to be maintained Therefore Religion is the ground upon which those that enter into the Covenant undertake to maintain one another without any exception in the maintenance of the same Therefore that War is made upon the Title of Religion which maintains not the State but in the maintenance of it The second when it faith that this is done that those which grone under the yoke of Antichrist may be moved to do the like Which belonging to the Subjects of Popish Princes professeth Religion to be the Title of those Arms which all of like Religion may use what ever the State be under which they live Now would I fain know of any friend of the Covenant What is the difference between it and the Holy League of France under Henry the third as to this point and in this regard There is indeed difference enough between the subjects in which the two Leagues suppose Religion to consist and there is as much in the Rule of the same which both suppose But as to the right which Religion introduceth of maintaining it self by force both Covenants agree in supposing it And thereby found temporall right upon the Grace of Christianity contrary to that which I presuppose from the beginning seeing whatsoever is purchased by such Arms is the production of that Title under which they are born True it is that Religion is not the onely Title of that League or this Covenant both of them pretending as well abuse in Government But it is to be considered on the other side that these two Titles are not subordinate but concurrent That is that this Right of maintaining Religion by force of Arms riseth from the truth of Religion in it self presupposed and not by the establishment of Religion by the Laws of any State for the Religion of the same Because not by that Power by which these Laws were made And therefore by consequence makes those that take Arms and joyn in Covenant supreme Judges of all that is questioned in Religion Which being of much more consideration to all Christians then the good estate of any Commonwealth though both Titles concurre in this War yet it
the Church originally always every where hath professed and used From them let them seek the communion of the Church not onely in the exercise of such Christian Ordinances as men cast upon desert coasts and utterly destitute of Ecclesiasticall Society for the present for so our distractions have made us can participate in but also in such acts of the Power of the Keys as passe not the inward court of the conscience Neither let them ever think themselves necessitated to communicate with Schisme while the Law which is the source of all Laws and the persons which are the seed of all publick persons of the Church continue And let them know further that in adhering to the Society of a Church never so much destroied by force no Secular Power whether lawfull or unlawfull shall ever have more rightfull title to persecute them then the Romane Emperours had to persecute the Apostles and Primitive Christians part of their profession being not to defend themselves by force grounded upon the title of Christianity but to suffer with patience what force shall inflict for it Which doing as the purchase is not of this world so let them not doubt to finde the effect of the promises which are to come A REVIEW CHAP. I. SInce the writing of this Discourse I have understood by relation and by some Pamphlets that there is one opinion on foot among the many of this time that there is no such thing as a Society of the Church by the Ordinance of our Lord and the institution of his Apostles That wheresoever we reade of the Church in the Scriptures there we are to understand no more but onely a number of men that are Christians who may or ought to assemble together for the service of God as they find opportunity and means But that there should be thought to be any condition of communicating in the Service of God which should make all Christians a Society called the Church as excluding those that are not qualified with it this they think to be an Imposture that hath made way for Antichrist And though this opinion be so groundlesse that very few Readers will expect any opposition to be made yet because my intent was by this Discourse to improve the Reasons heretofore advanced and to try the effect and consequence of them in destroying the grounds of the divisions framed among us And because if that which I propound be the truth it will with a little husbanding be effectuall to convince all manner of errors it will be requisite here to give notice that all the reasons which this first Chapter produceth to prove the Power of the Keys and the punishment of Excommunication the effect thereof to belong to the Church are effectuall to prove the Society of the Church which this Power constitutes and therefore the effect thereof evidenceth And truly though there is an infinite distance between the productions and consequences of this opinion and that of Erastus in as much as this manifestly tendeth to challenge to all Christians freedome of doing what they please in the exercise of their Christianity without any account to the State under which they live that of Erastus challenging to the State all Power to govern all Christians in their Christianity yet if we consider the ground on which both stand they will appear to be as the Rivers that rise out of Apenninus which empty themselves some into the Sea of Tuscany others into the Gulf of Venice For I suppose every mans common reason will furnish him so much of the metaphysicks as to make it appear that every thing which hath a beeing is by that beeing distinct from other things So that if there be no difference between the Society of the Church and that of the State when it professes Christianity but that both make one Community Corporation or Commonwealth as that of the ancient people of God under the Law then is there no Society of a Church when the State is Christian seeing it is agreed upon on all hands that there is one of the State and this opinion inforces that there is no more but one True it is that there are two things to say either that before Constantine the Power of Excommunication stood onely by Humane right that is by custome of the Church or that by the Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles it was to stand onely before Christianity were received by Kingdoms and Commonwealths but afterwards the Power of governing the Church hitherto in the Body of the Church to be dissolved into the Secular Power of the State But whether this or that in all cases he that taketh away the Power of the Keys in opening and that of Excommunication in shutting up the Church must needs appear to take away the Society and Communion of a Church either because it never was or because it ceaseth when the State becomes Christian This consideration improves very much the reasons of this Chapter against Erastus making his opinion liable to all those Scriptures which acknowledge a Society of the Church and the sense of all Christians which suppose the same And deserveth here to be represented because it may be observed that the proceeding of the Discourse did not give leave to presse it to this effect For the intent of it being to limit the concurrence of Secular and Ecclesiasticall Power in Church matters it was necessary to declare in the first place upon what ground God hath instituted the Society of the Church by Revelation from above having before constituted civile Societies of the same persons whereof the Church consisteth by the Law of Nature and Nations and the operation of his ordinary Providence Especially seeing that Christianity addresseth it self to all Nations and therefore intendeth to constitute one Church of all civile Societies which imbrace the same For seeing it is manifest that Religion hath always been a very generall Title of many Wars and commotions against the Publick peace and that therefore all States must needs be jealous of that Religion which asks no leave of the State to beleeve what it beleeves but professes an obligation of beleeving though never so contrary to the Laws of the State it appears to have been requisite that there should be in Christianity some condition that might clear it from this jealousie especially because one Society of the Church consisting of the persons which constitute many States must needs be concluded in point of conscience by a Power of the Church not derived from that of the State and so possibly the Subjects of a State be concluded in conscience by strangers to that State as they are members of the Church This is the difficulty which was to be removed in the beginning of this Discourse that it might appear no ways prejudiciall to civile Societies that God should institute one Society of the Church to consist of all persons of severall States that professe Christianity And the removing of this difficulty consists in the
their Right For in this quality doe those Elders of the People of which Justellus writeth act in Ecclesiasticall matters as you may see by that which I have said in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 96. and in all other the particulars which he allegeth And if this be it which the Presbyterians demand in behalf of their Lay Elders let them first accord themselves with those of the Congregations concerning the due Interesse of the People in Church matters and my opinion shall be that the Church may safely joyn issue with them not to yeeld a double number of Votes to Lay Elders in the proceeding of all Church matters as the Ordinance for establishing the Presbyteries appoints which is to make the Clergy truly Ministers not of God but of the People but to grant them a right of Intercession in behalf of the People when as the proceeding may be argued to be contrary to Gods Law grounded upon the practice recorded in the Scriptures and continued under the Primitive Church by which the people were satisfied even of the proceedings of the Apostles themselves in Church matters For by this Right and Interesse the Acts of the Church shall not be done by any Vote of the People but the Rule of Christianity and the Constitution of the Church according to Gods Law shall be preserved which are the inheritance of Christian people The second is concerning the different interesse of Clergy and People in judging the causes of Christians before any State professed Christianity supposing that which hath been proved in the first Chapter that our Lord and his Apostles ordain that they goe not forth of the Church to be judged in Heathen Courts upon pain of Excommunication to them that carry them forth For S. Paul seems to appoint that the least esteemed of the Church be constituted Judges in those causes 1 Cor. VI. 4. and therefore not Bishops nor Presbyters nor Deacons which must needs be of most esteem in the Society of the Church but the simplest of the people Which though it must needs be said by way of concession or supposition that is that they should rather appoint such men then carry their Causes to Secular Courts otherwise it were too grosse an inconvenience to imagine that the Apostle commandeth them to appoint the simplest to be their Judges yet seeing the truth of his words requires that the supposition be possible so that it might in some case come to effect it seems that his injunction comes to this that in case the chief of the Church the Clergy were so imploied that they could not attend to judge their controversies within themselves they should make Judges out of the People Which seemeth not sutable to the rest of the Interesse of the Clergy hitherto challenged This difficulty is to be answered by distinguishing as the Romane Laws distinguish between Jurisdiction and Judging though in far lesse matters For Jurisdiction is sometimes described in the Romane Laws to be the Power of appointing a Judge because it was never intended that the Magistrate which was endowed with Jurisdiction should judge all in person but should give execution and force to the sentences of such Judges as himself should appoint So that the advise of the Apostle supposeth indeed that some of the People might be appointed to judge the Causes of Christians within the Church but leaves the Jurisdiction in those hands by whom they should be appointed Judges Which though it be attributed to the Church indistinctly by the Apostle yet seeing by our Lords appointment the sentence was to be executed by Excommunication therefore of necessity the appointing of Judges must proceed upon the same difference of Interesses as it hath been shewed that Excommunication doth And though Saint Paul suppose that there might be cause to have recourse to Lay-men for the sentencing of differences in the Church as indeed the life of S. Peter in the Pontificall Book relateth that he did Ordain or appoint certain persons to attend upon this businesse that himself might be free for more spirituall imploiment which seemeth to be meant of Lay-men constituted Judges yet by the Apostolicall Constitutions we finde that it was usually done by the Clergy II. 47. And Polycarpus in his Epistle to the Philippians exhorting the Presbyters not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rigid in judgement must needs be thought to have respect to this Office And besides many more instances that might be produced of good antiquity in the Church it is manifest that this is the beginning of Bishops Audiences CHAP. IV. THat which is said p. 166. that Christian States have as good right to dispose of matters of Christianity as any State that is not Christian hath to dispose of matters of that Religion which it professeth proceedeth upon that ground of Interesse in matters of Religion which is common to all States to wit that the disposing of matters of Religion is a part of that Right wherein Soveraignty consists in as much as it concerneth all Civile Societies to provide that under pretense of Religion nothing prejudiciall to the publick peace thereof may be done And truly those Religions that come not from God may very well contain things prejudiciall to Civile Society in as much as those unclean Spirits which are the authors of counterfeit Religions doe also take delight in confounding the good order of humane affairs Notwithstanding in regard the obligation which we have to civile Society is more felt and better understood then that which we have to the Service of God therefore those that are seduced from true Religion are neverthelesse by the light of Nature enabled to maintain civile Society against any thing which under pretense of Religion may prove prejudiciall to the same This is then the common ground of the interesse of all States in matters of Religion which Christianity both particularly and expresly establisheth Particularly in as much as they that assure themselves to have received their Religion from the true God must needs rest assured that he who is the author of civile Society doth not require to be worshipped with any judgement or disposition of minde prejudiciall to his own ordinance Which reason because it taketh place also in Judaisme I have therefore as I found occasion endevoured to declare how that containeth nothing prejudiciall to the Law of Nations And expresly in as much as the Gospel addresseth it self to all Nations with this provision that nothing be innovated in the civile State of any upon pretense thereof but that all out of conscience to God submit to maintain that estate wherein they come to be Christians so far as it is not subject to change by some course of humane right For when S. Paul 1 Cor. VII 22 commands all men to serve God in that condition of circumcision or uncircumcision single life or wedlock bondage or freedome wherein they are called to be Christians his meaning is not to say that a slave may not
become free with his Christianity but that he must not think himself free by his Christianity And upon this ground common to all States it is verified that Christian States have as much right in Christianity as those States that are not Christian have in that Religion which they professe Another ground there is peculiar to Christianity by virtue of the will of God declared to be this that Christianity be received and maintained by the Soveraign Powers of the Gentiles to whom God appointed the Gospel to be preached Of which afterwards That when the World is come into the Church that is when States professe Christianity it is not to be expected that persons of great Quality in the State submit to the Power of the Church unlesse the coactive Power of the State enforce it as it is said p. 168. depends upon that which I said afore that the profession of Religion is common to all Nations insomuch that he deserves not the benefit of civile Society that renounces it For if the profession of Religion in generall be requisite for all them that will enjoy civile Society with any civile Nation then is the Communion of that Religion which the State wherein a man lives professes a temporall Privilege to all that enjoy it in as much as thereby they are reputed to have that Communion with God which the rest of that State must needs be reputed to have because the Religion of the State must needs be reputed to be true And this reputation being so necessary in civile Society that no man esteeming it as he ought can lightly abandon it it follows of necessity that many will be willing to professe Christianity when the State professes it that would not be willing to submit unto the Power of the Church by which they may be deprived of the privilege of Communion in it unlesse they perform as well as professe it in the judgement of those whom that Power is trusted with if the coactive Power of the State did not enforce it That which is said p. 169. that Soveraignty is called by the Romanes Imperium or Empire is chiefly meant of the Title of Imperator given Augustus and his Successors and the reason which I conceive it imports For when the People was Soveraign Generals of Armies received commonly from their Armies the Title of Imperatores upon any remarkable exploit of War done upon their Enemies But they received afore of the People that which they called Imperium or Empire to wit the Power of the Sword by a peculiar Act beside those by which they were either made Magistrates or set over their Provinces Wherefore the Title of Imperator given Augustus in another sense and notion then other Generals had it from their Armies or then Magistrates received their commands as Generals from the People saith Dion lib. XLIV seemeth to extend as far as the property of the word reacheth to all Acts of Soveraignty which a commanding Power can inforce All Laws being nothing else but Commands of that Will which hath Power to determine what shall be done in those things which those Laws do limit and determine All Magistracies Offices and Jurisdictions nothing else but Commands of that will which hath Power to entrust whom it chooseth with the execution of Laws or with Power of Commanding in such things wherein it hath determined nothing afore All these branches then and productions of Soveraign Power are in force and may be exercised by Christian States as well upon Ecclesiasticall matters and Persons interessed by the Church as others But not to defeat nor void that Ministeriall Power which the Church having received immediately from God enjoyeth thereby a Right answerable to all the branches of Soveraign Power in matters proper to the Church as you have seen it declared p. 32. The evidence of a Legislative Power in the Church is said p. 175. to be as expresse in Gods Book as it can be in any Book inspired by God not as if it were not possible that God should declare by inspiration more clearly that this Power belongeth to the Church then now it is declared in the Scriptures for then could there be no dispute about it but that it is as expresse as it can be in these Scriptures supposing them to be inspired by God For seeing those of the Congregations think that they have a sufficient answer to all that is brought for a Legislative Power in the Church out of the Scriptures by saying that the Scriptures are given from above and therefore the matters therein declared being immediately commanded by God are no ground of the like Power for the Church It was necessary to remonstrate unto them that if this answer were good not onely there were no such Power de facto declared but also no such Power could be declared by such Scriptures And therefore that we are to look about us and to consider by what circumstances of things expressed in such Scriptures it may appear to common reason that the Church practised it not without authority and warrant from the Scriptures If the Prophets of the Old Testament had this Power by the Law that if they dispensed with any positive precept of it that precept was to cease for the time which is not any dream of the Jews Doctors but an opinion received from their predecessors without which they involve themselves in most inextricable difficulties that either deny or give any other reason of the toleration of High Places before the Temple was built and after that of the Sacrificing of Elias in Carmell as also of the forbearance of Circumcision in the Wildernesse it is no marvell if the reproof of Ahab by Elias 1 Kings XXI 19 of his son by Elizeus 2 Kings VI. 32. of Herod by our Lord and S. John Baptist are imputed to the peculiar right of Prophets in Gods people p. 179. For seeing that the Law was the condition of the temporall happinesse of that people whereof those Princes were Soveraign and seeing the Prophets were stirred up by God to reduce and preserve the Law in force and practice as well as to point out the true intent and meaning of it which the Gospel was fully to declare it is very reasonable and consequent that their office should take place as well in regard of the Prince as of the people Especially seeing it was sufficiently understood that the people by acknowledging them Prophets were not tied to defend them by force against the publick power vested in the Prince in case it were abused to destroy them or bring their Doctrine to no effect as it is manifest by the sufferings of the Prophets in the Old Testament but to reform themselves according to their Doctrine in their own particulars and to expect the reformation of the people from those that had the power of it And therefore it is extremely inconsequent that by their example in the time of Christianity Preachers should make the personall actions or publick government
blasphemers of your Goddesse By which instance we may be assured that Christianity obligeth us not to seek by scorn to bring any man out of love of a false Religion if they did it not to Idolaters And truly though the Israelites are commanded to destroy all monuments of Idolatry with all the scorn possible yet that is to be understood in the Land of Promise which God made them masters of upon that condition but under other Dominions it is provided by the second Commandement Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them not thou shalt not blaspheme them or shew despite against them Josephus indeed interpreteth that precept of the Law Thou shalt not curse Gods to mean that they are forbidden thereby to blaspheme the Gods of the Gentiles Wherein though it seems he flattereth the Romanes for you may have seen another sense thereof before yet this interpretation is presumption enough that they were not commanded by the Law to doe it I will not therefore condemne the Christians of the East for singing to Julians face as the Ecclesiasticall Histories tell us Their Idols are silver and gold and confoundâ—d be all they that worship carved images Because we know particularly that the Christians of his time were resolved to surfer for their Christianity rather then to defend themselves by force And therefore cannot interpret it to be done in scorn to him but to protest their resolution against Heathenism as also many zealous acts of the Primitive Martyrs must be interpreted But I will make this inference to prove that in point of right which you have seen was true de facto that because Christianity preserveth the estate of the world in the same terms and under the same Powers which it findeth therefore it enjoyneth no man to blaspheme the Religion of the lawfull Powers of the world because thereby themselves would be brought into contempt to the undermining of the obedience due to them And therefore this inference proceedeth not upon supposition of the truth of Christianity but upon a reason common to all civile Societies whether Christian or otherwise which Christianity prejudiceth not but maintaineth As for the second doubt it must also be resolved that those whom Christian States hold themselves not enabled to put out of the World or out of the State for professing any Religion those they cannot so punish for the exercise of that Religion which they professe For if it be so necessary for all men to professe and exercise some Religion that they should be out of the protection of the Law of Nations that should professe to have none and that to professe a Religion and not to live according to it is a bare profession that is a presumption that he hath none that doth so it follows that civility and the Law of Nations will inable all men to live after the Religion which they professe And therefore inable no State so to punish men for so doing In the mean time no State is hereby obliged to leave the exercise of other Religions beside that which it self professeth either free or Publick For I conceive the exercise of Religion is understood to be free in regard of those Penalties which are in the Power of every State to inflict on those that conform not to their own according to that which hath been said And to be publick is a further privilege though it necessarily import no more then Toleration containeth For the Christians before Constantine had not only Churches and those endowed with Lands and Revenues as it appeareth by Eusebius but those Lands and Revenues were the common goods of those Churches meerly because it was counted Sacrilege to spoile that Religion which was not counted Sacrilege And yet this was no more then Toleration for when the Soveraign Power would have Christianity goe for Sacrilege immediately they were spoiled of all under Diocletian That which is here resolved p. 259. that meerly a false opinion in matter of Religion is not to be punished with Banishment which is civile death to the State whereof a man is occasions a question concerning Athanasius banished to Triers by Constantine and the same Athanasius and many more by Constantius Valens and others wherein the injustice of the punishment lay whether the Power was onely abused or also usurped Whereunto it is to be answered that the sentence of Constantine upon Athanasius neither imported Banishment nor passed meerly in consideration of his opinion in Religion For seeing the place of abode to which he was confined was within the State whereof he was so that not changing Laws or Language for he must needs be understood over all the Romane Empire he could not be said to live among them that were barbarous to him or he to them barbarous he continued free of the State whereof he was afore though not in possession and use of that rank and estate which he bore in it As for the cause of this sentence it is manifest by the relation that it passed in consideration of the publick peace which seemed to suffer because Athanasius submitted not the trust which he had from the Church to the judgement of the Emperour in abandoning that which the Councell of Nice had done in deposing Arius But the ground of Constantius his sentence upon Liberius of Rome and Eusebius of Vercellae was meerly for acting according to their opinion in Religion Liberius for not condemning Athanasius in the common cause of the Church Eusebius for voting according to his judgement in the Councell at Millane As for the sentence upon Liberius it is the same with that upon Athanasius but that upon Eusebius being condemned to live in the deserts of Aegypt seems to have as much difference from it as there was between relegatio and deportatio among the Romanes the one being but a confinement to a strange people under the same State the other to no people but to some desert Iland or inhabitable place such as the deserts of Aegypt were which is to be removed from the Society of civile people Wherefore as it is no inconvenience to grant that Constantine used ill the Power that he had so that Constantius usurped that which he had not seeing we know that the Arians under him so persecuted the Catholick Christians as I have proved that no Soveraign Power can allow any Subject to be persecuted for Religions sake neither ever did the Catholicks persecute them again By the premises it may appear that the punishment which is commonly called by the term of Banishment may by the disposition of Soveraign Powers be so aggravated or so lightned by the circumstances that the right of inflicting it may be sometimes said to be abused sometimes usurped Therefore my position as the reason of it proceeds onely upon that which amounts to civile Death depriving a man of his right of continuing free of the State whereof he is I cannot here passe by that passage of Synesius Epist LVII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
will seek no other argument but Tertullian though it were possible to finde more For he in his Book De Velandis Virginibus proveth that the Virgins were not exempted from wearing the like because at Corinth whither S. Paul directed this charge they were not And this the property of the Greek seemeth to argue when the Apostle calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. XI 4 7. which differs something from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this signifying that which is onely upon the head and so was the Vaile and therefore the woman is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 10. the other that which is so upon the head that it comes down from the head as to the purpose before the face Neither doe I see any reason why we may not understand the Apostle when he says that the women ought to have power on their head because of the Angels to have respect unto the Legend reported in the Book of Enoch which we see was read in the Church in the Apostles time by the II Epistle of S. Peter and that of S. Jude of those Angels that are reported there to have been seduced by the beauty of women out of Gen. VI. 2. Not as if the Apostle did suppose that report to be true or did intend to give credit to the Book but that by alluding to a passage commonly known he may very well be thought to intimate that a like inconvenience to it not disputing whether true or not for the present might fall out in the Church For so when he saith that the Fathers drunk of the rock that followed them in the Wildernesse 1 Cor. X. 4. it is not I suppose his intent to affirm the truth of that which the Jews still tell and therefore without doubt did tell before S. Pauls time that the water followed the Fathers over mountains and valleys in their journey to the Land of Promise but that the Fathers drank of that water which the Jews say followed them For of the Jews themselves the learned Buxtorfe in his Preface to the Great Lexicon is of opinion that they doe not relate such fables as stories but as Parables and I conceive I have met with some things in their writings that seem to make it probable So again when S. Peter and S. Iude cite the Book of Enoch it is not their intent to credit it or tie us to beleeve that which they cite out of it but to argue thus from it that if those that reade it cannot but applaud the decorum which it keeps making the good Angels so reverent that they would not curse or blaspheme Satan what are we to think of those whom they speak of that blasphemed either Secular Powers as it is commonly understood or which perhaps is more probable the good Angels And thus by the way you see how to answer the reason for which some stick to receive these Epistles for Canonicall Scripture though it hold also in divers of S. Pauls in which are many sayings alleged out of Apocryphall Scriptures And thus the Apostles expression will be most artificially modest supposing his meaning to be onely this that women ought to be vailed because of that which we reade in the Book of Enoch to have befallen the Angels Now in those Countries where the vail was not used at the receiving of Christianity it seems this precept of S. Paul was not held to oblige As for men covering or uncovering their head in Preaching it can be nothing to S. Pauls meaning because uncovering the head in sign of reverence was a custome unknown in his time Thus you see these particulars propounded in the form of precepts notwithstanding do not oblige the Church Those that scruple the superiority of Bishops as a step to bring in Antichrist are not onely to consider that which is said here p. 291. that the Socinians have the same scruple of the substance of Christianity but also that which some of the Sects of this time give out as you see in the beginning of this Review that the making of the Church a Society or Community was the beginning of Antichrist which I have shewed was the act of our Lord and his Apostles And also that which Erastus objecteth unto the Presbyteries that by the means of Excommunication the Papacy which is the Power of Antichrist was advanced Whereby he hath requited all their aspersions upon Episcopacy and shewed all the world that the imputation of Antichrist is a saddle for all Horses that it is argumentum galeatum a reason that will serve to discredit any adversary if it may have passe-port without shewing by the Scriptures wherein the being of Antichrist consisteth And herewith my purpose was to rest contented for the present thinking this enough for this particular cause to answer the objection of Antichrist with But I have considered since that the whole credit of the ancient Church and the benefit that might redound to the resolution of all differences and difficulties from the acknowledgement thereof but in the nature of Historicall truth is utterly lost to us by the means of this prejudice In particular that by the Papers which passed between his late Majesty of happy memory and Master Alexander Hinderson lately published it appears that the whole issue of that dispute ended in it Upon these considerations therefore I have thought fit further to answer by denying the truth of this interpretation of S. Paul and the Apocalypse and to justifie this deniall by propounding so probable a meaning of those Prophesies to another effect as all those that apply them to the Papacy doe shew they could never attain to because they are fain to Prophesie themselves for the meaning of part of them which they confesse is not fulfilled And this I doe here the rather because hereby I shall declare the utmost of that argument which I have used for the Interesse of Secular Powers in Church matters grounded upon the Prophesies of the calling of the Gentiles whereby God declaring his will of bringing States to Christianity declareth by consequence that he calleth them to the same Interesse in matters of Religion which we know was exercised by the Kings of his ancient people And hereof the Apocalypse will make full proof being nothing else but the complement of all the Prophesies of the Old Testament concerning the calling of the Gentiles and therefore fulfilled in the subduing of the Romane Empire to Christianity and the vengeance taken upon the persecutors thereof Which though it cannot be fully proved without expounding all and every part of it to this effect yet because by the main hinges upon which it turns reasonable men may perceive that it cannot nor ever will be expounded to any other purpose I will stop here a while to shew this that men for the future may advise before they act upon supposition of such uncertain conceits I begin with the opening of the first Seale Apoc. VI. 1 2.
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
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
the beginning of Saint Luke speaking of the Old Testament Erat autem populi gratia discernere spiritus ut sciret quos in Prophetarum numerum referre deberet quos tanquam bonus nummularius reprobare Now saith he it was a grace that the people had to discern spirits so as to know whom to reckon among the Prophets whom like a good Banker to refuse And I have found in a written copy containing expositions of divers Greek words of the Old and New Testament this Glosse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is discerning of Spirits spoken of 1 Cor. XII 9. is the distinguishing between those that prophesied truly and falsly And this I beleeve to be S. Pauls meaning because of the correspondence of that which S. Ambrose relateth of the Synagogue I must therefore needs beleeve that the Church was provided by God of means to be resolved who spoke by the Holy Ghost who onely pretended so to doe But that Christian States should have Power to elect Pastors because Christian Churches were able to judge whom the Holy Ghost had elected whom not is a consequence which I understand not For as it was then one thing to elect another to discern whom the Holy Ghost had elected so a Christian State is now far another thing then the Church of Antiochia was at that time Neither is it any thing available to this purpose which this author laboureth to prove that the Soveraign Power together with the Power of interpreting the Word of God were both in the High Priests of the Jews and afterwards in the Kings of Gods people after that they were established For by the particulars here declared from p. 225. it will appear that it was no otherwise in the Kings of Gods people then it is now in Christian Princes and States excepting that the Law was given to one People the Gospel sent to all Nations to wit as for the Power of inforcing Gods Law in the way of Fact Whereas the Power of determining the Law of God in the way of Right was as much estated upon the Consistories of that People by Gods Laws as the Power of giving Rules to the Church is now upon the Synods of the same Neither is the People of Israel a Priestly Kingdome as Moses cals them Exod. XIX 6. because the Priests were to be Kings of them For the Originall imports a Kingdome of Priests which Onkelus translates Kings and Priests as also the New Testament Apoc. I. 6. V. 10. Which if it signifie that all the Israelites should be both Kings and Priests then certainly it inforceth not that their High Priests should be their Kings But that they should be Kings because redeemed from the servitude of strangers to be a people Lords of themselves and Priests because redeemed to spend their time in sacrificing and feasting upon their sacrifices which is the estate under the figure whereof God promiseth unto them that which he meant to his Church and they still expect under their Messias Es LXI 6. though they sacrificed not in person but by their Priests appointed in their stead by Imposition of the Elders hands Num. VIII 10. As for the charge of Josuah to goe in and out at the word of Eleazar Num. XXVII 21. it is expresly declared there to be said in regard of the Oracle of God by Vrim and Thummim which the High Priest was to declare as you see by Deut. XXXIII 8. and Josuah to consult in all his undertakings For this is one of the principall reasons why the government of that people before they had Kings was as Josephus cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Empire of God because he by his Oracles of Vrim and Thummim prescribed how they were to proceed in their publick affairs Another reason being this because he stirred them up Judges when he pleased which being of his immediate appointment are so far acknowledged by him that when they were weary of Samuel and desired a King God declareth that it was not Samuel but himself whom they refused And therefore it is not to be said that of Right the High Priests ought to have had the Power though de facto the Judges had it during their time For if it be said that the Israelites cast off God Jud. II. 10. because they would not be subject to the High Priest but imbraced the Judges it could not be understood how they should refuse God by refusing Samuel that was one of the Judges Therefore the Soveraign Power was of right in the Judges for which it is said Jud. XVII 7. as also XVIII 1. XIX 1. XXI 25. that there was no King in Israel speaking of the time before the Judges when Josephus and all the circumstance shews these things fell out though they were not always obeyed Jud. II. 17. because as Prophets they laboured to recall the people from their Idolatries That which is here said of the Mariage of Booz and Ruth p. 241. seems to be confirmed by the opinion of Epiphanius that our Lord was invited to the Mariage at Cana in Galilee that as a Prophet he might blesse the Mariage For what is this but the same that the Church always practised afterwards in Blessing Mariages to signifie that they were approved to be made according to the Law of God For which reason also the custome of celebrating Mariages with the Sacrament of the Eucharist was established that the Power of the Keys from which the Communion of the Eucharist proceeds might declare thereby an approbation of that which was done CHAP. V. SEeing it is here declared p. 255. that whosoever thinks himself authorized by his Religion to unsettle the publick peace or to maintain his Religion by force his civile obedience being dispensed with by the same is thereby an enemy to the State and liable to temporall punishment according to the degree of that which he doth it may be thought requisite here to resolve two cases that may be put in this point The one whether the enemies of the Religion in force may become liable to punishment for blasphemies and slanders upon the Religion of the State The other to what temporall punishment men may become liable by exercising their Religion not being expresly permitted by the State to be exercised To the first my answer is resolutely affirmative For seeing that Christianity enjoyneth us to seek the good of all that are enemies to it it is not imaginable that it should oblige any Christian to defame or blaspheme any contrary Religion seeing that must needs redound to the disgrace of them that professe it most of all if they be the publick Powers that maintain it all irreverence of whom upon what cause soever must needs tend to weaken the arm of Government and thereby to unsettle the publick peace And therefore you see what testimony the Apostles have from a stranger Acts XIX 37. You have brought these men that are neither Church robbers nor