CHAP. I.

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 [Page 2] 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 [Page 3] 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 to persecute it. For, if it preserve the power of the Sword, in those hands, wherein it is found, when the Gospel is preached, and received any where, then, of necessity, all Rights, all goods of this world, in the possession where­of, the Power of the Sword professes to maintain all Subjects, are, by the Gospel, maintained in those hands, that have them by just title of Humane Right. And so, that which I here suppose, is no more then the re­ceived Position of Divines, That temporall dominion is not founded in Grace: For, mens Rights, Powers, and Priviledges, in ci­vill Societies, are no lesse their own, and con­cern their estate no lesse, then their Goods and Possessions. Therefore, though much [Page 4] more evidence might be brought to prove this, from the Apostles, commanding Chri­stians to obey secular Powers, children their Parents, slaves their Masters, wives their Husbands, and the like, according to the Laws, but above the Laws, for conscience to God, obliging thereby all States, to main­tain Christianity; yet, this being a point, which no party professes to stick at, I will hereupon presume to take it for granted.

But, though the Church is not endowed with any coactive power, by Divine Right, yet, by Divine Right, and by Patent from God, it is endowed with a Power of holding Assemblies, for the Common Service of God, before any grant of the Powers of the world, and against any Interdict of them, if so it fall out. For, the Communion which the Gospel establisheth among Christians, is not onely invisible, in the heart, beleeving the same Faith, and disposed to live accor­ding to it, but also outwardly visible, not on­ly in the Profession of the same Faith, which may be common to those that communicate in nothing else, but also in the Common Service of God; For, seeing God hath given his Church the Ordinances of his worship, wherewith he requireth to be served in com­mon by his Church, some of them common both to the Church and the Synagogue, that [Page 5] is, to Jews and Christians, others, delivered by the Gospel onely to the Church, it is ma­nifest, that the Church is priviledged by God, because commanded, to join in serving him according to those Ordinances. And therefore, we are not to ask an expresse war­rant in Scripture, for this, whether duty, or priviledge, because it was always in force among the people of God, though not al­ways free from the bondage of strangers. The Apostle truly, writing to the Hebrews, not to fall away from Christianity to Ju­daisme, for the persecutions, which the Jews their natives brought upon them, (which, he that will diligently observe, shall finde to be the full scope of that Epistle) inferreth, as a consequence, Heb. X. 25. not to forsake the as­sembling of themselves: Shewing, that Chri­stianity cannot be professed without so do­ing, though it bring persecution with it: As, we know, the Primitive Christians frequen­ted the Service of God, when they were in danger of the Laws, because, that which the Laws forbade, was their Assemblies. Where­fore, as within severall Commonwealths, there are particular Societies, Colleges, and Corporations, subsisting by grant of their Soveraigns. And as, by the Law of Nati­ons, there is a kinde of Society, and Com­monwealth, among those that are bound in [Page 6] the same vessell, upon the same voyage, which Aristotle cals [...], as there is also among them that travell together in the Ca­ravans of the East, because they submit to some Rule, in regard of some common in­teress: So must we understand the Church, to be a humane, though not a civill Socie­ty, Corporation, or Commonwealth: Not as these last named, which consist of Sub­jects to severall States, warranted and pro­tected by the Law of Nations, nor as the former, by Charter from some Soveraign, but by that Law of God, whereby all Nati­ons are called to serve him, by those Ordi­nances which he hath established in the Church. Therefore the main point of that Charter, which makes the Church such a Society or Commonwealth, is the right of Assembling, and holding such Assemblies, without warrant, against all Law of the world that forbids it: The particulars of it are those rights, which God hath given his Church, to preserve unity, and communion in the celebration of those Ordinances, for which it assembleth. For, since the principles of Christianity professe one Church, and that the unity thereof extendeth to this visi­ble communion, it is manifest hereby, that the will of God is, that all Christians com­municate with all Christians, in all Ordinan­ces [Page 7] of his service, when occasion requires; a thing which the practice of all sides confes­ses. For, though this communion be inter­rupted with so many Schismes, yet, since all parties labour to shew, that the cause of separation is not on their side, they acknow­ledge all separation, to be against Gods Or­dinance, when they labour to clear them­selves of the blame of it.

In the next place we are to inquire, upon what Title of Right, the Church is ingraf­fed into civill Societies and Soveraignties, by vertue whereof, secular Powers exercise that right to which they pretend, in Church matters. For, I perceive, those of the Con­gregations oftentimes demand, what ground we have in Scripture for Nationall Churches. Now, the term of Nationall Churches, it seems, is something unproper, because, as one and the same Nation may be divided into severall Soveraignties, and the Chur­ches thereof, by consequence, subject to se­verall Soveraigns, so may the same Sove­raignty contain severall Nations, and the Churches of them, which, in these cases, are not properly Nationall Churches, and yet are properly that which is signified by the term of Nationall Churches. But, setting aside this exception, I conceive, those of the Congregations have reason to make the de­mand, [Page 8] and that the answer to it, if once well made, will be of consequence, to settle many things in debate. For, that the same right, in matters of Religion, is due to Christian Princes and States, which the Kings of Iudah practised under the Law, of it self no way appears, because of the generall difference between the Law and the Gospel. To which may be added, to tie the knot faster, that there is this clear difference between them, in the particular in hand, that the Law was confined to one People, as being the condition of that Covenant, whereby God undertook to give them the Land of pro­mise, and to maintain them in the free and happy possession of it; they undertaking on their part, to serve him, and rule themselves by it: But the Gospell is the New Cove­nant, by which God undertakes to give life everlasting, to those that take up Christs Crosse, to perform it. The persons there­fore of whom the Church consists, being of all Nations, all of them of equall interesse, in that wherein they communicate, and therefore in the Rules, by which: It is mani­fest, that no Soveraign can have more inte­resse then another, in creating that right, by vertue whereof, the Subjects of severall So­veraignties communicate. Otherwise, the Unity of the Church must needs suffer, one [Page 9] Soveraign prescribing that, as 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 [Page 10] 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 [Page 11] 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 [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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 [Page 14] 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 to Baptize such as should submit to the Gospel: And so, to judge, whether each man did so or not, which, they that were trusted with the Gospel, were, by consequence, trusted to judge. The effect of this trust is seen in the many Orders and Canons of the Primitive Church, by which, those that desired to be admitted into the Church by Baptisme, are limited to the triall of severall years, to exa­mine their profession, whether sincere or not. And, such as gained their living by such Trades, as Christianity allowed not, rejected, untill they renounced them. Not that my intent is to say that these Canons were li­mited by the Apostles: But because it is an argument, that always, to judge who shall be admitted to Baptisme, and who not, is ano­ther manner of power then to baptize, being the power of them that were able to settle [Page 15] such Canons. Though it is plain by the Scriptures, that those Rules had their begin­ning from the Apostles themselves. For, when S. Peter saith, 1 Pet. III. 21. that the Baptisme which saveth us, is not the laying down the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good con­science to God; [...]: he sheweth, that the Interrogatories which the ancient Church used to propound to them that were to be baptized, were then in use; and established by the Apostles, as the condition of a contract between the Church and them, obliging themselves to live accor­ding to the Gospel, as Disciples. And the Apostle, Heb. VI. 2. speaking of the foundati­on of repentance from dead works, the doctrine of Baptisms and imposition of Hands: mani­festly shews the succeeding custome of the Church, that they which sued for Baptisme, should be catechized in the Doctrine of the Gospel, and contract with the Church to forsake such courses of the world as stood not with it, to be brought in by the Apostles. This is it which is here called the doctrine of Baptisms in the plurall number, not for that frantick reason which the distemper of this time hath brought forth, because there are two Baptismes, one of John by water, ano­ther of Christ by the Spirit; but, because it was severally taught severall persons before [Page 16] they were admitted to their several Baptisms. And therefore called also the Doctrine of Imposition of Hands, because we understand by Clemens Alexandrinus, Paedag. III. 11. and by the Apostolicall Constitutions VII. 40. that, when they came to the Church to be cate­chized, and were catechized, they were then dismissed by him that catechized them, with Imposition of Hands, that is, with prayer for them, that they might, in due time, be­come good Christians. All, visible marks of the power of the Church, in judging whether a man were fit for Baptisme or not. To which I will adde onely that of Eusebius, De vitâ Constant. IV. where speaking of the Baptisme of Constantine he saith, [...], that confessing his sinnes, hee was admitted to prayer with Imposition of hands. If it be said, that there were added to the Church three thousand in a day, Acts II. 41. which could not be thus catechized and tried; my answer is, that two cases were always exce­pted from the Rule: The first was in danger of death: The second, when, by the eager­nesse of those that desired Baptism, the hand of God appeared extraordinary in the work of their conversion to Christianity. Besides, it is not said that they were baptized that day; but that they were added to the Church that [Page 17] day: Which is true, though they onely pro­fessed themselves Disciples for the present, passing neverthelesse their examination, and instruction, as the case required. If there­fore there be a power, setled in the Church by God, to judge, who is fit to be admitted into it, then is the same power inabled to re­fuse him that shall appear unfit, then, by the same reason, to exclude him, that proves him­self unfit, after he is admitted.

This is the next argument, which I will ground upon the Discipline of Penance, as it was anciently practised in the Church: Which is opened by the observation advanced in the 127 p. of this little Discourse, that those, who, contrary to this contract with the Church, fell into sins destructive to Christianity, were fain to sue to be admitted to Penance: Which supposeth, that, till they had given satisfacti­on of their sincerity in Christianity, they re­mained strangers to the Communion of the Church. For, it appeareth, by the most ancient of Church Writers, that, for divers ages, the greatest Sinners, as Apostates, Murtherers, & Adulterers, were wholly excluded from Pe­nance. For though Tertullian was a Monta­nist, when he cried out upon Zephyrinus Bi­shop of Rome, for admitting Adulterers to Penance, in his Book De Pudicitiâ, yet it is manifest by his case, that it had formerly [Page 16] [...] [Page 17] [...] [Page 18] been refused in the Church, because the granting of it makes him a Montanist. And S. Cyprian Epist. ad Antonianum, testifieth, that divers African Bishops afore him, had refused it, maintaining communion never­thelesse with those that granted it. Irenaeus also I. 9. saith, of a certain woman, that had been seduced and defiled by Marcus the He­retick, that, after she was brought to the sight of her sin, by some Christians, she spent all her days in bewalling it: Therefore with­out recovering the communion of the Church again. And he that shall but look upon the Canons of the Eliberitane Coun­cell, shall easily see many kindes of sins cen­sured, some of them, not to be admitted to communion till the point, others not at the point of death. In this case, and in this estate, these onely, who were excluded from being admitted to Penance were properly excom­municate; neither could those that were ad­mitted to Penance be absolutely counted so, because in danger of death, they were to re­ceive the Communion, though, in case they recovered, they stood bound to compleat their Penance. And from hence afterwards also, those that had once been admitted to Penance, if they fell into the like sins again, were not to be admitted to Penance the se­cond time. Concil. Tolet. X. Can. XI. Eliber. [Page 19] Can. III. & VII. Ambros. de Poenit. II. 10, 11. Innoc. I. Ep. I. August. Epist. L. & LIV. It is an easie thing to say, that this Rigor, was an infirmity in the Church of those times, not understanding aright free Justification by Faith: But as it is manifest, that this rigor of discipline abated more and more, age by age, till that now it is come to nothing: So, if we goe upwards, and compare the writings of the Apostles, with the Originall practice of the Church, it will appear, that the rigor of it was brought in by them, because it aba­ted by degrees from age to age, till at length it is almost quite lost; that the Reformation of the Church consists in retaining it, that we shall doe so much prejudice to Christia­nity, as we shall, by undue interpretation, make Justification by Faith inconsistent with it. And, in fine, it will appear, that all Pe­nance presupposeth Excommunication, be­ing onely some abatement of it. There is a sin unto death, saith the Apostle, 1 John V. 16. I say not that ye pray for it. This is common­ly understood, of denying Gods truth, against that light which convinceth the conscience. Which, if it were true, the Apostles precept could never come into practice, seeing no man can know, unlesse by Revelation, against what light his Neighbour sinneth. But the Novatians, at the Councell of Nice, as So­crates [Page 20] and Sozomenus both report, Eccles. Hist. I. 7. I. 23. answering Constantine, that they refused Penance, onely to those that sin­ned the sin unto death, doe give us to under­stand, that S. John was understood by the Church, not to command, that Apostates be admitted to Penance. And so also Tertul­lian in many places of his Book de Pudicit. as cap. XIV. argueth from this place, that Penance was not to be granted to Adulte­rers. Which sheweth, that the Church un­derstood the place in the same sense, though it admitted not his consequence. So also O­rigen in Mat. XVIII. 18. Tract. VII. I was long doubtful of the truth of this Interpreta­tion, because the Apostle premising, If any man see his brother sin a sin not unto death, let him ask of God, seems to speak of private Prayers of particular persons. But the words of S. James, V. 16. have cleared me of this doubt, Confesse your sins one to another, saith he, and pray for one another, that ye may be healed: In which words, I make no doubt but he speak­eth of publique Penance. For having premi­sed, that the Presbyters be sent for to the sick, that they confesse their sins to the Presbyters, that they pray for them, anointing them with oil, that their sins may be forgiven them, to shew neverthelesse, that, according to the custome aforesaid, in case they recovered, [Page 21] they were to stand bound to Penance, he ad­deth, Confesse your sins to one another—to signifie, that this Confession and Penance remained due before the Church, as we un­derstand by the XII Canon of Nice, that the practice was so long afterwards. And this is proved, by the precept of both Apo­stles, to pray for one another. For it is manifest, that there were two means to obtain remissi­on of sins, in this case; the Humiliation which the Church prescribed, and the Peni­tent performed, and the Prayers of the Church. Which S. John prescribeth not to be granted to Apostates.

The very same is the meaning of the A­postle to the Hebrews, VI. 6. when he pro­nounceth it unpossible, that those that fall away, be renued again to Repentance. For, as they that stood for Baptisme, when they were catechized in Christianity, were properly said, [...], to be in­structed or dedicated to Repentance, because of the Repentance from dead works, which they professed; so they that forfeited their Christianity, by violating the contract of Baptisme, are no lesse properly said, [...], to be renewed, instru­cted, and dedicated again to Repentance: And the Apostles reason agrees; For, because the earth that receives rain, and renders no [Page 22] fruit, is near the curse, therefore the Church will not easily beleeve, that such a one shall lightly obtain of God, the grace to become a sincere Christian. And therefore, the A­postle says not, that it is unpossible, that such a one should repent, but that he should be in­structed again to repentance, to wit, by the Church. As the Novatians answered Con­stantine, that they remitted such persons to God, not prejudicing their salvation, but not admitting them to the means of Reconcilia­tion by the Church. And herewith agreeth the example of Esau, used by the Apostle again XII. 17. saying that he found not place of Repentance, alluding to that roome in the Church, where Penitents were placed apart by themselves. And again, X. 26. the allusi­on which he maketh to the custome under the Law, understood by the Hebrews to whom he writeth, consisteth in this, that, as there was no sacrifice to be made for Apo­states, though for Ethnicks, (for this was the use of the Law, as we understand by Moses Maimoni in the Title of Dressing Oblations cap. III. num. 3, 5.) So, the Christian Sacri­fice, of the Prayers of the Church, was not to be offered, for those that had renounced Christianity. If it be thus, you will ask, What was the fault of the Novatians, seeing they understood this Text right? And my answer [Page 23] is, that neverthelesse they are Hereticks, ex­tending the name of Hereticks, to those whom now we call Schismaticks, as I have shewed you, in the little Discourse, pag. 197. that it is often used. For S. John, as he com­mands not, so he forbids not, that they be admitted to Penance, the other Apostle tels them, it is impossible, to let them know, that they must not expect it: But neither says, that the Church could not give it. When therefore the Church, to preserve Unity, was necessitated to grant it, as we see by S. Cy­prian, the Novatians were no lesse Schisma­ticks, in making separation upon the quarrell, (though perhaps the reason be not urged by their adversaries) then if they had under­stood the Text amisse: The Unity of the Church, being of more moment, then much understanding in the Scriptures. And so, perhaps, S. Pauls words will belong to this purpose, 1 Tim. 5. 19. as, not onely the So­cinians of late, but Pacianus among the An­cients, Paraen. ad Poenitentiam, and Matthaeus Galenus among modern Writers, do expound them: To wit, that when he saith, Lay hands suddenly on no men, nor partake of other mens sins: he leaves it to Timothies judgement, whom to admit, whom not to admit to Pe­nance: Because this Blessing with Impositi­on of hands, was not the mark of Absoluti­on, [Page 24] but of admission to Penance, as well as the ceremony of Ordinations. And though this Text of the Apostle, be understood in particular of Ordinations, yet, by the same reason which he allegeth, it is to be extended to all Acts of the Church, that are blessed, by the Prayers of the Church, with Imposi­tion of Hands. For if Timothy, by Imposing hands upon those whom he Ordains, become accessary to their sins, if they be unfit to be Ordained; by the same reason, if he Impose Hands, that is, grant Penance unto them that are not fit for it, he becomes accessory to the sins which they commit by being ad­mitted to it. Imposition of Hands being no­thing else, but a ceremony of that Benedicti­on, which signifieth, that those Acts to which it is granted, are allowed and authori­zed by the publique Power of the Church. So Imposition of Hands in Confirmation, is the admission of him that is confirmed to the communion of the Visible Church; In Penance, the restoring of him: In Ordination, to the exercise of this or that function in the Church: Prayer, over the sick, which the Apostle commands, James V. 14. and our Lord in the Gospel made with Imposition of Hands, signified the admitting of the sick to Penance: And it is said, that in some Ea­stern Churches, to this day, mariages are bles­sed [Page 25] with Imposition of Hands, in significati­on, that the Church alloweth of them, which, as it was alwayes the right of the Church to doe, as I shall observe in another place, so it appeareth so to be, in that mari­age was never celebrated among Christians, without the Prayers of the Church. And this observation I insist upon the more chearfully, because it much strengtheneth the argument, which the Church maketh, for the Baptism of Infants, from the Act of our Saviour in the Gospel, when he blessed the Infants with Imposition of Hands. For if all Imposition of Hands be an act of the publique Power of the Church, allowing that which is done with it, then can this Im­position of Hands signifie no lesse, then, that those to whom our Lord granteth it, belong to his Kingdome of the Visible Church. One little objection there lies against this, from the incestuous person at Corinth, whom S. Paul, in his second Epistle, seems to readmit to communion, his crime being as deep as Adultery, which, we say, the rigor of A­postolicall Discipline admitted not to Pe­nance. To which I have divers things to an­swer. That this cannot be objected, but by him that acknowledges, that he was excom­municate by the former Epistle. That Ter­tullian in his Book de Pudicitiâ, disputes at [Page 26] large, that it is not the same case which is spoken of in both Epistles. That the crime here specified, perhaps, is not of the number of those, which from the beginning were ex­cluded from Penance. But, waving all this, as I excepted two cases, in which men were bap­tized without regular triall, so supposing the Rule to take hold in this case, it is no incon­venience to grant, that S. Paul might wave the rigor of Discipline, so setled, as suppo­sing there might be cause to wave it. If this opinion seem new, my purpose requires but these two Points, that the Penance practised by the ancient Church, supposed Excom­munication, which it only abateth: and, that it was instituted by the Apostles; and, for that, there is enough said, I suppose, even to them that beleeve not, that the Apostles ex­cluded any kinde of crimes from Penance. Besides that of S. Paul, blaming the Corin­thians, that they were puffed up, and had not rather lamented, that he that had done the evil, might be put from among them, 1 Cor. V. 2. And again, fearing, that when he returned, he should be forced to lament many, 2 Cor. XII. 21. Which, if we compare with the Primitive solemnity of Excommunication, which by the constitutions of the Apostles, II. 16. and other ways, we understand, was, to put the person out of the Church doors with mour­ning, [Page 27] it will appear, that Epiphanius is in the right, in expounding this later Text to this purpose, Haer. LIX. num. 5. The power of Ex­communication then, by all this, is no more, then the necessary consequence, of the Pow­er of admitting to Communion, by Baptism: Which, if it imply a contract with the Church, to live according to the rule of Christianity, then it is forfeit to him, that evidently does that, which cannot stand with that rule, and the Church not tied to restore it, but as the person can give satisfaction, to observe it for the future.

Now, I will make short work with Erastus his long labour, to prove, that there is no Excommunication commanded by the Law. I yeeld it. And make a consequence, which will be thought a strange one: But I have it from the speculation of Origen, in Levit: Hom. XI. and others, why the Church should onely be inabled to Excommunicate, where­as the Synagogue was inabled to put to death? From the observation of S. Augu­stine, Quaest. in Deuteronom. V. 38. de Fide & Operibus cap. VI. and others, that Excommu­nication in the Church is the same that the power of life and death in the Synagogue. My argument is then, that the Church is to have the power of Excommunication, be­cause the Synagogue had the power of life [Page 28] and death. And the reason of the conse­quence this: Because, as the Law, being the condition of the Covenant, by which, the benefit of the Commonwealth of Israel was due, inabled to put to death, such as destroy­ed it: So the Gospel, being the condition of the Covenant, that makes men denizons of the spirituall Jerusalem, must inable, to put them from the society thereof that forfeited it. It is not my intent hereby to say, that there was no Excommunication under the Law: For, I doe beleeve, that we have men­tion of it in Ezra X. 8. grounded, if I mistake not, upon the Commission of the King of Persia, recorded Ezr. VII. 26. for, that which is here called rooting out, seems to be the same, that is called in the other place, divi­ding from the Synagogue of the Captives. Be­ing indeed, a kinde of temporall Outlawry, to which is joined, confiscation of Goods. For, so saith Luther truly, that the greater Excommunication among Christians, is eve­ry where a temporall punishment, to wit, in regard of some temporall punishment atten­ding it, in Christian States, which, in Chri­stianity, is accidentall, by Act of those States, in Judaisme essentiall, so long as those tem­porall advantages, which were the essentiall condition of the Law, were not forfeited. And this, without doubt, is the same punishment, [Page 29] which the Gospels call putting out of the Syn­agogue: Though, I cannot say, so perem­ptory, for the temporall effects of it: Which, severall Soveraigns could easily limit, to se­verall terms. For, the right that Ezra might have, to introduce this penalty, is clear, by the Law, of Deut. XVII. 12. which, inabling to put them to death, that obeyed not the Synagogue, inabled, to Excommunicate, to Banish, to Outlaw them, much more. But, as, we see, the Romanes allowed them not the power of life and death, which the Per­sians granted them, so I am not to grant, that, putting out of the Synagogue in the Gospel, implieth the extinguishing, of the civill being of any Jew. The Talmud Do­ctors say, that, those that were under the greater Excommunication, were to dwell in a cotage alone, and to have meat and drink brought them, till they died. Arba Turim, or Shulchan Auroh, in Jore Dea, Hilcoth Nid­dui Voherem. A speculation sutable to their condition, in their dispersions, which, no man is bound to beleeve, how far it was in force, and practice. But, suppose the Synagogue in the same condition with the Church afore Constantine, injoying no privilege, but to serve God according to the Law, as the Church according to the Gospel: And then, as the Synagogue must always have power [Page 30] to excommunicate, which had power to put to death; so, I say, is the Church inabled by our Lord to doe, what, I have shewed, the Apostles did doe, by Mat. XVIII. 18. I yeeld, that the terms of binding and loosing, are used by the Jews, to signifie, the decla­ring, of what is prohibited and permitted by the Law: But I yeeld not, that it can be so understood here, because, the ground of this declaration ceaseth, under the Gospel; be­ing derived from the sixe hundreth and thir­teen Precepts of the Law, and from the pow­er of the Priests and Doctors, to determine all cases, which the Law had not determi­ned, in dependence upon the great Consisto­ry at Jerusalem, by the Law of Deut. XVII. 12. which Precepts, and which Power, being voided by the Gospel, can any man think, that the Power of binding and loosing, here given the Church, is to be understood of it? Besides, it is, in the promise made to S. Pe­ter, Mat. XVI. 19. said expresly, to be the act of the Power of the Keys. And what is that? Is it not an expression, manifestly bor­rowed, from that which is said to Eliakim sonne of Hilkiah, Es. XXII. 23. I will give thee the Keys of the House of David: Where­upon our Lord, Apoc. III. 7. is said to have the Key of David, that is, of the House of David? whereby the Apostles under our [Page 31] Lord, are made Stewards of the Church, as Eliakim of the Court, to admit and exclude whom he pleased. And so it is manifest, that the Power of the Keys, given S. Peter, Mat. XVI. 19. as the Church, Mat. XVIII. 18. is that power, which you have seen practised under the Apostles, of admitting to, and ex­cluding from the Church, by Baptism and Pe­nance. So S. Cyprian expresly understandeth the Power of the Keys to consist in Baptizing. Ep. LXXIII. And of Penance, that which fol­loweth is an expresse argument, as I have observed p. 129. of that short Discourse: For having said, whatsoever ye binde—he ad­deth immediately, again I say to you, that if two of you agree to ask any thing, it shall be done you by my Father in heaven. For the means of pardon, being the Humiliation of the Pe­nitent, injoined by the Church, and joined with the prayers thereof, as hath been said, the consequence of our Saviours discourse, first, of informing the Church, then, of bind­ing and loosing, lastly, of granting the pray­ers of the Church, shews, that he speaks of those prayers, which should be made, in be­half of such, as were bound, for not hearing the Church. And hereby we see, how bind­ing & loosing of sins, is attributed to the Keys of the Church. Which, being made a Visible Society, by the power of holding Assem­blies, [Page 32] to which no man is to be admitted, till there be just presumption, that he is of the heavenly Jerusalem, that is above: As the power of judging, who is and who is not thus qualified, presupposes a profession, so, that, an Instruction, obliging the obedience of them, which seek remission of sinnes by the Gospel, and therefore, confidently assuring it, to them which conform themselves. In a word, because, admitting to, and excluding from the Church, is, or ought to be, a just and lawfull presumption▪ of admitting to, or excluding from heaven, it is morally, and le­gally, the same Act, that intitleth to heaven, and to the Church, that maketh an heir of life everlasting, and a Christian, because, he that obeyeth the Church, in submitting to the Gospel, is as certainly, a member of the invisible, as of the visible Church. Herewith agree the words of our Lord, Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican: Not as if Heathens could be excommunicate the Syn­agogue, who never were of it, or, as if the Jews then durst excommunicate Publi­canes, that levied Taxes for the Romanes: But because, by their usage, of Publicanes and Gentiles, it was proper for our Lord to signifie, how he would have Christians to use the excommunicate; there being no reason why he can be thought, by these words, to [Page 33] regulate the conversation of the Jews, in that estate, so long as the Law stood, but to give his Church Rules, to last till the worlds end. The Jews then, abhorred the company, not onely of Idolaters, to testifie how much they abhorred Idols, and to maintain the peo­ple in detestation of them (by ceremonies, brought in by the Guides of the Synagogue, for that purpose) but all those that conver­sed with Idolaters. For this cause, we see, they murmure against our Lord, for eating with Publicans; they wash when they come from market, where commonly they con­versed with Gentiles, and, which is strange, such as Cornelius was, being allowed to dwell among them by the Law, professing one God, and taking upon them the precepts of the sons of Noe, yet are the converted Jews scandalized at S. Peter, for eating with Corne­lius, Acts XI. 2. These Rules are made void by the Gospel. For S. Paul tells the Corin­thians expresly, that they are not to forbear the company of Gentiles, for those sinnes, which their Profession imported; but if a Christian live in any of those Heathen vices, with him, they are not so much as to eate, 1 Cor. V. 11. to wit, as it followeth immedi­ately, being condemned by the Church up­on such a cause: For, saith he, What have I to doe to judge them that are without? do not ye [Page 34] judge those that are within? But those that are without, God judgeth: And ye shall take the evill man from among you. That is, are not you, by the power you have, of judging those that are within, to take away him that hath done evill? leaving to God, to judge those without. Here the case is plain, there is pow­er in the Church, to judge, and take away of­fenders: Of which power the Apostle speaks, Tit. III. 9. when he says, that Hereticks are condemned of themselves, if we follow S. Hie­romes exposition, which seems unquestiona­ble. For experience convinces, that most Hereticks think themselves in the right; so farre they are from condemning themselves, in their consciences. But, they condemne themselves, by cutting of themselves from the Church, which other sinners are con­demned to by the Church. Neither is it any thing else then Excommunication which the Apostle signifieth, by delivering to Sa­tan, 1 Cor. V. 6. saving, that he expresseth an extraordinary effect, that followed it in the Apostles time, to wit, that those which were put out of the Church, became visibly sub­ject to Satan, inflicting Plagues and diseases on their bodies, which might reduce them to repentance, which the Apostle calleth, the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. As he [Page 35] saith of Hymenaeus and Philetus, 1 Tim. I. 21. whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. For it is not to be doubted, that the Apostles had power, like that which S. Peter exercised on Ananias and Sapphira, thus to punish those that opposed them, as S. Paul divers times intimates in the Texts which I have quoted in another place: provided by God, as the rest of miraculous Graces, to evidence his presence in the Church. These particulars, which I huddle up together by the way, might have been drawn out, into severall arguments, but I content my self with the consequence, by which, the Patent of this Power in the Go­spel, is cleared, upon which Patent, all the Power of the Church is grounded. That is, if Christians are onely to abstain from eating with excommunicate persons, as Jews did with Publicanes and Gentiles, then Excom­munication is to be understood, when our Lord saith, Let him be to thee as a Heathen, and a Publicane. As for that which is said, that the excommunicate among the Jews, were not excluded either Temple, or Syna­gogue, therefore it was a secular punishment: It is a mistake. That which the Jews call [...], was not Excommunication, no more then that, which the Constitutions of the Apo­stles call [...], which is the same, being [Page 36] but a step to it, like that which is now com­monly called the lesse Excommunication: And therefore, he that was under this cen­sure, among the Jews, was, but in part, re­moved from the communion, as well of sa­cred as civill society: For, it hath been shew­ed very learnedly, in the Book of the Pow­er of the Keyes, that hee stood as much removed from the one as from the o­ther, because that, as well in the Syna­gogue, as at home, no man was to come within his four cubits. But when the Tal­mud Doctors determine, that the excommu­nicate dwell in a Cotage apart, and have su­stenance brought him, such a one was past comming into the Temple or Synagogue. And so, I suppose, was he that was put out of the Synagogue, for acknowledging our Lord Christ to be a true Prophet, John IX. 35. For, they which, afterwards, were wont to curse all his followers, in their Syna­gogues, as Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. and Epiphanius, Haer. XXX. tell us, that they did in their time, are not like to endure, in their society, whether sacred or civill, him, that, in their interpretation, was fallen from Moses. And thus is the Power of the Keys clearly grounded upon this Charter of the Gospel, and all the Right of the Church upon it.

Onely one Objection yet remains, which to me hath always seemed very difficult, for it is manifest, that our Lord speaketh here of matters of interesse, between party and par­ty, when he saith, If thy brother offend thee—and it may justly seem strange, that our Lord should give the Church power, to excom­municate those, that will not stand to the sentence of the Church, in such matters. But so it is. The Jews, in their dispersions, were fain to have recourse to this penalty, to in­force the Jurisdiction of their own Bodies, lest, if causes should be carried thence, before Heathen Courts, Gods name should be blas­phemed, and the Gentiles scandalized at his people, saying, See what peace and right there is, among those that professe the true God! For the same causes, our Lord here estateth the same Power upon the Church. Whereof I cannot give a more sufficient and effectuall argument, then by shewing, that it was in use under the Apostles: Though the place out of which I shall shew this, is hither­to otherwise understood, because men con­sider not, that it is not against Christianity, that there be severall seats, for severall ranks and dignities of the world, in the Church: And therefore, that it is not that, which the Apostle findes fault with, James II. 1. when he forbids them to have the Faith of God with [Page 38] respect of persons. But the Synagogue which he speaketh of in the next words, is to be un­derstood, of the Court, where they judged the causes and differences, between members of the Church. For, that the Jews were wont to keep Court in their Synagogues, we learn not onely by the Talmud Doctors, Maimoni by name, in the Title of Oaths, cap. IX. where he speaketh particularly, of the case of an Oath made in the Synagogue, when the Court sate there, but by that which we finde in the New Testament, Mat. X. 17. XXIII. 34. Mar. XIII. 9. Acts XXII. 19. XXVI. 11. as wel as in Epiphanius, Haer. XXX. that they used to scourge in their Syna­gogues: To wit, where sentence was given, there justice was executed. Wherefore, be­ing converted to Christianity, they held the same course; as appears by the words of the Apostle that follow, Doe ye not make a diffe­rence among your selves, and are become Jud­ges of evill thoughts? and again, If ye accept persons, ye commit sin, being reproved by the Law. By what Law, but by that which saith, Thou shalt not accept persons in judgement? Lev. XIX. 15. For the execution of which Law, it is expresly provided, by the Jews Constitutions, in Maimoni, Sanedrin ca. XXI. that when a poor man and a Rich plead toge­ther, the Rich shall not be bid to sit down, [Page 39] and the poor stand or sit in a worse place, but both sit, or both stand, which, you see, is the particular, for which the Apostle char­ges them, to have the Faith of Christ with respect of persons: That is, to shew favour, in the causes of Christians, according to their persons. The same course, we may well pre­sume, was setled by the Apostles at Corinth, by the blame S. Paul charges them with, for going to Law before Infidels. 1 Cor. VI. 1, 2. For, how should he blame them for doing that, which they had not order before not to doe? And therefore, if our Lord, in this place, give the Church power, to excommu­nicate those that stand not to the sentence of the Church, much more those that violate the Christianity which they have professed. And this is also here expressed, when, from the particular he goes to the generall, say­ing, Whatsoever ye binde on earth—giving thereby, the same power to the Church here, which he gave to S. Peter, Mat. XVI. 19. and to the Apostles, John XX. 22. And so, we have here, two Heads, of the causes of Ex­communication: The first, of such things as concern the conscience and salvation of particular Christians, when they commit such sins as destroy Christianity: The se­cond, of such, as concern the community of the Church, and the unity thereof, in which, [Page 40] not the act, but the contumacy, the not hea­ring of the Church, makes them subject to this sentence.

It is not my purpose to say, that these nice reasons are to be the Title, upon which the right of the Church to this power, standeth or falleth: But, that, being in possession of it, upon a Title as old as Christianity, and demonstrable by the same evidence, it cannot be ejected out of this possession, by any thing in the Scripture, when it is rightly under­stood. One objection there is more, in con­sequence to this last reason, that, if the Church have power to sentence civile causes of Christians, and by Excommunication to inforce that sentence, when States professe Christianity, all civill Laws will cease, and all Judicatories be resolved into one Consistory of the Church. The answer to this, I deferre, till I come to shew, the Right of the States that professe Christianity, in Church mat­ters, where it will easily appear, how this in­convenience ceaseth. In the mean time, the Soveraign power of the Church consisting in the Sword of Excommunication, upon which the Society thereof is founded, it is necessarily manifest, that this power is not lost to the Church, nor forfeit to the State, that professes Christianity, and undertakes the protection of the Church. For the [Page 41] Church, and civill Societies, must needs re­main distinct bodies, when the Church is in­graffed into the State, and the same Chri­stians members of both, in regard of the Relations, Rights, and Obligations, which, in the same persons, remain distinct, accor­ding to the distinct Societies, and qualities of severall persons in the same. Therefore, as I said in the beginning, that no Christian, as a Christian, can challenge any temporall Right, by his Christianity, which, the State wherein he is called to be a Christian, gi­veth him not: So on the other side, no man, by his rank in any State, is invested with any power, proceeding from the foundation of the Church, as it is the Church. So, that which is true in the parts, holds in the whole. The Church is indowed with no temporall Right, therefore the State is indowed with no Ecclesiasticall Right, though it hath great Right in Ecclesiasticall matters, of which in due time. For, all this Right, sup­poseth the Church already established, by that power on which it standeth, and so, must maintain it, upon the same terms which it findeth. The homage which the Church paieth to God, for the protection of the State, is, not to betray the Right, founded on the expresse Charter of God, to Powers subsisting by the works of his mediate Pro­vidence: [Page 42] But, to subdue subjects, to that obedience, for conscience, which the State exacteth by force. For there is necessarily this difference, between the principles, upon which the Church and civill Communities subsist. The Charter of the one is revealed by Grace: The others stand upon the Laws of Nature and Nations, and acts, which Pro­vidence inables men to doe, agreeable to the same. Therefore, as no State stands by the Gospel, so, no right setled by the Gospel, can belong to any State, or person, as a mem­ber of any State. Besides, Kingdomes and States have their severall bounds: Many Soveraignties are contained in Christendom, whereas the Church, is, by Gods Ordi­nance, one Visible Society of all Christians: Now it is manifest, first, that there are some things, which equally concern the whole Church, and all parts of it: Secondly, that in things which concern the whole Church, no part thereof, in any State or Kingdome, can be concluded by that State or Kingdome. Again, the Apostles Rule is, 1 Cor. VII. 24. that every man abide in the State wherein he is called to be a Christian: And this proves, that no Christian can challenge any temporall right by his Christianity, because States subsist before they are Christian: Therefore it proves also, that no State, or [Page 43] member of it, is, by being such, endowed with any Right, grounded on the constituti­on of the Church. And therefore, seeing the Church subsisted three hundreth years before any State professed Christianity, whatsoever Rights it used, during that time, manifestly it ought therefore, still, to use and enjoy: this being the most pertinent evidence to shew the bounds of it. In particular, as to the Power of the Keys, and Excommu­nication, the act of it, seeing the intent of it is, to admit into the Visible Society of the Church, upon presumption, that by the right use of it, sinne is taken away, and the person admitted to the invisible Society of life everlasting; and, seeing no Common­wealth, no quality in any, pretendeth to take away sinne, or to judge in whom it is taken away, it followeth, that no man whatsoever, by virtue of any rank, in any State, is qua­lified to manage this Power, or can presume so to doe.

CHAP. II.

HAving seen thus farre, upon what Patent the community of the Church is established, and the Pow­er thereof founded, it will be necessary far­ther to dispute, in what Hands this Power is deposited by the Apostles, and what persons are trusted with it: Which point, before it be voided, we can neither determine, what Form of Government God hath ordained in his Church, nor how it may be exercised in Christian States, without crossing the Right which they challenge in Church mat­ters. The Presbyterians, having designed severall Presbyteries, for the Government of severall Congregations, that assemble toge­ther for the service of God, and having cried up this design for the Throne of Christ, the new Jerusalem, and the Kingdome of God, seeing there is no question made, that where there is a Presbytery, there is a Church, and where there is a Church, there [Page 45] is the Power of the Keyes, which God hath endowed his Church with, seem to have given those of the Congregations occa­sion to inferre, that every Congregation, that assembles for the common Service of God, is, by consequence, to have the Power of the Keys to excommunicate: whereunto ad­ding another principle, that the chief Power of every Congregation, is in the People, it follows, that they are all absolute, without dependence on the rest of the Church. But all this while, both run away with a presum­ption, for which they can shew us, never a title or syllable of evidence in all the Scri­ptures. For, Presbyters and Presbyteries they may shew us in the Scriptures, and no grandmercy, unlesse they can shew us how to understand them better then they doe: But, that every congregation, that assembles toge­ther to serve God in common, should have a company of Presbyters, for the Govern­ment of it, is a thing so contrary, to all the Intelligence we have, concerning the State of the Church, either under the Apostles themselves, by the Scriptures, or any Primi­tive Records of the Church, or in the suc­ceeding ages of the Church, that they must demand of all men, to renounce common sense, and all Faith, of Historicall, as well as Divine Truth, before they can beleeve it. [Page 46] Whereas, by the same evidence, by which the rest of Christianity is conveyed and commended unto us, that is, by the Scri­ptures, interpreted by the Originall and uni­versall practise of the Church, it will appear, that the Apostles, planting Christianity, not onely in those Cities, where they preached most, because there the harvest was greatest, but in the Countries adjoining, which, by the custome of all civile Nations every where, resort to their Cities for Justice, designed the severall Bodies of Christians, that should be found abiding in severall Cities, and the Territories of the same, to make severall Churches, the Government whereof they planted in those Cities, both for themselves, and for the Countries that resorted unto them: And as, in the civile Government of all civile people, particular Cities depend upon Mother Cities, Heads of Provinces, Governments, or Soveraignties, so, the Churches of particular Cities, to de­pend upon the Churches, of those Mo­ther Cities, that, by the union and cor­respondence of those Churches, drawing along with them, all the Churches under them, the unity of the whole Church, con­sisting of them all, might be established, and entertained. This is the effect of that obser­vation, which I advanced in the little Dis­course, [Page 47] p. 16. that whereas it is said, Acts XIV. 23. that Paul and Barnabas ordained Presbyters in every Church; S. Paul saith, that he left Titus in Crete, to ordain Presbyters in every City, Tit. I. 5. and again, Acts XVI. 4. As they passed by the Cities, they delivered unto them the decrees determined by the Apostles and Presbyters at Jerusalem. The Cities, of which he had said before, that they ordained Presbyters in every Church, planted in those Cities, as Titus in every City. So nice as this evidence may seem, to those that consider not the state of the whole Church, when it shall appear to any man, as, to all that con­sider with their eyes open it must appear, that always, every where, all congregations of Christians, remaining in the Country adjoi­ning to any City, made one Church, with the Christians of that City; common sense will inforce, that the Apostles designe was the modell, from which this form was copi­ed out, in all parts of the Church.

To which purpose, we are to consider in the next place, an excellent Observation, of that pious & learned Prelate, the L. Primate of Ire­land, published in a little Discourse, of the O­riginall of Bishops, upon the seven Churches of Asia, to which S. Iohn is commanded to di­rect that Epistle, contained in the II & III Chapters of the Apocalypse. The observati­on [Page 48] consists in this, that the seven Cities, wherein those seven Churches are said to be, were seven chief Cities, or Mother Cities, of the Province of Asia: whereby it is ma­nifest, that the chief Churches upon which inferiour Churches were to depend, were planted in the chief Mother Cities, to which the Countries about them resorted for Ju­stice. For certainly, no man will offer such violence to his own common sense, as to say, that there were, at the time of writing this Epistle, but seven Congregations of Christi­ans, in that Province, where S. Paul first, and after him S. John, had taken such pains. And if more Congregations, but onely seven Churches, for what reason, but because ma­ny Congregations make but one Church, when they are under the City, in which that Church is planted? There hath been indeed an Objection made, from the words of this Epistle, when it is said, at the end of the ad­dresse to every particular Church, He that hath eares to hear, let him hear what the Spi­rit saith to the Churches: The addresse begin­ning always thus, To the Church of Ephesus, thus saith the Spirit; To the Church of Smyrna thus saith the Spirit, and so of the rest. The objection pretendeth, that by these words it appears, that there were, in Ephesus, for example, many Churches, constituting the [Page 49] Presbytery of that City, which is there cal­led the Church of Ephesus. For if this were so, I would acknowledge that this argument were overthrown, and that Churches were not convertible with Cities, but that ma­ny Churches are here called the Church of Ephesus, because the Seat of the Presby­tery was at Ephesus, according to the Pres­byterian Design. But this objection, both carries with it an answer to discover the mis­take upon which it is grounded, and draws after in an effectuall argument to choke the opinion which it supports. For, is not S. John expresly commanded, Apoc. I. 11. to write and send one letter to all those seven Churches? And can any man be so senslesse, as, when it is said, What the Spirit saith to the Churches, to understand, severall Churches, of Ephe­sus, Smyrna, and the rest, and not the seven Churches, to which the one letter is dire­cted? And therefore the argument stands good, that in these seven Cities, there were but seven Churches, and that the letter is directed to these Mother Churches, planted in the Mother Cities, because inferiour Ci­ties, receiving their Christianity from them, were to depend upon them, for the regula­ting of all things concerning the exercise of it: As the Originall and Universall conditi­on and State of the Church convinces.

Now the argument, which this objection and the answer draws after it, is this, That in all the New Testament, you shall never finde any mention of severall Churches in any Ci­ty, as Rome, Ephesus, Antiochia, Jerusalem: But, when there is speech of any Province, be it never so small, you shall finde mention of a plurall number of Churches in it. For, of the Churches of Asia, Syria, Cilicia, Ma­cedonia, Achaia, Galatia, Judaea, and Sama­ria, and of the Hebrews in their dispersions, we finde expresse mention upon severall oc­casions, Acts IX. 31. VIII. 5, 40. XV. 41. 1 Cor. XVI. 1. 2 Cor. VIII. 2. 1 Thessal. II. 14. Apoc. I. 11. II. 7, 11, 17, 29. III. 6, 13, 22. Though Samaria, among the rest, were a Province of no great extent, yet, for example, you have, in that Province, the City whereof Simon Magus was, called Gittha, saith Epiphan. Haer. XXI. now a Village, but in those days a City, saith he, (of which Acts VIII. 5. And Philip went down to a City of Samaria, not, the City, as we translate it) and Caesarea, which Ioseph. shews us was in that Province, XXI. 7. Now tell me, what reason can be given for this, by any man that will pretend to under­stand either Scripture, or any record of lear­ning, but that Churches are convertible with Cities? For had there been many Chur­ches within the City of Ephesus, for exam­ple, [Page 51] of parallel power and privilege, making up one Classis, or Presbytery, or whatsoever new name can be given a new thing, without the least syllable of example, from the A­postles to Calvin, must not these have been called the Churches, not the Church of E­phesus?

I come now to a very expresse mark of this dependence, during the time, and in the actions of the Apostles, and therefore by their Order, acknowledged, not onely by themselves, but by all imploied by them, in the planting of the Churches: And it is the going of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, in behalf of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, troubled by some, that taught at Antiochia, from whence those Churches received their Christianity, that Christians are to keep the Law of Moses, Acts XIII. 1. XV. 1. For, were not Paul and Barnabas able to resolve this question at Antiochia, Paul especially, protesting, That he received not the doctrine of the Gospel which he preached, from man, or by man, Gal. I. 1. who is constrained, both to the Galatians, and elsewhere, to oppose his calling, as a Bulwark, against all that labou­red to bring Judaisme into the Church? Surely, in regard of the thing, they were, but in regard of authority to the Church, they were not. Barnabas was imploied by the [Page 52] Apostles to Antiochia, who found Christi­ans there, but made them a Church, by or­dering their Assemblies, Acts XI. 20, 24, 25, 26. And he it was, that first brought Saul into that service, by his authority from the Apostles: Though afterwards, both of them were extraordinarily imploied by the Holy Ghost, to preach the Gospel, and plant Churches, Acts XIII. 1. All this while, the Church could not look upon Saul, in the quality and rank of the XII Apostles, which afterwards, he shews us, was acknowledged by the XII themselves, at Jerusalem, Gal. II. 8, 9. to wit, when he went to Jerusalem with Barnabas about this question, Acts XV. 1. for I can see no reason to doubt, that all that he speaks of there, passed, during the time of this journey. And in the mean time, it was easie, for those that stood for the Law, to pretend Revelation from God, and authori­ty from the Apostles, in matter of Christia­nity, as well as Paul and Barnabas. What possible way was there then, to end this dif­ference, but that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. XIV. 32, 33. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets, for God is not the God of unquiet­nesse, but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints? Whereupon, vindicating his autho­rity, and challenging obedience to his Or­der, even from Prophets, which might be [Page 53] lifted up with Revelations, to oppose, he ad­deth, Came the word of God from you, or came it to you alone? If any man think himself a Prophet or spirituall, let him acknowledge the things that I write you, to be the Commande­ments of God. That is, that Apostles, being trusted to convey the Gospel to the world, were to be obeyed, even by Prophets them­selves, as the last resolution of the Church, in the will of God, granting his Revelations with that temper, that, as one Prophet might see more, in the sense, effect, and conse­quence, of Revelations granted to another, then himself could doe, in which regard the spirits of the Prophets were to be subject to the Prophets; so, for the publick order of the Church, all were to have recourse to the A­postles, whom he had trusted with it. If then, the Church of Antiochia, in which were many Prophets, and among them such as Paul and Barnabas, indowed with the im­mediate Revelations of the Holy Ghost, Acts XIII. 1. must resort to Jerusalem, the seat of the Apostles, to be resolved in mat­ters concerning the state of the Church, how much more are we to beleeve, that God hath ordained, that dependence of Churches, without which, the Unity of no other hu­mane Society can be preserved, when he go­verneth them not, but by humane discretion [Page 54] of reasonable persons? Besides, we are here to take notice, that the Church of Antiochia being once resolved, the Churches of Syria and Cilicia are resolved by the same Decree, Acts XVI. 4. Because, being planted from thence, they were to depend upon it, for the Rule and practice of Christianity. There­fore, it is both truly and pertinently obser­ved, that the Decree made at Jerusalem, was locall, and not universall, which, had it been made for the whole Church, there could not have been that controversie, which we finde was at Corinth, by S. Paul, 1 Cor. VIII. 1. about eating things offered to I­dols: Neither could the Apostle give leave to the Corinthians, to eat them materially, as Gods creatures, not formally, as things offered to Idols, as he does, 1 Cor. VIII. 7. had the Body of the Apostles at Jerusalem, absolutely forbid the eating of them, to Gen­tile Christians, for avoiding the scandall of the Jewish Christians. But, because the De­cree concerned onely the Church of Antio­chia, and so by consequence, the Churches depending upon it, therefore, among those that depended not upon it, for whom the Rule was not intended, it was not to be in force.

There is yet one reason behinde, which is the ground of all, from the Originall consti­tution [Page 55] of the Synagogue. Moses, by the ad­vice of Jethro, ordained the Captains of Thousands, Hundreds, Fifties, and Tens, to judge the Causes of the people, under him­self, Ex. XVIII. 24, 25. To himself, God joy­ned afterwards LXX persons, for his assi­stance, Num. XI. 16. But these Captains were to be in place, but during the pilgrimage of the wildernesse: For, when they came to be setled in the land of Promise, the Law provi­deth, that Judges and Ministers be ordained in every City, Deut. XVI. 18. Who, if there fell any difference about the Law, were to repair to Jerusalem, to the successors of Mo­ses, and his Consistory, for resolution in it, Deut. XVII. 12. by which Law, wheresoever the Ark should be, this Consistory was to sit, as inferiour Consistories, in all inferiour Cities. Most men will marvell, what this is to my purpose, because most men have a prejudice, that the power of the Church, is to be derived, from the Rights and Privile­ges of the Priests and Levites during the Law, though there be no reason for it. For these Rights and Privileges were not onely temporary, to vanish when the Gospel was published, but also, while the Law stood, but locall, and personall, not extending beyond the Temple, or land of Promise, over any, but their own Tribe. But it is very well [Page 56] known, that, from the time of the Greekish Empire, and partly afore it, Judaisme subsi­sted in all parts, wheresoever the Jews were dispersed, and that, wheresoever it sub­sisted, there, were the people to be gover­ned and regulated in the observation of the Law, and the publique worship of God, according to the same, frequented also all over the land of Promise, whereas the Tem­ple stood but in one place. It is also manifest, that this Law, which gave the Consistory power of life and death, to preserve the Bo­dy of that people in Unity, and to prevent Schisms, upon different Interpretations of the Law, was found requisite to be put in practice in their Dispersions; to wit, as to the determining of all differences, arising out of the Law, not as to the power of life and death to inforce such sentences, this power being seldome granted them by their Sove­raigns. For at Alexandria, we understand by Philo, in his Book de Legatione ad Caium, that there was such a Consistory, as also in Babylonia, there was the like, as the Jews wri­tings tell us; for the little Chronicle, which they call Seder Olam Zuta, gives us the names of the Heads thereof, for many ages. And after the destruction of the Temple, it is ma­nifest, not onely by their writings, as Semach David, Sepher Juchasin, and the like: but [Page 57] by Epiphanius, in the Heresie of the Ebio­nites, and the Constitutions of the Emperors remaining in the Codes, Tit. de Judaeis & Coelicolis, that there continued a Consistory at Tiberias, for many ages, the Heads where­of were of the family of David, as Epipha­nius, agreeing with the Jews, informeth us, in the place aforenamed; And as, by the sto­ry of Saul in the Acts, it appears, that the Jews of Damascus, were subject to the Go­vernment at Jerusalem: so by Epiphanius, in the Heresie of the Ebionites, it appears, that the Synagogues of Syria and Cilicia, were subject to the Consistory at Tiberias, as I have shewed out of Benjamins Itinerary, in the Discourse of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service, p. 67. that the Syna­gogues of the parts of Assyria and Media, were, to that in Bagdat, and without doubt, that great Body of Jews, dispersed through Aegypt, was, to that at Alexandria. As for the Law of Deut. XVII. 18. the Jews need not tell us, as they doe, Maimoni by name, Tit. de Syncdrio, that they were not bound to observe that, in their dispersions, for how could there be Consistories for the Jews, in all Cities, all over the world? but this they tell us, withall, in particular Arba Thurim in the same title Sub init. that there­by, they hold themselves bound, to erect [Page 58] Consistories in the chief Cities of their dis­persions. In this condition, what is the diffe­rence, between the state of the Synagogue and the Church, setting aside that essentiall difference, between the Law and the Gospel, by which, Judaism was confined to one Na­tion, but Christianity had a promise to be received by the Gentiles? By reason where­of, the Law ceased, as it was proper to the Jews, and Christians became obliged, only to the perpetual Law of God, besides a very few positive precepts of our Lord, as of Baptism, & the Eucharist, and the Power of the Keys, by virtue whereof, and by the generall Com­mission of the Apostles, all Ordinances, whereby they should regulate the Society of the Church, were to be received, as the Commandements of God. Here is the rea­son, for which it is probable, that the Apo­stles, in designing the Government of the Church, should follow no other pattern, then that which they saw in use, by the Law, in the Synagogue. For, the design in both be­ing, to maintain the Law of God, and the unity of his people, in his service, saving the difference between them; what form should they follow, but that, which the Law had taught their Fore-fathers? But, when the effect hereof appears, in the first lines of this modell, traced by the Apostles, and filled up [Page 59] by their Successors, it is manifest, that these Laws were the pattern, but the Order of the Apostles, the Act, which put it in being and force. The Churches of Jerusalem, Antio­chia, Rome, and Alexandria, no man can de­ny, were planted by the Apostles, in person, and by their Deputies. That they became afterwards Heads of the Churches that lay about them, is no more then that, which the Consistories, planted at Jerusalem, or Tibe­rias, and in the chief Cities of the Jews dis­persions, were, to the Synagogues under­neath them, by virtue of the Law. This is therefore the Originall, of the dependence of Churches, upon the greatest Mother Chur­ches. And therefore it is no marvell, that Jerusalem, once the Mother City of Christi­anity, became afterwards, the seat of a Pa­triarch indeed, in remembrance of that privi­lege, but inferiour in dignity, and nothing comparable in bounds to the rest, because it was none of the greatest and most Capitall Cities: The Rule of the Apostles design be­ing this, that the greatest Cities should be the Seats of the greatest Churches. And that Constantinople, when it came afterwards to be a Seat of the Empire, was put in the next place to the Chief; as it was no act of the Apostles, so it is an argument of the Rule, by which the rest had been ordered, [Page 60] for the same reason. As for the other Law of Deu. XVI. 18. I know not what could be more agreeable to it, then that Rule of the ancient Church, which is to be seen, not only in those few ancient Canons, alledged in the discourse of the Primitive Government of Churches, p. 67. but in innumerable passages of Church Writers, that Cathedrall Churches and Ci­ties be convertible, that is, both of the same extent. Thus the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romanes, is inscribed, [...]. The presidence here expressed, argueth the emi­nence of that Church, above the rest of the Churches about it. But Clemens, directeth his Epistle, from the Church of Rome, to that of Corinth, thus, [...], whereby we understand, that the Coun­try lying under the City, belonged to the Church founded in the City, and was there­fore called [...], signifying that, which we now call the Diocese, in opposition to the Mother Church That this is the reason of the name [...], appears, because Poly­carp addresses his Epistle to the Philippians, in this style, [...]. For, if the Church of the Philippi­ans dwelt near Philippi, then the Country ad­joining, belonged to the Church of that City. [Page 61] This reason therefore, was well understood by him that writ the Epistle to the Antio­chians, in Ignatius his name, granting it to be of an age much inferiour to his: For he inscribeth it, [...]: Signifying there­by, that all the Christians of Syria, belonged to the Church of Antiochia; for which rea­son, Ignatius himself, in his Epistle to the Romanes, calls himself Bishop of Syria, not of Antiochia, because being Bishop of the Head City Church, the Christians of Syria, either belonged to his Church, or to the Churches that were under it. A thing so ne­cessary to be beleeved, that there are many marks in his Epistles, to shew, that the Chur­ches also of Cilicia belonged to his charge, as we saw they did by their foundation in the Apostles time, and as the reason of the ci­vile Government required, those parts where Paul and Barnabas first preached, having con­tinued longest in the Dominion of the Kings of Syria, and therefore continuing under the Government that resided at Antiochia. And thus are the words of Clemens, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, fulfilled, where he saith, that the Apostles, having preached the Go­spel in Cities and Countries, constituted Bi­shops and Ministers of those that should be­leeve; to wit, according to the Cities and [Page 62] Countries adjoining to them. Those marks, come from the ancientest Records the Church hath, after the writings of the A­postles: Of the rest there would be no end, if a man would allege them.

If any man object, that it cannot be made to appear, how this Rule was ever observed in the Church, the extent of Cathedrall Churches, being in some Countries so strait, in other so large: The answer is, that it cea­seth not to be a Rule, though the execution of it was very different in severall Countries, ei­ther because not understood so well as it should have been, or because the condition of some Countries was not appliable to it, so as that of others. For the East, we have these words of Walafridus Strabo, libs de Rebus Ec­clesiasticis: Fertur in Orientis partibus per sin­gulas Vrbes & Praefecturas singulas esse Epi­scoporum gubernationes: Whereby we un­derstand, that Cathedrall Churches stood very much thicker in the Eastern parts, then in the West: For thereupon it became ob­servable to Walafridus. In Africk, if we look but into the writings of S. Augustine, we shall finde hundreds of Bishops resorting to one Councell. In Ireland alone, S. Patrick is said by Ninius, at the first plantation of Christianity, to have founded three hundreth threescore and five Bishopricks. [Page 63] On the other side, in England, we see still, how many Counties remain in one Diocese of Lincoln; and yet if we look into Almain, and those mighty foundations of Charles the Great, we 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 [Page 64] 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 [Page 65] 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 [Page 66] 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 [Page 67] 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 [Page 68] 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 consequence, reduce the Authority they pre­tend, to what measure the people shall please, whom, by their proceedings, they inable, to make and unmake, members and Pastors at their pleasure. But I dispute not the conse­quence of their design, before they declare, what they are agreed upon in it. Besides, they conceive they have this Right in the Church, because they are Saints: as Anabap­tists conceive, that, by the same title, they [Page 69] have Right to the Goods of this world, and, as Christians conceive, they have those Rights, which they pretend to, in the Visible Church, by lawfull Ordination and Bap­tism: And, that they are Saints, they seem to presume upon this ground, that they have been admitted to such a Congregation, upon Covenant, to live in such Society, for which they separate from the Church. It shall be enough, to levell the grounds and reasons from Scripture, upon which, they have par­ted from the Church, under pretence of re­covering the freedom of Saints, before they are agreed, wherein this freedom consists, and how far it extends. And truly, that which I have hitherto proved, seems to be a peremptory prescription against their pre­tence. For, if the Apostles ordered the Bo­dies of severall Churches, to consist of the whole numbers of Christians, contained in severall Cities, and in the Territories of them, which, no common sense can possibly imagine, that they could assemble all toge­ther, at any time, for the service of God: it follows of necessity, that the power of Go­verning those Churches, was not deposited, by the Apostles, in the Body of the People, whereof those Churches did or should con­sist. For, where the Power is in the People, there the whole Body of the People, must [Page 70] have means to Assemble, to take Order in such things, as concern the state of it. Where­fore the Assemblies of the Church being only for Divine Service, and, at those As­semblies, it being impossible that all the peo­ple of those Churches should meet, com­mon sense must pronounce, that, the Pow­er of taking Order in the common affairs of Churches, is not deposited by the Apostles, in the Body of the People.

Another exception there is, to all, or most of the particulars, which they alledge out of the scriptures, far more peremptory then his. For, those things, upon which they ground the right & interess of the people in the Church, were done under the Apostles, that is, not only in their time, but also, in concurrence, with their Right and Power in the Govern­ment of the Church. So that, if we beleeve, or if we prove, the chief Power to have been then in the Apostles, it cannot, by the Scri­ptures which they produce, be proved to re­main in the People, because their evidence cannot prove, any greater Power, or Right, to be now in the People, then belonged to them, when the Scriptures they allege, were said, or done, under the Apostles. Now, I suppose, I shall not need to intreat any man to grant me, that the Soveraign Power of the Church, was then in the Apostles, which [Page 71] their Commission will easily evince. The name of an Apostle, seemeth to have been borrowed, by our Lord, from the ordinary use of that people. For, in their Law, it ordi­narily signifieth, a mans Proxy, or Commis­sary, deputed to some purpose. And there­fore, the signification of it in the Scriptures, is very large: So that, when we reade of E­paphroditus, Apostle of the Philippians, Phil. II. 25, 30. or of Luke, and Titus, Apostles of the Churches, 2 Cor. VIII. 19, 20, 23. we are not to conceive, by this name, any thing like the Office of the Apostles of Christ: For these later are plainly called Apostles of the Churches, as deputed by them, to carry their Contributions to Jerusalem: And Epaphro­ditus of the Philippians, as imploied by them, to wait upon, and furnish S. Paul with his necessary charges at Rome. The power of Christs Apostles, then, must not be valued by the name of Apostle, nor by the person of our Lord Christ that sends them, for he might have sent other manner of men, upon inferiour errands, and all been Apostles: But by the work, which they are trusted with, expressed in their Commission, As my Father sent me—Whose soever sins ye remit—and Goe preach and teach all Nations—For if God ordain his Church, to be one Visible Society, to serve him in the Profession of the [Page 72] Gospel, and trust onely his Apostles, and the Church, with the Power of the Keys, the root of all Ecclesiasticall Power, as hath been said: either the Church must challenge it, against the Apostles, which is not but by them, or it must be understood, to have been then in the Church, because it was in the A­postles, in whom it was before the Church, which was founded by them; whereupon, the Office of the Apostles, is called [...], a Bishoprick, before the Church was, where­of they were Bishops, to wit, in Judas, Acts I. 9. A meaning easie to be read in the num­ber of them: For, the Church being the spi­rituall Israel; as Israel according to the flesh, coming of XII Patriarchs, had always XII Princes of their Tribes, and LXX Presby­ters, members of the great Consistory, to govern them in the greatest matters, con­cerning the State of the whole People, under one King, or Judge, or under God, when they had neither King nor Judge: So did our Sa­viour appoint XII Patriarchs, as it were, of his spirituall People, LXX Governours of another Rank, both under the name of Apo­stles, in whom should rest, the whole Power of governing that People, whereof him­self, in heaven, remains always King.

A perfect evidence hereof, is the deriving of other Power from them, as theirs is deri­ved [Page 73] from Christ. We reade in the Scriptures of Euangelists, and we reade of another sort of Apostles, which, if we understand not to be of the number of the LXX, we must needs conceive, to be so called, because they were Apostles of the Apostles, that is, per­sons sent by the XII Apostles, to assist them, in the work committed to their trust, which, it is plain, could not be executed by them in person alone. And indeed, those whom the Scripture cals false Apostles, 2 Cor. XI. 13. and, that said they were Apostles and were not, Apoc. II. 2. what can we imagine they were, but such as pretended to be imploied by other Apostles, (perhaps by S. Peter to Co­rinth, who had a hand in the founding of that Church, as we learn by Dionysius of Co­rinth, in Eusebius, Eccles. Histor. II. 25. agree­ing with the beginning of S. Pauls first Epi­stle) but intended indeed, under their names and authorities, to pull down that, which was built by their fellow Apostles. And in this sense, perhaps, S. Paul calls Andronicus and Junias eminent among the Apostles, Rom. XVI. 7. because, it may be, they were imploied by himself, or by S. Peter, about the Gospel, at Rome. And hereby, we may take measure what Euangelists were. For, see­ing it appears by the Scripture, that they were the Apostles Scholars, deputed by [Page 74] them, and limited to such imploiment, as they found most proper for their assistance; it is manifest, that they could have no authority, but derived from the Apostles. A thing, perfectly agreeing with the Custome, that had always been among Gods People. For, all Prophets, whom God imploied upon his messages, and may therefore properly be cal­led his Apostles, (as our Lord Christ is cal­led the Apostle of our Profession, Heb. III. 1) had their Disciples to wait upon them, which is called ministring to them in the language of the Scripture. Thus Joshua, the Minister of Moses, Exod. XXIV. 13. Elizeus poured wa­ter on the hands of Elias, as the Chief of his Scholars, that expected a double portion of his spirit, 2 Reg. II. 9. III. 11. Thus the Baptist saith, he is not worthy to loose, or take away our Saviours shooes, Mat. III. 11. Mar. I. 7. that is, to be his Disciple; for, by Maimoni, in the Title of learning the Law, cap. V. we learn, that the Disciples of the Jews Doctors, were to do that service for their Masters. Here­upon saith Christ, Luc. XXII. 26. I am among you as he that ministreth: to wit, not as a Master, but as a Disciple. Thus, the chief of our Lords Disciples, whom he had chosen, from the beginning, to be with him, recei­ving his Commission, became his Apostles, having waited on his Person, and, by fami­liar [Page 75] conversation, learned his doctrine, better then others; Whereupon I said, in the Pri­mitive Government of Churches p. 3. that, to make an Apostle, it was requisite to have seen our Lord in the flesh, and, that he ap­peared to S. Paul after death, to advance him to that rank, by this privilege, Mar. III. 14. Mat. X. 1, 4. And shall we think, that the A­postles did not, as their Lord, and all the Prophets before him had done, choose them­selves Scholars, that, by waiting on them, might learn their Doctrine, and become fit, to be imploied under them, and after them? If we do, we shall mis-kenne the most remar­kable circumstances of Scripture: For we may easily observe, that those, who are cal­led in the Scriptures Euangelists, are such, as first waited upon the Apostles, as S. Mark upon S. Peter, Timothy and S. Luke upon S. Paul, Acts XVI. 1. XIX. 22. as Mark upon Paul and Barnabas, Acts XIII. 5. and Mark again, (whether the same or another) upon S. Paul, 2 Tim. IV. 11. And therefore, I easi­ly grant, both Timothy and Titus to have been Euangelists, though the Scripture says it but of one, 2 Tim. IV. 5. because I see them both Companions of S. Paul, that is, his Scholars and Ministers: And therefore, find it very reasonable, that he should imploy Ti­tus into Dalmatia, to Preach the Gospel in [Page 76] those parts, where himself had left, hoping to goe further, and carry it beyond, into Illy­ricum, whereof Dalmatia was a part, as you may see, by comparing the Scriptures, 2 Tim. IV. 10. Rom. XV. 19. 2 Cor. X 16. Tit. III. 12. For, thus also, of the seven Ministers to the Apostles at Jerusalem, you see Steven and Philip, imploied in Preaching the Gospel, and this later called therefore expresly an Euangelist, Acts VI. 9. VIII. 5, 12. XXI. 8. And therefore, it is not possible, for any man, out of the Scriptures, to distinguish between the Office of Euangelists, and those whom I shewed to have been Apostles of the Apostles: And thereby, the conclusion remains firm, that all Ecclesiasticall Power, at that time remained, and, for future times, is to be derived from the Apostles, when we see by the Scriptures, that the Euangelists de­rived their Office and Authority from their appointment. And indeed, how can com­mon sense indure to apprehend it otherwise, especially, admitting, that which hath been discoursed, of the Power of the Keys, in ad­mitting into the Church? That being made Christians by the Apostles, because, by them convinced to beleeve, that they were Gods Messengers, whom they stood bound to obey, should neverthelesse, by being Chri­stains, obtain the Power, of regulating and [Page 77] concluding the Apostles themselves, in mat­ters concerning the Community of the Church, (which, what it meant, or, that such a Society should be, they could not so much as imagine, but by them,) is a thing, no com­mon sense can admit without prejudice. Those that purchase dominion by lawfull Conquest in the world, become thereby, able to dispose of all their Subjects have, because they give them their lives, that is, them­selves. The Church is a People, subdued to Christ, by the Apostles, not by force, but by the sword of the Spirit, and though to free­dome, yet, that freedome consists, in the state of particular Christians towards God, not in the publique Power of the Church, otherwise then it is conveyed lawfully, from them that had it before the Church. Indeed, visible Christianity, is a condition requisite to make a man capable of Ecclesiasticall Power, and the Church is then in best estate, when that legall presumption of invisible Christianity, is most reasonable: But, if Saints, because Saints, have Power and Right to govern the Church, then follows the Position, imposed on Wicleffe and Husse in the Councell of Constance, and condemned by all Christians, that Ecclesiasticall Power holds and fails with Grace; which will not fail, to draw after it, the like consequence in [Page 78] Secular matters, pernicious to all Civile So­cieties, that the interesse of honest men is the interesse of Kingdomes and States, con­tradicting the principle laid down at the be­ginning, that Christianity calls no man to any advantage of this world, but to the Crosse. Therefore no Christian, or Saint, as Saint, or Christian, hath any Right or Pow­er in the Church, but that which can be law­fully derived from the Order of the Apo­stles. Those of the Congregations, use to allege S. Peters apology to the Jewish Chri­stians, for conversing with Cornelius and his Company, Acts XI. 9. as also that of S. Paul, Col. IV. 17. speaking to the body of the Church at Colossae, Say to Archippus, look to the Ministery which thou hast received to fulfill it; as if S. Peter, or Archippus, must be afraid of Excommunication, if they render not a good account of their actions to the People. By which it may appear, how truly I have said, that the Power, they give the People, is in check to that Power, which was exerci­sed by the Apostles. But if we reason not amisse, it would be a great prejudice to Chri­stianity, that S. Peter could not inform Chri­stian People, of the reason of his doings, which they understood not, but he must make them his Soveraign. Or that S. Paul, conveying his commands to Archippus, by [Page 79] an Epistle directed to the whole Church, should be thought to invest the People, in that Power, by which he commands Ar­chippus. They allege also, the People of the Church of Jerusalem, present at the Coun­cell there, and joyned in the letter, by which the decree is signified and conveyed to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, Acts XV. 4, 12, 23. But of this I have spoken already, and am very willing, to leave all men to judge by the premises, whether it is probable, that for resolution in a doubt, which such per­sons as Paul and Barnabas, could not deter­mine, as to the Body of the Church, it can be thought, that they resorted to Jerusalem, as to the Brethren, or as to the Apostles: whether it can be imagined, that the People of the Church at Jerusalem, could prescribe, in any way, either of Power, or of Autho­rity, or Illumination, unto the Church of Antioch, and the publique persons of it: Last­ly, whether the arrow is not shot beyond the mark, when it is argued, that this Decree is the act of the People, because it appears that they assent to it, seeing we know by the premises, that they were bound to consent to the Acts of the Apostles. So, in the Power of the Keys, and Excommunication, what can be so plain, as, that S. Paul gives sentence upon the incestuous person at Corinth, and [Page 80] obliges the Church there, to execute his De­cree, as he calls it in expresse terms, 2 Cor. V. 3, 4? I conceive, I have read an answer to this, in some of their writings, that this Epistle is Scripture, and therefore, the mat­ter of it commanded by God. But let me instance in the result of the Councell at Je­rusalem: The Church of Jerusalem was ti­ed by virtue of the Decree, for to them there was no Epistle sent: Therefore the Church of Antiochia, and the rest of the Churches to whom that Epistle was sent, which we have, Acts XV 23. were tied, by virtue of the Decree, not by virtue of the Epistle, by which they knew themselves tied. And let me put the case here: Had S. Paul been at Corinth, and decreed that, which he decreeth by this Epistle, had not the Church been tied, unlesse he had sent them an Epistle, or other­wise made it appear to them, that he had a Revelation from God on purpose, having made appearance to them, that he was the Apostle of Christ? Beleeve himself in that case, when he says, he will doe as much ab­sent as present, 2 Cor. XI. 11. And again, When I come I shall bewail divers, 2 Cor. XII. 20, 21. that is, excommunicate them, or put them to Penance, as I have said. Remember the miraculous effect of Excommunication in the Apostles time, when, by visible punish­ments, [Page 81] inflicted on the excommunicate by evil Angels, it appeared, that they were cast out of the shadow of Gods Tabernacle, and it will seem as probable, that this is the Rod, which S. Paul threatens the Corinthians with, 1 Cor. IV. 21. 2 Cor. X. 2, 8. as, that many were sick there, because they abused the Eucharist, 1 Cor. XI. 30. Therefore, if this effect of the sentence, came from the Apostles, the sen­tence also came. Here appears a necessary ar­gument, from the Legislative Power of the Apostles, to the whole Church. For, as no Christian can deny, that the Constitutions of the Apostles oblige the Church, so it is manifest, that they doe not oblige it, because they are written in the Scripture, for, they were all in force in the Church, before the Scriptures were written, in which they are related; neither doth it evidence, that they were first delivered to the Church, with as­surance, that they were, by expresse Revela­tion, commanded to be delivered to the Church, or, because they were passed by votes of the People: But by virtue of the ge­nerall Commission of the Apostles, being received, in that quality, by those that became Christians, and so made a Church. So, in matter of Ordinations, it is well known, who they are, that have made the People beleeve, that Paul and Barnabas Ordained Presbyters, [Page 82] in the Churches of their founding, by voices of the People, signified by the word [...], Acts XIV. 22. which being admit­ted, it is but an easie consequence to inferre, that all Congregations are absolute, because, making their Presbyters, they must needs first make themselves Churches. But he that reads the Text without prejudice, easily sees, that the Act of Ordaining, is here attributed to the Apostles, not to the People. They, the Apostles, ordained them, to wit, the Church or People, Presbyters: Therefore, this Scripture, speaks not of Election, by Holding up of the Peoples hands, but of Ordination, by laying on the Hands of the Apostles. And therefore, in the choice of the seven Deacons, it is manifest, that the Apostles, though they gave way to the People to nominate, yet reserved them­selves the approving of the persons, other­wise, the People might have sinned, and the Apostles born the blame for it. For, when S. Paul saith, Lay Hands suddenly on no man, nor participate of other mens sins, 2 Tim. V. 22. it is manifest, that he who Imposes Hands, ought to have power not to Impose, because he sins Imposing amisse. Last of all, let us consider, how liberally the Church of Je­rusalem parted with whole estates; the Church of Corinth maintained their Feasts [Page 83] of Love, wherof we reade, 1 Cor. XI. 17. the same Corinthians with other Churches, of­fered to the support of the Churches in Ju­daea, 2 Cor. VIII. 1—the Philippians sent to supply S. Paul, Phil. II 25. 30. IV. 20. And all the rest which we finde recorded in the New Testament, of the Oblations of the Faithfull to the maintenance of Gods Ser­vice: Whence, it shall appear in due time, that the Indowment of the Church is estated upon it: And then, let common sense judge, whether this came from the understanding, and motion, and proper devotion of the People, or from their Christianity, obliging them to follow that Order, which the au­thority and doctrine of the Apostles, should shew them to be requisite, for their Professi­on, and the support of the Church at that time.

By all this, as it will easily appear, that the Chief Interesse and Right in disposing of Church matters, could not belong to the People, under the Apostles, so is it not my purpose to say, that, at any time, the People ought to have no manner of Right or Inte­resse in the same. For, if the practice under the Apostles, be the best evidence, that we can ground Law upon to the Church, then it is requisite, to the good estate of the Church, and necessary, for those, that can [Page 84] dispose of the publique Order of it, to pro­cure, that it be such, as may give the Peo­ple reasonable satisfaction, in those things wherein they are concerned: Which, what it requires, and how farre it extends, I will say somewhat in generall, when we come to give bounds, to the severall Interests, in the publique Power of the Church. In the mean time, as no water can ascend higher, then it descended afore, so can no People have any further Right and Power in Church matters, then that which the Peo­ple had under the Apostles, because that is all the evidence upon which their Interesse can be grounded and acknowledged. Lesse is not to be granted, more they must not require.

CHAP. III.

THese things premised, I shall here suppose, that the reasons heretofore advanced, are sufficient to prove, that, by Ordinance of the Apostles, the Go­vernment of every such Church, consisting of the Body of Christians, in a City and the Territory thereof, is to rest in a Bishop, and a Company or College of Presbyters, his Counsell and Assistants in the exercise of the Chief Power thereof, to whom are added the Deacons, to attend them in executing their commands: Adding onely for the pre­sent, in confirmation of those reasons, as fol­loweth.

First, that there is an ordinary Power, of Governing Churches of their own planting, in the Apostles, easily to be distinguished, from the power of other Apostles, because, whereas, the generall Commission, extends [Page 86] the power of every Apostle to the whole Church; those things which we finde recor­ded, either in the Scriptures, or in other mo­numents of Historicall truth, which common sense cannot refuse to credit, do shew manifest arguments, of the speciall exercise thereof, de facto, in speciall places, either by contract, when a Christian may think, that an agree­ment might be requisite, among such holy persons, as we see, Gal. II. 9. Or otherwise, by occupation, and use. And this ordinary Power of the Apostles, is as easie to be di­stinguished from the Power of Bishops, by the extent of it, this of Bishops reaching onely to the Church whereof they are made Bishops.

Now, to make good the proof, that Iames Bishop of Jerusalem, was one of the Apo­stles, I must here answer two questions, which seem to make this opinion hard to beleeve. The first, because Hegesippus in Eusebius, of­tentimes mentioning Simeon the son of Cleo­pas, and that he succeeded this James in the Government of that Church, never mentions in one syllable, any relation of his to this James whom he succeeded; which, if they had been so near as brothers, it seems he would have done. The second is this, be­cause [...] is manifestly a Greek name, being the diminutive of [...], and [Page 87] therefore nothing to Alphaeus, which hath another, both Originall, and signification in the Hebrew. The first makes no proof, be­cause we have not Hegesippus, and therefore cannot presume that he no where said this, because we finde it not in those shreds which Eusebius hath related out of him: Neither are we bound to presume that either he would write, or Eusebius relate out of him, that which we at this present conceive to be most necessary to be related, because of the dispute presently on foot, which to them, perhaps, was no dispute. In fine, from that which he says not, we cannot conclude the negative, but from that which he says, we may conclude the tantamount of the affir­mative. For when Hegesippus, in Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. IV. 22. says, that Simeon was the second of our Lords Cousins, that was made Bishop of Jerusalem, to them that knew by the Gospel, that the Cousins of our Lord, (which it cals brothers,) were James and Jo­ses, Judas and Simon, Mat. XIII. 55. he says in effect, that James and Simon were bro­thers; especially Eusebius making the same Simeon the son of Cleopas and Mary, Eccles. Hist. III. 32. which he seems to have from Hegesippus. For, seeing Mary Cleopas, John XIX. 25. is in all probability, Mary the mo­ther of James the lesse, and Joses, Mar. XV. 40. [Page 88] Mat. XXVII 55. (because we read but of two Maries in the Gospel that followed our Lord, beside the blessed Virgin, Mat. XXVII. 61.) And seeing S. Jude cals himself the bro­ther of James, Jude 1. And seeing James and Simeon Bishops of Jerusalem, are both Cou­sins to our Lord, (that is, brothers in the lan­guage of the Scripture) according to He­gesippus, it is to be thought, that he inten­ded there to signifie, that Simeon the son of Cleopas, and James Bishop of Jerusalem, were brothers: The age of Simeon, suffering an hundred and twenty years old, Euseb. Eccles. Hist. III 32. being so great, that he might well succeed his brother in the charge. Now, James the son of Alphaeus, might well be also son of Cleopas, and the same mans name Alphaeus and Cleopas, because of the custom, which we find to have been among the Jews, of calling themselves, by one name among their own Country men, and by another (oftentimes near the other in sound) among the Greeks and Romanes; For, if Jason in the Maccabees, were called Jesus among the Jews, as it appears by Josephus, Antiq. XII. 6. if Saul and Paul were one Apostle; if the first Bishop of Alexandria, who is called Ananias in the Antiquities of that Church out of Eutychius, be called Anianus in Eusebius; if Silas be nothing else but Sylvanus; Luke, Lu­cius, [Page 89] as learned men cannot choose but be­leeve, why shall we not beleeve, that the same man, was called [...], in the Hebrew then used, as his name is now written in the Syriack Testament, and [...] in the Greek, being the diminutive of [...], an ordinary proper name at that time? And thus it cannot be contradicted, that the Church of Jerusalem had one of the Apo­stles for the first Bishop of it.

Now, whereas it is said, that Timothy and Titus had that power which the Scripture witnesseth, as Evangelists, it is to be deman­ded, by what Scripture it can appear, that E­vangelists, as Evangelists, had any Power in any Church? That they were near in rank and esteem to the Apostles, I grant, because of the Scriptures, 1 Cor. XII. 28. Eph. IV. 12. that Titus was an Evangelist, as well as Timothy, 2 Tim. IV. 5. I do beleeve: because S. Paul says there, that he was gone into Dal­matia; which being part of Illyricum, whi­ther S. Paul had purpose to advance the Go­spel, as you saw afore, there is great appea­rance, that, being in durance, he imploied Titus, to Preach the Gospel, and plant Chur­ches there, as well as to govern the Churches already setled in Crete; And that, by the same reason, as himself governed all the Churches of his Charge. But having shewed [Page 90] such probabilities, to think, that Evangelists were no more then a secondary rank of A­postles, that is, men imploied by the Apo­stles upon any work; it cannot be said, that, by the quality of Evangelists, they had pow­er to govern any Church, unlesse it can be shewed, that the work on which they were imploied, was the governing of setled Chur­ches. Which cannot be shewed, of any but Timothy and Titus, by the Epistles to them; which shew, that they two were ap­pointed in that quality, at Ephesus and in Crete. For Epaphras, that is, Epaphroditus, (for the names are both one) that was im­ploied by the Philippians to S. Paul, Phil. II. 25, 30. was also imploied, (no doubt by S. Paul, or by some other of the Apostles, unlesse we will say that he depended not on them, contrary to that which hath been pro­ved) to Preach the Gospel to the Colossians, I. 7. and therefore an Evangelist to them, but no appearance of any Commission to Go­vern that Church: His charge to the Colos­sians, not hindring his imploiment to S. Paul, from the Philippians. On the contrary, the Commissions given Timothy and Titus, by the Epistles directed to them, are so far from being temporary, that he were no sober man, that would give them to him, whose charge was intended to cease to morrow. Hence we [Page 91] have a competent reason, why the name of Bishops should be common to Bishops and Presbyters in the New Testament, though the thing, which is the Power, never was. Because the Chief Bishops of that time, bore another quality, of Apostles, Evangelists, or Apostles of the Apostles, by which, while they were called, it is reasonable to think, that other Bishops and Presbyters, between whom, there was not that distance, as be­tween the greatest of them, and Apostles or Evangelists, should be called by the com­mon name of Bishops. An instance you have in the Synagogue: For, the Bodies of Jews, residing in the severall Cities of their disper­sions, being governed by Colleges or Con­sistories of Presbyters, both the Heads and the Members of those Colleges, are called by a common name, in the plurall number, [...], Acts XVIII. 8, 17 or [...], XIII. 15. which, in the Gospels, seem to be the same with [...] absolutely, Luc. XIV. 1. which notwithstan­ding, we finde expresly in Epiphanius, that the Chief of them, was called also Archi­synagogus, [...], his inferiours, Pres­byters, the Deacons [...] in Epiphanius his Greek, as in the Jews writings [...]. So that, we are to think, that in those times al­so, whereof the Scriptures of the New Testa­ment [Page 92] speak, there was one set over the rest, though all goe by one name, because we know, that in the great Consistory, whether at Jerusalem, or in their dispersions, so it was always. By this correspondence, having shewed afore, that the Power of the Consi­stories, is that which the Church succeeds the Synagogue in, it is manifest, that all the seeming difficulty of this little objection is removed.

To the argument drawn from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia, I adde onely a reply, to the answer that is now brought, that Angels stand there for Presbyteries, or Colleges of Presbyters. For now, it appears too grosse, to take Angels for Churches, in that place, because the Scripture saith ex­presly, Apoc. I. 20. that the Churches are there signified by Candlesticks; and it ap­pears now an inconvenience, to take the Candlestick for the Candle. But no lesse inconvenience will be seen in this answer, if we consider, that it must be proved to signi­fie so, either by some reason of Grammar, or of Rhetorick. That an Angel is put for a Presbyter or Bishop, is a metaphor very rea­sonable, because of the correspondence be­tween them. But an Angel cannot stand for Presbyters, by reason of Grammar, unlesse either the word be a Collective, signifying [Page 93] a multitude in the singular number, or else the Construction shew, that the singular stands for the plurall; nor by reason of Rhe­torick, unlesse some body can shew us, how an Angel is like a College: None of which reasons is to be seen, either in the Text, or in the nature of the Subject.

To the premises, I adde now this argu­ment, drawn from that observation which I have advanced, in the Book of the Aposto­licall form of Divine Service, p. 71. out of the Apostolicall Constitutions, Ignatius, Dionysius Arcopagita, and the Jews Consti­tutions, that, in the Primitive Church, the Presbyters were wont to sit by themselves, in a half Circle, at the East end of the Church, with their faces turned to the faces of the People, the Deacons standing behinde them, as waiting on them, but the Bishop, on a Throne by himself, in the midst of the Presbyters seats. For, if this form were in use under the Apostles, then was the diffe­rence of Bishops and Presbyters brought in by Ordinance of the Apostles. And, that it was in use under the Apostles, may appear, by the Representation of the Church Tri­umphant, Apoc. IV. V. for he that knows the premises, and findes there XXIV Elders, equall in number, to the XII Heads of the Tribes of Israel, and the XII Apostles, sur­rounded [Page 94] with ministring spirits, standing about them, as the Deacons in the Church stood about the Presbyters, the Congrega­tion standing, with their faces turned to the Presbyters, as the People in the Church at Divine Service; how can he doubt, that the Throne of God, in the midst of the Thrones of the XXIV Presbyters, is correspondent to the Bishops Chair, in the Church Mili­tant, under the Apostles, knowing that, so soon after the Apostles, just so it was seated? They that expound this Vision, to resemble the Camp of Israel in the Desert, Numb. II. where, about the Ark, were IV Standards, answerable to the IV Creatures about the Throne, then, the Tribe of Levi, invironing the Sanctuary, and the Camp of Israel that do make the IV Creatures as farre distant from the Throne, as the Standards of the IV leading Tribes were from the Taberna­cle, and the Presbyters Seats, to compasse the Throne, behinde, before, and on both sides: Whereas, in the Visions of Esay, VI. 1—and Ezekiel I. 1—which, all agree, that this is borrowed from, the IV Creatures stand close to the Throne, as attending peculiarly upon Gods immediate commands. Besides, the IV Creatures are said to stand, [...], IV. 6. that is, two at the two fore corners, and two at the [Page 95] two hind corners of the Throne: For other­wise it cannot be understood, how they can be said to stand, both round about the Throne, and in the middle of the Throne, which the Test says expresly, (that is, in the distance, between the Throne and the Pres­byters Seats) which words, can have no sense, if we conceive the IV Creatures, to stand where the IV Sandards of the Camp stood. Besides, the Lamb is said to stand, [...], VII. 6. which, is more ex­presly said, V. 6. to be in the middest of the Throne, Creatures, and Elders: Which words, expresly describe that Compasse of a half Circle, which the Throne, invironed with the IV Creatures, and the XXIV Pres­byters Seats, makes, in which Compasse, the Lamb is properly described to stand before the Throne. Again, the multitude that stands before the Throne and the Lamb, VII. 19. are manifestly the same, that are called the souls under the Altar, VI. 10. though commonly, they are conceived to lie under the Altar, and from thence to cry for vengeance. For the Altar there mentioned is not the Altar of burnt Sacrifices, but the Al­tar of Incense before the Vail: Which Incense, in this Case, is the Prayers of the Saints, which the Elders offer, V. 8. & the Angel puts Incese to, VIII. 3. whereupon, follows the [Page 96] vengeance, which the souls under the Altar desired, who, having white Robes granted them, in stead of that present justice which their Prayers sollicited, are afterwards de­scribed, standing with their faces toward the Throne, the Lamb, and the Elders, as the People in the Church, at Divine Service, towards the Bishop and Presbyters: Which particulars, too long here to be deduced, are easie to be observed, by comparing Apoc. V. 8. VI. 9, 10, 11. VII. 12, 14. VIII. 3, 4, 5. Adde hereunto the saying of Ignatius, that the Bishop in his Church, bears the figure of the Father of All, to wit, in the whole Church Triumphant; and, unto that, the Ordinary expression of the Jews, when they use the term, of God and his House of Judge­ment, [...], that is, his Court, or Consistory, to represent the Majesty of God sitting in Counsell, or in Judgement upon the World, with the Angels about him, in the Old Testament, (but the Saints in the New, attended by the Angels. Mar. XIX. 28. Luc. XXII. 30. 1 Cor. VI. 2. Apoc. XX. 4.) which expression of theirs, is manifestly bor­rowed from the Scriptures of the old Testa­ment, every where representing the Majesty of God in this posture, Ps. LXXXIX. 8. Dan. VII. 9. Psal. CXLIX. 1. Deut. XXXII. 2. and you have not onely a Commentary [Page 97] upon this whole passage, but also a Confir­firmation of all that hath been or shall be said, that the Bishop and Presbyters are the same in the Church, as the Sanedrin and the Head of them in the Synagogue. All this is yet more fortified, by the testimony of Tertullian, De Praescript. cap. XXXVI. that, the very Chairs, in which the Apostles sate, in their Churches, were extant in his time: as, saith he, were also the very Originals of their Epistles, in the Churches, to whom they were sent; and, as the Chair of S. James at Jerusalem was extant in Eusebius his time, Eccles. Hist. VII. 19. Adde further, The up­permost Seats in Synagogues, which the Scribes and Pharisees desired, Luc. XI. 43. adde the Apostle, 1 Cor. XIV. 25, 30. distinguishing, between the Seats of private persons and Prophets, (which, the supposed S. Ambrose expounds, by the Custome of sitting in the Synagogue, as I have shewed in the same place:) adde, The Chair of Moses, on which the Scribes and Pharisees sate, in succession to him, who taught the people in that posture, with the Priests sitting about him, as Philo expoundeth the Text, Num. XV. 33. Mat. XXIII. 2. and I suppose, we have not only evidenced to common sense, the Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyters, by his Place in the Church, but also the distinction [Page 98] of the Clergy from the People by the same.

Which Point, that I may deduce, with that care, which the consequence of it re­quires, it will be worth the inquiry, first, by what title of Right, the Celebration and Consecration of the Eucharist, belongs only to Presbyters: which, as it seems to be agreed upon, on all sides, so, let the Reason also once be agreed upon, why it belongs only to them, and, thereby it will appear, that it is convertible with the Power of the Keys, that is, that the Power of the Keys also, belongs only to Presbyters, whereas, the Offices of Preaching and baptizing, are communicable to their inferiours, and, that it belongs also to all Presbyters, and so, by consequence, that there is no such thing as Lay Elders. The Presbyterians, stiling their Pastors, Ministers of the Word and Sacra­ments, in opposition to their Lay Elders, seem to ground this Right, upon the Commissi­on of our Lord to his Apostles, Goe preach, and make Disoiples all nations, Baptizing them—as if this were the Office, wherein Presbyters succeed the Apostles, though, of the Eucharist, there is here never a word. But, if they consider, what it is, to Preach the Gospel to Unbeleevers, or rather, what it was, before the Gospel was received any [Page 99] where, it will easily appear, that, unlesse they be mad men that go about it, it is necessary that they be indowed with abilities, to make it appear, even to the enemies of the Gospel, that they are sent by God to Preach it. Therefore, no man succeeds the Apostles, in the Office of Preaching the Gospel to the Nations. And therefore, if they will take notice, they shall easily observe, that the Title of Minister of the Gospel, Minister of the Word, of the New Testament, Minister of the Church, and others equivalent, are never gi­ven to any but the Apostles, in the Scri­ptures, unlesse it be, to their Scholars and Substitutes, the Evangelists, because they were to the Apostles, as the Apostles to Christ, and Christ to God, that is, they were Ministers of the Apostles, assumed by them, to the work which Christ had trusted them in Person with, of Preaching the Gospel, and planting Christianity: And therefore, when need was, were able to make their Commission appear, by the works they did, though in an inferiour degree, because they proceeded, upon that stock of reputation, which the Apostles had won the Gospel, by their Preaching and Miracles. Such ti­tles, you shall finde attributed to the Apo­stles, and their Followers and Substitutes, 1 Cor. III. 5. 2 Cor. III. VI. 4. XI. 23. Col. I. [Page 100] 23, 25. Eph. III. 7. VI. 21. 1 Thess. III. 2. Col. IV. 7. I. 7. Acts I. 17. VI. 4. XX. 24. XXI. 19. but no where to Presbyters. For the name of Presbyters, as also of Bishops, is Rela­tive, to the People of those Churches, where­of they are Bishops and Presbyters, signify­ing them to be the best qualified, of all the Body of those Churches, chosen and con­stitute to conduct the rest in Christianity. And therefore the Apostles also are Pres­byters, as S. Peter and S. John style them­selves, 1 Pet. V. 1. 2 John 1. 3 John 1. because the greater includes the lesse, and because they had power in all Churches, as Presby­ters in one: But Presbyters are never called Apostles, because the greater is not included in the lesse, and because Presbyters never had Commission to preach the Word or the Gospel, in the sense whereof I speak here, that is, to publish the Gospel to Unbeleevers. And, whereas there is the same difference, between [...] and [...] on the one part, and [...] on the other, as there is, between Publishing the Gospel to Vn­beleevers, and instructing Christian Assemblies in it: we never finde the former attribu­ted to any Presbyter in the Scriptures, but we finde both attributed to the Apostles, because their Commission was, to Publish the Gospel to all Nations, and to make them Di­sciples, [Page 101] by Baptizing them: and being such, to Teach them further to observe all that our Lord commandeth, Mat. XXVIII. 19, 20. Mar. XVI. 15. Thus the Apostles, Acts V. 42. ceased not to Teach and Preach Jesus Christ, in Hou­ses, and in the Temple: To Teach the Church, in those Houses where the Christians assem­bled to serve God as Christians, and to Preach to the Jews in the Temple, whither they resorted for that Service, Acts II. 42, 46. So, Acts XV. 35. Paul and Barnabas conti­nued at Antiochia, Teaching, that is, the Church, and preaching the Gospell, to wit, to Unbeleevers. And with the same difference, it is said of our Lord in the Gospels, Mat. IV. 23. IX. 35. XI. 1. that he Taught, to wit, as a Prophet, (who had always the Privilege of Teaching in the Synagogues, as his Di­sciples also by the same Title,) and preached the Gospel, as sent by God for that extraor­dinary purpose. But, though the Apostles, being sent to preach the Gospel, were, by consequence, to Teach the Church, yet is it never said, that Presbyters, being appointed to Teach the Church, were also called to Preach the Gospel. For their Relation being, to Churches, as much perswaded of the truth of Christianity, as themselves, they needed no such qualities, as might make evi­dence, that they were sent immediately from [Page 102] God, to convince the world, of the truth of it. But onely, such understanding in it, above the people of their respective Churches, as might inable them, to conduct the People thereof in it. And therefore what hindreth, their Inferiours also to be imploied, in Tea­ching the Church, which now we call Prea­ching? For if our Lord, and his Apostles, imploied their respective Ministers, in Tea­ching those, whom they could not attend upon themselves, and in all Churches, after the example of the first at Jerusalem, Dea­cons or Ministers were Ordained, to wait upon the Bishops and Presbyters of the same, in the execution of their Office, is it not the same thing, for Bishops and Pres­byters, to imploy their Deacons, in Prea­ching to those of their own Church, as it is, for the Apostles at Jerusalem, to imploy S. Steven, and S. Philip, S. Paul, Timothy, or Erastus, or Tychieus, or Epaphroditus, in Prea­ching to Unbeleevers? for there remains as much difference, in their Charges, as in their Chiefs from whom they are imploied. Be­sides, who is able to prove by the Scriptures, that those, who are called Doctors, 1 Cor. XII. 28. Eph. IV. 12. were all of them men, Ordained by Imposition of Hands, as Pres­byters? Between whom and Evangelists, there seems to be the same difference, as be­tween [Page 103] [...] and [...] on the one part, and [...] on the other, this re­lating to Assemblies of Christians, and im­porting the instructing of them, in the right understanding of that Christianity, which they already beleeve and professe, that, to those who are not Christians, as undertaking to reduce them to Christianity, which sup­poseth Commission and abilities answerable. Further, the supposed S. Ambrose, upon Eph. IV. 12. comparing Evangelists with Dea­cons, says, that Deacons also taught without a Chair: The custome of the Church then, admitting them to Preach, upon occasions, but not sitting, as the Bishop and Presbyters did: Because they did not sit, but stand, in the Church, (as the Angels in the Revelation, about the Presbyters Chairs) as attending upon their commands. And what is this, but the same which you finde in use, in the Synagogue, Acts XIII. 14. where Paul, stands up to Preach, whereas our Lord sits down, like a Doctor, when he goes to Preach in the Synagogue, Luc. IV. 20? by which it appears, that it was of custome, drawn from the Synagogue, for Deacons to Preach in the Church. And indeed, in the last place, the practice of the Synagogue, together with the reason of it, and the Primitive pra­ctice of the Church, agreeable to the same, [Page 104] seems to make as full proof, as a reasonable man can desire, in a matter of this nature. For, in the Synagogue, it is so manifest, that Jurisdiction is above Doctrine, and the Pow­er of Governing, above the Office of Tea­ching, that the Prophets themselves, who were Doctors of the Law, immediately sent by God, were subject to the Power and Ju­risdiction of the Consistory, setled by the Law, Deut. XVII. 8,—12. So that, though by the Law, of Deut. XVIII. 18. the whole Synagogue are subject to Gods curse, if they obey not the Prophet by whom God speaks, yet because it was possible, that false Pro­phets might pretend to be sent from God, therefore, in the next words of the Law, a mark is given to discern who was sent by God, and who was not, and he that preten­ded to be sent by God and was not, being tried by this mark, became liable to capitall punishment, by the Law of Deut. XVII. 8,—12. for teaching contrary to that which the Consistory taught. So that, by this Law, the Consistory hath Power of life and death, even over Prophets, whom they judged to teach things destructive to the Law. And by this Power, not usurped, but abused, our Lord also suffered, under Pilate, according to that which he had said in respect of this Power, It is unpossible that a Prophet perish out [Page 105] of Jerusalem, Luc. XIII. 33. that is, not con­demned by the Consistory. The Successors of the Prophets, after the Spirit of Prophe­sie ceased, that is, their Scribes, and Wise men, and Doctors, received the Privilege of Teaching the Law, from their Masters. For, whosoever had learned in the School of a Doctor, till forty years of age, was thence­forth counted a Doctor, as the Talmud Do­ctors determine, and thereby privileged to decide matters of Conscience in the Law, provided that he did it not while his Master lived, and where he was: R. Solomon upon the Title Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Ti­tle of Learning the Law, cap. V. But if I mistake not, in our Lords time, they were counted so at thirty years of age. For Ire­naeus II. 39. says, that our Lord began to Preach, at the same age, at which men were counted Doctors, manifestly referring to this Rule of the Synagogue. And this is the Reason which the Church afterwards fol­lowed, in all those Canons, by which it is forbidden that any man be made Presbyter, being lesse then thirty years of age: because at those years our Lord and S. John Baptist began to Preach, though by an extraordi­nary Commission, yet according to the cu­stome of the Synagogue in their time, saith Irenaeus. But, by Imposition of Hands, they [Page 106] were further qualified, to sit and Judge in their Consistories. Whereby we see, how Jurisdiction includes Doctrine, but is not in­cluded in it: So that, the Metaphoricall Ju­risdiction of the Church by the power of the Keys, belonging, as all sides agree, to Pres­byters, it is agreeable to the perpetuall cu­stome of Gods people, that the Office of Teaching, be communicable to their inferi­ours. But with such dependence, upon the Bishop and Presbyters, as may be correspon­dent to the Rule of the Synagogue; In which, he that taught any thing, as of Gods Law, contrary to the Consistory, and persi­sted in it, was liable to capitall punishment, by the Law so often quoted, of Deut. XVII. 8 —Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Title of Rebels, cap. III. And therefore, he that Tea­ches contrary to the Church, it behoveth, that he be liable to Excommunication from it. And upon these terms, I suppose, those of the Congregations will give me no great thanks, for saying, that it is not against Gods Law, that those, who are not in Holy Or­ders, do Preach. For, that which I have alle­ged for this, in the Apostolicall form of Di­vine Service, p. 420. out of that notable E­pistle in Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. VI. 20. in be­half of Origen, who, before he was Presby­ter, was imploied in Preaching by the Bishop [Page 107] of Caesarea, consists in divers instances, of other persons of Origens rank, which Prea­ched indeed, but all, by Commission from their respective Bishops, who were them­selves by their Places, the Doctors in Chief, of their respective Churches. And if this be against Divine Right, (as we agree it is, for any under the rank of a Presbyter, to cele­brate the Eucharist,) how shall any Church allow men to Preach, for triall of their abi­lities, before they attain that rank, in which they are ordinarily to doe it?

That which hath been said of Preaching, is to be said much more, in my opinion, of Baptism. If the charge of Baptizing, given the Apostles, had been meant, of the Office of Ministring, not of the power of granting it, what reason could there be, that S. Peter, having converted Cornelius and his compa­ny, should not baptize them in person, but command them to be baptized, Acts IX. 48? And if the Apostles, imploy their Deacon S. Philip, to Preach and to Baptize, is it not by consequence, that the Governours of par­ticular Churches, imploy their Deacons about the same? In the Synagogue, it can­not be said, that the office of Circumcising, ever required any higher quality, then that of a person circumcised: And therefore in the Church, if there can be any question, whe­ther [Page 108] a person is to be admitted to Baptism or not, it is the Chief Power of the Church, that must determine it. Or, if the occasion require Solemnity, which may argue, him that Officiates it, to be Chief in the Church, no Deacon nor Presbyter must presume to doe it before the Bishop. But, because Bap­tisme is the gate, as well of the invisible Church, as of the visible; and because the occasions are many and divers, which indan­ger the preventing of so necessary an Office, by death, in this regard, the practice of the Primitive Church, alleged by Tertullian, de Bapt. cap. XVIII, must not be condemned, whereby, Baptism, given by him that is only baptized, is not onely valid, but well done. Though my intent hereby is not to say, that it may not be restrained to Presbyters and Deacons, when the Church is so provided of them, that there is no appearance, that Baptisme can be prevented, for want of one.

But though I doe, for these causes, refuse the reason that Presbyterians can give, why onely Presbyters may celebrate the Eucha­rist. I am not therefore much more in love with that, which the School Doctors give, when they conceive, that the Apostles were made Priests, by our Lord, at his last Sup­per, when he said, Do this. For, we do not find [Page 109] this exposition of these words authorized by the first ages of the Church, or any Writers of that time. And, where the School Do­ctors speak not out of the mouth of the Pri­mitive Church, I make no difficulty to take them for none of my Authors And truly, in this case, the Text of the Scripture seems to be plain enough, for, the Command of our Lord, Doe this in remembrance of me, must needs speak to the same persons, as the rest that goes afore, Take, eate, drink, divide this among you, which, belonging to the whole Church, it is manifest, the Precept, Do this, belonging also to the whole Church, cannot make any difference of qualities in it. In this difficulty then, it will be hard to find any anchor so sure, as that of Tertullian, De Cor. cap. III. where, making a Catalogue of Orders and Rules observed in the Church, which are not found delivered, in terms of Precept, in the Scriptures, he prosecuteth it thus: Eucharistiae Sacramentum, in tempo­re victus, & omnibus, à Domino mandatum, etiam antelucanis coetibus, nec nisi de manu Praesidentium sumimus. The Sacrament of the Eucharist was commended to the Church at meat, saith Tertullian. Is not this the expresse word of our Lord? for, when he saith, Doe this, is it not manifest, that he commandeth to celebrate the Eucharist at the end of Sup­per [Page 110] as himself presently had done? Sure enough the Primitive Church understood it so, for the Ministery of Tables in the Acts of the Apostles, for which the Apostles provide themselves Deacons, and the Feasts of Love, which S. Paul regulates at Corinth, are enough to shew us, that the Eucharist came at the end of them. And so Tertullian shews that it was in his time, when he sayes, that they received the Eucharist at their Assemblies be­fore day also; that is to say, as well as at their Feasts of Love, at which our Lord ordained it. But, though there be no Precept extant in the Scripture, that the Eucharist be used at those Assemblies of the Church, which are held meerly for the Service of God, be­sides those Feasts of Love, yet if my reasons, propounded in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service, p. 291. have not failed, which hitherto, so far as I know, are not contradi­cted, it doth appear by the Scripture, that it was so under the Apostles. And therefore, that onely Presbyters are to celebrate the Eucharist, the Church will be confidently assured, because it appears, by these words of Tertullian, that this was the Primitive practice of the Church. Especially, if by any circumstance of Scripture, it may appear to have been derived from the Apostles. Which, perhaps, comparing the premises [Page 111] with the nature of the Eucharist, will not fail us. To shew, that those who did eat of the Sacrifices of the Gentiles, were accesso­ry to their Idolatries, the Apostle, 1 Cor. X. 16—instanceth in the Jews, who, by eating of their Sacrifices, did communicate with the Altar, that is, with God, to whom that which was consumed upon the Altar belonged. And because Christianity supposeth, that the Gentiles Sacrifices were offered to Devils, therefore, (the Gentiles communicating with Devils, by eating the remains of their Sacri­fices, as the Jews with God) that it was not lawfull, to eat of their Sacrifices, for them that communicated with God, in the Eucha­rist, as the Jews did with the same true God, and the Gentiles with the Devils, by their Sacrifices. Thus, the Apostles argument supposeth, that, in the Eucharist, Christians do participate of the Sacrifice of the Crosse, as Jews and Gentiles do, of their Sacrifices, and so, that the purpose thereof is, that, by it, we may participate of the Sacrifice offered to God upon the Crosse. Which, being car­ried by our Lord within the Vail, into the most Holy Place of the Heavens, to be presented to God, as it is declared at large, Hebr. IX. 11—is, notwithstan­ding, no lesse participated by Christians, then the Jews do participate of their peace-Offerings. [Page 112] Which the Apostle teaches again, when he tels the Hebrews, XIII. 10. that we have an Altar, that is, a Sacrifice, of which they that serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat; that is, no Jews. For, seeing the Priests only eat the remains of burnt Sacri­fices, whereas the remains of peace Offe­rings are eaten also by the Sacrificers, that which the Priests touch not, it is manifest that no Jew can have right to touch. And, that the Sacrifice of the Crosse is such, he proceedeth to prove, because, as he had de­clared in the premises, it is of that kinde, that was carried within the Vail; and again, be­cause, in correspondence, to the burning of the rest of those Sacrifices, without the Camp, which the Law enjoyned Levit. IV. 12, 20. VI. 30. XVI. 21. our Lord suffered without Jerusalem. Now, because it con­cerned the discourse propounded by the A­postle, to shew, how Christians participate of that Sacrifice, whereof he hath proved that Jews do not; he addeth, Let us there­fore goe forth to him out of the Camp, bearing his reproach, for we have here no abiding City, but seek one to come: Let us therefore by him offer the Sacrifice of Praise continually to God, even the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his Name. Which, if we will have to be perti­nent to the premises, must all be meant of [Page 113] 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 [Page 114] 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 [Page 115] 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 [Page 116] 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, [Page 117] 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 out of the Scriptures, it will be easie, to drive a worse Trade of Preaching, then ever Priests did of private Masses: The one ten­ding only to feed themselves, the other, to turn the good order of the world, which is the Harbour of the Church, into publique confusion, to feed themselves; the profaning of Gods Ordinance, being common to both. And if the taking away of private Masses, must be, by turning the Eucharist out of doors, saving twice or thrice a year, for fa­shions sake, it is but Lycurgus his Reformati­on, to stock up the Vines, for fear men be drunk with the wine. The Church of Eng­land is clear in this businesse. The Order whereof, as it earnestly sighs, and grones, to­ward the restoring of publique Penance, the onely mean, established by the Apostles, to maintain the Church, in estate to communi­cate continually, so, it recommendeth the continuall celebration of the Eucharist, at all [Page 118] the more solemne Assemblies, of Lords days and Festivals. As for the Sermon, it is to be when it can be had, and were it now abated, when such Sermons cannot bee had, as were fitting, it is easie to undertake, that there would be room enough left, for the celebration of the Eucharist. In the mean time, the Reformers of this Age, had they considered so well as it behoved them, what they undertook, should easily have found, that the continuall celebration of the Eucha­rist, at all the more solemne Assemblies of the Church, and the Discipline of Penance, to maintain the people, in a disposition fit to communicate in it, is such a point of Refor­mation in the Church, that without resto­ring it, all the rest, is but meer noise, and pretence, if not mischief.

Now, the reason, why the celebration of the Eucharist is reserved to Presbyters alone, in consequence to the premises, is very rea­sonable, and will be effectuall to shew, that it is common to all Presbyters, and there­fore, that there is no such thing as Lay El­ders. For, seeing all agree, that Presbyters have their share in the Power of the Keys, though the Chief Interess in it be the Bi­shops, according to the Doctrine of the Church, and, seeing the work of this Power, is to admit, to the Prayers of the Church, as [Page 119] S. John sheweth, when he describeth Ex­communication, by not praying for the sins of the excommunicate; and seeing it appea­reth by S. James, that the Prayers of the Church, for the sins of them whom the Church prayeth for, are the Prayers of the Presbyters, what can we conceive more rea­sonable, and consequent to the premises, then, that the Power of the Keys, is conver­tible with the Office of celebrating the Eu­charist, belonging to the Bishop and Pres­byters by virtue of it? For, what can be more agreeable, then, that the Prayers of the Church, which the Eucharist is celebrated with, be offered by those, that are to discern, who is to be admitted, who excluded, from the same? This is the meaning of Josephus the Jew in Epiphanius against the Ebionites, where, being baptized by the Bishop of Ti­berias, at his parting he gives him money, saying, Offer for me, for it is written, Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained. Expressing there­by, the sense of Primitive Christians, who, when they were admitted to the Prayers of the Church, which the Eucharist is offered to God with, made account thereby, that the Power of the Keys was passed, and con­tinually did passe upon them, to the remissi­on of sins. Whereupon we see, that it is an [Page 120] ordinary censure of the ancient Canons, that he which did so or so, his oblations be not re­ceived, that is, that he be out of the number of those, for whom the Prayers of the Church are made, which the Eucharist is offered with. Therefore, Ignatius thus pro­secuteth the words last quoted: He that is without the Sanctuary, saith he, comes short of the Bread of God. For if the Prayer of one or two be so forcible with God, what shall we think of the Prayer of the Bishop, and the whole Church? For, the efficacy of the Prayers of the Church, dependeth upon the Unity of the Church: And the Power of the Keys, is that, which containeth that Unity: It is therefore agreeable, that those Prayers, which are of this efficacy, be the Prayers of them, whom this Unity, and the Power which pre­serves it, is trusted with. And for this rea­son, though all Christians be Priests, as the Scripture says, 1 Pet. II. 5. Apoc. I. 6. by a far better title, then Moses promises the Israe­lites, Ex. XIX. 6. The Sacrifice of Prayer being the act of the whole Church: Yet notwithstanding, it is by good right, that Bishops and Presbyters are called Sacerdotes or Sacrificers, in regard of the same Sacrifice, of Prayer and Thanksgiving, for which all Christians are called Sacrificers: That is to say, by way of excellence, because that which [Page 121] is the act of all, is by ordinance of the Apo­stles, (passed upon the whole Church) reser­ved to be executed, and ministred by them, whom that Power, which preserveth that U­nity, which inforceth the Prayers of the Church, is trusted with.

He that refuseth this reason, as built upon consequences that convince not, must by consequence acknowledge, that the cele­bration of the Eucharist, is peculiar to Pres­byters, meerly by universall and perpetuall practice of the Church, derived from the Order setled by the Apostles. Which, whe­ther those of the Presbyteries will admit, I leave to themselves to advise. For, as for their pretense, that the Ministery of both Sa­craments, is convertible with the Office of Preaching, upon which they style their Pa­stors, or Preaching Elders, Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, it appears to be as void of any ground from the Scriptures, as it is wide from the originall and Universall practice of the Church. The Ministery of the Word, being the Office of Apostles and Evangelists, according to the Scriptures: The Ministery of Baptism, and Preaching, communicable to Deacons, and possibly to Lay men, onely the celebration of the Eu­charist, proper to the Power of the Keys, in Bishops and Presbyters. But, putting all [Page 122] the reasons that here are advanced to com­promise, yet, out of the premises, we have two effectuall arguments, to convince the nullity of Lay Elders. The first, from the manner of sitting in the Church: In as much as it hath been shewed, that the Order and custome of it, is to be derived from the A­postles themselves, as being in use in their time. For, if the manner of their sitting in the Church, were so distinguished, that all the Presbyters sate in one Rank, in the up­permost Room, with the Bishop in the midst, that is, in the Head of them, his Seat advan­ced above theirs, as S. Hierome witnesseth of the Bishops of Alexandria from S. Mark, from which manner of sitting, they are cal­led by the Greek Fathers [...], as in the Scriptures [...], and in Tertullian praesidentes, how can common sense desire better evidence, that there are but two qua­lities, generally distinguishable in the Church, the one of Presbyters, sometimes called [...], 1 Tim. V. 17. 1 Thess. V. 14. sometimes [...], Heb. XIII. 14, 17. somtimes Episco­pi, 1 Tim. II. 2. Tit. I. 5, 7. comprehending Bishop and Presbyters for the reasons alle­ged, (for to these the Deacons, as their Mini­sters, are to be referred) the other of the Peo­ple? The same that in Tertullian are called Ordo & Plebs, in all ages of the Church, [Page 123] since the Apostles, the Clergy and People. Secondly, seeing it is manifest, that the Pow­er of the Keys is above the Office of Preach­ing to a Christian Church, (indeed equall to that of celebrating the Eucharist) it follow­eth, that it is against the Order declared by the Scripture, that the Power of the Keys should be in any man, that is not allowed to Preach and celebrate the Eucharist; and therefore, that, by having the Power of the Keys, a man is by Right qualified to doe it. And truly, I doe much marvell, how this consequence can be refused, as to the Office of Preaching, when as S. Paul requires, both of Timothy and Titus, that the Presbyters which they ordain, be, [...], that is, fit to teach. For, no common sense can allow, that the word [...], having the signifi­cation, not from Preaching, but from Go­verning, is not to comprehend Governing Elders as well as Preachers. Therefore the Scriptures make those Preachers, whom the Presbyteries make Governing Elders. Here follows a third argument, drawn from that onely Text of the Apostle, upon which their Lay Elders are grounded, with any appea­rance, 1 Tim. V. 17. Let the Elders that Rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especi­ally those that labour in the Word and Do­ctrine; For, by the Apostles Discourse, it is [Page 124] manifest, and, so far as I perceive, agreed on all hands, that the word Honour, here spoken of, is, maintenance. S. Pauls instruction sup­posing, the Order setled by the Apostles to be this, that there should be, in all Churches, setled in Cities, as aforesaid, a common stock, at the disposing of Bishop and Pres­byters, rising from the Oblations of the faithfull, out of which, first, those that atten­ded upon the Government of the Church, and the Offices of Divine Service, then, those that could not attend the Service of God, without maintenance from the Pub­lique, might finde subsistence. For hereupon it is, that S. Paul chargeth Timothy, to honour widows indeed, that were destitute of main­tenance from their friends, that they might abide in prayers and supplications, as Anna the Prophetesse, Luc. II. 36. and Iudith, VIII. 5. and the good women that waited at the Tabernacle, Ex. XXXVIII. 8. 1 Sam. II. 24. And when he saith, [...], he shews, that there was then a List of them, called here [...], by Church Wri­ters, afterwards, Canon, which, whosoever was entred into, received appointment from the Church, 1 Tim. V. 5, 9, 16. Let it there­fore be said no more, that the distinction be­tween Clergy and people, is not found in the Scriptures. For how can the Office be more [Page 125] expresly distinguished, then by the appoint­ment that is allowed, for the execution of it? And therefore, when S. Peter charges the Presbyters, 1 Pet. V. 3. [...], he means not the people, but he means the same which Clemens in Eusebius, when he says, that S. Iohn was wont to go abroad from Ephesus to forein Churches, on purpose, [...], that is, to Ordain some Clergy man, that should be signified by the Spirit: For in both places, [...], is taken for [...], and so S. Peters precept, [...], consists of two members, not to domineer over the Clergy that were under them, that is, the Deacons, Widows, and Deaconesses, and, to be a Pattern to the Flock. In this Discourse of S. Paul, we have a further reason of difference, between the Clergy and people, from that Rule of life and conversation, to which the Clergy was subject, by the Primitive Discipline of the Church. For, if the Church allowed Wi­dows an appointment, in consideration of their daily attendance, upon the Service of God, much more are we bound to conceive, that Presbyters, whom the Apostle allows a double appointment, are tied to double at­tendance on the same Service. A thing [Page 126] which cannot be expected of those who are tied to the World: and therefore, Tertullian De Praescript. cap. XLI. condemneth the He­reticks, because their fashion was, to make secular men Presbyters. Seeing then, that the Apostle alloweth the same double ap­pointment, to the whole Order of Presby­ters, let them that set up Lay Elders, ask their own Consciences, whether they can be content to allow them the same maintenance from the Church, as themselves receive, otherwise, let them not imagine, that they can set them up by this Scripture. For, that some Presbyters should labour in Preaching, though all are required to be apt to Preach, is no inconvenience, in that State, when Con­gregations were not distinguished, but the whole Office, rested in the whole Order of the Clergy, in relation, to the whole Body, of the People of a Church. You see by S. Paul, 1 Cor. XIV. that one Assembly whereof he speaks there, furnished with a great number of Prophets, whether Pres­byters, or over and above them. In the Re­cords of the Church, we find divers times, a whole Bench of Presbyters presiding at one Assembly. Is any man so unsatiable of Prea­ching, as to think the Church unprovided of it, unlesse all those Preached at all times? Is it not enough, that Timothy is required, to [Page 127] count them especially worthy double honour that labour in it? for by this means, those that laboured not in it, when and how Timo­thy finds it requisite, must know, that their maintenance must come harder from his hands. For the last argument, I must not forget the perpetuall practice of the Church, though I name, for the present, but the words of Clemens, Disciple to the Apostles, who, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, to compose a difference among the Presbyters of that Church, partly about the celebration of the Eucharist, advises them to agree and take their turns in it. If all the Presbyters might take their turns in it, then all might celebrate the Eucharist: if in that Church, then in all Churches. I know many Church Writers are quoted to prove Lay Elders: For that also is grown a point of Learning, to load the Margin with Texts of Scripture, and allegations of Authors, in hope, no man will take the pains to compare them, because, if he do, he shall easily finde them nothing to the purpose. For instance. My self have the honour to be alleged, for one that ap­prove Lay Elders, even in that place, of that very Discourse, where I answer the best ar­guments that ever I heard made for them, onely, because I said then, as now, that we are not bound to think, that all Presbyters [Page 128] Preached during the Apostles times. What reason then can any Reader have to presume, that any of their dead witnesses make more for their purpose, then I who am alive, and stand to see my self alleged, point blank against the position which I intended to prove, because, forsooth, in their understan­ding, the premises which I use, stand not with the conclusion which I intended to prove? But to speak plain English for the future, if any man can shew, by any writing of any Christian, from the Apostles, to this innovation, any man indowed with the Pow­er of the Keys, that was not also qualified to Preach and to celebrate the Eucharist, I am content to be of the Presbyteries the next morning, though I am so well satisfied, that it will never be shewed, that I say con­fidently, it will always be to morrow.

Now because the Power of the Keys, that is, the whole Power of the Church, where­of that Power is the root and source, is common to Bishop and Presbyters, it is here demanded, what Act we can shew, peculiar to the Bishop, by precept of Gods Word, for which, that Order, may be said, to be superiour to that of Presbyters. A demand, sutable to the definition of the Schoole, wherein, an Order is said to be a Power to doe some speciall Act: But extremely wide of [Page 129] the Terms that have been held heretofore. Have we been told all this while, that the Presbyteries are the Throne and Scepter of Christ, the force and Power of his King­dome, hath so much Christian blood been drawn for the Cause, and now, in stead of shewing, that they are either commanded, or consistent with the Word of God, is it de­manded, that the Government in possession, in the Church, from the Apostles, shew reason why it cannot be abolished, though instituted by the Apostles? Surely, though this is possible to be shewed, yet, though it could not be shewed, it might be beyond any Power on earth, to abolish the Order of Bi­shops. For my part, I conceive, I have shew­ed heretofore, that the Power of every re­spective Church, was deposited by the A­postles, with the respective Bishop and Pres­byters, and that therefore, in the ages next to the Apostles, the advice and consent of the Presbyters did concurre with the Bishop, in ordering of Ecclesiasticall matters, where­as Congregations were not yet distinct, but a Bishop and Presbyters, over the common Body of each Church. Over and above what hath been said, the condemning of Mar­cion at Rome, and of Noetus at Ephesus, are expresly said by Epiphanius, Haer. XLII. num. I & II. Haer. LVII. nu. I. to have been done & [Page 130] passed, by the Act of the Presbyters of those Churches; The difference between Alexan­der Bishop, and Arius Presbyter of Alexan­dria, is said to have risen, at a meeting and debate of that Bishop and his Presbyters, in the letter of Constantine to those two, repor­ted by Eusebius, De Vitâ Constant. II. cap. pe­nult. And Epiphanius, Haer. LXIX. num. III. And, which is of a later date, the Excom­munication of Andronicus, in Synesius his fif­ty seventh Epistle, I finde reported, to have passed in the same sort. And all this, agree­able to the practice recorded in the Scri­ptures. For, when S. Paul instructeth Timo­thy, saying, 1 Tim. V. 19, 20. Against a Pres­byter receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke openly, that the rest may fear. Is it not easie to ga­ther from hence, that he commandeth, such accusations to be brought, and proved, be­fore Timothy with the rest of his Presbyters, but the competent censure to be executed, before the whole Congregation of the Church? And, is it not manifest, that S. James, first gives S. Paul audience, in a Con­sistory of the Presbyters, to advise what course to take, before the Congregation be acquainted with the businesse, Acts XXI. 18—? The same being the practice of S. Cyprians time, when Cornelius of Rome wri­teth [Page 131] to him, Epist. XLVI. placuit contrahi Presbyterium; As also expressed in the Apo­stolicall Constitutions, II. 47. by the name of [...] or Consistories appointed there to be held every week, for composing all differences, against the Lords Day. And therefore, as for my part, the learned Blon­dell might have spared all his exact diligence, to shew, that Presbyters did concurre with the Bishop, in acts of this nature. The cun­ning would be in proving the consequence, that therefore, Bishop and Presbyters are all one, which all common sense disavows. For, be it granted, which he insisteth upon so much, that, (as the Commentary upon S. Pauls Epistles under S. Ambrose his Name relateth, Eph. IV. 11.) at the first, the eldest of the Presbyters, was wont to be taken into the place of the Bishop: (For it is probable, that this course was kept in some places, though his conjectures will not serve to prove, that it was a generall Rule) what will this inable him to inferre, as for the power of the Bishop, being once received into the first place? who knows very well the gallant speech of Valentinian, recorded by Ammia­nus, lib. XXVI. to the very Army that had chosen him Emperour, and at the instant of his inauguration, began to mutiny about re­tracting their choice, that it was in their [Page 132] power to choose an Emperour, before they had done it: Intimating, that being chosen, it was not in their power to withdraw their obedience. For by the same reason, whatso­ver be the means that promoted the Bishop, the measure of the power to which he was promoted, must be taken from the Law gi­ven the Church by the Apostles, expressed by the practice of it: As there is no doubt, but the Romane Emperors were advanced to an absolute Power, though by the choice of their Souldiers. It is not my purpose to say, that the Power of the Bishop, in the Church, is such: But it is my purpose, to appeal to common sense, and daily experience, and to demand, whether in those Societies, or Bo­dies, which consist of a standing Councell, and a Head thereof, indowed with the Privi­lege of a Negative, the Power of the Head, and of the severall members, be one and the same? If not, then is there the same diffe­rence between the Bishop and the Presby­ters, by the Scriptures, interpreted by the Originall practice of the Church. The In­structions addressed to Timothy & Titus, I sup­pose, obliged not them alone, but all that were concerned to yeeld obedience, to what, thereby, they are commanded to doe. If any thing, concerning the subject of those instru­ctions, could have passed without Timothy [Page 133] and Titus, they were all a meer nullity. For instance, if, by the Presbyters Votes, Ordi­nation might have been made, without Ti­mothy, they might commit sin, and the blame thereof lie on Timothies score; to which S. Paul, if he lay hands suddenly on any man, makes him liable. So, the Angels of the se­ven Churches, as they are commended for the good, so are they charged with the sins of their Churches. Which, how can it be reasonable, but for the eminent power in them, without which no publick thing could passe? I do here willingly mention Ignatius, because of the injustice of that exception, that is made against him. Surely, had we none but the old Copy, which, for my part, is freely confessed to be interpolated, and mixed with passages of a later hand; I would confidently appeal to the common sense of any man, not fascinated with prejudice, how that can be imagined to be always foisted in, which is the perpetuall subject of all his Epi­stles: Dwelling onely upon the avoiding of Heresy and Schism, and the avoiding of Schism, every where inculcated to consist in this, that without the Bishop nothing be done, and all with advice of the Presbyters. But, it seems to me a speciall act of Provi­dence, that the true Copy of these Epistles, free from all such mixture, is published du­ring [Page 134] this dispute among us. Which, the L. Primate of Ireland having first smelt out, by the Latine Translation which he publi­shed, Isaak Vossius, according as he presu­med, hath now found, and published, out of the Library at Florence, farre enough from suspition of partiality in this cause. Nor is the learned Blondell to be regarded, presu­ming to stigmatize so clear a Record for for­ged. It seemes, that his Book was written before he saw this Copy; and had he not condemned it, in his Preface, he must have suppressed and condemned his own work. But when it appears, that this Record is ad­mitted, as true and native, of all that are able to judge of letters, it must appear, by consequence, that he hath given sentence against his own Book. In the mean time, it is to be lamented, that, by the force of preju­dice, so learned a man, had rather, that the ad­vantage of so many pregnant authorities, of a companion of the Apostles, against the Socinians, should be lost to the Church, then part with his own, whether opinion, or inte­resse, condemned by the same evidence. Cer­tainly, those weak exceptions, from the style of Ignatius, have more in them of will then of reason, to all that have relished that sim­plicity of language, which, (called by S. Paul, [...]) is to be seen in the writings [Page 135] of Apostolicall persons, Irenaeus, Justine, Clemens Romanus, and after them Epiphani­us, and the Apostolicall Constitutions: And he was very forward to finde exceptions, that could imagine, that Ignatius calleth the Order of Bishops [...], because he so qualifieth the Ordination of Damas, Bishop of the Magnesians, being a young man when he was ordained Bishop. As for the mention of the Valentinians Heresie in them, he hath been fully told, again and again, that the seeds of it are extant before Ignatius, in the writings of the Apostles. But, as to my present purpose, he that considers, of what consequence, the Unity of the Church is, to the advancement of Christianity, and of what consequence, not only Ignatius, but S. Cyprian, S. Hierome, and all men of judge­ment, professe the Power of Bishops to be, to the preservation of Unity in the Church, will not begge the question with Blondell, by condemning Ignatius his Epistles, because the one half of the subject of them, is this one Rule, nothing to be done without the Bishop, all things to be done by advice of the Presbyters. That to the Philadelphians is remarkable above the rest, where he affir­meth, that, having no intelligence, from any man, of the divisions that were among them, the Holy Ghost revealing it to him, said [Page 136] within him, for the means of composing them, Without the Bishop let nothing be done. If it be said, that this Rule is ineffectuall, hin­dring, rather then expediting, the course of businesse: The answer is, that it is enough, that thus much is determined by the Apo­stles, the rest remaining to be further limi­ted, by humane right, as the state of the Church shall require.

According to this Rule, it is justly said, that Baptism is not given, but by a Bishop, as it is given only by those, whom the Or­der of any Church, which was never put in force, without the Bishop, inableth to give it. A thing manifestly seen by Confirmati­on. What reason can we imagine, that Phi­lip the Deacon, being inabled to doe mira­cles, for the conversion of the Samaritanes, was not inabled to give the Holy Ghost, but the Apostles must come down to do it? Was it not to shew, that all graces of that kinde, were subject to the graces of the Apostles, in the Visible Church, whereof they were then Chief Governours? So that, as then, those that received the Holy Ghost, were thereby demonstrated to be members of the Visible Church, in which God evidenced his pre­sence, by that grace: So was it always found requisite, that Christians be acknowledged members of the Visible Church, by the Pray­ers [Page 137] and Blessing of their Successors. Which Order, as it serves to demonstrate this Suc­cession, to all that are void of prejudice, so, had it been improved, to this Apostolicall intent, what time as all Christians began to be baptized in infancy, (renuing the contract of Christianity, that is, the promise of Bap­tism, and the Chief Pastors acknowledge­ment of them, for members of the Church, upon that contract, by blessing them with Imposition of Hands) without doubt, it had been, and were, the most effectuall mean, to retain, and retrive the ancient Discipline of Church. When men might see themselves, by their own solemne profession, obliged, to forfeit the communion of the Church, by forfeiting the terms, on which they were ad­mitted to it. If it can thus be said, that Baptism is not given without the Bishop, much more will the same be said, of other acts, of the Power of the Keys, whereof that is the first. Presbyters have an interesse in it, limitable by Canonicall Right, but, as to the Visible Church, that any man be ex­communicate, without a Bishop, is against this Rule of the Apostles. About Ordinati­ons, divers matters of fact, are in vain alle­ged by Blondell, and others, from the anci­ent Records of the Church, tending to de­grade Bishops into the rank of Presbyters. [Page 138] If the Gothes, from the time of Valeriane to the Councell of Nice, for some LXX years, (as he conjectureth out of Philostorgius II. 5.) if the Scots before Palladius, as Fordone III. 8. and John Maire II. 2. relate, retained Christi­anity under Presbyters alone, without Bi­shops, they had not, in that estate, the pow­er of governing their own Churches in them­selves, but depended on their neighbours, that ordained them those Presbyters, and the Government of the Church among them then must be, as now among the Abassines, where their one Bishop does nothing but Or­dain them Presbyters, as Godignus, ubi supra, relates: And, as the Catholick Christians of Antiochia lived, for some XXXIV years af­ter the banishment of Eustathius: Theodo­ret. Eccles. Hist. I. 21. But, if the Gothes had Bishops before Vlfitas, at the Councell of Nice, as he shews out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories, is any man so mad as to grant him, who never endeavours to prove it, that they were made by their own Presbyters, rather then by the neighbour Bishops of the Ro­mane Empire, from whence they received Christianity? The Head of a Monastery in Aegypt, being a Presbyter, is said, by Cassiane, Collat. IV. 2. to have promoted a Monk whom he loved, to the Priesthood. Is not this done, by recommending him to his Bi­shop, [Page 139] for that purpose, though he Ordained him not himself? The Bishops of Durham and Lichfield, are said by Bede, Eccles. Hist. Angl. III. 3, 5. to come from the Monastery of Hy, governed by a Priest. And, it is true, that the Monks of that Monastery, having great reputation of holinesse, swaied the Church there. But withall, Bede mentions expresly, the Synod of the Province, and therefore we need ask no further who Ordai­ned them Bishops, knowing, that by the Primitive Rules of the Church, it is the Act of a Synod. Some seem to conceive this to be the meaning of the supposed S. Ambrose, upon Eph. IV. 11. where he saith, that, at first, the eldest of the Presbyters succeeded the Bishop, but that afterwards the course was changed, ut non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum; which they understand thus: That his merit, and not the Bench of Pres­byters, should make the Bishop thenceforth; and therefore, that formerly, the Presbyters did it. But this is nothing: For it is plain, that Ordo here, signifies not the Bench of Presbyters, but a mans Rank in it, according to the time of his promotion to it. These & others of his slight Objections, are easily wiped away: But there are two, which seem to most men, to create some difficulty. The one is the ninth Canon of the Councell of [Page 140] Ancyra, which, if the reading be true which he produces, and Walo Messalinus presses, in­timates plain enough, that City Presbyters might Ordain Presbyters, at that time when it was made: The other is the Antiquities of the Church of Alexandria, published not long since, out of Eutychius his History, who was Patriarch there in his time, and affirms, that from S. Mark to Demetrius, the Bishop there, was not only chosen, but Ordained, by Imposition of the Hands of twelve Presby­ters of that Church. To the Canon of An­cyra, I acknowledge, that the reading which they follow, is, beside the Copies which they allege, found in a very ancient written one of the Library at Oxford, as well as in the old Latine Translation of Dionysius Exiguus, [...]. That it be not lawfull for Country Bishops, to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons: Nor for the City Presbyters; without leave granted from the Bishop, by Letters in every Pa­rish. But I cannot grant this reading to be true, which so many circumstances render questionable. First, in an Arabick Paraphrase, now extant in the same Library, there is no­thing to be found of that clause, [...] [Page 141] [...]. Secondly, Isidore Mercators Translation, which seems to be that which was anciently received in the Spa­nish Churches before Dionysius Exiguus, wherewith that Copy agreed, which Herve­tus translated, as also Fulgentius his Breviate, Can. XCII. and the Copy of Dionysius Exi­guus, which Pope Adriane the I. followed, hath onely this, Vicariis Episcoporum, quos Graeci Chorepiscopos vocant, non licere Presby­teros vel Diaconas Ordinare. Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis, sine Episcopi praecepto, amplius ali­quid imperare, vel sine authoritate literarum ejus, in unaquaque Parochiâ, aliquid agere. Thirdly, can the reading of the last words [...] seem pro­bable to reasonable persons? what conse­quence of sense is there in saying, unlesse li­cense be granted by letters in every Parish? Which is plain in this reading, when it is said, That the City Presbyters do nothing in the Parish, that is, in the Country or Diocese, without authority by the Bishops letters. Fourth­ly, seeing this is that, which is afterwards provided for, by the Councel of Laodicea, Ca. LVI. in the same subject, it seems very pro­bable, that this should be the provision which the Councell of Ancyra intended, as all Ig­natius his Epistles, and other Canons Apost. XL. Arelat. XIX. expresse it. Though, for [Page 142] my part, I do not beleeve, that we have the true reading of this Canon, in any Copy, that I have heard of or seen: Because the Arabick Paraphrase aforesaid, deduces the clause of the Country Bishops at large, that it is not granted them, Vt faciant Presbyteros neque Diaconos, omnino, neque in Villa neque in Vrbe, absque mandato Episcopi: Nisi rogatus fuerit Episcopus hac de re, & permiserit eis ut faciant eos, necnon scripserit eis scriptum, quod autho­ritatem dabit eis eadem de re. Whereupon, I do beleeve, that the Canon is abridged and curtailed in all Copies, and that the true in­tent of it, consists in two clauses: The first, that Country Bishops Ordain neither Pres­byters nor Deacons, without leave under the Bishops hand: The second, that the City Presbyters do nothing in the Diocese with­out the like leave: Though I undertake not to give you the words of mine own head. As for Eutychius, I cannot admit his relation to be Historicall truth, having forfeited his credit in that part of it, where he says, that there were no Bishops in Aegypt, beside him of Alexandria, before Demetrius. The con­trary whereof appears by Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. VI. 1. where he says of Aegypt, [...]. That then lately, Demetrius after Julian, had undertook [Page 143] the Bishoprick of the Dioceses there. For where there were Dioceses, there were Bi­shops: And if Demetrius after Julian, go­verned the Dioceses of Aegypt, because Bi­shop of Alexandria, then were there other E­piscopall Churches in that Province, besides Alexandria, before Demetrius. Indeed, if there had been no Bishops under Alexandria, it could not reasonably be avoided, that the Bishop should be Ordained by the Presby­ters: Otherwise, forein Bishops, that should be called to Ordain them a Bishop, must, by so doing, purchase a Power over that Church, which never any can be said to have had, over those Capitall Churches, of An­tiochia, Rome, Alexandria, or Constantinople. But, supposing that there were Bishops under him of Alexandria, it is a greater inconveni­ence to grant, that their Chief should be made, without their consent, (which Ordi­nation implies, by the often quoted rule of S. Paul, 1 Tim. V. 22.) by the Presbyters of Alexandria. And therefore, when S. Hierome says, Epist. LXXXV. that Bishops were set over the Presbyters, by custome of the Church, to avoid Schism, because that, A­lexandriae à Marco Evangelista usque ad He­raclam & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum, Episcopum nominabant: At Alex­andria, [Page 144] from Mark the Evangelist, till Hera­clas and Dionysius were Bishops, the Presbyters were wont to choose one of their number, and placing him in a higher degree, named him their Bishop: I am not to grant, that he intends by these words, that he was Ordained also by the Presbyters. For instance, Eusebius, Ec­cles. Hist. VI. 29. relating, that at the Ordina­tion of Fabianus at Rome, a Dove lighting upon his head, the people crying out, [...], Tooke him presently, and set him in the Bishops Throne: And yet it cannot be said, that, therefore, the people Ordained him Bishop. So likewise, the Pres­byters of Alexandria seated one of their num­ber in the Bishops Chair, saith S. Hierome: This installing, must needs have the force of a nomination by the Presbyters, and so sway and prejudice the consent of the Bishops as­sembled to the Ordination, (which regular­ly was to be done by a Synod of Bishops) that their choice was never known to have been void, before the time of Dionysius and Heraclas, which was enough to ground S. Hierome an argument, though ineffectuall. But seeing Eusebius shews us, that there were other Bishops in Aegypt, seeing the life of S. Mark in Photius saith, that he planted Churches in Pentapolis, (which seem to be [Page 145] those, over which, the authority of the Bi­shop of Alexandria is established, by the Councell of Nice, Can. IX.) I must not grant, that they received their chief from the Pres­byters of Alexandria, without their own consent, expressed by Imposition of Hands. This is my opinion of the credit which we are to give to these two passages, in point of Historicall truth. But supposing, not gran­ting them both, I cannot see what can be inferred from either of them, prejudiciall to the Order of Bishops, and the necessity thereof, above Presbyters. For seeing it is acknowledged, that S. Mark Ordained, a Bi­shop always to be Head of that Church, and that by virtue of this Ordinance, the Pres­byters finde themselves obliged, to proceed to create one, (which they did sooner at A­lexandria, then in other Churches, after the vacancy, saith Epiphanius, Haer. LXIX. 11.) it is manifest, that the authority of a Bishop, is necessary, to the validity of all Acts of the Church, by S. Marks Ordinance: when they acknowledge themselves necessitated, to make one, in the first place, that the Acts thereof may be valid. Again, as to the Ca­non of Ancyra, suppose Presbyters were Or­dained by Presbyters, upon Commission from the Bishop, is this any prejudice to the Rule, that nothing be done without the Bi­shop? [Page 146] Or is it any advantage to them, that would have no Bishops, and so, do all against the Bishop? To my reason, it seems neces­sary to distinguish, between the solemnity which an Act is executed with, and the Pow­er and Authority by which it is done. And that it cannot be prejudiciall to any Power, to doe that by another, which seemeth not fit, to be immediately and personally exe­cuted by it: The dependence of the Church being safe, by the Commission acknowled­ged, and, the Unity of the Church, by that dependence. Some acts of the Primitive Church, seem to require this distinction. As, the making of Presbyters, by the Chore­piscopi or Country Bishops, mentioned in the ancient Greek Canons. Which, by all likelihood, were not properly Bishops, be­cause not Heads of a City Church, which is the Apostolicall Rule, for Episcopall Chur­ches. For, the aforesaid Arabick Paraphrase, of the Canon of Ancyra, describes them thus: Interpretatio ejus est Episcopi Villarum, hoc est, Vicarii Episcopi per Villas habitatas, qua fuerint in universa operatione, id est Diocesi. The meaning of Country Bishops, is, that they are Bishops of Villages, that is, the Bishops Vi­cars, in the best inhabited Villages, of all the Diocese. So, it seems that they were set over the greater Villages, or Bodies of Villages, [Page 147] which, in regard of some secular Right, re­sort to some one Village, lying within the Territory of some Episcopall City. There­fore the Councell of Antiochia saith expres­ly, Can. X. that they and the Countries which they govern, are both subject to the Bishop of the City: Whereupon it seems they were Ordained by that one Bishop, (and, so, not properly Bishops, which are Ordained by a Synod, or the Representatives of it) and that this is the [...], which the Canon there mentions. And this is the reason, why they are called Vicarii Episcopo­rum, Bishops Deputies, in the ancient Trans­lation of the Canons, as you have seen. So, if the Canon of Ancyra enable them to Or­dain Presbyters within their own precinct, (for that must be the meaning of it, when it says [...], signifying part of the Territory of the City, assigned to their pe­culiar care) it seems to delegate this Power of the Bishop, not to be exercised, without Letters under his hand and seal, as the Ca­non expresseth. Again, I suppose, no man will deny, that all Ordinations in Schism are meer nullities, though made by persons rightly Ordained, because against the Unity of the Church. And yet, we finde such Or­dinations made valid, by the meer Decree of the Church, without Ordaining anew. As [Page 148] the Meletians in Aegypt, by the Councell of Nice, in Epiphanius, and the Ecclesiasticall Histories; and, as Pope Melchiades, much commended for it by S. Augustine, offered, to receive all the Donatists in their own ranks, besides divers others that might be produced. Among which, that expressed in the Canons Antioch. XIII. Apost. XXXVI. deserves to be remembred, whereby, Ordina­tions made in another Bishops Diocese are made void. For the only reason why some things, though they be ill done, yet are to stand good, is, because the Power that doth them extendeth to them, but is ill used. So, when the Power is usurped, as in all Schism, or when that is done, which the Law makes void, it can be to no effect. Therefore, when the act of Schism is made valid, it is manifest, that the Order of Bishop & Presbyter, is conferred, in point of Right, by the meer consent of the Church, which, by the precedent Ordinati­on, was conferred only in point of Fact, be­ing a meer nullity in point of Right. Adde hereunto, that of the Apostolicall Constitu­tions VIII. 27. that a Bishop may be Ordai­ned by one Bishop, being inabled by an Or­der of the rest of the Province, when they cannot assemble, in case of persecution, or the like. For, here, the Power is derived from all, though the solemnity be executed [Page 149] by one. By the same reason it is, that Confir­mation, in Aegypt, was done by the Presby­ters: As the supposed S. Ambrose, upon Eph. IV. (agreeing with the Author of the Quae­stions in Vet. & Novum Testam. Quaest. CI. among S. Augustines Works) witnesseth: For that is it, which the one of them means by consignant, the other by consecrat, because both limit their assertion, that it was onely done in the absence of the Bishop Which cannot be supposed at Ordinations, because they were regularly to be made at a Synod of Bishops. For, seeing it was done onely in the absence of the Bishop, by consequence, it was done by Order and Commission from the Bishop, by which the custome was esta­blished. And therefore, cannot be prejudi­ciall to that Power, by virtue whereof it was done, as by authority derived from it. And, to my understanding, this is the reason of that which we finde done Acts XIII. 1—where, Paul and Barnabas, being Ordained, by the immediate act of the Holy Ghost, to Preach to the Gentiles, the solemnity thereof is per­formed by those, in whom we cannot ima­gine, the Power of sending them to rest. In which opinion I am much confirmed, by the practice of the Synagogue. For, though it is manifest, that the custome of promoting Judges by Imposition of Hands, came from [Page 150] the example of Moses, and the Ordaining of the LXX Elders, and Joshua, yet we must beleeve their Records, compiled by Maimo­ni, [...]. de Synedrio, cap. IV. when they tell us, that, in processe of time, it was done without that solemnity, by an Instrument, or so, and yet, still called, neverthelesse, [...], that is, Imposition of Hands.

And now, let them that demand, what is that speciall Act, which Bishops are able to do, and Presbyters not, take their choice. If they be content, that, the Bishops acting with this Interesse, that without him nothing be done, be counted a speciall Act, they have the speciall Act which they demand, in all things that are done in the Church. If they be not, though it is easie enough to dispute it everlastingly, yet I will not contend with them about it, seeing it is enough, that no­thing is done without him, to make him a fair step above his Presbyters. And yet, I conceive, there is an Act to be named, pecu­liar to Bishops, which is, to sit in a Councell. Which, consisting of the representatives of all Churches, and not capable of all Presby­ters, and the Bishops right being, that with­out him nothing be done in his Church, it follows, that, by the right, by which he is a Bishop, he is a member of his Synod, which no Priest can be, but by Privilege, seeing [Page 151] the whole Order cannot. And this according to the Scriptures. For, by the premises, the Apostles had place in the Councell at Jeru­salem, as Ordinary Governours of the Chur­ches concerned in it, which Churches, had there no other representatives but Paul and Barnabas, (as Heads of the Churches, which they had founded so lately, Acts XIII. XIV.) as it appeares, when, by them, the Decree is delivered to executi­on in the Churches, Acts XVI. 4. As for the Presbyters mentioned in it, the same evi­dence, which assures us that they were Pres­byters, assures us also, that they were Presbyters of the Church at Jerusalem, and none else. This I conceive the fittest, to be thought the speciall Act of a Bishop. For, the unity of the whole Church, arises from the Power, deposited in each Church: By virtue whereof, he that communicates with any one Church, in any rank of it, commu­nicates with all Churches in the same. Which, was in the Primitive Church, the ef­fect of the literae formatae, or, letters of mark, by which, this Unity of the Ancient Church was maintained, in as much as, he that tra­velled with such a testimony, of his rank in any one Church, by virtue of the same, was received, in all Churches where he came. And therefore Synesius, in the sentence of [Page 152] excommunication against Andronicus, which, by his fifty seventh Epistle, he publisheth to the Churches, addeth, that if any Church, contemning the sentence of his Church, as a small and a poor one, should receive Andro­nieus to communion, without satisfaction gi­ven to him and his Church, thereby it shall become guilty of Schism. This holds, as such Acts are not questioned by any greater part of the Church, as not concerning the State of other Churches. Which if they be, then, as no Church, can be concluded but by the Act to which themselves concur, (whereby, all Excommunications, & Ordinations, as wel as making of Canons, are the subject of Sy­nods) so, the chief Power, must needs be most seen, in that Act which concludes all Chur­ches concerned, which is the Act of a Synod.

As concerning the objection, that there is no precept in the Scripture, that Bishops govern all Churches, and that many things Ordained by the Apostles, are abolished in the Church: It is a question, whether it come from lesse skill, or proceed to worse conse­quence: For, unlesse we will betray the ad­vantages of the Church, to very many, and perhaps, to all Heresies and Schisms that ever were, we must confesse, that, as there are precepts in the Scripture, that oblige not, so there are many things, not set down [Page 153] in the Scripture in the form of precepts, that oblige. What can be delivered, in a more expresse form of precept, then that of Saint Paul, That women pray with their heads cove­red, men with theirs uncovered; and yet, where is it in force? The same is to be said of the Decree of Jerusalem, against eating things strangled and blood. On the other side, we finde by the Scriptures, that the A­postles kept the Lords Day, but do not find there, that they commanded it to be kept: As for the fourth Commandement, I sup­pose, it is one thing to rest on the day that God ceased his work, and another, on the day that he began it. And, if there be pre­cepts in the Scripture, that now oblige not, why may not Secinus dispute, that the pre­cept of Baptism was temporary, for them, that had been enemies to the Faith afore? And though I say not that he shall have the better hand, (for the truth cannot be contra­ry to the truth) yet, it shall not be possible, for every Christian to discern, whether he hath it or no, unlesse there be some more sen­sible ballast, then nice consequences from the Text of the Scripture. If it be thus of Bap­tism, much more of the Eucharist, which, as you saw, is not used any more in the Church, as it was instituted. As for the Power of the Keys, it is, absolutely, by this [Page 154] answer, betraied to the Socinians, who would have it peculiar to the Apostles: For, it is no where delivered as a Precept, but onely as a Privilege. What means is there then to end everlasting difficulties? Surely, the same that there is, to understand all positive Laws that ever were. For if the ancient interrup­tion of the practice of any Law, secure the Church, that it was not given to all times and places, sure, that which is not mentioned as a Precept, and yet has been always in pra­ctice, without interruption, as it was in force afore it was mentioned, so was intended to oblige, not by the mention, but by the act that first established it, evidenced by practice. Which if it be so, then is there no Power on earth, able to abolish the Order of Bishops, having been in force, in all Churches, ever since the Apostles.

I must not passe this place of limiting all Interests, without a word or two, of the Of­fice of Deacons in the Church. In regard of two extreme opinions, one of Geneva, that makes them meer Lay men, collectors of Alms, by necessary consequence, because un­der their Lay Elders; the other of some, that would have them understood to be Presby­ters, as oft as S. Paul mentions but two Or­ders of Bishops and Deacons, Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. II. 9. But as the Apostles were at first [Page 155] their own Deacons, before the Church al­lowed them some to wait on them, and yet their whole function was then holy, though some parts of it, nearer to the end of the souls health: So, when Deacons were made, reason inforces, that they should attend on the meanest part of the Office of the Apo­stles, but always on holy duties. For, the Tables which the Apostles saw first furni­shed themselves, but were attended by the Deacons in doing it, when they were made, were the same, which S. Paul speaks of, 1 Cor. XI. 20—which the Eucharist was ce­lebrated at, as the custome was daily to doe at Jerusalem, Acts II. 42, 46. and therefore, their office, by this, was the same then, as al­ways it hath been since, to wait upon the ce­lebration of the Eucharist. Secondly, I have shewed afore, that even the Apostles and their followers the Evangelists, were also Deacons, with as much difference, as there is between the persons whom they served, that is, between our Lord and his Apostles on one side, and the Bishop and Presbyters of a Church on the other. Whereupon the Ministers of Bishops and Presbyters, are cal­led Deacons absolutely, and the word [...], without any addition, signifies, to exe­cute a Deacons Office, 1 Tim. III 10. But the Apostles and Evangelists are called Deacons, [Page 156] with additions, signifying, whose Ministers, or to what speciall purpose, as hath been said. Thirdly, when S. Paul says, They that doe the office of a Deacon well, purchase them­selves a good step, 1 Tim. II. 13. Clemens A­lexandrinus, and the practice of the Church, interprets this step, to be the rank of Pres­byters: Therefore they were in the next de­gree to it afore. Fourthly, it hath been shewed, that they sate not, but stood in the Church, as attending the Bishop and Pres­byters sitting, and yet were imploied in the Offices of Preaching and Baptizing. And accordingly, in the Primitive Church, a great part of the Service, reading Lessons, singing Psalms, and some part of the Prayers, were ministred by them, as I have shewed in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service, cap. X. Which held correspondently in the Syna­gogue. For, the Ministers and Apparitors of their Consistories, were also their Deacons, and ministred Divien Service in the Syna­gogue. Whereby it appears, to be the Ordi­nance of the Apostles, that the younger sort of those that dedicated themselves to the service of the Church, should be trained up in the service of the Bishop and Presbyters, as well to the understanding of Christia­nity, as to the right exercise of Ecclesia­sticall Offices, that, in their time, such as pro­ved [Page 157] capable, might come to govern in the Church themselves.

That which remains, concerning the In­teresse of the People in the Church, will be easily discharged, if we remember, that it must be such, as may not prejudice, either the dependence of Churches, or the Chief Power of the Bishop, with the Presbyters, in each particular Church. The Law of the XII Tables, Salus populi suprema lex esto, though it were made for a popular State, not for a Kingdome, yet admits a difference be­tween populus and plebs: and requires the chief Rule to be, the good, both of Senate and Commons, not of one part alone. So like­wise, that which is said, in the Scriptures, to have been done by the Church, must not therefore be imagined, to be done by the People: Because the Church consists of two parts, called by Tertullian O [...]do and Plebs, in the terms of latter times, the Clergy and People, but preserving the respective Inte­rests of Clergy and People. In the choice of Matthias it is said, They set two, Acts I. 23. what they, but the Church? in which the People, were then better Christians, then to abridge the Apostles, but, proportionably, they are always to respect the Bishop and Presbyters, if they will obey the Apostles, that command it, 1 Thess. V. 12, 13. Heb. XIII. [Page 158] 7, 17. So, when S. Paul says, Doe not ye judge those that are within, 1 Cor. V. 12. speaks he to the People, or to the Church, that is, to the Bench of Presbyters, and the People, in their severall interests, and that, not without dependence upon the Apostles? The words of our Lord Dic Ecclesiae, Mat. XVIII. 18. make much noise. At the end of my Book, of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service, p. 428▪ you have a passage of S. Augustine, Cont. Epist. Parmen III. 2. that Excommuni­cation is the sentence of the Church. And yet, I suppose, no man hath the confidence to dispute, that in S. Augustines time, it was the sentence of the People. So, the Excom­munication of Andronicus, in Synesius his se­ven and fiftieth Epistle, is intitled to the Church, yet no man imagines that the Peo­ple then did excommunicate. Is not the case the same in the Synagogue? Moses is com­manded to speak to the Congregation of the children of Israel, and he speaks to the Elders, Exod. XII. 2, 25. does Moses disobey God in so doing, or, does he understand the com­mand of God, better then this opinion would have him, in speaking to the Elders, who, he knew, were to act on behalf of the People? The Law commands the Congre­gation to offer for ignorance, Lev. IV. 13, 14. Num. XV. 22, 24. how shall all the Congre­gation [Page 159] offer? Maimoni answers in the Title of Errors, cap. XII. & XIII. that the great Consistory offers, as often as they occasion the breach of the Law, by Teaching, that is, interpreting it erroneously. In the Law of the Cities of Refuge, it is said, The Con­gregation shall judge, and the Congregation shall deliver the manslayer, Num. XXXV. 35, 36. The Elders of the City of Refuge were to judge, in presence, and in behalf of the People, whether the manslayer was capable of the privilege of the City of Refuge, or not, as you reade Joshua XX. 4, 6. seeing then, that these things, being done by the Elders, are said to be done by the Syna­gogue, or Assembly of the People, in behalf of whom they are done, is it a wrong to the Scriptures, when we say, that which they re­port to be done by the Church, was acted by the chief power of the Apostles and Pres­byters, with consent of the People? For it is manifest in the Scriptures, that, in the A­postles times, all publique Acts of the Church, were passed at the publique Assem­blies of the same, as Ordinations, Acts I. 23. VI. 3, 6. Excommunications, Mat. XVIII. 18, 19, 20. 1 Cor. V. 4. 2 Cor. II. 10. Coun­cels, Acts XV. 4, 27. Other Acts, 2 Cor. VIII. 19. And herewith agrees the Primitive cu­stome of the Church, for divers ages, to be [Page 160] seen in a little Discourse of the Learned Blondell, Of the Right of the People in the Church, published of late. And can this be thought to no purpose, unlesse it dissolve the Unity of the Church, or that obedience to the Clergy, which God commandeth? Is it nothing, to give satisfaction to the People, of the integrity of the proceedings of the Church, and by the same mean, to oblige superiours to that integrity, by ma­king the proceedings manifest, and so to preserve the Unity of the Church? I say not, that these times are capable of such sa­tisfaction, upon the like terms, as them: But from this practice under the Apostles, I shall easily grant the people an Interesse, in such things as may concern their particular Congregations, of excepting against such proceedings, as can appear to them, to be against any Rule of the Scripture, or of the whole Church. For, this Interesse it is, upon which, the people is demanded, in the Church of England, what they have to say, against Ordinations and Mariages to be made. And if their satisfaction, in matter of Penance, were to be returned, it would be no more then the same reason inferres. Especially, because it hath been shewed, that the prayers of the People, or of the Church, is one part of the means, to take [Page 161] 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 [Page 162] 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 [Page 163] 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.

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 [Page 164] 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, [Page 165] 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 [Page 166] 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 [Page 167] 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 [Page 168] 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, [Page 169] 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 [Page 171] besides acknowledges, the whole to be bound by the act of the greater part: But requiring, that every mans conscience be sa­tisfied, in every thing that the Church does, unlesse some happily appear wilfull, whom, by way of penalty, they neglect for that time. As for those of the Presbyteries, I cannot deny that they grant the Church this Power: But, it seems, upon condition that it may rest in themselves: For, to the Laws of this Church, in which they received and pro­fessed Christianity, they oppose the saying of the Apostle, that it stands not with chari­ty, for the Church to injoin any thing, which weak consciences may be offended at: And that of our Lord, that this would be will-worship, and serving of God according to humane traditions, which are all the argu­ments, which those of the Congregations allege for their opinion, so farre as I can learn. It will be, therefore, worth the while, to consider the cases, which the Apostle de­cides, upon that principle, though I have done it in part already, in my larger Dis­course, p. 309. for, so long as the case is not understood, in which the Apostle alleges it, no marvell, if it be brought to prove that, which he never intended by it. We know he resolves, both the Romanes, and the Corinthi­ans by this sentence: With the Corinthians, [Page 172] the case was concerning the eating of things sacrificed to Idols: which, the Apostle ma­nifestly distinguishes, that it may be done two ways, materially, and formally: mate­rially, when a man eats it as a creature of God, giving him thanks for it; which the Apostle therefore determines to be agreeable to Chri­stianity, 1 Cor. VIII. 7. formally, when a man eats it with conscience of the Idoll, as a thing sacrificed to it, as the Apostle expresses it, that is, with a religious respect to it, which, therefore, he shews at large to be Ido­latry, 1 Cor. X. 7, 14—Wherefore, though things sacrificed to Idols, be as free for Christians to eat, as any men else, yet, in some cases, and circumstances, it so fell out, that a Christian, eating with a Gentile, of their Sacrifices, (the remains whereof, were the cheer, which they feasted upon, and their Feasts, part of the Religion, which they ser­ved their Idols with) might be thought, by a weak Christian, to hold their Sacrificing, as indifferent, as their meat, and he that thus thought, be induced, to eat them, formally, as things offered to Idols: As eating them in the Temples of Idols, or, at a Feast made by a Gentile, upon occasion of some Sacrifi­ces, 1 Cor. VIII. 10. X. 27. In this case, the Apostle determines, that charity requires a Christian, to forbear the use of his free­dome, [Page 173] when the use of it, may occasion a weak Christian, to fall into misprision of I­dolatry. But, among the Romanes, the case which S. Paul speaks to, was between Chri­stians converted from Jews, and from Gen­tiles; as appears by the particulars, which he mentions to be scrupled at, to wit, days and meats, kom. XIV. 2, 5. and the offence likely thereby to come to passe, this, that Jewish Christians, seeing the Heathenish eat things forbidden by the Law, (and, perhaps, among the rest things sacrificed to Idols, forbidden, not by the letter of the Law, but by the in­terpretation and determination of it, in force, by the authority of the Synagogue, or Con­sistory) might imagine, that Christians re­nounced the Law of God, and, by conse­quence, the God of the Law, and so, out of zeal to the true God, fall from Christianity and perish: For this is, manifestly, the offence, and stumbling, which the Apostle speaks of, Rom. XIV. 13, 15, 20. as I have shewed out of Origen, in the place afore quoted. Here is then the sentence of the Apostle, that, when the use of those things, wherein Chri­stians are not limited by the Law of God, becomes an occasion of falling into sin, to those that understand not the reason, of the freedome of Christians, charity requires a Christian, to forbear the use of this freedom. [Page 174] From whence, who so inferres, that there­fore, no Ecclesiasticall Law can be of force, when it meets with a weak conscience, and therefore never, because it may always meet with such, will conclude the contrary of the Apostles meaning. For, when Christianity makes all things free to a Christian, that are not limited by Gods Law, it makes not the use of this freedome necessary to Christiani­ty, the Apostle saying expresly, that the Kingdome of God is not meat and drink, Rom. XIV. 17. by consequence, not the observing, or not observing of days: That is, consists no more, in not eating, or not observing days, then in eating, & in observing them. So that, as he, that submits unto the Law of charity, must forbear his freedome once, and as of­ten as the use of it ministreth offence, so for the same reason, must he always forbear the use of it, whensoever the use of it comes to be restrained, though not by Gods Law, yet by the Law of the Church: Because the greatest offence, the greatest breach of chari­ty, is▪ to call in question, the Order establi­shed in the Church, in the preservation whereof, the Unity of the Church consisteth. Whereunto thus much may be added, that, as the things that are determined by the Canons of the Church, are not determined by Gods Law, as to the species of the mat­ter [Page 175] and subject of them, yet, as to the autho­rity from whence the determination of them may proceed, they may be said to be deter­mined by Gods Law, in as much as by Gods Law that authority is established, by which those things are determinable, which the good Order and Unity of the Church re­quires to be determined. The evidence of which authority, is as expresse in Gods Book, as it can be in any Book inspired by God. Those of the Congregations indeed, betake themselves here, to a Fort, which, they think, cannot be approached, when they say, that, what is written in the Scripture, is revealed from above, and therefore, the Laws that are there recorded, are no precedents to the Church, to use the like right. For, it is manifest, by the Scriptures of the Old Te­stament, that there were many Laws, Ordi­nances, Constitutions, or what you please to call them, in force at that time, which no Scripture can shew, to have been comman­ded by revelation from God, as the Law of God. Daniel forbore the Kings meat, be­cause, a portion of it, was sacrificed to their Idols, dedicating the whole to the honour of the same: That is, he forbore to eate things sacrificed to Idols materially. There­fore, that Order which we see was afterwards in force among the Jews, was then in use and [Page 176] practice: Not by the written Law of God; therefore by the determination of those, whom the Law gave Power to determine such matters. The Prophet Joel reckons up many circumstances, and ceremonies, of the Jews publick Fasts and Humiliations, Joel II. 15, 16, 17. which are so farre from being commanded by the law, that the Jews Do­ctors confesse, there is no further Order, for any Fasts, in the Law, then that which they draw, by a consequence far enough fetched, out of Num. X. 9. where Order is given for making the Trumpets, which, they say, and the Prophet supposes, that their Fasts were proclaimed with. Maimoni, Tit. Taanith, cap. I. In another Prophet, Zac. VII. 3. VIII. 19. it appears, that there were set Fasts which they were bound to solemnize every year, on the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth moneths: As also it appears by the words of the Pha­risee, Luc. XVIII. 12. that, the Mundays and Thursdays, were then, and before then, observed by the Jews, as since they have been: And, as you see the like done, in the Feast of Lots, ordained in Esthers time; and, that of the Dedication, in Judas Maccabcus his; And, in the same Prophet, Zac. XII. 12, 13, 14. you have a manifest allusion, to the Jews ceremonies, at their Funerals, recorded by Maimont in the title of Mourners, cap. IX. [Page 177] clearly shewing, that they were in force in that Prophets time: As it is manifest, that they began, before the Law it self, not only by that which we reade of the Funerals of Jacob in Genesis, but chiefly, because it required an expresse Law of God, to derogate from it, as to the Priests, in the case of Aarons sons, Levit. X. 6. XXI. 1, 10, 11, 12. Many more there are to be observed in the Old Testa­ment, if these were not enough to evidence, that which cannot be denied, that it appears indeed by Scripture, that there were such Laws in force, but that they were comman­ded by revelations from God, is quite ano­ther thing: Though men of learning, some­times, make themselves ridiculous, by mis­taking, as if all that is recorded in the Scri­ptures, were commanded by God, when, all that comes from God, is, the record of them, as true, not the authority of them, as divine. The case is not much otherwise in the New Testament, where, it is manifest, that many Constitutions, Ordinances, or Traditions, (as the Apostle sometimes calls them, 1 Cor. XI. 2.) are recorded, which no man can say, that they obliged not the Church; and yet, this force of binding the Church, comes not from the mention of them, which we finde, in severall places of Scripture; (For, they must needs be in force, [Page 178] before they could be mentioned, as such, in the Scriptures) but, from that Power, which God had appointed, to order and determine such things, in his Church. This difference indeed there is between the Old and New Testament, that this, being all written in the Apostles time, can mention nothing of that nature, but that, which, comming from the Apostles, might come by immediate revela­tion from God: Which of the Old cannot be said. For, though there were Prophets, in all ages of it, and those Prophets endow­ed with such trust, that if they commanded to dispense with any of Gods own positive Laws, they were to be obeyed, as appears by Elias, commanding to Sacrifice in Mount Carmell, contrary to the Law of Levit. XVII. 4. (and this, by virtue of the Law, Deut. XVIII. 18, 19. because, he that gave the Law by Moses, might, by another, as well dispense with it) yet it is manifestly certain, that ne­verthelesse, they had not the power of ma­king those Constitutions, which were to bind the people, in the exercise of their Religion, according to the Law. For, when the Law, makes them subject, to be judged by the Consistory, whether true Prophets or not; (whereupon, we see, that they were many times persecuted, and our Lord, at last put to death, by them, that would not acknow­ledge [Page 179] them, because they had not the grace to obey them, as you saw afore;) it cannot be imagined, that they were enabled, to any such act of government, as giving those Laws to the Synagogue. Especially, seeing, by the Law, of Deut. XVII. 8-12. this power, and this right, is manifestly setled upon the Con­sistory. For seeing, that, by the Law, all que­stions arising about the Law, are remitted to the place of Gods worship, where the Con­sistory sate in all ages; and, the determina­tion of a case doubtfull in Law, to be obey­ed under pain of death, is, manifestly, a Law which all are obliged to live by: of necessity therefore, those who have power to deter­mine what the written Law had not deter­mined, doe give Law to the people. And this right, our Lord himself, who, as a Pro­phet, had right to reprove even the publick government, where it was amisse, establishes, as ready to maintain them in it, had they submitted to the Gospel, when he says, Mat. XXIII. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair, all therefore that they teach you observe and doe: The Scribes and Pharisees, being, either limbs and members, or appen­dences of the Consistory, who, under pain of death, were not to teach any thing, to deter­mine any thing that the Law had not deter­mined; contrary to that which the Consisto­ry [Page 180] had first agreed. Whereby it is manifest, that all these Laws and Ordinances afore­named, and all others of like nature, which, all common sense must allow, to have been more then the Scripture any where mentions, are the productions, of this Right and Pow­er, placed by God in the Consistory, on pur­pose to avoid Schism, and keep the body of the people in Unity, by shewing them what to stand to, when the Law had not determi­ned. So that this is nothing contrary to the Law of Deut. IV. 2. XII. 32. which forbid­deth to adde to, or take from Gods Law: the Law remaining intire, when it is supplied, by the Power which it self appointeth. And, he that will see the truth of this with his eys, let him look upon the Jews Constitutions, compiled into the Body of their Talmud. Which, though they are now written, and in our Saviours time were taught from hand to hand: though, by succession of time, and change, in the State of that People, they cannot continue in all points the same, as they were in our Saviours time; yet, it is manifest, that the substance of them was then in force, because, whatsoever the Gospel mentions of them, is found to agree, with that which they have now in writing: And are all, manifestly, the effect of the lawfull power of the Consistory. Nor let any man [Page 181] object, that they are the Doctrines of the Pharisees, which, they pretended, that Mo­ses received from God in Mount Sinai, and delivered by word of mouth to his Succes­sors; and that the Sadduces were of another opinion, who never acknowledged any such unwritten Law, but tied themselves to the letter, (as doth, at this day, one part of the Jews, which renounce the Talmud, and rest in the letter of the Law, who are there­fore called Karaim, that is, Scripturaries.) For though all this be true, yet, neither Pha­risees nor Sadduces then, neither Talmudists nor Scripturaries now, did, or do make que­stion, of acknowledging such Laws and Constitutions, as are necessary to determine, that which grows questionable in the practice of the Law; but are both in the wrong, when as, to gain credit to those Orders and Constitutions, which both bodies respective­ly acknowledge, the one will have them de­livered by God to Moses, the other will needs draw them, by consequence, out of the letter of the Scripture: And so entitle them to God, otherwise then he appointed, which is, only, as the results, and productions of that pow­er, which he ordained to end all matter of difference, by limiting that, which the Law had not. The same reason, necessarily takes place, under the New Testament, saving the [Page 182] difference 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, [Page 183] 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 [Page 184] 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, [Page 185] 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 [Page 186] 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 [Page 187] 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 [Page 188] 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, [Page 189] 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 [Page 190] 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 [Page 191] 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 [Page 192] Church a Power to determine, what the members thereof shall acknowledge, and professe, when it comes in difference: Which is, not to qualifie the subject, that is, to make any thing matter of Faith or not, but to de­termine, that those, which will not stand to the Act of the Whole, that is, of those per­sons, that have right to conclude the Whole, shall not be of it. So, the obligation, that such Acts produce, as it comes from the Word of God, which the Church acknow­ledges, is a duty of Faith, but, as it relates, to the determination of the Church, as a duty of charity, obliging, to concurre with the Church, where it determineth not the con­trary, of that which the Word of God de­termineth. Again, when I say, the Church hath Power, to determine that which Gods Law determines not, I must needs be un­derstood to mean, that, which shall seem to make most for the advancement of godli­nesse. Now, the Scripture shews, by store of examples, of Ceremonies, in the Publick Service of God, under the Church, as well as under the Synagogue, that the institution of significative Ceremonies, in the Publick worship of God, doth make for the advance­ment of godlinesse, otherwise, such had not been Ordained by the Apostles, and Gover­nors of Gods ancient People. For, of this [Page 193] nature, is the vailing of women, at Divine Service, of which S. Paul writes to the Co­rinthians; the Kisse of Charity, so often men­tioned in the writings of the Apostles, which the Constitutions of the Apostles, II. 57. and Origen upon the last to the Romanes, shew, to have been practised, before the Consecrati­on, and the receiving of the Eucharist, to signifie the Charity in which they came to communicate; the many Ceremonies of Baptism, to which S. Paul alludes, in divers places, Col. II. 11, 12. III. 9, 10. Rom. VI. 4, 5. to wit, putting off old clothes, drenching in water, so as to seem to be buried in it, put­ting on new clothes at their comming out: Which, being used in the Primitive Church, by these passages of S. Paul, we are sure, were Instituted by the Apostles. Of this na­ture, are the gestures of Prayer, which we reade in the Scripture, that it was always the custome of Gods people, to make sitting, kneeling, or groveling, as the inward dejecti­on of the minde, required, a greater or lesse degree, of outward humiliation of the bo­dy, to produce, and maintain, as well as to signifie it. Thus, our Lord stands up to reade the Law, but sits down to Preach, Luc. IV. 16, 20. the one, to shew reverence to the Giver of the Law, the other, authority over the Congregation, which he taught as a Pro­phet: [Page 194] And therefore, I make no doubt, but that, in receiving the Book of the Law, he used that reverence, which was, and is used in the Synagogue; the like whereof by the Acts of the Primitive Martyrs, we under­stand to have been used, to the Book of the Gospels; for, in the examination of one of them, you have, Qui sunt libri quos adoratis legentes? as we now, stand up at the reading of the Gospel. Of this nature, are the cere­monies of the Jews publick Fasts, quoted afore out of the Prophet Joel, which, it seems, the Prophet Jonas taught the Ninevites, at their Fast, Jon. III. 5, 6. which, sure, have no force, to move God to compassion, but, as they move men to that humiliation which procures it; of this nature, is Impo­sition of hands, used in the Scripture, in Bles­sing, that is, in solemne Prayers, for other Persons, as in the Gospel over children, and sick persons, as in the Law Jacob lays hands on Josephs children, Moses on Joshua, and the LXX Presbyters, the Prophets, on such as they cured, 2 Kings VI. 11. whereup­on it was received, by the Ordinance of the Apostles, in Confirmation, Penance, and Or­dinations; as also, it is said to be still used in some Eastern Churches, at the Blessing of Mariages. In fine, the Frontlets, and the Scrols, which God appoints the Jews to set [Page 195] upon their Fore-heads, and the Posts of their doores, Exod. XIII. 9. Deut. VI. 8. XI. 17. for my part, I make a great question, whe­ther he obligeth them thereby, to use, accor­ding to the letter, as they do: But, that com­manding the effect, the remembrance of the Law, he should be thought to forbid the means, that is, the sensible wearing of such marks, that I count utterly incredible: See­ing it was easie for them, to use such marks, and yet, to think themselves never a whit the holier for them, without the thing signified, though in our Lords time, they did so, as we see by his reproofs in the Gospel, and though by their writings, (Maimoni by name, in the Title of Finages, cap. III. and in the Title of Phylacteries, ca. XI. & XII.) we see, that still they do. And thus, upon the reasons advanced, that is, of determining that, which the Law of God determines not, fol­lows the whole Power of the Church, in de­ciding matters of Doctrine, in determining the circumstances and ceremonies of Gods publick worship, and of all the Ordinances of God, for the maintenance and exercise of the same. For, in instituting Ceremonies, signi­ficative, not of Christ to come, (that indeed, and that onely is Judaism) but, of the Faith and devotion which we desire to serve God with, it is enough, that this power may be [Page 196] exercised, to the advancement of godlinesse; if it be exercised otherwise then it ought, it is still to be obeyed, because the Unity of the Church is of great consequence to main­tain, though we attain not that advancement of godlinesse, which the use of this Power ought to procure, but does not: And, if any Power should be void, because it is not used for the best, or, absolutely, not well used, then could no humane society subsist, either Sacred or Civile: Which must subsist, in all things, wherein it commands not the contrary, of a more ancient Law, which is Gods Law in our case.

From the premises, it will not be difficult to resolve, whether Councels be of Divine Right, or not, distinguishing between sub­stance and circumstance, between the purpose and effect of them, and the manner of pro­curing it. For, if we speak of giving Law to the Society of the Church, it is proved, that, (whether you take it for a Power, or a Duty, a Right, or a Charge, or rather both, seeing the one cannot be parted from the other) the Church may, and ought to pro­ceed, to determine, what is not determined, but determinable, by consent of particular Churches, that is, by the consent of such persons, which have Power to conclude the consent, of their respective Churches: [Page 197] Whereof, we have shewed, that none can ever be concluded, without the consent of their respective Bishops. But, if we speak of the circumstance, and manner of assembling, in one place, certain persons, in behalf of their severall Churches, with authority, to pre­judice, and foresway, and preingage the con­sent of the same: We have a precedent, or rather precedents, without a precept, in the Acts of the Apostles, where the Apostles are assembled to Ordain a twelfth Apostle, Acts I. 13.—where they are assembled to in­stitute the Order of Deacons, Acts VI. 2—where Paul and Barnabas come from Antio­chia and the Churches depending thereupon, to the Apostles and Church of Jerusalem, to take resolution in their differences, Acts XV. 1—where Paul goes in to James, to advise, how to behave himself without of­fence, to the Christian Jews at Jerusalem, Acts XXI. 18—(for, the premises being admitted, all these meetings are justly and necessarily counted Synods, or Councels, both in regard of the Persons whereof they consisted, the consent of divers Apostles, be­ing of as much authority to the Church, as the resolution of a Synod, and in regard of the matter determined at them, concerning the whole Church, in a high degree, especi­ally at that time.) And we have a Canon [Page 198] among those of the Apostles, (which ap­pears very ancient, by the Canons of Nice, containing the same, and turning Custome into Statute Law) commanding, that Sy­nods be held in every Province twice a year. But, when Tertullian tels us, that, in the parts of Greece, they held Councels ordinarily, he constrains us to beleeve, that in other parts of the Church they did not; and, when we reade of persecutions, against the ordinary assemblies of the Church, we must presume, that, as the persecution of Councells, would have made greater desolation in the Church, so must they needs be more subject to be persecuted. And, by Eusebius, and the rest of the Ecclesiasticall Histories, and by the communication of the Primitive Bishops, Clemens, Ignatius, Polycarpus, S. Cyprian, and the rest, as they follow, still extant in their Epistles, we understand, that their personall Assemblies were supplied by their Formatae, or letters of mark, whereby, the acts of some Churches, the most eminent, being appro­ved by the rest, after they were sent to them, purchased the same force with the Acts of Councels. Wherefore, the holding of Councels, is of Divine right, so farre as it is manifest to common sense, that it is a rea­dier way to dispatch matters determinable, though, when it cannot be had, not abso­lutely [Page 199] necessary. But it is always necessary, that, seeing no Church can be concluded, without the Bishop thereof, the Bishops of all Churches, concurre to the Acts that must oblige their Churches. Not so their Presby­ters, because it is manifest, that all Presby­ters cannot concurre, though upon particu­lar occasion, some may, as the Presbyters of the Church where a Councell is held, as at Jerusalem, Acts XV. 6. which we finde, therefore, practised, in divers Councels of the Church. As, to supply the place of their Bishops, by deputation in their absence, or, perhaps, as to propound matters of extraor­dinary consequence. As for the whole Peo­ple, to be concluded by the Act of a Coun­cell, as all cannot always be present, suppo­sing the dependence of Churches, so nothing hinders any part thereof to intercede in any thing, contrary to Christianity, that is, of the substance thereof, or of Divine right. Therefore, in the Order of holding Coun­cels, which is wont to be put before the Vo­lumes of the Councels, the people is allow­ed to be present, as they were at Jerusalem, Acts XV. 12, 13, 22.

I come now to a nice Point, of the Ori­ginall Right of the Church, to Tithes, First-fruits, and Oblations: For, as it cannot be pretended, that the same measure which the [Page 200] Law provideth, is due under the Gospel, so it is manifest, that the quality of Priests and Levites, to whom they were due, is ceased as much, as the Sacrifices which they were to attend; and it is certain, that they were maintained, expresly, in consideration of that attendance. This difficulty must be resol­ved, by the difference between the Law and the Gospel. The Law expresly provideth onely, for the Ceremoniall Service of God, in the Temple, by Sacrifices, and Figures of good things to come. But, no man doub­teth, that there were always assemblies for the Service of God, all over the Country, for the opportunity whereof, in time, Syna­gogues were built, where the Law was taught, and publick Prayers offered to God. This Office of Teaching the Law, cannot be restrained to the Tribe of Levi. So farre as the Prophets, and their Schools of Disci­ples, furnished it not, their Consistories, which had the Authority to determine, what was lawfull, what unlawfull, were consequently charged with this Office. Now, they con­sisted not onely of the Tribe of Levi, but in the first place, of the best of their Cities, to whom were added, as assistant, some of that Tribe, (unlesse we speak of the Priests Cities in particular, for, credibly, the Consistories of them, consisted only of Priests.) For, that [Page 201] Tribe, being dispersed all over the Land, to gather their revenue, were, by that means, ready to attend on this Office, of assisting in Judgement, and Teaching the Law. So saith Josephus, Antiq. IV. 8. that the Consistories of particular Cities, consisted of seven, Chief of every City, assisted, each with two, of the Tribe of Levi, which, with a Presi­dent, and his Deputy or Second, (such as we know the High Consistory at Jerusalem had) makes up the number of XXIII, which the Talmud Doctors say they consisted of. Therefore, it is a mistake, of them that think, the Scribes and Pharisees, whom our Lord commands to obey, had usurped the Office of the Priests and Levites. For, what hinders the Priests and Levites, to be Scribes and Pharisees themselves, though other Israelites were Scribes and Pharisees, besides Priests and Levites? Neither Pha­risees, nor Priests and Levites, had this au­thority, as Pharisees, or as Priests and Le­vites, but as members or assistants of the Consistories. The reason, because Gods Law, whereby his worship was determined, was also the Civile Law of that People, be­cause, the Land of Canaan was promised them, upon condition, of living according to it; therefore, the Teaching of the Law must belong to them, who, by the Law, were [Page 202] to Judge, and Govern the People: God stir­ring up Prophets from time to time, to clear the true meaning thereof from humane cor­ruptions. So onely, the Service of the Tem­ple, and only that Tribe, which attended on the Service of the Temple, was to be pro­vided for, the rest being provided for, by the possession of the Land of Promise. But, when the service of God in Spirit and Truth, was to be established in all places, as well as at Jerusalem, and the Church incorporated by God, into one Society and Common­wealth, for the exercise thereof, what en­dowment God appointed this Corporation for the Exchequer of it, is best judged, by what appears to have been done in the Scri­ptures, which cannot be attributed, but to the authority of the Apostles, the Gover­nours of the Church at that time. At Je­rusalem, the Contributions were so great in the beginning of Christianity, that many offered their whole estates, to maintain the community of the Church. Was this to ob­lige all Christians ever after, to destroy ci­vile society by communion of goods? As if there could be no other reason, why Chri­stians should strip themselves of their estates at that time. The advancement of Christi­anity, then in the shell, required continuall attendance of the whole Church, upon the [Page 203] Service of God. This, withdrawing the greater part of Disciples, which were poor, from the means of living, required greater oblations of the rich. The Scripture teaches us, that the whole Church continued in the Service of God: So that, out of the common stock of the Church, common entertainment was provided for rich and poor, at which en­tertainment, the Sacrament of the Eucharist was celebrated, as it was instituted by our Lord, at his last Supper. This is that which is called Breaking of Bread, Acts II. 42, 46. XX. 7. and, by the Apostle, 1 Cor. XI. 20. the Supper of the Lord, not meaning thereby, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but, this common entertainment, at which that Sacra­ment was celebrated, which therefore is tru­ly called the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, not the Supper of the Lord; for, you see, the Apostle complains, that, because the rich and the poor supped not together, therefore they did not celebrate the Supper of the Lord. The same thing it is, which S. Jude, ver. 12. calls their Feasts of Love. And, the atten­dance upon this entertainment, was the cause of making the Deacons, which is called therefore the daily ministration, and atten­dance at Tables, Acts VI. 1, [...]. Now, will any man say, that those Primitive Christians, held not themselves tied to pay Tithes, that [Page 204] offered all their estates? At Corinth, I be­leeve S. Chrysostome, that this course was not frequented every day, as at Jerusalem, but, probably, the first day of the week, because upon that, the Disciples assembled at Troas, Acts XX. 7. or, perhaps, upon other occasi­ons also; for, to have done always every where as at Jerusalem, would have destroied civile Society, which the Gospel pretendeth to preserve. But, those that offer the First-fruits of their goods to this purpose, when Secular Laws enable them not, to endow the Church with their Tithes, doe they not acknowledge that duty, and that, as taught by the Apostles, so to acknowledge it? For, can any living man imagine, that they were weary of their estates, if the Apostles, from whom they received their Christianity, had not informed them, that Christianity requi­red it at their hands? In the next place, let us consider the contributions, which the Churches of the Gentiles, were wont to send to the Christians at Jerusalem, being brought low, by parting with their estates. It is to be understood, that the Jews, that lived out of their own Country, dispersed in the Ro­mane and Parthian Empires, not being un­der the Law of Tithes, which was given to the Land of Promise, nor resorting to the Temple, were, notwithstanding, in recom­pense [Page 205] of the same, wont to make a stock, out of which they sent their Oblations, from time to time, to maintain the Service of God, as is to be seen up and down in Jose­phus, besides Philo and the Talmud Doctors. If then, the Churches of the Gentiles, in imitation hereof, contribute their Oblations, to support the Church of Jerusalem, and the Service of God there, (being then the Mo­ther City of Christianity, before it was set­led in the Capitall Cities of the Romane Empire) as by all those passages appears, which mention the Oblations of the Chur­ches sent to Jerusalem, Acts XI. 30. XII. 25. Rom. XV. 26. 2 Cor. VIII. IX. per tot. 1 Cor. XVI. 1. Gal. II. 10. do they not therby openly professe themselves, taught by the Apostles, that they were under the same obligation, of maintaining the service of God, in the Church, as the Jews, in the Temple? Again, the A­postle, having shewed, that Christians have the same right of communicating in the Sa­crifice of Christ crucified, as the Jews, in the Sacrifices that were not wholly consumed by fire, in the passage handled afore, of Heb. XIII. 8-14. pursues it thus in the next words: By him then let us offer continually to God the Sacrifice of Praise, which is the fruit of the lips, giving thanks to his Name: But to doe good and communicate forget not, for [Page 206] with such sacrifices God is well pleased. Where, by the Sacrifice of Praise, he means the Eu­charist, as it is called usually, in the ancient Liturgies, and writings of the Fathers: For, to this purpose, is the whole dispute of that place, that, in that Sacrament, Christians communicate in the Sacrifice of Christ cru­cified, (which Jews can have no right to) in stead of all the Sacrifices of the Law. And therefore, by doing good and communica­ting, he means the Oblations of the faithfull, out of which, at the beginning, the poor and the rich lived in common at the Assemblies of the Church; and, when that course could no more stand with the succeeding state of the Church, both the Eucharist was celebra­ted, and the persons that attended on the ser­vice of God, were maintained. Therefore this obligation ceaseth not, though the Ce­remoniall Law be taken away. The next ar­gument is from the words of S. Paul, Ephes. IV. 11—in which, few or none take notice of any thing to this purpose, but to me, com­paring them with the premises, it seemeth so expresse, that it were a wrong to the Church, so much concerned in them, to let them goe any longer without notice. He hath made (saith S. Paul) some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors, and Doctors. For the compacting of the Saints, for the work [Page 207] of ministery, for the edification of the Body of Christ. That is, as it follows, that being sin­cere in love, we may grow in all things, in him who is the Head, even Christ. From whom the whole Body, compacted and put together, by the furnishing of every limb, according to the wor­king proportionable in every part, causeth the body to waxe, unto the edification of it self in love. Here you are to mark these words, [...]. For [...] and [...], in the New Testament, signifies, in a vulgar sense, to furnish any man maintenance, as Mat. XXV. 44. 1 Tim. II. 18. Heb. VI. 10. Luc. VIII. 2. 1 Pet. IV. 10. In another sense it is used to signifie the Service of God, in pub­lishing the Gospel: but, almost always, with some addition, discovering the metaphor, by expressing the subject of that service, to wit, the Word, the Gospell, the Spirit, the New Covenant, Acts VI. 6. 2 Cor. V. 18, 19. III. 8. In this sense it is commonly taken here, but it seems a mistake. For, when the Apostle saith, that God hath given his Church Go­vernours and Teachers, for the Compacting of the Saints, for the work of ministery, for the edification of the Body of Christ, his meaning is, that the Body of the Church, is compacted and held together, to frequent publick Assemblies, by the Contribution of the rich, to the maintenance of those that at­tend [Page 208] upon the service of God, (which is here called, the work of ministery) to the end, that, by the Doctrine of the Governors and Teachers of the Church, at the said Assem­blies, it may be built up to a full measure of Christianity. This sense, the words that fol­low require: From whom the whole Body com­pacted—that is, that the Body of the Church, being inabled frequently to assem­ble, by the operation of those that are able, furnishing every member, proportionably to his want, commeth, by Christ, to perfection in Christianity. This sense, the parallel pla­ces of Rom. XII. 4, 7, 8. 1 Pet. IV. 4. necessa­rily argue: Where, having speech of those things, which, particular members of the Church, are to contribute to the improve­ment of the whole, both Apostles expresse two kinds of them, one spirituall, of instru­ction in Christianity, the other corporall, of means to support the Church, in holding their Assemblies. For, as those that want, cannot balk the necessities of this life, to at­tend upon Divine Service, unlesse they be furnished by the body of the Church: So, much more, those that minister the Service of the Church, cannot attend upon the same, unlesse they be secured of their support. And for this cause, the first Christians at Jerusa­lem, and by their example, they that sent [Page 209] their Oblations to the Church, laid them down at the Apostles feet, to signifie, that they submitted them to their disposing: For this cause Deacons were created, to execute their disposition of the same: For this cause, the contributions of the Church of Antio­chia, are consigned to the Presbyters of Je­rusalem, Acts XI. 30. that they, who were Ordained by that time, (for, afore there is no mention of them) might dispose of them un­der the Apostles: For this cause Timothy is directed, how to bestow this stock among the Widows and Presbyters, that the Wi­dows might attend upon prayer day and night, and upon other good works, concer­ning the community of the Church, 1 Tim. V. 5, 10. as Anna the Widow in the Gospel, Luc. II. 36, 37. and as the good women that kept guard about the Tabernacle, Ex. XXXVIII. 8. 1 Sam. II. 22. And for this cause, S. Peter forbiddeth the Presbyters to domineer over the Clergy, 1 Pet. V. 3. to wit, in disposing of their maintenance, out of this common stock of the Church. Here, it will be said, that all this expresses no quantity, ot part of every mans estate, to ground a right of Tithes, and, that no man desires better, then to give what he list. And, the answer is as ready, that no man desires more, provided he list to give what Christianity requires: [Page 210] And, that for the determination of what Christianity requires, he list to stand to the perpetuall practice of the Church, when as, by those things which we finde recorded in the Scriptures, it appears to be derived from the Apostles themselves. First, it is not the Law that first commanded to pay Tithes: Because we know, they were paid by Abra­ham and Jacob, (they that think they were not due by Right, before the Law, because Jacob vows them, Gen. XXVIII. 20. doe not remember our Vow of Baptism, the subject whereof is things due before) & God requires them as his own before. For God saith, first, that Tithes are his own, Lev. XXVII. 30. to wit, by a Law in force afore the Law of Mo­ses, and then gives them to the Priests, for their Service in the Tabernacle. Then, it cannot stand with Christianity, which sup­poseth greater grace of God then the Law, to allow a scarcer proportion, to the main­tenance of Gods Service, then the Law re­quires. Now, the Law requires, first, two sorts of First fruits, the one to be taken by the Priest at the Barn, Num. XVIII. 12. the other to be brought to the Sanctuary, Exod. XXII. 29. XXIII. 19. Deut. XXVI. 1—the quantity of either being, in the moderate Ac­count, a fiftieth, as S. Hierome upon Ezek. XLV. agreeing with the Jews Constitutions [Page 211] in Maimoni, of First-fruits, cap. II. and of Se­parations, cap. III. determineth it, though the Scripture, Ezek. XLV. 13. require but the sixtieth: After that, a Tith of the remain­der to the Levites; then, another Tith of the remainder, to be spent in sacrificing at Jeru­salem; that is, for the most part, upon the Priests and Levites, to whom, and to the poor, it wholly belonged every third year, Deut. XIV. 22, 28. Ex. XXIII. 19. XXXIV. 20. Adde hereunto the first-born, all sinne-offerings, and the Priests part of peace-offe­rings, the skins of Sacrifices, (which alone Philo makes a chief part of their revenue) all consecrations, and the Levites Cities, and it will easily appear, it could not be so little as a fift part of the fruit of the land, that came to their share. Now, that any rate should be determined by the Gospel, agrees not with the difference between it and the Law. This, constraining obedience by fear, com­mands, under penalty of vengeance from heaven, to pay somuch: That, perswading men, first, freely to give themselves to God, cannot doubt, that they which doe so, will freely part with their goods for his service. And therefore, if the perpetuall practice of Christians, must limit the sense of those Laws, which the Scripture limits not, we see the first Christians at Jerusalem farre outdoe [Page 212] any thing that ever was done under the Law, and we see that all Christian people, in all succeeding ages, have done, what the Church now requires but to be continued.

To this originall Title, accrues another by Consecration, which is an act of man, infor­ced by the Law of God. There is, in the Law of Moses, one kinde of Ceremoniall Holinesse, proper to persons, consisting in a distance, from things, not really unclean, but, as signs of reall uncleannesse. As, from meats and drinks, and, touching creatures, & men, and women, in some diseases, of which our Lord hath said, that, what goeth into the mouth polluteth not, much lesse, what a man onely toucheth; and so, hath shewed, that all this ceaseth under the Gospel. But there is another kinde of Holinesse, belonging to Times, and Places, as well as Persons, com­manded in the Law, upon a reason common to the Gospel, when it is said, Lev. XIX. 30. Observe my Sabbaths, and reverence my San­ctuaries. For, did this belong onely to the Temple, or Tabernacle, instituted by Gods expresse command, for that ceremoniall ser­vice of God, which was unlawfull any where else, it might seem to be proper to the cere­moniall Law, and to vanish with the Gospel. But, the perpetuall practice of that people shews, that, hereby they are commanded to [Page 213] use reverence in their Synagogues, which were neither instituted by any written pre­cept of the Law, nor for the ceremoniall ser­vice of God, which was confined to the Temple, but for publick Assemblies, to hear the Law read and expounded, and to offer the Prayers of the people to God. For, in the Psalms of Asaph, which is the only men­tion of Synagogues in the Old Testament, they are called, not onely Houses, and Assem­blies of God, but also Sanctuaries, as here, Ps. LXXIII. 17. LXXIV. 4, 7, 8. LXXXIV. 13. And the Talmud Doctors, related by Maimoni, extend this Precept to them, shew­ing at large, the reverence which they requi­red; whereupon Philo in his Book De Lega­tione ad Caium, cals them places of seconda­ry Holinesse, to wit, in respect of the Tem­ple. And in Maimoni, in the Title of Praier and the Priests Blessing, cap. XI. you have at large, of the Holinesse of Synagogues, and Schools, which they esteem more Holy then Synagogues. They may have joy of their Doctrine, that endeavour to shew, that the Jews Synagogues were not counted Holy Places, because in the Gospels, as well as in Eusebius Histories, IV. 16. (where he alle­geth, out of a certain ancient writing against the Montanists, that none of them was ever scourged by the Jews in their Synagogues) [Page 214] and Epiphanius against the Ebionites, it ap­pears, that the Jews used to punish by scour­ging in their Synagogues: For, it hath ta­ken so good effect, as to turn Churches to Stables. But he that understands their rea­son right, will inferre the contradictory of their conclusion from it. For, because Syna­gogues were the places, where matters of Gods Law were sentenced, as I shewed afore, therefore was that sentence to be executed in Synagogues. The like reason there is, for the Holinesse of Persons, consecrate to the service of God, in the like precept, Levit. XIX. 32. Stand up before the gray head: and reverence the Presbyters: and fear thy Gods. I am the Lord. Where, the gradation shews, that this Text concerns not the fear of God, but the reverence due to their Judges and Doctors of the Law. It is a vulgar mistake, that Soveraign Powers are called Gods in the Scriptures. The Jews are in the right, that their Judges, made by Imposition of Hands, are they, whom the Scripture calls Gods. For so it is used, to signifie those that were to judge Gods people, by Gods Law, Exod. XXI. 6. XXII. 8, 9. Neither doth it signifie any but the Consistory, Ps. LXXXII. 1, 6. being, it seems, at that time, when this Psalm was penned, for Absalom, or for Saul, against David: For, these are they, to whom [Page 215] the word of the Lord came, as our Saviour says, Iohn IX. 35. that is, whom the execu­tion of the Law was trusted with. Now, you have seen, that Presbyters were a degree un­der Judges: and therefore, the gradation can hold onely thus; First, stand up before the gray hairs, that is, them who are onely ho­nourable for their age: Secondly, reverence Presbyters, which, besides years, having stu­died the Law till thirty or forty years of age, had authority to Teach the Law: And last­ly, fear your Judges, who have power to sentence matters of difference. Thus the gra­dation continues in the same kinde, and thus this precept is interpreted by the Talmud Doctors, in Maimoni, in the Title of Lear­ning the Law, c. 6. & Moses of Kotzi upon this Precept. Having therefore shewed, that the Clergy in the Church, succeed into the authority, which the Consistories bore under the Synagogue; it follows, that, the precept of the Apostle, 1 Thess. V. 12, 13. Heb. XIII. 17. imports this reverence due to them, as persons consecrate to the service of God. And so this holinesse, is the same in Persons, as in Places, consecrate to that purpose. There is no man so simple, as to think Chur­ches capable of that holinesse, by which Christian souls are holy: But, because the actions of Gods service, proceeding from [Page 216] souls so qualified, are presumed to be Holy, therefore the Times, the Places, the Persons, deputed to such actions in publick, are to be reverenced in regard of that deputation, for their works sake, saith the Apostle, in an Ecclesiasticall, not in any spirituall capacity, common to Persons with Times and Places: Because this qualification serves to maintain, in the minds of people, the reverence they owe to those acts of Gods service, whereun­to they are deputed. Which, those that ne­ver beleeved heretofore, do now see, by that ruine of Christianity, which these few years have brought to passe amongst us. This ground, the Jews Doctors seem very well to understand, when they question, why the open street, or Piazza, is not Holy, seeing, the Publick Fasts of the Jews, were many times held in them: Those Assemblies being, it seems, so great, that the Synagogue would not contain the people: (Where, by the way, you see, why our Lord reproves the Phari­sees, because they loved to pray standing in the corners of streets, and to sound a trumpet before their alms, Mat. VI. 2, 5. because those Fasts were solemnized in the street, with sound of Trumpet;) Their answer is, that the market place, or street, or Piazza, is used accidentally to this purpose, but the Synagogue is deputed expresly to it. Maimo­ni, [Page 217] Of Prayer and the Priests Blessing, cap. XI. The reason then, of this Ecclesiasticall, or morall holinesse, is the deputation to the ho­ly Ordinances of Divine Service, which de­putation, if it be by Ordinance of the Apo­stles, solemnized upon persons, by prayer, with Imposition of Hands, why shall it not be solemnized by Consecration of Places, which is nothing else, but the solemne depu­tation of them to their purpose, by prayer to God, as persons are consecrated, when they are deputed to the service of God? And, is it not strange, that any man should finde a negative reverence due to the places of Gods service, but, all positive reverence, nothing else then superstition revived? For, what reason can be given, why men should abstain from light, or vain, or secular businesse, im­ploiment, or cariage, in Churches, but be­cause the minde is to be possessed, and exer­cised about the contrary? And what reve­rence and devotion to God, in the Ordinan­ces of his Service, can be maintained, without making difference between common and Consecrate Places, is not to be seen by the practice of this time, that hath laid all reve­rence and devotion aside, and therefore, it seems, will never be seen again, untill that re­verence be revived again, and sensibly ex­pressed, to Persons and Places dedicated to [Page 218] Gods service, (for Times deputed to Gods service, are not subject to sense, therefore, not capable of the like) by such solemnities, as may be fit to maintain that inward devo­tion, which the Ordinances of Gods service, to which they are deputed, are to be perfor­med with. And, not only Times, Places, and Persons, are capable of this morall qua­lity, of relative Ecclesiasticall Holinesse, but whatsoever, either by disposition of Gods Law, or by mans act, is affected to the service of God. For, so saith our Saviour, That the Temple consecrates the gold which it is adorned with, and the Altar the gift that is offered upon it; and that therefore, He that sweareth by the Temple, or the Altar, sweareth by God, to whose service they were offered, Mat. XXIII. 17, 19, 20—And the Jews Corban, which our Lord reproveth, as used to binde that which was against Gods Law, Mat. XV. 5. was no­thing but an Oath, by the Oblations conse­crated to the reparations of the Temple, as you may see in Grotius. And, as First-fruits and Tithes, which the Law consecrates to God, render him sacrilegious and accursed, that touches them against the intent of the Law, as you see by that allegory of the Pro­phet, Jer. II. 3. Israel is a thing consecrate to the Lord, the First-fruit of his revenue: all that devoure him are guilty, evill haunts them: [Page 219] So the Law, in obliging men to consecrate what they would to the Lord, makes the consecrate thing anathema, that is, the per­son accursed, that applies it to any other use, Levit. XXVII. 28. Under the Gospel the difference is onely this, that nothing is con­secrate, by disposition of the Law, without the act of man, moved by the Law of Chri­stianity, to consecrate it: According to that difference between the Law and the Gospel, alleged before, that, because the Law con­straineth to obedience for fear of mischief, the Gospel winneth obedience by love of goodness, therefore, in correspondence there­unto, the Law was to require the mainte­nance of Gods service, under such Penal­ties as they should not dare to incurre; the Gospel, by the same freedome of minde, which constrained men to give themselves to God, was to constrain them, to give their goods to the maintenance of his Service. For the rest, as under the Law, the Gold is consecrated by the Temple, and the Sacri­fice by the Altar; and so, all consecration, tended to communion with God, by the par­ticipation of Sacrifices offered to God: So, having shewed, how the Gospel ordaineth, that Christians also communicate with God, in the Sacrifice of the Crosse, by the Sacra­ment of the Eucharist, by the same reason it [Page 220] 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 [Page 221] 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 [Page 222] 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 [Page 223] 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 [Page 224] 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 [Page 225] 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 [Page 226] 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, [Page 227] 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 over­run 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 [Page 228] 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 [Page 229] 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, [Page 230] 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 [Page 231] 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 [Page 232] 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 [Page 233] 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 [Page 234] 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 [Page 235] 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 by the Heathen [Page 236] Emperour Aureliane, as you may see in Eu­sebius his Histories, VII. 30. For, though the matter thereof were not evident to him, that was no Christian, yet, the authority might be, the support whereof, concerned the Peace of the Empire. And so it was evident in that case: For there being a difference in the Church of Antiochia; between the Bishop, and some of the Clergy and People, and the Synod there assembled, having condemned and deposed the Bishop; if this deposition were allowed by the Synod of the Church of Rome, no man will deny, that there was thereby sufficient ground, for him that was no Christian, to proceed, and take away pos­session of the Church, and Bishops house, from him that by such authority was depo­sed. And thus, you see how true it is which I said, that in Christian States, the Power of the Church cannot be in force, without the Soveraign, because Excommunication, which is the Sword thereof, and the last execution of this spirituall Jurisdiction, might be made void otherwise. As for the prejudice, which may come to a Christian State, by a Jurisdi­ction, not depending upon it in point of right, but only in point of fact, there seem to be two considerable difficulties made: The first, the Excommunication of the Sove­raign: Ormore generally thus, that the Keys [Page 237] of the Church may then interpose in State matters: The second, in regard that I have shewed, that, by the words of our Lord, this Power may take place in matters of interesse between party and party: For if in any, why not in all? and if in all, where shall the secular Power become, that Power that is able to judge all causes, being able to govern any State? To the first, the answer is evident, that, so farre as Excommunication concerns barely the Society of the Church, any per­son, capable of Soveraign Power, is liable to it, upon the same terms as other Christi­ans are, because, comming into the commu­nion of the Church, upon the same condition as other Christians, the failing of this con­dition, must needs render the effect void. But, if we consider, either the temporall force, by which it comes to effect, or the temporall penalties which attend on it, to these, which cannot proceed, but by the will of the Soveraign, it is not possible that he should be liable. Thus I had rather distin­guish, then, between the greater Excommu­nication and the lesse, as some doe, who con­clude, that the Soveraign cannot be subject to the greater, but to the lesse. For there is, indeed, but one Excommunication, as there is but one Communion, abstinence from the Eucharist, being no permanent but a transi­ent [Page 238] estate, under which whosoever comes, if he give not satisfaction to the Church, be­comes contumacious, and so, liable to the last sentence. Let no man marvell at the good Emperour Theodosius, giving satisfacti­on of his penitence to the holy Bishop S. Am­brose. The reason was, because Christianity, then fresh from the Apostles, was under­stood, and uncorrupt. It was understood, that he held not his Empire, by being of the Church, nor, that his subjects ought him any lesse obedience, for not being of it. He that taught him to be subject to God, taught his people also, to be subject to him for Gods sake, as Christians always were to Heathen Emperours, even Persecutors. Which, if it were received, it is not imaginable, that the Powers of the world could be prejudiced by any censure of the Church. As for the obje­ction, that excommunicate persons are not to be conversed with, by S. Pauls rule, it is answered by all Divines, that it ceases, in such relations (for example, of Parents, and chil­dren) as are more ancient then the Society of the Church, which it therefore presuppo­seth: and so is to cease, in things necessary to civile Society, which Christianity, as it pre­supposeth, so it inforceth, and not overthrow­eth. In like manner, it is to be said, that all proceedings, either of the Popes, or of the [Page 239] Scottish Presbyteries, in those cases which the burthen of Issachar mentions, are the pro­ductions of the corruption, or misunderstan­ding of Christianity. For, as Aristotle says, that some things, [...], so must we say, that those things onely exclude from the Church, which, by the very nature and essence of them, are inconsistent with Christianity, be­ing those things, which a Christian renoun­ces, when he is admitted into the Church. Now, the affairs of States, such as are, Trea­ties, and alliances with forein States, reason of Government at home, in Jurisdiction, gi­ving Laws, and commands of State, are such things, as are not necessarily bad or good, but may be the subject either of virtue or vice: much lesse, can it be manifest, not only to the Body of Christians, but even to the Guides of the Church, when Governours forsake, and when they cleave to their Chri­stianity, though it is certain, that they doe either the one or the other always. Where­fore, for particular actions, of the same kinde with those, for which private persons are li­able, when they become notorious, Princes also, and publick Persons are subject to the censure of the Church. But for publick Government, the reason whereof must not be known, the kinde thereof, in the whole ex­rent, [Page 240] being capable of good as well as bad; it is nothing but the misunderstanding and corruption of Christianity, that ingages the Church in them, by the fault of those, that by their quality in the Church, seek to them­selves some interesse in publick affairs, which Christianity generally denies to be due. And, the same is to be said of them, that make publick affairs, the subject of their prayers and Preaching. Which, though it may be done to good purpose, and in opposition to worse, yet, seeing Christianity requires, not only that it may be so in the Church, but also that it may not be otherwise, as it must needs proceed from a decay of Christianity, so it must needs tend to the utter ruine of it. As for the drawing of Civile causes, to the cognisance of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories, by some things that have been said, or done, to the advancement of the Presbyteries in Scotland, or here, it appears there is cause of scruple: But it is because the reason is over­seen, upon which our Lords saying proceeds. For, if the reason, why our Lord will have the differences of Christians ended within the Church, is, that those that are without, may not take notice, of the offences that are among Christians, this will not hinder Chri­stians to plead before Christians, and there­fore, will hinder no Jurisdiction of civile [Page 241] States, as ceasing so farre as the State be­comes Christian. Wherefore, it is not with­out cause, that the Audiences of Bishops, have been, by the Laws of the Empire, and other Christian States succeeding the same, limited to such kinds of causes, as seemed to stand most upon consideration of charity, and so, fittest to be sentenced by the Church. But Matrimoniall causes, seem to me neces­sarily to belong to this cognisance: Because of that particular disposition, which, our Lord, 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 [Page 242] 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 [Page 243] 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 [Page 244] 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 [Page 245] 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 [Page 246] 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.

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 [Page 248] 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 [Page 249] 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, [Page 250] 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 [Page 251] 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 [Page 252] 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 two cases of Religion; the first of Idolaters, the second of those that disobey the Consistory. But it is to be considered, that Idolatry is a sin which the light of nature convinceth, and is always at­tended with the consequences of such horri­ble sins, as the Apostle declareth, that God suffered the Gentiles to fall into, for their I­dolatries, in the beginning of the Epistle to the Romanes. Besides, that Penalty, by the [Page 253] Law, lies, but in respect of the seven Nati­ons, whom God, (for their Idolatries, and the consequences thereof, such as I have mentioned) gave up to destruction by the sword of his people, on whom he bestowed their inheritance: And in respect of Israelites, whom God having entred into Covenant with, on condition to serve him alone, had thereupon endowed with Secular power, to punish the transgressors of it. So that the power of inflicting death in these cases, pro­ceedeth upon the sentence of destruction and death, pronounced by God against the se­ven Nations, and committed to the executi­on of his People: And, upon the Soveraign power estated upon the people, by virtue of their Covenant with God: Which, though more then Humane for the Originall, yet must needs be available, according to Hu­mane Right, to the same effect, which the same Power, established by Title of Hu­mane Right, is able to produce. And there­fore, this Penalty, by these Laws, cannot belong to any, that absolutely refuse to sub­mit to Christianity. Besides, it is to be ob­served, that those acts which this Law puni­shes with death, are specified by the Law, to be the worshipping of the Sun and Moon, and other Gods, Exod. XXII. 20. Deut. XVII. 3. the perswading to worship other Gods, and, [Page 254] for Cities to fall from God to doe it, Deut. XIII. 5, 6, 12. and therefore this punishment cannot be extended to other Acts, which, by interpretation and consequence, may be argu­ed into the generall nature, or rather notion of Idolatries. A thing necessary to be said, because it is manifest, that there have been those, that have made reading Service or a Sermon, much more kneeling at the Com­munion, Idolatry, who, if they should pro­ceed to improve their madnesse, to that con­sequence which naturally it produceth, must proceed to destroy Civile Society, by de­stroying all them, whom, in their madnesse, they take for Idolaters, as that wretched per­son did his Father, for perswading him to re­ceive the Communion kneeling. As for those that disobeyed the Consistory, it is to be remembred, that hath been formerly ob­served, that Religion, and the Civile State of Gods ancient people, made but one Soci­ety, by virtue of the Law, that estated them in the Land of Promise, upon condition of worshipping God, and governing them­selves in their Civile life according to the same: By consequence whereof, whosoever should refuse to stand to that judgement, which God by the Law appointeth, to de­termine the differences which should arise about the interpretation, and limitation [Page 255] of that which the Law had not expressed, must indanger a breach among the people, which, it is all one, whether you call Rebel­lion or Schism. Now, it is no inconveni­ence to grant, that, whosoever shall pretend, under the Title of Christianity, to trouble the Civile peace of that people and State wherein he liveth, be thought guilty of such punishment, as the height of his offence shall deserve. Because, as this crime is most capitall, as nearest concerning the publick, so is it most manifest, that Christianity can­not be wronged by the punishment of it, seeing it hath been shewed, that Christianity enableth no man to trouble the publick peace. So that, if any man make it a part of his Religion, to maintain his Religion by force, being by such profession fallen from the innocence of Christianity, he is justly exposed to the violence of all temporall Laws, that punish those which trouble the publick peace. This is the case of them, that thought themselves tied in conscience, by the Bull of Pius the fift against Q. Eliza­beth; and it is the case of all them, that un­der any title of Religion whatsoever, pretend to maintain the profession or exercise thereof by faction or force. For, it is easie to see, that the Primitive Christians maintain them­selves so against the Gentiles, that, suppo­sing [Page 256] them no Christians, yet it doth appear, that they could not rightfully persecute them for their Christianity. Which none can maintain, but those, that professe to as­sert their Christianity, by nothing else, but by suffering for it. And here it is worth our noting, that about the time of our Lord, there was a Constitution of the Consistory, against Rebellious Elders, as they call them, (that is, such as, having attained the degree of Doctors of the Law, should Teach any thing to be lawfull or unlawfull by the Law, contrary to the determination of the Consi­story) that they should be put to death, as you may see in Maimoni, in that Title. Which, how far it was ever in force, is hard to be said, because, by the Gospels we under­stand, that the Nation had not power of life and death at that time. For, that it was about that time that they say it was established, ap­pears, because they report it to have been made in regard of the differences then on foot between the Scholars of Hillel and Sammai, which we know were not long be­fore our Lords time. This Constitution is nothing else, but the limitation of that which the Law of Deut. XVII. 8. establi­sheth, to particular circumstances. And up­on supposition of this Constitution it is, that our Lord expresseth the difference be­tween [Page 257] Moses Law and his Gospel, when he saith, Mat. V. 19. He that shall break the least of these Commandements, and teach men so, shall be least in the Kingdome of heaven, but he that teacheth and doeth them, shall be great in the Kingdome of heaven. For the very terms of that Constitution, being death to him that should both teach and doe contrary to the determination of the Consistory, it is manifest, that our Lord, alluding to that Constitution of the Synagogue, declareth hereby, that, on the contrary, there is no pe­nalty of death upon him that should teach and doe contrary to his precepts, as those of the Consistory, but greater, that is, to be least in the Kingdome of heaven. Whereby he sheweth, that the Gospel appointeth no temporall punishment to those that break Christs precepts, but denies not that Civile States might. For the Gospel, supposing and establishing Civile Society, supposeth also those Penalties without which it subsi­steth not. And the punishment of those that violate Civile Society, under the title of Christianity, is not by the Gospel, but by the Civile Power, which it presupposeth, and voideth not, because, Preaching, that Christianity cannot be prejudiciall to States, it confirmeth, as to Christianity, that power which all States have towards all Religions, [Page 258] to see, that they prove not prejudiciall to the publick peace. We have then two cases of Religion punishable with death: The first, when that which is contrary to the Law of Nature, is, by the corruption of naturall light, made matter of Religion, as hath been said of Idolaters, and, as it may be said of the whole spawn of Gnosticks, from Simon Magus to the Manichees, their Heires and Successors, which, as they corrupted Chri­stianity with Heathenisme, so, they tooke away the difference of good and bad, and brought in, under pretense of Religion, such horrible uncleannesse as nature abhorres: Which being, by mistake of the Gentiles, imposed upon the Primitive Christians, as, by the defense which they make for themselves, they doe evidence sufficiently, that they are wronged by those reports, so they declare, that if they were true, they would not refuse the persecutions which they plead against. The 2 ^d case is, when any thing prejudiciall to Civile Society, is held and professed as part of Christianity. For, as that which is prejudiciall to the publick Peace, must needs be punishable by those Powers, which are trusted with the mainte­nance of publicke Peace, and that with the utmost punishment, when the case de­serves it: So it is certain, that it is not Chri­stianity [Page 259] which is punished in so doing, be­cause Christianity contains nothing prejudi­ciall to Civile Society and publick Peace. Setting these cases aside, if no man can be constrained by capitall punishment to be­come a Christian, it followeth, that no Here­tick, Schismatick, or Apostate from Christi­anity can be punishable with death, meerly for the opinion which he professeth. The same reasons rightly improved, seem to con­clude, that no man is punishable by the ci­vile death of Banishment from his native Country and People, meerly for an opinion, which he beleeveth and professeth, though falsly, to be part of Christianity. For, you see, there is a great difference between the case of the Law and the Gospel; The Law is the condition of a Covenant between God and the People of Israel, by which they were all estated in the Land of Promise, and every one in his severall interesse in the same: So that, whosoever should renounce or violate the condition of this Covenant, which is the Law, must needs become liable to the punishment of Death, when the Law esta­blisheth it; and therefore to that of Banish­ment, or civile Death, or any lesse punish­ment, when the Law enableth to establish it. But the Gospel is the condition of a Cove­nant, which tenders the Kingdome of hea­ven [Page 260] to all those that imbrace and observe it: And therefore requires all Nations, King­domes, States, and Commonwealths, to en­ter into one Society of the Church, meerly for the common service of God, upon con­science of the same Faith, and duty of the same obedience: But otherwise, acknowled­ging the same obligation, both of Civile and Domestick Society, as afore. Whereupon it follows, that as Christians, imbracing Chri­stianity freely, (because it cannot be truly imbraced otherwise) purchase themselves thereby no Right or Privilege, against the Secular Powers which were over them afore: So no Secular Powers that are Soveraign, by professing Christianity themselves, pur­chase any Right and Power, (as to God) of inforcing Christianity upon their Subjects, by such Penalties, as the Constitution of those Civile Societies which they govern, enables them not to inflict, according to the common Law of all Nations. Wherefore, seeing common reason discovereth not the truth of Christianity to us, and therefore the common Law of Nations enjoineth not Christianity, as the condition of Civile Soci­ety, but that Civile Societies, as they subsi­sted before Christianity, so still subsist upon principles, which, for their Originall, are a­fore it, though for their perfection after it, [Page 261] it seems, that the Soveraign Powers of Ci­vile Societies, are not enabled to make Chri­stianity, the condition of being a member of those States which they govern. But if Se­cular Powers be not enabled to punish the re­nouncing of Christianity, or of any part of it, with Naturall or Civile death, doth it therefore follow, that all men are, by Gods Law, to be left to their freedome, to be­leeve and professe what they please? I sup­pose there are very great Penalties, under the rate of those, which the Constitution of Civile Societies, by the Common Law of Nations, will enable the Soveraign Powers thereof, to punish the neglect of Christianity with, when they have avowed it for the Reli­gion of the States which they govern. For, in that case, the neglect of Christianity, is not onely a sin against God, and a good con­science, but against Civile Society, and that reverence which every man owes the Powers that conclude his own People, in thankful­nesse to the invaluable benefit of peaceable protection, which he enjoies by the same. Secondly, seeing that all Religion, excepting true Christianity, is a most powerfull means of disturbing the publick peace of civile So­cieties, though perhaps it professe no such thing expresly, it follows by consequence, that all Powers, that are trusted with the pre­servation [Page 262] of publick Peace, are enabled to forbid that which is not true Christianity, by all penalties, under those that have been ex­cepted. So that, when true Christianity is forbidden under such penalties, the fault shall be, not in usurping, but in abusing the Pow­er, in applying it to a wrong subject, not in straining it to that which it extendeth not to. And in so doing, that is, in suffering that which is so done, it is not to be thought that Christianity can be wronged, though wrong be done to the men that are Christians. For, seeing it is the common profession of Chri­stians, to bear Christs Crosse, and seeing it was the disposition of God, to advance Chri­stianity to the Stern of the Romane Em­pire, and to the Rule of other Christian Kingdomes and Commonwealths, by de­monstrating, that it was not prejudiciall to Civile Society, by the sufferings of the Pri­mitive Christians, it followeth, that, whatso­ever a man holds for true Christianity, can­not be demonstrated to be so, as God hath appointed Christianity to be demonstrated, but by the sufferings of them that professe it. And therefore it remains agreeable to rea­son, that God hath given Secular Powers such right to restrain pretended Christianity, that when it is used against the true, it can­not be said to be usurped, but abused. It will [Page 263] be said, for it is said already, that any con­straint to Christianity by temporall punish­ment, will serve but to confirm some, and engage them to that which they have once professed contrary to truth; and that others, who, to avoid punishment, shall outwardly submit to what inwardly they approve not, must needs forfeit all power of Christianity, by preferring the world before any part of it. To which it must be answered, that, all this granted, proves not that it is unjust, or that civile Powers have no right to make such Laws, but that it is not expedient, the exercise of it, being, probably, to no good purpose, which defeats not the right, till it be proved, that it cannot be exercised to any good purpose: which in this point cannot be done. For, it is as probably said on the other side, that, by temporall Penalties, a man is induced, to consider with lesse preju­dice, that which the 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 Sun­burnt by walking in the Sun, though they [Page 264] 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 [Page 265] 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 [Page 266] 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 [Page 267] 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 [Page 268] 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 [Page 269] 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 [Page 270] 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 [Page 271] 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 [Page 272] 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 [Page 273] 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, [Page 274] are to be retained, all, and every one of them, with the same Religion and conscience. And, with this limitation, the distinction which the Church of Rome is usually answe­red with, is to be admitted, between successi­on of Persons and succession of Doctrine; Not as if it were not a part of Christian do­ctrine, that the Succession of the Apostles is to be obeyed, as their Ordinance, but be­cause there are many other points of do­ctrine delivered the Church, by our Lord and his Apostles, all and every one of them equally to be regarded with it. Again, I have shewed, that the Secular Power is bound to protect the Ecclesiasticall, in de­termining all things, which are not deter­mined by our Lord and his Apostles, and to give force and effect to the acts of the same: But in matters already determined by them, as Laws given to the Church, if, by injury of time, the practice become contrary to the Law, the Soveraign Power being Christian, and bound to protect Christianity, is bound to imploy it self, in giving strength, first, to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles. By consequence, if those whom the power of the Church is trusted with, shall hinder the restoring of such Laws, it may and ought, by way of penalty to such persons, to suppresse their power, that so it [Page 575] may be committed to such, as are willing to submit to the superiour Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles. A thing throughly proved, both by the Right of Secular Pow­ers in advancing Christianity with penalties, and in establishing the exercise of it, and, in particular, by all the examples of the pious Kings of Gods people, reducing the Law into practice, and suppressing the contrary thereof. Seeing then, that it is agreed upon, by all that professe the Reformation, that many and divers things ordained by our Lord and his Apostles, whether to be belee­ved, or to be practised in the Church, were so abolished by injury of time, that it was requisite they should be restored, though a­gainst the will of those, that bore that pow­er, which the Apostles appointed necessary to conclude the Church; it followeth, that, the necessity of Reformation inferreth not the abolishing of the Succession of the Apo­stles, but that more Laws of our Lord and his Apostles, and of more moment, were preferred before it, where it could not regu­larly be preserved: Which, when it may be preserved, is to be so far preserved before all designs, which may seem to humane judge­ment expedient to the advancement of Christianity, that whosoever shall endevour, without such cause, to destroy the power de­rived [Page 276] from the Apostles, by conferring it up­on those, that succeed them not in it, and much more, whosoever shall doe it to intro­duce Laws contrary to the Ordinance of the Apostles, shall be thereby guilty of the hor­rible crime of Schism. For it is to be re­membred, that there are some things imme­diately necessary to the salvation of particu­lar Christians, whether concerning Faith or good manners; and there are other things necessary to the publick order and peace of the Church, that by it Christians may be edified in all matters of the first kinde. The denying of any point of the first kinde, may, for distinctions sake, be called Heresie, when a man is resolute and obstinate in it: But in the other kinde, it is not a false opinion that makes a man a Schismatick, till he agree to destroy the Unity of the Church for it. It can scarce fall out indeed, that any man pro­ceed to destroy the Unity of the Church, without some false opinion in Christianity: Yet it is not the opinion, but the destroying of a true, or erecting of a false power in the Church, that makes Schism. And it can scarce fall out, that any man should broach a doctrine contrary to Christianity, without an intent to make a Sect apart; yet, onely a false perswasion in matters necessary to sal­vation, is enough to make an Heretick. This [Page 277] is the reason, that both Heresie and Schism, goes many times under the common name of Heresies or Sects, among the ancient Fa­thers of the Church. Otherwise, it is truly said, that Heresie is contrary to Faith, Schism to Charity: because the crime of Heresie is found in a single person that denies some point of Faith, though the name of it be ge­nerall, onely to those, and to all those that make Sects apart. In the mean time we must consider that the word Schism, signifies the state as well as the crime, in which sense, all that are in the state of Schism, are not in the crime of Schism, but those that give the cause of it. For as it is resolved, that Warre cannot be just on both sides that make War, so is it true, that the cause of all divisions in the Church must needs be only on one side, and not on both: And that side which gives the cause, are rightfully called Schismaticks, though both sides be in the state of Schism, as he in S. Augustine said of Tarquin and Lucrece, that being two in one act, yet one of them onely committed Adultery. If then, the Laws given by our Lord and his Apo­stles be restored, by consent of some part of the Councell and Synod, requisite to oblige any respective part of the Church, and the Succession of the Apostles propagated by them alone, in opposition to the rest that [Page 278] consent not unto them, the cause of Schism cannot lie on this side, which concurreth with the Primitive Succession of our Lord and his Apostles, but upon them that violate the Communion of the Church, by refusing such Laws, and the right of such persons, as ac­knowledge the same, the condition of the Unity and Communion of the Church, con­sisting as much in the rest of Laws given by our Lord and the Apostles, as in that of the Succession and power of the Apostles: Which is the case of the Church of England. But whoever, by virtue of any authority un­der heaven, shall usurp Ecclesiasticall Pow­er, shall usurp the Succession of the Apo­stles, and take it from them that rightfully stand possest of it, upon pretense of gover­ning the Church by such Laws, as he is re­ally perswaded, but falsly, to be commanded the Church by our Lord and his Apostles, this whosoever shall doe, or be accessory to, is guilty of Schism.

The issue then, of this whole dispute, stands upon this point, how, and by what means, it may be evidenced, what Laws of the Faith and Manners of particular Christi­ans, of the publick Order of the Church, have been given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles. A point which cannot be resolved aright, but by them which resolve [Page 279] aright, for what reasons, and upon what grounds and motives they are Christians. For without doubt, the true reasons and mo­tives of Christianity, if they be pursued, and improved by due consequence, will either discover the truth of any thing disputable in the matter of Christianity, or, that it is not determinable by any revealed truth. Here it is much to be considered, that the truth of things revealed by God, is not manifested to the mindes of them, to whom, and by whom God reveals them to the World, by the same means, as to them whom he speaks to by their means. Moses and the Prophets, our Lord and his Apostles, when they were sent to declare the will of God to his Peo­ple, were first assured themselves, that what they were sent to declare to the world, was first revealed to themselves by God, and then were enabled, to assure the world of the same. By what means they were assured themselves, concerns me not here to enquire. It is enough, that they were always enabled to do such works, as might assure the world, that they were sent by God. For how could they demand of any man to beleeve them, till they shewed him a reason to beleeve? Indeed, though there can no reason be given why matters of faith are true, there may bee a reason given why they [Page 280] are credible; Because many things are true, the reason whereof mans understan­ding comprehends not, yet God can shew him reason why he should beleeve. Thus was the Law of Moses, thus was the Gospel of Christ advanced to the world and recei­ved, God having bestowed on them that ad­vanced the one and the other, a power to do works, the greatnesse and strangenesse where­of might be able to prevail over the difficul­ty of those things, which they propounded to be beleeved and obeyed. For though it is no inconvenience, that God should grant revelations to many persons, to whom he granteth not the power of doing such works, as may serve to convince the world, that those revelations are sent by God: yet, that he should imploy any man to declare unto the world, any thing that God requireth to be beleeved and obeyed, without any means to make evidence of his Commission, ordi­nary reason will shew to be too grosse an in­convenience. This being the motive of Faith in generall, the difficulty that remains will be, how it becomes evident to the senses of all ages, all places, all persons of the world, that can be obliged to receive the Faith, be­ing done and seen, onely by those persons that were sent, and to whom. A difficulty endlesse to those, that advise not as they [Page 281] should doe with their own common sense. For it is manifest, that we receive an infinite number of truths, which never came under our own senses, from the sense of others, when we finde, all those that have had the means to take sensible notice of them, agree in the same. Such are all things, that are, or are done, in any distance from any mans senses, whereof he cannot be informed, but by Historicall faith. For all that is related from them that have seen, carries with it the credit of Historicall truth, as far as common sense obliges to beleeve, that all that relate, can neither be deceived, nor agree to deceive. Whereupon, that which all agree in becoms unquestionable, because it is as easie to know what may be seen, as it is unpossible, that all that agree in a report, should agree in a de­sign to deceive. The common notions in Euclide are unquestionable; and is it more questionable, that there is such a City as Rome or Constantinople, such a Country as Persia and China, to those that never were there? Would Physitians and Astronomers build their studies, or be suffered to build their practice, upon experiments and obser­vations related by particular persons, did not common sense assure, that men would not take the pains to abuse others, onely to be laught at and detested themselves? The [Page 282] question then being, (to suppose a question where there is none, because there is a questi­on what is the true answer) whether the mi­racles recorded in the Scripture were done or not, neither could they that first received them agree to deceive or be deceived, but stood convict, because they must have done violence to their own senses otherwise, and, being once admitted unquestionable, to the worlds end they remain no otherwise. For, the effect of them continuing, in that the Law or the Gospel is in force by virtue of them, they remain as certain, as he that sees a City builded a thousand years since, knows that there were men alive at the building of it. The Jews therefore are in the wrong, when they argue for the Law against the Go­spel, that, because there never was, or indeed can ever be such an appearance, of all them of one age, to whom the Gospel is addressed, as there was of the Israelites, at the giving of the Law, when all of that age, that were to be tied by it, were present at once, to be wit­nesses that it was sent from God, therefore no Law abrogating the same, can by any means become credible. For, as, for the love of this advantage against Christianity, they deny that which the first sending of Mo­ses expresly affirmeth, Exod. IV. 5. that all the miracles which he was endowed with, [Page 283] tended to win faith of the people, that God sent him: And will have all the credit of the Law, to stand precisely, upon the appearance and standing of Mount Sinai as they call it, where they will have all the people of Israel to have been Prophets, of Moses rank, whom God spoke face to face with, without any commotion or rapture of his or their senses: So they consider not, how the truth of this appearance of Mount Sinai, is manifested to their posterity: Seeing that by the same means as it becomes evident to those that live under other times, the motives of Chri­stianity may also be conveyed and evidenced to them, that are not present at the doing of the works. This for the evidence: As for the sufficience of the motives to the Gospel, in comparison of those of the Law, the pos­sibility thereof necessarily follows upon Gods omnipotence: the actuality of it is sufficiently proved, by the judgement of all Nations, that have imbraced the Gospel, in comparison of one that imbraced the Law. Especially if we consider the predictions of the Law and the Prophets going before, and the conversion of the Gentiles following upon the publication of the Gospel: Which being reckoned among the miracles that render the Gospel to be beleeved, doe neces­sarily bring all the motives of the Law, to [Page 284] depose for the truth of the Gospel. Thus much premised, it will be possible to resolve in a few words, the subject of voluminous disputes. All men know, how those of the Church of Rome, would have us beleeve and receive the Scriptures, upon the credit of the Church, affirming them to come from God: And consequently, whatsoever the Church determines, to be the true meaning of the Scriptures, and the Word of God: So that there can be no true faith, in any man that disbeleeves any part of it: Whether by the Church they mean the Pope, or a Councell, or whosoever they shall agree to have right to conclude the Church. On the other side, it were easie to say who they are, that pro­fesse to beleeve the Scriptures, upon the im­mediate dictate of the Spirit of God to their spirit, that they come from God. And, though I cannot say, that, consequently, they deny any man to have faith, that beleeves not all that their Spirit dictates to be the meaning of Gods word, because the dictates of severall Spirits are so contrary, that this can be no Rule: yet when the qualities of mens persons, with the dictates of their Spi­rits, are alledged in bar to the received do­ctrine of the Church, it is manifest, that men expect such light to be struck out of the darknesse and confusion of such dictates, [Page 285] that the Church shall at length be convinced to beleeve and receive it. And truly those that professe that they could not beleeve the Scriptures, but by the immediate dictate of the Spirit, by the same reason can conclude nothing to be the will of God, and the true intent of his Word, without it. This, if it were meant onely, of the testimony of the Spirit of God, witnessing with our Spirit, that we are the children of God, and sealing the assurance of this favour to our persons and actions, then would it not take away the grounds upon which, and the means by which, we are effectually moved and brought to be Christians, both in profession and in deed: So that, by consequence, means might be had, whereby a mans own Spirit might be enabled, to discern between the dictates of Gods Spirit, and that of the world. But being advanced in answer to this difficulty, as the first ground of faith, and the last resolution of it, cannot be so under­stood; But of necessity importeth, that no man can be assured, by the assurance of faith, of any truth, without that means, by which God reveals himself to them, by whom he declares his will to others. That either any person on behalf of the Church, or any pri­vate spirit, should pretend to any such en­dowment, is contrary to common sense, and [Page 286] their own proceedings: When they use the like means to inform themselves, both why to beleeve the Scripture, and what the mea­ning of it, and the will of God is, as other men doe. And, if they doe pretend more, they must shew such evidence, as God hath ordained to convince the world, before they can pretend to oblige any man to beleeve them. Besides, that so, it would not be pos­sible to render a reason, why God hath gi­ven his Scriptures at all, seeing that, notwith­standing, he must furnish, either some persons in behalf of the Church, or all beleevers, with revelations to convince them, what is his will and meaning by the Scriptures. But if they admit of such means, as God hath appointed Christians to decide, whether it be the Spirit of God, or of the world, that witnesseth with their Spirit, then is the que­stion where it was: Because, as God gives his Spirit to those that are Christians, upon such qualities, and to such intents, as they who pretend to the Spirit of God, ought to finde in themselves, and to propose to them­selves, and no other, so are they assured, that it is the Spirit of God, that moves them, because they are assured of those qualities and intentions in themselves, and by no other meanes. Now, having shew­ed before, upon what grounds Christianity [Page 287] is to be imbraced, I demand, whether it be in the compasse of any reason, that is con­vinced of the truth of Christianity, to que­stion, whether the Scriptures are to be recei­ved or not. Certainly, he were a strange man, that should consent to be a Jew, or a Mahumetane, and yet make a question whe­ther the Book of the Law came from Moses, or the Alcoran from Mahomet or not. There­fore, supposing that we stand convict of the truth of Christianity, by the same means we stand assured, that God hath caused those great works to be done, by Moses and the Prophets, by our Lord and his Apostles, by which the world stands convict, that they were sent by God, and by the same, that the Scriptures, wherein those works and their doctrine is related, are from God. Neither can the Church act to the assuring of any bo­dy herein as the Church, but as a multitude of men endowed with common sense, which cannot agree to deceive or to be deceived. For if the profession of Christianity goe be­fore the being of the Church, and Christia­nity cannot be received, till it be acknow­ledged, with the records thereof, to be from God, then this assurance, though it come from the agreement of the men that make the Church, goes in nature before the qua­lity of a Church, and therefore comes as [Page 288] well from the consent of Jews for the Old Testament, as of Christians for the New. Nor let it trouble any man, that by this means, faith may seem to be the work of rea­son, & not the grace of God, seeing it may very reasonably be demanded, Where is the neces­sity of grace, to enable a man to beleeve what he sees reason to beleeve? For though the matter of faith be credible of it self, yet it is not evident of it self, & though sufficient rea­son may be shewed, why a man ought to be­leeve, yet on the other side, there are many scandals, and stumbling blocks in the way, to hinder him from beleeving, the chiefe of which is the offence of the Crosse, whereof our Lord saith, Happy is he that is not offen­ded at me: For it cannot seem strange, that a man should refuse to beleeve that which he sees sufficient reason to convince him to be­leeve, when as, by beleeving, he becomes lia­ble to bear the Crosse of Christ, specially not being inforced by the light of reason, evidencing the truth of Christianity, and de­termining the assent of the minde, as fire does wood to burn, but swaied by externall motives, working upon the minde, accor­ding as they finde it disposed to goodnesse. For when this disposition is not perfectly wrought by Gods grace, nothing hinders sufficient motives to prove uneffectuall, to [Page 289] them whom the Crosse of Christ scandali­zeth. This being resolved, it follows by ne­cessary consequence, upon what reasons and by what means, the meaning of the Scri­ptures, or rather the will of God concerning all matters questioned in Christianity, is de­terminable. For it is not the same thing, ma­ny times, to know the meaning of the Scri­ptures, as it is to know how far it is Gods will that it binde the Church. The name of the Scripture inforceth no more, but that all is true which it containeth. Now it con­taineth many times, the sayings, and doings of evill men as well as of good, of Satan himself sometimes, wherein, it intends onely to assure, that such and such things were said and done. And, not to insist on the Law of Moses, (which is all the word of God, and no part of it binding to us, as the Law of Moses) because another disposition of Gods will may appear by other Scriptures, in the New Testament it self, are found many things, that now have not the force of precepts, though it appear that they did sometimes binde the Church: Such is the practice of the Feasts of Love, which S. Paul presses so hard, as I shewed afore; such is his precept that wo­men be vailed, men bare, when they pray in the Church; the decree of the Apostles at Jerusalem, against eating blood, and things [Page 290] strangled and sacrificed to Idols; the pre­cept of S. James of anointing the sick; the ceremonies of Baptism, which I shewed afore, out of S. Paul, to have been in use in the Pri­mitive Church; yea, the very custome of drenching in Baptism, which no man doubts but the institution signifies, and yet is now scarce any where in use. If therefore, there be question of the will of God, what is the true meaning of the Scriptures, and how far it bindes the Church, the same common sense of all men, that assures the truth of the Scriptures, must assure it. The knowledge of originall languages, the comparison of like passages, the consideration of the con­sequence, and text of the Scripture, the re­cords of ancient Writers, describing affairs of the same times, and if there be any other helps to understand the Scriptures by, they are but the means to improve common sense, to convince or be convinced of it. If that will not serve to procure resolution, there re­mains nothing else but the consent of the Church, testifying the beleef and practice of the first times that received the Scriptures, and thereby convincing common sense of the meaning of them, as the intent of all Laws is evidenced, by the originall practice of the same. So that this whole question, What Laws God hath given his Church, fals under [Page 291] the same resolution, by which matters of faith were determined in the ancient Coun­cels, in which, that which originally and uni­versally had been received in the Church, that was ordained by them to be retained for the future, as demonstrated to have been received from our Lord and his Apostles, by the same kinde of evidence, for which we re­ceive Christianity, though not so copious, as of lesse importance. And therefore it will not serve the turn to object, that the myste­ry of iniquity was a working even under the Apostles, as S. Paul saith, 2 Thess. II. 7. to cause the beleef and practice of the Primitive Church always to stand suspect, as the means to bring in Antichrist. For it is not enough to say, that Antichrist was then a coming, unlesse a man will undertake to specifie, and prove by the Scriptures, that the being of Antichrist consists in that which he disputes against. For if we will needs presume, that the government of the Church which was received in the next age to the Apostles, is that wherein Antichristianism consists, be­cause the mystery of iniquity was a work un­der the Apostles, why shall not the Soci­nians argue with as good right, that the be­leef of the Trinity and Incarnation, is that wherein Antichristianism consists, being re­ceived likewise in the next age to the Apo­stles, [Page 292] under whom the mystery of iniquity was a work? Or rather, why is either the one or the other admitted, to argue, from such obscure Scriptures, things of such dangerous consequence, unlesse they will un­dertake further to prove by the Scriptures, that Antichrist is Antichrist for that which they cry down? Which I doe not see that they have endevoured to doe, for the things in question among us, about the Govern­ment of the Church. Besides this, my rea­son carries the answer to this objection in it, because it challenges no authority, but that of historicall truth, to any record of the Church: Appealing for the rest to common sense to judge, whether that which is so evi­denced to have been first in practice, agree­ing with that which is recorded in the Scri­ptures, be not evidently the meaning of those things, which we finde by the Scriptures, to have been instituted by our Lord and his A­postles. And this it is which for the present I have pretended to prove by this Discourse: Which, being spent chiefly in removing the difficulty of those Scriptures, which have been otherwise understood in this businesse, confesseth the strength of the cause to stand upon the originall, generall, and perpetuall practice of the Church, determining the mat­ters in difference by the same evidence, as [Page 293] Christianity stands recommended to us, proportionably to the importance of them. Which, as it is not such as is able to convince all judgements, which are not all capable to understand the state of the whole Church, yet is it enough to maintain the possession of right derived to this instant, so that no power on earth can undertake to erect Ecclesiasti­call authority, without and against the suc­cession of the Apostles, upon the ground of a contrary perswasion, without incurring the crime of Schism.

I will not leave this point, without saying something of their case, that have Reformed the Church without authority of Bishops, that have abolished the Order, and vested their Power (in which I have shewed that they succeed the Apostles, as to their respe­ctive Churches, w ^th dependence on the whol) upon Presbyteries, or whatsoever besides. Which to decline here, might make men conceive, that I have a better or worse opini­on of them then indeed I have. For a Rule and modell, or Standard to measure what ought to be judged in such a case, suppose we, (that which is possible in nature, the terms being consistent together, though not at all likely to come to passe in the course of the world) a Christian people, greater or lesse, destitute of Pastors endowed with the Chief [Page 294] authority left by the Apostles in all Chur­ches. I suppose, in this case, no man can doubt, but they are bound to admit the same course, as those that are first converted to be Christians: That is, to receive Pastors from them that are able to found and erect Churches, and to unite them to the Com­munion of the whole Church, which is no lesse authority, then that of a Synod of Bi­shops, that onely, or the equivalent of it, in the person of an Apostle, or Commissary of an Apostle, being able to give a Chief Pastor to any Church. But suppose further, that this authority cannot be had, shall we be­leeve that they shall be tied to live without Ecclesiasticall communion? When it is a­greed, that, as the Unity of the Church is part of the substance of the Christian Faith, necessary to the salvation of all, so the first Divine Precept that those Christians shall be bound to, is, to live in the Society of a Church. For, where severall things are com­manded by God, whereof the one is the means whereby the other is attained, it is ma­nifest, that the Chief Precept is that which commandeth the end, and that which com­mandeth the means subordinate to the other. Now it is manifest, that all Powers, and all Offices endowed with the same in the Church, are Ordained by God, and enjoi­ned [Page 295] the Church, to the end that good Or­der may be preserved in the Church: And good Order is enjoined, as the means to preserve Unity, and the Unity of the Church commanded, as the being of that Society, whereby Christians are edified, both to the knowledge and exercise of Christianity, by communicating with the Church, especially, in the Service of God, and in those Ordi­nances wherein he hath appointed it to con­sist. Seeing then this edification is the end for which the Society of the Church subsi­steth, and all Pastors and Officers ordained, as means to procure it, as it is Sacrilege to seek the end without the means, when both are possible, so I conceive it would be Sacri­lege, not to seek the end without the means, when both are not. Now it is manifestly possible, that the edification of the Church may be procured effectually, by those that receive not their Power, or their Office, from persons endowed with it themselves afore: Especially, if we suppose them to receive the same Power, to be exercised by the same Laws, which those that received it from the Apostles themselves, had, and acknowled­ged, from the beginning. The consequence of all this is plain enough. The resolution of Gulielmus Antissiodorensis among the Schoole Doctors, is well known and appro­ved: [Page 296] 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 [Page 297] 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 [Page 298] 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, [Page 299] 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 [Page 300] 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 [Page 301] 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 exercise of their Christianity, then must it needs follow, that, by virtue of their Chri­stianity, they may lawfully use all Soveraign power, by which force and the sword is main­tained: Contrary to the principle premised at the beginning, that no good, no right of this world, accrues to any man by virtue of his Christianity, or decrues from another for want of it: As the power of the Sword, which is used by Title of Christianity, is necessarily taken from him who otherwise is possessed of it, by them which defend them­selves against the same, upon the Title of Christianity; And by consequence, all goods, all rights, all estates and qualities of this World, that accrue unto any man, by the use and successe of such Arms, are necessarily held and possessed by no Title, but that of Christianity. For, they that have right to defend themselves, cannot be subject to the Crosse, whensoever they are able to defend themselves, seeing they may as well impose it upon their enemies, if they have successe, as bear it themselves, if they have not; Though neither is it Christs Crosse, which a man bears for want of successe. And if this had [Page 302] not been the profession of the Primitive Christians, how could they have defended themselves by reason, and maintain, that the Gentile Powers ought not to persecute them? Seeing that all Powers are bound to maintain themselves, because therein con­sists the maintenance of the world in peace. So unreasonable is it which hath been said, that Tertullian understood not himself, when he affirmeth, that the Christians were then able to defend themselves against persecuti­on, were it not contrary to their profession so to doe. For, as no man of common sense would tell the Romanes, that the Christians were able to resist them, if they were not, because they knew well enough how able they were: So no man zealous of Christia­nity, would think to advantage it, by such commendations, as the enemies of it might discover to be false. And therefore, if we reason not amisse, this is the difference be­tween Christianity and Mahumetism. For Mahomet also pretended to be persecuted for religion by the Gentiles of Arabia, witnesse the computation of their years, from the ex­pulsion, or Persecution, or flight of Mahomet from Mecca: But when we see that he took up arms thereupon, and begun an order which all his Successors have observed, to propagate their Religion by the same means, [Page 303] we see by this means, the difference between Christianity and Mahumetism. And it is to be considered, by them that bring Jews again into Christian States, how they will secure those States, against this danger from Ju­daism. For, since they have made it part of their profession, to expect a Messias, that shall conquer the Nations, and restore them to the Land of Promise: upon appearance that such a Messias is come, they are not like to rest, if they can hope to be his followers, as they rested not under Adriane, and at o­ther times, when they have disturbed the peace of the States under which they lived, upon the like hope. This also, if we reason not amisse, is the justest title of all the wars, that Christians have made upon the Mahu­metans, for the holy Land, because the title upon which the Mahumetans first subdued it, makes them enemies to all civile Nations, that are Christian, seeing that the title of Re­ligion, is as good against all, as against any, and whatsoever person or people usurpeth Soveraign Power upon it, proclaimeth there­by defiance to all States, which he shall be able to deal with. And therefore this is not the case of the people of Israel under Moses: The Title whereupon they challenged the Land of Promise from the Nations presently in possession, being the deed of Gods Gift, [Page 304] and the consideration and condition upon which God granted it, their undertaking his Law. For, though it is true, that they clai­med the Land of Promise upon Covenant with God, to be ruled by his Laws, in which their Religion is contained, and though this deed of Gods gift, could not be evident by naturall reason to other Nations, yet, seeing they professed themselves constituted onely Gods Commissaries, to punish the sins of the seven Nations, and to root them out for their Idolatries, not to impose their Religion upon any other Nations, or to seek any inte­resse out of the Land of Promise, it follow­eth, that by this profession, they did not give other Nations just cause to resist them by force, neither had they any right to hin­der them, in their pretended conquest of the Land of Promise. And therefore the Kings of the Amorites beyond Jordan, Sihon and Og, hindring them by force to accomplish and execute this Commission of God, we see they received an accessory command to subdue them by force, and destroy them; and thereupon, an accessory grant of their domi­nions, for an addition to their inheritance. So, my intent hereby is not to say, that God may not dispose of the goods of this world, to those that enter into Covenant of religion with him, as the condition of the same: Or, [Page 305] that man may not lawfully make use of such a disposition of his, made known by that Revelation, which is unknown to those, a­gainst whom it is granted: (for I avow that he did so to the children of Israel under Mo­ses, and that they lawfully did so against the seven Nations) But that he did it not by the New Covenant of Christianity, because it invites the Soveraign Powers of all Nations, upon condition to enjoy the same Rights, which they stand possest of when they em­brace it. And, that he did not, by any Reve­lation, afterwards, make the like grant to Mahomet, as a privilege of the Religion which he pretendeth to have received from God, because, if Christianity be true, no o­ther Religion must succeed it. Whereupon it follows, that those Christians, that shall take upon them to bear Armes, and make War, upon the Title of Christianity, doe make themselves thereby, enemies to all ci­vile Nations that are Christian, as Mahume­tans are: Because, as we know that Mahu­metism is not from God, so we know, that Christianity enables no man to use the Pow­er of the Sword, wherein Soveraignty con­sists; And that if any might maintain them­selves in their Religion by the Title of Chri­stianity, then all that might come to have the same opinion, might doe the like, and [Page 306] so, all States might be troubled, by fighting for Christianity, within themselves, though not subdued, as by Mahumetans, seeking to impose their Religion upon others.

Against this place, there is onely one ob­jection of moment, so far as I can imagine, out of the Scriptures, and that is from the example of the Maccabees. For, on the one side, it is manifest, that the arms which they took up against Antiochus Epiphanes, their lawfull Soveraign, are approved by God, not onely as foretold by Daniel and Ezekiel, and other Prophets, that by them God would give his people freedome, and rule of the Land of Promise, but also, because the Apo­stle manifestly commendeth their faith, when he reckoneth their sufferings among those great effects which it brought forth, Heb. XI. 35, 36. And upon this account it is, that, in propounding this objection, I said, that it is taken out of the Scriptures, not meaning thereby the Books of the Maccabees, but those Scriptures, which, by consequence, seem to approve of the Maccabees proceedings. For, on the other side, it is manifest, that they justified their arms upon title of Reli­gion, by the first breaking out of it, 1 Mac. II. 24, 26, 27. where the zeal of the Law, and the example of Phinehas, is expressed to be that, which moved Mattathias to kill the [Page 307] Jew whom he saw sacrificing to Idols, and to maintain it by arms. Whereby it is ma­nifest, that, out of zeal to the Law, they took arms to defend it, lest it should be extingui­shed by the Tyranny of Antiochus; and therefore, that, when their arms took effect, and purchased them freedome, and the So­veraignty to the race of Mattathias, all this they held by Religion, and by no other title. And, for this reason it is, that they are cal­led Maccabees, though other extravagant reasons have been imagined by men of ex­cellent learning. For, it is to be observed, that all those that suffered, as well as fought in this cause, are called Maccabees, no lesse then Judas Maccabaeus, and therefore, the histories of their acts are called the Books of the Maccabees, in which is comprised as well the story of the Mother & the seven children, and others that suffered for the Law, as the acts of Judas and his Successors: And, Jose­phus his Book, in praise of that Mother and her children, is entitled, [...]: The reason of which is found in the Syriack, in which language [...] signifieth Zelotes, as you have it in Ferrarius his Nomenclator Sy­riacus. And that this was the Title of their arms, is more manifest by the case of the Jews under Caligula, when, out of his mad­nesse, he commanded to set up his statue in [Page 308] the Temple at Jerusalem. For as, by Philo de Legatione ad Caium, we understand, that they were willing to undergo any thing, and continue in obedience, so they might enjoy their Religion: So Josephus dissembleth not, in the relation of that business, Antiq. XVIII. 11. that they would have taken arms, rather then endure it, if Caligula had not been slain in the mean time. The clearing of this diffi­culty is to be fetched from the difference be­tween the Law and the Gospel, expressed in the words of our Lord to his Disciples, that required him to call for fire from heaven, upon those that would not entertain him, Luke IX. 55, 56. Ye know not of what spirit ye are: For the Son of man is not sent to destroy mens souls, that is, their lives, but to save them. For the Law worketh wrath; and, where there is no Law, there is no transgression; and, by Law is the knowledge of sin, saith the Apo­stle, Rom. IV. 20. V. 15. VII. 7. Therefore, the Law suffered him that was next of kin to any man that was slain, to kill him that slew him, before it was judged, whether he was slain by chance, or by malice, Num. XXXV. 16—Therefore, the Law commanded him that was tempted to Idolatry, to seek the death of him that tempted him, were he his father, or never so near of kin, Deut. XIII. 6,—11. In fine, the Law being the condition of a [Page 309] temporall estate, assigned at first by God to the people of Israel, observing it, can there be any marvell, that it might be lawfull for that people, to defend it by force, and by that defense to regain the same estate? Or will this draw any consequence in Christia­nity, to make it lawfull to take arms upon the title thereof, and so to hold estates of this world, by the same title, in case those arms take effect? For, the Gospel is the condition of life everlasting, promised to those that embrace it, including the Crosse of Christ, and therefore, renouncing all ad­vantage of this world, and, equally belon­ging to all people, and therefore maintaining all, in the same estate of this world which it finds. Therefore, the zeal of Elias, when he punished with fire from heaven, those that attempted to seize him at the unjust com­mand of an Idolatrous King, our Lord de­clares, not to sute with the Spirit of the Go­spel, (the profession thereof being to take up Christs Crosse, and to bear it with patience) though under the Law it might be commen­dable. Whereunto agreeth that which I said before, that Heresie and Schism, upon cau­ses, onely contrary to Christianity, and, that are not against the Law of Nature and Nati­ons, are no capitall crimes in Christian States: And that, in stead of death, which [Page 310] the Law inflicteth upon him that obeyeth not the Consistory, but causeth Schism, the punishment allotted by the Gospel is, onely to bee least in the kingdome of Heaven. For, if Soveraign Powers lawfully establi­shed, being Christian, are not enabled by their Christianity, to inflict death, on the said crimes, when, setting aside Christianity, they are not liable to it, much lesse is any man under a Soveraign Power, enabled by his Christianity, to use the Sword, wherein Soveraignty consists, for the maintenance of it. Neither is it contrary to this, that, un­der the Gospel, S. Peter punishes Ananias and Saphira with death, and the Apostles, as I shewed before, were endowed with a mira­culous power of inflicting bodily punishment upon those which obeyed them not, the ef­fects whereof were seen upon those whom they cast out of the Church, as also upon E­lymas, struck with blindnesse by S. Paul, for resisting his Gospel: Nor, that the souls under the Altar, Apoc. VI. 10. pray for the vengeance of their bloud, to be shewed upon the inhabitants of the earth. For, that which this Propheticall Vision representeth, is to be understood, sutably to Christianity, and to the Kingdome of God attained by it. Since, therefore, revenge is contrary to the principles of Christianity, we cannot ima­gine, [Page 311] that blessed souls desire it, but the cry which they make, must be understood to be, the provocation of God to vengeance, which their sufferings produce: So much more pertinently attributed to blessed souls, in as much as, being acquainted with Gods coun­sels, they approve and rejoyce in his Justice, and the advancement of his Church by the means of it. Now the power granted the Apostles, of inflicting bodily punishments, upon those that disobeyed them, tended first, to manifest that God was present in the Church, and, by consequence, to subdue the world to Christianity, and to win authority to the Church and the censures of it: Where­as Elias, when he called for fire from hea­ven, as the Apostles desired our Lord, might have been secured himself, by the like mira­cles, without destroying his enemies: So he caused Baals Priests to be put to death, not to vindicate the cause in debate, which was already done by a miracle, but to doe ven­geance on them as malefactors: And so Eli­zeus curseth the children to death, on pur­pose to punish the affront offered his person: In all which particulars, you have manifest characters of the Law, inflicting death for the punishment of sin, whereas, under the Gospel, which giveth life, the inflicting of bodily punishment serveth to procure the [Page 312] 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 [Page 313] 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 [Page 314] 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 [Page 315] 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 [Page 316] 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 [Page 317] the Church, according to Gods: How much more, when it is demonstrated, that it subsisteth by the Act of the Apostles, shall it be without the compasse of any Se­cular Power to dissolve it? And therefore, the consequence hereof, in the present state of Christianity among us, is further to be de­duced, because many men may be perswaded of their obligation to the Church, upon supposition of the Divine Right of Bishops, who perhaps perceive not the former rea­son of their obligation to them here asser­ted, as to the Ordinary Pastors of the Church.

To proceed then, out of the premises, to frame a judgement of the state and conditi­on of Christianity in England at the present, and from that judgement to conclude, what, they that will preserve the conscience of good Christians, are to doe or to avoid, in maintaining the Society and Communion of the Church: Put the case, that an Ecclesi­asticall Power be claimed and used, upon some perswasions contrary to the substance of true Christianity, and pretending, there­by to govern those that adhere to the same perswasion, in the Communion of those Ordinances, which God requireth to be ser­ved with, by his Church, according to the same perswasion: I suppose, no man will de­ny [Page 318] this to be the crime of Heresie, containing not onely a perswasion contrary to the foun­dation of Faith, but also an Ecclesiasticall Power founded upon it, and thereby a sepa­ration from the Communion of the Church, which acknowledgeth not the same. Put the case again, that an Ecclesiasticall Power is claimed and used, not upon a perswasion contrary to any thing immediately necessary to the salvation of all Christians, (as, the foundation of Faith, and all that belongeth to it, is) but upon a perswasion contrary to something necessary to the Society of the whole Church, as commanded by our Lord Christ or his Apostles to be regulated there­by; and this, with a pretense to govern those that adhere to the same perswasion, in the Communion of all Ecclesiasticall Ordinan­ces, according to it, this I cannot see how it can be denied to be the crime of Schism. And this, God be blessed that I cannot say it is done in England, but, in consequence to the premises, I must say, that this is it which hath been, and is endevoured to be done in it, and therefore to be avoided by all that will not communicate in an act of Schism. I doe not deny that Presbyters have an in­teresse in the Power of the Keys, and by con­sequence, in all parts of Ecclesiasticall Pow­er, being all the productions thereof: But [Page 319] I have shewed, that their Interesse is in de­pendence upon their respective Bishops, without whom, by the Ordinance of the A­postles, and the practice of all Churches, that are not parties in this cause, nothing is to be done. When as therefore Presbyters, divi­ding among themselves the eminent Power of their Bishops, presume to manage it with­out acknowledgement of them, out of an o­pinion, that the eminence of their Power is contrary to the Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles, or, that, not being contrary to the same, it is lawfull for Presbyters, to take it out of the hands, either of Bishops or of simple Presbyters, had they been so possessed of it. When as they joyn with themselves some of the People, in the quality of Lay Elders, or what ever they will have them called, and of these constitute Consistories for all severall Congregations, endowed with the Power of the Keys over the same, though in dependence upon greater Assemblies, out of the opinion that this is the Ordinance of our Lord & his Apostles, and this, not to ma­nage the Interesse of the People, that nothing passe contrary to the Laws given the Church by God, which are their inheritance as well as the Clergies, but, in a number double to that of the Presbyters in all Consistories, and in a right equall to them, man for man; so [Page 320] that it may truly be said, that the whole Power of Clergy and People, is vested in these Lay Elders, that one quality consen­ting, being able to conclude the whole: When as the determination, who shall or shall not be admitted to Communion, retur­neth at last to a number of Secular persons, making them thereby Judges of the Laws of Christianity, and enabling them thereby, to give and take away the Ecclesiasticall being of any member of the Church, in those cases, to which that power extendeth, and inve­sting a Civile Court with the Power of the Keys in the same: (All these points being members of the Ordinance for the establish­ment of the Presbyteries.) I say then, that, by that Ordinance, an Ecclesiasticall Power is erected, upon so many perswasions, of things concerning the publick Order of the Society of the Church, contrary to the Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apo­stles, by a Secular Power, interessed onely in point of Fact, in Church matters, without any ground of Right to do it; and that, there­fore, the endevouring to establish these Pres­byteries is an act of Schism, which particular Christians, though they never, by any ex­presse act of their own, tied themselves to be subject to Bishops, are neverthelesse bound not to communicate in, because they are [Page 321] bound upon their salvation to maintain the Unity of the Church, and the Unity of the Church, established upon these Laws, where­of the Succession of Bishops is one. As for the design of the Congregations, it is easily perceived to come to this effect: That, to the intent that Christian people may be tied to no Laws, but such as the Spirit of God which is in them, convinces them to be esta­blished upon the Church by the Scripture, and that thereupon, the ordering of all mat­ters concerning the Society of the Church, may proceed upon conviction of every mans judgement: Therefore, every Congregation of Christians, assembling to the Service of God, to be absolute and independent on any other part, or the whole Church, the Power being vested in the members of the said Congregation, under the Authority of the Pastor and Elders, as aforesaid. And, that therefore, every Congregation constituting it self a Church, constitutes by consequence, and destitutes Pastors, Elders, and Members: So that, by this design, an Ecclesiasticall Power being erected upon so many perswasi­ons, contrary to the Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles, the act of Schism is more visible. Though, for the claim and Title, by which this Ecclesiasticall Power is erected in both ways, that of the [Page 322] Congregations is more sutable to Christia­nity, (because that of the Presbyteries more forcible) both equally destructive to the right of the Church: For, that a Parlia­ment, by which Power the Assembly of Di­vines was called, (not disputing now the Power of a Parliament in England, but sup­posing it to be as great for the purpose, as any Christian State can exercise) should erect an Ecclesiasticall Power, by taking it from those that have it, and giving it to those that have it not, is without the Sphere of any Power, which stands not by the Constitution of the Church. For, if the Church subsisted before any Secular Power was Christian, by a Power vested by our Lord in his Apostles, extending it in one visible Society, beyond the bounds of any Dominion, with equall interesse in the parts of it through severall Dominions, what title, but force, can any State have to doe it, if we presuppose the Society of the Church, as such, unable to doe it? Therefore, by the Society of the Church, and by Christians as Members thereof, it must be done, whatsoever is done, either in Reforming the Church, or in Sepa­rating from the Church. And therefore the proceeding of the Congregations, when they separate from the Church of England, by a Right founded upon the Constitution [Page 323] of the Church, is more agreeable to Chri­stianity, then the proceeding of the Pres­byteries, when they pretend to Reform the Church of England, by the Power of the Parliament, supposing it to be as great as any Secular Power can be in Church mat­ters. But I intend not hereby to grant that it is a rightfull Title, upon which those of the Congregations separate from the Church of England. For as men cannot make them­selves Christians, but the doing of it must presuppose a Church, as at the first it presup­posed the Power of constituting a Church, estated by our Lord upon his Apostles: (Be­cause our Lord hath required of those that will be saved, not onely to beleeve his Go­spel, but also to professe Christianity, and this Profession to be consigned in the hands of those, whom he trusteth with the conduct of his Church, and by them accepted, be­cause if not sincere and complete, it is not to be admitted) so, the continuance in the Communion of the Church, presupposing an acknowledgement of the Christianity professed therein, to contain nothing destru­ctive to salvation, professeth an obligation of acknowledging the Governours thereof, in order to the same. And this obligation un­avoidable, by the premises, unlesse Christian people, by those Governours, appear to be [Page 324] defeated of the benefit of such Laws, given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles, as appear to be of greater consequence to the Service of God, for which the Society of the Church subsists, then the personall suc­cession of Governours, and the Unity of the Church, wherein it consisteth, can be ima­gined to be. Which in our present case is so far from being true, that the premises being true, all the particulars, for which the Con­gregations separate, and which the Presby­teries would Reform, the Chief Power of the Clergy over the People, the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, the dependence of Congregations upon the City Church, the Power of giving Laws to the Church, the Right of First-fruits, Tithes, and all Consecrate things, and above all the Unity of the Church, and the Personall Succession of Governours in which it consisteth, are all demonstrated to have been ordained by the Apostles. The same is to be said of the Ce­remonies, as to the whole kinde, though not to the particulars questioned. For first, it is proved, that the Rule of Charity requires all Christians, to forbear the use of that free­dome which Christianity alloweth, in all things determined by the Law of the Church, not contrary to Gods. Secondly, though it be granted, that the particulars [Page 325] questioned were not instituted by the Apo­stles, (for indeed, the customes of severall Nations, that have received Christianity, are so different, that, for example, that which the Apostle commandeth, that men pray co­vered, 1 Cor. XI. 3. cannot be used among those Nations, that uncover the head, in sign of reverence, which the Ancients did not: And this is the true reason, why the same Ceremonies of Divine Service, are not in use now, as under the Apostles) yet whoso­ever shall separate from the Church upon this ground, that significative Ceremonies are not to be used in the Service of God, shall doe it to establish a Law contrary to the A­postles, who ordained such to be used, as I shewed afore. Besides, the Church of Eng­land, and Governours thereof, doe not maintain any infallible Power of conducting the Church, professing themselves the Re­formation which their Predecessors made, and therefore, are so far from refusing any Law of God to be a Law of this Church, that if any Humane Constitution had been recommended to them, (evidently necessary or usefull, to make the Laws of our Lord and his Apostles effectuall to this particular Church) by such an authority as the Secular Power hath over them, it is visible to all English, that, for the Peace of the Church [Page 326] and themselves, they would not have refused it. And therefore, the true reason of this Separation, or Reformation is, because they will not part with that Power, which is in them derived from the Apostles, and at once with the Unity of the Church, necessarily, in this Case, depending on the same.

I suppose what will be answered, that all this is done to Reform the Church, to bring in plentifull and powerfull Preaching, and Praying as the Spirit shall indite; for, not knowing any thing else to be pretended, and having shewed the rest of the change to be contrary to the Ordinances of the Apostles, though I see no man is so hard hearted; as not to think his own design to be the Refor­mation of the Church, without ever proving it to be so, yet I must needs think it part of my charge, to say somewhat also to this. I doe acknowledge, then, a charge upon the Church, to provide, that Christians, made members of the Church by Baptisme, be taught more and more in the true intent of their Christianity, and exhorted to the per­formance of it, by virtue of the Precept of our Lord, Mat. XXVIII. 19, 20. Goe Preach, and make Disciples all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you: Which, being given [Page 327] the Apostles, is, by the same reason, given to all whom they should assume, or Ordain, or cause to be Ordained, to exercise their Power, or any part of it, in dependence upon the same, and according as the same should determine in time or place. But, that any thing is determined, as of Divine Right, or by the Scriptures, when, where, how often, how seldome, in what manner, and how fre­quent Preaching is, by the Church, to be furnished to the Church, he will make him­selfe ridiculous that undertakes to affirm. That the Church is to endevour, that this Office be as frequent, as may be to the edifi­cation of the Church, appears indeed by the Scriptures: Not those which speak of publi­shing the Gospell, under the terms of [...], or [...], or any equivalent, as Rom. X. 14-1 Tim. IV. 2, 5. 1 Cor. IX. 16. But those that expresse the diligence of the Apostles, and Apostolicall persons of their time, in teaching the Assemblies of Christi­ans, Acts II. 42, 46. V. 42. VI. 2, 4. XI. 26. and the frequenting of this Office in those times, 1 Cor. XIV. 1 Tim. V. 17. Rom. XII. 6. 7. But, that it should be so easie for them, that now are admitted to the Service of the Church, to Preach continually, so as to edi­fie the Church by their Preaching, as it was for Apostles, Apostolicall persons, and Pro­phets, [Page 328] 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 [Page 329] 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, [Page 330] 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 [Page 331] 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. [Page 332] 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 [Page 333] 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 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 [Page 334] 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 [Page 335] 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 [Page 336] 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 [Page 337] 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 [Page 338] 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 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 [Page 339] 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.

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 [Page II] 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 [Page III] stand, they will appear to be as the Rivers that rise out of Apenninus, w ^ch 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 [Page IV] 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 [Page V] 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 right understanding of Christs Crosse, and the profession of it, which is the substance of Christianity. For, if we be called to the Crosse of Christ by our Christianity, we can­not [Page VI] thereby be called to any advantage, e­state, or possession of this world, which we have not by our quality in the State. And when it is said, that temporall dominion is not founded in Grace, it is as much as if it were said, that it is not founded in Christia­nity, because the great Grace of God in gi­ving Christ, is the ground of all other grace tending to life everlasting. Now, if Christi­anity import no right, no interesse, no advan­tage of this world, but maintaineth the State of this world, in the same condition which it findeth, when the world imbraces Christianity, because it obligeth all men to yeeld obedience to Soveraign Powers, (which maintain all men in possession of their rights) for conscience sake, then is the difficulty re­moved, neither can it be prejudiciall to States, that the persons whereof they con­sist, are called by God to a Society of the Church, subsisting by the grant and patent of God, and not of any State.

If it be thus, the question will be asked in the next place, How a Society of men can subsist in this world, without any privilege or right of this world; and, seeing it must be the grant of some privilege from God, which the world gives not, that must make the Church a Society, Community, Corpora­tion, or Spirituall Commonwealth, what this [Page VII] privilege is, and wherein it consisteth. For, to the constitution of this Society, there goes more then to beleeve the Faith with the heart, which, being of it self invisible, can­not be sufficient to constitute the Society of the Church, which must be visible: More then to professe Christianity to the world; for so doe they, we see, that dispute, that there is no such thing as any Society of the Church, because they suppose not, that Chri­stianity obligeth them to communicate in the publick Service of God, and the Ordi­nances wherein it consisteth: But, this being supposed, together with the condition upon which men are admitted to Christianity, as the condition upon which they communi­cate in the same, there needs nothing else to make the Church such a Society as we speak of. It may perhaps seem strange, that this privilege, of holding Assemblies for the pub­lick Service of God, and the obligation which all Christians are under, of commu­nicating in the same, should be advanced for the ground upon which all the right of the Church standeth, seeing it is but collected by consequence, and not expresly laid down in the Scriptures, that there is such a Precept or privilege. For, that this is the ground up­on which the Society of the Church stan­deth, and the source from whence all the [Page VIII] right thereof issueth, is not matter of faith or salvation, but of Theologicall Discourse, by consequence of reason to be drawn out of the Scripture, without which, they may be as good Christians, which, without it, cannot acquit themselves of those difficul­ties, which, he that knoweth the ground from whence the rights of the Church by conse­quence of reason may be deduced, shall be able to resolve. Here then we have a privi­lege, because granted by God against all the Powers of the world, not as to use any force of this world to defend our selves in it, for then should the Power of the Sword depend upon the constitution of the Church, but as to God, to secure Christians in conscience to God, in case they disobey the Powers of the world, to whom they are always bound to be subject, when they forbid them to com­municate in the Service of God at the As­semblies of the Church, which God com­mandeth: But no privilege of this world, which counts it no advantage, to suffer for that duty to God, which flesh and bloud could spare with ease. And, by virtue of this Patent, or Charter-privilege from God, the Church is constituted a Visible Society and Community of all Christians, though to an invisible purpose. It will not be out of the way to remember here a passage of Pli­nies [Page IX] Epistles, X. 97. by which it may appear, how the Assemblies of the Church were for­bidden by the Romanes, when he says, that the Apostate Christians pleaded for them­selves, that they had not frequented the As­semblies of the Church, since that, (accor­ding to the instructions of Trajane) he had by his Edict interdicted Corporations, which he cals Hetaerias, and the Laws Collegia or Colleges, Digest. XLVII. 23. For, seeing on the one side Tertullian, de Jejunio cap. XIII. argueth upon supposition, that the Assemblies of Christians were not against the Laws when he writ; on the other side, it appears, by the Laws 1 & 3 ff. de Collegi­is & Corporibus, that the Emperors, by their instructions to the Governours of Provinces, and the Senate by their Decrees, did make such Societies unlawfull, as often as they found cause; it seems that, so often as they pleased, they comprised the Christians with­in those Laws, and that, when the Christians were comprised in those Laws, their Assem­blies were thereby interdicted, as they were by Plinies Edict. Josephus truly, Antiq. XIV. 17. recordeth a Decree of Julius Caesar, by which he declareth, that, when he interdicted other Societies of that nature, he excepted the Assemblies of the Jews: So that, since it appears, that, for divers years after the [Page X] death of our Lord, the Christians went for Jews without distinction at Rome, it is pro­bable, that, at the first, they were not inqui­red into by any Law of this kinde, because the Jews were not liable to the like. But that, when they were inquired into, they held themselves tied to assemble notwithstanding these Laws, appears by Pliny, because it is manifest, that those who pleaded for them­selves, that they had left the Assemblies of the Church, were Apostates. This privi­lege of holding Assemblies, granted Christi­anity by Divine right, on purpose to consti­tute the Community of the Church, is sup­posed in that notable Discourse of S. Paul, Eph. IV. 4-16. wherein the Apostle decla­reth, as I have shewed p. 218. that God hath appointed two sorts of Graces in his Church, which may be distinguished by the terms of corporall and spirituall: Corporall, in sup­porting the assemblies thereof by the goods of this world; and spirituall, in edifying the Church to the perfection of Christianity, at those Assemblies. So that, the end of all the Graces, which God hath given his Church, being the edification of the Church, & the means of that edification, the frequen­tation of the Assemblies thereof, and the condition of that means, the Unity of the Church, it must needs appear, that the Apo­stle [Page XI] supposeth a Society of the Church, be­cause he argueth upon the means which God hath provided, to maintain the visible as­semblies thereof in Unity, so that all might be edified, at those Assemblies, to perfection in Christianity. For, seeing the unity of Ec­clesiasticall Assemblies, importeth the Com­munion of all Christians, in all the Offices of Divine Service, it 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 [Page XII] 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 [Page XIII] 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 Is [...]ael, which [Page XIV] 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 [Page XV] 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 [Page XVI] 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 utter ruine. Many people are many waters, Apoc. XVII. 15. but the Go­spel is the wine that cometh from the Vine in the Gospel, John XV. 1. This wine then, mixed with much water, that is, the Gospel received by much people, retaineth not the true relish, in the works of them that pro­fesse it. David saith of himself, Psal. XVIII. 44, 45. A people whom I have not known shall serve me: At the report of me they will obey me: Strangers will lie to me. At the report of Davids victories, strangers submitted unto him: Some of whom neverthelesse were false [Page XVII] hearted Subjects. This is the case of them that professe Christianity, and live not ac­cording to it, who seem to have learned Machiavels principle, to join themselves to that party which they mean to destroy. As the multitude that came with the Israelites out of Aegypt, upon sight of Gods miracles, set them on murmuring against God in their straits, Exod. XII. 38. Num. XI. 4. The cold of winter concenters the heat of the sto­mack, and fortifies digestion. So, the appea­rance of persecution, fortified the Primitive Christians to digest it: But the heat of the air entices forth naturall heat, and disposes to putrefaction: So the peace of the Church dissolveth the best resolutions for Christia­nity. For, as the stomack cannot order and govern that abundance of crude and undige­sted humours, which the weaknesse of natu­rall heat breeds, so neither can the discipline of the Church hold those in compasse, that come not to Christianity with so strong a resolution as to suffer for it. The cause then of the corruption of discipline, is the coming of all sorts to Christianity, whether for fashi­ons sake, or for hope of advantage, which Eusebius hath observed that it was visible in Constantines time. As for the Power of the State in Church matters, it is ordained for a counterpoison to this mischief, to give that [Page XVIII] force to the discipline of the Church, which carnall Christians would not submit to o­therwise. The Apostles in their time had a power to inflict bodily punishment upon of­fenders, as S. Peter upon Ananias and Saphi­ra, S. Paul upon Elymas, which, in excom­munication, he cals delivering to Satan, be­cause, by some plague on the body, it appea­red, that they came within his power by be­ing excommunicate. This power it is which the Apostle cals the Rod, 1 Cor. IV. 21. and of it his meaning is when he says, 2 Cor. X. 6. That he was ready to punish all disobedience when their obedience should be complete. To me therfore it seems more then probable, which hath been conceived of late, that God provi­ded this extraordinary gift, expresly for those times, when the Church was destitute of the protection of Secular Powers, as on the contrary, that, against the time that this gift ceased, he provided the protection of Secular Powers, for the maintenance of Christianity. These things thus debated, it will be worth the considering, how, by the appointment of God it necessarily comes to passe, that the Power of the Church, foun­ded upon a very mean and inconsiderable privilege, (as to the world) of assembling for the publick Service of God, coms to be of greatest consideration, in swaying the weigh­tiest [Page XIX] affaires of Christian Kingdomes and Comonwealths. And, in consequence there­unto, not what discretion, but what justice there is in those vain discourses, which re­quire of the Clergy of such times, that meannesse, and poverty, and contemptible estate and condition of living, which our Lord and disciples spent their time in from the be­ginning. Not considering, that, by the same reason, the people of the Church must not continue such as now they are, but must re­turn to be such as then they were: That the right of the Church cannot be maintained in effect, without a Power answerable to the body that is to be governed by it, nor that Power maintained, without a support pro­portionable. And, that Christianity is not necessarily seen, in having or not having this or that estate in this world, but in using the Power, with that meeknesse, and charity, and uprightnesse, the goods of this world, with that temperance, continence, and freedome of heart which Christianity requires. Nor is it to be doubted, that the Church was poi­soned with those riches which the Christia­nity of the Empire cast upon it: But not by having those riches, but by the manners of the people, which, comming into the Church corrupted with the love of them, must needs, by consequence, corrupt the Clergy whom [Page XX] they came so near. In fine, that the Refor­mation of the Church in a Christian State, consists not in stripping the Church either of Power or Possessions, but in providing bet­ter Laws for the use of them, and the execu­tion of the same.

You may have observed, that, in the pre­mises, I have declared, the Society of the Church, to be founded upon a Command from God to all Christians, of Communi­cating in the publick Service of God, (pro­ducing an obligation to God, and therefore to the World, a Privilege of doing it, though the Powers of the World forbid it to be done) & upon a Law, for the condition, under which they are admitted to communicate in it. Of this Precept, or of the obligation and privilege depending upon it, I have hitherto made evidence. That which remains to make the proof of my purpose complete, is, to shew that there is a Law given by God, for the con­dition under which men are admitted to cō ­municate with the Church: For, seeing the execution of this Law must needs be com­mitted to the Church, that is, to Christians, (not supposing for the present the Church to be a Society, but onely a multitude of Christians, nor disputing what part of the Church, or what persons in the Church, are trusted with the execution thereof [Page XXI] in behalf of the Church) upon this trust followeth immediately that common Pow­er, which constituteth the Society of the Church. Which Power, because it is foun­ded upon the obligation, or the privilege of holding Assemblies for the common Ser­vice of God, therefore the act wherein it is immediately seen, is the voiding of any mans right to communicate in the Offices of Di­vine Service, at the common assemblies of the Church for that purpose. I say it is im­mediately seen in this act, when it is com­plete: Otherwise it is to be conceived, that, as it is exercised, so also it may be said to be seen more immediately, in all those acts which tend to Excommunication, as degrees or steps to it, which is the utmost that the Church, as the Church, can doe, being the taking away of a Christians life, as to the Church, as the greatest works of State Ju­stice are, the taking away of the Naturall or Civile beeing of any member of it. Seeing then, the utmost Power of the Church is used in Excommunication, it follows, that it is evidenced and seen by Excommunication, that is to say, that all reasons which shew the Church to be endowed with the Power of Excommunication, do shew it to be con­stituted a Society, Community, Corpora­tion, or spirituall Commonwealth, by the [Page XXII] Power of doing it. Now the Law which is the condition upon which men are admitted to communicate with the Church, is nothing else but the profession of Christianity, upon which, the Apostles of our Lord were first enabled to constitute Churches, by bapti­zing them whom they should win to be Di­sciples, according to the Commission of our Lord, Mat. XXVIII. 19. those onely being Disciples which undertook Christianity, and therefore were afterwards called Christians, being first called Disciples, even after their Baptism. Now, Christianity consisting, not onely in beleeving whatsoever our Lord Christ revealed, but in the acknowledgement of an obligation to doe whatsoever he com­manded; it follows, that this Law of Chri­stianity consists of all Precepts, of things to be beleeved, and things to be done, which our Lord Christ hath declared to his Church. And not in these alone, in regard that our Lord hath commanded Christiani­ty, not onely to be beleeved, but also to be professed, at the utmost perill of life and e­state: Therefore I said, that the Law, which is the condition of communicating with the Church, is the profession of Christianity, which entitleth to Baptism. This profession, seeing it cannot be made but to Christians, that know what Christianity is, and thereby [Page XXIII] are able to judge of the profession made, how agreeable to Christianity, of the person making the profession, how sincerely, how cordially he does it, it followeth, that the Power of the Church is committed to them that are trusted to judge of the profession of Christianity, every one according to the In­teresse which he justly pretendeth in that judgement. Therefore is this Power called the Power of the Keys, because it openeth the doore to the Communion of all Ordi­nances of Divine Service in the Church, when it findeth the profession both agree­able to Christianity, and to the heart & life of him that makes it, and shuts the same when it findeth things otherwise. Therefore is it called the Power of remitting, and retaining sinnes, because God hath promised the free grace of remission of sins, to all that make true profession of Christianity: The benefit of which promise, as it is good to him that makes such profession, by virtue of his own act, as to God, so, by virtue of the act that admits of the same, it is good as to the Church: Though it cannot be good as to God, unlesse it be good also as to the Church, by reason of the command of God, that every Christian be a member of the Church. For, if it were morally possible, that any man should attain to the knowlege, [Page XXIV] and submit to the obedience of Christianity in such an estate of life, and such Society of this World, wherein it were not morally pos­sible for him to hold Communion with the Church, or those, who in behalfe of the Church, by the Laws of it, are enabled to admit him to the Communion of the same by Baptism, I would make no scruple to think that man in the state of salvation, with­out Baptism, or the Church. And the same is to be said of all those, that cannot be admit­ted to the Communion of the Church, with­out professing, or doing something contrary to Christianity, which is the case of all that stand excommunicate upon unjust causes, so that their Christianity obligeth them to communicate with no part of the true Church. For seeing the Unity of the Church requires, that he that is excommunicate to one part of the Church, be excommunicate to all the Church, (seeing the Unity of the Whole cannot be preserved, unlesse the Whole make good each act of the part, w ^ch it hath power to doe) it follows, that he who is excommunicate for an unjust cause, cannot with his Christianity communicate with any part of the Church, his title to heaven re­maining entire. But this case ceasing, the remission of sins depends upon the Church, by reason of the profession of Christianity, [Page XXV] which, as God requires every Christian to make, so he enables the Church to admit. And this is the Argument for the Power of Excommunication, which is drawn from the Power of admitting to Baptism, eviden­ced by divers Scriptures, and divers particu­lars in the Primitive practice of the Church, agreeable to the same. And truly, it was e­nough to point at some particulars, for he that would undertake to produce all that is to be had, in the records of the Church, to depose for this reason, and this right of the Church, might easily fill great Volumes with nothing else. Neverthelesse I will here adde one particular more, because it seems this reason of the right and interesse of the Church is evidently seen in it: And it will not require many allegations, seeing it is a known Rule of the ancient Church, that Cli­nicks should not be admitted to the Clergy, alleged by Cornelius of Rome, to Fabius of Antiochia, in Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. VI. 43. against Novatianus the Father of the Nova­tians, to shew, that he could not be Bishop of Rome in opposition to him, being made Presbyter contrary to that Rule. What was then the reason of this Rule, and what were they that were called Clinicks? It is very evident that there were very many in the Primitive times, that beleeved Christianity, [Page XXVI] but durst not professe it, because it was no prejudice to beleeve it, but to professe it, so as to be baptized, and come under the Discipline of the Church, might be a mat­ter of life and death in case of persecution. Besides, beleeving and not professing, that is, not pretending to Baptism, they avoided the strictnesse of Ecclesiasticall Discipline. What should the Church doe in the case of these men, when they came to demand their Baptism, undertaking the Rule of Christia­nity? Surely, as they could not utterly ex­clude them from the Church, that had ne­ver offended, or failed in that which they had undertook to it, so, of necessity, they must stand at a greater distance to such persons, as having their Christianity more in suspiti­on then otherwise. Wherefore, in danger of death, they were not to refuse them Bap­tism, but in case they recovered again, it was very reasonable, that they which had attai­ned their Baptism onely in consideration of the danger of death, and must have given better triall of themselves otherwise, before they were admitted, should therefore stand so far suspected afterwards, as not to be ad­mitted to the Clergy, which required a grea­ter proficience in Christianity, then that which qualified a man onely for Baptism. These then are they which were called Cli­nici, [Page XXVII] because they were baptized in bed, as re­quiring their Baptism, when they found themselves upon the bed of their sicknesse, which might be that of their death: And this is the reason of the Rule, that they should not be admitted to the Clergy: And by this reason the right and interesse of the Church is evident, in admitting the profession of Christianity, in those that thereby demanded to be admitted to Baptism.

In the next argument, drawn from the Discipline of Penance, it may be thought that I make it a difficult task, to prove the Power of Excommunication to belong to the Church, when I premise to that purpose, an assumption so hard to beleeve as this is, that the Church, by the discipline of the A­postles, as well as by the practice and Rules of the Primitive times, was not bound to re­admit to the Communion of the Church, those that had fallen from their Christianity, by sins most destructive to the same. But it is to be considered, that, to the validity of this argument it is onely requisite to shew, that those that had fallen, were to sue to be ad­mitted to Penance in the first place, that, upon satisfaction given, of the sincerity of their resolution towards Christianity, they might be readmitted to the Communion of the Church. All which supposeth, that, be­fore [Page XXVIII] such satisfaction given, they had forfei­ted the same. And the argument being effe­ctuall upon these terms, must needs convince so much the more, if it can further appear, that, in case of the most hainous offenses, it was in the disposition of the Church, to readmit them to Communion or not. Adde then, to the evidence hereof, the ex­ample of Marcion, Father of the Marcionites, in the beginning of his Heresie in Epiphanius, who, being put out of the Church, and deni­ed Penance by his own Father, a Bishop of great piety and zeal in Pontus, because, pro­fessing continence, he had corrupted a Vir­gin, and afterwards at Rome, because of the Rule by which the whole Church subsisteth, to make good the acts of all parts thereof, within the Power of those parts, unlesse voi­ded by superiours, fell hereupon to set up his Heresie. And truly, so rigid a position as that of the Novatians, if it be considered aright, could very hardly have found any fellows, if it had been unheard of in the Church. But, though the Montanists were rejected at Rome, as to the point of receiving Adulte­rers, seeing yet the question remained con­cerning Apostates, so doubtfull, as to give Novatianus a party in it, what can be more manifest, then, that they had the pretense of Apostolicall discipline, and the Scriptures, [Page XXIX] to set off their Schism with? A thing still more evident, because that, from the relati­on of that which passed between Cornelius of Rome, and Fabius of Antiochia, in Eusebi­bius, Eccles. Hist. VI. 43, 44. it appeareth, that the Church of Antiochia remained for a time in suspense, whether to acknowledge Corne­lius or Novatianus for the right Bishop. Whereupon, the Bishops of the East, writing to Julius of Rome, from a Councell held at Antiochia, in Sozomenus Eccles. Hist. III. 8. doe reckon it as a motive to perswade him not to interpose in the cause of Athanasius, deposed by the Councell held there afore, that they also had formerly done the like in the case of Novatianus. And by this emi­nent instance we learn, how much the Unity of the Church is to be preferred before Di­scipline. The name of Saints, and the like, in the Writings of the Apostles, is convertible with that of Christians, being given to all the members of those Churches, to which they addresse their Epistles: Though it be mani­fest by those very Epistles, that, as our Savi­our had foretold, so were those Churches nets that held both good and bad fish, floors that had both corn and chaffe. What pro­perty of speech is there then, to make good the language of the Apostles? Surely, if the Church be a visible Society of men, subsist­ing, [Page XXX] not by the nature of the persons, but by institution and appointment of voluntary acts, capable to qualifie them upon whom they passe, then, upon the constitution of members of the same, there must needs ac­crue unto them, qualities and denominations correspondent to the acts upon which they arise. Now, the profession of Christianity, is not the proper and essentiall act of it, be­cause it may be feigned and fruitlesse, but it is a sign to ground a reasonable presumption upon, that the person is such, as he is there­upon presumed to be. But, being admitted to the Communion of the Church upon this presumption, he purchases thereupon a Right to be taken for such as those are to be, so long as he continueth in the same. Now, if the discipline of Christianity could be held up together with the Unity of the Church, then must it be understood, that the Church is commanded to exact it of all members of the Church, upon the same obligation, as it is commanded all Christians for their souls health. But, though it be absolutely neces­sary to the salvation of Christians, to live as Christians, yet it is not so necessary for any Christian, to procure that another Christian doe it, therefore is the care of it comman­ded the Church, or whosoever is to have that care on behalf of the Church, so far as [Page XXXI] it may be usefull to procure the generall good of the Church. And surely, the effect and benefit of this discipline was invaluable, both to those that passed through it, and to the confirmation of the Church. But when a person of eminence must be made desperate, by refusing to readmit him to the Church, (which perhaps was the case with S. Paul to­wards the incestuous person at Corinth, whom S. Chrysostome and Theodoret take to be a person qualified in that Church, as I have shewed in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service, p. 119. and so, capable to lead a party after him) or, when the multi­tude and equality of offenders takes away the benefit of example, and teaches them to par­don themselves, by making a Church of themselves otherwise, (which, if S. Augustine had not said it, we might have gathered to have been the case, after the Persecution of Decius, under Cornelius and S. Cyprian) with­out doubt the losse of it, is a mischief nothing comparable to that which would follow, by dissolving the Unity of the Church. And, if, so near the source of Christianity, much were abated, what shall we think must be a­bated, when so much water is mingled with the wine of the Gospel, by admitting good and bad to the mariage of the Lamb? Nei­ther is it my meaning to determine precisely, [Page XXXII] how far the Church may or must abate, yet thus much I will inferre for a consequence, that, as always, there was a difference be­tween the right of Communion with the Vi­sible Church, and invisible Communion with the Church of the first-born, which is the right and title to life everlasting, as be­tween the profession and performance of Christianity; so, seeing the condition of Communion with the Church is still relea­sed and inlarged more and more, to retain U­nity in corrupt Christianity, the condition of communion with God remaining always the same, the Visible communion of the Church is always a presumption of invisible Christianity, because always necessary to it, though not sufficient alone: and therefore, though not always a reasonable presumpti­on, because so much difference between the condition of visible and invisible, yet always a legall presumption, effectually qualifying more Christians, as to the Society of the Church. And this is the reason of that which I say here p. that the estate of the Church is then most happy and most pure, when this legall presumption is most reasonable.

It is not onely true which I say p. 30. that the Power of binding and loosing, which the Priests and Doctors exercised under the Law, that is, of declaring this or that to be [Page XXXIII] bound or loose, that is, unlawfull or lawfull, by the Precepts of the Law, cannot be that which our Lord meaneth, Mat. XVIII. 18. when he saith, Whatsoever ye binde on earth—but, also, that the reason holdeth not under the Gospel, to ground a generall Commissi­on correspondent to the Power in force un­der the Law, upon which it may be thought to be said, Whatsoever ye binde—For, the reason of this Power under the Synagogue, was the matter of positive Precepts, not commanded because it was good, but good because it was commanded: Which, where it was not determined by the Law, was to be supplied by the Power of the Consistory, established Deut. XVII. 8, 12. the determina­tion whereof being declared by authority de­rived from thence, made any thing lawfull or unlawfull before God, by virtue of the generall Precept, by which the authority sub­sisted. For which reason the Consistory is to offer sacrifice for the transgression of pri­vate persons, as you see here p. 158. so often as they are led into transgression by the Con­sistory deciding amisse. And this reason holds under the Gospel, in regard of matters of Positive right, concerning the Society of the Church, not determined by any divine Precept. For, if the Church have determi­ned the matter of them, further then it is de­termined [Page XXXIV] by Divine right, then is that bound or unlawfull which is so determined, unlesse the authority by which it is determined, de­clare, that the determination is not to take place. This is the effect of that Legislative Power which I challenge for the Church, Chap. IV. from p. 170. and concerns onely those positive Precepts, which tend to main­tain the Society of the Church in Unity. But in those things which concern the substance of Christianity, because they are comman­ded as good, the obligation being more anci­ent then the Constitution of the Church, as grounded upon the nature of the subject, and the eternall will of God, this power hath no place: And therefore cannot be under­stood to be signified, by the terms of binding and loosing, as borrowed from the language of the Talmud Doctors: But whereas in the Synagogue it was things or cases, under the Gospel it is persons, that are said to be bound or loose. For, of every case questionable in point of Christianity, there is no infallible authority given to assure all Christians, that, following it, they shall always please God in all actions. But, as it is possible to judge of the state of all persons toward God, upon supposition of their profession, so, there is authority founded in the Church, of binding and loosing, that is, of remitting and retai­ning [Page XXXV] sins, by admitting to, or excluding from the Church. In fine, this interpretation is inconsequent to the words that went afore, Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publi­cane, if we take them in Erastus his sense, that thereby our Lord gives leave, to sue such, before the Secular Powers of the Romanes, as would not stand to the sentence of their own Consistories. For this plainly concerns matter of Interesse, not matter of Office, seeing it would be very impertinent, so to understand our Lord, as to command them to be sued in the Gentiles Courts, that would not stand to the sentence of the Jews Con­sistories, in matters of Conscience. But, if we understand binding and loosing, accor­ding to this opinion, to be, declaring this or that to be lawfull or unlawfull before God, then doth it not concern matter of Interesse, but matter of Conscience or Office. Besides, this interpretation is impertinent to that which follows, Again, I say unto you, if two of you agree upon earth about any thing, to ask it, it shall be done for them, by my Father which is in heaven. For, where two or three are assem­bled in my Name, there am I in the midst of them. Whereas, the interpretation which here is advanced, of binding and loosing the persons of them that are admitted to, or ex­cluded from the Communion of the Church, [Page XXXVI] agreeth with that which went afore; Let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican, and no lesse with that which followeth, tending to declare the means of loosing such as should be so bound, to wit, the Prayers of the Church, as hath been declared. As for the conceit of Erastus, that this Precept of our Lord should concern onely the Jews, that lived under the Romanes, and not be in­tended for an Order to be observed in all ages of the Church, it is so unreasonable, that I finde no cause to spend words in de­stroying it: Onely, be it remembred, that it is contrary to the Order instituted by our Lord and his Apostles, that the differences of Christians should be caried out of the Church, to be pleaded and heard in the Courts of the Gentiles, according to that which was practised afore in the Synagogue, as hath been said. So that this sense of Era­stus, as you see by that which follows, it is contrary to the practise of the Church un­der the Apostles.

As for the reason touched p. 43. that the practise of the Church before Constantine is the best evidence to shew the proper Power and Right of it, it is here opportune to re­sume the distinction made afore, and upon it to frame a generall argument against both. Which shall be this. Either there was a So­ciety [Page XXXVII] of the Church by right, as we know there was in point of fact, before Constantine, or there is no such thing to be grounded up­on the Scriptures in point of right, but was onely an usurpation and imposture of the Primitive Clergy of the Church. This la­ter assertion is that which hath been refuted by the premises, proving first a privilege, or a precept, of communicating in the service of God, given to the community of Christi­ans, secondly, a condition under which they were admitted to communicate and to be Christians, and continued in the same estate. But, if there were a Society of the Church before Constantine, constituted by Divine right, then could not the same have been dissolved, but by the same Power that con­stituted it from the beginning, neither can it be known to be dissolved, but by the same evidence, by which it appears to have been constituted, that is, unlesse it can be made to appear by the Scriptures, that God ordained it to subsist, onely till the Romane Empire, and other States and Kingdomes received Christianity, then to be dissolved into the Power of those States being become Chri­stian, which I am confident no man will undertake to shew out of the Scriptures. If it be said, that it subsisted till Constantine, not by Divine right, but according to Divine [Page XXXVIII] right, that is to say, by the Power given the Church by God, of ordering those things which were not determined by any Divine Precept, and yet became determinable, the case is the same, and the reason is where it was: For, if the Church by the Power gi­ven it by God immediately, be enabled to make it self a Society for the better main­tenance and propagation of Christianity, and have executed that Power, by enabling eve­ry part of the Church to maintain it self in the Unity of the Whole, by the same Pow­er, in order to, and dependence upon the Whole, then are all Christians bound by a Divine Precept, of obeying the Governours of the Church, before they can be bound to obey the Secular Powers in Church matters. The one Power being constituted by the im­mediate revelation and appointment of God, in matters concerning the Society of the Church, the other, constituted indeed by the Providence of God executed by man, but enforced, by the Law of Christianity, to be obeyed in all things not excepted by the same, whereof this is one. And, if the con­sent of the Christian world can be of any moment, in a matter wherein the Clergy are parties indeed, as they must needs be, but must challenge their right at their utmost ha­zard, it is not possible to give a more pre­gnant [Page XXXIX] instance for the right of Excommuni­cation in the Church, then the troubles of Athanasius of Alexandria, and Alexander of Constantinople, for refusing to admit Arrius to communicate with the Church, being cast out by the Councell of Nice, the act where­of they could not void, the good Emperour being seduced to think it necessary for the quiet of the Church. And, not onely by this particular, but by all the proceedings of the first Christian Emperours in the af­fairs of the Church, (who had great advan­tage in discerning the true Interesse of the State and the Church, not onely by the ad­vise of those Bishops which had received it fresher from the source, but by sensible knowledge of the whole right which they found the Church in possession of, when they came to be members of it) it is manifest, that they never sought to bring to effect that which they were perswaded to be necessary for the establishment of Christianity, (whe­ther truly or falsly) as well as for the quiet of their Estates and People, by the immedi­ate act of their own Soveraign Power, but by the act of those, that were then held able to conclude the Church: Imploying their Secular Power in consequence to the same, to inforce such acts, (though not always va­lid to oblige the Church) by temporall Pe­nalties, [Page XL] on them that refused, as enemies to the publick Peace.

Seeing then that the Church is a Society, Community, Corporation, or spirituall Commonwealth, subsisting by the immedi­ate revelation and appointment of God, without dependence upon those Christian States wherein it is harboured, as to the Right by which it subsisteth, and the mat­ter wherein it communicateth, but depending upon them for the force, which is necessarily requisite, to maintain the whole People of all Christian States, in the communion of their respective Churches, and by them of the whole, it followeth of necessity, that it is endowed with Rights correspondent to those, wherein the Soveraignty of States consisteth. The Power of the Sword is the principall of those Rights, into which the rest are resolved, when they are enforced to have recourse unto it, for the execution of that which becomes requisite to make them avail­able. And the Church hath the Sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, which is used two manner of ways, as the Sword is, either to subdue strangers, or to cut off ma­lefactors. Let no man imagine, that any pri­vate person is enabled to propagate the Go­spel, and constitute new Churches, of per­sons newly converted to Christianity, with­out [Page XLI] competent Commission from the Church. To bring men to be Christians in­deed, is that, which, not onely any of the Clergy, but any Christian may doe, and is to doe, when he findes himself able to act towards it, without disadvantage to Christi­anity. It is that which the Ecclesiasticall Histories informe us, that Frumentius and Aedesius did in India, and the captive maid in Iberia, as well as those of the dispersion of Jerusalem in Phoenice and Cyprus, and at An­tiochia, Acts XI. 19, 20. But, the authority by which they became a Church, they were to seek where it was before, at Alexandria, and Constantinople, as well as those at Jerusa­lem, Acts XI. 22. Because, in the Church, the Sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, is deposited, and trusted with the Church, for the propagation as well as the maintenance of it, and, though all Christi­ans must needs understand themselves to be under an habituall trust, or a commission dormant, to perswade all that they can to the Christianity which they have themselves, yet, the expresse commission of the Church imports further, the exercise of that Power which the Society thereof already useth, to­wards them, that, by virtue of the said Com­mission, shall be brought to be Christians: At least, it may import so much, if we suppose [Page XLII] it granted to such purpose. The Sword of the Spirit is used within the Church, to the punishment of malefactors, upon two sorts of causes. For, if any man forfeit his Chri­stianity, either by denying the Faith, upon profession whereof he was admitted to Chri­stianity, or by living contrary to the same, the same Sword of the Spirit which pro­nounces him cut off from God, cuts him off from the Church. And, in regard that it is part of Christianity, to beleeve that God hath ordained a Church, the consequence whereof is, to oblige all Christians to main­tain themselves in the Unity of the same, which cannot be done by those that refuse to be concluded by it, in all things not con­trary to Gods Law; the same Sword of the Spirit that subdues all men to be Christians, upon condition to live members of the Church, cuts them off from the Communi­on of the Church, that will not live within compasse of the Unity of it. The Power of the Sword being supposed in the Church, Jurisdiction follows, which consists not so much in judging, as in executing the sen­tence. Not that there is any such thing as Jurisdiction, (such as the Civile Laws of the Romanes, and all other People understand, which proceeds by constraint of outward force) in the Church: But, because the [Page XLIII] Church being constituted of such as desire to continue Christians, upon supposition of this will to continue a Christian, he may be said to be constrained to hear the Church, that cannot communicate with the Church, unlesse he doe so as it requires. Upon the same ground subsists the Right of Ordinati­ons, answerable to that part of Soveraignty in States, which consists in creation of Ma­gistrates and Officers, (for it is, without doubt, beside the intent of the Romane Laws, to call the Soveraign a Magistrate, Magistrates being generally Ministers of the Soveraign) which creates a particular Power over the Clergy, by the Jurisdiction of the Church. For, in regard that (as it hath been said on divers occasions in this Discourse) the Clergy is promoted, upon supposition of some degree of proficience in Christiani­ty, over and above that, upon supposition whereof, men are admitted to be only Chri­stians, it followeth not, that those, who by their conversation render themselves unwor­thy of that degree which they hold in the Clergy, doe, by the same means, render themselves unworthy of the Communion of the Church. Therefore, the punishment of a Clergy man may be competent, by onely voiding his degree, when another Christian cannot be competently punished, but by put­ting [Page XLIV] him from the Church. Whereby it ap­pears, that the Power of Ordaining, as well as censuring persons Ordained, is grounded upon the Power of the Keys, as giving or taking away, not the communion of the Church, but a degree and quality above it, which supposeth it. Again, upon the consti­tution of the Society of the Church, follows the Power of making Canons, Constituti­ons, and Ordinances, obliging the respective body thereof, correspondent to the Legisla­tive Power of Kingdomes and Common­wealths, wherein the justice of them most appears, though the strength of them is more seen, in the Power of the Sword, which gives all Laws force. And so, it is no more inconvenience, to all these Canons the Laws of the Church, then it is, to call the Power of Excommunication the spirituall Sword of the Church. Neither is it any more for the Church, to have this Power, then that which States ordinarily allow the meanest Corporations which they Privilege, to wit, to give Laws to their own Bodies, for the maintenance and execution of the Laws, originally given them by those who are enabled to institute them. In fine, in cor­respondence to the Exchequer of a State, is the Title that God hath given his Church to the Oblations of the Faithfull, their First-fruits, [Page XLV] and Tithes: The right whereof he hath endowed the Church with, leaving the seizure, to the voluntary tender of those, whō he calleth to be voluntary Christians. And thus, and by this correspondence with a State, the parts of Ecclesiasticall Power are more clearly and more intelligibly distingui­shed, in my opinion, then by the ordinary terms of Jurisdiction and Order. For first, these terms, being introduced by the Cano­nists and School Doctors, seem to presup­pose a coactive Jurisdiction in the Church, upon the constitution, and originall Title of the Church, such as the Church of Rome challenges, and the Decretall Epistles of the Popes presuppose, whereby they challenge to themselves that Power by Divine Right, which, by the sufferance of Princes and States, they did exercise, (intangling the Schools of Divines with as inextricable dif­ficulties, to make it good, as Christian States with commotions, to shake off the conse­quences thereof) meerly for neglect of the principle here presupposed, that Christianity importeth no right of this world, and there­fore, that the coactive Power of the State remains where it was before it. Secondly, it seemeth, that the Power of Order and Ju­risdiction are not contradistinct but subordi­nate, the Power of Order being the produ­ction [Page XLVI] and consequence of the Power of Ju­risdiction, if it be rightly understood: For, by the same reason which proveth here, p. 199 that the power of consecrating the Eucharist belongeth to Presbyters, upon the Power of the Keys, and that all Benedictions with Imposition of Hands, whether in Confir­mation, Ordination, Penance, Mariage, or whatsoever else, are marks of that Power, which alloweth those acts which are blessed, to be done in the Church, as you have it here p. 23. by the same reason it follows, that the ministery of all Ordinances of God de­posited with the Church, is a mark of that superiority, which, those that minister the same have in the Church. And therefore, if the Power of Order be in respect of Christs own Body, as ordinarily they describe it, it proceeds from the Power over his mysticall Body, which is that of Jurisdiction as they make it. Or if, as others will have it, the Power of Order consists in the ministery of such divine Ordinances, as are the means to procure and increase Gods grace, in the per­sons to whom they are ministerd; the same reason takes place: Because they are not to be ministred, but by them whom the Church trusteth to do it, to that true intent which it teacheth. Wherefore, it seemeth, that the term of Jurisdiction ought to expresse the [Page XLVII] common source of all Ecclesiasticall Power, which it doth not, because that, as Jurisdicti­is but a part of Soveraignty in a State, so the Power from which the metaphoricall ju­risdiction of the Church floweth, (which I conceive, cannot be better expressed, then by calling it the Power of the Keys, as the Gospel hath done) produceth other bran­ches of Ecclesiasticall Power, correspondent to other parts of Soveraignty in a State, as hereby you have seen.

CHAP. II.

HAving thus determined whereupon the Power of the Keys is founded, and wherein it consisteth, it remai­ned to proceed and declare what persons it is trusted with: For, seeing the persons of whom Christian States consist, are the same, of whom the Churches, or parts of the whole Church that are contained in those States, consist, if there be no provision of Gods Law, tying the Right of managing this Pow­er, and the productions and branches there­of, to some qualities consequent to the con­stitution of the Church, it will necessarily fall as an escheat to the State, and we shall be ti­ed to grant it Power to conferre those quali­ties [Page XLVIII] by which it is managed, and all this will be truly said to no purpose. Here, in the first place, I must insist upon a point, the truth whereof, the Presbyteries and Congregati­ons have equally divided between them, and left it entire to the Church. For, those of the Congregations, finding, that the design of the Presbyteries, had ordered a Presbytery for the government of every Congregation that assembles together for the common ser­vice of God, had reason to inferre, that all those Presbyteries ought to be endowed with the Power of the Keys, as to their own Bodies. To which, assuming another de­mand, that the chief Power in every Con­gregation was that of the People, it follow­eth, that all Congregations are independent and absolute, not to be concluded by any Church, or Synod representative of Churches, above themselves. On the other side, the Presbyterians, finding, that no Unity can be preserved without dependence, and desiring to preserve Unity among themselves, though not with the Church, have designed the Power of the Keys, as to the act of Excom­munication, to rest in Representatives of the Presbyteries of Congregations, which ne­verthelesse, they call by the same name of Presbyteries, or Classes, the same being sub­ject to Synods of Presbyteries, and those to [Page XLIX] Nationall Assemblies. Whereas, there is never any mention, in all the Scriptures, of any Presbytery, or Company, College, or Bench of Presbyters, as likewise there is no mention of any Church, but in a City: No mention of more Churches then one in the greatest City, and the most populous, for number of Christians, that is mentioned in all the Scriptures: Though no common rea­son can question, but there were more Con­gregations, considering that it cannot be thought, that all the Christians, contained in the greatest and most Christian of all those Cities, could assemble together at once for the common service of God. Upon these premises it is necessary to inferre, that the Apostles Order was that, which we see was the Rule of their practice, that the severall Bodies of those that should be converted to Christianity, within severall Cities and the Territories thereof, should constitute severall Churches, to be governed by the severall Presbyteries thereof, constituted and regula­ted as shall be declared in the consequences. Which being established, it will not be diffi­cult to inferre, that the Power of the Keys, and the consequences thereof, are deposited in the said Churches, that is, trusted with them that are endowed with the Power of Governing those Churches. To which, if [Page L] you adde this, that the Churches of particu­lar Cities, were to depend upon the Chur­ches of Mother Cities, upon which particu­lar Cities depended for the civile Govern­ment; you have a reason and Rule of the whole frame of Church Government de­signed by the Apostles, as generall as could be given to a Society, that was to consist of severall Nations and Soveraignties without limits, but not more generall, then the Ori­ginall constitution of the whole Church, de­rived from their design, will evidence to be agreeable to those impressions and marks of it, which are here produced out of the Scri­ptures.

This Position is liable to an Objection, from those, which the ancient Canons of the Greekish Councels call Chorepiscopi, which we may translate Country Bishops, because the word [...] properly signifieth the Country, in opposition to, or in difference from the City. For, if Churches constituted in Ci­ties, have their severall Presbyteries, the Heads whereof being Bishops, are, by con­sequent, Governors in chief of their respective Churches, how are Bishops constituted in the Country, that is, in any of the chief Vil­lages under any City? For, by this means, either we have a Church in a Village, or a Bishop without a Church, and so, the practise [Page LI] of the Church, not to be reconciled with that which I make the design of the Apo­stles, if either be true. The answer to this, in generall, must come from that, which you have here afterwards, p. 62. that the Rule is as generally expressed in these terms, as any Rule generall to those cases that may fall out so divers. For, the generall intent and reason of it is, to preserve the Unity of the Whole Church, by the subordination and dependence of the parts thereof, to and from other parts, and so the Whole. If some par­ticular provision prove necessary some time and place, to attain this end, it is not to be thought that the generall Rule holds not therefore. For the particular here in hand, one thing I conceive may be questionable in point of Fact, and matter of Historicall Truth, concerning these Country Bishops, which the Canons quoted p. 146. speak of. For, in the beginning of the XI Canon of Antiochia, it is said, that they received [...], the Ordination of Bishops; In the end of it, it is provided that they be Ordained by the Bishop of the City to whom they are subject. The first clause seems to intimate, that they have the same Ordinati­on with other Bishops, which is by the Sy­nod of the Province, or those that represent the same: Besides that, we finde, by the sub­scriptions [Page LII] of the Councels, that they were called to Councels, as if they received their trust immediately from the Synods of their Provinces. By the second clause, it seems they receive their authority immediately from the Bishop of the Province, whereupon they are called Vicarii Episcoporum, the Bi­shops Deputies, as you see in the place afore named. What my judgement is in this point you may have seen before, p. 146. neither do I see cause to repent me of it. For, howsoever they were Ordained, and from whomsoever they received their trust, it is manifest by the Canons of Ancyra and Laodicea there quo­ted, that they received it upon such terms as to be subordinate to the Bishop of the City, which otherwise Bishops were not, but im­mediately to the Synod of the Province, and the Bishop of the Mother City. Neither is it contrary to the ground of that generall Rule which I maintain, that it should be within the Power of the Church, contained in any Province, (that is to say, the Synod of the same) to Ordain, that, (in regard some Village under some City of that Province, grew considerable for the extent of it, and the multitude of Christian souls contained in it) therefore it should have a Bishop be­side the Bishop of the City. Alway provi­ded, that the dependence of Churches might [Page LIII] be preserved, wherein the Unity of the whole consisted. But it is manifest, that this depen­dence might be maintained two severall ways, supposing a Bishop to be constituted in a Village: First, Ordaining him to be sub­ordinate to the Bishop of the City: Which is the case of those whom we speak of, whose Power is tied up, as you have seen, by the said Canons of Ancyra and Laodicea. But, should they be left free from all dependence on the City Bishop, then were they absolute Bi­shops, and their Churches, though in Villa­ges, and therefore lesse; yet, for their respe­ctive Power and right, the same with other Churches constituted in Cities: Which seems to be the case of the Churches of A­frick, where Bishops were so plentifull, that every good Village must needs be the Seat of an Episcopall Church. Neither doth this destroy the Rule which I maintain, that Ci­ties and Churches were originally converti­ble, but argues, that Villages, in some Countries, had that privilege, which, in others, was proper to Cities.

To that which is said, p. 53. of the diffe­rence between Prophesies, and between A­postles and Prophets, I adde this considerati­on, That the Apostles of our Lord were ne­cessarily Prophets, because of the promise of the Holy Ghost, to lead them into all truth, [Page LIV] to remember them of our Lords Doctrine, and to make them understand the Scriptures, all which are contained in the thing signified by this word Prophesie, though the originall thereof import onely foretelling things to come, as it is manifest by S. Paul, 1 Cor. XIV. But all Prophets are not necessarily Apo­stles, that is, sent by God to declare their Commission to his people, or to charge them with those things which God revealed to themselves. I grant, that the Prophets under the Old Testament were such, by reason of that Law by which God appointeth them to be obeyed, and therefore giveth a Rule, how to discern between true and false Pro­phets, Deut. XVIII. 18. And hereupon it is, that their writings are the Word of God, and, that Prophesie is said to have failed, after those, whose Writings we have. Not, that we are bound to disbeleeve Josephus, when he relates, of John Hyrcanus the Prince of the Nation, and others, that they foresaw things to come; (to say nothing of Simeon and Anna, the Blessed Virgin and Zachary, because the light which they had, may be ta­ken for the dawning of that day that was to come under the Gospel) but because they were not sent with means to make evidence of their Commission, and so, to charge the people of God. As, at the present, though [Page LV] God may grant revelations, yet no obligation upon the Church follows, because no Com­mission can be made to appear. Whereby we may measure the difference between the Prophets of the Old Testament, and the Prophets which we reade of in the Churches of the New. Those, having Commissions to the people in Covenant with God, con­taining his pleasure, in the interpretation, li­mitation, dispensation of the same, were a­bove Gods positive Law, in as much as God, by them, might abate it some time, and some where, as by Elias in Mount Carmell. These, we doe not finde that they had to doe beyond the Churches whereof they were, to evidence the presence of God in the Church by his Graces, to inform them of things to come, to instruct their own Churches, but, always supposing the constitution of the Church, and the Laws whereby they were setled by the Apostles. And therefore, if the Prophets of the Old Testament were under the Consistory, to be judged by them, as I have said here, p. 104. much more were the Prophets of the New Testament subject to the Apostles, when as, by like reason, they were to be subject to the Government of their own Churches, seeing there is no ap­pearance of any privilege for them, against the common obligation of obedience to the [Page LVI] same. Whereupon, the Montanists, who made a Schism upon presumption of some instructions they had from their supposed Prophets, were not onely abused in point of Fact, to take them for Prophets which were not, but were guilty of Schism in point of Right, because God had given no Power to those, whom he granted those Graces to under the Gospel, against the ordinary go­vernment of his Church.

I will adde here, to that which you finde, of the State of the Jews at Alexandria, p. 56. a remarkable passage of an Edict of Claudius in favour of the Jews, recorded by Josephus, Antiqu. XIX. 4. where, having said, that he had understood, that the Romane Gover­nours, from the taking in of Alexandria, had always maintained the Jews in their Rights, he adds, [...]. And, that, when the Prince of the Jews Nation was dead, Au­gustus did not forbid them to make Princes, but would have all subject to him, continuing in their own customes, and not constrained to transgresse the Religion of their Fathers. Which, if we compare with the words of Philo adversus Flaccum, where he affirms, [Page LVII] that the Consistory of the Jews at Alexan­dria, was established or confirmed by Augu­stus, it will appear, that the Jews had the same Government in Aegypt, as in Palestine, and Babylonia, to wit, by a Head of their Na­tion and a Consistory. Zorobabel was their Prince when they first returned from the Captivity; but, as the little Chronicle of the Jews relates, he afterwards left Judaea, and returned into Babylonia, where his poste­rity continued Heads of the Captives, (as they are called by Josephus [...], by the Jews [...]) for many generati­ons. In Judaea, setting aside Nehemias and the Governours which he mentions, V. 14, 15. (because it seems they had not their Power from the Nation, and the Right which they had within themselves, by being privileged to live by their own Laws, but by an immediate Commission from the Sove­raign, as the name [...] there signifies, being Babylonish, as we see by Dan. III. 2. and, as the Commission of Nehemiah imports, by which he is enabled to make warre against his fellow Governours, which afterwards was usuall under the Persian Empire.) Josephus affirms, that the Government was in the hands of the High Priests, from the return out of Captivity, till the time of Mattathias his sons, Antiqu. XI. 4. and, that, after him, [Page LVIII] till the destruction of Jerusalem, it was no otherwise, the Scriptures of the New Testa­ment are sufficient to inform us. As for the Consistories under these Heads of the Nati­on, we finde much mention of them in the Jews Writings, at Babylonia: And at Jerusa­lem, from the Constitution thereof under Esdras, by the Commission granted him from the Soveraign, Ez. VII. 26. we have the continuance and subsistence of them, in the Gospels, and Josephus. Now, about the time of Herod the Great, the little Chro­nicle of the Jews relates, that Hillel, of the posterity of Zorobabel and David, came down from Babylonia to Jerusalem, and be­came of such esteem in the knowledge of the Law, that, by the Talmud Doctors, he and his posterity, in succession, are reckoned for Heads of the Consistory. Which, how it can stand with the relation of the Scriptures, before the destruction of the Temple, I doe not so well understand. But, when after­wards, by the kindnesse of King Agrippa to his Nation, and his love to the Law, as it seems most probable, they took up their re­sidence at Tiberias, it seems there is not much doubt to be made, that, from thenceforth, those of this stock continued Patriarchs, and the Consistory there under them, till the times of Epiphanius, and the Emperours, [Page LIX] whose Laws you have in both Codes, Tit. de Judaeis & Coelicolis, and in fine, so long as their privileges lasted in Palestine. In like manner therefore in Aegypt, (where Philo, in the same Discourse, reckons, that there lived a million of Jews in his time) and at Alexan­dria, we have from the same Philo intelli­gence of the Consistory, from Josephus, of the Head of the Nation, whom he cals [...], and is, without doubt, the same that the Emperour Adriane, in his Epistle to Servianus, recorded by Vopiscus in the life of Saturninus, cals Patriarcha. The words of Philo [...] are these: —For, having apprehended XXXVIII (even all that were found in their Houses) of our Senate, which our Saviour, and Benefactour Augustus chose, to take charge of the Jews affairs, by his instructions to Magnus Maxi­mus, when he went to govern the Country the second time—Here are XXXVIII of LXX named, whereof the Consistory con­sisted: Here is the very Order of Augustus named, which Claudius his Edict, alleged by [Page LX] Josephus, pointeth at: In fine, he that is cal­led in Claudius his Edict [...], in Hadri­anus Epistle Patriarcha, is here called [...], whose Power seems to have been corre­spondent to that of the [...] in Babylonia, of the High Priest at Jerusalem, and of the Patriarch at Tiberias.

There is, in the Ecclesiasticall Histo­ries, a consideration very proper to evi­dence the reason why Constantinople was afterwards the second in rank after Rome, which is here touched p. 59. And it is that of the power of Eusebius, and of Nicomedia the City of his Bishoprick. For, because, during the time of Diocletian, Nicomedia was, as it were, the Seat of the Empire, he having made it his main Residence, with an intent to have it so continue; thereupon, saith the History, Eusebius, growing to great eminence in the Church, undertook the support of A­rius, against Alexander of Alexandria. If, therefore, the Bishop of Nicomedia had at­tained such authority in the Church, by the ambulatory residence of the Empire there, since the time of Diocletian, well might the preeminence settle at Constantinople, when Constantine had fixed the Seat of the Em­pire there, and that, by the virtue of the Rule given by the Apostles, though the ef­fect thereof come after the act of Constantine.

To that which I have said, from p. 62. of the great difference that is to be found in the execution of the Apostles Rule, that Chur­ches should be planted in Cities, or in the greatest Residences, in severall Counties, that is to be added, which Sozomenus, Eccles. Hist. VI. 20. hath recorded, concerning that Province which he cals Scythia, the Romanes Moesia Inferior, in which, at the time of the Emperour Valens, there was but one Bishop, of the Mother City Tomi, the place of O­vids banishment; For, this is the same case, with that which is related by Eutychius, of Aegypt, before Demetrius was Bishop of A­lexandria, that there was no more Bishops in it besides that one, the same which Godignus relates of the Abassines, that there is, to this day, but one Bishop in all that Dominion, as you have it here p. 64.

To all the reasons here produced for the Dependence of Churches, adde the conside­ration of the Unity of the Church, how it was commanded by God in point of right, and how provided, and maintained, in point of Fact, by the Church. For, if the Church be a Visible Society, commanded to live in Unity, then is the Unity thereof commanded to be Visible: That is, it is commanded, that Christians preserve Unity with all Christi­ans, not onely in Faith and Love, inwardly, [Page LXII] in the minde, but also in the outward Com­munion of all those Ordinances, wherein God hath appointed his Service, under the Gospel, to consist. And this is manifest by the words of S. Paul to the Ephesians, exhor­ting them to continue in Unity, because they have one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of All, Eph. IV. 4. For if these mo­tives and reasons were proper to the Church of the Ephesians, then might it very well be thought, that Christians are obliged there­by, onely to live in Unity, with those of the same Church; But, since they are common to all Christians of all Churches never so remote, it followeth, that the Precept of up­holding the Unity of the Church, obligeth all Christians visibly to communicate with all Christians. By which reason, the same may be proved, by all or most of those Scri­ptures, which recommend, or which onely mention the Unity of the Church. But it is most peremptorily proved by that which hath been produced in the first Chapter, to shew the condition upon which all men are to be admitted to the Communion of the Church, which is, the Profession of Christi­anity. For, seeing that is one and the same, in all parts and Climates of the World, as introduced by the same Power, and derived from the same Fountain, it follows, that [Page LXIII] no Church hath any further to enquire a­bout any mans right of communicating with the Church, but whether his Profession be allowed by his own Church, and whether that hold Communion with the Whole. And truly, because it is the same condition which entitles all men to the Communion of the Church all over the world, that is, to Professe the substance of Christianity, there­fore all Churches are to procure, that there be nothing to hinder this Communion, when that condition is performed, and every person of those Churches, in their severall qualities, that nothing else be demanded. But, when some Churches, or some parts of one and the same Church, demand for the condition of communicating with others, something more then was appointed for the condition of it from the beginning, separation and Schism follows, the cause whereof is commonly doubtfull, because it appears not, how farre severall Churches, or parts of the same, are to yeeld to the acts of others, which would conclude the whole if they should yeeld, when it appears not, how the matter of them agrees with that condition of Communion with the Church, that was delivered from the beginning. But, when both sides charge the blame on the contrary party, they shew, that they are both agreed, that the blame [Page LXIV] must lie on one side, and therefore, that the unity of the Church is such as hath been said, because, Schism in the Church, no more then War in civile Society, can be just on both sides. Now, it is very manifest, that, in the Primitive Church, this unity was actuated by intercourse of letters from Church to Church, begun first, and established by the Apostles themselves, whose writings are al­most all Epistles; For, by their Epistles, as the matter of Christianity is more and more declared, so, the intercourse and correspon­dence of the Church is preserved, in as much as it is manifest, that their Epistles require nothing of the Churches to which, but the same which they require of the Churches from which they write, so that there must needs be correspondence between all that ac­knowledge the Apostles holding correspon­dence. The same course was continued, not onely by the Epistles of the Primitive Bi­shops, which are a great part of their wri­tings still remaining, but, a great deal more, by the intercourse of their Formatae, or let­ters of mark, which, every Christian that tra­velled into a strange Country taking with him from his own Church, found, not onely the Communion of the Church open to him wheresoever he came, but also, that assistance in his affairs, which Christians are to expect [Page LXV] from the charity of Christians. And, of this kinde, the Epistle to the Romanes may be ac­counted, because of the recommendation of Phoebe, XVI. 2. as of a Deaconesse in the Church of Cenchreae near Corinth. The effect of this course is visible in all the proceedings of the Primitive Church, whereof we have some memorable instances here afore rela­ted. When, by the result of a Councell, such or such Bishops are removed from their Churches, it is ordinarily signified to other Churches, by the letters of the Councell, with this warning, That none of them, from thenceforth, write to the persons so senten­ced, nor receive letters from them as Bi­shops. Marcion, being put out of his Fathers Church of Pontus, is refused to be admitted to Communion at Rome, lest the unity of the Church should be dissolved, if the act of a Church so far distant, should not be made good by that of Rome, being an act in the Power of that Church to doe. Therefore, upon the doing of the act, it was to be signi­fied, that it might be known what was to be done. The Excommunication of Androni­cus, is, by Synesius his eight and fiftieth Epi­stle, signified to the Churches, with this protestation, That if any Church admitted him, without giving satisfaction to theirs, it would thereby cause Schism, and dissolve [Page LXVI] the unity of the Church. Infinite more might be produced to this purpose; for, here­upon it is, that all Bishops, are, many times, in the Primitive Records of the Church, ac­counted to have a charge of the whole Church, because of their interesse to give advise, and thereby, to concur in the setling of all affairs of other Churches, that might conduce to the quiet or unquietnesse of the Whole: Which, as it was solemnely done by the Assemblies of Synods, so, it was eve­ry day done by this intercourse, which, in time of Persecution, supplied the use of them, to better effect then they were found to pro­duce in time of peace. And this seems to me a peremptory argument against the Presby­teries, because this intercourse was a mat­ter of daily necessity, whereas, by the design of the Presbyteries, there is no standing Bo­dy, to which the Church can have recourse, for assistance, in the ordinary occasions there­of which concern other parts, but the Pres­byteries of Congregations, which them­selves condemne as uncapable to deal in such matters, when they give them not power to excommunicate. Therefore, it is of conse­quence, that, in the greatest residences of the World, those Bodies of Churches should be always standing, to which the Church might have daily resort, either to receive or com­municate [Page LXVII] advise, judgement, sentence, and whatsoever was to passe for the maintenance of unity in the exercise of Christianity, so that, what there should be received, might by consequence, be presumed, to be received by all Christians contained under the same, not having any pretense to oppose such a consent as they were prejudiced with. And thus, upon the proof of the institution of Churches in Cities, it follows, that the Pow­er of the Keys, and all the productions and branches of the same, as to their respective Bodies, in concurrence with other Chur­ches of like Rank, and dependence on those of higher, is, by consequence, deposited with the same.

To conceive aright of the correspondence between the Constitution of the Church and the Synagogue, which, it is manifest, our Lord himself pointed at, in choosing XII A­postles, and LXX Disciples, as it is touched here p. 72. we are to deduce it from the vai­ling of the Gospel within the Law, and the discovering of the New Testament, by ta­king away the vail of the Old. By reason whereof, the Church is the spirituall Israel, as the Synagogue was Israel according to the flesh, no otherwise then the Gospel is the Law spiritually understood: A thing so ma­nifest by all the passages of the Old Testa­ment, [Page LXVIII] produced, expounded, and applied, not onely by the Apostles, but by our Lord himself in the New, that he shall, of necessi­ty, doe great wrong to Christianity, that shall take in hand to maintain it against Ju­daism, without drawing this ground into consequence. Now it is manifest, that the People of Israel, being made a free People, by the act of God, bringing them out of Ae­gypt, and entitling them to the Land of Pro­mise, upon the Covenant of the Law, had Moses, not onely for their Prophet and chief Priest, (for by him Aaron and his Successors are put in possession of the Priesthood, and the Tabernacle it self, and all the pertinen­ces thereof made and consecrated) but also for their King, their Lawgiver, their Judge, and Commander in Chief of their forces un­der God, if not rather God by Moses. For, after the decease of Moses, we see, that, either God, by some extraordinary immediate sig­nification of his will and pleasure, stirred up some man to be in his stead for the time, or, if there were none such, then he took upon him to rule their proceedings himself, in as much as, by answering their demands by V­rim and Thummim, he directed them what to doe, and what courses to follow, in the publick affairs, that concerned the State of that People. Whereupon, when they requi­red [Page LXIX] Samuel to make them a King, he decla­reth, that it was not Samuel, but himself, whom they had rejected, because they had rejected him whom God had immediately given them, in his own stead, so that, by his naturall death, the Power returned to God as at the beginning. Under Moses, the XII Heads of the Tribes, Representatives of the XII Patriarchs, commanded the Militia of their respective Tribes, divided into Thou­sands, Hundreds, Fifties, and Tens, which division, by divers passages of the Scriptures, appears to have continued to after ages, without doubt, for no other reason, but be­cause the Lot of every Tribe was divided a­mongst them according to the same. And the chief of these divisions are they, whom Moses, upon Jethroes advise, assumed to him­self, to judge the causes of lesse moment, re­ferring the greater to him, who, over and a­bove that charge, was to goe between the people and God, in all things which he should please immediately to determine, as you may see by the Text of Exodus XIX. 16, 19, 20. This Office it is, which, he assumed af­terwards LXX of the Elders of Israel, to as­sist him in, which, by the Law, so often quo­ted, of Deut. XVII. 8—are, afterwards, made a standing Court, resident at the place of the Tabernacle, to judge the last result of [Page LXX] all causes concerning the Law, and to deter­mine all matter of Right not determined by the letter of the same. So that, by conse­quence, the judgement of inferiour causes a­rising upon the Laws given by God, resor­teth unto the inferiour Consistories of seve­rall Cities, constituted by the Law of Deut. XVI. 18. though perhaps, partly, in the Hands of those Captains, before the Laws were altogether provided or put in force, which dependeth much on the possession of the Land of Promise. This is the reason, that those of the High Consistory are called the Elders of Israel, but those of other Con­sistories, barely Elders, or the Elders of such or such a City, as Deut. XXII. 2, 3. Let thy Elders goe forth, and, let the Elders of the next City take—Thy Elders, that is, the Elders of Israel: So those of the Great Consistory are ordinarily called in the Gospel, as also the Scribes of the People, and thy Scribes, is used there, for those of the High Consistory, whereas the bare name of Scribes extended far further, to other manner of persons. As also, the bare name of Rulers, and that of Ru­lers of the People of Israel, are to be under­stood with the like difference. Now, where­in consists the correspondence between the Order of the Church, and this of the Syna­gogue? The King of the Church, without [Page LXXI] doubt, is our Lord Christ alone, who hath absolute Power over it, and because he is in heaven, his Militia is also heavenly, even Michael and his Angels, that fight for the Church, against the Devil and his Angels, as the XII Standards of Israel, is camped with­out the Tabernacle, which is the Church, containing all Christians. But the XII Apo­stles and LXX Disciples, must needs be un­derstood to hold correspondence with the XII Heads of the Tribes and LXX Elders. And the whole reason and ground of this correspondence, to consist in the whole Pow­er of governing the spirituall Israel of God, which is his Church, to remain in their hands, as the Rulers, and as the Counsell thereof, while it was altogether in one Body, from thence to be propagated into the like, when it came to be divided into severall Bo­dies, by the founding of severall Churches, as you have seen that it was among the Jews, in Palestine, Aegypt, and Babylonia. Where­fore, as there can no question be made, that the Jews, by virtue of Gods Law, created themselves that Government which they e­stablished in their dispersions, by sufferance of their Soveraigns, according to the form designed by the Law, by a Consistory, in the Mother Cities of their dispersions, with infe­riour Consistories, where the number of Jews [Page LXXII] was so great as to require a form of Govern­ment: No more can it be doubted, that, when Churches were founded in the greatest Residences, concurring with Churches foun­ded in the like, and depending on those of the Mother Cities, for the maintenance of Unity in the Whole, all this, though execu­ted by humane discretion, was done by vir­tue of the Rule designed by the Apostles. And, as all Israel had no power to adde or take from the Law, yet was to be concluded, in that which the Law had not determined, by the Consistory, so, all the Church, ha­ving no Power to make any thing of divine Right that was not so from the beginning, hath Power to determine, what the Church shall either do, or acknowledge, for the pre­servation of Unity in it self, in all matters not determined by Divine Right. As for the Priests Office, from which most men de­sire to derive the preeminences of the Cler­gy, although it were manifestly peculiar to Israel after the flesh, and to cease with the same, seeing the Church hath no other Sa­crifice but that one of Christ upon the Crosse, not repeated, but represented conti­nually, by the Prayers of the Church, at the celebration of the Eucharist, as the reason which must make all those Prayers effectuall by the peculiar Covenant of Christianity, it [Page LXXIII] follows, that those that are intrusted with the Government and maintenance of Chri­stianity, are, by consequence, intrusted with the offering of this Sacrifice, and of these Prayers of the Church unto God, by the same reason, for the which, I said afore, that the Consecration of the Eucharist floweth frō the Power of the Keys: So that, whether they be called Elders or Priests, they have both denominations from the quality of Presbyters. Seeing then, that the Apostles are, by their Commission, the XII Patriarchs of the spirituall Israel of God, which is his Church, and so, the Chief Governours of the same, let not the Presbyterians imagine, that they can degrade them to the rank of their buckram Elders, or shew us, what par­ticulars, mentioned in the Scriptures, the A­postles acted as Apostles, and what, as El­ders, (as, that they concurred in the Coun­cell at Jerusalem in the common quality of Elders) unlesse they can produce other Scri­ptures of other Apostles, superiour to these, that appoint it: All these recording the acts of chief Governours of the whole Church, as founders of it by their Originall Com­mission, and Lawgivers to it, in whatsoever our Lord had not determined afore. And, though their proceedings, are throughout, a pattern of meeknesse and condescension to [Page LXXIV] all ranks in the Church, using their Power, with that humility which our Lord had com­manded to his Chief Disciples, to give satis­faction to all, of the reasonablenesse of their proceedings, (because there was then just presumption, that others would use the like reverence to them, in receiving satisfaction, as they in tendring it) yet, by S. Paul to the Corinthians, we see, how far it reached, when any pretense opposed it self against it. Suppose now, for the purpose, that Barnabas was one of the LXX, as Epiphanius affirms, shall we indure it to be affirmed, that, when he is sent by the Church at Jerusalem to Antiochia, Acts XI. 20. he is sent by the appointment of certain of the people, who had a Com­mission from our Lord, before they were Christians, even for the founding of that Church, wherein, they who are thought to send then, received Christianity? Surely, the Commission of our Lord, Mat. XXVIII. 18—extendeth to the LXX, as well as to the XII, though in dependence on them, as the XII Princes of Israel. And therefore, as it is manifest, that Barnabas was sent to An­tiochia, because those that had made Christi­ans at Antiochia, had not power to found a Church there, by ordering their Assemblies, which Barnabas is said there to have done, so is it manifest, that he could not receive this [Page LXXV] power from the people of the Church at Je­rusalem, (which may better challenge it then any Lay Elders, whose Title must come from the People, as I have shewed Chap III. and will shew by Gods help by and by, more at large) but, that he must be understood to be sent by the Church, because by the XII, and by the LXX, with the consent and concur­rence of the Clergy and People. And sent, so to order a new plantation of the spirituall Israel, that, notwithstanding, one of those that sent him, taking the charge afterwards into his own hands, might become Patri­arch of that Tribe, which should be planted in and under that City: As also, Barnabas himself to become the Head of another plan­tation in Cyprus, or Paul, (who by virtue of the Power received by Barnabas at Jerusa­lem, was by him assumed to his assistance) be­ing afterwards acknowledged to be called by God into the rank of the XII, to become a Patriarch of those plantations, which recei­ved Christianity by his means: And thus, it is no inconvenience which some of the Fa­thers have incurred, by affirming, that the XII have the rank of Bishops, and the LXX of Presbyters, if we refer them to the whole Church, not to any particular Church, but onely by correspondence: For so were the XII Patriarchs to the people of Israel, as [Page LXXVI] the LXX were Presbyters and Elders to the same, as I said of the Consistory: Every part of the Church planted in and under any City, having neverthelesse, according to one and the same form, a Ruler of a Bishop, and a Councell of Presbyters. And yet is it no­thing inconvenient, in another regard, that the Councell of Neocaesarea, Can. XIII. com­pares Country Bishops to the LXX, the City Bishops being by correspondence con­sequently compared to the XII: Because, on the one side those Country Bishops were to be subordinate to the Bishops of their Cities, as the LXX were to the XII: On the other side, the LXX, being answerable to the LXX Elders of Israel, must needs be understood, to be of a higher quality then common Pres­byters.

CHAP. III.

THat it is no new reason that here is rendred, p. 91. why the name of Epi­scopus, under the Apostles, was com­mon to those, that are since distinctly called Bishops and Presbyters, may appear by a passage in Amalarius de divinis Officiis, quo­ted out of the supposed S. Ambrose upon the Epistles, produced by Salmasius, In Apparatu: [Page LXXVII] quia beatis Apostolis decedentibus, illi qui post illos ordinati sunt ut praeessent Ecclesiis, illis primis exaequari non poterant, neque miraculo­rum testimonium par illis habere, sed in multis aliis inferiores illis esse videbantur, grave illis videbatur Apostolorum sibi vendicare nuncupa­tionem. Diviserunt ergo nomina ipsa, & iisdem Presbyterorum nomen reliquerunt, alii verò Episcopi sunt nuncupati, hique Ordinationis praediti potestate, ita ut plenissimè iidem praepo­sitos se Ecclesiarum esse cognoscerent. This is manifestly the very reason that I insist upon: For, saith he, because, the bles­sed Apostles deceasing, those that were ordained to be over Churches after them, could not be equalled to those first, nor attain to the like grace of miracles, but appeared to be beneath them in many other things, it seemed too much for them to challenge to themselves the name of Apostles. Hereupon they divided the names, and left them the name of Presbyters, and the others were called Bishops, and they endowed with the Power of Ordaining, that they might know themselves to be set over the Churches, in the fullest right. I marvell what pleasure Salmasius had to allege this passage, which if it be admitted, is enough alone, to over­throw all that he hath said in this point. For first, he supposeth, as the received Doctrine of the Church, that Bishops, in their seve­rall [Page LXXVIII] Churches, succeeded the Apostles: Se­condly, he answers all S. Hieromes reasons, to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are all one, because they are called by the same name in the Scriptures, by giving another reason, even that which you have here: Last­ly, he saith that Bishops are set over their Churches plenissimè, in the fullest right, and that therefore Ordination was reserved to them, which is to say, that, in all things they have a speciall Interesse, but especially Ordination is their peculiar. And with this reason agrees Theodoret, when he says, that, at such time as the name of Bishops was common to Presbyters, those who were called Bishops afterwards, were called Apo­stles; extending the name of Apostles to others besides the Apostles of Christ. This is then a sufficient reason, why the name of Bishops, should be afterwards appropriated to that rank, wherein they succeed the Apo­stles and Evangelists in their respective Chur­ches, (because they could not be called by the same which their predecessors had born) though formerly common both to Bishops and Presbyters. And this is the meaning of those words of S. Augustine, which seemed difficult in the Councell of Trent, because, the opinion, which derived all the power of Bishops from the Pope, was so strong there: [Page LXXIX] Etsi secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ec­clesiae usus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit, in multis tamen Augustinus Episco­pus Hieronyme Presbyters minor est. Let not the humility of S. Augustine be drawn into consequence, and the property of his words shall enforce no more then I say. He knew well enough, how stiffely S. Hierome had ar­gued, that a Bishop and a Priest is all one in the terms of divine Right, because the name of Episcopus is attributed to Presbyters by the Apostles. Is it to be presumed that S. Augustine acknowledges this to be his own opinion, because it is plain he intends not to crosse S. Hierome in it, having other diffe­rences with him afore? On the contrary, it hath been shewed by other passages of his writings, that his opinion was otherwise. To use therefore that civility, which his meek­nesse prompted him to condescend to S. Hie­rome with, he granteth his premises, neither refusing, nor admitting the consequence, saying, Though, according to the titles of ho­nour which now have prevailed in the Church, a Bishop be greater then a Presbyter, notwith­standing, in many things Jerome the Priest is greater then Augustine the Bishop. Where, by naming the titles of Honour which now have prevailed in the Church, he insinuates the rea­son, for which, I here maintain that they [Page LXXX] were thus distinguished afterwards, and therefore supposes the ground of it: Other­wise, he might as easily have granted S. Hie­romes consequence, and pleased him more. And yet, I conceive, that, when he says a Priest may be greater then a Bishop, it may very well be admitted, not onely as a con­descension of humility, but as an expression of truth, not onely in respect of learning, or other personall considerations, but of autho­rity in the Church, by reason of the depen­dence of Churches here premised. The state and government of Churches is very properly compared by Origen, contra Celsum VII. to the State of Greekish Commonal­ties, the Bishop bearing the place of the Ma­gistrate, and the Bench of Presbyters, of the Senate, as I have hitherto compared them to the Jews Consistories; and, as Pope Pius in his Epistle to Justus of Vienna, calls the Presbytery of the Church at Rome, Pauperem Senatum Christi in Vrbe Româ; The poore Se­nate of Christ in the City of Rome. In this e­state and condition, the eminence of the Bi­shop above the Presbyters is visible, though not by the humility of Pope Pius, who per­haps comprises both Bishop and Presbyters in the same quality of a Senate, yet by the comparison of Origen, the eminence of the Magistrate above his Councell, in all Com­monalties, [Page LXXXI] being so visible as it is. But, when congregations come to be distinguished, as well as Churches, and a greater flock as­signed to some Presbyters, then to Bishops in other parts of the Church, and those Presbyters to doe all Offices to their Flock, which those Bishops did, saving that they depended on the City Church, whereas those Bishops depended onely on the Church of the Mother City, (and therefore had Power to make Ordinations within their own Churches, which Presbyters ne­ver could doe;) what hinders in this case, I say not S. Augustine (for I suppose he names himself but for an instance, being indeed Bi­shop of an eminent City) to be lesse then S. Hierome, but, some Bishop to be lesse then some Priest, even for his lawfull authority in the Church? A consideration of great con­sequence to the right constitution of Coun­cels, especially the most Generall, and, for which, there is not wanting a valuable rea­son, intimated in the proceedings of divers of the ancient Councels of the Church, that is, that the Church cannot be reasonably concluded by number of present votes, as the Councell of Trent imposes upon us, but, by the consideration of Christian Nations, and Provinces of the Church, represented in those Councels. For, as we see, that, in the [Page LXXXII] ancient Councels, a few Bishops were many times admitted to act in behalf of their Pro­vinces, as having Commission to conclude them, in which case, they must needs be con­siderable, according to the Provinces for which they stood: So, in all things, which may concern the Whole, not onely every mans rank of Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon is to be considered, but also, the eminence of the Church in which he bears the same. So that, by this reason, nothing hinders a Presbyter of some chief Church to be of more consideration to the Whole, then a Bishop of some mean Church, such as we spoke of in Africk. And therefore, it would be inconsequent, that the determinations of Synods should passe indifferently by the Votes of Bishops, unlesse we suppose, that consideration is had of the chief Churches; and this consideration answered, in the emi­nence of that respect, which the Bishops of those chief Churches enjoy, inswaying the determinations of those Synods to which they concur. And this consideration might, perhaps, have served to take off part of S. Hieromes displeasure against Bishops, grounded upon the Power which their Dea­cons had, by their means, above Presbyters, which he, in regard of the great difference be­tween the two degrees in generall, thinks to [Page LXXXIII] be so great an inconvenience, Epist. LXXXV ad Euagrium. For, though it is most true, in regard of the Presbyters and Deacons of the same Church, that it was a disorder, that Deacons, in regard of their neernesse to the Bishops, should take upon them above Pres­byters, yet, if we compare the Deacon of a chief Church, with the Presbyter of a small country Parish, no man can say, that he is of lesse consideration to the Whole Church, in regard of his rank, unlesse he mean to make Steven or Philip, Titus or Timothy, (or any of those that waited on the Apostles in per­son, and were properly their Deacons, as I have said, in assisting them to preach the Gospel where they came) to be meaner per­sons in the Church, then one of those Pres­byters, which Paul and Barnabas, Titus or Timothy Ordained, in the Churches of those Cities where they came.

To that which I say p. 92. to prove, that the word Angel, in the Epistle to the VII Churches, Apoc. II & III. being an obvious and proper metaphor to signifie a Bishop or Presbyter, cannot therefore be used to signi­fie a College of Presbyters, the word being no collective, nor any construction inforcing it to be used for a collective, in all that Epi­stle, I adde here the comparison of two pas­sages, by which it may be gathered, for what [Page LXXXIV] reason, and in what consideration, the Spirit speaketh to the Body of those Churches, in the Epistle directed to the Angels of them, and, by consequence, who those Angels are: The first is that of S. Paul to Titus II. 10. A man that is an Heretick after the first and se­cond admonition avoid. For, is it S. Pauls purpose to command, that onely Titus avoid those whom he should declare Hereticks? Surely, that would be to no great effect, un­lesse we understand, that, by virtue of this precept, both Titus is enabled to charge the Churches under him to avoid them, and they thereupon obliged to doe it. The other is the Epistle under the name of Ignatius to Polycarpus, wherein, after such advise as he thought fit for Polycarpus, without turning his speech from him to another person, he proceeds to exhort his people, with such in­structions, as he found to bee most requi­site. Which feems to be the reason why ma­ny count that Epistle counterfeit, and none of Ignatius his own, though, for my part, I confesse, I am not yet perswaded to think so, not onely because of the character, both of the matter and language of it, which seem­eth to me to carry the stamp of Apostolicall upon it, as the rest of Ignatius, but also par­ticularly, because of the example of this E­pistle of S. John to the VII Churches, [Page LXXXV] wherein, it is plain, he involves both Pastor and flock in the same praises, reproofs, ad­vises, and exhortations, the reasons being the same in both, because both sent to be read to the People in the Church, as the E­pistle to the Colossians and the Laodiceans, Coloss. IV. 15. and, as the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, Eusebius says, was wont to be read in that Church in his time. Now, if the instructions concerning the people be addressed to Titus and Polycarp, is it not be­cause of some eminence of authority in them, by which they might be brought into effect among their people? How much more that which is addressed unto the Angels of VII Churches, being a style apt to signifie a person of eminent authority over others, but never used to signifie a Body of persons, much lesse, with parallel authority among themselves?

It is commonly conceived, that the Souls under the Altar, which we reade of Apoc. VI. 10. were seen by S. John, lying under the Altar of Burnt Sacrifices, at the foot where­of, the rest of the blood that was not sprink­led on the Altar was poured out, and, the blood being the life or Soul of living crea­tures, in the language of the Scriptures, that therefore, the souls of those that were slain for the profession of Christianity, are seen by [Page LXXXVI] S. John under the Altar. Against this ap­prehension I allege, p. 95. that it is not the Altar of burnt Sacrifices, but the Altar of In­cense, (within the Tabernacle, but without the Vail) which is represented in these Visi­ons, correspondent to the Primitive fashion of Churches, where, the Communion Ta­ble, (called also the Altar, because of the Sa­crifice of the Crosse represented upon it) stood in the midst of that compasse, which the Seats of the Bishop and Priests did en­close. For, though, in the Temple, the people prayed without the Sanctuary, the Priest whose Office it was, at the same time offering Incense with their Prayers, yet in the Church, where all the people are within the Sanctuary, as Priests, the XXIV Pres­byters are described with golden Vials full of Incense, which is the peoples prayers, as David saith, Let my prayer be set forth in thy presence as the Incense, Apoc. V. 8. and be­sides, the Angel puts Incense upon his Cen­ser, to the prayers of the Saints, Apoc. VIII. 3. therefore his fire is from the Altar of In­cense, within the Tabernacle, though with­out the Vail. Besides, it is not imaginable, how the souls of those that were slain, could appear to S. John in Vision of Prophesie, lying under the Altar of Burnt Sacrifices▪ where the bloud of Sacrifices was poured [Page LXXXVII] out, and that in such a multitude, as we know there was of the Primitive Martyrs: Espe­cially, seeing the circumstances of the Text inforces, that they are the same Souls, which, first, cry for vengeance, and have long white Robes given them because they are not pre­sently satisfied, Apoc. VI. 9, 10, 11. and, which are afterwards described, standing and prai­sing God in the white Robes that were given them afore, Apoc. VII. 9. And therefore, when they are said to be seen [...], the meaning is not that they were seen lying under the Altar of Burnt Sacrifices, but, standing in the lower part of the Sanctuary, beneath the Altar of Incense. Unlesse we take [...] here for the Sanctuary, as I shew that it is taken in the Apocalypse, p. 115. and then [...]—is for [...], or [...].

The name of Ministers, when it answers the Greek [...] in the Scriptures, if it be put absolutely, without any addition, sig­nifies the Rank and Office of those that are ever since called Deacons in the Church: But many times it is put with the additions here mentioned p. 99. of Ministers of the Word, Ministers of the Gospel, of the New Testament, of the Church, which serve as circumlocuti­ons and descriptions of the Office of Apo­stles to the whole Church, or their Depu­ties [Page LXXXVIII] and Commissioners the Evangelists, as when S. Paul writes to the Colossians, I. 23, 25. that he was made a Minister of the Gospel, or, of the Church, according to the dispensati­on of God which is given me towards you, to fulfill the Word of God, that is, the Mystery that hath been hidden from generations and ages, and now is manifested to his Saints: It is here manifest, that he cals himself a Minister of God, or of the Church, in regard of pub­lishing the Gospel, and planting the Church, which belongs not to the Presbyters of Churches, whose name and office is respe­ctive to their particular Churches. And this notion of the word is almost always to be ga­thered, by the text and consequence of those passages where it is found. Therfore the word [...], when it is absolutely put 1 Tim. III. 8 stands in relation to Bishops and Presbyters mentioned afore, in the notion of Waiting up­on them, (whereas, when it is put with the ad­dition here specified, it stands in relation to God, making as much difference, between Ministers of the Word, and barely Ministers, as between executing the immediate com­mands of God, as Apostles doe, and execu­ting the commands of Bishops, in regard of whom, mentioned afore, they are called, barely, and without any addition, [...] or Ministers in that place.) And so the VII [Page LXXXIX] at Jerusalem were first constituted to wait upon the Apostles, by doing that Service, which they did themselves at the first, for the Church: whereupon, it was afterwards a custome in the Church, that there should be VII Deacons in every Church, as there were at Jerusalem, Concil. Neocaesar. Can. XIV. And therefore, the Author of the Questions of the Old and New Testament in S. Augustines Works Q. CI. having obser­ved, that the Apostles call Presbyters their fellow Presbyters, addeth, Nunquid & Mi­nistros condiaconos suos diceret Apostolus? Non utique, quia multo inferiores sunt. Et turpe est judicem dicere primicerium. Would the A­postle call Deacons his fellow Deacons? Surely no, for they are much inferiour. And it is ab­surd to call a Pronotary a Judge. Where, he makes the same difference, between Presby­ters and Deacons, as Christian between Judges and Ministers of Courts, and that, according to the Originall custome of the Synagogue, as well as of the Church, as by and by it shall appeare. Notwith­standing, the Office of Bishops is called a Ministery very anciently, by Pope Pius, in his Epistle to Justus of Vienna, as also the Office both of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, Concil. Eliber. Can. XIX. but in another notion, in opposition to the co­active [Page XC] power of the World, as proceeding, originally, not by constraint, but by consent: and so they are called [...], and their office [...] in Greek, because their of­fice is for the behoof of the people; and in their stead: But they cannot therefore be called Ministers of the People, as Deacons are Ministers of Bishops and Presbyters, be­cause, then, they should be ruled by the peo­ple, and execute that which they prescribe, (as the Apostles, being Ministers of God in Preaching the Gospel, are bound to execute his Commission, and nothing else) which, the Clergy of Christian Churches may not doe.

That it may be beyond any Power upon earth, to abolish the Order of Bishops out of the Church of England, without abolishing the Church also, as is said here p. 129. I prove Chap. V. to wit, that no Secular Power can take away Ecclesiasticall Power, from them that lawfully have it, according to the in­stitution of the Apostles, though not by vir­tue of it.

To shew, that, in the judgement and pra­ctise of the Primitive Church, all Power of baptizing was derived from the Bishop, as is said here p. 136. we have but to remember the custome of the Church, mentioned in so many Canons, of sending the Chrism to all [Page XCI] Parish Churches, from the Mother Church, once a year. By which Ceremony it appea­red, that the Bishop trusted his authority of admitting to the Church by Baptism, with the respective Pastors of the same. And therefore, it is not unreasonably judged, that this custome of Chrisming was, many times, in stead of Confirmation, to those Chur­ches that used it. Besides, in that, from the beginning, no Ecclesiasticall office was to be ministred by any but the Bishop in his pre­sence, the dependence of all Ecclesiasticall authority, whereby the same are ministred, upon the Bishop, is evidenced to us. Thus, in the passage of Eusebius, concerning Origens Preaching before he was of the Clergy, men­tioned p. 106. it is further to be observed, that the instances there alleged seem to shew, that the Primitive Bishops, did many times admit those that were of no degree in the Clergy, to preach in their own presence. Which, that it was a further privilege, then onely to preach, may appear by that which is related out of the life of S. Augustine, in the Primitive government of Churches, p. 113. that he was imploied by the Bishop his prede­cessor, to preach to the people in his pre­sence, and stead, because he had seen it so practised in the East, though in those parts it were not done. In like manner, it is manifest [Page XCII] by many Records of the Church, that none might Baptize, Celebrate the Eucharist, or reconcile the Penitent, in the Bishops pre­sence, but himself: for of Confirmation and Ordaining, I need say nothing.

The fourth reason against the vulgar rea­ding of the XIII Canon of the Councell at Ancyra. p. 141. will be more clearly under­stood, by setting down the effect of the LVI Canon of Laodicea, which, comming after that of Ancyra, and, taking Order, that, for the future, there should be no Country Bi­shops made any more, provides further, that those which were already constituted, should do nothing without the consent of the Bi­shop, as likewise the Presbyters to doe no­thing without the same. Which, being the provision which the latter Canon establish­eth, leaveth it very probable, that the other, going afore, and intending to take order in the same particulars, should consist of two clauses correspondent to the same.

That there were other Churches, and Bi­shops, in Aegypt, besides that of Alexandria, before the time of Demetrius, besides that which hath been said p. 142, 143. stands more probable by the Emperour Adrians Epistle, related by Vopiscus in the life of Saturninus; Illi qui Serapin colunt Christiani sunt; Et devoti sunt Serapi, qui se Christi Episcopos [Page XCIII] dicunt. Nemo illic Archisynagogus Judaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum Presby­ter, non mathematicus, non aruspex, non aliptes. Here he names Bishops at Alexandria; to wit, such as resorted thither, from other Ci­ties of Aegypt. And, though a man would be so contentious, as to stand in it, that the name Episcopus might then be common to Bishops and Presbyters both, yet, when he speaks of Presbyter Christianorum in the very next words, he cannot reasonably be thought to speak of Presbyters in those that went a­fore. And when Tertullian saith, that Valen­tine, the Father of the Valentinians, expected to have been made a Bishop for his wit and eloquence, and, because he failed of it, ap­plied his minde to make a Sect apart; where­of himself might be the Head, adversus Va­lentin. cap. IV. unlesse we suppose more Bi­shops then one in Aegypt at that time, we tie our selves to say, that he would have been Bishop of Alexandria: Which, had it been so, Tertullian, probably, would have expres­sed, for the eminence of the Place.

The correspondence between the Office of Deacons in the Synagogue and the Church, mentioned p. 156. may thus ap­pear: Judges and Officers shalt thou appoint thee in all thy Gates, that is, in all thy Cities; saith the Law, Deut. XVI. 18. joyning toge­ther [Page XCIV] Judges and Officers in divers other pla­ces, Num. XI. 16. Deut. I. 15, 16. These Offi­cers the Greek translateth [...], and sometime [...], the Vulgar Latine Doctores, for what reason, I doe not see that any man hath declared. By the Tal­mud Doctors they are called [...], which seems to import Appparitores Synago­gae, which Maimoni describes to be young men, that have not attained the years and knowledge of Doctors; And, the punish­ment of scourging, he saith, was executed by these. He reporteth also an old saying of their Talmud Doctors, that the reason why Samuels sons would not ride circuit as their Father did, was, because they would inflame the Fees of their [...], that is, their Ministers, or Apparitors, and Scribes, or Clerks. And Buxtorfe, in the word [...], re­ports another of their sayings, That, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, the Wise were imbased to the learning of Appa­ritors, and Apparitors to that of Clerks. So then, they were next under their Wise men or Doctors, but above Scribes or Clerks, by this account: But, seeing there was no more difference between them, it is no marvell, if sometimes it be not considered. Maimoni, in the Title of learning the Law, sheweth, that the Jews had every where Schoolmasters [Page XCV] appointed to teach yong children to read, of the condition of whom he writeth there at large cap. III. these are they, whom the Vul­gar Latine meaneth, by Doctores, as appears by the supposed S. Ambrose, upon 1 Cor. XII. 25. who would have those, whom S. Paul there cals Doctors, to be the very same. And therefore they are the very same, that the LXX meant by [...]. The Jews say that they were of the Tribe of Si­meon, and, that, so, the Prophesie of Jacob was fulfilled, Divide them in Jacob, and scat­ter them in Israel; the Levites being disper­sed throughout all the Tribes, to take Tiths at the barn door, and the Simeonites, to teach to write and reade. S. Hierome Tradit. Heb. in Genesin, Jarchi in Gen. XLIX. 7. And indeed, the name by which the Scripture calleth them, [...], though the Originall of it be not found in the Scriptures, (as how should any language be all found in so small a Vo­lume?) yet, in the Jews writings, and also in the Syriack Testament, the word from whence it is derived signifieth contracts, as Coloss. II. 14. So that, by their name, they must be such as write contracts, that is, Clerks or Notaries. Therefore, if the Jud­ges and Doctors of the Jews Consistories are correspondent to the Presbyters of Chri­stian Churches, which by many arguments [Page XCVI] hath been declared, then, the Apparitors and Notaries of the same, must, by consequence, be answerable to our Deacons. And so Epi­phanius, in the Heresie of the Ebionites, ma­keth the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons of the Christians to be the same, that, among the Jews, were called [...], that is, Rulers of Syna­gogues, Presbyters and Deacons: For, as the Deacons were wont to minister a great part of the Service in the Church, so still, the Service in the Synagogue is performed by him, whom, still, they call [...], or Minister of the Synagogue.

To this III Chapter I must adde two con­siderations: The one is of the scope of that little Piece, of the Right of the People in the Church, which the learned Blondell hath late­ly added to Grotius his Book, De Imperio Summarum Patestatum in Sacris. Which is, in brief, to derive the right and Title of Lay Elders from the people, and, from that In­teresse, which, by the Scriptures, it appears that they had from the beginning, under the Apostles, in Church matters. Whereby, he hath given us cause to cry aloud, Victory, as quitting the reason and ground upon which the bringing of Lay Elders into the Church, was first defended, and is hitherto maintained among us, to wit, that onely Text of 1 Tim. [Page XCVII] V. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double Honour, especially those that labour in the Word and Doctrine. For, this Scripture being abandoned, the rest that are pretended, are so far from concluding, that they cannot stand by themselves. Now, that this Text cannot be effectuall to prove that purpose, he argueth there upon the same rea­son which here I have advanced, p. 123. to wit, because the same Honour, that is, main­tenance, is thereby allowed to those that la­bour in the Word and Doctrine, and those that doe not: Whereupon, it must needs appear, to him that knows a great deal lesse of the Antiquity of the Church then Blon­dell does, that they are Clergy men, whose maintenance is provided for by the Apostle. Now, to comply with him, that hath so in­genuously yeelded us the Fort, I doe avow, that he hath reason to beleeve, that, (there being so great difference between the State of the Church, since whole Nations professe Christianity, and that which was under the Apostles, and, the confusion appearing so endlesse, and unavoidable, that must needs arise in Church matters, by acquainting all the People with the proceeding of them, and expecting their satisfaction and consent in the same) it cannot be contrary to Gods Law, to delegate the Interesse of the People, [Page XCVIII] to some of the discreetest and most pious of them, chosen by them, to concur in their Right. For, in this quality, doe those Elders of the People, of which Justellus writeth, act in Ecclesiasticall matters, as you may see by that which I have said, in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service, p. 96. and in all other the particulars which he allegeth. And, if this be it which the Presbyterians demand, in behalf of their Lay Elders, let them first accord themselves with those of the Con­gregations, concerning the due Interesse of the People in Church matters, and my opi­nion shall be, that the Church may safely joyn issue with them, not to yeeld a double number of Votes to Lay Elders, in the pro­ceeding of all Church matters, as the Ordi­nance for establishing the Presbyteries ap­points, (which is to make the Clergy truly Ministers, not of God, but of the People) but to grant them a right of Intercession, in be­half of the People, (when as the proceeding may be argued to be contrary to Gods Law) grounded upon the practice recorded in the Scriptures, and continued under the Primi­tive Church, by which the people were satis­fied, even of the proceedings of the Apo­stles themselves in Church matters. For, by this Right and Interesse, the Acts of the Church shall not be done by any Vote of [Page XCIX] 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 [Page C] 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 [Page CI] 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 [Page CII] 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, [Page CIII] 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 [Page CIV] 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 [Page CV] 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 [Page CVI] 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 [Page CVII] 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 [Page CVIII] 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. [Page CIX] And therefore, it is extremely inconsequent, that, by their example, in the time of Chri­stianity, Preachers should make the personall actions, or publick government of their law­full Soveraigns, the subject of their Ser­mons, seeing that all parts of Christianity may be throughly taught the people, and every person of the people as fully under­stand how grievous every sin is, as if they be stirred to malign and detest their Superi­ours, by being told of their sins. How much more, when the actions in their whole kinds are not sins, but may be involved with such circumstances, as make them consistent with Christianity? Besides, seeing it is not every Preacher that is to regulate the proceedings of the Church, in such sins of publick per­sons, as appear to destroy Christianity, to run before the publick censure of the Church, in declaring what it ought to doe, is not the zeal of a Christian, but such a scan­dall, as leaves the person that does it liable himself to censure.

The sin of Will-worship, which I acknow­ledge, p. 188. is as far distant from that vo­luntary service of God under the Gospel, which answers to the voluntary Sacrifices of the Law, in my meaning, as it is in deed. For, as the Law had voluntary Sacrifices, or freewill offerings, not commanded by it, but [Page CX] to be offered according to it, the price whereof consisted in the frank disposition of him that offered the same: So can it not be doubted, that the Sacrifices of Christi­ans, their Prayers and their Alms, all the Works of Free bounty and goodnesse, toge­ther with Fasting, and single life with conti­nence, and whatsoever else gives men more means and advantages to abound in the same, may be offered to God out of our free­will, not being under any Law requiring it at our hands. Onely the difference is this, that, whereas the Sacrifices of the Law are things neither good nor bad, but as they are tendred to God, either in obedience to the Law, or according to the same, all Sacrifice which we can tender to God under the Gospel, must needs consist in the spirituall worship of God: Not in the means whereby it is advan­ced, that is, more plentifully or cordially performed. Now, though the spirituall wor­ship of God is always commanded, yet, see­ing it is not commanded to be done and ex­ercised always, it is much in the disposition of Christians, what times, what places, what manner, what measure, what circumstances they will determine to themselves, (being not always determined by Gods Law) for the tendring of the Sacrifice of Christians, which, being so determined, shall be as truly [Page CXI] a voluntary Sacrifice, or freewill Offering, as any under the Law, and so much more excel­lent as the Law is lesse excellent then the Gospel. If this may be received to goe un­der the name of Will-worship, I am so far from counting Will-worship a sin, that I acknowledge that to be the height of Chri­stianity, from whence it proceedeth. But I conceive the word is not improperly used, to signifie that, which the Jews are reproved by our Lord, after the Prophet Esay, for, because they worshipped God according to Doctrines taught by Traditions of men. Not because they practised the Law according to the determinations of the Greek Consisto­ry, which, as I have many ways shewed, they had expresse power by the Law to make; and therefore our Lord also commands them to obey, Mat. XXIII. 2. But, because they thought there was a great deal of holinesse, in practicing the Precepts of the Law, pre­cisely as their Elders had determined, which, setting aside the obedience of Gods Ordi­nance, was nothing in Gods esteem, in com­parison of that justice, and mercy, and pie­ty, wherein the service of God, then, as al­ways, consisted. We cannot but observe, that this sin is taxed by the Prophets often­times, as well in the practice of those pre­cepts which are expressed in the Scripture of [Page CXII] Moses his Law, as, by our Lord and the Pro­phet Esay, in the ptactice of those which were introduced by humane authority, Psal. XL. 7- L. 8- Es. I. 12- Jerem. VII. 21—and therefore, consisteth not in observing things introduced by men, but in tendring to God, for the service of God, that which was not necessarily joyned with the inward holinesse of the heart, which God is to be served with. This sin of the Jews I conceive is found cor­respondently in other professions, not onely of Gentiles and Mahumetanes, which can­not worship God without it, but also of Christians, professing true Christianity, when they worship not God according to it: But, not because they acknowledge humane con­stitutions, which, by Gods Ordinance, can­not be avoided, but, because they may vain­ly please themselves, in imagining, that they please God in observing them, without that disposition of the heart which God is to be served with. And this sin of the Jews, as Eu­sebius cals [...], so Epi­phanius also, in some of the ancient Hereticks, cals it [...], or [...], which satisfies me, that it may be called Wil-worship in English: Though, whether the former voluntary and frank service of God, is not also called [...], I dispute not here.

The reason why the Ceremonies of Di­vine Service, which are here p. 192. proved to have been used under the Apostles, can­not continue the same in the Church of all times and places, I have briefly expressed p. 325. so that, notwithstanding, the Cere­monies of the service of God in publick ought to be such, as may conduce to the same end, for which, it may appear those were instituted, which were in force under the Apostles.

That it is a mistake to think that Sove­raign Powers are called Gods in the Scri­pture, as is said p. 214. appears further by Exod. XXII. 28. Thou shalt not curse Gods, neither shalt thou speak evill of the Ruler of thy people. For, in this place, the Prince of the people, [...], is a name common to Kings, Judges, and all their Governours in Chief, that were of their own Nation, whether ab­solute, or under strangers. Therefore the Sa­crifice enjoyned Levit. IV. 22. belonged to the King when they were under Kings, as the Jews agree. Therefore it is given the King also Ezek. XII. 10. VII. 27. XIX. 1. And therefore this Law is acknowledged by S. Paul, to belong to the High Priest, Acts XXIII. 5. because, as I said afore, the High Priests had then the Chief Power within their own People, as they had upon the re­turn [Page CXIV] from Babylonia. Wherefore, seeing this Precept consists of two parts, the second whereof belongs to the King, the first must belong to the Judges of their Consistories, according to the resolution of the Jews, that all and onely Judges made by Imposi­tion of Hands, are called Gods in the Scri­ptures.

That which is here said p. 228. of the qua­lity of Governour under the King of Persia, in which, and by which, Nehemiah restoreth the Law, and swears the people to it, is to be compared with that which you finde here since, in the 57 page of this Review. Whereby it will rather appear, that he was Governour of that Province, by the like Commission as other Governours of Pro­vinces were constituted by, in the Babyloni­an, and after it in the Persian Empire, then by any right belonging to him among his own people, such as the posterity of Zore­babel had, to be Governours of the Jews that remained in Babylonia, when they were privileged to live according to their own Laws, by their Soveraign. But, whether this or that, as to the point here in hand, both are to the same purpose.

I must not passe over this place, without taking into consideration the reasons, upon which, and the consequences, to which Era­stus [Page CXV] his opinion seems to be advanced, in the late sharp work de Cive, where it is determi­ned, that the interpretation of the Scri­ptures (for which, I may as well say the Pow­er of Giving Laws to the Church, seeing the greatest difficulty lies in determining con­troversies of Faith) the constitution of Pa­stors, the Power of binding and loosing, belongs to every Christian State, to be ex­ercised by the ministery of Pastors of the Church: For, if this may take place, then is all that hath been said to no purpose. And truly, I must imbrace and applaud one posi­tion, upon which all this proceeds, that the Church, to which any Right, or Power of acting according to any right, is attributed in the Scriptures, must needs be a Society that may be assembled, and therefore stands obliged to assemble: But, that hereupon alone it should be inferred, and taken for granted, that therefore, a Christian State, and a Christian Church are both the same thing, distinguished by two severall causes and considerations, when both consist of the same persons, I have all the reason in the World to stand astonished. For, it is not the persons, (which are supposed here to be the same) that any question can be made of, neither can the Church and the State be said to be the same thing, because they are [Page CXVI] all the same. For, we speak not here of the nature of the persons, their souls or bodies, or any thing that either of both is endowed with, but we speak here, of the quality of a State, or a Church, affecting all those persons together, upon some voluntary act of God, or of themselves, or both, without making any change in the nature of any person so qualified, onely supposing the person whose act it is, able to doe the act, upon which they are qualified to be a State or a Church, and, by doing it, to oblige or privilege the per­sons on whom it passes. Which kinde of things, are oftentimes, by Philosophers, Di­vines, and Lawyers, called, to very good purpose, Morall things: Such are all man­ner of rights, in all manner of Societies whatsoever, being nothing else, but abilities of doing something, which are not in other men not endowed with the same. So like­wise, seeing that all the objects, of any faculty, naturall or morall, any habit of vir­tue or vice, (or, that which is neither, but consists in skill or knowledge, or any perfe­ction of nature, for which a man is neither good nor bad) may be denominated, and qualified, by the faculties or habits that are exercised upon them, by the same reason, as colour is said to be seen, or, as that is said to be right and just, which is done according [Page CXVII] to justice; therefore, by the same common reason, if there be such a thing as Holinesse in the souls of men, which disposes them to reverence God, by tendring him that service which may expresse it, then are the Means, and the Circumstances, the Times, the Pla­ces, and the Persons by which this reverence is publickly tendred to God, capable to be denominated Holy, by a morall quality, de­rived from that Holinesse which dwels in the souls of Christians, and not onely capably, but actually so qualified in point of right, supposing that which hath been proved p. 212—that the practice of Gods people evi­denced by the Scriptures, proves the reve­rence of the same to be effectuall and neces­sary, for the maintenance of that reverence of God, in those acts of his service, wherein the Holinesse of Christians consisteth. This, though it belong not to my present purpose, I have set down upon this occasion, out of a desire, further to declare the nature of that Holinesse, for which, Times, Places, and Persons, as also all other means which God is served by, are said to be Holy, and for what reason I call it p. 217. sometimes Morall, sometimes Ecclesiasticall Holinesse, some­times also Relative, as others many times do call it. For, seeing it is grounded upon the relation which is between all faculties mo­rall [Page CXVIII] or naturall, between all habits of virtue and vice, or whatever else, and the objects which they are exercised about, it is mani­fest, how properly it is called Relative. A­gain, seeing it hath been declared, that those qualifications, and denominations, which arise upon some act of God, or man, having power to oblige either others or themselves, are therefore called Morall, in opposition to such, as make a change in the nature of mens souls and bodies, when they become endowed therewith, because these Morall qualities accrue, without any change in the nature of them to whom they accrue, there­fore that Holinesse, which belongs to things uncapable of that Holinesse which dwels in the souls of Christians, is properly called morall Holinesse, as grounded upon the Will of God, appearing to have appointed the reverence of them, to maintain that reve­rence of him wherein Holinesse consisteth. And as, for this reason, in generall, it is called morall Holinesse, so, it is also called Ecclesi­asticall, for the same reason expressed in par­ticular, as depending upon that Will of God, by which, Christianity, and the Church, and the service of God therein subsisteth. To return then to my purpose, which gave me occasion to declare this here, seeing that, when the question is made, whether the [Page CXIX] Church and the State, consisting of the same persons, be the same thing or not, there can be no question understood, of the nature, that is, the souls and bodies of the persons, which are supposed to be the same, but, of the Morall beeing of a State, whether the same give it the quality of a Church, or not 3. And, seeing the beeing of such things de­pends upon the act by which they are consti­tuted, we have no more to enquire but this, whether the same Act constitute a Church, which constitutes a State: And then, a very little enquiry will serve to shew, that though all Churches, and all States, subsist by the Act both of God and man, yet they are se­verall Acts by which they are States, and by which they are Churches: So severall, that the Church subsists by immediate revelation from God, by our Lord and his Apostles, which no State doth; and whatsoever it is that makes any man a member of any State, it is not that which makes him a Christian, and so, a member of the Church, but some­thing else. And therefore there is a fault in the reason of the inference propounded, which concludes thus, that a Church must be that which hath Power to assemble the persons whereof it consists now the State is it which hath Power to doe that. For, as it cannot be denied, that all States must needs [Page CXX] have Power to assemble themselves, so it must not be granted, that the Church hath not Power to doe the same, because it hath been proved here from the beginning, that the Church hath Power of assembling, not from any State, but immediately and origi­nally from God, whether for the service of God, or for determining whatsoever shall become determinable, for the maintenance of Unity among all those that are to com­municate in the service of God, and the Of­fices of the same. Truly, so long as by Cir­cumcision men became both members of a State, and of the Communion of Gods ser­vice, the Church and the State were all one Society, as hath often been observed here, for the difference between the Law and the Gospel, both subsisting by the same Act of God, (calling them to be his people, and to inherit the Land of Promise, both upon con­dition of keeping his Law) and by the same act of the people imbracing the same. Which holds not in Christianity, addressing it self to all Nations, and therefore preserving States in the condition which it findes, and yet founding a Society of the Church, upon the privilege and Charter of assembling for the service of God, and the Power which is requisite to preserves the Unity of all that assemble, in the condition, upon which they [Page CXXI] communicate in the service of God. Which Society, as it was visibly distinct from all States, for all the time between our Lord and Constantine, so is it acknowledged, by this author, to have subsisted even under the Apostles, when as he alleges their Writings, to prove, those rights which they attribute to the Church, to belong to those States which are Christian: Which, for my part, I very much marvell how he could think fit to doe, knowing, that such acts as the Apo­stles attribute to the Church, are so far from being the acts of the State, under which the Church then was, that they were prohibited by it, so often as the assemblies of Christians were forbidden, as you have seen that many times they were. By that which hath been said it may appear, what reason Ecclesiasticall Writers had, to make a difference between the names of the Synagogue and the Church, appropriating the former to the Jews, and this to the Christians, which I, for my part, so far as custome will give leave, desire to observe, though for the originall significati­on, I see the name of Ecclesia was at the first most properly attributed to the whole body of Gods people assembled together in the Wildernesse, as, for example, at the giving of the Law. For, in all the divers significa­tions in which it is used, speaking of Christi­anity, [Page CXXII] there is one and the same consideration of assembling together to be seen, though, upon severall reasons, and to severall purpo­ses from the Synagogue. The whole com­pany of those that shall meet and assemble together in the world to come, is called sometimes the Church, and so is the whole company of the Visible Church upon earth: Because, though they cannot meet bodily to communicate in the service of God, yet they ought to meet with that judgement and dis­position of minde, that they may both com­municate bodily in this world, when occasi­on is, and actually meet altogether in the world to come. So is the company of Chri­stians, contained in, either barely one City, or the Head City of a Province or Nation, called the Church of that City, Province, or Nation, because they so meet severally, that any of them may assemble with any, be­cause under the same conditions. But, when one Congregation is called a Church, as som­times it is in the Scriptures, it is for the same manner of assembling, as the whole people of Israel was assembled in the Wildernesse.

These things generally premised, it will not be difficult to defeat the productions of this assumption, in the particulars specified. And first, according to that which is here de­termined p. 192. I admit, that the Power of [Page CXXIII] interpreting the Scriptures is nothing else but the Power of determining controversies of Faith: Though it is not, as by conse­quence, to be admitted, that those interpre­tations which come from this Power are as much the Word of God, as that which is in­terpreted by the same, or infallible, or that we are bound to stand to them as much as to the Scriptures themselves. For, the Word of God, if we will understand it properly, is that onely, and all that which God giveth in Commission to be declared and enjoyned his people, and therefore this author very skilfully observeth, that the Word of God in the New Testament is as much as the Go­spel, which God gave in charge to our Lord Christ, and he to his Apostles, to be publi­shed to the world, with a charge from God to imbrace it: For so also, the Law was the Word of God to Moses, and all the Revelations granted the Patriarchs and Prophets, were the Word of God to them, because by them God declared how he would conduct his People: Whereas, after the Prophers of the Old Testament, though we finde that there were Prophets that spoke by inspiration, not onely by Josephus, speaking of those times of Gods people whereof there is no menti­on in the Scriptures, but also by that which is said in the New Testament of Simeon and [Page CXXIV] Anna, Zachary and the Blessed Virgin, and of the Prophets of Churches; yet we do not finde it said, that the Word of the Lord came to any of them, because they received no­thing in charge from God to his People. Wherefore, that which the Church hath re­ceived from those persons, that spoke, not onely by inspiration and revelation, but also by Commission from God, the evidence of which Commission containeth all the mo­tives to Christianity, must not be compared with any thing, which it may receive in charge any other way, though it be such as may produce an obligation to receive and observe it, of a nature answerable to the ground and intent of it, which I have decla­red in the place afore quoted. Neither is it to be said that God faileth his Church, in any thing due to it, upon those promises whereby it subsisteth, if he have not provi­ded it of such a Power to be received as in­fallible, unlesse we will say, that God hath tied himself to preserve it free from the tem­ptation and triall of Heresies and Schisms, which he hath sufficiently declared that he never intended to doe. Now, that, having determined, an infallible Power to be requi­site, for the determining of matters of faith, by interpretation of the Scriptures, this au­thor, in consequence to his assumptions [Page CXXV] which I have spoke of, should challenge it to belong to all Christian States, I cannot choose but marvell: Seeing, that, as the Scriptures come by revelation and inspirati­on from God, so, whatsoever shall pretend to like authority, must needs proceed from the same: Which, if the Church, that is, all that act upon the interesse and title thereof, derived from the immediate appointment of God, doe, by their proceedings disclaim, as I have declared, much more is it to be pre­sumed, that all States, notwithstanding the profession of Christianity, must needs stand obliged to doe. For, all States content themselves with the procuring of civile ju­stice, for which they are instituted, not tying themselves to question, whether that which is done be agreeable to the will of God, which the Gospel declareth, either for the thing that is done, which the Gospel many times determineth more strictly, then the Laws of civile States doe, or for the sincerity of intention which it is to be done with. Wherefore, if Christianity come to be limi­ted by the determinations of civile Powers, then must the truth of the Gospel, and the spirituall righteousnesse which it requireth, be measured by those reasons, which the pub­lick peace, and civile justice, which preser­veth the same, may suggest. Whereas it hath [Page CXXVI] been declared, that it is not the bare profes­sion of Christianity, that intitleth any man to any degree of superiority in the Church, but that, promotion to all degrees of the Clergy, doth, by the originall institution and appointment thereof, presuppose some de­gree of proficience in the understanding and practice of Christianity, rendring them both able and willing to regulate all controversies of Christianity, not according to Interesse of State, but according to the will of Christ, and that spirituall righteousnesse which he advanceth. And, though it is many times seen, that Secular persons are more learned and pious in Christianity, then others of the Clergy, yet, I suppose, no man of common sense will presume it so soon, of him that is not inabled nor obliged to it by his professi­on, as of him that is. And when the question is, what is agreeable to the appointment of God in such matters as these, I suppose, it is no presumption that God hath instituted any thing, because it is possible, (for, in mo­rall matters, what is absolutely and univer­sally impossible?) but because it is most con­ducible to the intent purposed: And, that to the purposed end, of maintaining the truth of the Gospel, and that spirituall righteous­nesse which it advanceth, it is more condu­cible, that those things which concern it, be [Page CXXVII] determined by those that are inabled by their profession, to spend their time in searching the truth, and engaged by the same, to ad­vance the spirituall righteousnesse of Christ, then barely Christians, as Secular Powers. As for the reason of this resolution, because, if the Power of determining matters of Faith, might be in any person, not subject to the State which the determination must ob­lige, all that are to be obliged by it, must become thereby subjects to the Power that maketh it: As, supposing the temporall Power of the Pope, it is insoluble, so, sup­posing what hath been premised, it ceaseth. For, seeing nothing prejudiciall to the pub­lick Peace, or, to the Powers of the World that maintain the same, can be within the Power of the Church to determine, it can­not be prejudiciall to any Christian State, to receive the resolutions and determinati­ons of Ecclesiasticall matters from Coun­cels, which may consist of persons not sub­ject to them, as well as of such as are. For, if any thing prejudiciall to the publick peace, and lawfull Powers that maintain it, be advanced under pretense of Christianity, that is, if this Power be abused, then have the Secular Powers right to God, as well as Power to the world, to punish such at­tempts: But the Church, neither right to [Page CXXVIII] God, nor Power to the world, of resisting them, though their Power be ill used, to the suppression of Christianity, and of that Eccle­siasticall Power that standeth by it, because it is to be maintained by suffering the Crosse and not by force.

As for the Power of binding and loosing, it is very well understood to consist, as well in judging that which is questioned to be consistent or inconsistent with that Christia­nity which a man professeth, as in remitting or retaining sin, that is, in allowing, or voi­ding the effect of Baptism, which is, the Communion of the Church. But, whereas it is said, that the first is the right of the State, the second the office of the Pastors of the Church, I demand, whether these Pa­stors shall have Power to dissent, in case the judgement of the State agree not with their own, or not: For, that this may fall out it is manifest, and, that any man, by his quality in the Church, should be bound to proceed, in remitting and retaining sin, according to his own judgement, when as, by his subjecti­on to the State, he is bound to proceed ac­cording to the judgement thereof, is an in­convenience as manifest. Whereas, that a man should be bound by his obligation to the Church, to proceed according to his own judgement in Church matters, and by [Page CXXIX] his subjection to the State, to suffer for it, when it is contrary to the judgement there­of, is so farre from being an inconvenience, that it is the necessary consequence of bea­ring Christs Crosse.

The same reason takes place, in that which is said, that the election of Pastors be­longs to the State, and the Consecration to Pastors. For I have often shewed in the pre­mises, that Imposition of Hands is a sign of consent, to the constituting of those who receive the same, implying a Power of dis­senting, for the use whereof they are to ren­der account, if it be used amisse. And truly, that Paul and Barnabas should be called A­postles, Acts XIV. 4, 13. in regard of their sending by the Holy Ghost, Acts XIII. 1—I count it not strange: For the extent of the word, and the use thereof will bear it: Though it is manifest, that otherwise, Bar­nabas had Commission from the Church at Jerusalem, Acts XI. 22. that is, from the A­postles: Paul, not from men, nor by men, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father that rai­sed him from the dead, Gal. I. 1. though ac­knowledged first, (as to the Commission which he received with Barnabas, Acts XIII. 2.) by the Church of Antiochia, but after­wards, in the right of the XII Apostles, by themselves at Jerusalem, Gal. II. 9. But I [Page CXXX] count it strange, that, to prove the Power of the State in choosing Pastors, it should be alleged, that this dictate of the Holy Ghost, by which Paul and Barnabas were set apart to the work for which they were designed, Acts XIII. 2. was to be acknowledged for the dictate of the Holy Ghost, by the Church of Antiochia. I have shewed, that, under the Old Testament, the Consistory were to judge of Prophets, and to obey them being received, which power was sufficiently abused among them. I doe beleeve also, that there was means given the Church to be resolved in the same, that the precept of the Apostle, 1 Cor. XII. 3. 1 John IV. 1—tendeth to that effect, that the grace of dis­cerning Spirits, 1 Cor. XII. 9. was to such a purpose: I remember the words of S. Am­brose upon 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, [...] [Page CXXXI] [...] 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 [Page CXXXII] 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 [Page CXXXIII] 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 [Page CXXXII] [...] [Page CXXXIII] [...] [Page CXXXIV] 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 [Page CXXXVI] 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 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 [Page CXXXVII] face, (as the Ecclesiasticall Histories tell us) Their Idols are silver and gold, and, confound [...]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, [Page CXXXVIII] 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 [Page CXXXIX] 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 [Page CXL] 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 [Page CXLI] 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. [...], wherein he is thought so plainly to determine, that Clergy men are uncapable of imploiment in Secular affairs, whereof here p. 268. be it but to shew, how mens trust is abused, when they examine not such allegations. I grant these are his words [...], that to joyn Civile skill with the Priesthood, is to spin two wools together that will not make one thred. I grant he saith, that the Aegyptians and Hebrews had once Priests for their Kings: But that God parted them, because [Page CXLII] his work was done with humane weaknesse. But shall I count that to be against Gods Law in Synesius his opinion, which he counts those Bishops happy that could goe through with? which he himself declares that he was not desirous to lay aside from his own care? which he desires a coadjutor to be joyned with him to assist him in? The case was this: It was a part of the Bishops Office, as still it ought to be, to intercede with the ci­vile Powers, for favour to all charitable cau­ses. For, among the ancient People of God, it was the Prophets Office, (who may well be called the Preachers of Christianity du­ring that time) as you see 2 Kings IV. 12. and therefore of duty belongs to the chief Do­ctors of it now. In the Africane Canons it is divers times provided, that it belong to the Bishops charge. Synesius finding him­selfe foiled in the execution hereof by An­dronicus, makes a proposition to his Church, that he may have one to assist him in it, that he might not be diverted from his Priestly Office for it, intending notwithstanding, to attend it himself, as he should find opportu­nity so to doe. Is this the proposition of one that thought it against Gods Law, for a Bishop or Clergy man to doe it? For, cer­tainly, the coadjutor which he desires, must be understood to be a Clergy man, because [Page CXLIII] it is the Interesse of the Church, in which he is to act: Whereupon the Church pro­ceeds there to Excommunication, because wronged in it by Andronicus. So likewise, S. Augustine may complain of the multitude of businesse which diverted him from more spirituall imploiment, to end the sutes of Christians which then resorted to the Bi­shop; But did S. Augustine think it against Gods Law that he should be exercised in it, and yet continue in that exercise? That is the point here questioned, whether against Gods Law, or according to it; as for the point of expedience I dispute it not here, though, if Synesius be against that, a man may very well say to his reasons, that, for any man▪ to act in Secular matters towards an Interesse of power or profit, is a thing in­consistent with the Priesthood, which is to act towards the Interesse of Christianity; And therefore God hath parted all such imploiment from the Government of his Church: But, that the Rulers of Chri­stianity should act in the Interesse of Chri­stianity, and to the advantage thereof in Secular, especially in publick affairs, is that which all parties now declare to be well done, when it is done by Law, by doing it themselves without Law.

The distance between Civile and Military [Page CXLIV] imploiment among the Romanes, whereof p. 271. appears by the provision introduced by the Emperours, in favour of Soldiers, that their last Wils should be good, though made without the Solemnities of Law: Which the Laws themselves ff. de Testam. Milit. l. 1. Instit. ead. VI. declare, was pro­vided, in regard to the simplenesse or inno­cence of Soldiers, that is, because of the ig­norance in the Laws, proceeding from that strict attendance upon their Colours, to which Soldiers stood obliged all the time of their service, which was, with most of them, the greatest part of their lives. It is not my purpose to say, that the Clergy are not to be so constant to the service of the Church, as Soldiers to their Colours: But, that the service of the Church, when the State is Christian, requires not that distance from Civile businesse, as the service of the Wars among the Romanes. If the service of the Church consisted onely in Preaching, it would be much otherwise: But, if the service of the Church consist in the maintenance and advancement of Christianity, then, nei­ther can the Clergy understand wherein con­sists the Interesse of Christianity, without understanding the affairs of the world wherein it is seen, neither can they act to­wards the maintenance and advancement [Page CXLV] thereof, without understanding it. Where­fore, though it appear, not onely by S. Cy­prian, but by Can. Apost. LXXX. LXXXII. and others, that, when States were not Chri­stian, the Clergy were forbidden Secular bu­sinesse, yet, when the State is Christian, to forbid it, were to forbid the means of main­taining Christianity, in the dispatching of such businesse.

To that which is acknowledged p. 273. c. V. that no part of the Church can be concluded, but by the Act of the Synod respective to it, I adde further, that the Act thereof can­not passe, but by the greater part of it. For, unlesse the consent of the Whole follow the consent of the greater part, in doing those Acts which must oblige the Church, as in making Canons and Ordinations, it cannot appear, how the precept of the Apostles, of obeying the present Rulers of the Church is neglected, in any Schism, that is effected by any part of them, and, by consequence, there would be no such crime as that of Schisme, in any such case. As for example, in the case of the Church of Corinth, upon which, the Epistle of Clemens was written and sent, which he declares p. 62. when he says, that it is much a shame for the profession of Chri­stians, that the ancient Church of Corinth should maintain a faction against the Presby­ters, [Page CXLVI] for one or two persons: to wit, of the same rank of Presbyters, as we must needs understand it. When, therefore, both sides follow some of the Rulers of the Church, how should Schism be incurred, if, by that precept, the lesser part were not obliged to be concluded by the greater, in things not determined by Gods Law? So, in the Or­dination of Novatianus, how shall it be taken for Schismaticall, being done by three Bi­shops, unlesse we grant, that the lesser part is to be concluded by the greater, under the pain of incurring the crime of Schism? Thus, that which is here propounded, p. 249, 250. proceedeth upon the same ground with that which followeth p. 314, 315. which to confirm, I adde here a memorable passage out of the said Epistle of Clemens, whose Doctrine, being received from the very mouthes of the Apostles, must needs be ac­counted their own. Thus then Clemens p. 54. [...] (so it must be read, and not [...] [Page CXLVII] [...]. Our Apostles received the Gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ from God. And so Christ was sent forth from God, and the Apostles from Christ: Thus both were orderly done by the will of God. Having therefore received in­structions, and being assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed by the Word of God, they went forth preaching, that the kingdome of God was coming. Prea­ching then through Countries and Cities, they constituted the first-fruits of them overseers and ministers of those that should beleeve. This he thus prosecutes, p. 57. [...] —And our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife about the name of Bishop; And for that cause, perfectly foreknowing it, they constituted the aforesaid, and gave order for the future, that when they should fall asleep, [Page CXLVIII] other approved persons should succeed into their Ministery. Those therefore that were constitu­ted by them, or afterwards by other approved persons—we conceive to be unjustly put out of their Ministery. The sense of these words is some what obscure, by reason of the word [...] which signifieth here, afterwards, as in Acts XIII. 42. [...]. The Gentiles besought that these things might be spoken to them the Sabbath after: And so Cappellus & de Dieu upon that Text of the Acts, have observed that [...] is used in the same signification by Iosephus. But here the case is plain, that it cannot be o­therwise understood, because of that which follows, [...], which must needs be those that were made afterwards. Now the word [...], so far as I can learn, is no where read in all the Greek tongue but here, so that we must take the signification either from the originall, or from the consequence of the discourse. The originall bears the sense which I conceive in translating it an Order, well enough, being the same with [...]. But the consequence of the Discourse necessarily requires it: For what reason doth he expresse, why those whom he speaks of should be thought unjust­ly removed, but because the Apostles had [Page CXLIX] appointed, that those whom they constitu­ted should be succeeded by others? I grant that he allegeth other considerations, aggra­vating the fault of the Corinthians in putting out their Governours, that is, their Bishop and Presbyters, for one or two of the Pres­byters: But he hath said nothing by all this which I have here produced, unlesse we grant, that it was not in their power to doe it, meerly in this consideration, because they succeeded such as were constituted by the Apostles. For the Apostles had done no­thing, in appointing that others should suc­ceed them whom they constituted, if this succession could be voided by any Power but that which appointed it.

From the distinction advanced p. 276. be­tween those things that are commanded eve­ry Christian, and those things that are com­manded the Body of the Church, perhaps, a resolution may be deduced, what is absolute­ly necessary to salvation, and what not: And also, what is absolutely necessary to salvation to be known, and what not. The Book de Cive maintains this Position, that there. is but one Article of the Faith, necessary to salvation, which is, that our Lord Jesus is the Messias. But the sufficience of it is further declared, to imply, the receiving of Christ for a Doctor sent by God, in all things without [Page CL] exception to be beleeved and obeyed, which manifestly infers the profession of all Chri­stianity, and the sincerity of the same. And, upon these terms, I see no reason how to de­ny, that, upon this condition, the thief upon the Crosse is promised life everlasting, and the Eunuch of Aethiopia admitted to Bap­tism, that is, to remission of sins, and the ti­tle to life everlasting: According to that which is said here p. 16. that, in danger of death, or, when there appeared an ardent zeal to Christianity, men were admitted to Bap­tism without regular triall, to wit, upon the free and zealous profession of Christianity. So Philip is ordered by the Spirit, to give Baptism, on the like terms as the Church used to doe. But this makes no alteration in the necessity of those things, that are to be known and undertook, by those that regu­larly come to Baptism, which continue no lesse necessary to salvation, though the obli­gation of knowing and acknowledging them cannot take place, either at all, in them that die immediately, or, in them that are thus baptized, before their Baptism. It may then, with a great deal of reason be said, that all that, and onely that which is contained in the Covenant of Baptism, is necessary to sal­vation, among which is the Unity of the Church, and the obligation of every Chri­stian [Page CLI] to contribute towards the preservation of it: But otherwise, what this Covenant containeth, this is not the place to dispute.

Some of the particulars remembred p. 289. that are in the Scriptures, and yet oblige not the Church, deserve to be considered more at large. That the Apostle speaks not barely of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, 1 Cor. XI. but of the celebration thereof at their Feasts of Love, beside that which hath been said up­on divers occasions, in this Discourse, ap­pears further by this Glosse, which I finde in the written Copy lately alleged, [...]. The Lords Supper, saith he, is, to dine in the Church. Whereby it may appear, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, is properly called the Sacra­ment of the Lords Supper, but not properly the Supper of the Lord. There is nothing can be propounded in a more expresse form of Precept, then the decree of forbearing things sacrificed to Idols, by the Councell at Je­rusalem: And yet it is manifest, that it was but locall: For, if it had obliged the Church of Rome, S. Paul could not have given them another Rule, not to condemne one another, Jews and Gentiles, for eating or not eating. For, that this case is comprised within that Rule, it appeareth, because S. Paul is afraid that Jewish Christians should fall away from [Page CLII] Christianity, as enjoyning to renounce the Law, and by consequence the Author of it, which was manifestly the scandall of those at Ierusalem. But, if it had obliged the Church of Corinth, much lesse could S. Paul have given leave to eate things sacrificed to Idols materially, as Gods creatures, which, you have seen that he doth. That, under the Apostles, Baptism, was drenching of all the body under water, appears by S. Pauls Discourse, Rom. VI. 3, 4, 5. for, how should the death and Resurrection of our Lord Christ be represented by Baptism otherwise? And so, the exception that is taken against the Baptism of Novatianus, is, that he was, [...], Eusebius Eccles. Hist. VI. 43. Had water poured about him in bed, because of his sicknesse. So, the solemni­ty of drenching was due, though, I shewed afore, that the substance of the exception is grounded upon the weaknesse of his resoluti­on to Christianity, who would not undertake to professe it while persecution appeared: For, if that had not been, the solemnity would not have been avoided. The Vail of women in the Church, which the Apostle requires 1 Cor. XI. that it was to cover their faces, though laid upon the head, I will seek no o­ther argument but Tertullian, though it were possible to finde more. For he, in his Book [Page CLIII] 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 [Page CLIV] 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, [Page CLV] 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 [Page CLVI] 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 [Page CLVII] 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 [Page CLVIII] 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. because, as our Savi­our Christ, rides forth, thereupon, at the beginning, so at the end of the Prophesie, XIX. 11. he appeares again, riding on the white horse, which he appears mounted on at the beginning: So that he which went forth to conquer at the first, returns to take vengeance at the last, as he is there descri­bed. In the next place, I will not much intreat any man to grant me, that the souls under the Altar, VI. 9. are the Martyrs which suffered for the Gospel under the Romane Emperours in the ten Persecuti­ons: For, that S. John, addressing this Pro­phesie to the Churches of Asia, I. 11. and that with a promise of happinesse to them that should reade and keep it, I. 2. should not speak of things done, during those times when those Churches stood, and wherein they were concerned, is a thing that no com­mon sense can imagine. God then, being [Page CLIX] importuned by the bloud of the Martyrs, sheweth, that he determines to take ven­geance of the same. Which he further de­clares, by the vision of seven Angels, rea­dy to blow seven Trumpets, Apoc. VIII. 2. For with these seven, appears another, that puts much incense to the Prayers of the Saints, upon the Golden Altar before the Throne. What prayers of the Saints, but those which the souls of the Mar­tyrs had made for vengeance before? For immediately thereupon, the said Angel takes the Censer, upon which he had put Incense to the Prayers of the Saints, v. 3. and fills it with fire from the Altar, and throws it up­on the earth, and there comes forth noise, thunder, lightning, and earthquake, Apoc. VIII. 5. the figures of this Vengeance. Be­sides, it appears, that after the VI seals, he pro­ceeds to declare the vengeance promised the Martyrs, because, immediately after the sixth Seale, there appears four Angels ready to destroy the earth, Apoc. VII. 1. But, be­cause God would shew his Prophet, that he meant as well to preserve a number of his own, as to take vengeance upon the Perse­cutors, therefore he suffers them not to proceed, till his own be marked. These Prayers are therefore called also the Prayers [Page CLX] of all the Saints, Apoc. VIII. 3. to shew us, that, though they are expressed, at the ope­ning of the fifth Seale, to be onely the Prayers of the Martyrs, Apoc. VI. 9. yet we are to understand, that those which are sealed and saved from the vengeance infli­cted on the Persecutors, doe joyn in the same: For the Martyrs, that had long white Robes given them, Apoc. VI. 10. doe appear again praising God in those white Robes, Apoc. VII. 9, 14. But we must needs imagine, that the meaning of the Vision is, that those which were sealed and saved, joyned also in the same praises of God. For Apoc. XIV. 1, 3. where the same CXLIV thousand, that were sealed afore, appear again, and immediately the same voice of Gods praises is heard, (like the noise of Harpers, but as loud as thunder, or as many waters) it is said, that no man could learn the Song, but the CXLIV thou­sand, redeemed from the earth. So then, both the Martyrs, and those that are sealed, joyn in the praises of God, therefore in the prayers also, for the fulfilling whereof, those praises are tendred, which are there­fore called the Prayers of all the Saints, be­cause, as well those that were sealed and saved, as those that suffered Martyrdome, are to be conceived to joyn in them, as well [Page CLXI] as in the Praises of God. And therefore the Plagues which they procure, began from the going forth of the Gospel, because from thence began the sufferings of the Martyrs, which appeared at the beginning of the fifth Seale, as also the Praises tendred to God by those that were sealed and escaped: Though they were not to be accomplished, but with the number of their brethren, that were to be slain as well as themselves. Now the summe of the Prophesie, being propounded in the Figure of a Book with seven Seals, which none but the Lamb could open, Apoc. V. the effect of the seventh is divided into seven Trumpets, wherewith seven Angels publish the vengeance, which God had promised to take, upon the Per­secutors of his Martyrs, at the opening of the fifth Seal, Apoc. V. 9, 10, 11. VIII. 2. So that, the Martyrs being those that suffered by the Romane Empire, the vengeance is that which was taken upon the Romane Empire. This, as the most judicious of our late Expositors confesseth and proveth, so, had he considered the consequence of it, he would have found himself constrained, not to part the tenth Chapter, and that which followeth, from the rest that went afore, but to expound all to one and the [Page CLXII] same effect, the oversight whereof, is, in truth, the cause of his whole mistake. For, whereas the Angel pronounceth three woes to come, upon the sounding of the three last Trumpets, Apoc. VIII. 13. two whereof are repeated after the fifth and sixth, IX. 12. XI. 14. is it not manifest, that the effect of the seventh Trumpet, is divided into, and comprised in seven Vials of the last plagues, Apoc. XV. 1, 7. as the effect of the seventh Seal was, in seven Trumpets? otherwise, how comes it to passe, that, where the third woe is proclaimed, upon the sounding of the seventh Trumpet, Apoc. XI. 14. there follows nothing but rejoycing? Onely be­cause, the joy of the Saints for the advance­ment of Christianity, is joyned with the woe that comes upon the Persecutors. And the joy is mentioned here, the woe deferr'd, till the seven Vials, which contain the effect of the seventh Trumpet, come. There­fore they are called the last plagues, Apoc. XV. 1. to wit, of those which the Martyrs bloud, Apoc. VI. 9, required. For the Plagues, as they began, so they must needs be accomplished, after the Persecutions. And all this gap, between the sixth Trum­pet, and the seven Vials, is made on pur­pose, to reveal more largely, the cause of [Page CLXIII] those last Plagues, to wit, the Persecution which God punishes. For, what signifies the victory of Michael and his Angels, over the Devil and his, and the taking of the child up to Gods Throne, Apoc. XII. 5, 7. but Gods decree that Christianity should prevaile? Wherefore, the flight of the wo­man into the Wildernesse, following in time the fall of Satan into the world which caused it, Apoc. XII. 6, 9. must needs begin as soon as Persecution for Christianity be­gan. And the same CXLIV thousand, which were sealed afore the Trumpets, A­poc. VII. 3—appear again with the Lamb after sixe of them, Apoc. XIV. 1. as having escaped the Persecution represented in the thirteenth Chapter, as well as the Plagues attending on it, and therefore were sealed that they might escape it. Therefore, the same persons being preserved, the same Per­secutors must be understood. The same it is which S. Paul had Prophecied of, 2 Thess. II. though, it seems there was more revea­led to S. John, by succession of time. For whereas, by many passages of S. Pauls Epi­stles, it appears, that he had conceived, that the end of the world was to come, within the age of men then living, perhaps at the fall of Jerusalem, as the Apostles also ima­gined, [Page CLXIV] when they asked our Lord, when the destruction of Jerusalem should be, and what the signs of his comming, and the end of the world, Mat. XXV. 3. to prevent the ill consequences of this opinion, S. Paul, ha­ving the truth further revealed, tels them this must not be, till a departure come first, and the man of sin, the son of perdition be revealed, that opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or worshipped, so as to seat himself in the Temple of God, de­claring himself to be God. Which can be truly said of none, but the Romane Empe­rours, who did indeed exalt themselves a­bove all called God, that is, all their ima­ginary idol Gods in that they took upon them to make Gods, whom they would, and were themselves worshipped with divine ho­nours so much more devoutly, as they were able to doe more good or harm. [...], is here, as 1 Cor. VIII. 5. a term of abatement, signifying those that are cal­led Gods and are not, in which sense onely the Apostle could say, there be Gods many, and Lords many. For it is a mistake to think that Princes are called Gods in Scri­pture, as I have shewed afore. Now the Re­ligion of the Gentiles was this, that, when the Statue of a God was seated in a Temple [Page CLXV] built to him, thenceforth they thought his Deity dwelt in it, and the Temple thereby consecrated. In which sense, S. Paul, speak­ing of the succession of Romane Emperours as of one person, (as Dantel & S. John, use to call the body of Chaldean, Persian, Gre­cian, or Romane Emperours a Beast) saith, that he should exalt himself, [...], so as to seat himself in the Temple of God. Which, as it may be understood of any of them, who had all Temples built them, and their Statues pla­ced in those Temples, as the Deities of the same, so it may be particularly understood of Caligula, who would have placed his Statue in the Temple of the true God at Je­rusalem, though we suppose the Epistle writ­ten long after his death. And so, that inso­luble difficulty ceases, which Grotius his ex­position of this passage suffers, to wit, that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians must be written before the death of Caligula, which no man can easily beleeve, there be­ing between the Baptism of our Lord, upon the XV of Tiberius according to the Gospel, and the death of Caligula, but a matter of XI years, whatsoever passed between the Baptism of Christ and his death, and be­tween the death of Caligula and the writing [Page CLXVI] of this Epistle. This is then the first of the two Beasts that S. Iohn sees in the thirteenth of his Revelations, blaspheming God, and persecuting his Church, even the succes­sion of the Romane Emperours. The se­cond is the same, whereof S. Paul prophesies in the next words, 2 Thess. II. 8, 9. represen­ting in one person, as before the Succession of the Romane Emperours, so now the Suc­cession of Magicians and Heathen Philoso­phers, the Priests and the Divines, whom Satan imploied to disguise, interpret, and maintain Heathenism in opposition to Chri­stianity. Simon Magus may well be recko­ned inprimis of the list, together with much of the fry of his Gnosticks, who, though wearing the name of Christians, yet, practi­sing manifest Idolatries with their Magick, occasioned the persecution of true Christia­nity, by compounding a false out of it and Heathenism. But Apollonius Tyaneus must needs be accounted of this Body, who did many strange things in S. Iohns time, to sup­port Heathenism, and was therefore by the Pagans opposed to our Lord Christ, as you may see by Vopiscus, in the life of Tacitus, and Hieracles his Book to that purpose, refuted by Eusebius: After him came all those Py­thagorean or Platonick Philosophers, who [Page CLXVII] after S. Iohns time, as they were the maintai­ners of Heathenism against Christianity, were doubtlesse also Magicians, as their Fa­ther Pythagoras seems to have been, by his travels in the East, and many passages of his life. Such were Apuleius, Plotinus, Por­phyry, Iamblichus, Maximus, and with such the Histories shew that the persecuting Em­perours, Maxentius, Maximiane, Licinius, and Julian conversed: Who, both by lear­ned writings, and by strange works, done by familiarity with unclean spirits, laboured to support the credit of their Idols. Two in­stances I must not conceal in this place, the one recorded by Dionysius Alexandrinus in an Epistle to Hermammron, produced by Eu­sebius Eccles. Hist. VII. 10. where he relateth of Valeriane, how he cherished the Christi­ans at the first, insomuch that his Court was a kinde of Church: Unto which he addeth as followeth, [...]. Now, he that perswaded him to be rid of them, was his Doctor, the Ru­ler of the Synagogue of Aegyptian Magicians: Who commanded the pure to be slain and per­secuted, [Page CLXVIII] as opposites and hinderers of their abo­minable and detestable inchantments: which, he proceeds to declare, what they were, and how they became of no effect, wheresoever the Christians came. And perhaps, if we had the Epistle at length, it would appear, that Dionysius had interpreted the Beast and the false Prophet as I doe: For the words which Eusebius quotes, begin thus: [...]. Accordingly, saith he, is revelation made to S. John: For he saith, and there was given him a mouth speaking great things, and blas­phemy, and it was granted him to continue two and forty moneths. Proceeding to that which I reported afore of Valeriane, in these terms, [...]. We may well marvell at both in Va­leriane, and especially we may consider how he stood affected before him, (that is, before the Magician, whom he spoke of, had accesse to him) how gentle and kinde he was to the men of God. For when he saith, that Saint Johns Revelations were according to what he there relates, he seems to make Valeriane [Page CLXIX] the Beast, the Magician, the false Prophet whom he speaks of afterwards. The other is out of an Edict of Constantine reported by Eusebius, De Vitâ Constant. II. 49, 50. where the great Emperour declares to all the Empire, that Apollo, that gave answers at Delphi, having answered out of the dark cave there, that the just upon earth hindred him from speaking truth, and that was the reason why his Oracles proved false, Dio­cletian hereupon, [...]. Being deceived in the errour of his soule, curiously inquired of those about him, who were the just upon the earth. And one of the Priests about him answered, the Christians. But he, swallowing the answer like honey, drew those swords that were found out against injustice, against blamelesse piety. And this, he professes afore God, that he heard himself, being then a youth, in the Empe­rours presence. By these two particulars we may make an estimate, how the rest of the Persecutions were moved, and therefore, [Page CLXX] that the Body of these Philosophers and Ma­gicians, the Priests and Interpreters of Hea­thenism, is called in the Revelution the false Prophet. So that the subject of S. Pauls and S. Johns Prophesies is all one; but the be­ginning of the Persecution seems to be more distinctly set down by S. Paul, though more was revealed to S. John, concerning the end of it. And now ye know what staieth him to be revealed at his own time, saith S. Paul, 2 Thess. II. 6, 7. for the mystery of iniquity is at work already, onely till he that staieth be set aside, and then shall the wicked one be revealed. He, or that which staieth, [...], is [...], or the Law. For, as long as the Christians were to conform to the Law, and not to depart from the Jews, which departure, the Apostle cals [...] before, the design of Satan, to bring this Persecu­tion to effect, was but a mystery of iniquity, that is, a wicked design in secret. For, at the first, Christians were in the same conditi­on with Jews, as we see by the Edict of Clau­dius, that all Jews should quit Rome, saith the Scripture, Acts XVIII. 2. that the Chri­stians saith Suetonius. And that the first Persecutions were stirred by Jews, we see by S. Pauls Epistles, which shews us, that those false Christians that conformed to the [Page CLXXI] Law, did it, that they might not be persecu­ted. Therefore, the breach with the Jews, setting them on work, to calumniate the Christians, is justly said, to reveal the secret counsell of Satan, to stirre Persecution a­gainst Christianity. Now this breach may well be said to have begun at or about the very time when S. Paul writ this to the Thessalonians, that the mystery of iniquity was now in working. For, it was before this, that S. Paul was constrained to separate his Disciples from the Synagogue, Acts XIX. 9. And it seemes to be after this, that the Apostle writes to the Hebrews, to come forth of the Synagogue, Heb. XIII. 13. So that when Nero persecuted the Christians, both the departure, and the revealing of this secret counsell of Satan began, till, as the breach, so it became open and professed. As for the end, which S. Paul expresseth, when he calleth the Beast the sonne of per­dition, and saith, that God shall destroy the false Prophet with the appearance of his pre­sence, the Angel, Apoc. X. 5. seemeth to make it the end of the world, when he sweareth that time shall be no more. But, when he addes, to limit, and to expound this asseve­ration, That time shall be no more, but that the mystery of God which hee gave his ser­vants [Page CLXXII] the Prophets the good news of, should bee accomplished, wee understand thereby his meaning to be, that time shall be no more to that effect, but, that the ancient Prophesies should be quite fulfilled. And, what re­mained to be fulfilled of ancient Prophesies, but the calling of the Gentiles, which was accomplished, while the Vials were pouring out on the Empire, for persecuting the Christians? As for the raising of the dead again, and the judging of them, and the reign of the Saints with Christ a thousand years, which necessarily come in upon the seventh Trumpet, or the seven Vials, Apoc. XI. 18. XX. 4. there will remain no great difficulty in it, if we think fit to understand it, as the like Propheticall Visions in Eze­kiel and Daniel, from whom it is manifest S. John had it, are evidently to be under­stood. The judgement which Daniel saw ex­ercised upon the Beast, which persecuted the Jews, Dan. VII. 9—if we will not interrupt the consequence of his Prophe­sies, and the coherence of the Text in that place, and offer violence to our own senses, is not that which shall come at the generall Resurrection, but it is that, which God shews his Prophet, that he would exercise upon the Princes that should afflict his peo­ple, [Page CLXXIII] (Antiochus Epiphanes by name) and doe them justice. Just so are the Christi­ans here judged, and the Kingdome given them, as it is said to be given there to the Jews, because they were freed under the Maccabees, and became Lords of them­selves. And as Ezekiel saw dry bones re­vive, to figure the restoring of the Israe­lites, Ezek. XXXIII. 3. so proper is it to un­derstand, the dead Christians to rise again, and be judged, and reign, because they are restored to freedome and authority under Constantine. And this it is which is cal­led the first Resurrection, Apoc. XX. 6. in respect of the generall Resurrection, which, he sayeth afterwards, shall not be, till after a thousand years, Apoc. XX. 11. so that, when he saith, The rest of the dead revived not till the thousand yeares be fulfilled; the meaning is plain, that we must not mistake this Re­surrection, for that which shall be at the end of the world. Neither is it said, that the world shall end, with the thousand years, after this judgement, and Satan Sealed up, and Christians advanced to the Empire: For, Satan must be loosed again, and seduce Gog and Magog, to War against Jerusalem, (perhaps after the Jews are converted to Christianity, for this is all that will remain [Page CLXXIV] unfulfilled of the Apocalypse) and this may spend many hundred years, after the thou­sand are expired. And truly, I would make no great difficulty, if need were, to take the thousand yeares for an indefinite time, provided that the time which Christi­an Princes reigned in the world, were not lesse. But if we count from the latter sack of Rome by Gensericus, to the taking of Con­stantinople by the Turks, there will not be much difference: Nor could the term have been put more properly to this Prophesie, then by that Empire, which ruled those parts, to the Churches whereof S. John sends his Revelations. And this sense will be a necessary warning to this age, that the Scriptures concurre with the works of the time, to shew, that Satan is loose. Thus you see what occasion there was for the opinion of the Chiliasts among the anci­ent Christians, which had it proceeded one­ly of a Kingdome of the Saints, might as well have been understood of the Domi­nion of Christian Princes under Constan­tine, as that of Daniel is rightly understood, of the Jews Dominion after Mattathias. And being so understood, it will without doubt adde very much to the strength of that motive to Christianity which is drawn [Page CLXXV] from the Prophesies concerning the calling of the Gentiles. But the imagination of Christs bodily coming, whereof the Scri­pture sayes nothing, as it did (if we beleeve Dionysius Alexandrinus in Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. VII. 24.) and may adde to the truth many things prejudiciall to Christianity, so may it also prove pernicious to the State of Christendome. If it be objected, that the desolation of Rome, by Alaricus and Gensericus, was nothing to that which is Prophesied of Babylon, Apoc. XVII. XVIII. let the Prophesies of Esay and Jeremy a­gainst Babylon be considered, which, wee know, stood hundreds of years after Cyrus, so that Scaliger saith, that we must expect Elias, with the Jews, to reconcile their Pro­phesies with the Histories. Nor is it to the purpose, that Babylon was utterly ruined at length: For, should Rome be utterly ruined, so long after Alaricus, as Babylon was after Cyrus, they would not think the Revelation thereby fulfilled in my sense. No more am I to think, those Prophesies against Ba­bylon, for cruelty to the Jews, fulfilled, by what fell out, when no man remembred the Jews or those Prophesies. But these de­scriptions of the Apocalypse, borrowed many times word for word out of the Prophesies [Page CLXXVI] of the Old Testament, are nothing else but lofty patheticall figures, hyberbolically ex­pressing the condition of Heathen Rome, which, in respect of the Empire quite taken from the Pagans, was left as desolate as Ba­bylon under Cyrus. This is then the whole compasse of the Apocalypse, Christ goeth forth at the Preaching of the Gospel, after the first Seal, to subdue the Empire to Chri­stianity. The next three Seals foretell, that God would punish them with the sword, fa­mine, and pestilence for neglecting it. Which they, by the instinct of Satan, imputing to the neglect of their Idols, as all Histories shew, fall to persecute the Christians, till the Martyrs blood calling for vengeance in the fifth Seal, under the sixth, the change under Constantine comes, the seventh bringing forth those Plagues, which the seven Trumpets, and seven Vials, out of the last of them, im­port. Till, the Seat of the Empire being re­moved, and Rome sacked once and again, Christ appears again, to punish the Persecu­tors, and false Prophets that set them upon it, to do the Christians justice, and give them the Empire. And this is that appearance which S. Paul speaks of, to whom God re­vealing the fortune of his Church by de­grees, shews the end of the Persecution, not [Page CLXXVII] the continuance of Christianity, a thousand years after and more, which S. John hereby learns. And this interpretation so much more reasonable, as it is more unreasonable, that all this should be sent to the seven Chur­ches, telling them, that they should be happy in reading and understanding, and keeping it, which, for the most part concerned no soul in them, then, that he should send them this encouragement, to stick to their Christi­anity, in the midst of those Persecutions, which here he fortels.