^w^ • ^-1^ 5:z.&/o3. Stom t^e feifirarg of (§t<]\xtai^c^ 6g 0im to t0e &i6rarg of (Ibtinceton S^^eofogtcaf ^etntndrg SV 649 .S75 1842 1699. ' ^^^ard, 1635- The irenicuxn ^\ 'i'y^. THE lEENICUM, OE PACinCATOE RECONCILER CHURCH DIFFERENCES. BISHOP STILLINGFLEET, AOTHOR OF THE 0RI6INES SACRiE. FIRST AMERICAN EDITION. PHILADELPHIA: M. SORIN, 91 NORTH SECOND STREET. 1842. T. K. & P. G. Collins, Printera. IRENICUM; A WEAPON SALVE FOR THE CHURCH'S WOUNDS; OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF PARTICULAR FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT; DISCUSSED AND EXAMINED ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE, THE POSITIVE LAWS OF GOD, THE PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES, AND THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, AND THE JUDGMENT OF REFORMED DIVINES. WHEREBY A FOUNDATION IS LAID FOR THE CHORCH's PEACE, AND THE ACCOMMODATION OF OUR PRESENT DIFFERENCES. HUMBLY TENDERED TO CONSIDERATION. ^/ BY EDWARD STILLINGFLEET, RECTOR OF SUTTON IN BEDFORDSBIRB. THE SECOND EDITION;* WITH AN APPENDIX CONCERNING THE POWER OF EXCOMMUNICATION IN A CHRISTIAN CHURCH. " Let your moderation be known unto all men, the Lord is at hand." Phil. iv. 5. " Si ad decidendas hodiernas controversias— jus divinium a positivo seu ecclesiastico candid^ separaretur; non videretur de iis quae sunt absolute necessaria, inter pics aut moderatos viro5 longa aut acris contentio usura." Casaub. ep. ad Card. Perron. " Multum refert ad retinendum Ecclesiarum pacem, inter ea quse jure divino prsecepta sunt, et quae non sunt, accurate dislinguere." Grot, de Imper. sum. Poteatat. circa Sacra, cap. 11. PHILADELPHIA: M. SORIN, 91 NORTH SECOND STREET. 1842. ♦ This was published at London, A. D. 1662. TRANSLATION OF THE LATIN QUOTATIONS ON THE TITLE PAGE. "If in order to decide the controversies of the present times, that law which is Divine, should be impartially separated from that which is dogmatic and ecclesiastical, it is evident that contests relative to things essential, would not be either long or keen, amongst candid and pious men." Isaac Casaub. ep. ad Card. Perron. " To preserve the peace of Churches, it is of great consequence accurately to distinguish be- tween those precepts which are Divine, and those which are not." Grot, de Imper. sum. Fotestat. circa Sacra, cap. 11. THE PREFACE TO THE READER. I WRITE not to increase the controversies of the times, nor to foment the differences that are among us; the former are by far too many, the other too great already. My only design is to allay the heat, and abate the fury of that ignis sacer, ("holy fire,") or erysipelas of contention, which hath risen in the face of our church, by the overflowing of that bilious humour, which yet appears to have too great predominancy in the spirits of men. And although, with the poor Persian, I can only bring a handful of water, yet that may be my just apology, that it is for the quenching of those flames in the church, which have caused the bells of Aaron to jingle so much, that it seems to be a work of the greatest difficulty to make them tuneable. And were this an age wherein any- thing might be wondered at, it would be matter of deserved admiration, to hear the noise of those axes and hammers so much about the temple, and that after these nigh twenty years of carving and hewing, we are so rude and unpolished stilly and so far from being cemented together in the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace. May we not justly fear that voice, migremus hinc, "let us go hence," when we see the vail of the temple so rent asunder, and the church itself made a partition wall to divide the members of it? And since the wise and gracious God hath been pleased, in such an almost miraculous manner, so lately to abate the land-flood of our civil intestine divisions, how strange must it seem, if our sacred contentions, (if contentions may be called sacred,) like the waters of the sanctuary, should rise from the ankle to the knee, till at last they may grow impassable. Must only the fire of our unchristian animosities be like that of the temple, which was never to be extinguished? However, I am sure, it is such a one as was never kindled from Heaven, nor blown ^ VI PREFACE. up with any breathings of the Holy and Divine Spirit; and yet that hath been the aggravation of our divisions, that those whose duty it is to Hft up their voices like trumpets, have rather sounded an alarm to our contentious spirits, than a parley or retreat, which had been far more suitable to our Messengers of Peace. In which respect it might be too truly said of our church, what is spoken of the eagle in the Greek apologue: BXsTTSi TO o-tmSo; aSTO; r^aiQiv TeaKat, 'AXyojv ie XojTTov, rts-ro nn m^D the precepts of knowledge and being that their righteousness is so evident and apparent, they call them Drntyon onm the words of right- eousness: but the clearest difference between the precepts of the law of nature, and other positive commands, is that which • nap avDjaJTTOK Toif te o^Soi; Kai vywi t^ous-i, cv^s toi; voo'ovo'i Taj <})fEvaf >^ ^tzi;pafA.y,s- vei;. 2 V. Seldcn. de jure Nat. apud Ebras. lib. 1, c. 7 and 8. Mol. de just and iur. p. 1, disp. 3. Alplions. de leg. pur. 1. 2, c. 14. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 47 the famous Is. Cascmbon^ takes notice of out of the Jewish doctors.^ The most learned among the rabbis observe that there is this difference between xwao and D'pin, that Mitzvoth signifies the laws of which the reason is evident, as worship God, Honour thy fatiier and mother; but they say, that Chu- kim denotes the estabUshed decrees of tliose things of which the reason is known only to God, as circumcision and the like. 2 The reason of the laws of nature is evident, but of positive laws tiiere is no reason to be given i^o nrn xbx irx no other except the decree of the king; no other account but the will of God,3 The laws of nature are by the LXX. often called Stxatcj/na-fa, precepts, and so used, Rom. ii. IG. by Justin Martyr,'^ to. xaeo%ov, xac ^van, xav aiwi/ta xa:^.a, Universally, laws according to nature, and properly eternal; by Josephus, trji ^vasui bixaiuixata, the preccpts of nature; but God's positive laws are called IvtoXM, commandments, thence we read of Zachary and Elizabeth, Luke i. 6, no^ivofjuvoi rtasaij I'atj Ivtoxati xao Sixacufxaav, &c. ivulking in all the ordinances and command- ments of God blameless, and those are called vofio^ ivto^av Iv Soy ficta I, by S. Paul, Eiphes. ii. 15, ^' the laiu of command- jnents in ordinances.^' Now although this difference be not always observed in the words in Scripture, yet there is a vast difference between the things themselves, though both equally commanded by God. That which is most to our present purpose to observe, is, that positives being mutable and alter- able in themselves, a bare divine command is not sufficient to make them immutable, unless there be likewise expressed, that it is the will of God that they should always continue. This was that which the Jews stumbled at so much, and do to this day; because they are assured their law came once from God, therefore it must of necessity have a perpetual ob- ligation: as may be seen in their two great doctors Maimo- nides and Abarbinel,^ who both of them make the eternity of the law the fundamental articles of their creed. But Mar- Ame/ splits this article into two; whereof the first is, that the ' Exercit. eccles. advers, bar. exer. 16, sec. 43. 2 Observant doctissimi h rabbinis, inter ni^fO et D^plPI banc esse differentiam, quod Mitsvoth, sive prtEccptorum ratio aperta est, ut, Deum cole, honora patrem et niatrem; at Chukim, statuta sive decreta earum rerum esse dicunt quarum OytJ ralio soli Deo sit nota, ut Circumcisionis et similium. 3 Sold, de jure Nat. apud Ebr. 1. i. cap. 10. ■» Colloq. cum Tryph. Judoec. Origin, lib. 16, cap. 10, V. Grot. Luc. i. 6. 5 Maiinon. de fundani. legis, cap. 9, sect, 1. Abarb. de capit sidei. cap. 8, p. 29, ed. vorstii. 48v THE DIVINE RIGHT OF law of Moses shall never be changed; the other, that no other law shall come instead of it. The original of which grand error is from want of observing the difference between things commanded by God, some of which are good, and therefore commanded; others commanded, and therefore good. In which latter, if the reason of the command ceaseth, the com- mand itself obligeth no longer. As the ceremonial law was to be their rtai5ay«yoj hi x^tjor, schoolmaster to Christ, which is not meant in regard of the sharp severe nature of the law to drive them unto Christ,^ as it is by many interpreted; but the law is a pedagogue in regard of its tutorage and conduct, as it signified him whose office it v/as to conduct noblemen's children to the school (as a learned man observes). This being then the office of the law, when the church was now entered into Christ's school, the office of this pedagogue then ceased. And so the ceremonial law needed no abrogation at all, expiring of itself at Christ's coming, as laws made for the times of war do when peace comes. Only because the Jews were so hardly persuaded that it should expire (the believing Jews conceiving at first the gospel came rather to help them to obey the law oi Moses than to cancel the obligation of it), therefore it was necessary that a more honourable burial should be given to it, and the apostles s\\ovi\(\. prorostris, from the rostrum declare more fully that believers were freed from that yoke of ceremonies, under which the neck of their fore- fathers had groaned so long. It appears then that a positive law coming from God doth not merely by virtue of its being enacted by God, bind perpetually all persons, unless there be a declaration of God's will adjoined that it should do so. § 6. It will be here then well worth our inquiry to find out some x^vt'Ti^ia "distinguishing marks" whereby to know when positive laws bind immutably, when not; I shall lay down these following. First, when the same reason of the command continues still, then we cannot conceive how that which was instituted upon such an account as remains still, should not have the same force now which it had at first. That positive law under which Adam was in his state of innocency touch- ing the forbidden fruit, did not bind any longer than his fall; because the reason of the command ceased, which was the trial of man's obedience: for which, God made choice of a very easy command, according to that rule of politicians In mi- nimis obedientias periculum faciunt legislatores in matters 1 Gal. iii. 24. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 49 of small moment, legislators make trial of men's obedience," of which they give this rational account, legislators binding to obe- dience is to be regarded rather than the reason of the duty con- cerning which the law is made.' Thence arose that law of the Ephort at Sparta, barbam tondere, to shave off the beard, to which no other reason was annexed but this, obtempe- rcire legibus, " to obey the laws." This was God's aim in that easy command given to Adam, to make thereon an expe- riment of man's willingness to obey his Maker, and wherein man soon lost that obseqiiii gloria, "the glory of obedience," as he in Tacitus calls it, which, as Pliny saith, is in eo major quod quis minus velit. " The crime was so much the greater as he willed the obligation to be the less." But had this law been a standing one for all mankind, it would have continued its obligation still; but we see that it was only a personal, tem- porary, probative precept; for no sooner was man fallen but its obligation ceased. So likewise those precepts of the judicial law which immediately respected the commonwealth of the Jews as such, their obligation reacheth not to Christians at all, nor (as it is generally conceived), to the Jews themselves, when out of the confines of their own country, because the reason of those laws doth neither descend to Christians, nor did travel abroad with the Jews. But those judicial laws which are founded upon common equity do bind still, not by virtue of that sanction, but by virtue of common principles of equity, which certainly in the present shortness of human reason cannot be fetched from a clearer fountain then those laws which once came from the fountain of goodness: none of whose constitutions can anyways be supposed to deviate from the most exact rules of justice and equity. And upon this very ground too, some part of the fourth commandment is abrogated, and the other continues to bind still; for the reason of the ceremonial and occasional part is ceased, and the reason of what was moral, continues. Therefore the schoolmen say right of the sabbath day, Cultus est a naturd, m,odus a lege, virtus ii Gratid, "its observance is from nature, the manner from law, the virtue from grace." Nature dictates that God should be worshipped, the law informs what day and time to spend in his worship, grace must enable us to perform that worship on that day in a right manner. And because the same reason for God's worship continues still, there- ' Quia Icgislatoris ad obcdientiam obligantis polius habenda est ratio, quim rei dc qua lex est lata. 7 50 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF fore it is a precept of the natural law, that God should be worshipped. What time must be spent in God's worship, (as one day in seven) though the reason be evident from the nature of it when it is made known; yet it is hard to conceive that nature could have found out the precise determination of the time. Although I must confess the general consent of nations, as to the seventh part, would speak fair to be the voice of nature, or at least a tradition received from the sons of Noah, which, if so, will be an evidence of the observation of the sabbath before the children of Israel's being in the wilderness. But granting that the seventh part of the time was a positive law of God, yet I say it binds immutably, because there is as strong a reason for it now as ever, and Ratio iTnmutahilis praicepti,facit prsscephim immutabile. " The reason of a pre- cept being immutable, makes the precept immutable." This I take to be the sense of those who distinguish between morale positivum, the moral absolute, and morale naturale, the moral natural, i. e. that some things are so moral, that even nature itself can discover them, as that God should be worshipped. Other things are so moral, that though the reason of them be founded in nature, yet there wants divine revelation to discover them to us; but when once discovered, are discerned to be very agreeable to common principles of reason: And these when thus discovered, are as immutably obligatory as the other, because the reason of them is immutable. And of this nature is the de- termination of the particular time for God's worship, and limi- tation of it to one day in seven. But what was in that precept merely occasional, as the first and original ground of its limi- tation to the seventh in order, God^s resting on that day from the ivork of creation, and the further ground of its enforce- ment to the Jews, viz. their deliverance out of Egypt, ^ being not immutable, but temporary and occasional, may upon as great ground given, and approved of God for that end (as is evident by the apostles' practice) be sufficient reason of the alteration of the seventh day to the first day of the week. By this may briefly be seen how irrationally those speak, who say we have no further ground for our observation of the Lord's day now, than for other arbitrary festivals in the church, viz.. The tradition of the church of God. I grant, the tradition of the church doth acquaint us with apostolical prac- tice, but the ground of our observation of the Lord's day, is not the church's tradition, but that apostolical practice con- I Gen. ii. 2. Deut. v, 15. FORMS OP CHtTRCH GOVERNMENT. 51 veyed by universal tradition (which setting aside the festivals observed upon the Lord's days, can very hardly be found for any other). But supposing universal tradition for other festivals; I say, here tradition is not only used as a testimony and instrument of conveyance, as in the other case of the Lord's day; but is itself the only argument, and the very ground of the original observance. Between which two what a wide difference there is, let any rational man judge. But for a further clearing this observation, we must consider, that the reason of the command, which we say is the measure of its obligation, must not be fetched from men's uncertain conjectures (among whom dreams often pass for reasons), but it must be either expressed in the law itself, or deducible by apparent and easy inference from it; as is plain in the decrees of the apostles about things strangled, and offered to idols^ where the reason of the command is plainly implied, to wit, for present compliance with the Jews; and therefore no sooner did the reason of the command cease, but the obligation of it ceased too: but of this more afterwards. This is one way then to discern the difference between positive laws, as to the obli- gation of them, by the ground and reason of the command. And therefore it is well observed by divines, (which further confirms what I now prove,) that no command doth bind against the reason of the command; because it is not the words, but the sense and reason of a command which hath the greatest obligatory force. Therefore Tiilly'^ tells us, that the ratio juris et legislatoris consilium,, "the reason of the law and the design of the legislator," is the best interpreter of any law; who excellently and largely proves, that the reason of the law is the law, and not the words. So much for the first rule. § 7. Secondly, another way to know when positive laws are immutable, is, when God's will is expressly declared that such laws shall bind immutably. For, it being granted on all hands, that God may bind us to those things which are left indifierent by the law of nature, and likewise for what term he please; the only inquiry left, is to see in his word whether he hath so bound us or not; and, if he hath, whether he hath left it in man's power to revoke his laws. For as to positive laws, expressly laid down in Scripture, the ground of which is only as the Jews speak "jSn ni'iJ " the will of the King,'^ i. e. God's own pleasure, without any reason or occasion of it else ' Acts .XV. 29. 2 Ora. Ccelia. 52 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF expressed, or necessarily implied; these do bind immutably, unless the same power which commanded them, doth again revoke them. For we cannot in any wise conceive that the wise God should, after declaring his own will, leave it in the power of any corrupt fallible being to determine, or dispense with the obligation of his own laws. Which to do, and in- stead of them to enforce others immediately upon the con- sciences of men, as standing laws, is an attempt beyond that of the giants against heaven, (or the men at Babel,) that being only an affectation of reaching heaven, but this an actual usurpation of God's supreme and legislative power and^ authority. But though man hath not, God always reserves to himself a power to relax, interpret, and dispense with his own positive laws, which imply no repugnancy to his own nature. And this power is always to be understood in all laws to be reserved to God, where he hath not himself declared that he will not use it; which is done either by the annexing an oath or a promise, which the apostle calls the tivo immutable things in ivhich it is impossible for God to lie. For though God be free to promise, yet when he hath promised, his own nature and faithfulness bind him to per- form; in which sense I understand those who say, God in making promises is bound only to himself, and not to men; that is, that the ground of peribrmance ariseth from God's faithfulness. For else, if we respect the right coming by the promise, that must immediately respect the person to whom it is made, and in respect of which we commonly say that the promiser is bound to performance. But the case is otherwise in penal laws, which, though never so strict, do imply a power of relaxation in the legislator: because penal laws do only constitute the dehiiuni poense, the debt of punishment, and bind the sinner over to punishment, but do not bind the legis- lator to an actual execution upon the debt. Which is the ground that the person of a mediator was admissible in the place of fallen man, because it was a penal law, and therefore relaxable. But since the debt of punishment is immediately contracted upon the breach of the law, therefore satisfaction v/as necessary to God as lawgiver, either by the person him- self, or another for him; because it was not consistent with the holiness of God's nature, and his wisdom as Governor, to relax an established law, without valuable consideration. Now for the third kind of God's laws, besides promissory and penal, viz. such as are merely positive respecting duties, which be- come such by virtue of an express command: these, though FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 53 they be revocable in themselves, yet being revocable only by God liimself, and his own power, since he liatli already in his word fully revealed iiis will, unless therein lie hath declared when their obligation shall cease, they continue irreversible. This is the case as to the sacraments of the New Testament, which being commands merely positive, yet Christ connnand- ing Christians as Christians to observe them, and not as Chris- tians of tlie first and second ages of the cinirch; his mind can be no otherwise interpreted concerning them, than tliat he did intend immutably to bind all Christians to the observance of them. For, although the Socinians^ say that baptism was only a rite instituted by Christ for the passing men from Judaism and Gentilism to Christianity, yet we are not bound to look upon all as reason that conies from those who profess themselves the admirers of it. For Christ's command no- where implying such a limitation; and an outward visible prolession of Christianity being a duty now, and the cove- nant entered into by that rite of initiation, as obligatory as ever, we have no reason to think that Christ's command doth not reach us now, especially the promise being made to as many as God shall call,^ and consequently the same duty re- quired which was then in order to the obtaining of the same ends. A third way to discern the immutability of positive laws, is, when the things commanded in particular are neces- sary to the being, succession, and contiiuiance of such a society of men professing the gospel, as is instituted and approved by Christ himself. For Christ must be supposed to have the power himself to order what society he please, and appoint what orders he please to be observed by them; what rites and ceremonies to be used in admission of members into his churcli, in their continuing in it, in the way, means, manner of ejec- tion out of it; in the preserving the succession of his church, and tlie administration of ordinances of his appointment. These being thus necessary for the maintaining and upholding this society, they are thereby of a nature as unalterable, as the duty of observing what Christ hath commanded is. How much these things concern the resolution of the question proposed, will appear afterwards. Thus we have gained a resolution of the second thing, whereon an unalterable divine right is founded; viz. either upon the dictates of the law of nature, concurring with the rules of the written word; or upon ex- press positive laws of God, whose reason is immutable, or ' Catcch. Racov. cap. 4. - Acts ii. 39. 54 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP which God hath declared shall continue, as necessary to the being of the church. § 8. The next thing is to examine the other pretences which are brought for a divine right; which are either Scripture ex- amples.^ or divine acts, or divine approbation. For Scripture exarnples: first, I take it for granted on all hands, that all Scrip- ture examples do not bind us to follow them; such are the me- diatory acts of Christ, the heroical acts of extraordinary persons, all accidental and occasional actions. Example doth not bind us as an example; for then all examples are to be followed, and so we shall of necessity go, qua itur, non quit eundiim, " walk by the most examples, and not by rule." There is then no obligatory force in example itself. Secondly, there must be then some rule fixed to know when examples bind, and when not; for otherwise there can be no discrimination put between examples which we are to follow, and which to avoid. This rule must be either immediately obligatory, making it a duty to follow such examples, or else directive, declaring what examples are to be followed: and yet even this latter doth imply, as well as the former, that the following these examples thus declared, is become a duty. There can be no duty without a law making it to be a duty, and con- sequently, it is the law making it to be a duty to follow such example, which gives a divine right to those examples, and not barely the examples themselves. We are bound to fol- low Christ's example, not barely because he did such and such things, (for many things he did we are not bound to fol- low him in,) but because he himself hath by a command made it our duty to follow him in his humility, patience, self-denial, &c. and in whatever things are set out m Scripture for our imitation.^ When men speak then with so much confidence, that scripture examples do bind us unalterably, they either mean that the example itself makes it a duty, which I have shown already to be absurd; or else that the moral nature of the action done in that example, or else the law making it our duty to follow the example, though in itself it be of no moral nature. If the /ormer of these two, then it is the morality of the action binds us, without its being incarnate in the ex- ample: for the example in actions not moral, binds not at all, and therefore the example binds only by virtue of the morality of it; and consequently, it is the morality of the action which binds, and not the example. If the latter, the rule making 'Matth. xi, 31. IJohii ii. 6, 1 Pet. ii. 23. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 55 it our duty, then it is more apparent that it is not the example which binds necessarily, but that rule which makes it a duty to follow it; for examples in indifferent things do not bind without a law making it to be a duty: and so it evidently ap- pears, that all obligatory force is taken off from the examples themselves, and resolved into one of the two former, the moral nature of the action, or a positive law. And therefore those who plead the obligatory nature of scripture examples, must either produce the moral nature of these examples, or else a rule binding us to follow them. Especially, when these examples are brought to found a new positive law, obliging all Christians necessarily to the end of the world. Concerning the binding nature of apostolical practice, I shall discourse largely afterwards. The next thing pleaded for a divine right, is by divine acts. As to this, it is again evident that all divine acts do not constitute such a right; therefore there must be something expressed in those acts when such a divine right follows them; whence we may infallibly gather, it was God's intention they should perpetually oblige: as is plain in the cases instanced in the most for this purpose; as God's resting on the seventh day making the sabbath per- petual:^ for it was not God's resting that made it the sabbath, for that is only expressed as the occasion of its institution; but it was God's sanctifying the day, that is, by a law setting it apart for his own service, which made it a duty. And so Christ's resurrection was not it which made the Lord's day a sabbath of divine right; but Christ's resurrection was the oc- casion of the apostles altering only a circumstantial part of a moral duty already; which being done upon so great reasons, and by persons indued with an infallible spirit, thereby it be- comes our duty to observe that moral command in this limi- tation of time. But here it is further necessary to distinguish between acts m&xe\Y positive^ and acts donative or legal. The former confer no right at all, but the latter do; not barely as acts, but as legal acts, that is, by some declaration that those acts do confer right. And so it is in all donations, and there- fore in law, the bare delivery of a thing to another doth not give a legal title to it, without express transferring of domi- nion and propriety with it. Thus in Christ's delivering the keys to Peter and the rest of the apostles,2by that act I grant the apostles had the power of the keys by divine right; but then it was not any bare act of Christ which did it, but it was ' Gen. ii. 2. 2 Matth. xvi. 19; xviii. 18. 56 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP only the declaration of Christ's will conferring that authority upon them. Again, we must distinguish between a right conferred by a donative act, and the unalterable nature of that right; for it is plain there may be a x\^\. personal as well as successive, derivative, and perpetual. And therefore it is not enough to prove that a right was given by any act of Christ, unless it be made appear it was Christ's intention that right should be perpetual, if it oblige still. For otherwise the extent of the apostolic commission, the power of ivorking miracles, as well as the power of the keys (whether by it we mean a power declarative of duty, or a power authoritative and penal), must continue still, if a difference be not made be- tween these two; and some rule found out to know when the right conferred by divine acts is personal, when successive. Which rule thus found out, must make the right unalterable, and so concerning us; and not the bare donative act of Christ: for it is evident, they were all equally conferred upon the apostles by an act of Christ: and if some continue still, and others do not, then the bare act of Christ doth not make an unalterable divine right. And so though it be proved that the apostles had superiority of order and jurisdiction over the pastors of the church by an act of Christ; yet it must further be proved, that it was Christ's intention that superiority should continue in their successors, or it makes nothing to the pur- pose. But this argument I confess, I see not how those who make a necessary divine right to follow upon the acts of Christ, can possibly avoid the force of The last thing pleaded for divine right, is divine approbation; but this least of all constitutes a divine right: for if the actions be extraordinary, God's approbation of them as such, cannot make them an or- dinary duty. In all other actions which are good, and there- fore only commendable, they must be so, either because done in conformity to God's revealed will, or to the nature of things good in themselves. In the one, it is the positive law of God, in the other the law of nature, which made the action good, and so' approved by God, and on that account we are bound to do it. For God will certainly approve of nothing but what is done according to his will revealed, or natural; which will and law of his, is that which makes anything to be of divine right, i. e. perpetually binding, as to the observation of it. But for acts of merely positive nature, which we read God's approbation of in Scripture, by virtue of which appro- bation those actions do oblige us; in this case, I say, it is not God's mere approbation that makes the obligation, but as FORMS OF CIlUllCII tiOVKUNMENT. 57 that approbation, so recorded in Scripture, is a sutneient testi- mony and declaration of God's intention to oblige men: and so it conies to be a positive law, which is nothing else but a sulficient declaration of the legislator's will and intention, to bind in particular actions and cases. Thus now we have cleared whereon a necesstiry and unalterable divine right nuist be founded; either upon the law of nature, or some posi- tive law of God, sufficiently declared to be perpetually bind- ing. 58 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF CHAPTER II. Six Hypotheses laid down, as the basis of the foliowinsf Discourse. 1. The irre- versible obligation of the Law of Nature, either by human, or Divine positive Laws, in things immediately flowing from it. 2. Things agreeable to the Law of Nature may be lawfully practised in the Church of God, where there is no prohibition by positive Laws; enlarged into five subservient propositions. 3. Divine positive Laws, concerning the manner of the thing whose substance is determined by the Law of Nature, must be obeyed by virtue of the obliga- tion of the natural Law. 4. Things undetermined, both by the natural and positive Laws of God, may be lawfully determined by the supreme authority in the Church of God. 5. What is then determined by lawful authority, doth bind the consciences of men, subject to that authority — to obedience to those determinations. 6. Things thus determined by lawful authority, are not thereby made unalterable, but may be revoked, limited, and changed by the same authority. § 1. Having showed what a divine right is, and whereon it is founded; our next great inquiry will be, how far church government is founded upon divine right, taken either of these two ways. But for our more distinct, clear, and rational proceeding, I shall lay down some things, as so many postu- lata or general principles and hypotheses, which will be as the basis and foundation of the following discourse; which all of them concern the obligation of laws, wherein I shall pro- ceed gradually, beginning with the law of nature, and so to divine positive laws; and lastly, to speak to human positive laws. The first principle or hypothesis which I lay down, is, I. That where the Law of Nature doth determine any- thing by way of duty ^ as flowing from the principles of it, there no positive law can be supposed to take off the obliga- tion of it. Which I prove, both as to human positive laws and Divine: first as to human. For first, the things com- manded in the law of nature, being just and righteous in themselves, there can be no obligatory law made against such things. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile, "No one is bound to do an impossibility," is true in the sense of the civil law, as well FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 59 as in philosophy; as impossibile is taken for turpe, "shame- ful," and turpe for that which is contrary to the dictates of nature. A man njay be as well bound not to be a man, as not to act according to principles of reason: for the law of nature is nothing else but the dictate of right reason, dis- covering the good or evil of particular actions, from their con- formity or repugnancy to natural light.^ Whatever positive law is then made directly infringing and violating natural principles, is thereby of no force at all. 'And that which hath no obligation in itself, cannot dissolve a former obligation. Secondly, the indispensableness of the obligation of the law of nature, appears from the end of all other laws, which are agreed upon by mutual compact, which is, the better to pre- serve men in their rights and privileges. Now the greatest rights of men, are such as flow from nature itself, and there- fore, as no law binds against the reason of it, so neither can it against the common end of laws. Therefore, if a human positive law should be made, that God should not be wor- shipped, it cannot bind, being against the main end of laws, which is to make men live together as reasonable creatures, which they cannot do, without doing what nature requires, which is, to serve God who made it. Again, it overturns the very foundation of all government, and dissolves the tie to all human laws, if the law of nature doth not bind indispens- ably: for otherwise, upon what ground must men yield obe- dience to any laws thai are made? Is it not by virtue of this law of nature, that men must stand to all compacts and agreements made? If laws take their force among men from hence, they can bind no further than those compacts did ex- tend; which cannot be supposed to be, to violate and destroy their own natures. Positive laws may restrain much of what is only of the permissive law of nature (for the intent of positive laws, was to make men abate so much of their natural freedom, as should be judged necessary for the preservation of human societies,) but against the obligatory law of nature, as to its precepts, no after-law can derogate from the obliga- tion of it. And therefore it is otherwise between the law of nature and positive laws, than between laws merely civil; for as to these the rule is, ihdii posterior derogat priori, "the latter (law) takes away from the obligation of the former;" but as to natural laws and positive, prior derogat posteriori^ " The former takes away from the latter," the law of nature, ' Grot, de jure belli, &c. lib. I. cap. I. s. 10. 60 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF which is first, takes away the obhgatiou of a positive law, if it be contrary to it. As Jiistelhis^ observes, it was in the primitive church, in reference to the obligation of the canons of tlie councils, that such as were inserted in the Codex Cano- num, being of the more ancient councils, did render the obU- gation of later canons invalid, which were contrary to them, unless it were in matters of small moment. We see then, that supposing the law of nature doth not continue obligatory, the obligation of all human positive laws will fall with it, (as the superstructure needs must when the foundation is re- moved,) for if any other law of nature may be dissolved, why not that whereby men are bound to stand to covenants and contracts made? and if that be dissolved, how can the obligation to human laws remain, which is founded upon that basis? And so all civil societies are thereby overturned. Thirdly, it appears from the nature of that obligation which follows the law of nature, so that thereby no human law can bind against this; for human laws bind only outward human actions directly, and internal acts only by virtue of their necessary connection with, and influence upon outward actions, and not otherwise; but the law of nature immedi- ately binds the soul and conscience of man: and therefore obligatio natiiralis, and nexus conscientise, " natural obliga- tion and the bond of conscience," are made to be the same by Lessius, Suarez, and others. For Lessius- disputing, whether a will made without solemnity of law, doth bind in conscience or no? He proves it doth by this argument, from the opinion of the lawyers, that without those solemnities there doth arise from it a natural obligation, and the hseres ab Intestato, " and the heir to an intestate," who is the next of kin, is bound to make it good; therefore it doth bind in conscience. So then there ariseth a necessary obligation upon conscience, from the dictates of the law of nature, which cannot be removed by any positive law. For although there lie no action in the civil law against the breach of a merely natural law, as in the former case of succession to a will not legally made; in cove- nants made without conditions expressed, in recovery of debts from a person to whom money was lent in his pupilage with- out consent of his tutor; in these cases though no action lie against the persons, yet this proves not that these have no ' Praefat. in Cod. Canon. Eccl. Afric. p. 14. 2 Less, de just. &. jure, 1. 2, c. 19, dub. 3, n. 12. Suarez de leg. lib. 2, cap. 9, sect. 6. FORMS OF CHUKCH GOVERNMENT. 6.1 obligation upon a man, but only that he is not responsible for the breach of moral honesty in them before civil courts. In which sense those lawyers are to be understood, which deny the obligation of the law of nature. But however con- science binds the offender over to answer at a higher tribunal, before which all such offences shall be punished. Thus then we see no positive human law can dispense with, or dissolve the obligation of the law of nature. Much less, secondly, can we suppose any positive divine law should. For although God's power be immense and infinite to do what pleaseth him, yet we must always suppose this power to be conjoined with goodness, else it is no divine power: and therefore posse mahim, non est posse, " the power to do evil, is not power," i. e. it is no power, but weakness to do evil; and without this posse malum, there can be no alteration made in the nature of good and evil; which must be supposed, if the obligation of the natural law be dispensed with. Therefore it was well said by Origen^ when Celsiis objected to it as the common speech of the Christians, that with God all things are possible; that he neither understood how it ivas spoken, nor what these all things are, nor how God could do them,: and concludes with this excellent speech,^ "/^Fe say,'^ saith he, " that God can do all things, ivhich are reconcilable ivith his Deity, goodness, and ivisdom.-^ And after adds, " That as it is im- possible for honey to make things bitter, and light to make things obscure, so it is for God to do anything that is un- jtcst."^ '■^For the power of doing evil is directly contrary to the Divine nature, and that Omnipotency which is consistent loith it.'' To the same purpose he speaks elsewhere,"* «5£i' (iri ftpsrtov tavta 6 Oso; 6ov%s'tat,, God wHls nothing Unbecoming himself: and again/ We affirm that God cannot do evil actions: for if he could, he might as well be no God. For if God should do evil, he would be no God. So then, though God be omnipotent, yet it follows not that he can therefore dissolve the obligation of the preceptive law of nature, or change the natures of good and evil. God may, indeed, alter the properties of those things from whence the respects of • Orig. lib. 3, C. Celsum. p. 154, ed. Cont. - Auvarai yaj vieA hfX.a; wavl* o fleoj, aTTEj ^wafx.e(XOi rou &£0J Itvctt, xat Toy Ayaflof ei»a( xai 2o90f uvai oyjt E^i^aTai. 3 EvavTiov yaf er«v avrov rn Seotjiti xat rn xaS' auTtjv Tratm SuvetfjiEi, h rou aStxeiv Jyva^uif. 4 C. Celsum 1. 5, p. 147. s afA,iv h OTi oy iumrai anr)(j^a o @o(, inn tgcif o deo( ^vvafAiVo; y,ti tivai fleoj: t( yaf ajyj^fsv T( Jjrt Seo;, ovu Efi 9£5f. 62 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP good and evil do result, as in Mraham' s offering Isaac, the Israelites taking away the JEgyptians' jewels; which God may justly do by virtue of his absolute dominion; but the change here is not in the obligation of the law, but in the things themselves. Murder would be an intrinsical evil still; but that which was done by immediate and explicit command from God, would have been no murder. Theft had been a sin still, but taking things alienated from their properties by God himself, was not theft. We conclude then, what comes immediately from the law of nature by way of command binds immutably and indispensably. Which is the first hypo- thesis or principle laid down. § 2. The second hypothesis is, that things which are either deducible from the law of nature, or by the light of nature discovered to be very agreeable to it, may be laivfully prac- tised in the church of God, if they be not otherwise deter- mined by the positive laivs of God, or of lawful human authority. We shall first inquire into the nature of these things, and then show the lawfulness of doing them. For the nature of these things: we must consider what things may be said to be of the law of nature. They may be reduced to two heads, which must be accurately distinguished. They are either such things which nature dictates to be done, or not to be done necessarily and immutably; or else such things as are judged to be very agreeable to natural light, but are sub- ject to positive determinations. The former are called, by somejw6' natiirse obligativum, the obligatory law of nature; by others jus naturse proprium, the proper law of nature, whereby things are made necessarily duties or sins; the latter jus naturse permissivum, or reductivum,\d.^ permitted by or reducible to nature, for which it is sufficient if there be no re- pugnancy to natural light. From these two arise a different obligation upon men; either strict, and is called by Covar- ruvias^ obligatio ex justitid, an obligation of duty and jus- tice; the other larger, obligatio ex communi sequitate, or ex honestate morali; "an obligation from common equity, that is, according to the agreeableness of things to natural light." The former I have shown already to bind indispensably, but these latter are subject to positive laws. For our better un- derstanding the obligation of these (which is more intricate than the former) we shall consider men under a double notion, either in a state of absolute liberty, which some call a state of ' Covarr. c. 10. de lestamin 11. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 63 nature; or else in a state wherein they have restrained their own liberty by mutual compacts, or are determined by a higher law. These things premised, I lay down these propo- sitions. 1. In a state of absolute liberty^ before any positive laws were superadded to the natural, whatsoever ivus not neces- sarily determined by the obligatory law of nature, loas 'wholly left to men'' s power to do it or not, and belongs to the permissive law of nature. And thus all those things which are since determined by positive laws, were in such a sup- posed state, left to the free choice of a man's own will. Thus it was in men's power to join in civil society with whom they pleased, to recover things, or vindicate injuries in what way they judged best, to submit to what constitutions alone they would themselves, to choose what form of government among them they pleased, to determine how far they would be bound to any authority chosen by themselves, to lodge the legisla- tive and coercive power in what persons they thought fit, to agree upon punishments answerable to the nature of offences. And so in all other things not repugnant to the common light of reason, and the dictates of the preceptive part of the law of nature. 2. A state of absolute liberty, not agreeing to the nature of man considered in relation to others; it ivas in men's power to restrain their own liberty upon compacts so far as should be judged necessary for the ends of their mutual so- ciety. A state of nature I look upon only as an imaginary state, for better understanding the nature and obligation of laws. For it is confessed by the greatest assertors^ of it, that the relation of parents and children cannot be conceived in a state of natural liberty, because children as soon as born are actually under the power and authority of their parents. But for our clearer apprehending the matter in hand, we shall pro- ceed with it. Supposing then all those former rights were in then' own power, it is most agreeable to natural reason, that every man may part with his right so far as he please for his own advantage. Here now, men finding a necessity to part with some of their rights, to defend and secure their most con- siderable ones, they begin to think of compacts one with ano- ther (taking this as a principle of the natural law, and the foundation of society, that all covenants are to be performed). When they are thus far agreed, they then consider the terms ' Hobs de Civ. cap 1, s. 11, Ann. 64 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF upon which they should enter into society one with another. And here men divest themselves of their original liberty, and agree upon an inclosure of properties, and the fences of those properties; I mean, upon living together in a civil state, and of tiie laws by which they must be ruled. This is apparently agreeable to natural reason, the things being in their own power, with which they agree to part. §3. Prop. 3. Men entering upon societies bymutual com- pacts, things thereby become good and evil, ivhich were not so before. Thus he who was free before to do what and how he pleased, is now bound to obey what laws he hath consented to; or else he breaks not only a positive law, but that law of nature, which commands man to stand to covenaiUs once made, though he be free to make them. And therefore it is observable, that the doing of things that were lawfnl before covenants made, and things thereby determined, may be so far from being lawful after, that the doing of them may con- tradict a principle of the obligatory law of nature. Thus in a state of liberty, every one had right to do what he thought fit for his use; but propriety and dominion being introduced, which was a free voluntary act, by men's determining rights, it now becomes an offence against the law of nature, to take away that which is another man's.^ In which sense alone it is, that theft is said to be forbidden by the law of nature. And by the same reason, he that resists and opposeth the law- ful authority, under which he is born, doth not only offend against the municipal laws of the place wherein he lives, but against that original and fundamental law of societies, viz. standing to covenants once made. For it is a gross mistake, as well as dangerous, for men to imagine, that every man is born in a state of absolute liberty, to choose what laws and governors he please; but every one being now born a subject to that authority he lives under, he is bound to preserve it as much as in him lies: thence Augustus had some reason to say, he was the best citizen, qui prsesentem reipubUcx statuni mutari non vult, that doth not disturb the present state of the commonwealth; and who, as Jilcibiudes saith in Thucydides, o«fg Ihi^ato axvf^^ •^'?5 rtoxi-tsias, Tfovfo su^si, endea- vours to preserve that form of governmeat he was born under.^ And the reason of it is, that in contracts and covenants made for government, men look not only at themselves, but ' Paulus 1. I, D. de furtis. Ulpian. lib. Post. D. dc verb sig. i V. Grot, dc jure belli, &c, lib. 2, c;ip. 4. sect. 8. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 65 at the benefit of posterity; if then one party be bound to main- tain the rights of the other's posterity, as well as of his person, the other party must be supposed to oblige his posterity in his covenant to perform obedience, which every man hath power to do, because children are at their parents' disposal; and equity requires, that the covenant entered should be of equal extent to both parties: and if a man doth expect protection for his posterity, he must engage for the obedience of his posterity too, to the governors who do legally protect them. But the iurther consideration of these things belongs to another place; my purpose being to treat of government in the church, and not in the state. The sum of this is, that the obligation to the performance of what things are determined, (which are of the permissive law of nature,) by positive laws, doth arise from the obligatory law of nature. As the demonstration of the particular problems in the mathematics, doth depend upon the principles of the theorems themselves; and so whoever denies the truth of the problem, deduced by just conse- quence from the theorem, must consequently deny the truth of the theorem itself; so those who violate the particular determination of the permissive law of nature, do violate the obligation of the preceptive part of that law: obedience to the other being grounded on the principles of this. 4. God hath power by his positive laivs to take in and de- termine as much of the pertnissive law of nature as he please, which being once so determined by an universallaio, is so far from being lawful to be done, that the doing of them by those under an obligation to his jjositive laivs, is an offence against the immutable law of nature. That God may restrain man's natural liberty, I suppose none who own God's legislative power over the world can deny: especially considering that men have power to restrain themselves; much more then hath God, who is the rector and governor of the world. That a breach of his positive laws is an offence against the common law of nature, appears hence; because man being God's creature, is not only bound to do what is in general suitable to the principles of reason in fleeing from evil, and choosing good; but to submit to the determinations of God's will, as to the distinction of good from evil. For being bound universally to obey God, it is implied that man should obey him in all things which he discovers to be his will: whose de- termination must make a thing not only good, but necessary to be done, by virtue of his supreme authority over men. This then needs no further proof, being so clear in itself. 9 66 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF 5. Lastly^ what things are left undetermined by divine positive laius, are in the church' s poiver to use, and practise according as itjudgeth them most agreeable to the rule of the word. That things undetermined by the word are still lawful, evidently appears: because what was once lawful, must have some positive law to make it unlawful, which if there be none, it remains lawful still. And that the church of God should be debarred of any privilege of any other societies, I understand not; especially if it belong to it as a society considered in itself, and not as a particular society constituted upon such accounts as the church is. For I doubt not but to make it evident afterwards, that many parts of government in the church belong not to it as such in a re- strained sense, but in the general notion of it, as a society of men embodied together by some laws proper to itself; although it subsist upon a higher foundation, viz. of divme institution, and upon higher grounds, reasons, principles, ends; and be directed by other laws immediately than any other societies in the world are. § 4. The third hypothesis is this; Where the law of nature determines the thing, and the divine law determines the manner and circumstances of the thing, there ive are bound to obey the divine law in its particular determinations, by virtue of the laiv of nature in its general obligation. As for instance, the law of nature bindeth man to worship God; but for the way, manner, and circumstances of worship, we are to follow the positive laws of God: because as we are bound by nature to worship him, so we are bound by virtue of the same law to worship him in the manner best pleasing to himself For the light of nature, though it determine the duty of worship, yet it doth not the way and manner, and though acts of pure obedience be in themselves acceptable unto God, yet as to the manner of those acts, and the posi- tives of worship, they are no further acceptable unto God than commanded by him. Because in things not necessarily determined by the law of nature, the goodness or evil of them lying in reference to God's acceptance, it must depend upon his command, supposing positive laws to be at all given by God to direct men in their worship of him. For supposing God had not at all revealed himself in order to his worship; doubtless it had been lawful for men not only to pray to God, and express their sense of their dependence upon him, but to appoint ways, times and places for the doing it, as they should judge most convenient and agreeable to natural light. Which FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 67 is evident from the Scripture itself as to places: for as far as we can find, sacrificing in high places, (that is, such as were of men's own appointment,) was lawful, till the temple was built by Solomon; as appears by the several examples of Gideon, Samuel, David,^ and others. Indeed after the place was settled by God's own law, it became wholly sinful: but if so before, we should not have read of God's accepting sa- crifices in such places as he did Gideori's, nor of the prophets doing it, as Samuel and David did. It is a disputable case about sacrifices, whether the offering of them came only from natural light, or from some express command: the latter seems far more probable to me, because I cannot see how natural light should anywise dictate that God would accept of the blood of other creatures as a token of man's obedience to himself. And Rivet^ gives this very good reason why the destruction of anything in sacrifice cannot belong to the law of nature, because it is only acceptable as a sign, and token of obedience, and not simply as an act of obedience; and this sign signifying ex instituto, (for man's destroying the life of a beast can never naturally signify man's obedience to God,) and therefore it must have some positive law; for those which signify only by institution, and not naturally, cannot be referred to a dictate of the law of nature. To which pur- pose it is further observable, that God doth so often in Scrip- ture slight the offering of sacrifices, in respect of any inherent virtue or goodness in the action itself, or acceptableness to God upon the account of the thing done. In which sense God saith, He that killeth a bullock, is as if he slew a man; and he that sacrificeth a sheep, as if he cut off a dog^s neck, ^'C? For what is there more in the one than in the other, but only God's appointment, which makes one acceptable and not the other? So that it is no ways probable that God would have accepted AbeVs sacrifice rather than Cain's, had there been no command for their sacrificing. For as to mere natu- ral light, Cain's sacrifice seems more agreeable to that than Abel's;"^ Cain's being an eucharistical offering without hurt to other creatures, but Abel's was '■'•cruentum sacrifcium," a sacrifice of blood. But the chief ground of Abel's accept- ance, was his offering in faith, as the apostle to the Hebrews tells us. Now faith is a higher principle than natural light,^ and must suppose divine revelation, and so a divine command ' Judges vi. 18; 1 Sam. vii. 1,4; xvi.9; x. 3; 2 Sam. xv. 18, «&;c. 2 Exercit. in Gen. xlii. ^ I.saiuli xlvi. 3. * Gen. iv. 3, 4. '> Hob. xi. 4. 68 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF as the principle and ground of his action. Moses^ silence in reference to a command, is no argument there was none, it not being his design to write at large all the particular pre- cepts of the oral law, but to deduce the genealogy of the patriarchs down from Adam and tjie creation. But, sup- posing a command given from God determining modes and circumstances of such things of which the substance depends on a natural law, men are as well bound to the observation of them after their revelation, as the other before. The one being a testimony of their obedience to God as clear and full as the other; yes, and so much the clearer evidence of obedi- ence, in that there could be no argument for the performing of those things but a divine command. And even in doing things intrinsically good, the ground of purely religious obe- dience is, because God commands men to do those things more than that they are good in themselves. Doing a thing because most suitable to nature, speaks morality; but doing because God commands it, speaks true religion and the obedi- ence of faith. For as the formal reason of the act of faith is a divine testimony discovered to our understandings, so the formal principle of an act of spiritual obedience is a divine command inclining the will, and awing it to performance. So far then as divine law determines things, we are bound to observe them from the dictates of the natural law. § 5. The fourth hypothesis: Li things ivhich are deter- mined both by the law of nature, and divine positive laws, as to the substance and morality of them, but not deter- mined as to all circinnstances belonging to them; it is in the power of lawful authority in the church of God to deter- mine them, so far as they judge them tend to the promoting the performance of them in due manner. So that not only matters wholly left at liberty as to the substance of them are subject to human laws and constitutions, but even things commanded in the divine law, in reference to the manner of performance, if undetermined by the same law, which enforce the duty. Thus the setting apart some time for God's wor- ship, is a dictate of the natural law: that the first day of the week be that time, is determined under the gospel; but in what places, at what hours, in what order, decency and solemnity this worship shall be then performed, are circumstances not determined in Scripture, but only by general rules; as to these then, so they be done in conformity to those rules, they are subject to human positive determinations. But this is not an hypothesis in the age we live in to be taken for granted with- FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 69 Gill proving it: some denying the magistrate any power at all in matters of religion; others granting a defensive, protective power of that religion which is professed according to the laws of Christ, but denying any determining power in the magistrate concerning things left undetermined by the Scrip- ture, This hypothesis then hath landed me into a field of con- troversy, wherein I shall not so much strive to make my way through any opposite party, as endeavour to beget a right un- derstanding between the adverse parties, in order to a mutual compliance; which I shall the rather do, because if any con- troversy hath been an increaser and fomenter of heartburn- ings and divisions among us, it hath been about the determi- nation of indifferent things. And, which seems strange, the things men can least bear with one another in, are matters of liberty: and those things men have divided most upon, have been matters of iiniformity ^ and wherein they have differed most, have been pretended things of indifference. In order then, to laying a foundation for peace and union, I shall calmly debate what power the magistrate hath in matters of religion, and how far that power doth extend in determining things left undetermined by the word. For the clear under- standing the first of these, we shall make our passage open to it by the laying down several necessary distinctions about it, the want of considering which hath been the ground of the great confusion in the handling of this controversy. First, then, we must distinguish between a power respecting reli- gion in itself, and a power concerning religion as it is the public, oivned and professed religion of a nation. For although the magistrate hath no proper power over religion, in itself, either taking it abstractly for the rule of worship, or concretely for the internal acts of worship; for he can neither add to that rule, nor dissolve the obligation of it; nor yet can he force the consciences of men, (the chief seat of religion,) it being both contrary to the nature of religion itself, which is a matter of the greatest freedom and internal liberty, and it being quite out of the reach of the magistrate's laws, which respect only external actions as their proper object; for the obligation of any law can extend no further than the jurisdic- tion and authority of the legislator, which among men is only to the outward actions. But then, if we consider religion as it is publicly owned and professed by a nation, the supreme magistrate is bound by virtue of his office and authority, not only to defend and protect it, but to restrain men from acting anything publicly tending to the subversion of it. So that the 70 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP plea for liberty of conscience, as it tends to restrain the magis- trate's power, is both irrational and impertinent; because liberty of conscience is the liberty of men's judgments, which the magistrate cannot deprive them of. For men may hold what opinions th^y will in their minds, the law takes no cognizance of them: but it is the liberty of practice in vent- ing and broaching those opinions which the magistrate's power extends to the restraint of And he that hath the care of the public good, may give liberty to, and restrain liberty from men, as they act in order to the promoting of that good; and as a liberty of all opinions tends manifestly to the subvert- ing a nation's peace, and to the embroiling it into continual con- fusions, a magistrate cannot discharge his office unless he hath power to restrain such a liberty. Therefore we find plainly in Scripture that God Imputes the increase and impunity of idolatry as well as other vices, to the want of a lawful magis- tracy. Judges xvii. 5, 6, where the account given of Micah's idolatry was, because there was no king in Israel; which im- plies it to be the care and duty of magistrates to punish and restrain whatever tends to the opposing and subverting the true religion. Besides, I cannot find any reason pleaded against the magistrate's power now, which would not have held under David, Solomon, Asa, Jehosophat, Hezekias, Josias, or other kings of the Jews, who asserted the public profession, to the extirpation of what opposed it. For the plea of conscience (taken for men's judgments going contrary to what is publicly owned as religion) it is indifferently calcu- lated for all meridians, and will serve for a religion of any elevation. Nay, stiff and contumacious infidels or idolaters may plead as highly (though not so truly) as any, that it goes against their judgments or their conscience to own that reli- gion which is established by authority. If it be lawful then to restrain such notwithstanding this pretence, why not others, whose doctrine and principles the magistrate judgeth to tend in their degree (though not so highly) to the dishonouring God, and subverting the profession entertained in a nation? For, a man's own certainty and confidence that he is in the right, can have no influence upon the magistrate judging other- wise; only if it be true, it will afford him the greater comfort and patience under his restraint; which was the case of the primitive Christians under persecutions: the magistrate then is bound to defend, protect, and maintain the religion he owns as true, and that by virtue of his office, as he is Custos utriusque tabulx, " the guardian of either table." The FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 71 maintainer of the honour of God's laws, which cannot be if he suffer those of the first table to be broken without any no- tice taken of them. Were it not for this power of magistrates under the gospel, how could that promise ever be made good, that kings shall be nursing father's to the church of God^ unless tliey mean such nursing fathers as Jlstyages was to Cyrus, or Jlmulius to Romulus and Remus, who exposed their nurslings to the fury of wild beasts to be devoured by them. For so must a magistrate do the church, unless he secure it from the incursion of heretics, and the inundation of seducers. But so much for that which is more largely asserted and proved by others. The magistrate then hath power con- cerning religion, as owned in a nation. Secondly, We must distinguish between an external and objective "^ow ex, about matters of religion; and an internal formal power, which some^ call an imperative and elicitive power, others a power of order, and a power of jurisdiction, others potestas ecclesiastica, and potestas circa ecclesiastica, "the ecclesiastic power, or power relative to ecclesiastical affairs," or in the old distinction of Constantine, tuv sx-tb^ xat i-wr fjco 'tiji ixx%7]iiai, "a powcr of things within and with- out the church," the sense of all is the same, though the terms differ. The internal, formal, elicitive power of order, concerning things in the church, lies in authoritative exercise of the ministerial function, in preaching the word, and admi- nistration of sacraments; but the external, objective, impera- tive power of jurisdiction, concerning the matters of the church, lies in a due care and provision, for the defence, pro- tection, and propagation of religion. The former is only proper to the ministry, the latter to the supreme magistracy; for, though the magistrate hath so much power about religion, yet he is not to usurp the ministerial function, nor to do any proper acts belonging to it. To which the instance of Uzzias is pertinently applied. But then this takes nothing off from the magistrate's power; for it belongs not to the magistrate imperata facere, but imperare facienda, as Gi^otius^ truly observes, not to do the things commanded, but to command the things to be done. From this distinction we may easily understand, and resolve that so much vexed and intricate question, concerning the mutual subordination of the civil and ecclesiastical power. For, as Peter Martyr* well ob- " Isa. xlix. 23. 2 Euseb. vit. Constant. 1. 4, c. 24. 3 De Imp. sum. potest, cap. 2, 1. 1. * In Jud. c. 19. 70 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP serves, these two powers are some ways ivtt?^o^a.(,, '^•'reci- procal/' are conversant several ways about the same thing; but the functions of both of them must be distinguished. For the pastors of the church are not to administer justice, but it is their duty to declare how justice should be rightly administered, without partiality or oppression. So, on the other side, the magistrate must not preach the gospel, nor administer sacraments; but, however, must take care that these be duly done by those to whose function it belongs. But for a clearer making it appear, these things are to be considered, both in a magistrate, and minister of the gospel. In a magistrate the poive?' itself, and x\\q, person hearing that power. The power itself of the magistrate is no ways subor- dinate to the power of the ministry. Indeed, if we consider both powers, in reference to their objects, and ends, there may be an inferiority of dignity, as Chamier calls it, in the civil power to the other, considered abstractly ; but consider- ing it concretely, as lodged in the persons, there is an in- feriority of subjection in the ecclesiastical to the civil. But still the person of the magistrate, though he is not subject to the power of the ministers, yet both as a Christian, and as a magistrate, he is subject to the word of God, and is to be guided by that in the administration of his function. So on the other side, in a minister of the gospel, there are these things considerable; the object of his function, the function itself, the liberty of exercising it, and the person who doth exercise it. As for the object of this function, the word and sacraments, these are not subject to the civil power, being settled by a law of Christ; but then for the function itself, that may be considered, either in the derivation of it, or in the administration of it. As for the derivation of the power and authority of the function, that is from Christ, who hath settled and provided by law, that there shall be such a stand- ing function to the end of the world, with such authority belonging to it. But for the administration of the function, two things belong to the magistrate. First, to provide and lake care for due administration of it; and to see that the ministers preach the true doctrine, though he cannot lawfully forbid the true doctrine to be taught; and that they duly administer the sacraments, though he cannot command them to administer them otherwise than Christ hath delivered them down to us. This for due administration. Secondly, in case oi mal-administration of his function, or scandal rendering him unfit for it, it is in the magistrate's power, if not formally FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 73 to depose, yet to deprive them of the Hberty of ever exer- cising their funclioa within his dominions; as Solomon did t^hiathar, and Justinian Sylverius, as Constantius did Vigihis. For the Uberty to exercise tlie function is in the magistrate's power, though a right to exercise it be derived from the same power from which the authority belonging to the function was conveyed. And then lastly, as to the per- sons exercisitig this function, it is evident, as they are mem hers of a civil society as well as others, so they are subject to the same civil laws as others are. Which as it is expressly affirmed by Chrysostom,^ on Rom. xiii. 1. Let every soul be subject to the higher poivers; that is, saith he, xav and^o^oi ^ xav cvavysugfji, xav dpo^ijttji, xav ortow, '^£e he an apostle, evan- gelist, prophet, be he luho he will.^' So it is fully, largely, irrefragably proved by our writers against the papists; espe- cially by the learned Is. Casaubon in his piece de libertate Ecclesiusticd. So then we see what a fair, amicable, and mutual aspect these two powers have one upon another, when rightly understood, being far from clashing one with the other; either by a subjection of the civil power to the ecclesiastical, or the civil powers swallowing up and devour- ing the peculiarity of the ministerial function. And upon these grounds, I suppose, Beza and Erastus may, as to this, shake hands; so that the magistrate do not usurp the minis- terial function, which Videlius'^ qq\\s papains politicns, "the political papacy;" nor the ministers subject the civil power to them, which is papains ecclesiasticus, "the ecclesiastical papacy." § 7. Thirdly, we distinguish between an absolute archi- tectonical and nomothetical power, independent upon any other law, and a legislative power, absolute as to persons, but regulated by a higher law. The former we attribute to none but God; the latter belongs to a supreme magistrate, in reference to things belonging to his power, either in church or commonwealth. By an architectonical, nomothetical power, we mean that power which is distinguished from that which is properly called political.^ The former lies in the making laws for the good of the commonwealth; the latter in a due execution and administration of those laws for the common good. This we h^ve asserted as to the magistrate already: we now con^e to assert the other; where we shall first set down 1 In loc. torn. 3, Ed. ^ton. p, 189. Ed. 1607. 2 De Episcop. Const. Magn. 3 Aristot. Ethic, lib. 6, c. 6. 10 74 THE DIVINE RIGHT OV the bounds of this power, and then see to whom it belongs. First, then, we say not, that the magistrate hath a power to revoke, repeal, or alter any divine positive law; which we have already shown. Secondly, we say not, that the magis- trate by his own will may constitute what new laws he please for the worship of God. This was the fault of Jeroboam who made Israel to sin, and therefore by the rule of reason must be supposed to sin more himself; so Hkewise Ahab, Ahaz, and others. Religion is a thing settled by a divine law; and as it is taken for the doctrine and worship of God, so it is contained in the word of God, and must be fetched wholly •from thence. But then thirdly, the magistrate by his power, may make that which is a divine law already, become the law of the land. Thus religion may be incorporated among our laws, and the Bible become our magna charta. So the first law in the codex Theod. is about the believing the Trinity, and many others about religion are inserted into it. Now as to these things clearly revealed in the word of God, and withal commanded by the civil magistrate, although the joW- mary obligation to the doing them, is from the former deter- mination by a divine law; yet the sanction of them by the civil magistrate, may cause a further obligation upon con- science than was before, and may add punishments and re- wards not expressed before. For although when two laws are contrary the one to the other, the obligation to the higher law takes away the obligation to the other; yet when they are of the same nature, or subordinate one to the other, there may a new obligation arise from the same law, enacted by a new authority. As the commands of the decalogue brought a new obligation upon the consciences of the Jews, though the things contained in them, were commanded before in the law of nature: And as a vow made by a man, adds a new tie to his conscience, when the matter of his vow is the same with what the word of God commands; and renewing our covenant with God after baptism, renews our obligation: so when the faith of the gospel becomes the law of a nation, men are bound by a double cord of duty to entertain and profess that faith. Fourthly, in matters undetermined by the word, concerning the external polity of the church of God, the ma- gistrate hath the power of determining things, so they be agreeable to the word of God. This last clause is that which binds the magistrate's power, that it is not absolutely archi- tectonical, because all his laws must be regulated by the general rules of the divine law. But though it be not as to FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 7tf laws, yet I say it is as to persons; that is, that no other per- sons have any power to make laws, binding men to obedience, but only the civil magistrate. This is another part of the con- troversy between the civil and ecclesiastical power, about the power of determining matters belonging to the church's go- vermnent: but there is here no such breach between those two, but what may be made up with a distinction or two. We distinguish then between a-poioer declarative, of the obli- gation of former laws, and a poioer authoritative, determining a new obligation; between the office of counselling and ad- vimig what is fit to be done, and a power determining ivhat shall be done; between the magistrate's duty of consulting, in order to the doing it, and his deriving his authority for the doing it. These things premised, I say: First, that the power of declaring the obligation of former laws, and of consulting and advising the magistrate for settling of new laws, for the policy of the church, belongs to the pastors and governors of the church of God. This belongs to them, as they are com- manded to teach lohat Christ hath commanded them;^ but no authority thereby given to make new laws to bind the church; but rather a tying them up to the commands of Christ already laid down in his word. For a power to bind men's consciences to their determinations, lodged in the officers of the church, must be derived either from a law of God giving them this right, or else only from the consent of parties. As to any law of God, there is none produced with any probability of reason, but that. Obey those that are over you in the Lord? But that implies no more than submitting to the doctrine and discipline of the gospel, and to those whom Christ hath con- stituted as pastors of his church, wherein the law of Christ doth require obedience to them, that is, in looking upon them, and owning them in their relation to them as pastors. But that gives them no authority to make any new laws or con- stitutions, binding men's consciences any more than a com- mand from the supreme authority that inferior magistrates should be obeyed, doth imply any power in them to make new laws to bind them. But thus far I acknowledge a bind- ing power in ecclesiastical constitutions, though they neither bind by virtue of the matter, nor of the authority command- ing, (there being no legislative power lodged in the church,) yet in respect of the circumstances and the end, they should be obeyed, unless I judge the thing unlawful that is com- ' Matlh. xviii. 18. ^ Hcb. xiii. 17. 76 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF manded, rather than manifest open contempt of the pastors of the church, or being a scandal to others by it.^ But as to the other power, arising from mutual compact and consent of par- ties, I acknowledge a power to bind all included under that compact, not by virtue of any supreme binding power in them, but from the free consent of the parties submitting; which is most agreeable to the nature of church power, being not co- active but. directive; and such was the confederate discipline of the primitive church, before they had any Christian magis- trate: and thence the decrees of councils were called canons^ and not laws. Secondly, Though it be the magistrate's duty to consult with the pastors of the church, to know what is most agreeable to the word of God, for the settlement of the church; yet the magistrate doth not derive his authority in commanding things from their sentence, decree, and judgment; but doth by virtue of his own power cause the obligation of men to what is so determined, by his own enacting what shall be done in the church. The great use of synods, and assemblies of pastors of churches, is to be as the council of the church unto the king, in matters belonging to the church, as the parliament is for matters of civil concernment. And as the king, for the settling of civil laws, doth take advice of such persons who are most versed in matters of law; so by proportion of reason, in matters concerning the church, they are the fittest council, who have been the most versed in matters immediately be- longing to the church: in the management of which affairs, as much, if not more prudence, experience, judgment, mode- ration, is requisite, than in the greatest affairs of state. For we have found by doleful experience, that if a fire once catch the church, and Aaron's bells ring backward, what a combustion the whole state is suddenly put into, and how hardly the church's instruments for quenching such fires, lachrymx et preces Ecclesise, "the tears and prayers of the church," do attain their end. The least peg screwed up too high in the church soon causeth a great deal of discord in the state, and quickly puts men's spirits out of tune. Whereas many irregu- larities may happen in the state, and men live in quietness and peace. But if phaetons drive the chariot of the sun, the world will be soon on fire. I mean such in the church whose brains, like the unicorn's, run out into the length of the horn; I V. Pcty, Martyr, in 1 Sam. 14. Whitaker, cont. 4, q. 7. Cameron, de Ec- ck's p. 386, torn. 1 op. ^ Rules. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 77 such who have more fury than zeal, and yet more zeal than knowledge or moderation. Persons, therefore, whose calling, temper, office, and experience hath best acquainted them with the state actions, policy of the primitive church, and the in- comparable prudence and moderation then used, are fittest to debate, consult, deliberate, and determine about the safest expedients for repairing breaches in a divided, broken, dis- tracted church. But yet, I say, when such men thus assem- bled have gravely and maturely advised and deliberated what is best and most fit to be done, the force, strength, and obliga- tion of the things so determined doth depend upon the power and authority of the civil magistrate: for taking the church as incorporated into the civil state, as Ecclesia est in republicd, non respublica in ecclesia, " the church is in the common- wealth, not the commonwealth in the church," according to that known speech of Optatus Milivetanus;^ so, though the object of these constitutions, and the persons determining them, and the matter of them be ecclesiastical, yet the force and ground of the obligation of them is wholly civil. So Peter Martyr expressly;^ "For what pertains to the ecclesiastic power, efficiently belongs to the civil magistrate; for he ought to take care that all discharge their duty." (But for the judg- ment of the reformed Divines about this, see Vedeliiis de Episcopatu Constant. M ayid officium magistratus christiani, "the duty of the Christian magistrate," annexed to Grotius de Imper. S^c.) I therefore proceed to lay down the reason of it. First, That whereby we are bound either to obedience, or penalty upon disobedience, is the ground of the obligation; but it is upon the account of the magistrate's power that we are either bound to obedience, or to submit to penalties upon disobedience. For it is upon the account of our general obligation to the magistrate, that we are bound to obey any particular laws or constitutions. Because it is not the particular determinations made by the civil magistrate, which do immediately bind conscience, but the general law of scripture requires it as a duty from us, to obey the magistrate in all things lawful. Obedience to the magistrate is due im- mediately from conscience; but obedience to the laws of the magistrate comes not directly from conscience but by virtue of the general obligation. And therefore disobedience to the • Lib. 2, c. Parinen. 2 Nam, quod ad potestatem ccclcsiasticam attinet, satis est civilis magistratus: is cnira curare debet utomnes officium faciant. — In 1 Sam. viii. Loc. Com. Class. 4, c. 5, sect. ]1. '^S THE DIVINE RIGHT OF magistrate's laws is an immediate sin against conscience, be- cause it is against the general obligation; but obedience to particular laws ariseth not immediately from the obligation of conscience to them in particular, but to the magistrate in general. So that in things left lawful and undetermined by the word, where there ariseth no obligation from the matter, it must arise from our subjection and relation to the magis- trate; and what is the ground of obedience, is the cause of the obligation. Secondly^ He hath only the power of obligations who hath the power of making sanctions to those laws. By sanctions, I mean here, in the sense of the civil law,^ " those parts of the law which determine the punishments of the violaters of it." Now it is evident that he only hath power to oblige who hath power to punish upon disobedience. And it is as evident that none hath power to punish but the civil magistrate; I speak of legal penalties which are annexed to such laws as concern the church. Now there being no co- ercive or coactive power belonging to the church as such, all the force of such laws as respect the outward polity of the church, must be derived from the civil magistrate. Thirdly^ He who can null and declare all other obligations void, done without his power, hath the only power to oblige. For what- soever destroys a former obligation, must of necessity imply a power to oblige, because I am bound to obey him in the ab- staining from that I was formerly obliged to: but this power belongs to the magistrate. For suppose, in some indifferent rites and ceremonies, the church representative, that is, the governors of it /;ro tempore^ do prescribe them to be observed by all, the supreme power forbids the doing of those things, if this doth not null the former supposed obligation, I must inevitably run upon these absurdities. First, that there are two supreme powers in a nation at the same time. Secondly, that a man may lie under two different obligations as to the same thing; he is bound to do it by one power, and not to do it by the other. Thirdly, the same action may be a duty and a sin; a duty in obeying the one power, a sin in disobeying the other. Therefore there can be but one power to oblige, which is that of the supreme magistrate. • § 8. Having thus far asserted the magistrate's due power and authority, as to matters of religion; we proceed to exam- ' Eas Icgum partes, quibus pasnas constituimus adversus eos qui contra leges fecerint. — Papin, I. 4i, D. de pssnis Hottoman, Com. v. juris v. sanct. Cicero ad Artie. I. 3, ep. 23. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 79 ine the extent of this power, in determining things left at liberty by the word of God, in order to the peace and govern- ment of the church. For our clear and distinct proceeding, I shall ascend by these three steps: First, to show that there are some things left undetermined by the word. Secondly, that these tilings are capable of positive determinations and re- straint. Thirdly, that there are some bounds and limits to be observed in the stating and determining these things. First, that there are some things left undetermined by the word: by determining here, I do not mean determining whether things be lawful or not; for so there is no rite or ceremony whatsoever, but is determined by the Scripture in that sense, or may be gathered from the application of particular actions, to the general rules of Scripture: but by determining,! mean, whether all things concerning the church's polity and order be deter- mined as duties or not: viz. that this we are bound to observe, and the other not. As for instance, what time, manner, me- thod, gesture, habit, be used in preaching the word; whether baptism must be by dipping or sprinkling; at what day, time, place, the child shall be baptized, and other things of a like nature with these. Those who assert any of these as duties, must produce necessarily the command making them to be so: for duty and command have a necessary respect and relation to one another. If no command be brought, it neces- sarily follows, that they are left at liberty. So as to the Lord's supper Calvin saith, whether the communicants take the bread themselves, or receive it being given them; whether they should give the cup into the hands of the deacon, or to their next neighbour; whether the bread be leavened or not, the wine red or white, nihil refert, it matters not:^ Hxc indifferen- tia sunt et i?i ecclesia libertate posita; " they are matters of indifference and are left to the churches liberty.^' But this matter of indifferency is not yet so clear as it is generally thought to be; we shall therefore bare the ground a little by some ne- cessary distinctions to see where the root of indifferency lies: which we shall the rather do, because it is strongly asserted by an honourable person, that there is no indifferency in the things themselves, which are still either unlawful or necessary, (if lawful at this time, in these circumstances,) but all indiffer- ency lies in the darkness and shortness of our undestandings, which may make some things seem so to us.^ But that t Institut. 1. 4, cap. 17, s. 43, et cap. 15, s. 19. * Nature of Episc. chap. 5. 80 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP honourable person clearly runs upon a double mistake. First, that indifferency is a medium pm^ticipationis of both ex- tremes, and not. only negationis, viz. that, as intermediate colours partake both of black and white, and yet are neither; so in morality, between good and bad, there is an interme- diate entity, which is neither, but indifferent to either: where- as the nature of indifferency lies not in anything intermediate between good and bad; but in something undetermined by divine laws, as to the necessity of it; so that if we speak as to the extremes of it, it is something lying between a necessary duty, and an intrinsical evil. The other mistake is, that throughout that discourse he takes indifferency as circumstan- tiated in individual actions, and as the morality of the action is determined by its circumstances; whereas the proper notion of indifferency lies in the nature of the action, considered in itself abstractly; and so these things are implied in an indiffer- ent action. First, absolute undetermination, as to the gene- ral nature of the act by a divine law, that God hath left it free for men to do it or not. Secondly, that one part hath not more propension to the rule than the other; for if the doing of it comes nearer to the rule then the omission; or on the con- trary, this action is not wholly indifferent. Thirdly, that neither part hath any repugnancy to the rule; for that which hath so, is so far from being indifferent, that it becomes un- lawful: so that an indifferent action is therein like the iron accosted by two loadstones on either side of equal virtue, and so hovers in medio, inclining to neither; but, supposing any degree of virtue added to the one above the other, it then in- clines towards it: or as the magnetical needle about the Azores, keeps itself directly parallel to the axis of the world without variation, because it is supposed then to be at an equal dis- tance from the two great magnets, the continents of Europe and America: but no sooner is it removed from thence, but it hath its variations. So indifferency, taken in specie, as to the nature of the act, inclines neither way; but supposing it lie under positive determinations, either by laws or circum- stances, it then necessarily inclines either to the nature of good or evil. Neither yet are we come to a full understanding of the nature of indifferent actions; we must therefore distinguish between indifferency, as to goodness, necessitating an action to be done, and as to goodness, necessary to an action to make it good: For there is one kind of goodness 'propter quam fit actio, in order to which the action must necessarily be done, FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 81 and there is another kind of goodness sine qud non ben^ fit actio, " without which the action is not done well," necessary to make an action good when it is done. As following after peace hath such a goodness in it, as necessitates the action, and makes it a necessary duty: but handling a particular con- troversy is such an action as a man may let alone without sin in his course of studies; yet when he doth it, there is a goodness necessary to make his doing it a good action, viz. his referring his study of it to a right end, for the obtaining of truth and peace. This latter goodness is twofold, either bo- nitas dircctiojiis, " the goodness or integrity of the intention," as some call it, which is, referring the action to its true end; in reference to which, the great controversy among the school- men, is about the indiftercncy of particular actions, viz. whether a particular direction of a man's intention to the ultimate end, be not so necessary to particular actions, as that, without which the action is of necessity evil, and with it good; or whether without that, an action may be indifferent to good or evil,i which is the state of the question between Thomas and Scotus, Bonaventure and Durandus: but we assert the neqessity of at least an habitual direction, to make the action in individuo, "as a whole," good; and yet the act in itself may notwithstanding be indifferent, even in individuo, as there is no antecedent necessity lying upon men's consciences for the doing of it; because men may omit it, and break no law of God. Besides this, to make an action good, there is necessary a bonitas originis, or rather prijicipii, "a good principle," out of which the action must flow; which must be that faith, which whatsoever is not of, is sin, as the apostle tells us.^ Which we must not so understand, as though in every action a man goes about, he must have a full persuasion that it is a necessary duty he goes about; but in many actions that faith is sufficient, whereby he is persuaded upon good ground, that the thing he goes about is lawful; although he may as law- fully omit that action, and do either another, or the contrary to it. There may be then the necessity of some things in an action when it is done to make it good, and yet the action itself be no ways necessary, but indifferent, and a matter of liberty. This may be easily understood by what is usually said of God's particular actions, that God is free in himself either to do or not to do that action, (as suppose the creation of the world,) but when he doth it, he must necessarily do it with » V. Forbes. Ircn. lib. I. cap. 13. 2 Rom. xiv. 23. 11 82 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF that goodness, holiness, and wisdom, which is suitable to his nature: So may many actions of men be in themselves in- different, and yet there must be a concomitant necessity of good intention and principle to make the action good. But this concomitant necessity doth not destroy the radical indif- ferency of the action itself; it is only an antecedent necessity from the obligation of the law, that destroys inditferency. So likewise it is as to evil; there is such an evil in an action, which not only spoils the action, but hinders the person from the liberty of doing it, that is, in all such actions as are intrinsically evil; and there is such a kind of evil in actions, which though it spoils the goodness of the action, yet keeps not from performance; which is such as ariseth from the manner of performance, as praying in hypocrisy, &c., doing a thing lawful with a scrupulous or erring conscience. We see then what good and evil is consistent with indifferency in actions, and what is not. And that the nature of actions, even in individuo, "as a whole, or in its general character," may be indifferent, when as to their circumstances they may be necessarily determined to be either good or evil. As mar- rying, or not marrying, as to the law of God, is left at liberty, not making it in itself a necessary duly, one wa^?" or other; but, supposing particular circumstances make it necessary, pro hic et nunc, " as to place and time," yet the nature of it re- mains indifferent still; and supposing marriage is necessary, it should be in the Lord, and yet it is not necessary to make choice of this person rather than of that, so that not only the absolute indifferency of the action is consistent with this con- comitant necessity, but the full liberty, both of contradiction and contrariety.^ Again, we must distinguish between an indifferency, as to its nature and indifferency , as to its use and end; or between an indifferency as to a laiv, and indif- ferency as to order and peace: Here I say, that in things wholly indifferent in both respects, that is, in a thing neither commanded nor forbidden by God, nor that hath any apparent respect to the peace and order of the church of God, there can be no rational account given, why the nature of such indiffer- encies should be altered by any human laws and constitutions. But matters that are only indifferent as to a command, but are much conducing to the peace and order of a church, such things as these, are the proper matter of human constitutions concerning the church's polity: Or rather, to keep to the words > This is an allusion to the logical distinction o^ contradictories unA contraries. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 83 of the hypothesis itself, where any things are determined in general by the word of God, but left at liberty as to manner and circumstcfnces, it is in the power of lawful authority in the church of God to determine such things, as far as they tend to the promoting the good of the church. § 9. And so I rise to the second step, which is, that matters of this nature may be determined and restrained. Or, that there is no necessity, that all matters of liberty should remain in their primary indifferency. This I know is asserted by some of great note and learning; that in things which God hath left to our Christian liberty, man may not restrain us of it, by sub- jecting those things to positive laws; but I come to examine, with what strength of reason this is said, that so we may see, whether men may not yield in some lawful things to a re- straint of their Christian liberty, in order to the peace of the church of God: which I now prove by these arguments. First, what may be lawfully done when it is commanded, may be so far lawfully commanded, as it is a thing in itself lawful; but matters of Christian liberty may be lawfully done when they are commanded to be done, though it were lawful not to do them before that command. The truth of the pro- position appears, because lawful authority may command anything that may be lawfully done. Because nothing can exempt from obedience to a lawful magistrate, but the unlaw- fulness of the thing commanded; and therefore nothing can debar the magistrate from commanding these things; for nothing can hinder him from commanding, but what may hinder the subject from obedience. I grant in many cases it may be lawful to obey, when it is very mconvenient for the magistrate to command: but inconveniency and unlawfulness are two things; nay, and in some cases a man may lawfully obey when he is unlawfully commanded; but then the matter of the command itself is unlawful. As in executing an unjust sentence, granting that a prince's servants may lawfully do it, especially when they know it not; yet in that case, the ground of their lawful obedience, is the ground of the magistrate's lawful command, which is the supposed justice of the execu- tion. But that which makes the magistrate's command un- lawful is the intrinsical evil of the thing itself. So for unlaw- ful wars, though the subjects may lawfully obey, yet the prince sins in commanding, not but that he hath right to command so far as they are bound to obey, which is only in things lawful: but that which in this case alters the mat- ter, is, the prince's knowing his cause to be unjust. So that the proposition holds in things not manifestly unjust. But ^ THE DIVINE RIGHT OF however this be, it is hereby granted, that the things may be lawfully done, when they are restrained by the magistrate's command: and by that it appears, that libertV may be re- strained, else it could not be lawful to act under that restraint, not as it respects the things themselves, but under that for- mality, as they are the restraint of that which ought to be left free. The restraint however then is lawful, as to the persons acting under authority, who are the subjects of this liberty, though it were granted unlawful as to the authority doing it. Which former is sufficient for my purpose, viz. that Christian liberty, as to the subjects of it, may be lawfully restrained. Secondly, a less duty ceaseth to be a duty, when it hinders from the performance of greater; but the preserving Christian liberty is a less duty, which may hinder the peace of the church, which is a greater; therefore in that case it may be restrained. The 'major is granted by divines and casuists; when duties stand in competition, the less ceaseth to bind, as is evident, in that God will have mercy rather than sacri- fice. Positives yield to morals and naturals. Thence the obligation of an oath ceaseth, when it hinders from a natural duty; as the Corban among the Jews from relief of parents. And therefore Grotias^ saith, that an oath taken concerning a thing lawful, if it doth hinder majiis honum morale, "the greater moral good," the obligation of that oath ceaseth. Now that preserving liberty is a less duty than the looking after the peace of the church, is evident, because the one is only a matter of liberty, and left undetermined by the word; and the other a matter of necessity, and absolutely and ex- pressly required of all, as a duty as much as possibly lies in them to endeavour after. Thirdly, if an occasional offence of weaker brethren may be a ground for restraining Christian liberty, then much more may commands from lawful autho- rity do it; but the offence of weaker brethren may restrain Christian liberty as to the exercise of it, as appears by the apostle's discourse, Rom. xiv. 21. The reason of the conse- quence lies here, that a case of mere offence, which is here pleaded towards weak brethren, cannot have that obligation upon conscience, which a known duty of obeying lawful au- rity, in things in themselves lawful, hath. Nay further, in- sisting only on the law of scandal, I would fain know, whether it be a greater offence and scandal to Christians' consciences, to infringe the lawful authority of the magis- trate, and to deny obedience to his commands, in things un- ' Grot, de jure belli »fc pacis. lib, 2, cap. 13, sect. 7. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 85 determined by the law of God; or else to offend the con- sciences, that is, go against the judgments of the well-meaning, but less-knowing Christians. Or thus, whether in the matter of scandal, it be a greater otfence to go against the judgments of the weaker and more ignorant, or the more knowing and able; wlien the one have only their own weak apprehension to bias them, tlie other are backed by and grounded upon an established law. And whether it be not a greater scandal to religion to disobey a Christian magistrate, than it is to offend some private Christians. Let these things be examined, and then let us see whether the argument will not hold u majori; if the law of scandal as to private Christians may restrain liberty, then may a command from the magistrate do it. Fourthly, I argue thus, if the nature of Christian liberty may be preserved under the restraint of the exercise of it, then it is not against the nature of Christian liberty to have the exer- cise restrained; but the former is true; and therefore the latter. Now that the nature of Christian liberty may be pre- served under the restraint of its exercise, I prove by these arguments. § 10. First, Because the nature of Christian liberty is founded upon the freedom of judgment, and not the freedom of practice. The case is the same in moral and natural liberty as in Christian. Now we say truly, that the radical liberty of the soul is preserved, though it be determined to a particular action. For the liberty of the will lying in the power of determining itself either way, (as it is generally thought,) the actual determination of the will doth not take away the internal power in the soul; and in that respect there may be a poientia faciendi where there is not possibilitas effectus, "a power of doing when there is no possibility the thing should be done;" when the event is otherwise deter- mined by a divine decree, as in breaking the bones of Christ upon the cross. So it is in reference to Christain liberty; though the exercise of it be restrained, yet the liberty re- mains: because Christian liberty lies in the freedom of judg- ment; that is, in judging those things to be free which are so; so that if anything, in itself free, be done by a man with an opinion of the necessity of doing it antecedent to the law commanding it, or without any law prescribing it, thereby his Christian liberty is destroyed; but if it be done with an opinion of the freedom and indifferency of the thing itself, but only with a consequential necessity of doing it, supposing the magistrate's command, he retains the power of his Christian liberty still, though under the restraint 86 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP in the exercise of it. And therefore it would be well ob- served, that the opinion of the necessity of any one thing nndetermined by Scripture, destroys Christian liberty more than a magistrate's command doth. And by this reason, they that hold any one posture at receiving the Lord's supper necessary, (as sitting, leaning, kneeling.) do all equally destroy their own Christian liberty as to these things which are unde- termined by the word. So a magistrate when commanding matters of Christian liberty, if in the preface to the law he declares the thing necessary to be done in itself, and therefore he commands it, he takes away as much as in him lies our Christian liberty. And in that case we ought to hold to that excellent rule of the apostle, ^^ St and fast therefore in the liberty ivhereivith Christ hath set you free, and be not entangled again loith the yoke of bondage."^ But if the magistrate declare the things to be in themselves inditferent, but only upon some prudent considerations for peace and order, he requires persons to observe them, though this brings a necessity of obedience to us, yet it takes not away our Christian liberty. For an antecedent necessity expressed in the law, (as a learned and excellent casuist^ of our own ob- serves,) doth not necessarily require the assent of the practi- cal judgment to it; which takes away our liberty of judgment, qr our judgment of the liberty of the things; but a conse- quential necessity upon a command supposed, doth only imply an act of the will, whereby the freedom of judgment and conscience remaining, it is inclined to obedience to the commands of a superior law. Now that liberty doth lie in the freedom of judgment, and not in the freedom of practice, and so is consistent with the restraint of the exercise of it, appears both in the former case of scandal, and in the actions of the apostles and primitive Christians complying with the Jews in matters of liberty; yea, which is a great deal more, in such ceremonies of which the apostle expressly saith, that if they observed them, Christ would profit them nothing;^ and yet we find Paul himself circumcising Timothy,^ because of the Jews. Certainly then however these ceremonies are supposed to be not only mortuse, "dead," but mortiferse, "death work- ing," now the gospel was preached, and the law of Christian liberty promulged; yet Paul did not look upon it, as the taking away his liberty, at any time when it would prevent scandal among the Jews, and tend to the furtherance of the I Gal. V. 1. 2D. Sanderson, de oblig. cons, prsel. 6, s. 5. 3 Gal. V. 2. 4 Acts xvi. 3. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 87 gospel, to use any of them. It was therefore the opinion of the necessity of them which destroyed Christian hberty; and there- fore it is observable, tiiat where the opinion of the necessity of observing the Judaical rites and ceremonies was entertained, the apostle sets himself with his whole strength to oppose them, as he doth in his epistles to the Gtilatians and Colossians} Whom yet we find in other places, and to other churches, not leavened with this doctrine of the necessity of Judai- cal rites, very ready to comply with weak brethren, as in his epistles to the Romans and Co7'inihians.^ From which we plainly see, that it was not the bare doing of the things, but the doing them with an opinion of the necessity of them, is that which infringes on Christian liberty, and not the determi- nation of one part above the other by the supreme magistrate, when it is declared not to be for any opinion of the things themselves as necessary, but to be only in order to the church's peace and unity. Secondly, It appears that liberty is consistent with the restraint of the exercise of it; because the very power of restfeining the exercise of it, doth suppose it to be a matter of liberty, and that both antecedently and consequentially to that restraint. Antecedently , so it is ap- parent to be a matter of liberty, else it was not capable of being restrained. Consequentially , in that the ground of observance of those things when restrained, is not any neces- sity of the matter, or the things themselves; but only the necessity of obeying the magistrate in things lawful and undetermined by the word: which leads to another argu- ment. Thirdly, men's obligation to these things, as to the ground of it, being only in point of contempt and scandal argues that the things are matter of liberty still. I grant the magistrate's authority is the ground of obedience, but the ground of the magistrate's command is only in point of con- tempt and scandal, and for preserving order in the church. For I have already shown it to be unlawful, either to com- mand or obey, in reference to these things, from any opinion of the necessity of them, and therefore the only ground of observing them, is to show that we are not guilty of contempt of the power commanding them, nor of scandal to others that are offended at our not observing them. Tata igitur religio est in fugiendo scandalo et vitando contemptu, saith our learned JVhitaker? "All our ground of obedience is the ' Gal. iv. 9, 10, 11; Coloss. ii. 16, 18, 19. 2 Rom. xiv. 3, 6, 21; 1 Cor. x. 24. 3 Contrav. 4, quest. 7, cap. 2. 88 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF avoiding scandal and contempt of authority," To the same purpose Peter Martyr, speaking of the obhgation of ecclesi- astical laws:^ Non ohstringunt si removeantur contemptiis et scandalum: "They involve not guilt, if contempt and scandal be removed." So that non-observance of indifferent things commanded, when there is no apparent contempt or scandal, do not involve a man in the guilt of sin: as suppose a law made that all public prayer be performed kneeling, if anything lies in a man's way to hinder him from that posture, in this case the man offends not; because there is no contempt or scandal. So if a law were made that all should receive the Lord's supper fasting, if a man's health calls for some- what to refresh him before, he sins not in the breach of that law. And therefore it is observable, which Whitaker takes notice of in the canons of the councils of the primitive church, that though they did determine many things belonging to its external polity, yet they observed this difference in their censures or anathemas; that in matters of mere order and decency they never pronounced an afiathema, but with the supposition of apparent contempt; and inserted. Si quis con- tra prxsumjjserit , si quis contumaciter contra fecerit : '• If any shall presume to the contrary, if any shall contumaciously act to the contrary;" but in matters of doctrine or life, fully determined by the law of God, they pronounced a simple anathema, without any such clause inserted. Now from this, we may take notice of a difference between laws con- cerning indifferences in civil and ecclesiastical matters. That in civils, the laws bind to indifferences without the case of contempt or scandal, because in these the public good is aimed at, of which every private person is not fit to judge, and therefore it is our duty either to obey or suffer; but in ecclesiastical constitutions, only peace and order is that which is looked at, and therefore, Si nihil contra Ivta^tav feceris, non ieneris illis, "If nothing contrary to good order be done, men are not bound by them," is the rule here. For the end and reason of a law is the measure of its obligation. Fourthly, men's being left free to do the things forbidden, either upon a repeal of the former laws, or when a man is from under obli- gation to that authority which commands them, argues them still to he matters of liberty, and not matters of necessity. That laws respecting indifferent things may be repealed, I cannot imagine that any have so little reason as to deny, upon a dif- ' Id. 1 Sam. 14. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 89 ferent state of affairs from what it was when they were first enacted; or, when they cannot attain the ends they are de- signed for, the peace and order of the church, but rather tend to embroil it in trouble and confusion: and that when men are from under the authority imposing them, men are at their own liberty again, must necessarily be granted, because the ground of restraint of that liberty was the authority they were under; and therefore the cause being taken away, the effects follow. Therefore for men to do them when authority doth not impose them, must imply an opinion of the necessity of the things themselves, which destroys Christian liberty. Whence it was resolved by Jlugustine^ in the case of rites, that every one should observe those of that church which he was in: which he saith he took from Ambrose. He tells us, "He knew no better course for a serious prudent Christian to take in matters of rites and customs, than to follow the church's example where he is; for whatsoever is observed neither against faith nor manners, is a matter in itself indif- ferent, and to be observed according to the custom of those he lives among."^ And afterwards acquaints us that his mother coming to Milan after him, and finding the church there not to observe the Saturday fast as the church of Rome did, was much perplexed and troubled in her mind at it, (as tender, but weak consciences are apt to be troubled at any- thing contrary to their own practice); she for her own satis- faction, sends her son to Ambrose, then bishop of the church there, who told him he would give him no other answer but what he did himself, and if he knew anything better, he would do it. Augustine presently expects a command from him to leave off Saturday fasts: instead of that, Ambrose tells him, "When I am at Rome I fast on the sabbath, but at Milan I do not. So thou likewise, when thou comest to any church, observe its custom, if thou wouldst neither be an offence to them, nor have them be so to thee."^ A rare and excellent example of the piety, prudence and moderation of the primitive church; far from rigidly imposing indifferent cus- toms on the one side; or from contumacy in opposing mere • Aug. eg. 118, ad Januar. 2 Ncc disciplina ulla in his raelior gravi prudentiquc Christiaho, quam ut eo tnodo agat, quo agere viderit ecclesiam, ad quamcunque forte devenerit. Quod enim neque contra fidem, neque contra bonos mores injungitur, indiffcrenter est habendum, et pro eoruni inter quos vivitur societate servandum est. 3 Cum Romam «enio, jejuno, sabbato; cum hie sum, non jejuno; sic etiam tu, ad quam forte ecclesiam veneris, ejus moreni serva; si cuiquam non vis esse scandalo, nee quanquam tibi. 12 90 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF indifferences on the other. Which judgment of Jimhrose, Sugustine, saith, he always looked on as often as he thought of it, tanquam celeste oraculum, "as an oracle come from heaven;" and concludes with this excellent speech, which if ever God intend peace to his church, he will make men understand: " I have often,"' saith he, "found it to my grief and sorrow, that the troubles of weaker Christians have been caused by the contentious obstinacy of some on the one hand, and the superstitious fearfulness of others on the other, in things which are neither determined by the authority of the Holy Scriptures, nor by the custom of the universal church, nor yet by any usefulness of the things themselves, in order to the making men's lives better; only for some petty reason in a man's own mind, or because it hath been the custom of their country, or because they have found in those churches, which they have thought to be the nearer to truth, the further they have been from home, they are continually raising such quarrels and contentions, that they think nothing is right and lawful, but what they do themselves."^ Had that blessed saint lived in our age he could not have uttered anything more true, nor more pertinent to our present state: which methinks admirers of antiquity should embrace for its autho- rity, and others for its great truth and reason. Did we but set up those three things as judges between us in our matters of ceremonies, — The authority of the Scriptures, the prac- tice of the primtive universal church, and the tendency of them to the reforming men's lives; how soon might we shake hands, and our controversies be at an end! But as long as contentious obstinacy remains on one side, and a superstitious fearfulness on the other, (for superstition may as well lie in the imagined necessity of avoiding things indiffer- ent, as in the necessary observing of things which are not,) we may find our storms increase, but we are not likely to see any land of peace. How happy might we be, did men but once understand that it was their duty to mind the things of peace! How little of that dust might calm and quiet our most contentious quarrels! • Sensi enim saepe dolens et gemcns, multas infirmoruni perturbationes fieri per quorundam fratrum contentiosam obstinationem, et superstitiosam timiditatem; qui in rebus hujusmodi, quas neque ScripturEB sanctse autoritate, neque universalis ccclesiffi Iradilione, neque vitae corrigendee utilitatc ad cerium possunt terminuin pervenire (perducere) tantum quia subest qualiscunque ratiocinatio eogitantis, aut quia in sua, ])alria. sic ipse consuevit, aut quia ibi vidit ubi pcregrinationem suam quo remotiorem a suis, eo doctiorem fuclam putat, tani lilig-iosas excitant quEBstiones ut nisi quod ipsi faciunt, niliil rectum existiment. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 9i> These coniniotions of soul--, and iliusc contests so great, With the sprinkling of a little dust, are at rest.' But in order to so happy and desirable a union and accom- modation, I shall not need to plead much from the nature of the things we differ about; the lownessof them in comparison of the great things we are agreed in, the fewness of them in comparison of the multitude of those weighty things we ought most to look after, the benefits of union, the miseries of divi- sion, which if our lamentable experience doth not tell us of, yet our consciences may; I shall crave leave humbly to pre- sent to serious consideration some proposals for accommoda- tion: which is an attempt that nothing but an earnest desire for peace can justify, and I hope that will: which here falls in as the third step of my designed discourse, about the bounds to be set in the restraint of Christian liberty. § 11. The Jirsi is, that nothing be imposed as necessary, but what is clearly revealed in the word of God. This there is tiie highest reason and equity for, since none can have com- mand immediately over conscience, but God himself, and whatever is imposed as necessary, doth immediately bind conscience. And whatever binds men's consciences with an opinion of the necessity of it, doth immediately destroy that Christian liberty which men are necessarily bound to stand fast in, and not be entangled with any yoke of bondage.^ Not only the yoke of Jewish ceremonies, but whatever yoke pinches and galls as that did, with an opinion of the necessity of doing the thing commanded by any but the word of God. Which the apostle calls dogmatizing.^ "Let no man judge you in meat and drink;" these impositions he calls the com- mandments and doctrines of men.^ And such he calls a snare, which was the making an indifferent thing, as celibacy, neces- sary,^ "Any thing that ought to be free, commanded as neces- sary, becomes a snare. "^ So that though obedience be necessary to indifferent things when commanded; yet it must always be libet'd conscientid, quoad res ipsas legum, "with a conscience free, so far as concerns them as matters of law," no obligation to be laid upon conscience to look upon the things as neces- sary. Secondly, That nothing be required, nor determined, but ' Hi motus animorum, atque haec certamina tanta Pulveris exigui jactu compressa quiescunt. 2 Gal. V. 1. 3 Coloss. ii. 16,20. ■s Coloss. ii. 22. 6 1 Corinth, vii. 23. ^ Laqucus est quicquid praseipitur iit nccessariuni, quod liberum esse debet. 92 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF what is sufficiently known to be indifferent in its own nature. The former proposal was in reference to the manner of im- posing, this respects the nature of the things themselves. The only difficulty here is, how a thing may be sufficiently known to be indifferent; because one man looks upon that as indif- ferent, which another doth not. The most equal way to de- cide this controversy, is to make choice of such judges as are not interested in the qiiarrel: and those are the se7ise of the primitive church in the first four centuries, who were best able to judge whether they looked upon themselves as bound by any command of scripture or not; and withal the judgment of the reformed churches: so that what shall be made appear to be left indifferent, by both the sense of the primitive church, and the churches of the reformation, may be a matter deter- minable by law, and to which all may be required to conform in obedience. Thirdli/, Tha.t whatever is thus determined be in order only to a due performance of what is in general required in the word of God, and not to be looked on as any part of divine worship or service. This is that which gives the greatest occasion of offence to men's consciences, when anything is either required; or if not, yet generally used and looked on as a necessary part or concomitant of God's worship, so that without it the worship is deemed imperfect. And there is great difference to be made between things indifferent in their own nature, and indifferent as to their use and practice. And when the generality of those who use them do not use them as indifferent, but as necessary things, it ought to be consi- dered, whether in this case such a use be allowable till men be better informed of the nature of the things they do. As in the case of the papists about image-worship, their divines say, that the images are only as high teners of devotion, but the worship is fixed on God; but we find, it is quite otherwise in the general practice of people who look at nothing beyond the image. So it may be, abating the degrees of the offence, when matters of indifferency in themselves are by the gene- rality of people not looked on as such, but used as a necessary part of divine service. And it would be considered whether such an abuse of matters supposed indifferent being known, it be not scandalum datum to continue their use without an effectual remedy for the abuse of them. Fourthly, That no sanctions be made, nor mulcts nor penal- ties be inflicted on such who only dissent from the use of some things whose lawfulness they at present scruple, till FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 93 sufficient time and means be used for their information of the nature and inditferency of the things, that it may be seen whether it be out of wilful contempt and obstinacy of spirit, or only weakness of conscience and dissatisfaction concerning the things themselves that they disobey. And if it be made evident to be out of contempt, that only such penalties be inflicted as answers to the nature of the offence; I am sure it is contrary to the primitive practice, and the moderation then used, to suspend or deprive men of their ministerial function for not conforming in habits, gestures, or the like. Concerning habits, Walufridus Strabo expressly tells us, there was no distinction of habits used in the church in the primitive times.^ "Clerical robes through all their grada- tions, were enriched to that liabit, which is now worn. But in the earliest times the clergy clad in the common vest- ment celebrated the mass, as certain in the oriental churches to the present are reported to do."^ And therefore the Concilium Gayigrense, " the council at Gangra," condemned Eustathius Sebasienus^ for making a necessity of diversity of habits among Christians for their profession, Sii ■trjv asxrjaiv, "for their profession or order," it being acknowledged both by Salmasius'* and his great adversary Petavius; that in primitive times the presbyters did not necessarily wear any distinct habit from the people, although the former en- deavours to prove, that commonly they did in Tertullian'' s time; but yet that not all the presbyters, nor they only did use a distinct habit, viz. the pallium philosophicum, " the philosophic cloak," but all the Christians who did axpijSus xe.M^i-O'Vi.ln.v, "strictly christianize," as Socrates said of Sylva- nus Rhetor ^^ all that were daxr]tav, " the ascetics, or stricter professors of Christianity," among them, stricter professors of Christianity; among which most of the presbyters were. And Origen in Eusebius^ expressly speaks of Heraclas a presbyter of Alexandria, that for a long time xoiv^ saOrifv x^^f^^evo^, " he used only the common garment," belonging to Christians, and put on the palliimi philosophicum for the study of the Gre- cian learning, after that Christianity began to lose in height ' De rebus Eccles. cap. 14. 2 Vestes sacerdotales per incrcmenta ad euin; qui nunc Iiabetur, auclae sunt ornatum. Nam primis tcmporibus cornmuni vestiinento induli, missas agebant, sicut et hactenus quidam orientalium facere pcrhibontur. 3 Can. 14, in Cod. Can. in Yin. Eccles. can. 71. 4 Salai. Nat. in Tertui. de Palteo. 76. 5 Ant. Cercoclliius in Salmas. p. 12. ^ Euseb. lib. G, cap. 20. 94 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF what it got in breadth: instead of the former simphcity of their garments as well as manners, and their ■t^ijiuvia, " the monk's robe," came in the use of the bi/rri, "the scarlet gowns," penulx Dahnaticse, "Dalmatian cloaks," and so daily increasing, as Strabo saith. I say not this in the least to condemn any distinction of habit for mere decency and order, but to show it was not the custom of the primitive times to impose any necessity of these things upon men, nor to censure them for bare disuse of them. He must be a great stranger in the primitive church that takes not notice of the great diversity of rites and customs used in particular churches, without any censuring those who differed from them; or if any by any inconsiderate zeal did proceed so far, how ill it was resented by other Christians. As Victor^ s excommuni- cating the quarto-decimani, "the advocates for the fourteenth day," for which he is so sharply reproved by Irenseus^ who tells him, that the primitive Christians who differed in such things, did not use to abstain from one another's communion for them; xat yag ot t's^j ovT'iJj Jtis-teos ovtB(, Sia^avovgi; rts^i, ifa s^tj «s^oj kavtts^; as Socrates tells us, " those that agree in the same faith, may differ among themselves in their rites and cus- toms,^' as he largely shows in a whole chapter to that pur- pose; as, in the observation of ^«5^er, some on the fourteenth day of April, others only upon the Lord's day, but some of the more eastern churches differed from both. In their fasts, some observed Lent but for one day, some two, some three weeks, some six weeks, others seven: and in their fasts some abstained from all kinds of living creatures, others only from flesh, eating fish, and others fowl: others abstained from fruit and eggs: others eat only dry bread, others not that either. And so for their public assemblies; some communicating every Lord's day, others not. The church of Alexandria had its public meetings and sermons every fourth day of the week, as he tells us. The same church made the public readers and interpreters, either of the catechumens, or of the baptized, dif- fering therein from all otiier churches. Several customs were used about digamy, " or marriage to a second wife after the death of the first," and the marriage of ministers in several churches. So about the time of baptism, some having only one set time in the year for it, as at Easter in Thessaly; others two, Easter, and Dominica in Mhis, so called from the " white garments" of the baptized. Some churches in baptism ' Euscb. 1. 5. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. I. .5, c. 23. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 93 used three dippings; others only one. Great differences about the time of their being catechumens, in some places longer, in others a shorter time. So about the excommunicated, and degrees of penance, (as they are called,) their Flenies, audienics, siiccumbeiites, consistcntes, the communio pere- grinx, "weeping, listening, bending, standing, the communion of a stranger," the several chrisms in vertice, in pectore, "on the head, on the breast," in some places at baptism, in some after. So for placing the altar (as they metaphorically called the communion table), it was not constantly towards the east; for Socrates^ affirms, that in the great church at Jintiochia, it stood to the west end of the church; and there- fore it had avtii;^o^ov Otaw, "a different position" from other churches. And Eusebuis^ saith out of the panegyrist, that in the new church built by Paulinus at Tyre, the altar stood iv fisecp, " in the middle." These things may suffice for a taste at present, of which more largely elsewhere (God willing) in due time. We see the primitive Christians did not make so much of any uniformity in rites and ceremonies; nay I scarce think any churches in the primitive times can be produced, that did exactly in all things observe the same customs: which might especially be an argument of moderation in all, as to these things, but especially in pretended admirers of the primi- tive church. I conclude with a known saying of Jiustin, " It is an unworthy thing for Christians to condemn and judge one another for those things which do not further us at all in our way to Heaven."^ Lastly, That religion be not clogged with ceremonies. They when multiplied too much, if lawful, yet strangely eat out the heart, heat, life, vigour of Christianity. Christian religion is a plain, simple, easy thing; Christ commends his yoke to us by the easiness of it, and his burden by the lightness of it. It was an excellent testimony which Amm. Marcellinus a heathen gave to Christianity, when speaking of Constantius, "That he spoiled the beauty of Christianity, by muffling it up in old womanish superstition."-* And it is as true which Erasmus said in answer to the Sorbonists, " We turn back to Judaism by so much as we cleave to external ceremonies;"* > Cap. 23, 1. 5. ^ Eccles. Hist. 1. 10, cap. 4. 3 Indignum est ut propter ea quae nos Deo neque digniores, neque indigniores possunt facerc, alii alios vel condemncmus, vel judicemus. * Reiigionein Christianam rem absolutam et simplicem anili superstitione confudit. 5 Qud inagis in corporalibus ceremoniis IiEeremus, lioc magis vergimus ad Judaismum.— Eras, in dcclar. ad Cens. Paris, art. 14. 96 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP which is fully proved as to the Papists, by our learned Rain- olds and Mr. De Croy:^ but we need no further evidence than a bare perusal of Durandus Mimatensis his Rationale Divi- norum officiorum. By ceremonies, I mean not here matters of mere decency and order, for order's sake; which doubtless are lawful, (if the measure of that order be not the pomp and glory of the world, but the gravity, composure, sobriety, which becomes Christianity,) for when the Jews were the most strictly tied up by a ceremonial law, they did introduce many things upon the account of order and decency: as the building syna- gogues, their hours of prayer, their Parashoth and Haphta- roth, "Me sections of the law and prophets f^ the continuation of the passover fourteen days by Hezekiah, when the law required but seven: the feast of Purim, or "of lots" by Esther and Mordecai: the fasts of the fourth, fifth, and tenth month under the captivity; the feast of dedication by the Maccabees. The use of baptism in proselyting, washing the feet before the passover, imitated and practised by our Saviour: so that mat- ters of order and decency are allowable and fitting; but cere- monies properly taken for actions significative, and therefore appointed because significative, their lawfulness may with better ground be scrupled. Or, taking ceremony, in Bellar- mine's description of it, to be " an external act, which is not otherwise good and commendable, except it refers to the wor- ship of God;"^ in this sense it will be hard to manifest any thing to be lawful, but what is founded upon a divine precept; if it be not a matter of order, and so no ceremony. And as for significative ceremonies, concerning matter of doctrine or fact, a learned doctor^ puts us in mind of the old rule, that they be paucBS et salubres, "few and wholesome:" for as he observes from Aristotle in insectile animals, the want of blood was the cause they run out into so many legs. I shall conclude this whole discourse with another speech of St. Aus- tin, very pertinent to our present purpose.-* "All such things which are neither founded on the authority of the Scriptures, 1 Cons, with Hart. chap, viii, Div. 8. De Croy 3, Conformity, part 2. 2 Actio externa, quae non aliunde est bona and laudabihs, nisi quia fit ad Deum colendum. — De Sacrara. lib. 2, c. 29. 3 Dr. Ham, of Superstition, sect. 39. 4 Omnia itaque talia quae neque sanctarum scripturarum autoritatibus conti- nenlur, nee in conciliis episcoporum statuta inveniuntur, nee consuetudine uni- versse ecclesiae roborata sunt, sed, diversorum locorum diversis moribus innu- merabiliter variantur, ita ut vix aut omnino nunquam, inveniri possint causae, quas in eis instituendis seeuti sunt homines, ubi facultas tribuitur, sine ulla dubi- latione resecanda exislimo. — Ep. 119, ad Jan. cap. 19. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 97 nor determined by general councils, (for so he must be under- stood,) nor practised by the catholic church, but vary accord- ing to the customs of places, of which no rational account can be given; as soon as men have power to do it, I judge them to be cut off without any scruple:" for which definitive sentence of his, he gives this most sufficient reason; " For although we cannot positively say, how such things as these do mani- festly impugn our faith, yet in that they load our religion with such servile burdens, (which the mercy of God hath left free for all other observations, but the celebration of some few and most clear sacraments,) that they make our condition worse than that of the Jews; for they, although strangers to gospel liberty, had no burdens charged upon them by the constitu- tions of men, but only by the law and commands of God:"^ which sentence and reason of his, I leave to the most impar- tial judgment of every true sober-minded Christian. And thus I am at last come through this field of thorns and thistles; I hope now to find my way more plain and easy. So much for the fourth hypothesis. The two next will be discharged with less trouble. § 12. Hypoth. 5. What is left undetermined both by divine positive laws, and by principles deduced from the natural laiL\ if it be determined by lawful authority in the church of God, doth bind the consciences of those ivho are subject to that authority, to obedience to those determinations. I here suppose, that the matter of the law be something not prede- termined, either by the law of nature, or divine positive laws, for against either of these no human law can bind the con- science: for if there be any moral evil in the thing commanded, we are bound to obey God rather than men; in which case, we do not formally and directly disobey the magistrate, but we choose to obey God before him. And, as we have already observed, a former obligation from God or nature destroys a latter; because God hath a greater power and authority over men's consciences, than any human authority can have: and my obedience to the magistrate being founded upon a divine law, it must be supposed my duty to obey him first, by virtue of whose authority I obey another; then, the other whom I obey, because the former hath commanded me. If I am ' Quamvis enim neque hoc inveniri possit, quomodo contra fidem sint; ipsam tamcn religionem (quam paucissimis et manifcstissimis celebrationem sacra- mentis misericordia Dei liberam esse voluit) servilibus oneribus premunt, ut tolcrabilior sit conditio Judseorum, qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnoverint, Icgalibus tamen sarcinis, non humanis preesuniptionibus subjiciuntur. 13 96 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF bound to obey an inferior magistrate, because the supreme requires it: if the inferior command me anything contrary to the will and law of the supreme, 1 am not bound to obey him in it, because both he derives his power of commanding, and I my obligation to obedience, from the authority of the su- preme, which must be supposed to do nothing against itself. So it is between God and the supreme magistrate; 6y him kings reign; God, when he gives them a legislative power, doth ii cumulative non privativh, "abundantly not priva- tively," not so as to deprive himself of it, nor his own laws of a binding force against his; so that no law of a magistrate can in reason bind against a positive law of God. But what is enacted by a lawful magistrate, in things left undetermined by God's laws, doth even by virtue of them bind men to obe- dience, which require subjection to the higher powers /oy co7i- scie7ice sake} So that whatsoever is left indifferent, obedience to the magistrate in things indifferent is not: and if we are not bound to obey in things undetermined by the word, I would fain know wherein we are bound to obey them; or what distinct power of obligation belongs to the authority the magistrate hath over men? For all other things we are bound to already by former laws; therefore either there must be a distinct authority without power to oblige, or else we are ef- fectually bound to whatsoever the magistrate doth determine in lawful things. And if it be so in general, it must be so as to all particulars contained in that general, and so in reference to matters of the church, unless we suppose all things con- cerning it to be already determined in Scripture: which is the thing in question, and shall be largely discussed in its due place. § 13. Sixthly. Hypoth 6. Things undetermined by the divine law, natural and positive, and actually determined by lawful authority, are not thereby made unalterable, but •may be revoked, limited, and changed, according to the dif- ferent ages, tempers, inclinations of men, by the same power which did determine them. All human constitutions are re- versible by the same power which made them: for the obliga- tion of them, not arising from the matter of them, but from the authority of the person binding, is consequently alterable, as shall be judged by that power most suitable to the ends of its first promulgation. Things may so much alter, and times change, that what was a likely way to keep men in unity and > Rom. xiii. 5. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 9^9 obedience at one time may only enrage them at another. The same pliysic which may at one time cure, may at another only aggravate the distemper. As therefore the skill of a physician lies most in the application of physic to the several tempers of his patients: so a wise magistrate, who is, as Nicias said in Thucydides^ rco'Ksui xoxwj ^ovxsvo/x.svt^^ lat^o^, " the phy- sician to cure the distempers of the body politiCf'^^ and con- siders (as Spartian tells us Adrian used to say in the senate, " that he would so conduct the commonwealth, that it should know that the state was the people's, not his own),"^ will see a necessity of altering, reforming, varying many human con- stitutions, according as they shall tend most to the ends of government, either in church or state. Thence it is said of the several laws of nature, divine aj^d human, that " the law of nature may be laid down, (as in case of marriage with sis- ters in the beginningof the world,) but not laid aside; the law of God can neither be laid down, nor laid aside; but human laws, both may be laid down, and laid aside."^ Indeed, the laws of the Medes and Persians, are said to be unal- terable,'* but (if it be meant in the sense commonly under- stood,) yet that very law which made them unalterable (for they were not so of their own nature), was an alterable law, and so was whatever did depend upon it. I conclude then, whatever is the subject of human determination, may lawfully be altered and changed, according to the wisdom and prudence of those in whose hands the care of the public is. Thus then, as those things which are either of natural or christian liberty, are subjected to human laws and restraints, so those laws are not irreversible; but if the fences be thrown down by the same authority which set them up, whatever was thereby in- closed, returns to the community of natural right. So much for these hypotheses, which I have been the longer in explain- ing and establishing, because of the great influence they may have upon our present peace, and the near concernment they have to this whole discourse, the whole fabric of which is erected upon these foundations. ' Hist. lib. 6. Spartian. in Adriano. 2 Ita se rempub. gestarum, ut sciret populi rem esse, non piopriam. 3 Lex naturae potest poiii, sed non deponi, lex divina nee poni nee deponi, lex humana et poni et deponi. * Dan. vi. 8. 100 THK DIVINE RIGHT OF CHAPTER III. How far Church Government is founded upon the Law of Nature. Two things in it founded thereon. 1. That there must be a society of men for the worship of God. 2. That this society be governed in the most convenient manner. A society for worship manifested, Gen. iv. 26, considered. The sons of God, and the sons of men, who? Societies for worship among Heathens evidenced by three things. 1. Solemnity of Sacrifices; Sacrificing, how far natural; the antiquity of the Feast of first fruits, largely discovered. 2. The original of festivals for the honour of their Deities. 3. The secrecy and solemnity of their mysteries. This further proved from man's sociable nature, the improve- ment of it by Religion, the honour redounding to God by such a society for his worship. § 1. Having now laid our foundation, we proceed to raise a superstructure upon it. And we now come closely to in- quire how far government in the church is founded upon an unalterable divine right? That we have found to be built upon a double foundation, the dictates of the law of nature, and divine positive laios. We shall impartially inquire into both of them, and see how far church government is settled upon either of these two. I begin then with the law of nature. Two general things, I conceive, are of an unalterable divine righ^ in reference to this: First, Ma^ there be a society and joining together of men for the ivorship of God: Secondly, that this society be governed, preserved, and, maintained in the most convenient manner. First, that there must be a society of men joining together for the worship of God. For the dictate of nature being common to all, that God must be served, nature requires some kind of mutual society for the joint performance of their common duties. An evidence of which dictate of nature appears in the first mention we find of any public society; so that a society for religious worship was as ancient as the first civil societies we have any records of Nay, the very first public society we read of, was gathered upon this account. For we read in the ^ early days of the FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. KTl world that the charter for this society was soon made use of, Gen. iv. 26. In the days of Enos men began to call upon the name of the Lord. Now Enos was Seth's son, whom Jldam, had given in the place of Jlhel, and as soon as the number of men did increase, that men grew into societies, they then had their public societies for God's worship. For we cannot understand that passage absolutely, as though God had not been called on before; but now he was called on more signally and solemnly; when men were increased that they began to embody themselves into societies, Ccepit congregare popidum, ad tractandum. simul Dei cultum, "they began to collect the people to exercise together the worship of God,'* saith Pererius. Tunc coeptum est populariter coli Dens, " then it was commenced that God was publicly worshipped," Mariana. Invocare, to invoke, i. e. palam colere, openly to worship, Emanuel Sa. relating to all the public societies being then gathered for the worship of the true God. From which time in all probability did commence that title of those who joined in those societies that they were called D'Snh 'J3 "the sons of God," which we read of soon after; Gen. vi. 2, as they are distinguished from the -12 dinh " sons of men:" which titles I am far from understanding in the sense of the fathers, taking them for the angels, (which, probably, they took from the piece going under the name of Enoch's prophesy); so I cannot understand them as commonly they are taken, for mere discretive titles of the posterity of Seth and Cain; as though all that came of Seth were sons of God, and all of Cain were the sons of men. For as there certainly were many bad of Seth's posterity, because the flood destroyed all of them, Noah only and his family excepted: so there might be some good of the other, vice iDeing no more entailed than virtue is; and jewels may sometimes lie in a dunghill: and so this name of the sons of God might be appro- priated to those who joined themselves to those societies for God's worship. In which sense some understand the very words of the text mn' Dtyn nidS bn^n the^i men began to be called by the name of the Lord: which I suppose is the sense of Aquila^ who thus renders the place, ion rj^xOn -tov xaXft^ac • iv ovo^ai'i Ki;^ioD, " then it," (the custom,) " began to be called by the name of the Lord," although it be brought by Dionys. Vossius to justify the former interpretation of the words. This sense, if the construction of the words will bear it (which ' Not. in Maim, de Idol. c. i. sect. 1. 102 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP Drusius^ questions, but others are much for it, and Theodoret, the French, and Piscator so render it) seems most genuine and natural; and not at all impugning what I have formerly gathered from the words, but implying it; for this distinction of names and tiles did argue a distinction of societies among them. I am not ignorant that the generality of Jewish expo- sitors and many of their followers, do carry the sense of the words quite another way, from the ambiguity of the significa- tion of bnin which may be interpreted as well "to profane as begin," and so they read it tunc prophanatum est ad invo- candum nomen Domini, " then men profaned the name of the Lord:" and accordingly Maimonides^ begins idolatry li'UN 'D"3 from the days of Enos. But the words will scarce bear this construction, as Vossius observes; and besides there is no mention at all of the name of any false gods, but only of the true one. So much then for the first original of this society for religion, which we see began as soon as there was matter to compose a society. Some indeed derive this society a great deal higher; and because we read^ that ^bel and Cain brought their sacrifices, they thence infer, that it was to Adam, v/ho was the public priest then, and performed all public duties of worship in his own person, and so was indeed oecumenical bishop of the whole world, and yet had but four persons or but few more for his charge. Such a diocess we might be content to allow him that pleads for the same office, and de- rives his title somewhat higher than Adam; for Pope Boni- face the eighth proved there must be but one chief priest, and so one pope, because it is said, Ge7i. i. 1, that God created the world in jirincipio, not in princpiis,'^ mark the number; there- fore there must be but " one beginning," and so one bishop, and not many. What excellent disputants an infallible chair makes men! Much good may his argument do him. § 2. As a further evidence, how much nature dictates that such a society there should be for Divine worship, we shall inquire into the practice of men in their dispersion after the flood. And what we find unanimously continued among them, under such gross idolatry as they were given to, and which did arise not from their idolatry as such, but from the general nature of it as a kind of worship, we have reason to 1 V. Chamier: Panstrat. Calh. torn. 2, 1. 9, e. 9, s. 9. Amam. An. tib. Bibl. 1. 2, p. 228. 2 V. Selden. de Diis Syris Proleg. p. 28, " instincV^ within towards the act of worship; and as when I see sheep flock together, even in their wanderings, I may easily gather that though they are out of their proper pastures, yet they are of a tame and sociable nature; so when we see societies for worship were preserved among men after they were degene- rated into idolatry; it is an evident argument that such asso- ciating together for the general nature of the act, doth flow from the nature of man. Secondly, All men's agreeing in some kind of worship, though diff"ering as to the object and manner of it, is an evidence it comes from nature, because it plainly evinces it could not be taken up out of design, received by custom, nor conveyed by tradition, because even among those whose interests and designs have been contrary to one another, and could have no mutual compacts to deceive, have all agreed in this thing, though almost in all other things they have strangely differed. All other customs and traditions, are either changed, or lost among several nations; as the rude barbarous northern nations, that in their inroads and incur- ' Socinus prffil. cap. 2. 104 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF sions upon other places, have left in process of time, almost all other customs but their religion. This sticks closer than Saludbi's black shirt, or the old Monks' clothes, which they put not off till they died. Nay, even those nations, who openly, and as by a law, violate the other received dictates of nature, do yet maintain and hold up this. Those that have had the least of commerce and converse with civilized people, have yet had their societies for worship: and when they could find no gods to worship, they would rather make than want them. The Egyptians would rather spoil their sallets than be without gods; and they that whipt their gods, yet had them still. They who had no sense of another life, yet would pray to their gods for the good things of this: and they that would not pray that the gods would do them good, yet would that they might do them no hurt: so that in the most prodigious idolatry, we have an argument for religion; and in the strange diversities of the ways of worship, we have an evidence how natural a society for worship is. This is to show the validity and force of the argument drawn from the consent of nations, even in their idolatry. § 3. Three things in these societies for worship among the heathens I shall cite as evidence; the solemnity of their sacri- fices, their public festivals, and their secret mysteries, all which were instituted peculiarly in honour of their gods: it being necessary in such societies for worship to have some particular rites, whereby to testify the end of such societies to be for the honour of their deity; and to distinguish those solemnities from all other. First then for sacrifices; Paulus Burgensis observ- ing how this custom spread all the world over, concludes from thence that it was natural to men.^ "There ever was, in every age, and amongst all nations, some offering of sacrifice; and what exists amongst all is the dictate of nature." Thus far I confess sacrificing natural, as it was a solemn and sensible rite of worship; but if he meant by that, the destroying of some living creatures to be offered up to God, I both deny the universal practice of it, and its being from the dictate of nature: and I rather believe with Fortunius Licetus^ that it was continued down by tradition, from the sacrifices of Cain and Abel before the flood, or rather from Noah's after; which might the easier be, because nature dictating there must be ' In qualibet aetate, et apud quaslibet hominum nationes, semper fuit aliqua sacrifieiorum oblatio. Quod autem est apud omncs, naturale est. — Scrutiu. Scrip, patt 2, disl. 3, cap. 11. 2 V. Porphyr. we^i airay^i;. Encyclop. ad arara No rarii Terrig. c. 9, p. 96 FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 105 some way of worship, and it being very agreeable to nature it should be by sensible signs, all nations having no other rule to direct them, were willing to observe that rite and custom in it, which was conveyed down to them from their progenitors: but let us see what reason Burgensis gives: "The reason of men, according to natural inclination, expressing their homage to Him, who is above all, according to a mode convenient to them, is called natural. Which mode is, that they should use sensible signs to intimate their internal impressions, as they received their knowledge of things invisible from sensible qualities. Hence from this natural reason, men offer external symbols to God in token of honour and subjection, according to the analogy of those who present something to their master, in acknowledgement that he is their lord."^ And I withal acknowledge, that as to oblations without blood, they seem indeed very natural; whence we shall somewhat largely dis- cover the antiquity of the feasts of first fruits, which were the clearest acknowledgement of their dependence upon God, and receiving these things from him. Aristotle tells us, " That the most ancient sacrifices and assemblies appear to have been upon the ingathering of fruits, such as the sacrifices of first fruits to the gods were."^ To the same purpose Por- phyriUS, an apx*}? a**" 7<*C •*' '^"'' xa^ftov iyivovto I'oij ^sotj ^stat. " The first sacrifices were of first fruits.'' And Horace^ " Our ancient husbandmen, strong and happy with a little, their grain being stored up, and regaling, in a festive hour, their bodies, and even their minds enduring hardships through the hope of the termination of their toil, with their companions, sons and faithful spouse, sacrificed to Tellus with a hog, and to Silvanus with milk."-^ Although he be not so express for 'offering the very fruits of the earth; yet it is evident from him, ' Ratio naturalis dictat, secundum naturaleni inclinationem, homines ei quod est supra omnes, subjectionem exhibeant, secundum modum homini convenien- tem. Qui quidem modus est, ut sensibilibus signis utatur, ad exprimendum interiorem conceptum, sicut ex sensibilibus cognitioncm accipit invisibilium. Unde ex naturali ratione procedit, quod homo sensibilibus signis utatur, ofFerens cas Deo in signum subjectionis et honoris ad similitudinem eorum qui Dominis suis aiiquid offerunt in recognitionem Dominii. 2 A{ af/aiai S'utriaj ^ o-wjJ'oi cpaivovTat ytvtsSiti fxtra raj Ta)V Ka^Ttonv a-vyKOfju^ag oiov a.tra.^'xai — Nicomach. 1. 3. 3 De Abstin. Ub. 2, s. 27. "» Agricolae prisci fortes, parvoque beati Condita post frumenta, levantes tempore festo Corpus, et ipsum animum spe finis dura fcrentes, Cum sociis operum et pueris et conjugffi fida., Tellurcm porco, Sylvanum lacte piabant. — Ep. ad. Aug. 14 106' THE DIVINE RIGHT OF that their great festivals in honour of their gods, were imme- diately after harvest, and that they had great assernbUes for that purpose, and did then solemnly sacrifice. And from these solemnities came the original of tragedies and comedies, as Horace intimates, and is largely showed by Isaac Cusaii- bon in his Treatise de Satyricd Poesi.^ But to fetch this yet a little higher, and so bring it downwards; the first sacrifice we read of in scripture, was this of the fruits of the earth, (unless the skins which Jidam clothed himself with, were of the beasts sacrificed, as some conjecture:)^ Cain's sacrifice was nnjo •' an oblation of the fruits of the earth:'' in all proba- bility the first fruits, as Abel offered the first born of the cattle to the Lord: this seems to have been at some solemn time of sacrificing, which is implied in d"'D"' 'i'^12 '■^Jlt the end of days." In process of time we render it; but the Jews understood it at the end of the year:^ days in scripture being often put for years; which interpretation if we follow, we find a very early observation of the anniversary festival of first fruits; but how- ever this be, we have by unquestionable tradition, that no festival was more anciently, nor more universally observed, than this of offering the first fruits to God of their increase. The Jews were bound up so strictly to it by their law, Levi- ticus xxiii. 14, that they were to eat nothing of their crop till the offering of first fruits was made. And Porphyrins tells us out of Hermippus,^ that one of the laws made for the Jithenians by Triptolemus, was, ©£85 xa^Tioi^ ayaVKnv, " To feast the gods with their fruits:" of which Xenocrates there gives a twofold reason; sense of gratitude to the gods, and the easiness at all times to offer up these; by which he supposed the custom would continue longer. Draco^ afterwards puts this among his ©stf^itot atwi/tot, " his unalterable laws," ©tsj tinav ana.pxo'ii xa^ftuv, " to worship their gods with their first fruits." Besides which, for other Greeks we have the testimony of Plutarch,^ "Most of the Grecians," saith he, "in their most ancient sacrifices did use barley, the first fruits being offered by the citizens:" and therefore the Opuntii'' called their chief priest xpt^oxoyos, because he gathered in the first fruits. The manner of offering the first fruits among them, was much of the same nature with the Mincha among the Jews, which iLib. 1, c. ]. 2Gen. iv. 2. 3 V. Ainswortli, in loc. * De abstin. 1. 4, s. 22. 5 V. petit, ad Log. Act. p. 3. fi Oj 7rX6i?-oi Toiv EXXuvotiv wjoc ra? tcomu 'rraXaia:; S'uj-iaj E^^aiVTO rat; xjiflaic, a.'na.g'xofi.vitev Tint ito'Kncev. — Cluest. Graec. q. 6. 7 The inhabitants of Opus. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 107 was of "fine flour mingled with oil and frankincense, for a burnt-offering to the Lord:"^ the word there used implies the bruising the ears of corn in a mortar, because they were as yet moist, and could not be ground hard as corn was. Whence, because it was not all brought to flour, the cake was called (jcoa and x^vfiva, or cakes of coarsely ground barley, maize, or wheat. It is called by the Septuagint x^i-Ot; 7teic fJ-ita Kctra^ac-Btef KoyiTfxsv, Kai 'rra^ax.o'KiQnaeMi; sXaXEi xat ij a-xaXflva ^ ovity,iai ojAotutoj E^^oftEva. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 123 An exact description of a late prevailing sect among us, who have their names from those consternations they were wont to fall into, and whose language carried as nmch obscurity with it, as any of the followers of Montanus could wrap up theirs into. One of the great errors of Montanus was, the adhering to enthusiasm and revelations beyond and beside the written word; which is the Helena of our late opinionists, because it gives a libeHy for venting any conceptions of their own brains, under the pretence and disguise of a light within. But we see hence, how far such tremblings and consternations of body and mind are from a true, sober, prophetic spirit; and how those Christians who lived in the time when the spirit of prophecy had not yet left the church of Christ, (as appears by Origen, Tertullian, and others:)^ yet they always looked upon any violent ecstasy or fury, as an evidence of a false prophet. And therefore Tertullian, when grown a Proselyte of Mon- tanus, endeavours strongly to remove that apprehension of the ecstatical fury of Montanus, and Prisca, and Maximilla, granting if it were true, that it was a mark of a false and counterfeit prophetical spirit. The true prophets I grant of old, were by the strength of the impression of their visions upon their spirits, sometimes thrown into a fit of trembling; but then it was not continually so, and when it was, it might be rather a present astonishment from so strange and un- wonted a sight, (as is common in such cases,) or else from the strong apprehension they had of the awful judgments God threatened to the people;^ but however, it never took from them the free use of their reason and faculties, which were always conversant about the matters revealed unto them. But as Procopius Gazaru observes of the false prophets, 7'otj jitati/afft fotxj^tfav, " they Were similar to mad men." Which he takes notice of upon occasion of SauVs prophecy- ing when the evil spirit came upon him; and interprets with the Jewish writers, of a madness, rather than true prophecy. Such as that of Cassandra when she is brought in by Lyco- phron, Utt'ring a strange, confused noise, Mucli like unto black Sphinx's voice." Atfrtsfoy, saith Tzo/ze*, inexpressible, that is 7io%%ev ayta^axoXovOi^'tov, 1 Orig. c. Celsum. lib. 2, p. 62. 1. 3, p. 124. Tertull. de an. c. 9. 2 Dan. X. 11. Habak. iii. 16. Procop. Gaz. in 1 Reg. 18. Ed. Meursii, 3 Ae-'jTirov X.^as'a TCa.fx.y.iyn ^onv, 2a^ "sacred day," did belong to the seventh as one of the £o^fa(jt;itot or arto^^a5fj "festival or inauspicious days," (for it was common to both); whether observed by any public religious custom, or by some private superstition, are things too large to inquire into, and not necessary for my present purpose; it being sufficient in order to that, if they had any set times at all for worship, which shows how solemn the worship of God ought to be. And this is not denied by any, it being so necessary a conse- quence of the duty of worship that there must be a time for performance of it. And not only in general that there must be some time, but a sufficient proportion of time to be conse- crated to the public exercise of piety, both from the considera- tion of man's obligation to divine service from his nature, from the weight and concernment of the things that time is employed in, and the inward sense of immortality upon the soul of man. But then what this proportion of time must exactly be, I see not how mere natural light could determine it, but it would rather suggest it to be highly reasonable to wait for and expect such a determination from the Supreme Rector and Governor of the world. It being far more fit for the master to prescribe unto the servant what proportion of service he expects from him, than that the servant should both divide and choose his own time, and the proportion of service which he owes to his master. Nay, it being so much more reasonable for us to wait for God's car, than for a servant for his master's, as God's power and dominion over the creature is greater than that of a master over his servant; as it is the voice and sense of nature that God's commands cannot other- wise be but just, holy, reasonable and good: which may be otherwise from men; as the acceptance of our persons with God, lies not barely in the work done, but in the doing it out of obedience to the commands of God, which is otherwise with men; as God can give strength to perform what he commands, which man cannot: which things considered make it evident to be highly reasonable that God himself should prescribe the proportion of time, and not man's nature. But when God hath thus determined it, nature cannot but assent to that par- ticular determination, that in consideration of the works of 126 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF God, it is most reasonable that rather one day in a week, than one in a montlj, should be dedicated to God's service; that the seventh day of the week upon God's resting on that day and sanctifying it, should be the precise day, unless some reason equivalent to that of the first institution, and approved by God for that end, be the ground of its alteration to another of the seven, which is the reason of the change under the gospel, § 4. As an evidence of the solemnity of times of worship, the Romaiis as well as other nations had their several ferise; their days set apart for the honour of tb.eir gods. In whicli Macrobius tells us the priests held them polhued.^ " If any work were done upon those days of rest, the day was pol- luted, and the person punished," unless it were as Umbro there affirms, in order to the honour of their gods, or for ne- cessaries of life. To which purpose Scsevola answered him that asked, what work must be done upon the ferise: Quod prsetermissum noceret; " What would be spoiled by letting alone;" as taking an ox out of a ditch, strengthening a beam likely to fall and ruin men; and thence Metro allowed it lawful to wash sheep, if it were to cure, and not merely to cleanse them. In the healtliy stream to plunge the bleating flock."^ Servius^ informs us likewise that the priests, when they went to sacrifice, sent their servants before to bid all trades- men to leave working, "Lest by following their work they both offend them and the gods too. For these holy-days are devoted to the service of the gods,"'' Festus^ saith that upon their dies religiosi, nisi quod necesse est, nefas habetur facere, "nothing but works of pure necessity were to be done." But by dies religiosi probably he means the dies atri et nefasti; their "ominous, unlucky days," as they accounted them. But, however, Macrobius distingaisheth the days among the Romans into dies festi prof est i et intercisi. The Festi were dedicated to the gods, the Profesti to their own ' Si indictis conceptisque opus aliquod fieret; prsetereS. regem sacrorum flami- nesque non licebat videre feriis opus fieri, et ideo per praeconem denuntiabatur n6 quid tale agerelur, et praecepti negligens multabatur. — Macrob. Saturnal. 1, 1, c, 16. 2 Balantumque gregem fluvio mersare salubri. 3 Servius Honor, in Vigil. Gcorgic. 1. 4 Ne pro negolio suo et ipsorum oculos et Deorum ceremonias contaminent; Ferise enini operoe Deorum creditae sunt, 6 Festus V, religios. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 127 works, the Intercisi were divided between both, at some hours of which it was lawful to follow their employments, at Others not. "While the victim was killing no courts of judicature were opened,"^ (in which the praetor might fari tria verba solemnia, "pronounce the three solemn words," Bo, dico, addico; or do, "I give the state of the action and ap- point the judges;" dico, "pronounce the sentence;" addico, "I adjudge;" thence called dies fasti "pleading days,") but between the killing the sacrifice and offering up the entrails {cdiWedi porrect a from porricere, exta, "to stretch or layout the entrails," which was verbum sacrificiale pervetustum, "a very old sacrificial word," saith Turnebus,^ exta diis cum dabanf,porricere dicebantur, "when they offered the entrails to the gods they were said to stretch them out," Varro,) then it was lawful to open the courts; but again when the sacrifice was offered, it was not. By which we see as from the light of nature, that what days and times, whether weekly, monthly, or anniversary, were designed and appointed, as dies festi,^ for the service of God, were to be spent wholly in order to that end, and not to give some part to God, and take others to themselves: as they were wont to do in their sacri- fices, to offer up some part to the gods, and feast upon the rest themselves; as Jithenseiis^ tells us that Conon and ^Ici- biades offered such hecatombs to the gods, that they enter- tained the people upon the remainders of them. And from hence we may see how far short of natural light their religion falls, who make no scruple of spending a great part of the days devoted to God's worship in following either their em- ployments or recreations. Which latter seem more directly to impugn the end of such time appointed than the other, inasmuch as recreations tend more to the rarefying men's spirits, and evaporating them into lightness and vanity, and so discomposing them for the duties of spiritual worship, than men's serious and lawful callings do. But further, we ob- serve, among the Romans several days appointed for public worship. Macrobius^ reckons up four sorts of them, Stativss, Conceptivse, Imperativse, et Nundinse. Stativse, were the set festival days observed every year by the whole people, and marked for that end in their Fasti. Such were the Jigo- iialia, "in honour of Janus," Carmentalia, "to Carmenta, ' Nam cum hostia casditur, fari nefas est; inter eaesa et porrecta, fari licet; rursus cum adoletur, non licet. 2 Advers. 1. 24, c. 13. 3 De Rust. 1. 1, c. 29. 4 Deipnos. 1. 1. s Saturn, 1. 1, c. 16. 138 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP mother of Evander," Liipercalia, "to Lyceaii Pan," which are marked with red letters in the fasti coiisulares, or the Calendarium Romanum, "consular holy-days, in the Roman calendar;" by Jos. Scaliger^ cdiWed Calendarium Colotisnum, which may be seen at large in Mr. Selden: besides which, their other anniversary festivals are there set down: which Tertullian saith, being all put i02,Qi\\GX, pentecostem implere nonpoterunt, "could not make up the number of fifty;" and so not so many as our Lord's days in a year are. Concep- iivae, were such festivals as were annually observed, but the days of the keeping them were every year determined by the magistrates or priests,, as Latinx, "the Latin holy-days," Sernentivse, "festivals in seed time," Paganalia, "celebrated in villages to their tutelary gods, to tlie Lares, in places where several ways meet,' hence, Compitalia, feasts in honour of their rural gods, from compitiini, place where several ways meet," Imperative, were such as the consuls ox prsetors did command at their own pleasure. Such were their solemn supplications in times of trouble, and their days of triumph and thanksgiving for victories. The Nundinse were those which returned every ^^ ninth day, ^^ and therefore the letter by which they observed the return of the ninth day, was H, as am.ong us Christians G, which because it notes the return of the Lord's day, we call the Dominical letter. These Nundinse were the days when the country people brought in their wares into the city to be sold, which were anciently observed as festival days, sacred to Jupiter; but by the Lex Hortensia were made dies fasti, for determining the contro- versies that might arise among the people in their dealings; as the court of pyepowder was instituted among us upon the same account. So much for the solemnity of time used in the service of God. § 5. Another evidence of the solemnity of worship, was the extraordinary care of the heathens in preparing themselves for it, by cleansing and purifying themselves with water, for which purpose they had their %i^vi^, " lustral or concentrated water," for cleansing their hands, and their xovt^ov, " a bath," and rtf^tp/jaj/tj/pta, "instruments for sprinkling water around," standing at the porch of theij' temples for their whole bodies, which custom was generally observed by the heathens, as is very obvious in the several writers of their customs in sacri- ficing; besides which they observed likewise this washing ' De jure Nat. apud Heb. 1. 3, cap. 15. De Idolol. c. 14. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 129 with water, by way of lustration and expiation of their faults, as Triclinius the scholiast on Sophocles tells us, it was an ancient custom when men had murdered others, vhati ajtovivluv ■z-aj xii'^o-i Hi xa^ajieiv tfov (*t,aafiato;, " to wash their hands in ex- piation of their guilt;" as Orestes did in Pausanius after the killing his mother, and some think Pilate in the gospel did so for the same end; but his was only to declare his innocency, and not to expiate liis sin, as is observed by many upon that place. ^ But, however, from hence we may take notice of the spring and fountain of the pope's holy water: which was consecrated by Numa long before Alexander I. to whom Poly dare, Virgil and others attribute the first use of it in the Christian church: and as the use of it, and the manner of sprinkling it is the same among the papists, as it was among the heathen; so likewise the end of it: witness the old rhyme: May this consecrated water wash out my sins.2 Wlijch may be sufficiently answered with the censure of a heathen; Too easy souls who think the spots of blood Cun be wash'd out with every wat'ry flood." But from this I pass to the solemnity in their worship itself, evidenced by the general silence commanded in it; which appears by Horace's Favete Unguis, " favour with your tongues." Ovid's Ore favent populi nunc cum venit aurea pompa,'^ " now, when comes the splendid pomp, the people applaud with their acclamations." VirgiPs jida silentia sacris, '•' silence favourable to sacred rites." Festus's Lin- guam pascite, i. e. coerceto, "restrain the tongue." The Egyptians setting Harpocrates* image in the entrance to their temples, and the Romans placing the statue of Jinge- rona on the altar of Volupia. The Greeks had their xije^vxsu "heralds," which did 5j(?D;^ca»' xai'axj^^ajrVftv sr tt^ov^ytats, " pro- claim silence to be kept in their worship," as Julius Pollux^ 1 Horn. Iliad. Apoli. Argon. 1. 1. Casaub. ad Theophr. tte^i hia-t^atfA. i. Saub. de sacri. cap. 12. Paus. 1. 2. Matlh. xxvii. 24. Casaub. ad Bar. exer. 16, s. 75. Baron, ad An. Christi, 34. Montaculii-.s Orig. Eccles. torn. 1, 1. 2, p. 388. Vos- sius Harm. Evang, 1. 2, cap. 5, V. Mayorum de Papaiu, Rom. 1. 1, c. 32. De Croy. Conf. 1, c. 33. Ov. d. Fast. lib. 2. 2 Haec aqua benedicta, deleat mihi mea dtlicta. 3 Ah nimium faciles qui tristia crimina caedis Tolli fluminea, posse putatis aqua. * V. Brisson. de formulas, lib. 1, p. 8. 5 Onom. lib. l,c. 12. 17 130 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP tells US, which Plautus calls facere audientiam, " to com- mand silence;" much as the deacons afterwards did in the primitive church, who were wont to command silence by their Ovarium, " a handkerchief kept to wave before the people," and were thence called xrieyxn among the Christians, (for although xtie^itlsiv, as applied to the bishop and presby- ters, did signify dfianv, "to discourse," and srtayys-ki^sseM to preach; yet as it was applied to the deacons, it implied only their commanding silence in order to the prayers of the cate- chumejis, called Tta^aOsatii, " a precept or its sign," as Ariste- nus^ observes on Concil. Carthag. can. 106; but this by the way.) The for7nula used by the Greeks in commanding silence, was, axovits xaoc, to which Aristonicus the fiddler alluded when in the market-place of Mylossa, a town in Caria, he saw many temples, and but few citizens, he cried out axoviti vaoi, instead of axovitt xaoi., " hear ye temples, in- stead of hear ye people."^ But I pass these things over, as being commonly known, only observing from them the solem- nity of their public devotions; which is further seen in their solemnly excluding unfit persons from partaking with them in their sacrifices. Of which Virgil, Ovid, Statins, Silius Italicus, and others among the Romans'^ speak; and the lictor in some sacrifices stood up, saith Festus, and cried aloud, '■^Hostis, mulier vinctus exesto, i. e. extra esto, " an enemy, a woman, a criminal, stand without;" and to keep unfit per- sons the better off, the Flamines, " high priest," had a com- mentaculum, " a kind of rod," in their hands. Among the Greeks the old form continued from Orpheus or Onomacritus his Orphaica, 'ixai, ixa^egi j8f (?)??iot, " far, far off, ye profane," and those that sacrifice, asked tvi tri8s, " who is here?" the other answered, 7to7.-Koi, xayadot, '• many, and the good."^ From all these things laid together, we see the great solemnity used by them in their worship, which considered in itself, was not the product of superstition, but a dictate of the law of nature. And it seems most natural to the acts of discipline, that they should be performed in the most public solemn manner, and not in any private clandestine way; which being so done, oft times lose the designed effect of them, in making men sensible and ashamed of those miscarriages which made them deserve so sharp and severe a censure. Thence among the Jeivs, their 1 V. Bau. 5. Alldison de Marthece, vet. Eccles. p. 45, et c. 1. 2 Anthcnius, Deipnos. 8, c. 8. 3 V. Apud. Briss. de formula, 1. ],ct apud Seld. de Syned. lib. 2, cap. 10. * Suidas in Tjf riiS'g. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 13 solemn sentence of the greater excommunication was pro- nounced by the sound of a trumpet; and so they say Meroz was excommunicated with four hundred trumpets;^ and the same number they report were used in excommunicating Jesus of Nazareth, which was usually done by the magis- trate, or the rector of the university: as they tell us a story of a man coming to buy flesh at Pombeditha, (which was one of the three universities of the remaining Jeivs in Chaldea, after the return from captivity, the others were Sora and Ne- harda,) but otfering some opprobrious language to R. Jehuda, then governor of the university, he makes no more to do, but prolatus tubis hominen excomrriunicavit , " brings out his trumpets and excommunicates him." And as the use of bells, since their invention, did supply the former use of trumpets in calling the congregation together, (which I suppose was the account of using trumpets in excommunicating from the con- gregation,) so it seems the bells were sometimes used to ring men out of, as well as into the church; thence the solemn monkish curse, cursing men with bell, book and candle, which can have no other sense but from this practice. So much shall suffice to show the foundation which the solemnity of worship, and the acts belonging to it, have in the dictates of nature manifested by the voice and consent of nations. ' Job. Cocli. Excerpt. Gen. Sandhed. cap. 1, p. 146. Vostius in Pirke Elicsest. p. 216. Selden de Syned. 1. 1, cap. 7. 132 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF CHAPTER VI. The fourth thing dictated by the Law of Nature, that there must be a way to end controversies arising, which tend to break the peace of the society. The nature of schism considered; liberty of judgment and authority distinguished; the latter must be parted with in religious societies as to private persons. What way the light of nature directs to, for ending controversies, in an equality of power, that the less number yield to the greater: on what Law of Nature that is founded. In a subordination of power that there must be a liberty of ap- peals defined. Independency of particular congregations considered. Elective Synods. Tlie original of church government as to congregations. The case paralleled between civil and church government. Where appeals finally lodge. The power of calling synods, and confirming their acts in the magistrate. § I. Tn-R fourth thing which nature dictates in reference to a church society, is, That there must be a way agreed upon to determine and decide all those controversies arising in this society, which iynmediatety tend to the breaking the peace and unity of it. We have seen already that natural reason requires a disparity between persons in a society: to form and constitute a society, there must be ^rder and power in some, there must be inferiority and subjection in others answering to the former: and by these we suppose a society to be now modelled. But nature must either be supposed defective in its designs and contrivances as to the necessaries required for the management of them; or else there must like- wise be implied a sufficient provision for the maintenance and preservation of the societies thus entered into. It is no wise agreeable to the wisdom of nature to erect a fabric with such materials, which though they may lie one upon the other, yet if not fitly compacted together, will fall in pieces again as soon as it is set up: nor yet to frame a body with mere flesh and bones, and the superiority of some members above the others; for unless there be joints and sinews and ligatures to hold the parts together, the dissolution will immediately fol- low the formation of it. The end and design of nature is, preservation and continuance, and therefore things necessary FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT, ISS in order to that, must be implied in the first design of the being of the thing; so that at least, as to itself, there be no defect in order to that. This must in reason be supposed in all societies, that when they are first entered, it must be upon such terms as may be sufficient to maintain and keep up those societies in that peace and order which is requisite in order to the continuance of them. For what diseases are to bodies, age and fire are to buildings, that divisions and animosities are to societies, all equally tending to the ruin and destruction of the things they seize upon. And as bodies are furnished by nature, not only with a receptive and concoctive faculty, of what tends to their nourishment, but with an expulsive faculty of what would tend to the ruin of it; so all civil bodies must not only have ways to strengthen them, but must have likewise a power to expel and disperse those noxious humours and qualities which tend to dissolve the frame, and constitution of them. A power then to prevent mischiefs is as necessary in a society, as a power to settle things in order to the advancement of the common good of society. This, therefore, the church as a religious society must likewise be endowed with, viz. a power to maintain itself, and keep up its peace and unity: which cannot otherwise be supposed, (con- sidering the bilious humour in men's natures, not wholly purged out by Christianity,) without some way to decide con- troversies which will arise, disturbing the peace of it. For the clearing of this, which much concerns the power and government of the church, we shall consider what the con- troversies are which tend to break the church's peace; and what way the law of nature finds out for the ending of them, which we are the more necessitated to speak of, because nothing hath begotten controversies more than the power of determining them hath done. § 2. The controversies then which tend to break the peace of a religious society, are either matter of different practice, or matter of different opinion. The former, if it comes from no just and necessary cause, and ends in a total separation from that society the person guilty of it was joined with, is justly called schism; which, (as one defines it,) is an ecclesiastical sedition, as sedition is a lay-schism; both being directly con- trary to that communion and friendliness which should be preserved in all societies. The latter, if impugning somewhat fundamentally, in order to the end of constituting religious societies, or being a less matter, if wilfully taken up, and obstinately maintained, is called heresy; which two are sel- 134 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF dom seen out of each other's company, and when they are together, are Hke the blind and lame man in the fable, the one lent the other eyes, and the other lent him feet: one to find out what they desired, the other to run away with it when they had it. The heretic useth his eyes to spy out some cause or pretence of deserting communion; the schisma- tic helps him with his legs to run away from it; but be- tween them both, they rob the church of its peace and unity. But in order to the making clear what the church's power is in reference to these, we are to take notice of these things. First, that the church hath no direct immediate power over men's opinions: so that a matter of mere different opinion lies not properly within the cognizance of any church power; the reason of it is this, because the end of power lodged in the church, is to preserve the peace and unity of itself; now a mere different opinion doth not violate the bonds of society; Opini- onum diversitas et opinantium unitas non sunt aovja'j'a, " The diversity of opinions, and the union of those that opine are not inconsistencies." Men may preserve communion under different apprehensions. So long then as diversity of opinion tends not to the breaking the quiet and tranquillity of the church of God, a man may safely enjoy his own private apprehensions, as to any danger of molestation from church governors; that is, so long as a man keeps his opinion to him- self, and hath the power of being his own counsellor. It is not the difference of opinion formally considered when it is divulged abroad that is punishable, but the tendency to schism, which lies in the divulging of it, and drawing others away from the received truths: for the opinion itself is an internal act of the mind, and therefore is punishable by no external power, as that of the magistrate or church is; as no internal action is under the jurisdiction or authority of a magistrate, any further than as necessarily conjoined with the outward action, or as it hath a direct influence upon it. The case of blasphemy, which is a thing of the highest nature in this kind, is not punishable by men, as blasphemy implies low and undervaluing thoughts of God; but as being a thing divulged, (else no formal blasphemy,) it tends apparently to the dishonour of God, and consequently to the breaking in pieces all such societies, whose great foundation is the belief of the majesty and glory of God. So idolatry under the law was punished, as it was immediately destructive of that obe- dience which men did owe to the true God. And under the Gospel, it is not mere difference of opinion, judgment, and FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 135 apprehension, which lays men open to the censures of that power which moderates and rules a religious society; but the endeavour by difference of opinion to alienate men's spirits one from another, and thereby to break the society into frac- tions and divisions, is that which makes men liable to restraint and punishment. From whence it follows, that where the peace and unity of the church may be preserved, and yet men keep up different apprehensions of things, there is nothing deserving any severe animadversion from the rulers of that society: for a power corrective, and vindictive, must suppose something acted contrary to the laws and rules of the society, and the end of comrhilting that power into the hands of governors; now here is nothing of that nature; for the laws of mutual society are observed; and the end of church govern- ment is to see nh quid Ecclesia detrimenti capiat, "lest the church" as a society " be any ways prejudiced;" which can- not be while men maintain that love, affection, and commu- nion which becomes the members of such a society. The unity then required in the church, is not an unity of judgment and apprehension among the members of it, which though it be their duty to endeavour after, yet it is no further attainable by men's endeavours than Adamic perfection is; and Unio^ Christianorum in this sense, is one of the jewels belonging to the crown of Heaven. There is no necessity then of inquiring after an infallible judge of controversies, unless we had some promise and assurance from Christ, that the members of his church should never differ in their judgments from one ano- ther, and then what need of an infallible judge? and if Christ had appointed an infallible judge, he would have infallibly discovered it to the minds of all sober men; or else his infaUi- bility could never attain its end: for while I question whether my judge be infallible or not, I cannot infallibly assent to any of his determinations. And where there is no ground for an infallible judge, for any to pretend to it, is the worst of sup- posable errors, because it renders all others incurable by that apprehension, and takes away all possibility of repentance while men are under that persuasion. The unity then of the church, is that of communion, and not that of apprehension; and diff'erent opinions are no further liable to censures, than ' This seems designedly to have been a play upon the words, for Unitaa Christianorum, is the unity of Christians, but Unio Christianorum, the pearl of Christians; and the unity of Christians will certainly be the pearl of Christians at last — Am. Ed. 136 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF as men by the broaching of them, do endeavour to disturb the peace of the church of God. § 3. That then which seems most hable to censures in a church, is schism, as being immediately destructive of that communion which should be maintained in a rehgious society. But as to this too, we must observe something further, and not to think and judge everything to deserve the name, which is by many called schism; it being well observed by a very learned and judicious divine;^ " that heresy and schism, as they are commonly used, are two theological scarecrows, with which, they who use to uphold a party in religion, use to fright away such, as making inquiry into it, are ready to re- linquish and oppose it; if it appear either erroneous or suspi- cious. For as Plutarch reports of a painter, who having un- skilfully painted a cock, chased away all cocks and hens, that so the imperfection of his art might not appear by comparison with nature; so men willing for ends, to admit of no fancy but their own, endeavour to hinder an inquiry into it, by way of comparison of somewhat with it, peradventure truer, that so the deformity of their own might not appear." Thus he. Schism then, as it imports a separation from communion with a church society, is not a thing intrinsically and formally evil in itself, but is capable of the differences of good and evil ac- cording to the grounds, reasons, ends, and circumstances in- ducing to such a separation. The withdrawing from society, is but the materiality of schism; the formality of it must be fetched from the grounds on which that is built. It is there- fore a subject which deserves a strict inquiry, what things those are which may make a withdrawing from a religious society, to which a man is joined, to be lawful: for as it is a great sin on the one hand, unnecessarily to divide and sepa- rate from church society; so it is an offence on the other side, to continue communion when it is a duty to withdraw. For the resolving of this knotty and intricate question, I shall lay down some things by way of premisal, and come closely to the resolution of it. First, Every Christian is under an obligation to join in church society with others, because it is his duty to profess himself a Christian, and to own his religion publicly, and to partake of the ordinances and sacraments of the gospel, which cannot be without society with some church or other. Every Christian as such, is bound to look upon himself as the ' Tract of schism, 1642. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 137 member of a body, viz. the visible church of Christ; and how- can he be known to be a member, who is not united with other parts of the body? There is then an obHgation upon all Christians, to engage in a religious society with others, for partaking of the ordinances of the gospel. It hath been a case disputed by some, (particularly by Grotius the supposed author of a little tract, .^ti semper sit communicandum per symbola? "Whether we should always communicate by signs?" when he designed the Syncretism with the church of Rome,) whether in a time when churches are divided, it be a Christian's duty to communicate with any of those parties which divide the church, and not rather to suspend commu- nion from all of them. A case not hard to be decided; for either the person questioning it, doth suppose the churches divided to remain true churches, but some to be more pure than others, in which case, by virtue of his general obligation to communion, he is bound to adhere to that church which appears most to retain its evangelical purity; or else he must suppose one to be a true church, and the other not, in which the case is clearer, that he is bound to communicate with the true church: or he must judge them alike impure, which is a case hard to be found; but supposing it is so, either he hath joined formerly with one of them, or he is now to choose which to join with; if he be joined already with that church, and sees no other but as impure as that, he is bound to declare against the impurity of the church, and to continue his communion with it; if he be to choose communion, he may so long suspend till he be satisfied which church comes nearest to the primitive constitution, and no longer. And therefore I know not whether Chrysostom^s act were to be commended, who after being made a deacon in the church of Jintioch by Meletius^ upon his death, because Flavianus came in irregularly as bishop of the church, would neither communicate with him, nor with Paulinus, another bishop at that time in the city, nor with the Meletians, but for three years time withdrew himself from communion with any of them. Much less were the Atax^ivojitfi/ot, "the separatists," or Haesitantes as the Latins called them, to be commended, who after the determination of the Cowicil of Chalcedon against Eutyches,^ because of great differences remaining in Egyjjt and the eastern churches, followed Zenoes Henoti- 1 Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. 5, cap. 3. 2 V. Petlavii. Diotrib. de Potest, consa. et com, usurp, cap. 4. 18 isfe THE DIVINE RIGHT OF curtly and would communicate neither with the orthodox churches, nor Eutychians. But I see not what censure Jerome could incur, who going into the diocess of Antioch, and finding the churches there under great divisions, there being besides the Jlrian bishop, three others in the church of Jintioch, Meletiiis, PauHniis, and Vitalis, did so long suspend communion with any of them, till he had satisfied himself about the occasion of the schism, and the innocency of the persons and churches engaged in it. But if he had with- drawn longer, he had off'ended against his obligation to join in church society with others, for participation of gospel ordi- nances; which is the necessary duty of every Christian. § 4. Secondly, Every Christian actually joined in church society luith others, is so long hound to maintain society ivith them till his com,munion ivith them becomes sin. For nothing else can justify withdrawing from such a society, but the unlawfulness of continuing any longer in it. Supposing a church then to remain true, as to its constitution and essen- tials, but there be many corruptions crept into that church; whether is it the duty of a Christian to withdraw from that church because of those corruptions, and to gather new churches only for purer administration, or to join with them only for that end? This, as far as I understand it, is the state of the controversy between our parochial churches and the congregational. The resolution of this great question must depend on this: Whether is it a sin to communicate with churches true as to essentials, but supposed corrupt in the exercise of discipline? For parochial churches are not de- nied to have the essentials of true churches by any sober congregational men. For there is in them the true word of God preached, the true sacraments administered, and an im- plicit covenant between pastor aud people, in their joining together. All that is pleaded, then, is corruption, and defect in the exercise and administration of church order and dis- cipline. Now that it is lawful for Christians to join with churches so defective, is not only acknowledged by the Reve- rend Mr. Norton in his answer to Apolliiis^ but largely and fully proved. For which he lays down five propositions which deserve to be seriously considered, by all which make that a plea for withdrawing from society with other churches. First, A believer may lawfully join himself in communion with such a church, where he cannot enjoy all the ordinances ' Kesponp. ad Syilog'. Qnest. nap, IG. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 139 of God; as in the Jewish church, in our Saviour's time, which refused the gospel of Christ, and the baptism of John; and yet our Saviour bids us hear the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses' chair, which hearing, saith he, doth imply conjunctionem ecclesiae Jtidaicx, " a joining with the Jewish church:" and so witli churches rejecting an article of faith; in the church of Corinth the doctrine of the resurrection, in the churches of Galatia the doctrine of justification by faith; but the apostle nowhere requires separation on that account from them. Secondly, A believer may lawfully join in com- munion with such a church, in which some corruption in the worship of God is tolerated without reformation. As the offering on high places from Solomon to Hezekiah in the church of Judah, observation of circumcision, and the neces- sity of keeping the ceremonial law in the churches of Galatia. Thirdly, A believer may lawfully join himself in communion with such a charch in which such are admitted to sacraments who give no evident signs of grace, but seem to be lovers of this world; which he proves, because it is every one's main duty to examine himself; and because another's sin is no hurt to him, and therefore cannot keep him from his duty; and then by men's coming unworthily, non polluitur com- miinio, licet minuitur consolatio, '-the communion is not defiled, though the comfort of it be diminished." He brings an instance from the church of Corinth,^ among whom were many scandalous persons that had not repented, 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21. So in the Jewish church which lay under great cor- ruptions, when our Saviour and his apostles communicated with it. Fourthly, Although a believer join with such a church, he is not therefore bound with the guilt, nor defiled with the pollutions of others; which he proves, because it is lawful to do it, and so he contracts no guilt by it. Fifthly, a believer that hath joined himself to such a church, is not bound to withdraw, and separate from such a church under pain of guilt if he doth it not, because it implies a contradic- tion to be lawful to join to such a church, and yet unlawful to continue in its communion; for that speaks it to be a church, and this latter to be no church; and by that he doth imply it to be unlawful to separate from any society which is acknowledged to be a true church. Thus for that learned and reverend man, by whom we see that the received prin- ciples of the sober and moderate part of those of that per- • I Cor. xiv. 34; 1 Cor. vi. 4—15. 140 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF suasion, are not at such a distance from others, as many imagine. We see then that communicating with a church not so pure as we desire, is no sin by the arguments by him produced. And how it should be then lawful to withdraw from such a church, merely for purer communion, I under- stand not. This I am sure was not the case of our churches in their separation from the church of Rome: the main ground of which was the sin of communicating with that church in her idolatry and superstition, and the impossibility of communicating with her, and not partaking of her sins, because she required a profession of her errors, and the prac- tice of her idolatry, as the necessary conditions of her commu- nion, in which case it is a sin to communicate with her. § 5. And this leads me now to a closer resolution of the case of withdrawing from churches in which men have for- merly been associated, and the grounds which may make such a withdrawing lawful. In order to that we must distin- guish between these things. First, between corruptions in the doctrine of a church, and corruptions in the practice of a church. Secondly, between corruptions whether in doc- trine, or practice, jf?rq/e55e^ and avowed by a church, and re- quired as co7iditions of communion in all members of it, and corruptions crept in, and only tolerated in a church. Thirdly, between non-communion as to the abuses of a church, and a positive and total separation from a church, as it is such. From these things I lay down these following propositions. First, where any church is guilty of corruptions, both in doctrine and practice, ivhich it avoweth and prof esseth, and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of com- munion tvith her, there a non-communion with that church is necessary, and a total and positive separation is laivful and convenient. I have said already that the necessity and lawfulness of this departing from communion with any church is wholly to be resolved by an inquiry into the grounds and reasons of the action itself So that the matter of fact must of necessity be discussed, before the matter of law as to sepa- ration from the church be brought into debate. If there be a just and necessary cause for separation, it must needs be just and necessary; therefore the cause must be the ground of re- solving the nature of the action. Schism then is a separation from any church upon any slight, trivial, unnecessary cause; but if the cause be great and important, a departure it may be, schism it cannot be. They who define scliism to be a FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 141 voluntary separation from the church of God; if by voluntary, they mean that where the will is the cause of it, the definition stands good and true; for that must needs be groundless and unnecessary as to the church itself: but if by voluntary be meant a spontaneous departing from communion with a church, which was caused by the corruptions of that church, then a separation may be so voluntary, and yet no schism: for though it be voluntary, as to the act of departing, yet that is only consequentially, supposing a cause sufficient to take such a resolution; but what is voluntary antecedently, that it hath no other motive but faction and humour, that is properly schism, and ought so to be looked upon. But in our present case, three things are supposed as the causes and motives to such forsaking a communion. First, corruption in doctrine; the main ligature of a religious society is the consent of it in doctrine with the rule of religion, the word of God. There- fore anything which tends to subvert and overthrow the foun- dation of the gathering such a society, (which is the possession and practice of the true religion,) yields sufficient ground to withdraw from communion with those who profess and main- tain it. Not that every small error is a just ground of separa- tion, for then there would be no end of separation, and men must separate from one another, till knowledge comes to its perfection, which will only be in glory; but anything which eitherdirectlyor consequentially destroys any fundamental arti- cle of Christian faith; which may be as well done by adding to fundamental articles, as by plainly denying them. And my reason is this: because the very ratio of a fundamental article doth imply, not only its necessity to be believed and prac- tised, (and the former in reference to the latter, for things are therefore necessary to be known, because necessary to be done, and not e contrh.,) but likewise its sufficiency as to the end for which it is called fundamental. So that the articles of faith called fundamental are not only such as are necessary to be believed, but if they be, are sufficient for salvation to all that do believe them. Now he that adds anything to be be- lieved or done as fundamental, that is necessary to salvation, doth thereby destroy the sufficiency of those former articles in order to salvation; for if they were sufficient, how can new ones be necessary. The case will be clear by an instance. Who assert the satisfaction of Christ for sinners to be a funda- mental article, and thereby do imply the sufficiency of the belief of that in order to salvation; now if a pope or any other command me to believe the meritoriousness of good 142 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF works with the satisfaction of Christ as necessary to salva- tion, by adding this he destroys the former as a fundamental article: for if Christ's satisfaction be sufficient, how can good works be meritorious? and if this latter be necessary, the other was not; for if it were, what need this be added? Which is a thing the papists with their new creed of Pius the fourth would do well to consider: and others too, who so confidently assert that none of their errors touch the foundation of faith. Where there is now such corruption in doctrine supposed in a church; withdrawing and separation from such a church, is as necessary as the avoiding of her errors, and not partaking of her sins is. Thence we read in ScriptiU'e, of rejecting such as are heretics, and loithdrawing from their society, which will as well hold to churches as to persons, and so much the more, as the corruption is more dangerous, and the relation nearer of a member to a church, than of one man to another: and from the reason of that command, we read in ecclesiasti- cal history, that when Eulalius, Euphronius, and Placen- tius were constituted bishops of Antioch, being Arians, many both of the clergy and people,^ who resolved to adhere to the true faith, withdrew from the public meetings, and had pri- vate assemblies of their own. And after, when Leontius was made bishop oi Antioch, who favoured the Arians, Flavianus and Diodorus^ not only publicly reproved him for deserting the orthodox faith, but withdrew the people from communion with him, and undertook the charge of them themselves.^ So when Felix was made bishop of Rome, none of the church of Rome would enter into the church while he was there. And Vincentius Lyrinensis^ tells us a remarkable story of Photinus bishop of Syrinium in Pannonia, a man of great abilities and fame, who suddenly turned from the true faith, and though his people both loved and admired him, yet when they discerned his errors, " whom they followed before as the leader of the flock, they then ran away from as a devouring wolf."^ This is the first thing which makes separation, and withdrawal of communion, lawful and necessary, viz. corrup- tion of doctrine. The second is corruption of practice: I speak not of practice, as relating to the civil conversation of men, but as it takes in the Agenda^ of religion. When idola- 1 Theodoret. lib. 1, c, 22. 2 Id. |. 2, cap. 24. 3 Lib. 2, c. 17, Advers. ^ * Hceres. cap. 16. 5 Qiiem antea quasi arietem gregis sequcbuntur, cundein deinccps veluti lupum fugerc cccperuiit. 6 Things tiiat ought to be done. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 143 trous customs, and superstitious practices are not only crept into a church, but are the prescribed devotion of it: such as the adoration of the eucharist, (chiefly insisted on by Mr. Daill^ in his apology, as a cause of separation from the church oi Rome,) invocation of saints and angels, worshipping images, and others of a like nature, used among the papists, which are of themselves sufficient to make our separation from them necessary. But then thirdly, as an accession to these two, is the public owning and professing them, and requiring them, as necessary conditions of communion, from all the members of their church, which makes our withdrawing from them unavoidably necessary, as long as we judge them to be such corruptions as indeed they are. For men not to forsake the behef of errors, supposing them to be such, is impossible: and not to forsake the practice and profession of them upon such belief, were the highest hypocrisy: and to do so, and not to forsake the communion of that church where these are owned, is apparently contradictory, (as Mr. Chillingioorth} well ob- serves,) seeing the condition of communion with it is, that we must profess to believe all the doctrines of that church, not only not to be errors, but to be certain and necessary truths: so that on this account, to believe there are any errors in the church of Rome is actually, and ipso facto, to forsake the communion of that church; because the condition of its com- munion is the belief that there are none: and so that learned and rational author there fully proves, that those who require unlawful and unnecessary conditions of communion, must take the imputation of schism upon themselves, by making separation from them just and necessary. In this case, when corruptions in opinion or practice are thus required, as condi- tions of communion, it is impossible for one to communicate with such a church without sin; both materially, as the things are unlawful which he joins with them in; and formally, as he judgeth them so. This is the first proposition. § 6. The second is, ivhere a church retains the purity of doctrine in its public profession, hut hath a mixture of some corruptions, as to practice, which are only tolerated and not imposed, it is not lawful to loithdraiv communion from such a church, much less to run into total separation from it. For here is no just and lawful cause given of withdraw- ing; here is no owned corruption of doctrine or practice, nor any thing required as a condition of communion, but what is ' Answ. lo the Pref, p. 96, s. 22. 144 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF in itself necessary; and therefore there can be no plea, but only pollution from such a communion, which cannot be to any who do not own any such supposed corruptions in the church. Men may communicate with a clun-ch, and not com- municate with the abuses of a church; for the ground of his communicating is, its being a church, and not a corrupt or defective church. And that men are not themselves guilty, by partaking with those who are guilty of corruptions in a church, might be easily and largely proved, both from the church of the Jews in the case of EWs sons, and the Christian churches of Asia, and Corinth, where we read of many cor- ruptions reproved, yet nothing spoken of the duty of the mem- bers of those churches to separate from them, which would have been, had it been a sin to communicate with those churches when such corruptions were in them. Besides, what reason is there that one man's sins should defile another, more than another's graces sanctify another? and why corruption in another should defile him more than in himself, and so keep him from communicating with himself? and what security any one can have in the most refined churches, but that there is some scandalous, or at least unworthy person among them? and whetlier then it is not his duty to try and examine all himself particularly, with whom he communicates? and why his presence at one ordinance should defile it more than at another? and why at any more than in worldly converse, and so turn at last to make men Anchorets^ as it hath done some? Many other reasons might be produced against this, which I forbear, it being fully spoken to by others. And so I come to my third proposition, which is, Where any church, retaining the purity of doctrine, doth require the owning of, and conforming to, any lawful or suspected practice, men may laivfully deny conformity to, and communion with that church in such things, loithout incurring the guilt of schism. I say not, men may proceed to positive schism as it is called, that is, erecting of new churches, which from Cyprian is called erigere altare contra altare, "to erect an altar against an altar;" but only that withdrawing communion from a church in unlawful or sus- pected things, doth not lay men under the guilt of schism: which, because I know it may meet with some opposition from those men, who will sooner call men schismatics than prove them so, I shall offer this reason of it to consideration. ' See Mr. Durham's Tract of Scandal, part 2, chap. 12. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 145 If our separation from the church of Rome was therefore lawful, because she required unlawful things, as conditions of her communion; then wherever such things are required by any church, non-communion with that church in those things will be lawful too; and where non-communion is lawful, there can be no schism in it. Whatever difference will be thought of, as to the things imposed by the church of Rome and others, will be soon answered by the proportionable difference between bare non-conformity, and total and positive separa- tion. What was in itself lawful and necessary then, how comes it to be unlawful and unnecessary now? Did that justify our withdrawing from them, because they required things unlawful, as conditions of communion; and will not the same justify other men's non-conformity, in things supposed by them unlawful? If it be said here, that the pope's power was an usurpation, which is not in lawful governors of churches; it is soon replied, that the pope's usurpation mainly lies in impos- ing things upon men's consciences as necessary, which are doubtful or unlawful; and wherever the same thing is done, there is an usurpation of the same nature, though not in so high a degree; and it may be as lawful to withdraw commu- nion from one as well as the other. If it be said, that men are bound to be ruled by their governors, in determining what things are lawful, and what not? To this it is answered: first, no true protestant can swear blind obedience to church gover- nors in all things. It is the highest usurpation to rob men of the liberty of their judgments. That which we plead for against the papists, is, that all men have eyes in their heads as well as the pope, that every one hath a. judicium privaiae discretionis, "a judgment of private discretion," which is the rule of practice, as to himself; and though we freely allow a ministerial power, under Christ, in the government of the church, yet that extends not to an obligation upon men, to go against the dictates of their own reason and conscience. Their power is only directive and declarative, and in matters of duty can bind no more than reason and evidence brought from Scripture by them doth. A man hath not the power over his own understanding, much less can others have it. " No one believes anything to be true, because he desires to believe ri/xaiv, x.a.i Xovj-afxivo) to vTte^ a Gellius Noct. Attic. 1. 16, c. 16. V. Grotium de jure belli, I. 2, c. 20, s. 6, 7, 8. Matth. i. 19. 22 170 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF which men enjoy by thus associating themselves for so higli an employment: that punishment then must be the loss of those privileges which the corporation enjoys, which must be by exchision of the offending persons from communion with the society. Hence we see it is evident, that which we call excommunication is the greatest penalty which the church, as a society, can inflict upon the members of it, considered as such. And hence it is likewise clear, that as the society of the church is distinct from others, the laws, ends, governors of a different nature; so the punishment must be a punish- ment distinct from civil, and ordained wholly in order to the peculiar ends of this society; which they do not well consider, who deny any such power as that of excommunication pecu- liar to the church, which is as much as to deny that the laws whereby the church is ruled, are different from the civil laws, or the end of this society from the ends of civil societies: for the punishment must be proportioned to the laws, and referred immediately to its proper ends. It were no ways difficult to answer the pretences brought against this: for although I acknowledge a subordination of this religious society to the supreme authority in the commonwealth, and that the rules concerning the government of the society in common must have their sanction from thence; yet this no ways implies but it may have its peculiar penalties and power to inflict them, any more than any company of tradesmen have not power to exclude any from their company for l)reaking the rules of tlie company, because they are subordinate to the supreme autho- rity: or any college to expel any from thence, for breaking the local statutes of it, which are distinct from the common laws. Nor is it any argument, that because Christians had mutual confederations in times of persecution for the exercise of censures, therefore these censures were only arbitrary and human; unless it be proved, that it was not a duty in them so to confederate and join together, nor was there any antece- dent obligation to inflict those censures upon oifenders. Much less, thirdly, because their jurisdiction is not civil and coactive, therefore they have none at all; which is as much as to say, the laws of scripture are not our common laws, therefore they are none at all, § 3, I shall not here insist upon the divine right of power to excommunicate offenders, founded upon the positive laws of Christ, it being my only business now to show what foun- dation such a power hath in the law of nature, which we have seen doth follow upon the church's being a distinct FOKMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 171 society ruled by other laws, acting on other ends, subsisting upon different grounds from any other society. A further evidence we have of this, how consonant it is to the hght of nature, from the practice of all societies pretending to be for the worship of God, who have looked upon this as the proper penalty of offenders among them, to be exchided out of those societies. Thus we find among the Druids, whose great office was to take care of the worship of their gods, and to instruct the people in religion, as Csesar^ relates: " They are present at the sacred rites, take care of the public and private sacrifices, and expound the obligations and mysteries of re- ligion;"2 and accordingly the punishment of disobedience among them was excommunication from their sacrifices, which they looked upon as the greatest punishment that could be inflicted upon them, as Caesar at large describes it: "If any public or private character, has not obeyed the decree, he is interdicted at the sacrifices; and they who are thus interdicted, are accounted amongst the number of the impious and wicked, from whom all withdraw, and whose intercourse all shun, lest they should sustain any disadvan- tage as from contagion, or that neither right nor any honour, when solicited, should be imparted."^ The practice of excommunication among the Jews is not questioned by any, but the right ground and original of that practice, with the eflfect and extent of it. Some conceive it to have been only taken up among the Jews, after the power of capital punishments was taken from them; and that it was used by them, wholly upon a civil account, not extending to the exclusion of men from their worship in the temple or synagogues, but only to be a note of infamy upon offending persons. This opinion, though entertained by persons of much skill and learning in the Jewish antiquities, yet carries not that evidence with it to gain my assent to it. For first, the causes of excommunication were not such as were ex- pressed b)'' their law to deserve such civil punishments as might have been inflicted by them upon offenders, nor were ' Csesar de bello Gallico. 1. 6. V. Nicolautn Damascenum de inoribus gentium de cercetis, touj dJixotravTaj o now t<»» U^im uTreioyov^iv. 2 Illi rebus divinis intersunt, sacrificia publica ac privafa procurant, religiones interpretantur. 3 Si quis aut privatus aut pubicus eorum decreto non stetit, sacrificiis inter, dicunt: iisec poena apud eos est gravissima: quibus ita est interdictum, ii numero impiorum et sceleratorum habentur; lis omnes decedunt, aditum eorum sernio- nemq; defugiunt, ne quid ex contagione incommodi accipiant, neq; iis petentibus jus rcdditur, neq; honos uilus communicatur. 172 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF they generally matters of a civil nature, but matters of offence and scandal, as will appear to any that shall peruse the twenty-four causes of excommunication, related out of the Jewish writers by Selden} and Joh. Coch. Such were the neglecting the precepts of the Scribes, the vain pronouncing the name of God, bearing ivitness against a Jew before heathen tribunals, doing any common work in the after- noon of the day before the Passover, with others of a like nature. If excommunication had been then taken up among them only ex confcederatd disciplind, to supply the defect of civil judicatories, at least all capital offenders must have lain under the sentence of excommunication. But here we read not of any being excommunicated for those, but for other less matters, which were looked upon as matters of scandal among them: and though some of them were matters of civil injuries, yet it follows not that men were excommunicated for them as such, but for the scandal which attended them. As, in the Christian church, men are excommunicated for matters which are punishable by the civil magistrate, but not under that notion, but as they are offences to that Christian society which they live among. Secondly, It appears that excom- munication was not a mere civil penalty, because the in- creasing or abatement of that penalty did depend upon the person's repentance and desire of absolution. Now civil penalties do not regard the intention and mind of the per- son, but the quality and desert of the action; the reason is, because human laws do respect immediately actionem ipsam, non animum agentis, " the action itself, and not the intention of the doer," unless it be only so far as the mind hath influence upon the action. But now it is other- wise in such laws which take immediate notice of the inten- tion of the mind, and only of outward actions as they are significative and expressive of the inward intention: for in these, though the ground of proceeding to penalties be from the notice taken of the outward action, yet that outward action being subject to penalty, as expressive of the mind's intention, where there may be sufficient evidence given of the integrity and uprightness of the intention afterwards, there may be proportionably a relaxation of the penalty; because the end of the penalty inflicted was not to be an act of jus- tice excluded from mercy in the end of administration as in civil judicatories, but an act of justice whose end was mercy, ' Selden de jure natur. &c. 1. 4, cap. 8. Excerpt. Gem. Saub. pug. 147. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 173 that is, the regaining and recovering the offender's soul from sin, by inflicting such a penalty upon him, as might humble him under the sense of it. Hence appears the great reason- ableness of their proceedings in the management of discipline in the primitive times, who did not fix a certain time as a standing law for all offenders, but did increase or lessen both the time and weight of their penance, according to the evidences given of their submission and true repentance for their miscarriages. That it was thus now in reference to excommunication among the Jews, appears from what is asserted by the learned Biixiorf^ concerning the time of the less excommunication, called mu Niddui, "depart, be sepa rated," which remained thirty days usually, but were short- ened by confession and desire of absolution: " It continues thirty days, which may, however, be shortened by repentance and prayer."^ But if after thirty days past, he continue im- penitent, the judge as he sees fit, increaseth the punishment, so as to double or treble the time, or extend it to his whole life: if he died without repentance, a stone is laid upon his bier, to show he deserved lapidation; thty wept not for him, nor buried him in the common place of burial. Further, Buxtorp there allegeth this constitution of their law; that if he that was under Niddui, and desired not absolution, was the second time under it, if that did no good on him, then he was excommunicated with the higher sort of excommunica- tion, called Din "cut off," which is likewise observed by Joh. Coch. Mr. Selden, and others. From whence it is evident that this was an ecclesiastical censure, and not merely civil, because the main end of it was not satisfaction to the law, but the repentance of the person who lay under the fault; and according to the evidence given of it, the penalty was relaxed or increased, which argument not yet taken notice of nor improved by writers on this subject, seems to make the case clear, that excommunication among the Jews was not a mere outlaiv7'y, as some conceive it to have been. § 4, Thirdly, I argue, if it was not the breach of the law, but the publicity of the offence, or the scandal of it which was the ground of excommunication; then it was not a mere civil penalty, but an ecclesiastical censure: for civil penalties do proceed upon the breach of the law, and alter not as to the ' Epist. Hebr. Instilut. p. 55. 2 Durat triginta dies qui tamen poenilentia et deprecatione dccurtantur. 3 V. Selden de jure nut. &c. lib. 4, cap. 8, p. 516. Schulcban. A ruch chosen, haminischpat. s. 100. Excerpt. Gen. Sam. lied. p. 141, n. 11, 12. 174 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF publicity or privateness of the offence; but here it is evident that the same offence deserving excommunication if done m public, did not if done in private, or was left at the person's liberty to have the offender excommunicated or not. That which is reckoned as the first cause of excommunication, is affront or contempt put upon a wise man, or Rabbi, or one that was D3n -\'rbn "a student in the law;" now it is deter- mined by them in this case, that if it were done in private, the Rabbi might pardon him: but if in public, he could not. For as Joh. Coch} gives the xea.son, publicum Doctoris hidibrium in legis contemptum redundas: "the contempt of public teachers of the law, redounds to the dishonour of the law itself" Thus it was the scandal of the faull, and not the bare offence which made excommunication necessary among them; and not as ^hat scandal was a mere defamation of the person, but as it redounded to the contempt of the law. Fourthly, I argue from the form used in excommunication by tliem. There are two forms produced of their excommu- nications, the one by Buxtorf out of an old Hebrew manu- script,^ the beginning of which is, "by the authority of the Lord of lords, let Plonus, the son of Plonus, be an anathema, in both houses, the higher and the lower courts of judgment,"^ where two things evidence, it was accounted a sacred and no civil action, doing it immediately in the name and authority of the Lord of lords; and pronouncing him excommunicate both in heaven and earth. So R. Elieser, speaking of the excommunication of the Cuthites or Samaritans,'* "and by anathema they doomed the Cuthites, by the mystery of the name of Amphorasch, and by the words engraven on plates, both by the anathema of the higher and lower courts of judg- ment,"^ as it is translated by Giili. Vorstius, who in his notes upon that book produceth a most dreadful sentence of excommunication used to this day in many synagogues, which they call Cherem Col Bo. from the, book whence it is taken, which runs most solemnly in the several names of God,'' whereby they do chamatize, curse and devote the persons against whom it is pronounced. Fifthly, it appears ' P. 146. 2 Lex Rabbinic, p. 828. 3 Ex sententia. Domini Domlnoruin, sit in Anathemate Plonus fiiiiis Ploni, in ntraque domo judicii, superiorum, scilicet et inferiorum, &c. 4 Pirk. R. Elieser, c. 38, p. 101. 5 Atquc anathemate devovebant Culhifios mysterio nominis Amphorasch, et Scriptura cxarata in tabulis, et anathemate domus judicii superioris, atque anathemate curice infcrioris. 6 P. 22G, ad 230. W FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 175 not to be a merely civil thing instead of civil power, because they use it against those over whom they have no civil juris- diction, as appears by their chamatizing the Christians in their liturgies, as Buxtorf observes. Sixthly, I argue from the eifects of it, because they who lay under it were excluded from public worship, which is averred by Buxtorf, Coch. and others in the places forecited. It is acknowledged that he that was only under Niddui, might be present at public worships but even there he was under his separation too, of four cubits from any other Israelite. § 5 And hence in probabihty might the mistake arise, be- cause those under Niddui might appear at the temple or synagogue, therefore excommunication was no prohibition d, sao'is.^ But he that was under Cherem, non docei, non doceter, ''neither teacheth others, nor is taught himself," saith Joh. Cocceius; and Buxtorf of one under Cherem, omninb h, ccetu sacro excluditur, "is altogether excluded from the holy assembly:'-' and in this sense Buxtorf^ ex- pressly takes the turning out of the synagogue, ./bA. 9,22; 12, 42, which, saith he, is done by Cherem. But against this it is strongly pleaded by our learned Mr. Selden? that putting out of the synagogue is nothing else but excommunicating Snpn p Snab "to separate from the congregation," taking ^t\'^ and so odJi/aywyi; " Synagogue," in the civil and not sacred sense, as it denotes an excluding them from common society; but though it be freely granted that that is sometimes the signifi- cation of bnp and ODmywy*; as Mat. x. 17, yet those particulars being considered, which are already laid down, I shall leave it to consideration whether it be more probable to take the word synagogue here in a civil or sacred sense; when the occasion expressed is merely a matter of doctrine and opinion, and not anything condemned by their law. Another thing which hath been, I believe, a great ground of mistaking in this matter, is, that excluding from the civil society among them was always consequent upon excommunication; the reason whereof was, because the church and commonwealth were not distinct among the Jews; and the same persons who took care of sacred, did likewise of civil things, (there being no distinct Sanhedrim among them as some imagine:) but from hence it no ways follows, but their excommunication might be an exclusion from sacred worship as well as ' From sacred rites. 2 Ep. institut. pag. 56. 3 De Synedriis, lib. 1, cap. 7. 176 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP civil society. However, were it as they pretend, that it was from civil commerce, yet the whole people of the Jews being n'7UD God's " peculiar people," and his only church in being before the times of the gospel, an exclusion in that respect from the common society of them, might deservedly be looked upon as a sacred action, and not merely civil, it being a separation from a people whose main ligature was their being a church of God, or a community gathered together for God's worship and service. Thus we see the church of the Jews had this power among them; and for the Chris- tian church, the practice of discipline upon offenders was never questioned, though the right hath been; so that from hence we gather, in that it hath been the practice of societies constituted for the worship of God, to call offenders to an ac- count for their offences, and if upon examination they be found guilty, to exclude them their society; that it is a dictate of the law of nature, that every offender against the laws of a society must give an account of his actions to the rulers of it, and submit to the censures inflicted on him by them. Thus I am now come to the end of my first stage, to show how far church govermnent is founded upon the law and light of nature. And so to the end of the first part. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 177 PART II CHAPTER I. The other ground of divine right considered, viz. God's positive laws; which imply a certain knowledge of God's intention to bind men perpetually. As to which, the arguments drawn from tradition, and the practice of the church in after ages, proved invalid by several arguments. In order to a right stating the question, some concessions laid down; First, that tliere must be some form of government in the church. The notion of a church explained: whether it belongs only to particular congregations, which are manifested not to be of God's primary intention, but for our necessity. Evidence for national churches under the gospel. A national church government necessary. § 1. I NOW come to the second way, whereby anything comes to be of unalterable divine right, which is, by the posi- tive laws of God, which do bind universally to obedience. In the entrance into this discourse, it is necessary to lay down the ways, whereby we find out a divine positive law determining an unalterable obligation: which must be either by express words of scripture, or by some other certain way, whereby to gather from thence, that it was God's intention to bind men. For the main thing requisite to make a standing universal positive law, is God's declaring his mind, that the thing in- quired into, should unalterably bind men to the practice of it. Now whatever doth sufficiently manifest God's intention, is a medium to find out such a law by, and nothing else: but it must be such a manifestation as gives a man's mind sufficient evidence and testimony whereon to build a true, certain, and divine assent to the thing, as revealed: so that whatsoever binds the conscience as a law, must first be entertained by the understanding as a matter of faith; not as it imports some- thing merely doctrinal and dogmatical, but as it implies the matter of a divine revelation, and the object of an assent upon the credibility of a testimony. For God having the 23 178 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF only immediate authority over the consciences of men, no- thing can bind immediately the conscience but a divine law, neither can anytliing bind as such, but what the understand- ing assents unto, as revealed by God himself. Now the Word of God being the only codex and digest of divine laws, whatever law we look for, must either be found there in ex- press terms, or at least so couched therein, that every one by the exercise of his understanding, may by a certain and easy collection, gather the universal obligation of the thing inquired after. In this case then, whatsoever is not immediately founded upon a divine testimony, carmot be made use of as a medium to infer an universally binding law by: so that all traditions and historical evidence will be unserviceable to us, when we inquire into God's intentions in binding men's con- sciences. Matters of fact, and mere apostolical practice, may I freely grant, receive much light from the records of succeed- ing ages; but they can never give a man's understanding sufficient ground to infer any divine law, arising from those facts attested to be the practice or records of succeeding ages. § 2. For Jirst, The foundation and ground of our assent in this case, is not the bare testimony of antiquity; but the assur- ance which we have, either that their practice did not vary from what was apostolical; or in their writings, that they could not mistake concerning what they deliver unto us: and there- fore those who would infer the necessary obligation of men to any form of government, because that was practised by the apostles, and then prove the apostolical practice from that of the ages succeeding, or from their writings, must first of all prove, that what was done then, was certainly the apostles' practice, and so prove the same thing by itself, or that it was impossible they should vary from it, or that they should mis- take in judging of it: for here something more is required than a mere matter of fact, in which I confess their nearness to the apostles' times doth give them an advantage above the ages following, to discern what it was; but such a practice is re- quired, as infers an universal obligation upon all places, times, and persons. Therefore these things must be manifested, that such things ivere unquestionably the practice of those ages and persons; that their practice teas the same with the apostles; that ivhat they did, luas not from any prudential motives, but by virtue of a law which did bind them to that practice. Which things are easily passed over by the most eager disputers of the controversy about church government, but how necessary they are to be proved before any form of FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 179 government be asserted, so necessarj', that without it there can be no true church, any weak understanding may discern. Secondly, Supposing that apostohcal practice be sufficiently attested by the following ages, yet unless it be cleared from scripture, that it was God's intention that the apostles' actions should continually bind the church, there can be nothing in- ferred that doth concern us in point of conscience. I say, that though the matter of fact be evidenced by posterity, yet the obligatory nature of that fact must depend on scripture: and the apostles' intentions must not be built upon men's bare surmises, nor upon after practices, especially if different from the constitution of things during the apostles' times. And here those have somewhat whereon to exercise their under- standings, who assert an obligation upon men to any form of government, by virtue of an apostolical practice; which must of necessity suppose a different state of things from what they were when the apostles first established governors over churches. As how those who were appointed governors over particular congregations by the apostles, come to be by virtue of that ordination, governors over many congregations of like nature and extent with that over which they were set: and whether, if it were the apostles' intention that such gov- ernors should be always in the church, is it not necessary that that intention of theirs be declared by a standing law, that such there must be, for here matter of fact and practice can be no evidence, when it is supposed to be different from the con- stitution of churches afterwards: but of this more hereafter. Thirdly, Supposing any form of government in itself ne- cessary, and that necessity not determined by a law in the word of God, the scripture is thereby apparently argued to be insufficient for its end; for then deficit in necessariis, "is deficient in necessary matters;" some things are necessary for the church of God which the scripture is wholly silent in. I say not, that every thing about church government must be written in scripture; but supposing any one form necessary, it must be there commanded, or the scripture is an imperfect rule, which contains not all things necessary by way of pre- cept: for there can be no other necessity universal, but either by way of Tneans to an end, or by way of divine command. I know none will say, that any particular form of govern- ment is necessary absolutely, by way of means to an end; for certainly, supposing no obligation from scripture, government by an equality of power in the officers of the church, or by superiority of one order above another, is indifferent in order 180 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF to the general ends of government, and one not more neces- sary than the other. If any one form then be necessary, it must be by that of command; and if there be a command universally binding, whose footsteps cannot be traced in the word of God, how can the scriptures be a perfect rule, if it fails in determining binding laws? So that we must, if we own the scripture's sufficiency as a binding rule, appeal to that about anything pleaded as necessary, by virtue of any divine command: and if such a law cannot be met with in scripture, which determines the case in hand one way or other by way of necessary obligation, I have ground to look upon that which is thus left undetermined by God's positive laws, to be a matter of Christian liberty; and that neither part is to be looked upon as necessary for the church of God, as exclusive of the other. § 3, This I suppose is the case, as to particular forms of government in the church of God: but that I may not only suppose but prove it, I now come to the stating of the ques- tion, which if ever necessary to be done anywhere, it is in the controversy of church government, the most of men's heats in this matter arising from want of right understanding the thing in question between them. In the stating the question, I shall proceed by degrees, and show how far we acknow- ledge anything belonging to government in the church to be of an unalterable divine right. First, That there must be a form of government in the church of God, is necessary by virtue, not only of that law of nature which provides for the preservation of societies, but likewise by virtue of that divine law, which takes care for the church's preservation in peace and unity. I engage not here in the controversy, whether a particular congregation be the first political church or not; it sufficeth for my purpose, that there are other churches besides particular congregations : I mean, not only the Catholic visible church, which is the first, not only in order of consi- deration, but nature too, as a totum integrate, "an integral whole," before the similar parts of it, but in respect of all other accidental modifications of churches, from the several ways of their combination together. They who define a church by stated worshipping congregations, do handsomely, as logicians say, "beg the question," i. e. beg to be granted what they desire, by placing that in their definition of a church, which is the thing in question: which is, whether there be no other church but such particular congregations? Which is as if one should go about to prove, that there were FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 181 no civil societies but in particular corporations, and to prove it, should give such a definition of civil society, that it is, a company of men joined together in a corporation, for the pre- servation of their rights and privileges, under the governors of such a place. It must be first proved, that no other com- pany of men can be called a civil society besides a corpora- tion: and so that no other society of men joining together in the profession of the true religion, can be called a church, but such as join in particular congregations. § 4. To which purpose it is very observable, that particular congregations are not de primarid intentione divind, "of the primary divine intention," for if the whole world could join together in the public worship of God, no doubt that would be most properly a church, but particular congregations are only accidental, in reference to God's intention of having a church, because of the impossibility of all men's joining together for the convenient distribution of church privileges, and adminis- tration of gospel ordinances. For it is evident, that the pri- vileges and ordinances, do immediately and primarily belong to the catholic visible church, in which Christ to that end hath set officers, as the apostle clearly expresseth, 1 Corinth, xii. 28, (for how apostles should be set as officers over particular congregations, whose commission extended to the whole world, is, I think, somewhat hard to understand,) but for the more convenient participation of privileges and ordinances, particular congregations are necessary. This will be best illustrated by examples. We read, [Esther i. 3,) that King Jihasuerus made a feast for all his princes and servants. Doubtless the king did equally respect them all as a body in the feasting of them, and did bestow his entertainment upon them all as considered together; but by reason of the great multitude of them, it was impossible that they should all be feasted together in the same room; and therefore for more convenient participation of the king's bounty, it was neces- sary to divide themselves into particular companies, and to associate as many as conveniently could in order to that end. So it is in the church, Christ in donation of privileges equally respects the whole church; but because men cannot all meet together to participate of these privileges, a more particular distribution was necessary for that end. But a clearer example of this kind we have yet in scripture, which is, Mark vi. 39, in our Saviour's feeding the multitude with five loaves and two fishes; where we see our Saviour's primary intention was to feed the whole multitude, bnt for their more convenient 1S2 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP partaking of this food, our Saviour commands them to sit down avfiTtogia, GvnTibdM, "hy companies," according to the Hebraism of ingeminating the words, to note the distribution of them, and therefore tlie Vulg. Lat. renders it secundum contuberniu, "by tent-fellowship, or companies," that is 6ia- fisfiE^isfisvQi, "distributed among themselves," as Curnerarhis expounds it, according to so many companies and divisions as might conveniently sit together, as at a table; where we plainly see this distribution was only accidental, as to Christ's primary intention of feeding the multitude, and was only ne- cessary for their own convenience. Thus the case is evident, as to the church of God, it is our necessity and convenience which makes several congregations of the catholic visible church, and not God's primary intention, when he bestowed such privileges upon the church, that it should be understood of particular congregations, § 5, If then particular congregations be only accidental for our convenience, it evidently follows that the primary notion of a church doth not belong to these; nor that these are the first subject of government which belongs to a church as such, and not as crumbled into particular congregations; although the actual exercise of government be most visible and discernible there; because the joining together for par- ticipation of gospel ordinances must be in some particular company or other associated together for that end, Where- ever then we find the notion of a church particular, there must be government in that church; and why a national society incorporated into one civil government, joining in the profession of Christianity, and having a right thereby to par- ticipate of gospel ordinances in the convenient distributions of them into particular congregations, should not be called a church; I confess 1 can see no reason. The main thing ob- jected against it, is, that a churcli implies an actual joining together for participation of all gospel ordinances; but as this, as I said before, is only a begging the question, so I say now, that actual communion with any particular congregation, is not absolutely necessary to a member of a church; for sup- posing one baptized at sea, where no settled congregation is, (nor any more society than that which Aristotle calls tfu^rtxota, "voyage fellowship,") yet such a one is thereby a member of the church of God, though not of any congregation; so likewise a church then may consist of such as have a right to ordinances, without the inserting their actual participation of them in fixed congregations. A particular church then I would define thus: FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 183 That it is, a society of men joining together in the visible pro- fession of the true faith; having a right to, and enjoying among themselves the ordinances of the gospel. That a whole nation professing Christianity, in which the ordinances of the gospel are duly administered in particular congrega- tions, is such a society, is plain and evident. A clear in- stance of such a national constitution of a church under the gospel, we have in the prophecy of the conversion of Egypt and Assyria in gospel times. Isaiah xix. 19, 21, 24, 25. W^e have EgypVs professing the true faith, and enjoying gos- pel ordinances, verse 19, 21, which, according to the pro- phetical style are set down under the representation of such things as were then in use among the Jews; by an altar in the midst of the land, verse 19. The altar noting the true worship of God; and being in the midst of the land, the universal owning of this v/orship by all the people of the land. God owns them for a church, verse 25. Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people. The very name whereby Israel was called while it was a church; 'n;r, "ammi," Hosea ii. I. And when God unchurched them, it was under this name, 'd;? n'?, "Lo- Amnii, ye are not my people." As much then as Israel was a church when God owned it for his people: so should Egypt be upon their conversion to the faith of Christ, which was done upon Mark''s preaching at Mexandria not long after the death of Christ. § 6. This then we have now briefly cleared, that a nation joining in profession of Christianity, is a true church of God: whence it evidently follows, that there must be a form of ecclesiastical government over a nation as a church, as well as of civil government, over it, as a society governed by the same laws. Therefore some make this necessary to a na- tional church, 7iational union in one ecclesiastical body in the same community of ecclesiastical government.^ For every society must have its government belonging to it as such a society, and the same reason that makes government I'.ecessary in any particular congregation, will make it neces- sary for all the particular congregations joining together in one visible society as a particular national church. For the unity and peace of that church, ought much more to be looked after than of any one particular congregation, inas- much as the peace of all the particular combinations of men ' Hudson of the Church, cap. 1, sect. 3. 184 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF for participation of ordinances doth depend upon, and is comprehended in the peace of the whole.. But though I say from hence that some form of pubUc government by the subordination of particular assemblies to the government of the whole body of them is necessary, yet I am far from asserting the necessity of any one form of that government, much more, from saying that no national church can subsist without one national officer, as the high-priest under the law, or one national place of worship, as the temple was. The want of considering of which, viz. that national churches may subsist without that form of them under the Jews, is doubtless the great ground of men's quarrelling against them; but with what reason, let men impartially judge. This then we agree, that some form of government is necessary in every particular church, and so that government in the church of divine and unalterable right; and that not only of particular congregations, but of all societies which may be called churches, whether provincial or national. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 185 CHAPTER II. Tlic second concession is, that churcii government formally considered, must be administered by officers of divine appointment. To that end, the continuance of a Gospel ministry fully cleared from all those arguments, by which posi- tive laws are proved immutable. The reason of the appointment of it con- tinues; the dream as to a seculum spiritHs sancti discussed, first broached by the Mendicant Friars. Its occasion and unreasonableness shown. God's de- claring the perpetuity of a Gospel ministry, Matth. xxviii. 19, explained. A novel interpretation largely refuted. The world to come, what. A ministry necessary for the church's continuance, Ephes. iv. 12, explained and vindi- cated. § 1. Secondly, that the government of the church ought to be administered by officers of divine appointment, is another thing I will yield to be of divine right; but the church here I take not in that latitude which I did in the former concession, but I take it chiefly here for the members of the church, as distinct from officers, as it is taken in ^cts XV. 22. So that my meaning is, that there must be a standing perpetual ministry in the church of God, whose care and employment must be, to oversee and govern the people of God, and to administer gospel ordinances among them, and this is of divine and perpetual right. That officers were ap- pointed by Christ in the church for these ends at first, is evi- dent from the direct affirmation of scripture, God hath set in the chio'ch, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, S)-c. 1 Corinth, xii. 28; Eph. v. 8, 11, and other places to the same purpose. This being then a thing acknowledged, that they were at first of divine institution, and so were appointed by a divine positive law, which herein determines and re- strains the law of nature, (which doth not prescribe the cer- tain qualifications of the persons to govern this society, nor the instalment or admission of them into this employment, viz. by ordination.) The only inquiry then left is. Whether a standing gospel ministry be such a positive law, as is to 24 156 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF remain perpetually in the church, or not? which I shall make appear by those things which I laid down in the entrance of this treatise, as the notes whereby to know when positive laws are unalterable. § 2. The first was, when the same reason of the command continues still; and what reason is there why Christ should appoint officers to rule his church then, which will not hold now? Did the people of God need ministers then to be as Stars,^ (as they are called in scripture,) to lead them unto Christ, and do they not as well need them now? Had people need of guides then,^ when the doctrine of the gospel luas confirmed to them by miracles^ and have they not much more now? Must there be some then to oppose gainsayers,^ and must they have an absolute liberty of prophesying now, when it is foretold what times of seduction the last shall be?^ Must there be some then to rule over their charge, as they that must give an account,^ and is not the same required still? Were there some then to reprove, rebuke, exhort, to preach in season, out of season,'^ and is there not the same necessity of these things still? Was it not enough then, that there were so many in all churches that had extraordinary gifts of tongues, pj'ophesying, praying, interpretation of tongues,^ but besides those there were some pastors by office, whose duty it was to give attendance to reading, to be wholly in these things;'^ and now when these extraordinary gifts are ceased, is not there a much greater necessity than there was then, for some to be set apart and wholly designed for this work? Were ordinances only then administered by those whom Christ co?7imissio)ied,^° and such as derived their au- thority from them; and what reason is there that men should arrogate and take this employment upon themselves now? If Christ had so pleased, could he not have left it wholly at liberty for all believers to have gone about preaching the gospel? or why did he make choice of twelve apostles chiefly for that work, were it not his will to have some particularly to dispense the gospel? and if Christ did then separate some for that work, what reason is there why that office should be thrown common now, which Christ himself enclosed by his own appointment? 1 Rev. i. 16. 2Heb. xiii. 7. 3 Heb. ii. 3. ■» Titus i. 9. 5 2 Tim. iii. 1. 6 Heb. xiii. 17. 7 2 Tim. iv. 2. « Cor. xiv. 9 1 Tim. iv. 13. 'o Matlh. xxviii. 18. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. " 187 § 3. There can be no possible reason imagined, why a gospel ministry should not continue still, unless it be that fanatic pretence oi secuhim spiriius sancti,"a.n over-strained^ view of a dispensation of the spirit," which dispenses with the use of all means of instruction, and gospel ordinances; which pretence is not so novel as most imagine; for setting aside the montanistical spirit in the primitive times, which acted upon principles much of the same nature with these we now speak of: the first rise of this ignis fatuus was from the bogs of popery, viz. from the orders of the Domhiicans and Franciscans, about the middle of the twelfth century. For no sooner did the patiperes de Lugdtmo,ihe "paupers of Lyons," called so in derision, or the Waldenses appear, making use of the word of God to confute the whole army of popish tradi- tions, but the Dominicans and Franciscans finding themselves worsted at every turn while they disputed that ground, found out a stratagem whereby to recover their own credit, and to beat their adversaries quite out of the field. Which was, that the gospel which the Waldenses^ adhered to so much, was now out of date, and instead of that the friars broached another gospel out of the writings of the Abbot Joachim, and CyriVs visions, which they blasphemously named Evange- lium spiritus sancti, " the gospel of the holy spirit," Evan- gelium novum, " the new gospel," and Evangelium xter- num, " the eternal gospel," as Gulielmus de Sancto Amore, their great antagonist, relates in his book de periculis noviss. temporum, " on the dangers of the late times," purposely designed against the impostures of the mendicant friars, who then like locusts, rose in multitudes with their shaven crowns out of the bottomless pit. This gospel of the spirit they so much magnified above the gospel of Christ, that the same author relates these words of theirs concerning it;^ " that it exceeded it as much as the kernel doth the shell, or the light of the sun doth that of the moon." We see then from what quarter of the world this new light began to rise: but so much for this digression. To the thing itself. § 4. If there be such a dispensation of the spirit which takes away the use of the ministry and ordinances, it did either ' To the neglect of the word of God, and an ignorance of the nature of man, who is one party in the covenant. 2 Matthajus Paris, hist. Angl. in Hen. 3. A. 1257, p. 939. Ed. Vatsii, cap. 8, apud. Balseuni. App. de vit. Pontif. p. 480. 3 Quod coraparatum ad cvangeUiim Chrisli, tanto plus perfectionis ac dignita- tis habet, quantum sol ad lunam comparatus, aut ad nucleum testa." 188 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP commence from the time of the effusion of the spirit upon the apostles, or some time since. Not then; for even of those who had the most large portion of the spirit poured upon them, we read that they continued in all gospel ordinances, Jicts ii. 42, and amongst the chief, tri hiha-xn t^^v Artos-oxwv, under the apostles^ ministry, it may be better rendered than in the apostles^ doctrine. And which is most observable, the pro- phecy of t/oe/ about the spirit, is then said to be fulfilled, .^c/* ii. 17. Besides, if either that place of Joel, or that of Jere- miah, cited Heb. viii. 11, or the unction of the spirit, 1 John ii. 20, 27, did take away the use of preaching, hov/ did the apostles themselves understand their meaning, when they were so diligent in preaching and instructing others. John writes to those, "/o try the spirits,''^ of whom he saith, ^'they have an unction to knoiv all things:''^ and those to whom the apostle writes, that "they need not teach every one his neigh- bor;''' of them he saith, "that they had need to he taught the first principles of the oracles of God.'^^ And even in that very chapter where he seems to say, they that are under the new covenant, need not be taught, he brings that very speech in as an argument, that the old dispensation of the law was done away: and so goes about to teach, when he seems to take aivay the use of it. These speeches then must not be understood in their absolute and literal sense, but with a re- flection upon, and comparison with, the state of things in the times wherein those prophecies were uttered. For God, to heighten the Jeivs' apprehensions of the great blessings of the gospel, doth set them forth under a kind of hyperbolical ex- pressions,"* that the dull capacity of the Jews might at least apprehend the just weight and magnitude of them, which they would not otherwise have done. So in the place oi Jeremiah,^ God to make them understand how much the knowledge of the gospel exceeded that under the law, doth as it were set it down in this hyperbolical way, that it will exceed it as much, as one that needs no teaching at all, doth one that is yet but in his rudiments of learning. So that the place doth not deny the use of teaching under the gospel, but because teaching doth commonly suppose ignorance, to show the great measure of knowledge, he doth it in that way, as though the know- j^ ledge should be so great, that men should not need be taught in ' 1 John iv. 1. 2 1 John ii. 20. 3 Hcl). V. 12. 4 Calvin in Joel ii. 28. " Jcr. xxxi. .SI. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 1S9 such a way of rudiments as the Jeivs were, viz. by types and ceremonies, and such things. We see then no such dispensa- tion was in the apostles' times; for the same apostle after this, in chapter x. 25, bids them "7zo/ to forsake the assembling themselves together as some didf^ wherefore were these assembhes, but for instruction? and in the last chapter, '-'■bids them obey their rulers.''^'^ What need rulers, if no need of teaching? But so senseless a dream will be too much lionoured with any longer confutation. In the apostles' times, then, there was no such dispensation of the spirit, which did take away the use of ministry and ordinances. If it be expected since their times, I would know whence it appears, that any have a greater measure of the spirit than was poured out in the apostles' times; for then the ministry was joined with the spirit: and what prophecies are fulfilled now, which were not then? Or if they pretend to a doctrine distinct from, and above, what the apostles taught, let them produce their evi- dences, and work those miracles which may induce men to believe them. Or let them show what obligation any have to believe preiended new revelations, witliout a power of miracles, attesting that those revelations come from God? Or whereon men must build their faith, if it be left to the dictates of a pretended spirit of revelation? Or what way is left to discern the good spirit from the bad, in its actings upon men's minds, if the word of God be not our rule still? Or iiow God is said to have spoken "m the last days by his son,^^^ if a further speaking be yet expected? For the gospel dispensa- tion is therefore called the last days, because no other is to be expected: times being ditferenced in scripture according to God's ways of revealing himself to men. But so much for this. § 5. The second way whereby to know when positive laws are unalterable, is when God hath declared that such laws shall bind still. Two ways whereby God doth express his own will concerning the perpetuity of an office founded on his own institution. First, If such things be the work be- longing to it, which are of necessary and perpetual use. .S'e- condly, If God hath promised to assist them in it perpetually, in the doing of their work. First, the object of the ministerial office are such things which are of necessary and perpetual use; I mean the administration of gospel ordinances; viz. the • Heb. X. 25. 2 Heb. xiii. 7. ^ Heb. i. 1. 190 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF word and sacraments, which were appointed by Christ for a perpetual use. The word as a means of conversion and edification; the sacraments not only as notes of distinction of professors of the true faith from others, but as seals to confirm the truth of the covenant on God's part towards us, and as instruments to convey the blessings sealed in the covenant to the hearts of believers. Now the very nature of these things doth imply their perpetuity and continuance in the world, as long as there shall be any church of God in it. For these things are not typi rerum futurarum only, " ceremonies or types to represent things to come," but they are symbola rerum invisibilium, "signs to represent to our senses things invisible" in their own nature: and between these two there is a great difference, as to the perpetuity of them: for types of things to come, must of necessity expire when the thing typified appears; but representation of invisible things cannot expire on that account, because the thing represented being invisible, can- not be supposed to be made visible, and so to dispense with the use of the signs which represent them to us. Types re- present a thing which is at present invisible; but under the notion of it as future. Symbols represent a thing at present invisible, but as present; and therefore symbols are designed by God's institution for a perpetual help to the weakness of our faith. And therefore the Lord's supper is appointed to set forth the Lord's death till he come;^ whereby the con- tinuance of it in the church of God is necessarily implied. Now then, if these things which are the proper object of the ministerial function be of a perpetual nature, when these things are declared to be of an abiding nature, it necessarily follows, that that function to which it belongs to administer these things, must be of a perpetual nature. § 6. Especially if we consider in the second place, that Christ hath promised to be with them continually in the ad- ministration of these things: for that, notwithstanding the dust lately thrown upon it, we have a clear place, Matth. xxviii. 19. Go teach and baptize^ SfC., Lo I am luith you ahvays, to the end of the ivorld. If ^atfaj r-aj ij^s^aj, " all days, or always," did not signify perpetuity, yet certainly the latter words do; for how could Christ otherwise be with the apostles themselves personally to the end of the world? He must be therefore with them, and all that succeed them in the office of teaching and baptizing, to the world's end: for that I 1 I Cor. xi. 26, FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 191 assert lo be the meaning of jwf tT^ gvtt-Knas tov aiuvos. 1 insist not barely on the signification of the word aiuv,^ either as to its supposed etymology, or as it answers the Hebrew di)};^ knowing how fallible the arguments drawn from thence are, when in the dispute of the eternity of the law of Moses with the Jews, it is confessed that dSi;^ relates only to a long con- tinuance of time. But however, I suppose that it will hardly be found in scripture, that either aicov or D'l)},^ doth barely relate to the time of life of any individual persons, especially, if absolutely put as it is here. One great signification of aiuv in the New Testament, (which we are to inquire into, and not how it is used among Greek authors,) is that wherein aiuv is taken for the world itself, which Vo7'stius reckons among the Hebraisms of the New Testament,^ in which sense the Jews call God oSij^n 3i " the great eternal," and great persons ih\^r\ ^h^^^ Magnates mundi, " the great ones of the earth," in which sense, in the New Testament, the devil is called 6 a^x^^ -toy avavoi tovtov, "the priucc of tliis world," John xii. 31. — xiv. 30, and 6 Osoi 'tov aiuvoi 'tovtov, " the god of this world," 2 Cor. iv. 4. And so God is said to create tovi anovai, " the toorlds," Heb. i. 2. — xi. 3. If we take it in this sense, Christ's promise must of necessity relate to the dissolution of the fabric of the world, and that he would be with his servants in the gospel, till all things be dissolved. Against this it is pleaded that the Gvvti%Ei.a, or "end," here relates to the de- struction of Jerusalem, and that aiujv implies the state of things under the law, which would continue till Jerusalem were destroyed, from which time a new atwv would commence. But to this I answer, first; I absolutely deny, that cwtckiia tov aiavoi, doth evcr in scripture relate to the destruction of the Jewish state. This will be best made out by a particular view of the places wherein this phrase occurs. The first time we meet with this phrase is in Matth. xiii. where we have it thrice, ver. 39, 6 Se ^fpts/to; ewtiXBia tov aiwos aft: now can any be so senseless; as to imagine that the harvest wherein the ' Aifwv, "Eternity;" (1), Absolutely; (2), Past eternity; (3), Eternity to come. (4), This word if applied to a being of endless duration, its meaning is equivalent to the same; (5), if to a being of secular duration, as to a whole dispensation, a world or system of worlds, its meaning is commensurate to their whole exist- ence, which is virtually eternity to it or to those beings. It has no sense more limited than this. Therefore it never signifies an age in the ordinary accepta- tion of that English term. W"hat say the universalists to this? — Am. Ed. 2 This Hebrew word is the exact parallel to awv, and has the same significa- tions. — Am. Ed. 3 Philolog. Sacr. de Hebr. N. T. cap. 2. 192 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF tares shall be gathered, and cast into'unquenchable fire, when the angels are said to be the reapers, and to gather out of Christ's kingdom every thing that offends, should be attributed to the destruction of Jerusalem'^ and so ver. 40, and ver. 49, where the same phrase expresseth the same time, 011*10? fjat tv tri avvtsxsia tov atwi/oj, " Thus shall it be in the end of the world;" where the antecedents and consequents fully declare, what time there is meant, which is the general judgment of the world. The only place pleaded for this sense, is Matthew xxiv. 3, where the disciples inquire of Christ what should be the sign, t'ijj si?? jta^ovsMi xat "tfji awrtxsMi Tfov atcoroj, " of thy coming, and of the end of the world;" where granting, that the former Christ's coming may respect his coming to alter the present state of things, according to the Jews' apprehen- sion of the Messias; yet I deny that the latter doth, but it respects the general destruction of the world, consequent upon that alteration: for the Jews not only expected an alteration of the present state of things among them, but a consequent destruction of the world, after the coming of the Messias, ac- cording to that speech of theirs cited by Doctor Lightfoot. D''J5y ^Sx nnn nr &)y; "This world shall be destroyed for 1000 years," and after that soS "I'n;; "there should be the state of eternity."^ So that the disciples, speaking in the sense of the Jews, do not only inquire of the signs of his altering the present state of things among them, but likewise of the de- struction of the whole world too. Accordingly it is observa- ble, that throughout that chapter, our Saviour intermixeth his answers to these two questions. Sometimes speaking in reference to the Jewish state, as it is plain he doth, verse 15, 16, and so on; and when he saith, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled, verse 34. But then it is as evident, that some places must relate to the destruction of the world, as when he saith, Of that day and hour know- eth no man, no not the angels of Heaven, but the Father only, verse 36, which will appear more plainly, by comparing it with Mark xiii. 32. Where the Son is excluded from knoiv- ing that hour too; but how can any say, that the Son did not know the time of the destruction o{ Jerusalem, which he him- self foretold when it should be? And those words. Heaven and earth shall pass away, verse 35, seem to be our Saviour's transition to the answer of the other question, about the final destruction of all things. However that be, as we see no < HoroB hcbr. in Matth. xxiv. 3, p. 262. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 193 reason at all why gvvei%ci.a ■tov ai-wvoj, should only respect the subversion of the Jewish state: but supposing it should, yet there is far less reason why it should be so meant, in the place of the sense we are inquiring into. For if by Christ's coming to destroy Jerusalem^ the old state and dispensation should be taken away, we must suppose a new state under the Messias to begin from thence. And how rational doth this sound, that Christ should promise his peculiar presence with his own apostles, whom he employed in erecting the gospel state, only till the old Jewish state be subverted; but his pro- mise not at all to extend to that time, wherein the state of the kingdom of the Messias should be set up instead of it: and how could any of the apostles, for example, Saint John, who survived the destruction oi Jerusalem, ex\iec{ Christ's presence with him, by virtue of this promise, if it extended no further than to the destruction of the Jewish state? Besides, it is a mere groundless fancy, and savours of the Jewish apprehen- sions of the state of the Messias' kingdom, to imagine that the temporal state of Jertisalem must be first subverted before that atwv or dispensation of things was at an end. For the Jewish state and dispensation did not lie in the Jewish polity, but in obligation to the Law of Moses, which expired together with Christ. And so the gospel state, which is called the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Begeneration^ began upon Christ's resurrection and ascension, v/hen he was solemnly (as it were) inaugurated in his Mediatory kingdom. And pre- sently after sends down his Viceroy upon the day of Pente- cost, in the effusion of the spirit upon the apostles,^ making good his promise of the Paraclete to supply his absence: whereby the apostles were more signally empowered for the advancing of the gospel state. § 7. The dtcov then of the gospel commenceth from Christ's resurrection, and to this diwr I am very inclinable to think that our Saviour hath reference in these words, when he saith, he luill be ivith his disciples to the end of that dtw, if we take it for a state of things, or the gospel dispensation; that is, as long as the evangelical church shall continue. For that in scripture is sometimes called the world to come, and that phrase among the Jews^ of xnn nS;;, "the world to come," is set to express the times of the Messias; and it may be the apostle may refer to this,-* when he speaks of apostates tasting 1 Matth. xix. 28. 2 Acts ii. 1. 3 Heb. ii. 5. Lightfoot Horae. Hebr. in Matth. xii. 32, p. 173. 4 Heb. vi. 5. 25 194 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Swafic^i ts fjiivKovtoi dtuj/oj, that IS, the force and energy of the gospel preached; whence the khigdom of God is said to be not (V -koyu, but iv bvvan.il,, "not iti word, but in power," which is the ttrto5«t|t5 mvivfiatoi xav 5wajU«' 'jx, "the everlasting Father/' the Septuagint renders it by jia.tri^ tov fjt.£%.%ovloi aiwo?, and so the vulgar Latin. Pater futuri sseculi^ "the Father of the world to come:"^ that is, the gospel state, and to this sense Christ is said to be made an high priest/ tuv Hs-KXovtc^v dya^w*', " of goods things to come," and the law to be a shadow •fui/ fiB^xov-tiov dya^wf, "of good things wliich should be under the new state of the gospel."'' And which is more plain to the purpose, the apostle expresseth what was to come to pass in the days of the gospel,* iv to/.^ dMot -toi? i}ii^x°{*-^voii, " in the ages to come," where the very word dtwv is used to this sense. And according to this importance of the word dtw, some very probably interpret that place of our Saviour*^ concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost, that it should not be forgiven ovtB tv -tov-tio Ti'to aiuivv, ovts iv fa fie'kxovti, "neither in the present state" of the Jewish church, wherein there is no sacrifice of expiation for contumacious sinners,^ but they that despised Moses' law died without mercy; so neither shall there be, any under the "world to come," that is, the dispensation of gospel grace, any pardon proclaimed to any such sinners who trample under foot the blood of the covenant, and offer de- spite to the spirit of grace.^ Thus we see how properly the word Q.i,av may agree here to the gospel state, and so Christ's promise of his presence doth imply the perpetuity of that office as long as the evangelical state shall remain, which will be to the world's end. § 8. The third thing, whereby to know when positive in- stitutions are unalterable, is, when they are necessary to the being, succession, and continuance of the church of God. Now this yields a further evidence of the perpetuity of officers in the church of God, seeing the church itself cannot be preserved without the government; and there can be no government without some to rule the members of the church of God, and to take care for a due administration of church 1 1 Cor. iv. 20. 2 ] Cor. ii. 4. 3 Isaiah ix. 5; Heb. ix. 11. ^ Hcb. x. 1. 6 Epli. ii. 7. 6 Matth. xii. 32. 7 D. Reynolds on Hosea xiv. 3. s Hcb. x. 27, 27, 28. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 195 privileges, and to inflict censures upon offenders, which is the power tliey are invested in by the same authority which was the ground of tlieir institution at first. It is not conceivable how any society, as the church is, can be preserved without the continuance of church officers among them. As long as the body of Christ must be edified, there must be some xatripttsfilvoc, tU e^yav Siaxovia;, "fitted for the work of the minis- try," which is appointed in order to that end. For that I suppose is the apostle's meaning in Ephes. iv. 12,^ following the Complutensian copy, leaving out the comma between aytwi' and Etj f^yoj/, which makes as though it were a distinct thing from the former; whereas the original carries the sense on; for otherwise it should have been stj xa'ta.^-ti.afiov -tuv dytac, SIS epyov fiiaxoj'taj, &c. and those who follow the ordinary read- ing, are much at a loss how to explain that it; Ipyov Staxovia^ coming in so in the midst without dependence upon the former. Therefore the viUgate Latin best renders it ad con- sum,m,ationem sanctorum, ad opus ministerii; "for the com- pleting of the saints for the work of the ministry, in order to the building up of the body of Christ;" and to this purpose Musculus informs us, the German version renders it. And so we understand the enumeration in the verse before^ of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, not for the persons themselves, but for the gifts of those persons, the office of apostles, evangelists, pastors, 4"C. which is most suitable to the Ihi^xs Soixata in the eighth verse. He gave gifts to men; now these gifts, saith he, Christ gave to men n^oi xata^tt'Sfidv -tav ayiiov £15 t^yov SvaxovoaiiJOr the fitting the Saints for the ivork of the ministry. Not as a late democratical i^rzVer would persuade us, as though all the saints were thereby fitted for this work of the ministry, (for that the apostle ex- cludes by the former enumeration;) for, are all the saints fitted for apostles? are all prophets, are all evangelists, are all pastors and teachers? as the apostle himself elsewhere argues, and in the eighth verse of that chapter,^ he particularly men- tions the several gifts qualifying men for several useful em- ployments in the church of God, the spirit dividing to every man severally as he will. Therefore it cannot be that all the saints are hereby fitted for this work; but God hath scattered these gifts among the saints, that those who have them might 2 Eph. iv. 11. 3 1 Cor. xii. 29, 8, 9, 10, 11. 196 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF be fitted, si^ e^yov Staxoi/taj, "for the work of the ministry," because God would not leave his church without persons qualified for the service of himself in the work of the minis- try, in order to the building up of the body of Christ. And by the -tuv Lyiav, here may be meant no other than those he speaks of in the chapter before, when he speaks of the reve- lation made ■folV aytoij artoyoXotj aviov xao ft^o^tj-tcki^, "tO his holy apostles and prophets,"^ and so God gave these gifts for the fitting the holy apostles, &c. for the work of the ministry. It cannot be meant of all, so as to destroy a peculiar function of the ministry; for GoiVs very giving these gifts to some and not to others, is an evidence that the function \s peculiar. For else had the gifts been common to all, every saint had been an apostle, every believer a pastor, and teacher, and then where had the people been that must have been ruled and governed? So that this very place doth strongly assert both the peculiarity of the function, from the peculiarity of gifts in order to fitting men for it; and the perpetuity of the function from the end of it, the building up of the body of Christ, Thus I have now asserted the perpetual divine right of a gospel ministry, not only for teaching the word, but adminis- tration of ordinances, and governing the church as a society: which work belongs to none but such as are appointed for it, who are the same Avith the dispensers of the word, as ap- pears from the titles of ^^you^ti/oi, ri^os^uitsi, rtoifisvss, "governors, rulers, pastors,"^ all which necessarily imply a governing power, which having been largely proved by others, and yielded by me, I pass over. 1 Eph. iii. 5. 2 Heb. xiii. 7, 17; 1 Tim. v. 17; Eph. iv. 11. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 197 CHAPTER III. The question fully stated. Not what form of government comes the nearest to the primitive practice, but whether any be absolutely determined. Several things propounded for resolving the question. What the form of church government was under the law. How far Christians are bound to observe that. Neither the necessity of superiority, nor the unlawfulness can be proved thence. § 1. And now I come to the main subject of the present controversy, which is acknowledging a form of government necessary, and the governors of the church perpetual; whether the particular form whereby the church must be governed, be determined by any positive law of God, which unalterably binds all Christians to see the observation of it? By church here, I mean not a particular congregation, but such a society which comprehends in it many of these less congregations united together in one body under a form of government. The forms of government in controversy, the question being thus stated, are only these two, the particular officers of seve- ral churches, acting in an equality of power, which are com- monly called a college of presbyters; or a superior order above the standing ministry, having the power of jurisdiction and ordination belonging to it by virtue of a divine institution. Which order is by an antonomasia^ called episcopacy. The question now, is not, which of these two doth come the nearest to apostolical practice, and the first institution, which hath hitherto been the controversy so hotly debated among us; but whether either of these two forms be so settled by a jus divinum, that is, be so determined by a positive law of God, that all the churches of Christ are bound to observe that one form so determined, without variation from it; or whether Christ hath not in setthng of his church, (provided there be ' A rhetorical figure, by which a name different from the proper name is given to a thing. 198 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF some form of government, and a settled ministry for the exer- cise of it,) left it to the prudence of every particular church, consisting of many congregations, to agree upon its own form which it judgeth most conducing to the end of government in that particular church. Avtov ^o9oi, avfov rti^S^^^a.^ Here now we fix ourselves, and the first thing we do, is to agree upon our ways of resolution of this question, whereby to come to an end of this debate. And the most probable way to come to an issue in it, is, to go through all the ways whereon men do fix an unalterable divine right, and to see whether any of these do evince a divine right settled upon a positive law or not, for one of these forms. The pleas then for such a divine right are these; either some formal law standing in force under the gospel, or some plain institution of a new law by Christ in forming his church, or the obligatory nature of apos- tolical practice, or the general sense of the primitive church, to which we shall add by way of appendix, the judgment of the chief divines and churches since the reformation; if we go happily through these, we may content ourselves with having obtained the things we aim at. § 2. The first inquiry then is, whether any formal law of God concerning a form of government for his church, either by persons acting in an equality of power, or subordination of one order to another, under the gospel, doth remain in force or not, binding Christians to the observing of it. The reason why I begin with this, is, because 1 observe the dis- putants on both sides make use of the pattern under the law to establish their form by.^ Those who are for superiority of one order above another in the government of the church, derive commonly their first argument from the pattern under the law.^ Those who are for an equality of power in the persons acting in government, yet being for a subordination of courts, they bring their first argument for that, from the Jewish pattern. So that these latter are bound by their own argument, though used in another case, to be ruled in this controversy by the Jewish pattern. For why should it be more obligatory as to subordination of courts, than as to the superiority of orders? If it holds in one case, it must in the ' " 7"'iicrc was tlie roaring of the waves, hence the start, the spring;" equivalent to the Latin motto: hic-carcer, illic meta, that was tiie beginning, this the end of the race; see Adams's Antiquities. 2 B. Bilson Perpet. Govern, cap. 2. B. Andrews' Form of Government in the old T. B. Usiier. Original of Episc. 8 Herl of iudep. p. 4. Apol. Spanhem. omnes. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 199 Other. And if there be such a law for superiority standing unrepealed, there needs no new law to enfore it under the gospel. We shall therefore first inquire what foundation there is for either form in that pattern, and how far the argu- ment drawn from thence is obligatory to us now. For the practice then in the Jewish church, tliat there was no universal equality in the tribe of Levi, which God singled out from the rest for his own service, is obvious in scripture. For tiiere we ^n(\ priests above the Levites; the family oi Aaron being chosen out from the other families of Cohath, (one of the three sous of Levi,) to be employed in a nearer attendance upon God's service than any of the other families. And it must be acknowledged, that among both priests and Levites there was a superiority:^ for God placed Eleazar over the priests, Elizaphan over the Cohathites, Eliasciph over the Gershonites, Ziiriel over the Merarites; and these are called D'N'D'J, "the rulers or princes," over their several families; for it is said of every one of them 3X n':3 army, " he ivas ruler over the house of his fatherP"^ Neither were these equal; for over Eliasaph and Zuriel God placed Ithamar, over Elizaphan and his own family God set Eleazar,^ who by reason of his authority over all the rest, is called "K'tyj ^''Uii, "the ruler of the rulers,^' of Levi, cind besides these there were under these rulers i^'ia ■li'Ni, "Me chief fathers^' of the several distinct families, as they are called, Exodus vi. 26. |]3^ Thus we briefly see the subordination that there was in the tribe oi Levi; the Levites first, over them the heads of the families, over them the rulers, ox the chief o{ the heads, over them Ithamar, over both priests and Levites, Eleazar; over all, Jiaron the high priest. § 3. There being then so manifest an inequality among them, proceed we to show how obligatory this is under the gospel. For that end it will be necessary to consider, whether this imparity and superiority were peculiarly appointed by God for the ecclesiastical government of the tribe of Levi, as it consisted of persons to be employed in the service of God, or it was only such an inequality and superiority as was in any other tribe. If only common with other tribes, nothing can be inferred from thence peculiar to ecclesiastical government under the gospel, any more than from the government of other tribes to the same kind of government in all civil states. We must then take notice that Levi was a particular distinct » Numb. iii. 30, 34, 35. 2 Numb. iv. 28, 32. 3 Numb. iv. 19. 200 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF tribe of itself, and so not in subordination to any other tribe; for each had " the heads of its fathers as tvell as others,"" Exodus vi. 25; and although when they settled in Canaan, their habitations were intermixed with other tribes in their forty-eight cities, yet they were not under the government of those tribes among whom they lived, but preserved their authority and government entire among themselves. And therefore it was necessary that there should be the same form of government among them, which there was among the rest. The whole body of the nation was then divided into thirteen tribes; these tribes into their several families; some say seventy, which they called mnDiyD, "names or families," these were divided into so many "households," D'n:i; "their house- holds into children or persons," D'"i333; over the several per- sons were the several masters of families; over the several households were the captains of one thousand and one hun- dred, fifty and ten. Over the families, I suppose, were the heads of the fathers. And over the thirteen tribes were the mioon nn5< -tyxi, ^'the chief fathers of the tribes''^ of the chil- dren of Israel, Numb, xxxii. 2S, and we have the names of them set down, Numb, xxxiv, 17, &c. So that hitherto, we find nothing peculiar to this tribe, nor proper to it as em- ployed in the service of God. For their several families had their several heads, and Eleazar over them as chief of the tribe. And so we find, throughout Numbers ii. all the heads of the several tribes are named and appointed by God as Eleazar was. § 4. The only things then which seem proper to this tribe, were the superiority of the priests over the Levites in the ser- vice of God, and the super-eminent power of the high priest, as the type of Christ. So that nothing can be inferred from the order under the law as to that under the gospel, but from one of these two. And from the first there can be nothing deduced but this, that as there was a superiority of officers under the law, so likewise should there be under the gospel; which is granted by all in the superiority o{ priests over dea- cons, to whom these two answer in the church of God, in the judgment of those who contend for a higher order by divine institution above presbyters. And withal we must consider, that there was under that order no power of jurisdiction in- vested in the priests over the Levites, but that was in the heads of the families; and ordination there could not be, be- cause their office descended by succession in their several families. Those who would argue from Jiaron\'i power, must FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 201 either bring too little, or too much from thence. Too little, if we consider his office was typical and ceremonial, and as high priest had more immediate respect to God than men, Heb. V. 1, and therefore Eleazar was appointed over the several families during Aaron^s lifetime; and under Eleazar, his son Phinehas. Too much, if a necessity be urged for the contiiuiance of the same authority in the church of God; which is the argument of the papists, deriving the pope's supremacy from thence. Which was acutely done by pope Innocent the third; the father of the Lateran Council, who proved, that the pope may exercise temporal jurisdiction from that place in Deuteronomy xvii. 8, and that by this reason, because Deu- teronomy did imply the second law, and therefore lohat was there written in novo testam,ento debet observari, "must be observed under the gospel," which, acccording to them, is a new law. § 5. All that can be inferred then from the Jewish pattern, cannot amount to any obligation upon Christians, it brings at the best but a judicial law, and therefore binds us not up as a positive law; but only declares the equity of the thing in use then. I conclude then, that the Jewish pattern is no standing law for church government now, either in its common or peculiar form of government; but because there was some superiority of order then, and subordination of some persons to others under that government, that such a superiority and subordination is no ways unlawful under the gospel; for that would destroy the equity of the law. And though the form of government was the same with that of other tribes, yet we see God did not bind them to an equality, because they were for his immediate service, but continued the same way as in other tribes; thence I infer, that as there is no necessary obli- gation upon Christians to continue that form under the Jews, because their laws do not bind us now; so neither is there any repugnancy to this law in such a subordination, but it is very agreeable with the equity of it, it being instituted for peace and order, and therefore ought not to be condemned as anti-Christian. The Jewish pattern then of government neither makes equality unlawful, because their laws do not oblige now; nor doth it make superiority unlawful, because it was practised then. So that notwithstanding the Jewish pattern, the church of Christ is left to its own liberty for the choice of its form of government, whether by an equality of power in some persons, or superiority and subordination of one order to another. 2^ 202 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF CHAPTER IV. Whether Christ hath determined the form of government by any positive laws. Arguments of tlie necessity why Christ must determine it, largely answered; as First, Christ's faithfulness compared with Moses, answered, and retorted, and proved, that Christ did not institute any form of church government, because no such law for it as Moses gave; and we have nothing but general rules, which are applicable to several forms of government. The office of Timothy and Titus, what it proves in order to this question: the lawfulness of Episcopacy shown thence, but not tlie necessity. A particular form, how far necessary, as Christ was the governor of his church; the similitudes the church is set out by, prove not the thing in question. Nor the difference of civil and church government: nor Christ setting officers in his church; nor the inconvenience of the church's power in appointing new officers. Every minister hath a power respecting the church in common, which the church may restrain. Episcopacy thence proved lawful; the argument from the Scriptures' perfection answered. § 1. We come then from the type to the antitype, from the Rod of Aaron to the Root of Jesse, from the pattern of the Jewish church, to the Founder of the Christian: to see whether our Lord and Saviour hath determined this controversy, or any one form of government for his church, by any univer- sally binding act or law of his. And here it is pleaded more hotly by many that Christ must do it, than that he hath done it. And therefore I shall first examine the pretences of the necessity of Christ's determining the particular form; and then the arguments that are brought that he hath done it. The main pleas that there must be a perfect form of church government laid down by Christ for the church of God, are from the comparison of Christ with Moses^ from the equal necessity of forms of i^overnment note ivhich there is for other societies, from the perfection and sufficiency of the scriptures; all other arguments are reducible to these three heads. Of these in their order. ' Heh. i, 2, 5, 6. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 203 Arg. 1. First, From the comparison of Christ luith Moses, they argue thus: if Moses teas faithful in his house as a ser- vant, much more Christ as a son; oioiv Moses appointed a particular form of government for the church under the Old Testament; therefore Christ did certainly lay down a form, of church government for the New Testament. Answ. 1. To this I answer: first, faithfuhiess iirij)Ues the discharge of a trust reposed in one by another: so that it is said verse 2, he ivas faithful to him that appointed him: Christ's faithfulness then lay in discharging the work which his Father laid upon him, wliich was the work of mediation between God and us; and therefore the comparison is here instituted between Moses as typical Mediator, and Christ as the true Mediator; that as Moses was faithful in his work, so was Christ in his. Now Moses' faithfulness lay in keeping close to the pattern received in the mount, that is, observing the commands of God; therefore if Christ's being faithful in his office, doth imply the settling any one form of government in the church, it must be made appear that the settling of this form was part of Christ's mediatory work, and that which the father commanded him to do as mediator; and that Christ received such a form from the Father for the Christian church, as Moses did for the Jewish. To this it is said, that the goverjiment is laid upon ChrisVs shoulders, and all power is in his hands;^ and therefore it belongs to him as mediator. Christ I grant is the King of the church, and doth govern it outwardly by his laws, and inwardly by the conduct of his spirit: but shall we say, that therefore any one form of govern- ment is necessary, which is neither contained in his laws, nor dictated by his spirit? The main original of mistakes here, is, the confounding the external and internal government of the church of Christ, and thence whensoever men read of Christ's power, aitthority and government, they fancy it refers to the outward government of the church of God, which is intended of his internal mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men. But withal I acknowledge that Christ for the better government of his church and people, hath ap- pointed officers in his church, invested them by virtue of his own power with an authority to preach and baptize, and administer all gospel ordinances in his own name, that is, by his authority;^ for it is clearly made known to us in the word of God, that Christ hath appointed these things. But then, I Isa. ix. 6. Matlh. xxviii. 18. 2 Matth. xxviii. 18, 19. 204 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF whether any shall succeed the apostles in superiority of power over presbyters, or all remain governing the church in an equality of power, is nowhere determined by the will of Christ in scripture, which contains his royal law: and there- fore we have no reason to look upon it as anything flowing from the power and authority of Christ as mediator; and so not necessarily binding Christians. §2. Secondly, I answer: if the correspondence between Christ and Moses in their work, doth imply an equal exactness in Christ's disposing of everything in his church, as Moses did among the Jews; then the church of Christ must be equally bound to all circumstances of worship as the Jews were. For there was nothing appertaining in the least to the worship of God, but was fully set down even to the pins of the tabernacle in the law of Moses; but we find no such thing in the gospel. The main duties and ordinances are prescribed indeed, but their circumstances and manner of performance are left as matters of Christian liberty, and only couched under some general rules: which is a great difference between the legal and gospel state. Under the law all ceremonies and circum- stances are exactly prescribed: but in the gospel we read of some general rules of direction for Christians' carriage in all circumstantial things. These four especially contain all the directions of scripture concerning circumstantials. "All things to be done decently and in order.''^ "All to be done for edification. "2 "Give no offence."^ "Do all to the glory of God."^ So that the particular circumstances are left to Chris- tian liberty with the observation of general rules. It is evident as to baptism and the Lord's supper,^ which are unquestion- ably of divine institution, yet as to the circumstances of the administration of them, how much less circumstantial is Christ than Moses was. As to circumcision and the passover under the law, the age, time, persons, manner, place, form, all fully set down; but nothing so under the gospel. Whether baptism shall be administered to infants or not, is not set down in express words, but left to be gathered by analogy and conse- quences; what manner it shall be administered in, whether by dipping or sprinkling, is not absolutely determined; what form of words to be used, whether in the name of all three persons, or sometimes in the name of Christ only, as in the Jicts'^ we read, (if that be the sense, and not rather in Christ's ' 1 Cor. xiv. 40. 2 i Cor. xiv. 26. 3 1 Cor. X. 32. 4 1 Cor. x. 31. 5 Rom. xiv. 6, 7, 6 Acts ii. 38, viii. 12, xix. 5. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 205 name, i. e. by Christ's authority.) Whether sprinkUug or dipping shall be thrice as some churches use it, or only once as others. These things we see relating to an ordinance of divine institution, are yet passed over without any express command determining either way in scripture. So as to the Lord's supper; what persons to be admitted to it, whether all visible professors, or only sincere Christians: upon what terms, whether by previous examination of church officers; or by an open profession of their faith, or else only by their own trial of themselves, required of them as their duty by their minis- ters; whether it should be always after supper as Christ himself did; whether taken fasting, or after meat, whether kneeling, or sitting, or leaning? Whether to be consecrated in one form of words, or several? These things are not thought fit to be determined by any positive commai:d of Christ, but left to the exercise of Christian liberty; the like is as to preaching the word, public prayer, singing of psalms; the duties are required, but the particular modes are left un- determined. The case is the same as to church government. That the church be governed, and that it be governed by its proper officers, are things of divine appointment: but whether the church should be governed by many joining together in an equality, or by subordination of some persons to others, is left to the same liberty which all other circumstances are; this being not the substance of the thing itself, but only the man- ner of performing it. § 3. — Thirdly, I answer, that there is a manifest disparity between the Gospel and Jewish state: and therefore reasons may be given why all punctilios were determined then which are not now: as, 1. The perfection and liberty of the gospel state above the Jewish. The law was only as a pedagogue, the church then in her infancy and nonage, and therefore wanted ihe fescues^ of ceremonies to direct her, and every part of her lesson set her, to bring her by degrees to skill and exactness in her understanding the mystery of the things represented to her. But must the church, now grown up under Christ, be still sub /erw/a, "under the cane," and not dare to vary in any cir- cumstance which doth not concern the thing itself! A boy at school hath his lesson set him, and the manner of learning it prescribed him in every mode and circumstance. But at the university he hath his lectures read him, and his work set, ' "A wire or pointer to siiow children the letters." 206 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF and general directions given, but he is left to his own liberty how to perform his work, and what manner to use in the doing of it. So it was with the church under age. Every mode and circumstance was determined; but when fulness of time was come, the church then being grown up, the main offices themselves were appointed, and general directions given; but a liberty left how to apply and make use of them, as to every particular case and occasion. Things moral remain still in their full force, but circumstantials are left more at liberty by the gospel liberty; as a son that is taught by his father, while he is under his instruction, must observe every particular direction for him in his learning; but when he comes to age, though he observes not those things as for- merly, yet his sonship continues, and he must obey his father as a cliild still, though not in the same manner. The simih- tude is the apostle's, Galat. iv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, which he there largely amplifies to this very purpose of freeing Chris- tians from judaical ceremonies. 2. The form of government among the Jews in the tribe of Levi, was agreeable to the form of government among the other tribes; and so Moses was not more exact in reference to it than to any other; and those persons in that tribe who were the chief before the institution of the Aaronical priest- hood, were so after; but now under the gospel people are not under the same restrictions for civil government by a judaical law, as they were then. For the form of ecclesiastical govern- ment then took place among them as one of their judaical laws; and therefore if the argument hold, Christ must as well prescribe a form for civil government as ecclesiastical; if Christ in the gospel must by his faithfulness follow the pat- tern of Moses. But if Christ be not bound to follow Moses' pattern as to judaical law, for his church and people, neither is he as to a form of ecclesiastical government, because thai was a part of their civil and judaical law. 3. The people of the Jews was a whole and entire people, subsisting by themselves when one set form of government was prescribed them; but it is otherwise now under the gos- pel. The church of Christ was but forming in Christ's own time, and in that of the apostles, in whose time we read of but some cities and no whole nations converted to the faith; and therefore the same form of government would not serve a church in its first constitution, which is necessary for it when it is actually formed. A pastor and deacons might serve the church of a city while believers were few, but FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 207 cannot when they are increased into many congregations. And so proportionably when the church is enlarged to a whole nation, there must then be another form of govern- ment. Therefore they who call for a national church under the gospel, let them first show a nation converted to the faith, and we will undertake to show the other. And this is the chief reason why the church's polity is. so little described in the New Testament, because it was then only growing; and it doth not stand to reason, that the coat which was cut out for one in his infancy, must of necessity serve him when grown a man; which is the argument of those who will have nothing observed in the church, but what is expressed in scripture. The apostles looked at the present state of a church in appointing officers, and ordered things according to the circumstances of them, which was necessary to be done in the founding of a church; and the reason of apostolical practice binds still, though not the individual action, that as they regulated churches for the best convenience of governing them, so should the pastors of churches now. But of this largely afterwards. 4. Another difference is, that the people of the Jews lived all under one civil government; but it is otherwise with Chris- tians who live under different forms of civil government. And then by the same reason that in the first institutions of their ecclesiastical government it was formed according to the civil, by the same reason, must Christians do under the gos- pel, if the argument holds, that Christ must be faithful as Moses was. And then because Christians do live under several and distinct forms of civil government, they must be bound by the law of Christ, to contemper the government of the church to that of the state. And what they have gained by this for their cause, who assert the necessity of any one form from this argument, I see not; but on the contrary this is evident, that they have destroyed their own principle by it. For if Moses did prescribe a form of government for Levi agreeable to the form of the commonwealth, and Christ be as faithful as Moses was, then Christ must likewise order the government of Christian churches, according to that of the state, and so must have different forms as the other hath. Thus much will serve abundantly to show the weakness of the argument drawn from the agreement of Christ and Moses, for the proving any one form of government necessary; but this shall not suffice, I now shall, from the abundant answers 208 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF to this argument, lay down several that Christ did never intend to institute any one form of government in his church. § 4. — 1. Whatever binds the church of God as an institu- tion of Christ, must bind as an universal standing law; but one form of government in the church cannot bind it as a standing law. For whatever binds as a standing law, must either be expressed in direct terms as such a law; or deduced by a necessary consequence from his laws, as of an univer- sally binding nature; but any one particular form of govern- ment in the church, is neither expressed in any direct terms by Christ, nor can be deduced by just consequence; therefore no such form of government is instituted by Christ. If there be any such law, it must be produced, whereby it is deter- mined in scripture, either that there must be superiority or equality among church officers, as such, after the apostles' decease. And though the negative of a fact holds not, yet the negative of a law doth, else no superstition. I have not yet met with any such produced, and therefore shall see what consequences can be made of a binding nature. To this I say, that no consequences can be deduced to make an institu- tion, but only to apply one to particular cases: because posi- tives are in themselves indifferent without institution and divine appointment: and therefore that must be directly brought for the making a positive universally binding, which it doth not in its own nature. Now here must be an institu- tion of something merely positive supposed, which in itself is of an indifferent nature; and therefore no consequence drawn can suffice to make it unalterably binding, without express declaration that such a thing shall so bind; for what is not in its own nature moral, binds only by virtue of a command, which command must be made known by the will of Christ, so that we may understand its obligatory nature. So that both a consequence must be necessarily drawn, and the obli- gation of what shall be so drawn must be expressed in scrip- ture: which I despair of ever finding in reference to any one form of government in the church. .2. If the standing laws for church government be equally applicable to several distinct forms, then no one form is pre- scribed in scripture; but all the standing laws respecting church government, are equally applicable to several forms. All the laws occurring in scripture respecting church govern- ment may be referred to these three heads. Such as set down the qualifications of the pet'sons for the office of government , such as require a right management of their office^ and FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 209 such as lay doivn rules for the management of their office. Now all these are equally applicable to either of these two forms we now discourse of. We begin then with those which set down the qualifications of persons employed in govern- ment, those we have largely and fully set down by St. Paul in his order to Timothy'^ and Titus^ prescribing what manner of persons those should be who are to be employed in the government of the church: "A bishop must be blameless as the steward of God, not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker," &c. All these, and the rest of the quali- fications mentioned, are equally required as necessary in a bishop, whether taken for one of a superior order above pres- byters, or else only for a single presbyter; however that be, if he halh a hand in church government, he must be such a one as the apostle prescribes; and so these commands to Timothy and Titus given by Paul, do equally respect and concern them, whether we consider them as evangelists acting by an extraordinary commission, or as fixed pastors over all the churches in their several precincts; so that from the commands themselves nothing can be inferred either way to determine the question; only one place is pleaded for the perpetuity of the office Timothy was employed in, which must now be examined: the place is, 1 Tim. 6, 13, 14; "I give thee charge in the sight of God, &c. that thou keep this commandment with- out spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." From hence it is argued thus: the commandment here was the charge which Timothy had of governing the church; this Timothy could not keep personally till Christ's second coming; therefore there must be a succession of officers in the same kind till the second coming of Christ. But this is easily answered. For, first, it is no ways certain what this command was which St. Paul speaks of; some understand it of fighting the good fight of faith, others of the precept of love, others most probably the sum of all contained in this epistle, which I confess implies in it, (as being one great part of the epistle,) PauPs direction of Timothy for the right dis- charging of his office; but, granting that the command respects Timothy's office, yet I answer, secondly, it manifestly appears to be something personal, and not successive; or at least nothing can be inferred for the necessity of such a succession from this place which it was brought for: nothing being more ' 1 Tim. iii. I to the 8. 2 Titus i. 5 to the 10. 27 210 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP evident than that this command related'to 77moMy'* personal observance of it; and therefore, thirdly, Christ's appearuig here, is not meant of his second coming to jiidi,mient, but it only imports the time of Tiviothy's deca^^e;^ so Chrysostom, fifXi"' *« *>?? Tfs-Kiti^i, fcexp'' T"'?J i^o8i,ov, '"Until the end, until the departure." So Estius understands it, usque ad exitum vitas; "until the termination of life;" and for that end brings that speech of Augustine: "then shall that day of the advent of the Lord overtake every one; when a day shall come on him, so that such as he is on departing hence, such shall he be judged. "2 And the reason why the time of his death is set out by the coming of Christ is, tm naxxov avtov hiyn^yi, as Chry- sostom,d.wA from him Theop/iylact observes, ''that it might incite him the more," both to diligence in his work and patience under sufi'erings, from the consideration of Christ's appearance. The plain meaning of the words then is the same with that, Bevel, ii. 10, "be thou faithful unto death, and I will thee a crown of life." Nothing then can be hence in- ferred as to the necessary succession of some in Timothy's office, Vv'hatever it is supposed to be. § 5. Secondly, The precepts of the gospel requiring a right management of the work, are equally applicable to either form. Taking heed to the flock over lohich God hath made them overseers,^ is equally a duty; whether hy flock we under- stand either the particular church o( Ephesus, or the adjacent churches of Asia; whether by overseers we understand some acting over others, or all joining together in an equality. So exhorting, reproving, preaching in season and out of season,* doing all things avcv rt^oxpi^atoj, tvithout " rash censures," and partiality;^ ivatching over the flock as they that must give an account: laying hands suddenly on no man: re- buking not an elder, but under two or three ivitnesses.'^ And whatever precepts of this nature we read in the epistles of Timothy and 7'itus, may be equally applicable to men acting in either of these two forms of government: there being no precept occurring in all tliose epistles prescribing to Timothy y whether he must act only as a consul in Senatu with the consent of the presbytery, or whether by his sole power he should determine what was the connnon interest, and concern > Homil. 18, in 1 Tim. torn. 4. 2 Tunc unicuique vcniet dies advenlfis Domini, cum vencrit ei dies, ut talis hinc exeat, qualis judicandus est ilio die,— Epislol 80, ad Hesycb. 3 Acts XX. 28. 4 2 Tim. iv. 2. 6 1 Tim. V. 21. 6Hcb. xiii. 17. 1 Tim. v. 19, 23. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 211 of those churches he was the superintendent over. Neither doth the apostle determine at all in those epistles chiefly con- cerning church government, whether upon the removal of Timothy or Titus thence as evangelists, as some pretend, or upon their death as fixed pastors and bishops, as others, any should succeed them in the power they enjoyed, or not; nor in what manner the pastors of the several churches should order things of common concernment. Which would seem to be a strange omission, were either of these two forms so necessary, taken exclusively of the other, as both parties seem to affirm. For we cannot conceive but if the being and right constitution of a church did depend upon the manner of the governors acting in it, but that care which Paul had over all the churches would have prompted him, (especially being assisted and guided by an infallible spirit in the penning those epistles.) to have laid down some certain rules for the acting of the pastors of the churches after the departure of Timothy and Titus. Considering especially that the epistles then writ- ten by him, were to be of standing perpetual use in the church of God; and by which the churches in after ages were to be guided as well as those that were then in being. The apostle in both epistles takes care for a succession of pastors in those churches: Timothy is charged to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men; who shall be fit to teach others.^ Had it not been as requisite to have charged him to have committed his power of government to men fit for that, had the apostles looked on the form of government to be as necessary as the office of preaching? Pa^^/saith, he left Titus in Crete, on purpose to settle the churches and ordain pres- byters in every city? had it not been as necessary to have showed in what order the churches must be settled, and what power did belong to those presbyters, and how they should act in the governing their churches, had he thought the con- stitution of the churches did depend upon the form of their acting? We see here then, that St. Paul doth not express anything necessarily inferring any one constant form to be used in the church of God. And whence can we infer any necessity of it, but from the scriptures laying it down as a duty that such a form and no other there must be used in the church of God? For all that we can see then by PauVs direction for church government, (when if ever, this should have been expressed,) it was left to the Christian wisdom and 1 2 Tim. ii. 2. 2 Titus i. 5. 212 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP prudence of the churches of Ephesus and Crete to consult and determine in what manner the government of their churches should be provided for, on the departure of Timothy and Titus from them. § 6. But here it will be soon replied, that though nothing be expressed in PauPs epistles to Timothy and Titus, yet PauVs appointing Timothy and Titus over those churches, did determine the form, of government, and they were en- trusted luith a poiuer to provide for future governors after them. To this I answer: First, The superiority which Timothy and Titus had over those churches, doth not prove that form of government necessary in all churches; I dispute not whether they were evangelists or not, or acted as such in that supe- riority, (of that afterwards,) it is evident they might be so: there being no convincing argument to the contrary. And the bare possibility of the truth of the negative, destroys the necessity of the affirmative of a proposition. As, Si possibile est, hominem non esse animal, " if it be possible that man is not an animal," then that proposition is false, Necesse est hominem esse animal, " but man is necessarily an animal." For, Necesse est esse, and Non possibile est non esse, " it is necessary to be, and it is not possible not to be," being sequi- pollents on the one side; and Possibile est non esse, Et non necesse est esse, " It is possible not to be, and it is not neces- sary to be," being sequipollents on the other; Possibile est non esse, " It is possible not to be," must be contradictory to Necesse est esse, " It is necessary to be," as Non possibile est non esse, is to Non necesse est esse, " It is not possible not to be," is to " it is not necessary to be." So that if only the possibility of their acting as evangelists, that is, by an extra- ordinary commission, be evinced, which I know none will deny; the necessity of their acting as fixed bishops is de- stroyed, and consequently the necessity of the continuance of their office too, which depends upon the former. For if they acted not as bishops, nothing can be drawn from their example necessarily enforcing the continuance of the superiority which they enjoyed. But though nothing can be inferred from hence as to the necessity of that office to continue in the church, which Timothy and Titus were invested in; yet from the superiority of the power which they enjoyed over those churches, whether as evangelists, or as fixed bishops, these two things may be inferred. First, That the superiority of some church officers over others, is not contrary to the rule FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 213 of the gospel: for all parties acknowledge the superiority of their power above the presbyters of the several cities; only the continuance of this power is disputed by many. But if they had any such power at all, it is enough for my present design, viz, that such a superiority is not contrary to the gos- pel rule: or that the nature of the government of the church doth not imply a necessary equality among the governors of it. Secondly, Hence I infer, that it is not repugnant to the constitution of churches in apostolical times, for men to have power over more than one particular congregation. For such a power Timothy and Titus had, which had it been contrary to the nature of the regiment of churches, we should never have read of in the first planted churches. So that if those popular arguments of a necessary relation between a pastor and particular people, of personal knowledge, care and in- spection, did destroy the lawfulness of extending that care and charge to many particular congregations, they would likewise overthrow the nature, end and design of the office which Timothy and Titus acted in: which had a relation to a multitude of particular and congregational churches. Whether their power was extraordinary or not, I now do not dispute; but whether such a power be repugnant to the gos- pel or not; which from their practice is evident that it is not. But then others who would make this office necessary, urge further, that Timothy or Titus might ordain and appoint others to succeed them in their places and care overall those churches under their charge. To which I answer. First, What they might do is not the question, but what they did, as they might do it; so they might not do it, if no other evidence be brought to prove it: for, Quod possibile est esse, possihile est non esse, " What is possible to be, is possible not to be." Secondly, Neither what they did, is the whole question, but what they did with an opinion of the necessity of doing it, whether they were bound to do it or not? and if so, whether by any law extant in scripture, and given them by Paul in his epistles, or some private command and particular instruc- tions when he deputed them to their several charges: if the former, that law and command must be produced, which will hardly be, if we embrace only the received canon of the scrip- ture. If the latter, we must then fetch some standing rule and law from unwritten traditions; for no other evidence can be given of the instructions by word of mouth, given by Paul to Timothy and Titus at the taking their charges upon them. But yet Thirdly, Were it only the matter of fact that was 214 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF disputed, that would hold a controversy still, viz. Whether any did succeed Timothy and Titus in their offices: but this I shall leave to its proper place to be discussed, when I come to examine the argument from apostolical succession. Thus we see then that neither the qualification of the persons, nor the commands for a right exercise of the office committed to them, nor the whole epistles to Timothy and Titus, do deter- mine any one form of government to be necessary in the church of God. § 7. Thirdly, Let us see whether the general rules do re- quire any one form; which rules in that they are general, can determine nothing of the authority itself as to its particular mode, being intended only for the regulation of the exercise of the authority in which men are placed. And it is an evi- dence that nothing is particularly determined in this case, when the Spirit of God only lays down such rules for govern- ment which are applicable to distinct forms. Otherwise, cer- tainly some rule would have been laid down, which could have been applied to nothing but to that one form. That none take the office of preaching tvithout a call, nor go without sending,^ will equally hold whether the power of ordination lie in a bishop with presbyters, or in presbyters acting with equality of power; That offenders he censured, and complaints made to the church in case of scandal, de- termines nothing to whom the power of jurisdiction doth solely belong, nor what that church is which must receive these complaints. That all things be done with decency and order, doth prescribe nothing wherein that decency lies, nor how far that order may extend; nor yet who must be the judges of that decency and order. That all he done for edi- fication, and- the common benefit of the church, doth no ways restrain his church's freedom in disposing of itself as to the form of its government, so the aim of the church be for the better edification of the body of the church, and to pro- mote the benefit of it. But methinks, these general orders and rules for discipline do imply the particular manner of government to be left at liberty to the church of God, so that in all the several forms these general rules be observed. Whereas had Christ appointed a superior order to govern other subordinate officers and the church together; Christ's command for governing the church would have been particu- larly addressed to them: and again, had it been the will of • Heb. V. 2; Rom. x. 14. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 215 Christ there should be no superior order above the pastors of particular churches, there would have been some express and direct prohibition oi' it; which because we nowhere read, it seems evident that Christ hath left both the one and the other to the freedom and liberty of his church. So much shall serve in this place to show how improbable it is that Christ did ever prescribe any one form of government in his clnu'ch, since he hath only laid down general rales for the manage- ment of church government. § S. But this will not yet suffice those, who plead that Christ must determine one immutable form of government in his church: but although it be a high presumption to deter- mine first what Christ must do, before we examine what he hath done, yet we shall still proceed and examine all the pre- tences that are brought for this opinion. The next thing, then, which is generally urged for it, is " the equal necessity of Christ's instituting a certain form as for any other legislator who models a commonwealth." Now for answer to this, I say first, that Christ hath instituted such an immutable govern- ment in his church, as is sufficient for the succession and con- tinuance of it, which is all which founders of commonwealths do look after, viz. that there be such an order and distinction of persons, and subordination of one to the other, that a society may still be preserved among them; now this is sufficiently provided for by Christ's appointing officers continually to rule his church, and establishing laws for the perpetuating of such officers; so whatsoever is necessary in order to the general ends of government, is acknowledged to be appointed by Jesus Christ. Until, then, that it be proved that one form of go- vernment is in itself absolutely necessary for the being of a church, this argument can prove nothing; for what is drawn from necessity, will prove nothing but in a case of necessity. Secondly, I answer, that those things which are not absolutely necessary to the being of a church, are left to Christ's liberty, whether he will determine them or not; and are no further to be looked on as necessary than as he hath determined by his laws whether they shall be or not, in his church. The thing will be thus cleared. When I read that Zalexicxis, Lycurgus, or Niima, did form a commonwealth and make laws for it, I presently conclude that there must be some order or distinction of persons in this commonwealth, and some rules whereby persons must be governed, and whereby others must rule; but I cannot hence infer that Zaleiicus or Lycurgus did institute monarchical, aristocratical, or democratical government, be- 216 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF cause any of these forms might be agreeable to their design; and therefore what kind of government they did appoint, can no otherwise be known than by taking a view of the laws which they made in order thereto. So it is in reference to Christ; when we read that Christ hath instituted a church always to continue in the world, we presently apprehend that there must be some power and order in the members of that society, and laws for the governing it: but we cannot hence gather that he hath bound up his officers to act in any one form, because several forms might in themselves equally tend to the promoting the end of government in his church. And therefore what Christ hath expressly determined in his posi- tive laws, must be our rule of judging in this case, and not any presumption of our own, that such a form was necessary, and therefore Christ must institute and appoint it; which is fully expressed by judicious Mr. Hooker,^ whose words will serve as a sufficient answer to this objection. "As for those marvellous discourses, whereby they adventure to argue that God must needs have done the thing which they imagine was to be done; I must confess I have often wondered at their ex- ceeding boldness herein. When the question is, whether God has delivered in scripture, (as they affirm he hath,) a complete particular immutable form of church polity, why take they that other, both presumptuous and superfluous labour, to prove he should have done it: there being no way in this case to prove the deed of God, saving only by producing that evidence wherein he hath done it? But if there be no such thing apparent upon record, they do as if one should demand a legacy, by force and virtue of some written testament, wherein there being no such thing specified, he pleadeth that there it must needs be, and bringeth arguments from the love and good will which always the testator bore, imagining that these or the like proofs will convict a testament to have that in it, which other men can nowhere by reading find. In matters which concern the actions of God, the most dutiful way on our part, is, to search what God hath done, and with meekness to admire that, rather than to dispute what he in congruity of reason ought to do." Thus he, with more to the same purpose. The sum, then, of the answer to this argu- ment, is this, that nothing can be inferred of what Christ must do, from his relation to his church, but what is absolutely necessary to the being of it; as for all other things, they being ' Ecclesiast. Polity, lib. iii. sect. 2. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 217 arbitrary constitutions, we can judge no more of the necessity of them, than as we find them clearly revealed in the Word of God. And therefore the plea must be removed from what Christ must do, to what he hath done, in order to the deter- mining the particular form of government in his church. § 9. But still it is argued for the necessity of a particular form of government in the church from the simihtudes the church is set out by in scripture; it is called «Vine, a?id therefore must have keepers; an house, and therefore 7nust have government; a city, and therefore inust have a polity; a body, and therefore must have parts.^ I answer, First, all these similitudes prove only that which none deny, that there must be order, power, and government in the church of God; we take not away the keepers from the vine, nor the govern- ment from the house, nor polity from the city, nor distinction of parts from the body; we assert all these things as necessary in the chnrch of God. The keepers of the vine to defend and prime it; the governors of the house to rule and order it; the polity of the city to guide and direct it; the parts of the body to complete and adorn it. But Secondly, none of these simi- litudes prove what they are brought for; viz. that any one immutable form of government is determined. For may not the keepers of the vine use their own discretion in looking to it, so the flourishing of the vine be what they aim at? and if there be many of them, may there not be different orders among them, and some as supervisors of the others' work? The house must have governors; but those that are so, are entrusted with the power of ordering things in the house ac- cording to their own discretion; and where there is a multi- tude, is there not diversity of offices among them? and is it necessary that every house must have offices of the same kind? In great and large families there must be more par- ticular distinct orders and offices, than in a small and little one. The city must have its polity; but all cities have not the like; some have one form, and some another, and yet there is a city still and a polity too. A body must have all its parts; but are all the parts of the body equal one to an- other? it sufficeth that there be a proportion, though not equality in them: the several parts of the body have their several offices, and yet we see the head is superintendent over them all: and thus if we make every particular church a body, yet it follows not that the form of clothing that body 1 Parker de Polit. Eccles. lib. 2, c. 40. 28 218 THE DIVINE EIGHT OF must always be the same; for the manner of government is rather the clothing to the body than the parts of it; the gover- nors indeed are parts of the body, but their manner of governing is not, that may alter according to the proportion and growth of the body, and its fashion change for better convenience. § 10. But if these similitudes prove nothing, yet cer- tainly, say they, the difference as to civil and ecclesiastical government ivill; for though there may be different forms in civil government, which are therefore called an ordinance of man;^ yet there must he hut one in church government, which is an ordinance of God, and Christ hath appointed offcers to rule it. I answer, ^r^^, we grant and acknowledge a difference between the church and the commonwealth, they are constituted for other ends; the one political, the other spiritual; one temporal, the other eternal; they subsist by different charters; the one given to men as men, the other to men as Christians. They act upon different principles; the one to preserve civil rights, the other to promote an eternal interest; nay, their formal constitution is different; for a man by being a member of a commonwealth doth not become a member of the church, and by being excommunicated out of the church, doth not cease to be a member of the com- monwealth. The officers of the one are clearly distinct from the other, the one deriving their power from the law of Christ, the other from God's general providence: the magis- trate hath no power to excommunicate formally out of the church any more than to admit into it, nor have the church officers any power to cast men out of the commonwealth. We see then there is a difference between civil and ecclesias- tical government. But then I answer. Secondly, the power of the magistrate is not therefore called an ordinance of man, because of the mutability of its form, and as distinguished from the form of church government. For, First, the apostle speaks not of the form of government, but of the power: Submit to every ordinance of man, <§*c.; the ground of sub- mission is not the form, but the power of civil government; and therefore there can be no opposition expressed here be- tween the forms of civil and ecclesiastical government; but if any such opposition be, it must be between the powers; and if this be said as to civils, that the power is an ordinance of man in that sense, (whereas Paul saith it is of God,^) yet as ' 1 Pet. ii. 13. 2 Rom. xiii. 1. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 219^ to the church it is freely acknowledged that the power is de- rived from God. Secondly, the civil power is not called ave^i^Tiivri x7(.tftj, "a human institution," because it is a creature of man's making, and so subject to men's power; but the ground of that speech is, because all civil power respects men as men, without any further connotation. " It is called human, not because it was devised by man, but because it is peculiar to man," saith Beza} And to the same purpose Calvin,^ '-'li is called human administration, not on account of its being invented by men, but because it hath been ap- pointed, and put in order, as a method of life peculiar to man." Piscator,^ "he calls it human, not because the magis- tracy hath men for its authors, but because they exercise it." So then the civil power is not called an ordinance of man, as it is of man's setting up, but as it is proper to man; and so if there be any opposition between the civil and church power, it is only this, that the one belongs to men as men, the other to men as Christians. Thirdly, although it be granted that Christ hath appointed and set up his own officers in his church; yet it doth not thence follow that he hath determined in what manner they shall rule his church. It is true, Christ hath set up in his church, some apostles, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers:'^ but it doth not thence fol- low, that Christ hath determined, whether the power of apostles and evangelists should continue in his church or not, as it implied superiority over the ordinary pastors of the churches; nor whether the pastors of the church should act in an equality in their governing churches. I grant, that all church government must be performed by officers of Christ's appointing, but that which I say is not determined in scrip- ture, is^ the way and manner whereby they shall govern churches in common. § 11. It is yet further argued,* That if the form of church government be not immulahly determined in scripture, then it is in the church^ s power to make new officers which Christ never made, ivhich must be a plain addition to the laws of Christ, and must argue the scripture of imperfection. This ' Humana dicitur, non quod ab hominibus sit excogitata, sed quod hominum sit propria. 2 Huraana dicitur ordinatio, non quod humanittis inventa fuerit; sed quod propria hominum est digesta et ordinata vivendi ratio. 3 Humanam appellat, non quod magistratus homines authores habeat, sed quod homines eam gerant. •* Ephes. iv. 12. 5 Parker Polit. Eccles. 1. 2, cap. 45, s. 6. 220 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP being one of the main arguments, I have reserved it to the place of the Triarii^ and shall now examine what strength there lies in it. To this, therefore, I answer, First, Those officers are only said to be new, which were never appointed by Christ, and are contrary to the first appointments of Christ for the regulating of his church; such, it is granted, the church hath no power to institute: but if by new officers be meant only such as have a charge over more than one particular congregation by the consent of the pastors themselves, then it is evident such an office cannot be said to be new. For, be- sides the general practice of the church of God, from the first primitive times, which have all consented in the use of such oflicers, we find the foundation of this power laid by Christ himself in the power which the apostles were invested in, which was extended over many, both churches and pastors. But if it be said, The apostolical power being extraordinary , inust cease icith the persons who enjoyed it: 1 answer. First, What was extraordinary did cease; but all the dispute is, what was extraordinary and what not; some things were ordinary in them, as preaching, baptizing, ordaining, ruling churches; some things were again extraordinary, as imme- diate mission from Christ, (the main distinguishing note of an apostle,) a power of working miracles to confirm the truth of what they preached. Now the question is, whether the power which they enjoyed over presbyters and churches, be to be reckoned in the first or the second number. It must, there- fore, be proved to be extraordinary, before it can be said to cease with them, and that must be done by some arguments proper to their persons; for if the arguments brought be of a common and moral nature, it will prove the office to be so too. Secondly, By ceasing may be meant either ceasing as to its necessity, or ceasing as to its lawfulness. I say not but that the necessity of the office, as in their persons, for the first preaching and propagating the gospel, did cease with them; but, that after their death it became iinlaivful iov diwy particu- lar persons to take the care and charge of diocesan churches, I deny. For to make a thing unlawful which was before law- ful, there must be some express prohibition forbidding any further use of such a power, which I suppose men will not easily produce in the word of God. § 12. I answer, therefore, 5eco7z^//y, That the extending of any ministerial power, is not the appointing of any new office; ' Old soldiers set in the rear as a reserve. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 221 because every minister of the gospel hath a relation in actu prima, " in the first act, or stage," to the whole church of God: the restraint and enlargement of which power is subject to positive determinations of prudence and conveniency in actu seciindo, " in the second act;" and, therefore, if the church see it fit for some men to have this power enlarged for better government in some, and restrained in others, thai enlargement is the appointing no new oftice, but the making use of a power already enjoyed for the benefit of the church of God. Tiiis being a foundation tending so fully to clear the lawfulness of that government in the church which implies a superiority and subordination of the officers of the church to one another: and the church's using her prudence in ordering the bounds of her officers, I shall do these two things. First, Show that the power of every minister of the gospel doth primarily and ha- bitually respect the church in common. Secondly, That the church may, in a peculiar manner, single out some of its offi- cers for the due administration of ecclesiastical power. First, That every minister of the gospel hath a power respecting the church in common. This I find fully and largely proved by those who assert the equality of the power of ministers: First, from Christ's bestowing the several offices of the church, for the use of the whole church, Ephesians iv. 12, 13. Christ hath set apostles, &c., pastors and teachers in his church;^ now this church must needs be the catholic^ visible church, because indisputably the apostles' office did relate thereto, and con- sequently so must that of pastors and teachers too. Again, the end of these offices is the building up the body of Christ, which cannot otherwise be understood than of his whole church: else Christ must have as many bodies as the church hath particular congregations, which is a new way of cons ub- stantiation. Secondly, The ministerial office was in being before any particular congregations were gathered: for Christ, upon his ascension to glory, gave these gifts to menf and the apostles were empowered by Christ before his ascension. Either, then, they were no church officers, or if they were so, they could have no other correlatives, but the whole body of the church of God, then lying under the power of darkness, a few persons excepted. Thirdly, Because the main design of appointing a gospel ministry was the conversion of heathens ' 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29. 2 In the generic sense, universal, from xaSoXof, the wliole,or all, and not in its special sense, as usur|)ed by the Romanists. 3 Eph, iv. 8; Matth. xxviii. 19. 222 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF and infidels: and if these be the proper object of the ministe- rial function, then the office must liave reference to the whole church of Christ; else there could be no part of that office per- formed towards those who are not yet converted. Fourthly, Else a minister can perform no otiice belonging to him as such beyond the bounds of his particular congregation, and so can neither preach nor administer the sacraments to any other but within the bounds of his own particular place and people. Fifthly, Because ministers by baptizing do admit men into the catliolic visible church, (else a man must be baptized again every time he removes from one church to another,) and none can admit beyond what their office doth extend to; therefore it is evident that every particular pastor of a church hath a relation to the whole church; to which purpose our former observation is of great use, viz. that particular congregations are not of God's jjriinary intention, but for men^s conve- niency, and so consequently is the fixedness of particular pastors to their several places for the greater conveniency of the church: every pastor of a church then hath a relation to the whole church; and that which hinders him from the exer- cise of this power, is not any unlawfulness in the thing, but the preserving of order and conveniency in the church of God. This being premised, I say, Secondly, That the officers of the church may in a peculiar manner attribute a larger and more extensive power to some particular persons for the more con- venient exercise of their common power. We have seen already that their power extends to the care of the churches in common, that the restramt of this power is a matter of order and decency in the church of God. Now in matters of common concern, without all question it is not unlawful when the church judgeth it most for edification, to grant to some the executive part of that power, which is originally and funda- mentally common to them all. For our better understanding of this, we must consider a twofold power belonging to church officers, a power of order, and a poiver of jurisdiction; for in every 7jre,s6?//er, there are some things inseparably joined to his function, and belonging to every one in his personal capa- city, both in actu primo and in actu secundo, both as to the right and power to do it, and the exercise and execution of that power; such are preaching the word, visiting the sick, administering sacraments, &c. But there are other things which every presbyter hath an aptitude, and Vijus to, in actu primo, but the limitation and exercise of that power doth be- long to the church in conunon, and belongs not to any one FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 223 personally, but by a further power of choice or delegation to it; such is the power of visiting churches, taking care that par- ticular pastors discharge their duty; such is the power of or- dination and church censures, and making rules for decency in the church; this is what we call the poiver uf jwnsdiction. Now this latter power, though it belongs habitually and in actu primo to every presbyter; yet being about matters of public and common concern, some further autJiority in a church constituted is necessary, besides the power of order; and when this power, either by consent of the pastors of the church, or by the appointment of a Christian magistrate, or both, is devolved to some particular persons, though quoad apiitudineTn, "as to fitness," the power remains in every presbyter, yet quoad exectitionem, " as to execution," it be- longs to those who are so appointed. And therefore Camero^ determines that "ordination does not arise from the minister, merely because he is the minister, but because it obtains its special authority at the time."^ j, e. That ordination doth not belong to the power of order but to the power of jurisdiction, and therefore is subject to positive restraints, by prudential determinations. By this we may understand how lawful the exercise of an episcopal power may be in the church of God, supposing an equality in all church officers as to the power of order. Ai;d how incongruously they speak, who supposing an equality in the presbyters of churches at first, do cry out, that the church takes upon her the office of Christ, if she dele- gates any to a more peculiar exercise of the power of juris- diction. § 13. The last thing pleaded why an immutable form of church government must be laid down in scripture, is, from the perfection and sufficiency of the scriptures; because other- ivise the scriptures ivould be condemned of imperfection. But this will receive an easy despatch: for, first, the contro- versy about the perfection of the scriptures, is not concerning an essential or integral perfection, but a perfection ratiane finis et effectuum^ "in order to its end and effects;" now the end of it, is to be an adequate rule of faith and manners, and sufficient to bring men to salvation; which it is sufficiently acknowledged to be, if all things to be believed or practised be contained in the word of God: now that which we assert 1 De Ecclesia in Matt, xviii. 15, torn. 1, op. in 40, p. 27. 2 Ordinatio non sit a. pastore qualenus pastor est, sed quatenus ad tempus singularem authoritutem obtinet. * Rivet. Isagog. ad Script, sacr. cap. 24, s. 3. 224 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP not to be fully laid down in scripture, is not pleaded to be any ways necessary, nor to be a matter of faith, but some- tliing left to the church's liberty; but here it is said by some, that this is adding to the law of God, which destroys the scriptures' perfection; therefore I answer, secondly, whatever is done with an opinion of the necessity of doing it, destroys the scriptures' perfection if it be not contained in it: for that were to make it an imperfect rule; and in this sense every additio perjiciens is additio corrumpens, every "addition perfecting, is an addition corrupting," because it takes away from the perfection of the rule which it is added to: and thus popish traditions are destructive of the scriptures' sufficiency. But the doing of anything not positively determined in scrip- ture, not looking upon it as a thing we are bound to do from the necessity of the thing, and observing the general rules of scripture in the doing it, is far from destroying the perfection or sufficiency of the word of God. Thirdly, all essentials of church government are contained clearly in scripture. The essentials of church government, are such as are necessary to the preservation of such a society as the church is. Now all these things have been not only granted, but proved to be contained in scripture; but whatever is not so necessary in itself, can only become necessary by virtue of God's express command; and what is not so commanded, is accidental, and circumstantial, and a matter of Christian liberty, and such we assert the form of church government to be. It is not our work to inquire, why God hath determined some things that might seem more circumstantial than this, and left other things at liberty; but whether God hath determined these things or not, which determination being once cleared, makes the thing so commanded necessary as to our observance of it; but if no such thing be made appear, the thing remains a matter of liberty, and so the scriptures' perfection as to necessaries in order to salvation, is no ways impeached by it. So much now for the necessity of Christ's determining the particular form of government. We now proceed to the consideration of Christ's actions, whether by them the form of church govern- ment is determined or not? FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 225 CHAPTER V. Wlietlicr any of Christ's actions have determined the form of government. All power in Christ's hands for governing his church. What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the world. Calling Apostles tiie first action re- specting outward government. The name and office of Apostles cleared. An equality among them proved during our Saviour's life. Peter not made Monarch of the church by Christ. The Apostles' power over the seventy disciples considered, with the nature and quality of their office, Mattk. xx. 25, 26, 27, largely discussed and explained. It makes not all inequality in church officers unlawful; by the diffi3rence of Apostles and pastors of churches, Matth. xviii. 15. How far that determines the form of church government. No evi- dence of any exact order for church government from thence, Matth. xvi. 15, 16, 17, 18; considered how far that concerns the' government of the church. § 1. Having considered and answered the arguments which are brought, why Christ must determine the particular form of government: our next task will be to inquire into those actions of our Saviour which are conceived to have any plausible aspect towards the settling the form of government in his church. And were it not that men are generally so wedded to an hypothesis they have once drunk in by the pre- valency of interest or education, we might have been super- seded from our former labour, but that men are so ready to think that opinion to be most necessary, which they are most in love with, and have appeared most zealous for. Men are loath to be persuaded that they have spent so much breath to so little purpose, and have been so hot and eager for some- what, which at last appears to be a matter of Christian liberty. Therefore we find very few that have been ever very earnest in the maintaining or promoting any matter of opinion, but have laid more weight upon it, than it would really bear; lest men should think, that with all their sweat and toil, they only beat the air, and break their teeth in cracking a nut, with a hole in it; which if they had been so wise as to discern before, they might have saved their pains for somewhat which would have better recompensed them. But thus it generally fares 29 226 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF with men; they suck in principles according as interest and education disposes them, that being once in, have the ad- vantage of insinuating themselves into the understanding, and thereby raising a prejudice against whatever comes to disturb them; which prejudice being the yellow jaundice of the soul, leaves such a tincture upon the eyes of the imderstanding, that till it be cured of that icterism, it cannot discern things in their proper colours. Now this prejudice is raised by no- thing more strongly than when the opinion received is enter- tained, upon a presumption that there is a divine stamp and impress upon it, though no such effigies be discernible there. Hence comes all the several contending parties about church government, equally to plead an interest in Wnsjus divinum, and whatever opinion they have espoused, they presently conceive it to be of no less than divine extract and original; and as it sometimes was with great personages among the heathens, when their miscarriages were discernible to the eye of the world, the better to palliate them among the vulgar, they gave themselves out to be impregnated by some of their adored deities; so I fear it hath been among some whose religion should have taught them better things, when either faction, design, or interest, hath formed some conceptions within them suitable thereunto, to make them the more pass- able to the world, they are brought forth under the pretence of divine truths. Far be it from me to charge any sincere, humble, sober Christians with an offence of so high a nature, who yet may be possessed with some mistakes and apprehen- sions of this nature; but these are only wrought on by the masters of parties, who know unless they fly so high, they shall never hit the game they aim at. This is most discernible in the factors for the Roman omnipotency , (as Paulas the fifth was called Omnipotentise Pontificix Conservator, "the defender of the pontiff's omnipotency:) they who see not that interest and faction uphold that court rather than the church, may well be presumed to be hoodwinked with more than an implicit faith; and yet if we believe the great supporters of that interest, the power they plead for is plainly given them from Christ himself; and not only offer to prove that it was so, but that it was not consistent with the wisdom of Christ that it should be otherwise. Lest I should seem to wrong those of any religion, hear what the author of the Gloss upon the Extravagants^ (so they may be well called,) saith to this ' Extravag. unum sanctum. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 227 purpose, applying that place of our Saviour, "all power is given to me in heaven and earth," Matthew xxviii. 18, to the pope, adds these words, "the Lord would not seem, I would speak with reverence, to have been discreet, had he not left one such only vicar after him, who could do all these things."* We see by this, what blasphemies men may run into, when they argue from their private fancies and opinions, to what must be done by the law of Christ. It therefore becomes all sober Christians impartially to inquire what Christ hath done, and to ground their opinions only upon that, without any such presumptuous intrusions into the counsels of Heaven. We here therefore take our leave of the dispute, why it was necessary that a form of government should be established, and now enter upon a survey of those grounds which are taken from any passages of our Saviour, commonly produced as a foundation for any particular forms. § 2. I shall not stand to prove, that Christ as Mediator hath all the power over the church in his own hands, it being a thing so evident from scripture,^ and so beyond all dispute with those whom I have to deal with. In which respect he is the head of the church,^ and from whom all divine right for authority in the church must be derived. Which right can arise only from some actions or laws of Christ, which we therefore now search into. The first public action of Christ after his solemn entrance upon his office, which can be conceived to have reference to the government of his church, was, the calling the Apostles. In whom for our better methodizing this discourse, we shall observe these three several steps; First, When they were called to be Christ's disciples. Se- condly, When Christ sent them out with a power of miracles. Thirdly, When he gave them their full commission of acting with apostolical power all the world over. These three periods are accurately to be distinguished; for the apostles did not enjoy so great power when they were disciples, as when they were sent abroad by Christ; neither had they any proper power of church government after that sending forth, till after Christ's resurrection, when Christ told them. All power was put into his hands, and therefore gave them full commission to go and preach the gospel to all nations.'^ The first step then we observe in the apostles towards their power of church • Non videretur Dominus discretus fuisse, ut cum reverenlia ejus loquar; nisi unicum post se talem vicariutn reliquisset, qui hsec omnia posset. 2 Matth. xxviii. 18. 3 isa. ix. 6. 4 Matth. xxviii. 18, 19. 228 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF government, was in their first calling to be disciples. Two several calls are observed in scripture concerning the apostles: the first was more general, when they were called only to follow Christ; the second more special, when Christ told them what he called them to, and specified and described their office to them, by telling them he would make them Fishers of men. We shall endeavour to digest the order of their calling as clearly and as briefly as we can. Our blessed Saviour, about the thirtieth year of his age, solemnly entering upon the discharge of his prophetical office,^ in making known himself to be the true Messias to the world, to make his ap- pearance more public, goes to Jordan, and is there baptized of Johnf presently after he is led up by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he continued forty days.^ In this space of time John removes from Jordan, and comes on the other side to Bethahara; thither Christ comes to Johnf John not only owns Christ himself, but tells his disciples, "This was he into whose name he had baptized them." Upon this, two of John's disciples leave their master and follow Christ.^ These two are the first disciples we ever read our Saviour had; whereof the one was Jindreiv, Peter^s brother, and the other probably conceived to be John, (it being his custom to conceal his name when he speaks of himself;) Andrew calls his brother Peter; Christ next day calls Philip; Philip finds Nathaniel; and this, as far as we read, was the first number of Christ's disci- ples. Here we find " two or three gathered together in the name of Christ, and Christ, truly, in the midst of them." These disciples it appears staid with Christ some time, for they went with him to the marriage in Canaf' and after went up with him to Jerusalem:^ when many professed to be his disciples; from thence he goes into Judea, where he gathers many disciples, and baptizeth them.^ After this he returns with his disciples by the way of Samaria into Galilee:'^ and these disciples being now again at home, in probability did return for their livelihood to their old employments for some small time, Christ having not yet commanded them to forsake all and follow him. Not long after, (about a year's space from their first calling,) Jesus being in Galilee, goes to the lake of Genezareth^^ there he finds Andrew and Peter fishing:" after 1 Luke iii. 23. 2 Mat. iii. 23. 3Mat. iv. 1. 4 John i. 29. * John i. 37. 6 John ii. 2, 7 John ii. 17, 23. 8 John iii. 22. 9 John iv. 1. 10 Luke v. 1. " Mallh. iv. 18, 19. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 229 the miracle there wrought, he then in a more solemn manner calls them to leave their employment, for he had designed them for a greater, which was to he fishers of men.^ Whereby our Saviour expresseth the care, pains, diligence, design and end of the ministerial function he had appointed them for. Jlndrew and Peter presently leave all and follow Christ; the like do James and John whom they met with, a little farther upon the shore. And now those who were before but as common disciples, are admitted into a higher order, and bred up by Christ as persons designed for an employment of so high a nature. We see here a necessity of making a double call of the apostles; else it were impossible to reconcile the narration of John with the other evangelists. Therefore Augustine^ thinks their first being with Christ as related by St. John, was only for present satisfaction who he was, which as soon as they understood and admired, tliey returned to their own habitations. St. Thomas Aquinas makes three several callings of them, the first ad agnitionem ct famili- aritatem, " to acknowledgement and intimacy," which is that in John; the second ad discipulatum, "to discipleship," that spoken of in Luke v. 1; the third ad adhxsionem, "to ad- herence,"^ Matth. iv. 18; Mark i. 16. But I see no reason to make the story in Luke to be diff"erent from that of Matthew and Mark; the former, some say, was vocatio ad Jidem, " a call to the faith," a general preparatory call to the latter; the latter was vocatio ad munus apostolicum, " the call to the apostleship," although they were not chosen to be apostles till afterwards, yet now Christ made them candidatos of the apostleship, et amicos intetnoris admissionis, "his friends of a more intimate access," in order to that great employment he had designed them for. Further, we must take notice that from the time of the baptism of John, the Apostles did gene- rally continue with Christ, which appears from the qualifica- tion of an apostle given by Peter at the choice of Matthias; "Of those men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day he was taken up from us."-* The strength of which testimony is impregnable, for proving that the apostles did generally continue with Christ after their being called to follow him; but that time, 1 Mark i. IG, 17. 2 Do Consensu. Evang. ]. 2, cap. 17. 3 V. Casaub. excr. in Bar, xiii. s. II. Montacut. Gv\g. Ecclcs. torn. ]. p, 2. p. 11. Cliemnitiuiii Ilarin. Evan. c. 36. * Acts i, 21, 22. 230 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF from the baptism of John, must not be taken strictly; for many of the apostles, as Matthew, &c. were not called till some time after. ^ About four months after Christ's more solemn calling of the apostles, at the time of Pentecost, as Chemnitius conjectures, our Saviour proceeds to a solemn choice of them into their office, which is described by Luke, vi. 13, after he had prayed the whole night before, v. 12. Mark^ acquaints us with the ends of Christ's choosing them; First, That they might continually attend upon him, the better to be fitted for their employment afterwards; which he expresseth, when he adds, that he might send them out to preach, and to give them power over devils and diseases, to cast out the one, and to cure the other. Their actual sending out was not (say some,) till half a year after, which is the story related by Mat. x. 1; near a twelvemonth, (say others,) but presently upon their choice Christ makes the sermon in the mount, as appears by comparing Luke vi. 17, 20, with Mat. V. 1, wherein among other things, our Saviour takes occasion to declare their duty to them, telling them, " They were the light of the world,'' &c., which he doth the more to fit them for the discharge of their employment. § 3. Having thus laid these things together about the apostles, from their first calling to the time of their mission, we shall take notice of those things from them which may relate to the office which the apostles were called to, and to the government of the church by them. First, We here observe, that our Saviour no sooner began to preach the gospel himself, but he made choice of some persons as a peculiar order of men for the propagation of the gospel in the world. The peculiarity of the function of a gospel ministry under Christ was, we see, designed from Christ's first public appearance in his office: he might have left the apostles in the common order of disciples, had he not in- tended an office in his church distinct and peculiar from all other employments; and therefore it is observable, that Christ did not call the apostles off from their other employments, till he designed to make them apostles; before, when they were only private disciples, they followed their employments at some times still; but when he calls them to he Jis hers of men, he bids them leave all and follow him. Secondly/, We take notice of the admirable wisdom of our Saviour in the choice he made of the persons for first founding his church, ' Harmon, cap. 50. 2 Mark iii. 14, 15. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 231 and the means he used to fit them for it. The persons were such as were most suitable to his design; the means such as were most suitable to the persons. The persons were such, who by reason of the known meanness of their condition, and supposed weakness of abilities, were the fittest to con- vince the world, that the doctrine which they preached was not the product of human wisdom, but the express image and character of divine truth, whose nakedness and simplicity would gain more upon men's belief by the power which ac- companied the preaching of it, than the most refined and sublime notions of their wise men could do, managed with the greatest subtlety and prudence by the maintainers of them. Christ would make men see that his doctrine stood not in need either of the wisdom or power of men, to defend or propagate it; and therefore made choice of the most unlikely instruments for that end, "that men's faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.''^ But withal, we are to take notice of Christ's admirable wisdom in the means he used to fit and qualify them for the first builders of his church; for although the power and efficacy of their preaching was wholly from God, and not from themselves, yet our Saviour doth not presently upon his calling them, place them in the highest office he intended them for, but proceeds gradually with them, and keeps them a long time under his own eye and instruction, before he sends them abroad: and that for two ends chiefly. First, To be ivitnesses of his actions. Secondly, To be auditors of his doctrine. First, To be witnesses of his actions, which was looked on by the apostles, as the most necessary qualification for an apostle in the place before cited, e-^c/* i. 21, 22. Pe/er calls himself a "witness of the suff"erings of Christ," 1 Pet. v. 1. John saith, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life; that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you," 1 John i. 1, 3, whereby the credibility of the gospel was sufficiently evidenced to the world, when the chief preachers spoke nothing but what their own senses were witnesses of, both as to the doctrine and actions of Christ; and therefore it is no ways credible they should be deceived them- selves in what they spoke; and more improbable they would deceive others, whose interest lay wholly upon the truth of 1 1 Cor. ii. 5. 232 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF the doctrine which they preached; for by the very preaching of that doctrine they robbed themselves of all the comforts of life, and exposed themselves to a thousand miseries in this world; so that unless their doctrine was true in order to another life, they were guilty of the greatest folly on earth ever heard of We see what care our Saviour took to satisfy the reasons of men concerning the credibility of his doctrine, when the persons he employed in the founding a church upon it, were only such as were intimately conversant with the whole life, doctrine, and works of him from whom they re- ceived it; and thereby we cannot suppose any ignorance in them concerning the things they spoke; and lest men should mistrust they might have a design to impose on others, he made their faithfulness appear by their exposing themselves to any hazards to make good the truth of what they preached. Especially, having such a divine power accompanying them in the miracles wrought by them, which were enough to per- suade any rational men that they came upon a true embassy, who carried such credentials along with them. Another end of our Saviour's training up his apostles so long in his school before he sent them abroad, was, that they might be auditors of his doctrine, and so might learn themselves before they taught others. Christ was no friend to those hasty births which run abroad with the shell on their heads; no, although it was in his power to confer the gifts of the Holy Ghost, as well at their first entrance into discipleship as afterwards, yet we see he nurtures and trains them up gradually, teaching them as Quiyitilian would have masters do, guttativi, " by drops," acquainting them now with one, then with another of the mysteries of the gospel. Christ doth not overwhelm them with floods and torrents of discourses, but gently drops now one thing into them, then another, by which way such nar- row-mouthed vessels would be the soonest filled. Yea, our Saviour useth such an oixovo^iia, "economy, management," as the Greek fathers call it, such a prudent temper in instructing them, that it is matter of just admiration to consider under how great and stupendous ignorance of the main points of redemption, (Christ's death and resurrection, and the nature of his kingdom,) they discovered, after they had been some years under Christ's tutorage. And we see what industry and diligence was used in the training up of those for the apostleship, who were in an immediate way sent out by Christ. And it is very probable that upon their first sending abroad they taught not by immediate revelation, but only FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 233 what they had learned from Christ during their being with him. Whence we see what a subordination there is in ac- quired parts, labour, and industry, to the teachings and inspi- rations of the Divine Spirit; our Saviour looked not on his labour as lost, although afterwards the lunction from the Holy One should teach iheni all things. It was Christ's design to have them go Vn Sn Vno, "from strength to strength,"^ a domo sanctuarii in domtcm doctrinse,^ as the Chaldee para- jihrast renders that place, "from one school of learning to another." As under the law even those that waited for the Ruach hakkodesh, "the inspiration of the Divine Spirit," were brought up in the schools of the prophets under instruc- tion there: which was the place where they lay expecting the gentle gale of the Holy Spirit to carry them forth; which was the ground of Amos^s complaint, that "he was neither a pro- phet, nor the son of a prophet;"^ by which it seems evident that God's ordinary course was to take some of the sons of the prophets out of the colleges where they lived, and employ them in the prophetical office. But of this largely elsewhere. Such a school of the prophets did our Saviour now erect, wherein he entered his disciples as scholars, and educated them in order to the office he intended for them. § 4. The next thing we take notice of, is, the name and nature of that office which Christ called them to. They who derive the use of the name of apostles as applied by Christ to hisdisciples, either from the arto^oTtEtj, "apostles," at Jj/Aen*, by which name the masters of some ships were called, as the ships drtoj-oTiof,, " sent forth," or from Hesychius^s'^ a7iogo7,ov, which he interprets i/V;iK?)ay«yo5, "those who conducted the bride to the bridegroom," or from the drtosoxou in the sense of the civil law, which signifies the "dismissory letters granted for appeals;" or from the Jewish pn^bty, "sent," as thereby were understood those drtos'o:^ot as Epiphanius calls them, who were as asses- sors and counsellors to XhQ patriarch of the Jews at Tiberias; or those "officers who were sent" up and down by \he patri- arch to gather up tenths, first fruits, and such other things; who are called thence apostoli in the Codex. Theod. tit. de Judaeis;^ all these I say do equally lose their labour, and run far to fetch that which might be found much nearer home. ' Psalms Ixxxiv. 7. 2 " From the house of the Sanctuary to the house of doctrine." 3 Amos vii. 14. * Suidas in v. Digest. I. 50, tit. 16, leg. 106. Cont. Ebionitas. s Lib. 16, tit. 8. 30 234 THE DIVINE RIGHT or Our Saviour taking the word from common use, but applying it m a special manner to a peculiar sense, which is the cus- tom of the Scriptures. The original of the word properly imports such as are employed by commission from another for the despatch of some business in his name. So Casaubon,^ (who was sufiiciently able to judge of the use of a Greek word,) "certain men, in the common Greek dialect, are called ario^oxoi, wlio are sent to some places, more for the purpose of carrying on some concern, than for conveying news," And so it is taken, John xiii. 16, ovhs aHogoxo^ ^n^av -tov rt£;u4ai'i'o5 wvtov, "He that is sent is not greater than he that sent him." Thence Epaphroditus when employed upon a special mes- sage to Paul in the name of the churches, is called dTiogoxo^ vficiv, Fhilippians il .25, which we translate "your messen- ger." And so Titus and the two other sent to the church of Corinth to gather their charity,^ are called aTto^o^oi cxxXT^aicovy "the messengers of the churches." Thence Faul fully ren- ders the import and sense of the word apostle by rt^saSsvofisv, 2 Corinth, v. 20. We act as "ambassadors" for Christ. To which purpose it is observable that the Septuagint, (whose Greek is most followed by the New Testament,) do render the word nSiy when it signifies to employ a messenger upon special service, by aHo^s-KUiv, "to send,"^ as 1 King. xxi. 11; 1 King. xii. IS; Exod. iv. 30, and the very word drtos-o^o? is used in this sense, 1 King. xiv. G, where Ahijah saith, I am ttrtos-oxcj rt^oj (j£ axxriepi, "a sad messenger to thee;" for, thus saith the Lord, &c. Whereby the full sense and importance of the word apostle appears to be, one that is employed by a peculiar commission from him that hath authority over him for the doing some special service. Thus were Christ's dis- ciples called apostles from the immediate commission which they had from Christ for the discharge of that work which he employed them in. Thence our Saviour makes use of the word sending in the proper and peculiar sense when he gives the apostles their commission, in those remarkable words of Christ to them; As the Father hath sent me even so send I you. John xx. 21. Whereby our Saviour delegates his power and authority which he had as doctor of the church, to his apostles upon his leaving the world, not in 3. privative way, so as to destroy his own authority over the church, but ' In communi Grfficorum usu awoj-oXot dicebantur ccrti homines qui negotii gerendi gratia,, niagis quam deferendi nunlii, aliquo niittebantur. — Excrcit. 14, sect. 4. 2 2Cor. viii.SS. 3 "A naval expedition; a.iro(;-o\a TrXoia, transport vessels, express-boats." FORMS OP CHUKCH GOVERNMENT. 235 in a cwmulative toay, investing them with that authority which they had not before, for both teaching and governing the church. No argument then can be drawn for the right or form of church government from Christ's actions towards his disciples before tlie last and full commission was given unto them; because they had no power of church govern- ment before that time. § 5. Which will be further cleared if we consider their first sending out, spoken in Matth. x. 1, Mark vi. 7, Luke ix. 1. Several things lie in our way to be observed in reference to this mission of the apostles. First, that though the apostles had been now for some competent time, not only called to their office, but solemnly chosen to it; yet we nowhere read that they did ever exercise that office till now they were sent forth by Christ. They remained still at Christ's feet, learning for their own instruction, and fitting themselves for their future employment, and thought it no inconvenience while they lay for a wind, to lay in sufficient lading and provision for their voyage. Baptize indeed they did before, Joh7i iv. 2, but that I suppose was done by them by an immediate present order from Christ himself, being by as the chief in the action, thence Christ in one place is said to baptize, John iii. 22, and yet he is said not to baptize, but his disciples, Joh?i iv. 2. Christ did it authoritatively , the disciples ministerially. Yet if we should grant the disciples did then baptize as private men after the received custom of the Jews, (among whom only a confessus trium, "a session of three," /. e. teacher, was re- quisite to baptize a proselyte,) this doth not at all take oft' from the peculiarity of a function both to preach and baptize, be- cause as yet the gospel ministry was not instituted; and there- fore what might be lawful before restraint, doth not follow it should be so after: when all those scattered rays and beams, which were dispersed abroad before, were gathered into the ministerial office upon Christ's appointing it, as that great hemisphere of light in the creation, was after swallowed up in the body of the sun. But now were the apostles first sent out to preach, and now God first begins to null the Jewish minis- try, and set up another instead of it, and makes good that threatening: "That he was against the shepherds, and would require the flock at their hand, and cause them to cease to feed the flock,"^ &c. Here then we have the first exercise of the apostles' ministry, for which we see, besides their former ' Ezek. x.\xiv. 10. 236 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF call and choice, particular mission was afterwards necessary. Secondly, we observe that the employment Christ sent them upon now, was only a temporary employment, confined as to work and place, and not the full apostolical work. The want of considering and understanding this, hath been the ground of very many mistakes among men, when they argue from the occasional precepts here given the apostles, as from a standing perpetual rule for a gospel ministry: whereas our Saviour only suited these instructions to the present case, and the nature and condition of the apostles' present employment, which was, not to preach the gospel up and down themselves, •but to be as so many John Bajjtists to call people to the hear- ing of Christ himself; and therefore the doctrine they were to preach was the same with his, " the kingdom of Heaven is at hand,"^ whereby it appears their doctrine was only pre- paratory to Christ; it being only to raise up higher expecta- tions of the gospel state under the Messias; and these were they "whom the King now sent into the highways to invite men to the marriage-feast, and to bid them to come in to hira."^ Tills was the only present employment of the apostles in their first mission: in which they were confined to the cities of Judea, that they might have the first refusal of the gospel offers. This mission then being occasional, limited, and temporary, cdin yield no foundation io\ dj\yih\n% ]jerpetual io be built upon it. Thirdly, we observe that those whom Christ employed in the first dispersing of the gospel abroad, Avere furnished with arguments sufficient to evince not only the credibility, but the certain truth of what they preached. Therefore Christ, when he now sent them out, gave them i'^ovoiav 'sivevfiatav, "power ovcr Spirits," not only "a mere power to work miracles, but a right conferred on them to do it as the apostles of Christ."^ These were the creden- tials which the apostles carried along with them to show from whom they derived their power, and by whose autho- rity they acted. And these were the most suitable to them, as making it appear that a divine presence went along with them, and therefore they could not falsify to the world in what they declared unto them; which was the best way for them to evidence the truth of their doctrine, because it was not to be discovered by the evidence of the things themselves, but it depended upon the testimony of the author; and therefore the only way to confirm the truth of the doctrine, was to confirm 1 Matth. X. 7. 2 Matth. xxii. 9. 3 Matth. x. 2. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 237 the credibility of the author, which was best done by doing something above what tlie power of nature could reach unto. And this was the prerogative of the apostles in their first mis- sion above John the Baptist: for of him it is said that he did no miracle. Fourthly, we observe that the apostles in this mission were invested in no power over the church, nor in any superiority of order one over another. The first is evi- dent, because Christ did not now send them abroad to gather churches, but only to call persons to the doctrine of the Mes- sias; and while Christ was in the world among them, lie retained all church power and authority in his own hand. When this temporary mission expired, the apostles lived as private persons still under Christ's tutorage, and we never read them acting in the least as church officers all that while. Which may appear from this one argument, because all the time of our Saviour's being in the world, he never made a total separation from the Jewish church, but frequented with his disciples the temple ivot^ship and service to the last; al- though he superadded many gospel observances to those of the laiv. And therefore when no churches were gathered, the apostles cowXA have no church pov/er over them. All that can be pleaded then in order to church government from the consideration of the form of government as settled by our Sa- viour, must be either from "a supposed inequality among the apostles themselves, or their superiority over the seventy dis- ciples; or from some rules laid down by Christ in order to the government of his church: of which two are the most insisted on," Matthew xx. 25; xviii. 17. Of these in their order. § 6. The first argument drawn for an established form of government in the church, from the state of the apostles under Christ, is, " from a supposed inequality among the apostles, and the superiority of one as monarch of the church;" which is the papist's plea from St. Peter, as the chief and head of the apostles. Whose loud exclamations for St. Peter^s au- thority are much of the same nature with those o{ Demetrius the silversmith, at ^/;Ae5z<.s, with his fellow craftsmen, who cried up, great is Diana of the Ephesians, not from the honour they bore to her as Diana, but from the gain which came to them from her worship at Ephesus. But I dispute not now the entail of St. Peter'' s power, whatever it was to the Ro- man bishop: but I only inquire into the pleas drawn for his authority from the scriptures, which are written in so small a character, that without {\iii spectacles oi aw implicit faith, they will scarcely appear legible to the eyes of men. For what 23S THE DIVINE RIGHT OF though Christ changed St. Peter's name? must it iherefbic folJow that Christ baptized him monarch of his church? Were not John and James called by Christ Boanerges? and j/^et who thinks that those sons of thunder must tlierefore overturn all other power but their own? Christ gave them new names, to show his own authority/ over them, and not their authority over others; to be as monitors of their duty, and not as in- struments to convey power. So Chrysostom says that the very name Peter, given to Simon, was to show him his duty of being fixed and stable in the faith of Christ, 'iva txn BtSaaxa- %ov St,t]vsxV *'?'' fipo(Sf!yo^i,av -fru 'toiavtrii ^eppoift^'ifos,^ " tliat lie might have a teacher, as a perpetual remembrancer," (or as a string on his finger,) of such stability; (i. e. of a rock.) And like- wise, I conceive, as an encouragement to him after his fall, that he should recover his former stability again; else it should seem strange that he alone of the apostles should have his name from frmness and stability, who fell the soonest, and the foulest of any of the apostles, unless it were xat avtt^^aatv, "by antiphrase," which would be worse divinity than rheto- ric. The change then of St. Peter's name imports no such universal power, neither from the change, nor from the name. But why then hath St. Peter the honour to be named first of all the apostles? First, it seems to be implied as an honour given to Peter above the rest. But doth all honour carry a universal power along with it? There may be order certainly among equals; and there may be frst, secorul, and third, 6)-c. where there is no imparity and jurisdiction in tlie first over all the rest. Primacy of order as among equals, I know none will deny St. Peter: a primacy of poiver as over inferiors, I know none will grant, but such as have subdued their reason to their passion and interest. Nay, a further order than of mere place may without danger be attributed to him. i/l 2irimacy in order of time, as being of the first called, and it may be the first who adhered to Christ, m o7'der of age; of which Jerome says, setati delatum quia Petrus senior erat, " It was conferred on age, because Peter was the senior," speaking of Peter and John; nay yet higher, some order of dignity \.oof in regard of his '^te^y^oiriz, "warmth," of which the Greek fathers speak so much; the fervency and heat of his spirit, whence by Eusebius^ he is called s^oj^yopoj tw arto$o%ap, "the prolocutor amoug the apostles," who was ' Tom. 8, cd. Savil. p. 105. 2 Lib. 1, 6, Jovin. Mlist. Ecclcbicist. lib. 2, c. 14. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 239 therefore most forward to inquire, most ready to answer; whicii Chrysostom elegantly calls Tt^oHYihav, "a springing be- fore," alluding to the name xo^u^atoj, "a leader," and tia^x^i,^ "one that commences, that starts," which are frequently given to Peter by the fathers, which import no more than j^rmsuUor in chored, " he that led the dance" among the disciples: but his being xopv^aioj implies no superiority of power. For Dyo- nys. Halicarnass.^ calls Jippius Claudius ts xopv^avotatov ttji Ssxa^xi'O'i^ " the chief, (though not in power,) amongst the Decemviri," whereas all know that the Decemviri had an equality of power among themselves. Neither doth his being as the moiUh of the disciples imply his power; for Aaron was a mouth to Moses, but Moses was Jiaron^s master. Neither yet doth this primacy of order always hold in reference to Peter, for although generally he is named first of the apostles, as in Matthew^x. 2; Mark iii. 16; Acts I 13; Mark \. 36; Luke viii, 45; Acts ii. 14 — 37. Yet in other places of scrip- ture we find other apostles set in order before him, as James, Galat. ii. 9: Paul and Apollos, and others, 1 Cor. iii. 22; 1 Cor. i. 12 — ix. 5. No argument then can be drawn hence, if it would hold but only a primacy of order; and yet even that fails too in the scripture's changing of the order so often. " But, say they, whatever becomes of this order, we have a strong foundation for St. Peter's power, because Christ said, he would build his church upon him," Matth. xvi. 17. This were something indeed, were it proved; but I fear this rock will not hold water, as it is brought by them; nor St. Peter prove to be that rock. For indeed, was the church built upon St. Pete?'? then he must be the chief foundation stone, and Peter must build upon himself, and not upon Christ, and all the apostles upon him; and thus in exalting the servant, we depress the master; and in setting a new foundation, we take away the only foundation, Jesus Christ.^ If by being built upon Peter, they mean no more than being built by him as the chief instrument, it is both a very incongruous speech, and implies nothing more than what was common to him and the rest of the apostles, who were all master builders in the church of Christ, as Paul calls himself, and in that respect are set forth as the twelve foundation stones,^ in the walls of the New Jerusalem. The rock then spoken of by Christ, in his speech to Peter, 1 Chrysost. in Matlli. vi. 16. 2 Hist. Rom. lib. 11. 3 1 Cor. iii. 12. 4 Rev. xxi. 19. 240 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF if taken doctrinally , was St. Peter^s confession, as many of the fathers interpret it; if taken personally, it was none other but Christ himself; who used a hke speech to this, when he said, " Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."^ Which words, though spoken by occasion of the mate- rial temple, (as those were of Peter^s name,) yet Christ under- stood them of the temple of his body, (as here likewise he doth of his person.) But still they urge, Christ put the keys into St. Peter's hands, Matthew xvi. 19. Noio the power of the keys doth denote regal authority. I answer, First, The keys may be given two ways, either from a prince to a sub- ject, or froiu a city to a prince. In this latter acceptation, they denote principality in the receiver, but withal inferiority and subjection in the giver; and in this sense, I am so charita- ble, as to think they will not say that Christ gave the keys to Peter; it must then be as a prince to a subject; and when they are so given, it doth not imply an universal power in the persons to whom they are given, but an investing them in that particular place he hath appointed them to; the office which the power of the keys implies, is ministerial, and not authoritative; declarative, and not juridical; over persons committed to their charge, and not over officers joined in equality of power ivith them. For so were the rest of the apostles with Peter in the same power of the keys, Matth. xviii. 18; John xx. 23. This power of the keys then was given to Peter in a peculiar manner, but nothing peculiar to him given thereby. But still there remains another ivard in St. Peter's keys, and the last foot to the pope's chair, which is pasce oves, "Feed my sheep;" a charge given particuUwly to Peter, John xxi. 15. Thence they infer his poiver over the ivhole church. But this foot hath neither joints nor sineivs in it, and is as infirm as any of the rest; for neither did this command nor the commission belong only to Peter; for Christ had before given them all their general com- mission: "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you," John XX. 21; whereby is implied an investing all the apostles equally, with the power and authority of governing the church of God; although this charge be peculiarly renewed to Peter, because as he had particularly fallen, so he should be par- ticularly restored; neither yet did we grant this: doth the word rtotjuatvstv " to pasture, to feed," imply such a power and authority as they plead for, viz. a supreme power over the 1 John ii. 19. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 241 church of God? for this even by Peter himself is attributed to the fixed presbyters of the churches, who by this argument have as much authority conveyed them, as St. Peter had, 1 Peter v. 2; and yet should we grant this, it would not infer what they desire; for these sheep were not the whole church of Christ, taken absolutely, but indefinitely. For all the apostles had a command to preach to every creature, Matth, xxviii. IS, which was as to the words larger, as to the sense the same with that to St. Peter here. And afterwards we find Peter called the apostle of circumcision^ and the apos- tles sending him to Samaria,^ and Paul in the right hand of fellowship loith Peter f" which had been certainly dis- honourable to Peter, had he been invested with such an universal supreme power over the apostles and the whole church. Such pretences then as these are for such an extra- vagant power in the church of God, from such miserably weak foundations, for the upholding a corrupt interest, have given the occasion to that tart sarcasm. In papatu sub Petro nudo nomine Satan non amplius larva, " In the papacy, under the mere name of Peter, Satan is not larger than a sprite." But that which would seem sufficient to awaken any out of this dream of St. Peter^s power over the rest of the apostles, is, the frequent contendings of the twelve apostles, one among another, who should be the greatest;'* and that even after that Christ had said, " Upon this Rock will I build ray church," as we may see Matthew xx. 24, If Christ had conferred such a power on St. Peter, what little ground had there been for the request of James and Johnl and would not our Saviour rather have told them, the chiefest place was conferred on Peter already, than have curbed their ambition in seeking who should be greatest; and would have bid them be subject to Peter as their head and ruler. We see not then the least foundation for an universal monarchy in the church of God; and so this form of government is not determined by any actions or commands of Christ. § 7. We come now to consider the pleas of others, who join in renouncing any supreme power under Christ, over the church of God; but differ as to the particular forms of govern- ment in the church; those who are for an inequality, usually fix on the imparity between the apostles and the Seventy; those that are for di parity, upon Matth. xx. 25, and Matth. > Gal. ii. 7. 2 Acts viii. 14. 3 Qal. ii. 9. ■* Mat. xviii. 1; ix. 34. Luke ix. 46. 31 242 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF xviii. 17. 1 shall here proceed in the former method, to show that none of those can prove the form they contend for as only necessary^ for their adversaries prove it imlaivfnl. First, then, for the inequality between the apostles and the seventy disciples; by that inequality is meant, either only an ine- quality of order; or else, an inequality carrying superiority and subordination. It is evident that the sev&nty disciples were not of the same order with the twelve apostles, whom Christ had designed for the chief government of his church, after his ascension; and in this respect the comparison of the twelve heads of the tribes, and the seventy elders, seems parallel with the twelve apostles, and the seventy disciples; but if by imparity, be meant, that the twelve apostles had a superiority of power and jurisdiction over the seventy dis- ciples, there is not the least evidence or foundation, in reason or scripture for it. For the seventy did not derive their power from the apostles; but immediately from Christ; they enjoyed the same privileges, were sent upon the same mes- sage,i (making way for Christ's entertainment in the several cities they went to,) yea, all things were parallel between them and the apostles in their mission, (unless any difference be made in the cities they went to, and their number.) So that there is no superiority of office in the apostles, above the seventy, nor of power and jurisdiction over them; their com- missions being the same: and it seems most probable that both their missions were only temporary, and after this the seventy remained in the nature of private disciples, till they were sent abroad by a new commission after the resurrection, for preaching the gospel, and planting churches. For we see that the apostles themselves were only probationers, till Christ solemnly authorized them for their apostolical employment, MatthilxxvVn. 18, John xx. 21, when their full commissions were granted to them, and then indeed they acted with a ple7iitude ofpoiver,as governors of the church, but not before. Nothing can be inferred then for any necessary standing rule for church government, from any comparison between the apostles and the seventy during the life of Christ, because both their missions were temporary and occasional. Only we see, that because Christ did keep up the number of the twelve so strictly, that as the seventy were a distinct number from them, so when one was dead, another was to be chosen in his stead, (which had been needless, if they had not been a dis- 1 Luke X. 12. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 243 tinct order and college by themselves,) it is thence evident that the apostoUcal power was a superior power to any in the church; and that such an inequahty in church officers as was between them and particular pastors of churches, is not contrary to what our Saviour saith, when he forbids that do- minion and authority in his disciples, which was exercised by the kings of the earth, Matthew xx. 25, Luke xxii. 25, wiiich places, because they are brought by some to take away all inequality among church officers, I shall so far examine the meaning of them, as they are conceived to have any in- fluence thereupon. First, then, I say, that it is not only the abuse of civil power, which our Saviour forbids his disciples, but the exercise of any such power as that is. And there- fore the papists are mistaken, when from the words of Luke, vos autem non sic^ they conclude, all power is not forbidden, but only such a tyrannical power, as is there spoken of. For those words are not a limitation and modification of the power spoken of, but a total prohibition of it; for first, the comparison is not between the aposles and tyrants, but be- tween them and princes, yea such as Luke calls ivt^yitai, " benefactors."^ Indeed, had Christ said, the kings of the earth abuse their authority; vos autem non sic, "but ye shall not do SO;" then it would have been only a limitation of the exercise of power; but the mere exercise of civil authority being spoken of before, and then it being subjoined, but you not so; it plainly implies a forbidding of the power spoken of, in the persons spoken to. But, say they, the words used in Matthew, are xar'axD^te'uoDffu/, "rule," and xarsloixjiafoiKjH', "e:^- ercise authority," which import the abuse of their power, which is forbidden. But I answer, first, in Luke it is other- wise; for there it is the simple xv^iivovaiv, " to be lord over," and flovffid^oj'T'Ej, " exercise authority," when it follows, vjustj ^6 ovx oD-fwj, " but ye shall not do so." So that if the abuse be forbidden in one, the use is in the other: but, secondly, xataxvpisviiv, by the seventy is used frequently for xup^xifiv, and n-n, " he has the dominion," is often rendered by that word; as Psalm Ixxii. 8, " he shall have dominion," xaiaxv^nvan; Psalm ex. 2, xa,T;a.xve,i.iVi, " rule thou in the midst of thine ene- mies;" in both which places, it is spoken of Christ's kingdom.^ oO Ul CrCneSlS i. 28, fi%ri^i)aa'ts -ti^v yriv x(xv xaiaxv^CBvaaHs avtfji, • Tlie Greek is, vfjttti h ouk ouTWf, which the vulgate renders as above. The English version supplying the ellipsis has, But ye shall not be so. 2 Luke xxii. 25. 3 Psalm, lix. Jer. iii. Numb. xiii. 32. 244 THE DIVINE RIGHT 0¥ "replenish the earth, and have dominion over it." In all which places, it is used simply for dominion, and not for tyran- nical power. It is not then the abuse of civil power, but the use of it, which is here forbidden: which will be more evident secondly, from the importance of the phrase hvx ourcoj, "not so," which answers to the Hebrew id x'?, and simply denies what went before; as when Cain expresseth his fear of being killed, Genesis iv. 14. The Sepluagint render God's answer by 6vx ovtioi, whereby is not denied, only the manner of his death, to be as .Abel's was, but it is simply denied; and so Psalm i. 4, the seventy render D';?[i'-in p ah by dvx 6vt(^i, 6i dus&tj 6v% ovtui, " the wicked are not so." So, when Christ saith, Mattheio xix, 8, an a^x^i 5s 6v yiyovsv 6W«, "from the beginning it was not so;" it imports an absolute denial of giving bills of divorce from the beginning. Thirdly, This no ways answers to the scope of the apostles' contention, which was merely about primacy and power, and not at all about the abuse of this power. So that by this place, all affectation and use of a civil, co-active, external power is forbidden to the officers of the church; the power of the church being only a directive, voluntary power; and is rather a ministry than z. power, as our Saviour expresseth there, Mattheio xx. 26; Luke xxii. 26. But having thus excluded all civil power from the governors of the church, as such: I say, secondly, that this place doth no ways imply a prohibition of all inequality among the governors of the church: which is abundantly cleared by this reason, because by the acknowledgement of all parties, the apostles had a superior power over the ordi- nary pastors of churches. Now if the exercise of all supe- riority had been forbidden, this must have been forbidden too; as implying plainly an exercise of authority in some over others in the church. And therefore Musculus thus explains the place; ''But Christ did not require that all in his king- dom should be equal, but that none should desire to be ac- counted, or appear to be great.''^ It is not an inequality of order, but ambition, which Christ forbids; and therefore he observes that Christ saith not. Let none be great among you, and none first; which should have been, if all primacy and superiority had been forbidden, and a necessity of an equality among church officers; "but he that will be great ' Non cxigit lioc Christus ut omnes in regno suo sint aequales, sed ne quis- piam cupiut magnus et primus haberi et videri. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 245 among you, let him be your minister." Let those that are above others look upon themselves as the servants of others, and not as their masters. For God never bestows any power on any, for the sake of those that have it, but for the sake of those for whom they are employed. When men seek then their own greatness, and not the service of the church, they flatly contradict this precept of Christ, "But with you it shall not be so." But however an inequality of power and order for the church's good is not thereby prohibited: which is sufficient for my purpose. § 8. The next place to be considered, is that in Matthew xviii. 15, 16, 17. "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heatlien man and a publican." It seems a very strange thing to consider, that this one place hath been j)ressed by all parties to serve under them, for the mainte- nance of their own particular form of government: so that, (as the Jews^ fable of the vianna,) it hath had a different taste, according to the diversity of the palates of men. Those that are for a congregational church, being the first recep- tacle of church power, set this place in the front of their arguments; those who, plead for standing presbyteries, lay elders, subordination of courts, fetch all these out of this place; those that are for ^ poiuer of church discipline to be only lodged in a higher order of church officers succeeding the apostles, derive the succession of that power from this place; nay lest quidlibet should not be proved t quodlibet, "lest anything you like should not be proved from anything you like," the papists despair not of proving the constant visibility of the church, the subordination of all to the pope, the infallibility of general councils, all out of this place. Methinks then it might be argmnent enough of the incompetency of this place to determine any oye particular form, when it is with equal confidence on all sides brought to prove so many; especially if it be made appear that the general rule laid down in these words, may be observed under a diversity of forms of government. For whether by the church, we mean the community of the faithful in a par- ticular congregation, or the standing officers of such a church, 246 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF or a consistorial court, or synodical assembly, or higher church officers, it is still the duty of men hi case of offences, to tell the church for redress of grievances, or vindication of the person himself, that he hath discharged his duty. This place then determines not what this church is, nor what the form of its government should be, when the sense of it holds good and true under such diversity of forms. But we shall further inquire what influence this place can have upon the modelling the government in the church of God. For Chamier^ tells us, the prima poUtise ecclesiasticss origo^ "the origin of the ecclesiastic polity," is to be found in these words; it will be then worth our inquiry to see what foundation for church government can be drawn out of these words. In which the variety of expositions, (like a multitude of physicians to a distempered patient,) have left it worse than they found it; I mean more difficult and obscure. We shall therefore endeavour to lay aside all preconceptions by other men's judgments and opinions, and see what innate light there is in the text itself to direct us to the full sense and meaning of it. Two things the great difficulty of the place lies in, Whctt the offences are here spoken of? What the church is lohich jnust be spoken to? For the First, I conceive it evident to any unprejudiced mind, that the matter our Saviour speaks of, is a matter of private offence and injury, and not a matter of scandal, as such considered in a church society; which I make appear thus. First, From the parallel place to this, Luke xvii. 3, " If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." This can be nothing else bufa matter of private injury, because it is in the power of every private person to forgive it; which it was not in his power to do, were it a matter of scandal to the whole church; unless we make it among Christians, (as it was among the Jews,) that every private person might excommunicate another, and to release him afterward. Secondly, It manifestly appears from St. Peter's words next after this paragraph, Matth. xviii. 20, " Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him, till seven times?" &c. Christ answers hiin, " till seventy |imes seven," that is, as often as he doth it. And thence Christ brings the parable of the king forgiving his servants, verse 23. Thirdly, Were it meant of any scanda- • Tom. 2,1. 10, c. 5, s. 2. ^ " Prima origo" is evidently a pleonasm, and such in the ancient languages often elegantly render the phrase intensive. — Am. Ed. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 247 Ions sin committed with the privacy of any particulnr person, (as many understand trespassing against thee, that is, te con- scio, "thee knowing, or conscious of it,") then this inconve- nience must necessarily follow, that matters of scandal must be brought to the church's cognizance when there can be no way to decide them; that is, wiien one otfends, and only one person knows it; here will be a single affirmation on one side, and denial on the other side, and so there can be no way to decide it; the matter here spoken of then is somewhat only relating to the offence or injury of some particular person, and not a matter of scandal to the whole church. The question then as propounded to be spoken to by our ■ Saviour is, "What is to be done in case of private offences between man and man?" and not in case of secret sins against God, and scandalous to the church? Now to this our Saviour lays down his answer gradually: first, there must be private admonition; if that succeed not, ^ admonition before loit- nesses; if not that, te/tinff the church; if not that either, re- puting him as a heathen and publican. Now in this answer, we must conceive our Saviour speaks as to an ordinary case, so in a way easy to be understood by all that heard him: and therefore he must speak in allusion to what was at that lime among the Jews in such cases, which is freely acknow- ledged both by Calvin and Beza^ upon that place.^ "For this certainly appears to be said, as if to the Jews; at least from what he adds: let him be to thee as a heathen, and as a Ro- man tax-gatherer."^ We must then see what the custom was among the Jews in such cases, and how far our Saviour doth either approve the custom received, or appoint new. The law was very strict in case of offences, "for every man in any wise to rebuke his neighbour, and not to suffer sin upon him,"'* Jirguendo argues, "reproving thou shalt reprove;" our old translation renders it, "Thou shalt plainly rebuke thy neighbour." Now this piece of necessary discipline our Sa- viour endeavours to recover among them, which it seems was grown much out of use with them. For Itabbi Chanina, as Mr. Selden^ observes, gave this as one reason of the destruc- ' Beza in Inc. 2 N.im ccr\h tanquam de Jadaeis haec dici apparet, saltern ex eo quod addit, sit tibi sicut etlinicus et publicanus. 3 Tlie Vulgate translated tsXwvh? by publicanus, hence publican in our version; but in both languages it signified a tax-gatherer; and it is easy to perceive how odious a Roman tax-gatherer must have been to the Jews whilst they had "to pay tribute to Caesar." — Am. Ed. * Lev. X. 17. 5 De Syned. 1. 1, o, 9. In Gemar. Babyl. ad tit. Rhabbath. c. 16, fo. 119. 248 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF tion of Jerusalem, "because they left off reproving one an- another:" Non excisa fuissent Hierosoylma, nisi quoniam alter alterum non coarguebat , "Jerusalem had not been de- stroyed, had one not neglected to reprove the other." Our Saviour therefore enforceth this law upon them in case of oifences; first, to deal plainly with their neighbour in reprov- ing him: but our Saviour rests not here, but beii]g himself a pattern of meekness and charity, he would not have tiiem to rest in a bare private admonition, but to show their own readiness to be reconciled, and willingness to do good to the soul of the olfending party thereby, he adviseth further to take two or three witnesses with them, hoping thereby to work more upon him: but if still he contiimes refractory, and is not sensible of his miscarriage, tell it the church. What the church here is, is the great controversy. Some, as Bezu and his followers, understand an ecclesiastical sanhedrim among the Jews,^ which had the proper cognizance of ecclesiastical causes; but it will be hard to prove any such sanhedrim in use among them; the priests and Levites indeed were very often chosen into the sanhedrim^ (which it may be is the ground of the mistake, but there was no such sanhedrim among them, which did not respect matters criminal and civil. So we must understand what Josephus^ speaks of the priests among the Jews: "The priests were always very studious of the law, and other matters of concernment. These were appointed as the overseers of all things, judges of controversies, and the punishers of condemned persons."** Thus we see, he is so far from attributing a distinct ecclesiastical court to them, that he seems to make them the only judges in civil and criminal causes. Others by the church, understand the Christian church; but herein they are divided; some understanding by it only the officers of the church: so Chrysostom, toi<; n^otsE- B^ivovsi,, or "those diligently occupied about any concern or place." Euthemius ecclesiam nunc vocal presides sidelium ecclesise, " calls a church, the chief of the faithful of a church." Others understand it not in its representative notion, but in its diffusive capacity, as taking in all the members. But our Saviour speaking to a present case, must be supposed to lay down a present remedy, which could not be, if he gave only • V. Grotiiim in Matth. v. 12. " Selden de Syned. 1, 2, c. 8, 3 Josepl). 1. 2, cont. Appion. * TouTojj xai nv Kcn Tovvofxov x.ai touv uWaivs Trirnhvfjiariiiv ax^e^ni; imfxlXsia, xai ya» i£J6if Brct.)(6>iirav. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 249 rules for governing his chnrch which was not as yet gathered nor formed, there being then no court ecclesiastical for them to appeal unto. Suppose then this case to have fallen out immediately after our Saviour's speaking it, that one brother should trespass against another, either then notwithstanding our Saviour's speech, (which speaks to the present time, "go and tell the church,") the offended brother is left without a power of redress; or he must understand it in some sense of the word church, which was then in use among the Jews. And these, who tell us, "That unless fxx^iysta be understood for a church as we understand it, it would be no easy matter for us now to conceive what the Holy Ghost meant by it,"^ would do well withal to consider how those to whom Christ spoke should apprehend his meaning if he spoke in a sense they never heard of before. And, certainly, our best way to understand the meaning of scripture is to consider what, of luhom, to ivhom, the scripture speaks; for although the scrip- ture, as a rule of faith for us, be supposed to be so written, as to be easily understood by us, yet as the parcels of it were spoken upon several occasions, they must be supposed to be so spoken, as to be apprehended by them to whom they were spoken in the common sense of the words, if nothing peculiar be expressed in the speech, whereby to restrain them to an- other sense. And therefore the church must be understood in the same sense wherein the word '7np, <■'• kahal,d.\\ assembly or congregation," or the Syriac answering to it, was appre- hended among the Jews in our Saviour's time. Which could not be for any new consistory or sanhedrim to be erected under the gospel. Thence others conceiving that Christ did speak according to the custom of the Jews, by the church, under- stand nothing else but the sanhedrim, and so make the sense of the words to be this: The case our Saviour speaks to, is that of private quarrels, wherein our Saviour lays down two directions in a way of charity, /^r/i'a/fe adm,n7iitiou, nnd before witnesses; but if the party continues refractory, then it may be lawful to summons him before the courts of judicature among them, the triumvirate, the twenty-three, or the great sanhedrim; for although the Romans had taken away the power of the Jews in capital matters, yet they allowed them liberty of judging in the case of private quarrels; but if he neglect to hear the sanhedrim, then it may be lawful to im- plead him before the governor of the province in his court of 1 Gelespy, Aaron's Rod, I, 3, c, 2, p. 552, 1. 2, c. 9, p. 296. 32 SiW THE DIVINE RIGHT OF judicature, by which heathens and pubUcans were to be judged: which is meant by let him be to thee, not as a brother Jew, but as a heathen and a publican. This exposition is said to be first broached by Erastus, but much improved and enlarged by Reverend Bishop Bilson,^ who spends a whole chapter upon it. But this exposition, though it seems fair and plausible, yet there are several things in it which keep me from embracing it; as, ^r*/, it seems not very probable that our Saviour should send his disciples to whom he speaks, to the Jewish sanhedri??i for the ending any controversies arising among themselves; knowing how bitter enemies they were to all the followers of Christ. Secondly, \i seems not very agree- able with the scope of our Saviour's speech, which was to take up differences as much as may be among his disciples, and to make them show all lenity and forbearance towards those that had offended them, and to do good to the souls of those that had injured and provoked them; whereas this com- mand of telling the sanhedri7n, and impleading offenders before heathen courts, tends apparently to heighten the bitterness and animosities of men's spirits one against another: and lays religion so open to obloquies, which makes Paiil so severely reprove the "Christians at Corinth for going to law before heathen magistrates;"^ therefore to say that Christ allows there going to law before heathens, ar.d Paul to forbid it, were, in- stead of finding a way to end the differences among Christians, to make one between Christ and Faid. Thirdly, the thing chiefly aimed at by Christ, is not a man's vindication of him- self, or recovering losses by injuries received, but the reco- vering and gaining the offending brother; which evidently appears by what our Saviour adds to the using admonition in private, "if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brotlier." Now xs^Satj'sii/, "to gain," in the New Testament is used for the conversion and turning others from sin. " That I might gain them that are under the law," 1 Corinth, ix. 19, .20, &c. So 1 Peter iii. 1, explained by James v. 20. Our Saviour then speaks not to the manner of proceeding as to civil inju- ries, which call for restitution, but to such as call for recon- ciliation. And so the case I conceive is that of private dif- ferences and quari'els between men, and not lawsuits nor civil causes: I mean such differences as respect persons and not things; for the ending of which our Saviour lays down these rules. And therefore I cannot but wonder to see some ' Thes. 412, Perpetual Government, c. 4. 2 1 Oor. vi. 6. FORMS OF CHURCH aoVERNMENT. 251 men insist so much on that place against such an exposition oi Luke xii. 14, where Christ saith, "Who made me a judge, and a divider among you?" For doth it any ways follow, because Christ would not take upon him to be a temporal judge among the Jews, therefore he should take no course for the ending differences among his disciples, and the taking away all animosities from among them? Nay, on the con- trary, doth not our Saviour very often designedly speak to this very purpose, to root out all bitterness, malice, envy, and rancor from men's spirits, and to persuade them to forgive in juries, even to pray for persecutors, and by any means to be reconciled to their brethren. Which he makes to be a duty of so great necessity, "that if a man had brought his gift to the altar, and remembered his brother had aught against him, he bids him leave his gifts there, and go, be reconciled to his brother, and then otfer up his gift."^ We see hereby how suitable it was to our Saviour's doctrine and design to lay down rules for the ending of any differences arising among his disciples; and this being now cleared to be the state of the case, it will not be difficult to resolve what is meant by telling the church. Which I make not to be any ajjpeal iod, juridi- cal court, acting authoritatively over the persons brought before it, but the third and highest step of charity in a man towards a person that hath offended him, viz. that when neither private admonition, nor before two or three witnesses would serve to reclaim the offender, then to call a select com- pany together, (which is the natural import of the word ixx-Kviaio^y- and before them all to lay open the cause of the breach and difference between them, and to refer it to their arbitration to compose and end it. Which sense of the place, I humbly conceive to have the least violence in it, and in every part of it to be most genuine and natural, and fully agreeable to the received practice among the Jews: which the author of the book Musar^ cited by Drusius, fully acquaints us with, whose words I shall transcribe, as being a plain para- phrase on these of our Saviour. "He who reproves his fel- low, should do it, at first calmly, with gentle words, between himself and him alone, so that he expose him not to shame. If he repent, it is well; otherwise he should between them- selves, keenly reprove, and make him ashamed. If he have 1 Matth. V. 23, 24. 2 From EK xaAsiv, to call out of; therefere «K«Xi)ff"i«, which we translate church, is a company called out of the world. sPreeterit. lib. ], p. 43, 052 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF no remorse, he should call his fellows, and put him to the blush before them. But in the event that nothing avails, he must expose him before many, and publish his fault. For certainly hypocrites should be unmasked."^ That which this aulhor ca.\\s pudefacere eum coram 7nultis,^^Xo put him to shame before many," is that which our Saviour means when he bids him tell the church, or the congregation, as our old translation renders it. This the Jews called reproving of men, D"j"i3, before "a multitude," as the Vulg. Latin though falsely renders that place, Leviticus xix. 17, publice argue eum, " publicly reprove him:" and to this the apostle may allude when he speaks of the gj sTti'Ti.fiia vj vho tujv rt%st,oviov, 2 Corinth. ii. 6, ^'Censure of many f^ and the reproof t^wrttoj; ^avT'cov, '■'■ be- fore all," 1 Tim. v. 20, which was to be in matters of public scandal upon religion, before the on^in, " wild beasts," i. e. barbarians, or didiJ?, " robbers," as the Jews call them: but in case the offender should still 7tae,axovitv, " refuse to hear," or slight this overture of reconciliation, before the company selected for hearing the case; then saith our Saviour, look upon him as an obstinate refractory creature, and have no more to do with him, than with a heathen and ^. publican; by -which terms the most wilful obstinate sinners were set out among the Jews, and by which our Saviour means a man's withdrawing himself, as much as in him lies, from all familiar society with such a person. And thus saith Christ, "whatso- ever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and what- soever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven,"^ that is, if after all your endeavours of reconciliation, the offender will hearken to no agreement, it is an evidence and token that man's sin is bound upon him, (that is, shall not be pardoned so long as he continues impenitent,) but if he repent of his offence, and you be reconciled, as the offence is removed on earth thereby, so the sin is loosed in Heaven, that is, forgiven.^ The guilt of sin that binds, it being an obligation to punish- ment; and so the pardon of sin that looseth, as it cancels that obligation. And so Grotius observes, that hav, "to bind," is the same with x^atnv, " to hold," and %vnv, " to loose," with 1 Qui arguit socium suuni, debet primuni hoc facere placide inter se, et ipsutn solum, verbis mollibus, ita ut non pudefaciat eum. Si resipiscit, bene est; sin, debet cum acritSr arguere et pudefacere inter se et ipsum. Si non resipiscit, debet adhibere socios, ipsumque coram iliis pudore afficere; si nee mode quic- quam proficit, debet eum pudefacere coram multis, ejusque delictum publicare. Nam curte detegendi sunt hypocritae. 2 MalUi. xviii. 18. 3 V. Rainold's Conf. with Hart. cap. 2, div. .3, Grot, in Mat. 16. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 253 a^i,Evah "to release from punishment," what is called retain- ing' in one place, is binding in another: and what is loosing in one place, is remitting in tlie otlier. But now although I assert this to be the true, proper, genuine meaning of this diffi- cult place, yet I deny not but that this place hath influence upon church government; but I say the influence it hath, is only by way of accommodation, and by analogy deduced from it. According to which, these things I conceive have founda- tion is these words: First, gradual appeals from the method here laid down by our Saviour. Secondly, church censures, and the duty of submitting to church authority: for although before any church power was actually set up, (as when our Saviour spake these words then there was none,) yet after that church government was fixed and set up, it must in rea- son be supposed that all matters of the nature of scandals to the church must be decided here. Thirdly, the laxofulness of the use of excommunication in Christian churches; for if every particular person might withdraw from the society of such a one as continues refractory in his offences, then much more may a whole society, and the officers of it declare such a one to be avoided both in religious and familiar civil so- ciety, which is the formal nature of excommunication. Herein we see the wisdom of our Saviour, who in speaking to a par- ticular case, hath laid down such general rules as are of per- petual use in the church of God for accommodating differences arising therein. Thus have we hitherto cleared that our Sa- viour hath determined no more of church government than what is applicable to a diversity of particular forms, and so hath not by any law or practice of his own determined the necessity of any one form. 254 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF CHAPTER VI. The next thing pleaded for determining the form of government, is apostoiical practice; two things inquired into concerning that, What it was? How far it binds? The apostles invested with the power and authority of governing the whole church of Christ by their commission, Jo, xx. 21; Mntlh. xxviii. 18. What the apostles did in order to the church government before Pentecost, xXDjojaTroro^Df, TOTTo; (Jiof explained. How the apostles did divide provinces; whether Paul and Peter were confined to the circumcision and uncircum- cision, and different churches erected by them in the same cities? What the apostles did in order to settling particular churches? The names and offices of bishops, presbyters, deacons, considered. Four general considerations laid down about the apostles' practice. First, It cannot be fully known what it was. Second, Great probability, they observe no one certain form in seltling churches; proved from Epiphanius, Jerome, Ambrose or Hilary. Third, Their case different from ours in regard of the paucity of believers. Fourth, If granted for any form, yet proves not the thing in question. For, 1, Offices ap- pointed by them are ceased. Widows, deaconesses abolished. 2, Riles and customs apostolical grown out of use. 1, Such as were founded upon apos- tolical precepts, Acts xv. 29, considered. 2, Such as were grounded on tlieir practice, holy kiss, love feasts, dipping in baptism, community of goods, with several others. § 1. Having found nothing, either in our Saviour's prac- tice, or in the rules laid down by him, (conceived to respect church government,) vvhicli determines any necessity of one particular form; the only argument remaining which can be conceived of sufficient strength to found the necessity of any one form of government, is the practice of the apostles, who were by their employment and commission entrusted with the government of the church of God. For our Saviour after his resurrection taking care for the planting and governing of his church after his ascension to glory, doth at two several times call his apostles together, and gives now their full charter and commisssion to them; the first, containing chiefly the power itself conferred upon them, John xx. 21. The other, the extent of that power, Matth. xxviii. 19. In the former FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 255 our Saviour tells them, Jis the father had sent him, so did he send them. Which we must not understand of a parity and equality of power, but in a similitude of the mission: that as Christ before had managed the great affairs of his church in his own person, so now, (having according to the prophecies made of him at the end of seventy tveeks, "made reconciliation for iniquity by his death, and brought in everlasting righteous- ness by his resurrection,) he despatcheth abroad his gospel heralds to proclaim the jubilee^ now begun, and the act of indemnity now past upon all penitent offenders, which is the sense of the other part of their commission: "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained," John xx. 23; i. e. as many as upon the preaching the gospel by you, shall come in and yield up them- selves to the tenders of grace proclaimed therein, shall have their former rebellions pardoned; but such as will still con- tinue obstinate, their former guilt shall still continue to bind them over to deserved punishment. And to the end the apos- tles might have some evidence of the power thus conferred upon them, " He breathes the Holy Ghost on them, and said, receive ye the Holy Ghost;"^ which we are not to understand of the extraordinary gifts of the Ho/y Ghost, which were not received till the day of Pentecost, Act. ii. 1; but of the au- thoritative poiver of preaching the gospel, which was now conferred upon them, by the solemn rite of breathing the Holy Ghost on the apostles. In which sense the church of England understands that expression in the ordination of ministers, as it implies only the conferring thereby an authority for the preaching of the gospel, which being conveyed by ordination,^ is fitly expressed by the same words which our Saviour used in the conferring the same power upon his apostles at his sending them forth to be gospel preachers. After this comes the solemn appointed meeting of Christ with his disciples at the mountain of Galilee,'^ (where in pro- bability, besides the eleven, were present the five hundred brethren at once.^) And here Christ more solemnly inaugu- rates the apostles in their office, declaring all power to be in his hands; and therefore appoints the apostles " to preach the gospel to every creature,"^ that is, to all men indefinitely, GetUiles as well as Jews, which Matthew'' fully expresseth by • Dan. ix. 24, with Rom. iv. 15. 2 John xx. 12. 3 Capiendum cum grano salis. ■» Mat. xxviii. 13. 5 1 Cor. XV. 6. 6 Mark xvi. 15. 7 Mat. xviii. 19. 256 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF all nations. Now are the apostles left as chief governors of the church under Christ; and in this last commission wherein the extent of the apostles' power is more fully expressed, there is nothing mentioned of any order for the government of the church under them, nor what course should be taken by the church after their decease. All that remains then to be inquired into, is what the apostles' practice was, and how far they acted for the determining any one form of government as necessary for the church. The apostles being thus invested in their authority, we pro- ceed to consider the exercise of this authority for the govern- ing of the church. And here we are to consider, that the apostles did not presently upon their last commission from Christ go forth abroad in the world to preach, but were com- manded by Christ to go first to Jerusalem, and there to expect the coming of the Holy Ghost according to our Saviour's own appointment, Luke xxiv. 49. And therefore what Mark adds, Mark xvi. 20, that after Christ's appear- ance to them, "the apostles went abroad and preached every- where, working miracles," must either be understood of what they did only in their way returning from Galilee to Jerusa- lem, or else more probably of what they did indefinitely afterwards. For presently after we find them met together at Jerusalem., whence they came from Mount Olivet where Christ's ascension was. Here we find them employed Iv tio if^w, "in a sacred place,"i saith Saint Luke in his gospel, which we render the temple; but I understand it rather as referring to the action than the place, and is best explained by what Liike saith in ^cts i. 14, they were Tt^oaxa^ti^owts^ tvi Ti^oaivxiq xav tyj Ss^asv, "continuing in prayer and supplication." AimI that it cannot be meant of the temple, appears by the mention of the irti^uov, "an upper room,"^ where they con- tinued together. For that it should be meant of any of the vrti^coa about the temple, is most improbable to conceive, because not only those ninety cells about the temple were destined and appointed for the priests in their several Ifrjixsptai, or times of ministration;^ and it is most unlikely the chief priests and masters of the temple should sufier those whom they hated so much to continue so near them without any molestation or disturbance. While the apostles continue here ' Luke xxiv. 52; Acts i. 12; Luke xxiv. 53. 2 Acts i. 13. 3 V. L. Empor. in Cod. Middoth. c. 4, sect. 5. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 257 they proceed to the choice of a new apostle instead oi Judas, thereby making it appear how necessary that number was to the first forming of churches, wiien the vacant place must be supplied with so great solemnity. Which office of apostle- ship, (which Jndns once had, and Matthias was now chosen into,) is called by Peter xxri^oi bt,axovtai xai aTto^oXrii, "the por- tion, or lot, of the ministry and aposlleship," ,^cts i. 25, whicli a learned interpreter renders, the portion of his apos- tleship^ or the pj'ovi nee which fell to Judas, or his lot in the distribution among tlie apostles, which, saith he, is called 6 rortos o tSioj, "his proper place," into wiiich Matthias did xo^cv9r;vai, ''go, and from which Judas fell by his sin." This exposition is very often suggested by that learned author: but, (with all due reverence to his name and memory,) I cannot see any such evidence either from scripture or reason, to enforce any such exposition of either phrase, yielding us suf- ficient ground to forsake the received sense of botji of them. For x\r;^oi drtoj-oTLTys is plainly nothing else but "that office of the apostleship" which belonged to Judas, without any rela- tion to a province; and 6 tortoi o l8toc, is that proper place which belonged to Judas, as he is called moj drtw^f tas, "the son of perdition," and no other. But the very foundation of this mistake, is, that the several jt?rowmce,s, into which the apostles were to go for preaching the gospel, were distributed among them before they were filled with the Holy Ghost, which is an hypothesis that will not easily be granted by any that do but impartially consider these things. That x'i \\\q provinces were so distributed among them, it must be either before the death of Christ, or after; and it must be before, if Jity^n n'3, "temple for expounding and divinity school too," whither they used to repair after dinner on sabbath days, and where the questions about their law were discussed; but though I ' Tell me where thou dwellest, in what proseucha may I seek thee? — Juve- nal, s;it. 3. " ProseuchcE fana JudEBorum erant, ut Alexandrige et Romse, alibique; sic nomcn adeptce quod oracula qusedam esseni, vel (ut Cliiistiani loquuntur) orutoria. Cum auletn ad elcemosynam Judaei dundam esscnt propt'iisissitni, co ecu mendicoruin convcntus coibat; sed ct Judaei et ipsi mendici, invisi erant omnibus, et mendici ea loca quod domicilia mm haberant, divcrsores inlerdum oceupabant, in iisque cubabant, ideoque proseuchae nomen in eontemptum abierat. — Advers. I. 1, cap. v.). 3 Not. in Frag. Graeca, p. 25, in Matt. iv. 23. Leg. ad Caium. * Ta yctj xttTtt TToXii; tDrjo^Etixrufia ti tricot £{-iv n JiJarxttXlttt i^^mrtffiax; xcti avJ^eiac xai 26S THE DIVINE RIGHT OF cannot say these were always distinguished, yet in some places they were. Such seems the school of Tyranmis to be, where P«u/' taught, having withdrawn iiimselffrom tiie synagogue. And so sometimes {he proseuchse were distinguished from the synagogues, as Grotius'^ himself elsewhere acUnowledgeih, viz. either where there was not a competent number of Jews,- (for ten students in the law were required to make a syna- gogue,) or else where the magistrate would not permit the use of them, in which case the poor Jews were fain to content themselves with a place remote from the city, either by some river, as that Tt^oofa);^;!;, mentioned Ads xv'\. 13, or by some grove or wood, whence \hdiioi Juvenal, Nunc sucri fonlis nemus, et (iclubru locantur Judaeis, quorum cophinus fcenuinque suppellex.^ Which fountain, as Vossius* observes, was extra portam Capenam in liico quern medium irrigabat, " was without the gate Capena, in the grove whose midst it waters;" and from hence Scaliger^ gathers, Judseos in nemoribus proseuchas collocdsse, "the Jews placed their proseuchae in groves." Thus it appears now what privileges the Jews generally enjoyed in their dispersion for their synagogues and public places to meet, pray, and discourse in. § 6. We now come to inquire after what manner the go- vernment of the synagogue was modelled. Wherein we must first inquire whether there was any peculiar government be- longing to the synagogue distinct from the civil consistories which were in use among them. This is often left untouched by learned men in their discourse of synagogues: some^ indeed make the least consistory or sanhedrim in use among the Jews, viz. the triumvirate, to be the rulers of the synagogue, and part of the ten who were to be wherever there was a synagogue. But although I cannot see sufficient evidence for a great ecclesiastical sanhedrim foimded by Moses, answering to the great sanhedrim of seventy, yet I conceive it probable, that when synagogues were so multiplied both at home and abroad, there was a distinct bench of officers who did particu- larly belong to the synagogue to superintend the atfairs of that, which I shall now endeavour to make out by these fol- ' Acts xix. 9. 2 Annot. in Acts xvi. 13. 3 iN'ovv the grove of the consecrated fountain and temples, (proseuchse,) are placed amnnfrst the Jews, whose furniture is panniers and hay. * Dc Idol. I. 2, cap. 80, p. 715. 5 !„ Fragm. Gr. p. 25. 6 D. Lightfbot Horae Hebr, in Mat. ii. 23, p. 70. \ FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 269 lowing reasons: First, Because the ten required for the synagogue are set down by the Jewish writers as distinct Irom the uuinber required for the civil consistory. For in the Ge- inura Babylonia (cited by Seldoi^) the account given wliy there must be one hundred and twenty iniiabitants where there was to be a sanhedrim of twenty-three, is this: There 7niist be tioenty-three to make up the sanhedrim, and three orders of twenty-three, (who sat in a hemicycle under the saniiedrim in the same form as they sat,) and besides these the ten ivho ive.re to be employed ivholly in the affairs of the synagogue, (for the Gloss there explains them to be nzu^o b^o \'TD2 D'Mi 'n nTi£];, dece?7iflii homi)iis vacantes ab omni opere, utparati sint, " ten sons, men at leisure, from every kind of work, that tiiey might be ready," nniDH r^i"! iTd-\;;i r\'^n^ do?7iui synagogse mane et vesperi, " at the house of the synagogue, morning and evening," and there adds, that every city, though it be walled, where ten such persons are wanting, is looked on only as a village, and thought unworthy to have a sanhedrim of twenty-three;) so that by this it appears the number of the decemvirate for the synagogue, was distinct from the jiersons employed in the civil courts. To the same purpose Maimo- nides^ gives the account of the nimiber of one hundred and twenty, who likewise requires the ten for the synagogue as a distinct and peculiar number. " And these were men who were at leisure for sacred things, that is, for the reading of the law, and for the sessions of the synagogue,"^ as Mr. Selden* quotes it from another place in him. Whereby it is evident that those who were employed in tlie synagogue, did make a peculiar bench and consistory, distinct from the civil judica- ture of the place. And therefore the A^;i;(,5ti'aycoyot, "chiefs of the synagogue," are not the civil rulers, but some peculiar officers belonging to the service of the synagogue: and thence wiien all civil power and government was taken from the Jews, yet they retained their archisynagogues still. Whence we read of archisynagogues, patriarchs and presbyters among the Jews in the time of Jircadius and Honorius,^ when all civil power and jurisdiction was taken from them. The second reason is from the peculiar ordination of those who were the rulers of the synagogues. This I know is denied by many: because, say they, ordination was proper only to the I De Syned. 1. 2, c. 5, s. 4. 2 In .Tud. tit.Sanhed. c. 1, sect. 6. 3 Alqtic lii cranl viri qui vacabant tanlum rebus divinis, nirniruiii lectioni Icgis et sossioni in syiiagogis. 4 AA Misn, lit. Sdiihed. c. 1, sect. 6. » Cod. Theod. 1. 16, tit. 8, 1. 13 and 14. I 270 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF presbyters among the Jews, who were thereby made capable of being members of the sanhedrim, thence it was called D"Jp? HD'OD, ordinatio preshyterorum, "ordination of pres- byters," i.e. impositio mamium qud presbyteri fiimt, " the imposition of hands, by which presbyters are made." This ordination was, I grant, primarily used in order to the making men members of the great sanhedrim, and therefore the Jews derive the custom of ordaining them, from Moses first con- stituting the seventy elders, wiiich, say they, was done by imposition of hands: which was seconded by the example of Moses^ laying his liands on Joshua, from whence the custom was continued down among them till the time of Adrian, who severely prohibited it by an edict, that whosoever should ordain another should forfeit his life,^ and so every one that was so ordained. Thence the Jews tell us that R. Jehiida Ben Baba is called ^Dion, <' the ordainer," because in the time of that edict he ordained five presbyters, without which they had wholly lost their succession of presbyters for courts of ju- dicature. But though it be thus evident that their ordination was chietly used in order to the fitting men to be members of the sanhedrim, yet that besides this there was a peculiar or- dination for persons not employed in civil matters, will appear; First, From the different forms of their ordination; some were general without any restriction or limitation at all: which power was conferred in words to this purpose: "Be thou now ordained, and have authority of judging also in criminal causes."^ He that was thus ordained, was fit for any court of judicature;^ but there was another form of ordination which was more particular and restrained; a form limiting the gene- ral power, either to pecuniary cases, or criminal, or only to the power of binding and loosing, without any judiciary power at all. Now those that were thus ordained, were the Jewish casuists, resolving men only in fore conscientise, "in the court of conscience," of the lawfulness and unlawfulness of things propounded to them. This they called "inm no'ND nn-in'? nw^ Facultas decernendi circa ligatum et solutuni^ that is, "a power of decreeing wliat was lawful or unlawful." P^or in that sense binding and loosing is used by the Jewish writers. In which sense they tell us commonly that one ' Numb, xiii., xxxvii. 18. 2 Gum. Biibyl. ad tit. Sanhed. c. 1, s. 13, 14. Scaliger Elcricli. Triber. c. 10. Tzemach. David, p. 1, md. 4, An. S8U. 3 Ordinntus jam sis, et sit tibi ficultjs jiidicandi eliam causas poenales. ♦ Selden ad Eutych. p. li), de Syned. 1. 2, c. 7, s. 2. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 271 school, as that of Hillel^ -inix, " binds," that is, jndgeth a thing unlawful; another inio, " looselh," (as that of Schammai,) th;U is, judgeth it lawful and free to be done. Now the per- sons thus ordained with this power only, were thereby no member of any civil court of judicature, nor thereby made capable of it: it appears then that this ordination was peculiar to a particular function, which exactly answers to the minis- terial office under the gospel. And that those who were thus ordained, either might not, or did not exercise that office of theirs in the synagogue, 1 can see no reason; I am sure it was most suitable to that place, or at least to the jynD n'a, "di- vinity school," where there was such a one distinct from the synagogue. But a clearer evidence of the particular ordination of those employed in the synagogue, we have from Benjamin in his Itinerary; for granting his palpable mistakes about the civil powers of the Jews in his time, (which was about the middle of the twelfth century,) sufficiently discovered by the learned L' Empereur^ yet as to the ordaining of persons for the seve- ral synagogues, we have no ground to suspect his testimony, wliich is very plain and evident. For speaking of U. Daniel Ben Hasdai, who was the n^un jj'ni or the 'ai;,-juaxcoT'a'p;i;»;j, "Me head of the Captivity^' then residing at Bagdad, he tells us, the synagogues of Babylon, Persia, Choresan, Sheba, Mesopotamia, and many other places,^ derived power from him jiru ni ^npi '~>T\ri id h'^'j^'of ordaining a Rabbi and preacher over every synagogue," which he tells us was done by laying on his hands upon them. These two, the Rabbi and the jin, seer, he makes to be the fixed officers of every synagogue, and the office of the latter lay chiefly in expounding the scrip- tures. The like he hath of R. Nathaniel, the nn'ij'in lyx-i, "the resident chief," in Egypt, to whose office it belonged to ordain in all the synagogues in Egypt, j'jpini o'jm, the Rabbis and lecturers of the synagogue: by which we see clearly, that there was a peculiar ordination for the ministers belonging to the synagogue.^ Thence Scaliger wonders how Christ at twelve years old should be permitted to sit among the doctors, asking questions when he was not an ordained Rabbi, to whom that place belonged.* But although «. jusou t^v biSaaxd7Mv may possibly mean no more than in the midst of the teachers, " V. Liglitfoot Horse Hebr. in Matth. xvi. 19. 2 Dissertal. ad I.ectorem and in not. 193, &.c. 3 P. 73, ed. L'E.nper. Heb. Lat. * Elench. Triiierc. 10. 6 Luke ii. 46. 272 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP or sitting Oil one of the lower seats belonging to those who were yet in their mJDp or "minority," where they sat at the feet of their teachers, which was not within the temple itself, but, as Arias Montanus^ thinks, was at the east, gate of the temple where the doctors sat; yet this is evident by Scaliger, that he looked oil an ordination for that end, as necessary' to those who sat in the synagogues, as the doctors there: which is like- wise affirmed by Grot'nis, who tells us, that among the Jews, not only all public civil offices were conferred by imposition of hands:^ "But likewise all the rulers and elders of the syna- gogue were so ordained, from whence the custom was trans- lated into Christianity," (of which afterwards.) Thus now we have cleared that there was a peculiar government belonging to the synagogue, distinct from the civil judicatures. Having thus far proceeded in clearing that there was a pe- culiar form of government in the synagogue, we now inquire what that was, and by what law and rule it was observed. The government of the synagogue, cither relates to the public service of God in it, or the public rule of it as a society. As for the service of God to be performed in it, as there were many parts of it, so there were many officers peculiarly ap- pointed for it. The main part of public service lay in the reading and expounding the scriptm-es: for both, the known place of Philo will give us light for understanding them. "Coming to their holy places called synagogues, they sit down in convenient order according to their several forms, ready to hear, the young under the elder; then one taketh the book and readeth, another of those best skilled comes after and ex- pounds it."^ For so Grotius reads it, di/aSiSacrxft, " he in- structs," for dvayi.j'wffxft, " he reads," out of Eusebius.'^ We see two several offices here, the one of the reader in the syna- gogue, the other of him that did interpret what was read. Great dilferencc I find among learned men about the irn of the synagogue: some by him understand the dyayi'caf;;?, "a reader," called sometimes in scripture vTiri^itri';, a "servant or attendant," and so make him the under reader in the syna- ' In Appar. de Tcrnplo. 2 Sed ft in Archisyn;i£rogis et scnioribus synaijna-ae, idem observatum, unde mos p^Ej^-cflea-iac ad Cliristianos transit. — Annnt. in Evang-. p. 3'^. * Elf lEjouj a Luke iv. 20. 2 c. Ebeonites. 3 Not Greek, but from the Hebrew D^^TD, explained before. Cor. i. 28. 35 274 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF several names; nay, it seems not evident, that there were any set officers in the Jewish church for expounding scriptures in all synagogues, or at least not so fixed, but that any one that enjoyed any repute for religion or knowledge in the law, was allowed a free liberty of speaking for the instruction of the people, as we see in Christ and his apostles;' for the rulers of the synagogue sent to Paul and Barnabas after the reading of the law, that if they had any word of exhortation, they should speak on. From hence it is evident, there were more than one who had rule over the synagogues, they being called rulers here. It seems very probable, that in every city where there were ten ivise men, (as there were supposed to be in every place, where there was a synagogue,) that they did all jointly concur for the ruling the affairs of the synagogue. But what the distinct offices of all these were, it is hard to make out, but all joining together seem to make the consistory, or bench as some call it, which did unanimously moderate the affairs of the synagogue, whose matmer of sitting in the synagogues, is thus described by Mr. Thorndike out of Maimonides^ whose words are these: " How sit the people in the synagogue? The elders sit with their faces towards the people, and their backs towards the hecall, (the place v/here they lay the copy of the law,) and all the people sit rank before rank, the face of every rank towards the back of the rank before it, so the faces of all the people are towards the sanctuary, and towards the elders, and towards the ark; and when the minister of the synagogue standeth up to prayer, he standeth on the ground before the ark with his face to the sanctuary, as the rest of the people." Several things are observable to our purpose in this testimony of Maimonides: First, that there were so many elders in the synagogue, as to make a bench or consistory, and therefore had a place by themselves, as the governors of the synagogue. And the truth is, after their dispersion we shall find little government among them, but what was in their synagogues, unless it was where they had liberty for erecting schools of learning. Besides this college of presbyters, we here see the public minister of the synagogue, the riDjnn ;in, i. e. episcopus co7igregationis, "the superintendent over the con- gregation," whose peculiar office it was to pray for, and to bless the people. We are here further to take notice of the form of their sitting in the synagogues; the presbyters sat ' Act. xiii. 15. 2 Service of God at Rel. Ass. c. 3, p. 56. FORMS OP CHURCH aoVERNMENT. 275 together upon a bench by themselves, with their faces towards the people, which was in an heniicycle, the form wherein aJl the courts of judicature among them sat; which is fully de- scribed by Mr. Selden,^ and Mr. Thorndike^ in the places above cited. This was afterwards the form wherein the bishops and presbyters used to sit in the primitive church, as die last named learned author largely observes and proves. Besides this college of presbyters, there seems to be one particularly called the ruler of the synagogue, Snpn tyxi, " raish haquahal, the ruler of the synagogue," in the New Testament,^ a^x^av- foywyoj, or a^x<^v tru (jwoyayijj, whlch is of the Same import, and following the idiom of the Alexandrine Jews in the version of the Old Testament, implies no more than a primacy of order in him above the rest he was joined with. And thence some- times we read of them in the plural number, Iv a^;tct5vraywyoi, Acts xiii. 15, implying thereby an equality of power in many; but by reason of the necessary primacy of one in order above the rest, the name may be appropriated to the president of the college. Jicts xviii. 8, 17, we read of two, viz. Cf^ispus and Sostfienes, and either of them is called Ap;t'ffi'»'ay»yosi which could not be, did the name import any peculiar power of juris- diction lodged in one exclusive of the rest, unless we make them to be of two synagogues, for which we have no evidence at all; I confess, Bezd's* argument from ni tav a^;t'ffway«yu.i', " one of the rulers of the synagogue," Mark v. 22, for one of a multitude of those so called in the same synagogue, is of no great force, where we may probably suppose there were many synagogues. But where there is no evidence of more than one in a place, and we find the name attributed to more than one, we have ground to think that there is nothing of power or jurisdiction in that one, which is not common to more be- sides himself. But granting some peculiarity of honour belong- ing to one above the rest in a synagogue, which in some places, I see no great reason to deny, yet that implies not any power over and above the bench of which he was a member, though the first in order; much as the X'lyj, the ^^ prince of the sanhedrim,^^ whose place imported no power peculiar to himself, but only a priority of dignity in himself above his fellow senators: as the princeps senatus, or "prince of the senate," in the Roman republic answering to the |"n n'^ ox, the "father of the house of judgment," in the great sanhedrim, > Dc Syned. 1. 2, c. 6, s. 2. 2 Tliorndike, Rel. Assem. cap. 3. 3 Mark v. 35; Luke viii. 49, xiii. 14. '' Annot. in Luc. 1.3, 14. 276 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF who was next to the Nasi, as the princeps senatus to the con- suls, which was only an honorary dignity and nothing else: under which disguise that politic prince Augustus ravished the Roman commonwealth of its former liberty. The name a^xi'Ovva^ayoi may, I suppose in propriety of speech, be ren- dered in Latin by magister ordinis, " master of the order," he being by his office prsesul^ "chief," a name not originally importing any power, but only dignity: those whom the Greeks call ap;i;it^jaj, the Latins render magistros sui ordinis, "chiefs of their own order;" and so Suetonius interprets O'fxt'i^osvv'^v by magisterium sacerdotii, "the chieftainship of the priesthood, the pontificate." They who meet then with the name archisynagogues, either in Lampridius, Vopiscus, Codex Theodosii, Justinian^ s Novels^ in all whom it occurs, and in some places as distinct from presbyters, will learn to understand thereby only the highest honour in the synagogue; considering how little, yea nothing of power the Jews enjoyed under either the heathen, or Christian emperors. One thing more we add, touching this honour of the rulers of the synagogue among the Jews, that whatever honour, title, power or dignity is imported by that name, it came not from any law enforcing or commanding it, but from mutual confederation and agreement among the persons employed in the synagogue, whose natural reason did dictate, that where many have an equality of power, it is most convenient, (by way of accumulation upon that person, of a power more than he had, but not by deprivation of themselves of that inherent power which they enjoyed,) to entrust the management of the executive part of atfairs of common concern to one per- son specially chosen and deputed thereunto. So it was in all the sanhedrims among the Jews, and in all well ordered senates and councils in the world. And it would be very strange, that any officers of a religious society, should upon that account be outlawed of those natural liberties, which are the results and products of the free acts of reason. Which things, as I have already observed, God hath looked on to be so natural to man, as when he was most strict and punctual in ceremonial commands, he yet left these things wholly at liberty. For we read not of any command, that in the san- hedrim one should have some peculiarity of honour above • In Caligula,. Lampr. vit. Alex. Sever. Vopiscus in Saturn. Cod. de Jud. Colic, et Earn. 1. 13. Cod. Jud, 1. 17, c. de .ludseis. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 277 the rest; this men's natural reason would prompt them to, by reason of a necessary priority of order in some above others; which the very instinct of nature hath tauglit irrational crea- tures, much more should the light of reason direct men to it. But yet all order is not power, nor all power juridical, nor all juridical power a sole power; therefore it is a mere paralogism^ in any from order to infer power, or from a delegated power by consent, to infer a juridical power by divine right; or lastly, from a power in common with others, to deduce a power excluding others. All which they are guilty of, who merely from the name of an arcliisynagogue, would fetch a per- petual necessity of jurisdiction in one above the elders joined with him, or from the niej-'JH, "the prince" in the sanhedrim, a power of a sole ordination in one without the consent of his fellow senators. But of these afterwards. Thus much may suffice for a draught in miniature of the government of tlie Jewish synagogue. § 8. Having thus far represented the Jewish synagogue, that the idea of its government may be formed in our under- standings, we now come to consider how far, and in what the apostles in forming Christian churches did follow the pattern of the Jewish synagogue. Which is a notion not yet so far improved as I conceive it may be, and I know no one more conducive to the happy end of composing our differences, touching the government of the church than this. I shall therefore for the full clearing of it, premise some general con- siderations to make way for the entertainment of this hypo- ihesis, at least as probable; and then endeavour particularly to show how the apostles did observe the model of the syna- gogue; in its public service, in ordination of church officers, in forming presbyteries in the several churches, and in ruling and governing those presbyteries. The general con- sideration I premise, to show the probability of what I am asserting, shall be from these things: from the community of name and customs between the believing Jeivs and others, at the first forming of churches: from the apostle^ s for ming them out of synagogues in their travelling abroad; from the ag)^eeableness of that model of government to the state of the Christian churches at that time. I begin with the first, From the community of names and customs between the believing and unbelieving Jews at the first forming churches. All the while our blessed Saviour was living in ' False arg'umcnt; from Traja, against, and \r>ya%^ reason. •278 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF the world, Christ and his disciples went still under the name of Jews; they neither renounced the name, nor the customs in use among them; our Saviour goes up to the feasts at Jerusalem, conforms to all the rites and customs in use then; not only those commanded by God himself, but those taken up by the Jews themselves, if not contrary to God's com- mands, as in observing the feast of dedication, in going into their synagogues, and teaching so often there, in washing the feet of the disciples, (a custom used by them before the pass- over,) in using baptism for the proselyting men to the pro- fession of Christianity, &c. In these and other things our Saviour conformed to the received practice among them, though the things themselves were no ways commanded by the law of Moses. And after his resurrection, when he took care for the forming of a church upon the doctrine he had delivered, yet we find not the apostles withdrawing from communion with the Jews, but on the contrary, we find the disciples frequenting the temple, ^cts ii. 46; iii. 1; v. 20, 21, 26. Whereby it appears how they owned themselves as Jews still, observing the same both time and place for public worship which were in use among the Jews. We find Paul presently after his conversion in the synagogues, preaching that Christ whom he had before persecuted;^ and wherever he goes abroad afterwards, still entering into the synagogues to preach; where we cannot conceive he would have had so free and easy admission, unless the Jews did look upon him as one of their own religion, and observing the same customs in the synagogues with themselves, only differing in the point of the coming of the Messias, and the obligation of the cere- monial law,2 the least footsteps of which were seen in the synagogue worship. But that which yet further clears this, is the general prejudice of the disciples against the Gentiles, even after the giving of the Holy Ghost, as appears by their contending with Peter for going to men uncircumcised.^ It is evident then, that the apostles themselves did not clearly appre- hend the extent of their commission: for else what made Peter so shy of going to Cornelius? But by every creature, and all nations, they only apprehended the Jews in their dispersions abroad,'* or at least, that all others who were to be saved, must by being proselyted to the Jews, and observing the law 1 Acts ix. 20. 2 Acts xiii. 5, 14; xvii. IQ; xviii. 4; xix. 8. » Acts xi. 3. " Acts X. 28. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 279 of Moses, together with the gospel of Christ. And therefore we see the necessity of circumcision much pressed by the beUeving Jews, wliich came down from Jerusalem, that raised so high a dispute, that a convention of the apostles together at Jerusalem was called for the ending of it; and even there we find great heats before the business could be decided,' HoVKrii 8i (sv^vttjaiioi ytvoixivrii, "after there had been much dis- puting." Nay after this council, and the determination of the apostles therein, all the ease and release that was granted, was only to the Gentile converts, but the Jews still adhered close to their old principles, and were as zealous of the cus- toms of the Jews as ever before. For which we have a pregnant testimony in ^cts xxi. 20, 21, 22; where the elders of the church of Jerusalem tell Paul there were many myriads lovhaiav -tuv rtcHi^ivxotav, "of believing Jews," who were navtsi Cv^u-tai, tov vofiov, "all very zealous for the law," and therefore had conceived a sinister opinion of Paul, as one that taught a defection from the law of Moses, saying, "they might not circumcise their children, nor walk after the customs." One copy reads it as Beza tells us, t'oij tOEat, t-oIV rtat^uovs 7io^tvsa9ai, "to follow the customs of their fathers." We see how equally zealous they are for the customs obtain- ing among them, as for the law itself. And is it then any ways probable that these who continued such zealots for the customs among them, should not observe those customs in use in the synagogues for the government of the church.? Might not they have been charged as well as Paul with relinquishing the customs, if they had thrown off the model of the Jewish synagogue, and taken up some customs different from that? And that which further confirms this, is, that this church of Jerusalem continued still in its zeal for the law, till after the destruction of the temple; and all the several pastors of that church, (whom ecclesiastical writers call bishops,) were of the circumcision. For we have the testimony of Sulpitius Severus, speaking of the time of Jidrian. "And because the Christians were generally supposed to be of the Jews, for at that time the church, except it had a minister of the circumcision, was not at Jerusalem, he ordered his troops to keep them constantly under military custody, and to drive all Jews from every approach to that city. But this was not a little serviceable to the Christian faith, since th^n nearly all, under the observances of the law, believed that Christ was • Acts XV. 1, 7. 280 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF God."^ We see hereby that the Christians observed still the law with the gospel; and that the Jews and Christians were both reckoned as one body, which must imply an observation of the same rites and customs among them. For those are the things whereby societies are distinguished most. Now it is evident, that the Romans made no distinction at first between the Jews and Christians. Thence we read in the time of Claudius, when the edict came out against the Jews, Jiquila and Priscilla, though converted to Christianity, were forced to leave Italy upon that account,^ being still looked on as Jews; yet these are called by Paul, "his helpers in Christ Jesus."^ For which Onephrius gives this reason, "For as yet, no difference was known between Jews and Christians;"'* which account is likewise given by Mphonsus Ciaconius, ''For Christians as well as Jews were thought, by the Gen- tiles, to be of the same kindred and religion."^ The edict of Claudius we may read still in Suetonius, "He expelled the Jews from Rome, continually producing some disorder, Christ, (as they thought,) being the instigator!'"" We find here the edict fully expressed for banishing the Jews, and the occasion set down; which most interpret of the doctrine of Christ, a« the occasion of the stirs between the Jews and Christians. For the Romans called Christ Chrestus,^ and Christians, Chresiiani, as the authors of the Christians' apologies against the heathens often tell us.^ But Marcellus Donatus conjectures this Chrestus to have been some sedi- tious Jew called by that name; for which he brings many inscriptions wherein the name occurs, but none wherein it is given to a Jew; which should be first produced, before we ' Et quia Christian! ex Judceis potissimum putabantur, (namque turn Hiero- solymaB, non nisi ex circunicisione habebat ccclesia sacerdotem) militum co- liortem custodias in peipetuum agitare jussit, quae Judceos omnes Hierosolj'moe aditu arccret. Q,uod quidcrn Cliristianae fidei proficiebat; quia turn pcne omnes Cliristum Deum, sub legis observatione, credebant. Euseb. hist. I. 4, c. 6, et Chronic. Hist. sacr. 1. 2, p. 381, ed. Horn. 2 Acts xviii. 2. ^ Rom. xvi. 3. 4 Nullum adhue inter JudfEos et Christianos discrimen noscebatur. — Annot. in vit. Petri, ap. Platin. in vit. Petri. 5 Congeneres et comprofessores ejusdem rcligionis gentilibus censebantur (Christian! pariter ac Judsei.) 6 Judaeos impulsore Christo assidu6 tumultuantes Roma expulit. — In Claud, cap. 2,5. 7 "The most usual sense of ;^5»io-T0f, is good, excellent; but Xjifo?, Christ, i. e. the anointed, is from x.s^'" to anoint. Pronounce the English e in Chrestus long, as Chrecstus." 8 Lactant. 1.4, c. 7. Tertul. Apolog. cap. 3, V, Pet. Pithaeum Hor. subseciv. 1. 2, c. 3. Ponatus Dilucid. in Sueton. in Claud, c. 25. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 281 leave the received interpretation of it. However that be, we see the Jews and Christians equally undergo the punishment without any difference observed in them; and therefore when Paul was brought before Gallio the proconsul of Achaia, he looked upon the difierence between the Jews and Paul to be only "a question of words and names, and of their law," and thereupon refused to meddle with it.^ And so Celsus upbraids both Jews and Christians, as though their conten- tions were about a matter of nothing. By all this we may now consider, how little the Christians did vary from the customs and practice of the Jews, when they were thought by those who were equally enemies to both to be of the same body and community. Which consideration will make the thing I aim at seem more probable, when withal we observe that the Jewish customs in their synagogues, were those whereby they were most known among the Romans; and therefore when they looked on the Christians as of the same religion with the Jews, it is evident they observed no differ- ence as to their public practices in their religious societies. Which is the first consideration, to show how probable it is that Christians observed the same form in government with what they found in the synagogues. § 9. To which 1 add a second consideration; which is the apostles forming Christian churches out of Jewish synagogues. We have already showed how much their resort was to them in their preaching from the constant practice of Paul, although he was in a more peculiar manner the apostle of the uncir- cumcision; much more then is it probable that the others, especially Peter, James, and John did resort to the circum- cision. And in the settling things at first, we see how fearful the apostles were of giving offence to the Jews, how ready to condescend to them in anything they lawfully might. And can we think that Paul would yield so far to the Jews as to circumcise Timothy^ rather than give offence to the Jews in those parts where he was, (and that in a thing which seemed most immediately to thwart the design of the gospel ;3 as cir- cumcision did, witness the apostle himself;) that yet he would scruple the retaining the old model of the synagogue, when there was nothing in it at all repugnant to the doctrine of the gospel, or the nature and constitution of Christian churches? When the apostles, then, did not only gather churches out of ' Acts, xviii. 15. Apud. Orig. lib. 3, cont. Cels. 2 Acts xvi. 3. 3 Gal. v. 2. 36 282 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF synagogues, but at some places in probability whole syna- gogues were converted as well as whole churches formed; what show of reason can be given why the apostles should slight the constitution of the Jewish synagogues, which iiad no dependence on the Jewish hierarchy, and subsisted not by any command of the ceremonial law? The work of the syna- gogue not belonging to the priest as sucii, but as persons qualified for instructing others, and the first model of the synagogue government is with a great deal of probability de- rived from the schools of the prophets and the government thereof. This consideration wotild be further improved, if the notion of distinct ccbIus "assemblies" of the Jewish and Gentile Christians in the same places could be made out by any irrefragable testimony of antiquity, or clear evidence of reason drawn from scripture; because the same reason which would ground the distinction of the Jewish church from the Gentile, would likewise iiold for the Jewish church to retain her old form of govenmient in the synagogue way. For it must be some kind of peculiarity supposed by the Jews in themselves as distinct from the Gentiles, which did make them form a distinct congregation from them; which peculiarity did imply the observing those customs among them still, by wliich that peculiarity was known to others; among which those of the synagogue were not the least known or taken notice of. But I must freely confess, I find not anything brought by that learned person, who hath managed this hypothesis^ with the greatest dexterity, to have that evidence in it which will com- mand assent from an unprejudiced mind. And it is pity that such an infirm hypothesis should be made use of for the justifying our separation from Rome, which was built upon reasons of greater strength and evidence, than those which have been of late pleaded by some assertors of the protestant cause, though men of excellent abilities and learning. For there are many reasons convincing enough, that Peter had no universal power over the church, supposing that there was no such thing as a distinction between the Jewish and Gentile coitus, "assemblies." I deny not but at first, before the Jews were fully satisfied of the Gentiles' right to gospel privileges, they were very shy of communicating with them, especially the believing Jews of the church of Jerusalem: upon the occasion of some of whom coming down to Antioch from James, it was, that Peter luithdrew and separated him- ' Dr. Ham, of Scliisni, ch. 4, sect. 6, 7, &c. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 283 self from the Gentiles,^ with whom beibre he famiUarly con- versed. Which action of his is so id\- from being an argument^ of the settling any distinct churcli of the Jews from the Gen- tiles there, that it yields many reasons against it. For frst, Peter^s withdrawing was only occasional, and not out of design; whereas, had it been part of his commission to do it, we cannot conceive Peter so mindless of his office, as to let it alone till some Jews came down from Jerusalem to tell him of il. Secondly, It was not for the sake of the Jews at An- tioch that he withdrew, but for the Jews wiiich came down from Jerusalem; whereas, had he intended a distinct church of the Jews, he would before have settled and fixed them as members of another body; but now it evidently appears, that not only Peter himself, but the Jews with him, did before those Jews coming to Antioch associate with the Gentiles, which is evident by verse 13, "And other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." Whereby it is clear, that these Jews did before join with the Gentile Christians, or else they could not be said to be led away with tne dissimulation of Peter. Thirdly, St. Paul is so far from looking upon this withdrawing of Peter, and the Jews from the Gentiles' society to be a part of St. Peter's office, that he openly and sharply reproves him for it. What then, was Patil so igno- rant, that there must be two distinct churches of Jews and Gentiles there, that he calls this action of his dissimulation? In all reason then, supposing this notion to be true, the blame lights on Paul, and not on Peter: as not understanding, that the Jews were to be formed into distinct bodies from the Gentile Christians. And therefore it is observable that the same author who is produced, as asserting, that " They were accounted to be of the church, who were separately of the Jews, nor were intermixed with those who were of the Gen- tiles,"^ is he, who makes this reproof of Peter by Paul, to be a mere matter of dissimulation between them both; to which sense of that action whoever will be so favourable as to em- brace it, (as some seem inclinable to do,) will never be able to answer the arguments brought by St. Augustine against it."* Tliis place then was unhappily selected to prove a distinction of the several distinct churches of Jews and Christians at ' Gal. ii. 12. 2 Schism, sect. 8. 3 Seorsim quae ex Judasis erant ecclesiffi habebantur, nee his quae erant ex Gentibus miscebantur. — Ansvv. to Schis. Dis. ch. 2, s. 5. Hieronym. in Gal. 1.22. * Reply to Oath. Gent. ch. 4, s. 6, n. 6. Aug-, ep. 8. 9, 19, Hier. 284 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Antioch. But, it may be, more evidence for it may be seen in the rescript of the council of Jerusalem, which is directed 'io^i xttT'' Avui.oxiio.v aS^x^otj foij i% tBvav, " To the brethren of Antioch," those of the Gentiles.^ But lest some hidden myste- ries should lie in this curtailing the words, let us see them at large. " Unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia." There was nothing then peculiar to those of the Gentiles at Antioch more than in Syria and Cihcia; and if those words toi^ 4 iSvw, " to those of the Gentiles," imply an assembly distinct of Gentile Chris- tians, from the Jews at Antioch, it must do so through all Syria, and Cilicia; which was PaiiPs province, and not Peter's, as appears by his travels in the Acts.^ Either then the apostle of the uncircumcision must form distinct churches of Jews and Gentiles in his preaching through Syria and Cilicia, (which is irreconcilable with the former pretence of distinct provinces, asserted by the same author, who pleads for distinct congregations,) or the T'otj f| iOvm, " to those of the Gentiles," can imply no such thing as a distinct church of Gentiles to whomsoever it is spoken; and so not at Antioch more than through all Syria and Cilicia. The plain ground then of the apostles inscribing the order of the council to the brethren of the Gentiles, was, because the matter of that order did particularly concern them, and not the Jews, as is obvious to any that will but cast an eye upon the 23, 24, 29, verses of the xv. chapter of Acts. As well might then an order supposed from the apostles to the several pastors of the churches in things concerning them as such, imply that they make distinct churches from their people, as this order con- cerning the Gentile brethren, being therefore directed to them, doth imply their making distinct churches from the Jewish brethren in the cities where they lived together. What is further produced out of antiquity to this purpose, hath neither evidence nor pertinency enough, to stop the passage of one who is returning from this digression to his former matter. Although then we grant not any such distinct coetus of the Jews from the Christians, yet that hinders not, but that both Jews and Christians joining together in one church, might retain still the synagogue form of government among them; the use of which there was no reason at all, why the Christians should scruple, either as Jews or Gentiles, because it imported nothing either typical and ceremonial, nor heavy 1 Acts XV. 23. Schism, p. 75. 2 Acts xv. 41; xviii. 18; xxi. 3. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 2.85 and burdensome, which were the grounds why former cus- toms in use among the Jews were laid aside by the Christians. But instead of that, it was most suitable and agreeable to the state of the churches in apostolical times, which was the third consideration to make it probable, that the synagogue form of government was used by the Christians, And the suitable- ness of this government to the churches, lay in the conve- niency of it for the attaining all ends of government in that condition wherein the churches were at that time. For church officers acting then either in gathering or governing churches, without any authority from magistrates, such a way of govern- ment was most suitable to their several churches, whereby the churches might be governed, and yet have no dependency on the secular power, for which the way of government in the synagogues was most convenient; for the Jews, though they enjoyed a bare permission from the civil state where they lived, yet by the exercise of their synagogue government, they were able to order all affairs belonging to the service of God, and to keep all members belonging to their several synagogues in unity and peace among themselves. The case was the same as to synagogues and churches; these subsisted by the same permission which the others enjoyed; the end of these was the service of God, and preserving that order among them which might best become societies so constituted; there can be no reason then assigned, why the apostles in settling particular churches should not follow the synagogue in its model of government. These things may suffice to make it appear probable that they did so, to whcih point all these considera- tions tend. § 10. Having thus prepared the way by making it probable, I now farther inquire into the particular part of government, and what orders in the synagogue were, which there is any evidence for, that the apostles did take up and follow. Here I begin with the thing first propounded, the orders of public worship, which did much resemble those of the synagogue; only with those alterations which did arise from the advancing of Christianity. That the Christians had their public and set meetings for the service of God, is evident from the first rising of a society constituted upon the account of Christianity. We read of the three thousand converted by Peter^s sermon, "that they continued in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers."^ Where we have all ' Acts ii. 42. 286 THE DIVINE EIGHT OF that was observed in the synagogue, and somewhat more; here there is public joining together, impUed in the word xoivcivia, "mutual participation, companionship, fellowship," their solemn prayers expressed, which were constantly ob- served in the synagogue; instead of reading the sections of the law and prophets, we have the apostles teaching by imme- diate inspiration; and to all these as the proper service of Christianity, is set down the celebration of the Lord's supper, without which we shall seldom if ever in the primitive church read that the public service on Lord's days was performed. During the apostles' times, in which there was such a land- flood of extraordinary gifts overflowing the church, in the public meetings we And those persons who were indued with those gifts, to be much in exercising them, (as to the custom, agreeing with the synagogue; but concerning the ordering of the gifts, exceeding it,) for which the apostle Paul, for the edification of the church, lays down so many rules in the four- teenth chapter to the Corinthians. But as soon as this flood began to abate, the public service began to run in its former channel, as is apparent from the unquestionable testimonies of Justin Martyr and TertuUian, who most fully relate to us the order of public worship used among the Christians at that time. Justin Martyr, the most ancient next to Clemens, (whose epistle is lately recovered to the Christian world,) of the unquestionable writers of the primitive church, gives us a clear narration of the public orders observed by the church in his time: "Upon the day called Sunday, all the Christians whether in town or country assemble in the same place, wherein the memoirs or commentaries of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read as long as the time will per- mit; then the reader sitting down, the president of the assembly stands up and makes a sermon of instruction and exhortation to the following so good exam{)les. After this is ended, we all stand up to prayers; prayers ended, the bread, wine, and water, are all brought forth; then the president again praying and praising to his utmost ability, the people testify their con- sent by saying amen.''''^ ' To Toi) i^lou XEyO|MEV(i y)y.e^a Ttavroov xara ttjXei j ri ay^ovi; //.(vovtcov etti to auTO (rwEXsufif yiVETai, xai ra awofA.vnf/,ovBvf^aTa. rc»v aTrofoXa-'V, n ra c-vyy^a.y./jiciT!t tikv -sr^-jifnTajv ava,- yi\"ji7HiTai |ME;^Eif iy)(0^n, ura. rravTafjiivou tov avayiVcoTxovTO^, Tt^Ki^-ax; ^ta \oyov rr,v vouSeTiav xai 'ST^oK\ncnv tuv reov «aX»'v toutojv ^.t/nrnxSMi TroiEirai; eTrena av ca|WE&a xcivn TTaVTEf, xat iV)(a.Q TTCfA.'jrofXiV Hat w; 7r^oi<^nf/,iy, Ttavraf^ivcov n/xaiv tjij eu;^h? a^roi; w^sa"- ipepCTat xai oivof Hai v^ai^, Kai o 'Tr^otg-ac Eup^aj ofJLoix; Kai eu)(^a^t^ia^ o's-n Sway.ig avna ava-TTifxmet, xai o Xao; evevnfAU Xtym ro A/xvv. — Just. Mart. Apol. 2, p. 98, ed. Par. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 287 What could have been spoken with greater congruity or correspondency to the synagogue, abating the necessary ob- servance of the eucharist, as proper to Christianity? Plere we have the scriptures read by one appointed for that purpose, as it was in the synagogue; after wliich follows the word of exhortation in use among them by the president of the assembly, answering to the ruler of the synagogue, after this, the public prayers performed by the same president, as among the Jews by the public minister of the synagogue, (as is already observed out of Maimonides,) then the solemn accla- mation of amen by the people, the undoubted practice of the synagogue. To the same purpose TerttiUian, who, if he had to set forth the practice of the synagogue, could scarcely have made choice of words more accommodated to that pur- pose. "We go together," saith he, "to the assembly and congregation, that we may, as if praying with hands joined, by our supplications, importune God. We are collected for the remembrance of the sacred writings; and if there be any thing that the nature of the present times induces us to make a matter of admonition or acknowledgement, we then with these holy words strengthen our faith, elevate our hope, estab- lish our confidence, and no less by reiterated instructions, bind together the discipline of our teachers, and also at the same time, by church authority, we strengthen their exhorta- tions and reproof. For as it is, with great propriety, judged by certain fathers, that if any one should Ido so delinquent, that he be banished from all intercourse of public prayer, church fellowship, and from every sacred privilege, that in the sight of God, it is a judgment going beforehand to his final sentence. They who are tried elders preside, having ob- tained that honour, not by price, but by testimony."^ Where we have the same orders for prayers, reading the scriptures according to occasions, and sermons made out of them for increase of faith, raising hope, strengthening confidence. We have the discipline of the church answering the admo- ' Coimus in coetutnet congregationem, ut ad Deum quasi manti facia, preca- tionibus ambiamus orantes. — Cogimur ad divinarum iiterarum commemoratio- ncm, si quid prsesentiutn temporutii qualitas aut proeiiionere cogit aut recog- iiosceie. Certe fidem sand us vocibus pascimus, spem erigimus, fiduciain figimus, disciplinam prteccptorum niliilominus inculcationibus dtnsamus; ibidem etiam cxhortaUones, castigationes, et censura divina. Nam et judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certus dc Dei conspectu, summumque futuri judicii prse. judicium est, siqnis ita deliquerit, ut a. communicatione orationis et conventfi et omnis sancti commercii relegetur, PiBBsidcnt probati quique scniores, honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepli. — Apologet. cap. 39. 288 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP riitions, and excommunication of the synogague: and last of all, we have the bench of elders sitting in these assemblies, and ordering the things belonging to them. Thus much for the general correspondency between the public service of the church and synagogue; they that would see more particulars, may read our learned Mr. Thorndike's discourse of the service of God in religious assemblies, whose design throughout is to make this out more at large; but we must only touch at these things by the way; as it were, look into the synagogue, and go on our way. § 11. We therefore proceed from their service, to their cus- tom of ordination, which was evidently taken up by the Christians from a correspondency to the synagogue. For which we are first to take notice, that the rulers of the church under the gospel, do not properly succeed the priests and Levites under the law, whose office was ceremonial, and who v/ere not admitted by any solemn ordination into their function, but succeeded by birth into their places; only the great sanhedrim did judge of their fitness, as to birth and body, before their entrance upon their function. So the Jewish doctors tell us, "In the stone parlour, the great sanhedrim of Israel sat, and did there judge the priests. The priest that was found defective, put on mourning garments, and so went forth; he that was not, put on white, and went in and minis- tered with the priests his brethren. And when no fault was found in the sons of ./^«ron, they observed a festival solemnity for it."i Three things are observable in this testimony: First, That the inquiry that was made concerning the priests was chiefly concerning the purity of their birth, and the freedom of their bodies from those defects which the law mentions, unless in the case of grosser and more scandalous sins, as idolatry, murder, &c., by which they were exluded from the priestly office.^ The Second is. That the great sanhedrim had this inspection over, and examination of the priests before their admission; for what that learned man Const. U Em- pereur there conjectures, that there was an ecclesiastical sanhedrim^ which did pass judgment on these things, is over- thrown by the very words of the Talmiidists already cited. The last thing observable is, the garments which the priests —Cod. Middotli. c. 5, s. 3. 2 V. Selden, de succes. ad. Pontiff. Ebre. I. 2, c. 2, 3, 5, &. 6. 3 Not in Cod. Middoth. p. 187, 188. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 289 puL on, viz. lohite raiment upon his approbation by the san- hedrim, and soon after they were admitted into the temple with great joy; to which our Saviour manifestly alludes, Revelation iii. 4, 5; "Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments, and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment." But the priests under the law, were never ordained by imposition of hands, as the elders and rulers of the synagogue were; and if any of them came to that office, they as well as others had peculiar designation and appointment to it. It is then a common mis- take to think thai the ministers of the gospel succeed by way of correspondency and analogy to the priests under the law; which mistake hath been the foundation and original of many errors. For when in the primitive church, the name of priests came to be attributed to gospel ministers from a fair com- pliance, (as was thought then,) of the Christians only to the name used both among Jews and Gentiles; in process of time, corruptions increasing ni the church, those names that were used by the Christians by way of analogy and accommoda- tion, brought in the things themselves primarily intended by those names; so by the metaphorical names of priests and altars, at last came up the sacrifice of the mass; without which, they thought the names of priests and altar were insignificant. This mistake we see run all along through the writers of the church, as soon as the name priests was applied to the elders of the church, that they derived their succession from the priests of Jiaroii's^ order. " The order of elders, (or pres- byters,) took its beginning from the sons of Aaron. For they, who in the old testament were called priests, are now called presbyters; and they who were termed chiefs of the priests, are now called bishops, as Isidore and Ivo tell us."-^ So before them both, Jerome^ in his known epistle to Evagriiis says: "And that we may know that the apostolical traditions were taken from the Old Testament, we see, that what Aaron, his sons, and^ the Levites were in the temple, the bishop, pres- byters and deacons claimed for themselves in the church."'' > Isid. Hisp. de Ecclesia offic. 1. 2, c. 7; Ivo Carnot. decret. p. 6, c. 11. 2 Presbyterorum ordo exordium sumpsit S. filiis Aaron. Qui enim sacerdotes vocabantur in veteri lestamento, hi sunt qui nunc appellantur presbyteri: et qui nuncupabantur principes sacerdotum, nunc episcopi nominantur; as Isidorus and Ivo tell us. 3 Ep. 85. ■* Et ut sciamus traditiones apostolicas suraptas de veteri testamento, quod .37 290 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF From which words a learned Doctor, and strenuous asserter of the Jus divinum of prelacy, questions not but to maice Je- rome, either apparently contradictious to himself, or else to assert, that the superiority of bishops above presbyters was by his confession an apostolical tradition. For saith he, " No- thing more evident can be said," and s. 2. " I confess myself unable to divine what can be replied to this, or with what device of sophistry an affirmation so plain can be perverted. But on the contrary, by those arguments which D. Blondell, Walo and Lewis Capell have made good, I have persuaded myself that nowhere can anything be opposed to alight so manifest.'"^ In a case then so desperate as poor Jerome lies in, by a wound he is supposed to have given himself; Avhen the priest and the Levite had passed him by, it will be a piece of charity in our going that way to consider a little his case, to see whether there be any hopes of recovery. We take it then for granted, that Jerom,e hath already said, that " the apostle taught clearly that presbyters and bishops were the same,"^ in the same epistle which he proves there at large; and in another place: "Therefore as presbyters know that they, from the custom of the church, are subject to him who hath been placed over them, so bishops know that they, more from that usage, than from the fact of the Lord's setting it in order, are superior to presbyters, and ought to govern the church for the common welfare."^ The difficulty now lies in the reconciling this with what is before cited out of the same author; some solve it by saying, that, in Jerome's sense, wpos- tolical tradition and ecclesiastical custom are the same; as Marcellus saith the observation of lent is apostolica traditio, " apostolical tradition," and on the contrary Luciferian saith, it is ecclesise consuetudo, "the custom of the church;" so that by apostolical tradition, he meant not an apostolical institution, but an ecclesiastical custom. And if e/erowie speak Aaron et filii ejus atque Levitse in templo fuerunt: hoc sibi episcopi et presbyteri atque diaconi vendicent in ecclesia. — Dissert, cap. 28. ' Nihil manifestiusdici postiut. Quid ad hoc rcsponderi possit, ant quo a-Dt^iv ipa^fjicmou artificio deliniri ant deludi tam diserta affirmatio fateor ego me divi- nando asseqni non posse; sed e contra ex iis quae D. Blondellus, quse Walo, quee Ludov. Capcllus hac in re prsBstiterunt, mihi persuasissimum esse, nihil uspiani contra apertam Incem obtendi posse. 2 Apostolus perspicu6 docet, eosdem esse presbytcros quos etepiscopos. 3 Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex ecclesise consuetudine, ei qui sibi preepo- situs fucrit, esse subjectos; ita episcopi noverint so magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis doniinica veritate prcsbyteris esse majores, et in commune dcbcre ecclesiam regcre. — Comment, in 1 Tit. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 2&i according to the general vogue, this solution may be sufficient notwithstanding what is said against it: for, according to tiiat common rule oi Austin, "Things that were generally in use, and no certain autlior assigned of them, were attributed to the apostles." Two things therefore I shall lay down for recon- ciling Jerome to himself: The^r*^ is, the difference between traditio apostolica, and traditio apostolorum, "apostolical tradition and the tradition of the apostles;" this latter doth in- deed imply the thing spoken of to have proceeded from the apostles themselves; but the former may be applied to what was in practice after the apostles' times; and the reason of it is, that whatever was done in the primitive church, supposed to be agreeable to apostolical practice, was called apostolical.^ Thence the bishop's see was called sedes apostolica, " the apostolic see," as Tertullian tells us, ob consanguinitatem doctrinae, " on account of the affinity of doctrine," So Sido- nius Appollinaris calls the see of Lupus the bishop of Tri- cassium in France, sedem apostolicam. And the bishops of the church were called viri apostolici, " apostolic men," and thence the constitutions which go under the apostles' names, " were so called," saith Jllbaspinaeus,'^ " from antiquity. For when some of them were made by the successors of the apos- tles, who according to the testimony of Tertullian, were named apostolical men, at first they were called the canons of the apostles; then through the ignorance of certain men of the Latin church, and by taking away certain letters, were termed apostolical. "3 By which we see whatever was conceived to be of any great antiquity in the church, though it was not thought to have come from the apostles themselves, yet it was called apostolical; so that in this sense, traditio apostolica is no more than traditio antiqua, or ab apostolicis viris pro- fecta, " ancient tradition, or tradition proceeding from apos- tolic men," which was meant rather of those that were con- ceived to succeed the apostles, than of the apostles themselves. But I answer, secondly, that granting traditio apostolica to mean traditio apostolorum, yet Jerome is far from contra- dicting himself, which is obvious to any that will read the words before, and consider their coherence. The scope and 1 De prsBscrip. adv. liseret. c. 32; Epist. lib. 6; Ep. 1. 2 Observat. lib. 1, c. 13. 3 Ab antiquitate; nam cum eorum aliquot ab apostolorum successoribus (qui teste Tertulliano apostolici viri nominabantur,) facti essent, apostoiicorum pri- mCitn canones, delude nonnuUorum Latinorum ignorantia., aliquot literaium de- Iraclione, apostolorum dicti sunt. 292 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF drift of his epistle, is to chastise the arrogance of one wlio made deacons superior to presbyters. " I hear that a certain one hath broken out into such folly, that he ranks deacons before presbyters, that is, before bishops,"^ and so spends a great part of the epistle, to prove that a bishop and presbyter are the same; and at last brings in these words, giving the account, why Paul to Timothy and Titus mentions no pres- byters:^ « Because an elder^ is comprised in a bishop, either, therefore, a deacon is ordained from amongst the elders, as an elder is proved to be inferior to a deacon, to whom he ad- vances from a less; or if an elder is ordained by a deacon, he is aware that in emolument he is inferior, but in the priesthood the more important character." And then presently adds, " that we may know that the apostolical traditions were taken from the old testament, we see that what Aaron, his sons, and the Levites were in the temple, the bishops, presbyters and deacons claimed for themselves," Is it imaginable that a man who had been proving all along the superiority of a presbyter above a deacon, because of his identity with a bishop in the apostles' times, should at the same time say, that a bishop was above a presbyter by the apostles' institu- tion, and so directly overthrow all he had been saying before? Much as if one should go about to prove that the prsefectus urbis, " governor or mayor of the city," and the curator urbis, "a police officer," in Alexander Sevetms' times, were the same office, and to that end should make use of the constitu- tion of that emperor whereby he appointed fourteen curatores urbis, and set the prasfectus in an office above them. Such an incongruity is scarce incident to a man of very ordinary esteem for intellectuals, much less to such a one as Jerome is reputed to be. The plain meaning, then, of Jero?7^eis no more but this: " That as Aaron and his sons in the order of priest- hood were above the Levites under the law: so the bishops ' Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam utdiaconos presbyteris, id est, cpiscopis anteferret. 2 Quia in episcopo presbyter conlinetur. Aut igitur ex presbyterio ordine- tur diaconus, ut presbyter minor diacono comprobetur, in quern crescat ex parvo; aut si ex diacono ordinatur presbyter, noverit se lucris minorem, sacerdotio esse majorem. And tlien presently adds, Et ut sciamus traditiones apostolicas sump- las de veteri testamento, quod Aaron et filii ejus atq. LevitsB in tempio fuerunt, hoc sibi episcopi et presbyferi utque diaconi vendicent in ecclesia. 3 Every one acquainted with ciiurch }iistory, is aware that the same word w^Eo-SuTE^of, was translated either an elder or presbyter; because originally they were considered to be the same. More recently some consider TrjerCuTifof to be a presbyter, or priest: though priest, more strictly speaking, signifies one who offers a sacrifice. See Parkhurst and Sclilcusner, in loc. — Am. Ed. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 293 and presbyters in the order of the evangelical priesthood are above the deacons under the gospel." For the comparison runs not between Jiaron and his sons under the law, and bishops and presbyters under the gospel; but between Jiaron and his sons as one part of the comparison under the law, and the Levites under them as the other; so under the gospel, bishops and presbyters make one part of the comparison, an- swering to Jiaron and iiis sons in that wherein they all agree, viz. the order of priesthood; and the other part under the gospel is that of deacons answering to the Levites under the law. The opposition is not then in the power of jurisdiction between bishops and priests, but between the same power of order, which is alike both in bishops and presbyters, (accord- ing to the acknowledgement of all,) to the office of deacons which stood in competition with them. Thus I hope we have left Jerome at perfect harmony with himself, notwithstanding the attempt made to make him so palpably contradict himself; which having thus done, we are at liberty to proceed in our former course; only hereby we see how unhappily those argu- ments succeed which are brought from the analogy between the Jlaronical priesthood, to endeavour to set up a jus divi- num of a parallel superiority under the gospel. All which arguments are taken off by this one thing we are now upon, viz. that the orders and degrees under the gospel, were not taken up from analogy to the temple, but to the synagogue: which we now make out as to ordination, in three things: the manner of conferring it, the persons authorized to do it, the remaining effect of it upon the person receiving it. § 12. First, For the manner of conferring it: that under the synagogue was done by laying on of hands; which was taken up among the Jews as a significative rite in the ordain- ing the elders among them, and thereby qualifying them either to be members of their sanhedrim, or teachers of the law. A twofold use I find of this symbolical rite, beside the solemn designation of the person on whom the hands are laid. The first is to denote the delivery of the person or thing thus laid hands upon, for the right, use, and peculiar service of God. And that I suppose was the reason of laying hands upon the beast under the law,^ which was to be sacrificed, thereby noting their own parting with any right in it, and giving it up to be the Lord^s for a sacrifice to him. Thus in the civil law this delivery is requisite in the transferring do- ' Levit, xvi. 294 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP minion, which they call translatio de manu in maniimy "transferring from hand to hand." The second end of laying on of hands was the solemn invocation of the Divine pi^e- sence and assistance to be upon, and with the person upon whom the hands are thus laid. For the hands with us being the instruments of action, they did by stretching out their hands upon the person, represent the efficacy of Divine power which they implored in behalf of the person thus designed. "For then they prayed that as the hand, the symbol of energy, was placed on that person, the Divine power might rest on him,"^ as Grotius observes. Thence in all solemn prayers, wherein any person was particularly de- signed, they made use of this custom of imposition of hands: from which custom Augustine speaks, ^uid aliud est ma- nuum impositio nisi oratio siiper hominem? "What else is the imposition of hands, except praying over a man?" Thence when Jacob prayed over Joseph's children, he laid his hands upon them;^ so when Moses prayed over Joshua.^ The practice likewise our Saviour used in blessing children, healing the sick, and the apostles in conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost; and from thence it was conveyed into the prac- tice of the primitive church, who used it in any more solemn invocation of the name of God in behalf of any particular persons, as over the sick, upon repentance and reconciliation to the church, in confirmation, and in matrimony; which, (as Grotius observes,) is to this day used in the Abyssinian churches. But the most solemn and peculiar use of this imposition of hands among the Jews was in the designing of any persons for any public employment among them. Not as though the bare imposition of hands did confer any power upon the person, (no more than the bare delivery of a thing in law gives a legal title to it, without express trans- ferring dominion with it,) but with that ceremony they joined those words Avhereby they did confer that authority upon them. Which were to this purpose pD nx nn, Ecce es tu Ordinatus, " Behold, thou art ordained;" or -\r\\^ I'Did 'Jv\, ego ordino te, " I ordain thee," or ^iod mnn, sis ordinatus, "Be thou ordained," to which they added according to the autho- rity they ordained them to, something peculiarly expressing it; whether it was for causes pecuniary, or binding and loosing, or ' Tunc cnim oiMbanl ut sic Dei efRcacia csFct super ilium, sicut manns effi- caciaB syinbolnin, ei imi)onebalur. — Ep. ad Gallos ep. 154, et 16C. Joh. Cord. et V. in'Mat. ix. 19. •2 GciJ. xlviii. 1 1. 3 Numb, xxvii. 23. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 295 ruling in the synagogue. Which is a tiling deserving consider- ation by those who use the right of imposing hands in ordina- tion, without anything expressing that authority they convey by that ordination. This custom being so generally in use among the Jews in the time when the apostles were sent forth with authority for gathering and settling churches, we find them accordingly making use of this, according to the former practice, either in any more solemn invocation of the presence of God upon any persons, or designation and ap- pointing them for any peculiar service or function. For we have no- ground to think that the apostles had any peculiar command for laying on their hands upon persons in prayer over them, or ordination of them. But the thing itself being enjoined them, viz. the setting apart some persons for the peculiar work of attendance upon the necessities of the churches by them planted, they took up and made use of a laudable rite and custom then in use upon such occasions. And so we find the apostles using it in the solemn designation of some persons to the office of deacons,^ answering to the I'DJns, "distributers," in the synagogue, whose office was to collect the moneys for the poor, and lo distribute it among them. Afterwards we read it used upon an occasion not heard of in the synagogue, which was for the conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost;^ but although the occasion was ex- traordinary, yet supposing the occasion, the use of that rite in it was very suitable, inasmuch as those gifts did so much answer to the nj^Diy, ^^Shekinah, or Divine presence," and the tynipn nn, "Booach Haquodesh; the Holy Spirit, or the spiritual glory, and gifts," which the Jews conceived did rest upon those who were so ordained by imposition of hands. The next time we meet with this rite, was upon a peculiar designation to a particular service of persons already appointed by God for the work of the ministry, which is of Paul and Bar- nabas by the prophets and teachers at Antioch;^ whereby God doth set forth the use of that rite of ordination to the Christian churches. Accordingly we find it after practised in the church, Timothy being ordained "by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. "■* And Timothy hath direction given him for the right management of it afterwards, " Lay hands suddenly on no man."* For they that would interpret that ' Acts vi. 6. 2 Acts viii. 17. 3 Aots xiii. 3. 4 1 Tim. iv. 4. 6 1 Tim. V. 22. 296 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP of reconciling men to the church by that rite, must first give us evidence of so early an use of that custom, which doth not yet appear. But there is one place commonly brought to prove that the apostles in ordaining elders in the Christian churches, did not observe the Jewish form of laying on of hands, but observed a way quite different from the Jewish practice, viz. appointing them by the choice, consent and suf- frages of the people. Which place is Acts xiv. 23, where it is said of Paul and Barnabas x^i'^otovrisavtsi Ss avtoi^ 'apso6v- tspovi xata ixxx^aiav. We render it "ordaining them elders in every church;" but others, from the signification of the word xsi^otovsiv, would have it rendered. When they had "appoint- ed" elders "by the suffrages of the people." But how little the people's power of ordination can be inferred from these words, will be evident to any one that shall but consider these things. First, that though x^'-e.otoviw, "to vote by extending the hands, or by a show of hands," did originally signify the choosing by way of suffrage among the Greeks, yet before the time of Luke^s writing this, the word was used for simple designation without that ceremony. So Hesychius interprets it by xdOv^iw, "to appoint," the word used of Titus for ordain- ing elders in every city;^ and in Demosthenes^ and others it occurs for vofxo^itsiv, and hiatatluv, " to decree and appoint;" and that sense of the word appears in Saint Luke himself, Acts X. 41, (jLO^e^-tvat, fotj 7i^oxsxB''^otov7;i4.£voi,; arto tov ^sov, " VV it- nesses foreappointed of God." Many examples of this sig- nification are brought by learned men of writers, before, and about the time when Luke wrote, from Philo Judaeus^ Josephus, Jippian, Lucian and others.^ But secondly, granting it used in the primary signification of the word, yet it cannot be applied to the people, but to Paul and Barna- bas; for it is not said that the people did xi''iotov£Lv, but that Paul and Barnabas did xi^'^'^'toviLV. now wherever that word is used in its first signification, it is implied to be the action of the persons themselves giving suffrages, and not for other persons appointing by the suffrages of others; Thirdly, xec^otovnv may import no more than x^i'^oeitsiv, "to lay hands upon," and in that laying on of the hands must suppose the stretching them out. Which is only a common figure in scripture for the antecedent to be put for the consequent, or • Titus i. 5. 2 V. Demost. Phi!. 1, et advers. Simon, et Ulpian in Schol. 3 V. Selden, de Syned. 1. 1, cap. 14, Grot, de Imp. Sum. Potest, c. 10, s. 5. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 297 one part for the whole action; and concerning this sense of the word in ecclesiastical writers, see the large quotations in Bishop Bilson^ to this purpose. Fourthly, It seems strangely improbable that the apostles should put the choice at that time into the hands of the people, when there were none fitted for the work the apostles designed them for; but whom the apostles did lay their hands on, by which the Holy Ghost fell upon them, whereby they were fitted and qualified for that work. The people then could no ways choose men for their abilities when their abilities were consequent to their ordina- tion. So much to clear the manner of ordination to have been from the synagogue. The second thing we consider, is, the persons authorized to do it: whom we view under a double respect, before their liberties loere bound up by compact amon^ themselves; and after. First, before they had restrained themselves of their own liberty, then the general rule for ordinations among them was vnoSiS piD pDJiy "3 Sn, "every one regularly ordained, himself had the power of ordaining his disciples," as Maimo- nides^ affirms. To the same purpose is that testimony of the Gemara Babylonia in Master Selden, "Rabbi Abba Bar Jonah said, that in times of old, every one was wont to ordain his own disciples,"^ to which purpose many instances are there brought. But it is generally agreed among them, that in the time of Hillel this course was altered, and they were re- strained from their former liberty; in probability finding the many inconveniences of so common ordinations; or, as they say, out of their great reverence to the house of Hillel, they then agreed that none should ordain others without the pre- sence of the X'tyjn, " the prince of the sanhedrim,''^ or a license obtained from him for that end; and it was determined that all ordinations without the consent of the prince of the sanhe- drim should be looked upon as null and void; which is at- tested by the former authors. The same distinction may be observed under the gospel in reference to the fixed officers of the church; for we may consider them in their first state and period, as Hierom'^ tells \xs,communi presbyterorum concilia ecclesise gubernabantur, that " the churches were ruled by the common council of the presbyters:" before the jurisdiction ' Perpet. Govern, of Christ's Church, c. 7. 2 Tract. San. cap. 4, s. 5. Ad tit. Sanhed. c. I. De Syned. 1. 2, c. 7. s. 1. 3 njiB'Nn^ 3N '3"i ION n'n ^2 nnx nnxi hjdo nx vTDbn. * Hieronym. in 1 Tit. 38 298 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP of presbyters was restrained by mutual consent, in this in- stance doubtless, the presbyters enjoyed the same liberty that the presbyters among the Jews did, of ordaining other presby- ters by the power with which they were invested at their own ordination. To which purpose we shall only at present take notice of the confession of two canonists, who are the highest among the papists, for defence of a distinct order of episco- pacy. Yet Gratian himself confesseth, "We say, that deacon- ships and presbyterships are sacred orders: and it is reported that the primitive church had these for its only officers."^ And Johannes Semeca in his Gloss upon the canon law: "they say, indeed, that in the first primitive church, the office of bishops and priests were the same; but in the second primi- tive church,'- {i. e. in the second epoch of the primitive church,) " both the names and the offices began to be distinguished. "^ Here we have a distinction of the primitive church very agree- able b(^th to the opinion of Hiero?n, and the matter we are now upon; in the first primitive church, the presbyters all acted in common for the welfare of the church, and either did or might ordain others to the same authority with themselves; because the intrinsical power of order is equally in them, and in those who were after appointed governors over presbyteries. And the collation of orders doth come from the power of order, and not merely from the power of jurisdiction. It being like- wise fully acknowledged by the schoolmen,^ that bishops are not superior above presbyters, as to the power of order. But the clearest evidence of this, is in the church of Alexandria, of which Hieroni speaks: " For at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist to Heracles and Dionysius, bishops, that tlie pres- byters always elected one from amongst themselves, and having placed him in a higher rank, named him bishop: after the maimer that an army chooses its general, tlie deacons select one from amongst themselves, whom they know to be industrious, and him they call archdeacon."^ That learned ' Sacros ordines diciinus diaconutum ct presbyteratum; hos quidcm solos ec- clesia primitiva habuisse dictur. — Dist. 60, c. Mull, ex urb. Pap. 2 Dieunt quideni quod in ecclesia prima primitiva commune erat nfficium rpis- coporum et sacerdotum, et nomina erant communin. Sed in secunda primi- tive coeperunt distingui et nomina et officia. — Dist. 95, Gloss. 3 V. Francis Mason's Defence of Ordination of Presbyters. * Nam Alexandria &. Marco evangelista. usq; ad Hcraclam et Dionysium cpis- copos, presbyteri semper unum ex se electnm, in excelsiori gradu collocatiim, episcopum nominabant; quomodo si exercilus imperatort m facial, aut diaconi eljgant de se quern industrium noverint, et archidiaoonum vocent. — Ep. 85, ad £vagrium. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 299 doctor who would persuade us that the presbyters did only make choice of the person, but the ordination was performed by otiier bishops, would do weU first to teU us, who and where those bishops in Egypt were, who did consecrate or ordain the bishop of Alexandria^ after his election by the pres- byters, especially, while Egypt remained but one province, under the government of the prxfectus Augustalis. Secondly, how had this been in the least pertinent to Hieroni'"^ purpose to have made a particular instance in the church of Alexan- dria, for that which was common to all other churches besides? For the old rule of the canon laio^ for bishops was, electio clericorum est, consensus pinncipis, petitio plebis, "the elec- tion of the clergy is the consent of the prince and the petition of the people." Thirdly, this election in Hierom must imply the conferring the power and authority whereby the bishop acted. Foi-, first, the first setting up of his power is by Hierom attributed to this choice, as appears by his words: "For after one was elected, who was set over the rest, a remedy was established against schism, lest one drawing to himself a party, should rend the church of Christ."^. Whereby it is evident Hierom attributes the first original of that exsors potestas, "power granted by choice," as he calls it elsewhere, in the bishop above presbyters, not to any apostolical institution, but to the free choice of the presbyters themselves, which doth fully explain what he means by consuetudo ecclesise, " the custom of the church," before spoken of, viz. that which came up by a voluntary act of the governors of churches themselves. Secondly, it appears that by election, he means conferring authority, by the instances he brings to that purpose: as the Roman armies choosing their emperors, who had then no other power but what they received by the length of the sword; and the deacons choosing their arch- deacon, who had no other power but what was merely con- ferred by the choice of the college of deacons. To which we may add what Eutychius^ the patriarch of Alexandria, saith in liis Origines Ecclesix Alexandrinse,'^ published in Arabic by our most learned Selden, who expressly affirms, "that the twelve presbyters constituted by Mark upon the vacancy of 1 V. Selden. ad Eutycb. n. 22, p. 143. 2 Dist. 62, sect. hser. 3 Quod auteni postea unus eleetus est, qui caeteris praeponerctur, in scliismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque ad se trahens Cliristi ecclesiam rumperet. — Advers. Lucil. 4 Origin, p. 2D, 30. 300 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF the see, did choose out of their number one to be head over the rest, and the other eleven did lay their hands upon him, and blessed him, and made him patriarch." Neither is the autho- rity oi Eutychius so much to be slighted in this case, coming so near to Hierom as he doth, who doubtless, had he told us that Mark and Jlnianus^ &c. did all there without any pres- byters, might have had the good fortune to have been quoted with as much frequency and authority as the anonymous author of the martyrdom of Timothy in Phoiiiis,^ (who there unhappily follows the story of the seven sleepers,) or the author of the Apostolical constitutions, whose credit is ever- lastingly blasted by the excellent Mr. Duillt De Pseudepi- graphis Jijjostoloruni; " on the counterfeited writings of the apostles," so much doth men's interest tend to the enliancing or abating the esteem and credit both of the dead and the living. By these we see, that where no positive restraints from consent and choice, for the unity and peace of the church, have restrained men's liberty as to their external exercise of the power of order or jurisdiction, every one being himself advanced into the authority of a church governor, hath an internal power of conferring the same on persons fit for it. To which purpose " the laying on of the hands of the presby- tery,"^ is no ways impertinently alleged, although we sup- pose St. Paul to concur in the action, (as it is most probable he did,) because, if the presbytery had nothing to do in the ordination, to what purpose were their hands laid on him? Was it only to be witnesses of the fact, or to signify their consent? both those might have been done without their use of that ceremony; which will scarcely be instanced in, to be done by any but such as had power to confer what was signi- fied by that ceremony. We come, therefore, to the second period or state of the church, when the former liberty was restrained, by some act of the church itself, for preventing the inconveniences which might follow the too common use of the former liberty of ordinations, so Antonius de BosellisfuWy expresseth my meaning in this; " Every presbyter and pres- byters did ordain indifferently, and thence arose schisms:"^ thence the liberty was restrained and reserved peculiarly to some persons who did act in the several presbyteries, as the N'tj'jn or "Prince" of the sanhedrim, without whose presence ' Biblioth. Cod. 254. 2 1 Tim. iv. 14. ^ Quilibet presbyter el presbyteri ordinabant indiscretd, et schismata orieban- tur. — Rosellis de pot. imper. et Papae. p. 4, c. 18. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 301 no ordination by the church was to be looked on as regular. The main controversy is, when this restraint began, and by whose act; whether by any of the apostles, or only by the prudence of the church itself, as it was with the sanhedrim. But in order to our peace, I see no such necessity of deciding it, both parties granting that in the church such a restraint was laid on the liberty of ordaining presbyters; and the ex- ercise of that power may be restrained still, granting it to be radically and intrinsically in them. So that this controversy is not such as should divide the church. For those that are for ordinations only by a superior order in the church, ac- knowledging a radical power for ordination in presbyters, which may be exercised in the case of necessity, do thereby make it evident, that none who grant that, do think that any positive law of God hath forbidden presbyters the full power of ordination; for then it must be wholly unlawful, and so in case of necessity it cannot be valid. Which doctrine I dare with some confidence assert to be a stranger to our church of England, as shall be largely made appear afterwards. On the other side, those who hold ordinations by presbyters law- ful, do not therefore hold them necessary, but it being a mat- ter of liberty, and not of necessity, (Christ having nowhere said that none but presbyters shall ordain,) this power then may be restrained by those who have the care of the church's peace; and matters of liberty being restrained, ought to be submitted to, in order to the church's peace. And therefore some have well observed the difference between the opinions of Hierom and Jlrius. For as to the matter itself, I believe upon the strictest inquiry J/ef/mo'^^ judgment will prove true, that Hierom, Jiiistin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Prirnasiiis,Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact,\vexe all of .^r«<*'5 judgment, as to the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive church: but here lay the difference, Arius from hence proceeded to separation from bishops and their churches, because they were bishops. And Blondell well observes that the main ground why Ariiis'^ was condemned, was for unneces- sary separation from the church of 6'e6as//a, and those bishops too who agreed with him in other things, as Eustathiits the bishop did: whereas, had his mere opinion about bishops been the ground of his being condemned, there can be no reason assigned, why this heresy, if it was then thought so, was not ' Mich. Medinas de sacr. horn. orig. el conlin. 1. ], cap. 5. 2 Praef. p. 58. 302 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP mentioned either by Soo^ntes, Theodoret, Sozomen, or Eva- grius, before vvliose time he lived; when yet tiiey mention the Eustathians, who were cotemporaries with him. But for Epiphaniiis and Jiugustine^ who have hsted iiim in the roll of heretics, it either was for the other heretical opinions main- tained by him, or they took the name heretic, (as it is evident they often did,) for one, wlio, upon a matter of difierent opinion from the present sense of tiie church, did proceed to make separation from the unity of the catholic church, which 1 take to be the truest account of the reputed heresy oi Jlrius. For otherwise it is likely that Jerome, who maintained so great correspondence and familiarity with Epiphaniiis, and thereby could not but know what was the cause why Ariiis was condemned for heresy, should himself run into the same heresy, and endeavour not only to assert, hut to avouch and maintain it against the judgment of the whole church? Jerome therefore was not ranked with Jiriiis, because, though he held the same opinion as to bishops and presbyters, yet he was far from the consequence of Ariiis, that therefore all bishops were to be separated from; nay, he was so far from thinking it necessary to cause a schism in the church, by separating from bishops, that his opinion is clear, that the first institution of them, was for preventing schisms, and therefore for peace and unity he thought their institution very useful in the church of God. And among all those fifteen testimonies produced by a learned writer out of Jerome for the superiority of bishops above presbyters, I cannot find one that doth found it upon any divine right, but only upon their convenience of such an order for the peace and unity of tiie church of God, which is his meaning in tliat place most produced to this purpose: "the safety of the church depends on the dignity of the chief minis- ter, to whom, if election and eminent power are not given by all, there will be as many schisms in the churches as there are ministers."^ Where nothing can be more evident than that he would have some snpereminent power attributed to the bishop for preventing schisms in the church. But granting some passages may have a more favourable aspect towards the superiority of bishops over presbyters in his other writings, I would fain know whether a man's judgment must be taken, from occasional and incidental passages, or from designed and ' Ecclesise salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet, cui si non exsors quie- darn et ab omnibus cniinens detur potestas, tot in ecclesis efBcientur schismata, qiiot sacerdotes. — Dial, ad Lucifer. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 303 set discourses; which is as much as to ask, whether the hvely represoiitalioii of a man by picture, may be best taken, when in haste of otlier business he passelh by us, giving only a glance of his countenance, or when he purposely and designedly sits, in order to that end that his countenance may be truly repre- sented? Besides, it is well l^nown that Hierom in his com- mentaries on scripture, (where he doth not expressly declare his own opinion,) doth often transcribe what he finds in others, witliout setting down the name of any author he had it from. For which we have this ingenuous confession in his epistle to Jlugustine: "I would simply confess, that I have read all these passages," (speaking of former commentaries,) "and having preserved many in my mind, a scribe being sent for, I dictated, without remembering the order, the words, or exact meaning, either that which was my own, or what was an- other's."^ A strange way of writing commentaries on scrip- ture, wherein a man having jumbled other men's notions together in his brain, by a kind of , lottery, draws out what next conies to hand, without any choice: yet this we see was his {)ractice, and therefore he puts Jiustin to this hard task of examining what all other men had written before him, and whether he had not transcribed out of them, before lie would have him charge him with anything which lie finds in his commentaries. How angry then would that hasty adversary have been, if men had told him he had contradicted himself in what he writes on the forty-fifth Psalm about bishops, if it be compared with his commentaries on Titus, where he professeth to declare his opinion, or his epistles to Evagriiis and Oceamis! But yet something is pleaded even from those places in Hierom, wherein he declares his opinion more fully, as though his opinion was only, that Christ himself did not appoint episcopacy, which (they say) he means by Dominica disjjosifio, ^Hhe order designed by the Lord," but that the apostles did it, which, in opposition to the former, he calls ecclesise consuetudo, but elsewhere explains it by traditio apostolica; and this they prove by two things; First, The occasion of the institution of episcopacy, which is thus set down by him, "before that through the instigation of the devil, fancies existed in religion, and it was said amongst the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Cephas, the • Itaquc ut simpliciter fatear, \e^i liaec omnia ct in mente mea plurima con- servans: accito notario, vel mea vel aliena dictavi, nee ordinis, nee verborum interdum, nee sensuum memor. — Ep. August, ep. ll. 304 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP churches were governed by a common council of the elders."^ Thence it is argued, that the time of this institution of bishops was when it was said at Corinth, I am of Paul ^ I of Apollos, and I of Cephas; which was certainly in apostohcal times. But to this it is answered: First, that it is impossible Hierom^s meaning should be restrained to that individual time, because the arguments which Hierom brings that the name and office of bishops and presbyters were the same, were from things done after this time. PauVs first epistle to the Corinthians, wherein he reproves their schisms, was written according to LudovicKs Cappellus,^ in the twelfth year of Claudius, of Christ fifty-one, after which Paul wrote his epistle to Titus, from whose words Hierom grounds his discourse; but most certainly PauVs epistle to the Philippians was not written till Paul was prisoner as Rome; the time of writing of it is placed by Cappellus in the third of iVero; of Christ fifty-six; by Blondell fitty-seven; by our Lightfoot fifty-nine; by all, long after the former to the Corinthians; yet from the first verse of this epistle, Heriom fetcheth one of his arguments. So PauVs charge to the elders at Miletus, Peter^s epistle to the dispersed Jews, were after that time too, yet from these are fetched two more of Hierom'' s arguments. Had he then so little common sense, as to say, that episcopacy was instituted upon the schism at Corinth, and yet bring all his arguments for parity, atlter the time that he sets for the institution of epis- copacy? But, secondly, Hierom, doth not say, "when it was said amongst the Corinthians, I am of Paul, &c., but when it was said amongst the people, I am of Paul, &c;"^ so that he speaks not of that particular schism, but of a general and universal schism abroad among most people, which was the occasion of appointing bishops; and so speaks of others imi- tating the schism and language of the Corinthians. Thirdly, had episcopacy been instituted on the occasion of the schism at Corinth, certainly of all places, we should the soonest have heard of a bisiiop at Corinth for the remedying of it; and yet almost of all places, those heralds that derive the succession of bishops from the apostles' times, are the most plunged, whom to fix on at Corinth. And they that can find any one ' Antequam diaboli instinctu, studia in rcligione fiererit, et dicerotur in populis; ego sum Pauli, ego ApoUos, ego autem Cephse, cotnrauni presbyterorum consilio ecclesisB gubernabantur. 2 Hist. Apostolica. p. 70. 3 Cum dicerotur apud Corinthios, ego sum Pauli, etc. sed cum diceretur in populis, ego sum Pauli, etc. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 305 single bishop at Corinth at the time when Clemens wrote his epistle to them, (about another schism as great as the former, which certainly had not been according to their opinion, if a bishop had been there before,) must have better eyes and judgment, than the deservedly admired Grotius, who brings this in his epistle to Bignonius as one argument of the undoubted antiquity of that epistle: "Because he nowhere makes mention of the authority of that free choice of bishops, which, according to the custom of the church, began after the death of Mark, at Alexandria, and from that example, else- where to be introduced; but evidently, as Paul the apostle shows, that the churches were governed by the common coun- cil of the presbyters, who, and the bishops themselves, are reported to have been governed by St. Paul.^'^ What could be said with greater freedom, that there was no such episco- pacy then at Corinth? Fourthly, They who use this argu- ment, are greater strangers to St. Jerome^ s language than they would seem to be: whose custom it is upon incidental occa- sions to accommodate the phrase and language of scripture to them: as when he speaks of Chrysostorri's fall, cecidit Baby- lon, cecidit, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen;" of the bishops of Palestine, multi utroque claiidicant pede, "many are lame of both feet;" of the Roman clergy, pharisaso7'um conclama- vit senatus, " the senate of the Pharisees cried out;" but which is most clear to our purpose, he applies this very speech to the men of his own time; "when we all speak not the same thing, but one says one thing, and another another, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, we divide the unity of the spirit, and we rend it into parties and members.'"^ All which instances are produced by Blondell,^ but have the good fortune to be passed over without being taken notice of But supposing, say they, that it was not till after the schism at Corinth, yet it must needs be done by the apostles, else how could it be said to be "decreed throughout the whole world, that one chosen from amongst the presbyters, should be placed over the rest? For how (saith a learned man) could it hap- • Quod nusquatn meminit exsortis illius episcoporum auctoritatis; quas ecclesiae consuetudine, post Marci mortem Alexandrise, atq; eo exemplo alibi, introduci coepit; sed plan6, ut Paulus apostolus ostendit, ecclesias communi presbyterorum, qui iidem omnes et episcopi ipsi Pauloq, dicuntur consilio fuisse gubernatas. — Ep. ad Gal. ep. 162. 2 Quando non id ipsum omnes loquimur, et alius dicit, ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego Cephte, dividimus spiritus unitatem, et earn in partes et membra dis- cerpimus. s Apol. p. 4. .39 306 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF pen, that it should be decreed throughout the whole world, when to decree that, no general council had been assen:ible(>, if it had not been done by the apostles themselves, propagating the faith throughout the world, and with that faith appointing this rule for the government of churches?"^ So that lie con- ceives, so general an order could not he made, unless the apostles themselves at that time were the authors of it. But Ji7'sf, Jerome in ioto orbe decretiim est, "it hath been decreed throughout the whole world," relates not to an ante- cedent order, which was the ground of the institution of epis- copacy, but to the universal establishment of that order which came up upon the occasion of so many schisms, it is something therefore consequent upon the first setting up episcopacy, which is the general obtaining of it in the churches of Christ, when they saw its usefulness in order to the cluirch's peace; therefore the emphasis lies not in decretiim est, but in toto orbe; noting how suddenly this order met with universal ac- ceptance, when it first was brought up in the church after the apostles' death. Which that it was Jerome^s meaning, ap- pears by what he saith after, " but by degrees, that the nur- series of dissensions might be plucked up, the care of this was transferred to one."^ Where he notes the gradual obtaining of it: which I suppose was thus, according to his opinion; first in the college of presbyters appointed by the apostles, there being a necessity of order, there was a president among tliem who had dvesv-gMv nov n^ar^nato^, " an authority residing in him- self over the affair," as the president of the senate, i. e. did moderate the affairs of the assembly, by proposing matters to it, gathering voices, being the first in all matters of concern- ment, but he had not a.v6ivtidv tcov ewsS^uv, " the inherent au- thority of the council," as Casauhon^ very well distingnisheth them, i.e. had no power over his fellow presbyters, but that still resided in the college or body of them. After this when the apostles were taken out of the way, who kept the main power in their own hands of ruling the several presbyteries, or delegated some to do it, (who had a main hand in the ' Toto orbe decretum, ut unus de presbytcris electus siiperponeretur cseteris? Quomodo enim (saith a learned man) fieri potuit, ut toto hoo orbe dccenicretur, nuUo jam oecumenico eoncilio ad illud decernendum congregate, si non a!) apos- tolis ipsis, fidem toto orbe promnlgantibiss, et cum fide banc regendi ecclcsias formani constituentibus factum sit? 2 Pauiatim ver6 (ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur) ad unum omncm so- licitudinuin esse delatam. 3 Exercit. ad Annal. Eccles. 15, s. 12. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. planting churches with the apostles, and thence are called in scripture sometimes fellow-labourers in the Lord, and some- times evangelists, and by Theodoret apostles, but of a. second order,) after, I say, these were deceased, and the main power left in the presbyteries, the several presbyters enjoying an equal power among themselves, especially being many in one city, thereby great occasion was given to many schisms, partly by the bandying of the presbyters one against another, partly by tlie sidings of the people with some against the rest, partly by the too common use of the power of ordinations in pres- byters, by which they were more able to increase their own party, by ordaining those who would join with them, and by this means to perpetuate schisms in the church; upon this, when the wiser and graver sort considered the abuses follow- ing the promiscuous use of this power of ordination; and withal having in their minds the excellent frame of the government of the" church under the apostles, and their deputies, and for preventing of future schisms and divisions among themselves, they unanimously agreed to choose one out of their number, who was best qualified for the management of so great a trust, and to devolve the exercise of the power of ordination and jurisdiction on him; yet so as that he act nothing of im- portance, without the consent and concurrence of the presby- ters, who were still to be as the common council to the bishop. This I take to be the true and just account of the original of episcopacy in the primitive church according to Jerome; which model of government thus contrived and framed, sets forth to us a most lively character of that great wisdom and moderation, which then ruled the heads and hearts of the primitive Christians; and which, when men have searched and studied all other ways, (the abuses incident to this govern- ment, through the corruptions of men and times being re- trenched,) will be found the most agreeable to the primitive form, both as asserting the due interest of the presbyteries, and allowing the due honour of episcopacy, and by the joint har- mony of both carrying on the affairs of the church with the greatest unity, concord and peace. Which form of govern- ment I cannot see any possible reason can be produced by either party, why they may not with cheerfulness embrace it. Secondly, another evidence that Jerome by decretum est, « it is or hath been decreed," did not mean an order of the apostles themselves, is by the words which follow the matter of the decree, viz. Ut unus de presbyteris electtis superpone- retur casteris, " that one elected from amongst the presbyters, 308 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF should be placed over the rest," one chosen not only out of, but by the presbyters, should be set above the rest; for so Jerome must be understood; for the apostles could not them- selves choose out of all presbyteries one person to be set above the rest; and withal the instance brought of the church of Jilexandria makes it evident to be meant of the choosing by the presbyters, and not by the apostles. Besides, did Jerome mean choosing by the apostles, he would have given some intimations of the hand the apostles had in it: which we see not in him the least ground for. And as for that pretence, that ecclesise eonsuetudo is apostolica traditio, " the custom of the church is the apostolical tradition," I have already made it appear that apostolica traditio in Jerome, is nothing else but eonsuetudo ecclesise, which I shall now confirm by a preg- nant and unanswerable testimony out of Jerome^ himself: " Let every province abound in its own sense, and account of the ordinances of their ancestors as of apostolical laws."^ Nothing could have been spoken more fully to open to us what Jerome means by apostolical traditions, viz. the practice of the church in former ages, though not coming from the apostles themselves. Thus we have once more cleared Jerome and the truth together; I only wish all that are of his judg- ment for the practice of the primitive church, were of his tem- per for the practice of their own; and while they own not episcopacy as necessary by a divine right, yet, (being duly moderated, and joined with presbyteries,) they may embrace it, as not only a lawful, but very useful constitution in the church of God. By which we may see what an excellent temper may be found out, most fully consonant to the primi- tive church for the management of ordinations, and church power, viz. by the presidency of the bishop and the concurrence of the presbytery. For the top-gallant of episcopacy can never be so well managed for the right steering the ship of the church, as when it is joined with the under sails of a moderate presbytery. So much shall suffice to speak here as to the power of ordination, which we have found to be derived from the synagogue, and the customs observed in it, transplanted into the church. § 14. There are yet some things remaining as to ordination, wherein the church did imitate the synagogue, which will ' Hieron. ep. 20, ad.Lucinum. 2 UnaquEEque provincia abundet in sensu suo, et praecepta majorum leges apos- tolicas arbitrelur. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 309 admit of a quick despatch, as the number of the persons, which under the synagogue were always to be at least three. This being a fundamental constitution among the Jews, as ' appears by their writings, r\w^w2 D'jpi hd'od, " ordination of presbyters by laying on of hands must be done by three at the least."^ To the same purpose Muimo)iicles jod-'D pxi, rij"-i'? cjpin "irn N^nty htod r^vhwi n^x, " They did not ordain any by imposition of hands into a power of judicature with- out the number of three. "2 Which number Peter Gallatinus and Postellus conceive necessary to be all ordained them- selves; but Master Seldeii^ thinks it was sufficient if there were but one of that number so ordained, who was to be as principal in the action; whose opinion is favoured by Maimo- nides, who adds to the words last cited out of him; of which three, one at the least must be ordained himself Let us now see the parallel in the church of God. The first solemn ordination of elders under the gospel, which some think to be set down as a pattern for the church to follow, is that we read of, ^cts xiii. 1, 2, 3. Which was performed by three; for we read in the first verse, that there were in the church at Antioch, five prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon, Lu- cius, Manaen and Saul; of these five, the Holy Ghost said, that two must be separated for the luork ivhereto God had called them, which were, Barnabas and Saul; there remain only the other three, Si77ieon, Lucius, and Manaen to lay their hands on them, and ordain them to their work. Accord- ingly those who tell us that James was ordained bishop of Jerusalem, do mention the three apostles who concurred in the ordaining of him.'* But most remarkable for this purpose is the canon of the Nicene council, wherein this number is set down as the regular number for the ordination of bishops, without which it was not accounted canonical. The words are these: " The ordination of a bishop should, if possible, be performed by all the bishops of the province, which if it can- not easily be done, either through some urgent necessity, or the tediousness of the way, three bishops at least must be there for the doing it, which may be sufficient for the ordina- tion, if those that are absent do express their consent, and by letters approve of the doing of it."* To the same purpose • Misna et Gemar. tit. Sanhedr. c. 1. 2 Tit. Sanhed. cap. 4, s. 3, Arcan. Cath. Veritat. 1. 4, cap. 6. 3 De Concord, orbis. p. 377. 4 Euseb. hist. Eccles. lib 2, cap. ]. s Ew«(rxo7rov vrpoo-nxti fxaKi^a y,Bv aiao Ttavrxv, rcav £v th 67rttg;^ttt xafliftttrSat si Je 310 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Theodoret says, " The canons enjoin all the bishops of the province to be present at the ordination of one: and forbid the ordination of any vvithoLit three being present at it."^ Thus we see how the constitution of the synagogue was exactly observed in the church, as to the number of the persons con- curring to a regular ordination. Tiie last thing as to ordina- tion bearing analogy to the synagogue, is the effect of this ordination npon the person: it was the custom of the Jews, to speak of all that were legally ordained among them, nmiyi, jnV njoty " and the divine presence or Schekinah rested upon them," which sometimes they called i^iipn nn, Rooach Huquo- dosh, "the Holy Spirit," supposed to be in a peculiar manner present after this solemn separation of them from others in the world, and dedication of them unto God. Answerable to this may that of our Saviour be, when he gives his apostles autho- rity to preach the gospel, he doth it in that form of words," Re- ceive ye the Holy Ghost,"^ and then gives them the power of binding and loosing, usually conveyed in the Jewish ordina- tions. " Whose sins ye remit, they are reuiitted; and whose sins ye retain, they are retained."^ So that as under the law, they by their ordination received a moral faculty or right to exer- cise that power they were ordained to: so under the gospel, all who are ordained according to gospel rules, have a right, authority and power conveyed thereby for the dispensing of the word and sacraments. Which right and power nmst not be conceived to be an internal indelible character, as the papists groundlessly conceive, but a moral legal right, accord- ing to the laws of Christ, because the persons ordaining do not act in it in a natural, but a moral capacity, and so the effect must be moral and not physical, which they must sup- pose it to be, who make it a character, and that indelible. Thus much may serve to clear how ordination in all its cir- cmnstances was derived from the Jewish synagogue. § 15. The other thing remaining to be spoken to, as to the correspondence of the church with the synagogue in its con- stitution is, what order the apostles did settle in the several churches of their plantation for the ruling and ordering the S'u3-;CEjEf £{»! TO ToiouTov, 11 Jitt Y.a.ta.ntnymc'ts.t avayKnV, n ha /wnxof ohv, l^ aTravro? t^eij ETTi TO auTO ffCVayo[A.evov;, av/jt-^l^fajv yivoy,tV(ev xat raiv a'travrajv xai cvVTidefA-lvaiv ha y^afA/xarcev, tote Ttjv ^SipoTovtav Troieia^at. — Can, 4. Hist. I'Jccles. lib. 5, c. 23. ' KavovEj TravTflf (rvynu-'Kii^tti t»5 Ewap^iaf touj EWio-KOTrouj mXivovcri, Kai av waXiv S(;^a TStcmv ims-x-oTTtuv itiiTX.o'mu ^upo-rifnav cLwayociuov^i yivei^Qat. — V. Justell. not. in Canon. Univers8B Eccles. p. 140. 2 John XX. 21 3 John xx. 29. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 311 affairs of them. Before I come to speak so much to it as will be pertinent to our present purpose and design, we may- take notice of the same name for church rulers under the gospel, which there was under the synagogue, viz, that of presbyters. The name presbyter, as the Hebrew |pi, "an eider," though it originally imported age, yet by way of con- notation it hath been looked on as a name both of dignity and power. Because wisdom was supposed to dwell with a multitude of years; therefore persons of age and experience were commonly chosen to places of honour and trust, and thence the name importing age doth likewise carry dignity along with it. Thence we read in the time of Moses how often the elders were gathered together.^ Thence Eliezer is called in"3 [pf, Gen. xxiv. .2, which the Greek renders ©ptogurf^os f»j5 otxtaj, the seignior domo, "the chief officer in his house;" and so we read Gen. 1. 6, D"*»i'0 ]nx 'Jpi, "the elders of the land of Egypt." So the elders of Midian, the elders of Israel, the elders of the cities; so among the Greeks yi^ovaia, "or assembly of elders," for their council of state; and among the Latins senatus, and our Saxon aldermen, in all importing both age and honour and power together. But among the Jews, in the times of the apostles, it is most evident that the name cjpsoSiJT'fpot, imported not only dignity but power; the presby- ters among the Jews, having a power both of judging and teaching given them by their semicha or "ordination." Now under the gospel the apostles retaining the name and the manner of ordination, but not conferring that judiciary power by it, which was in use among the Jews, to show the differ- ence between the law and the gospel, it was requisite some other name should be given to the governors of the churc'i, which should qualify the importance of the word presbyters to a sense proper to a gospel state; which was the original of giving the name iTtiexoTtov, " overseers" to the governors of the church under the gospel: a name importing duty more than honour, and not a title above presbyter, but rather used by way of diminution and qualification of the power implied in the name of presbyter. Therefore to show what kind of power and duty the name presbyter imported in the church, the office conveyed by that name is called fTH-ixoigri, "' a visita- tion, the office of superintendence," and presbyters are said iTii-sxoTiivv, "to oversee, inspect," 1 Pet. v. 2, where it is op- posed to that xataxviiiviiv *tot) xXrj^ujv, " lording it over the > Exod. iii. 16, 18; iv. 29; xii. 21; xvii. 5; xviii. 12, &c. 312 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP people," as was the custom of the presbyters among the Jews. So that if we determine things by importance of words and things signified by them, the power of ordination was proper to the name mpsa^vtspoi and not srttoxoi^ou because the former name did not then import that power. We come therefore from the names to the things then impUed by them; and the offices estabUshed by the apostles for the ruUng of churches. But my design being not to dispute the argu- ments of either party, (viz. those who conceive the apostles settled the government of the chnrch in an absolute parity; or else by superiority and subordination among the settled officers of the church,) but to lay down those principles which may equally concern both, in order to accommodation: I find not myself at present concerned to debate what is brought on either side for the maintaining their particular opinion any further than thereby the apostles' intentions are brought to have been to bind all future churches to observe that indi- vidual form they conceived was in practice then. All that I have to say then, concerning the course taken by the apostles in settling the government of the churches, (under which will be contained the full resolution of what I promised, as to the correspondency to the synagogue in the government of churches,) lies in these three propositions, which I now shall endeavour to clear, viz: that neither can we have that certainty of apostolical practice which is necessary to constitute a divine right; nor, secondly, is it probable that the apostles did tie themselves up to any one fixed course in modelling churches; nor, thirdly, if they did, doth it necessarily follow that we must observe the same. If these three considerations be fully cleared, we may see to how little purpose it is to dispute the significancy and importance of words and names as used in scripture, which hitherto the main quarrel hath been about. I therefore begin with the first of these, that we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the apostles took in governing churches as to infer from thence the only divine right of that one form which the several parties imagine comes the nearest to it. This I shall make out from these following ar- guments: first, from the equivalency of the names, and the doubtfulness of their signification from which the form of government used in the New Testament should be determined. That the form of government must be derived from the im- portance of the names of bishop and presbyter, is hotly pleaded on both sides. But if there can be no certain way found out whereby to come to a determination of what the certain sense FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 313 of those names is in scripture, we are never like to come to any certain knowledge of the things signified by those names. Now there is a fourfold equivalency of the names bishop and presbyter taken notice of: 1. that both should signify the same thing, viz. a presbyter, in the modern notion, i. e. one acting in a parity with others for the government of the church.* And this sense is evidently asserted by Theodoret: " The apostle" (Acts xx. 28; Philip, i. 1; Titus i. 5; 1 Tim. iii. 1,)^ " doth by bishops mean nothing else but presbyters; otherwise it were impossible for more bishops to govern one city."^ 2. That both of them should signify promiscuously sometimes a bishop, and sometimes a presbyter: so Chrysostom, and after him Oecumenius and Theophylact in Phil. i. "Since then the custom," especially mentioned, '• in the New Testament of calling many bishops elders, and elders bishops, is unknown; but to this end we may refer to the epistles to Titus, to the Philippians, and to the first to Timothy."^ Where they as- sert the community and promiscuous use of the names in scripture, so that a bishop is sometimes called a presbyter, and a presbyter sometimes called a bishop. 3. That the name bishop always imports a singular bishop; but the name pres- byter is taken promiscuously both for bishop and presbyter. 4. That both the names bishop and presbyter do import only one thing in scripture, viz. the office of a singular bishop in every church; which sense, though a stranger to antiquity, is above all others embraced by a late very learned man, who hath endeavoured by set discourses to reconcile all the places of scripture where the names occur to this sense; but with what success it is not here a place to examine. By this va- riety of interpretation of the equivalency of the names of bishop and presbyter, we may see how far the argument from the promiscuous use of the names is from the controversy in hand; unless some evident arguments be withal brought, that the equivalency of the words cannot possibly be meant in any other sense than that which they contend for. Equivocal words can never of themselves determine what sense they are • Dissert, de jure Epis. 3, c. 6. Vindicat. cap. ii. s. 1. 2 Theodoret, in 1 Tim. iii. 1. ' EvwicTjtoTrouj Touj wjea-0yT£gouf xaXej aXXaif te oySs oiov ts hv ttoXXou? eww-xowoy; (Aiay TToXtv "rtoifxaimv. * ETrttTKOTtovi TOuq •KgoitT^iv'Ti^ovq xaXEt, TOTE yaj iKtivanovv TOi? (ivo/a.a(ri, and in Acts XX. 28; E7rE(J>) tou; woXXouj Xav9avEi h iruvn&Eia fjiaXtfct rn? xaivwf ita9iix.ni; tow? E^Tria-- KOTTOvf 'TT^iaSvre^out o)iofxat^ov(ra, Kat touj Tr^BoSuTt^ovi EWio-xowoyf, (rnfJUiaiTeov rouro SVTlvdsV, **t £V TDf WfOf TlTOV EWifoXUf, ETt Js Xa« WfOf OlXlWWBO-IOUJ, Kai SK TD? W{0{ T«/t«0&£V TTf aiTIl?. 40 314 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF to be taken in, because they are equivocal, and so admit of different senses. And he that from the use of an equivocal word would infer the necessity only of one sense, when the word is common to many, unless some other argument be brought enforcing that necessity, will be so far from persuad- ing others to the same belief, that he will only betray the weakness and shortness of his own reason. When Jliignstus would be called only Princeps Senatus,^ could any one infer from thence, that certainly he was only the rt^oatffwj, " chief or president," in the senate, or else that he had superiority of power over the senate, when that title might be indifferent to either of those senses? All that can be inferred from the pro- miscuous sense of the words, is, that they may be under- stood only in this sense; but it must be proved that they can be understood in no other before any one particular form of government as necessary can be inferred from the use of them. If notwithstanding the promiscuous use of the name bishop and presbyter, either that presbyter may mean a bishop, or that bishop may mean a presbyter, or be sometimes used for one, sometimes for the other; what ground can there be laid in the equivalency of the words, which can infer the only di- vine right of the form of government couched in any one of these senses? So likewise, it is in the titles of angels of the churches; if the name angel imports no incongruity, though taken only for the "im^ n''7iy, "the public minister," in the Jewish synagogue, called " the angel of the congregation," what power can be inferred from thence, any more than such an officer was invested with? Again, if the Tt^otfco? or president of the assembly of presbyters, might be so called: what supe- riority can be deduced thence, any more than such a one enjoys? Nay, if in the prophetical style, an unity may be set down by way of representation of a multitude: what evidence can be brought from the name, that by it some one particular person must be understood? And by this means Timothy may avoid being charged with leaving his first love^ which he must of necessity be, by those that make him the angel of the church of Ephesus at the time of writing these epistles. Neither is this any ways solved by the answer given, that the name angel is representative of the whole church, and so there is no necessity, the angel should be personally guilty of it. For ^r*^, it seems strange that the whole diffusive body ' Tacitus, hist. lib. i. 2 Rev. ii. 4. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 315 of the church should be charged with a crime by the name of the angel, and he that is particularly meant by that name should be free from it. As if a prince should charge the mayor of a corporation as guilty of rebellion, and by it should only mean that the corporation was guilty, but the mayor was in- nocent himself. Secondly, If many things in the epistles be directed to the angel, but yet so as to concern the whole body, then of necessity the angel must be taken as represenative of the body; and then, why may not the word angel be taken only by way of representation of the body itself, either of the whole church, or which is far more probable, of the concessus or order of presbyters in that church? We see what miserably unconcluding arguments those are, which are brought for any form of government from metaphorical or ambiguous expres- sions, or names promiscuously used, which may be interpreted in different senses. What certainty then can any rational man find, what the form of government was in the primitive times, when only those arguments are used which may be equally accommodated to different forms? And without such a cer- tainly, with what confidence can men speak of a divine right of any one particular form? Secondly, The uncertainty of the primitive form is argued, from the places most in controversy about the form of government; because that without any ap- parent incongruity they may be understood of either of the different forms, which I shall make out by going through the several places. The controversy then oil foot is this, (as it is of late stated,) whether the churches in the primitive times were governed by a bishop only and deacons, or by a college of presbyters acting in a parity of power? The places insisted on, on both sides, are these, Jicts xi. 30, Acts xiv. 23, Acts xxviii. 17, 1 Tim. iii. 1, Titus i. 5. The thing in controversy, is, whether bishops with deacons, or presbyters in a parity of power, are understood in these places? I begin then in order with Acts xi. 30. The first place wherein the name 7te,i(i?vts^oi, occurs, as applied to the officers of the Christian church. Those that are for a college of presbyters, understand by these elders, those of the church oi Jerusalem, who did govern the affairs of that church: those that are for a solitary episcopacy, by these elders understand not the local elders of Jerusalem, but the several bishops of the churches of Judea. Let us now see whether there be any evidence from the place to determine which of these two must necessarily be understood. There is nothing at all mentioned in the place, but only that " upon the occasion of the famine, they sent 316 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF relief to the brethren of Judea, and sent it to the elders by the hands oi Barnabas and Paulf which might cither be to the elders of the church at Jerusalem, to be distributed to the several churches of Judea, or else to the several pastors of those churches, either collectively as met together at Jerusalem to receive this contribution, or distributively as they were in their several churches. The relief might be sent to all the brethren of Judea, and yet either be conveyed to the particular elders of Jerusalem to send it abroad, or to the several elders of the churches within the circuit of Judea. But other places are brought by both parties for their particular sense in this, as Acts XV. 6; here indeed mention is made of the apostles and elders together at Jerusalem, but nothing expressed whereby we may know whether the fixed elders of that church, or else the elders of all the churches of Judea assem- bled upon this solemn occasion of the council of the apostles there. So Acts xxi. 11, when Faul went in to James, it is said, that "all the elders were present." No more certainty here neither; for, either they might be the fixed officers of that church, meeting with James upon PauVs coming; or else they might be the elders of the several churches of Judea met together, not to take account of PauVs ministry, (as some im- probably conjecture,) but assembled together there at the feast of Pentecost, at which Paul came to Jerusalem, which is more probable upon the account of what we read, verse 20, of the "many thousand believing Jews then at Jerusalem, who were zealous of the law:" who in all probability were the believing Jews of Judea, who did yet observe the annual festivals of Jerusalem, and so most likely their several elders might go up together with them, and there be with James at PauVs coming in to him. No certainty then of the church of Jerusalem how that was governed; whether by apostles them- selves, or other unfixed elders, or only by James, who exer- cised his apostleship most there, and thence afterwards called the bishop of Jerusalem. We proceed therefore to the govern- ment of other churches; and the next place is, Acts xiv. 23, "and when they had ordained them elders in every church." Here some plead for a plurality of elders as fixed in every church; but it is most evident, that the words hold true if there was but one in each church. For xa^t ixx%r;siav here, and xai-o iio-Kiv, Titus i. 5, (for both places will admit of the same answer,) doth signify no more than oppidatim, "city by city," or ecclesiatim, "church by church, or by churches," as xafo PaSjitoj/, gradatim, "by degrees;" xat owSi^a, viritim, "man by FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 317 man;" xaf a i^c^oi, particulatim, " particle by particle, or by particles;" xtxta xay.7iv, vicatim, "village by village." No more then is imported than that elders were ordained, city by city, or church by church, as we would render it, and thereby nothing is expressed, but that no church wanted an elder, but not that every church had more elders than one. But the place most controverted is, »dcts xx. 17, "and from Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church." Those that say, these elders were those only of the church of Ephesus, seem to be most favoured by the phrase ttn ^xxxi^siaj, as seeming to apply to that particular church of Ephesus, and by the Syriac version, which renders it, venire fecit pres- byteros ecclesise Ephesi, " he caused the elders of the church of Ephesus to be present;" to the same purpose likewise Hierom understands it. On the contrary those that say, that these elders were those of the several churches of Asia, are favoured by verse 18; "that from the first day he came into Asia, he had been with them at all seasons." Now Paul did not remain all the time at Ephesus, as appears by jicts xix. 10, 22, 26, where he is said to preach the word abroad in Asia, and so in probability churches were planted, and rulers settled in them; and that these were at this time called to Miletus by Paul, is the express affirmation of Irensetis, '" For the bishops and elders who were from Ephesus, and the other cities, being called together at Miletus, since he himself has- tened to spend the Pentecost at Jerusalem."^ Here is nothing then either in the text or antiquity, that doth absolutely determine whence these elders came; but there may be a probability on either side; and so no certainty or necessity of understanding it either way. And so for the other places in Timothy and Titus, it is certain the care of those persons did extend to many places, and therefore the elders or bishops made by them, are not necessarily to be understood of a plu- rality of elders in one place. Thus we see, that there is no incongruity in applying either of these two forms to the sense of the places in question. I dispute not which is the true, or at least more probable sense, but that we can find nothing in the several places which doth necessarily determine, how they are to be understood as to one particular form of government, which is the thing I now aim at proving. And 1 In Mileto enim convocatis episcopis et presbyteris qui crant ab EpTieso et h. reliquis proximis civitatibus, quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecostem agere. — Advers. hapres. I. 1, c. H. 318 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF if neither form be repugnant to the sense of these places, how can any one be necessarily inferred from them? As if the several motions and phenomena of the heavens, may be with equal probability explained according to the Ptolemaic or Copernican hypothesis, viz. about the rest or motion of the earth; then it necessarily follows, that from those phenomena no argument can be drawn evincing the necessity of the one hypothesis, and overturning the probability of the other. If that great wonder of nature, the flux and reflux of the sea, might with equal congruity be solved according to the different opinions, of its being caused by subterraneous fires, or from the motion of the moon, or the depression of the lunar vortex, or, (which to me is far the most probable,) by a motion of con- sent of the sea with all the other great bodies of the world; we should find no necessity at all of entertaining one opinion above another, but to look upon all as probable, and none as certain. So likewise for the composition and motion of all natural bodies, the several hypotheses of the old and new phi- losophy, '\m^\Y'm^ no apparent incongruity to nature, do make it appear that all or any of them, may be embraced as inge- nious romances in philosophy, (as they are no more,) but that none of them are the certain truth; or c^n be made appear so to be to the minds of men. So it is in controversies in theology, if the matter propounded to be believed, may as to the truth and substance of it be equally believed under dif- ferent ways of explication, then there is no necessity as to the believing the truth of the thing, to believe it under such an explication of it, more than under another. As for instance, in the case of Christ's descent ai? 'dbov, "into hades," if I may truly believe that Christ did descend st.^ aSov, whether by that we understand the state of the dead, or a local descent to hell,^ then there is no necessity in order to the belief of the substance of that article of the ancient creed, (called the apostles',) under that restriction of a local descent. By this time I suppose it is clear, that if these places of scripture may be understood in these two different senses of the word elders, viz. either taken ' Some, by the Paradise mentioned in the New Testament, (Luke xxiii. 43,) and by Hades, understand the two intermediate states, tlie former for the happy dead, the other for the miserable, prior to the resurrection of the body. Other- wise how shall Rev. xx. 14, be understood? o ^avarog xai 6 aS'd? efxi&no-av iis t»v Xi/!*vnv Toy wugof; " and death," (all his powers and unredeemed consequences in man,) "and Hades were cast into the lake of fire." Surely not, hell was cast into the lake ofjire, according lo the common version, for that would be the same thing- as to say, a lake of fire was cast into a lake of fire." — Am, Ed. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 319 collectively in one city, or distributively in many, then there is no certainty which of these two senses must be embraced, and so the form of church government, which must be thence derived, is left still at as great uncertainty as ever, notwith- standing these places of scripture brought to demonstrate it, ortfg sSn Sftlat, " which it was incumbent on them to show." § 16. Thirdly, The uncertainty of the primitive form of go- vernment will be made appear from the defectiveness, ambi- guity, partiality and repugnancy of the records of the succeed- ing ages, which should inform us what apostolical practice was. When men are by the force of the former arguments driven off from scripture, then they presently run to take sanctuary in the records of succeeding ages to the apostles. Thus Esthis, no mean schoolman, handling this very question of the differ- ence of bishops and presbyters, very fairly quits the scriptures, and betakes himself to other weapons. "But that bishops by a divine right are superior to presbyters, although not so clear from the scriptures, nevertheless can, from other writings, be sufficiently proved. "^ Ingenuously said, however; but all the difficulty is, how di jus divinitm should be proved when men leave the scriptures, which makes others so loth to leave this hold; although they do it in effect, when they call in the help of succeeding ages to make the scripture speak plain for them. We follow therefore the scent of the game into this wood of antiquity, wherein it will be easier to lose ourselves than to find that which we are upon the pursuit of, a jus divinum, of any one particular form of government. I handle now only the testimony of antiquity, (for the practice of it will call for a particular discourse afterwards,) and herein I shall en- deavour to show the incompetency of this testimony, as to the showing what certain form of church government was prac- tised by the Apostles ; for that, I shall make use of this four- fold argument; from the defectiveness of this testimony, from the ambiguity of it, from the partiality of it, and from the re- pugnancy of it to itself. First, then, for the defectiveness of the testimony of antiquity, in reference to the showing what certain form the apostles observed in settling the government of churches; a threefold defectiveness I observe in it, as to places, as to times, as to persons. First, defectiveness as to places; for him that would be satisfied what course the apos- ' Q.uod autem jure divino sint Episcopi Presbyteris superiores, et si non ita clarum est e sacris Uteris, aliunde tamen satis efBcaciter probari potest. — In Sentent. lib. iv. dist. 4, sect. 25. 330 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF ties took for governing churches, it would be very requisite to observe the uniformity of the apostles' practice in all churches of their plantation. And if but one place varied, it were enough to overthrow the necessity of any one form of government, because thereby it would be evident, that they observed no certain or constant course, nor did they look upon themselves as obliged so to do. Now the ground of the ne- cessity of such an universal testimony as to places, is this: we have already made it appear, that there is no law of Christ absolutely commanding one form, and forbidding all others. We have no way then left to know, whether the apostles did look upon themselves as bound to settle one form, but by their practice; this practice must be certain and uniform in them; this uniformity must be made known to us by some unques- tionable way: the scriptures are very silent in it, mention- ing very little more than Paul's practice, nor that fully and clearly; therefore we must gather it from antiquity, and the records of following ages; if these now fall short of our ex- pectation, &,nd cannot give us an account of what was done by the apostles in their several churches planted by them, how is it possible we should attain any certainty of what the apos- tles' practice was? Now that antiquity is so defective as to places, will appear from the general silence as to the churches planted by many of the apostles. Granting the truth of what Eusebius tells us, that Thomas went into Parthia, Jlndreiu into Scythia, John into the less Asia, Peter to the Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Asia;^ besides what we read in scripture of Paul, what a pitiful short account have we here given of all the apostles' travels, and their several fellow-labourers! And for all these, little or nothing spoke of the way they took in settling the churches by them planted. Who is it will undertake to tell us what course Jindreio took in Scythia, in governing churches? If we be- lieve the records of after ages, there was but one bishop, viz. of Tomis, for the whole country; how different is this from the pretended course of Paul, setting up a single bishop in every city? Where do we read of the presbyteries settled by Thomas in Parthia or the Indies? what course Philip, Bar- tholom,ew, Matthew, Simon Zelotes, Matthias took. Might not they, for anything we know, settle another kind of go- vernment from what we read Paul, Peter, or John did, unless we had some evidence that they were all bound to > Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 1. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 321 observe the same? Nay, what evidence have we what course Peter took in the churches of the circumcision? Whether he left them to their synagogue way, or altered it, and how or wherein? These things should be made appear, to give men a certainty of the way and course the apostles did ob- serve in the settling churches by them planted. But instead of this, we have a general silence in antiquity, and nothing but the forgeries of latter ages to supply the vacuity: whereby they filled up empty places, as Plutarch expresseth it,^ as geographers do maps, with some fabulous creatures of their own invention. Here is work now for a Nicepherus Callis- thiis, a Simeon Metaphrastes, the very Jacobus de Voragine of the Greek church, (as one well calls him,) those historical tinkers, that think to mend a hole where they find it, and make three instead of it. This is the first defect in antiquity as to places. The second is as observable as to times; and what is most considerable: antiquity is most defective where it is most useful, viz. in the time immediately after the apos- tles, which must have been most helpful to us in this inquiry. For, who dare with confidence believe the conjectures of Eu- sebius at three hundred years distance from apostolical times, when he hath no other testimony to vouch, but the hypo- theses of an uncertain Clement, (certainly not he of Alexan- dria, liJos. Scaliger may be credited,) and the commentaries of Hegesipjnis, whose relations and authority are as ques- tionable as many of the reports of Eusebius himself are in reference to those elder times: for which I need no other testi- mony but Eusebius in a place enough of itself to blast the whole credit of antiquity, as to the matter now in debate. For speaking of Paul and Peter, and the churches by them planted, and coming to inquire after their successors, he makes this very ingenuous confession: "There being so many of them, and some naturally rivals, it is not easy to say which of them were accounted eligible to govern the churches established, unless it be those that we may select out of the writings of Paul."^ Say you so? Is it so hard a matter to find out who succeeded the apostles in the churches planted by them, unless it be those mentioned in the writings of Paul? What be- comes then of our unquestionable line of succession of the bishops of several churches, and the large diagrams made of ' Plut. in Thcseo. 2 'Oa-oi Se TouToiv, xai tive; yvncriot ^uXoorai yiyovorti, rat wgoj a'vra>v t^(uQsi<7a)va)v anXe^ono, — Hist. Ecci. 1. 3. c, 4. 41 3SS THE DIVINE RIGHT OF the apostolical churches with every one's name set down in his order, as if the writer had been Clarenceaulx to the apos- tles themselves? Is it come to this at last that we have nothing certain, but what we have in scriptures? And must then the tradition of the church be our rule to interpret scriptures by? An excellent way to find out the truth doubtless, to bend the rule to the crooked stick, to make the judge stand to the opinion of his lacquey, what sentence he shall pass upon the cause in question; to make scripture stand cap in hand to tra- dition, to know whether it may have leave to speak or not! Are all the great outcries of apostolical tradition, of personal succession, of unquestionable records resolved at last into the scripture itself by him from whom all these long pedigrees are fetched? Then let succession know its place, and learn to vaile bonnet to the scriptures. And withal, let men take heed of over-reaching themselves when they would bring down so large a catalogue of single bishops from the first and purest times of the church, for it will be hard for others to believe them, when Eusebius professeth it is so hard to find them. Well might Scaliger then complain that the interval from the last chapter of the Acts to the middle of Trajan, in which time Quadratus and Ignatius began to flourish, was tempus ahrfKov, "confused," as Varro speaks,^ a mere chaos of time filled up with the rude conceptions of Papias, Hermes, and others, who, like Hannibal, when they could not find a way through, would make one either by force or fraud. But yet, thirdly, here is another defect consequent to that of time, which is that of persons; arising not only from a de- fect of records, the diptychs of the church being lost, which would have acquainted us with the times of suffering of the several martyrs, (by them called their natalitia,) at which times their several names were enrolled in these martyrologies, which some, as Junius'^ observes, have ignorantly mistaken for the time of their being made bishops of the places wherein their names were entered, as Jlnacletus, Clytus and Clemens at Rome; I say the defect as to persons, not only ariseth hence, but because the Christians were so much harassed with persecutions, that they could not have that leisure then to write those things, which the leisure and peace of our ages have made lis so eagerly inquisitive after. Hence even the martyrologies are so full stufi'ed with fables; witness one for > Proleg. in Chron. Eusebii. 2 Cont. 3, I. 2, c. 5, not. 18. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 32:3 all, the famous legend of Catharina,^ who suffered, say they, in Diocletian's time. And truly the story of Ignatius, (as much as it is defended with his epistles,) doth not seem to be any of the most probable. For, wherefore should Ignatius of all others be brought to Rome to suffer, when the procon- suls and the prxsides pi'ovinciarumP- did everywhere in time of persecution execute their power in punishing Christians at their own tribunals, without sending them so long a journey to Rome to be martyred there? And how came Ignatius to make so many and such strange excursions, as he did by the story, if the soldiers that were his guard were so cruel to him, as he complains they were? Now all those uncertain and fabulous narrations as to persons then, arising from want of sufficient records made at those times, make it niore evident how incompetent a judge antiquity is, as to the certainty of things done in apostolical times. If we should only speak of the fabulous legends of the first planters of churches in these western parts, we need no further evidence of the great de- fect of antiquity as to persons. Not to go out of our own na- tion, whence come the stories of Peter, James, Paul, Simon, Aristobulus, besides Joseph of Arimathea, and his company; all being preachers of the gospel, and planters of churches here, but only from the great defect in antiquity, as to the records of persons employed in the several places for preach- ing the gospel? Thus much to show the defectiveness as to the records of antiquity, and thereby the incompetency of them for being a way to find out the certain course the apos- tles took in settling and governing churches by them planted. § 17. The next thing showing the incompetency of the records of the church for deciding the certain form of church government in the apostles' times, is, the ambiguity of the testimony given by those records. A testimony sufficient to decide a controversy, must be plain and evident, and must speak full and home to the case under debate. Now if I make it appear that antiquhy doth not so; nothing then can be evi- dent from thence, but that we are left to as great uncertainties as before. The matter in controversy is, whether any in a superior order to presbyters were instituted by the apostles themselves for the regulating of the churches by them planted? For the proving of which, three things are the most insisted on: First, The personal succession of some persons to the apostles in churches by them planted: Secondly, The appro- ' V.Chamier. torn. 1, 1. 2, cap. 16. * Presidents of the provinces. 324 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF priating the name ErttaxoTtoi, to bishops in a superior order to presbyters, after the apostles' decease: Thirdly, The churches owning the order of episcopacy, as of divine institution. If now we can make these three things evident: 'First, That personal succession might be without such superiority of order: Secondly, That the names of bishop and presbyters were common after the distinction between them was intro- duced: and Thirdly, That the church did not own episco- pacy as a divine institution, but ecclesiastical; and those ivho seem to speak most of it, do mean no more: I shall sup- pose enough done to invalidate the testimony of antiquity as to the matter in hand. First, then, for the matter of suc- cession in apostolical churches, I shall lay down these four things, to evince that the argument drawn from thence can- not fully clear the certain course which the apostles took in settling the government of churches. First, That the suc- cession might be only as to a different degree, and not as to a different order; where the succession is clear, nothing possibly can be inferred from it beyond this. For bare succession im- plies no more than that there was one in those churches suc- ceeding the apostles, from whom afterwards the succession was derived. Now then supposing only at present, that it was the custom, in all the churches at that time, to be ruled by a college of presbyters acting in a parity of power, and among these, one to sit as the Nasi in the sanhedrim; having a priority of order above the rest in place, without any supe- riority of power over his colleagues; will not the matter of succession be clear and evident enough notwithstanding this? Succession of persons was the thing inquired for, and not a successio7i of power; if therefore those that would prove a succession of apostolical power, can only produce a list and catalogue of names in apostolical churches, without any evi- dence of what power they had, they apparently fail of proving the thing in question, which is not, whether there might not be found out a list of persons in many churches derived from the apostles' times; but whether those persons did enjoy by way of peculiarity and appropriation to themselves, that power which the apostles had over many churches while they lived? Now this, the mere succession will never prove, which will best appear by some parallel instances. At Athens, after they grew weary of their ten years Ae^xovta, "chiefs," the people chose nine every year to govern the affairs of the com- monwealth. These nine enjoyed a parity of power among themselves, and therefore had a place where they consulted FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 325 together about the matters of state which was called Xt^atijyi.ov, " tlie general's residence, or tribunal," as Demosthenes,^ Flu- tarc/i, and others tell us. Now although they enjoyed this equality of power, yet one of them had greater dignity than the rest, and therefore was called A^x^v, "■ chief," by way of excellency, and hte name was only set in the public records of that year, and therefore was called a^x<^v sTtuwfioi, "the archou who gave his name to the year of his office," and the year was reckoned from him, as Puiisanius,^ and Julius Pollux inform us. Here we see now the succession clear in one single person, and yet no superiority of power in him over his colleagues. The like may be observed among the Ephori and Bidisej at Sparta; the number of the Ephori was always five from their first institution by Lycurgus, and not nine, (as the Greek etymologist imagines): these enjoyed likewise a parity of power among them; but among these to give name to the year, they made choice of one who was called Ert«w;itoj here too, as the A^x^v at Athens, and him they called 7ie,o&at(^- ■eato; s^o^av, "the principal of the Ephori," as Plutarch tells US.3 Where we have the very name ^poffcj, "principal chief," attributed to him that had only his primacy of order without any superiority of power, which is used by Justin Martyr of the president of assemblies among the Christians. Now from hence we may evidently see that mere succes- sion of some single persons named above the rest, in the suc- cessions in apostolical churches, cannot enforce any superiority of power in the persons so named, above others supposed to be as joint governors of the churches with them. I dispute not whether it were so or not; whether according to Blondell the succession was from the «pcoT'o;i;jtpoT'oi/»;9£t5, " the one voted first by a show of hands," or whether by choice, as at Alex- andria; but I only now show that this argument from succes- sion is weak, and proves not at all the certainty of the power those persons enjoyed. Secondly, This succession is not so evident and convincing in all places as it ought to be, to demonstrate the thing intended. It is not enough to show a list of some persons in the great churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria, (although none of these be unquestionable.) but it should be produced at Philippi, Corinth, Caesarea, and in all the seven churches of Asia, (and not only • Demosth. in Midiam. Plut. in Peril, et vit. Niciae; V. Meursium de Archont. Allien. 1. 1, c. 9. Ennium lie Ep. Atli. 2 Paus. in Lacon. Pollux. Onom. lib. 8, c. 9. 3 Paus. Lacon V. Nic.Cragium de Rep. Laced, lib. 2, c.5. 326 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP at Ephesns,) and so likewise in Crete, some succeeding Titus; and not think men will be satisfied with the naming a bishop of Gortyna so long after him. Bnt, as I said before, in none of the churches most spoken of, is the succession so clear as is necessary. For at Jerusalem it seems somewhat strange how fifteen bishops of the circumcision should be crowded into so narrow a room as they are, so that many of them could not have above two years time to rule in the church. And it would bear an inquiry where the seat of the bishops of Jeru- salem was from the time of the destruction of the city by Titus, (when the walls were laid even with the ground by Musonius,) till the time of Jldrian; for till that time the suc- cession of the bishops of the circumcision continued. For Antioch, it is far from being agreed, whether Euodius or Ignatius succeeded Peter, or Paul; or the one Peter, and the other Paul; much less at Rome, whether Cletus, Ana- cletus, or Clemens are to be reckoned first; (but of these after- wards.) At Alexandria where the succession runs clearest, the original of the power is imputed to the choice of presbyters, and to no divine institution. But at Ephesus the succession of bishops from Timothy is pleaded with the greatest confi- dence; and the testimony brought for it, is from Leontius bishop of Magnesia in the council of Chalcedon, whose words are these, " From Timothy to this day there hath been a suc- cession of seven and twenty bishops, all of them ordained in Ephesus."^ 1 shall not insist so much on the incompetency of this single whness to pass a judgment upon a thing of that nature, at the distance of four hundred years, in which time records being lost, and bishops being after settled there, no doubt they would begin their account from Timothy, because of his employment there once for settling the churches there- about. And to that end we may observe them in the after- times of the church, they never met with any of the apostles, or evangelists in any place, but they presently made them bishops of that place. So, Philip is made bishop of Trallis, Ananias bishop of Damascus, Nicolaus bishop of Samaria, Barnabas bishop of Milan, Silas bishop of Corinth, Sylvanus of Thessalonica, Crescens of Chalcedon, Andreas of Byzan- tium, and upon the same grounds Peter bishop of Rome. No wonder then if Leontius makes Timothy bishop of Ephesus, ' Atto tou ayiov Ti/mo&eoi; jwexfi vuv eikoiti STrra ima-KOTtoi eytvovro'. wavTE? sn Efes-io EXsiooTovn&Dj-ay. — Cone. Chalcedonens. Part 2, Act 11, apud 1. in Concil. Gr. La. torn'. 3, p. 410. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 327 and derives the succession down from him. But again, this was not an act of the council itself, but only of one single person, delivering his private opinion in it; and that which is most observable, is, that in the thing mainly insisted on by Leontius, he was contradicted in the face of the whole council, by Philip a presbyter of Constantinople. For the case of Bassianus and Stephen, about their violent intrusion into the bishopric of Ephesus, being discussed before the council; a question was propounded by the council where the bishop of Ephesus was to be regularly ordained, according to the canons. Leontius bishop of Magnesia saith, that there had been twenty-seven bishops of Ephesus from Timothy, and all of them ordained in the place. -His business was not to derive exactly the succession of bishops, but speaking according to vulgar tradition, he insists that all had been ordained there. Now if he be convicted of the crimen falsi " crime of falsehood" in his to s^yov, "■ work," no wonder if we meet with a mistake in his rtaptpyov "supplement," i. e. if he were out in his allegation, no wonder if he were deceived in his tradition. Now as to the ordination of the bishops in Ephesus, Philip, a presbyter of Constantinople, convicts him of falsehood in that; for, saith he, John bishop of Constanti- nople going into Asia, deposed fifteen bishops there, and ordained others in their room. And Aetius archdeacon of Constantinople instanceth in Castinus, Heraclides, Basilins bishop of Ephesus, all ordained by the bishop of Constanti- nople. If then the certainty of succession relies on the credit of this Leontius, let them thank the council of Chalcedon, who have sufficiently blasted it, by determining the cause against him in the main evidence produced by him. So much to show how far the clearest evidence for succession of bishops from apostolical times is from being convincing to any rational man. Thirdly, the succession so much pleaded by the writers of the primitive church, was not a succession of persons in apostolical poiuer, but a succession in apostolical doctrine; which will be seen by a view of the places produced to that purpose. The first is that of Irenseus. " Since it would be far too tedious in a volume of this kind, to enumerate the successions of all the churches, especially of that most ancient church, best known to all, founded and established at Rome, by the two most illustrious apostles, Peter and Paul; having shown that which hath its tradition from the apostles, and its faith declared to mankind by its succession of bishops coming 328 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP even unto us, we blend together all these;" &c.* Where we see Irenaius doth the least of all aim at the making out of a succession of apostolical power in the bishops he speaks of, but a conveying of the doctrine of the apostles down to them by their hands: (which doctrine is here called tradition, not as that word is abused by the papists to signify something distinct from the scriptures, but as it signifies the conveyance of the doctrine of the scripture itself) Which is cleared by the beginning of that chapter, " Therefore it is to the purpose to make plain to all, who have a mmd to hear, the tradition of the apostles, announced in the church, throughout the whole world; and we have to enumerate the bishops, who were ordained by the apostles in the churches, and their suc- cessors even unto us, who have neither known, nor taught any such thing, as is idly talked of by them."^ His plain meaning is, that those persons who were appointed by the apostles to oversee and govern churches, being sufficient wit- nesses themselves of the apostles' doctrine, have conveyed it down to us by their successors, and we cannot learn any such thing of them, as Vahntinus and his followers broached. We see it is the doctrine still he speaks of, and not a word what power and superiority these bishops had over presbyters in their several churches. To the same purpose Tertullian in that known speech of his; " They publish the origin of their churches, they turn over the order of their bishops, so that by successions, running from the beginning, he, the first bishop, may have had some one of the apostles, or of apostolic men for his founder and predecessor. In this manner, the apos- tolical churches report their register; as, the church of Smyrna, having had Polycarp, reports, that he was settled there by John; as Clement of the church of Rome, it is said, was ordained by Peter. Just so, also, the rests how whom they have had, as grafts from the apostolic extraction, and estab- lished in the episcopacy of the apostles,"^ A succession I • Quoniam vald6 longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enunie- rarc successiones, maxim6 antiquissimse, et omnibus cognitEE &, gloriosissimis duo- bus apostolis Petro et Paulo, Romae fundatse et conslitulae ecclesiae, cam quam habet ab apostolis traditioncm, et annuriciatam iiominibus fidem, per successiones epis- coporum pervenientes usque ad nos, indicantes, confundimus omnes eos, &c. — Advers. heres. 1. 3, cap. 3. 2 Tradilionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus, qui vera velint audire; et habemus annumerare eos qui ab apostolis instituti ^unt episcopi in ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur. ' Edant origines ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 329 grant is proved in apostolical churches by these words of Ter- tulllan, and this succession of persons, and those persons bishops too, but then it is only said that these persons derived their office from the apostles, but nothing expressed what re- lation they had to the church any more than is implied in the general name of episcojn; nor what power they had over presbyters: only that there were such persons, was sufficient to his purpose, which was to prescribe against heretics; i. e. to nonsuit them, or to give in general reasons why they were not to be proceeded with as to the particular debate of the things in question between them. For prsescribere in the civil law, (whence T.\rtullian transplanted that word as many others into the church,) is, " when any one, by certain exceptions, removes the opponent's answer from the plain- tiff's declaration, and denies that there should be any debate relative to the chief matter of the party accused; or that the cause, by an exception laid in law, should be determined:"^ three sorts of these prescriptions Tertullian elsewhere men- tions: "This was to demand the truth, against v/hich no one could enter an exception, either the lapse of time, the patron- age of persons, or the privilege of countries, "^ Here he stands upon the first which is a prescription of time, because the doc- trine which was contrary to that of the heretics was delivered by the apostles, and conveyed down by their successors, which was requisite to be shown in order to the making his prescription good; which he thus further explains: " Now come you that have a mind better to exercise your curiosity in a matter relative to your own safety; pass over the apos- tolical churches, where the very seats themselves of the apostles, in their own places, yet preside, and where their genuine and original letters are recited, sounding yet their voices, and pre- senting the face of each before you. Have you Greece near at hand? Have you Corinth? If not far from Macedonia, have you Philippi, or Thessalonica? If thou canst, travel to ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis aut apostolicis viris habuerit authorem et anlecessorem. Hoc modo ecclesise apostoiicse census suos deferunt; sicut SmyrnEeorum ecclesia habens Polycarpum &. Johanne conlocatum refert, sicut Romanorum Clementcm &,Petro ordinatum edit; proinde utique et cseterae exhibent, quos ab apostolis in episcopa- tuni constitutes apostolici scminis traduces habeant. — De praescript. advers. hsret. cap. 32. 1 Cum quis adversarium certis exceptionibus removet Ji lite contestanda,, ita ut de sumnia rei neget agendum, eamve causam ex juris prsBscripto judicanda. 2 Hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo prsescribere potest, non spatium temporum, non patrocinia personarum, non privilegium regionum. — D. Vergin. veland. c. 1, 42 330 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Asia; there have you Ephesus; and if near to Italy, there you have Rome; whence we also have their testimony quite at hand."^ What he spoke before of the persons, he now speaks of the churches themselves planted by the apostles, which, by retaining the authentic epistles of the apostles sent to them, did thereby sufficiently prescribe to all the novel opinions of the heretics. We see then evidently that it is the doctrine which they speak of as to succession, and the persons no further than as they are the conveyers of that doctrine; either then it must be proved that a succession of some persons in apostolical power is necessary for the conveying of this doc- trine to men, or no argument at all can be inferred from hence for their succeeding the apostles in their power, because they are said to convey down the apostolical doctrine to succeeding ages; which is Jiustiri's meaning in that speech of his: "The root of Christian society, (i. e. the doctrine of the gospel,) is spread abroad the world through the channels of the apostoli- cal sees, and the continued successions of bishops therein."^ And yet if we may believe the same Austin, "According to the terms of honour, which now the usage of the church of Rome hath brought about, the episcopacy is superior to the presbytery."^ The difference between episcopacy and pres- bytery rises from the custom of the church, attributhig a name of greater honour to those it had set above others. And as for Tertullian, I believe neither party will stand to his judg- ment as to the original of church power. For he saith ex- pressly, differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesise auctoritas,^ "all the difference between ministers and people comes from the church's authority;" unless he mean something more by the following words, et honor per ordinis concessum sanctijicatus d, Deo, " that the honour which is received by ordination from the bench of church officers is sanctified by God," viz. by his appointment as well as bless- ' Age jam qui voles curiositatcm melius exercere in negotio salutis luce; pcr- curre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc catliedrsB apostolorum suis locis praesidentur, apud quas ipsae authenticaB eorum literse recilantur, sonantes vocem et praesentantes facicm uniuscujusque. Proxim6 est tibi Achaia? habes Corin- thum. Si non longe es k Macedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum. Si autem Italiaj adjaces, habes Ko- mam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas praestd est. — Dap. 37. de prEescript. 2 Radix Christianae soeietatis per sedes apostolorum et successiones episcopo- rum, certa per orbem propagalione diffunditur. — Aug. Ep. 42. 3 Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usus obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major est. — Aug. Ep. 29. 4 Exhort. Castil. c. 7. -0 FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENr. 331 ing. For otherwise I know not how to understand hinri. But however, we see here he makes the government of the church to He in a concessus ordinis, which I know not how otherwise to render, tlian by a bench of presbyter's; because only they were said in ordinem couptari, who were made presbyters, and not those who were promoted to any higher degree in the church. By the way, we may observe the original of the name of Holy Orders in tlie church, not as the papists, and others following them, as though it noted anything inherent by way of (I know not what) character in the person; but because the persons ordained were thereby admitted in ordi- nem, among the number of church officers. So there was ordo senatorum, "the order of the senate;" ordo eguestris, "of the equestrians;" ordo decurionum, "of the knights;" and ordo sacerdotum, " the order of priests," among the Romans,^ as in this incription: " The order of the Priests of God, and Hercules the invincible."^ From hence the use of the word came into the church; and thence ordination, ex vi vocis, "from the force of the words," imports no more than solemn admission into this order of presbyters; and therefore it is observable, that laying on of hands never made men priests under the law, but only admit- ted them into public office. So much for Tertullian'' s Con- cessus ordinis, which hath thus far drawn us out of our way, but we now return. And therefore, Fourthly, This personal succession so much spoken of, is sometimes attributed to presbyters, even after the distinction came into use between bishops and them. And that even by those authors who before had told us the succession was by bishops, as Irenxris: "But when we return again to that tradition, whicli is from the apostles, and which is guarded in the churches, through the succession of presbyters, we provoke those who are op- posed to tradition: they say, that they, existing not only from the presbyters, but also from the apostles, are more plenteously endued with wisdom."^ Here he attributes the keeping of the tradition of apostolical doctrine to the succession of pres- byters, which before he had done to bishops. And more 1 V. Selden, in Eutych. p. 28. 2 Ordo sacerdot. Dei Herculis invicti. 3 Cum autein ad earn iterum traditionem, quae est ab Apostolis, qua per suc- cessiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos qui adversantur traditioni; dicent, se non solum presbyteris sed etiam apostolis existentes sapien- tiores, &c. — Adver. hseres. I. 3, c. 2. 332 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF fully afterwards: « Therefore it is incumbent on those, who are in the church, to obey the presbyters, who have their suc- cession from the apostles, as we have shown, who, together with the succession of the episcopacy, have received the un- erring gift of truth, according to the will 'of the Father."^ In this place he not only asserts the succession of presbyters to the apostles, but likewise attributes the successio episcopatus to these very presbyters. What strange confusion must this raise in any one's mind, that seeks for a succession of episco- pal power above presbyters from the apostles, by the testi- mony of Irenseus, when he so plainly attributes both the suc- cession to presbyters, and the episcopacy too, which he speaks of? And in the next chapter adds: "Such presbyters the church maintains, concerning which even the prophet says, I will both give thy princes to be in peace, and thy bishops in righteousness."^ Did Irenaeiis think that bishops in a supe- rior order to presbyters were derived by an immediate suc- cession from the apostles, and yet call the presbyters by the name of bishops? It is said indeed, that in the apostles' times the names bishop and presbyter were common, although the office was distinct, but tliat was only during the apostles' life, say some, when after the name bishop was appropriated to that order that was in the apostles (so called before); but, say others, it was only till subject presbyters were constituted, and then grew the difference between the names. But neither of these tfoijJtt ^apjttaxa, "shrewd artifices," can draw forth the dif- ficulty in these places of Irenseus, for now both the apostles were dead, and subject presbyters certainly in some of these apostolical churches were then constituted; whence comes then the community of names still, that those who are said to succeed the apostles, are called bishops in one place, but pres- byters in another, and the very succession of episcopacy at- tributed to presbyters? Can we then possibly conceive that these testimonies of Irenseus can determine the point of suc- cession, so as to make clear to us what that power was which those persons enjoyed, whom he sometimes calls bishops, and sometimes presbyters. But it is not Irenseus alone who tells us that presbyters succeed the apostles; even Cyprian, who ' Quapropter iis qui in ecclesiS. sunt presbyteris obaudire oportel; his qui suc- cessionem habent ab apostoiis, sicut ostendimus, qui cum episcopatus succes- sione, charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt. — Lib. 4, cap. 43. 2 Tales presbyteros nutrit ecclesia, de quibus et propheta ait, et dabo prlncipes tuos in pace, et episcopos tuos in justitia. — Cap. 44. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 333 pleads so much for obedience to the bishops as they were then constituted in the church, yet speaks often of his comprcsby- ^er*/ "fellow presbyters;" and in his epistles to Florentius Ptipiamis, who had reproached him, speaking of those words of Christ, " He that heareth you, heareth me," &c., " Who saith to the apostles, and by this to all that are set over us, who succeed the apostles by vicarious ordination,"^ where he at- tributes apostolical succession to all that were prsepo§iti, which name implies not the relation to presbyters as over them, bat to the people, and is therefore common both to bishops and presbyters;^ for so afterwards he speaks, "Neither hath the brethren a bishop, nor the people one set over it." Jerome saith that presbyters are " in the place of the apostles," and that they " do succeed to the apostles' rank;"'' and the so much magnified Ignatius, ne^iG^vtie^oi h? 'toTiov CDVES^tou ^wv Arto^o-Kuv, "that the presbyters succeeded in the place of the bench of apos- tles;" and elsewhere oi Sot ion the deacon, "He is subject to the bishop, as to the grace of God, and to the presbyter as to the law of Jesus Christ/'^ as it is read in the Florentine copy set out by Vossius; but in the former editions, both by Vedelius and the most learned primate of Armagh, it is read, "He is subject to the bishop and to the presbyter, by the grace of God in the law of Jesus Christ;'-'^ but that of Vossius seems to be the true reading, to which the old Latin version in Bishop Usher fully agrees: "Since he is subject to the bishop, as to the grace of God, and to the presbyter, as to the law of Jesus Christ."^ It might be no improbable conjecture to guess from hence at Ignatius^ opinion concerning the original both of episcopacy and presbytery. The former he looks on as an excellent gift of God to the church;^ so a learned doctor para- phraseth Gratise Dei, i. e. Dono d, Deo Ecclesise indulto, " to the grace of God, i. e. to a gift granted to the church by God;" 1 Ep. 69, ed. Pamel, s. 4. 2 Qui dicit ad apostolos, ac per hoc ad omnes prsepositos qui apostolis vicaria ordinalione succedunt. 3 V. Cyprian, ep. 3, a Cler. Rom. ep. 62, et 65, in Midi. 2, epist. 1. •• Nee fraternitas habuerit episcopum, nee plebs praepositum, &c., .lerome saith, that presbyters are loco apostolorum, and that they do apostoHco gradui succcdere. — Ep. ad Mag. p. 33, ed. Is. Vossi. p. 31. 5 On UTTOTtts-c-ETat T(B ima-nontu aig ya^vn Seoy, xai tta 'ET^er^uTE^to) ojj V0|t*tt) lucrow Xjirot;.— Vedel. p. 50. ^ 'OtI UTTOTaS-lTETttl TO) iTXi!TMTCIO HUt TO) tiT^tlTBvrS^lta ^apiTl QlOV EV V0fA,CO Inaov X^l^OW. — Usser. p. 49. ' Quoniam subjectus est episcopo ut gratiae Dei, et presbylerio ut legi Jesu Christi. 8 Ep. 69. 334 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF SO Cyprian often Divina dignatione, "on the divine ma- jestjr," speaking of bisliops, i. e. that they looked on it as an act of God's special favour to the church to find out that means for unity in the church, to pitch upon one ahiong the presbyters who should have the chief rule hi every particular church; but then for presbytery, he looks on that as j/o^wos iiqaov x^tfof » an in- stitution and law of Jesus Christ, which must on that account always continue in the church. And so Sotion did commend- ably in submitting to the bishop, as a favour of God to the church for preventing schisms, on which account it is, and not upon the account of divine institution, that Ignatius is so earnest in requiring obedience to the bishop, because as Cy- prian saith, " The church is the people gathered in one to the bishop, and the flock cleaving to the pastor;''^ and the bishops then being orthodox, he lays such a charge upon the people to adhere to them, (for it is to the people, and not to the pres- byters he speaks most,) which was as much as to bid them hold to the unity of the faith, and avoid those pernicious heresies which were then abroad; and so Igyiatius and Je- rome may easily be reconciled to one another; both owning the council of presbyters as of divine institution, and both re- quiring obedience to bishops as a singular privilege granted to the church, for preventing schisms, and preserving unity in the faith. And in all those thirty-five testimonies produced out of Ignatius'' epistles for episcopacy, I can meet but with one which is brought to prove the least semblance of an institution of Christ for episcopacy: and if I be not much deceived, the sense of that place is clearly mistaken too. The place is Ep. ad Ephesios; he is exhorting the Ephesians awt^sxst.vt'yi'yvuifiri Tfov ©SOD, which I suppose may be rendered to fulfil the will of God; so rioitjGao ■ifjv yvu^Tiv signifies, ,/3pocalyps. xvii. 17, and adds: " For Christ, who is our inseparable life, is the counsel of the Father; and the bishops who are scattered abroad to the ends of the earth, are the counsel of Jesus Christ; i. e. do con- cur with the will of Christ; therefore follow the counsel of your bishop, which also you do.^ He begins to exhort them to concur with the will of God, and concludes his exhortation to concur with the will or counsel of the bishop; and in the middle he shows the ground of the connection of these two.'' Everything is plain and obvious in the sense here, and very 1 Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo coadunata, et grex Pastori adhserens. ^ Km yag Insrou? Kfir"? to aSjaxgirov rifjiiii)/ ^osv, tov 7ear^0(, h yvotfxrt, oii; xai oi Biria-KOirot 01 Kara ra ici^aia o^itrbivrs^ ev Ina-ov Xf ij-oy yvai(A.ri £ifl-iv. oSsv ta^tttii vf^iv a-vvr^exeiv t» tou eittg-KOTTov yyaifx», oirt^ xai wotSfTE. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 335 coherent to the expressions both before and after, only the iv must be left out as plainly redundant, and o^cs^svtii must not be rendered determi)iaH," deternnned," but rather disfer- minati, "separated," because it refers to a place here, and so it notes their being dispersed into several places, and separated from one another, thereby implying the unity of their faith, and the coagulum fidei, " cement of faith," notwithstanding their distance from one another as to place in the world, which in Cyprian^ s words is, "the churches throughout the whole world, universally connected together by the bond of unity. "^ And certainly a stronger argument than this could not have been given for the Ephesians' cheerful obedience to their bishop, (which is the thing he aims at,) than the universal consent of all the bishops in the Christian world in the unity of the faith of Christ; so that as Christ is the will and counsel of the Father, because of that harmony and consent which is between their wills; so the bishops are the will and counsel of Christ, as cheerfully uniting in the profession of his faith. So that we see Ignatius himself cannot give a doubting mind satisfaction of the divine institution of bishops, when in the only place brought to that purpose, his sense is quite different from what it is brought for. So that the records of the church are far from deciding this controversy, as to the cer- tainty of the form of government instituted by Christ, be- cause of the ambiguity of those records as to the point of succession in the apostles, in that this succession might be only of a different degree, in that it is not clear and con- vincing in all places: in that where it is clearest, it is meant of a succession of doctrine, and not of persons; in that if it were of persons, yet presbyters are said to succeed the apostles as well as bishops, by the same persons who speak of these. By which last thing we have likewise cleared the second thing propounded, to show the ambiguity of the tes- timony of antiquity, which was the promiscuous use of the names of bishop and presbyters, after the distinction be- tween their office was brought in by the church. For we have made it appear that the names are promiscuously used, when that succession which is sometimes attributed to bishops is at other times given to presbyters. Other instances might be brought of that nature; as, first, that of Clemens Romanus in his excellent epistle,which like the xxv^xAlpheus had run under ground for so many centuries of years, but hath now in these 1 EccIesiBB universae per totum mundum unitatis vinculo copulatse. 336 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF last times of the world appeared publicly to the view of the world, to make it appear how true that is which he saith the apostles did foresee, oft J'ptj s^at rtspo ■tov ovona-toi 'tr^s CTtoaxoTtt]^, " that there would be great contentions about the name of episcopacy:"^ and so there are still, and that from his epistle too. For when in one place he tells us, that the apostles ordained their first fruits to be bishops and deacons, tuv ixsx-Kovtiov xi^EViiv, " of those that should believe:''^ afterwards he makes no scruple of calling those bishops presbyters in several places, ^axa^ioi, oc rc^ooiSoTtoprjaavtsi ■tipsdSvtcpoi, " happy were the presbyters that travelled before,"^ &c., and speaking of the present schism at Corinth, he saith, " It was a most shameful thing, beloved, and unworthy of our training in Christ."'* To hear the firm and ancient church of Corinth, for the sake of one or two persons to raise a sedition against the presbyters; and afterwards, ^itoi'oi' no Ttoifivtov ■tov Xpv^ov sc^rivevi-ta xaifa-ti^v xa^L^afisvuv ^psa^vts^oiv', "Only let the flock of Christ enjoy its peace with the presbyters which are set over it."* But because this is said to be spoken before the time of dis- tinction between bishops and presbyters, it being supposed that there were no subject presbyters then, (although no reason can be assigned why the apostles should ordain bishops, ■tuv fis-kxoviuv fii^gevsiv, " of those that should believe," and should not likewise ordain presbyters for them,) yet to take away all scruple, we shall go farther; when subject presbyters, as they are called, are acknowledged to be, and yet bishops are called presbyters then too; for which we have the clear testimony of the martyrs of the Galilean church in their epistle to Eleuthe- rius bishop of Rome, who call Irenseus li^is^vtspov exx-Kriaia,?, " the presbyter of the church," when, as Blondell observes, he had been nine years bishop of Lyons in the place of Pothi- misf neither doth BlondeWs argument lie here, that because they call him the presbyter of the church, therefore he was no bishop, as his antagonist supposeth;^ but he freely acknow- ledgeth him to have succeeded Pothinus there in his bishopric; but" because after the difference arose between bishop and presbyters, yet they called him by the name of presbyter, it • Ep. gr. lat. p. 57. 2 Page 54. 3 Page 57. ■• Aia")(_^e,, ayamroif xai X/av a-ir^^a xa.i ava^ia rnf en X^t^ai aymyni; axouET&aj rm ^eSaiwraTUV xai ap)(aiav Ko^nbtaiv ennXnaiav h sv n ^uo liTfocmTta, facrta^eiv -arpof rovf •nrfEirSuTE^ouj. s Pag. 69, et p. 73, p. 2, 3. « Apol. p. 31. 7 Euseb. 1. 5, cap. 3. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 337 seems very improbable that when they were commending one to the bishop of another church, they should make use of the lowest name of honour then appropriated to subject presbyters, which instead of commending, were a great debasing of him, if they had looked on a superior order above those presbyters, as of divine institution, and thought there had been so great a distance between a bishop and subject presbyters, as we are made to believe there was. Which is, as if the master of a college in one university should be sent by the fellows of his society to the heads of the other, and should in his commen- datory letters to them, be styled a senior fellow of that house; would not any one that read this, imagine that there was no difiference between a senior fellow and a master, but only a primacy of order, that he was the first of the number without any power over the rest? This was the case of Irenseus: he is supposed to be bishop of the church of Lyons; he is sent by the church of Lyons on a message to the bishop of Rome; when notwithstanding his being bishop they call h\\n presbyter of that church, (when there were other pres- byters who were not bishops,) what could any one imagine by the reading of it, but that the bishop was nothing else but the senior presbyter, or one that had a primacy of order among, but no divine right to a power of jurisdiction over his fellow presbyters? More instances of this nature are brought there by that learned author, which the reader may compare with the answers, and then let him judge whether the testimony of antiquity has not too much ambiguity in it to decide the controversy clearly on either side. But that which seems yet more material, is, that which we observed in the third place, that those who acknoialedge the superiority of bishops over presbyters, do impute it to an act of the church, and do not ascribe it to any divine institution. The testimony of Jerome to this purpose is well known, and hath been produced already; that of the counterfeit Jimbrose, but true Hilary, is in every one's mouth upon this controversy; "At first the presbyters were called bishops, and one following succeeded another who withdrew. But because afterwards, presbyters began to be found unworthy to hold the primacy, and the council perceiving that not the ' order of rotation,' but merit determined by many ministers constituted the bishop, the method was changed, lest an unworthy successor 'should rashly usurp' the office, and be an offence to many."^ Very ' Quia pritnum presbyteri episcopi appellabantur, ut recedente uno sequens ei 43 338 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Strange that an opinion so directly contrary to the divine right of episcopacy should be pubUshed by a deacon of the church of Rome, and these commentaries cited by Austin, with ap- plause of the person, without stigmatising him for a heretic with Arius, if it had been the opinion of the church, that bishops in their power over presbyters did succeed the apostles by a divine right. Nothing more clear, than that he asserts all the difference between a bishop and presbyters to arise from an act of the church choosing men for their deserts, when before they succeeded in order of place. It is a mistake of BlondelVs, to attribute this to the Nicene council; doubt- less he means no more than what Hierom calls concilium presbyterorum, or which he himself means by judicium sacerdotum. The testimony of Austin hath been already mentioned. "According to the terms of honour, which now the usage of the church hath brought about, the episcopacy is superior to the presbytery."^ Thereby implying it was not so always; else to what purpose serves that jam obtimiit, and that the original of the difference was from the church? But more express and full is Isidore himself the bishop of Seville, in Spain, speaking of presbyters. "To these, as to the bishops, a dispensation of the mysteries of God hath been committed; for they preside in the churches of Christ, and in the adminis- tration of the body and blood of the Lord, they are colleagues with the bishops. Likewise in doctrine, and in the duty of preaching to the people; but on account of authority, the ordi- nation of the clergy has been reserved to the chief of the minis- terial order only, lest the discipline of the church being claimed by many, might dissolve its harmony, and occasion offences."^ What could be spoken more to our purpose than this is? he asserts the identity of power as well as name, in both bishops and presbyters in governing the church, in celebrating the eucharist, in the office of preaching to the people, only for the succederet; sed quia cceperunt sequentes presbyteri indigni inveniri ad prima- tust enendos, mutata est ratio, prospiciente concilio, ut non ordo, sed meritutn crearet episcopum multorum sacerdotum judicio constitutum, ne indignus temerd usurparet et esset niultis scandalum. — In Eph. 4. 1 Secundum honorum voca,bula quae jam ecclesise usus obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major est. 2 His sicut episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est; prsesunt enim ecclesiis Chrisli, et in confectione corporis et sanguinis consortes cum episcopis sunt; similiter et in doctrina populo et in officio prsedicandi, sed sola propter auctoritatem summo sacerdoti clericorum ordinatio reservata est, ne k multis ecclesicB disciplina vindicata, concordiam solveret, scandala generaret. — De Ec- cles. Ofiiciis, 1. 7, cap. 7. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 339 greater honour of the bishop, and for preventing schisms iti the church, the power of ordination was reserved to the bishop. By those words propter auctoritatem, lie cannot possibly mean the authority of a divine command, for that his following words contradict, that it was to prevent schisms and scandals, and after produceth the whole place of Jerome to that purpose. Agreeable to this, is the judgment of the second council of Seville, in Spain, upon the occasion of the irregular proceeding of some presbyters ordaitied by Agapius bishop of Carduba. Their words are these: " For although many services of the ministry are common to them with the bishops, they are aware that some are prohibited to them by new ecclesiastical rules, as the consecration of presbyters, deacons and virgins. These are not lawful to presbyters. For the pontificate itself hath not the power, which by the authority of the canons is enjoined as due to the bishops only. So that by this, and the gradation of ranks, the elevation and dignity of the pontiffs might be manifest."^ How much are we beholding to the ingenuity of a Spanish council, that doth so plainly disavow the pretence of any divine right to the episcopacy by them so strenuously asserted? All the right they plead for, is from the novelise et ecclesiasticse regulse, " modern ecclesiastic rules," which import quite another thing from divine institution; and he that hath not learnt to distinguish between the authority of the canons of the church, and that of the Scriptures, will hardly ever understand the matter under debate with us: and certainly it is another thing to preserve the honour of the dif- ferent degrees of the clergy, but especially of the chief among them, viz. the bishop, than to observe a thing merely out of obedience to the command of Christ, and upon the account of divine institution. That which is rejoined in answer to these testimonies, as far as I can learn, is only this, "that the council and Isidore followed Jerome, and so all make up but one sin- gle testimony." But might it not as well be said, that all that are for episcopacy did follow Ignatius or Epiphanius, and so all those did make up but one single testimony on the other side? Yea, I do as yet despair of finding any one single tes- 1 Nam quamvis cum episcopis plurima illis ministeriorum communis sit dis- pensatio, qucedam novellis et ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita noverint, sicut presbyterororum et diaconorum et virginum consecratio, «fec. Hsec enim omnia illicita esse presbyteris, quia pontificatus apicem non habent, qui solis deberi episcopis authoritate canonum prsecipitur: ut per hoc et discretionem graduum, et dignitatis fastigium summi pontificis demonstratur. — Cone. Hispal. secundum decret. 7. apud B. in T. 4. p. 560. 340 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF timony in all antiquity, which doth in plain terms assert epis- copacy, as it was settled by the practice of the primitive church in the ages following the apostles, to be of an unalterable divine right. Some expressions, 1 grant, in some of them seem to extol episcopacy very high; but then it is in order to the peace and unity of the church, and in that sense they may sometimes be admitted to call it divine and apos- tolical, not in regard of its institution, but of its end, in that it did, in their opinion, tend as much to preserve the unity of the church, as the apostles' power did over the churches while they were living. If any shall meet with ex- pressions seeming to carry the fountain of episcopal power higher, let them remember to distinguish between the power itself, and the restrained exercise of that power; the former was from the apostles, but common to all dispensers of the word; the latter was appropriated to some, but by an act of the church, whereby an eminency of power was attributed to one, for the safety of the whole. And withal let them con- sider, that every hyperbolical expression of a father will not bear the weight of an argument, and how common it was to call things divine, which were conceived to be of excellent use, or did come from persons in authority in the church. One would think that should he meet with ^stop y^a/tma, "a divine letter," in the acts of the council of Chalcedon,' it could be rendered by nothing short of the scriptures: whereas they mean no more by it, but only the emperor's letters to the council. It hath been already observed how ready they were to call any custom of the church before their times an apos- tolical tradition. And as the heathens, when they had any- thing which they knew not whence it came, they usually called it AkOTtetsi,'^ as though it came immediately from Heaven: so the fathers, when traditions were conveyed to them without the names of the authors, they concluded they could have no other fountain but the apostles. And thus we see, many tradi- tions in several churches directly contrary to one another, were looked on as apostolical, only from the prevalency of this persuasion, that whatever they derived from their fathers, was of that nature. But then for that answer to the council, and Isidore, and Jerome, that they make but one testimony: I say, that although the words be of the same sense, yet they have the nature of a different testimony, upon these accounts. First, as produced by persons of different condition in the ' Cone. Glial, part 2, act 1 1 . 2 Fallen from Jupiter. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 341 church; some think they are even with Jerome, when they tell us what ?i pique there was between him and John, bishop of Jerusalem; and, that he might have the better advantage of his adversary, when he could not raise himself up to the honour of episcopacy, he would bring that down to the state of presbytery; but as such entertain too unworthy thoughts of one of those fathers, whom they profess themselves ad- mirers of; so this prejudice cannot possibly lie against Isidore, or the council: for the first was himself a bishop of no mean account in the church of God; and the council was composed of such; it could be no bias then of that nature could draw them to this opinion: and no doubt they would have been as forward to maintain their own authority in the church, as truth and conscience would give them leave. Therefore on this account one testimony of a single bishop, much more of a whole council of them, against their acting by divine authority in the church, is of more validity than ten for it; inasmuch as it cannot but be in reason supposed that none will speak any- thing against the authority they are in, or what may tend in the least to diminish it, but such as make more conscience of the truth, than of their own credit and esteem in the world. Secondly, in that it was done in different ages of the church: Jerome flourished about 380. Isidore succeeded Leander in Seville, 600. The council sat, 619. The council of Aquen which transcribes Isidore, and owns his doctrine, 816. So that certainly supposing the words of all to be the same, yet the testimony is of greater force, as it was owned in several ages of the church, by whole councils, without any the least control that we read of And if this then must not be looked on as the sense of the church at that time, I know not how we can come to understand it. If what is positively main- tained by different persons in different ages of the church, and in different places without any opposing it by writers of those ages, or condemning it by councils, may not be conceived to be the sense of the church at that time. So that laying all these things together, we may have enough to conclude the ambiguity at least, and thereby incompetency of the testi- mony of antiquity for finding out the certain form which the apostles observed in planting churches. § IS. We proceed to the third thing to show the incompe- tency of antiquity for deciding this controversy, which will be from the partiality of the testimony brought from thence. Two things will sufficiently manifest the partiality of the judgment of antiquity in this case. First, their apparent 342 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF judging of the practice of the first primitive church, according to the customs of their own. Secondly/, their stiff and perti- nacious adhering to private traditions contrary to one another, and both sides maintaining theirs as apostohcai. First, judg- ing the practice of the apostles by that of their oivn times; as is evident by Theodor^et, and the rest of the Greek commen- tators, assigning that as the reason why the presbyters spoken of in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, were not bisliops in the sense of their age, because there could be but one bishop in a city, whereas there are more expressed in those pteces, as being in the several cities: and this is denied of aposiplical times by the late pleaders for episcopacy; and it is 3^id of them, that they spoke according to the custom of their own time. Again, it is now thought there were two bishops in apostolical times in several cities: the one the head of the Jewish coetus, "assembly," and the other of the Gentile. I enter not the dispute here, whether it was so or not, only I hence prove, how far those persons themselves who plead for the judgment of the fathers as deciding this controversy, are from thinking them impartial judges, when as to the grounds of their sentence they are confessed to speak only of the prac- tice of their own time. Who can imagine any force in Chry- sostom^s argument, "that the presbyters who laid hands on Timothy must needs be bishops, because none do ordain in the church, but bishops," unless he makes this the m,edium of his argument. That whatever was the practice of the church in his days, was so in apostolical times. There is, I know not what strange influence in a received custom, if generally em- braced, that doth possess men with a fancy, it was never otherwise than it is with them; nay, when they imagine the necessity of such a custom at preseijt in the church they pre- sently think it could never be otherwise than it is. But of this I have spoken somewhat already. Secondly, that which makes it appear how partial the judgment of antiquity is, in adhering to their particular traditions, and calling them apostolical, though contrary to one another. How can we then fix on the testimony of antiquity as anything certain or impartial in this case? when it hath been found so evidently partial in a case of less concern than this is, A witness that hath once betrayed his faithfulness in the open court, will hardly have his evidence taken in a case of moment, especially when the cause must stand or fall according to his single tes- timony. For my part, I see not how any man that would see reason for what he doth, can adhere to the church for an un- FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 343 questix)nable tradition received from the apostles; when in the case of keeping Easter, whether with the Jews on the four- teenth moon, or only on the Lord's day, there was so niucli unreasonable heat showed on both sides, and such confidence, that on either side their tradition was apostohcah the story of which is related by Eusebius^ and Socrates,''' and many others. They had herein all the advantages imaginable in order to the knowing the certainty of the thing then in ques- tion among them. As their nearness to apostolical times, being but one remove from them: yea the persons contending pleaded personal acquaintance with some of the apostles them- selves, as Polycarp with John, and Anicetus of Rome, that he had his tradition from St. Peter; and yet so great were the heats, so irreconcilable the controversy, that they proceeded to dart the thunderbolt of excommunication in one another's faces; as Victor, with more zeal than piety, threw presently the Asiatic churches all out of communion, only for differing as to this tradition. The small coals of this fire kindled a whole ^tna of contention in the Christian world, the smoke and ashes, nay the flames of which, by the help of the prince of air, were blown over into the bosom of the then almost infant northern churches of Britain, where a solemn dispute was caused upon this quarrel between Colmannns on one side, and Wilfride on the other. The like contest was upon this occasion between Augustine the monk, and the British bishops. The observation of this strange combustion in the primitive church upon the account of so vain, frivolous, unnecessary a thing as this was, drew this note from a learned and judicious man, formerly quoted, in his Tract of Schism: "By this we may plainly set the danger of our appeal to antiquity, for resolution in controverted points of faith. how small relief are we to expect from thence! For if the discretion of the chiefest guides and directors of the church did in a point so trivial, so inconsiderable, so mainly fail them, as not to see the truth in a subject, wherein it is the greater marvel how they could avoid the sight of it; can we, without the imputation of great grossness and folly, think so poor spirited persons, competent judges of the question now on foot betwixt the churches?" Thus that person, as able to make the best improvement of the fathers as any of those who pro- fess themselves the most superstitious admirers of antiquity. But if we must stand to the judgment of the fathers, let us > Eccles. Hist. I. 5, c. 25. 2 Socrat. 1. 15, c. 21. 344 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP Stand to it in this, that no tradition is any further to be em- braced, than as it is founded on the word of God. For which purpose those words of Cypria-n} are very observable. He asserts it " an easy matter for truly religious and plain-hearted men to lay aside their error, and to find out the truth, which is by returning to the head and spring of divine tradition,"^ viz. the scriptures; which he expresseth further, with an ele- gant similitude. His meaning is, "That as when a channel suddenly fails, we presently inquire where and how the breach was made, and look to the spring and fountain, to see the waters be fully conveyed from thence, as formerly: so upon any failure in the tradition of the church, our only recourse must be to the true fountain of tradition the word of God, and ground the reason of our action upon that which was the foundation of our profession."^ And when Stephen the bishop of Rome would tether him to tradition, Cyprian keeps his liberty by this close question: " Whence is that tradition? or came'it descending from our Lord's authority and the evan- gelists, or from the mandates of the apostles and their epistles? — But if it be enjoined either in the epistles or acts of the apostles, let that divine and holy tradition be observed."^ We see this good man would not balk his way on foot for the great bugbear of tradition, unless it did bear the character of a divine truth in it, and could produce the credentials of scrip- ture to testify its authority to him. To the same purpose that stout bishop of Cappadocia, Firmilian, whose unhappiness with Cyprian, was only that of Job''s friends, that they ex- cellently managed a bad cause, and with far more of the spirit 1 Cyprian, ep. 47, n. 13. 2 In compendio est aulern apud religiosas et simplices mentes, ct errorem de- ponere, et invenire atque eruere veritatem: nam si ad divine traditionis caput et originem revertamur, cessat error hunaanus. 3 Si canalis aquam ducens, qui copiose prius et largiter profluebat, subito deficiat, nonne ad fontem pergitur ut illic defectionis ratio noscatur, utrumne arescentibus venis, in capite unda siccaverit; an ver5 Integra delude et plena procurrens, in medio itinere destiterit? ut si vitio interrupti aut bibuli eanalis effeclum est, qu6 minus aqua continua perseveranter et jugiter flucret, refecto et confirmato canali ad usum atque ad potum civitatis aqua collecta eadem ubertate atque integritate repraesentaretur, qua de fonte proficiscitur. duod et nunc facere oportet Dei sacerdotes praecepta divina servantes, ut si in aliquo mutaverit (1. nu- laverit) et vacillaverit Veritas, ad originem Dominicam, et evangelicam, et apos- tolicam traditionem revertamur, et inde surgat actus nostri ratio, unde et ordo et origo surrexit. — lb. n. 14. 4 Undo ilia traditio? utrumne de Dominica et evangelica auctoritate descen- dens, an de apostolorum mandatis atque epistolis veniens. — Si ergo aut evangelis prsecipitur, aut in apostolorum epistolis, aut actibus continetur — observetur divina haec et sancta traditio. FORMS OF CHUKCH GOVERNMENT. 345 of Christianity,^ than Stephen did, who was to be justified in nothing but the truth he defended, "To follow them at Rome, is not to observe those, which have in all churches been handed over from the beginning, and then in vain it would be to offer the pretext of apostolical authority,"^ which he there makes out at large, viz. that the church of Rome had gathered corruption betimes, which after broke out into an impostume in the head oiii. Where then must we find the certain way of resolving the controversy we are upon? The scriptures determine it not; the fathers tell us there is no believing tra- dition any further than it is founded on scripture; thus are we sent back from one to the other, till at last we conclude there is no certain way at all left to find out a decision of it. Not tliat we are left at such uncertainties as to matters of faith, (1 would not be so mistaken.) We have Archimedes' postula- tum^ granted us for that, a place to fix our faith on, though the world be moved out of its place, 1 mean the undoubted word of God: but as to matters of fact not clearly revealed in scripture, no certainty can be had of them, from the hover- ing light of unconstant tradition. Neither is it only uncon- stant, but in many things repugnant to itself, which was the last consideration to be spoken to, in reference to the showing the incompetency of antiquity for deciding our controversy. Well, then, suppose we ourselves now waiting for the final verdict of church tradition to determine our present cause; if the ju?y cannot agree, we are as far from satisfaction as ever; and this is certainly the case we are now in. The main diffi- culty lies in the immediate succession to the apostles: if that were but once cleared, we might bear with interruptions afterwards: but the main seat of the controversy lies there, whether the apostles upon their withdrawing from the govern- ment of churches did substitute single persons to succeed them or not; so that unless that be cleared, the very deed of gift is questioned: and if that could be made appear, all other things would speedily follow. Yes, sa^/ some, that is clear: for at Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome, it is evident that single per- sons were entrusted with the government of churches. In Jerusalem, say they, James the brother of our Lord, was ' Stillingfleet's meaning here demands investigation. 2 Eos autem, saith Firmilian, qui Romse sunt, non ea in omnibus observare quEB silit ab origins tradita, et frustra apostolorurn auctoritatem praetendere. — Firmil. ep. inter ep. Cyprian. 75, n. 5. ^ Ao; woo a-Tiw, xaj t»iv yw xtvutra), " give me whereon to stand, and I will shake the earth." 44 346 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF made bishop by the apostles: but whence doth that appear? It is said from Hegesippus in Eusebius} But what if he say no such thing? his words are these, hiahtxitai.i triv sxxuaiav (itta iav o.7io^o%ov, which is there interpreted, Ecclesix administra- tionem una cum cseteris apostolis suscepit, " he received the administration of the church together with the rest of the apostles." And no more is thereby meant, but that this James who is by the ancients conceived to be only a disciple before, is now taken into a higher charge; and invested in a power of governing the chiu'ch as the apostles were. His power, it is plain, was of the same nature with that of the apostles themselves: and who will go about to degrade them so much as to reduce them to the office of ordinary bishops? James in probability did exercise his apostleship the most at Jerusalem, where by the scriptures we find him resident, and from hence the church afterwards, because of his not travelling abroad as the other apostles did, according to the language of their own times, fixed the title of bishop upon him. But greater difference we shall find in those who are pleaded for, as suc- cessors of the apostles. At Antioch some, as Origen and Eusebius, make Ignatius to succeed Peter; Jerome makes him the third bishop, and placeth Euodius before him. Others therefore to solve that, make them cotemporary bishops; the one of the church of the Jews, the other of the Gentiles: with what congruity to their hypothesis of a single bishop and dea- cons placed in every city, I know not: but that salvo hath been discussed before.^ Come we therefore to Rome, and here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself; for here Tertullian, Rujinus, and several others place Clement next to Peter; Irenscus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him; Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus; Jlu- gustinus and Damasus with others, make Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus, all to precede him. What way shall we find to extricate ourselves out of this labyrinth, so as to reconcile it with the certainty of the form of government in the apostles' times? Certainly, if the line of succession fail us here, when we most need it, we have little cause to pin our faith upon it as to the certainty of any particular form of church govern- ment settled in the apostles' times, that can be drawn from the help of the records of the primitive church: which must be first cleared of all defectiveness, aynbiguity ,j)artiality, and confusion; before the thing we inquire for can be extracted out of them. > Hist Eccl. 1. 2, cap. 22. 2 y. Migdeburg. Cent. 1, 1. 2, c. 10. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 347 § 19. Having thus far shown that we have no absohite certainty of what form of government was settled by the apostles in the several churches of their plantation: The next consideration which follows to be spoken of, is, that the apostles in probability did not observe any one fixed course of settling the government of churches, but settled it accord- ing to the several circumstances of places and persons which they had to deal with. This will be ex abundanti, " more than sufficient," as to the thing by me designed, which could be sufficiently cleared without this: and therefore I lay it not as the foundation of my thesis, but only as a doctrine of pro- bability, which may serve to reconcile the controversies on foot about church government. For if this be miade appear, tlien it may be both granted that the apostles did settle the government in the church in a college of presbyters, and in a bishop and deacons too, according to the diversity of places, and the variety of circumstances. It is easy to observe, that as to rites and customs in the church, the original of most men's mistakes, is, concluding that to be the general practice of the church, which they meet with in some places: whereas that is most true which Firmiliam tells us: "In most provinces, many things were varied according to the diversity of places and characters: nevertheless, the catholic churches did not, on this account, swerve from peace and unity;"^ so, as to matter of government, men's mistakes do arise from an universal conclusion deduced out of particular premises; and what they think was done in one place, they conclude must be done in all; whereas these are the grounds inducing me probably to conclude that they observed not the same course in all places; which, when an impartial reader hath soberly considered, (with what hath gone before,) I am in hopes, the novelty of this opinion may not prejudice its entertainment with him. My grounds are these: first, from the different state, con- dition and quantity of the churches planted by the apostles. Secondly, from, the multitude of unfixed officers in the church then, who acted with authority over the church tvhere they were resident. Thirdly, from the different cus- toms observed in several churches, as to their government after the apostles^ decease. I begin with the first, the differ- ent state, condition, and quantity of the churches planted 1 In plurimis provinciis, raulta pro locorum et nominum, (1. hominum) diver- sitate, variantur; nee tamen propter hoc ab ecclesiae catholicse pace atq unitate discessum est. — Cypr. Ep. 75, n. 5. 348 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF hy the apostles, for which we are to consider these things: first, that God did not give the apostles alike success of their labours in all places; secondly, that a small number of be- lievers did not require the same number which a great church did, to teach and govern them; thirdly, that the apostles did settle church officers according to the probability of increase of believers, and in order thereto, in some great places. First, that God did not give the apostles equal success to their la- bours in all places. After God called them to be fishers of men, it was not every draught which filled their net with whole shoals of fishes; sometimes they might toil all night still and catch nothing, or very little. It was not every ser- mon of Feter^s which converted three thousand: the whole world might at that rate soon have become Christian, although there had been but few preachers besides the apostles. God gave them strange success at first, to encourage them the bet- ter to meet with difficulties afterwards; in some places God told them he had much people, in others we read but of few that believed, "At Corinth, Fanl plants, and ^polios waters, and God gives an abundant increase;" but at Athens, (where, if moral dispositions had fitted men for grace, and the improve- ments of nature, we might have expected the greatest num- ber of converts,) yet here we read of many mocking, and others delajnng, and but of very few believing:^ Dionysius and Damaris, and some others with them. The plantations of the apostles were very difterent, not from the nature of the soil they had to deal with, but from the different influence of the divine spirit upon their endeavours in several places. We cannot think that the church at Cenchrea,^ (for so it is called,) was as well stocked with believers as that at Corinth. Nay, the churches generally in the apostles' times were not so filled with numbers, as men are apt to imagine. I can as soon hope to find in apostohcal times flf^oce,sa?^ churches as classical aud proviiicial; but this doth not much advantage the princi- ples of the congregational men, as I have already demon- strated.^ Yet I do not think that all churches in the apostles' times were only one congregation; but as there were in cities many synagogues, so there might be many churches out of those synagogues enjoying their former liberties and privileges. And they that will show me where five thousand Jews and more did ordinarily meet in one of their synagogues for public ' Acts xvii. 34. 2 Rom. xvi. 1. 3 Php. 1, ch, 6, s. 8, p. 129. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 349 worship, may gain sometiiing upon me, in order to believing the church of Jerusalem to be but one congregation, and yet not persuade me, till they have made it appear that the Chris- tians then had as puhUc solemn set meetings as the Jews had, which he that understands the state of the churches at that time, will hardly yield to the belief of. I confess, I cannot see any rule in scripture laid down for distributing congregations: but this necessity would put them upon, and therefore it were needless to prescribe them; and very little, if any, reason can I see on the other side, why, where there were so much people as to make distinct congregations, they must make distinct churches from one another; but of that largely in the next chap- ter. All churches then, we see, were not of an equal extent. The second premiss will grant, viz. that a small church did not require the same number of officers to rule it, which a great one did. For the duty of officers lying in reference to the people, where the people was but few, one constant settled officer with deacons under him, might with as much ease dis- charge the work, as in a numerous church, the joint help of many officers was necessary to carry on. The same reason which tells us that a large flock of sheep consisting of many thousands doth call for many shepherds to attend them, dotii likewise tell us that a small flock may be governed with the care of one single shepherd watching continually over them. The third premiss was that in great cities the apostles did not only respect the present guidance of those that were converted, buj; established such as might be useful for the converting and bringing in of others to the faith, who were as yet strangers to the covenant of promise and aliens from the Ho'Ki-esta, ^^ polity^' or society of Christia)is. And here I conceive a mistake of some men lies, when they think the apostles re- spected only the ruling of those who were already converted; for though this were one part of their work, yet they had an eye to the main design then on foot, the subjecting the world to the obedience of faith; in order to which it was necussary in places of great resort and extent, to place not only such as might be sufficient to superintend the affairs of the church, but such as might lay out themselves the most in preaching the gospel in order to converting others. Having laid down these things by way of premisal, we shall see what advantage we can make of them in order to our purpose. First, then I say, that in churches consisting of a small number of be- lievers, where there loas no great probability of a large increase afterwards: one single pastor with deacons under 350 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF him, ivas only constituted by the apostles for the ruling of those churches. Where the work was not so great, but a pastor and deacons might do it, what need was there of having more? and in the great scarcity of fit persons for settled rulers then, and the great multitude and necessity of unfixed officers for preaching the gospel abroad, many persons fit for that work could not be spared to be constantly resident upon a place. Now that in some places at first there were none placed but only a pastor and deacons, I shall confirm by these following testimonies. The first is that of Clement in his epistle: "The apostles therefore preaching abroad through countries and cities, ordained the first fruits of such as believed, having proved them by the spirit, to be bishops and deacons for them that should afterwards believe."^ Whether by ;j:«ga(- we understand villages or regions, is not material; for it is certain here the author takes it as distinct from cities; and there is nothing, I grant, expressed where the apostles did place bishops and deacons exclusive of other places, i. e. whether only in cities or countries; but it is evident by this, that wherever they planted churches, they ordained bishops and deacons, whether those churches were in the city or country. And here we find no other officers settled in those churches, but bishops and deacons; and that there was no more in those churches than he speaks of, appears from his design of paralleling the church officers in the gospel, to those under the law: and therefore it was here necessary to enume- rate all that were then in the churches. The main controversy is, what these bishops were; whether many in one place; or only one; and if but one, whether a bishop in the modern sense or not. For the first, here is nothing implying any necessity of having more than one in a place, which will further be made appear by and by, out of other testimonies which will help to explain this. As for the other thing, we must divide the notion of a bishop: for he is either such a one as hath none over him in the church; or he is such a one as hath a power over pres- byters acting under him, and by authority derived from him. If we take it in the first sense, so every pastor of a church having none exercising jurisdiction over him, is a bishop; and so every such single pastor in the churches of th6 primitive times was a bishop in this sense, as every master of a family before societies for government were introduced, might be • Kara ^ftipaj ouv nai itoKiii Kn^va-irovrig, KaQi^avov rat a.'srafxa.i; ttvram ^Kifxaa-ctretf FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 351 called a king, because he had none above him to command him: but if we take a bishop in the more proper sense, for one that hath power over presbyters and people, such a one these single pastors were not, could not be. For it is supposed that these were only single pastors. But then it is said that after other presbyters were appointed, then these single pastors were properly bishops; but to that I answer: First, they could not be proper bishops by virtue of their first constitu- tion; for then they had no power over any presbyters, but only over the deacons and people; and therefore it would be well worth considering how a power of jurisdiction over pres- byters can be derived, from those single pastors of churches, that had no presbyters joined with them. It must be then clearly and evidently proved that it was the apostle's intention that these single pastors should have the power over presby- ters, when the church's necessity did require their help, which intention must be evinced and declared by some manifestation of it as a law of Christ, or nothing can thence be deduced of perpetual concern to the church of Christ. Secondly, either they were bishops before, or only after the appointment of presbyters; if before, then a bishop, and a presbyter having no bishop over him, are all one; if after only, then it was by his communicating power to presbyters to be such, or their choice which made him their bishop; if the first, then presby- ters quoad ordinem, "as to the order," are only a human institution, it being acknowledged that no evidence can be brought from scripture for them; and for any act of the apostles not recorded in scripture for the constituting of them, it must go among unwritten traditions; and if that be a law still binding the church, then there are such which occur not in the word of God, and so that must be an imperfect copy of divine laws. If he were made bishop by an act of the presbyters, then presbyters have power to make a bishop, and so episcopacy is a human institution, depending upon the vo- luntary act of presbyters. But the clearest evidence for one single pastor with deacons in some churches at the beginning of Christianity, is that of Epiphanius, which, though some- what large, I shall recite, because, if I mistake not, the cur- tailing of this testimony hath made it speak otherwise than ever Epiphanius meant. The sense of Epiphanius is very intricate and obscure; we shall endeavour to explain it. He is giving Jirius an account why Paul in his epistle to Timothy mentions only bishops and deacons, and passeth over pres- byters. His account is this: "First he chargeth Arius with 352 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF ignorance of the series of history, (which he calls a^coj^ou^ia r'aj axj]9siai,y and the profound and ancient records of the church, wherein it is expressed, that upon the first preaching of the gospel, the apostle wrote according to the present state of things. Where bishops not yet appointed, (for so certainly it should be read ohov fiyj rjaav sTtcaxortoi, not 6aov iA.iv, for then he must contradict himself) The apostle writes to bishops and deacons, (for the apostles could not settle all things at first;) for there was a necessity of presbyters and deacons; for by these two orders all ecclesiastical offices might be performed: "for where (so I read it otsovya^, not uftov Ss, as the sense clearly carries it,) there was not found any worthy of being a bishop, the place remained without one. But where necessity re- quired one, and there were some found fit for that office, there some were ordained bishops; but for want of convenient number, there could be no presbyters found out to be ordain- ed, and in such places they were contented with the bishop and deacons; for without their ministry the bishop could not be."2 So that according to Epiphanius, there were three several states of churches in the apostles' times; first some churches where there were only presbyters and deacons without a bishop. For, if Epiphanius speaks not at first of places where presbyters were without a bishop; he must be guilty of a vain and empty tautology, for he after tells us, where the necessity of the church required it, a bishop was made; therefore before he speaks of places only where pres- byters and deacons were; and otherwise he would not answer Aritis about 1 Tim. iv. 14, which it is his design to do,. about "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." He grants then that at first in some places there were only presbyters and deacons, as when the apostle writes to bishops and dea- cons, (where bishops at that time of the church were orily presbyters), of which two orders, presbyters and deacons, there was an absolute necessity; and the account he gives why they settled no higher order above them is, ov yap Ttavna iv6vi.r,hvvri6riGa.v uv aTto^oXot. xa-ta^riaai, "the apOStlcS COuld UOt Settle ' The train of the truth. £VTU^«V, 0T( VE9U OVTOf XHpuj'f*aTO?, WgOf TO. I'TTomTnOVTO. Ey^CKfSV 13 Sj/lOJ aTTO^oXof O'STOU fxiv ijo-av ETrnrxoTTot JiJu xara^a&svTE?, iy^a£07roi{ xai JiaKovoij ou ya^ Ttcfna Eu&t/f EXuvn&dtrttv o( aTTog-oXot Kara^n^ai 7r^oer$vTB^aiv ya^ eyiviro X?-^"' ""' ^'*'""'*"'» ^'* y-^ Twv ^vo rovTU'J to. EXxXuo-ia^ixa S'uvaTat wXd^ot/o&ai, oVov Se wv. IupeSo tij a^io? £7r»;- xoTTnf, ifMaei TOTTo; X""^'? ETris-KOTTT) SWcu 5'E yiyovi yji^o- "at y\^aM a^ioi ETriuXOtlTrw?, xaTErao-&))3-av E7rj^arm bSvwv orov y.nv'E'iricrKOTrovi; KarufniraiVf owov h oKa; EXxXus-iac a^fxio-m, oitov yi xX>igov ha. Ttva -riav uwo tou wyeuftarof 45 . 354 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF masius^ contends it must be translated, xxtjpov 'iva two. x%*;pioaiov, "choosing one into the clergy;" for, those who were chosen bishops, are said xxripovaeat, iTtiaxonriv, and they that choose are said, x^ri^i^tau Whence Salmasius gathers ont of these words the very thing I am now upon: "The probabiUty is, that in larger cities many presbyters were wont to be ordained; but that in districts, villages, and small towns which the Greeks call xcojuai," (any small town not walled in,) xu^ixiTto-kni, (a town between a city and a village;) "it is very likely that one presbyter only, so long as the number of believers there was not great, sufficed."^ We have yet one author more who speaks fully to our purpose. It is the author of the Commen- taries under Ambrose's name, who frequently asserts this opi- nion I am now making good. Upon the fourth of Ephesians, he largely discourseth how things were settled at first, by the apostles, by degrees, in the church of God, evidently showing that the apostles did not at first observe any settled constant course, but acted according to present conveniency, as they saw good, in order to the promoting and advancing the church's interest. "After that in all places, churches were established, and offices appointed, the matter when settled was otherwise than when it began.'" Thereby declaring his opinion, that while churches were constituting, no certain course was ob- served. For, as he goes on, "For at first all taught, and all baptized on whatever day or season there was occasion; and the people increasing, it was granted to all to preach, baptize, and to explain the scriptures. But when the church had surrounded all places, and small assemblies were held, their governors and the rest of the officers were appointed; and no one, who was not ordained, presumed to take of the clergy an office, with which he knew he v/as not entrusted. But the church began to be governed according to another order and provision: for if all could do the same things, they would ap- pear to be common, and of little value, and the discipline injudicious. Therefore the writings of the apostle, written during the primitive organization, do not appear to agree with that order of things, which now exist in the church; for he 1 Walo. Messal. cap. 4, p. 224, &c. 2 In majoribus urbibus plures, in minoribus pauciores presbyteros ordinari solitos, probabile est. In pagis autem aut vicis, vel pusillis oppidis, quales xou^a? vel Ktcfx.oitoKiii vocabant Grseci, unum aliquem presbyteruni per ilia prajcipue tempora quibus non magnus erat niimerus fidelium, sufTccisse verisimile est. ^ Postquam omnibus locis ecclesiae sunt constitutse, et officia ordinata, aliter composita res est quam ccBperat. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 355 calls Timothy, who was made a presbyter by him, a bishop; for so at first, the presbyters were called, amongst whom this was the course, that as one withdrew, another should take his place. "^ This opinion of his, he takes occasion to speak of in several other places. Upon Rom. 16; "Governors of churches were as yet set up but in few places;"^ and upon 1 Cor. i. " On this account, he writes to the church, because as yet, governors were not appointed in all churches,"^ and on 1 Cor. xi. " The presbyters coming together, because as yet gover- nors had not been appointed in all churches.'"'* By all which it is most evident, that this both learned and ancient author, cited with no small respect by St. Austin, doth not conceive that the apostles did observe any settled form in the governing of churches, but acted according to principles of prudence, according to the necessities and occasions of each by them planted: so that where there were small churches, one pastor with deacons might suffice: in greater some were governed by presbyters acting in common council: others, though very few at first, had rectors placed over them, for superintending the affairs of the church. Secondly, In churches consisting of a multitude of be- lievers, or where there was a probability of great increase by preaching the gospel, the apostles did settle a college of presbyters, ivhose office tvas partly to goverji the church already formed, and partly to labour in converting more. So that in all great cities, where either the work was already great by the number of believers, in order to the discharging of pastoral duties to them, or where it was great in reference to the number they laboured in the conversion of, it seems most consonant to reason and scripture, that the work should ' Primum enim omnes docebant, et omnes baptizabant, quibuscunque diebus vel tcmporibus fuisset occasio, &c, Ut ergo cresceret plebs et multiplicaretur, omnibus inter initia concessum est et evangelizare, el baptizare, et scripturas in ecclesia explanare. At ubi omnia loca circumplexa est ecclesia, conventicula constituta sunt, et rectores et csetera officia in ecclesiis sunt ordinata; ut nullus de Clero auderet, qui ordinatus non esset, prsesumere officium quod sciret non sibi creditum vel concessum; et cospit alio ordine et providentia, gubernari ecclesia; quia si omnes eadem possent, irrationabile esset, et vulgaris res et viljissima videretur, &c. Ide6 non per omnia conveniunt scripta apostoli ordinationi quse nunc est in ecclesia, quia hsec inter primordia sunt scripta; nam et Timotheuni, (presbyterum Ji se creatum,) episcopum vocat; quia primum presbyteri episcopi appellabantur, ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet, &c. 2 Adhuc rectores ecclesiae paucis erant in locis. 3 Propterea ecclesiiE scribit, quia* adhuc singulis ecclesiis rectores non erant instituti. 4 Convenientibus presbyteris, quia adhunc rectores ecclesiis non omnibus locis erant constituti. 356 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF be carried on by the joint assistance of many associated in the same. For, is it any ways probable that the apostles should ordain bishops tuv ixeXKovtuv rtigiviw, "of such as should be- Heve," as Clemens speaks; and not ordain persons in order to the causing them to believe? Thev have either a very low opinion of the work of a gospel bishop, or very little consider- ation of the zeal, activity and diligence which was then used in preaching, reproving, exhorting, in season, out of season, that think one single person was able to undergo it all. Disci- pline was a great deal more strict then, preaching more dili- gent, men more apprehensive of the weight of their function, than for any to undertake subh a care and charge of souls, that it was impossible for them ever to know, observe, or watch over so as to give an account for them. Besides, while we suppose this one person employed in the duties of his flock, what leisure or time could such a one have to preach to the Gentiles and unbelieving Jews in order to their conversion? The apostles did not certainly aim at the setting up the honour of any one person, making the office of the church a matter of state and dignity more than employment, but they chose men for their activity in preaching the gospel, and for their usefulness in labouring to add continually to the church. Men that were employed in the church then, did not consult for their ease or honour, and thought it not enough for them to sit still and bid others work, but they were of PaiiVs mind: "Necessity was laid upon them; yea, woe was unto them if they preached not the gospel."^ Public prayers were not then looked on as the more principal end of Christian as- semblies than preaching, nor consequently that it was the more principal office of the stewards of the mysteries of God, to read the public prayers of the church, than to preach in season and out of season. And is it not great pity, two such excellent and necessary duties should ever be set at va- riance, much less one so preferred before the other, that the one must be esteemed as Sarah, and the other almost undergo the hardship of Hagar, to be looked on as the bondwoman of the synagogue, and be turned out of doors? Praying and preaching are the Jachin and Boaz^ of the temple, like ^«- cAe/and Leah, both which built up the house of Israel: but though Rachel be fair and beautiful, yet Leah is the more fruitful: though prayer be lovely and amiable in the sight of God, when it comes from a heart seriously affected with what ' 1 Cor. ix. 16. 2] Kings vii. 21. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 357 it speaks; yet preaching tends more to the turning men's souls from sin unto God. Were the apostles commissioned by Christ to go pray or preach? and what is it wherein the ministers of the gospel succeed the apostles? Is it in the office of praying, or preaching? Was Paul sent not to baptize, but to preach the gospel? and shall we think those who succeed Paul in his office of preaching, are to look upon anything else as more their work than that? Are ministers in their ordination sent forth to be readers of public prayers, or to be dispensers of God's holy word? Are they ordained wholly to this, and shall this be the less principal part of their work? aye; but the reason is unanswerable, that praying is the more principal end of Christian assemblies than preaching: for, the one is the end, and the other the means. If by end, be meant the ultimate end of all Christian duties, that cannot be prayer: for that is a means itself in order to that; but the chief end is the fitting souls for eternal praises; if then this unanswerable reason hold good, the principal end of Christian assemblies must be only praises of God, and not prayers. If by the end, be meant the immediate end of preaching as that it refers to, that cannot be; for the immediate end of preaching, if the apos- tle may be judge, is instruction and edification in the faith; rather preaching is the end of praying, inasmuch as the bless- ings conveyed by preaching are the things which men pray for. But this is but one of those unhappy consequences which fol- lows men's judging of the service of God, rather by the prac- tices of the church, when it came to enjoy ease and plenty, than by the ways and practices of the first and purest apostolical times: when the apostles, who were best able to judge of their own duty, looked upon themselves as most concerned in the preaching of the gospel. But to this it is commonly said, that "there was great reason for it then, because the world was to be converted to Christianity, and therefore preaching was the more necessary work at that time; but when a nation is con- verted to the faith,^ that necessity ceaseth." It is granted, that the preaching of the gospel in regard to its universal extent was more necessary then, which was the foundation of Christ's instituting the apostolical office with an unlimited commission; but if we take preaching as referring to particular congrega- tions, there is the same necessity now that there was then. People need as much instruction as ever, and so much the more • When was that? Who was ever so blind as to assert that this ever yet has been u fact? Yet we are told that it will be. 358 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF in that they are apt to think now the name of Christians will carry them to Heaven. It is a too common and very dangerous deceit of men, to look upon rehgion more as a profession than matter of Hfe, more as a notion than an inward temper. Men must be beat off from more things which they are apt to trust to for salvation now, than in those times. Men could not think so much then, that diligence in public as- semblies, and attendance at public prayers, was the main religion. Few would profess Christianity in those times, but such as were resolved beforehand rather to let go their lives than their profession: but the more profess it now, with- out understanding the terms of salvation; the greater necessity there is of preaching to instruct men in it. But I think more need not be said of this to those that know it is another thing to be a Christian, than to be called so. But however it is granted, that in the apostles' times preaching was the great work; and if so, how can we think one single person in a great city was sufficient, both to preach to, and rule the church, and to preach abroad in order to the conversion of more from their Gentilism to Christianity? Especially if the church of every city was so large as some would make it, viz. to comprehend all the believers under the civil jurisdiction of the city, and so both city and country the charge of one single bishop. I think the vastness of the work, and the impossibility of a right dis- charge of it by one single person, may be argument enough to make us interpret the places of scripture which may be un- derstood in that sense, as of more than one pastor in every city; as when the apostles are said to ordain elders in every city, and FauVs calling for the elders from Ephesus, and his writing to the bishops and deacons of the church of Philippi; this consideration, I say, granting that the texts may be other- wise understood, will be enough to incline men to think that in greater cities there was a society of presbyters acting to- gether for the carrying on the work of the gospel in converting some to, and building up of others in the faith of Christ. And it seems not in the least manner probable to me, that the care of those great churches should at first be intrusted in the hands of one single pastor and deacon, and afterwards a new order of presbyters erected under them, without any order or rule laid down in scripture for it, or any mention in eccleeiastical writers of any such after institution. But instead of that in the most populous churches, we have many remaining foot- steps of such a college of presbyters there established in apos- FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 359 tolical times. Thence Ignatius^ says, the presbyters are tJ5 (svvihe^iov Qtov jcai wj tfa)j'8£(j;W05 Artoj'oXwj', ''the sanhedritTi of the church appointed by God, and the bench of apostles"^ sitting together for ruling the affairs of the church. And Origen calls it, civgy]/A.a tv ixao'trj fioxct x-toa^sv xoyu Osov, " a College in every city of God's appointing;" and Victor, bishop of Rome, col- legium nostrum, et collegium fratrum, "our college and the college of the brethren," " Pius calls it ' the poor senate of Christ established at Rome;' TertuUian, ' the approved elders;' Cyprian, 'the sacred and venerable assembly of our clergy;' and to Cornelius, bishop of Rome, and his clergy, 'to the most illustrious clergy presiding with thee;' Jerome, ' our senate, the congregation of presbyters, and the common council of presbyters, by which the churches are governed;' Hilary, 'the elders without whose counsel nothing is done in the church;' the author of the seven orders, calls the presbyters 'judges of affairs,' "^ Entychius tells us there were twelve presbyters at Alexandria to govern the church; and the author of the Itinerary of Peter, of as many constituted at Caesarea, who though counterfeit, must be allowed to speak, though not vera, yet verisimilia, " though not true, yet likely things," Is it possible all these authors should thus speak of their several places, of a college of presbyters acting in power with the bishop, if at first churches were governed only by a single bishop, and afterwards by subject presbyters that had nothing to do in the rule of the church, but were only deputed to some particular offices under him, which they were empowered to do only by his authority? But the joint rule of the bishop and presbyters in the churches will be more largely deduced after- wards. Thus we see a company of presbyters settled in great churches; now we are not to imagine that all these did equally attend to one part of their work; but all of them according to their several abilities laid out themselves; some in overseeing and guiding the church; but yet so as upon occasion to dis- charge all pastoral acts belonging to their function; others be- took themselves chiefly to the conversion of others to the faith, 1 Ep. ad. Tral. 2 c. Cel, sum. 1. 6, c. 3, p. 129 3 Pius, pauperem senatum Christi apud Romam constitutum; TertuUian, pro- bates seniores; Cyprian, cleri nostri sacrum venerandumque concessum; and to Cornelius, bishop of Rome and his clergy, florenlissimo clero tecum prsesidenti; Jerome, senatum nostrum, ccEtum presbyterorum, et commune concilium presby- terorum quo ecclesiae gubernabantur; Hilary, seniores sine quorum consiiio nihil agebatur in ecclesiaB; the author de 7 ordinibus ad rusticum, calls the presbyters negotiorum judices. — Pius, ep. ad Just. Vica. Apol. c. 39. Cypri. ep. 55, s. 19, s. 21. Hieronym. in Is. 1, 2, c. 3. Ep. ad Evag, in 1 Tim. v. 360 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP either in the cities or the adjacent countries. By which we come to a full, clear and easy understanding of that so much controverted place, 1 Tim.Y. 17; "Theelders that rule well are counted worthy of double hojiour; especially they that labour in the word and doctrine."^ Not as though it implied a distinct sort of elders from the pastors of churches, but among those elders that were ordained in the great churches, some attended most to ruling the flock already converted, others laboured most to converting others to the faith by preaching; though both these being entered into this peculiar function of laying themselves forth for the benefit of the church, did deserve both respect and maintenance, yet especially those who em- ployed themselves in converting others, inasmuch as their burden was greater, their labours more abundant, their suffer- ings more; and their very office coming the nearest to the apostolical function. So Chrysostom^ resolves it upon the fourth of the Ephesians, that those who were xata. xa/xai xat, TtoXfts a^u^iOfisvoi,, " dispersed amongst the towns and villages," as Theodorct expresseth it, the csoijxsvs 5 xai, 8i8aaxa%oo, "pastors and teachers," the fixed officers of particular churches were inferior to those who went abroad preaching the gospel; xat Ttavv toiv TisPiovti^v xai fvayyf%v^o[ji,svU)V ij ol xaOrjft-fvot xat, «i^i Iva T'ortov Tjaxo-KTifif voi, " and more of those going about and preach- ing the gospel, than those settled and employed about one place." An evident argument that the apostle doth not in- tend any sort of elders distinct from those ordained presbyters of the cities, is from that very argument which the greatest friends to lay-elders draw out of this epistle, which is from the promiscuous acceptation of the words Tt^saj^vtspoi and aTttj- xocoj in this very epistle to Timothy. The argument runs thus: The presbyters spoken of by Paul in iiis epistle to Timothy^ are scripture-bishops; but lay-elders are not scrip- ture-bishops; therefore these cannot here be meant. The major is their own, from 1 Twi. iii. 1, compared with iv. 14. Those which are called presbyters in one place, are bishops in another; and the main force of the argument lies in the pro- miscuous use of bishop and presbyter; now then if lay-elders be not such bishops, then they are not PauVs presbyters; now PauVs bishops must be hi.ha.x-tixQi, " fit to teach," and there- fore no lay-elders. Again we may consider where Timothy 2 Chrysost. in 4 Epli. horn, 1 1. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 361 now was, viz. at Ephesus, and therefore if such lay-elders any- where should be there. Let us see then whether any such were here. It is earnestly pleaded by all who are for lay-elders, that the elders spoken of, ^cts xx. 17, were the particular elders of the church of Ephesus, to whom Paul spoke, verse 28, whore we may find their office at large described, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you iTivsxomovi, bishops or over- seers." Here we see both the names elders and bishops con- founded again, so that he that was an elder was a bishop too, and the office of such elders described to be a pastoral charge over a flock, which is inconsistent with the notion of a lay-elder. Paul sent indefinitely for the elders of the church to come to him. If any such then at Ephesus, they must come at this summons; all the elders that came, were such as were pastors of churches: therefore there could be no lay-elders there. I insist not on the argument for maintenance implied in double honour, which Chrysostom explains by triv -t^v amyxaccov xoe,ri' jLdv, a " supply of necessaries" to be given to them, as appears by verse IS, which argument Blondell Saw such strength in, that it brought him quite off from la^'^-elders in that place of Timothy} And he that will remove the controversy from the scriptures, to the primitive church, (as we have no reason to think, that if such were appointed, they should be so soon laid aside,) will find it the greatest difficulty to trace the foot- steps of a lay-elder through the records of antiquity, for the three first centuries especially. The writers of the church speak of no presbyters, but such as preached, as appears by Origen, Cyprian, and Clement of Alexandria; Origen saith, " all the bishops, presbyters, and deacons instruct us, and in instructing apply correction, and with more severe language reprove us."^ We see all bishops, presbyters, and deacons were in his time preachers. So Cyprian, '■'■\ had believed, indeed, that the presbyters and deacons, who are there present, admonish and fully instruct you relative to the gospel law, as has always been done by our predecessors."^ And in another epistle, about making Numidicus a presbyter, he thus ex- ' De jure plebis in regimen. Eccles. p. 79, etc. 2 Oinncs episcopi atque omnes presbyteri vel diaconi erudiunt nos, et eru- dientes adhibent correctionem, et verbis austerioribus increpant. — Orig. iiom. 1, in Psai. 37. 3 Et crediderani quidein presbyteros et diaconos qui illic prsesentes sunt, monere vos et instruere plenissim6 circa evangelii legem, sicut semper ab ante- cessoribus nostris factum est. — Cyprian. 1. 1, cp. 11. 46 362 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP presseth it: " that he may be enrolled amongst the number of the Carthaginian presbytery, and obtain a seat with you amongst the clergy;"^ where to sit as one of the clergy, and to be a presbyter, are all one. tdgain, had there been any such elders, it would have belonged to them to lay hands on those that were reconciled to the church after censures; now hands were only laid on ub episcopo et clero^ as the same Cyprian tells us. Clemens Jllexandrinus, describing the office of a presbyter Jiath these words, odt'oj n^i^^v-tt^o^ tgto tc^ wti. trji exx%r]6i.ai, &C., lav rtoir; xat, SiSadXTj t'o -iov xv^tov,^ "he IS a presby- ter of the church, if he do instruct and preach to the congre- gation present," where teaching is looked on as his proper work: and elsewhere, more fuUj'' and expressly discoursing of the service of God, and distinguishing it according to the twofold service of men, ^s^tiatixTj xai, irt7i^sti,xf;, " most excel- lent, serviceable," he applies these to the churches, " Likewise relative to the church, the deacons maintain a serviceable similitude, but the presbyters the most excellent."'* The for- mer he explains afterwards, "A presbyter is ordained to in- struct, and for the reformation of men,'''' implying thereby the office of a presbyter to be wholly conversant about teacliing others, to whom on that account the art of making others better doth properly belong. So much may suffice for those first times of the church, that there were no presbyters then, but such as had the office of teaching. And for the times afterwards of the church, let it suffice at present to produce the testimony of a council held in the beginning of the seventh century, who absolutely decree against all lay persons med- dling in church affairs: ''By a recent transaction we learn that certain laymen of our college have, contrary to the customs of the church, stewards appointed in sacred things. Therefore, treating all alike, we choose that each of us, according to tiie decrees of the Chalcedon fathers, should, out of his own clergy, appoint a steward for himself For it is indecorous that a layman should be a substitute for a bishop, and that secular men should judge in the church. For no incompatible profession should exist in one and the same office.""^ A canon ' Ut ascribatur presbyteroriim Carthaginensium numero, et nobiscum sedeat in clero. — Ep, 35. 2 Ep. 12. 3 Strom. 1. 6, p. 667, ed. Hcins. ■• '0/txo«a); h Jtat stara mv BHnXtjinav, rnv fxiv daKrianiiirit o'l 'rr^ia-BvTS^oi a-a>^ovcriv etnova, rnv vTrv^BTUtriv h o'l haitovot. — Strom. I. 7, p. 700. ^ OTTcag av xat waiSeuetv h TETay/ttsvof eif tev t 1 Cor. i.x. 6. 2 2 Cor. xi. 8. 3 2 Cor. xi. 9. 366 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF worthy of his hire; nor could that be true which Paul sailh, " that our Lord hath ordained; that they which preach the gospel should hve of the gospel."^ Secondly. A maintenance in general being due, lawful authority may determine the particular way of raising it; the equity of which way may be iaest derived from what was the most ancient practice of the world in dedicating things to God, and was approved by God himself among his own people, the Jews; so that the way of maintenance by tithes is the most just and equitable way. Thirdly, It being in the magistrates' power to determine the way of maintenance, what is so determined, doth bind the consciences of all subject to that power, to an obedience to it for conscience sake: inasmuch as all men are bound thus to obey the magistrate in all things established by him as laws; and the very same reasons any can plead for disobedience as to this, may equally serve for disobedience to any other laws made by the supreme magistrate. This I suppose is the clearest resolution of that other more vexed than intricate controversy about the right of tithes; which I have here spoken of by occasion of the mention of the apostles' practice; and because it is resolved upon the same principles with the sub- ject I am upon. Mere apostolical practice we see doth not bind, because the apostles did many things without intention of binding others. Secondly, The apostles did many things upon particular occasions, emergencies and circumstances, which things so done, cannot bind by virtue of their doing them any further than a parity of reason doth conclude the same things to be done in the same circumstances. Thus PaiiVs celibacy is far from binding the church, it being no universal practice of the apostles by a law, but only a thing taken up by him upon some particular grounds, not of per- petual and universal concern.^ So community of goods was used at first by the church at Jerusalem as most suitable to the present state of that church; but as far as we can find, did neither perpetually hold in that church, nor universally ob- tain among other churches; as is most clear in the church at Corinth by their lawsuits, by the different offerings of the rich and poor at the Lord's supper, and by their personal con- tributions.^ So the apostles preaching from house to house, was more for conveniency than the want of public places, as free only for Christians; although that practice binds now as far as the reason doth; viz. in its tendency to promote the work ' 1 Cor. ix. 14. 2 1 Cor. ix. 5. 3 1 Cor. vi. 1; xi. 21, 22; xvi. 1, 2. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 367 of salvation of men. Laying on hands, as a sign, for confer- ing the gifts of the Holy Ghost, can never certainly bind where the reason of it is ceased, bnt may still continue as a rite of solemn prayer, and not by virtue of that practice. Observing the apostolical decrees of " abstaining from blood, and things strangled and offered to idols,'" did hold as long as the ground of making them did, which was condescension to the Jews, although it must be withal acknowledged that the primitive Christians of the second and third centuries did generally observe them;^ and the Greek church to this day; and some men of note and learning have pleaded for the necessary observation of them still, as Christopher Beckman, Steph. Curctllseus in a diatriba lately published to this pur- pose, to which Grotius is likewise very inclinable. The argu- ments are too large here to examine, although I see not how possibly diat place of Paul can be avoided, "Whatever is set in the shambles eat, making no scruple for conscience sake. "2 1 conclude this with what I laid down at the entrance of this treatise, that where any act or law is founded upon a particular reason or occasion as the ground of it, it doth no further oblige than the reason or occasion of it doth continue.^ Therefore before an acknowledged apostolical practice be looked on as obligatory, it must be made to appear that what they did, was not according as they saw reason and cause for the doing it, depending upon the several circumstances of time, place and persons, but that they did it from some un- alterable law of Christ, or from such indispensable reasons, as will equally hold in all times, places and persons. And so the obligation is taken off from apostolical practice, and laid upon that law and reason which was the ground of it. Thirdly, Offices that were of apostolical appointment, are grown wholly out of use in the church, without men's look- ing upon themselves as bound now to observe them. As the widows of the churches, afterwards from their office called deaconesses of the church,'' of which number Phoebe was one, whom Paul calls the deaconess of the church at Cenchreaf so both Origen and Chrysostom understand it. Of them and their continuance in the church for some cen- turies of years, much is spoken by several writers^, and re- • Exercit. Theoi. n. 26, CurcellsEUs de esu sanguinis, »fec. Grotius in Acts XV. 29. 2 1 Cor. X. 25. 3 Part. I. chap. 1, s. 6. 4 Tim. V. 9. 5 Rom. xvi. 1. « Plin. ep. 1. 10, ep. 97. Theod. 1. 3, cap. 14. Sozom. 1. 4, cap. 24. Codex 368 THE DIVINE RIGHT OP solved by several councils; and yet we see these are laid aside by the pretenders to hold close to apostolical practice. If that binds, certainly it doth in its plain institutions; if it doth not bind in them, how can it in that which is only gathered but by uncertain conjectures to have been ever their practice; so that in the issue, those who plead so much for the obligatory nature of apostolical practice, do not think it obligatory; for if they did, how comes this office of widows and deaconesses to be neglected? If it be answered, that these are not useful now; then we must say, that we look upon apostolical practice to be binding no further than we judge it useful, or the reason of it holds; which is as much as to say, of itself it binds not. Fourthly. Rites and customs apostolical are altered; therefore men do not think that apos- tolical practice doth bind. For if it did, there could be no al- teration of things agreeable thereunto. Now let any one consider but these few particulars, and judge how far the pleaders for a divine right of apostolical practice, do look upon themselves as bound now to observe them: as dipping in baptism, the use of love-feasts, community of goods, the holy kiss, by TertuUian^ called signaculum orationis: or, "the miniature signet of Christian love;"^ yet none look upon themselves as bound to observe them now, and yet all ac- knowledge them to have been the practice of the apostles; and therefore certainly though when it may serve for their purpose, men Will make apostolical practice to found a divine right; yet when they are gone off from the matter in hand, they change their opinion with the matter, and can then think themselves free as to the observation of things by themselves acknowledged to be apostolical. Thus we are at last come to the end of this chapter, which we have been the longer upon, because the main hinge of this controversy did lie in the practice of the apostles, which I suppose now so far cleared as not to hinder our progress towards what remains. We come, therefore, from the apostles to the primitive church, to see whether by the practice of anything wherein they looked on themselves as obliged by an unalterable law, we observe any one particular form of church government. Theod. leg. 27, tit. de Epis. Cone. Clialc. cap. 14. Cone. Normat. c. 73, Epiph. hasr. 79. V. Fustell. Not. in Can. Univcrs. Eccies. p. 154, &c. Vossium in Plin. ep. 97, 1. 10. Salmas. in Aparat. p. 176. 1 De Orat. 2 Of Christian not of carnal love: but how difficult for those that are weak to keep the two separate; therefore, they had better let it alone till the chaff is sepa- rated from the wheat — Am. Ed. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 369 CHAPTER VII. The churclics' polity in the ages after the apostles considered: Evidences thence that no certain unalterable form of church government was delivered to them. 1. Because church power did enlarge as the churches did. Whether any me- tropolitan churches established by the apostles. The seven churches of Asia, whether Metropolitical. Philippi no metropolis, either in a civil or ecclesias- tical sense. Several degrees of enlargement of churches. Churches first Christians in whole cities, proved by several arguments; the eulogy an evi- dence of it. Churches extended into the neighbouring territories by the preaching there of city presbyters; thence comes the subordination between them. Churches by degrees enlarged to diocessc; from thence to provinces. The original of metropolitans and patriarchs. 2. No certain form used in all churches. Some churches without bishops, — Scots, Goths. Some with but one bishop in their whole country. Scythian, Ethiopian churches how go- verned. Many cities without bishops. Diocesses much altered. Bishops discontinued in several churches for many years. 3. Conforming ecclesias. tical government to the civil in the extent of diocesses. The suburbicarian churches what. Bishops answerable to the civil governors. Churches' power rises from the greatness of cities. 4. Validity of ordination by presbyters in places where bishops were. The case of Ischyras discussed; instances given of ordination by presbyters not pronounced null. 5. The church's prudence in managing its affairs, by the several canons, provincial synods. Codex Canonum. § 1. Having largely considered the actions of Christ, and the practice of the apostles, so far as they are conceived to have reference to the determining the certain form of go- vernment in the church; our next stage is, according to our propounded method, to examine what light the practice of the church in the ages succeeding tlie apostles will cast upon the controversy we are upon. For although, according to the principles established and laid down by us, there can be nothing settled as a universal law for the church but what we find in scriptures: yet because the general practice of the church is conceived to be of so great use for understand- ing what the apostles' intentions, as well as actions were, we 47 370 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF shall cheerfully pass over this Rubicon, because not with an intent to increase divisions, but to find out some further evi- dence of a way to compose them. Our inquiry then is, whether the primitive church did conceive itself obliged to observe un- alterably one individual form of government, as delivered down to them either by a law of Christ, or an universal con- stitution of the apostles; or else did only settle and order things for church government, according as it judged them tend most to the peace and settlement of the church, without any ante- cedent obligation, as necessarily binding to observe only one course. This latter I shall endeavour to make out to have been the only rule and law which the primitive church ob- served as to church government, viz. the tendency of its con- stitutions to the peace and unity of the church; and not any binding law or practice of Christ or his apostles. For the demonstration of which, I have made choice of such argu- ments as most immediately tend to prove it. For, if the power of the church and its officers did increase merely from the en- largement of the bounds of churches; if no one certain form was observed in all churches, but great varieties as to officers and diocesses; if the course used in settling the power of the chief officers of the church was from agreement with the civil go- vernment; if notwithstanding the superiority of bishops, the ordination of presbyters was owned as valid; if in all other things concerning the church's polity, the church's prudence was looked on as a sufficient ground to establish things; then we may with reason conclude, that nothing can be inferred from the practice of the primitive church, demonstrative of any one fixed form of church government delivered from the apostles to them. Having thus by a Hght ssctoy^atia, " sketch," drawn out the several lines of the portrait of the polity of the ancient church, we now proceed to fill them up, though not with that life which it deserves, yet so far as the model of this discourse will admit. Our first argument then \sfrom the rise of the extent of the pmver of church governors, which I assert not to have been from any order of tke apostles, but from the gradual increase of the churches committed to their charge. This will be best done by the observation of the growth of churches, and how proportionably the power of the governors did increase with it. As to that, there are four observable steps or periods, as so many ages of growth in the primitive churches. First, When churches and cities were of the same extent. Secondly, When ^churches took in the adjoining territories with the villages belonging to the cities. FORMS OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 371 Thirdly, When several cities with their villages did associate for church government in the same province. Fourthly, When several provinces did associate for government in the lloman empire. Of these in their order. § 2. Tlie first period of church government observable in the primitive church, was, when churches were the same ivifh Christians i?i whole cities. For the clearing of this, I shall Jirst show, that the primitive constitution of churches was in a society of Christians in the same city. Secondly, I shall consider the form and manner of government then observed among them. Thirdly, What relation the several churches in cities had to one another. First, That the primitive churches were Christians of whole cities. It is but a late and novel acceptation of the word church, whereby it is taken for a fixed congregation for public worship, and doubtless the original of it is only from the distinction of churches in greater cities into their several xv^mxo,, '' belonging to the Lord," or public places for meeting, whence the Scotch kirk, and our English church; so that from calling the place church, they proceed to call the persons there meeting by that name; and thence some think the name of church so appropriated to such a society of Christians as may meet at such a place, that they make it a matter of religion not to call those places churches, from whence originally the very name, as we use it, was derived. But this may be pardoned among other religious weaknesses o( well meaning, but less know- ing people. A church in its primary sense, as it answers to the Greek sxx^rjeM, applied to Christians, is a society of Christians living together in one city, whether meet- ing together in many congregations, or one, is not at all material, because they were not called a church as meeting together in one p'ace, but as they were a society of Christians inhabiting together in such a city: not but that I think a so- ciety of Christians might be called a church, wherever they were, whether in a city or country, but because the first and chief mention we meet with in scripture of churches, is of such as did dwell together in the same cities; as is evident from many pregnant places of scripture to this purpose. As t/lcts xiv. 23, compared with Titus i. 5, xat' exxxt^^iav, in one place, is the same with sca^a 7to%iv in the other. Ordaining elders "in every church," and ordaining elders " in every city;" which implies, that by churches then were meant the body of Chris- tians residing in the cities; over which the apostles ordained elders to rule them. So ^cts xvi. 4, 5, " as they went through 373 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF the cities," &c., "and so were the churches estabhshed in the faith." The churches here were the Christians of tiiose cities which they went through. So Acts xx. 17, "he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church." If by the elders we mean, as all those do we now deal with, the elders of Ephesus, then it is here evident, that the elders of the church and of the city are all one; but what is more observ- able, verse 28, he calls the church of that city: " Take heed to yourselves, and to the flock over which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God."^ Where several things are observable to our purpose; firsts that the body of Christians in Ephesus is called to Ttoifiwov and gj ixxxsaia, the flock of the church, and not the several flocks and churches, over which God hath made you bishops. Secondly, that all these spoken to were such as had a pastoral charge of this one flock; Paul calls them tjnaxoiaovi, and chargeth them TtoifjLaivstv, to do the work of a pastor towards it. So that either there must be several pastors taking the pastoral charge of one congregation, which is not very suitable with the prin- ciples of those 1 now dispute against; or else many congrega- tions in one city are all called but one church, and one flock, which is the thing I plead for. And therefore it is an obser- vation of good use to the purpose in hand, that the New Testament speaking of the church in a province, always speaks of them in the plural number, " as the churches of Judea," Gal. i. 22, 1 Thes. ii. 14. " The churches of Samaria and Galilee," Jicts ix. 31. "The churches of Syria and Cilicia," Acts XV. 41. " The churches of Galatia," 1 Cor. xvi. 1, Gal. i, 1, 2. "The churches of Asia," Rom. xvi. 16, Rev. i. 11. But when it speaks of any particular city, then it is always used in the singular number, " as the church at Jerusalem," Acts viii. 1, XV. 4, 22. "The church at xVntioch," Acts xi. 26, xiii. 1. "The church at Corinth," 1 Cor. i. 2, 2 Cor. i. 1, and so of all "the seven churches of Asia," the church of Ephesus, Smyrna, &c. So that we cannot find in scripture the least footstep of any diff'erence between a church and the Christians of such a city; whereas had the notion of a church been restrained to a particular congregation, doubtless we should have found some difference as to the scriptures speak- ing of the several places. For it is scarce imaginable that in all those cities spoken of, (as for example Ephesus, where ' To TTSIUVIOV TTpOirSySTE OUV EttUTOlJ XaJ TTaVTl TO) 'naiy.ntl) £4> oJ U/^ttf TO 1T)liVf*a £0ST9 tiriiHOTrovf, TToijtAaiVEiv Tvv SKKKwa-tav too ©eow. FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 373 Paul was for above two years together,) that there should be no more converts than would make one congregation. Ac- cordingly in the times immediately after the apostles, the same language and custom continued still. So Clement inscribes his epistle: 'H exx^ricli'a -tov Osov ria^oixovsa Fufxi^v ■tri sxx'kTiGta -iov Osov Tia^oixovari Ko^iveov, "The church of God dwelling at Rome, to the church of God dwelling at Corinth." So by that it is plain that all the believers at that time in Rome, made up but one church, as likewise did they at Corinth. So Folycarp in the epistle written by him from the church at Smyrna to the church at Phylomilium, 'h ixxxrioia -tov Bbov 57 •ma.^ot.xovaa. Xfiv^vav, -tri ^a^oixovaa ev