A discourse of the right of the Church in a Christian state: by Herbert Thorndike.:

CHAP. I.

The Church hath no temporall power, but stands by Gods priviledge of holding Assemblies. The ground of the Secular powers interesse in Church matters. The power of the Keys what it is, and that it cannot be taken from the Church.

IT is visible to all understandings that there are two states of Gods Church. For, there must needs be a great difference between the Church, as it was first established, by the ordinances of the Apostles, before the exer∣cise of Christianity was allowed and privi∣ledged by the Laws of the Romane Empire; and as it now standeth, protected by the Laws of Christian Kingdomes and Com∣monwealths. And my purpose is here to de∣bate, what power the Church ought to have in this later state, and what Right accrues

to Secular powers in Church matters, when they professe Christianity, and the mainte∣nance of it: Which one dispute, will neces∣sarily conclude the chiefe matters now in compromise, concerning the state of the Church in this Kingdome. To understand this aright we must suppose, that the Church is not endowed with any manner of the secu∣lar power of this world, and the civill Socie∣ties of it, which constraineth men to obedi∣ence by force. For it will be easie for ordi∣nary understandings, after the miserable dis∣putes which this civill Warre hath advan∣ced, to perceive, that though there be many points of that Right, wherein Soveraign Power consisteth, yet all of them are resol∣ved into the Power of the Sword: Seeing that there is no manner of publick Act, ei∣ther of Soveraign Power, or any derived from it, that could be effectuall, as the use of civill Society requires, did not all mens senses tell them, that there is force ready, to reduce the refractary to obedience. Now, that our Saviour did, and was to disclaim all Title to the Sword, is manifest by the Go∣spell, and the profession of it. For, being suspected in his life time by his enemies, and lastly accused to Pilate, as one that sought to usurp it, his renouncing it so publickly, because it clears him, therefore convinces

the injustice of the sentence against him. And truly, what entertainment shall we ima∣gine his Gospel would have found in the world, had it pretended to establish itself by force? For, this profession, must needs have produced that effect, which Mahumetisme did afterwards, to wit, the subversion of all States, which it might prove able to justle with and to prevaile. But, Christianity be∣ing first initiated by the Crosse of Christ, and professing nothing, but to follow him in bea∣ring his Crosse, it is manifest, that those which saw not reason to beleeve it, must be convinced, that they ought not to persecute it. For, if it preserve the power of the Sword, in those hands, wherein it is found, when the Gospel is preached, and received any where, then, of necessity, all Rights, all goods of this world, in the possession where∣of, the Power of the Sword professes to maintain all Subjects, are, by the Gospel, maintained in those hands, that have them by just title of Humane Right. And so, that which I here suppose, is no more then the re∣ceived Position of Divines, That temporall dominion is not founded in Grace: For, mens Rights, Powers, and Priviledges, in ci∣vill Societies, are no lesse their own, and con∣cern their estate no lesse, then their Goods and Possessions. Therefore, though much

more evidence might be brought to prove this, from the Apostles, commanding Chri∣stians to obey secular Powers, children their Parents, slaves their Masters, wives their Husbands, and the like, according to the Laws, but above the Laws, for conscience to God, obliging thereby all States, to main∣tain Christianity; yet, this being a point, which no party professes to stick at, I will hereupon presume to take it for granted.

But, though the Church is not endowed with any coactive power, by Divine Right, yet, by Divine Right, and by Patent from God, it is endowed with a Power of holding Assemblies, for the Common Service of God, before any grant of the Powers of the world, and against any Interdict of them, if so it fall out. For, the Communion which the Gospel establisheth among Christians, is not onely invisible, in the heart, beleeving the same Faith, and disposed to live accor∣ding to it, but also outwardly visible, not on∣ly in the Profession of the same Faith, which may be common to those that communicate in nothing else, but also in the Common Service of God; For, seeing God hath given his Church the Ordinances of his worship, wherewith he requireth to be served in com∣mon by his Church, some of them common both to the Church and the Synagogue, that

is, to Jews and Christians, others, delivered by the Gospel onely to the Church, it is ma∣nifest, that the Church is priviledged by God, because commanded, to join in serving him according to those Ordinances. And therefore, we are not to ask an expresse war∣rant in Scripture, for this, whether duty, or priviledge, because it was always in force among the people of God, though not al∣ways free from the bondage of strangers. The Apostle truly, writing to the Hebrews, not to fall away from Christianity to Ju∣daisme, for the persecutions, which the Jews their natives brought upon them, (which, he that will diligently observe, shall finde to be the full scope of that Epistle) inferreth, as a consequence, Heb. X. 25. not to forsake the as∣sembling of themselves: Shewing, that Chri∣stianity cannot be professed without so do∣ing, though it bring persecution with it: As, we know, the Primitive Christians frequen∣ted the Service of God, when they were in danger of the Laws, because, that which the Laws forbade, was their Assemblies. Where∣fore, as within severall Commonwealths, there are particular Societies, Colleges, and Corporations, subsisting by grant of their Soveraigns. And as, by the Law of Nati∣ons, there is a kinde of Society, and Com∣monwealth, among those that are bound in

the same vessell, upon the same voyage, which Aristotle cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as there is also among them that travell together in the Ca∣ravans of the East, because they submit to some Rule, in regard of some common in∣teress: So must we understand the Church, to be a humane, though not a civill Socie∣ty, Corporation, or Commonwealth: Not as these last named, which consist of Sub∣jects to severall States, warranted and pro∣tected by the Law of Nations, nor as the former, by Charter from some Soveraign, but by that Law of God, whereby all Nati∣ons are called to serve him, by those Ordi∣nances which he hath established in the Church. Therefore the main point of that Charter, which makes the Church such a Society or Commonwealth, is the right of Assembling, and holding such Assemblies, without warrant, against all Law of the world that forbids it: The particulars of it are those rights, which God hath given his Church, to preserve unity, and communion in the celebration of those Ordinances, for which it assembleth. For, since the principles of Christianity professe one Church, and that the unity thereof extendeth to this visi∣ble communion, it is manifest hereby, that the will of God is, that all Christians com∣municate with all Christians, in all Ordinan∣ces

of his service, when occasion requires; a thing which the practice of all sides confes∣ses. For, though this communion be inter∣rupted with so many Schismes, yet, since all parties labour to shew, that the cause of separation is not on their side, they acknow∣ledge all separation, to be against Gods Or∣dinance, when they labour to clear them∣selves of the blame of it.

In the next place we are to inquire, upon what Title of Right, the Church is ingraf∣fed into civill Societies and Soveraignties, by vertue whereof, secular Powers exercise that right to which they pretend, in Church matters. For, I perceive, those of the Con∣gregations oftentimes demand, what ground we have in Scripture for Nationall Churches. Now, the term of Nationall Churches, it seems, is something unproper, because, as one and the same Nation may be divided into severall Soveraignties, and the Chur∣ches thereof, by consequence, subject to se∣verall Soveraigns, so may the same Sove∣raignty contain severall Nations, and the Churches of them, which, in these cases, are not properly Nationall Churches, and yet are properly that which is signified by the term of Nationall Churches. But, setting aside this exception, I conceive, those of the Congregations have reason to make the de∣mand,

and that the answer to it, if once well made, will be of consequence, to settle many things in debate. For, that the same right, in matters of Religion, is due to Christian Princes and States, which the Kings of Iudah practised under the Law, of it self no way appears, because of the generall difference between the Law and the Gospel. To which may be added, to tie the knot faster, that there is this clear difference between them, in the particular in hand, that the Law was confined to one People, as being the condition of that Covenant, whereby God undertook to give them the Land of pro∣mise, and to maintain them in the free and happy possession of it; they undertaking on their part, to serve him, and rule themselves by it: But the Gospell is the New Cove∣nant, by which God undertakes to give life everlasting, to those that take up Christs Crosse, to perform it. The persons there∣fore of whom the Church consists, being of all Nations, all of them of equall interesse, in that wherein they communicate, and therefore in the Rules, by which: It is mani∣fest, that no Soveraign can have more inte∣resse then another, in creating that right, by vertue whereof, the Subjects of severall So∣veraignties communicate. Otherwise, the Unity of the Church must needs suffer, one

Soveraign prescribing that, as necessary to the communion of the Church in his Domi∣nions, which the Soveraigns over other parts of the Church, perhaps, allow not. But though, as a Divine, I admit this debate, yet as a Christian and a Divine both, I condemne the separation which they have made, before it be decided. The Church of England gi∣veth to the King, that power in Church mat∣ters, which the Kings of Gods ancient peo∣ple, and Christian Emperours after them al∣ways practised. This possession was enough to have kept Unity, though the reason ap∣peared not, why Christian Princes should have the same right in the Church, as the Kings of Judah had in the Synagogue. For, if they observe it well, this right is no where established upon the Kings of Gods ancient people, by way of precept, in the Law. For, seeing the Law commanded them not to have a King, but gave them leave to have a King when they would, upon such terms as it requireth, Deut. XVII. 14. it cannot be said, that any Right in matters of Religion is setled upon the King, by that Law, which never provided that there should be a King. The question is then, not, whether the Kings of Judah had power in matters of Religion, which is express in Scripture, but upon what Title they had it, which is not to be

had but by Interpretation of the Law. And this we shall finde, if we consider, that the Law was given to that people, when they were freed from bondage, and invested in the Soveraign power of themselves, as to a Body Politick, such as they became, by sub∣mitting to it. So that, though many pre∣cepts thereof concern the conscience of par∣ticular persons, yet there are also many, that take hold of the community of the people, for which, particular persons cannot be an∣swerable, further then the Rate of that pow∣er by which they act in it: As, the destroy∣ing of Malefactors, Idolaters in particular. These Precepts then, being given to the community of the People, and the common Power of the People falling to the King, constituted according to the Law aforesaid, it followeth, that being invested with the Power, he stands thereby countable, for the Laws to be inforced by it. And then, the question that remains will be no more but this, Whether civill Societies, and the So∣veraign Powers of them, are called to be Christian, as such, and not onely as particu∣lar persons. A thing which Tertullian seems to have doubted of, when he made an if of it, Apologet. cap. XXI. Si possent esse & Caesa∣res Christiani; If Emperours could be Christi∣ans: And Origen, when he expounds the

words of Moses, I will provoke them to jealou∣sie, by a people which are not a people, (so he reads it) of the Christians, whereof there were some in all Nations, and no whole Na∣tion professed Christianity; in X ad Rom. lib. VIII. & in Psal. XXXVI. Hom. I. seems to count this estate and condition, essentiall to the Church. But, since Anabaptists are no more Anabaptists, in denying the power of the Sword to be consistent with Christia∣nity, it seems there is no question left about this, as indeed there ought to be none. For, the Prophesies, which went before, of the calling of the Gentiles to Christianity, were not fulfilled, till the Romane Empire profes∣sed to maintain it. And, thereby, the will of God being fulfilled, it is manifest that the will of God is, that civill Societies, & the Powers of them, should maintain Christianity by their Sword, and the Acts to which it ena∣bleth. But always, with that difference from the Synagogue, which hath been expressed. For, if the Church subsist in severall Sove∣raignties, the power which each of them can have in Church matters, must needs be con∣cluded, by that power which God hath or∣dained in his Church, for the determining of such things, the determining whereof shall become necessary to preserve the Unity of it.

Thus much premised, the first point we

are to debate is, Whether Excommunication be a secular punishment amounting to an Outlawry, or Banishment, as Erastus would have it, or the chiefe act of Ecclesiasticall Power, the Power of the Spirituall Sword of the Church, cutting from the visible communion thereof, such as are lawfully presumed to be cut off from the invisible, by sin. For, if there be a visible Society of the Church, founded by God, without de∣pendence from man, there must be in it a vi∣sible power, to determine, who shall be or not be members of it: which, by conse∣quence, is the Soveraign Power in the Soci∣ety of the Church, as the Power of the Sword is in civill Societies. But Excommu∣nication in the Synagogue, was a temporall punishment, such as I said, and therefore it is argued, that our Lord meant not of that, when he said, Dic Ecclesiae, that terme, in the Old Testament, being used for the Congre∣gation of Gods people, in the quality of a civill Society. And therefore when he ad∣deth, Let him he unto thee as a Heathen or a publican, they say it is manifest, that neither Ethnicks nor Publicans were excommuni∣cate out of the Synagogue, nor the Excom∣municate excluded from the Service of God in the Temple or Synagogue: And when our Lord addeth, Whatsoever ye binde and

loose on earth—it is manifest, say they, in the language of the Jews, used among the Tal∣mud Doctors, that bound and loose is nothing else, but that which is declared to be bound or loose, that is, prohibited & permitted, and therefore the effect of the Keyes of the Church, which is binding and loosing, rea∣ches no further, then declaring what was lawfull, and what unlawfull (as to the Jews, by the Law of Moses,) in point of conscience.

The first argument that I make against this opinion, is drawn from the Power of Baptizing, thereby understanding, not the Office of ministring, but the Right of gran∣ting that Sacrament: Which we, in this state of the Church, doe not distinguish, because all are born within the pale of the Church, and by order thereof, baptized infants: But may see a necessary ground so to distinguish, by S. Paul, when he denies, that he was sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, 1 Cor. I. 17. whereas the words of our Lord in the Go∣spel are manifest, where he chargeth his A∣postles to Preach and Teach all Nations, Bap∣tizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For the Baptizing of all that should turn Christians, could not be perso∣nally commanded the Apostles, but to preach to all Nations, and to make Disciples out of all Nations, this they might doe to

those that might be Baptized, by such as they should appoint. We must note, that it is in the Originall, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, make Disciples, as the Syriack truly translates it: Commanding first, to bring men to be Disciples, then to Baptize. Now, Disciples are those that were after called Christians, such as we professe our selves, Acts XI. 26. those of whom our Lord saith in the Gospel, that those that will doe his Fathers will are his Di∣sciples. Wherefore they are commanded to Baptize such as should submit to the Gospel: And so, to judge, whether each man did so or not, which, they that were trusted with the Gospel, were, by consequence, trusted to judge. The effect of this trust is seen in the many Orders and Canons of the Primitive Church, by which, those that desired to be admitted into the Church by Baptisme, are limited to the triall of severall years, to exa∣mine their profession, whether sincere or not. And, such as gained their living by such Trades, as Christianity allowed not, rejected, untill they renounced them. Not that my intent is to say that these Canons were li∣mited by the Apostles: But because it is an argument, that always, to judge who shall be admitted to Baptisme, and who not, is ano∣ther manner of power then to baptize, being the power of them that were able to settle

such Canons. Though it is plain by the Scriptures, that those Rules had their begin∣ning from the Apostles themselves. For, when S. Peter saith, 1 Pet. III. 21. that the Baptisme which saveth us, is not the laying down the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good con∣science to God; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: he sheweth, that the Interrogatories which the ancient Church used to propound to them that were to be baptized, were then in use; and established by the Apostles, as the condition of a contract between the Church and them, obliging themselves to live accor∣ding to the Gospel, as Disciples. And the Apostle, Heb. VI. 2. speaking of the foundati∣on of repentance from dead works, the doctrine of Baptisms and imposition of Hands: mani∣festly shews the succeeding custome of the Church, that they which sued for Baptisme, should be catechized in the Doctrine of the Gospel, and contract with the Church to forsake such courses of the world as stood not with it, to be brought in by the Apostles. This is it which is here called the doctrine of Baptisms in the plurall number, not for that frantick reason which the distemper of this time hath brought forth, because there are two Baptismes, one of John by water, ano∣ther of Christ by the Spirit; but, because it was severally taught severall persons before

they were admitted to their several Baptisms. And therefore called also the Doctrine of Imposition of Hands, because we understand by Clemens Alexandrinus, Paedag. III. 11. and by the Apostolicall Constitutions VII. 40. that, when they came to the Church to be cate∣chized, and were catechized, they were then dismissed by him that catechized them, with Imposition of Hands, that is, with prayer for them, that they might, in due time, be∣come good Christians. All, visible marks of the power of the Church, in judging whether a man were fit for Baptisme or not. To which I will adde onely that of Eusebius, De vitâ Constant. IV. where speaking of the Baptisme of Constantine he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that confessing his sinnes, hee was admitted to prayer with Imposition of hands. If it be said, that there were added to the Church three thousand in a day, Acts II. 41. which could not be thus catechized and tried; my answer is, that two cases were always exce∣pted from the Rule: The first was in danger of death: The second, when, by the eager∣nesse of those that desired Baptism, the hand of God appeared extraordinary in the work of their conversion to Christianity. Besides, it is not said that they were baptized that day; but that they were added to the Church that

day: Which is true, though they onely pro∣fessed themselves Disciples for the present, passing neverthelesse their examination, and instruction, as the case required. If there∣fore there be a power, setled in the Church by God, to judge, who is fit to be admitted into it, then is the same power inabled to re∣fuse him that shall appear unfit, then, by the same reason, to exclude him, that proves him∣self unfit, after he is admitted.

This is the next argument, which I will ground upon the Discipline of Penance, as it was anciently practised in the Church: Which is opened by the observation advanced in the 127 p. of this little Discourse, that those, who, contrary to this contract with the Church, fell into sins destructive to Christianity, were fain to sue to be admitted to Penance: Which supposeth, that, till they had given satisfacti∣on of their sincerity in Christianity, they re∣mained strangers to the Communion of the Church. For, it appeareth, by the most ancient of Church Writers, that, for divers ages, the greatest Sinners, as Apostates, Murtherers, & Adulterers, were wholly excluded from Pe∣nance. For though Tertullian was a Monta∣nist, when he cried out upon Zephyrinus Bi∣shop of Rome, for admitting Adulterers to Penance, in his Book De Pudicitiâ, yet it is manifest by his case, that it had formerly

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

been refused in the Church, because the granting of it makes him a Montanist. And S. Cyprian Epist. ad Antonianum, testifieth, that divers African Bishops afore him, had refused it, maintaining communion never∣thelesse with those that granted it. Irenaeus also I. 9. saith, of a certain woman, that had been seduced and defiled by Marcus the He∣retick, that, after she was brought to the sight of her sin, by some Christians, she spent all her days in bewalling it: Therefore with∣out recovering the communion of the Church again. And he that shall but look upon the Canons of the Eliberitane Coun∣cell, shall easily see many kindes of sins cen∣sured, some of them, not to be admitted to communion till the point, others not at the point of death. In this case, and in this estate, these onely, who were excluded from being admitted to Penance were properly excom∣municate; neither could those that were ad∣mitted to Penance be absolutely counted so, because in danger of death, they were to re∣ceive the Communion, though, in case they recovered, they stood bound to compleat their Penance. And from hence afterwards also, those that had once been admitted to Penance, if they fell into the like sins again, were not to be admitted to Penance the se∣cond time. Concil. Tolet. X. Can. XI. Eliber.

Can. III. & VII. Ambros. de Poenit. II. 10, 11. Innoc. I. Ep. I. August. Epist. L. & LIV. It is an easie thing to say, that this Rigor, was an infirmity in the Church of those times, not understanding aright free Justification by Faith: But as it is manifest, that this rigor of discipline abated more and more, age by age, till that now it is come to nothing: So, if we goe upwards, and compare the writings of the Apostles, with the Originall practice of the Church, it will appear, that the rigor of it was brought in by them, because it aba∣ted by degrees from age to age, till at length it is almost quite lost; that the Reformation of the Church consists in retaining it, that we shall doe so much prejudice to Christia∣nity, as we shall, by undue interpretation, make Justification by Faith inconsistent with it. And, in fine, it will appear, that all Pe∣nance presupposeth Excommunication, be∣ing onely some abatement of it. There is a sin unto death, saith the Apostle, 1 John V. 16. I say not that ye pray for it. This is common∣ly understood, of denying Gods truth, against that light which convinceth the conscience. Which, if it were true, the Apostles precept could never come into practice, seeing no man can know, unlesse by Revelation, against what light his Neighbour sinneth. But the Novatians, at the Councell of Nice, as So∣crates

and Sozomenus both report, Eccles. Hist. I. 7. I. 23. answering Constantine, that they refused Penance, onely to those that sin∣ned the sin unto death, doe give us to under∣stand, that S. John was understood by the Church, not to command, that Apostates be admitted to Penance. And so also Tertul∣lian in many places of his Book de Pudicit. as cap. XIV. argueth from this place, that Penance was not to be granted to Adulte∣rers. Which sheweth, that the Church un∣derstood the place in the same sense, though it admitted not his consequence. So also O∣rigen in Mat. XVIII. 18. Tract. VII. I was long doubtful of the truth of this Interpreta∣tion, because the Apostle premising, If any man see his brother sin a sin not unto death, let him ask of God, seems to speak of private Prayers of particular persons. But the words of S. James, V. 16. have cleared me of this doubt, Confesse your sins one to another, saith he, and pray for one another, that ye may be healed: In which words, I make no doubt but he speak∣eth of publique Penance. For having premi∣sed, that the Presbyters be sent for to the sick, that they confesse their sins to the Presbyters, that they pray for them, anointing them with oil, that their sins may be forgiven them, to shew neverthelesse, that, according to the custome aforesaid, in case they recovered,

they were to stand bound to Penance, he ad∣deth, Confesse your sins to one another—to signifie, that this Confession and Penance remained due before the Church, as we un∣derstand by the XII Canon of Nice, that the practice was so long afterwards. And this is proved, by the precept of both Apo∣stles, to pray for one another. For it is manifest, that there were two means to obtain remissi∣on of sins, in this case; the Humiliation which the Church prescribed, and the Peni∣tent performed, and the Prayers of the Church. Which S. John prescribeth not to be granted to Apostates.

The very same is the meaning of the A∣postle to the Hebrews, VI. 6. when he pro∣nounceth it unpossible, that those that fall away, be renued again to Repentance. For, as they that stood for Baptisme, when they were catechized in Christianity, were properly said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be in∣structed or dedicated to Repentance, because of the Repentance from dead works, which they professed; so they that forfeited their Christianity, by violating the contract of Baptisme, are no lesse properly said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be renewed, instru∣cted, and dedicated again to Repentance: And the Apostles reason agrees; For, because the earth that receives rain, and renders no

fruit, is near the curse, therefore the Church will not easily beleeve, that such a one shall lightly obtain of God, the grace to become a sincere Christian. And therefore, the A∣postle says not, that it is unpossible, that such a one should repent, but that he should be in∣structed again to repentance, to wit, by the Church. As the Novatians answered Con∣stantine, that they remitted such persons to God, not prejudicing their salvation, but not admitting them to the means of Reconcilia∣tion by the Church. And herewith agreeth the example of Esau, used by the Apostle again XII. 17. saying that he found not place of Repentance, alluding to that roome in the Church, where Penitents were placed apart by themselves. And again, X. 26. the allusi∣on which he maketh to the custome under the Law, understood by the Hebrews to whom he writeth, consisteth in this, that, as there was no sacrifice to be made for Apo∣states, though for Ethnicks, (for this was the use of the Law, as we understand by Moses Maimoni in the Title of Dressing Oblations cap. III. num. 3, 5.) So, the Christian Sacri∣fice, of the Prayers of the Church, was not to be offered, for those that had renounced Christianity. If it be thus, you will ask, What was the fault of the Novatians, seeing they understood this Text right? And my answer

is, that neverthelesse they are Hereticks, ex∣tending the name of Hereticks, to those whom now we call Schismaticks, as I have shewed you, in the little Discourse, pag. 197. that it is often used. For S. John, as he com∣mands not, so he forbids not, that they be admitted to Penance, the other Apostle tels them, it is impossible, to let them know, that they must not expect it: But neither says, that the Church could not give it. When therefore the Church, to preserve Unity, was necessitated to grant it, as we see by S. Cy∣prian, the Novatians were no lesse Schisma∣ticks, in making separation upon the quarrell, (though perhaps the reason be not urged by their adversaries) then if they had under∣stood the Text amisse: The Unity of the Church, being of more moment, then much understanding in the Scriptures. And so, perhaps, S. Pauls words will belong to this purpose, 1 Tim. 5. 19. as, not onely the So∣cinians of late, but Pacianus among the An∣cients, Paraen. ad Poenitentiam, and Matthaeus Galenus among modern Writers, do expound them: To wit, that when he saith, Lay hands suddenly on no men, nor partake of other mens sins: he leaves it to Timothies judgement, whom to admit, whom not to admit to Pe∣nance: Because this Blessing with Impositi∣on of hands, was not the mark of Absoluti∣on,

but of admission to Penance, as well as the ceremony of Ordinations. And though this Text of the Apostle, be understood in particular of Ordinations, yet, by the same reason which he allegeth, it is to be extended to all Acts of the Church, that are blessed, by the Prayers of the Church, with Imposi∣tion of Hands. For if Timothy, by Imposing hands upon those whom he Ordains, become accessary to their sins, if they be unfit to be Ordained; by the same reason, if he Impose Hands, that is, grant Penance unto them that are not fit for it, he becomes accessory to the sins which they commit by being ad∣mitted to it. Imposition of Hands being no∣thing else, but a ceremony of that Benedicti∣on, which signifieth, that those Acts to which it is granted, are allowed and authori∣zed by the publique Power of the Church. So Imposition of Hands in Confirmation, is the admission of him that is confirmed to the communion of the Visible Church; In Penance, the restoring of him: In Ordination, to the exercise of this or that function in the Church: Prayer, over the sick, which the Apostle commands, James V. 14. and our Lord in the Gospel made with Imposition of Hands, signified the admitting of the sick to Penance: And it is said, that in some Ea∣stern Churches, to this day, mariages are bles∣sed

with Imposition of Hands, in significati∣on, that the Church alloweth of them, which, as it was alwayes the right of the Church to doe, as I shall observe in another place, so it appeareth so to be, in that mari∣age was never celebrated among Christians, without the Prayers of the Church. And this observation I insist upon the more chearfully, because it much strengtheneth the argument, which the Church maketh, for the Baptism of Infants, from the Act of our Saviour in the Gospel, when he blessed the Infants with Imposition of Hands. For if all Imposition of Hands be an act of the publique Power of the Church, allowing that which is done with it, then can this Im∣position of Hands signifie no lesse, then, that those to whom our Lord granteth it, belong to his Kingdome of the Visible Church. One little objection there lies against this, from the incestuous person at Corinth, whom S. Paul, in his second Epistle, seems to readmit to communion, his crime being as deep as Adultery, which, we say, the rigor of A∣postolicall Discipline admitted not to Pe∣nance. To which I have divers things to an∣swer. That this cannot be objected, but by him that acknowledges, that he was excom∣municate by the former Epistle. That Ter∣tullian in his Book de Pudicitiâ, disputes at

large, that it is not the same case which is spoken of in both Epistles. That the crime here specified, perhaps, is not of the number of those, which from the beginning were ex∣cluded from Penance. But, waving all this, as I excepted two cases, in which men were bap∣tized without regular triall, so supposing the Rule to take hold in this case, it is no incon∣venience to grant, that S. Paul might wave the rigor of Discipline, so setled, as suppo∣sing there might be cause to wave it. If this opinion seem new, my purpose requires but these two Points, that the Penance practised by the ancient Church, supposed Excom∣munication, which it only abateth: and, that it was instituted by the Apostles; and, for that, there is enough said, I suppose, even to them that beleeve not, that the Apostles ex∣cluded any kinde of crimes from Penance. Besides that of S. Paul, blaming the Corin∣thians, that they were puffed up, and had not rather lamented, that he that had done the evil, might be put from among them, 1 Cor. V. 2. And again, fearing, that when he returned, he should be forced to lament many, 2 Cor. XII. 21. Which, if we compare with the Primitive solemnity of Excommunication, which by the constitutions of the Apostles, II. 16. and other ways, we understand, was, to put the person out of the Church doors with mour∣ning,

it will appear, that Epiphanius is in the right, in expounding this later Text to this purpose, Haer. LIX. num. 5. The power of Ex∣communication then, by all this, is no more, then the necessary consequence, of the Pow∣er of admitting to Communion, by Baptism: Which, if it imply a contract with the Church, to live according to the rule of Christianity, then it is forfeit to him, that evidently does that, which cannot stand with that rule, and the Church not tied to restore it, but as the person can give satisfaction, to observe it for the future.

Now, I will make short work with Erastus his long labour, to prove, that there is no Excommunication commanded by the Law. I yeeld it. And make a consequence, which will be thought a strange one: But I have it from the speculation of Origen, in Levit: Hom. XI. and others, why the Church should onely be inabled to Excommunicate, where∣as the Synagogue was inabled to put to death? From the observation of S. Augu∣stine, Quaest. in Deuteronom. V. 38. de Fide & Operibus cap. VI. and others, that Excommu∣nication in the Church is the same that the power of life and death in the Synagogue. My argument is then, that the Church is to have the power of Excommunication, be∣cause the Synagogue had the power of life

and death. And the reason of the conse∣quence this: Because, as the Law, being the condition of the Covenant, by which, the benefit of the Commonwealth of Israel was due, inabled to put to death, such as destroy∣ed it: So the Gospel, being the condition of the Covenant, that makes men denizons of the spirituall Jerusalem, must inable, to put them from the society thereof that forfeited it. It is not my intent hereby to say, that there was no Excommunication under the Law: For, I doe beleeve, that we have men∣tion of it in Ezra X. 8. grounded, if I mistake not, upon the Commission of the King of Persia, recorded Ezr. VII. 26. for, that which is here called rooting out, seems to be the same, that is called in the other place, divi∣ding from the Synagogue of the Captives. Be∣ing indeed, a kinde of temporall Outlawry, to which is joined, confiscation of Goods. For, so saith Luther truly, that the greater Excommunication among Christians, is eve∣ry where a temporall punishment, to wit, in regard of some temporall punishment atten∣ding it, in Christian States, which, in Chri∣stianity, is accidentall, by Act of those States, in Judaisme essentiall, so long as those tem∣porall advantages, which were the essentiall condition of the Law, were not forfeited. And this, without doubt, is the same punishment,

which the Gospels call putting out of the Syn∣agogue: Though, I cannot say, so perem∣ptory, for the temporall effects of it: Which, severall Soveraigns could easily limit, to se∣verall terms. For, the right that Ezra might have, to introduce this penalty, is clear, by the Law, of Deut. XVII. 12. which, inabling to put them to death, that obeyed not the Synagogue, inabled, to Excommunicate, to Banish, to Outlaw them, much more. But, as, we see, the Romanes allowed them not the power of life and death, which the Per∣sians granted them, so I am not to grant, that, putting out of the Synagogue in the Gospel, implieth the extinguishing, of the civill being of any Jew. The Talmud Do∣ctors say, that, those that were under the greater Excommunication, were to dwell in a cotage alone, and to have meat and drink brought them, till they died. Arba Turim, or Shulchan Auroh, in Jore Dea, Hilcoth Nid∣dui Voherem. A speculation sutable to their condition, in their dispersions, which, no man is bound to beleeve, how far it was in force, and practice. But, suppose the Synagogue in the same condition with the Church afore Constantine, injoying no privilege, but to serve God according to the Law, as the Church according to the Gospel: And then, as the Synagogue must always have power

to excommunicate, which had power to put to death; so, I say, is the Church inabled by our Lord to doe, what, I have shewed, the Apostles did doe, by Mat. XVIII. 18. I yeeld, that the terms of binding and loosing, are used by the Jews, to signifie, the decla∣ring, of what is prohibited and permitted by the Law: But I yeeld not, that it can be so understood here, because, the ground of this declaration ceaseth, under the Gospel; be∣ing derived from the sixe hundreth and thir∣teen Precepts of the Law, and from the pow∣er of the Priests and Doctors, to determine all cases, which the Law had not determi∣ned, in dependence upon the great Consisto∣ry at Jerusalem, by the Law of Deut. XVII. 12. which Precepts, and which Power, being voided by the Gospel, can any man think, that the Power of binding and loosing, here given the Church, is to be understood of it? Besides, it is, in the promise made to S. Pe∣ter, Mat. XVI. 19. said expresly, to be the act of the Power of the Keys. And what is that? Is it not an expression, manifestly bor∣rowed, from that which is said to Eliakim sonne of Hilkiah, Es. XXII. 23. I will give thee the Keys of the House of David: Where∣upon our Lord, Apoc. III. 7. is said to have the Key of David, that is, of the House of David? whereby the Apostles under our

Lord, are made Stewards of the Church, as Eliakim of the Court, to admit and exclude whom he pleased. And so it is manifest, that the Power of the Keys, given S. Peter, Mat. XVI. 19. as the Church, Mat. XVIII. 18. is that power, which you have seen practised under the Apostles, of admitting to, and ex∣cluding from the Church, by Baptism and Pe∣nance. So S. Cyprian expresly understandeth the Power of the Keys to consist in Baptizing. Ep. LXXIII. And of Penance, that which fol∣loweth is an expresse argument, as I have observed p. 129. of that short Discourse: For having said, whatsoever ye binde—he ad∣deth immediately, again I say to you, that if two of you agree to ask any thing, it shall be done you by my Father in heaven. For the means of pardon, being the Humiliation of the Pe∣nitent, injoined by the Church, and joined with the prayers thereof, as hath been said, the consequence of our Saviours discourse, first, of informing the Church, then, of bind∣ing and loosing, lastly, of granting the pray∣ers of the Church, shews, that he speaks of those prayers, which should be made, in be∣half of such, as were bound, for not hearing the Church. And hereby we see, how bind∣ing & loosing of sins, is attributed to the Keys of the Church. Which, being made a Visible Society, by the power of holding Assem∣blies,

to which no man is to be admitted, till there be just presumption, that he is of the heavenly Jerusalem, that is above: As the power of judging, who is and who is not thus qualified, presupposes a profession, so, that, an Instruction, obliging the obedience of them, which seek remission of sinnes by the Gospel, and therefore, confidently assuring it, to them which conform themselves. In a word, because, admitting to, and excluding from the Church, is, or ought to be, a just and lawfull presumption▪ of admitting to, or excluding from heaven, it is morally, and le∣gally, the same Act, that intitleth to heaven, and to the Church, that maketh an heir of life everlasting, and a Christian, because, he that obeyeth the Church, in submitting to the Gospel, is as certainly, a member of the invisible, as of the visible Church. Herewith agree the words of our Lord, Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican: Not as if Heathens could be excommunicate the Syn∣agogue, who never were of it, or, as if the Jews then durst excommunicate Publi∣canes, that levied Taxes for the Romanes: But because, by their usage, of Publicanes and Gentiles, it was proper for our Lord to signifie, how he would have Christians to use the excommunicate; there being no reason why he can be thought, by these words, to

regulate the conversation of the Jews, in that estate, so long as the Law stood, but to give his Church Rules, to last till the worlds end. The Jews then, abhorred the company, not onely of Idolaters, to testifie how much they abhorred Idols, and to maintain the peo∣ple in detestation of them (by ceremonies, brought in by the Guides of the Synagogue, for that purpose) but all those that conver∣sed with Idolaters. For this cause, we see, they murmure against our Lord, for eating with Publicans; they wash when they come from market, where commonly they con∣versed with Gentiles, and, which is strange, such as Cornelius was, being allowed to dwell among them by the Law, professing one God, and taking upon them the precepts of the sons of Noe, yet are the converted Jews scandalized at S. Peter, for eating with Corne∣lius, Acts XI. 2. These Rules are made void by the Gospel. For S. Paul tells the Corin∣thians expresly, that they are not to forbear the company of Gentiles, for those sinnes, which their Profession imported; but if a Christian live in any of those Heathen vices, with him, they are not so much as to eate, 1 Cor. V. 11. to wit, as it followeth immedi∣ately, being condemned by the Church up∣on such a cause: For, saith he, What have I to doe to judge them that are without? do not ye

judge those that are within? But those that are without, God judgeth: And ye shall take the evill man from among you. That is, are not you, by the power you have, of judging those that are within, to take away him that hath done evill? leaving to God, to judge those without. Here the case is plain, there is pow∣er in the Church, to judge, and take away of∣fenders: Of which power the Apostle speaks, Tit. III. 9. when he says, that Hereticks are condemned of themselves, if we follow S. Hie∣romes exposition, which seems unquestiona∣ble. For experience convinces, that most Hereticks think themselves in the right; so farre they are from condemning themselves, in their consciences. But, they condemne themselves, by cutting of themselves from the Church, which other sinners are con∣demned to by the Church. Neither is it any thing else then Excommunication which the Apostle signifieth, by delivering to Sa∣tan, 1 Cor. V. 6. saving, that he expresseth an extraordinary effect, that followed it in the Apostles time, to wit, that those which were put out of the Church, became visibly sub∣ject to Satan, inflicting Plagues and diseases on their bodies, which might reduce them to repentance, which the Apostle calleth, the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. As he

saith of Hymenaeus and Philetus, 1 Tim. I. 21. whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. For it is not to be doubted, that the Apostles had power, like that which S. Peter exercised on Ananias and Sapphira, thus to punish those that opposed them, as S. Paul divers times intimates in the Texts which I have quoted in another place: provided by God, as the rest of miraculous Graces, to evidence his presence in the Church. These particulars, which I huddle up together by the way, might have been drawn out, into severall arguments, but I content my self with the consequence, by which, the Patent of this Power in the Go∣spel, is cleared, upon which Patent, all the Power of the Church is grounded. That is, if Christians are onely to abstain from eating with excommunicate persons, as Jews did with Publicanes and Gentiles, then Excom∣munication is to be understood, when our Lord saith, Let him be to thee as a Heathen, and a Publicane. As for that which is said, that the excommunicate among the Jews, were not excluded either Temple, or Syna∣gogue, therefore it was a secular punishment: It is a mistake. That which the Jews call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was not Excommunication, no more then that, which the Constitutions of the Apo∣stles call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the same, being

but a step to it, like that which is now com∣monly called the lesse Excommunication: And therefore, he that was under this cen∣sure, among the Jews, was, but in part, re∣moved from the communion, as well of sa∣cred as civill society: For, it hath been shew∣ed very learnedly, in the Book of the Pow∣er of the Keyes, that hee stood as much removed from the one as from the o∣ther, because that, as well in the Syna∣gogue, as at home, no man was to come within his four cubits. But when the Tal∣mud Doctors determine, that the excommu∣nicate dwell in a Cotage apart, and have su∣stenance brought him, such a one was past comming into the Temple or Synagogue. And so, I suppose, was he that was put out of the Synagogue, for acknowledging our Lord Christ to be a true Prophet, John IX. 35. For, they which, afterwards, were wont to curse all his followers, in their Syna∣gogues, as Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. and Epiphanius, Haer. XXX. tell us, that they did in their time, are not like to endure, in their society, whether sacred or civill, him, that, in their interpretation, was fallen from Moses. And thus is the Power of the Keys clearly grounded upon this Charter of the Gospel, and all the Right of the Church upon it.

Onely one Objection yet remains, which to me hath always seemed very difficult, for it is manifest, that our Lord speaketh here of matters of interesse, between party and par∣ty, when he saith, If thy brother offend thee—and it may justly seem strange, that our Lord should give the Church power, to excom∣municate those, that will not stand to the sentence of the Church, in such matters. But so it is. The Jews, in their dispersions, were fain to have recourse to this penalty, to in∣force the Jurisdiction of their own Bodies, lest, if causes should be carried thence, before Heathen Courts, Gods name should be blas∣phemed, and the Gentiles scandalized at his people, saying, See what peace and right there is, among those that professe the true God! For the same causes, our Lord here estateth the same Power upon the Church. Whereof I cannot give a more sufficient and effectuall argument, then by shewing, that it was in use under the Apostles: Though the place out of which I shall shew this, is hither∣to otherwise understood, because men con∣sider not, that it is not against Christianity, that there be severall seats, for severall ranks and dignities of the world, in the Church: And therefore, that it is not that, which the Apostle findes fault with, James II. 1. when he forbids them to have the Faith of God with

respect of persons. But the Synagogue which he speaketh of in the next words, is to be un∣derstood, of the Court, where they judged the causes and differences, between members of the Church. For, that the Jews were wont to keep Court in their Synagogues, we learn not onely by the Talmud Doctors, Maimoni by name, in the Title of Oaths, cap. IX. where he speaketh particularly, of the case of an Oath made in the Synagogue, when the Court sate there, but by that which we finde in the New Testament, Mat. X. 17. XXIII. 34. Mar. XIII. 9. Acts XXII. 19. XXVI. 11. as wel as in Epiphanius, Haer. XXX. that they used to scourge in their Syna∣gogues: To wit, where sentence was given, there justice was executed. Wherefore, be∣ing converted to Christianity, they held the same course; as appears by the words of the Apostle that follow, Doe ye not make a diffe∣rence among your selves, and are become Jud∣ges of evill thoughts? and again, If ye accept persons, ye commit sin, being reproved by the Law. By what Law, but by that which saith, Thou shalt not accept persons in judgement? Lev. XIX. 15. For the execution of which Law, it is expresly provided, by the Jews Constitutions, in Maimoni, Sanedrin ca. XXI. that when a poor man and a Rich plead toge∣ther, the Rich shall not be bid to sit down,

and the poor stand or sit in a worse place, but both sit, or both stand, which, you see, is the particular, for which the Apostle char∣ges them, to have the Faith of Christ with respect of persons: That is, to shew favour, in the causes of Christians, according to their persons. The same course, we may well pre∣sume, was setled by the Apostles at Corinth, by the blame S. Paul charges them with, for going to Law before Infidels. 1 Cor. VI. 1, 2. For, how should he blame them for doing that, which they had not order before not to doe? And therefore, if our Lord, in this place, give the Church power, to excommu∣nicate those that stand not to the sentence of the Church, much more those that violate the Christianity which they have professed. And this is also here expressed, when, from the particular he goes to the generall, say∣ing, Whatsoever ye binde on earth—giving thereby, the same power to the Church here, which he gave to S. Peter, Mat. XVI. 19. and to the Apostles, John XX. 22. And so, we have here, two Heads, of the causes of Ex∣communication: The first, of such things as concern the conscience and salvation of particular Christians, when they commit such sins as destroy Christianity: The se∣cond, of such, as concern the community of the Church, and the unity thereof, in which,

not the act, but the contumacy, the not hea∣ring of the Church, makes them subject to this sentence.

It is not my purpose to say, that these nice reasons are to be the Title, upon which the right of the Church to this power, standeth or falleth: But, that, being in possession of it, upon a Title as old as Christianity, and demonstrable by the same evidence, it cannot be ejected out of this possession, by any thing in the Scripture, when it is rightly under∣stood. One objection there is more, in con∣sequence to this last reason, that, if the Church have power to sentence civile causes of Christians, and by Excommunication to inforce that sentence, when States professe Christianity, all civill Laws will cease, and all Judicatories be resolved into one Consistory of the Church. The answer to this, I deferre, till I come to shew, the Right of the States that professe Christianity, in Church mat∣ters, where it will easily appear, how this in∣convenience ceaseth. In the mean time, the Soveraign power of the Church consisting in the Sword of Excommunication, upon which the Society thereof is founded, it is necessarily manifest, that this power is not lost to the Church, nor forfeit to the State, that professes Christianity, and undertakes the protection of the Church. For the

Church, and civill Societies, must needs re∣main distinct bodies, when the Church is in∣graffed into the State, and the same Chri∣stians members of both, in regard of the Relations, Rights, and Obligations, which, in the same persons, remain distinct, accor∣ding to the distinct Societies, and qualities of severall persons in the same. Therefore, as I said in the beginning, that no Christian, as a Christian, can challenge any temporall Right, by his Christianity, which, the State wherein he is called to be a Christian, gi∣veth him not: So on the other side, no man, by his rank in any State, is invested with any power, proceeding from the foundation of the Church, as it is the Church. So, that which is true in the parts, holds in the whole. The Church is indowed with no temporall Right, therefore the State is indowed with no Ecclesiasticall Right, though it hath great Right in Ecclesiasticall matters, of which in due time. For, all this Right, sup∣poseth the Church already established, by that power on which it standeth, and so, must maintain it, upon the same terms which it findeth. The homage which the Church paieth to God, for the protection of the State, is, not to betray the Right, founded on the expresse Charter of God, to Powers subsisting by the works of his mediate Pro∣vidence:

But, to subdue subjects, to that obedience, for conscience, which the State exacteth by force. For there is necessarily this difference, between the principles, upon which the Church and civill Communities subsist. The Charter of the one is revealed by Grace: The others stand upon the Laws of Nature and Nations, and acts, which Pro∣vidence inables men to doe, agreeable to the same. Therefore, as no State stands by the Gospel, so, no right setled by the Gospel, can belong to any State, or person, as a mem∣ber of any State. Besides, Kingdomes and States have their severall bounds: Many Soveraignties are contained in Christendom, whereas the Church, is, by Gods Ordi∣nance, one Visible Society of all Christians: Now it is manifest, first, that there are some things, which equally concern the whole Church, and all parts of it: Secondly, that in things which concern the whole Church, no part thereof, in any State or Kingdome, can be concluded by that State or Kingdome. Again, the Apostles Rule is, 1 Cor. VII. 24. that every man abide in the State wherein he is called to be a Christian: And this proves, that no Christian can challenge any temporall right by his Christianity, because States subsist before they are Christian: Therefore it proves also, that no State, or

member of it, is, by being such, endowed with any Right, grounded on the constituti∣on of the Church. And therefore, seeing the Church subsisted three hundreth years before any State professed Christianity, whatsoever Rights it used, during that time, manifestly it ought therefore, still, to use and enjoy: this being the most pertinent evidence to shew the bounds of it. In particular, as to the Power of the Keys, and Excommu∣nication, the act of it, seeing the intent of it is, to admit into the Visible Society of the Church, upon presumption, that by the right use of it, sinne is taken away, and the person admitted to the invisible Society of life everlasting; and, seeing no Common∣wealth, no quality in any, pretendeth to take away sinne, or to judge in whom it is taken away, it followeth, that no man whatsoever, by virtue of any rank, in any State, is qua∣lified to manage this Power, or can presume so to doe.