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

CHAP. IV.

Secular Persons, as such, have no Ecclesiasticall Power, but may have Soveraign Power in Ecclesiasticall matters. The Right of gi∣ving Laws to the Church; and the Right of Tithes, Oblations, and all Consecrations, how Originall, how Accessory to the Church. The Interesse of Secular Powers in all parts of the Power of the Church.

THese things thus determined, and the whole Power of the Church thus li∣mited, in Bishops and Presbyters, with reservation of the Interesse of the Peo∣ple specified, it follows necessarily, that no Secular person whatsoever, endowed with Soveraign or subordinate Power, in any State, is thereby endowed with any part of this Ecclesiasticall Power, hitherto descri∣bed. Because it hath been premised for a Principle, here to be reassumed, that no State, by professing Christianity, and the protecti∣on thereof, can purchase to it self, or defeat the Church of any part of the Right, where∣of

it stands possessed, by the Originall insti∣tution of our Lord and his Apostles; and therefore no person, indowed with any qua∣lity, subsisting by the Constitution of any State, can challenge any Right, that subsisteth by the Constitution of the Church, and therefore belongeth to some person qualifi∣ed by the same. For, Ecclesiasticall Pow∣er, I understand here, to be onely that, which subsisteth by the Constitution of the Church; And therefore all by Divine Right, to all that acknowledge, no humane authority, capable of founding the Church: And therefore, by Divine Right, invested in the Persons of them that have received it, me∣diately or immediately, from the Apostles: (seeing it is no ways imaginable, how any man can stand lawfully possessed of that Power, which is effectually in some body else, from whom he claimeth not:) And therefore not to be propagated, but by the free act of them that so have it. But I in∣tend not hereby, to exclude Secular Powers, from their Right in Church matters: But in∣tend to distinguish between Ecclesiasticall Power, and Power in Ecclesiasticall matters: and these to distinguish, by the originall, from whence they both proceed, because, so, we shall be best able, to make an estimate of the effect, which both of them are able to pro∣duce,

according to the saying observed afore, that the water rises no higher then it descen∣ded afore. For, if, by Ecclesiasticall Pow∣er, we mean that, which arises from the Con∣stitution of the Church, it is not possible, that by any quality, not depending on the same, any man should be inabled to any act that doth. But if Power in matters of Re∣ligion, be a Power necessary, to the subsi∣stence of all States, then have Christian States, that Power in the disposing of Chri∣stianity, which all States in generall have, in the disposing of those things, which concern that Religion which they suppose and pro∣fesse. And, this to prove, I will not be much beholding to the Records of Histories, or to the opinions and reasons of Philosophers: Seeing common sense alone is able to shew us, that there is not any State, professing any Religion, that does not exercise an interesse, in disposing of matters of Religion, as they have relation, to the publique peace, tran∣quillity, and happinesse of that people. The Power of disposing in matters of Religion, is one part, and that a very considerable one, of that publique Power, wherein Soveraign∣ty consists, which subordinate Powers enjoy not, by any title, but as derived from the Soveraign. Wherefore, having premised for a principle in the beginning, that Chri∣stianity

makes no alteration in the state of civile Societies, but establishes all, in the same Right, whereof they stand possest, when they come to imbrace Christianity, I must inferre, that the publique Powers of Christian States, have as good Right, to the disposing of matters of Christianity, (so that, according to the institution of Christ, nothing, done by the Church, may prove prejudiciall to the State) as any Soveraign Power, that is not Christian, hath, in the dis∣posing of matters of that Religion which they professe. For, seeing it is part of the profession of Christianity, to confirm and establish, not to question or unsettle, any thing, which is done by civile Justice in any State, whatsoever secular Powers shall doe, towards maintaining the State of this world in tranquillity, cannot be prejudiciall to Christianity rightly understood: Neither can it be true Christianity, which cannot stand with the course of true civile Justice. It hath been effectually proved, by Church Writers, against the Gentiles, that, suppo∣sing them not to beleeve the Christian Faith, notwithstanding, they cannot, with civile Justice, persecute the Christians. And all upon this score, that Christianity containeth nothing prejudiciall to civile Society, but all advantageous. But though the Christian

Religion be grounded upon truth indeed re∣vealed from God, yet Religion; in generall, is a morall virtue, and part of the profession of all civile Nations: In so much as, that people, which should professe to fear no God, would thereby put themselves out of the protection of the Law of Nations, and give all civile people a Right and Title, to seek to subdue them, for their good, and to constrain them to that, which the light of nature is able to demonstrate, to be both true and due. For, how can any of them expect Faith and Troth in civile commerce; from them that acknowledge no reason for it? Or how can they be thought to acknow∣ledge any reason for it, that acknowledge no God to punish the contrary? Or how can they be but enemies of mankinde, from whom that cannot be expected? But, in Christianity, there is that particularity which I declared afore, that God hath declared his will and pleasure to be, that it be received in∣to the protection of all Kingdomes and Commonwealths. Wherefore, it is further the will of God, that secular Powers, that are Christian, act in the protection of Chri∣stianity, not onely as secular Powers, but as Christians: And, by consequence, that they hold themselves obliged to the maintenance of all parts of Christianity: That is, whatso∣ever

is of Divine Right, in the Profession and Exercise of it. But, it is very well said otherwise, that, this whole Right of se∣cular Powers in Ecclesiasticall matters, is not destructive, but cumulative: That is, that it is not able to defeat, or abolish any part of that Power, which, by the Constitu∣tion of the Church, is setled upon Ecclesia∣stical persons, but stands obliged to the main∣tenance and protection of it. For, seeing this Power, in the persons endowed with it by the Constitution of the Church, is a very consi∣derable part of that Right, which God hath established in his Church, it follows neces∣sarily, that no Power, ordained to the main∣tenance of all parts thereof, can extinguish this. And truly, he that advises but with his own common sense, shall easily perceive, that, Ecclesiasticall Power may be able to preserve Order and Discipline in the Church, by it self, so long as the World, that is, the State professes not Christianity, as we see it was, before the Romane Empire was Chri∣stian: But, when the State professes Christi∣anity, it cannot be imagined, that, persons qualified by the State, will ever willingly submit, to acknowledge, and ratifie the Pow∣er of the Church, in all the acts and procee∣dings thereof, unlesse the coactive Power of the Soveraign inforce it. All States there∣fore,

have Soveraign Power, as well in mat∣ters of Christian Religion as in other points of Soveraignty; That is, they are able to do all acts of Soveraign Power, in Church mat∣ters: To give Laws, as well concerning mat∣ters of Religion, as civile affairs: To exer∣cise Jurisdiction, about Ecclesiasticall cau∣ses: To Command in the same, which seems to be the most eminent act of Soveraignty, seeing, that giving of Laws, and Jurisdiction, are but particulars of that generall, the one, that is, giving Laws, in Generals, the other that is Jurisdiction, in particular causes: And both of them tending to limit that Power, of Command or Empire, which, otherwise, is absolute, in the disposition and will of the Soveraign. And therefore, the most civile people that ever was, the Romanes, have denominated Soveraignty, by this act of Command, Imperium, or Empire. But, all these acts of Soveraign Power in Church matters, being distinguished from the like acts of Ecclesiasticall Power, not by their materiall, but formall objects, that is, not by the Things, Persons, or Causes, in which, but by the reasons, upon which, and the in∣tents, to which they are exercised, must needs leave the Powers of the Church, intire, to all purposes, as it finds the same, in those that have it, by the constitutions of the Church.

Here are two Points of the Power of the Church, to be setled, before we go any fur∣ther: Not because of any affinity, or depen∣dence, between them, but because the reason is the same, which causes the difficulty in both. Whether there be an Originall Power in the Church, to give Laws, as to the So∣ciety of the Church: Whether there be an Originall Right in the Church, to Tithes, Oblations, First-fruits, and generally, to all consecrate things, seems to most men, more then disputable, because, the accessory acts of secular Powers, (which, in all Christian States, have made the Laws, by which Christianity is exercised, the Laws of those severall States, have established the endow∣ment of the Church upon it, by that coa∣ctive Power, which they onely in Chief are endowed with) being most visible to common sense, seem to have obscured the Originall Right of the Church, in both particulars. Over and besides all this, those of the Con∣gregations, deny the Church all Power of giving Laws, Rules, Canons, or, however you please to call them, to the Church: For, to this purpose, they make all Congregati∣ons absolute and Soveraign, that nothing be done in the Church, without the consent of every member of it. Not acknowledging so much as that Rule, which all humane So∣ciety

besides acknowledges, the whole to be bound by the act of the greater part: But requiring, that every mans conscience be sa∣tisfied, in every thing that the Church does, unlesse some happily appear wilfull, whom, by way of penalty, they neglect for that time. As for those of the Presbyteries, I cannot deny that they grant the Church this Power: But, it seems, upon condition that it may rest in themselves: For, to the Laws of this Church, in which they received and pro∣fessed Christianity, they oppose the saying of the Apostle, that it stands not with chari∣ty, for the Church to injoin any thing, which weak consciences may be offended at: And that of our Lord, that this would be will-worship, and serving of God according to humane traditions, which are all the argu∣ments, which those of the Congregations allege for their opinion, so farre as I can learn. It will be, therefore, worth the while, to consider the cases, which the Apostle de∣cides, upon that principle, though I have done it in part already, in my larger Dis∣course, p. 309. for, so long as the case is not understood, in which the Apostle alleges it, no marvell, if it be brought to prove that, which he never intended by it. We know he resolves, both the Romanes, and the Corinthi∣ans by this sentence: With the Corinthians,

the case was concerning the eating of things sacrificed to Idols: which, the Apostle ma∣nifestly distinguishes, that it may be done two ways, materially, and formally: mate∣rially, when a man eats it as a creature of God, giving him thanks for it; which the Apostle therefore determines to be agreeable to Chri∣stianity, 1 Cor. VIII. 7. formally, when a man eats it with conscience of the Idoll, as a thing sacrificed to it, as the Apostle expresses it, that is, with a religious respect to it, which, therefore, he shews at large to be Ido∣latry, 1 Cor. X. 7, 14—Wherefore, though things sacrificed to Idols, be as free for Christians to eat, as any men else, yet, in some cases, and circumstances, it so fell out, that a Christian, eating with a Gentile, of their Sacrifices, (the remains whereof, were the cheer, which they feasted upon, and their Feasts, part of the Religion, which they ser∣ved their Idols with) might be thought, by a weak Christian, to hold their Sacrificing, as indifferent, as their meat, and he that thus thought, be induced, to eat them, formally, as things offered to Idols: As eating them in the Temples of Idols, or, at a Feast made by a Gentile, upon occasion of some Sacrifi∣ces, 1 Cor. VIII. 10. X. 27. In this case, the Apostle determines, that charity requires a Christian, to forbear the use of his free∣dome,

when the use of it, may occasion a weak Christian, to fall into misprision of I∣dolatry. But, among the Romanes, the case which S. Paul speaks to, was between Chri∣stians converted from Jews, and from Gen∣tiles; as appears by the particulars, which he mentions to be scrupled at, to wit, days and meats, kom. XIV. 2, 5. and the offence likely thereby to come to passe, this, that Jewish Christians, seeing the Heathenish eat things forbidden by the Law, (and, perhaps, among the rest things sacrificed to Idols, forbidden, not by the letter of the Law, but by the in∣terpretation and determination of it, in force, by the authority of the Synagogue, or Con∣sistory) might imagine, that Christians re∣nounced the Law of God, and, by conse∣quence, the God of the Law, and so, out of zeal to the true God, fall from Christianity and perish: For this is, manifestly, the offence, and stumbling, which the Apostle speaks of, Rom. XIV. 13, 15, 20. as I have shewed out of Origen, in the place afore quoted. Here is then the sentence of the Apostle, that, when the use of those things, wherein Chri∣stians are not limited by the Law of God, becomes an occasion of falling into sin, to those that understand not the reason, of the freedome of Christians, charity requires a Christian, to forbear the use of this freedom.

From whence, who so inferres, that there∣fore, no Ecclesiasticall Law can be of force, when it meets with a weak conscience, and therefore never, because it may always meet with such, will conclude the contrary of the Apostles meaning. For, when Christianity makes all things free to a Christian, that are not limited by Gods Law, it makes not the use of this freedome necessary to Christiani∣ty, the Apostle saying expresly, that the Kingdome of God is not meat and drink, Rom. XIV. 17. by consequence, not the observing, or not observing of days: That is, consists no more, in not eating, or not observing days, then in eating, & in observing them. So that, as he, that submits unto the Law of charity, must forbear his freedome once, and as of∣ten as the use of it ministreth offence, so for the same reason, must he always forbear the use of it, whensoever the use of it comes to be restrained, though not by Gods Law, yet by the Law of the Church: Because the greatest offence, the greatest breach of chari∣ty, is▪ to call in question, the Order establi∣shed in the Church, in the preservation whereof, the Unity of the Church consisteth. Whereunto thus much may be added, that, as the things that are determined by the Canons of the Church, are not determined by Gods Law, as to the species of the mat∣ter

and subject of them, yet, as to the autho∣rity from whence the determination of them may proceed, they may be said to be deter∣mined by Gods Law, in as much as by Gods Law that authority is established, by which those things are determinable, which the good Order and Unity of the Church re∣quires to be determined. The evidence of which authority, is as expresse in Gods Book, as it can be in any Book inspired by God. Those of the Congregations indeed, betake themselves here, to a Fort, which, they think, cannot be approached, when they say, that, what is written in the Scripture, is revealed from above, and therefore, the Laws that are there recorded, are no precedents to the Church, to use the like right. For, it is manifest, by the Scriptures of the Old Te∣stament, that there were many Laws, Ordi∣nances, Constitutions, or what you please to call them, in force at that time, which no Scripture can shew, to have been comman∣ded by revelation from God, as the Law of God. Daniel forbore the Kings meat, be∣cause, a portion of it, was sacrificed to their Idols, dedicating the whole to the honour of the same: That is, he forbore to eate things sacrificed to Idols materially. There∣fore, that Order which we see was afterwards in force among the Jews, was then in use and

practice: Not by the written Law of God; therefore by the determination of those, whom the Law gave Power to determine such matters. The Prophet Joel reckons up many circumstances, and ceremonies, of the Jews publick Fasts and Humiliations, Joel II. 15, 16, 17. which are so farre from being commanded by the law, that the Jews Do∣ctors confesse, there is no further Order, for any Fasts, in the Law, then that which they draw, by a consequence far enough fetched, out of Num. X. 9. where Order is given for making the Trumpets, which, they say, and the Prophet supposes, that their Fasts were proclaimed with. Maimoni, Tit. Taanith, cap. I. In another Prophet, Zac. VII. 3. VIII. 19. it appears, that there were set Fasts which they were bound to solemnize every year, on the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth moneths: As also it appears by the words of the Pha∣risee, Luc. XVIII. 12. that, the Mundays and Thursdays, were then, and before then, observed by the Jews, as since they have been: And, as you see the like done, in the Feast of Lots, ordained in Esthers time; and, that of the Dedication, in Judas Maccabcus his; And, in the same Prophet, Zac. XII. 12, 13, 14. you have a manifest allusion, to the Jews ceremonies, at their Funerals, recorded by Maimont in the title of Mourners, cap. IX.

clearly shewing, that they were in force in that Prophets time: As it is manifest, that they began, before the Law it self, not only by that which we reade of the Funerals of Jacob in Genesis, but chiefly, because it required an expresse Law of God, to derogate from it, as to the Priests, in the case of Aarons sons, Levit. X. 6. XXI. 1, 10, 11, 12. Many more there are to be observed in the Old Testa∣ment, if these were not enough to evidence, that which cannot be denied, that it appears indeed by Scripture, that there were such Laws in force, but that they were comman∣ded by revelations from God, is quite ano∣ther thing: Though men of learning, some∣times, make themselves ridiculous, by mis∣taking, as if all that is recorded in the Scri∣ptures, were commanded by God, when, all that comes from God, is, the record of them, as true, not the authority of them, as divine. The case is not much otherwise in the New Testament, where, it is manifest, that many Constitutions, Ordinances, or Traditions, (as the Apostle sometimes calls them, 1 Cor. XI. 2.) are recorded, which no man can say, that they obliged not the Church; and yet, this force of binding the Church, comes not from the mention of them, which we finde, in severall places of Scripture; (For, they must needs be in force,

before they could be mentioned, as such, in the Scriptures) but, from that Power, which God had appointed, to order and determine such things, in his Church. This difference indeed there is between the Old and New Testament, that this, being all written in the Apostles time, can mention nothing of that nature, but that, which, comming from the Apostles, might come by immediate revela∣tion from God: Which of the Old cannot be said. For, though there were Prophets, in all ages of it, and those Prophets endow∣ed with such trust, that if they commanded to dispense with any of Gods own positive Laws, they were to be obeyed, as appears by Elias, commanding to Sacrifice in Mount Carmell, contrary to the Law of Levit. XVII. 4. (and this, by virtue of the Law, Deut. XVIII. 18, 19. because, he that gave the Law by Moses, might, by another, as well dispense with it) yet it is manifestly certain, that ne∣verthelesse, they had not the power of ma∣king those Constitutions, which were to bind the people, in the exercise of their Religion, according to the Law. For, when the Law, makes them subject, to be judged by the Consistory, whether true Prophets or not; (whereupon, we see, that they were many times persecuted, and our Lord, at last put to death, by them, that would not acknow∣ledge

them, because they had not the grace to obey them, as you saw afore;) it cannot be imagined, that they were enabled, to any such act of government, as giving those Laws to the Synagogue. Especially, seeing, by the Law, of Deut. XVII. 8-12. this power, and this right, is manifestly setled upon the Con∣sistory. For seeing, that, by the Law, all que∣stions arising about the Law, are remitted to the place of Gods worship, where the Con∣sistory sate in all ages; and, the determina∣tion of a case doubtfull in Law, to be obey∣ed under pain of death, is, manifestly, a Law which all are obliged to live by: of necessity therefore, those who have power to deter∣mine what the written Law had not deter∣mined, doe give Law to the people. And this right, our Lord himself, who, as a Pro∣phet, had right to reprove even the publick government, where it was amisse, establishes, as ready to maintain them in it, had they submitted to the Gospel, when he says, Mat. XXIII. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair, all therefore that they teach you observe and doe: The Scribes and Pharisees, being, either limbs and members, or appen∣dences of the Consistory, who, under pain of death, were not to teach any thing, to deter∣mine any thing that the Law had not deter∣mined; contrary to that which the Consisto∣ry

had first agreed. Whereby it is manifest, that all these Laws and Ordinances afore∣named, and all others of like nature, which, all common sense must allow, to have been more then the Scripture any where mentions, are the productions, of this Right and Pow∣er, placed by God in the Consistory, on pur∣pose to avoid Schism, and keep the body of the people in Unity, by shewing them what to stand to, when the Law had not determi∣ned. So that this is nothing contrary to the Law of Deut. IV. 2. XII. 32. which forbid∣deth to adde to, or take from Gods Law: the Law remaining intire, when it is supplied, by the Power which it self appointeth. And, he that will see the truth of this with his eys, let him look upon the Jews Constitutions, compiled into the Body of their Talmud. Which, though they are now written, and in our Saviours time were taught from hand to hand: though, by succession of time, and change, in the State of that People, they cannot continue in all points the same, as they were in our Saviours time; yet, it is manifest, that the substance of them was then in force, because, whatsoever the Gospel mentions of them, is found to agree, with that which they have now in writing: And are all, manifestly, the effect of the lawfull power of the Consistory. Nor let any man

object, that they are the Doctrines of the Pharisees, which, they pretended, that Mo∣ses received from God in Mount Sinai, and delivered by word of mouth to his Succes∣sors; and that the Sadduces were of another opinion, who never acknowledged any such unwritten Law, but tied themselves to the letter, (as doth, at this day, one part of the Jews, which renounce the Talmud, and rest in the letter of the Law, who are there∣fore called Karaim, that is, Scripturaries.) For though all this be true, yet, neither Pha∣risees nor Sadduces then, neither Talmudists nor Scripturaries now, did, or do make que∣stion, of acknowledging such Laws and Constitutions, as are necessary to determine, that which grows questionable in the practice of the Law; but are both in the wrong, when as, to gain credit to those Orders and Constitutions, which both bodies respective∣ly acknowledge, the one will have them de∣livered by God to Moses, the other will needs draw them, by consequence, out of the letter of the Scripture: And so entitle them to God, otherwise then he appointed, which is, only, as the results, and productions of that pow∣er, which he ordained to end all matter of difference, by limiting that, which the Law had not. The same reason, necessarily takes place, under the New Testament, saving the

difference between the Law and the Gospel. For, under the Law, this power took place, in the practice of all Ceremoniall and Judi∣ciall Laws, proper to the Synagogue: As well, as in determining the circumstances and ceremonies of the worship of God, which still remains under the Gospel, saving the difference thereof from the Law. For, under the Gospel, there belong to Christianity, two sorts of things; The first whereof, are of the substance of Christianity, as, concer∣ning, immediately, the salvation of particu∣lar Christians. And, this kinde is further to be distinguished, into matter of Faith, and matter of life, or manners. The second, con∣cerns indeed the salvation of particular Christians, (as containing, the Unity of the Church, and the due exercise of all those Or∣dinances, which God will be served with, in the Unity of the Church) but mediately, as they are means, to beget, and preserve, in all Christians, those things of the former sort, that concern Faith or good maners. For, if it were morally possible to imagine, that a man, blamelesly deprived of all means of Communion with the Church, could be ne∣verthelesse endowed, with all parts of a Chri∣stian, in Faith and good manners, I doe not see, how any discreet Christian, could deny such a one, the end of Christianity, which is,

life everlasting. All things therefore, con∣cerning Faith and good Works, necessary to the salvation of particular Christians, are so revealed, or rather so commanded, by our Lord and his Apostles, that it is not possible for all the Church that succeeds, to declare any thing to be such, that is not, expresly, or by consequence, contained in their writings. For how shall all the Church be able, to adde any thing to this number, but by shew∣ing the same motives, which our Lord and his Apostles advanced to the World, to perswade them, not onely, that what they spoke, was revealed by God, but also, that they were sent, to require the World, to be∣leeve and obey them? But, as to that which concerns the Society of the Church, and the publick service of God, in the Unity of the same, what can we say our Lord in Person commanded, but the Power of the Keys, up∣on which it is founded, and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, in the Com∣munion whereof, the Unity of the Church consisteth? And his Apostles, how did they proceed in determining the rest? Surely, he that will say, that they never enacted any thing, till a revelation came on purpose from God, will fall under the same inconvenien∣cies, which render, the infallibility of the Pope, or the Church, ridiculous to common

sense. Which, if they beleeved themselves, sure, they would never call Councels, advise with Doctors, debate with one another, to finde what may truly be said, or usefully de∣termined, in matters of difference. In like manner, when the Apostles assemble them∣selves at Jerusalem, Acts XV. 1—to debate in a full meeting, with Saul and Barnabas, the Presbyters of Jerusalem, and the rest, what to resolve in the matter there questio∣ned; I say not they were no Prophets, or had no revelations from God, when he plea∣sed: But I say, it is manifest, that they pro∣ceeded not upon confidence of any revelati∣on, promised them, at this time and in this place, but upon the habituall understanding, which, as well by particular revelation from God, as by the Doctrine of our Lord, they had, proportionable to the Chief Power, over the whole Church, which they were trusted with. To speak ingenuously mine own opinion, which I seek not to impose up∣on any mans Faith, I do beleeve, that some person, of those that were then assembled in Councell, had a present inspiration, revea∣ling, that Gods will was, that the Decree there enacted, should be made. My reason is, because I observe, by divers passages of the Old and New Testaments, that God was wont, to send revelations to his Prophets,

at the publick Assemblies of the Church of Synagogue. As, at the sending of Saul and Barnabas, Acts XIII. 2. At the Ordination of Timothy, 1 Tim. IV. 14. At the Assemblies of the Corinthians, 1 Cor. XIV. 24, 25, 30. At Josaphats Fast, 2 Chron. XVIII. 14. At Saint Johns Ordinations; whereof Clemens, in the place afore alleged out of Eusebius his Ec∣clesiasticall Histories, saith, that the Apostle was wont to goe abroad, to Ordain such as were signified by the Holy Ghost: Where∣upon S. Paul saith, of the Presbyters of E∣phesus, That the Holy Ghost had set them over the flock, Acts XX. 28. and therefore, when it is said, Acts XV. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, I take it, that some such revelation is intimated. But, this not∣withstanding, when we see the message sent, the Church assembled, the cause debated, without assurance, of any such revelation to be made, whereof no Prophet had assurance till it came; we see, they proceeded not, up∣on presumption of it, but upon the consci∣ence of their ordinary power, and the habi∣tuall abilities, given them to discharge it. So that, from the premises, we have two rea∣sons, serving to vindicate the same Power to the Church. The first, because the Consti∣tutions in force under the Apostles, cannot be said to come, from particular extraordi∣nary

inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but from the ordinary power, of governing the Church, which was to continue. The se∣cond, because, by the proceedings of the Councell of Jerusalem it appears, that no revelation was a ground, or requisite, to the determining of the matter there in diffe∣rence. To which I adde a third, from S. Pauls words, 1 Cor. XI. 16. If any man be conten∣tious, we have no such custome, neither the Churches of God. Where, having disputed, by many reasons, that women were to vail their faces, at the Service of God, in the Church, he sets up his rest, upon laudable custome of the Church. Now, if custome be available, to create Right in the Church, as in civile Societies, then authority much more, without which, either prescribing, or al∣lowing, neither that custome which the Apo∣stle specifies, nor any other, could take place. And a fourth, from that observation, so ad∣vanced, and improved, that no man can deny it, but he that will make himself ridiculous, to all men of learning, besides the instances thereof in the premises, which is this: That, the Orders which the Apostles setled in the Church, saving the difference between the Law and the Gospel, are always, or at least most an end, drawn from the pattern of the Synagogue. Whereby it appeareth, that

the convenience of them was evident, not by revelation, but by humane discourse; but the force of them comes from the authority of the Apostles, prescribing or allowing them in the Church: Both which are always in the Church, though in lesse measure. Fifth∣ly, this is proved by the premises: Wherein I conceive it is proved, that the Clergy, in the Church, succeeds into the Authority, of the Jews Consistories, in the Synagogue: Wherefore, having shewed, that those Con∣sistories did give Law to the Synagogue, in all matters of Religion, not determined by God, it follows, that the same may be done in the Church. Sixthly, the same followeth, from the dependence of Churches. For, if Congregations be made independent, that no Christian may receive Law from man, wherein he is not satisfied of the will of God, then, having proved, that Congrega∣tions are not independent, it follows, that they are to receive Law, in all things, not contrary to the will of God. Seventhly, the exercise of this Power, in all ages of the Church, and the effects of it, in great vo∣lumes, of lawfull Canonicall decrees, though it be a mark of contradiction, to them that are resolved, to hate that which hath been, because it hath been, yet, to all, whose sen∣ses are not maleficiated with prejudice, it is

the same evidence of this Power, (though not always of the right use of it) by which, Christianity it self stands recommended to us. Lastly, can those of the Congregations say, that no publick act is done among them, without the free and willing consent of all, as satisfied in conscience, that it is the will of God, which is decreed? Then are they not men. For, among all men, there is diffe∣rence of judgement. If notwithstanding, they are inforced to proceed, why depart they from the Church? For, if those that place the Chiefe Power in Congregations, cannot avoid, to be tied, by other mens acts, why refuse they to be tied once for all, by such generall acts as Laws are? Which, as they must needs be done, by persons capable to judge, what the common good of the Church requires, (which, it is madnesse to imagine, that members of Congregations can be) so, they have the force, when they are once admitted, to contain the whole bo∣dy of the Church, agreeing to them, in U∣nity: Whereas, to acknowledge no such, tends to create as many Religions as per∣sons.

And now, to the objection of wil-worship, in the observation of humane constitutions, the answer will not be difficult. That sinne, I doe truly beleeve, to be of a very large ex∣tent,

as one of the extremes, opposite to the Virtue of Religion, understanding Religion to be, all service of God with a good con∣science. Thus, all the Idolatries of the Gen∣tile, all the superstitions of Judaism, and Ma∣humetism, are will-worships. For, man, be∣ing convinced of his duty to serve God, and neither knowing how to perform, nor wil∣ling to render that service which he requires, because inconsistent with his own inclinati∣ons, it follows, that, by a voluntary commu∣tation, he tender God something, which he is willing to part with, in stead of his concu∣piscences. Having condemnation, both for neglecting to tender that which is due, and for dishonouring God, by thinking him to be bribed, by his inventions, to wink at his sins. And therefore, I do grant, that the Consti∣tutions, which the Synagogue was by Gods Law enabled to make, were capable to be made, the matter of Superstition and will-worship, as indeed, in our Lords time, they were made. The reason, because, presuming to be justified by the works of the Law, and the Law, among them, being not onely the written, but that which was taught by word of mouth, the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees, (which, the Disciples of Christ, shall never enter into the Kingdome of hea∣ven, unlesse they exceed) consisted, not only

in the letter of the Ceremoniall and Judiciall precepts, but, in observing the determinati∣ons of their Consistories. And accordingly, I doe grant, that the Rules, Decrees, and Constitutions of the Church, are capable to be made the matter of the same sin; and, that they are made so, visibly, in divers customs, and practises of the Church of Rome. But is it a good reason to say, that, because humane Constitutions may be made the subject of superstition, and will-worship, therefore the Church hath no Power to make any, there∣fore the members of the Church are not ti∣ed to obey any? Or, may there not be su∣perstition, and will-worship, in abhorring, as well as in observing, humane Constitutions? If S. Paul be in the right, there may. For, if the Kingdome of God, consist in righteous∣nesse, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, not in eating or not eating, in observing or not observing days, by the same reason, it consists no more, in not doing, then in do∣ing, that which the Law of God determineth not. Wherefore, if any man imagine, that he shall please God in not observing, in refu∣sing, in opposing, in destroying humane Con∣stitutions, regulating the publick order of the Church, it is manifest, that this is, because he thinks he shall be the better Christian, by forbearing that, which God commands him

not to forbear, seeing he can finde in his heart to violate Unity and Charity, that he may forbear it.

Here, it may be demanded of me, why I expresse no other ground, of this Power, in the Church, then the indetermination of those things, which Order, and Unity re∣quires to be determined, in the Church: For, seeing matters of Faith are determined by Gods Word, it seems to follow, that the Church hath nothing to do, to determine of matters of Doctrine, in difference. And, seeing the Ceremonies of Divine Service, be∣sides the determining of that which the Scri∣pture determineth not, pretend further, to advance, and improve devotion, in the pub∣lick Worship of God; as I have discoursed more at large, in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service, ca. IX. It seems, if there be no other ground, for the Legislative Power of the Church, that the Church hath nothing to do, to institute such Ceremonies. To which I answer, that it is one thing to make that matter of Faith, which was not, another to determine matter of Faith, that is, to deter∣mine what members of the Church shall do, in acknowledging, or not acknowledging, that which is in question, to be, or not to be matter of Faith. For, if there be a Society of the Church, then must there be in the

Church a Power to determine, what the members thereof shall acknowledge, and professe, when it comes in difference: Which is, not to qualifie the subject, that is, to make any thing matter of Faith or not, but to de∣termine, that those, which will not stand to the Act of the Whole, that is, of those per∣sons, that have right to conclude the Whole, shall not be of it. So, the obligation, that such Acts produce, as it comes from the Word of God, which the Church acknow∣ledges, is a duty of Faith, but, as it relates, to the determination of the Church, as a duty of charity, obliging, to concurre with the Church, where it determineth not the con∣trary, of that which the Word of God de∣termineth. Again, when I say, the Church hath Power, to determine that which Gods Law determines not, I must needs be un∣derstood to mean, that, which shall seem to make most for the advancement of godli∣nesse. Now, the Scripture shews, by store of examples, of Ceremonies, in the Publick Service of God, under the Church, as well as under the Synagogue, that the institution of significative Ceremonies, in the Publick worship of God, doth make for the advance∣ment of godlinesse, otherwise, such had not been Ordained by the Apostles, and Gover∣nors of Gods ancient People. For, of this

nature, is the vailing of women, at Divine Service, of which S. Paul writes to the Co∣rinthians; the Kisse of Charity, so often men∣tioned in the writings of the Apostles, which the Constitutions of the Apostles, II. 57. and Origen upon the last to the Romanes, shew, to have been practised, before the Consecrati∣on, and the receiving of the Eucharist, to signifie the Charity in which they came to communicate; the many Ceremonies of Baptism, to which S. Paul alludes, in divers places, Col. II. 11, 12. III. 9, 10. Rom. VI. 4, 5. to wit, putting off old clothes, drenching in water, so as to seem to be buried in it, put∣ting on new clothes at their comming out: Which, being used in the Primitive Church, by these passages of S. Paul, we are sure, were Instituted by the Apostles. Of this na∣ture, are the gestures of Prayer, which we reade in the Scripture, that it was always the custome of Gods people, to make sitting, kneeling, or groveling, as the inward dejecti∣on of the minde, required, a greater or lesse degree, of outward humiliation of the bo∣dy, to produce, and maintain, as well as to signifie it. Thus, our Lord stands up to reade the Law, but sits down to Preach, Luc. IV. 16, 20. the one, to shew reverence to the Giver of the Law, the other, authority over the Congregation, which he taught as a Pro∣phet:

And therefore, I make no doubt, but that, in receiving the Book of the Law, he used that reverence, which was, and is used in the Synagogue; the like whereof by the Acts of the Primitive Martyrs, we under∣stand to have been used, to the Book of the Gospels; for, in the examination of one of them, you have, Qui sunt libri quos adoratis legentes? as we now, stand up at the reading of the Gospel. Of this nature, are the cere∣monies of the Jews publick Fasts, quoted afore out of the Prophet Joel, which, it seems, the Prophet Jonas taught the Ninevites, at their Fast, Jon. III. 5, 6. which, sure, have no force, to move God to compassion, but, as they move men to that humiliation which procures it; of this nature, is Impo∣sition of hands, used in the Scripture, in Bles∣sing, that is, in solemne Prayers, for other Persons, as in the Gospel over children, and sick persons, as in the Law Jacob lays hands on Josephs children, Moses on Joshua, and the LXX Presbyters, the Prophets, on such as they cured, 2 Kings VI. 11. whereup∣on it was received, by the Ordinance of the Apostles, in Confirmation, Penance, and Or∣dinations; as also, it is said to be still used in some Eastern Churches, at the Blessing of Mariages. In fine, the Frontlets, and the Scrols, which God appoints the Jews to set

upon their Fore-heads, and the Posts of their doores, Exod. XIII. 9. Deut. VI. 8. XI. 17. for my part, I make a great question, whe∣ther he obligeth them thereby, to use, accor∣ding to the letter, as they do: But, that com∣manding the effect, the remembrance of the Law, he should be thought to forbid the means, that is, the sensible wearing of such marks, that I count utterly incredible: See∣ing it was easie for them, to use such marks, and yet, to think themselves never a whit the holier for them, without the thing signified, though in our Lords time, they did so, as we see by his reproofs in the Gospel, and though by their writings, (Maimoni by name, in the Title of Finages, cap. III. and in the Title of Phylacteries, ca. XI. & XII.) we see, that still they do. And thus, upon the reasons advanced, that is, of determining that, which the Law of God determines not, fol∣lows the whole Power of the Church, in de∣ciding matters of Doctrine, in determining the circumstances and ceremonies of Gods publick worship, and of all the Ordinances of God, for the maintenance and exercise of the same. For, in instituting Ceremonies, signi∣ficative, not of Christ to come, (that indeed, and that onely is Judaism) but, of the Faith and devotion which we desire to serve God with, it is enough, that this power may be

exercised, to the advancement of godlinesse; if it be exercised otherwise then it ought, it is still to be obeyed, because the Unity of the Church is of great consequence to main∣tain, though we attain not that advancement of godlinesse, which the use of this Power ought to procure, but does not: And, if any Power should be void, because it is not used for the best, or, absolutely, not well used, then could no humane society subsist, either Sacred or Civile: Which must subsist, in all things, wherein it commands not the contrary, of a more ancient Law, which is Gods Law in our case.

From the premises, it will not be difficult to resolve, whether Councels be of Divine Right, or not, distinguishing between sub∣stance and circumstance, between the purpose and effect of them, and the manner of pro∣curing it. For, if we speak of giving Law to the Society of the Church, it is proved, that, (whether you take it for a Power, or a Duty, a Right, or a Charge, or rather both, seeing the one cannot be parted from the other) the Church may, and ought to pro∣ceed, to determine, what is not determined, but determinable, by consent of particular Churches, that is, by the consent of such persons, which have Power to conclude the consent, of their respective Churches:

Whereof, we have shewed, that none can ever be concluded, without the consent of their respective Bishops. But, if we speak of the circumstance, and manner of assembling, in one place, certain persons, in behalf of their severall Churches, with authority, to pre∣judice, and foresway, and preingage the con∣sent of the same: We have a precedent, or rather precedents, without a precept, in the Acts of the Apostles, where the Apostles are assembled to Ordain a twelfth Apostle, Acts I. 13.—where they are assembled to in∣stitute the Order of Deacons, Acts VI. 2—where Paul and Barnabas come from Antio∣chia and the Churches depending thereupon, to the Apostles and Church of Jerusalem, to take resolution in their differences, Acts XV. 1—where Paul goes in to James, to advise, how to behave himself without of∣fence, to the Christian Jews at Jerusalem, Acts XXI. 18—(for, the premises being admitted, all these meetings are justly and necessarily counted Synods, or Councels, both in regard of the Persons whereof they consisted, the consent of divers Apostles, be∣ing of as much authority to the Church, as the resolution of a Synod, and in regard of the matter determined at them, concerning the whole Church, in a high degree, especi∣ally at that time.) And we have a Canon

among those of the Apostles, (which ap∣pears very ancient, by the Canons of Nice, containing the same, and turning Custome into Statute Law) commanding, that Sy∣nods be held in every Province twice a year. But, when Tertullian tels us, that, in the parts of Greece, they held Councels ordinarily, he constrains us to beleeve, that in other parts of the Church they did not; and, when we reade of persecutions, against the ordinary assemblies of the Church, we must presume, that, as the persecution of Councells, would have made greater desolation in the Church, so must they needs be more subject to be persecuted. And, by Eusebius, and the rest of the Ecclesiasticall Histories, and by the communication of the Primitive Bishops, Clemens, Ignatius, Polycarpus, S. Cyprian, and the rest, as they follow, still extant in their Epistles, we understand, that their personall Assemblies were supplied by their Formatae, or letters of mark, whereby, the acts of some Churches, the most eminent, being appro∣ved by the rest, after they were sent to them, purchased the same force with the Acts of Councels. Wherefore, the holding of Councels, is of Divine right, so farre as it is manifest to common sense, that it is a rea∣dier way to dispatch matters determinable, though, when it cannot be had, not abso∣lutely

necessary. But it is always necessary, that, seeing no Church can be concluded, without the Bishop thereof, the Bishops of all Churches, concurre to the Acts that must oblige their Churches. Not so their Presby∣ters, because it is manifest, that all Presby∣ters cannot concurre, though upon particu∣lar occasion, some may, as the Presbyters of the Church where a Councell is held, as at Jerusalem, Acts XV. 6. which we finde, therefore, practised, in divers Councels of the Church. As, to supply the place of their Bishops, by deputation in their absence, or, perhaps, as to propound matters of extraor∣dinary consequence. As for the whole Peo∣ple, to be concluded by the Act of a Coun∣cell, as all cannot always be present, suppo∣sing the dependence of Churches, so nothing hinders any part thereof to intercede in any thing, contrary to Christianity, that is, of the substance thereof, or of Divine right. Therefore, in the Order of holding Coun∣cels, which is wont to be put before the Vo∣lumes of the Councels, the people is allow∣ed to be present, as they were at Jerusalem, Acts XV. 12, 13, 22.

I come now to a nice Point, of the Ori∣ginall Right of the Church, to Tithes, First-fruits, and Oblations: For, as it cannot be pretended, that the same measure which the

Law provideth, is due under the Gospel, so it is manifest, that the quality of Priests and Levites, to whom they were due, is ceased as much, as the Sacrifices which they were to attend; and it is certain, that they were maintained, expresly, in consideration of that attendance. This difficulty must be resol∣ved, by the difference between the Law and the Gospel. The Law expresly provideth onely, for the Ceremoniall Service of God, in the Temple, by Sacrifices, and Figures of good things to come. But, no man doub∣teth, that there were always assemblies for the Service of God, all over the Country, for the opportunity whereof, in time, Syna∣gogues were built, where the Law was taught, and publick Prayers offered to God. This Office of Teaching the Law, cannot be restrained to the Tribe of Levi. So farre as the Prophets, and their Schools of Disci∣ples, furnished it not, their Consistories, which had the Authority to determine, what was lawfull, what unlawfull, were consequently charged with this Office. Now, they con∣sisted not onely of the Tribe of Levi, but in the first place, of the best of their Cities, to whom were added, as assistant, some of that Tribe, (unlesse we speak of the Priests Cities in particular, for, credibly, the Consistories of them, consisted only of Priests.) For, that

Tribe, being dispersed all over the Land, to gather their revenue, were, by that means, ready to attend on this Office, of assisting in Judgement, and Teaching the Law. So saith Josephus, Antiq. IV. 8. that the Consistories of particular Cities, consisted of seven, Chief of every City, assisted, each with two, of the Tribe of Levi, which, with a Presi∣dent, and his Deputy or Second, (such as we know the High Consistory at Jerusalem had) makes up the number of XXIII, which the Talmud Doctors say they consisted of. Therefore, it is a mistake, of them that think, the Scribes and Pharisees, whom our Lord commands to obey, had usurped the Office of the Priests and Levites. For, what hinders the Priests and Levites, to be Scribes and Pharisees themselves, though other Israelites were Scribes and Pharisees, besides Priests and Levites? Neither Pha∣risees, nor Priests and Levites, had this au∣thority, as Pharisees, or as Priests and Le∣vites, but as members or assistants of the Consistories. The reason, because Gods Law, whereby his worship was determined, was also the Civile Law of that People, be∣cause, the Land of Canaan was promised them, upon condition, of living according to it; therefore, the Teaching of the Law must belong to them, who, by the Law, were

to Judge, and Govern the People: God stir∣ring up Prophets from time to time, to clear the true meaning thereof from humane cor∣ruptions. So onely, the Service of the Tem∣ple, and only that Tribe, which attended on the Service of the Temple, was to be pro∣vided for, the rest being provided for, by the possession of the Land of Promise. But, when the service of God in Spirit and Truth, was to be established in all places, as well as at Jerusalem, and the Church incorporated by God, into one Society and Common∣wealth, for the exercise thereof, what en∣dowment God appointed this Corporation for the Exchequer of it, is best judged, by what appears to have been done in the Scri∣ptures, which cannot be attributed, but to the authority of the Apostles, the Gover∣nours of the Church at that time. At Je∣rusalem, the Contributions were so great in the beginning of Christianity, that many offered their whole estates, to maintain the community of the Church. Was this to ob∣lige all Christians ever after, to destroy ci∣vile society by communion of goods? As if there could be no other reason, why Chri∣stians should strip themselves of their estates at that time. The advancement of Christi∣anity, then in the shell, required continuall attendance of the whole Church, upon the

Service of God. This, withdrawing the greater part of Disciples, which were poor, from the means of living, required greater oblations of the rich. The Scripture teaches us, that the whole Church continued in the Service of God: So that, out of the common stock of the Church, common entertainment was provided for rich and poor, at which en∣tertainment, the Sacrament of the Eucharist was celebrated, as it was instituted by our Lord, at his last Supper. This is that which is called Breaking of Bread, Acts II. 42, 46. XX. 7. and, by the Apostle, 1 Cor. XI. 20. the Supper of the Lord, not meaning thereby, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but, this common entertainment, at which that Sacra∣ment was celebrated, which therefore is tru∣ly called the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, not the Supper of the Lord; for, you see, the Apostle complains, that, because the rich and the poor supped not together, therefore they did not celebrate the Supper of the Lord. The same thing it is, which S. Jude, ver. 12. calls their Feasts of Love. And, the atten∣dance upon this entertainment, was the cause of making the Deacons, which is called therefore the daily ministration, and atten∣dance at Tables, Acts VI. 1, ••. Now, will any man say, that those Primitive Christians, held not themselves tied to pay Tithes, that

offered all their estates? At Corinth, I be∣leeve S. Chrysostome, that this course was not frequented every day, as at Jerusalem, but, probably, the first day of the week, because upon that, the Disciples assembled at Troas, Acts XX. 7. or, perhaps, upon other occasi∣ons also; for, to have done always every where as at Jerusalem, would have destroied civile Society, which the Gospel pretendeth to preserve. But, those that offer the First-fruits of their goods to this purpose, when Secular Laws enable them not, to endow the Church with their Tithes, doe they not acknowledge that duty, and that, as taught by the Apostles, so to acknowledge it? For, can any living man imagine, that they were weary of their estates, if the Apostles, from whom they received their Christianity, had not informed them, that Christianity requi∣red it at their hands? In the next place, let us consider the contributions, which the Churches of the Gentiles, were wont to send to the Christians at Jerusalem, being brought low, by parting with their estates. It is to be understood, that the Jews, that lived out of their own Country, dispersed in the Ro∣mane and Parthian Empires, not being un∣der the Law of Tithes, which was given to the Land of Promise, nor resorting to the Temple, were, notwithstanding, in recom∣pense

of the same, wont to make a stock, out of which they sent their Oblations, from time to time, to maintain the Service of God, as is to be seen up and down in Jose∣phus, besides Philo and the Talmud Doctors. If then, the Churches of the Gentiles, in imitation hereof, contribute their Oblations, to support the Church of Jerusalem, and the Service of God there, (being then the Mo∣ther City of Christianity, before it was set∣led in the Capitall Cities of the Romane Empire) as by all those passages appears, which mention the Oblations of the Chur∣ches sent to Jerusalem, Acts XI. 30. XII. 25. Rom. XV. 26. 2 Cor. VIII. IX. per tot. 1 Cor. XVI. 1. Gal. II. 10. do they not therby openly professe themselves, taught by the Apostles, that they were under the same obligation, of maintaining the service of God, in the Church, as the Jews, in the Temple? Again, the A∣postle, having shewed, that Christians have the same right of communicating in the Sa∣crifice of Christ crucified, as the Jews, in the Sacrifices that were not wholly consumed by fire, in the passage handled afore, of Heb. XIII. 8-14. pursues it thus in the next words: By him then let us offer continually to God the Sacrifice of Praise, which is the fruit of the lips, giving thanks to his Name: But to doe good and communicate forget not, for

with such sacrifices God is well pleased. Where, by the Sacrifice of Praise, he means the Eu∣charist, as it is called usually, in the ancient Liturgies, and writings of the Fathers: For, to this purpose, is the whole dispute of that place, that, in that Sacrament, Christians communicate in the Sacrifice of Christ cru∣cified, (which Jews can have no right to) in stead of all the Sacrifices of the Law. And therefore, by doing good and communica∣ting, he means the Oblations of the faithfull, out of which, at the beginning, the poor and the rich lived in common at the Assemblies of the Church; and, when that course could no more stand with the succeeding state of the Church, both the Eucharist was celebra∣ted, and the persons that attended on the ser∣vice of God, were maintained. Therefore this obligation ceaseth not, though the Ce∣remoniall Law be taken away. The next ar∣gument is from the words of S. Paul, Ephes. IV. 11—in which, few or none take notice of any thing to this purpose, but to me, com∣paring them with the premises, it seemeth so expresse, that it were a wrong to the Church, so much concerned in them, to let them goe any longer without notice. He hath made (saith S. Paul) some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors, and Doctors. For the compacting of the Saints, for the work

of ministery, for the edification of the Body of Christ. That is, as it follows, that being sin∣cere in love, we may grow in all things, in him who is the Head, even Christ. From whom the whole Body, compacted and put together, by the furnishing of every limb, according to the wor∣king proportionable in every part, causeth the body to waxe, unto the edification of it self in love. Here you are to mark these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the New Testament, signifies, in a vulgar sense, to furnish any man maintenance, as Mat. XXV. 44. 1 Tim. II. 18. Heb. VI. 10. Luc. VIII. 2. 1 Pet. IV. 10. In another sense it is used to signifie the Service of God, in pub∣lishing the Gospel: but, almost always, with some addition, discovering the metaphor, by expressing the subject of that service, to wit, the Word, the Gospell, the Spirit, the New Covenant, Acts VI. 6. 2 Cor. V. 18, 19. III. 8. In this sense it is commonly taken here, but it seems a mistake. For, when the Apostle saith, that God hath given his Church Go∣vernours and Teachers, for the Compacting of the Saints, for the work of ministery, for the edification of the Body of Christ, his meaning is, that the Body of the Church, is compacted and held together, to frequent publick Assemblies, by the Contribution of the rich, to the maintenance of those that at∣tend

upon the service of God, (which is here called, the work of ministery) to the end, that, by the Doctrine of the Governors and Teachers of the Church, at the said Assem∣blies, it may be built up to a full measure of Christianity. This sense, the words that fol∣low require: From whom the whole Body com∣pacted—that is, that the Body of the Church, being inabled frequently to assem∣ble, by the operation of those that are able, furnishing every member, proportionably to his want, commeth, by Christ, to perfection in Christianity. This sense, the parallel pla∣ces of Rom. XII. 4, 7, 8. 1 Pet. IV. 4. necessa∣rily argue: Where, having speech of those things, which, particular members of the Church, are to contribute to the improve∣ment of the whole, both Apostles expresse two kinds of them, one spirituall, of instru∣ction in Christianity, the other corporall, of means to support the Church, in holding their Assemblies. For, as those that want, cannot balk the necessities of this life, to at∣tend upon Divine Service, unlesse they be furnished by the body of the Church: So, much more, those that minister the Service of the Church, cannot attend upon the same, unlesse they be secured of their support. And for this cause, the first Christians at Jerusa∣lem, and by their example, they that sent

their Oblations to the Church, laid them down at the Apostles feet, to signifie, that they submitted them to their disposing: For this cause Deacons were created, to execute their disposition of the same: For this cause, the contributions of the Church of Antio∣chia, are consigned to the Presbyters of Je∣rusalem, Acts XI. 30. that they, who were Ordained by that time, (for, afore there is no mention of them) might dispose of them un∣der the Apostles: For this cause Timothy is directed, how to bestow this stock among the Widows and Presbyters, that the Wi∣dows might attend upon prayer day and night, and upon other good works, concer∣ning the community of the Church, 1 Tim. V. 5, 10. as Anna the Widow in the Gospel, Luc. II. 36, 37. and as the good women that kept guard about the Tabernacle, Ex. XXXVIII. 8. 1 Sam. II. 22. And for this cause, S. Peter forbiddeth the Presbyters to domineer over the Clergy, 1 Pet. V. 3. to wit, in disposing of their maintenance, out of this common stock of the Church. Here, it will be said, that all this expresses no quantity, ot part of every mans estate, to ground a right of Tithes, and, that no man desires better, then to give what he list. And, the answer is as ready, that no man desires more, provided he list to give what Christianity requires:

And, that for the determination of what Christianity requires, he list to stand to the perpetuall practice of the Church, when as, by those things which we finde recorded in the Scriptures, it appears to be derived from the Apostles themselves. First, it is not the Law that first commanded to pay Tithes: Because we know, they were paid by Abra∣ham and Jacob, (they that think they were not due by Right, before the Law, because Jacob vows them, Gen. XXVIII. 20. doe not remember our Vow of Baptism, the subject whereof is things due before) & God requires them as his own before. For God saith, first, that Tithes are his own, Lev. XXVII. 30. to wit, by a Law in force afore the Law of Mo∣ses, and then gives them to the Priests, for their Service in the Tabernacle. Then, it cannot stand with Christianity, which sup∣poseth greater grace of God then the Law, to allow a scarcer proportion, to the main∣tenance of Gods Service, then the Law re∣quires. Now, the Law requires, first, two sorts of First fruits, the one to be taken by the Priest at the Barn, Num. XVIII. 12. the other to be brought to the Sanctuary, Exod. XXII. 29. XXIII. 19. Deut. XXVI. 1—the quantity of either being, in the moderate Ac∣count, a fiftieth, as S. Hierome upon Ezek. XLV. agreeing with the Jews Constitutions

in Maimoni, of First-fruits, cap. II. and of Se∣parations, cap. III. determineth it, though the Scripture, Ezek. XLV. 13. require but the sixtieth: After that, a Tith of the remain∣der to the Levites; then, another Tith of the remainder, to be spent in sacrificing at Jeru∣salem; that is, for the most part, upon the Priests and Levites, to whom, and to the poor, it wholly belonged every third year, Deut. XIV. 22, 28. Ex. XXIII. 19. XXXIV. 20. Adde hereunto the first-born, all sinne-offerings, and the Priests part of peace-offe∣rings, the skins of Sacrifices, (which alone Philo makes a chief part of their revenue) all consecrations, and the Levites Cities, and it will easily appear, it could not be so little as a fift part of the fruit of the land, that came to their share. Now, that any rate should be determined by the Gospel, agrees not with the difference between it and the Law. This, constraining obedience by fear, com∣mands, under penalty of vengeance from heaven, to pay somuch: That, perswading men, first, freely to give themselves to God, cannot doubt, that they which doe so, will freely part with their goods for his service. And therefore, if the perpetuall practice of Christians, must limit the sense of those Laws, which the Scripture limits not, we see the first Christians at Jerusalem farre outdoe

any thing that ever was done under the Law, and we see that all Christian people, in all succeeding ages, have done, what the Church now requires but to be continued.

To this originall Title, accrues another by Consecration, which is an act of man, infor∣ced by the Law of God. There is, in the Law of Moses, one kinde of Ceremoniall Holinesse, proper to persons, consisting in a distance, from things, not really unclean, but, as signs of reall uncleannesse. As, from meats and drinks, and, touching creatures, & men, and women, in some diseases, of which our Lord hath said, that, what goeth into the mouth polluteth not, much lesse, what a man onely toucheth; and so, hath shewed, that all this ceaseth under the Gospel. But there is another kinde of Holinesse, belonging to Times, and Places, as well as Persons, com∣manded in the Law, upon a reason common to the Gospel, when it is said, Lev. XIX. 30. Observe my Sabbaths, and reverence my San∣ctuaries. For, did this belong onely to the Temple, or Tabernacle, instituted by Gods expresse command, for that ceremoniall ser∣vice of God, which was unlawfull any where else, it might seem to be proper to the cere∣moniall Law, and to vanish with the Gospel. But, the perpetuall practice of that people shews, that, hereby they are commanded to

use reverence in their Synagogues, which were neither instituted by any written pre∣cept of the Law, nor for the ceremoniall ser∣vice of God, which was confined to the Temple, but for publick Assemblies, to hear the Law read and expounded, and to offer the Prayers of the people to God. For, in the Psalms of Asaph, which is the only men∣tion of Synagogues in the Old Testament, they are called, not onely Houses, and Assem∣blies of God, but also Sanctuaries, as here, Ps. LXXIII. 17. LXXIV. 4, 7, 8. LXXXIV. 13. And the Talmud Doctors, related by Maimoni, extend this Precept to them, shew∣ing at large, the reverence which they requi∣red; whereupon Philo in his Book De Lega∣tione ad Caium, cals them places of seconda∣ry Holinesse, to wit, in respect of the Tem∣ple. And in Maimoni, in the Title of Praier and the Priests Blessing, cap. XI. you have at large, of the Holinesse of Synagogues, and Schools, which they esteem more Holy then Synagogues. They may have joy of their Doctrine, that endeavour to shew, that the Jews Synagogues were not counted Holy Places, because in the Gospels, as well as in Eusebius Histories, IV. 16. (where he alle∣geth, out of a certain ancient writing against the Montanists, that none of them was ever scourged by the Jews in their Synagogues)

and Epiphanius against the Ebionites, it ap∣pears, that the Jews used to punish by scour∣ging in their Synagogues: For, it hath ta∣ken so good effect, as to turn Churches to Stables. But he that understands their rea∣son right, will inferre the contradictory of their conclusion from it. For, because Syna∣gogues were the places, where matters of Gods Law were sentenced, as I shewed afore, therefore was that sentence to be executed in Synagogues. The like reason there is, for the Holinesse of Persons, consecrate to the service of God, in the like precept, Levit. XIX. 32. Stand up before the gray head: and reverence the Presbyters: and fear thy Gods. I am the Lord. Where, the gradation shews, that this Text concerns not the fear of God, but the reverence due to their Judges and Doctors of the Law. It is a vulgar mistake, that Soveraign Powers are called Gods in the Scriptures. The Jews are in the right, that their Judges, made by Imposition of Hands, are they, whom the Scripture calls Gods. For so it is used, to signifie those that were to judge Gods people, by Gods Law, Exod. XXI. 6. XXII. 8, 9. Neither doth it signifie any but the Consistory, Ps. LXXXII. 1, 6. being, it seems, at that time, when this Psalm was penned, for Absalom, or for Saul, against David: For, these are they, to whom

the word of the Lord came, as our Saviour says, Iohn IX. 35. that is, whom the execu∣tion of the Law was trusted with. Now, you have seen, that Presbyters were a degree un∣der Judges: and therefore, the gradation can hold onely thus; First, stand up before the gray hairs, that is, them who are onely ho∣nourable for their age: Secondly, reverence Presbyters, which, besides years, having stu∣died the Law till thirty or forty years of age, had authority to Teach the Law: And last∣ly, fear your Judges, who have power to sentence matters of difference. Thus the gra∣dation continues in the same kinde, and thus this precept is interpreted by the Talmud Doctors, in Maimoni, in the Title of Lear∣ning the Law, c. 6. & Moses of Kotzi upon this Precept. Having therefore shewed, that the Clergy in the Church, succeed into the authority, which the Consistories bore under the Synagogue; it follows, that, the precept of the Apostle, 1 Thess. V. 12, 13. Heb. XIII. 17. imports this reverence due to them, as persons consecrate to the service of God. And so this holinesse, is the same in Persons, as in Places, consecrate to that purpose. There is no man so simple, as to think Chur∣ches capable of that holinesse, by which Christian souls are holy: But, because the actions of Gods service, proceeding from

souls so qualified, are presumed to be Holy, therefore the Times, the Places, the Persons, deputed to such actions in publick, are to be reverenced in regard of that deputation, for their works sake, saith the Apostle, in an Ecclesiasticall, not in any spirituall capacity, common to Persons with Times and Places: Because this qualification serves to maintain, in the minds of people, the reverence they owe to those acts of Gods service, whereun∣to they are deputed. Which, those that ne∣ver beleeved heretofore, do now see, by that ruine of Christianity, which these few years have brought to passe amongst us. This ground, the Jews Doctors seem very well to understand, when they question, why the open street, or Piazza, is not Holy, seeing, the Publick Fasts of the Jews, were many times held in them: Those Assemblies being, it seems, so great, that the Synagogue would not contain the people: (Where, by the way, you see, why our Lord reproves the Phari∣sees, because they loved to pray standing in the corners of streets, and to sound a trumpet before their alms, Mat. VI. 2, 5. because those Fasts were solemnized in the street, with sound of Trumpet;) Their answer is, that the market place, or street, or Piazza, is used accidentally to this purpose, but the Synagogue is deputed expresly to it. Maimo∣ni,

Of Prayer and the Priests Blessing, cap. XI. The reason then, of this Ecclesiasticall, or morall holinesse, is the deputation to the ho∣ly Ordinances of Divine Service, which de∣putation, if it be by Ordinance of the Apo∣stles, solemnized upon persons, by prayer, with Imposition of Hands, why shall it not be solemnized by Consecration of Places, which is nothing else, but the solemne depu∣tation of them to their purpose, by prayer to God, as persons are consecrated, when they are deputed to the service of God? And, is it not strange, that any man should finde a negative reverence due to the places of Gods service, but, all positive reverence, nothing else then superstition revived? For, what reason can be given, why men should abstain from light, or vain, or secular businesse, im∣ploiment, or cariage, in Churches, but be∣cause the minde is to be possessed, and exer∣cised about the contrary? And what reve∣rence and devotion to God, in the Ordinan∣ces of his Service, can be maintained, without making difference between common and Consecrate Places, is not to be seen by the practice of this time, that hath laid all reve∣rence and devotion aside, and therefore, it seems, will never be seen again, untill that re∣verence be revived again, and sensibly ex∣pressed, to Persons and Places dedicated to

Gods service, (for Times deputed to Gods service, are not subject to sense, therefore, not capable of the like) by such solemnities, as may be fit to maintain that inward devo∣tion, which the Ordinances of Gods service, to which they are deputed, are to be perfor∣med with. And, not only Times, Places, and Persons, are capable of this morall qua∣lity, of relative Ecclesiasticall Holinesse, but whatsoever, either by disposition of Gods Law, or by mans act, is affected to the service of God. For, so saith our Saviour, That the Temple consecrates the gold which it is adorned with, and the Altar the gift that is offered upon it; and that therefore, He that sweareth by the Temple, or the Altar, sweareth by God, to whose service they were offered, Mat. XXIII. 17, 19, 20—And the Jews Corban, which our Lord reproveth, as used to binde that which was against Gods Law, Mat. XV. 5. was no∣thing but an Oath, by the Oblations conse∣crated to the reparations of the Temple, as you may see in Grotius. And, as First-fruits and Tithes, which the Law consecrates to God, render him sacrilegious and accursed, that touches them against the intent of the Law, as you see by that allegory of the Pro∣phet, Jer. II. 3. Israel is a thing consecrate to the Lord, the First-fruit of his revenue: all that devoure him are guilty, evill haunts them:

So the Law, in obliging men to consecrate what they would to the Lord, makes the consecrate thing anathema, that is, the per∣son accursed, that applies it to any other use, Levit. XXVII. 28. Under the Gospel the difference is onely this, that nothing is con∣secrate, by disposition of the Law, without the act of man, moved by the Law of Chri∣stianity, to consecrate it: According to that difference between the Law and the Gospel, alleged before, that, because the Law con∣straineth to obedience for fear of mischief, the Gospel winneth obedience by love of goodness, therefore, in correspondence there∣unto, the Law was to require the mainte∣nance of Gods service, under such Penal∣ties as they should not dare to incurre; the Gospel, by the same freedome of minde, which constrained men to give themselves to God, was to constrain them, to give their goods to the maintenance of his Service. For the rest, as under the Law, the Gold is consecrated by the Temple, and the Sacri∣fice by the Altar; and so, all consecration, tended to communion with God, by the par∣ticipation of Sacrifices offered to God: So, having shewed, how the Gospel ordaineth, that Christians also communicate with God, in the Sacrifice of the Crosse, by the Sacra∣ment of the Eucharist, by the same reason it

follows, that, what is given to build and re∣pair, and beautifie Churches, to maintain the Assemblies of the Church, to support them that minister Gods Ordinances, to inable the poor to attend upon the Communion of the same, is consecrated by the Altar of the Crosse, and the Sacrifice thereof, represented in the Eucharist, being the chief part of that service, which the Church tenders to God, and that which is peculiar to Christianity. S. Chrysostome truly, construes, the reason why our Lord would not have Mary Magda∣len reproved, for pouring out such an expense on his body to no purpose, which might have done so much good among the poore, Mat. XXVI. 11. to be this, that Christians might understand themselves, to be bound, as well to maintain the means of Gods ser∣vice, as the poor that attend upon it. And, let any man shew me the difference of the sin of Achan, from that of Ananias and Sapphi∣ra, For, as he became accursed, by touch∣ing that which was deputed to maintain Gods service, and was so, before he denied it: So, no man can imagine, that these had been guiltlesse, if they had confessed: For they are charged by the Apostle, not only for ly∣ing to the Holy Ghost, but for withdrawing part of the price, Acts V. 3. And therefore, by the premises, having shewed, that the

goods which were laid down at the Apostles feet, were thereby affected, applied, and de∣puted to maintain the Body of the Church, in the daily Communion of the Service of God, especially of the Eucharist, which they frequented, Acts II. 42, 46. it followeth, that they were consecrated to God by the Altar, as all Oblations of Christians, to the mainte∣nance of Gods service, are, by the Sacrifice of the Crosse, represented and commemora∣ted in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, being the chief part of the service of God under the Gospel, and that which is onely proper to Christians. And, by consequence, that which is consecrate to the service of God, under the Gospel, is anathema, for the same reason, as under the Law, because, they are accursed, that take upon them to apply it to any other use.

These things premised, it will not be diffi∣cult, to determine the limits, of Soveraign and Ecclesiasticall Power, in the conduct and establishment of matters of Religion, in a Christian State. Which, seeing it chiefly consists, in the Right of giving those Laws, by which this establishment and conduct is executed; and having shewed, that the Right of Soveraign Power, in Church matters, is not destructive, but cumulative to the Pow∣er of the Church, and that there is an Origi∣nall

Right in the Church, of giving Laws, as to the Society of the Church: It follows, that the Right of making those Laws, where∣by Religion is established in a Christian State, belonging, both to the Soveraign Pow∣er, and to the Church, are not distinguisha∣ble by the subject, (for I have premised, that Soveraign Powers may make Laws of Church matters) but by the severall reasons, and grounds, and intents of both. That is to say, that the determining of the matter of Ec∣clesiasticall Laws, in Order to the sentence of Excommunication, which the Church is able to inforce them with, belongs to the Church, that is, to those, whom we have shewed, to have that power, on behalf of the Church: But, the enacting of them, as Laws of Civile Societies, in order to those Privileges and Penalties, which States are able to inforce Religion with, belongs to the Soveraign Powers, that give Law to those States. For, here it is to be known, that any Religion, is made the Religion of any State, by two manner of means, that is, of tempo∣rall Privileges, and temporall Penalties: For, how much toleration soever is allowed severall Religions, in any State, none of them can be counted the Religion of the State, till it be so privileged, as no other can be privi∣leged in that State. Though it becomes the

Religion of that State still more manifestly, when Penalties are established, either upon the not exercise of the Religion established, or upon the exercise of any other besides it. Those of the Congregations seem indeed hi∣therto to maintain, that no Penalty can be inflicted, by any State, upon any cause of Re∣ligion, to which Point I will answer by and by. Which if it were so, then could no Religion be the Religion of any State, but by temporall Privileges. In the mean time, ha∣ving determined, that, by the Word of God, Christianity is to be maintained by Secular Power, and, seeing it cannot be ingraffed into any State, but by making the Laws thereof, the Laws of that State, in this doing, my conclusion is, that the matter of Ecclesiasti∣call Laws, is determinable by the Church, the force of them, as to such means, as the State is able to enact them with, must come from the State. The reason is, first, from that of the Apostle, pronounced by him in one particular case, but, which may be gene∣ralized to this purpose, 1 Cor. VII. 20, 24. Every one, in what state he is called to be a Christian, therein let him continue. Which if it hold, neither can any quality, in any Ci∣vile Society, give any man that Right, which ariseth from the Constitution of the Church, nor on the contrary. Wherefore, seeing it

is manifest, that there is in the Church, a Power of giving Laws, to every respective part of it, as it is granted, that there is in all Soveraign Powers, in respect of all persons and causes, it follows, that they are distingui∣shable, by the severall reasons, on which they stand, and arise, and the severall intents, to which they operate, and the effects they are able to produce. Secondly, no Religion, but Judaism, was ever given immediately by God to any State, and that, by such Laws, as determine both the exercise of Religion, and the Civile Government of that people. But, all Nations think they have received Religion, from some Divinity which they beleeve, and therefore, by the Law of Na∣tions, the ordering of matters of Religion, must needs belong to those, by whom, and from whom, severall Nations beleeve they have received it. Much more Christianity, received from and by our Lord and his A∣postles, must needs be referred to the con∣duct of those, whom, we have shewed, they left trusted with it. But the Power to dis∣pose of the exercise of Religion, is a point of Soveraignty, used by all States, accor∣ding to severall Laws. Wherefore, Christi∣anity, much more obliging all Soveraigns, to use this Power, to the advancement of it, the coactive Power of secular Societies, must

needs take place much more, in establishing Christianity, by such constitutions, as Chri∣stianity may be established with. Thirdly, the whole Church, is by Divine Right, one Visible Society, though to an invisible pur∣pose, and the Power of giving Laws, either to the whole, or to severall parts of it, of Divine Right. But, neither the whole, nor the parts of it, are necessarily convertible with any one State, and yet the Church un∣der severall States, many times in extreme need, of the use of that power, which God hath given his Church, to determine mat∣ters determinable: Therefore, this power cannot be vested in any of the States, under which the Church is concerned, but in those that have Power, in behalf of the Churches, respectively concerned. The fourth argu∣ment is very copious, from the exercise of this power, in the Religion instituted by God, among his ancient people, of which nature there is nothing in the New Testa∣ment, because, in the times whereof it speaks, Soveraign Powers were not Christian. I have shewed in divers places of this Dis∣course, that the High Consistory of the Jews at Jerusalem, had power to determine all questions, that became determinable, in the matter of Laws given by God. And yet there is great appearance, that this Consi∣story

it self, was not constantly setled there, according to Law, till Josaphats time, at least, not the inferiour Consistories, appoin∣ted by the Law of Deut. XVI. 18. as the Chief, by the Law of Deut. XVII. 8—to be setled in the severall Cities. For, if so, why should the Judges, and Samuel, ride circuit, up and down the Country, to minister justice according to the Law, as we reade they did then, Jud. V. 10. X. 4. XII. 14. 1 Sam. VII. 16. but not after Josaphats time. And, for this reason, it seems, Josaphat himself, being to put this Law in force, first, sent Judges up and down the Cities, 2 Chron. XVII. 8, 9. afterwards setled them according to the Law, in the Cities of Juda as well as at Jeru∣salem, 2 Chron. XIX. 5, 8. Besides, Josephus, in expresse terms, rendring a reason of the disorder upon which the warre against Ben∣jamin followed, attributes it to this, that the Consistories were not established accor∣ding to Law, Antiq. V. 2. And again, Antiq. V. 5. he gives this for the cause, why Eglon undertook to subdue the Israelites, that they were in disorder, and the Laws were not put in use. And therefore it is justly to be presu∣med, that the exact practice of this Law, on which, that of all the rest depended, took not place, till Josaphat applied the coactive power, then in his hands, to bring to effect,

that which God had established in point of Divine right. The Consistory then, by the Law, is commanded to judge the People: That is, the Soveraign Power of the people, is commanded to establish the Consistory: Josaphat finds this command to take hold upon him, as having the Power of that Peo∣ple in his hands. So again, God had com∣manded, that Idolaters should be put to death, and their Cities destroied, the Consi∣story inquiring, and sentencing, as appears by the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni, of I∣dolatry, cap. IV. Deut. XIII. 2, 13, 14. But, suppose the disease grown too strong for the cure, (as we must needs suppose the Consi∣story unable, to destroy an Idolatrous City, when most Cities doe the like; or to take away High Places, when the Land is over∣run with them) then must the coactive Pow∣er of the Secular arm, either restore the Law, or be branded to posterity, for not doing it, as you see, the Kings of Gods people are. The Precept of building the Temple, was given to the Body of the People, therefore it takes hold upon David, and the Powers under him, his Princes, his Officers, and Com∣manders, 1 Chro. XIII. 2. XXVIII. 1. In fine, the Consistory, by the Law, was to deter∣mine matters undetermined in the Law, whe∣ther in generall, by giving Laws in questiona∣ble

cases, or in particular, by sentencing cau∣ses: But, if the people slide back, and cast away the yoke of the Law, none but the So∣veraign Power can reduce them under the Covenant of the Law, to which they are born. Therefore, that Covenant is renu∣ed, by Asa, by Hezekiah, by Josias, by none but the King, as first it was established by Moses, King in Jesurun, Deut. XXIX. 1. XXXIII. 5. 2 Chron. XV. 12, 14. XXIX. 10. XXXIV. 31. And, it is a very grosse mistake, to imagine, that the people renued it, or any part of it, without the consent of the So∣veraign, under Esdras and Nehemias, Esd. XI. 1—Neh. X. 29—V. 12. For, Esdras ha∣ving obtained that Commission, which we see, Es. VII. 11—may well be thought there∣by established, in the quality of Head of the Consistory, by the Soveraign Power, as the Jews all report him: But howsoever, by that Commission, we cannot doubt, that he was inabled to swear them to the Law, by which he was inabled to govern them in it, his com∣mission supposing a grant, of full leave, to live according to their Law. But in Nehemias, we must acknowledge a further power, of Go∣vernor under the King of Persia, as he cals himself expresly, Neh. V. 14, 15. which qua∣lity, seems to me, answerable to that, of the Heads of the Captive Jews in Babylonia, of

whom we reade divers times in Josephus, as well as in the Jews writings, that they were Heads of their Nation in that Country, having Heads of their Consistories under them, at the same time, as Esdras under Ne∣hemias. The proceedings then, of Esdras and Nehemias, as well as of the Kings of Ju∣da, prove no more, then that which I said in the beginning of this Chapter, that Sove∣raign Powers have Right, to establish, and restore, all matters of Religion, which can appear to be commanded by God. For, it is not in any common reason to imagine, that by any Covenant of the Law, renued by Esdras and Nehemias, they conceived them∣selves inabled, or obliged, to maintain them∣selves by force, in the profession and exer∣cise of their Religion, against their Sove∣raign, in case he had not allowed it them: Therefore, of necessity, that which they did, was by Power derived by Commission from the Kings of Persia, (and so with reservation of their obedience to them) who, granting Nehemias and Esdras Power to govern the People in their Religion, must needs be un∣derstood to grant them both, the free pro∣fession and exercise of the same. But, having shewed, that the Church hath Power, by Di∣vine Right, to establish, by a generall Act, which you may call, a Canon, Constitution,

or Law, all that Gods Law determineth not, mediately, and by consequence, I conceive it remains proved by these particulars done under the Old Testament, that the Church is to determine, but the determinations of the Church, to be maintained by the coactive Power of the Secular arm, seeing they can∣not come to effect, in any Christian State, otherwise. Which also is immediately pro∣ved, by some acts, recorded in Scripture, whereby that is limited, which Gods Law had not determined. It is said, 1 Chro. XXV. 1. That David, and the Captains of the Mili∣tia, divided the sonnes of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, to the service of God. Here, it were an inconvenience to imagine, that Comman∣ders of Warre should meddle with ordering the Tribe of Levi, and the service of the Temple. It is not so: We are to understand there, by the Militia, the Companies of Priests, that waited on the Service of the Temple, the Captains of whom, with David, divided the Singers, as they did the Priests, 1 Chron. XXIV. 3, 6, 7. Though elsewhere, 1 Chron. XXIII. 6. David alone is mentioned to doe it, as, by whose Power, a businesse concerning the state of a Tribe in Israel, was put in effect and force. So, Hezekias and his Princes, and all the Synagogue, advised about holding the Passeover, in the second

moneth, 2 Chron. XXX. 2. that is, he advised with the Consistory, who are there, as in Jer. XXVI. 10, 11. called the Princes, for so the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni, in the Title of comming into the Sanctuary, ca. IV. teach us to understand it. So, David and his Princes, gave the Gibeonites, to wait upon the Levites; whereupon they are called Nethi∣nim, that is, Given, Esd. VIII. 20. where, by David and the Princes, we must understand by the same reason, David and the great Consistory of his time. So also, Maimoni in the Title Erubin, subinit. or rather the Talmud Doctors, whose credit he followeth, tell us, that Solomon and his Consistory brought that Constitution into practice, concerning what rooms meats may be removed into, upon the Sabbath. Herewith agrees the pra∣ctice of Christian Emperors, if we consider the style, and character, of some of their Laws in the Codes, by which the rest may be estimated: seeing it is not possible to confi∣der all, in this abridgement. There, you shall finde a Law, by which, the Canons of the Church are inforced, and the Governors of Provinces tied, to observe and execute them, long before the Code of Canons, was made, by Justinian, a Law of the Empire. There you shall finde, the Audiences of Bi∣shops established, and the sentences of them

inforced by the Secular arm, the authority of them having been in force, in the Society of the Church, from the beginning, as hath been said. There you shall finde Laws, by which men are judged Hereticks and Schis∣maticks, as they acknowledged the Faith de∣termined by such and such Councels, or not, as they communicated with such & such Bi∣shops, or not: which, what is it, but to take the Act of the Church for a Law, and to give force to it by the Secular arm? Which, what prejudice can it import, to any Christian State upon the face of the earth? For, first, such Assemblies of the Church, at which publick matters are determinable, cannot meet, but by allowance of the State. In particular, though the Church hath Right to assemble Councels, when that appears the best course, for deciding matters in difference, yet, it can∣not be said, that the Church was ever able to assemble a generall Councell, without the command of Christian Princes, after the ex∣ample of Constantine the Great. And this is the State of Religion, for the present, in Christendome. The Power of determining matters of Religion, rests, as always it did, in the respective Churches, to be tied, by those determinations: But, the Power to assemble, in freedome, those judgements, which may be capable to conclude the

Church, must rest in the free agreement of the Soveraignties in Christendome. Se∣condly, it hath been cautioned afore, that all Soveraign Powers have right to see, not on∣ly that nothing be done in prejudice to their Estates, but also in prejudice to that which is necessary to the salvation of all Christians, or that which was from the beginning esta∣blished in the Church, by our Lord and his Apostles. Therefore, when Councels are assembled, neither can they proceed, nor conclude, so, as to oblige the Secular Pow∣ers, either of Christendome, or of their re∣spective Soveraignties, but by satisfying them, that the determinations, which they desire to bring to effect, are most agreeable to that which is determined by Divine Right, as well as to the Peace of the State. And so the objection ceases, that by making the Church independent upon the State, as to the matter of their Laws and determina∣tions, we make two Heads in one Body. For, seeing there is, by this determination, no manner of coactive Power in the Church, but all in the State, (for Excommunication constrains, but upon supposition, that a man resolves to be a Christian) there remains but one Head, in the Civile Society of every State, so absolute, over the persons that make the Church, that the independent power

thereof, in Church matters, will enable it, to do nothing against, but suffer all things from the Soveraign. And yet, so absolute, and depending on God alone, in Church matters, that if a Soveraign, professing Christianity, should not onely forbid the profession of that Faith, or the exercise of those Ordinan∣ces, which God hath required to be served with, but even the exercise of that Ecclesia∣sticall Power, which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church, it must needs be necessary, for those that are trusted with the Power of the Church, not only to disobey the commands of the Soveraign, but to use that Power, which their quality, in the Society of the Church, gives them, to provide for the subsistence thereof, without the assistance of Secular Powers. A thing manifestly supposed, by all the Bishops of the Ancient Church, in all those Actions, wherein they refused to obey their Empe∣rors seduced by Hereticks, and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them, to the prejudice of Christianity: Particularly, in that memorable refusall of Athanasius of A∣lexandria, and Alexander of Constantinople, to admit the Heretick Arius to Communi∣on, at the instant command of Constantine the Great. Which most Christian action whosoever justifies not, besides the appea∣rance

of favour to such an Heresie, he will lay the Church open to the same ruine, whensoever the Soveraign Power is seduced by the like. And, such a difference falling out, so that, to particular persons, it cannot be clear, who is in the Right, it will be requi∣site for Christians, in a doubtfull case, at their utmost perils, to adhere to the Guides of the Church, against their lawfull Sove∣raigns, though to no further effect, then to suffer for the exercise of Christianity, and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity.

Now, what strength and force, the exer∣cise of the Keys, which is the Jurisdiction of the Church, necessarily requires from the Secular arm, may appear, in that this Power, hath been, and may be inforced, by Sove∣raigns of contrary Religions. The first men∣tion of Excommunication among the Jews, is, as you have seen, under Esdras, who pro∣ceeded by Commission from the King of Persia. In the Title of both Codes, of Justi∣nian and Theodosius, De Judae is & Coelicolis, you have a Law of the Christian Emperors, whereby, the Excommunications of the Jews are enacted, and enforced, by forbidding in∣feriour powers to make them void. And, thus was the sentence of the Church against Paulus Samosatenus, ratified by the Heathen

Emperour Aureliane, as you may see in Eu∣sebius his Histories, VII. 30. For, though the matter thereof were not evident to him, that was no Christian, yet, the authority might be, the support whereof, concerned the Peace of the Empire. And so it was evident in that case: For there being a difference in the Church of Antiochia; between the Bishop, and some of the Clergy and People, and the Synod there assembled, having condemned and deposed the Bishop; if this deposition were allowed by the Synod of the Church of Rome, no man will deny, that there was thereby sufficient ground, for him that was no Christian, to proceed, and take away pos∣session of the Church, and Bishops house, from him that by such authority was depo∣sed. And thus, you see how true it is which I said, that in Christian States, the Power of the Church cannot be in force, without the Soveraign, because Excommunication, which is the Sword thereof, and the last execution of this spirituall Jurisdiction, might be made void otherwise. As for the prejudice, which may come to a Christian State, by a Jurisdi∣ction, not depending upon it in point of right, but only in point of fact, there seem to be two considerable difficulties made: The first, the Excommunication of the Sove∣raign: Ormore generally thus, that the Keys

of the Church may then interpose in State matters: The second, in regard that I have shewed, that, by the words of our Lord, this Power may take place in matters of interesse between party and party: For if in any, why not in all? and if in all, where shall the secular Power become, that Power that is able to judge all causes, being able to govern any State? To the first, the answer is evident, that, so farre as Excommunication concerns barely the Society of the Church, any per∣son, capable of Soveraign Power, is liable to it, upon the same terms as other Christi∣ans are, because, comming into the commu∣nion of the Church, upon the same condition as other Christians, the failing of this con∣dition, must needs render the effect void. But, if we consider, either the temporall force, by which it comes to effect, or the temporall penalties which attend on it, to these, which cannot proceed, but by the will of the Soveraign, it is not possible that he should be liable. Thus I had rather distin∣guish, then, between the greater Excommu∣nication and the lesse, as some doe, who con∣clude, that the Soveraign cannot be subject to the greater, but to the lesse. For there is, indeed, but one Excommunication, as there is but one Communion, abstinence from the Eucharist, being no permanent but a transi∣ent

estate, under which whosoever comes, if he give not satisfaction to the Church, be∣comes contumacious, and so, liable to the last sentence. Let no man marvell at the good Emperour Theodosius, giving satisfacti∣on of his penitence to the holy Bishop S. Am∣brose. The reason was, because Christianity, then fresh from the Apostles, was under∣stood, and uncorrupt. It was understood, that he held not his Empire, by being of the Church, nor, that his subjects ought him any lesse obedience, for not being of it. He that taught him to be subject to God, taught his people also, to be subject to him for Gods sake, as Christians always were to Heathen Emperours, even Persecutors. Which, if it were received, it is not imaginable, that the Powers of the world could be prejudiced by any censure of the Church. As for the obje∣ction, that excommunicate persons are not to be conversed with, by S. Pauls rule, it is answered by all Divines, that it ceases, in such relations (for example, of Parents, and chil∣dren) as are more ancient then the Society of the Church, which it therefore presuppo∣seth: and so is to cease, in things necessary to civile Society, which Christianity, as it pre∣supposeth, so it inforceth, and not overthrow∣eth. In like manner, it is to be said, that all proceedings, either of the Popes, or of the

Scottish Presbyteries, in those cases which the burthen of Issachar mentions, are the pro∣ductions of the corruption, or misunderstan∣ding of Christianity. For, as Aristotle says, that some things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so must we say, that those things onely exclude from the Church, which, by the very nature and essence of them, are inconsistent with Christianity, be∣ing those things, which a Christian renoun∣ces, when he is admitted into the Church. Now, the affairs of States, such as are, Trea∣ties, and alliances with forein States, reason of Government at home, in Jurisdiction, gi∣ving Laws, and commands of State, are such things, as are not necessarily bad or good, but may be the subject either of virtue or vice: much lesse, can it be manifest, not only to the Body of Christians, but even to the Guides of the Church, when Governours forsake, and when they cleave to their Chri∣stianity, though it is certain, that they doe either the one or the other always. Where∣fore, for particular actions, of the same kinde with those, for which private persons are li∣able, when they become notorious, Princes also, and publick Persons are subject to the censure of the Church. But for publick Government, the reason whereof must not be known, the kinde thereof, in the whole ex∣rent,

being capable of good as well as bad; it is nothing but the misunderstanding and corruption of Christianity, that ingages the Church in them, by the fault of those, that by their quality in the Church, seek to them∣selves some interesse in publick affairs, which Christianity generally denies to be due. And, the same is to be said of them, that make publick affairs, the subject of their prayers and Preaching. Which, though it may be done to good purpose, and in opposition to worse, yet, seeing Christianity requires, not only that it may be so in the Church, but also that it may not be otherwise, as it must needs proceed from a decay of Christianity, so it must needs tend to the utter ruine of it. As for the drawing of Civile causes, to the cognisance of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories, by some things that have been said, or done, to the advancement of the Presbyteries in Scotland, or here, it appears there is cause of scruple: But it is because the reason is over∣seen, upon which our Lords saying proceeds. For, if the reason, why our Lord will have the differences of Christians ended within the Church, is, that those that are without, may not take notice, of the offences that are among Christians, this will not hinder Chri∣stians to plead before Christians, and there∣fore, will hinder no Jurisdiction of civile

States, as ceasing so farre as the State be∣comes Christian. Wherefore, it is not with∣out cause, that the Audiences of Bishops, have been, by the Laws of the Empire, and other Christian States succeeding the same, limited to such kinds of causes, as seemed to stand most upon consideration of charity, and so, fittest to be sentenced by the Church. But Matrimoniall causes, seem to me neces∣sarily to belong to this cognisance: Because of that particular disposition, which, our Lord, in his Gospel, hath left concerning Mariage. For, if this be peculiar to Christi∣ans, as Christians, then, whatsoever becomes questionable, upon the interpretation of this Law, concerning the Church, as it is the Church, must needs fall under the sentence of those, that are inabled to conclude the Society of the Church. And therefore, it is without question, as ancient as Christianity, that no Mariage be made which the Church alloweth not, the Benediction whereof upon Mariages, is a sign of the allowance of the Church presupposed; as that upon the Ma∣riage of Booz and Ruth, Ruth IV. 11. presup∣poseth the act to be allowed by the Elders or Consistory of Bethlehem, as you have it afore. These difficulties thus voided, it re∣mains, that the Secular Powers stand bound in conscience, to inforce the Jurisdiction of

the Church, where the exercise of it, produ∣ceth nothing contrary to the principles of Christianity, or the quiet of the State.

As for the interesse of the State in Ordi∣nations, the same reason holds. It is very manifest, by many examples, of commenda∣ble times, under Christian Emperors, that many Ordinations have been made, at the instance, and command of Emperors and Soveraign Princes. And why not? what hindreth them, to make choice of fitter per∣sons, then the Clergy and People can agree to choose? And what hindreth the Church, upon consideration of their choice, to reform their own? But, when Soveraign Powers, by Generall Laws, forbid Ordinations to proceed, but upon persons nominated by themselves, how then shall the Right of the Church take place? or what shall be the effect of S. Pauls precept to Timothy, To lay hands hastily on no man, lest he partake of other mens sins? Which cannot take place, unlesse he that Ordain, be free not to Ordain. The President Thuanus, writing of the Concor∣dates between Leo the tenth and Francis the first, (by which, the Canonicall way of Ele∣ction of Bishops was abolished in France) saith freely, that that great Prince, never pro∣spered after that Act: giving this for his reason, because thereby, that course of ele∣cting

Bishops was taken away, which had been introduced from the beginning by the Apostles. In fine, of this particular, I shall need to say no more but this, according to the generall reason premised, that, qualities ordained by the constitution of the Church, are to be conferred by persons qualified so to doe, by the constitution of the Church: But, with this moderation, that Secular Powers be satisfied, not onely, that the per∣sons promoted, be not prejudiciall to the Peace of the State, whereof they have charge, by their proper qualities, but also, that, as Christians, they be not assistant, to the promotion of those, who professe the contrary of that, which they, as Christians, professing, are bound to maintain.

In the last place, it will not be difficult, from the premises to determine the interesse of the State, in setling, maintaining, and dis∣posing of the indowment of the Church. For, seeing the reasons premised, (which now are laught at, by those that will not under∣stand wherein Christianity consists) have prevailed so far, with all Christian people, that all Tithes, and many other Oblations and Indowments, are, and have been, in all parts, consecrated to God, as the First-fruits of Christians goods, for the maintenance of his Service; it remains the duty of the Secu∣lar

Sword, to maintain the Church in that right. For, that publick Power, that shall lay hands on such goods, shall rob both God and the People: God, in respect of the Act of Consecration, past upon such goods: the People, in respect of the Originall right and reason of the Church, which first moved Christians to consecrate the same: By vir∣tue of which right, that which first was con∣secrated, being taken away by force, Christi∣an people remain no lesse obliged, to separate from the remainder of their poverty, that which shall be proportionable to that, which all Christian people have always consecrated to God, out of their estates. And, those, that perswade good Christians, that such conse∣crations, have proceeded only from the cou∣senage of the Clergy, for their own advan∣tage, may as well perswade them, that they were cousened, when they were perswaded to be Christians, seeing such consecrations have been made, by all Christian people. As for the disposing of that which is given to the publick use of the Church, I say not the same. I hold it necessary, that the Church satisfie the State, that, whatsoever is given to such use, may be to the common good of the people, and so leave the imperfection of Laws to blame, that it is not. A thing which I think may very reasonably be done. For

first, all Cathedrall Churches, being by the institution of the Apostles, intire Bodies in themselves, distinct from other Churches, according to that which hath been proved of the dependence of Churches, all Oblations to any Church, originally, belong to the Bo∣dy thereof in common, at the disposing of the Bishop and Presbyters thereof, which is known to have been the Primitive Order of the Church, derived from the practice of the Apostles, which I have declared out of the Scriptures. Though they have complied with the bounty of those, that have indowed Parish Churches, and consented to limit the indowments of every one of them, to it self alone. Secondly, it is manifest, that the Clergy, are under such a Discipline of the Primitive Church, that, so long as they con∣tinue to live in such a discipline, they can nei∣ther waste the indowment of the Church up∣on themselves, nor use it to the advancement of their Families: Which Discipline, if the Secular Power be imploied to retrive, it will not be thereby, destructive to the Power of the Church, but cumulative. As likewise, if it be imploied to the most advantageous di∣stribution, of that masse of Church goods, which lies affected, and deputed to any Ca∣thedrall Church, through the whole Dio∣cese thereof, in case the distribution made by

Humane Right, appear prejudiciall to those charitable purposes, which are the means, by which, the Service of God, through that Church or Diocese, is maintained and ad∣vanced. Provided always, that a greater Sa∣crilege be not committed, by robbing the Bishop and Presbyters, of the Right and Power, which they have from the Apostles; in disposing of the indowment of their Church. These things promised, it is easie to undertake, that there never was so great a part of the fruits of this Land, mortified, and put out of commerce, and applied and affected to the Church, but that it was, in that estate, more advantageous to the pub∣lick strength, security, and plenty of the Nation, as well as to the service of God, and the charitable maintenance of those that at∣tend it, in case the Secular Power had been improved, to dispose of it for the best, then it can be, in any particular hands, especially in the hands of Sacrilege.