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

CHAP. IV.

THat which is said, p. 166. that Chri∣stian States, have as good right to dispose of matters of Christianity, as any State that is not Christian hath, to dis∣pose of matters of that Religion which it professeth: proceedeth upon that ground

of Interesse in matters of Religion, which is common to all States, to wit, that the dispo∣sing of matters of Religion is a part of that Right wherein Soveraignty consists, in as much as it concerneth all Civile Societies, to provide, that under pretense of Religion, nothing prejudiciall to the publick peace thereof may be done. And truly, those Re∣ligions that come not from God, may very well contain things prejudiciall to Civile Society, in as much as those unclean Spirits, which are the authors of counterfeit Reli∣gions, doe also take delight in confounding the good order of humane affairs. Notwith∣standing, in regard, the obligation which we have to civile Society, is more felt, and bet∣ter understood, then that which we have to the Service of God, therefore, those that are seduced from true Religion, are never∣thelesse, by the light of Nature, enabled to maintain civile Society, against any thing, which, under pretense of Religion, may prove prejudiciall to the same. This is then the common ground of the interesse of all States in matters of Religion, which, Christianity, both particularly, and expresly establisheth. Particularly, in as much as, they that assure themselves to have received their Religion from the true God, must needs rest assured, that he, who is the author of civile Society,

doth not require to be worshipped, with any judgement or disposition of minde prejudi∣ciall to his own ordinance. Which reason, because it taketh place also in Judaisme, I have therefore, as I found occasion, ende∣voured to declare, how that containeth no∣thing prejudiciall to the Law of Nations. And expresly, in as much as the Gospel ad∣dresseth it self to all Nations, with this pro∣vision, that nothing be innovated in the ci∣vile State of any, upon pretense thereof, but, that all, out of conscience to God, submit to maintain that estate wherein they come to be Christians, so far as it is not subject to change, by some course of humane right. For when S. Paul, 1 Cor. VII. 22—com∣mands all men to serve God, in that conditi∣on, of circumcision or uncircumcision, sin∣gle life or wedlock, bondage or freedome, wherein they are called to be Christians; his meaning is not to say, that a slave may not become free with his Christianity, but, that he must not think himself free by his Christianity. And, upon this ground, com∣mon to all States, it is verified, that Christi∣an States have as much right in Christianity, as those States that are not Christian have, in that Religion which they professe. Ano∣ther ground there is peculiar to Christianity, by virtue of the will of God declared to be

this, that Christianity be received and main∣tained by the Soveraign Powers of the Gen∣tiles, to whom God appointed the Gospel to be preached. Of which afterwards.

That, when the World is come into the Church, that is, when States professe Chri∣stianity, it is not to be expected, that persons of great Quality in the State, submit to the Power of the Church, unlesse the coactive Power of the State enforce it, as it is said p. 168. depends upon that which I said afore, that the profession of Religion is common to all Nations, insomuch that he deserves not the benefit of civile Society, that re∣nounces it. For, if the profession of Religion in generall, be requisite for all them that will enjoy civile Society with any civile Nation, then is the Communion of that Religion, which the State wherein a man lives profes∣ses, a temporall Privilege to all that enjoy it, in as much as thereby they are reputed to have that Communion with God, which the rest of that State must needs be reputed to have, because the Religion of the State must needs be reputed to be true. And, this repu∣tation being so necessary in civile Society, that no man, esteeming it as he ought, can lightly abandon it, it follows of necessity, that many will be willing to professe Chri∣stianity, when the State professes it, that

would not be willing to submit unto the Power of the Church, (by which they may be deprived of the privilege of Communion in it, unlesse they perform, as well as professe it, in the judgement of those whom that Pow∣er is trusted with) if the coactive Power of the State did not enforce it.

That which is said p. 169. that Soveraign∣ty is called by the Romanes Imperium or Empire, is chiefly meant of the Title of Im∣perator, given Augustus and his Successors, and the reason which, I conceive, it imports. For, when the People was Soveraign, Ge∣nerals of Armies, received commonly from their Armies the Title of Imperatores, upon any remarkable exploit of War done upon their Enemies. But they received afore of the People, that which they called Imperium or Empire, (to wit, the Power of the Sword) by a peculiar Act, beside those, by which they were either made Magistrates, or set over their Provinces. Wherefore, the Title of Imperator, (given Augustus, in another sense and notion, then other Generals had it from their Armies, or, then Magistrates re∣ceived their commands as Generals from the People, saith Dion lib. XLIV.) seemeth to extend as far as the property of the word reacheth, to all Acts of Soveraignty which a commanding Power can inforce. All Laws

being nothing else but Commands of that Will, which hath Power to determine what shall be done, in those things which those Laws do limit and determine: All Magi∣stracies, Offices, and Jurisdictions nothing else but Commands of that will, which hath Power to entrust whom it chooseth, with the execution of Laws, or with Power of Com∣manding in such things wherein it hath de∣termined nothing afore. All these branches then, and productions of Soveraign Power, are in force, and may be exercised by Chri∣stian States, as well upon Ecclesiasticall matters, and Persons interessed by the Church, as others. But, not to defeat nor void that Ministeriall Power, which the Church having received immediately from God, enjoyeth thereby, a Right answerable to all the branches of Soveraign Power, in matters proper to the Church, as you have seen it declared p. 32.

The evidence of a Legislative Power in the Church, is said p. 175. to be as expresse in Gods Book, as it can be in any Book in∣spired by God: not as if it were not possible, that God should declare by inspiration, more clearly, that this Power belongeth to the Church, then now it is declared in the Scri∣ptures, (for then could there be no dispute about it) but, that it is as expresse as it can

be in these Scriptures, supposing them to be inspired by God. For, seeing those of the Congregations think, that they have a suffi∣cient answer to all that is brought for a Legislative Power in the Church, out of the Scriptures, by saying, that the Scriptures are given from above, and therefore the matters therein declared, being immediately commanded by God, are no ground of the like Power for the Church: It was necessary to remonstrate unto them, that, if this an∣swer were good, not onely there were no such Power de facto declared, but also no such Power could be declared by such Scri∣ptures. And therefore, that we are to look about us, and to consider, by what circum∣stances of things expressed in such Scri∣ptures, it may appear to common reason, that the Church practised it not without authority and warrant from the Scriptures.

If the Prophets of the Old Testament had this Power by the Law, that, if they dispensed with any positive precept of it, that precept was to cease for the time, (which is not any dream of the Jews Doctors, but an opinion received from their predecessors, without which, they involve themselves in most inextricable difficulties, that either de∣ny, or give any other reason of the tolerati∣on of High Places, before the Temple was

built, and after that, of the Sacrificing of E∣lias in Carmell, as also of the forbearance of Circumcision in the Wildernesse) it is no marvell, if the reproof of Ahab by Elias, 1 Kings XXI. 19—of his son by Elizeus, 2 Kings VI. 32. of Herod by our Lord and S. John Baptist, are imputed to the peculiar right of Prophets in Gods people, p. 179. For, seeing that the Law was the condition of the temporall happinesse of that people, whereof those Princes were Soveraign; and, seeing the Prophets were stirred up by God, to reduce and preserve the Law in force and practice, as well as to point out the true in∣tent and meaning of it, which the Gospel was fully to declare, it is very reasonable, and consequent, that their office should take place as well in regard of the Prince as of the people. Especially, seeing it was suffici∣ently understood, that the people, by ac∣knowledging them Prophets, were not tied to defend them by force against the publick power vested in the Prince, in case it were abused to destroy them, or bring their Do∣ctrine to no effect, as it is manifest by the sufferings of the Prophets in the Old Te∣stament, but, to reform themselves, accor∣ding to their Doctrine, in their own particu∣lars, and, to expect the reformation of the people from those that had the power of it.

And therefore, it is extremely inconsequent, that, by their example, in the time of Chri∣stianity, Preachers should make the personall actions, or publick government of their law∣full Soveraigns, the subject of their Ser∣mons, seeing that all parts of Christianity may be throughly taught the people, and every person of the people as fully under∣stand how grievous every sin is, as if they be stirred to malign and detest their Superi∣ours, by being told of their sins. How much more, when the actions in their whole kinds are not sins, but may be involved with such circumstances, as make them consistent with Christianity? Besides, seeing it is not every Preacher that is to regulate the proceedings of the Church, in such sins of publick per∣sons, as appear to destroy Christianity, to run before the publick censure of the Church, in declaring what it ought to doe, is not the zeal of a Christian, but such a scan∣dall, as leaves the person that does it liable himself to censure.

The sin of Will-worship, which I acknow∣ledge, p. 188. is as far distant from that vo∣luntary service of God under the Gospel, which answers to the voluntary Sacrifices of the Law, in my meaning, as it is in deed. For, as the Law had voluntary Sacrifices, or freewill offerings, not commanded by it, but

to be offered according to it, the price whereof consisted in the frank disposition of him that offered the same: So can it not be doubted, that the Sacrifices of Christi∣ans, their Prayers and their Alms, all the Works of Free bounty and goodnesse, toge∣ther with Fasting, and single life with conti∣nence, and whatsoever else gives men more means and advantages to abound in the same, may be offered to God out of our free∣will, not being under any Law requiring it at our hands. Onely the difference is this, that, whereas the Sacrifices of the Law are things neither good nor bad, but as they are tendred to God, either in obedience to the Law, or according to the same, all Sacrifice which we can tender to God under the Gospel, must needs consist in the spirituall worship of God: Not in the means whereby it is advan∣ced, that is, more plentifully or cordially performed. Now, though the spirituall wor∣ship of God is always commanded, yet, see∣ing it is not commanded to be done and ex∣ercised always, it is much in the disposition of Christians, what times, what places, what manner, what measure, what circumstances they will determine to themselves, (being not always determined by Gods Law) for the tendring of the Sacrifice of Christians, which, being so determined, shall be as truly

a voluntary Sacrifice, or freewill Offering, as any under the Law, and so much more excel∣lent as the Law is lesse excellent then the Gospel. If this may be received to goe un∣der the name of Will-worship, I am so far from counting Will-worship a sin, that I acknowledge that to be the height of Chri∣stianity, from whence it proceedeth. But I conceive the word is not improperly used, to signifie that, which the Jews are reproved by our Lord, after the Prophet Esay, for, because they worshipped God according to Doctrines taught by Traditions of men. Not because they practised the Law according to the determinations of the Greek Consisto∣ry, which, as I have many ways shewed, they had expresse power by the Law to make; and therefore our Lord also commands them to obey, Mat. XXIII. 2. But, because they thought there was a great deal of holinesse, in practicing the Precepts of the Law, pre∣cisely as their Elders had determined, which, setting aside the obedience of Gods Ordi∣nance, was nothing in Gods esteem, in com∣parison of that justice, and mercy, and pie∣ty, wherein the service of God, then, as al∣ways, consisted. We cannot but observe, that this sin is taxed by the Prophets often∣times, as well in the practice of those pre∣cepts which are expressed in the Scripture of

Moses his Law, as, by our Lord and the Pro∣phet Esay, in the ptactice of those which were introduced by humane authority, Psal. XL. 7- L. 8- Es. I. 12- Jerem. VII. 21—and therefore, consisteth not in observing things introduced by men, but in tendring to God, for the service of God, that which was not necessarily joyned with the inward holinesse of the heart, which God is to be served with. This sin of the Jews I conceive is found cor∣respondently in other professions, not onely of Gentiles and Mahumetanes, which can∣not worship God without it, but also of Christians, professing true Christianity, when they worship not God according to it: But, not because they acknowledge humane con∣stitutions, which, by Gods Ordinance, can∣not be avoided, but, because they may vain∣ly please themselves, in imagining, that they please God in observing them, without that disposition of the heart which God is to be served with. And this sin of the Jews, as Eu∣sebius cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so Epi∣phanius also, in some of the ancient Hereticks, cals it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which satisfies me, that it may be called Wil-worship in English: Though, whether the former voluntary and frank service of God, is not also called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I dispute not here.

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

That it is a mistake to think that Sove∣raign Powers are called Gods in the Scri∣pture, as is said p. 214. appears further by Exod. XXII. 28. Thou shalt not curse Gods, neither shalt thou speak evill of the Ruler of thy people. For, in this place, the Prince of the people, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a name common to Kings, Judges, and all their Governours in Chief, that were of their own Nation, whether ab∣solute, or under strangers. Therefore the Sa∣crifice enjoyned Levit. IV. 22. belonged to the King when they were under Kings, as the Jews agree. Therefore it is given the King also Ezek. XII. 10. VII. 27. XIX. 1. And therefore this Law is acknowledged by S. Paul, to belong to the High Priest, Acts XXIII. 5. because, as I said afore, the High Priests had then the Chief Power within their own People, as they had upon the re∣turn

from Babylonia. Wherefore, seeing this Precept consists of two parts, the second whereof belongs to the King, the first must belong to the Judges of their Consistories, according to the resolution of the Jews, that all and onely Judges made by Imposi∣tion of Hands, are called Gods in the Scri∣ptures.

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

I must not passe over this place, without taking into consideration the reasons, upon which, and the consequences, to which Era∣stus

his opinion seems to be advanced, in the late sharp work de Cive, where it is determi∣ned, that the interpretation of the Scri∣ptures (for which, I may as well say the Pow∣er of Giving Laws to the Church, seeing the greatest difficulty lies in determining con∣troversies of Faith) the constitution of Pa∣stors, the Power of binding and loosing, belongs to every Christian State, to be ex∣ercised by the ministery of Pastors of the Church: For, if this may take place, then is all that hath been said to no purpose. And truly, I must imbrace and applaud one posi∣tion, upon which all this proceeds, that the Church, to which any Right, or Power of acting according to any right, is attributed in the Scriptures, must needs be a Society that may be assembled, and therefore stands obliged to assemble: But, that hereupon alone it should be inferred, and taken for granted, that therefore, a Christian State, and a Christian Church are both the same thing, distinguished by two severall causes and considerations, when both consist of the same persons, I have all the reason in the World to stand astonished. For, it is not the persons, (which are supposed here to be the same) that any question can be made of, neither can the Church and the State be said to be the same thing, because they are

all the same. For, we speak not here of the nature of the persons, their souls or bodies, or any thing that either of both is endowed with, but we speak here, of the quality of a State, or a Church, affecting all those persons together, upon some voluntary act of God, or of themselves, or both, without making any change in the nature of any person so qualified, onely supposing the person whose act it is, able to doe the act, upon which they are qualified to be a State or a Church, and, by doing it, to oblige or privilege the per∣sons on whom it passes. Which kinde of things, are oftentimes, by Philosophers, Di∣vines, and Lawyers, called, to very good purpose, Morall things: Such are all man∣ner of rights, in all manner of Societies whatsoever, being nothing else, but abilities of doing something, which are not in other men not endowed with the same. So like∣wise, seeing that all the objects, of any faculty, naturall or morall, any habit of vir∣tue or vice, (or, that which is neither, but consists in skill or knowledge, or any perfe∣ction of nature, for which a man is neither good nor bad) may be denominated, and qualified, by the faculties or habits that are exercised upon them, by the same reason, as colour is said to be seen, or, as that is said to be right and just, which is done according

to justice; therefore, by the same common reason, if there be such a thing as Holinesse in the souls of men, which disposes them to reverence God, by tendring him that service which may expresse it, then are the Means, and the Circumstances, the Times, the Pla∣ces, and the Persons by which this reverence is publickly tendred to God, capable to be denominated Holy, by a morall quality, de∣rived from that Holinesse which dwels in the souls of Christians, and not onely capably, but actually so qualified in point of right, supposing that which hath been proved p. 212—that the practice of Gods people evi∣denced by the Scriptures, proves the reve∣rence of the same to be effectuall and neces∣sary, for the maintenance of that reverence of God, in those acts of his service, wherein the Holinesse of Christians consisteth. This, though it belong not to my present purpose, I have set down upon this occasion, out of a desire, further to declare the nature of that Holinesse, for which, Times, Places, and Persons, as also all other means which God is served by, are said to be Holy, and for what reason I call it p. 217. sometimes Morall, sometimes Ecclesiasticall Holinesse, some∣times also Relative, as others many times do call it. For, seeing it is grounded upon the relation which is between all faculties mo∣rall

or naturall, between all habits of virtue and vice, or whatever else, and the objects which they are exercised about, it is mani∣fest, how properly it is called Relative. A∣gain, seeing it hath been declared, that those qualifications, and denominations, which arise upon some act of God, or man, having power to oblige either others or themselves, are therefore called Morall, in opposition to such, as make a change in the nature of mens souls and bodies, when they become endowed therewith, because these Morall qualities accrue, without any change in the nature of them to whom they accrue, there∣fore that Holinesse, which belongs to things uncapable of that Holinesse which dwels in the souls of Christians, is properly called morall Holinesse, as grounded upon the Will of God, appearing to have appointed the reverence of them, to maintain that reve∣rence of him wherein Holinesse consisteth. And as, for this reason, in generall, it is called morall Holinesse, so, it is also called Ecclesi∣asticall, for the same reason expressed in par∣ticular, as depending upon that Will of God, by which, Christianity, and the Church, and the service of God therein subsisteth. To return then to my purpose, which gave me occasion to declare this here, seeing that, when the question is made, whether the

Church and the State, consisting of the same persons, be the same thing or not, there can be no question understood, of the nature, that is, the souls and bodies of the persons, which are supposed to be the same, but, of the Morall beeing of a State, whether the same give it the quality of a Church, or not 3. And, seeing the beeing of such things de∣pends upon the act by which they are consti∣tuted, we have no more to enquire but this, whether the same Act constitute a Church, which constitutes a State: And then, a very little enquiry will serve to shew, that though all Churches, and all States, subsist by the Act both of God and man, yet they are se∣verall Acts by which they are States, and by which they are Churches: So severall, that the Church subsists by immediate revelation from God, by our Lord and his Apostles, which no State doth; and whatsoever it is that makes any man a member of any State, it is not that which makes him a Christian, and so, a member of the Church, but some∣thing else. And therefore there is a fault in the reason of the inference propounded, which concludes thus, that a Church must be that which hath Power to assemble the persons whereof it consists now the State is it which hath Power to doe that. For, as it cannot be denied, that all States must needs

have Power to assemble themselves, so it must not be granted, that the Church hath not Power to doe the same, because it hath been proved here from the beginning, that the Church hath Power of assembling, not from any State, but immediately and origi∣nally from God, whether for the service of God, or for determining whatsoever shall become determinable, for the maintenance of Unity among all those that are to com∣municate in the service of God, and the Of∣fices of the same. Truly, so long as by Cir∣cumcision men became both members of a State, and of the Communion of Gods ser∣vice, the Church and the State were all one Society, as hath often been observed here, for the difference between the Law and the Gospel, both subsisting by the same Act of God, (calling them to be his people, and to inherit the Land of Promise, both upon con∣dition of keeping his Law) and by the same act of the people imbracing the same. Which holds not in Christianity, addressing it self to all Nations, and therefore preserving States in the condition which it findes, and yet founding a Society of the Church, upon the privilege and Charter of assembling for the service of God, and the Power which is requisite to preserves the Unity of all that assemble, in the condition, upon which they

communicate in the service of God. Which Society, as it was visibly distinct from all States, for all the time between our Lord and Constantine, so is it acknowledged, by this author, to have subsisted even under the Apostles, when as he alleges their Writings, to prove, those rights which they attribute to the Church, to belong to those States which are Christian: Which, for my part, I very much marvell how he could think fit to doe, knowing, that such acts as the Apo∣stles attribute to the Church, are so far from being the acts of the State, under which the Church then was, that they were prohibited by it, so often as the assemblies of Christians were forbidden, as you have seen that many times they were. By that which hath been said it may appear, what reason Ecclesiasticall Writers had, to make a difference between the names of the Synagogue and the Church, appropriating the former to the Jews, and this to the Christians, which I, for my part, so far as custome will give leave, desire to observe, though for the originall significati∣on, I see the name of Ecclesia was at the first most properly attributed to the whole body of Gods people assembled together in the Wildernesse, as, for example, at the giving of the Law. For, in all the divers significa∣tions in which it is used, speaking of Christi∣anity,

there is one and the same consideration of assembling together to be seen, though, upon severall reasons, and to severall purpo∣ses from the Synagogue. The whole com∣pany of those that shall meet and assemble together in the world to come, is called sometimes the Church, and so is the whole company of the Visible Church upon earth: Because, though they cannot meet bodily to communicate in the service of God, yet they ought to meet with that judgement and dis∣position of minde, that they may both com∣municate bodily in this world, when occasi∣on is, and actually meet altogether in the world to come. So is the company of Chri∣stians, contained in, either barely one City, or the Head City of a Province or Nation, called the Church of that City, Province, or Nation, because they so meet severally, that any of them may assemble with any, be∣cause under the same conditions. But, when one Congregation is called a Church, as som∣times it is in the Scriptures, it is for the same manner of assembling, as the whole people of Israel was assembled in the Wildernesse.

These things generally premised, it will not be difficult to defeat the productions of this assumption, in the particulars specified. And first, according to that which is here de∣termined p. 192. I admit, that the Power of

interpreting the Scriptures is nothing else but the Power of determining controversies of Faith: Though it is not, as by conse∣quence, to be admitted, that those interpre∣tations which come from this Power are as much the Word of God, as that which is in∣terpreted by the same, or infallible, or that we are bound to stand to them as much as to the Scriptures themselves. For, the Word of God, if we will understand it properly, is that onely, and all that which God giveth in Commission to be declared and enjoyned his people, and therefore this author very skilfully observeth, that the Word of God in the New Testament is as much as the Go∣spel, which God gave in charge to our Lord Christ, and he to his Apostles, to be publi∣shed to the world, with a charge from God to imbrace it: For so also, the Law was the Word of God to Moses, and all the Revelations granted the Patriarchs and Prophets, were the Word of God to them, because by them God declared how he would conduct his People: Whereas, after the Prophers of the Old Testament, though we finde that there were Prophets that spoke by inspiration, not onely by Josephus, speaking of those times of Gods people whereof there is no menti∣on in the Scriptures, but also by that which is said in the New Testament of Simeon and

Anna, Zachary and the Blessed Virgin, and of the Prophets of Churches; yet we do not finde it said, that the Word of the Lord came to any of them, because they received no∣thing in charge from God to his People. Wherefore, that which the Church hath re∣ceived from those persons, that spoke, not onely by inspiration and revelation, but also by Commission from God, the evidence of which Commission containeth all the mo∣tives to Christianity, must not be compared with any thing, which it may receive in charge any other way, though it be such as may produce an obligation to receive and observe it, of a nature answerable to the ground and intent of it, which I have decla∣red in the place afore quoted. Neither is it to be said that God faileth his Church, in any thing due to it, upon those promises whereby it subsisteth, if he have not provi∣ded it of such a Power to be received as in∣fallible, unlesse we will say, that God hath tied himself to preserve it free from the tem∣ptation and triall of Heresies and Schisms, which he hath sufficiently declared that he never intended to doe. Now, that, having determined, an infallible Power to be requi∣site, for the determining of matters of faith, by interpretation of the Scriptures, this au∣thor, in consequence to his assumptions

which I have spoke of, should challenge it to belong to all Christian States, I cannot choose but marvell: Seeing, that, as the Scriptures come by revelation and inspirati∣on from God, so, whatsoever shall pretend to like authority, must needs proceed from the same: Which, if the Church, that is, all that act upon the interesse and title thereof, derived from the immediate appointment of God, doe, by their proceedings disclaim, as I have declared, much more is it to be pre∣sumed, that all States, notwithstanding the profession of Christianity, must needs stand obliged to doe. For, all States content themselves with the procuring of civile ju∣stice, for which they are instituted, not tying themselves to question, whether that which is done be agreeable to the will of God, which the Gospel declareth, either for the thing that is done, which the Gospel many times determineth more strictly, then the Laws of civile States doe, or for the sincerity of intention which it is to be done with. Wherefore, if Christianity come to be limi∣ted by the determinations of civile Powers, then must the truth of the Gospel, and the spirituall righteousnesse which it requireth, be measured by those reasons, which the pub∣lick peace, and civile justice, which preser∣veth the same, may suggest. Whereas it hath

been declared, that it is not the bare profes∣sion of Christianity, that intitleth any man to any degree of superiority in the Church, but that, promotion to all degrees of the Clergy, doth, by the originall institution and appointment thereof, presuppose some de∣gree of proficience in the understanding and practice of Christianity, rendring them both able and willing to regulate all controversies of Christianity, not according to Interesse of State, but according to the will of Christ, and that spirituall righteousnesse which he advanceth. And, though it is many times seen, that Secular persons are more learned and pious in Christianity, then others of the Clergy, yet, I suppose, no man of common sense will presume it so soon, of him that is not inabled nor obliged to it by his professi∣on, as of him that is. And when the question is, what is agreeable to the appointment of God in such matters as these, I suppose, it is no presumption that God hath instituted any thing, because it is possible, (for, in mo∣rall matters, what is absolutely and univer∣sally impossible?) but because it is most con∣ducible to the intent purposed: And, that to the purposed end, of maintaining the truth of the Gospel, and that spirituall righteous∣nesse which it advanceth, it is more condu∣cible, that those things which concern it, be

determined by those that are inabled by their profession, to spend their time in searching the truth, and engaged by the same, to ad∣vance the spirituall righteousnesse of Christ, then barely Christians, as Secular Powers. As for the reason of this resolution, because, if the Power of determining matters of Faith, might be in any person, not subject to the State which the determination must ob∣lige, all that are to be obliged by it, must become thereby subjects to the Power that maketh it: As, supposing the temporall Power of the Pope, it is insoluble, so, sup∣posing what hath been premised, it ceaseth. For, seeing nothing prejudiciall to the pub∣lick Peace, or, to the Powers of the World that maintain the same, can be within the Power of the Church to determine, it can∣not be prejudiciall to any Christian State, to receive the resolutions and determinati∣ons of Ecclesiasticall matters from Coun∣cels, which may consist of persons not sub∣ject to them, as well as of such as are. For, if any thing prejudiciall to the publick peace, and lawfull Powers that maintain it, be advanced under pretense of Christianity, that is, if this Power be abused, then have the Secular Powers right to God, as well as Power to the world, to punish such at∣tempts: But the Church, neither right to

God, nor Power to the world, of resisting them, though their Power be ill used, to the suppression of Christianity, and of that Eccle∣siasticall Power that standeth by it, because it is to be maintained by suffering the Crosse and not by force.

As for the Power of binding and loosing, it is very well understood to consist, as well in judging that which is questioned to be consistent or inconsistent with that Christia∣nity which a man professeth, as in remitting or retaining sin, that is, in allowing, or voi∣ding the effect of Baptism, which is, the Communion of the Church. But, whereas it is said, that the first is the right of the State, the second the office of the Pastors of the Church, I demand, whether these Pa∣stors shall have Power to dissent, in case the judgement of the State agree not with their own, or not: For, that this may fall out it is manifest, and, that any man, by his quality in the Church, should be bound to proceed, in remitting and retaining sin, according to his own judgement, when as, by his subjecti∣on to the State, he is bound to proceed ac∣cording to the judgement thereof, is an in∣convenience as manifest. Whereas, that a man should be bound by his obligation to the Church, to proceed according to his own judgement in Church matters, and by

his subjection to the State, to suffer for it, when it is contrary to the judgement there∣of, is so farre from being an inconvenience, that it is the necessary consequence of bea∣ring Christs Crosse.

The same reason takes place, in that which is said, that the election of Pastors be∣longs to the State, and the Consecration to Pastors. For I have often shewed in the pre∣mises, that Imposition of Hands is a sign of consent, to the constituting of those who receive the same, implying a Power of dis∣senting, for the use whereof they are to ren∣der account, if it be used amisse. And truly, that Paul and Barnabas should be called A∣postles, Acts XIV. 4, 13. in regard of their sending by the Holy Ghost, Acts XIII. 1—I count it not strange: For the extent of the word, and the use thereof will bear it: Though it is manifest, that otherwise, Bar∣nabas had Commission from the Church at Jerusalem, Acts XI. 22. that is, from the A∣postles: Paul, not from men, nor by men, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father that rai∣sed him from the dead, Gal. I. 1. though ac∣knowledged first, (as to the Commission which he received with Barnabas, Acts XIII. 2.) by the Church of Antiochia, but after∣wards, in the right of the XII Apostles, by themselves at Jerusalem, Gal. II. 9. But I

count it strange, that, to prove the Power of the State in choosing Pastors, it should be alleged, that this dictate of the Holy Ghost, by which Paul and Barnabas were set apart to the work for which they were designed, Acts XIII. 2. was to be acknowledged for the dictate of the Holy Ghost, by the Church of Antiochia. I have shewed, that, under the Old Testament, the Consistory were to judge of Prophets, and to obey them being received, which power was sufficiently abused among them. I doe beleeve also, that there was means given the Church to be resolved in the same, that the precept of the Apostle, 1 Cor. XII. 3. 1 John IV. 1—tendeth to that effect, that the grace of dis∣cerning Spirits, 1 Cor. XII. 9. was to such a purpose: I remember the words of S. Am∣brose upon the beginning of Saint Luke, speaking of the Old Testament, Erat autem populi gratia discernere spiritus, ut sciret quos in Prophetarum numerum referre deberet, quos tanquam bonus nummularius reprobare: Now, saith he, it was a grace that the people had, to discern spirits, so as to know whom to reckon among the Prophets, whom, like a good Banker, to refuse: And I have found in a written copy, containing expositions of divers Greek words of the Old and New Testament, this Glosse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, discerning of Spirits, (spoken of 1 Cor. XII. 9.) is the distinguishing between those that pro∣phesied truly and falsly; And this I beleeve to be S. Pauls meaning, because of the corre∣spondence of that which S. Ambrose relateth of the Synagogue. I must, therefore, needs beleeve, that the Church was provided by God, of means to be resolved, who spoke by the Holy Ghost, who onely pretended so to doe: But, that Christian States should have Power to elect Pastors, because Christian Churches were able to judge whom the Ho∣ly Ghost had elected, whom not, is a conse∣quence which I understand not. For, as it was then one thing to elect, another to dis∣cern whom the Holy Ghost had elected, so, a Christian State is now far another thing then the Church of Antiochia was at that time.

Neither is it any thing available to this purpose, which this author laboureth to prove, that the Soveraign Power, together with the Power of interpreting the Word of God, were both in the High Priests of the Jews, and afterwards in the Kings of Gods people, after that they were establi∣shed. For, by the particulars here declared from p. 225. it will appear, that it was no otherwise in the Kings of Gods people, then

it is now in Christian Princes and States, (ex∣cepting that the Law was given to one Peo∣ple, the Gospel sent to all Nations) to wit, as for the Power of inforcing Gods Law, in the way of Fact: Whereas, the Power of determining the Law of God in the way of Right, was as much estated upon the Con∣sistories of that People, by Gods Laws, as the Power of giving Rules to the Church, is now upon the Synods of the same. Nei∣ther is the People of Israel a Priestly King∣dome, as Moses cals them, Exod. XIX. 6. be∣cause the Priests were to be Kings of them. For, the Originall imports a Kingdome of Priests, which Onkelus translates Kings and Priests, as also the New Testament, Apoc. I. 6. V. 10. Which if it signifie, that all the Israelites should be both Kings and Priests, then certainly it inforceth not, that their High Priests should be their Kings: But that they should be Kings, because redeemed from the servitude of strangers, to be a people Lords of themselves; and Priests, because redeemed to spend their time in sacrificing and feasting upon their sacrifices, (which is the estate, under the figure whereof God pro∣miseth unto them, that which he meant to his Church, and they still expect under their Messias, Es. LXI. 6.) though they sacrificed not in person, but by their Priests appointed

in their stead, by Imposition of the Elders hands, Num. VIII. 10. As for the charge of Josuah to goe in and out at the word of Ele∣azar, Num. XXVII. 21. it is expresly decla∣red there to be said, in regard of the Oracle of God by Vrim and Thummim, which the High Priest was to declare, as you see by Deut. XXXIII 8. and Josuah to consult in all his undertakings. For, this is one of the principall reasons, why the government of that people, before they had Kings, was, as Josephus cals it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, the Em∣pire of God, because he, by his Oracles of Vrim and Thummim, prescribed how they were to proceed in their publick affairs. Another reason being this, because he stirred them up Judges when he pleased, which, be∣ing of his immediate appointment, are so far acknowledged by him, that when they were weary of Samuel, and desired a King, God declareth, that it was not Samuel, but himself, whom they refused. And therefore, it is not to be said, that of Right the High Priests ought to have had the Power, though de facto the Judges had it during their time: For, if it be said, that the Israelites cast off God, Jud. II. 10. because they would not be subject to the High Priest, but imbraced the Judges it could not be understood, how they should refuse God by refusing Samuel, that

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

was one of the Judges. Therefore, the So∣veraign Power was of right in the Judges, for which it is said, Jud. XVII. 7. as also XVIII. 1. XIX. 1. XXI. 25. that there was no King in Israel, speaking of the time before the Judges, (when Josephus, and all the cir∣cumstance shews these things fell out) though they were not always obeyed, Jud. II. 17. because, as Prophets, they laboured to recall the people from their Idolatries.

That which is here said of the Mariage of Booz and Ruth, p. 241. seems to be confirmed by the opinion of Epiphanius, that our Lord was invited to the Mariage at Cana in Gali∣lee, that, as a Prophet, he might blesse the Mariage. For, what is this but the same that the Church always practised afterwards, in Blessing Mariages, to signifie, that they were approved to be made, according to the Law of God? For which reason also, the custome of celebrating Mariages with the Sacrament of the Eucharist was established, that the Power of the Keys, from which the Com∣munion of the Eucharist proceeds, might declare thereby an approbation of that which was done.