The Nonconformists Plea for Peace, Additions

The Nonconformists Plea for Peace · Additions

p. 250Additions: more particularly of National Churches.

§1. THere are ſome worthy perſons who plead more ſpecially for National Churches as of Divine Inſtitution, whoſe Doctrine calls us to a ſpecial conſideration of it. But though ſome of us have oft deſired it, we have not hitherto obtained any ſatisfaction what they mean by A National Church, or any true definition which they agree in: Some of them deride us for doubting and asking the queſtion, and ſome anſwer it to the increaſe of our doubt.

§2. It muſt be preſuppoſed that we ſpeak not of a meer Community that hath no Paſtors, but ſtrictly of a Society called by ſome Political, by p. 251others Organized, conſtituted of Paſtors and People mutually related; which is the ordinary ſenſe of the word [Church.] And we muſt premiſe what being commonly agreed on, is none of our doubt or queſtion.

§3. The queſtion is not whether any, or all Nations and Kingdoms ſhould be Chriſtians, and ſo be the Kingdoms of Chriſt: That's paſt doubt. 2. Nor is it whether in ſuch Kingdoms the King be the Head, as to the power of the ſword; that is, a Chriſtian Civil Governour of a Chriſtian People that are his Subjects. We daily pray that the Kingdoms of the world may all be Chriſtian; and we believe that their Kings are the Governours by the ſword, of all the Clergy, as well as others. 3. Nor is the queſtion whether Kings may call all their Kingdoms into a holy Covenant with God (by lawful means) giving them an example firſt themſelves. 4. Nor do we contend about an Equivocal Name, whether a Chriſtian Kingdom, as ſuch, may be called a National Church. 5. No nor whether a Chriſtian Nation, governed by a Heathen or Mahometan King, may be called a Chriſtian Church or Kingdom; or a Proteſtant Nation ruled by a Papiſt King, is to be called a Proteſtant Kingdom or Church: for this is but about bare names. 6. Nor do we queſtion whether a Chriſtian King may make ſuch accidental diſparity between the Paſtors, as we have before deſcribed. 7. Nor yet whether the Paſtors of one Kingdom may aſſociate and hold Synods for Unity and Counſel, and be named a National Church, as they are ſuch Aſſociations, obliged to Concord.

§4. But our doubts are theſe; 1. Whether it p. 252be in it ſelf ſpecially inſtituted by God, that every Kingdom or Nation of Chriſtians ſhall have [One ſummam Poteſtatem eſſentialiter Eccleſiaſticam, or one Prieſt-Head, (whether a ſingle perſon, or an Ariſtocracy, or a Common Synod) as a conſtitutive part of the National Church. 2. Whether this Prieſt-Head (whether High-Prieſt, or Council,) ſtand in ſubordination to the King, as part of the ſame formal Church, as a General, or a Vicerov, that maketh not a diſtinct Kingdom, (though he may make a diſtinct ſubordinate Society as an Army, City, &c) or is he Head of a coordinate different ſpecies, ſo as that the ſame Kingdom ſhall be two Policies formally, viz. a Chriſtian Kingdom or Royal Church, and a Prieſtly Church; each being ſupream in their proper ſpecies, and both made coordinate by Chriſt; and ſo they are formally two Churches National. About the Jews the Controverſie is made by Diſſenters (e. g. Galaſpie, Coleman, Selden, &c.) exceeding difficult. 3. Whether the very Jewiſh Church Policy be eſtabliſhed by Chriſt for the Chriſtian Church, or be repealed? 4 Whether the ſaid Eccleſiaſtical Head muſt be One as the High Prieſt, or an Ariſtocracy of many, or a Synod of the whole Clergy? or whether it be left indifferent which? 5. Or whether God hath ordained ſuch a National Church-form, only by the general Command of doing all things in Order and Unity and to Edification? 6. Which is the Prieſtly-Head, or higheſt Governour of the Church of England, which is a conſtitutive part, as a King in a Kingdom? 7. Who is it that chooſeth or authorizeth the National Prieſtly Head, that we may know when we have a lawful Chief Paſtor, p. 235and when an Uſurper? 8. Whether the King or he, is to be obeyed in Circumſtances, or matters Eccleſiaſtical, if they differ, and make contrary Laws? Without the ſolution of theſe queſtions, the name of a National Church will not be underſtood, nor of any practical importance. Our own thoughts of them are as followeth.

§ 5. It is certain, that the Moſaical Law made for the Jews peculiar republick, as ſuch, is abrogate; not only the Ceremonial part, but all: All that was not then made for all the world, is ceaſed; 1. Becauſe the Common-wealth is ceaſed for which it was made: 2. The Holy Ghoſt expreſly and frequently determineth it ſo; even of that Law that was written in ſtone, as ſuch, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Heb. 7. 12. 19. Gal. 4. 21, & o. 3. 24. The natural part, and that which was inſtituted poſitively long before for perpetuity, were both of them God's Laws before Moſes's time, and as ſuch, obliged other Nations, and ſo do ſtill: The matter written in ſtone (except ſome few mutable particulars, as the ſeventh day Sabbath, &c.) is ſuch as we are ſtill obliged to, 1. By Nature, 2. By Chriſt: But not as it was part of the Jews peculiar Moſaical Law. Much leſs doth it bind all the world to its Policy.

§ 6. If the Jewiſh Law, either as ſuch, or as ſtabliſhed by Chriſt for his Kingdom, did bind all the world to this day, then it would bind them to their Civil Policy, as much at leaſt as to their Eccleſiaſtical. But few Chriſtians think that it binds them to their Civil Policy. For if it did, then, 1. All Nations that have varied from it to this day, have ſinned: 2. No diverſity of p. 254Governments could be lawful: 3. Then it would perplex men, to be ſure, whether it be the old Moſaical form by Judges, or the later Regal form that bindeth: 4. Then ſuch a Civil Council or Sanhedrim as was appointed the Jews, would be a Divine Eſtabliſhment, and not variable at the will of Kings or People. Many other things would follow, which Kings would not eaſily believe.

§ 7. There may be much more ſaid for the continuance of the Jews civil Policy than for their Eccleſiaſtical: For there is much more forbidden of the latter, than of the former; Though all nations be not bound to their civil policie, they may ſet it up if they pleaſe; They are not prohibited: For Chriſt hath not made new Laws for civil ſtates as ſuch; But he hath made new Church Laws, and thereby altered, yea prohibited much of the old.

§ 8. We know no more reaſon why the Jewiſh form ſhould bind us, than that which was before the Jews: and particularily Melchezedeks, who was a King and Prieſt: God owned both and commandeth us neither, at leaſt as in conformity to them.

§ 9. The Holy Ghoſt ſaith expreſly Heb. 7. 11. 12. That perfection was not by the Levitical Prieſthood, and that the Prieſthood being changed, there is made of neceſſity a change of the Law, which is called, the Law of a carnal Cammandment, verſe 16. and that there is a diſanulling of the Commandement going before for the weakneſs and unprofitableneſs of it; for the Law made nothing perfect, v. 18, 19. the Covenant or Law being not faultleſs a new one doth ſucceed it v. 7. 8. 9. 10. The firſt Tabernacle is not ſtanding which had their p. 255ordinances of divine ſervice and a worldly ſanctuary: Heb. 9 1. 8. 11. He taketh away the firſt Law and Prieſthood, that he may eſtabliſh the ſecond, Heb. 10. 8, 9 11. 16. 17, &c.

§ 10. Whileſt it is agreed on, that the eſſentials of the work or office of the Jewiſh Prieſts is ceaſed, (as Heb. 7. and 8, 9, and 10 ſhew,) and their Title by birth, and the appropriation to one Tribe, &c. it followeth that the Jewiſh Prieſthood is ceaſed. But yet we confeſs that Chriſt, if he had pleaſed, might have ſetled a High Prieſt and Council like theirs in every nation for his own work. But if the old form bind us not, we are left only to enquire what new one is ſetled by Chriſt, and whether he have done ſo or not.

§ 11. We juſtly maintain againſt the Anabaptiſts, that Infants relation to the Covenant, and the univerſal Church (as members) was not repealed by Chriſt, becauſe it was not founded only on the Law of Moſes: which if it had, it were as ſuch repealed

§ 12. The Holy Ghoſt by the Apoſtles Acts 15. hath declared to all the Churches of the Gentiles that they are not bound to keep the Law of Moſes, and hath abſolved us from all, ſaving things antecedently, and on other reaſons neceſſary. verſe. 28.

§ 13 If the Jews form of Government be ours, then the High-Prieſt muſt have the power of the Sword, or ſit in judgment for life or death, as Deut. 17. 12, 13. and other places ſhew: But many Papiſts and Proteſtants are agreed that the clergy have no power of the Sword, or force, unleſs the King make them alſo Magiſtrates.

§ 14. It is a matter of ſo great importance to p. 256the Church to know whom we muſt obey, that it is not to be thought that any way is made neceſſary by Chriſt, which he hath not made intelligible and certain to be indeed his will: Eſpecially when the Apoſtles ſtrove who ſhould be the chief, and two of them made it their requeſt; and when the Corinthians and others were ready to ſet up one before another, and ſay I am of Cephas, &c.

§ 15. Yea Chriſt on this occaſion expreſly forbad them to ſeek to be one above another, and told them that though Kings exerciſe authority, and have magnifying Titles, with them it ſhould not be ſo, but their preeminence ſhould conſiſt, as that of a ſervant, in humility and ſervice unto others Luk. 22. which will not ſtand (as we ſuppoſe) with eſtabliſhing the Jewiſh order.

§ 16. And Pauls reproof of their making a Church head of Cephas, Paul, or Apollo, or taking them to be other than helps of their faith, (and not Lords of it) and Miniſters by whom they believed, even then when Schiſms made it neceſſary to have known to whom they muſt appeal and adhere, if that had been the way, doth further confirm what we ſay.

§ 17. The argument that ſome worthy perſons bring, from the Propheſies that Nations ſhould be converted unto Chriſt; and that the Kingdom ſhould be taken from the Jews, and given to a Nation that would bring forth the fruits of it Matth. 21. 43. and that the Kingdomes of the world are made the Kingdoms of Chriſt, and that Egypt and Aſſyria ſhould be converted and equalled with the Jews, &c. do ineeed ſhew that there ſhould be Chriſtian Kings and Kingdoms; p. 257which the Apoſtles were ſent to endeavour, Mat. 28. 19. to convert Nations: But here is nothing, that we can perceive, to prove that theſe Chriſtian Nations muſt have the Jewiſh Church Policy.

§ 18. Nay contrary, the Church is ſaid to be built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apoſtles, Eph. 2. 20. and not of the Moſaical Policy of Prieſthood, Rev. 21. 14. It hath twelve foundations.

§ 19. It is ſaid, Zech. 2. 11. Many Nations ſhall be joyned to the Lord, and ſhall be my people. So Zech. 8. 22. Iſa. 65. 1. Rom. 10. 20. Iſa. 2. 2. & 55. 5. Hoſ. 2. 23. Iſa. 60. 3. & 49. 22. But not a word in all this, of the old form of Policy or Prieſthood, but Contrarily, that the Law ſhould come out of Zion, and a new Covenant ſhould be made: And it is certain that ſo large a hiſtory as we have of Chriſt's performances, is a far clearer light than obſcure Prophecies; and darker texts muſt be explained by the plainer, and not contrarily.

§ 20. We ſee not how the Synod Act. 15. maketh any thing for a National High Prieſt or Sanedrim, or any like Policy: For 1. It appeareth to be no act of proper National Government, but did bind other Churches as well as thoſe within the Empire. 2. It was an arbitration at the requeſt of doubting perſons; and it was not the Relation of the Arbitrators to one ſeat of National Power (as the Metropolis) that was reſpected, but the quality of the perſons ſent to, who would have been equally obeyed had they dwelt in the leaſt Village of another Land. 1. There were the Apoſtles that had the promiſe p. 258of the Holy Ghoſt: 2. There were many▪ whom the people muſt needs more confide in than in one; eſpecially whoſe power was queſtioned by gainſayers. 3. Both Apoſtles, Elders and Brethren there were ſuch as had ſeen, or were neer to Chriſt and his works, and therefore likelieſt to know his mind. 4. They were Jews themſelves, and therefore moſt impartial Judges in the point that Jewiſh Teachers troubled them about, ſo far as that they might well acquieſce when Jews themſelves reſolved them. And when the Apoſtles were diſperſed, we find not any more Jeruſalem-Councils Governing the Imperial Churches.

§ 21. If that Councils Authority were properly National, and aroſe from the prerogative of Jeruſalem, then 1. All the Apoſtles, when ſcattered, would have been ſubject to James, the firſt Biſhop of Jeruſalem, (thought to be no Apoſtle:) 2. Then Jeruſalem might have after claimed the Supremacy as of Divine right, before Alexandria, Antioch or Rome. But it is certain by experience that the whole Church was of another mind, when Jeruſalem had not ſo much as the fifth or loweſt Patriarchate, till long after by another grant. But if the Power was not fixed to the place, but the Itinerant Apoſtles, then it is nothing to prove any Governing Church over others, as being affixed to ſuch a place: Nor ſhall we eaſily find the Apoſtles Itinerant Succeſſours in that power.

§ 22. II. It is certain that Chriſt choſe twelve Apoſtles (beſides Paul) who had a preeminence before other Miniſters; and that he joyned with them ſome Prophets and Evangeliſts, appointing them all to gather Churches through the world, p. 259diſcipling and baptizing Nations, and teaching them all things that he commanded (a work to be ſtill done, and to which he promiſed his preſence to the end of the world:) And that theſe having gathered Converts, ſet over them fixed Biſhops (or Paſtors or Elders) to be their conſtant Guides, in Teaching, Publick Worſhip, and Diſcipline, under Chriſt the great Prophet, Prieſt and King of the Church. And that to the Apoſtles firſt, and by them to others, he gave them the Keys (that is, the Judging Power of reception, and rejection, and the Official Power of pronouncing God's reception or rejection of them according to his Word.)

§ 23. There is not the leaſt evidence that theſe Apoſtles did affix a Superiour Power over the other Churches to any particular ſeats, Patriarchal or Metropolitan, much leſs National; or that any of them exerciſed Government over the reſt; or that they themſelves did fix themſelves as Biſhops to any twelve or thirteen Cities in the world; much leſs to twelve Kingdoms.

§ 24. There is no notice in Church hiſtory of any one National Church-power (Prieſt or Synod) ſetled, aſſerted or exerciſed under Heaven, of above three hundred years. Egypt and Aſſyria that were propheſied to be Chriſtian Nations, never were diſtinct Chriſtian Kingdoms, but parts of the Empire; nor had a National Church or Head (being but parts of ſuch a Church:) Nay, when Rome got the National Primacy, it had not ſuch a Prieſtly Governing Soveraignty as the Jews High-Prieſt had.

§ 25. Though there was no Chriſtian King for p. 260three hundred years (unleſs he of Edeſſa, or Lucius of England, of whom we have little certainty; but it's like that both were ſubjects to others) yet if a Supream Church-Power had been neceſſary, the Apoſtles would have before erected it; which they never did: For even Rome pretendeth to be by them made the Ruler of the whole world, and not a meer National Head (which Conſtantinople claimed, but not as of Apoſtolical inſtitution.)

§ 27. The queſtion whether the Jews, had they believed, ſhould have continued their High-Prieſt and Church Policy, is vain as to our purpoſe; 1. It being certain to Chriſt that they would be diſſolved by unbelief: And 2. he having ſetled another way, and changed theirs: 3. And if their Prieſthood and Law (except as it typified ſpiritual things) had ſtood, yet it would not have bound the Gentile Chriſtians in other Nations.

§ 28. When Emperours became Chriſtians, they did not ſet up the Jewiſh Policy, nor thought themſelves bound to it; no nor any ſetled Prieſtly Supremacy for National Government: For Councils were called but on rare accidents by the Emperours themſelves, and to decide particular caſes about Hereſies: And the Pope had but the firſt voice in ſuch Councils.

§ 29. But if every Nation muſt have the Jewiſh Policy, then the whole Empire muſt then have one High Prieſt, and then the Pope hath a fair pretence to his claim of a Divine Inſtitution, as the Church Soveraign of the whole Empire, which, it's like, was then ſeven parts in eight of the whole Chriſtian world at leaſt, (unleſs Abaſſia p. 261were then generally Chriſtians, as now.) But then his power would change with the Empire, and fall when it falleth.

§ 30. III. But if the queſtion be only whether a National Prieſtly Soveraignty be lawful? or whether God's general Rules (for Concord, Order, Edification) do bind the Churches prudentially to erect ſuch a form? To this they ſayas followeth. 1. We will firſt lay hold on certainties, and not prefer uncertainties before them. We are ſure that ſuch a power of Apoſtles and Paſtors as is before mentioned, was eſtabliſhed; and that the junior Paſtors were as Sons to the ſeniors, ordained by them: Whether the power of Ordaining and Governing Miniſters was by Apoſtolical Eſtabliſhment appropriated to men of a ſuperiour degree in the ſacred Miniſtry, ſeemeth to us very dark. 2. We are paſt doubt that all particular Churches, by Apoſtolical order, had Biſhops; and that a Church was, as Hierom ſaith, Plebs Epiſcopo adunata, and as Ignatius, the Unity of every Church was notified by this, that to every Church there was one Altar and one Biſhop (at that time) and as Cyprian, Ubi Epiſcopus, ibi Eccleſia. 3. And we are ſatisfied, that every Presbyter is Epiſcopus Gregis, whoever claim to be Epiſcopi Epiſcoporum (which the Carthage Council in Cyprian renounced.) 4. And we are ſatisfied that no Church-ſuperiours have authority to deſtroy the particular Church form, Miniſtry, Doctrine, Worſhip or Diſcipline, which were ſetled by the Holy Ghoſt in the Apoſtles; And that the priviledges and duties of theſe ſingle particular Churches, being plaineſt and ſureſt in Scripture, they muſt be continued whatever Canons or p. 262Commands of any ſuperiour Prieſts ſhould be againſt them. 5. Nor can they force any man to ſin: 6. Nor have any Prieſts a forcing power, by the ſword or violence, but only the power of the Word and Keys, that is, of taking in, or putting out of the Church, where they have power, and binding men over, on juſt cauſe, to the judgment of God. The power that they have is from Chriſt, and for him, and not againſt him; and for the Churches ediſication, and not deſtruction; and what is pretended contrary to this, is none. They cannot diſpenſe with the Laws of God, but preach and execute them. 7. And theſe things being thus ſecured, though in our doubts we dare not ſwear or ſubſcribe that National, Patriarchal, Provincial, or Metropolitical Powers are of God's inſtitution; yet we reſolve to live in all Chriſtian peaceableneſs and ſubmiſſion, when ſuch are over us.

§ 31. And we muſt profeſs that when we find how anciently and commonly one Presbyter in each Church was peculiarly called the Biſhop, without whom there was no (ordinary) ordinations, and againſt whom in matters of his power none was to reſiſt, and alſo how generally the Churches in the Roman Empire conformed themſelves to an imitation of the civil power (as to their limits) in all the official part (being all ſubject to the Emperour, who ſet up no Eccleſiaſtical Peer,) we are not ſo ſingular or void of reverence to thoſe Churches, as not by ſuch notices to be much the more inclined to the aforeſaid ſubmiſſion and peaceableneſs under ſuch a power; nor are we ſo bold or raſh as to reproach it or condemn the Churches and p. 263excellent perſons that have practiſed it.

§32. Nay we have already ſaid, that ſecuring the ſtate, worſhip, doctrine and true diſcipline of the inferiour particular (Pariſh) Churches, there are ſome of us that much incline to think that Archbiſhops, that is, Biſhops that have ſome overſight of many Churches with their Paſtors, are Lawful ſucceſſours of the Apoſtles in the ordinary part of their work. And ſuch of us have long ago ſaid, that the Epiſcopal Government of the Bohemian Waldenſes deſcribed by Commenius and Laſcitius, is moſt agreable to our judgment of any that we know excerciſed: Therefore that which we humbly offered for our concord in England at His Majeſties Reſtauration, was Archbiſhop Uſhers form of the Primitive Church Government, not attempting any diminution of the Power, wealth or honour of the Dioceſanes or Archbiſhops, but only a reſtauration of the Presbyters to their proper Officework, and ſome tolerable diſcipline to the particular Pariſh Churches.

§33. But we muſt ever much difference, ſo much of Church order and Government as God himſelf hath inſtituted, and is purely divine and unchangeable, from thoſe accidentals which men ordain though according to Gods general Rules: For theſe are often various and mutable, and are means to the former, and never to be uſed againſt them. And of theſe accidentals of Government we ſay as they that ſay no ſuch form is fixed by God. Concord, order & decency and edification are alwaies neceſſary, But oft times it may be indifferent whether concord, order and decency be expreſſed by this accidental way or that. And p. 264that which is moſt congruous for order, decency, edification and concord in one Countrey, Church or time, may be incongruous in another. Therefore if the queſtion be but how far the giving one Biſhop or Paſtor power over others, or making diſparity of Cities in conformity to the ſtate, be prudently to be choſen; we only ſay, ſo that Gods eſtabliſhment be not violated, whatever we might think beſt, we preſume not herein to give Laws to the Lawgivers, nor to obtrude our Counſel uncalled, on our ſuperiours, much leſs ſeditiouſly to oppoſe their Lawful inſtitutions.

§ 34. But to thoſe that think that Gods foreſaid General Laws (of order, concord, edification) do make ſuch a policy ordinarily neceſſary in the Churches, as imitateth the Jews, or the civil form of Government, we humbly offer to their conſideration; 1. If ſo, then it would have been the matter of an Vniverſal Law, (with its due exceptions;) And then Chriſt the only Vniverſal Lawgiver would have made it: For if he have not made all neceſſary Vniverſal Laws, his Laws are imperfect; And then there ſhould be ſome other Vniverſal Lawgiver to ſupply that defect: But there is no other upon earth (whether Pope or Council,) 2. It is contrary to the nature of undetermined circumſtances to be alwaies the ſame, and ſo to be fit matter of ſuch Vniverſal or fixed Laws: The caſes will vary, and then ſo will the duty; 3. There will be great diverſity of the intereſt, and ingeny of the Judges of the caſe in ſeveral Countries and ages: And therefore though ſome think the ſaid imitation of the civil ſtate alwaies beſt, vet others will not.

§ 35. But if ſuch a ſettlement were certainly p. 265beſt, let it be remembred, 1. That the Jews had not under the chief High-Prieſt, one in every City or Tribe like Dioceſane Biſhops. 2. That their Synagogues had diſcipline within themſelves; ever where there was but a Village of ten perſons, there was a Presbyter that had the power of judging offenders.

§ 36. What man doth prudently ſet up, man may prudently alter as there is cauſe. Greg. Nazianzen earneſtly wiſheth that there were no difference of Place or ſeats among the Paſtors of the Church. And therefore he neither thought their Government of each other to be of Divine right, nor of prudential neceſſity or uſe: Elſe he would have been againſt it. And the whole Greek Church did, and ſtill doth take the ſeats of preeminence to be but of mans appointment, or elſe they would never have changed them, and ſet Conſtantinople ſo high as they did: And the Council of Calcedon expreſly determineth, that Rome was by the fathers made the chief ſeat becauſe it was the ſeat of the Emperour; which was mutable.

§ 37. The Councils in thoſe daies were about Popes or Patriarchs, and could depoſe them: And yet it is moſt evident to any man conſiderately reading ſuch hiſtory, that all the Councils, called before Chriſtian Emperours gave them more power and conjoyned their authority, did meet only for acts of Agreement and not of Regiment over each other: Many ſuch ſynods are mentioned by Euſebius: And the Right Reverend Arch-biſhop Uſher declared his judgment ſo in general that Councils had but an agreeing power, and not a Regent power over the particular Biſhops. p. 266Yet theſe two things muſt be ſuppoſed, 1. That the Paſtors in a ſynod are ſtill Rectors of their ſlocks, and their Canons to them may be more authoritative than a ſingle Paſtors words: 2. That Gods Law bindeth us to keep love and concord, and the Agreements of Councils may determine of the matter in alterable points; and ſo even abſent and preſent Biſhops may, concordiae gratiâ, be obliged by Gods Law to keep ſuch canons as are made for concord, and ſo they may be the matter of our duty. But ſeeing the Church for 300 years, judged Councils to have no proper Governing power over particular Paſtors; and Biſhops, or Patriarchs ſingly had ever leſs power than Councils, it followeth that then a Churches Government of diſparity and ſupraordinate Biſhops like the civil, or like the Jews, was not then taken to be of divine right, nor then of any right at all.

§ 38. And as to the doubt [whether it began after 300 years to be a prudential duty or at leaſt moſt deſirable] when we hear what is ſaid on both ſides we think it not eaſie to judge, either how much in ſuch a caſe Chriſt hath left to humane prudence, nor which way the ſcales of prudence herein will ordinarily turn. On one ſide it is ſaid 1. That it is abſurd that there ſhould be no appeals for injured perſons to a ſuperiour power; 2. And that the diſſenſions of the Church elſe will be remedileſs, and all will be broken into hereſies and ſects; 3. And that Apoſtolical men of a higher rank than meer Presbyters will elſe have no convenient opportunity to excerciſe their Governing power, if it be not tyed to fixed ſeats.

p. 267§ 39. On the other ſide they plead; 1. That it is ſafer for the Church to have Religion in the power of many Biſhops or Paſtors, than that one High Prieſt or Patriarch ſhould have power to corrupt it, or ſilence the faithful preachers, or perſecute the people when ever he proveth a bad man: Yea they ſay it muſt be rare if he be not bad, ſeeing it is certain that the moſt proud and worldly men (which are the worſt) will be the moſt earneſt ſeekers of rich and honourable places; and he that ſeeketh will uſually find. 2. They ſay Chriſt directly forbad this to his Apoſtles Luk. 22. That which they ſtrove for was it that he forbad them: But that which they ſtrove for was who ſhould be the chief or greateſt (and not who ſhould tyrannize) 3. They ſay that all Church hiſtory aſſureth us that there have been more Schiſms and ſcandalous contentions about the great ſuperiour Biſhopricks far, than any of the reſt: It is a doleful thing to read the hiſtory of the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Conſtantinople, and Rome: Gregory Nazianzen giveth it as the reaſon, why the contention at Ceſarea was ſo lamentable, becauſe it was ſo high an Archbiſhoprick. The whole Chriſtian world hath been ſcandalized, torn and diſtracted by the ſtrife of Biſhops of and for the higheſt ſeats. Their famous General Councils which we juſtly honour for their function and that which they did well, were ſhamefully militant: even the firſt and moſt honoured Council at Nice, was with great difficulty kept in Peace by the perſonal preſence, wiſdom and authority of Conſtantine, preaching peace to the preachers of peace, burning their libels of mutual accuſation, p. 268& ſilencing their contentious wranglings, and conſtreining them to accord. Nazianzens deſcriptions of the ignorance and inſolence, and naughtineſs of the Clergy, Orat 1. and of the ſhameful ſtate of the Biſhops, Orat. 32. muſt make the readers heart to grieve, The people he deſcribeth as contentious at Conſtantinople yet as endued with the Love of God, though their zeal wanted knowledge, pag, 528. But (the Courtiers, as whether true to the Emperours he knew not, but for the greateſt part perfidious to God: And the Biſhops as fitting on adverſe thrones, and feeding adverſe oppoſite flocks, drawn by them into factions, like the clefts that Earthquakes make, and the peſtilent diſeaſes that infect all about, and diſtracting and dividing all the world, ſeparating the Eaſt from the Weſt, by the noiſe, of meus et tuus, antiquus et novus; nobilior aut ignobilior; multitudine opulentior aut tenuior; raging like furious horſes in battel, and like madmen caſting duſt into the air, and under their heads fulfilling their own contentions and becoming the determiners of wicked ambition and magnificence, and unrighteouſneſs and abſurd Judges of matters: The ſame men (ſaith he) are to day of the ſame throne (or ſide) and judgement, as we are, if ſo our leaders and chief men carry them: To morrow if the wind do but turn, they are for the contrary ſeat, and judgement. Names (or votes) follow hatred or friendſhip: And which is moſt grievous, we bluſh not to ſay contrary things to the very ſame hearers; nor are we conſtant to our ſelves, being changed up and down by contention; you would ſay we are toſſed like the waving Euripus: Therefore he profeſſeth it unſeemly for him to joyn with them, as he would not leave his ſtudies and peace, p. 269to go play with the Lads in the ſtreets, pag. 524. The like he hath in his Poems de vita ſua, pag. 24, 25, 26, 27. foreign, &c.

"Etenim Magiſtri plebis atque antiſtites,

"Sancti datores ſpiritus, & qui thronis

"Fundunt ab alt is verba queis patitur ſalus,

"Cunctiſ que pacem jugiter qui praedicant,

"In aede media vocibus clariſſimis,

"Tanto ſurore ſe petunt ſibi invicem

"Tumultuando, contrahendo copias,

"Carpendo ſeſe mutuo linguâ efferâ,

"Saliendo, mentis ut ſolent ſanae impotes

"Praedando quos quis ante praedari queat

"Rabida imperandi dum tenet mente ſit is;

"(Quinam iſta verbis, & quibus digne eloquar?)

"Orbem univerſum prorſus ut divulſerint,

"Ortum que jam & Heſperum ſcindit magis

"Ardens ſimultas, quam loci vel climata;

"Nam que illa ſi non ſinis, & media uniunt;

"At hos ligare vinculum nullum poteſt:

"Non cauſa, Pietas, (bilis hoc excogitat

"Ad mentiendum prona, ſed Lis ob Thronos:

"Quidnam hoc vocarim? Praeſules? Non Praeſules.

[* Some ſay that Gregory himſelf forſook the place; but it was when he ſaw that they would put him out: Some ſay that it was not the ſame Council that put him in, but it is an errour. When Melecius was dead, more Biſhops came from Egypt and turned the ſtream. And they named many to ſuceed him, [to the Emperour' out of whom he choſe an unbaptized Layman Nectarius Niceph. l. 12. c. 15. ſo that the Emperour then choſe the Biſhop in that manner.]

Are not theſe doleful Narratives and Characters of thoſe Primitive Biſhops (even in thoſe p. 270happy daies of good Theodoſius? But all this is yet little to what the ſame man ſaith of Biſhops in his laſt Oration de Epiſcopis, Vol. 2. too ſharp and large to recite. Perhaps it will be ſaid, that it was the Macedonian or Arrian Biſhops that he meant: So one Papiſt was not aſhamed to anſwer me, when the whole ſcope of his writing ſpeaketh the contrary, that he ſpake of the Council at Conſtantinople, and other ſuch, and expreſly ſaith in his Epiſt. 59. to Sophronius, pag. 816. ſi eos inveneritis non ob ſidei doctrinam, ſed ob privatas ſimultates inter ſe diſtractos & divulſos, quod quidem ipſe obſervavi. But ſome will ſay that he was wrongfully caſt out by that Council of Conſtantinople, and he ſpeaketh but of that, or that injury made him ſatyrical by exaſperation. But 1. The places cited ſhew that he ſpeaketh not of that Council only: And Epiſt. 55. Procopio pag. 814. he ſaith (refuſing to come to a Council) ego ſi vera ſcribere oportet hoc apimo ſum, ut Omnem Epiſcoporum Conventum ſugiam: quoniam nullius concilii ſinem laetum & fauſtum vidi, nec quod depulſionem malorum potius quam acceſſionem & incrementum habuerit: pertinaces enim contentiones & dominandi capiditates (ne me quaeſo gravem & moleſtum exiſtimes haec ſcribentem) ne ullis quidem verbis explicari queant, citiuſque aliquis improbitatem arceſſetur, dum aliis judicem ſe praebet, quam ut aliorum improbitatem comprimat.] And that injury made Gregory injurious is an injurious conjecture, ſeeing all his endeavours in theſe buſineſſes were for piety and peace: And it was partly for his ſpeaking for the Peace of the Church of Antioch, (which had long had two Biſhops, Paulinus and Meletius, and Flavianus, who had taken an oath p. 271not to be their Biſhop while either of them lived, intruded by Perjuries and the Biſhops wills) that this Council turned againſt Gregory; (and becauſe they choſe him not.) And for peace he quit his place; and many and earneſt Epiſtles he wrote after to the Civil Magiſtrates, to keep the Biſhops in peace at the next Councils, leſt Religion ſhould be quite ſhamed and weakened by them. And was not the contention at the two Councils of Epheſus more ſtigmatized by Hiſtorians than this that Gregory ſo lamenteth? when they ſeemed rather to fight, than peaceably to ſeek for Truth; in the latter of which Flavianus received his deaths hurt, and the hiſtory of the better of them between Cyril, and Noſtorius, and Johan. Antiochenus, is ſad to read.

The very controverſie with its conſequence was lamentable when one Council of Biſhops at Conſtantinople had caſt out excellent Gregory; another neer caſt out: excellent Chryſoſtom, his free ſpeech and ſtrict life being not endured, and choſe an old uſeleſs man Arſacius; Atticus, and Siſinius that ſucceeded him being dead, the people did ſo diſlike all the clergy of Conſtantinople, that they would have one like Chryſoſtom of a Monaſtery by Antioch; Neſtorius a man of ſtudy, retirement, a poor garb, a ſtrict life, abhorring publick contentions, and loving quietneſs, but of a pieviſh zeal againſt diſſenters called hereticks, as enemies to the Churches unity and peace; ſo that he preſently perſecuted many of them even the Novatians themſelves, and ſtirred up the Emperour to root them all out, and by Gods juſt judgement received ſuch meaſure as he had meaſured. A quarrel aroſe whether Saint p. 272Mary ſhould be called The Mother or Parent of MAN, or that Parent of GOD: Neſtorius, to the end the controverſie, was againſt both, and would have her called, The Parent of Chriſt who was God and man (but not of God:) Some Startled at this; And Cyril of Alexandria (a man of great parts, ſpirit and power, the head of a turbulent people, the firſt Biſhop, ſaith Socrates, that aſſumed the Sword) wrote Letters of reproof to him; and Celeſtine, Biſhop of Rome ſeconded him: yea Cyril followeth it with writing upon writing, to prove that S. Mary muſt be called the Parent of God; with ſo great a number of words, and ſo many Anathematiſms, as made the noiſe and ſlame great, but ambiguity made it ſeem dangerous to many; ſo that it grew to a great and open controverſie, whether Neſtorius or Cyril was a damnable Heretick; ſome ſo calling one, and ſome the other; ſo that the Emperour Theod. 2. was fain to call a General Council at Epheſus, to prevent the utter confuſion of the Churches: There Neſtorius came firſt, and once only appeared; and being charged with the Hereſie of denying Mary to be the Parent of God, he told them, that he would not ſay that God was two or three months old, and ſo departed. To Cyrils large writings, he returned a ſhort Letter, profeſſing, that he was for the diſtinction of Natures only in the Unity of Perſon; but at large proveth that Chriſts Godhead had no beginning, that it could not ſuffer, or die, nor riſe again; and therefore that thoſe things which were ſaid of the Manhood, muſt not be ſaid of the Godhead, that it was begotten, dyed, &c. unleſs they would be Hereticks or Pagans. Read their confeſſion p. 273brought into the Council againſt them by Charyſius and their Anathemata's after; and I think you will ſee, that the errour of Neſtorius lay in his want of skill in ſpeaking, and that one ſide ſpoke of a phraſe de abſtracto, and the other of the Concrete; and if ſo, both meant the ſame thing, though Cyril was judged to uſe the moſt skilful words: Cyril denyed not but that the Deity was not begotten or Crucified, but ſaid that God was begotten and Crucified, and was paſſible; Neſtorius denyed not that he who was God in one perſon with the manhood, was begotten, Crucified and paſſible, but not the Deity. But Cyril ſaid that the phraſe [God was born, Crucified, &c.] was good; yea neceſſary, and not (without anathematized hereſie) to be denyed, becauſe in one perſon the titles and actions are communicable: Neſtorius ſaid, that it was wicked to communicate the infirmities of humanity to the Deity, as to ſay, God did grow bigger, and was afraid, and was hungry, and needed help from Angels, and died.) For he thought this phraſe applied it to the Deity: (Let any man that's impartial, judge whether this Controverſie were not about words rather than matter.) Theodoret was a greater Scholar than Neſtorius, and he became the Champion of his Cauſe, ſuppoſing that Locutio formalis eſt maximo propria; and therefore that he that ſaith God had a beginning, increaſe, death, paſſions, muſt be ſuppoſed to mean it, qua Deus, as he is God: And ſo two Saints, St. Cyril and St. Theodoret, fell at large to prove each other damnable Hereticks. John, Patriarch of Antioch, being far off, was long in coming to the Synod. Memnon, Biſhop of Epheſus, joyning with Cyril, before he … Biſhops came, beg…n and condemned, and p. 274depoſed Noſtorius as a Heretick. Neſtorius let them all alone, and medled little himſelf, alledging that Candidianus Comes for bad him to appear. But when John of Ant. came, he took Neſtorius's part, and gathered a Council with himſelf, and Candidianus the Emperours Officer took his part. John's Council condemned and depoſed Cyril and Memnon, as they had done Neſtorius: And thus two Councils at Epheſus ſate damning one another. The Emperour knew not what to do with them, but requireth each party to ſend ſome of their Biſhops to him: when they came, he permitted them not long to come neerer than Calcedon, for fear of tumults: while they were there, the people of Conſtantinople flocked to them, and moſt of the people being for Neſtorius, and moſt of the Courtiers, Clergy and Monks againſt him, they fell into diſſention to the ſtoning of ſome about their Meetings, for Preaching to the People. Theodoret and his Aſſociates proſecuted it againſt Cyril, as thoſe that declared their reſolution to die rather than yield to his Hereſies (as they called them) and accuſed him as if he had been the moſt proud, unquiet troubler of the world. The other ſide anſwerably accuſed them of dangerous blaſphemy and hereſie. At laſt the Emperour thought it the beſt way for peace, to ſend Johan. Comes Largitionum with power and commiſſion to depoſe the Leaders that each Party had depoſed, viz. Neſtorius, and Cyril and Memnon: But John wrote an Epiſtle to the Emperour, how furious they were againſt each other, and how Cyril's Party would not hear the Emperour's Letters, becauſe Neſtorius was there, and how they raged and ſell to fighting (a doleful p. 275ſtory.) But at laſt the Emperour ſeeing that Cyril had the ſtronger (and the orthodox) ſide, and the Court and Clergy being againſt Neſtorius, and yet being loth to divide Joh. Antioch. and the Oriental Biſhops from the reſt, thought it the moſt healing way to depoſe Neſtorius alone, and reſtore Cyril and Memnon, and to charge (magnâ cum ſeveritate jubet, ſaith Bin. Notes) Joh. Ant. to be reconciled with Cyril; and to unite; ſo that Joh. and Theodoret, and the Oriental Biſhops moved with fear, and deſiring peace, ſent their Confeſſion to Cyril, and Cyril ſaid, it was the ſame that he meant; and ſo they were ſuddenly made all Orthodox, that had not underſtood it but by the Rod: But Neſtorius returned to his Monaſtery by Antioch (Chryſoſtom's place) and there liv'd four years in great peace and reputation; but then he was no longer to be there endured, but baniſhed into forein Countries, driven about in ſufferings, in which he died. And Theodoret, it ſeems, was not well reconciled, when, hearing of the death of Cyril, he wrote to Joh. Antioch. that now there was hope the Churches might have peace, the great enemy of all peace being gone to the place where ſuch men ceaſe to trouble, &c. But ſo great was the rupture thus made, that to this day it is not healed, great part of the Eaſt adhering then to Neſtorius, and thoſe Country-Chriſtians being called Neſtorian Hereticks and out of the Church by the Papiſts to diſgrace them, becauſe they will not own their Pope. Neſtorius being thus condemned, Eutyches thought he would be far enough from his Hereſie, and ſaid, that the Union of Christ's two Natures made them to be but one: This Hereſie one p. 276Council at Conſtant. under Flavian, condemned. Another after by the countenance of the Emperour acquit him: The Emperour Theod. 2. commandeth a General Council again at Eph…ſus, and maketh Dioſcorus Preſident; who being Cyril's Succeſſor, though he had held to his Doctrine againſt Neſtorius▪ for the Unitive Predication; and though he profeſſed that the Synod medled not de ſide, but about matter of Juſtice between Flavian and Eutyches, yet countenanced by the Emperour, he domineered, and by threatning got all the General Council ſave the Popes Legates to ſubſcribe againſt Flavian, and he was beaten, and died of the hurt, ſaith Bin. Notes, In hoc tam horrendo Epiſcoporum ſuffragio ſola Naviculd Petri incolum…s emergens, ſalvatur. The whole Council went againſt the Pope, and the right: But ſure Chriſt's United Natures are in ſeveral ſenſ…s both two and one; but two in the primary and moſt proper ſenſe.

Thus you ſee what unhappineſs even this National Government of Biſhops in thoſe good times was lyable to. It was by Biſhops ſtriving who ſhould be chief that the Donatiſts ſet up againſt the Catholicks, and the very Novat…ans were not free; much leſs the Appolinarians, and moſt others that cauſed the Schiſms of thoſe times, in which the Biſhops were almoſt ever the chief cauſe. Even ſuch worthy men as Theophilus, Alex and Epiphanius could not endure Chryſoſtom; ſuch men ejected him once and again, as Th…odoret ſaith he purpoſely forbeareth t… name for reverence of their virtues. And if you come to the fourth Great General Council at Calcedon you will find the ſame cauſe of lamentation, p. 277and that even worthy men in ſuch temptations are frail, when a new Emperour Martian was on the other ſide, (the right;) when Dioſcorus had profeſſed that he was neither for tranſmutation, diviſion, nor confuſion of Chriſts natures (and therefore was for diſtinction;) when the Egyptian Biſhops profeſſed their conſent with the Synod, only craying that they might not be put to Anathematize Dioſcorus till they had another Patriarch, but ſo long to delay; when they profeſſed that if they did, they were ſure to be killed when they came home, and falling on the Earth cryed to their brethren miſeremini miſeremini ſpare us or kill us here; yet they cry out hereticks, hereticks, away with them, till the civil Judges reſcued them: and how many of theſe had but lately ſubſcribed againſt Flavianus at Epheſus, (& here were in one point for Leo, and in another againſt him?) Leo's Epiſtle which was for their cauſe againſt Dioſcorus they cryed up; and condemned Dioſcorus for excommunicating the Pope; but the Canon for exalting Conſtantinople, they maintained againſt Leo's will, and contemptuouſly cryed out Qui aliter ſentiunt Roman ambulent; he that readeth the clamours at this Council, and how the ſame Biſhops that had lately ſubſcribed the condemnation of Flavianus with Dioſcorus were zealous here on the other ſide, and cryed out omnes peccavimus, excuſing it by their fear of threatnings and Souldiers, when a poor Chriſtian woman could have ſuffered Martyrdom rather than ſin; And he that readeth how after all this they were ſo ready to Anathematize others, and to contemn the proſtrate Egyptian Biſhops, will think p. 278that he ſeeth the firſt Council of Conſtantinople as deſcribed by Nazianzen here exemplified, notwithſtanding the honour that is due to them for their orthodoxneſs. You ſee in this much how the great Biſhops at the firſt five General Councils (Nic. 1. Conſt. 1. Eph. 1. & 2. And Calced.) did carry i…. But when they were aſunder were they ſetled, & did they keep the Churches in concord by theſe Councils? Let us but, for one inſtance conſider what followed this excellent Council of Calcedon; 1. Leo the Biſhop of Rome approved it againſt Dioſcorus, but abhorred the 28th Canon, which ſet up Conſtantinople with equal priviledges, and that above Alexandria and Antioch: So that the Pope reſted not in this Council. 2. What ſedition there was at Alexandria upon the change made by this Council all the daies of Martian, and of the murder of Proterius preſently after, Liberatus in Breviario, and many other tell at large. 3. In Paleſtine the Monks that had been at the Council, returned lamenting that the faith was there betraved, and ſtird up their fraternity to reſcind the acts: They expelled Juvenal Biſhop of Jeruſalem; The Empreſs Eudocia took their part: They killed Severianus Biſhop of Scythopolis: They compelled men to communicate with them: They murdered Athanaſius a Deacon at Jeruſalem for contradicting them, and gave his fleſh to dogs; They compelled Dorotheus the Emperours Lieutenant to joyn with them, till after 20 months Juvenal was reſtored Niceph. l. 15. c. 9. And in many Countries this contention followed; and the women Eudocia and Pulcheria had no ſmall hand in all, till Pulcheria procured Eudocias Converſion to approve the Council. p. 2793. When Leo came to reign, the ſedition revived at Alexandria between the murderers of Proterius: Timothy Elurus made Biſhop by the Councils enemies, depoſed by Leo, and Timothy, Salophaciolus put in his place and all was in confuſion. The Egyptian Biſhops write to the Emperour againſt the Eutychians; The Emperour ſends forth his circular letters for the Council; Niceph. l. 15. c. 17. 18. 19. 4. At Antioch, Petrus, C…apheus ambitious of the Biſhoprick, got into Martyrius place by Leo's help, and anathematized all that would not ſay that God was Crucified and Suffered, and tore that Church in pieces: Martirius, when he could do no good, forſook them, with theſe words [Clero rebelli et populo inobedienti & eccleſiae contaminatae nuncium remitto:] Cnapheus reviled the Council: Leo for this baniſhed him: Stephanus, a friend of the Council, ſucceeded him; him boyes killed with ſharp quils and caſt him into the river for favouring the Council: And Calendion ſucceeding him, made them Anathematize the aforeſaid Cnaphous. Leo being dead, diſſolute Zeno reigned, Baſiliſcus taking advantage of his lewd life, uſurped the Empire, and made uſe of the Schiſms to promote his ends: And firſt publiſheth his circular againſt the Council of Calcedon; to this ſaith Niceph. l. 16. c. 4. beſides the three Patriarchs no leſs than five hundred Biſhops ſubſcribed, and renounced the Council. But Acacius of Conſtantin. and Dav. Columella perſwaded Baſiliſcus quickly to write clean contrary Letters for the Council, ſeeing that this was like to prove the ſtronger ſide. And when Zeno was reſtored, who was for the Council, the Aſian Biſhops turned again, and p. 280wrote to Acaſius to be pardoned, ſaying that they ſubſcribed to Baſiliſcus firſt Letters, not voluntarily, but through fear Nceph. l. 16. c. 9. Then things were turned back again; till Zeno thought it the beſt way to write his Henoticon or a Conciliatory edict, that none ſhould be forced to profeſs themſelves either for or againſt the Council, perceiving that the Biſhops would never come to agreement, either as for it or againſt it: But this ended not the diviſions; But at Antioch Calendion was caſt out. And Pet. Cnapheus got in again: And at Alexandria between Peter Moggus and John ſtriving who ſhould hold the place, all was in confuſion. Yea the Schiſm reached to Rome alſo; for Moggus at Alexandria Anathematizing the Council, and perſecuting diſſenters, The Emperour ſeeks to reconcile them; Felix at Rome condemneth Acaſius at Conſtantinople, for communicating with Moggus: Acaſius condemneth Felix, blotting his name out of the Sacred Albe. Acaſius dyeth, and the Emperour found it ſo hard to chooſe a Patriarch, that ſhould cauſe no ſedition, that he will have God chooſe one; and to that end puts a blanck-paper on the Altar, and another requeſting God that an Angel might write there the name of the Patriarch that ſhould poſſeſs the place: The doors are lock't, and forty daies faſting and prayer commanded to prevail with God: One Flavitas bribeth the Key-Keeper, who was the Emperours Lord Chamberlain, and he writeth, Flavitas name in the Paper and ſealeth up the door again, and ſo there was a Patriarch choſen by an Angel; but dyed ſuddenly within four months: But before he dyed, he joyned with p. 281Peter of Alexandria by ſynodal Letters to Anathematize the Council of Calcedon and yet wrote to the Biſhop of Rome that he renounced Communion with Peter, and he wrote to Peter that he renounced Communion with the Biſhop of Rome. Euphemius ſucceeded him, and he raſed Peters name out of the Book, and joyned with the Roman Biſhop. Peter and Euphemius as Generals were gathering ſynodical Armies againſt each other, and Peter dyeth. Athanaſius that ſucceeded him, would fain have reconciled his Church but could not: Palladius ſucceeded Peter Cnapheus at Antioch: Both theſe Patriarchs joyn together to curſe the Council of Calcedon; They die: John ſucceeded at Alexandria and Flavianus at Antioch: Theſe alſo joyn to curſe the Council, while the Patriarchs of Rome and Conſtantinople are for it, and curſe them. Zeno dieth, and Anaſtaſius Dicorus is choſen Emperour. He (ſaith Niceph. l. 16. c. 25) being a man of Peace, and deſiring the ceaſing of all contention, left all to their liberty to thank of the Council of Calceaon as they pleaſed: Hereupon the Biſhops fell into three Parties, ſome fervent for every word of the Council; ſome curſed it; and ſome were for Zeno's Henoticon, or ſilence, or ſuſpenſion: Theſe renounced communion accordingly with one another; the Eaſt was one way; the Weſt another; and Libya another: Nay, the Eaſtern Biſhops among themſelves; the Weſtern among themſelves, and the Lybian among themſelves, renounced communion with each other (Niceph. c. 25) Tanta confuſio ment iumque Caligo (ſaith the Hiſtoria…) orbem univerſum inceſſit. The Emperour having reſolved to keep peace, and p. 282make no change, was forced to fall upon thoſe of both ſides that were moſt turbulent. At Conſtantinople he put out Euphemius (or for diſlike of him.) This Emperour, before his inthroning, had given under his hand to Euphemius, a promiſe to ſtand for the Council: He demanded his writing again; Euphemius denied him, and was caſt out: Macedonius ſucceeded him: He had the ſame writing: The Emperour demanded it of him: He alſo denied him: The Emperour would have put him out: The people riſe up in ſedition, and cryed, It is a time of Martyrdom: Let us a…l ſt…k to the Biſhop: And they reviled the Emperour, calling him a Manichee, unworthy the Empire. The Emperour was fain to ſubmit to Macedonius, who ſharply rebuked him as the Churches enemy; but in time he remembred this, and caſt out Macedonius, and burnt the Councils Acts, and put Timothy in his place, who preſently pull'd down the Image of Macedonius: The Patriarchs alſo of Alex. Antioch, & Biſhop of Jeruſalem, were all caſt out, even thoſe that were againſt the Council. Pet. Cnapheus had made one Xena…as a Perſian ſervant & unbaptized, Biſhop of Hierapolis: He was againſt Images, and brought a troop of Monks to Antioch, to force Flavianus the Biſhop to curſe the Council: Flavianus denied it: The people ſtuck to the Biſhop, and ſo unanſwerably diſputed down the Monks, that ſo great a multitude of them were ſlain, as that they threw their bodies into the River Orontes, to ſave them labour of burying of them. (Nicep. c. 27.) But this was not all; another troop of Monks of Caeloſrria, that were of Flavianus ſide, hearing of the tumult, flockt to Antioch, and made p. 283another ſlaughter as great as the former (ſaith the Hiſtorian.) For this the Emperour baniſhed Flavianus, whoſe followers thought his puniſhment too great after all theſe murders. Peter being dead, the Biſhops of Alexandria, Egypt and Lybia, fell in pieces among themſelves; each having their ſeparate Conventions: The reſt of the Eaſt alſo ſeparated from the Weſt, becauſe the Weſt would not communicate with them, unleſs they would curſe Neſtorius, Eutyches, Dioſcorus, Moggus, and Acacius. And yet (ſaith Niceph. l. 16. c. …8.) Qui Germani Dioſcori & Eutychetis ſectatores ſuere, ad maximam paucitatem redacti ſunt. Xenaias bringeth to Flavian the names of Theodore, Theodorite, Ibas, and others, as Neſtorians, and tells him, if he anothemarize not all theſe, he is a Neſtorian, whatever he ſay to the contrary: Flavian was unwilling, but his timerous fellow-Biſhops perſwading him, he wrote his curſe againſt them, and ſent it to the Emperour. Xenaias then went further, and required him to curſe the Council: They prevailed with the Iſaurian Biſhops to conſent, and all renounced the refuſers as Neſtorians: And thus the Council having (in name) condemned the Neſtorians and Eutychians, the Eutychians called all Neſtorians that curſed not the Council, and got many caſt out. After Flavian, Sever…s got in at Antioch: The firſt day he curſed the Council (though it's ſaid that he ſwore to the Emperour before that he would not) Nicep. c. 29. In Paleſtine there were renewed the like confuſions about the condemnation of Flavian and Macedonius: About Antioch Severus Letters frightened many Biſhops to curſe the Council, and thoſe p. 284that held two Natures: Some Biſhops revoked their ſentence, and ſaid they did it for fear: Some ſtood out: And the Iſaurian Biſhops, when they repented, condemned Severus himſelf, that drove them to ſubſcribe: And ſome Biſhops fled from their Churches for fear. Coſmas and Severianus ſent a condemnation to Severus: The Emperour hearing of it, ſent his Procurator to caſt them out of their Biſhopricks for preſuming to condemn their Patriarchs. The Procurator found the people ſo reſolute, that he ſent word to the Emperour, that theſe two Biſhops could not be caſt out without blood-ſhed: The Emperour anſwered; that he would not have a drop of blood ſhed for the buſineſs. Helias Biſhop of Jeruſalem, found all the other Churches in ſuch confuſion, condemning one another, that he would communicate with none of them but Euphemius at Conſt. Nic…p. c. 32. And that you may ſee how people then were moved, a Monk or Abbot Theodoſius gathering an Aſſembly, loudly cryed out in the Pulpit, [If any man equal not the four Councils with the four Evangeleſts, let him be Anathema.] This voice of their Captain reſolved them all, and they took it as a Law, that the four Councils ſhould be [ſacris libris accenſenda] and wrote to the Emperour certamen ſe de eis ad ſanguinem uſ que ſubituros. (This was then the ſubmiſſion to Princes by the adherents to the Councils of the Biſhops. And they went about to the Cities to bring them to joyn with them. The Emperour wrote to Helias to reform this: He rejecting his Letters, Souldiers were ſent to compel them. The Orthodox Monks gathered by the Biſhops, tumultuouſly caſt the Emperours Souldiers out of p. 285the Church: (c. 34) After another conflux they anathematized thoſe that adhered to Severus. The Emperour provoked, ſent Olympius with a band of Souldiers to conquer them. He came and caſt out Helias, and put in John: The Monks gather again, and the Souldiers being gone, they cauſe John to engage himſelf to be againſt Severus, and ſtand for the Council, though unto blood; which, contrary to his word to Olympius, he did. The Emperour depoſed Olympius, and ſent another Captain Anaſtaſius, who put the Biſhop in priſon, and commanded him to deſpiſe the Council; conſulting with another Biſhop, he promiſed to obey him, if he would but let him out of priſon two daies before, that it might not ſeem a forced act: This being done, the Biſhop contrarily to the Congregation in the pulpit, before the Captain cryeth out [If any aſſent to Eutyches and Neſtorius (contraries) and Severus and Soterichus Caeſar, let him be Anathema: If any follow not the Opinions of the four univerſal Synods, let him be Anathema.] The Captain thus deluded, fled from the multitude, and was glad to ſave himſelf: The Emperour being offended at this, the Biſhops write to him that at Jeruſalem, the fountain of Doctrine, they were not now to learn the Truth, and they would defend the Traditions, if need be, even to blood.] Nic…p. c. 34.

Timothy Biſhop of Conſtantinople took the manpleaſing way, and one while was for the Calcedon Council, another while he curſed it. Being to chooſe an Abbat, the Abbat refuſed his election, unleſs he conſented to the Council of Calcedon. Timothy curſed thoſe preſently that received not the Council: His Archdeacon hearing him, p. 286reproached him that like Euripus, roled every way: The Emperour hearing it, rebuked him, and Timot…y waſht away the charge and preſently curſed every one that received the Council. Niceph. c. 35. Yet Rome though now under another King (Theodorick an Arria Goth) had a part in the Schiſm: Feſtus a Roman Senator was ſent from Theodorick to the Emperour on an Emb…ſſie: Which when he had done, he deſired that Conſtantinople would keep holy daies for Peter and Paul as Rome did, and he prevailed: And he ſecretly aſſured the Emperour that Anaſtaſius Biſhop of Rome would receive the Henoticon (to ſuſpend the conſent to the Calcedon Council) and would ſubſcribe it. But when the Embaſſadour came home, the Pope was dead: To make good his word, he got a party to chooſe Laurentius Pope, that would do it: The people (that then had the chief choice) choſe Symmachus ſo there were two Popes: And the ſedition continued three years not without ſlaughters, rapines and other calamities (Niceph. c. 35.) till Theodorick an A…rian more righteous than the Popes, called a ſynod and confirmed Symmachus: But Laurentius ſtirred up the people to ſedition and was quite degraded. The Emperour favouring the addition [Qui Crucifixus eſt pro nobis] the people ſeditiouſly cut off a Monks head and ſet it up on a pole inſcribing it an enemy to the Trinity: The Emperour overcome with their confuſion and orthodox rebellions, called an aſſembly and offered to reſign his Crown, deſiring them to chooſe another; which …note them with ſuch remorſe, that they deſired him to reaſſume his Crown and promiſed to forbear p. 287ſedition: But lie dyed ſhortly after. But I muſt not tranſcribe hiſtorical Volumes. Juſtin ſucceeded Anaſtaſius in the Empire, and Juſtinian him: Theſe were for the Synod: But Theodora Juſtinians Wife was againſt it: Some thought by compact, that each part might have a head, which was indeed but one (Niceph. l. 17. c. 7.) Should I tell you in their reigns how the Eccleſiaſtical war continued, how Pope Agathon munus impoſuit Menae Conſtant. quod antea nunquam factum eſt, Niceph. c. 9; How Menas and the Pope excommunicated one another, and how Juſtinian uſed Vigilius the Pope, &c. it would be over tedious to tell. I have wrote this much to ſhew you how far the Patriarchal ſeats conduced to the Churches peace, and how far the four firſt Councils of Biſhops cauſed Chriſtian Love and Concord: No ſuch things can be ſaid of the Arabians, and Novatian Phrygians and others that had Biſhops in the villages: Should I but now turn to Rome and tell you what was done there, all this Confuſion, blood and miſery is but a jeaſt to it: But I have ſaid enough of that in many treatiſes againſt Popery; and particularly of the above 40 years Schiſm when they had 2 or 3 Popes at once; and of the above 50 Popes that Baronius and Genebrard themſelves call Apoſtatical, put in by whores and poyſon, men not to be named, ſave to keep a reckoning of the times; many damned by Councils as horrid Adulterers, Murderers, Simoniſts, Hereticks, or Infidels: Nor will I recite how in the many wars between the Popes and Emperours, the Biſhops ſwore, and unſwore, and forſwore as the upper ſide compelled them, as Urſpergenſis p. 288complaineth. Nor will I ſtand to tell you, how the Pope and Patriarch of Conſtantinople (to whom adhere thoſe of Antioch, Alexandria and Jeruſalem) have theſe thouſand years almoſt, divided and diſtracted the Chriſtian world, by ſtriving which ſhould be the greateſt, when Chriſt had ſo fully decided the caſe. But what now if after ſo many hundred years confuſion it ſhould prove, that all this ſtir was in the dark, and that Neſtorius Eutyches, and Dioſcorus were of the ſame mind except in words: Can the tongue of man then ſufficiently expreſs the Biſhops guilt? A rare French Divine and Philoſopher David Derodon hath written a Treatiſe de ſuppoſito, copiouſly proving that Neſtorius was orthodox, and Cyril an heretick, and all the firſt Epheſin Council that adhered to him; that Eutyches and Dioſcorus taught but the ſame hereſie that Cyril did; that the Council of Calcedon ignorantly condemned Neſtorius and truly ſtabliſhed his opinion; and cryed up Cyril and damned his doctrine: And he citeth abundant paſſages out of Cyril where he expreſly denyeth two natures in Chriſt, (as Ep. 2. ad ſucceſs. In Chriſto duas natur as unit as aſſerimus: poſt unionem vero ademptâ jam in duas diviſione, unam eſſe credimus naturam filii incarnati:) And that Neſtorius expreſly aſſureth that there are two natures and but one perſon: The citations are numerous and undeniable. But I think that Cyril, Eutyches and Dioſcorus (who were all of one mind) did mean that the natures were but one in oppoſition to diviſion, but not in oppoſition to diſtinction. And that Neſtorius ſaid they were two as diſtinguiſhed but not as divided, and all p. 289this blood, ſeparation and confuſion was between men of one mind, for want of skill in the explication of words, and through worldly deſigns. I know ſome will ſay, were all theſe Councils of Biſhops ſuch fools in compariſon of you? But can a man deny notorious truth in reverence to Biſhops? If ſo, which part of the Biſhops muſt I believe if they ſay the ſnow is black: The Arrians, and Eutychians were far the greater number.

And now as the beſt Philoſophers think that experiments de facto muſt be premiſed to the Theory, ſo we think this touch of hiſtory muſt be conſidered by them that think Jewiſh High Prieſthood, or National, Patriarchal or Metropolitical ſuperiority is the neceſſary means of the Churches Concord: Let them compare the diſſentions cauſed by little village Biſhops and ſynods for meer Concord, yea or by ſeparating heady people, with theſe which Patriarchall and Metropolitical ſeats have cauſed, and they will appear to be to them but as a ſcuffle at Billinſgate to the French Wars: And yet we have inſtanced but in the beſt times of dominion, in compariſon of which Councils, Prelates and later times have been a meer hurricane. In a word, they that think that the miſchiefs of ſuperiour ſeats are greater than the benefits, do appeal to all Church hiſtory, whether they have not been the true and principal cauſes of the diſtractions of the Chriſtian world, and of the long diviſion of the Eaſt and Weſt, and of many civil and grievous wars.

§ 40. And to the objections they ſay, I. As to Appeals and Government of Inferiors, 1. That the laſt appeals have ever been made to General Councils: And how they went when ever the p. 290Prince did but countenance errour, (as in the daies of Conſtantius and Valens, many great Councils that were for the Arrians, and in Theodoſius Juniors time, for the Eutychians &c.) is too ſad to think on. And is it not far more dangerous for many hundred in a Council to bear down a whole Empire or Kingdom, and raiſe perſecution, and there be no appeal from them, than for a poor Prieſt to put a man from the Sacrament in his own Pariſh Church? How many Councils have been againſt Images in Churches, and how many for them, condemning one anothers acts? What good will appeals do to ſuch, 2. In doctrinal caſes the conſent of many tends to concord: But in caſes of perſonal practice, are they fit judges to appeal to, that dwell many hundred miles off, and know none of the perſons; ſuppoſe a poor man in England is put from the Communion by a Pariſh-Prieſt (yea, perhaps an hundred or many hundred in ſome pariſhes) becauſe he findeth ſome to be utterly ignorant ſome to be drunkards, fornicators, heretical, &c. If theſe appeal but to a Dioceſan which dwelleth 20. miles from ſome, 40, or 60, or 100 miles from others, the remedy is worſe than the diſeaſe: For if the Prieſt muſt travel ſo far, and bring his witneſſes and plead the cauſe with men that never ſaw the party before, (where neighbourhood giveth a ſurer knowledge than any ſuch examination of ſtrangers can do, and a ſtrange Chancelor or Dioceſan knoweth not which witneſſes are moſt credible) and all this while his Paſtoral Charge (perhaps many thouſand ſouls) muſt be neglected, while the Miniſter is proſecuting theſe appealing ſinners; will not the evil of this be greater than the benefit? But how much more if p. 291every ſinner muſt appeal to a Patriarch many hundred miles off? A ſober mind will be aſhamed to think of the proceſs of ſuch a ſuit. If you ſay that it is not in the caſe of ſuch ſinners as theſe whereof every Pariſh abounds, that you would have appeals, at leaſt not to Patriarchs, ſo far off; I anſwer, 1. Then anſwer your own objection: What remedy ſhall they have if the Biſhop wrong them? 2. What is the caſe than that you ſuppoſe ſuch ſupraordinations of power neceſſary for? If you ſay, If Miniſters themſelves ſhould be excommunicate, It is anſwered, That none but Biſhops or other ſuperior powers pretend authoritatively as Rectors to excommunicate Paſtors; Therefore this is nothing to them that are againſt all ſuch ſuperiority of Paſtors; Where none ſuch are, none ſuch can excommunicate, or be injurious. And if there muſt be a higher Biſhop to deliver men from the injuries of a lower, who ſhould deliver us from him, who may injure Kingdoms?

Obj. But it is ſuppoſed that Patriarchs are wiſer and better men than Metropolitans, and thoſe than Biſhops, and thoſe than Prieſts: And that a meer Prieſt is not to be truſted with the power of the Keys.

Anſ. 1. The power of the Keys of his particular Church is eſſential to his Office; 2. They that will make Prieſts of raw lads and naughty fellows, and then plead that ſuch muſt not be truſted with the Office which they themſelves ordained them to, do condemn themſelves by ſuch allegations, 3. The old Church Government was, for every particular Church, no more numerous than our Pariſhes, to have a Biſhop and Presbyters: And theſe were thought ſufficient to judge who was fit for their own Communion, 4. Hierom was but a Prieſt, &c. And Macedonius, Neſtorius, Dioſeorus, Timothy p. 292Elurus, Peter Moggus, Gregory Alex. Lucius Al. Joh. Al. Theodoſius Al. Eulalius Antioch. Euphronius Ant. Placitus Ant. Stephanus Ant. Leontius Ant. Eudoxius Ant. Euzoius Ant. all Hereticks were all Patriarchs; and to reckon the enormities of the Roman High Prieſts, is a needleſs work. Is it to be ſuppoſed then, that theſe were better than Prieſts? Doth Chriſt ſay that it is as hard for a rich man to enter into Heaven as for a Camel to go through a needles eye, and ſhall we that are Chriſtians ſay, that it is to be ſuppoſed that the rich clergie are better men than the poor▪ When Greg. Nazianz. Saith that ſuch great places uſe to make Biſhops worſe than they were before, All hiſtory tells us what ſtriving there was for ſuch places? When Euſchius refuſed Antioch, two Prieſts were preſently at Conſtantines elbow to beg that place, and he was fain to mention them (though they were not choſen.) What a ſtir did Maximus make at Conſtantinople, Egypt, and with the Emperour to have got Gregories place at Conſtantinople? And ſo with others. And is it not a fleſhly, proud and wordly mind (which is the work of the Devil) which is the importunate ſeeker? And muſt we needs appeal to ſuch? 3. But to come neerer, what need is there of any ſuch appeal or ſuch a Government, if, 1. A Biſhop with-his Presbyters be over every particular Church (aſſociated for perſonal Communion in holy doctrine, worſhip and Converſation?) 2. And if theſe Churches aſſociate for meer concord and mutual help (and not for Governing Biſhops?) 3. And if the Magiſtrate govern them all as he doth Philoſophers, Phyſicians, &c. For 1. If a Biſhop of a particular Church deny one the Sacrament or excommunicate p. 293him, he doth it juſtly or unjuſtly: If juſtly, the perſon muſt ſubmit: If unjuſtly, he may be received by a neighbour Biſhop who is not bound to reject thoſe whom upon trial he findeth to have been wrongfully excommunicated: All neighbour Churches muſt refuſe thoſe that are by any one excommunicated juſtly; but not all that are wrongfully caſt out. Some ſay that he that doth excommunicate doth caſt a man out of the whole Church, and therefore no one elſe may receive him: But unexplained words muſt not ſerve to confound truth, Souls and Congregations. Every Miniſter is a Miniſter in the Univerſal Church (as every Phyſician and Schoolmaſter is in and to the Kingdom (indefinitely not univerſally) but his work and power are commenſurate; his power being only to and for his work. Therefore the Biſhop or Paſtor of one particular Church or Pariſh, is bound to confine his ordinary labour to them, though occaſionally he may help others. And accordingly his power is to uſe the Keys ordinarily for his own Church only, as to the direct effect: though extraordinarily he may uſe it in other Churches when called thereto; and by conſequence it may reach further: For few Biſhops will think if another Biſhop come into their Dioceſſes or Pariſhes and excommunicate divers of their flocks, that they and all others are bound to ſtand to ſuch mens ſentence, and to hold ſuch excommunicate. That which a Paſtor doth in ordinary Excommunicating, is to declare (after proof) that This perſon is by his ſin and impenitency made uncapable of Communion with the Church, and therefore to require him to forbear it, and the people to avoid Communion with him; and to pronounce him unpardoned before God, p. 294till he repent. Now if this be done by one known to be heretical with whom the other Churches have no Communion, thoſe other Churches are not bound to deny that man Communion. Nor yet if he offer himſelf to their Communion, and they examine the matter, and find him wronged. It is concord in good, and not in evil, that we are bound to by the command of God: Therefore if any man be wrongfully put out of this Church, the next may and ſhould receive him: And what neceſſity is there then, of going a thouſand or an hundred miles to a Pope, or Patriarch, or Dioceſan, to right him? And whoever thought that there was need of an Univerſal Phyſician, or Schoolmaſter, or a General Council of ſuch to receive appeals from Patients and Scholars that are wrongfully turned out of the Hoſpital or School?

The Caviller will here tell you of diſparities in the caſes; but the queſtion is, whether the diſrities be ſuch as alter the reaſon of the Concluſion. What man of conſcience will be a Phyſician, Schoolmaſter or Paſtor, that hath not power to judge whom to receive for his Patient, Scholar, or part of his flock, but muſt take all that ſome other man ſhall ſend to him, or command him to receive, and give them what others command him to give? An Apothecary may do ſo, but not a Phyſician. What if a man had no other ſcandal, but to ſay, I will not take you for my Paſtor, nor take my ſelf obliged to anſwer you, ſpeak with you, give you any account of my ſelf, nor be queſtioned by you on any accuſation, muſt I be conſtrained to ſuppoſe this man to be one of my flock In deſpite of his own denyal? If the freedom of conſent be not mutual, but I muſt be conſtrained to take thoſe p. 295for my charge as Chriſtians, that renounce ſuch a relation, or will not own it; a Paſtor is not a free man, nor hath any power of the Church-Keys, but is as an irrational Slave, a Cryer, or Executioner, that muſt but execute another mans commands.

2. But if there be need of appeals, and our own actions muſt not be free, why will not the Synods of Neighbour-Paſtors met only for Counſel and Concord (and not to command the Paſtors) ſuffice for ſuch perſons to appeal to? And what if I turn a ſervant out of my houſe, or from his meat, and he may take another Maſter when he will, muſt there be an univerſal Judge of all family caſes, that ſhall force me to keep my ſervant againſt my will? Is it not enough that I know why I am unwilling to keep him, who am no way more bound to him than to others, but by my own conſent? What if (as Nazianzen left Saſimis, Conſtantinople, and Nazianzum at laſt) I ſhould give up my whole Charge and Biſhoprick, and ſay, I will be a Paſtor to none of them any more, (upon ſufficient reaſons, as Latimer did:) Is it not better for the people to take another, than to accuſe me at Rome, or Canterbury, as wronging them?

3. But if all this ſerve not (neither the ſufficiency of Paſtors for one ſingle Pariſh, nor yet the Counſel of all the Neighbour-Paſtors or Biſhops,) what is there more to be done, which the authority of Princes and Magiſtrates may not do? All Chriſtians confeſs (almoſt) that no Biſhops or Paſtors, as ſuch, have from Chriſt any forcing power over the flocks; that belongeth to the Magiſtrates only; And they are to keep peace, and force us to our certain duty. And I would ask the contraryminded, whether if Biſhops, Patriarchs and Councils p. 296had no forcing power, but only to excommunicate by the application of Gods word, and leaving all men to their conſciences, would this ſort of Government ſerve their turn, and keep out Hereſies, or maintain order and unity? They ſay no, themſelves: And next, whether it be not certain, and confeſſed, that the Paſtors have no other power, but the Magiſtrates only?

Obj. But ſhall all men gather Churches, and teach Hereſie, and do what they will?

Anſw. 1. The power of Popes, Patriarchs or Councils, did not prevent it, when there were all the Hereſies that fill Epiphanius Volumns: And when the far greateſt part of the Clergy was long Arrian: And when the Neſtorians and Futychians ſo greatly multiplied after the condemnation of the Councils: And when the Novatians lived ſo many years in reputation: and when the Donatiſts nor they were not diminiſhed by Prelates or Councils Cenſures, till the ſword diſperſed them. And cannot the Sword be drawn without ſuch as have no power of it?

3. And as to the laſt (and greateſt) reaſon, that the Apoſtles have ſucceſſors who muſt orderly exerciſe their Government; it is anſwered 1. The common doctrine of the Church was, that all Biſhops are their Succeſſors ſo far as they have ſucceſſions; and every Church of one Altar had a Biſhop in the daies of Ignatius, and long after. 2. The Council of Carthage ſaid, None of us calleth himſelf Biſhop of Biſhops. 3. But if any be ſet as the Biſhop of many Biſhops and Churches, ſo be it they uſe no violence, but govern volunteers as all the old Biſhops did, and ſorbid them nothing commanded of God, nor command them any p. 297thing which God forbiddeth, and deſtroy not the order, doctrine, worſhip or diſcipline of the leſſer particular Churches, we have before ſaid, that we ſhall ſubmit to ſuch.

§41. IV. As to the queſtion, whether the Government ſetled by Chriſt in National Churches be (as to the Clergy from all parts, Monarchical) Ariſtocratical or Democratical, and who muſt have the ſummam poteſtatem? The diſagreement of the perſons that we have herein to do with, puts us into utter deſpair of any ſolution. And what good will it do us to believe that ſome muſt be obeyed, if we cannot be certain who it is.

§42. V. And to the queſtion, Whether the King be the formal, or only the accidental Church-head? We find no more agreement. 1. Some think that the King, as Melchizedek, is a mixt perſon, ſecular and Clergy, and hath both Offices to uſe and communicate, as they ſay, the Princes before Aaron had. 2. Others ſay, that this is not ſo, but that the Clergy-juriſdiction, diſtinct from the Prieſtly common power, is a branch of the Chriſtian Magiſtrates power, and ſo derived from the King. 3. Others ſay that the Church, formally, is diſtinct from the Civil State, though not alwaies materially: And that the King as King, is but an Accidental Civil Head, as he is over Phyſicians and Schoolmaſters, being neither himſelf; and that the National Church muſt have a formal Clergy-head, (Perſonal or Collective) which ſhall in ſuo genere, be the higheſt, though under the Magiſttates Civil Government, as Phyſicians are. 4. The Papiſts ſay, that all National Churches are under the Pope as Univerſal Paſtor, who may alter them as he ſeeth cauſe. 5. Some moderate men ſay, that only Dioceſan (and Metropolitical) Churches are jure Divino, p. 298and that they are called National, only improperly from one King, or concording aſſociation as ab accidente, and not properly from any formal Clergy-head.

§ 43. VI. Laſtly, which is the formal Head of the Church of England, and ſo what that Church is, we are left as much uncertain. 1. If it be only a Civil Head that denominateth it One, then it is but a Chriſtian Kingdom, which we never queſtioned. And Dr. Rich. Coſins, in his Tables of the Engliſh Church-Policy, ſaith [That the King hath Adminiſtrationem ſupremam magiſque abſolutam, quae dicitur Primatus Regius. And Tho. Crompton in his dedication of it to K. James, ſaith [Eccleſiaſtica Juriſdictio plane Regia eſt, Coronae & dignitatis veſtrae Regiae prima, praecipua, indiviſibilis pars: Eccleſiaſticae leges Regiae ſunt, neque alibi oriuntur, aut aliunde ſuſtentantur, aut fulciuntur: penes Eccleſiaſticos judices per Archiepiſcopos & Epiſcopos, derivata a Rege poteſtate, juriſdictio Eccleſiaſtica conſiſt it: And yet our Kings and Church explaining the Oath of Allegiance, declare that the King pretendeth not to the Prieſthood, or power to adminiſter the Word and Sacraments; but, as Crompton adds from Conſtantine, is extra Eccleſiam conſtitutus a Deo Epiſcopus; alii intra Eccleſiam Epiſcopi. This is plain: If they hold to this, and claim no power in the Engliſh-Policy, but as the Kings Officers, in that part which belongeth to Chriſtian Magiſtrates, who will oppoſe them? But this reacheth not to the Keys, Preaching or Sacraments. 2. Some ſay that the King is partly a Clergy man, as Melchizedek, and ſo that he is the formal Head, and might perform the Prieſtly Office if he would: But this our Kings have themſelves renounced. 3. Some ſay p. 299that the Archbiſhop of Canterbury is the formal Head; but that cannot be, becauſe he is no Governour over the Arch-Biſhop of York, or his Province. 4. Moſt ſay that the Convocation is the formal Church-Head, which makes it One Political Church. But 1. If ſo, then why ſaith the Canon that the Convocation [is the true Church of England by Repreſentation] and thoſe excommunicate that deny it? We enquire after the Church-Head or Governour: And that which is but the Church it ſelf by repreſentation, is not its Head, unleſs the Head and Body be the ſame, and the Church govern it ſelf, and ſo it be Democratical: The governed and Governours, ſure, are not the ſame. 2. And the Supream Power is ſuppoſed, by thoſe that take Epiſcopacy for a diſtinct Order, to be in the Supream Order only: But the far greater part of the Convocation are not of the Supream Order: Nay, thus the Presbyters ſhould be partly the chief Governours of the Biſhops while they make Canons for them. 3. When we did but motion that according to Arch-Biſhop Uſhers form of the Primitive Epiſcopacy, Presbyters might joyn with the Biſhops in proper executive Church-government inſtead of Lay-Chancellors, and ſuch like, they decryed it as Presbytery, and call us Presbyterians ever ſince: And if they ſay that the Preſbyters have ſo great a part in the Supream Government it ſelf, which obligeth all the Nation, how much more would they be themſelves Preſbyterians, which they ſo abhor?

§ 44. Having oft ſaid that we deſire Chriſtian Kingdoms as the great bleſſing of the world, we mean not either that 1. All in a Kingdom ſhould be forced to be baptized, or profeſs themſelves p. 300Chriſtians, whether they are ſo or not: For lying will not ſave men, nor pleaſe God; and even the Papiſts are againſt this: 2. Nor that all ſhould be ſuppoſed to be Chriſtians that are in the Kingdom. But that the Kings be Chriſtians, and the Laws countenance Chriſtianity, and the moſt or ruling part of the Kingdom be Chriſtians, and all juſt endeavours uſed to make all the reſt ſo: The Ancient Churches continued them Catechumens till they were fit for Baptiſm; and though they were for Infant-Baptiſm, they compelled none to be baptized in Infancy, or at Age, but left it to free choice. They baptized but twice a year ordinarily. They kept many offenders many years from communion. And if Crabs Roman Council ſub ſilveſt be true, they at Rome admitted not penitents till fourty years (underſtand it as you ſee cauſe:) The true Elibertine Canons kept many out ſo many years, and many till death, and many abſolutely, as ſhewed that they were far from taking all the Nation into the Church. And the Chriſtian Emperours compelled none. It was long before the greateſt part of the Empire were Chriſtians. In the daies of Valens, the Biſhops were ſome of them baniſhed into places that had few Chriſtians, if any. In France it ſelf, even in St. Martin's daies, the Chriſtians of his flock were not the moſt, but he wrought miracles to convince the Heathens that raged againſt Chriſtianity, where he dwelt, &c.

§ 1. There are two appendent Controverſies handled by ſome, that write for National Churches; which need but a brief ſolution: The firſt is, whether it be not an Independent Errour to expect real holineſs in Church-members, as neceſſary in the judgment p. 301of charity? The ſecond, Whether it be not ſuch an Errour to require the bond of a Covenant beſide the Baptiſmal Covenant?

§ 2. To the firſt we ſay, that ſo much is written on this point by one of us in a Treatiſe called Diſputations of Right to Sacraments, &c. that we think meet to ſay no more: The Opponents now confeſs that it muſt be ſaving Faith and Conſent to the Baptiſmal Covenant that muſt be profeſſed: And Papiſts and Proteſtants agree with all the Ancient Church, that Baptiſm putteth the true Conſenter into a ſtate of certain pardon and title to life: And God maketh not known lying, a condition of Church-communion: He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved. It is true, that God hath not made Miniſters Arbitrary Judges of mens ſecret thoughts, but hath limited them in judging to take their tongues that profeſs Faith and Conſent to be the Indices of their minds: But ſure the power of the Keys containeth a power of judging according to Chriſt's Law, who is to be taken into the Church by Baptiſm, and who not: If only the ſeeker be made Judge, it will be a new way of Church-Government, and a bad. And then the queſtion is, 1. Whether he that accepts ones profeſſion ſeemingly ſerious, of Faith and Conſent, and that de praeſente, is not bound to hope in charity that ſuch a one doth not lie or diſſemble? 2. Whether a baptized perſon, as ſuch, have no right to our ſpecial love which we owe to thoſe that we hope are true Believers, and ſanctified; but only to our common love and kindneſs, which belongeth to thoſe alſo that are the heirs of Hell? Some friends that are gone from extream to extream, and in remembrance of their ancient Schiſms, can p. 302look but one way with impartial ſenſe, and that have made their repentance the paſſage to a greater errour and ſin, ſhould better bethink them them what they do. They did well to ſtand ſtill in the way of Schiſm, when they ſaw here a leg, and there a hand, and there an arm in their way; and who but a mad-man indeed would not: But if they have impartially read Church-hiſtory, and the works of ſuch Fathers as give us hiſtorical notices, and ever ſince Conſtantine made a Biſhoprick a bait to a proud and worldly mind; even ſuch as Nazianzen, Baſil, Chryſoſtom, Iſidore Peluſiota, Hilary Pictav. and the over-orthodox diſputations of Cyril, and the Epiſtles of Theodoret rejoycing at his death, and abundance of ſuch like; had they ſeen in the way of Church-pride and tyranny, not here a leg, and there an arm, but here a hundred carkaſſes, and there a thouſand; here two thouſand godly faithful Preachers ſilenced, and many thouſand dry Vines planted in their rooms, and there whole Kingdoms interdicted, and their Churches ſhut up; here Churches and Kingdoms turned into confuſions about a word, or about the interest of Prolates, ſtriving which ſhould be the Chief, and have their will and rule the reſt; and there hundred thouſands murdered in the name of Chriſt, for obeying him, and bloody wars managed by the Clergy againſt Chriſtian Emperours, and Kings ſtabbed one after another; and moſt of the Chriſtian world, Roman, Greek, Moſcovites, Armenians, Abaſſines, degenerated into doleful ignorance and dead formality under the Government of great High-Prieſts, and millions of the vulgar bred up in ignorance and ſenſleſneſs of ſpiritual and eternal things; this ſhould ſtop them, (at leaſt from ſerving p. 303the maſter of ſuch deſigns) as much as a leg, or an arm in the way.

3. At leaſt we would intreat them to hate that miſtake, which will pretend to do all this for charity, unity and the Churches good; and to believe that it is no ſign of charity, 1. To believe that charity ſhould not be exerciſed in judging that men profeſſing ſaving faith do ſpeak the truth, and have the faith that they profeſs: 2. Nor to teach all Chriſts Church, that a baptized Church member as ſuch is to be lookt on but as a man in a ſtate of damnation; and no man is bound to love him as a true Chriſtian with a ſpecial love: 3. And that to prove that a man is not to be taken for a true Chriſtian, but to be admitted into Church Communion as one that ſhall have a greater damnation than heathens, without a further renovation, is a great act of Charity, Contrary to the uncharitable narrowneſs of others. Theſe are too great receſſes from Anabaptiſtry, but not from real Schiſm.

§ 3. As for thoſe that will not take the intelligent ſerious profeſſion of true Faith, and Covenant-Conſent for a credible ſign of the ſincerity of the Profeſſor, till they can ſufficiently diſprove it, but will be the arbitrary Judges of mens hearts, either as pretended heart-ſearchers, or by ſelf-deviſed, or uncertain ſigns, not taking up with this Profeſſion, we are no Patrons of ſuch mens preſumption and uncharitableneſs.

§ 4. There are various degrees of Credibility in mens profeſſions; ſome give us ſo much as is next to certainty; ſome but ſmall hopes: But yet till we can diſprove them, we are to take their profeſſions as credible in ſome degree. And if they prove falſe, it is they that will have the loſs.

p. 304§ 5. II. The ſecond caſe about Church Covenants deſerveth no longer a diſcuſſion. He that will put any article unneceſſary into any ſuch Covenant, ſinfully corrupteth the order of the Church: As if he would bind the people to be Church Governours, or never to depart from that particular Church but by the conſent of the Paſtor, or the flock, or any ſuch like: And he miſtaketh that will make a more explicite contract to be more neceſſary than it is. But it ſeemeth ſtrange to us that any underſtanding Chriſtian ſhould deny, that conſent is abſolutely neceſſary to the being of an adult member both of the univerſal, and each particular Church reſpectively. What bindeth a man to conſent is another queſtion, but if he be any member of the Church till he profeſs conſent; we know not what a Chriſtian or Church member is. An explicite covenant is neceſſary to our relation to the Univerſal Church for it muſt be ſolemnized ſacramentally: That we expreſs it by writings or words is not of neceſſity to our memberſhip of a particular Church: But conſent is neceſſary; And mutual conſent expreſſed ſatisfactorily, is a contract or Covenant: If the Paſtor ſay all th… at conſent, hold up your hand, or ſtand up; or ſtay here while the reſt depart, &c. theſe are ſignifications of conſent: And if it be notified that all that appear at the ſolemn Aſſemblies, and attend the Paſtors Miniſtry, ſhall be taken for Conſenters, their preſence and attendance is a profeſſion of Conſent indeed, and ſo a covenanting. But though the moſt explicit be not neceſſary ad eſſe, no man can give a reaſon why it ſhould not be beſt ad bene eſſe, ſeeing the moſt intelligent and plain dealing in the great things of God, are moſt ſuitable to the work, and p. 305fitteſt to attain the end: why ſhould we not deal openly and above board?

§ 6. It is certain that to be a Chriſtian maketh no man a member of any mans particular flock or charge. And it is certain that none can be ſuch without conſent. And it is certain that the Paſtor is not to take every Atheiſt, Jew, Infidel, Papiſt, Heretick, &c. in his Pariſh for a member of the Univerſal, or of that particular Church. Therefore he muſt know whom to take for ſuch. And it is certain that the conſent muſt be mutual, ſo far is the Paſtor from being a ſlave, and bound to every mans deſires, that he is entruſted with the Church Keys himſelf.

§ 7. A worthy perſon on this ſubject maketh theſe ſix things ſufficient to ſuch Church relation: 1. That they be baptized Chriſtians; 2. Neighbours bound to mutual love; 3. And apt to Neighbourly duty; 4. That providence make us ſuch Neighbours; 5. Scripture Churches took their name from cohabitation: 6. The command of authority, that ſo it ſhall be. Freſh ſuit. pag. 260.

Anſ. By making theſe ſix the ſufficient proof of Pariſh Churches, our friend unhappily would conſequently unchurch them all: For if this were all, certainly they were none at all. For all theſe (which he maketh more than they are) are but the diſpoſitio materiae, antecedent to any reception of the form, 1. For all that he inferreth or can infer from them all is obligation to conſent and to other duties after conſent. But obligation maketh not the relation of a member: All that are obliged to be Chriſtians are not Chriſtians: All that are obliged to be Paſtors are not Paſtors: Nor all that are obliged to conſent firſt and to do the duty of Paſtors p. 306after: Even as all that are obliged to conſent to be ſubjects, Husbands, Wives, Maſters, Servants, Tutors, Scholars, &c. are not ſuch: If meer obligation ſerve to one relation, why not to others? 2. Elſe a man might be a true Paſtor unchoſen, unordained and againſt his will. For he may by his qualifications be obliged to be ordained and to become a Paſtor. 3. And ſo the people may be the flock of one that was obliged to be their Paſtor, when another is ſet over them and in poſſeſſion, becauſe it was the firſt that was obliged, and they to chooſe him: And ſo utter Confuſion will come in: And if a man can prove that another mans wife and ſervant was obliged to be his, he may take them as his indeed. 3. By this rule all the Papiſts, Seekers, Quakers, &c. that renounce our Churches, ſhould yet be members of them, becauſe they live in the Pariſh, and are commanded to be members: Which who believeth? 4. A member of a Church hath right to Communion and Miniſterial vigilancie and help: But ſo hath not every baptized perſon that is commanded to be a member, and obeyeth not that command. If a man ſay to a Paſtor, I will be none of your flock, or Church, but yet I require you to do the office of a Paſtor to me, though I renounce your relation to me, and the people to uſe me as a member of the flock, becauſe I am commanded to be a member, this were a ſtrange claim. 5. If this did hold, then no man that liveth in the Pariſh could be a proper ſeparatiſt, ſo as to break off himſelf from that Church, nor become a member of another, unleſs he apoſtatized from Chriſt: For he would be ſtill under the Magiſtrates Command and obligation: But the conſequent is abſud: Why do p. 307the ſame men ſpeak ſo much againſt ſchiſmatical rending mens ſelves from the true Churches, and gathering other Churches, if there be no ſuch thing? The Laws change not, which oblige them. 6. They that are againſt ſchiſm and ſingularity, ſhould be againſt this opinion, becauſe (as it is utterly abſurd, ſo) it is notoriouſly contrary to the Judgment of all the Chriſtian world in all ages to this day, as acquaintance with Church hiſtory may fully inform them. They have ever taken mutual conſent between the Paſtors and the flock to be neceſſary to the being of a particular Church; and that whatever they were obliged to, they were not actually related to each other as Paſtor and flock till they conſented: And therefore have noted ſchiſmatical Churches in the ſame Cities that have been no parts of the Church which they diſowned.

§ 8. But it is objected, that this unchurcheth our Pariſh-Churches, and all the Churches in the world.

Anſ. Not one: But the contrary would. Our Pariſh Churches are aſſociated by mutual conſent: The Paſtor expreſſeth his conſent openly at his inſtitution, induction and officiating: The Flocks ſhew their conſent by actual ſubmitting to his Miniſterial Office: They hear him, and communicate ordinarily with him, and ſeek Miniſterial help from him; though all that are in the Pariſh do not ſo, thoſe do it that are indeed his flock, or Church. They do not perhaps by word or writing covenant to ſubmit to him as their Paſtor, but they do it by actual ſignification of conſent to the relation. And the Biſhops in Conſecration enter into a Covenant to watch over the flock (as do the Prieſts) and the Prieſts promiſe (if not ſwear, in p. 308England) to obey them: This is a Covenant.

§9. It is objected that this is a diſparagement to Baptiſm, which is the only Church-making Covenant.

Anſ. Baptiſm only, as ſuch, maketh us members of the univerſal Church; but is not enough to make us of any Miniſters ſpecial flock: I am not a member of the Church of York, Norwich, Briſtol, &c. becauſe I am baptized: Nor am I a member of the Pariſh Church now where I was baptized. Conſent to be a Chriſtian is one thing, and conſent to be a member of this particular Church, and to take this man more than all the reſt about us, for the Guide of my ſoul, is another.

§10. And if a man would ſay, I will be a member of this Pariſh Church, and you ſhall perform ſo much of your Office as I deſire, and no more; I will hear and receive the Sacrament but when I pleaſe, and I will not admit you to catechize or inſtruct any of my family, nor viſit the ſick, nor will I be reſponſible to you for any thing that I hold, or ſay, or do; nor have any thing to do with you, but in the Church; is a Miniſter bound to do his office to men, or take them for his ſpecial flock on theſe terms? The ancient Churches had abundance of ſtrict Canons; if the people ſhould have choſen a Biſhop, and ſaid We will obey none of theſe Canons, nor you but you ſhall be our Biſhop on our terms, was he bound to have conſented, and to have been ſuch a Biſhop? This is really the caſe of no ſmall part of England, though they ſay it not openly by words.

§11. It is objected that as Apoſtles, ſo ordained Miniſters have their authority before the conſent of the people and receive it not from them.

p. 309Anſ. 1. Who ever queſtioneth it, that is conſiderate, as to an indefinite charge in the Church univerſal? But what's that to the queſtion? Are all the Miniſters in the world bound to be the Paſtors of this Pariſh or Dioceſs? Our queſtion is what conſtituteth the relations between a Paſtor and his Particular flock? Doth not the ordainer here ſay, Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God, &c. when thou art thereto lawfully called? Becauſe a man is a Licenſed Phyſician without me, doth it follow that he is my Phyſician without my conſent? 2. Are all thoſe Church-members that Miniſters are authorized to preach to? Then all the Heathen-world are Church-members. 3. They receive not authority from the people; but their conſent is neceſſary to make themſelves capable receivers of the relation and right of Church-members. God, and not the Wife, giveth the Husband the ſuperiority; but he is no ſuch Husband to any that conſenteth not.

§12. God hath laid mens rights and benefits on their wills, ſo that no man can have them againſt his will. It is a great priviledge to have right to communion with a particular Church, and to this or that faithful Paſtors overſight: And its new Doctrine to ſay, that unwilling perſons have this right, becauſe they are willing of ſomething elſe, viz. to be members of the Church univerſal.

§13. We conclude therefore that both extreams here are falſe; 1. That men can be adult members of a particular Church that conſent not, or taken for ſuch that no way ſignifie their conſent, and that it is not uſeful ad bene eſſe, that this p. 310conſent be intelligent and expreſs, and that the Offices conſented to be truly underſtood. 2. That a written, or verbal covenant is of abſolute neceſſity; or that men ſhould tie themſelves to any thing doubtful, or unneceſſary, but only to the relation and duties of members (as of the univerſal ſo) of that particular Church. Both theſe extreams we do renounce. Mr. Zachary Cawdry, a Conformiſt, hath ſhewed in a particular Treatiſe for Church covenanting, how far he is from the mind of thoſe Objectors; for he would have the people engaged by covenant to their Biſhops and Prieſts.

§ 14. To conclude, though we renounce fanatick Enthuſiaſts, yet ſerious conſideration maketh ſome of us think, that too little notice is taken of the HOLY GHOST ſetting Paſtors over the flocks, which the Scripture mentioneth: And though none on pretence of the Spirit muſt reject order or ordination, nor make themſelves the ſole Judges of their own ſufficiency; yet 1. The due qualification of men with wiſdom, faith, love, and heavenly zeal, and ability, is the moſt excellent part of our Calling to the Miniſtry. 2. Ex quovis ligno non fit Mercurius; without neceſſary fitneſs no man is a true Paſtor having not diſpoſitionem rec…ptivam: And without eminent fitneſs, few are eminently ſerviceable. 3. Experience aſſureth us, that though the Office hath ſupernumeraries, yet of worthy men God never yet raiſed up ſupernumeraries, but the ſcarcity is lamentably great. 4. All therefore that are duly qualified, and have opportunity, ſhould be choſen, ordained, accepted, and accept the Call, if not offer themſelves, iu p. 311caſe they cannot otherwiſe enter. 5. The Ordainer doth but miniſterially inveſt him with the power, whom the Spirit of God hath qualified for it, by the inward Call. 6. In caſe the Ordainers by envy, or malignity, or faction, refuſe ſuch, where there is true Neceſſity, and Opportunity, we conceive that mutual conſent of the people and themſelves, may ſuffice to the orderly admittance into the Office, much more if the Magiſtrate alſo conſent: Of which ſee Voetius de deſparata Cauſa Papatus, and a Diſpute of Ordination, by R. B.