Irenicum to the Lover of Truth and Peace, Chapter 22
CHAP. XXII.
The third Dividing Practice,The 3. dividing practiſe. Men no keeping within the bounds that God hath ſet them.
FIrſt, when men will be medling with that whith concernes them not, that is out of their ſphere. 1 Theſ. 4. 11. Study to be quiet, and doe your owne buſineſſe. Prov. 20. 31. It is an honour for a man to ceaſe from ſtrife, but every foole will be wedling. Choller in the gall is uſefull to the body, but if it overflow, the body growes into diſtemper preſently; we may be all uſefull in our places, if we keepe to them, contenting our ſelves with the improvements of our talents in them; thus both our ſelves and others may have quiet. When Mannah was gathered and kept in that proportion God would have it, it was very good; but when men muſt have more, and keep it longer then God would have them, then it breeds worms. Thus it will be in all that we have, or doe; let us keepe our proportion God ſets us, and all will be well; but if we thinke to provide better for our ſelves by going beyond our meaſure, wormes are preſently bred in all.
But eſpecially where men will not keepe within their bounds in their power over others; for what is all our conteſtation at this time? it is not about mens ſtretching their power beyond their line both in State and Church? From whence are our State-diviſions, our Warres, but becauſe Princes have been perſwaded their power was boundleſſe? at leaſt not to be kept within thoſe bounds the State ſayes it ought to bee. They think there is ſuch a diſtance between them and others, that the eſtates, liberties, lives of all men within their country lie at their mercy; not conſidering how they come to be raiſed ſo high: that what they have above others, is given to them by thoſe above whom they are. No man inheriteth more then was given to his forefathers, and ſo to him, whereby they might ſee that they are not limited onelyonly by the lawes of God, but by the lawes of men alſo, namely, The agreement between them and the people when they are raiſed to ſuch dignities. There is nothing weakens their right more then the pleading it by conqueſt; Princes have little cauſe to thank thoſe who plead their right that way. The ſureſt foundation for Princes to ſet their feet on, is the agreement between the people and them, or their progenitors; but if they will goe beyond this agreement, what ſtirres, what wofull diſturbances doe they make!
Secondly, if either they, or any Governours of the State, ſhall inſtead of being helpfull to the government of the Church, take it all from it into their owne hands, in this they goe beyond thoſe bounds Chriſt would have them; it is by the Civill power that the Governours of the Church have the peaceable exerciſe of what power Chriſt hath given them, but they have not their power from them. Civill authority cannot put any ſpirituall power into a man, or company of men, which they had not before; it can onelyonly protect, encourage, and further the exerciſe of that power that CHRIST hath given. They are inconſiderate men, Sed interca ſunt homines inconſiderati, qui faciunt illos nimis ſpirituales, hoc vitium paſſim regnat in Germania, in his etiam regionibus nimium graſsatur, & nunc ſentimus quales fructus naſcantur ex illa radice quod ſcilicet principes & quicun que potiuntur imperio, putant ſe ita spirituales eſse, ut nullum …it amplius eccleſiasticum regimen, & hoc ſacrilegium apud nos graſſatur, quia non poſſunt metiri officium ſuum certis & legitimis finibus.ſayes Calvin, who make Magiſtrates too spirituall; This evill, ſayes he, prevailes in Germanie, and in the Countries about us; we finde what fruit growes from this root, namely that thoſe who are in power, thinke themſelves ſo ſpirituall, that there is no other eccleſiaſticall government; this ſacriledge comes in violently amongst us, becauſe they cannot meaſure their office within its due bounds.
And for Church-Governours, if they would keep within their Limits, we might enjoy much peace, if firſt they would aſſume to themſelves no more power then Chriſt hath given them; Secondly, if they would not extend it over more congregations then Chriſt hath committed to them; Thirdly, if they would not exerciſe it in more things then Chriſt would have them. Let us looke a little into theſe three, for the want of a right underſtanding in them hath cauſed, and may yet further cauſe much diſturbance.
For the firſt. That Chriſt hath appointed ſome to rule in his Church, and that all the members of the Church are not in the office of ruling, is apparent in Scripture, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 8, but that theſe Officers, preaching Elders, or others, ſhould ſo have the ſole power of ruling as to doe all in their owne Conſiſtory Claſſis, or (whatſoever you may call their convening) that the Church ſhould have nothing to doe with their acts of rule but to obey, this is aſſuming to themſelves power beyond what is given them; This hath brought tyrannie into the Church,Calv. in Amos c. 7. ver. 13. it hath made the Church-officers to looke upon the reſt of the Church in a contemptible way, as the common vulgar ſort, men ignorant and weak, not at all fit to meddle with matters of government, not ſo much as to take cogniſance,Conſulo ut diſciplinam quanto ocyu… fieri poterit in veſtras eccleſias invchatis, nam ſi ab initio non recipiatur, cum homines fervent non facile cum aliquod frigus obrepſcrit admittetur periculum, aiunt imminere ne diſciplinae colore miniſtri tyrannidem occupent, excommunicent pro libidine non attendunt, ii …omines nil a miniſtrorum tyrannide poſſe timeri, ubi evangelli regula ſervatur in excludendis à fratrum ſocietate eccleſiae conſenſu… eſt adhi…endus, cujus autorita…e ſi agatur, nemo de unius aut paucorum tyrannide …ure poterit conqueri. P. Mart. ep. 21. or give any conſent to what the Church-officers doe; But whether they underſtand or no whether they conſent or diſſent, it makes no matter, the determinations of thoſe in place muſt ſtand, their cenſures muſt be ſubmitted to.
Peter Martyr in an Epiſtle to the Miniſters, and ſuch as profeſſed the faith in Polonia, exhorts them to endeavour the eſtabliſhing of Diſcipline in the Church as ſoon as they could, while peoples hearts were heat with love to, and deſires after the Goſpell, he tells them it will be harder to bring it in afterward, when their hearts begin to grow more cold; and that they might not thinke Diſcipline a ſmall thing, he ſayes, that thoſe Churches cannot be ſaid to profeſſe the Goſpell truly nor ſolidly, which want it; he would have them acknowledge it not to be the leaſt part of Chriſtian Religion, but muſt know that the Goſpel is neglected by ſuch as ſhall put off from themſelves ſuch a ſingular excellent portion of it. But ſayes he, this will be the Objection, Under the colour of Diſcipline, the Miniſters of the Church will tyrannize, they will carry things according to their owne mindes.
To this he anſwers, Tyrannie in the Miniſters needs not be feared, where the rule of the Goſpel for cenſures is obſerved; for in caſting out any who will not be reclaimed, the conſent of the Church muſt be had; and if it be done by this authority, none can complain of the tyrannie of a few.
Cyprian in his ſixt Epiſtle profeſſeth his reſolution to doe nothing without the counſell of the Elders,Statuerim nihil fine con…ilio vestro, & …ine conſenſu plebis agere. Cyp. ep. 6 and conſent of the people. Our Brethren of Scotland in their oppoſition to the Prelates, give very much to the people in the matter of Excommunication: It pertaineth ſay they to the whole Church collectively taken to deny her Chriſtian communion to ſuch wicked perſons as adde contumacie to their diſobedience,Part 3. cap. 8. digreſ. 4. l. 181. therefore it pertaineth to the whole Church to excommunicate them.Diſpute againſt Engliſh Popiſh Ceremonies. Againe, It pertaineth to the whole Church to admit one into her communion, therefore to the whole Church to caſt one out of her communion. And a page or two after, The Apostle writing to the whole Church of Corinth will have them being gathered together, to deliver that inceſtuous perſon to Satan, therefore every particular Church or Congregation hath power to excommunicate. There they give many arguments to prove, that the Apoſtle would not excommunicate by his owne authority alone, but by the authority of the Church, and that collectively taken, (ſo they ſay) not the Miniſters or Elders of the Church onelyonly.
Let no man ſay, this was the judgement but of one Miniſter, for at the beginning of this Parliament, my ſelfe, together with a reverend Brother, asked Maſter Henderſon, two or three of the Miniſters of Scotland being with him, Whether we might not take that Book as the judgement of the moſt godly and able of the Miniſters of Scotland, for the matters of Church-diſcipline? They anſwered, we might.
The ſecond way of going beyond their limits, is their extending their power to more Congregations then Chriſt hath given them charge of. The chiefe Church-controverſie at this day is about this extent; I ſhall onelyonly ſhew you where the difference lyes betweene one and the other in it. The Queſtion is this, Whether one that is ſet by Chriſt to take charge of a particular Congregation, as a Paſtor to feed them, by Word, Sacraments, and Rule, may keep the Paſtorall charge he hath for Word and Sacraments to one Congregation, but his charge for Rule ſhall extend together with others to an hundred Congregations or more.
Some ſay that no Miniſter can have the charge of ruling over people in a large extent then his charge over them for Word and Sacraments reaches; they thinke that thoſe people that can ſay to a Miniſter, That charge that Chriſt hath given you for Word and Sacraments, extends not to take care of our ſoules to feed them, therefore you have no charge of our ſouls for ruling; if you thinke you may, preach or adminiſter Sacraments in an accidentall arbitrary way onelyonly, not as chalenging power over us for this, or looking upon us as thoſe committed to you, for whom you are to anſwer; then at the fartheſt you may exerciſe rule over us but in this way.
But others hold this, That a Miniſter may anſwer to this people thus, I confeſſe I have indeed onelyonly ſuch a particular Congregation to be my flock, and although I being deſired to help ſometimes in another to preach or adminiſter Sacraments▪ yet I doe it not as having the charge of their ſoules as being Paſtor to them: But as for that ruling power that Chriſt hath given me, I conceive by joyning of it with others, it extends to hundreds of Congregations, or more, according as our aſſociation ſhall be, ſo as we have not onelyonly liberty to be helpfull to thoſe who have the ſpeciall charge of the Congregations; but we have the ſupreame ruling power in our hands, to challenge in the Name of Chriſt, to exerciſe over theſe Congregations, as we ſhall ſee cauſe. I ſay, the ſupreme power above what your Miniſters or Elders in your particular Congregations have; for though theſe Miniſters and Elders of yours be admitted to be members of our Court, yet if they all ſhould be of a contrary minde from us, in ſome matter that concernes your Congregation, we yet will judge and determine, we will cenſure and exerciſe all kinde of Eccleſiaſticall Juriſdiction in that congregation, as we ſee cauſe, though it may be not one of us ever ſaw any of the faces of any of the men of your congregation before. Here, I ſay, lyes the great dividing controverſie, which is right, which is wrong is not my worke to ſhew; all I am to doe, is but to ſhew you what the controverſie is, about which there is ſo much diſpute.
And though I determine not the caſe either way, yet I ſhall leave two conſiderations to help you in your thoughts about it.
Firſt, the extent of power of Juriſdiction muſt be by inſtitution as well as the power it ſelfe; all juridicall power whatſoever, either in State or Church receives limits or extent from the ſame authority it firſt had its riſe, this is impoſſible to be denyed: If a man by a Charter be made a Mayor of a Towne, he cannot therefore challenge the power of a Mayor whereſoever he comes, except the authority that firſt gave him his powver ſhall alſo extend it. Now the Charter by which any Church-Officer is inveſted with power, is the Word, therefore we cannot ſtreighten or enlarge the power of a Miniſter otherwiſe then we find it in the Word; for Civill power it may be ſtreightned or enlarged, as the Governours of State ſhall ſee cauſe, becauſe their Charter is from man, it is foreign.
Secondly, man naturally is of nothing more impatient then to have Juriſdiction challenged over him, except hee ſees the claime to be right; and in the point of ſpirituall juriſdiction, man is the moſt tender of all, becauſe in that men come in the Name of Chriſt to him, challenging authority to exerciſe the power of Chriſt over him, not over the outward man ſo much as over his ſoule, to deliver it up to Satan. Surely there had need be ſhewne a cleare and full Charter, that any men have, that gives them ſuch a power as this, that men in conſcience ſhall be bound to ſubmit to. Now then here lyes the diviſion, on ſayes his Charter does extend ſo farre; the other ſayes, hee does not finde it ſo in the reading of it.
There is yet a further conſideration of the ſtretching either Civill or Eccleſiaſticall authority beyond their bounds, which hath been, and may be the cauſe of much diviſion; that is, their challenging and excerciſing power in things indifferent, beyond what God hath given them; for the opening of which we muſt know:
Firſt, no man either in State or Church, hath any authority given him by God, to command any thing meerely becauſe hee will; eſpecially, when the things concerne the worſhip of God. Our Brethren of Scotland in their diſpute againſt Engliſh Popiſh Ceremonies, part 3. chap. 8. pag. 127. have this paſſage, Princes have enjoyned things pertaining to the worſhip of God, but thoſe things were the very ſame which Gods written Word had expreſly commanded; when Princes went beyond theſe limits and bounds, they tooke upon them to judge and command more then God hath put within the compaſſe of their power: And pag. 136. of the ſame Booke they ſay, The Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 23. forbiddeth us to be the ſervants of men, that is, to doe things for which wee have no other warrant beſide the pleaſure and will of men. This was the Doctrine in Tertullians time, Iniquam excercetis dominationem, ſi ideo negatis licere quia vultis, non quia debuit non licere, Tertul. Apol. adverſ. Gentes.You exerciſe, ſayes he, an unjuſt dominion over others, if you deny a thing may bee done, becauſe you will, not becauſe it ought not to bee done.
It is onelyonly the Prerogative of God, of Jeſus Chriſt, to command a thing becauſe they will.
God hath appointed Civill Governours to be his Miniſters for our good. Rom. 13. Thoſe things onelyonly which they can doe in Gods Name as his Miniſters, and are for the good of a State, are the object about which their power is to be exerciſed; they are not to require a thing becauſe there is nothing againſt it, but becauſe this thing is for God: And Church-governours are to require onelyonly ſuch things as Chriſt requires, all the exerciſe of their power ought to be in the Name of Chriſt, hence not becauſe they will, or becauſe nothing can be ſaid to the contrary.
In all they require of us, they muſt be able to ſay as Paul, 1 Cor. 14. 38. giving rules about order and decencie, If any man thinke himſelfe to be a Prophet, or ſpirituall, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the Commandements of the Lord.
You will ſay, But are Governours alwayes bound to ſhew a reaſon of their will, to thoſe who are under them; or may not they obey except they know ſome good in the thing, beſides their doing the will of thoſe who doe command them?
Though no Governours may command but upon reaſon,Anſw. yet the Governours of State need not alwayes diſcover the reaſons of their commands.
Wee may give up our Civill liberties ſo farre as to be bound to yeeld to our Governours commands, if wee ſee nothing againſt what they command, but have cauſe to ſuppoſe that they ſee ſome reaſon that we do not, which is not fit to make known to us. This is grounded upon this reaſon, that there are Arcana imperii, myſteries of State that are not fit for every man to know, the ſecrecie of them conduces moſt to the good of the State: But it is otherwiſe in the matters of the Church, which are ſpirituall, there are no ſuch myſteries in the Church, wherein any members of it can be required to be active, but it concernes them to underſtand as well as to doe. All the actions of the Church as ſuch muſt be done for ſpirituall edification; now a man cannot doe a thing for the edifying his ſoule, or the ſoule of another, but he muſt underſtand his action and the rule of it; he muſt ſee it required by the Word, or otherwiſe he cannot expect any ſpirituall efficacy in what he does; I may doe a thing for a civill good, wherein I may truſt another mans reaſon, and this may be ſufficient to attaine my end, the procuring of ſome good meerly civill, but this will never be able to reach to a ſpirituall good, I muſt ſee the reaſon, the ground, the rule of the action my ſelfe; I muſt judge by the Word, that this action at this time cloathed with all its circumſtances is by Chriſt ſitted for ſuch a ſpirituall good that I aime at.
Beſides, if things meerely indifferent be enjoyned, then is Chriſtian liberty violated. No, ſay ſome, Chriſtian liberty is in the conſcience, ſo long as a man keepes his conſcience free, the thing may be ſtill indifferent to him in regard of his conſcience, though his practiſe be determined, and ſo Chriſtian liberty is preſerved. This is the put off that the Prelaticall party made uſe of againſt our Brethren of Scotland many yeeres ſince, when they pleaded that by their uſurpation Chriſtian liberty was taken from them.
To that anſwer of the Prelates, they thus reply: When the authority of the Churches conſtitution is obtruded to binde and reſtraine the practice of Chriſtians in things indifferent,Diſpute againſt Engliſh Popiſh ceremonies, p. 1. cap. 3. pag. 6, 7. they are bereaved of thir liberty, as well as if an opinion of neceſſity were borne in upon their conſciences. They urge that place, Coloſ. 2. 21. where the Apoſtle gives inſtances, ſay they, of ſuch humane ordinances as take away Chriſtian liberty; he ſaith not, you muſt thinke that you may not touch, but touch not; you muſt not practiſe, not be ſubject to ſuch Ordinances; telling us; That when the practice is reſtrained form touching, taſting, handling, by the ordinance of men, then is Chriſtian liberty spoiled, though conſcience be left free; if the outward man be brought in bondage, this makes up ſpirituall thraldome (ſay they) though there bee no more.
And further, the Apoſtle gives theſe two Arguments againſt theſe things:
Firſt, ſayes he, they periſh in the uſe; that is, there is no good comes of them.
It may be you will ſay, What hurt is there in them? That is not enough, ſayes the Apoſtle, to juſtifie them, though there ſhould be no hurt in them, yet ſeeing they periſh in the uſe, ſeeing there comes no good by them, you muſt not doe them: But what if they ſhall be commanded by authority? may wee not doe them then? No, ſayes the Apoſtle, that is another argument againſt them; they are after the commandements and doctrine of men; if it be a meere ordinance of man, and there be no other reaſon in the thing, but becauſe man enjoynes it in the Church, you are not to doe it. Yea, in ſome reſpect we have not ſo much liberty in things indifferent, if they be enjoyned by men, as we had before. This is thought to be a very ſtrange aſſertion by ſome; but conſider this one thing, and it will not appear ſo: Though I might doe ſuch a thing before, yet if man ſhall take upon him this authority to command, meerly becauſe of his will and pleaſure, if I now obey I am in danger to edifie him, to ſtrengthen him in his ſinne; he challenges this authority, and I ſeeme to yeeld it to him, certainly he is ſtrengthned in it by my ſubjection, except I doe this at leaſt profeſſe againſt any ſuch authority of man granted by Jeſus Chriſt.
But ſay ſome, If you take from Governours power to command things indifferent, you take away all their power; for things neceſſary are required without them, and things ſinfull they may not command.
Surely this conceit comes rather from tradition then from due conſideration;Anſw. for it is not power enough to ſee to the keeping of the commands of God, that the Ordinances be kept pure, that there be juſtice between man and man, to reward thoſe which doe well, and to puniſh the evill doers.
Yet thus farre muſt be granted to the Officers of the Church, they have authority from Chriſt to declare dogmatically, when a thing in it ſelfe indifferent, yet by reaſon of ſome circumſtances, comes to be a duty, and this is to be regarded more then the declaration of any private brother or brethren, for they doe it by way of office in the name of Chriſt. This we finde Acts 15. the Apoſtles and Elders ſent their Decrees, foreign, their dogmaticall determinations about ſome things in themſelves indifferent, but as cloathed with thoſe circumſtances they call them things neceſſary; they determine them to be done from the reaſon of the things, not from their authority; thoſe things were duties before they decreed them, and had been, had they never decreed them. Even forbearing the eating of blood was a duty in caſe of offence, though their decree had never been, and otherwiſe it was no duty, notwithſtanding their Decree, for afterward Paul ſayes, that whatſoever is ſold in the ſhambles, they might eate of it, asking no queſtion for conſcience ſake, and every creature of God is good, if it be received with thankſgiving. Thus we have ſeen what the bounds are which God hath ſet to men in authority, or at leaſt the controverſie about them: Let them be carefull to keep within their bounds, as they are ſet to keep others within theirs: by this, Church and State, may enjoy much peace.