A Weapon-Salve for the Churchs Wounds, Religious treatise 1 · Part 2 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
The other ground of Divine Right considered, viz. Gods positive Laws; which imply a certain knowledge of Gods intention to bind men perpetually. As to which, the Arguments drawn from Tradition, and the practice of the Church in after-ages, proved invalid by several arguments. In order to a right stating the Question, some Concessions laid down. First, That there must be some form of Government in the Church. The notion of a Church explained: whether it belongs only to particular Congregations, which are manifested not to be of Gods primary intention, but for our necessity. Evidence for National Churches under the Gospel. A National Church-Government necessary.
I Now come to the second way, whereby any§. 1. thing comes to be of unalterable Divine Right, which is, by the positive Laws of God, which do bind universally to obedience. In the entrance into this Discourse, it is necessary to lay down the ways, whereby we find out a Divine positive Law determining an unalterable Obligation: which must be either by express words of Scripture, or by some other certain way, whereby to gather from thence, that it was Gods intention to bind men. For the main thing requisite to make a standing universal positive Law, is Gods declaring his mind, that the thing enquired into, should unalterably bind men to the practice of it. Now whatever doth sufficiently manifest Gods intention, is a medium to find out such a Law by, and nothing else: But it must be such a manifestation as gives a mans mind sufficient evidence and testimony whereon to build a true, certain, and divine assent to the thing, as revealed: So that whatsoever binds the conscience as a Law, must first be entertained by the understanding as a matter of faith; not as it imports something meerly doctrinall and dogmaticall, but as it implyes the matter of a Divine Revelation, and the object of an assent upon the credibility of a Testimony. For God having the only immediate authority over the consciences of men, nothing can bind immediately the conscience but a Divine Law, neither can any thing bind as such, but what the understanding assents unto, as revealed by God himself. Now the Word of God being the only Codex and Digests of Divine Laws, whatever Law we look for, must either be found there in express terms, or at least so couched therein, that every one by the exercise of his understanding, may by a certain and easie collection, gather the universall obligation of the thing enquired after. In this case then, whatsoever is not immediately founded upon a Divine Testimony, cannot be made use of as a Medium to infer an universally binding Law by: So that all Traditions and Historicall evidence will be unserviceable to us, when we enquire into Gods intentions in binding mens consciences. Matters of fact, and meer Apostolicall practice, may I freely grant, receive much light from the Records of succeeding ages; but they can never give a mans understanding sufficient ground to inferr any Divine Law, arising from those facts attested to be the practice or Records of succeeding ages.
For first, The foundation and ground of our assent in this§ 2. case, is not the bare testimony of Antiquity; but the assurance which we have, either that their practice did not vary from what was Apostolicall; or in their Writings, that they could not mistake concerning what they deliver unto us: And therefore those who would inferr the necessary obligation of men to any form of Government, because that was practised by the Apostles, and then prove the Apostolicall practice from that of the ages succeeding, or from their Writings, must first of all prove, that what was done then, was certainly the Apostles practice, and so prove the same thing by its self, or that it was impossible they should vary from it, or that they should mistake in judging of it: For here something more is required then a meer matter of fact, in which I confess their nearnesse to the Apostles times doth give them an advantage above the ages following, to discern what it was; but such a practice is required, as inferrs an universall obligation upon all places, times, and persons. Therefore these things must be manifested, that such things were unquestionably the practice of those ages and persons; that their practice was the same with the Apostles; that what they did, was not from any prudential motives, but by vertue of a Law which did bind them to that practice. Which things are easily passed over by the most eager Disputers of the controversie about Church-Government, but how necessary they are to be proved before any form of Government be asserted, so necessary, that without it there can be no true Church, any weak understanding may discern.
Secondly, Supposing that Apostolicall practice be sufficiently attested by the following ages, yet unless it be cleared from Scripture, that it was Gods intention that the Apostles actions should continually bind the Church, there can be nothing inferred that doth concern us in point of Conscience. I say, that though the matter of fact be evidenced by Posterity, yet the obligatory nature of that fact must depend on Scripture: and the Apostles intentions must not be built upon mens bare …urmises, nor upon after-practices, especially if different from the constitution of things during the Apostles times. And here those have somewhat whereon to exercise their understandings, who assert an obligation upon men to any form of Government, by vertue of an Apostolicall practice, which must of necessity suppose a different state of things from what they were when the Apostles first established Governours over Churches. As how those who were appointed Governours over particular Congregations by the Apostles, come to be by vertue of that Ordination, Governours over many Congregations of like nature and extent with that over which they were set: And whether, if it were the Apostles intention that such Governours should be alwayes in the Church, is it not necessary that that intention of theirs be declared by a standing Law, that such there must be; for here matter of fact and practice can be no evidence, when it is supposed to be different from the constitution of Churches afterward: But of this more hereafter.
Thirdly, Supposing any form of Government in its self necessary, and that necessity not determined by a Law in the Word of God, the Scripture is thereby apparently argued to be insufficient for its end; for then deficit in necessariis; some things are necessary for the Church of God which the Scripture is wholly silent in. I say not, that every thing about Church-Government must be written in Scripture; but supposing any one form necessary, it must be there commanded, or the Scripture is an imperfect Rule, which contains not all things necessary by way of Precept: For there can be no other necessity universall, but either by way of means to an end, or by way of Divine Command: I know none will say, that any particular form of Government is necessary absolutely, by way of means to an end; for certainly, supposing no obligation from Scripture, Government by an equality of power in the Officers of the Church, or by superiority of one order above another, are indifferent in order to the generall ends of Government, and one not more necessary then the other. If any one form then be necessary, it must be by that of command; and if there be a command universally binding, whose footsteps cannot be traced in the Word of God, how can the Scriptures be a perfect Rule, if it fails in determining binding Laws? So that we must, if we own the Scriptures sufficiency as a binding Rule, appeal to that about any thing pleaded as necessary, by vertue of any Divine command: and if such a Law cannot be met with in Scripture, which determines the case in hand one way or other by way of necessary obligation, I have ground to look upon that which is thus left undetermined by Gods positive Laws, to be a matter of Christian-liberty; and that neither part is to be looked upon as necessary for the Church of God, as exclusive of the other.
This I suppose is the case, as to particular forms of Government§. 3. in the Church of God: but that I may not only suppose but prove it, I now come to the stating of the Question, which if ever necessary to be done any where, it is in the Controversie of Church-Government, the most of mens heats in this matter arising from want of right understanding the thing in question between them. In the stating the Question, I shall proceed by degrees, and shew how far we acknowledge any thing belonging to Government in the Church to be of an unalterable Divine Right. First, That there must be a form of Government in the Church of God, is necessary by vertue, not only of that Law of Nature which provides for the preservation of Societies, but likewise by vertue of that Divine Law, which takes care for the Churches preservation in peace and unity. I engage not here in the Controversie, Whether a particular Congregation be the first Political Church or no; it sufficeth for my purpose, that there are other Churches besides particular Congregations: I mean, not only the Catholick visible Church, which is the first, not only in order of consideration, but nature too, as a totum Integrale before the similar parts of it, but in respect of all other accidentall modifications of Churches, from the severall wayes of their combination together. They who define a Church by stated worshipping Congregations, do handsomely beg the thing they desire, by placing that in their definition of a Church, which is the thing in question: which is, Whether there be no other Church but such particular Congregations? Which is as if one should go about to prove, that there were no civil Societies but in particular Corporations, and to prove it, should give such a definition of civill Society, that it is, A company of men joyned together in a Corporation, for the preservation of their Rights and Priviledges, under the Governours of such a place. It must be first proved, that no other company of men can be call'd a civill Society besides a Corporation: and so that no other society of men joyning together in the profession of the true Religion, can be call'd a Church, but such as joyn in particular Congregations.
To which purpose it is very observable, That particular… ▪ 4. Congregations are not de primariâ intentione divinâ; for if the whole world could joyn together in the publike Worship of God, no doubt that would be most properly a Church, but particular Congregations are only accidental, in reference to Gods intention of having a Church, because of the impossibility of all mens joyning together for the convenient distribution of Church-priviledges, and administration of Gospel-Ordinances. For it is evident, that the Priviledges and Ordinances, do immediately and primarily belong to the Catholick visible Church, in which Christ to that end hath set Officers, as the Apostle clearly expresseth, 1 Corinth. 12. 28. (for how Apostles should be set as Officers over particular Congregations, whose Commission extended to the whole World, is, I think, somewhat hard to understand) but for the more convenient participation of Priviledges and Ordinances, particular Congregations are necessary: This will be best illustrated by Examples. We read that (Esther 1. 3.) King Ahashuerus made a feast for all his Princes and Servants: Doubtlesse the King did equally respect them all as a Body in the feasting of them, and did bestow his entertainment upon them all as considered together; but by reason of the great multitude of them, it was impossible that they should all be feasted together in the same Room; and therefore for more convenient participation of the Kings bounty, it was necessary to divide themselves into particular companies, and to associate as many as conveniently could in order to that end. So it is in the Church, Christ in donation of priviledges equally respects the whole Church; but because men cannot all meet together to participate of these priviledges, a more particular distribution was necessary for that end. But a clearer example of this kind we have yet in Scripture, which is Mark 6. 39. in our Saviours feeding the multitude with five loaves and two fishes; where we see our Saviours primary intention, was to feed the whole multitude; but for their more convenient partaking of this food, our Saviour commands them to sit down foreign, according to the Hebraism of ingeminating the words, to note the distribution of them, and therefore the Vulg. Lat. renders it secundum contubernia, that is foreign, as Camerarius expounds it, according to so many companies and divisions as might conveniently sit together, as at a Table: Where we plainly see this distribution was only accidentall, as to Christs primary intention of feeding the multitude, but was only necessary for their own conveniency. Thus the case is evident, as to the Church of God, it is our necessity and conveniency which makes severall Congregations of the Catholike visible Church, and not Gods primary intention, when he bestowed such priviledges upon the Church, that it should be understood of particular Congregations.
If then particular Congregations be only accidentall for our§. 5. conveniency, it evidently follows that the primary notion of a Church, doth not belong to these; nor that these are the first subject of Government which belongs to a Church as such, and not as crumbled into particular Congregations; although the actual exercise of Government be most visible and discernable there; Because the joyning together for participation of Gospel-Ordinances must be in some particular company or other associated together for that end. Where ever then we find the notion of a Church particular, there must be government in that Church; and why a National Society incorporated into one civil Government, joyning in the profession of Christianity, and having a right thereby to participate of Gospel-Ordinances in the convenient distributions of them in particular congregations, should not be called a Church; I confesse I can see no reason. The main thing objected against it, is, that a Church implyes an actual joyning together for participation of all Gospel-Ordinances; but as this, as I said before, is only a begging the Question, so I say now, that actual communion with any particular Congregation, is not absolutely necessary to a member of a Church; for supposing one baptized at Sea, where no setled Congregation is (nor any more Society then that which Aristotle calls foreign) yet such a one is thereby a member of the Church of God, though not of any Congregation; so likewise a Church then may consist of such as have a right to Ordinances, without the inserting their actual participation of them in fixed Congregations. A particular Church then I would describe thus, That it is, A society of men joyning together in the visible profession of the true Faith; having a right to, and enjoying among them the Ordinances of the Gospel. That a whole Nation professing Christianity, in which the Ordinances of the Gospel are duly administred in particular Congregations, is such a Society, is plain and evident. A clear instance of such a National constitution of a Church under the Gospel, we have in the Prophesie of the Conversion of Egypt and Assyria in Gospel-times. Isaiah 19. 19, 21, 24, 25. We have Egypts professing the true Faith, and enjoying Gospel Ordinances, vers. 19. 21. which, according to the Prophetical stile are set down under the representation of such things as were then in use among the Jewes: by an Altar in the midst of the Land, ver. 19. The Altar noting the true worship of God; and being in the midst of the Land, the universal owning of this worship by all the people of the land. God owns them for a Church, v. 25. Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people. The very name whereby Israel was called while it was a Church. foreign Hosea, 2. 1. And when God unchurched them, it was under this name, foreign Ye are not my people. As much then as Israel was a Church when God owned it for his People: so should Egypt be upon their conversion to the Faith of Christ, which was done upon Marks preaching at Alexandria not long after the death of Christ.
This then we have now briefly cleared, that a Nation joyning§. 6. in profession of Christianity, is a true Church of God: whence it evidently follows, that there must be a Form of Ecclesiastical Government over a Nation as a Church, as well as of Civil Government, over it, as a Society governed by the same Lawes. Therefore some make this necessary to a NationallHudson of the Church cap. 1. sect. 3. Church, National Union in one Ecclesiasticall body in the same Community of Ecclesiasticall Government. For every Society must have its Government belonging to it as such a Society; and the same Reason that makes Government necessary in any particular Congregation, will make it necessary for all the particular Congregations joyning together in one visible society as a particular National Church. For the unity and peace of that Church, ought much more to be looked after then of any one particular Congregation, in as much as the Peace of all the particular combinations of men for participation of Ordinances doth depend upon, and is comprehended in the Peace of the whole. But though I say from hence that some form of publike Government by the subordination of particular Assemblies to the Government of the whole body of them is necessary, yet I am far from asserting the necessity of any one form of that Government, much more, from saying that no Nationall Church can subsist without one Nationall Officer, as the High-Priest under the Law, or one Nationall place of Worship, as the Temple was. The want of considering of which, viz that Nationall Churches may subsist without that Form of them under the Jewes, is doubtless the great Ground of Mens quarrelling against them; but with what Reason, let Men impartially judge. This then we agree, that some from of Government is necessary in every particular Church, and so that Government in the Church of Divine and unalterable Right; and that not onelyonly of particular Congregations, but of all Societies which may be called Churches, whether Provinciall, or Nationall.