A Weapon-Salve for the Churchs Wounds, Religious treatise 1 · Part 2 · Chapter 5

A Weapon-Salve for the Churchs Wounds · Religious treatise 1 · Part 2 · Chapter 5

p. 200CHAP. V.

Whether any of Christs Actions have determined the Form of Government. All Power in Christs hands for Governing his Church: What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World. Calling Apostles the first action respecting outward Government: The Name and Office of Apostles cleared; An equality among them proved during our Saviours life. Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered, with the nature and quality of their Office, Matth. 20. 25, 26, 27. largely discussed and explained. It makes not all inequality in Church Officers unlawful; by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches, Matth. 18. 15. How far that determins the Form of Church-Government. No evidence of any exact Order for Church-Government from thence, Matth. 16. 15, 16 17, 18. considered how far that concerns the Government of the Church.

HAving considered and answered the Arguments which§. 1. are brought, why Christ must determine the particular Form of Government: Our next task will be to enquire into those Actions of our Saviour which are conceived to have any plausible aspect towards the setling the Form of Government in his Church. And were it not that men are generally so wedded to an hypothesis they have once drunk in by the prevalency of interest or education, we might have been superseded from our former labour, but that men are so ready to think that Opinion to be most necessary, which they are most in love with, and have appeared most zealous for. Men are loth to be perswaded that they have spent so much breath to so little purpose, and have been so hot and eager for somewhat, which at last appears to be a matter of Christian liberty. Therefore we finde very few that have been ever very earnest in the maintaining or promoting any matter of opinion, but have laid more weight upon it, than it would really bear; lest men should think, that with all their sweat and toile, they only p. 201beat the ayr, and break their Teeth in cracking a Nut, with a hole in it; which if they had been so wise as to discern before, they might have saved their pains for somewhat which would have better recompenced them. But thus it generally fares with men; they suck in principles according as interest and education disposeth them, which being once in, have the advantage of insinuating themselves into the understanding, and thereby raise a prejudice against whatever comes to disturb them; which prejudice being the Yellow-jaundise of the Soul, leaves such a tincture upon the eyes of the Understanding, that till it be cured of that Icterism, it cannot discern things in their proper colours. Now this prejudice is raised by nothing more strongly, than when the opinion received is entertained, upon a presumption that there is a Divine stamp and Impress upon it, though no such Effigies be discernable there. Hence come all the several contending parties about Church-Government, equally to plead an interest in this Ius Divinum, and whatever opinion they have espoused, they presently conceive it to be of no lesse than Divine extract and Original, And as it sometimes was with great personages among the Heathens, when their miscarriages were discernable to the eye of the World, the better to palliate them among the vulgar, they gave themselves out to be impreguated by some of their adored Deities; so I fear it hath been among some whose Religion should have taught them better things, when either faction, design, or interest, hath formed some conceptions within them suitable thereunto, to make them the more passable to the World, they are brought forth under the pretence of Divine Truths. Far be it from me to charge any sincere, humble, sober Christians with an offence of so high a nature, who yet may be possessed with some mistakes and apprehensions of this nature; but these are only wrought on by the Masters of parties, who know, unlesse they fly so high, they shall never hit the game they aym at. This is most discernable in the Factors for the Roman Omnipotency (as Paulus the fifth was call'd Omnipotentiae Pontifici… Conservaton); they who see not that Interest and Faction upholds that Court rather then Church, may well be presumed to be hoodwinked with more then an implicite Faith; and yet if we believe p. 202the great supporters of that Interest, the power they plead for is plainly given them from Christ himself; and not only offer to prove that it was so, but that it was not consistent with the Wisdom of Christ that it should be otherwise. Lest I should seem to wrong those of any Religion, hear what the Author of the Gloss upon the Extravagants Extravag. unum sanctum.(so they may be well called) saith to this purpose, applying that place of our Saviour, all power is given to me in heaven and earth, Matthew 28. 18. to the Pope, adds these words, Non videretur Dominus discretas fuisse, ut cum reverentia ejus loquar; nisi unicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset, qui hac omnia posset. We see by this, what blasphemies men may run into, when they argue from their private fancies and opinions, to what must be done by the Law of Christ. It therefore becomes all sober Christians impartially to enquire what Christ hath done, and to ground their opinions only upon that, without any such presumptuous intrusions into the Counsels of Heaven. We here therefore take our leave of the Dispute, Why it was necessary a form of Government should be established, and now enter upon a survey of those grounds which are taken from any passages of our Saviour, commonly produced as a Foundation for any particular Forms.

I shall not stand to prove, that Christ as Mediator hath all§. 2. the power over the Church in his own hands, it being a thing so evident from Scripture, and so beyond all dispute withMatth. 28. 18.Matt 28:18 those whom I have to deal with. In which respect he is the only Head of the Church, and from whom all divine RightIsa. 9. 6.Isa 9:6 for authority in the church must be derived. Which Right can arise only from some actions or Laws of Christ, which we therefore now search into. The first publike action of Christ after his solemn entrance upon his Office, which can be conceived to have any reference to the Government of his Church, was, the calling the Apostles. In whom for our better methodizing this Discourse, we shall observe these three …everal steps. First, When they were called to be Christs Disciples. Secondly, When Christ sent them out with a power of Miracles. Thirdly, When he gave them their full commission of acting with Apostolical power all the world over. p. 203These three seasons are accurately to be distinguished; for …he Apostles did not enjoy so great power when they were …isciples, as when they were sent abroad by Christ; neither had …hey any proper power of Church-government after that …nding forth, till after Christs Resurrection, when Christ told …hem, All power was put into his hands, and therefore gave themMatth. 2…. 18, 19.Matt 2:18Matt 2:19 …ll commission to go and preach the Gospel to all Nations. The first step then we observe in the Apostles towards their power of Church-government, was in their first calling to be Disciples. Two several calls are observed in Scripture concerning the Apostles: The first was more general, when they were called only to follow Christ; The second more special, when Christ told them what he called them to, and specified and described their Office to them, by telling them he would make them Fishers of Men. We shall endeavour to digest the Order of their calling as clearly and as briefly as we …an. Our blessed Saviour about the thirtieth year of his age, solemnly entering upon the discharge of his prophetical Office,Luk. 5. 32.Luke 5:32 in making known himself to be the true Messias to the World, to make his appearance more publike, goes to Iordan, and isMat. 3. 23. Mat. 4. 1.Matt 3:23Matt 4:1 there baptized of Iohn; presently after he is led up by the Spirit into the Wildernesse, where he continued forty dayes. In this space of time Iohn removes from Iordan, and comes on the other side to Bethabara; thither Christ comes to Iohn; John 1. 29.John 1:29Iohn not only owns Christ himself, but tells his disciples, This was he into whose Name he had baptized them. Upon this, twoJohn 1. 37.John 1:37 of Iohn's disciples leave their Master and follow Christ. These two are the first Disciples we ever read our Saviour had; whereof the one was Andrew, Peters brother, and the other probably conceived to be Iohn (it being his custom to conceal his name when he speaks of himself) Andrew calls his brother Peter; Christ next day calls Philip, Philip he finds Nathaniel; and this, as far as we read, was the first number of Christs Disciples. Here we find two or three gathered together in the Name of Christ, and Christ (truly) in the John 2. 2. John 2. 17, 23.John 2midst of them. These disciples it appears staid with Christ sometime, for they went with him to the marriage in Cana: and after went up with him to Ierusalem, when many professed to be his Disciples; from thence he goes into Iudea, p. 204where he gathers many Disciples, and baptizeth them. AfterJohn 3▪ 22. John 4. 1.John 3:22John 4:1 this he returns with his Disciples by the way of Samaria into Galilee: and these Disciples being now again at home, in probability did return for their livelyhood to their old employments for some small time, Christ having not yet commanded them to forsake all and follow him. Not long after (about a years space from the first calling them) Iesus being in Galilee, goes to the lake of Genezareth, there he finds Andrew and Peter Luke 5. 1. Matth. 4. 18, 19. Mark 1. 16, 17.Luke 5:1Matt 4:18Matt 4:19Mark 1:16Mark 1:17fishing: after the miracle there wrought, he then in a more solemn manner calls them to leave their employment, for he had▪ designed them for a greater, which was to be Fishers of Men. Whereby our Saviour expresseth the care, pains, diligence, design and end of the Ministerial Function he had appointed them for. Andrew and Peter presently leave all and follow Christ; the like do Iames and Iohn whom they met with, a little further upon the shore. And now those who were before but as common Disciples, are admitted into a higher Order, and bred up by Christ as persons designed for an employment of so high a Nature. We see here a necessity of making a double call of the Apostles; else it were impossible to reconcile the Narration of Iohn with the other Evangelists. Therefore Augustine thinks their first being with Christ in Iohn, De Consensu Evang. l. 2. cap. 17.was only for present satisfaction who he was, which assoon as they understood and admired, they returned to their own Habitations. Thomas, he makes three several callings of them; the first ad agnitionem & familiaritatem, which is that in Iohn; the second ad Discipulatum, that spoken of in Luke 5. 1. theV. Casaub. exer. in Bar. 13. s. 11. Montacut. Grig. Eccles. To. 1. p. 2. p. 41. Chemnitium Harm. Evan…c. 36. third ad adh…sionem, Matth. 4. 18. Mark 1. 16. But I see no reason to make the story in Luke to be different from that of Matthew and Mark; the former some say, was vocatio ad fidem, a general preparatory call to the latter; the latter was vocatio ad munus Apostolicum, although they were not chosen to be Apostles till afterwards, yet now Christ made them Candidores of the Apostleship, & amicos interioris admissionis, in order to that great employment he had designed them for. Further, we must take notice that from the time of the Baptism of Iohn, the Apostles did generally continue with Christ, which appears from the qualification of an Apostle given by Peter at the choyce of Matthias; Of those men which have companied p. 205with us all the time that the Lord Iesus went in and out Acts 1. 21▪ 22.Acts 1:21Acts 1:22among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day he was taken up from us. The strength of which Tehimony is impregnable, for proving that the Apostles did generally continue with Christ after their being called to follow him; but that time from the baptism of Iohn must not be taken strictly; for many of the Apostles, as Matthew, &c. were not called till some time after. About four moneths after Christs moreHarmon. cap. 50. solemn calling of the Apostles, at the time▪ of Pentecost, as Chemnitius conjectures, our Saviour proceeds to a solemn choyce of them into their Office, which is described by Luk. 6.Mark 3. 14, 15.Mark 3:14Mark 3:15 13. after he had prayed the whole night before v. 12. Mark▪ he acquaints us with the ends of Christs choosing them. First, That they might continually attend upon him, the better to be fitted for their employment afterwards; which he expresseth, when he adds, That he might send them out to preach, and to give them power over Devils and Diseases, to cast out the one, and to cure the other. Their actual sending out was not (say some) till half a year after, which is the story related by Mat. 10. 1. near a twelve-monethmonth (say others) but presently upon their choyce Christ makes the Sermon in the Mount, as appears by comparing Luk. 6. 17, 20. with Mat. 5. 1. wherein among other things, our Saviour takes occasion▪ to declare their duty to them, telling them, They were the Light of the World, &c. Which he doth, the more to fit them for the discharge of their employment.

Having thus laid these things together about the Apostles,§. 3. from their first calling to the time of their mission, we shall take notice of those things from them which may relate to the Office which the Apostles were called to, and to the Government of the Church by them. First, We here observe, that our Saviour no sooner began to preach the Gospel himself, but he made choyce of some persons as a peculiar Order of men for the propagation of the Gospel in the World. The peculiarity of the Function of a Gospel-Ministry under Christ was, we see, designed from Christs first publike appearance in his Office: he might have left the Apostles in the common order of Disciples, had he not intended an office in his Church distinct and peculiar from all other employments; and therefore it is observable, that Christ did not call the▪ Apostles p. 206off from their other employments, till he designed to make them Apostles; before, when they were only private Disciples, they did follow their employments at some times still; but when he calls them to be Fishers of men, be bids them leave all and follow him. Secondly, We take notice of the admirable wisdom of our Saviour in the choice he made of the Persons for first founding his Church▪ and the means he used to fit them for it. The persons were such as were most suitable to his design; the means such as were most suitable to the persons. The persons were such, who by reason of the known meanness of their condition, and supposed weakness of abilities, were the fittest to convince the World, that the Doctrine which they preached was not the product of humane wisdom, but the express Image and Character of Divine truth; whose nakednesse and simplicity would gain more upon mens belief by the power which accompanied the Preaching of it, then the most refined and sublimated Notions of their wise men should do, managed with the greatest subtilty and prudence by the maintainers of them. Christ would make men see that his Doctrine stood not in need either of the wisdom or power of men, to defend or propagate it▪ and therefore made choice of the most unlikely Instruments for that end, that mens faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of 1 Cor. 2. 5.1 Cor 2:5God. But withall, we are to take notice of Christs admirable wisdom in the means he used to fit and qualifie them for the first builders of his Church; for although the power and efficacy of their preaching was wholly from God, and not from themselves, yet our Saviour doth not ▪presenly upon his calling them, place them in the highest Office he intended them for, but proceeds gradually with them, and keeps them a long time under his own eye and instruction, before he sends them abroad: and that for two ends chiefly: First, To be witnesses of his actions. Secondly, To be Auditors of his Doctrine. First, To be witnesses of his actions, which was looked on by the Apostles, as the most necessary qualification for an Apostle in the place fore-cited, Acts 1. 21, 22. Peter calls himself a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ, 1 Pet. 5. 1. Iohn saith, That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, p. 207and our h…ds have handled of the Word of Life; that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, 1 John 1. 1, 3. whereby the credibility of the Gospel was sufficiently evidenced to the World, when the chief Preachers of it spoke nothing but what their own senses were witnesses of, both as to the Doctrine and actions of Christ; and therefore it is no wayes credible, they should be deceived themselves in what they spoke; and more improbable they would deceive others, whose interest lay wholly upon the truth of the Doctrine which they Preoched▪ for by the very Preaching of that Doctrine they rob'd themselves of all the comforts of Life, and exposed themselves to a thousand miseries in this Life; so that unlesse their Doctrine was true in order to another Life, they were guilty of the greatest folly this World ever heard of. We see what care our Saviour took to satisfie the reasons of men concerning the credibility of his Doctrine, when the persons he employed in the founding a Church upon it, were only such as were intimately conversant with the whole Life, Doctrine, and Works of him from whom they received it; and thereby we cannot suppose any ignorance in them concerning the things they spoke▪ and lest men should mistrust they might have a design to impose on others, he made their faithfulness appear, by their exposing themselves to any hazards to make good the truth of what they preached. Especially, having such a Divine Power accompanying them in the Miracles wrought by them, which were enough to perswade any rational men that they came upon a true Embassie, who carryed such Credentials along with them. Another end of our Saviours training up his Apostles so long in his School before he sent them abroad, was, that they might be Auditors of his Doctrine, and so might learn themselves before they taught others. Christ was no friend to those hasty births which run abroad with the shell on their heads; no, although it was in his power to conferr the gifts of the Holy Ghost, as well at their first entrance into Discipleship as afterwards, yet we see he nu…tures and trains them up gradually, teaching them as Quintilian would have Masters do, guttatim, acquainting them now with one, then with another of the Mysteries of the Gospel. Christ doth not overwhelm them with floods and p. 208torrents of Discourses, but gently drops now one thing into them, then another, by which way such narrow-mouthed Vessels would be the soonest filled. Yea our Saviour useth such …n foreign as the Greek Fathers call it, such a prudent temper in instructing them, that it is matter of just admiration to consider under how great and stupendious ignorance of the main points of Redemption (Christs Death and Resurrection, and the nature of Christs Kingdom) they discovered, after they had been some years under Christs Tutorage. And we see what industry and diligence was used in the training up of those for the Apostleship, who were in an immediate way sent out by Christ. And it is very probable that upon their first sending abroad they taught not by immediate Revelation, but only what they had learned from Christ during their being with him. Whence we see what a subordination there is in acquired parts, labour, and industry to the Teachings and Inspirations of the Divine Spirit; our Saviour looked not on his labour as lost, although afterwards the Unction from the Holy One should teach them all things. It was Christs design to have them go foreign from strength to strength, à domo sanctuarii in domum doctrinae, as the Chaldee Paraphrast Psal. 84. 7.Ps 84:7renders that place, from one School of learning to another. As under the Law even those that waited for the R…ach hakkodesh, the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, were brought up in the Schools of the Prophets under instruction there; which was the place where they lay expecting the gentle gale of the Holy Spirit to carry them forth; which was the ground of Amos his complaint. that he was neither a Prophet, nor the son Amos 7. 14.Amos 7:14of a Prophet; by which it seems evident, that Gods ordinary course was to take some of the Sons of the Prophets out of the Colledges where they lived, and employ them in the Prophetical Office. But of this largely elsewhere. Such a School of the Prophets did our Saviour now erect, wherein he entred his Disciples as Schollars, and educated them in order to the Office he intended them for.

The next thing we take notice of, is, the name and nature§. 4. of that Office which Christ call'd them to. They who derive the use of the name of Apostles as applyed by Christ to his Disciples, either from the foreign at Athens, by which name p. 209the Masters of some ships were called as the ships foreign, orSuidas in v. Digest. l. 50. tir. 16. leg. 106. Cont. Ebionitas. from Hesychius his foreign, which he interprets foreign, or from the foreign in the Sense of the Civil Law, which signifie the dim…ssory Letters granted for appeals; or from the Jewish foreign as thereby were understood those foreign as Epiphanius calls them, who were as Assessours and Counsellours to the Patriarch of the Jewes at Tiberias; or those Officers who were sent up and down by the Patriarch to gather up tenths, first fruits, and such other things; who are called thence Apostoli in the Codex. Theod. tit. de Iudaeis; allLib. 16. tit. 8. these I say do equally lose their labour▪ and run far to fetch that which might be found much nearer home: Our Saviour taking the word from common use, but applying it in a special manner to a peculiar Sense, which is the custome of the Scriptures: The Original of the Word properly imports such as are imployed by Commission from another for the dispatch of some businesse in his Name. So Casaubon (who was sufficientlyExercit. 14 Sect. 4. able to judg of the use of a Greek word) In communi Graecorum usu foreign dicebantur certi homines, qui negotii gerendi gratiâ, magis quam deferendi nuntii aliquò mittebantur. And so it is taken, Iohn 13. 16. foreign, He that is sent is not greater then he that sent him. Thence Epaphroditus when imployed upon a special message to Paul in the Name of the Churches, is called foreign, Philippians, 2. 25. which we Translate your Messenger. And so Titus and the two other sent to the Church of Corinth to gather their Charity▪ are called foreign, the 2 Cor. 8. 23.2 Cor 8:23Messengers of the Churches. Thence Paul fully renders the Import and Sense of the word Apostle by foreign, 2 Corinth. 5. 20. We act as Ambassaduors for Christ. To which purpose it is observable that the Septuagint (whose Greek is most followed by the New Testament) doe render the word foreign when it signifies to imploy a Messenger upon special Service, by foreign, as 1 King. 21. 11.—1 King. 12. 18. Exod 4. 30. and the very word foreign is used in this Sense, 1 King. 14. 6. where Ahijah saith, I am foreign, A sad Messenger to thee; for, thus saith the Lord, &c. Whereby the full Sense and Importance of the word Apostle appears to be, one that is imployed by a peculiar Commission p. 210from him that hath authority over him for the doing some special service. Thus were Christs disciples called Apostles from the immediate commission which they had from Christ for the discharge of that work which he imployed them in. Thence our Saviour makes use of the word sending in the proper and peculiar sense when he gives the Apostles their commission, in those remarkable words of Christ to them; As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you. John 20. 21. Whereby our Saviour delegates his power and authority which he had as Doctour of the Church, to his Apostles upon his leaving the World, not in a privative way, so as to destroy his own authority over the Church, but in a cumulative way, investing them with that authority which they had not before, for both Teaching and Governing the Church. No Argument then can be drawn for the Right or Form of Church-Government from Christs actions towards his Disciples before the last and full Commission was given unto them; because they had no power of Church-government before that time.

Which will be further cleared if we consider their first§. 5. sending out, spoken of Matth. 10. 1. Mark 6. 7. Luke 9. 1. Several things lie in our way to be observed in reference to this Mission of the Apostles. First, that though the Apostles had been now for some competent time, not onelyonly called to their Office, but solemnly chosen to it; yet we no where read that they did ever exercise that Office till now they were sent forh by Christ. They remained still at Christs feet, learning for their own instruction, and fitting themselves for their future imployment, and thought it no inconvenience while they lay for a wind, to lay in sufficient lading and provision for their voyage. Baptize indeed they did before, Ioh. 4. 2. but that I suppose was done by them by an immediate present Order from Christ himself, being by as the chief in the action, thence Christ in one place is said to baptize, Ioh. 3. 22. and yet he is said not to baptize, but his Disciples, Ioh. 4. 2. Christ did it authoritatively, the Disciples ministerially. Yet if we should grant the Disciples did then baptize as private men after the received custome of the Jews, (among whom onelyonly a Confessus trium was requisite to Baptize a proselyte) p. 211this doth not at all take off from the peculiarity of a Function both to Preach and Baptize, because as yet the Gospel-Ministry was not instituted; and therefore what might be lawfull before restraint, doth not follow it should be so after▪ when all those scattered rayes and beam, which were dispersed abroad before, were gathered into the Ministerial Office upon Christs appointing it, as that great Hemisphere of Light in the creation, was after swallowed up in the body of the Sun. But now were the Apostles first sent out to Preach, and now God first begins to null the Jewish Ministry, and set up another instead of it, and makes good that threatning: That he was against the Shepherds, and would require the flock at their hand, and cause them to cease to feed the Flock, &c. HereEzek. 34. 10.Ezek 34:10 then we have the first Exercise of the Apostles Ministry, for which we see, besides their former call and choice, particular mission was after necessary. Secondly, we observe that the imployment Christ sent them upon now, was onelyonly a Temporary imployment, confined as to work and place, and not the full Apostolicall work. The want of considering and understanding this, hath been the ground of very many mistakes among Men, when they argue from the Occasional Precepts here given the Apostles, as from a standing perpetual Rule for a Gospel-Ministry: Whereas our Saviour onelyonly suited these instructions to the present case, and the nature and condition of the Apostles present imployment, which was, not to preach the Gospel up and down themselves, but to be as so many Iohn Baptists to call people to the hearing of Christ himself; and therefore the Doctrine they were to Preach was the same with his, The Kingdome of Heaven is at Matth. 10. 7▪Matt 10:7hand, whereby it appears their Doctrine was only preparatory to Christ; it being onelyonly to raise up higher expectations of the Gospel-state under the Messias; and these were they whom the King now sent into the high-wayes to invite men to the marriage Matth. 22. ….Matt 22Feast, and to bid them to come in to him. This was the only present imployment of the Apostles in their first mission: in which they were confined to the Cities of Iudea, that they might have the first refusal of the Gospel-Offers. This mission then being occasional, limited, and temporary, can yield no Foundation for any thing perpetual to be built upon it. p. 212Thirdly, we observe that those whom Christ imploied in the first dispersing of the Gospel abroad, were furnished with arguments sufficient to evince not onelyonly the credibility, but the certain truth of what they preached. Therefore Christ when he now sent them out, gave them foreign, not only a meer power to work miracles, but a right conferrèd on them to Mat. 10. 2.Matt 10:2do it as the Apostles of Christ. These were the Credentials which the Apostles carried along with them to shew from whom they derived their power, and by whose authority they acted. And these were the most suitable to them, as making it appear that a Divine presence went along with them, and therefore they could not salsifie to the world in what they Declared unto them; which was the best way for them to evidence the Truth of their Doctrine, because it was not to be discovered by the Evidence of the things themselves, but it depended upon the Testimony of the Authour; and therefore the onelyonly way to confirm the truth of the Doctrine, was to confirm the credibility of the Authour, which was best done by doing something above what the power of nature could reach unto. And this was the prerogative of the Apostles in their first mission above Iohn the Baptist: For of him it is said that he did no miracle. Fourthly, we observe that the Apostles in this mission were invested in no power over the Church, nor in any Superiority of Order one over another. The first is evident, because Christ did not now send them abroad to gather Churches, but onelyonly to call persons to the Doctrine of the Messias; and while Christ was in the World among them, he retained all Church power and authority in his own hand. When this temporary mission expired, the Apostles lived as private persons still under Christs Tutorage, and we never read them acting in the least as Church-Officers all that while. Which may appear from this one argument, because all the time of our Saviours being in the World, he never made a total separation from the Iewish Church, but frequented with his Disciples the Temple worship and Service to the last; although he super-added many Gospel Observations to those of the Law. And therefore when no Churches were gathered, the Apostles could have no Church power over them. All that can be pleaded then in order to Church-Government from the consideration p. 213of the Form of Government as setled by our Saviour, must be either from a supposed inequality among the Apostles themselves, or their superiority over the LXX. Disciples; or from some Rules laid down by Christ in order to the Government of his Church: of which two are the most insisted on, Matthew 20. 25. Matth. 18. 17. Of these in their Order.

The first argument drawn for an established form of Government§. 6. in the Church, from the state of the Apostles under Christ, is, from a supposed inequality among the Apostles, and the superiority of one as Monarch of the Church; which is the Papists Plea from Saint Peter, as the chief and head of the Apostles. Whose loud Exclamations for Saint Peters authority a… much of the same nature with those of Demetrius the Silver-Smith at Ephesus, with his fellow craftsmen, who cried up, Great is Diana of the Ephesians, not from the honor they bore to her as Diana, but from the gain which came to them from her worship at Ephesus. But I dispute not now the entail of Saint Peters power, what ever it was to the Roman Bishop: but I onelyonly inquire into the Pleas drawn for his authority from the Scriptures, which are written in so small a character, that without the spectacles of an implicite Faith, they will scarce appear legible to the Eyes of men. For what though Christ changed Saint Peters name? must it therefore follow that Christ baptized him Monarch of his Church? Were not Iohn and Iames called by Christ Boanerges? and yet who thinks that those sons of Thunder must therefore overturn all other power but their own? Christ gave them new names, to shew his own authority over them, and not their authority over others; to be as Monitors of their Duty, and not as Instruments to convey power. So Chrysostome speaks of the very name Peter, given to Simon; it was to shew him his duty of being fixed and stable in the Faith of Christ, foreign,Tom. 8. ed. Savil. p. 105. this name might be (as a string upon his finger) a continual remembrancer of his duty. And likewise, I conceive, as an incouragement to him after his fall, that he should recover his former stability again; else it should seem strange that he alone of the Apostles should have his name from firmness and stability, who fell the soonest, and the foulest of any p. 214of the Apostles; unlesse it were foreign, which would be worse Divinity, then Rhetorick. The change then of St Peters name imports no such Universall Power, neither from the change, nor from the name. But why then hath Saint Peter the honour to be named first of all the Apostles? First, it seems to be implyed as an honour given to Peter above the rest. But doth all honour carry an Universal power along with it? there may be order certainly among equals; and there may be first, second, and third, &c. where there is no imparity and jurisdiction in the first over all the rest. Primacy of Order as among equals, I know none will deny Saint Peter: A Primacy of Power as over Inferiours, I know none will grant, but such as have subdued their Reason to their Passion and Interest. Nay, a further Order then of m…er place may without danger be attributed to him: A Primacy in Order of Time, as being of the first called, and it may be the first who adhered to Christ, in Order of Age; of which Ierome, aetati delatum quia Petrus senior erat, speaking of Peter and Iohn; nay yet higher, some Order of Dignity too; in regard of hisLib. 1. c. Iovin. foreign which the Greek Fathers speak so much of; the servency and heat of his spirit, whence by Eusebius he is calledHist. Ecclesiast. lib. 2. c. 14. foreign The Prolocutor among the Apostles, who was therefore most forward to inquire, most ready to answer, which Chrysostome elegantly calls foreign alluding to the name foreign and foreign, which are frequently given to Peter byChrysost. in Matth. 6. 16.Matt 6:16 the Fathers, which import no more then praesultor in choreâ, he that that led the dance among the Disciples: but his being foreign implies no Superiority of Power. For Dyonys. Hist. Rom. lib. 11.Haliarnass. calls Appius Cla…dius foreign, whereas all know that the Decemviri had an equality of power among themselves. Neither doth his being as the mouth of the Disciples imply his power; For Aaron was a mouth to Moses, but Moses was Aarons Master. Neither yet doth this Primacy of Order alwayes hold in reference to Peter: For although generally he is named first of the Aposties, as Matthew, 10. 2. Mark 3. 16. Acts 1. 13. Mark 1. 36. Luk 8. 45. Acts 2. 14.—37. Yet in other places of Scripture we finde other Apostles set in Order before him as Iames, Galat. 2. 9. Paul and Apollos, and others, 1 Cor. 3. 22. p. 2151 Cor. 1. 12.—9. 5. No Argument then can be drawn hence, if it would hold but onelyonly a Primacy of Order; and yet even that fails too in the Scriptures changing of the Order so often. But, say they, whatever becomes of this Order, we have a strong Foundation for Saint Peters Power, because Christ said, he would build his Church upon him, Matth. 16. 17. This were something indeed, if it were proved; but I fear this Rock will not hold water, as it is brought by them; nor Saint Peter prove to be that Rock. For indeed, Was the Church built upon Saint Peter? then he must be the chief Foundation stone, and Peter must build upon himself, and not upon Christ, and all the Apostles upon him; and thus in exalting the Servant, we depress the Master; and in setting a new Foundation, we take1 Cor. 3. 12.1 Cor 3:12 away the only Foundation, Iesus Christ. If by being built upon Peter, they mean no more then being built by him as the chief Instrument; it is both a very incongruous Speech, and implies nothing more then what was common to him, and the rest of the Apostles, who were all Master-builders in the Church of Christ, as Paul calls himself; and in that respect areRev, 21. 19. set forth as the twelve Foundation stones, in the walls of the New Ierusalem.

The Rock then spoken of by Christ, in his Speech to Peter, if taken Doctrinally, was Saint Peters Confession, as many of the Fathers interpret it; if taken personally, it was none other but Christ himself, who used a like Speech to this, when heJohn 2. 19.John 2:19 said, Destroy this Temple, and in three dayes I will raise it up. Which words, though spoken by occasion of the material Temple (as those were of Peters name) yet Christ understood them of the Temple of his Body, (as here likewise he doth of his person.) But still they urge, Christ put the Keyes into Saint Peters hands, Matthew, 16. 19. Now the power of the Keyes doth denote Regal Authority. I answer, First, The Keyes may be given two wayes, either from a Prince to a Subject, or from a City to a Prince. In this latter acception, they denote principality in the Receiver, but withall inferiority and subjection in the Given: and in this sense, I am so charitable, as to think they will not say that Christ gave the Keyes to Peter; it must be then as a Prince to a Subject; and when they are so given, it doth not imply an universal power in the persons p. 216to whom they are given, but an investing them in that particular place he hath appointed them to; the Office which the power of the Keyes implies, is Ministerial, and not Authoritative; Delarative, and not Iuridical; over persons committed to their charge, and not over Officers joyned in…equality of power with them. For so were the rest of the Apostles with Peter in the same power of the Keyes, Matth. 18. 18. Iohn 20. 23. This-power of the Keyes then was given to Peter in a peculiar manner, but nothing peculiar to him given thereby. But still there remains another Ward in Saint Peters Keyes, and the last foot to the Popes Chair which is Pasce oves, Feed my sheep; a charge given particularly to Peter, Iohn 21. 15. Thence they infer his Power over the whole Church. But this foot hath neither joynts nor sinews in it, and is as infirm as any of the rest: sor neither did this Command rather then Commission belong onelyonly to Peter; for Christ had before given them all their general Commission: As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you, John 20 21. whereby is implied an investing all the Apostles equally, with the power and authority of Governing the Church of God; although this charge be peculiarly renewed to Peter, because as he had particularly faln, so he should be particularly restored; neither yet did we grant this: doth the word, foreign imply such a Power and authority as they plead for, viz. A Supream power over the Church of God: for this even by Peter himself is attributed to the fixed Presbyters of the Churches, who by this argument have as much authority conveyed them, as Saint Peter had, 1 Pet. 5. 2. and yet should we grant this, it would not infer what they desire; for these sheep were not the whole Church of Christ, taken absolutely, but Indefinitely. For all the Apostles had a command to preach to every Creature, Matth. 28. 18. which was as to the words larger, as to the Sense the same with that to Saint Peter here. And afterwards we find Peter called the Apostle of Circumcision, and the Apostles sending him Gal. 2. 7. Acts 8. 14, Gal. 2. 9.Gal 2:7Acts 8:14Gal 2:9to Samaria, and Paul in the right hand of fellowship with Peter; which had been certainly dishonourable to Peter, had he been invested with such an Universal Supream Power over the Apostles and the whole Church. Such pretences then as these are for such an Extravagant power in the Church of God, p. 217from such miserably weak Foundations, for the upholding a corrupt Interest, have given the occasion to that tart Sarcasm, In Papatu sub Petri nudo nomine Satan non amplius Larva. But that which would seem sufficient to awaken any out of this dream of Saint Peters power over the rest of the Apostles,Mat. 18. 1. Mat. 9. 34. Luk. 9. 46.Matt 18:1Matt 9:34Luke 9:46 is, the frequent contendings of the twelve Apostles, one among another, Who should be the greatest; and that even after that Christ had said, Upon this Rock will I build my Church, as we may see Matthew 20 24. If Christ had conferred such a power on Saint Peter, what little ground had there been for the request of Iames and Iohn? and would not our Saviour rather have told them, the chiefest place was conserred on Peter already, then have curbed their ambition in seeking who should be greatest; and would have bid them be subject to Peter as their Head and Ruler. We see not then the least foundation for an universal Monarchy in the Church of God; and so this form of Government is not determined by any actions or commands of Christ.

We come now to consider the pleas of others, who joyn in§. 7. renouncing any Supream power under Christ, over the Church of God; but differ as to the particular forms of Government in the Church; those who are for an inequality, usually fix on the imparity between the Apostles and the LXX. Those that are for a parity upon Matth. 20. 25. and Matth. 18. 17. I shall here proceed in the former method, to shew that none of those can prove the Form they contend for as only necessary, nor their adversaries prove it unlawful. First then for the inequality between the Apostles and the LXX. Disciples; by that inequality is meant, either only an inequality of order; or else, an inequality carrying superiority and subordination. It is evident that the LXX. disciples were not of the same Order with the twelve Apostles, whom Christ had designed for the chief Government of his Church, after his Ascension; and in this respect the comparison of the twelve heads of the Tribes, and the seventy Elders, seems parallel with the twelve Apostles; and the LXX. disciples; but if by imparity, be meant, that the twelve Apostles had a superiority of power and jurisdiction over the LXX. disciples; there is not the least evidence or foundation, in Reason or Scripture for it. For p. 218the LXX. did not derive their power from the Apostles, but immediately from Christ; they enjoyed the same priviledges, were sent upon the same message, (making way forLuke 10. 1.Luke 10:1 Christs entertainment in the several Cities they went to) yea, all things were parallel between them and the Apostles in their mission (unlesse any difference be made in the Cities they went to, and their number). So that there is no superiority of office in the Apostles, above the LXX. nor of power and jurisdiction over them; their Commissions being the same: And it seems most probable that both their missions were only temporary, and after this the LXX. remained in the nature of private Disciples, till they were sent abroad by a new Commission after the Resurrection, for preaching the Gospel, and planting Churches. For we see that the Apostles themselves were only Probationers, till Christ solemnly authorized them for their Apostolical employment, Matth. 28. 18. Iohn 20. 21. when their full Commissions were granted to them, and then indeed they acted with a plenitude of power, as Governours of the Church, but not before. Nothing can be inferred then for any necessary standing Rule for Church-government, from any comparison between the Apostles and the LXX. during the life of Christ, because both their missiors were temporary and occasional. Only we see, that because Christ did keep up the number of the twelve so strictly, that as the LXX. were a distinct number from them, so when one was dead, another was to be chosen in his stead (which had been needlesse, if they had not been a distinct Order and Colledge by themselves), it is thence evident that the Apostolical power, was a superiour power to any in the Church; and that such an inequality in Church-Officers as was between them and particular Pastors of Churches, is not contrary to what our Saviour saith, when he forbids that dominion and authority in his Disciples, which was exercised by the Kings of the earth, Matthew 20. 25. Luke 22. 25. which places, because they are brought by some, to take away all inequality among Church-Officers, I shall so far examine the meaning of them, as they are conceived to have any influence thereupon. First then, I say, that it is not only the abuse of civil power, which our Saviour forbids his Disciples, p. 219but the exercise of any such power as that is. And therefore the Papists are mistaken, when from the words of Luke, Vos autem non sic, they conclude, All power is not forbidden, but only such a tyrannical power, as is there spoken of. For those words are not a limitation and modification of the power spoken of, but a total prohibition of it; for first, the comparison is not between the Apostles and Tyrants, but between them and Princes, yea such as Luke c…lls foreign. Indeed, had ChristLuke▪ 12, 25.Luke 12:25 said, The Kings of the earth abuse their authority; vos autem non sic; then it would have been onelyonly a limitation of the exercise of power; but the meer exercise of civil authority being spoken of before, and then it being subjoyned, but you not so; it plainly implyes a forbidding of the power spoken of, in the persons spoken to. But, say they, the words used in Matthew, are foreign and foreign, which import the abuse of their power, which is forbidden. But I answer, first, in Luke it is otherwise; for there it is the simple foreign and foreign, when it follows, foreign. So that if the abuse be forbidden in one, the use is in the other: but secondly, foreign, by the LXX. is used frequently for foreign, and foreign is often rendred by that word; as Psalm 72. 7. He shall have dominion, foreign, Psalm 110. 2. foreign, Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies; v. Psal. 109. Jer. 3. Numb. 23.—32.Ps 109Jer 3Num 23in both which places, it is spoken of christs Kingdom. So in Genesis 1. 28. foreign. Replenish the earth, and have dominion over it. In all which places, it is used simply for Dominion, and not for Tyrannical Power.

It is not then the abuse of civil Power, but the use of it, which is here forbidden: which will be more evident secondly, from the importance of the phrase foreign; which answers to the Hebrew foreign and simply denyes what went before; as when Cain expresseth his fear of being kill'd, Genesis 4. 14. The Septuagint render Gods answer by foreign, whereby is not denyed, only the manner of his death to be as Abels was, but it is simply denyed; and so Psalm 1. 4. the LXX. render foreign by foreign, the wicked are not so. So, when Christ saith, Matthew 19. 8. foreign, from the beginning it was not so; it imports p. 220an absolute denyal of giving bills of divorce from the beginning. Thirdly; This no wayes answers to the scope of the Apostles contention, which was meerly about Primacy and Power, and not at all about the abuse of this Power. So that by this place, all affectation and use of a civil, co▪active, external power is forbidden to the Officers of the Church; the power of the Church being only a directive, voluntary power; and is rather a Ministry then a Power, as our Saviour expresseth there, Matthew 20. 26. Luke 22. 26. But having thus excluded all Civil Power from the Governours of the Church, as such: I say, secondly, That this place doth no wayes imply a prohibition of all inequality among the Governours of the Church; which is abundantly cleared by this reason, because by the acknowledgement of all parties, the Apostles had a Superiour power over the ordinary Pastors of Churches; Now if the exercise of all Superiority had been forbidden, this must have been forbidden too; as implying plainly an exercise of authority in some over others in the Church. And therefore Musculus thus explains the place: Non exigit hoc Christus ut omnes in regno suo sint aequales, sed nè quispiam cupiat magnus & primus haberi & videri. It is not an inequality of Order, but ambition which Christ forbids; and therefore he observes that Christ saith not. Let none be great among you, and none first; which should have been, if all Primacy and Superiority had been forbidden, and a necessity of an equality among Church-Officers: but he that will be great among you, let him be your Minister. Let those that are above others, look upon themselves as the servants of others, and not as their masters. For God never bestows any power on any, for the sake of those that have it, but for the sake of those for whom they are employed: When men seek then their own greatnesse, and not the service of the Church, they flatly contradict this Precept of Christ, But with you it shall not be so. But however an inequality of Power and Order for the Churches good is not thereby prohibited: Which is sufficient for my purpose.

The next place to be considered, is, that in Matthew 18. 15,§. 8. 16, 17. If thy brother shall trespass against thee▪ go and tell him p. 221his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a Publican. It seems a very strange thing to consider, that this one place hath been pressed by all parties to serve under them, for the maintenance of their own particular form of Government: so that (as the Iews fable of the Manna), it hath had a different taste, according to the diversity of the palats of men. Those that are for a Congregational Church, being the first receptacle of Church power, set this place in the front of their arguments; Those who plead for Standing Presbyteries, Lay-Elders, subordination of Courts, fetch all these out of this place; Those that are for a Power of Church Discipline to be only lodged in a higher Order of Chur… Officers succeeding the Apostles, derive the succession of that power from this place; nay lest quidlibet should not be proved èquolibet, the Papists despair not of proving the constant visibility of the Church, the subordination of all to the Pope, the infallibility of general Councils, all out of this place. Methinks then it might be argument enough of the incompetency of this place to determine any one particular form, when it is with equal confidence on all sides brought to prove so many; especially if it be made appear that the general Rule laid down in these words, may be observed under a diversity of forms of Government. For whether by the Church, we mean the community of the faithful in a particular Congregation, or the standing Officers of such a Church, or a Consistorial Court, or Synodical Assembly, or higher Church-Officers, it is still the duty of men in case of offences, to tell the Church for redresse of grievances, or vindication of the person himself, that he hath discharged his duty.

This place then determines not what this Church is, nor what the form of it… Government should be, when the sense of it holds good and true under such diversity of forms. But we shall further enquire what influence this place can have upon the modelling the Government in the Church of God. Fo… p. 222Chamier tells us, the prima Politia Ecclesiasticae origo is to beTo. 2. l. 10. c. 5. s. 2. found in these words; it will be then worth our enquiry to see what foundation for Church government can be drawn out of these words. In which the variety of Expositions (like a multitude of Physitians to a distempered Patient) have left it worse then they found it; I mean more difficult and obscure. We shall therefore endeavour to lay aside all pre-conceptions by other mens judgements and opinions, and see what innate Light there is in the Text it self to direct us to the full sense and meaning of it. Two things the great difficulty of the place lyes in, What the offences are here spoken of? What the Church is which must b… spoken to? For the First, I conceive it evident to any unprejudicated mind, that the matter our Saviour speaks of, is a matter of private offence and injury, and not a matter of scandal, as such considered in a Church-Society, which I make appear thus First, From the parallel place to this Luke 17. 3. …y Brother trespasse against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. This can be nothing else but a matter of private injury, because it is in the power of every private person to forgive it; which it was not in his power to do, were it a matter of scandal to the whole Church; unlesse we make it among Christians (as it was among the Jews) that every private person might excommunicate another, and to release him afterward. Secondly, It manifestly appears from St. Peters words next after this Paragraph, Matth. 18. 20. Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him, till seven times? &c. Christ answers him, till seventy times seven, that is, as often as he doth it. And thence Christ brings the parable of the King forgiving his Servants, v. 23. Thirdly, Were it meant of any scandalous sin committed with the privacy of any particular person (as many understand trespassing against thee, that is, te conscio) then this inconvenience must necessarily follow, that matters of scandal must be brought to the Churches cognizance when there can be no way to decide them; that is, when one offends, and only one person knows it; here will be a single affirmation on one side, and denyal on the other side, and so there can be no way to decide it; the matter here spoken of then is somewhat only relating to the offence or injury of some particular person, p. 223and not a matter of scandal to the whole Church. The Question then as propounded to be spoken to by our Saviour, is, What is to be done in case of private offences between man and man? and not in case of secret sins against God, and scandalous to the Church? Now to this our Saviour layes down his answer gradually: first, there must be private admonition; if that succeed not, admonition before witnesses; if not that, telling the Church; if not that neither, reputing him as a Heathen and Publican. Now in this answer, we must conceive our Saviour speaks as to an ordinary case, so in a way easie to be understood by all that heard him: and therefore he must speak in allusion to what was at that time among the Jews in such cases, which is freely acknowledged both by Calvin and Beza Beza in loc.upon the place. Nam certè tanquam de Iudais haec dici apparet, saltem ex eo quod addit, Sit tibi sicut Ethnicus & Publicanus. We must then see what the custom was among the Jews in such cases, and how far our Saviour doth either approve the custome received, or appoint new. The Law was very strict in case of offences, for every man in any wise to rebuke his Lev. 19. 17.Lev 19:17Neighbour, and not to suffer sin upon him, Arguendo argues, our old Translation renders it, Thou shalt plainly rebuke thy Neighbour. Now this piece of necessary Discipline our Saviour endeavours to recover among them, which it seems was grown much out of use with them. For Rabbi Chanina, asDe Syned. l. 1. c. 9. in Gemar. Babyl. ad tit. Rhabbath. c. 16. fo. 119. Mr. Selden observes, gave this as one reason of the destruction of Ierusalem, because they left off reproving one another: Non excisa fuissent Hierosolyma, nisi quoniam alter alterum non coarguebat. Our Saviour therefore inforceth this Law upon them in case of offences; first, to deal plainly with their Neighbour in reproving him: but our Saviour rests not here, but being himself a pattern of Meeknesse and Charity, he would not have them to rest in a bare private admonition, but to shew their own readinesse to be reconciled, and willingnesse to do good to the Soul of the offending party thereby, he adviseth further to take two or three witnesses with them, hoping thereby to work more upon him: but if still he continues refractory, and is not sensible of his miscarriage, Tell it the Church. What the Church here is, is the great Controversie; Some, as Beza and his followers, understand an Ecclesiastical p. 224Sanhedrin among the Jews▪ which had the proper cognizance of Ecclesiastical causes; but it will be hard to prove any suchV. Grotium in Matth. 5. 22. Selden de Syned. l. 2. c. 8.Matt 5:22 Sanhedrin in use among them▪ the Priests and Levites indeed were very often chosen into the Sanhedrin, (which it may be is the ground of the mistake, but there was no such Sanhedrin among them, which did not respect matters criminal and civil: So we must understand what Iosephus speaks of the Priests among the Jews: foreign Ioseph. l. 2, cont. Appion.. The Priests were alwayes very studious of the Law, and other matters of concernment. These were appointed as the Overseers of all things, Iudges of Controversies, and the punishers of condemned persons. Thus we see, he is so far from attributing a distinct Ecclesiastical Court to them, that he seems to make them the only Judges in civil and criminal causes. Others▪ by the Church, understand the Christian▪Church; but herein they are divided; some understanding by it only the Officers of the Church: so Chrysostome, foreign. Euthemius Ecclesiam nunc vocat prasides fidelium Ecclesiae. Others understand it not in its representative notion, but in its diffusive capacity, as taking in all the members. But our Saviour speaking to a present case, must be supposed to lay down a present remedy, which could not be, if he gave only Rules for governing his Church which was not as yet gathered nor formed, there being then no Court Ecclesiastical for them to appeal unto. Suppose then this case to have fallen out immediately after our Saviours speaking it, that one brother should trespasse against another, either then notwithstanding our Saviours Speech (which speaks to the present time, Go and tell the Church) the offended brother is left without a power of redresse, or he must understand it in some sense of the word Church, which was then in use among the Jews. And these, who tell us, That unless foreign be understood for a Church as we understand Gelespy Aaron's Rod, l. 3. c. 2. p. 552. l. 2. c. 9. p. 296.it, it would be no easie matter for us now to conceive what the Holy Ghost meant by it, would do well withall to consider how those to whom Christ spoke, should apprehend his meaning if he spoke in a sense they never heard of before. And certainly, our best way to understand the meaning of p. 225Scripture is to consider what, of whom, to whom the Scripture speaks; for although the Scripture, as a Rule of Faith for us, be supposed to be so written, as to be easily understood by us, yet as the parcels of it were spoken upon several Occasions, they must be supposed to be so spoken, as to be apprehended by them to whom they were spoken in the common senss of the words, if nothing peculiar be expressed in the Speech, whereby to restrain them to another sense. And therefore the Church must be understood in the same sense wherein the word foreign or the Syriack answering to it, was apprehended among the Jewes in our Saviours time. Which could not be for any new Consistory or Sanhedrin to be erected under the Gospel. Thence others conceiving that Christ did speak according to the Custome of the Jewes▪ by the Church▪ understand nothing else but the Sanhedrin, and so make the sense of the words to be this. The Case our Saviour speaks to is that of private Quarrels, wherein our Saviour layes down two Directions in a way of Charity, private admonition, and before witnesses; but if the party continues refractory, then it may be lawful to convent him before the Courts of Judicature among them, the Triumvirate, the 23. or the great Sanhedrin▪ for although the Romans had taken away the power of the Iewes in Capital matters, yet they allowed them liberty of judgeing in the case of private quarrels: but if he neglect to hear the Sanhedrin, then it may be lawful to implead him before the Governour of the Province in his Court of Judicature, by which Heathens and Publicans were to be judged; which is meant by Let him be to thee, not as a brother Jew, but as a Heathen and a Publican. This Exposition is said to be first Broached by Erastus; but much improved and enlarged by Reverend Bishop Bilson, who spends a wholeThes▪ 41▪ Perpetual Government. c. 4. Chapter upon it. But this Exposition though it seems fair and plausible, yet there are several things in it which keep me from imbracing it; as First, It seems not very probable that our Saviour should send his Disciples to whom he speaks, to the Jewish Sanhedrin for the ending any Controversies arising among themselves; knowing how bitter Enemies they wer to all who were the followers of Christ. Secondly, it seems not very agreeable with the scope of our Saviours Speech▪ p. 226which was to take up differences as much as may be among his Disciples, and to make them shew all lenity and forherance towards those that had offended them, and to do good to the Souls of those that had injured and provoked them; whereas this command of telling the Sanhedrin, and inpleading offendors before Heathen Courts, tends apparently to heighten the bitterness and animosities of Mens spirits one against another: and layes Religion so open to Obloquies, which makes Paul so severely reprove the Christians at Corinth, for going to Law 1 Cor. 6. 1.—6▪1 Cor 6:1before Heathen Magistrates; therefore to say that Christ allows there going to Law before Heathens, and Paul to forbid it, were, instead of finding a way to end the differences among Christians, to make one between Christ and Paul. Thirdly, the thing chiefly aimed at by Christ, is not a mans Vindication of himself, or recovering losses by injuries received, but the recovering and gaining the offending brother; which evidently appears by what our Saviour adds to the using admonition in private, If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. Now foreign in the New Testament is used for the Conversion and turning others from sin. That I might gain them that are under the Law, 1 Corinth. 9. 19, 20, &c. So 1 Pet. 3. 1. explained by Iames 5. 20. Our Saviour then speaks not to the manner of proceeding as to civil injuries, which call for Restitution, but to such as call for Reconciliation. And so the Case I conceive is that of private Differences and Quarrels between men, and not Law-Suites nor civil Causes: I mean such Differences as respect persons and not things, which our Saviour layes down these Rules for the ending of. And therefore I cannot but wonder to see some men insist so much on that place against such an Exposition of this Luke 12. 14. where Christ saith, Who made me a Iudge, and a Divider among you? For doth it any wayes follow, Because Christ would not take upon him to be a temporal Judge among the Jewes, therefore he should take no course for the ending differences among his Disciples, and the taking away all animosities from among them? Nay on the contrary doth not our Saviour very often designedly speak to this very purpose, to root out all bitterness, malice, envy, and rancour from mens spirits, and to perswade them to forgive injuries, even to pray for persecutours, and by any p. 227means to be reconciled to their Brethren. Which he makes to be a Duty of so great necessity, that if a man had brought his gift Matth. 5. 23, 24.Matt 5:23Matt 5:24to the Altar, and remembred his brother had ought against him, he bids him leave his gift there, and go, be reconciled to his Brother, and then offer up the Gift. We see hereby how suitable it was to our Saviours Doctrine and Design to lay down Rules for the ending of any differences arising among his Disciples; and this being now cleared to be the state of the Case, it will not be difficult to resolve what is meant by telling the Church. Which I make not to be any appeal to a juridical court, acting authoritatively over the persons brought before it, but the third and highest step of Charity in a man towards a person that hath offended him, viz. That when neither private admonition, nor before two or three witnesses would serve to reclaim the offendor, then to call a select company together (which is the Natural importance of the word foreign) and before them all to lay open the cause of the breach and difference between them, and to refer it to their Arbitration to compose and end it. Which Sense of the place, I humbly conceive to have the least force in it, and in every part of it to be most genuine and natural, and fully agreeable to the received practice among the Jewes: which the Author of the Book Musar cited by Drusius fully acquaintsPraeterit▪ lib. 1. p. 43. us with, whose words I shall Transcribe, as being a plain Paraphrase on these of our Saviour. Qui arguit socium suum, debet primum hoc facere placide inter se, & ipsum solum, verbis mollibus, ita ut non pudefaciat eum. Si resipiscit, bene est; sin, debet eum acritèr arguere & pudefacere inter se & ipsum. Si non resipiscit, debet adhibere socios, ipsumque coram illis pudore afficere; si nec modo quicquam proficit, debet eum pudefacere coram multis, ejusque delictum publicare. Nam certe detegendi sunt hypocritae. That which this Authour calls pudefacere eum coram multis, is that which our Saviour means when he bids him tell the Church, or the Congregation, as our Old Translation renders it. This the Jews called reproving of men foreign before a multitude, as the Vulg. Latin though falsly renders that place L…viticus 19. 17. publicè argue eum: and to this the Apostle may allude when he speaks of the foreign, 2 Corinth. 2. 6. censure of many; and p. 228the reproof foreign before all, 1 Tim. 5. 20. which was to be in matters of publike scandal upon Religion, foreign as the Jewes call them; but in case the offendor should still foreign slight this overture of Reconciliation, before the company selected for hearing the Case▪ then saith our Saviour, look upon him as an obstinate refractory creature, and have no more to do with him, then with a Heathen and a Publican; by which terms the most wilful obstinate sinners were set out among the Jewes, and by which our Saviour means a mans withdrawing himself, as much as in him lies, from all familiar society with such a person. And thus saith Christ, Whatsoever you bind in Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven, v. 18. that is, If after all your endeavours of Reconciliation, the offender will hearken to no agreement, it is an evidence and token that mars sin is bound upon him, (that is, shall not be pardoned so long as he continues impenitent,) but if he repent of his offence, and you be reconciled, as the offence is removedV. Rainolds Conf. with Hart. cap. 2. div. 3. Grot. in Mat. 16.Matt 16 on Earth thereby, so the sin is loosed in Heaven, that is, forgiven. The guilt of sin that binds, it being an Obligation to punishment; and so the pardon of sin that looseth, as it cancels that Obligation. And so Grotius observes, that foreign is the same with foreign, and foreign with foreign, what is called retaining in one place, is binding in another: and what is loosing in one place, is remitting in the other. But now although I assert this to be the true, proper, genuine meaning of this difficult place, yet I deny not but that this place hath influence upon Church-Government; but I say the influence it hath, is onelyonly by way of Accommodation, and by Analogy deduced from it. According to which, these things I conceive have Foundation in these words; First, gradual appeals from the Method here laid down by our Saviour. Secondly, Church▪censures, and the Duty of submitting to Church-authority; For although before any Church Power was actually set up, (as when our Saviour spake these words then there was none,) yet after that Church-Government was fixed and set up, it must in Reason be supposed that all matters of the Nature of scandals to the Church must be decided there. Thirdly, The lawfulness of the Use of p. 229excommunication in Christian Churches; for if every particular person might withdraw from the Society of such a one as continues refractory in his Offences, then much more may a whole Society, and the Officers of it declare such a one to be avoided both in religious and familiar civil Society, which is the formal Nature of Excommunication. Herein we see the wisdom of our Saviour, who in speaking to a particular case, hath laid down such general Rules as are of perpetual use in the Church of God for accommodating differences arising therein. Thus have we hitherto cleared that our Saviour hath determined no more of Church-Govern-ment then what is appliable to a diversity of particular Forms, and so hath not by any Law or practice of his own determined the necessity of any one form.