The Catholic Hierarchy, Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII. Of the power of the Church in matters indifferent.
§ 1. WHen we come to diſcuſs the power of the Church, it's very requiſite to unfold the meaning of the word Church, there being no word under which lieth more Amphibology. Many underſtand a Church a material building, or place of meeting for the worſhip of God, being conſecrated and ſet apart for that uſe: and for the Propriety and Antiquity of this uſage and acceptation of Eccleſia, learned Mr. Mead very much contends. We ſhall not ſtay upon this ſence, becauſe none that will oppoſe us in the preſent controverſie will inſiſt upon this ſence ſo far as to ſay that the Legiſlative Power is to be found here.
A Church is alſo in other ſences ſpoken of: Some ſay, every Nation where Chriſtian Religion is owned by ruling Authority, and by the generality of the people profeſſed, is a Church. Some call a Province a Church, a Dioceſs a Church, a Pariſh a Church; ſo that it's more or leſs extended, and comprehenſive; and it's uſually the ſence of Proteſtants that aſſert a Churches Legiſlative Authority in matters indifferent. Others ſay there is no national Churches under the Goſpel, though there be Churches in every Nation; and that properly there are no particular Churches, but ſuch who freely and voluntarily combine together in bonds of Society for the worſhipping of God according to his revealed will, and walk accordingly. Various are the Sentiments and Diſputes about a Church and the nature of it, the conſideration of which will not be ſo much our concern at this time.
But there is another way of the uſage of Church, wherein there is greater ambiguity, which is very much to the matter in hand that we rightly underſtand it, viz, the emphatical uſe of the word, The Church; ſo many mens Writings and Argumentations being filled and confounded with it now a days, that who can tell what they mean by The Church? The Romaniſts ſay, the Church hath determined this or that; and when we enquire what that Church is, they ſay the Catholick Church, which being rightly underſtood, is the true meaning of the Church according to that rule, Aequivocum per ſe poſitum, ſtat pro famoſiori ſignificato, the Emphaſis putting the word upon the higheſt and largeſt ſignification; but when we come to a farther diſquiſion of their meaning, they tell us, the Church of Rome is the Church, and all others that diſſent or ſeparate from the Church of Rome, are not the Church, or of the true Catholick Church. Many Proteſtants alſo that ſpeak of the Church, do not underſtand the Church of Rome, or the Catholick Church, but ſome particular National Church, viz. of France, England, Spain, &c. but when we enquire what this Church is, they will tell us, it's the body of the Clergy, met together in a Convocation by a few Repreſentatives, to make Laws and Canons, and Eccleſiaſtical Conſtitutions; the executive power whereof is in the Biſhops and their Courts; ſo that when theſe few men have made Laws, or exerciſe Eccleſiaſtical power, compoſe Forms of Prayer, or eſtabliſh Ceremonies at their pleaſure, they ſay the Church did it. Theſe two ſorts of men make uſe of this great commanding Word the Church: and by this equivocal term, ſounding ſo loud of an uncontroulable Prerogative, they ſuggeſt unto poor well-meaning people on the one ſide, that all that the Pope and the Church of Rome doth; on the other hand, that all that the Biſhops and their Courts do, is done by the Church, as if it were the whole Ʋniverſal viſible Church. It is not my preſent task here to enquire what is the true meaning of the Church according to the Scripture-acceptation, or the moſt true Logical notion thereof, whether it be a Genus, or an Integrum, or totum Aggregativum. I ſhall onelyonly in the enſuing Diſcourſe apply my ſelf to the moſt rectified ſence of thoſe that do defend the Legiſlative Authority of the Church, and if they will not ſtart from all right Reaſon, and Rules of Logick, their ſence muſt be, That the Catholick Militant Church is The Church, (whether it may be Organical according to Scripture-conſtitution, we argue not now) conſtituted of Subordinate parts, firſt National, (or if you pleaſe Patriarchal before that of National) made up of Provincial, Provincial of Dioceſan, Dioceſan of Parochial: and this ought to be the ſincere meaning of The Church, without prevarication in the ſence of thoſe beforementioned.
§ 2. Now the main thing in Debate between the Aſſertors of the Churches Authority, and the Diſſentors from it, is, Whether the Church may exerciſe ſuch a Power, as may change Indifferencies in the Worſhip of God, into Neceſſities? Which we hold in the Negative, and ſay, That Chriſt hath never granted ſuch Power unto the Church; he hath granted an Executive Power unto his Church, but never a Legiſlative Power; for all lawful power that any Church hath, it muſt have it from the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, who hath all power given unto him in Heaven and Earth, and is the peculiar King of his Church, and hath taken care for the right Ordering and Governance of it in all things neceſſary as to Salvation, ſo to Order and Diſcipline. And therefore what is not derived from the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, cannot be allowed to be lawfully exerciſed. 'Tis true, if it could be ſhewed where Chriſt ever granted it by his Charter to his Church, that in ſome particular concerns ſhe might exert a Legiſlative Power, the diſpute would ſoon be ended; but no ſuch Charter could ever be ſhewn.
§ 3. If any ſuch Power be granted by Chriſt, it muſt be granted to the Catholick Church Militant, or to particular ſubordinate Churches; but 'tis not granted to either of them, Ergo. Not to the Ʋniverſal Church, becauſe it is not organized with Officers capable of a Catholick Rule; unleſs we will (upon falſe ſuppoſition) allow the Popiſh Conſtitution, or ſomething like it: As for Oecumenical Councils, we ſee what inſuperable difficulties have attended the calling of them in all Ages, the juſt grounds of Exceptions in many things, of the Determination of doubtful caſes in Doctrine, and in almoſt all they have done in their pretences to a Law-making Power, in matters of Church-Order and Diſcipline. We have not any ground to believe that Chriſt hath entruſted any Officers of his Church with a Catholick Power ſince the Apoſtes days; and ſuch as have pretended to it, have always bin oppoſed by the pureſt and moſt reformed part of the Church: and whatever mens attempts be, or may be, they will never finde a Catholick Eccleſiaſtcal Power here on Earth (without a new manifeſtation of the Son of Man) which can exerciſe ſuch a power of changing Indifferencies into Neceſſities by a Law, wherein the Minds and Conſciences of particular Churches and Chriſtians will or may reſt ſatisfied, to ſubmit unto, in active Obedience. It's as irrational to affirm, that Chriſt hath committed ſuch a power to particular Churches, i. e. of making binding Laws Sub poenâ for other Churches, or for their own Members, or Churches ſubordinate to them: not for other coordinate Churches, will they ſay, Chriſt never gave coordinate Churehes a coercive Power one over another, for then all would aſpire to Rule, and none be Ruled, for the power would belong to one as well as another. And if any ſay (as the Papiſts do) that Chriſt hath advanced one Church in Dignity and Juriſdiction over all the reſt, let them prove it to the conviction of any intelligent Chriſtian, and they will do more than the Papiſts have done, ever ſince their pretence thereunto. But it will be pleaded by the Proteſtant party, that Chriſt hath entruſted every particular Church with this power, whereby it may determine of indifferent things of her own practice. To which we anſwer, 1. That Chriſt hath given no Legiſlative Power to any Church. 2. A Judgment of Diſcretion to walk by the Rules of Expediency, is no more to be denied to particular Churches, than to particular Chriſtians. But for all this Judgment of Diſcretion, Indifferencies looſe not their nature, (though they may be neceſſary pro hic or nunc, in theſe or thoſe circumſtances) and are and muſt ſtand capable of dayly Alterations, as the caſe ſhall require; and a particular Church may determine of this or that part of the Indifferency, as moſt expedient; and ſo long as the Reaſons thereof laſt, it may be in ſome meaſure binding unto particular mens conſciences; but the Reaſons ceaſing, the continuance of the Canon in force in foro Eccleſiae, will binde no mans Conſcience; yea, every one will complain of it as a needleſs Impoſition: neither will any noble-minded Chriſtian be a Servant to the Wills and Humours of Man, or ſell the Birth-right (the Liberty that Chriſt hath purchaſed) for Pins and Points; neither is it a ſufficient Rule for Diſcretion to walk by, becauſe the Church commands, and gives no Reaſon from the Law of Chriſt for it. Beſides, What Church hath this power committed to them? a Pariſh, a Dioceſs, a Province? No, 'twill not be granted of either of them. The great Aſſertors of this Power will ſay, That it belongs to every National Church to make Laws in matters of Indifferency, and ſo ordain their own Ceremonies. This is an Aſſertion that introduceth a whole herd of Abſurdities with it; For firſt, What is the great end pretended of ſuch Laws, but the making of Ʋniformity in the Church? What is more deſtructive to it than this, that every particular Church ſhould be Independent, and make Laws within themſelves? whereas one will ordain Ceremonies of one kinde, and another of another, and there will be as many ſorts of Ceremonies as there are particular Churches: Is not this the great exception againſt the Diſſenters from Prelatical Churches, that the particular Paſtors of each Congregation ſet up for themſelves, and Exerciſe Juriſdiction within themſelves, without dependence upon any Superiour Power? There is no avoiding it upon this Hypotheſis, but National Churches muſt be reckon'd Independent Churches. 2. Did Chriſt commit any ſuch power to any ſuch Churches on Earth? 3. Again, If National Churches may exert ſuch a power, then they may make binding Laws to all Subordinate Churches, viz. Provincial, Dioceſan, Parochial; and if ſo, then for this Reaſon, becauſe they are more comprehenſive Churches, including the leſs: Then by the ſame Reaſon, the moſt comprehenſive Church, viz. the Catholick, ſhould give Laws to the National, and for a greater and more eminent end, viz. to promote an Ʋniformity Catholick; for if a National Ʋniformity be ſo ſplendid, and ſo much conducing to the bene eſſe of the Church, then a Catholick much more.
§ 4. Argum. 3. To make a Law contrary to the revealed Will of Chriſt, is unlawful and Sinful; But for the Church by a Law to change Indifferencies into Neceſſities, is to make a Law contrary to the revealed Will of Chriſt; Ergo. The Major is granted: for theſe Lawmakers, ſay they, do not by their Laws eſtabliſh any thing contrary to the revealed Will of Chriſt; for hath he any where forbidden ſuch Ceremonies? We proceed therefore to the proof of the Minor. If all Neceſſities in the Worſhip of Chriſt be made ſo by Chriſt's Will revealed, and all Indifferencies become ſuch, becauſe they are not reſtrained under Chriſt's Law; then they are ſo, becauſe Chriſt would have them to be ſo: For a Chriſtian can take no meaſure of Indifferencies, but by the Law of Chriſt; for he cannot know them but by knowing the Law binding unto Neceſſities by Commands or Prohibitions. So that Indifferencies are made ſo by the revealed Will of Chriſt, as well as Neceſſities; and the ſame Law that makes the one thing a Neceſſity, makes another an Indifferency; and Chriſt in his Wiſdome ſees it beſt for his Goſpel-church, that it ſhould be ſo: and he that undertakes to make theſe indifferent things neceſſary, enters upon a high preſumption, no leſs than the altering the moral Nature of a thing, conſtituted by the revealed Will of Chriſt; and what is this leſs than making Laws contrary to the ſaid Will of Chriſt? That is only neceſſary in the Worſhip of Chriſt, which he hath made ſo, and that indifferent which he hath left ſo by his Will; an Indifference in his Worſhip is no other than ſomething not neceſſary in his Worſhip, for there is no medium, they are adverſa. Therefore he that wills ſomething to be neceſſary, which Chriſt willed not neceſſary, doth will ſomething contrary to the Will of Chriſt, by all Rules of Logick and right Reaſon in the world. I know it will be anſwered, That they do not alter the nature of the thing, it remains as it was; but this or that determination for practice is to be obeyed when it is commanded; as the Father commands a Child to take up a Pin, it's an indifferent thing to take it up or let it alone; but becauſe of the Fathers command he is bound to do it. Anſ. It's true, becauſe there is a command of Chriſt, that enjoyns the Child's Obedience in all lawful things, and therefore upon the Fathers command it becomes neceſſary that the child yield Obedience; but this is but a command for one particular action, and therefore under Expediency: If the Father ſhould make a Law, that one child ſhould pick ſtraws all his days, and another play at puſhpin, ſuch Laws would become null in the nature of them: but there is nothing more abſurd, than to affirm that they alter not the nature of the thing; for what can alter it more, than to lay it under a Law? when a thing was indifferent unto practice before, to make it neceſſary as to practice; when it was lawful before, to make it unlawful. We have ſhewed that Neceſſities and Indifferencies are but relative in reſpect of the Law; and he makes a Law, that gives things contrary relations and reſpects to what they had before, alters the nature of the thing as much as a Law can, and makes one Law contrary to another. Men do but trifle, that plead that things are not made neceſſary in the Worſhip of God, when the practice of them are enjoyn'd under the greateſt Church-penalties, (what's greater than Excommunication?) yea, pecuniary Mulcts, Impriſonments, Deprivations, &c. yea, and Offenders againſt the Laws perſecuted with greater rigour, than thoſe who live in the conſtant and open Tranſgreſſion of Moral and Goſpel-Precepts.
§ 5. I may take another very plain medium to prove the Minor; thus: He that makes a thing unlawful, either to be done or left undone, which Chriſt hath made lawful by his Law, doth that which is contrary to the Word of God; but he that changes Indifferencies into Neceſſities doth ſo. There is nothing more plain than the Major: for to make a thing unlawful, &c. Lawful and unlawful being contradicentia, and he that by a new Law renders that unlawful for my practice, which Chriſt's Law hath rendred lawful, doth a thing e Regione, contrary to the Law of Chriſt: For the Minor, its as evident, for by the Law of Chriſt, the indifferent action was lawful for me to do or omit, as to eat ſuch a ſort of Meat, or keep ſuch a day, or wear ſuch a garment; but there is a new Law of the Church comes, which now makes it unlawful for me, either to do or not to do thoſe things; for he that makes a Law binding always to the practice of either part of the indifferency, makes the other part unlawful, which antecedaneous to this Law was lawful. Now the Church of Chriſt cannot make that unlawful, which he hath made lawful; for they may as well make that lawful to do or omit. Again, If the Church may make that unlawful which he hath made lawful, then ſhe may take away the Relative Goodneſs that is in any part of an indifferent action, by the Rules of Expediency, and ſtamp upon it a poſitive evil; which is contrary to what Chriſt hath done, &c. Again, Nothing can be Eccleſiaſtically and therefore Religiouſly unlawful, which is not made Eccleſiaſtically and Religiouſly Evil; and nothing can be ſo Jure, but by the Will of Chriſt, no more than any thing can be Eccleſiaſtically good and neceſſary without the ſaid revealed Will of Chriſt.
§ 6. Argum. 4. The Church is not capable of a Law-making Power, Ergo. I prove it thus; He that cannot jure or de facto annex a Puniſhment in ſome meaſure correſpondent to the nature of the Offence that will be committed againſt that Law, cannot make ſuch a Law; as if a Corporation under the King makes a Law to hang or burn in the hand for ſome Offence, which they have no power to do, then that is null. The Major is very plain. But the Church cannot de facto, or at leaſt de jure, Execute ſuch penalties as are correſpondent to her Laws; for they being Eccleſiaſtical, are of a Spiritual nature, belonging to the Worſhip of God: and therefore the Lawmaker will ſtill have the firſt ſtroak of his Law fall upon Conſcience, by binding it under guilt: where was ever any truely enlightned Conſcience ever bound under guilt for tranſgreſſing a mere Church-Law in matters of Ceremony? Secondly, They cannot de Jure annex and execute the Penalties of Excluſion from communion; as Chriſt never made a mere Ceremony the condition of communion, ſo he never threatned the Non-obſervation with Non-communion: Let any Precept or any Inſtance be given of this nature, that any ſuffer'd Church-cenſures under the New-Teſtament, for Non-obſervation of a Ceremonial Law. Thirdly, As for other Penalties, which we call Secular, as Whipping, Impriſoning, Fining, Confiſcating, we know the Church hath nothing to do with them; they were never in the power of the Church, nor never will be.
§ 7. Argum. 5. That Law which directly and unavoidably hinders much good, and cauſeth much evil in the obediential Subjection thereto, ought not to be made by the Church; but to change religious Indifferencies in the worſhip of God, into Neceſſities, doth ſo: Ergo. The Major is undeniable; for though a good action may per accidens hinder ſome other good, and cauſe ſome evil, yet it doth not ſo directly, and in its true conſtituted nature; but good actions produce good effects, as evil actions evil. So the Tree is known by its Fruits. The Minor, that ſuch a change works ſuch ill effects is thus proved. 1. Becauſe it hinders the moſt expedient uſe of an action left by Chriſt indifferent, to be determined by the Judgement of Diſcretion; whereas the Expediency by Chriſt's preſcript, may lye in the contrary part of the action wherein a goodneſs is placed by the Churches Law, and an evil placed in that part of the action wherein there is a goodneſs by Chriſt's. So that the Churches Law cannot have univerſal Obedience yielded to it without ſin, becauſe when Chriſt's expediency falleth on the part contrary to the Law, it will be ſin to obey the Church; As for Example, It's an indifferent thing which way we turn our Faces in the worſhip of God, Eaſt, Weſt, North, or South; the Church makes a Law the Miniſter muſt turn his Face toward the Eaſt, in ſuch a part of Worſhip, this hinders the expedient uſe of that poſture. 1. It hinders from turning that way which is moſt for Edification, and cauſeth the Miniſter to turn his back to the people, which is very unexpedient. It may confirm a Jew, Pagan, or Papiſt in their Superſtitious Obſervances, to obſerve us to do thus de induſtriâ, out of a ſtrict obſervation, and therefore then unexpedient. 2. It hinders much Good, becauſe it fruſtrates Chriſts Ends in the management of Religious and Eccleſiaſtical Affairs. For Chriſt manageth all thoſe by Neceſſities and Indifferencies, in willing and requiring a neceſſary Obedience to his poſitive Laws, and an indifferent uſe of indifferent things, according to the Rules of Expediency and Judgment of Diſcretion: And this proceeding in Spiritual affairs, is that which is moſt conducing to the Glory of his Name, and the Beauty of his Church. How great a preſumption is it in any Church to attempt the altering this courſe of Government, which Chriſt the Head hath ſettled, and fruſtrate his ends in Neceſſities and Indifferencies, by cauſing thoſe things which he hath made neceſſary to become indifferencies, and what he hath made indifferent to be done neceſſarily; and hindring that conſcientious, diſcreet, occaſional uſe, which he hath determined and required, as moſt conducing to his own Glory, and the good of his Body the Church?
§ 8. Now whereas the End of exerciſing this Juridical Power (ſo much pleaded for in the late Centuries of the Church) is Ʋnity and Ʋniformity; without doubt, this principally and primarily belongs to the Catholick Church, that the whole viſible Body of Chriſt may be one and the ſame in Diſcipline and Ceremonies. For if it be ſo deſirous, and to be maintain'd with ſuch a great curioſity and exactneſs of Ceremony in a particular Church, how much rather ought it to be in the Catholick; a Catholick Good being much more deſirable, and of far greater concernment than a particular Good? But as we have ſhewed, that there is no ſuch Catholick Power in the Catholick viſible Church practicable, ſo it's eaſie to make manifeſt, that a Catholick Ʋniformity in matters of Indifferency, will never be attained among Churches, or particular Chriſtians; nor never was intended by the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, any more than that all his Members ſhould wear the ſame Cloaths, or dwell in the ſame ſhaped Houſes; for had it been neceſſary that there ſhould have been no difference in indifferent things, but all ſhould have gone the ſame way in the uſe of them, and none varied according to the judgment of Diſcretion: then Chriſt would have made it neceſſary, and then indeed all thoſe things would have been Neceſſities, and there would have been no Indifferencies at all; but we ſee that Chriſt deſigned it for the Benefit and Edification of his Church, that there ſhould be Varieties in the uſe of Indifferencies; and ſo far from the diſparagement of it (as ſome men would have it) that it's as conducible to the Splendour and Beauty of his Workmanſhip, as the Variety of complexions and diſpoſitions of Men to the old Creation. Now for men to place the Ʋniformity of the Church in thoſe things that Chriſt never placed it in, is no ſmall reflection on his Wiſdome and Prerogative; for nothing carries more Evidence with it, than that thoſe things that he left indifferent, he intended neither Conſcience or Church ſhould be determined ad unum in, by any, in matters of Worſhip; but that they ſhould be varied at the diſcretions of particular Churches and Chriſtians, and that ſuch variety ſhould be of advantage to Edification, and not that it ſhould be beſpattered with the foul names of Faction and Schiſm, when ſuch uſe their Liberty in this kinde.
§ 9. But ſuppoſe ſuch a thing had any probability to be the minde of Chriſt: Was it ever attained, or is it attainable, that there ſhould be an Ʋniformity in the uſe of Indifferencies, that all Churches and particular Chriſtians had the ſame Sentiments, and went the ſame way in the uſe of indifferent things; or is it poſſible to bring men to it? Or if they were brought to it, what advantage would accrue? Would it not prove a great diſadvantage? But ſome men plead, That ſome indifferent things ſhould be made neceſſary, as the very terms of Communion, and in conformity unto theſe ſhould conſiſt Ʋniformity. To which I anſwer; 1. That this is but a humane Project. 2. That if Chriſt had approved ſuch a way (he being the Author of Peace in his Church, and not of confuſion) he would have allotted it, and told us what the Indifferencies ſhould be, and who ſhould have had a deputation to make them Neceſſities and Conditions of Communion for Ʋniformity. But 3ly. He hath appointed Ordinances enough of this nature, and choſen out thoſe things himſelf wherein the Uniformity of his Church ſhould conſiſt, the Word, Sacraments and Prayer; and all Churches that do walk in theſe according to Goſpel-Rules, are Uniform, have Ceremonies enough, and have no need of ſetting a new Mint on work.
§ 10. And ſuppoſe that ſuch a thing were attainable, that there were an agreement in the whole Catholick Church about ſome little External Ceremonies, what they ſhould be, and how uſed; Would this abundantly anſwer the nature and end of a right Uniformity in the Church? Would it cure all Schiſms, or prevent them? Would it keep the mindes of men in a due proportion to each others? Would it maintain Purity of Doctrine and Worſhip, and expel all Pollutions and Corruptions in both? I ſay, Nothing leſs. For we ſee by dayly Experience, it doth not do this in thoſe Churches where 'tis moſt zealouſly purſued: if we look but into the Church of Rome, and into Proteſtant-Prelatick Churches, we ſee what great Errors and Hereſies in Doctrine, and Corruptions in Worſhip do abound, accompanied with irreconcileable Differences, and irreparable Breaches of communion in the higheſt and weightieſt matters wherein it is concerned; notwithſtanding the common conſent and agreement in the ſtreſs that they lay upon thoſe ſmall and trifling obſervances, and not on aberrations from ſound Doctrine, or defection from purity in that Worſhip which Chriſt himſelf hath inſtituted, which are to be bewailed as the great Schiſms in the Church, notwithſtanding all External Conformities.
§ 11. But we muſt enquire out a better way of ſetling Ʋniformity in the Church, more agreeing to the mind of Chriſt, and practicable in the nature of it; and therefore zealouſly to be purſued by all that love the Name and Kingdom of Jeſus Chriſt; and that is, That all Churches walk by the ſame rule of the revealed Will of Chriſt, and ſubject themſelves to his Laws and Government; that they be uniform in all that he hath made neceſſary to be believed and practiſed, as in all things neceſſary to Salvation, and a Chriſtians edification in matters of Communion, as in the word, Sacraments, Prayer, ſinging Pſalms, &c. by all theſe, in worſhipping God in the Spirit, and not to trouble and diſtract their walk, and interrupt their Worſhip, with the Newfangled, Multifarious, Brain-ſick Laws of Men, in inſtituted Worſhip, nor placing Uniformity in a heap of huskie, nauſeous Ceremonies. For the Rule being one, and the Law-giver one, all the true Churches of Chriſt will agree in ſubſtance, ſubmitting to one King, and conforming to one ſort of Laws; and though there may be ſome ſmall differences in their Interpretation of thoſe Laws determining things neceſſary, and the Exerciſe of diſcretion in things Expedient, becauſe of dubious and difficult circumſtances attending; yet all agree in the main things required by Chriſt, for the way of Salvation, and the main conditions of Communion. And it is not to be doubted, but that a Chriſtian profeſſing people, gathered together in the Name of Chriſt, injoying the Miniſtry of the Word and Sacraments in purity, are a Church of Chriſt, and uniform with all the Churches of Chriſt, without any diſtinction by this or that Name of Singularity, or any Ceremonial Appendixes.
§ 12. And whereas it is pretended, that a full and free Conformity in Ceremonies would be the only cure of all our Differences and Diviſions; Let all Ages witneſs, if any will but impartially enquire what hath been the Grand Cauſe of all the Factions, Breaches, Diviſions and Schiſms in the Church, yea and Eccleſiaſtical Perſecutions ever ſince the Primitive Times, it will be found to be the Uſurpation of this aforeſaid Legiſlative Power of Chriſt, by ſome or other; and ſtill all the excuſe that is made for it is, that they aſſume this Power only in matters of Indifferency: and what pretence can any make to a Legiſlative Power in things neceſſary already determined by Chriſt to one part? there is no place for a Law in ſuch things, unleſs it be to ratifie or to null the Law; ſo that what Legiſlative Power is exerciſed of this kinde, muſt be in matters of Indifferency only, i. e. which are ſo in relation to Chriſt's Law antecedently to man's Law; but by the ſupervening of ſuch a Church-Law, it becomes in kinde Eccleſiaſtically neceſſary, it being enjoyn'd as to practice under Penalties annexed: and it's no new thing with ſome ſort of men to call neceſſary things indifferent, and indifferent neceſſary; and thereby take occaſion to juſtifie their preſumptions, when they make Laws even abrogatory to the known Laws of Chriſt: And if weak Brethren (as they are apt in deriſion to call them) either take any juſt exceptions againſt them pleading their Liberties, or it may be from a miſtaking judgment, are apt to call indifferent things neceſſary, and therefore out of tenderneſs of Conſcience refuſe to yield acts of Obedience; they are ſo far from having compaſſion on their tenderneſs, that they exact the ſaid Law-penalty with greater violence and rigour, than they do any (that doth directly concern the Glory of Chriſt) eſtabliſhed by himſelf.
§ 13. The greateſt Plea that I know can be made for matters of this kinde, is the power that Oecumenical Councils have taken upon them, eſpecially in the Primitive Times, even in the Apoſtle days, and in the firſt, ſecond, and third Centuries of the Church eſpecially. To which I anſwer; Firſt, If the Foundation of this Authority lie in Oecumenical Councels, let never any of theſe Church-Statutes be made and impoſed on the world but by them, and let not every particular National Independent Church take upon her to make Penal Laws, and gull the World into a ſubmiſſion to her Authority, by her ſaying ſhe is The Church; as if ſhe were the Catholick Church and Mother-Church. Secondly, I queſtion whether there were ever any true Oecumenical Council at all: much may be ſaid againſt the beſt that is pleaded for ſince the Apoſtles days; and it is eaſie to prove that Aſſembly at Jeruſalem, held by the Apoſtles and Brethren to be none, in the ſence intended; which is, that the chief Officers and Repreſentatives of every particular Church in the World meet together, with a determinating Power in matters of Doctrine, and with a binding Legiſlative Power in matters of Diſcipline and Ceremony. Now it will appear, that that Aſſembly was not ſo (though there were more reaſon for its being ſo, than for any other Aſſembly being ſo) neither ever was there any Aſſembly ſo impowred in the world of that nature.
§ 14. That that Aſſembly Acts 15.28. was no Oecumenical Council, is eaſie to judge, for there were but the Repreſentatives of two Churches, Jeruſalem and Antioch; and they of Antioch came to ask counſel, and to be reſolved, in matter of doubt, of the Apoſtles reſiding moſt of them at preſent in Jeruſalem. 2. The caſe in queſtion was argued in foro Eccleſiae particularis, and the Apoſtles making the minde of Chriſt manifeſt to that Church, have the conſent of the Brethren to their determination, and ſent it forth in and with the Authority of the Holy Ghoſt. 3. The Apoſtles and Church of Jeruſalem changed no Indifferencies into Neceſſities; but enquired after, and found out the Will of Chriſt concerning the preſent Infant-ſtate of the Goſpel-church, in ſome matter of things neceſſary of two ſorts; ſome Abſolutely and Morally ſo, others expediently ſo for that time. Firſt, Abſolutely ſuch, as Abſtinence from Fornication, and things offered to Idols. Secondly, Reſpectively only, and that in the behalf of the believing Jews, coming lately from that Pedagogy, that they might not be ſcandalized or grieved at the freedom of the Gentiles; and therefore that the Gentiles ſhould then abſtain from things ſtrangled and Blood: Now no ſound Interpeter will ſay, that this Canon was binding to the Church ſemper & ubique; but in behalf only of th Jews, who could not ſo eaſily at preſent be brought off from the whole of Judaiſme; and 'tis likely by this conceſſion the Apoſtles got off the Jewiſh Believers from many Ceremonious Obſervations which they ſtood upon beſides, or at leaſt abated their edge towards them. And therefore the Decree was but as to a neceſſary Expediency for a time, which the Apoſtle Paul fully explicates, who was well acquainted with the Minde of Chriſt, and the Judgments of the Apoſtles, Elders and Brethren, in theſe matters.
§ 15. As we have little evidence for an Oecumenical Council exerciſing a Legiſlative Juriſdiction in the Church, ſo we have as little ground for ſuch ſorts of Officers as are contended for in the Church, of which ſuch Councils (as they are pleaded for) ſhould principally conſiſt, which are Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Prieſts; and there being not ſuch Officers in the Church by Chriſt's Inſtitution, there is no ſuch Power to be exerciſed in the ſaid way and manner of Legiſlation, neither may they jure proceed ſo far as to Execution of any Laws eſtabliſhed by Chriſt, being not lawfully commiſſionated with a Goſpel-power. If this Aſſertion be proved, I doubt not but it will be granted, that there is no Legiſlation to be exerciſed in the Church, the preſent Aſſertors whereof challenging this Power only on the behalf of the ſaid Officers. I lay down two things by way of proof; 1. That there is no ſuch Officers to be found (in the Goſpel of our Lord and Saviour) as a Pope, a Patriarch, a Metropolitan, an Archbiſhop, a Dioceſan Biſhop, a Pariſh-Prieſt, no Dean, Prebends, Canons, &c. the Scriptures are altogether ſtrangers to all thoſe Eccleſiaſtical creatures; Chriſt and his Apoſtles knew nothing of them but prophetically in the foreſight of the riſe of the Kingdom of Antichriſt. In this Point I ſhould deal with two ſorts of men, the Papiſts and the Proteſtants. As for the Papiſts, the caſe hath been fully managed over and over againſt them, that there is no ſuch Supreme Officer in or over the Catholick Church, as the Pope; and if there be no ſuch Monarchical Subſtitute of Jeſus Chriſt here on Earth, it will appear that all the reſt will fall to the ground. Therefore as to them I ſhall not actum agere; my principal part will be with the Proteſtants, that do aſſert ſuch Officers in the Church, and yet deny the Popes Supremacy. To whom I ſay in the ſecond place, and anon ſhall prove, that there cannot be any ſuch Officers (as above-mentioned) in the Church, without a Supreme Paſtor; thoſe Paſtors being Subordinate Paſtors of Subordinate Churches. And that this Queſtion may be cleared to every rational Proteſtant, that is not fanatically blinded with Pride, Ignorance and Intereſt, I ſhall crave leave of my Reader, in a ſhort Digreſſion, to handle this Queſtion, Whether a Subordination of Paſtors in the Church, doth not neceſſarily infer a Supreme Paſtor.