A Discourse OF THE RIGHT OF THE CHURCH IN A Christian State: BY HERBERT THORNDIKE.  
LONDON, Printed by M. F. for OCTAVIAN PULLEN at the sign of the Rose in S. Paul's Churchyard. 1649.   

To the READER.  
AT the beginning of these troubles, I published a short Discourse, of the Primitive government of Churches; and after it a larger, of the Apostolical form of Divine Service, at the Assemblies of the Church: Thinking it easy to infer what ought to be done, if it could be made to appear what the Apostles had done. Since that time, Congregations have been erected, and Presbyteries Ordained, though with some tincture of Erastus his Doctrine, which dissolveth all Ecclesiastical Power into the Secular, in States that are Christian. Here, I thought it worth the while to try, how the reasons heretofore advanced might be improved, not only to establish the Society of the Church, upon the Power of the Keys granted by our Lord, or to declare what persons, and upon what terms, it is trusted with, on behalf of the Church, and every part of it, (which I had begun to do afore) but in what Right and Interest, the Secular Power concurres to the effect of it, in establishing or reforming the Church of any Christian State. This is the reason that I refer so often to those two Discourses, intending at the first, but to supply, and improve what I had said. But, finding by the process, that I could not compass the brevity which I first aimed at, I have added a Review, whereby, as some parts are enlarged, so, the whole perhaps remains not so suitable, because other points, that might seem to require the like enlargement, are left as they were, because an end must be made. My reasons are general to all States, and all parts of the Church: and that generality will make them obscure, to such as consider them not, as the consequence of the subject deserves. But it is well, if a subject containing so great difference of particulars, can be comprised in any general truth. Many things might have been better said, could all have been Copied again; But a single heart will make the best of all that, which is tendered with no other design, but to remonstrate, how hard it is, and yet to show how it is possible, to keep, or recover the Conscience of a good Christian, in such a trial as this. I had a desire to have added herewith, to the other two Discourses, a Review of some passages, which, those things which I have said here, give me occasion to enlarge. But the delays of the Press, and my absence enforce me to defer it, till opportunity serve.   

The Contents of the several Chapters.  

CHAP. I. THe Church hath no temporal power, but stands by God's privilege of holding Assemblies. The ground of the Secular powers interest in Church matters. The power of the Keys what it is, and that it cannot be taken from the Church. Pag. I  
CHAP. II. That the whole Bodies of Christians, contained in several Cities and the Territories of them, make several Churches, depending upon the Churches of greater Cities. Therefore the People is not endowed with the Chief Power in any Church. 44  
CHAP. III. That the Chief power of every Church, resteth in the Bishop and Presbyters, attended by the Deacons. That only the power of the Keys, is convertible with the Office of Consecrating the Eucharist. And therefore, that there are no Lay Elders. The Right of the Bishop, Presbyters, and People, in Church matters. 85  
CHAP. IV. Secular persons, as such, have no Ecclesiastical Power, but may have Sovereign Power in Ecclesiastical matters. The Right of giving Laws to the Church; and the Right of Tithes, Oblations, and all Consecrations, how Original, how Accessary to the Church. The Interest of Secular Powers in all parts of the Power of the Church. 163  
CHAP. V How the Church may be Reform without violating Divine Right. What Privileges and Penalties a Christian State may enforce Christianity with. The Consent of the Church, is the only mark to discern what is the subject of Reformation, and what not. All War made upon the Title of Christianity, is unjust, and destructive to it: Therefore Religion cannot be Reform by force. Of the present State of Christianity among us, and the means that is left us, to recover the Unity of the Church. 247    

THE Right of the CHURCH, IN A CHRISTIAN STATE.  

CHAP. I.  
The Church hath no temporal power, but stands by God's privilege of holding Assemblies. The ground of the Secular powers interest in Church matters. The power of the Keys what it is, and that it cannot be taken from the Church.  
IT is visible to all understandings that there are two states of God's Church. For, there must needs be a great difference between the Church, as it was first established, by the ordinances of the Apostles, before the exercise of Christianity was allowed and privileged by the Laws of the Roman Empire; and as it now standeth, protected by the Laws of Christian Kingdoms and Commonwealths. And my purpose is here to debate, what power the Church ought to have in this later state, and what Right accrues to Secular powers in Church matters, when they profess Christianity, and the maintenance of it: Which one dispute, will necessarily conclude the chief matters now in compromise, concerning the state of the Church in this Kingdom. To understand this aright we must suppose, that the Church is not endowed with any manner of the secular power of this world, and the civil Societies of it, which constraineth men to obedience by force. For it will be easy for ordinary understandings, after the miserable disputes which this civil War hath advanced, to perceive, that though there be many points of that Right, wherein Sovereign Power consisteth, yet all of them are resolved into the Power of the Sword: Seeing that there is no manner of public Act, either of Sovereign Power, or any derived from it, that could be effectual, as the use of civil Society requires, did not all men's senses tell them, that there is force ready, to reduce the refractory to obedience. Now, that our Saviour did, and was to disclaim all Title to the Sword, is manifest by the Gospel, and the profession of it. For, being suspected in his life time by his enemies, and lastly accused to Pilate, as one that sought to usurp it, his renouncing it so publicly, because it clears him, therefore convinces the injustice of the sentence against him. And truly, what entertainment shall we imagine his Gospel would have found in the world, had it pretended to establish itself by force? For, this profession, must needs have produced that effect, which Mahumetism did afterwards, to wit, the subversion of all States, which it might prove able to justle with and to prevail. But, Christianity being first initiated by the Cross of Christ, and professing nothing, but to follow him in bearing his Cross, it is manifest, that those which saw not reason to believe it, must be convinced, that they ought not to persecute it. For, if it preserve the power of the Sword, in those hands, wherein it is found, when the Gospel is preached, and received any where, then, of necessity, all Rights, all goods of this world, in the possession whereof, the Power of the Sword professes to maintain all Subjects, are, by the Gospel, maintained in those hands, that have them by just title of Humane Right. And so, that which I here suppose, is no more than the received Position of Divines, That temporal dominion is not founded in Grace: For, mens Rights, Powers, and Privileges, in civil Societies, are no less their own, and concern their estate no less, than their Goods and Possessions. Therefore, though much more evidence might be brought to prove this, from the Apostles, commanding Christians to obey secular Powers, children their Parents, slaves their Masters, wives their Husbands, and the like, according to the Laws, but above the Laws, for conscience to God, obliging thereby all States, to maintain Christianity; yet, this being a point, which no party professes to stick at, I will hereupon presume to take it for granted.  
But, though the Church is not endowed with any coactive power, by Divine Right, yet, by Divine Right, and by Patent from God, it is endowed with a Power of holding Assemblies, for the Common Service of God, before any grant of the Powers of the world, and against any Interdict of them, if so it fall out. For, the Communion which the Gospel establisheth among Christians, is not only invisible, in the heart, believing the same Faith, and disposed to live according to it, but also outwardly visible, not only in the Profession of the same Faith, which may be common to those that communicate in nothing else, but also in the Common Service of God; For, seeing God hath given his Church the Ordinances of his worship, wherewith he requireth to be served in common by his Church, some of them common both to the Church and the Synagogue, that is, to Jews and Christians, others, delivered by the Gospel only to the Church, it is manifest, that the Church is privileged by God, because commanded, to join in serving him according to those Ordinances. And therefore, we are not to ask an express warrant in Scripture, for this, whether duty, or privilege, because it was always in force among the people of God, though not always free from the bondage of strangers. The Apostle truly, writing to the Hebrews, not to fall away from Christianity to Judaisme, for the persecutions, which the Jews their natives brought upon them, (which, he that will diligently observe, shall find to be the full scope of that Epistle) inferreth, as a consequence, Heb. X. 25. not to forsake the assembling of themselves: Showing, that Christianity cannot be professed without so doing, though it bring persecution with it: As, we know, the Primitive Christians frequented the Service of God, when they were in danger of the Laws, because, that which the Laws forbade, was their Assemblies. Wherefore, as within several Commonwealths, there are particular Societies, Colleges, and Corporations, subsisting by grant of their Sovereigns. And as, by the Law of Nations, there is a kind of Society, and Commonwealth, among those that are bound in the same vessel, upon the same voyage, which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as there is also among them that travel together in the Caravans of the East, because they submit to some Rule, in regard of some common interess: So must we understand the Church, to be a humane, though not a civil Society, Corporation, or Commonwealth: Not as these last named, which consist of Subjects to several States, warranted and protected by the Law of Nations, nor as the former, by Charter from some Sovereign, but by that Law of God, whereby all Nations are called to serve him, by those Ordinances which he hath established in the Church. Therefore the main point of that Charter, which makes the Church such a Society or Commonwealth, is the right of Assembling, and holding such Assemblies, without warrant, against all Law of the world that forbids it: The particulars of it are those rights, which God hath given his Church, to preserve unity, and communion in the celebration of those Ordinances, for which it assembleth. For, since the principles of Christianity profess one Church, and that the unity thereof extendeth to this visible communion, it is manifest hereby, that the will of God is, that all Christians communicate with all Christians, in all Ordinances of his service, when occasion requires; a thing which the practice of all sides confesses. For, though this communion be interrupted with so many Schisms, yet, since all parties labour to show, that the cause of separation is not on their side, they acknowledge all separation, to be against God's Ordinance, when they labour to clear themselves of the blame of it.  
In the next place we are to inquire, upon what Title of Right, the Church is ingraffed into civil Societies and Sovereignty's, by virtue whereof, secular Powers exercise that right to which they pretend, in Church matters. For, I perceive, those of the Congregations oftentimes demand, what ground we have in Scripture for Nationall Churches. Now, the term of Nationall Churches, it seems, is something unproper, because, as one and the same Nation may be divided into several Sovereignty's, and the Churches thereof, by consequence, subject to several Sovereigns, so may the same Sovereignty contain several Nations, and the Churches of them, which, in these cases, are not properly Nationall Churches, and yet are properly that which is signified by the term of Nationall Churches. But, setting aside this exception, I conceive, those of the Congregations have reason to make the demand, and that the answer to it, if once well made, will be of consequence, to settle many things in debate. For, that the same right, in matters of Religion, is due to Christian Princes and States, which the Kings of judah practised under the Law, of itself no way appears, because of the general difference between the Law and the Gospel. To which may be added, to tie the knot faster, that there is this clear difference between them, in the particular in hand, that the Law was confined to one People, as being the condition of that Covenant, whereby God undertook to give them the Land of promise, and to maintain them in the free and happy possession of it; they undertaking on their part, to serve him, and rule themselves by it: But the Gospel is the New Covenant, by which God undertakes to give life everlasting, to those that take up Christ's Cross, to perform it. The persons therefore of whom the Church consists, being of all Nations, all of them of equal interest, in that wherein they communicate, and therefore in the Rules, by which: It is manifest, that no Sovereign can have more interest than another, in creating that right, by virtue whereof, the Subjects of several Sovereignty's communicate. Otherwise, the Unity of the Church must needs suffer, one Sovereign prescribing that, as necessary to the communion of the Church in his Dominions, which the Sovereigns over other parts of the Church, perhaps, allow not. But though, as a Divine, I admit this debate, yet as a Christian and a Divine both, I condemn the separation which they have made, before it be decided. The Church of England giveth to the King, that power in Church matters, which the Kings of God's ancient people, and Christian Emperors after them always practised. This possession was enough to have kept Unity, though the reason appeared not, why Christian Princes should have the same right in the Church, as the Kings of Judah had in the Synagogue. For, if they observe it well, this right is not where established upon the Kings of God's ancient people, by way of precept, in the Law. For, seeing the Law commanded them not to have a King, but gave them leave to have a King when they would, upon such terms as it requireth, Deut. XVII. 14. it cannot be said, that any Right in matters of Religion is settled upon the King, by that Law, which never provided that there should be a King. The question is then, not, whether the Kings of Judah had power in matters of Religion, which is express in Scripture, but upon what Title they had it, which is not to be had but by Interpretation of the Law. And this we shall find, if we consider, that the Law was given to that people, when they were freed from bondage, and invested in the Sovereign power of themselves, as to a Body Politic, such as they became, by submitting to it. So that, though many precepts thereof concern the conscience of particular persons, yet there are also many, that take hold of the community of the people, for which, particular persons cannot be answerable, further than the Rate of that power by which they act in it: As, the destroying of Malefactors, Idolaters in particular. These Precepts then, being given to the community of the People, and the common Power of the People falling to the King, constituted according to the Law aforesaid, it followeth, that being invested with the Power, he stands thereby countable, for the Laws to be enforced by it. And then, the question that remains will be no more but this, Whether civil Societies, and the Sovereign Powers of them, are called to be Christian, as such, and not only as particular persons. A thing which Tertullian seems to have doubted of, when he made an if of it, Apologet. cap. XXI. Si possent esse & Caesares Christiani; If Emperors could be Christians: And Origen, when he expounds the words of Moses, I will provoke them to jealousy, by a people which are not a people, (so he reads it) of the Christians, whereof there were some in all Nations, and no whole Nation professed Christianity; in X ad Rom. lib. VIII. & in Psal. XXXVI. Hom. I. seems to count this estate and condition, essential to the Church. But, since Anabaptists are no more Anabaptists, in denying the power of the Sword to be consistent with Christianity, it seems there is no question left about this, as indeed there ought to be none. For, the Prophecies, which went before, of the calling of the Gentiles to Christianity, were not fulfilled, till the Roman Empire professed to maintain it. And, thereby, the will of God being fulfilled, it is manifest that the will of God is, that civil Societies, & the Powers of them, should maintain Christianity by their Sword, and the Acts to which it enableth. But always, with that difference from the Synagogue, which hath been expressed. For, if the Church subsist in several Sovereignty's, the power which each of them can have in Church matters, must needs be concluded, by that power which God hath ordained in his Church, for the determining of such things, the determining whereof shall become necessary to preserve the Unity of it.  
Thus much premised, the first point we are to debate is, Whether Excommunication be a secular punishment amounting to an Outlawry, or Banishment, as Erastus would have it, or the chief act of Ecclesiastical Power, the Power of the Spiritual Sword of the Church, cutting from the visible communion thereof, such as are lawfully presumed to be cut off from the invisible, by sin. For, if there be a visible Society of the Church, founded by God, without dependence from man, there must be in it a visible power, to determine, who shall be or not be members of it: which, by consequence, is the Sovereign Power in the Society of the Church, as the Power of the Sword is in civil Societies. But Excommunication in the Synagogue, was a temporal punishment, such as I said, and therefore it is argued, that our Lord meant not of that, when he said, Dic Ecclesiae, that term, in the Old Testament, being used for the Congregation of God's people, in the quality of a civil Society. And therefore when he addeth, Let him he unto thee as a Heathen or a publican, they say it is manifest, that neither Ethnics nor Publicans were excommunicate out of the Synagogue, nor the Excommunicate excluded from the Service of God in the Temple or Synagogue: And when our Lord addeth, Whatsoever ye bind and lose on earth— it is manifest, say they, in the language of the Jews, used among the Talmud Doctors, that bound and lose is nothing else, but that which is declared to be bound or lose, that is, prohibited & permitted, and therefore the effect of the Keys of the Church, which is binding and losing, reaches no further, then declaring what was lawful, and what unlawful (as to the Jews, by the Law of Moses,) in point of conscience.  
The first argument that I make against this opinion, is drawn from the Power of Baptising, thereby understanding, not the Office of ministering, but the Right of granting that Sacrament: Which we, in this state of the Church, do not distinguish, because all are born within the pale of the Church, and by order thereof, baptised infants: But may see a necessary ground so to distinguish, by S. Paul, when he denies, that he was sent to baptise, but to preach the Gospel, 1 Cor. I. 17. whereas the words of our Lord in the Gospel are manifest, where he chargeth his Apostles to Preach and Teach all Nations, Baptising them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For the Baptising of all that should turn Christians, could not be personally commanded the Apostles, but to preach to all Nations, and to make Disciples out of all Nations, this they might do to those that might be Baptised, by such as they should appoint. We must note, that it is in the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, make Disciples, as the Syriack truly translates it: Commanding first, to bring men to be Disciples, then to Baptise. Now, Disciples are those that were after called Christians, such as we profess ourselves, Acts XI. 26. those of whom our Lord saith in the Gospel, that those that will do his Father's will are his Disciples. Wherefore they are commanded to Baptise such as should submit to the Gospel: And so, to judge, whether each man did so or not, which, they that were trusted with the Gospel, were, by consequence, trusted to judge. The effect of this trust is seen in the many Orders and Canons of the Primitive Church, by which, those that desired to be admitted into the Church by Baptism, are limited to the trial of several years, to examine their profession, whether sincere or not. And, such as gained their living by such Trades, as Christianity allowed not, rejected, until they renounced them. Not that my intent is to say that these Canons were limited by the Apostles: But because it is an argument, that always, to judge who shall be admitted to Baptism, and who not, is another manner of power then to baptise, being the power of them that were able to settle such Canons. Though it is plain by the Scriptures, that those Rules had their beginning from the Apostles themselves. For, when S. Peter saith, 1 Pet. III. 21. that the Baptism which saveth us, is not the laying down the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience to God; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: he showeth, that the Interrogatories which the ancient Church used to propound to them that were to be baptised, were then in use; and established by the Apostles, as the condition of a contract between the Church and them, obliging themselves to live according to the Gospel, as Disciples. And the Apostle, Heb. VI 2. speaking of the foundation of repentance from dead works, the doctrine of Baptisms and imposition of Hands: manifestly shows the succeeding custom of the Church, that they which sued for Baptism, should be catechised in the Doctrine of the Gospel, and contract with the Church to forsake such courses of the world as stood not with it, to be brought in by the Apostles. This is it which is here called the doctrine of Baptisms in the plural number, not for that frantic reason which the distemper of this time hath brought forth, because there are two Baptisms, one of John by water, another of Christ by the Spirit; but, because it was severally taught several persons before they were admitted to their several Baptisms. And therefore called also the Doctrine of Imposition of Hands, because we understand by Clemens Alexandrinus, Paedag. III. 11. and by the Apostolical Constitutions VII. 40. that, when they came to the Church to be catechised, and were catechised, they were then dismissed by him that catechised them, with Imposition of Hands, that is, with prayer for them, that they might, in due time, become good Christians. All, visible marks of the power of the Church, in judging whether a man were fit for Baptism or not. To which I will add only that of Eusebius, De vitâ Constant. iv where speaking of the Baptism of Constantine he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that confessing his sins, he was admitted to prayer with Imposition of hands. If it be said, that there were added to the Church three thousand in a day, Acts II. 41. which could not be thus catechised and tried; my answer is, that two cases were always excepted from the Rule: The first was in danger of death: The second, when, by the eagerness of those that desired Baptism, the hand of God appeared extraordinary in the work of their conversion to Christianity. Besides, it is not said that they were baptised that day; but that they were added to the Church that day: Which is true, though they only professed themselves Disciples for the present, passing nevertheless their examination, and instruction, as the case required. If therefore there be a power, settled in the Church by God, to judge, who is fit to be admitted into it, then is the same power enabled to refuse him that shall appear unfit, then, by the same reason, to exclude him, that proves himself unfit, after he is admitted.  
This is the next argument, which I will ground upon the Discipline of Penance, as it was anciently practised in the Church: Which is opened by the observation advanced in the 127 p. of this little Discourse, that those, who, contrary to this contract with the Church, fell into sins destructive to Christianity, were fain to sue to be admitted to Penance: Which supposeth, that, till they had given satisfaction of their sincerity in Christianity, they remained strangers to the Communion of the Church. For, it appeareth, by the most ancient of Church Writers, that, for divers ages, the greatest Sinners, as Apostates, Murderers, & Adulterers, were wholly excluded from Penance. For though Tertullian was a Montanist, when he cried out upon Zephyrinus Bishop of Rome, for admitting Adulterers to Penance, in his Book De Pudicitiâ, yet it is manifest by his case, that it had formerly been refused in the Church, because the granting of it makes him a Montanist. And S. Cyprian Epist. ad Antonianum, testifieth, that divers African Bishops afore him, had refused it, maintaining communion nevertheless with those that granted it. Irenaeus also I 9 saith, of a certain woman, that had been seduced and defiled by Marcus the Heretic, that, after she was brought to the sight of her sin, by some Christians, she spent all her days in bewalling it: Therefore without recovering the communion of the Church again. And he that shall but look upon the Canons of the Eliberitane Council, shall easily see many kinds of sins censured, some of them, not to be admitted to communion till the point, others not at the point of death. In this case, and in this estate, these only, who were excluded from being admitted to Penance were properly excommunicate; neither could those that were admitted to Penance be absolutely counted so, because in danger of death, they were to receive the Communion, though, in case they recovered, they stood bound to complete their Penance. And from hence afterwards also, those that had once been admitted to Penance, if they fell into the like sins again, were not to be admitted to Penance the second time. Concil. Tolet. X. Can. XI. Eliber. Can. III. & VII. Ambros. de Poenit. II. 10, 11. Innoc. I. Ep. I. August. Epist. L. & LIV. It is an easy thing to say, that this Rigour, was an infirmity in the Church of those times, not understanding aright free Justification by Faith: But as it is manifest, that this rigour of discipline abated more and more, age by age, till that now it is come to nothing: So, if we go upwards, and compare the writings of the Apostles, with the Original practice of the Church, it will appear, that the rigour of it was brought in by them, because it abated by degrees from age to age, till at length it is almost quite lost; that the Reformation of the Church consists in retaining it, that we shall do so much prejudice to Christianity, as we shall, by undue interpretation, make Justification by Faith inconsistent with it. And, in fine, it will appear, that all Penance presupposeth Excommunication, being only some abatement of it. There is a sin unto death, saith the Apostle, 1 John V. 16. I say not that ye pray for it. This is commonly understood, of denying God's truth, against that light which convinceth the conscience. Which, if it were true, the Apostles precept could never come into practice, seeing no man can know, unless by Revelation, against what light his Neighbour sinneth. But the Novatians, at the Council of Nice, as Socrates and Sozomenus both report, Eccles. Hist. I. 7. I. 23. answering Constantine, that they refused Penance, only to those that sinned the sin unto death, do give us to understand, that S. John was understood by the Church, not to command, that Apostates be admitted to Penance. And so also Tertullian in many places of his Book de Pudicit. as cap. XIV. argueth from this place, that Penance was not to be granted to Adulterers. Which showeth, that the Church understood the place in the same sense, though it admitted not his consequence. So also Origen in Mat. XVIII. 18. Tract. VII. I was long doubtful of the truth of this Interpretation, because the Apostle premising, If any man see his brother sin a sin not unto death, let him ask of God, seems to speak of private Prayers of particular persons. But the words of S. James, V 16. have cleared me of this doubt, Confess your sins one to another, saith he, and pray for one another, that ye may be healed: In which words, I make no doubt but he speaketh of public Penance. For having premised, that the Presbyters be sent for to the sick, that they confess their sins to the Presbyters, that they pray for them, anointing them with oil, that their sins may be forgiven them, to show nevertheless, that, according to the custom aforesaid, in case they recovered, they were to stand bound to Penance, he addeth, Confess your sins to one another— to signify, that this Confession and Penance remained due before the Church, as we understand by the XII Canon of Nice, that the practice was so long afterwards. And this is proved, by the precept of both Apostles, to pray for one another. For it is manifest, that there were two means to obtain remission of sins, in this case; the Humiliation which the Church prescribed, and the Penitent performed, and the Prayers of the Church. Which S. John prescribeth not to be granted to Apostates.  
The very same is the meaning of the Apostle to the Hebrews, VI 6. when he pronounceth it impossible, that those that fall away, be renewed again to Repentance. For, as they that stood for Baptism, when they were catechised in Christianity, were properly said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be instructed or dedicated to Repentance, because of the Repentance from dead works, which they professed; so they that forfeited their Christianity, by violating the contract of Baptism, are no less properly said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be renewed, instructed, and dedicated again to Repentance: And the Apostles reason agrees; For, because the earth that receives rain, and renders no fruit, is near the curse, therefore the Church will not easily believe, that such a one shall lightly obtain of God, the grace to become a sincere Christian. And therefore, the Apostle says not, that it is impossible, that such a one should repent, but that he should be instructed again to repentance, to wit, by the Church. As the Novatians answered Constantine, that they remitted such persons to God, not prejudicing their salvation, but not admitting them to the means of Reconciliation by the Church. And herewith agreeth the example of Esau, used by the Apostle again XII. 17. saying that he found not place of Repentance, alluding to that room in the Church, where Penitents were placed apart by themselves. And again, X. 26. the allusion which he maketh to the custom under the Law, understood by the Hebrews to whom he writeth, consisteth in this, that, as there was no sacrifice to be made for Apostates, though for Ethnics, (for this was the use of the Law, as we understand by Moses Maimoni in the Title of Dressing Oblations cap. III. num. 3, 5.) So, the Christian Sacrifice, of the Prayers of the Church, was not to be offered, for those that had renounced Christianity. If it be thus, you will ask, What was the fault of the Novatians, seeing they understood this Text right? And my answer is, that nevertheless they are Heretics, extending the name of Heretics, to those whom now we call Schismatics, as I have showed you, in the little Discourse, pag. 197. that it is often used. For S. John, as he commands not, so he forbids not, that they be admitted to Penance, the other Apostle tells them, it is impossible, to let them know, that they must not expect it: But neither says, that the Church could not give it. When therefore the Church, to preserve Unity, was necessitated to grant it, as we see by S. Cyprian, the Novatians were no less Schismatics, in making separation upon the quarrel, (though perhaps the reason be not urged by their adversaries) then if they had understood the Text amiss: The Unity of the Church, being of more moment, than much understanding in the Scriptures. And so, perhaps, S. Paul's words will belong to this purpose, 1 Tim. 5. 19 as, not only the Socinians of late, but Pacianus among the Ancients, Paraen. ad Poenitentiam, and Matthaeus Galenus among modern Writers, do expound them: To wit, that when he saith, Lay hands suddenly on no men, nor partake of other men's sins: he leaves it to Timothy's judgement, whom to admit, whom not to admit to Penance: Because this Blessing with Imposition of hands, was not the mark of Absolution, but of admission to Penance, as well as the ceremony of Ordinations. And though this Text of the Apostle, be understood in particular of Ordinations, yet, by the same reason which he allegeth, it is to be extended to all Acts of the Church, that are blessed, by the Prayers of the Church, with Imposition of Hands. For if Timothy, by Imposing hands upon those whom he Ordains, become accessary to their sins, if they be unfit to be Ordained; by the same reason, if he Impose Hands, that is, grant Penance unto them that are not fit for it, he becomes accessary to the sins which they commit by being admitted to it. Imposition of Hands being nothing else, but a ceremony of that Benediction, which signifieth, that those Acts to which it is granted, are allowed and authorized by the public Power of the Church. So Imposition of Hands in Confirmation, is the admission of him that is confirmed to the communion of the Visible Church; In Penance, the restoring of him: In Ordination, to the exercise of this or that function in the Church: Prayer, over the sick, which the Apostle commands, James V. 14. and our Lord in the Gospel made with Imposition of Hands, signified the admitting of the sick to Penance: And it is said, that in some Eastern Churches, to this day, marriages are blessed with Imposition of Hands, in signification, that the Church alloweth of them, which, as it was always the right of the Church to do, as I shall observe in another place, so it appeareth so to be, in that marriage was never celebrated among Christians, without the Prayers of the Church. And this observation I insist upon the more cheerfully, because it much strengtheneth the argument, which the Church maketh, for the Baptism of Infants, from the Act of our Saviour in the Gospel, when he blessed the Infants with Imposition of Hands. For if all Imposition of Hands be an act of the public Power of the Church, allowing that which is done with it, then can this Imposition of Hands signify no less, then, that those to whom our Lord granteth it, belong to his Kingdom of the Visible Church. One little objection there lies against this, from the incestuous person at Corinth, whom S. Paul, in his second Epistle, seems to readmit to communion, his crime being as deep as Adultery, which, we say, the rigour of Apostolical Discipline admitted not to Penance. To which I have divers things to answer. That this cannot be objected, but by him that acknowledges, that he was excommunicate by the former Epistle. That Tertullian in his Book de Pudicitiâ, disputes at large, that it is not the same case which is spoken of in both Epistles. That the crime here specified, perhaps, is not of the number of those, which from the beginning were excluded from Penance. But, waving all this, as I excepted two cases, in which men were baptised without regular trial, so supposing the Rule to take hold in this case, it is no inconvenience to grant, that S. Paul might wave the rigour of Discipline, so settled, as supposing there might be cause to wave it. If this opinion seem new, my purpose requires but these two Points, that the Penance practised by the ancient Church, supposed Excommunication, which it only abateth: and, that it was instituted by the Apostles; and, for that, there is enough said, I suppose, even to them that believe not, that the Apostles excluded any kind of crimes from Penance. Besides that of S. Paul, blaming the Corinthians, that they were puffed up, and had not rather lamented, that he that had done the evil, might be put from among them, 1 Cor. V 2. And again, fearing, that when he returned, he should be forced to lament many, 2 Cor. XII. 21. Which, if we compare with the Primitive solemnity of Excommunication, which by the constitutions of the Apostles, II. 16. and other ways, we understand, was, to put the person out of the Church doors with mourning, it will appear, that Epiphanius is in the right, in expounding this later Text to this purpose, Haer. LIX. num. 5. The power of Excommunication then, by all this, is no more, than the necessary consequence, of the Power of admitting to Communion, by Baptism: Which, if it imply a contract with the Church, to live according to the rule of Christianity, than it is forfeit to him, that evidently does that, which cannot stand with that rule, and the Church not tied to restore it, but as the person can give satisfaction, to observe it for the future.  
Now, I will make short work with Erastus his long labour, to prove, that there is no Excommunication commanded by the Law. I yield it. And make a consequence, which will be thought a strange one: But I have it from the speculation of Origen, in Levit: Hom. XI. and others, why the Church should only be enabled to Excommunicate, whereas the Synagogue was enabled to put to death? From the observation of S. Augustine, Quaest. in Deuteronom. V 38. de Fide & Operibus cap. VI and others, that Excommunication in the Church is the same that the power of life and death in the Synagogue. My argument is then, that the Church is to have the power of Excommunication, because the Synagogue had the power of life and death. And the reason of the consequence this: Because, as the Law, being the condition of the Covenant, by which, the benefit of the Commonwealth of Israel was due, enabled to put to death, such as destroyed it: So the Gospel, being the condition of the Covenant, that makes men denizens of the spiritual Jerusalem, must enable, to put them from the society thereof that forfeited it. It is not my intent hereby to say, that there was no Excommunication under the Law: For, I do believe, that we have mention of it in Ezra X. 8. grounded, if I mistake not, upon the Commission of the King of Persia, recorded Ezr. VII. 26. for, that which is here called rooting out, seems to be the same, that is called in the other place, dividing from the Synagogue of the Captives. Being indeed, a kind of temporal Outlawry, to which is joined, confiscation of Goods. For, so saith Luther truly, that the greater Excommunication among Christians, is every where a temporal punishment, to wit, in regard of some temporal punishment attending it, in Christian States, which, in Christianity, is accidental, by Act of those States, in Judaisme essential, so long as those temporal advantages, which were the essential condition of the Law, were not forfeited. And this, without doubt, is the same punishment, which the Gospels call putting out of the Synagogue: Though, I cannot say, so peremptory, for the temporal effects of it: Which, several Sovereigns could easily limit, to several terms. For, the right that Ezra might have, to introduce this penalty, is clear, by the Law, of Deut. XVII. 12. which, enabling to put them to death, that obeyed not the Synagogue, enabled, to Excommunicate, to Banish, to Outlaw them, much more. But, as, we see, the Romans allowed them not the power of life and death, which the Persians granted them, so I am not to grant, that, putting out of the Synagogue in the Gospel, implieth the extinguishing, of the civil being of any Jew. The Talmud Doctors say, that, those that were under the greater Excommunication, were to dwell in a cottage alone, and to have meat and drink brought them, till they died. Arba Turim, or Shulchan Auroh, in Jore Dea, Hilcoth Niddui Voherem. A speculation suitable to their condition, in their dispersions, which, no man is bound to believe, how far it was in force, and practice. But, suppose the Synagogue in the same condition with the Church afore Constantine, enjoying no privilege, but to serve God according to the Law, as the Church according to the Gospel: And then, as the Synagogue must always have power to excommunicate, which had power to put to death; so, I say, is the Church enabled by our Lord to do, what, I have showed, the Apostles did do, by Mat. XVIII. 18. I yield, that the terms of binding and losing, are used by the Jews, to signify, the declaring, of what is prohibited and permitted by the Law: But I yield not, that it can be so understood here, because, the ground of this declaration ceaseth, under the Gospel; being derived from the six hundreth and thirteen Precepts of the Law, and from the power of the Priests and Doctors, to determine all cases, which the Law had not determined, in dependence upon the great Consistory at Jerusalem, by the Law of Deut. XVII. 12. which Precepts, and which Power, being voided by the Gospel, can any man think, that the Power of binding and losing, here given the Church, is to be understood of it? Besides, it is, in the promise made to S. Peter, Mat. XVI. 19 said expressly, to be the act of the Power of the Keys. And what is that? Is it not an expression, manifestly borrowed, from that which is said to Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Es. XXII. 23. I will give thee the Keys of the House of David: Whereupon our Lord, Apoc. III. 7. is said to have the Key of David, that is, of the House of David? whereby the Apostles under our Lord, are made Stewards of the Church, as Eliakim of the Court, to admit and exclude whom he pleased. And so it is manifest, that the Power of the Keys, given S. Peter, Mat. XVI. 19 as the Church, Mat. XVIII. 18. is that power, which you have seen practised under the Apostles, of admitting to, and excluding from the Church, by Baptism and Penance. So S. Cyprian expressly understandeth the Power of the Keys to consist in Baptising. Ep. LXXIII. And of Penance, that which followeth is an express argument, as I have observed p. 129. of that short Discourse: For having said, whatsoever ye bind— he addeth immediately, again I say to you, that if two of you agree to ask any thing, it shall be done you by my Father in heaven. For the means of pardon, being the Humiliation of the Penitent, enjoined by the Church, and joined with the prayers thereof, as hath been said, the consequence of our Saviour's discourse, first, of informing the Church, then, of binding and losing, lastly, of granting the prayers of the Church, shows, that he speaks of those prayers, which should be made, in behalf of such, as were bound, for not hearing the Church. And hereby we see, how binding & losing of sins, is attributed to the Keys of the Church. Which, being made a Visible Society, by the power of holding Assemblies, to which no man is to be admitted, till there be just presumption, that he is of the heavenly Jerusalem, that is above: As the power of judging, who is and who is not thus qualified, presupposes a profession, so, that, an Instruction, obliging the obedience of them, which seek remission of sins by the Gospel, and therefore, confidently assuring it, to them which conform themselves. In a word, because, admitting to, and excluding from the Church, is, or aught to be, a just and lawful presumption▪ of admitting to, or excluding from heaven, it is morally, and legally, the same Act, that intitleth to heaven, and to the Church, that maketh an heir of life everlasting, and a Christian, because, he that obeyeth the Church, in submitting to the Gospel, is as certainly, a member of the invisible, as of the visible Church. Herewith agree the words of our Lord, Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican: Not as if Heathens could be excommunicate the Synagogue, who never were of it, or, as if the Jews than durst excommunicate Publicans, that levied Taxes for the Romans: But because, by their usage, of Publicans and Gentiles, it was proper for our Lord to signify, how he would have Christians to use the excommunicate; there being no reason why he can be thought, by these words, to regulate the conversation of the Jews, in that estate, so long as the Law stood, but to give his Church Rules, to last till the world's end. The Jews then, abhorred the company, not only of Idolaters, to testify how much they abhorred Idols, and to maintain the people in detestation of them (by ceremonies, brought in by the Guides of the Synagogue, for that purpose) but all those that conversed with Idolaters. For this cause, we see, they murmur against our Lord, for eating with Publicans; they wash when they come from market, where commonly they conversed with Gentiles, and, which is strange, such as Cornelius was, being allowed to dwell among them by the Law, professing one God, and taking upon them the precepts of the sons of No, yet are the converted Jews scandalised at S. Peter, for eating with Cornelius, Acts XI. 2. These Rules are made void by the Gospel. For S. Paul tells the Corinthians expressly, that they are not to forbear the company of Gentiles, for those sins, which their Profession imported; but if a Christian live in any of those Heathen vices, with him, they are not so much as to eat, 1 Cor. V 11. to wit, as it followeth immediately, being condemned by the Church upon such a cause: For, saith he, What have I to do to judge them that are without? do not ye judge those that are within? But those that are without, God judgeth: And ye shall take the evil man from among you. That is, are not you, by the power you have, of judging those that are within, to take away him that hath done evil? leaving to God, to judge those without. Here the case is plain, there is power in the Church, to judge, and take away offenders: Of which power the Apostle speaks, Tit. III. 9 when he says, that Heretics are condemned of themselves, if we follow S. Hieromes exposition, which seems unquestionable. For experience convinces, that most Heretics think themselves in the right; so fare they are from condemning themselves, in their consciences. But, they condemn themselves, by cutting of themselves from the Church, which other sinners are condemned to by the Church. Neither is it any thing else then Excommunication which the Apostle signifieth, by delivering to Satan, 1 Cor. V 6. saving, that he expresseth an extraordinary effect, that followed it in the Apostles time, to wit, that those which were put out of the Church, became visibly subject to Satan, inflicting Plagues and diseases on their bodies, which might reduce them to repentance, which the Apostle calleth, the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. As he saith of Hymenaeus and Philetus, 1 Tim. I. 21. whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. For it is not to be doubted, that the Apostles had power, like that which S. Peter exercised on Ananias and Sapphira, thus to punish those that opposed them, as S. Paul divers times intimates in the Texts which I have quoted in another place: provided by God, as the rest of miraculous Graces, to evidence his presence in the Church. These particulars, which I huddle up together by the way, might have been drawn out, into several arguments, but I content myself with the consequence, by which, the Patent of this Power in the Gospel, is cleared, upon which Patent, all the Power of the Church is grounded. That is, if Christians are only to abstain from eating with excommunicate persons, as Jews did with Publicans and Gentiles, than Excommunication is to be understood, when our Lord saith, Let him be to thee as a Heathen, and a Publican. As for that which is said, that the excommunicate among the Jews, were not excluded either Temple, or Synagogue, therefore it was a secular punishment: It is a mistake. That which the Jews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was not Excommunication, no more than that, which the Constitutions of the Apostles call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the same, being but a step to it, like that which is now commonly called the less Excommunication: And therefore, he that was under this censure, among the Jews, was, but in part, removed from the communion, as well of sacred as civil society: For, it hath been showed very learnedly, in the Book of the Power of the Keys, that he stood as much removed from the one as from the other, because that, as well in the Synagogue, as at home, no man was to come within his four cubits. But when the Talmud Doctors determine, that the excommunicate dwell in a Cottage apart, and have sustenance brought him, such a one was past coming into the Temple or Synagogue. And so, I suppose, was he that was put out of the Synagogue, for acknowledging our Lord Christ to be a true Prophet, John IX. 35. For, they which, afterwards, were wont to curse all his followers, in their Synagogues, as Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. and Epiphanius, Haer. XXX. tell us, that they did in their time, are not like to endure, in their society, whether sacred or civil, him, that, in their interpretation, was fallen from Moses. And thus is the Power of the Keys clearly grounded upon this Charter of the Gospel, and all the Right of the Church upon it.  
Only one Objection yet remains, which to me hath always seemed very difficult, for it is manifest, that our Lord speaketh here of matters of interest, between party and party, when he saith, If thy brother offend thee— and it may justly seem strange, that our Lord should give the Church power, to excommunicate those, that will not stand to the sentence of the Church, in such matters. But so it is. The Jews, in their dispersions, were fain to have recourse to this penalty, to enforce the Jurisdiction of their own Bodies, lest, if causes should be carried thence, before Heathen Courts, God's name should be blasphemed, and the Gentiles scandalised at his people, saying, See what peace and right there is, among those that profess the true God For the same causes, our Lord here estateth the same Power upon the Church. Whereof I cannot give a more sufficient and effectual argument, then by showing, that it was in use under the Apostles: Though the place out of which I shall show this, is hitherto otherwise understood, because men consider not, that it is not against Christianity, that there be several seats, for several ranks and dignities of the world, in the Church: And therefore, that it is not that, which the Apostle finds fault with, James II. 1. when he forbids them to have the Faith of God with respect of persons. But the Synagogue which he speaketh of in the next words, is to be understood, of the Court, where they judged the causes and differences, between members of the Church. For, that the Jews were wont to keep Court in their Synagogues, we learn not only by the Talmud Doctors, Maimoni by name, in the Title of Oaths, cap. IX. where he speaketh particularly, of the case of an Oath made in the Synagogue, when the Court sat there, but by that which we find in the New Testament, Mat. X. 17. XXIII. 34. Mar. XIII. 9 Acts XXII. 19 XXVI. 11. as well as in Epiphanius, Haer. XXX. that they used to scourge in their Synagogues: To wit, where sentence was given, there justice was executed. Wherefore, being converted to Christianity, they held the same course; as appears by the words of the Apostle that follow, Do ye not make a difference among yourselves, and are become Judges of evil thoughts? and again, If ye accept persons, ye commit sin, being reproved by the Law. By what Law, but by that which saith, Thou shalt not accept persons in judgement? Leu. XIX. 15. For the execution of which Law, it is expressly provided, by the Jews Constitutions, in Maimoni, Sanedrin ca XXI. that when a poor man and a Rich plead together, the Rich shall not be bid to sit down, and the poor stand or sit in a worse place, but both sit, or both stand, which, you see, is the particular, for which the Apostle charges them, to have the Faith of Christ with respect of persons: That is, to show favour, in the causes of Christians, according to their persons. The same course, we may well presume, was settled by the Apostles at Corinth, by the blame S. Paul charges them with, for going to Law before Infidels. 1 Cor. VI 1, 2. For, how should he blame them for doing that, which they had not order before not to do? And therefore, if our Lord, in this place, give the Church power, to excommunicate those that stand not to the sentence of the Church, much more those that violate the Christianity which they have professed. And this is also here expressed, when, from the particular he goes to the general, saying, Whatsoever ye bind on earth— giving thereby, the same power to the Church here, which he gave to S. Peter, Mat. XVI. 19 and to the Apostles, John XX. 22. And so, we have here, two Heads, of the causes of Excommunication: The first, of such things as concern the conscience and salvation of particular Christians, when they commit such sins as destroy Christianity: The second, of such, as concern the community of the Church, and the unity thereof, in which, not the act, but the contumacy, the not hearing of the Church, makes them subject to this sentence.  
It is not my purpose to say, that these nice reasons are to be the Title, upon which the right of the Church to this power, standeth or falleth: But, that, being in possession of it, upon a Title as old as Christianity, and demonstrable by the same evidence, it cannot be ejected out of this possession, by any thing in the Scripture, when it is rightly understood. One objection there is more, in consequence to this last reason, that, if the Church have power to sentence  causes of Christians, and by Excommunication to enforce that sentence, when States profess Christianity, all civil Laws will cease, and all Judicatories be resolved into one Consistory of the Church. The answer to this, I defer, till I come to show, the Right of the States that profess Christianity, in Church matters, where it will easily appear, how this inconvenience ceaseth. In the mean time, the Sovereign power of the Church consisting in the Sword of Excommunication, upon which the Society thereof is founded, it is necessarily manifest, that this power is not lost to the Church, nor forfeit to the State, that professes Christianity, and undertakes the protection of the Church. For the Church, and civil Societies, must needs remain distinct bodies, when the Church is ingraffed into the State, and the same Christians members of both, in regard of the Relations, Rights, and Obligations, which, in the same persons, remain distinct, according to the distinct Societies, and qualities of several persons in the same. Therefore, as I said in the beginning, that no Christian, as a Christian, can challenge any temporal Right, by his Christianity, which, the State wherein he is called to be a Christian, giveth him not: So on the other side, no man, by his rank in any State, is invested with any power, proceeding from the foundation of the Church, as it is the Church. So, that which is true in the parts, holds in the whole. The Church is endowed with no temporal Right, therefore the State is endowed with no Ecclesiastical Right, though it hath great Right in Ecclesiastical matters, of which in due time. For, all this Right, supposeth the Church already established, by that power on which it standeth, and so, must maintain it, upon the same terms which it findeth. The homage which the Church payeth to God, for the protection of the State, is, not to betray the Right, founded on the express Charter of God, to Powers subsisting by the works of his mediate Providence: But, to subdue subjects, to that obedience, for conscience, which the State exacteth by force. For there is necessarily this difference, between the principles, upon which the Church and civil Communities subsist. The Charter of the one is revealed by Grace: The others stand upon the Laws of Nature and Nations, and acts, which Providence inables men to do, agreeable to the same. Therefore, as no State stands by the Gospel, so, no right settled by the Gospel, can belong to any State, or person, as a member of any State. Besides, Kingdoms and States have their several bounds: Many Sovereignty's are contained in Christendom, whereas the Church, is, by God's Ordinance, one Visible Society of all Christians: Now it is manifest, first, that there are some things, which equally concern the whole Church, and all parts of it: Secondly, that in things which concern the whole Church, no part thereof, in any State or Kingdom, can be concluded by that State or Kingdom. Again, the Apostles Rule is, 1 Cor. VII. 24. that every man abide in the State wherein he is called to be a Christian: And this proves, that no Christian can challenge any temporal right by his Christianity, because States subsist before they are Christian: Therefore it proves also, that no State, or member of it, is, by being such, endowed with any Right, grounded on the constitution of the Church. And therefore, seeing the Church subsisted three hundreth years before any State professed Christianity, whatsoever Rights it used, during that time, manifestly it ought therefore, still, to use and enjoy: this being the most pertinent evidence to show the bounds of it. In particular, as to the Power of the Keys, and Excommunication, the act of it, seeing the intent of it is, to admit into the Visible Society of the Church, upon presumption, that by the right use of it, sin is taken away, and the person admitted to the invisible Society of life everlasting; and, seeing no Commonwealth, no quality in any, pretendeth to take away sin, or to judge in whom it is taken away, it followeth, that no man whatsoever, by virtue of any rank, in any State, is qualified to manage this Power, or can presume so to do.   

CHAP. II.  
That the whole Bodies of Christians, contained in several Cities and the Territories of them, make several Churches, depending upon the Churches of greater Cities. Therefore the People is not endowed with the Chief Power in any Church.  
HAving seen thus fare, upon what Patent the community of the Church is established, and the Power thereof founded, it will be necessary farther to dispute, in what Hands this Power is deposited by the Apostles, and what persons are trusted with it: Which point, before it be voided, we can neither determine, what Form of Government God hath ordained in his Church, nor how it may be exercised in Christian States, without crossing the Right which they challenge in Church matters. The Presbyterians, having designed several Presbyteries, for the Government of several Congregations, that assemble together for the service of God, and having cried up this design for the Throne of Christ, the new Jerusalem, and the Kingdom of God, seeing there is no question made, that where there is a Presbytery, there is a Church, and where there is a Church, there is the Power of the Keys, which God hath endowed his Church with, seem to have given those of the Congregations occasion to infer, that every Congregation, that assembles for the common Service of God, is, by consequence, to have the Power of the Keys to excommunicate: whereunto adding another principle, that the chief Power of every Congregation, is in the People, it follows, that they are all absolute, without dependence on the rest of the Church. But all this while, both run away with a presumption, for which they can show us, never a title or syllable of evidence in all the Scriptures. For, Presbyters and Presbyteries they may show us in the Scriptures, and no grandmercy, unless they can show us how to understand them better than they do: But, that every congregation, that assembles together to serve God in common, should have a company of Presbyters, for the Government of it, is a thing so contrary, to all the Intelligence we have, concerning the State of the Church, either under the Apostles themselves, by the Scriptures, or any Primitive Records of the Church, or in the succeeding ages of the Church, that they must demand of all men, to renounce common sense, and all Faith, of Historical, as well as Divine Truth, before they can believe it. Whereas, by the same evidence, by which the rest of Christianity is conveyed and commended unto us, that is, by the Scriptures, interpreted by the Original and universal practice of the Church, it will appear, that the Apostles, planting Christianity, not only in those Cities, where they preached most, because there the harvest was greatest, but in the Country's adjoining, which, by the custom of all  Nations every where, resort to their Cities for Justice, designed the several Bodies of Christians, that should be found abiding in several Cities, and the Territories of the same, to make several Churches, the Government whereof they planted in those Cities, both for themselves, and for the Countries that resorted unto them: And as, in the  Government of all  people, particular Cities depend upon Mother Cities, Heads of Provinces, Governments, or Sovereignty's, so, the Churches of particular Cities, to depend upon the Churches, of those Mother Cities, that, by the union and correspondence of those Churches, drawing along with them, all the Churches under them, the unity of the whole Church, consisting of them all, might be established, and entertained. This is the effect of that observation, which I advanced in the little Discourse, p. 16. that whereas it is said, Acts XIV. 23. that Paul and Barnabas ordained Presbyters in every Church; S. Paul saith, that he left Titus in Crete, to ordain Presbyters in every City, Tit. I. 5. and again, Acts XVI. 4. As they passed by the Cities, they delivered unto them the decrees determined by the Apostles and Presbyters at Jerusalem. The Cities, of which he had said before, that they ordained Presbyters in every Church, planted in those Cities, as Titus in every City. So nice as this evidence may seem, to those that consider not the state of the whole Church, when it shall appear to any man, as, to all that consider with their eyes open it must appear, that always, every where, all congregations of Christians, remaining in the Country adjoining to any City, made one Church, with the Christians of that City; common sense will enforce, that the Apostles design was the model, from which this form was copied out, in all parts of the Church.  
To which purpose, we are to consider in the next place, an excellent Observation, of that pious & learned Prelate, the L. Primate of Ireland, published in a little Discourse, of the Original of Bishops, upon the seven Churches of Asia, to which S. john is commanded to direct that Epistle, contained in the TWO & III Chapters of the Apocalypse. The observation consists in this, that the seven Cities, wherein those seven Churches are said to be, were seven chief Cities, or Mother Cities, of the Province of Asia: whereby it is manifest, that the chief Churches upon which inferior Churches were to depend, were planted in the chief Mother Cities, to which the Countries about them resorted for Justice. For certainly, no man will offer such violence to his own common sense, as to say, that there were, at the time of writing this Epistle, but seven Congregations of Christians, in that Province, where S. Paul first, and after him S. John, had taken such pains. And if more Congregations, but only seven Churches, for what reason, but because many Congregations make but one Church, when they are under the City, in which that Church is planted? There hath been indeed an Objection made, from the words of this Epistle, when it is said, at the end of the address to every particular Church, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches: The address beginning always thus, To the Church of Ephesus, thus saith the Spirit; To the Church of Smyrna thus saith the Spirit, and so of the rest. The objection pretendeth, that by these words it appears, that there were, in Ephesus, for example, many Churches, constituting the Presbytery of that City, which is there called the Church of Ephesus. For if this were so, I would acknowledge that this argument were overthrown, and that Churches were not convertible with Cities, but that many Churches are here called the Church of Ephesus, because the Seat of the Presbytery was at Ephesus, according to the Presbyterian Design. But this objection, both carries with it an answer to discover the mistake upon which it is grounded, and draws after in an effectual argument to choke the opinion which it supports. For, is not S. John expressly commanded, Apoc. I. 11. to write and send one letter to all those seven Churches? And can any man be so senseless, as, when it is said, What the Spirit saith to the Churches, to understand, several Churches, of Ephesus, Smyrna, and the rest, and not the seven Churches, to which the one letter is directed? And therefore the argument stands good, that in these seven Cities, there were but seven Churches, and that the letter is directed to these Mother Churches, planted in the Mother Cities, because inferior Cities, receiving their Christianity from them, were to depend upon them, for the regulating of all things concerning the exercise of it: As the Original and Universal condition and State of the Church convinces.  
Now the argument, which this objection and the answer draws after it, is this, That in all the New Testament, you shall never find any mention of several Churches in any City, as Rome, Ephesus, Antiochia, Jerusalem: But, when there is speech of any Province, be it never so small, you shall find mention of a plural number of Churches in it. For, of the Churches of Asia, Syria, Cilicia, Macedonia, Achaia, Galatia, Judaea, and Samaria, and of the Hebrews in their dispersions, we find express mention upon several occasions, Acts IX. 31. VIII. 5, 40. XV. 41. 1 Cor. XVI. 1. 2 Cor. VIII. 2. 1 Thessaly. II. 14. Apoc. I. 11. II. 7, 11, 17, 29. III. 6, 13, 22. Though Samaria, among the rest, were a Province of no great extent, yet, for example, you have, in that Province, the City whereof Simon Magus was, called Gittha, saith Epiphan. Haer. XXI. now a Village, but in those days a City, saith he, (of which Acts VIII. 5. And Philip went down to a City of Samaria, not, the City, as we translate it) and Caesarea, which joseph. shows us was in that Province, XXI. 7. Now tell me, what reason can be given for this, by any man that will pretend to understand either Scripture, or any record of learning, but that Churches are convertible with Cities? For had there been many Churches within the City of Ephesus, for example, of parallel power and privilege, making up one Classis, or Presbytery, or whatsoever new name can be given a new thing, without the least syllable of example, from the Apostles to Calvin, must not these have been called the Churches, not the Church of Ephesus?  
I come now to a very express mark of this dependence, during the time, and in the actions of the Apostles, and therefore by their Order, acknowledged, not only by themselves, but by all employed by them, in the planting of the Churches: And it is the going of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, in behalf of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, troubled by some, that taught at Antiochia, from whence those Churches received their Christianity, that Christians are to keep the Law of Moses, Acts XIII. 1. XV. 1. For, were not Paul and Barnabas able to resolve this question at Antiochia, Paul especially, protesting, That he received not the doctrine of the Gospel which he preached, from man, or by man, Gal. I. 1. who is constrained, both to the Galatians, and elsewhere, to oppose his calling, as a Bulwark, against all that laboured to bring Judaisme into the Church? Surely, in regard of the thing, they were, but in regard of authority to the Church, they were not. Barnabas was employed by the Apostles to Antiochia, who found Christians there, but made them a Church, by ordering their Assemblies, Acts XI. 20, 24, 25, 26. And he it was, that first brought Saul into that service, by his authority from the Apostles: Though afterwards, both of them were extraordinarily employed by the Holy Ghost, to preach the Gospel, and plant Churches, Acts XIII. 1. All this while, the Church could not look upon Saul, in the quality and rank of the XII Apostles, which afterwards, he shows us, was acknowledged by the XII themselves, at Jerusalem, Gal. II. 8, 9 to wit, when he went to Jerusalem with Barnabas about this question, Acts XV. 1. for I can see no reason to doubt, that all that he speaks of there, passed, during the time of this journey. And in the mean time, it was easy, for those that stood for the Law, to pretend Revelation from God, and authority from the Apostles, in matter of Christianity, as well as Paul and Barnabas. What possible way was there then, to end this difference, but that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. XIV. 32, 33. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets, for God is not the God of unquietness, but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints? Whereupon, vindicating his authority, and challenging obedience to his Order, even from Prophets, which might be lifted up with Revelations, to oppose, he addeth, Came the word of God from you, or came it to you alone? If any man think himself a Prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge the things that I writ you, to be the Commandments of God. That is, that Apostles, being trusted to convey the Gospel to the world, were to be obeyed, even by Prophets themselves, as the last resolution of the Church, in the will of God, granting his Revelations with that temper, that, as one Prophet might see more, in the sense, effect, and consequence, of Revelations granted to another, than himself could do, in which regard the spirits of the Prophets were to be subject to the Prophets; so, for the public order of the Church, all were to have recourse to the Apostles, whom he had trusted with it. If then, the Church of Antiochia, in which were many Prophets, and among them such as Paul and Barnabas, endowed with the immediate Revelations of the Holy Ghost, Acts XIII. 1. must resort to Jerusalem, the seat of the Apostles, to be resolved in matters concerning the state of the Church, how much more are we to believe, that God hath ordained, that dependence of Churches, without which, the Unity of no other humane Society can be preserved, when he governeth them not, but by humane discretion of reasonable persons? Besides, we are here to take notice, that the Church of Antiochia being once resolved, the Churches of Syria and Cilicia are resolved by the same Decree, Acts XVI. 4. Because, being planted from thence, they were to depend upon it, for the Rule and practice of Christianity. Therefore, it is both truly and pertinently observed, that the Decree made at Jerusalem, was local, and not universal, which, had it been made for the whole Church, there could not have been that controversy, which we find was at Corinth, by S. Paul, 1 Cor. VIII. 1. about eating things offered to Idols: Neither could the Apostle give leave to the Corinthians, to eat them materially, as God's creatures, not formally, as things offered to Idols, as he does, 1 Cor. VIII. 7. had the Body of the Apostles at Jerusalem, absolutely forbidden the eating of them, to Gentile Christians, for avoiding the scandal of the Jewish Christians. But, because the Decree concerned only the Church of Antiochia, and so by consequence, the Churches depending upon it, therefore, among those that depended not upon it, for whom the Rule was not intended, it was not to be in force.  
There is yet one reason behind, which is the ground of all, from the Original constitution of the Synagogue. Moses, by the advice of Jethro, ordained the Captains of Thousands, Hundreds, Fifties, and Ten, to judge the Causes of the people, under himself, Ex. XVIII. 24, 25. To himself, God joined afterwards LXX persons, for his assistance, Num. XI. 16. But these Captains were to be in place, but during the pilgrimage of the wilderness: For, when they came to be settled in the land of Promise, the Law provideth, that Judges and Ministers be ordained in every City, Deut. XVI. 18. Who, if there fell any difference about the Law, were to repair to Jerusalem, to the successors of Moses, and his Consistory, for resolution in it, Deut. XVII. 12. by which Law, wheresoever the Ark should be, this Consistory was to sit, as inferior Consistories, in all inferior Cities. Most men will marvel, what this is to my purpose, because most men have a prejudice, that the power of the Church, is to be derived, from the Rights and Privileges of the Priests and Levites during the Law, though there be no reason for it. For these Rights and Privileges were not only temporary, to vanish when the Gospel was published, but also, while the Law stood, but local, and personal, not extending beyond the Temple, or land of Promise, over any, but their own Tribe. But it is very well known, that, from the time of the Greekish Empire, and partly afore it, Judaisme subsisted in all parts, wheresoever the Jews were dispersed, and that, wheresoever it subsisted, there, were the people to be governed and regulated in the observation of the Law, and the public worship of God, according to the same, frequented also all over the land of Promise, whereas the Temple stood but in one place. It is also manifest, that this Law, which gave the Consistory power of life and death, to preserve the Body of that people in Unity, and to prevent Schisms, upon different Interpretations of the Law, was found requisite to be put in practice in their Dispersions; to wit, as to the determining of all differences, arising out of the Law, not as to the power of life and death to enforce such sentences, this power being seldom granted them by their Sovereigns. For at Alexandria, we understand by Philo, in his Book de Legatione ad Caium, that there was such a Consistory, as also in Babylonia, there was the like, as the Jews writings tell us; for the little Chronicle, which they call Seder Olam Zuta, gives us the names of the Heads thereof, for many ages. And after the destruction of the Temple, it is manifest, not only by their writings, as Semach David, Sepher Juchasin, and the like: but by Epiphanius, in the Heresy of the Ebionites, and the Constitutions of the Emperors remaining in the Codes, Tit. de Judaeis & Coelicolis, that there continued a Consistory at Tiberias, for many ages, the Heads whereof were of the family of David, as Epiphanius, agreeing with the Jews, informeth us, in the place aforenamed; And as, by the story of Saul in the Acts, it appears, that the Jews of Damascus, were subject to the Government at Jerusalem: so by Epiphanius, in the Heresy of the Ebionites, it appears, that the Synagogues of Syria and Cilicia, were subject to the Consistory at Tiberias, as I have showed out of Benjamins' Itinerary, in the Discourse of the Apostolical form of Divine Service, p. 67. that the Synagogues of the parts of Assyria and Media, were, to that in Bagdat, and without doubt, that great Body of Jews, dispersed through Egypt, was, to that at Alexandria. As for the Law of Deut. XVII. 18. the Jews need not tell us, as they do, Maimoni by name, Tit. de Syncdrio, that they were not bound to observe that, in their dispersions, for how could there be Consistories for the Jews, in all Cities, all over the world? but this they tell us, withal, in particular Arba Thurim in the same title Sub init. that thereby, they hold themselves bound, to erect Consistories in the chief Cities of their dispersions. In this condition, what is the difference, between the state of the Synagogue and the Church, setting aside that essential difference, between the Law and the Gospel, by which, Judaisme was confined to one Nation, but Christianity had a promise to be received by the Gentiles? By reason whereof, the Law ceased, as it was proper to the Jews, and Christians became obliged, only to the perpetual Law of God, besides a very few positive precepts of our Lord, as of Baptism, & the Eucharist, and the Power of the Keys, by virtue whereof, and by the general Commission of the Apostles, all Ordinances, whereby they should regulate the Society of the Church, were to be received, as the Commandments of God. Here is the reason, for which it is probable, that the Apostles, in designing the Government of the Church, should follow no other pattern, then that which they saw in use, by the Law, in the Synagogue. For, the design in both being, to maintain the Law of God, and the unity of his people, in his service, saving the difference between them; what form should they follow, but that, which the Law had taught their Forefathers? But, when the effect hereof appears, in the first lines of this model, traced by the Apostles, and filled up by their Successors, it is manifest, that these Laws were the pattern, but the Order of the Apostles, the Act, which put it in being and force. The Churches of Jerusalem, Antiochia, Rome, and Alexandria, no man can deny, were planted by the Apostles, in person, and by their Deputies. That they became afterwards Heads of the Churches that lay about them, is no more than that, which the Consistories, planted at Jerusalem, or Tiberias, and in the chief Cities of the Jews dispersions, were, to the Synagogues underneath them, by virtue of the Law. This is therefore the Original, of the dependence of Churches, upon the greatest Mother Churches. And therefore it is no marvel, that Jerusalem, once the Mother City of Christianity, became afterwards, the seat of a Patriarch indeed, in remembrance of that privilege, but inferior in dignity, and nothing comparable in bounds to the rest, because it was none of the greatest and most Capital Cities: The Rule of the Apostles design being this, that the greatest Cities should be the Seats of the greatest Churches. And that Constantinople, when it came afterwards to be a Seat of the Empire, was put in the next place to the Chief; as it was no act of the Apostles, so it is an argument of the Rule, by which the rest had been ordered, for the same reason. As for the other Law of Deu. XVI. 18. I know not what could be more agreeable to it, than that Rule of the ancient Church, which is to be seen, not only in those few ancient Canons, alleged in the discourse of the Primitive Government of Churches, p. 67. but in innumerable passages of Church Writers, that Cathedral Churches and Cities be convertible, that is, both of the same extent. Thus the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, is inscribed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The presidence here expressed, argueth the eminence of that Church, above the rest of the Churches about it. But Clemens, directeth his Epistle, from the Church of Rome, to that of Corinth, thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereby we understand, that the Country lying under the City, belonged to the Church founded in the City, and was therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying that, which we now call the Diocese, in opposition to the Mother Church That this is the reason of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, appears, because Polycarp addresses his Epistle to the Philippians, in this style, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For, if the Church of the Philippians dwelled near Philippi, than the Country adjoining, belonged to the Church of that City. This reason therefore, was well understood by him that writ the Epistle to the Antiochians, in Ignatius his name, granting it to be of an age much inferior to his: For he inscribeth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Signifying thereby, that all the Christians of Syria, belonged to the Church of Antiochia; for which reason, Ignatius himself, in his Epistle to the Romans, calls himself Bishop of Syria, not of Antiochia, because being Bishop of the Head City Church, the Christians of Syria, either belonged to his Church, or to the Churches that were under it. A thing so necessary to be believed, that there are many marks in his Epistles, to show, that the Churches also of Cilicia belonged to his charge, as we saw they did by their foundation in the Apostles time, and as the reason of the  Government required, those parts where Paul and Barnabas first preached, having continued longest in the Dominion of the Kings of Syria, and therefore continuing under the Government that resided at Antiochia. And thus are the words of Clemens, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, fulfilled, where he saith, that the Apostles, having preached the Gospel in Cities and Countries, constituted Bishops and Ministers of those that should believe; to wit, according to the Cities and Countries adjoining to them. Those marks, come from the ancientest Records the Church hath, after the writings of the Apostles: Of the rest there would be no end, if a man would allege them.  
If any man object, that it cannot be made to appear, how this Rule was ever observed in the Church, the extent of Cathedral Churches, being in some Countries so straight, in other so large: The answer is, that it ceaseth not to be a Rule, though the execution of it was very different in several Countries, either because not understood so well as it should have been, or because the condition of some Countries was not appliable to it, so as that of others. For the East, we have these words of Walafridus Strabo, libs de Rebus Ecclesiasticis: Fertur in Orientis partibus per singulas Vrbes & Praefecturas singulas esse Episcoporum gubernationes: Whereby we understand, that Cathedral Churches stood very much thicker in the Eastern parts, then in the West: For thereupon it became observable to Walafridus. In afric, if we look but into the writings of S. Augustine, we shall find hundreds of Bishops resorting to one Council. In Ireland alone, S. Patrick is said by Ninius, at the first plantation of Christianity, to have founded three hundreth threescore and five Bishoprics. On the other side, in England, we see still, how many Counties remain in one Diocese of Lincoln; and yet if we look into Almain, and those mighty foundations of Charles the Great, we may find perhaps larger than it. The Rule, notwithstanding all this, is the same, that Cathedral Churches be founded in Cities, though Cities are diversely reckoned in several Countries, nay, though perhaps some Countries where the Gospel comes, have scarce any thing worth the name of Cities: Where, the Rule must be executed, according to the discretion of men that have it in hand, and the condition of times. This we may generally observe, that Churches were erected in greater number, when they were erected without endowment, established by temporal Law: So that, in one of the African Canons, it is questionable, whether a Bishop have many Presbyters under him: Fewer still, where they were founded by Princes professing Christianity, upon temporal endowments. And upon this consideration, it will be no prejudice to this Rule, that in Egypt, till the time of Demetrius, there was no Cathedral Church, but that of Alexandria: If it be fit to believe the late Antiquities of that Church, published out of Eutychius, because they seem to agree with that which S. Hierome reporteth of that Church. As, to this day, if we believe the Jesuits, whose relation you may see in Godignus, de Rebus Abassinorum, I. 32. there is but one for all Prester John's Dominion, or the County of the Abassines. For, though men would not, or could not execute the Rule, so, as it took place in more  Countries, yet, that such a Rule there was, is easy to believe, when we see Christianity suffer as it does, in those Countries professing Christ, by the neglect of it.  
Before I leave this point, I will touch one argument to the whole question, drawn from common sense, presupposing Historical truth. For they that place the chief power in Congregations, or require at all several Presbyteries, for the government of several Congregations, are bound at least to show us, that Congregations were distinguished in the times of the Apostles, if they will entitle their design to them. Which I utterly deny that they were. I do believe, the Presbyterians have convinced those of the Congregations, that in S. Paul's time, the Churches to whom he writes, contained such numbers, as could by no means assemble at once: But several Churches they could not make, being not distinguished into several Congregations, but meeting together from time to time, according to opportunity and order given. About S. Cyprians time, and not afore, I find mention of Congregations settled in the Country: For in his XXVIII Epistle, you have mention of one Gaius Presbyter Diddensis, which was the name of some place near Carthage, the Church whereof was under the cure of this Gaius; and in the life of Pope Dionysius about this time, it is said, that he divided the Dioceses into Churches; and in Epiphanius against the Manichees, speaking of the beginning of them under Probus, about this time, there is mention of one Trypho Presbyter of Diodoris, a Village, as it seems, by his relation there) under Archelaus, than Bishop of Caschara in Mesopotamia; Likewise, in an Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria, reported by Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. VII. 24. there is mention of the Presbyters and Teachers of the brethren in the Villages. And those Churches of the Country called Mareotes, hard by Alexandria, which Socrates, Eccles. Hist. I. 27. saith, were Parishes of the Church of Alexandria, in the time of Constantine, must needs be thought to have been established, long before that time whereof he writes there. After this, in the Canons of Ancyra and Neocaesarea, and those writings that follow, there is oftentimes difference made, between City and country Presbyters. In Cities, this must needs have been begun long afore, as we find mention of it at Rome, in the life of Pope cain's, where it is said, that he divided the Titles and Coemiteries among the Presbyters: and the distribution of the Wards of Alexandria, and the Churches of them, mentioned by Epiphanius, Haer. LXVIII. & LXIX. seems to have been made, long before the time whereof he speaks. But, when Justin Martyr says expressly, Apol. II. that, in his time, those out of the Country, and those in the City, assembled in one, fare was it from distinguishing settled Congregations under the Apostles. Which if it be true, the position which I have hitherto proved, must needs be admitted, that the Christians remaining in several Cities, and the Territories of them, were by the Apostles ordered, to be divided into several distinct Bodies and Societies, which the Scripture calls Churches, and are now known by the name of Cathedral Churches, and the Dioceses of them, constituting one whole Church.  
This being proved, I shall not much thank any man, to quit me the Position, upon which the Congregations are grounded, to wit, the chief Power of the people in the Church: Though, it seems, they are not yet agreed themselves, what the Power of the people should be. Morellus, in the French Churches, disputed downright, that the State of Government in the Church, aught to be democratic, the people to be Sovereign: Wherein, by Bezaes' Epistles it appears, that he was supported by Ramus: For the man, whom Beza calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and describes by other circumlocutions, who put the French Churches to the trouble of divers Synods, to suppress this Position, as there it appears, can be no other than Ramus. Perhaps, Ramus his credit in our Universities, was the first means, to bring this conceit in Religion among us: For, about the time that he was most cried up in them, Brown and Barow published it. Unless it be more probable, to fetch it from the troubles of Francford. For, those that would take upon them, to exercise the Power of the Keys in that estate, because they were a Congregation, that assembled together for the Service of God, which power could not stand, unless recourse might be had to Excommunication, did, by express consequence, challenge the public power of the Church, to all Congregations; which I have showed to be otherwise. And, the contest there related, between one of the people, and one of the Pastors, shows, that they grounded themselves upon the Right of the people. So true it is, that I said afore, that the Presbyterians, have still held the stirrup to those of the Congregations, to put themselves out of the saddle. As now the Design of the Congregations is refined, they will not have it said, that they make the People chief in the Church: For, they give them power, which they will have subject to that Authority, which they place in the Pastors & Elders; which serves not the turn. We have an instance against it in the State of Rome, after they had driven away the Tarquins. They placed Authority in the Senate, and Power in the People: and, I suppose, the success of time showed, that which Bodine disputes against Polybius, De Repub. II. 2. to be most true, that the State was thereby made a Democraty. So, the Congregations challenging to themselves Right, to make themselves Churches, and by consequence, whom they please Pastors, must needs, by consequence, reduce the Authority they pretend, to what measure the people shall please, whom, by their proceed, they enable, to make and unmake, members and Pastors at their pleasure. But I dispute not the consequence of their design, before they declare, what they are agreed upon in it. Besides, they conceive they have this Right in the Church, because they are Saints: as Anabaptists conceive, that, by the same title, they have Right to the Goods of this world, and, as Christians conceive, they have those Rights, which they pretend to, in the Visible Church, by lawful Ordination and Baptism: And, that they are Saints, they seem to presume upon this ground, that they have been admitted to such a Congregation, upon Covenant, to live in such Society, for which they separate from the Church. It shall be enough, to level the grounds and reasons from Scripture, upon which, they have parted from the Church, under pretence of recovering the freedom of Saints, before they are agreed, wherein this freedom consists, and how far it extends. And truly, that which I have hitherto proved, seems to be a peremptory prescription against their pretence. For, if the Apostles ordered the Bodies of several Churches, to consist of the whole numbers of Christians, contained in several Cities, and in the Territories of them, which, no common sense can possibly imagine, that they could assemble all together, at any time, for the service of God: it follows of necessity, that the power of Governing those Churches, was not deposited, by the Apostles, in the Body of the People, whereof those Churches did or should consist. For, where the Power is in the People, there the whole Body of the People, must have means to Assemble, to take Order in such things, as concern the state of it. Wherefore the Assemblies of the Church being only for Divine Service, and, at those Assemblies, it being impossible that all the people of those Churches should meet, common sense must pronounce, that, the Power of taking Order in the common affairs of Churches, is not deposited by the Apostles, in the Body of the People.  
Another exception there is, to all, or most of the particulars, which they allege out of the scriptures, far more peremptory than his. For, those things, upon which they ground the right & interess of the people in the Church, were done under the Apostles, that is, not only in their time, but also, in concurrence, with their Right and Power in the Government of the Church. So that, if we believe, or if we prove, the chief Power to have been then in the Apostles, it cannot, by the Scriptures which they produce, be proved to remain in the People, because their evidence cannot prove, any greater Power, or Right, to be now in the People, than belonged to them, when the Scriptures they allege, were said, or done, under the Apostles. Now, I suppose, I shall not need to entreat any man to grant me, that the Sovereign Power of the Church, was then in the Apostles, which their Commission will easily evince. The name of an Apostle, seemeth to have been borrowed, by our Lord, from the ordinary use of that people. For, in their Law, it ordinarily signifieth, a man's Proxy, or Commissary, deputed to some purpose. And therefore, the signification of it in the Scriptures, is very large: So that, when we read of Epaphroditus, Apostle of the Philippians, Phil. II. 25, 30. or of Luke, and Titus, Apostles of the Churches, 2 Cor. VIII. 19, 20, 23. we are not to conceive, by this name, any thing like the Office of the Apostles of Christ: For these later are plainly called Apostles of the Churches, as deputed by them, to carry their Contributions to Jerusalem: And Epaphroditus of the Philippians, as employed by them, to wait upon, and furnish S. Paul with his necessary charges at Rome. The power of Christ's Apostles, then, must not be valued by the name of Apostle, nor by the person of our Lord Christ that sends them, for he might have sent other manner of men, upon inferior errands, and all been Apostles: But by the work, which they are trusted with, expressed in their Commission, As my Father sent me— Whos's soever sins ye remit— and Go preach and teach all Nations— For if God ordain his Church, to be one Visible Society, to serve him in the Profession of the Gospel, and trust only his Apostles, and the Church, with the Power of the Keys, the root of all Ecclesiastical Power, as hath been said: either the Church must challenge it, against the Apostles, which is not but by them, or it must be understood, to have been then in the Church, because it was in the Apostles, in whom it was before the Church, which was founded by them; whereupon, the Office of the Apostles, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Bishopric, before the Church was, whereof they were Bishops, to wit, in Judas, Acts I. 9 A meaning easy to be read in the number of them: For, the Church being the spiritual Israel; as Israel according to the flesh, coming of XII Patriarches, had always XII Princes of their Tribes, and LXX Presbyters, members of the great Consistory, to govern them in the greatest matters, concerning the State of the whole People, under one King, or Judge, or under God, when they had neither King nor Judge: So did our Saviour appoint XII Patriarches, as it were, of his spiritual People, LXX Governors of another Rank, both under the name of Apostles, in whom should rest, the whole Power of governing that People, whereof himself, in heaven, remains always King.  
A perfect evidence hereof, is the deriving of other Power from them, as theirs is derived from Christ. We read in the Scriptures of Evangelists, and we read of another sort of Apostles, which, if we understand not to be of the number of the LXX, we must needs conceive, to be so called, because they were Apostles of the Apostles, that is, persons sent by the XII Apostles, to assist them, in the work committed to their trust, which, it is plain, could not be executed by them in person alone. And indeed, those whom the Scripture calls false Apostles, 2 Cor. XI. 13. and, that said they were Apostles and were not, Apoc. II. 2. what can we imagine they were, but such as pretended to be employed by other Apostles, (perhaps by S. Peter to Corinth, who had a hand in the founding of that Church, as we learn by Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, Eccles. Histor. II. 25. agreeing with the beginning of S. Paul's first Epistle) but intended indeed, under their names and authorities, to pull down that, which was built by their fellow Apostles. And in this sense, perhaps, S. Paul calls Andronicus and Junias eminent among the Apostles, Rom. XVI. 7. because, it may be, they were employed by himself, or by S. Peter, about the Gospel, at Rome. And hereby, we may take measure what Evangelists were. For, seeing it appears by the Scripture, that they were the Apostles Scholars, deputed by them, and limited to such employment, as they found most proper for their assistance; it is manifest, that they could have no authority, but derived from the Apostles. A thing, perfectly agreeing with the Custom, that had always been among God's People. For, all Prophets, whom God employed upon his messages, and may therefore properly be called his Apostles, (as our Lord Christ is called the Apostle of our Profession, Heb. III. 1) had their Disciples to wait upon them, which is called ministering to them in the language of the Scripture. Thus Joshua, the Minister of Moses, Exod. XXIV. 13. Elizeus poured water on the hands of Elias, as the Chief of his Scholars, that expected a double portion of his spirit, 2 Reg. II. 9 III. 11. Thus the Baptist saith, he is not worthy to lose, or take away our Saviour's shoes, Mat. III. 11. Mar. I. 7. that is, to be his Disciple; for, by Maimoni, in the Title of learning the Law, cap. V we learn, that the Disciples of the Jews Doctors, were to do that service for their Masters. Hereupon saith Christ, Luc. XXII. 26. I am among you as he that ministereth: to wit, not as a Master, but as a Disciple. Thus, the chief of our Lords Disciples, whom he had chosen, from the beginning, to be with him, receiving his Commission, became his Apostles, having waited on his Person, and, by familiar conversation, learned his doctrine, better than others; Whereupon I said, in the Primitive Government of Churches p. 3. that, to make an Apostle, it was requisite to have seen our Lord in the flesh, and, that he appeared to S. Paul after death, to advance him to that rank, by this privilege, Mar. III. 14. Mat. X. 1, 4. And shall we think, that the Apostles did not, as their Lord, and all the Prophets before him had done, choose themselves Scholars, that, by waiting on them, might learn their Doctrine, and become fit, to be employed under them, and after them? If we do, we shall miskenne the most remarkable circumstances of Scripture: For we may easily observe, that those, who are called in the Scriptures Evangelists, are such, as first waited upon the Apostles, as S. Mark upon S. Peter, Timothy and S. Luke upon S. Paul, Acts XVI. 1. XIX. 22. as Mark upon Paul and Barnabas, Acts XIII. 5. and Mark again, (whether the same or another) upon S. Paul, 2 Tim. IV. 11. And therefore, I easily grant, both Timothy and Titus to have been Evangelists, though the Scripture says it but of one, 2 Tim. IV. 5. because I see them both Companions of S. Paul, that is, his Scholars and Ministers: And therefore, find it very reasonable, that he should employ Titus into Dalmatia, to Preach the Gospel in those parts, where himself had left, hoping to go further, and carry it beyond, into Illyricum, whereof Dalmatia was a part, as you may see, by comparing the Scriptures, 2 Tim. IV. 10. Rom. XV. 19 2 Cor. X 16. Tit. III. 12. For, thus also, of the seven Ministers to the Apostles at Jerusalem, you see Steven and Philip, employed in Preaching the Gospel, and this later called therefore expressly an Evangelist, Acts VI 9 VIII. 5, 12. XXI. 8. And therefore, it is not possible, for any man, out of the Scriptures, to distinguish between the Office of Evangelists, and those whom I shown to have been Apostles of the Apostles: And thereby, the conclusion remains firm, that all Ecclesiastical Power, at that time remained, and, for future times, is to be derived from the Apostles, when we see by the Scriptures, that the Evangelists derived their Office and Authority from their appointment. And indeed, how can common sense endure to apprehend it otherwise, especially, admitting, that which hath been discoursed, of the Power of the Keys, in admitting into the Church? That being made Christians by the Apostles, because, by them convinced to believe, that they were God's Messengers, whom they stood bound to obey, should nevertheless, by being Christains, obtain the Power, of regulating and concluding the Apostles themselves, in matters concerning the Community of the Church, (which, what it meant, or, that such a Society should be, they could not so much as imagine, but by them,) is a thing, no common sense can admit without prejudice. Those that purchase dominion by lawful Conquest in the world, become thereby, able to dispose of all their Subjects have, because they give them their lives, that is, themselves. The Church is a People, subdued to Christ, by the Apostles, not by force, but by the sword of the Spirit, and though to freedom, yet, that freedom consists, in the state of particular Christians towards God, not in the public Power of the Church, otherwise than it is conveyed lawfully, from them that had it before the Church. Indeed, visible Christianity, is a condition requisite to make a man capable of Ecclesiastical Power, and the Church is then in best estate, when that legal presumption of invisible Christianity, is most reasonable: But, if Saints, because Saints, have Power and Right to govern the Church, then follows the Position, imposed on Wicleffe and Husse in the Council of Constance, and condemned by all Christians, that Ecclesiastical Power holds and fails with Grace; which will not fail, to draw after it, the like consequence in Secular matters, pernicious to all  Societies, that the interest of honest men is the interest of Kingdoms and States, contradicting the principle laid down at the beginning, that Christianity calls no man to any advantage of this world, but to the Cross. Therefore no Christian, or Saint, as Saint, or Christian, hath any Right or Power in the Church, but that which can be lawfully derived from the Order of the Apostles. Those of the Congregations, use to allege S. Peter's apology to the Jewish Christians, for conversing with Cornelius and his Company, Acts XI. 9 as also that of S. Paul, Col. IU. 17. speaking to the body of the Church at Colossae, Say to Archippus, look to the Ministry which thou hast received to fulfil it; as if S. Peter, or Archippus, must be afraid of Excommunication, if they render not a good account of their actions to the People. By which it may appear, how truly I have said, that the Power, they give the People, is in check to that Power, which was exercised by the Apostles. But if we reason not amiss, it would be a great prejudice to Christianity, that S. Peter could not inform Christian People, of the reason of his do, which they understood not, but he must make them his Sovereign. Or that S. Paul, conveying his commands to Archippus, by an Epistle directed to the whole Church, should be thought to invest the People, in that Power, by which he commands Archippus. They allege also, the People of the Church of Jerusalem, present at the Council there, and joined in the letter, by which the decree is signified and conveyed to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, Acts XV. 4, 12, 23. But of this I have spoken already, and am very willing, to leave all men to judge by the premises, whether it is probable, that for resolution in a doubt, which such persons as Paul and Barnabas, could not determine, as to the Body of the Church, it can be thought, that they resorted to Jerusalem, as to the Brethren, or as to the Apostles: whether it can be imagined, that the People of the Church at Jerusalem, could prescribe, in any way, either of Power, or of Authority, or Illumination, unto the Church of Antioch, and the public persons of it: Lastly, whether the arrow is not shot beyond the mark, when it is argued, that this Decree is the act of the People, because it appears that they assent to it, seeing we know by the premises, that they were bound to consent to the Acts of the Apostles. So, in the Power of the Keys, and Excommunication, what can be so plain, as, that S. Paul gives sentence upon the incestuous person at Corinth, and obliges the Church there, to execute his Decree, as he calls it in express terms, 2 Cor. V 3, 4? I conceive, I have read an answer to this, in some of their writings, that this Epistle is Scripture, and therefore, the matter of it commanded by God. But let me instance in the result of the Council at Jerusalem: The Church of Jerusalem was tied by virtue of the Decree, for to them there was no Epistle sent: Therefore the Church of Antiochia, and the rest of the Churches to whom that Epistle was sent, which we have, Acts XV 23. were tied, by virtue of the Decree, not by virtue of the Epistle, by which they knew themselves tied. And let me put the case here: Had S. Paul been at Corinth, and decreed that, which he decreeth by this Epistle, had not the Church been tied, unless he had sent them an Epistle, or otherwise made it appear to them, that he had a Revelation from God on purpose, having made appearance to them, that he was the Apostle of Christ? Believe himself in that case, when he says, he will do as much absent as present, 2 Cor. XI. 11. And again, When I come I shall bewail divers, 2 Cor. XII. 20, 21. that is, excommunicate them, or put them to Penance, as I have said. Remember the miraculous effect of Excommunication in the Apostles time, when, by visible punishments, inflicted on the excommunicate by evil Angels, it appeared, that they were cast out of the shadow of God's Tabernacle, and it will seem as probable, that this is the Rod, which S. Paul threatens the Corinthians with, 1 Cor. IV. 21. 2 Cor. X. 2, 8. as, that many were sick there, because they abused the Eucharist, 1 Cor. XI. 30. Therefore, if this effect of the sentence, came from the Apostles, the sentence also came. Here appears a necessary argument, from the Legislative Power of the Apostles, to the whole Church. For, as no Christian can deny, that the Constitutions of the Apostles oblige the Church, so it is manifest, that they do not oblige it, because they are written in the Scripture, for, they were all in force in the Church, before the Scriptures were written, in which they are related; neither doth it evidence, that they were first delivered to the Church, with assurance, that they were, by express Revelation, commanded to be delivered to the Church, or, because they were passed by votes of the People: But by virtue of the general Commission of the Apostles, being received, in that quality, by those that became Christians, and so made a Church. So, in matter of Ordinations, it is well known, who they are, that have made the People believe, that Paul and Barnabas Ordained Presbyters, in the Churches of their founding, by voices of the People, signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts XIV. 22. which being admitted, it is but an easy consequence to infer, that all Congregations are absolute, because, making their Presbyters, they must needs first make themselves Churches. But he that reads the Text without prejudice, easily sees, that the Act of Ordaining, is here attributed to the Apostles, not to the People. They, the Apostles, ordained them, to wit, the Church or People, Presbyters: Therefore, this Scripture, speaks not of Election, by Holding up of the People's hands, but of Ordination, by laying on the Hands of the Apostles. And therefore, in the choice of the seven Deacons, it is manifest, that the Apostles, though they gave way to the People to nominate, yet reserved themselves the approving of the persons, otherwise, the People might have sinned, and the Apostles born the blame for it. For, when S. Paul saith, Lay Hands suddenly on no man, nor participate of other men's sins, 2 Tim. V 22. it is manifest, that he who Imposes Hands, aught to have power not to Impose, because he sins Imposing amiss. Last of all, let us consider, how liberally the Church of Jerusalem parted with whole estates; the Church of Corinth maintained their Feasts of Love, whereof we read, 1 Cor. XI. 17. the same Corinthians with other Churches, offered to the support of the Churches in Judaea, 2 Cor. VIII. 1— the Philippians sent to supply S. Paul, Phil. TWO 25. 30. iv 20. And all the rest which we find recorded in the New Testament, of the Oblations of the Faithful to the maintenance of God's Service: Whence, it shall appear in due time, that the Endowment of the Church is estated upon it: And then, let common sense judge, whether this came from the understanding, and motion, and proper devotion of the People, or from their Christianity, obliging them to follow that Order, which the authority and doctrine of the Apostles, should show them to be requisite, for their Profession, and the support of the Church at that time.  
By all this, as it will easily appear, that the Chief Interest and Right in disposing of Church matters, could not belong to the People, under the Apostles, so is it not my purpose to say, that, at any time, the People ought to have no manner of Right or Interest in the same. For, if the practice under the Apostles, be the best evidence, that we can ground Law upon to the Church, than it is requisite, to the good estate of the Church, and necessary, for those, that can dispose of the public Order of it, to procure, that it be such, as may give the People reasonable satisfaction, in those things wherein they are concerned: Which, what it requires, and how fare it extends, I will say somewhat in general, when we come to give bounds, to the several Interests, in the public Power of the Church. In the mean time, as no water can ascend higher, than it descended afore, so can no People have any further Right and Power in Church matters, then that which the People had under the Apostles, because that is all the evidence upon which their Interest can be grounded and acknowledged. Less is not to be granted, more they must not require.   

CHAP. III.  
That the Chief power of every Church, resteth in the Bishop and Presbyters, attended by the Deacons. That only the power of the Keys, is convertible with the Office of Consecrating the Eucharist. And therefore, that there are no Lay Elders. The Right of the Bishop, Presbyters, and People, in Church matters.  
THese things premised, I shall here suppose, that the reasons heretofore advanced, are sufficient to prove, that, by Ordinance of the Apostles, the Government of every such Church, consisting of the Body of Christians, in a City and the Territory thereof, is to rest in a Bishop, and a Company or College of Presbyters, his Counsel and Assistants in the exercise of the Chief Power thereof, to whom are added the Deacons, to attend them in executing their commands: Adding only for the present, in confirmation of those reasons, as followeth.  
First, that there is an ordinary Power, of Governing Churches of their own planting, in the Apostles, easily to be distinguished, from the power of other Apostles, because, whereas, the general Commission, extends the power of every Apostle to the whole Church; those things which we find recorded, either in the Scriptures, or in other monuments of Historical truth, which common sense cannot refuse to credit, do show manifest arguments, of the special exercise thereof, de facto, in special places, either by contract, when a Christian may think, that an agreement might be requisite, among such holy persons, as we see, Gal. II. 9 Or otherwise, by occupation, and use. And this ordinary Power of the Apostles, is as easy to be distinguished from the Power of Bishops, by the extent of it, this of Bishops reaching only to the Church whereof they are made Bishops.  
Now, to make good the proof, that james Bishop of Jerusalem, was one of the Apostles, I must here answer two questions, which seem to make this opinion hard to believe. The first, because Hegesippus in Eusebius, oftentimes mentioning Simeon the son of Cleopas, and that he succeeded this James in the Government of that Church, never mentions in one syllable, any relation of his to this James whom he succeeded; which, if they had been so near as brothers, it seems he would have done. The second is this, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is manifestly a Greek name, being the diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore nothing to Alphaeus, which hath another, both Original, and signification in the Hebrew. The first makes no proof, because we have not Hegesippus, and therefore cannot presume that he not where said this, because we find it not in those shreds which Eusebius hath related out of him: Neither are we bound to presume that either he would write, or Eusebius relate out of him, that which we at this present conceive to be most necessary to be related, because of the dispute presently on foot, which to them, perhaps, was no dispute. In fine, from that which he says not, we cannot conclude the negative, but from that which he says, we may conclude the tantamount of the affirmative. For when Hegesippus, in Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. iv 22. says, that Simeon was the second of our Lords Cousins, that was made Bishop of Jerusalem, to them that knew by the Gospel, that the Cousins of our Lord, (which it calls brothers,) were James and Joses, Judas and Simon, Mat. XIII. 55. he says in effect, that James and Simon were brothers; especially Eusebius making the same Simeon the son of Cleopas and Mary, Eccles. Hist. III. 32. which he seems to have from Hegesippus. For, seeing Mary Cleopas, John XIX. 25. is in all probability, Marry the mother of James the less, and Joses, Mar. XV. 40. Mat. XXVII 55. (because we read but of two Maries in the Gospel that followed our Lord, beside the blessed Virgin, Mat. XXVII. 61.) And seeing S. Judas calls himself the brother of James, Judas 1. And seeing James and Simeon Bishops of Jerusalem, are both Cousins to our Lord, (that is, brothers in the language of the Scripture) according to Hegesippus, it is to be thought, that he intended there to signify, that Simeon the son of Cleopas, and James Bishop of Jerusalem, were brothers: The age of Simeon, suffering an hundred and twenty years old, Euseb. Eccles. Hist. III 32. being so great, that he might well succeed his brother in the charge. Now, James the son of Alphaeus, might well be also son of Cleopas, and the same man's name Alphaeus and Cleopas, because of the custom, which we find to have been among the Jews, of calling themselves, by one name among their own Country men, and by another (oftentimes near the other in sound) among the Greeks and Romans; For, if Jason in the Maccabees, were called Jesus among the Jews, as it appears by Josephus, Antiq. XII. 6. if Saul and Paul were one Apostle; if the first Bishop of Alexandria, who is called Ananias in the Antiquities of that Church out of Eutychius, be called Anianus in Eusebius; if Silas be nothing else but Sylvanus; Luke, Lucius, as learned men cannot choose but believe, why shall we not believe, that the same man, was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Hebrew then used, as his name is now written in the Syriack Testament, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek, being the diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an ordinary proper name at that time? And thus it cannot be contradicted, that the Church of Jerusalem had one of the Apostles for the first Bishop of it.  
Now, whereas it is said, that Timothy and Titus had that power which the Scripture witnesseth, as Evangelists, it is to be demanded, by what Scripture it can appear, that Evangelists, as Evangelists, had any Power in any Church? That they were near in rank and esteem to the Apostles, I grant, because of the Scriptures, 1 Cor. XII. 28. Eph. IU. 12. that Titus was an Evangelist, as well as Timothy, 2 Tim. IV. 5. I do believe: because S. Paul says there, that he was gone into Dalmatia; which being part of Illyricum, whither S. Paul had purpose to advance the Gospel, as you saw afore, there is great appearance, that, being in durance, he employed Titus, to Preach the Gospel, and plant Churches there, as well as to govern the Churches already settled in Crete; And that, by the same reason, as himself governed all the Churches of his Charge. But having showed such probabilities, to think, that Evangelists were no more than a secondary rank of Apostles, that is, men employed by the Apostles upon any work; it cannot be said, that, by the quality of Evangelists, they had power to govern any Church, unless it can be showed, that the work on which they were employed, was the governing of settled Churches. Which cannot be showed, of any but Timothy and Titus, by the Epistles to them; which show, that they two were appointed in that quality, at Ephesus and in Crete. For Epaphras, that is, Epaphroditus, (for the names are both one) that was employed by the Philippians to S. Paul, Phil. II. 25, 30. was also employed, (no doubt by S. Paul, or by some other of the Apostles, unless we will say that he depended not on them, contrary to that which hath been proved) to Preach the Gospel to the Colossians, I 7. and therefore an Evangelist to them, but no appearance of any Commission to Govern that Church: His charge to the Colossians, not hindering his employment to S. Paul, from the Philippians. On the contrary, the Commissions given Timothy and Titus, by the Epistles directed to them, are so far from being temporary, that he were no sober man, that would give them to him, whose charge was intended to cease to morrow. Hence we have a competent reason, why the name of Bishops should be common to Bishops and Presbyters in the New Testament, though the thing, which is the Power, never was. Because the Chief Bishops of that time, bore another quality, of Apostles, Evangelists, or Apostles of the Apostles, by which, while they were called, it is reasonable to think, that other Bishops and Presbyters, between whom, there was not that distance, as between the greatest of them, and Apostles or Evangelists, should be called by the common name of Bishops. An instance you have in the Synagogue: For, the Bodies of Jews, residing in the several Cities of their dispersions, being governed by Colleges or Consistories of Presbyters, both the Heads and the Members of those Colleges, are called by a common name, in the plural number, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts XVIII. 8, 17 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, XIII. 15. which, in the Gospels, seem to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutely, Luc. XIV. 1. which notwithstanding, we find expressly in Epiphanius, that the Chief of them, was called also Archisynagogus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his inferiors, Presbyters, the Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Epiphanius his Greek, as in the Jews writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that, we are to think, that in those times also, whereof the Scriptures of the New Testament speak, there was one set over the rest, though all go by one name, because we know, that in the great Consistory, whether at Jerusalem, or in their dispersions, so it was always. By this correspondence, having showed afore, that the Power of the Consistories, is that which the Church succeeds the Synagogue in, it is manifest, that all the seeming difficulty of this little objection is removed.  
To the argument drawn from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia, I add only a reply, to the answer that is now brought, that Angels stand there for Presbyteries, or Colleges of Presbyters. For now, it appears too gross, to take Angels for Churches, in that place, because the Scripture saith expressly, Apoc. I. 20. that the Churches are there signified by Candlesticks; and it appears now an inconvenience, to take the Candlestick for the Candle. But no less inconvenience will be seen in this answer, if we consider, that it must be proved to signify so, either by some reason of Grammar, or of Rhetoric. That an Angel is put for a Presbyter or Bishop, is a metaphor very reasonable, because of the correspondence between them. But an Angel cannot stand for Presbyters, by reason of Grammar, unless either the word be a Collective, signifying a multitude in the singular number, or else the Construction show, that the singular stands for the plural; nor by reason of Rhetoric, unless some body can show us, how an Angel is like a College: None of which reasons is to be seen, either in the Text, or in the nature of the Subject.  
To the premises, I add now this argument, drawn from that observation which I have advanced, in the Book of the Apostolical form of Divine Service, p. 71. out of the Apostolical Constitutions, Ignatius, Dionysius Arcopagita, and the Jews Constitutions, that, in the Primitive Church, the Presbyters were wont to sit by themselves, in a half Circle, at the East end of the Church, with their faces turned to the faces of the People, the Deacons standing behind them, as waiting on them, but the Bishop, on a Throne by himself, in the midst of the Presbyters seats. For, if this form were in use under the Apostles, than was the difference of Bishops and Presbyters brought in by Ordinance of the Apostles. And, that it was in use under the Apostles, may appear, by the Representation of the Church Triumphant, Apoc. IU. V for he that knows the premises, and finds there XXIV Elders, equal in number, to the XII Heads of the Tribes of Israel, and the XII Apostles, surrounded with ministering spirits, standing about them, as the Deacons in the Church stood about the Presbyters, the Congregation standing, with their faces turned to the Presbyters, as the People in the Church at Divine Service; how can he doubt, that the Throne of God, in the midst of the Thrones of the XXIV Presbyters, is correspondent to the Bishop's Chair, in the Church Militant, under the Apostles, knowing that, so soon after the Apostles, just so it was seated? They that expound this Vision, to resemble the Camp of Israel in the Desert, Numb. II. where, about the Ark, were IV Standards, answerable to the IV Creatures about the Throne, then, the Tribe of Levi, environing the Sanctuary, and the Camp of Israel that do make the IV Creatures as fare distant from the Throne, as the Standards of the IV leading Tribes were from the Tabernacle, and the Presbyters Seats, to compass the Throne, behind, before, and on both sides: Whereas, in the Visions of Esay, VI 1— and Ezekiel I. 1— which, all agree, that this is borrowed from, the IV Creatures stand close to the Throne, as attending peculiarly upon Gods immediate commands. Besides, the IV Creatures are said to stand, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, IV. 6. that is, two at the two fore corners, and two at the two hind corners of the Throne: For otherwise it cannot be understood, how they can be said to stand, both round about the Throne, and in the middle of the Throne, which the Test says expressly, (that is, in the distance, between the Throne and the Presbyters Seats) which words, can have no sense, if we conceive the IV Creatures, to stand where the IV Sandards of the Camp stood. Besides, the Lamb is said to stand, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, VII. 6. which, is more expressly said, V 6. to be in the midst of the Throne, Creatures, and Elders: Which words, expressly describe that Compass of a half Circle, which the Throne, environed with the IV Creatures, and the XXIV Presbyters Seats, makes, in which Compass, the Lamb is properly described to stand before the Throne. Again, the multitude that stands before the Throne and the Lamb, VII. 19 are manifestly the same, that are called the souls under the Altar, VI 10. though commonly, they are conceived to lie under the Altar, and from thence to cry for vengeance. For the Altar there mentioned is not the Altar of  Sacrifices, but the Altar of Incense before the Veil: Which Incense, in this Case, is the Prayers of the Saints, which the Elders offer, V 8. & the Angel puts Incese to, VIII. 3. whereupon, follows the vengeance, which the souls under the Altar desired, who, having white Robes granted them, in stead of that present justice which their Prayers solicited, are afterwards described, standing with their faces toward the Throne, the Lamb, and the Elders, as the People in the Church, at Divine Service, towards the Bishop and Presbyters: Which particulars, too long here to be deduced, are easy to be observed, by comparing Apoc. V. 8. VI 9, 10, 11. VII. 12, 14. VIII. 3, 4, 5. Add hereunto the saying of Ignatius, that the Bishop in his Church, bears the figure of the Father of All, to wit, in the whole Church Triumphant; and, unto that, the Ordinary expression of the Jews, when they use the term, of God and his House of Judgement, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, his Court, or Consistory, to represent the Majesty of God sitting in Counsel, or in Judgement upon the World, with the Angels about him, in the Old Testament, (but the Saints in the New, attended by the Angels. Mar. XIX. 28. Luc. XXII. 30. 1 Cor. VI 2. Apoc. XX. 4.) which expression of theirs, is manifestly borrowed from the Scriptures of the old Testament, every where representing the Majesty of God in this posture, Ps. LXXXIX. 8. Dan. VII. 9 Psal. CXLIX. 1. Deut. XXXII. 2. and you have not only a Commentary upon this whole passage, but also a Confirfirmation of all that hath been or shall be said, that the Bishop and Presbyters are the same in the Church, as the Sanedrin and the Head of them in the Synagogue. All this is yet more fortified, by the testimony of Tertullian, De Prescript. cap. XXXVI. that, the very Chairs, in which the Apostles sat, in their Churches, were extant in his time: as, saith he, were also the very Originals of their Epistles, in the Churches, to whom they were sent; and, as the Chair of S. James at Jerusalem was extant in Eusebius his time, Eccles. Hist. VII. 19 Add further, The uppermost Seats in Synagogues, which the Scribes and Pharisees desired, Luc. XI. 43. add the Apostle, 1 Cor. XIV. 25, 30. distinguishing, between the Seats of private persons and Prophets, (which, the supposed S. Ambrose expounds, by the Custom of sitting in the Synagogue, as I have showed in the same place:) add, The Chair of Moses, on which the Scribes and Pharisees sat, in succession to him, who taught the people in that posture, with the Priests sitting about him, as Philo expoundeth the Text, Num. XV. 33. Mat. XXIII. 2. and I suppose, we have not only evidenced to common sense, the Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyters, by his Place in the Church, but also the distinction of the Clergy from the People by the same.  
Which Point, that I may deduce, with that care, which the consequence of it requires, it will be worth the inquiry, first, by what title of Right, the Celebration and Consecration of the Eucharist, belongs only to Presbyters: which, as it seems to be agreed upon, on all sides, so, let the Reason also once be agreed upon, why it belongs only to them, and, thereby it will appear, that it is convertible with the Power of the Keys, that is, that the Power of the Keys also, belongs only to Presbyters, whereas, the Offices of Preaching and baptising, are communicable to their inferiors, and, that it belongs also to all Presbyters, and so, by consequence, that there is no such thing as Lay Elders. The Presbyterians, styling their Pastors, Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, in opposition to their Lay Elders, seem to ground this Right, upon the Commission of our Lord to his Apostles, Go preach, and make Disoiples all nations, Baptising them— as if this were the Office, wherein Presbyters succeed the Apostles, though, of the Eucharist, there is here never a word. But, if they consider, what it is, to Preach the Gospel to Unbelievers, or rather, what it was, before the Gospel was received any where, it will easily appear, that, unless they be mad men that go about it, it is necessary that they be endowed with abilities, to make it appear, even to the enemies of the Gospel, that they are sent by God to Preach it. Therefore, no man succeeds the Apostles, in the Office of Preaching the Gospel to the Nations. And therefore, if they will take notice, they shall easily observe, that the Title of Minister of the Gospel, Minister of the Word, of the New Testament, Minister of the Church, and others equivalent, are never given to any but the Apostles, in the Scriptures, unless it be, to their Scholars and Substitutes, the Evangelists, because they were to the Apostles, as the Apostles to Christ, and Christ to God, that is, they were Ministers of the Apostles, assumed by them, to the work which Christ had trusted them in Person with, of Preaching the Gospel, and planting Christianity: And therefore, when need was, were able to make their Commission appear, by the works they did, though in an inferior degree, because they proceeded, upon that stock of reputation, which the Apostles had won the Gospel, by their Preaching and Miracles. Such titles, you shall find attributed to the Apostles, and their Followers and Substitutes, 1 Cor. III. 5. 2 Cor. III. VI 4. XI. 23. Col. I. 23, 25. Eph. III. 7. VI 21. 1 Thess. III. 2. Col. IU. 7. I. 7. Acts I. 17. VI 4. XX. 24. XXI. 19 but not where to Presbyters. For the name of Presbyters, as also of Bishops, is Relative, to the People of those Churches, whereof they are Bishops and Presbyters, signifying them to be the best qualified, of all the Body of those Churches, chosen and constitute to conduct the rest in Christianity. And therefore the Apostles also are Presbyters, as S. Peter and S. John style themselves, 1 Pet. V 1. 2 John 1. 3 John 1. because the greater includes the less, and because they had power in all Churches, as Presbyters in one: But Presbyters are never called Apostles, because the greater is not included in the less, and because Presbyters never had Commission to preach the Word or the Gospel, in the sense whereof I speak here, that is, to publish the Gospel to Unbelievers. And, whereas there is the same difference, between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the one part, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other, as there is, between Publishing the Gospel to unbelievers, and instructing Christian Assemblies in it: we never find the former attributed to any Presbyter in the Scriptures, but we find both attributed to the Apostles, because their Commission was, to Publish the Gospel to all Nations, and to make them Disciples, by Baptising them: and being such, to Teach them further to observe all that our Lord commandeth, Mat. XXVIII. 19, 20. Mar. XVI. 15. Thus the Apostles, Acts V 42. ceased not to Teach and Preach Jesus Christ, in Houses, and in the Temple: To Teach the Church, in those Houses where the Christians assembled to serve God as Christians, and to Preach to the Jews in the Temple, whither they resorted for that Service, Acts II. 42, 46. So, Acts XV. 35. Paul and Barnabas continued at Antiochia, Teaching, that is, the Church, and preaching the Gospel, to wit, to Unbelievers. And with the same difference, it is said of our Lord in the Gospels, Mat. IU. 23. IX. 35. XI. 1. that he Taught, to wit, as a Prophet, (who had always the Privilege of Teaching in the Synagogues, as his Disciples also by the same Title,) and preached the Gospel, as sent by God for that extraordinary purpose. But, though the Apostles, being sent to preach the Gospel, were, by consequence, to Teach the Church, yet is it never said, that Presbyters, being appointed to Teach the Church, were also called to Preach the Gospel. For their Relation being, to Churches, as much persuaded of the truth of Christianity, as themselves, they needed no such qualities, as might make evidence, that they were sent immediately from God, to convince the world, of the truth of it. But only, such understanding in it, above the people of their respective Churches, as might enable them, to conduct the People thereof in it. And therefore what hindereth, their Inferiors also to be employed, in Teaching the Church, which now we call Preaching? For if our Lord, and his Apostles, employed their respective Ministers, in Teaching those, whom they could not attend upon themselves, and in all Churches, after the example of the first at Jerusalem, Deacons or Ministers were Ordained, to wait upon the Bishops and Presbyters of the same, in the execution of their Office, is it not the same thing, for Bishops and Presbyters, to employ their Deacons, in Preaching to those of their own Church, as it is, for the Apostles at Jerusalem, to employ S. Steven, and S. Philip, S. Paul, Timothy, or Erastus, or Tychieus, or Epaphroditus, in Preaching to Unbelievers? for there remains as much difference, in their Charges, as in their Chiefs from whom they are employed. Besides, who is able to prove by the Scriptures, that those, who are called Doctors, 1 Cor. XII. 28. Eph. IU. 12. were all of them men, Ordained by Imposition of Hands, as Presbyters? Between whom and Evangelists, there seems to be the same difference, as between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the one part, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other, this relating to Assemblies of Christians, and importing the instructing of them, in the right understanding of that Christianity, which they already believe and profess, that, to those who are not Christians, as undertaking to reduce them to Christianity, which supposeth Commission and abilities answerable. Further, the supposed S. Ambrose, upon Eph. IU. 12. comparing Evangelists with Deacons, says, that Deacons also taught without a Chair: The custom of the Church then, admitting them to Preach, upon occasions, but not sitting, as the Bishop and Presbyters did: Because they did not sit, but stand, in the Church, (as the Angels in the Revelation, about the Presbyters Chairs) as attending upon their commands. And what is this, but the same which you find in use, in the Synagogue, Acts XIII. 14. where Paul, stands up to Preach, whereas our Lord sits down, like a Doctor, when he goes to Preach in the Synagogue, Luc. IU. 20? by which it appears, that it was of custom, drawn from the Synagogue, for Deacons to Preach in the Church. And indeed, in the last place, the practice of the Synagogue, together with the reason of it, and the Primitive practice of the Church, agreeable to the same, seems to make as full proof, as a reasonable man can desire, in a matter of this nature. For, in the Synagogue, it is so manifest, that Jurisdiction is above Doctrine, and the Power of Governing, above the Office of Teaching, that the Prophets themselves, who were Doctors of the Law, immediately sent by God, were subject to the Power and Jurisdiction of the Consistory, settled by the Law, Deut. XVII. 8,— 12. So that, though by the Law, of Deut. XVIII. 18. the whole Synagogue are subject to God's curse, if they obey not the Prophet by whom God speaks, yet because it was possible, that false Prophets might pretend to be sent from God, therefore, in the next words of the Law, a mark is given to discern who was sent by God, and who was not, and he that pretended to be sent by God and was not, being tried by this mark, became liable to capital punishment, by the Law of Deut. XVII. 8,— 12. for teaching contrary to that which the Consistory taught. So that, by this Law, the Consistory hath Power of life and death, even over Prophets, whom they judged to teach things destructive to the Law. And by this Power, not usurped, but abused, our Lord also suffered, under Pilate, according to that which he had said in respect of this Power, It is impossible that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem, Luc. XIII. 33. that is, not condemned by the Consistory. The Successors of the Prophets, after the Spirit of Prophecy ceased, that is, their Scribes, and Wise men, and Doctors, received the Privilege of Teaching the Law, from their Masters. For, whosoever had learned in the School of a Doctor, till forty years of age, was thenceforth counted a Doctor, as the Talmud Doctors determine, and thereby privileged to decide matters of Conscience in the Law, provided that he did it not while his Master lived, and where he was: R. Solomon upon the Title Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Title of Learning the Law, cap. V. But if I mistake not, in our Lord's time, they were counted so at thirty years of age. For Irenaeus II. 39 says, that our Lord began to Preach, at the same age, at which men were counted Doctors, manifestly referring to this Rule of the Synagogue. And this is the Reason which the Church afterwards followed, in all those Canons, by which it is forbidden that any man be made Presbyter, being less than thirty years of age: because at those years our Lord and S. John Baptist began to Preach, though by an extraordinary Commission, yet according to the custom of the Synagogue in their time, saith Irenaeus. But, by Imposition of Hands, they were further qualified, to sit and Judge in their Consistories. Whereby we see, how Jurisdiction includes Doctrine, but is not included in it: So that, the Metaphorical Jurisdiction of the Church by the power of the Keys, belonging, as all sides agree, to Presbyters, it is agreeable to the perpetual custom of God's people, that the Office of Teaching, be communicable to their inferiors. But with such dependence, upon the Bishop and Presbyters, as may be correspondent to the Rule of the Synagogue; In which, he that taught any thing, as of God's Law, contrary to the Consistory, and persisted in it, was liable to capital punishment, by the Law so often quoted, of Deut. XVII. 8 — Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Title of Rebels, cap. III. And therefore, he that Teaches contrary to the Church, it behoveth, that he be liable to Excommunication from it. And upon these terms, I suppose, those of the Congregations will give me no great thanks, for saying, that it is not against God's Law, that those, who are not in Holy Orders, do Preach. For, that which I have alleged for this, in the Apostolical form of Divine Service, p. 420. out of that notable Epistle in Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. VI 20. in behalf of Origen, who, before he was Presbyter, was employed in Preaching by the Bishop of Caesarea, consists in divers instances, of other persons of origen's rank, which Preached indeed, but all, by Commission from their respective Bishops, who were themselves by their Places, the Doctors in Chief, of their respective Churches. And if this be against Divine Right, (as we agree it is, for any under the rank of a Presbyter, to celebrate the Eucharist,) how shall any Church allow men to Preach, for trial of their abilities, before they attain that rank, in which they are ordinarily to do it?  
That which hath been said of Preaching, is to be said much more, in my opinion, of Baptism. If the charge of Baptising, given the Apostles, had been meant, of the Office of Ministering, not of the power of granting it, what reason could there be, that S. Peter, having converted Cornelius and his company, should not baptise them in person, but command them to be baptised, Acts IX. 48? And if the Apostles, employ their Deacon S. Philip, to Preach and to Baptise, is it not by consequence, that the Governors of particular Churches, employ their Deacons about the same? In the Synagogue, it cannot be said, that the office of Circumcising, ever required any higher quality, then that of a person circumcised: And therefore in the Church, if there can be any question, whether a person is to be admitted to Baptism or not, it is the Chief Power of the Church, that must determine it. Or, if the occasion require Solemnity, which may argue, him that Officiates it, to be Chief in the Church, no Deacon nor Presbyter must presume to do it before the Bishop. But, because Baptism is the gate, as well of the invisible Church, as of the visible; and because the occasions are many and divers, which endanger the preventing of so necessary an Office, by death, in this regard, the practice of the Primitive Church, alleged by Tertullian, de Bapt. cap. XVIII, must not be condemned, whereby, Baptism, given by him that is only baptised, is not only valid, but well done. Though my intent hereby is not to say, that it may not be restrained to Presbyters and Deacons, when the Church is so provided of them, that there is no appearance, that Baptism can be prevented, for want of one.  
But though I do, for these causes, refuse the reason that Presbyterians can give, why only Presbyters may celebrate the Eucharist. I am not therefore much more in love with that, which the School Doctors give, when they conceive, that the Apostles were made Priests, by our Lord, at his last Supper, when he said, Do this. For, we do not find this exposition of these words authorized by the first ages of the Church, or any Writers of that time. And, where the School Doctors speak not out of the mouth of the Primitive Church, I make no difficulty to take them for none of my Authors And truly, in this case, the Text of the Scripture seems to be plain enough, for, the Command of our Lord, Do this in remembrance of me, must needs speak to the same persons, as the rest that goes afore, Take, eat, drink, divide this among you, which, belonging to the whole Church, it is manifest, the Precept, Do this, belonging also to the whole Church, cannot make any difference of qualities in it. In this difficulty then, it will be hard to find any anchor so sure, as that of Tertullian, De Cor. cap. III. where, making a Catalogue of Orders and Rules observed in the Church, which are not found delivered, in terms of Precept, in the Scriptures, he prosecuteth it thus: Eucharistiae Sacramentum, in tempore victus, & omnibus, à Domino mandatum, etiam antelucanis coetibus, nec nisi de manu Praesidentium sumimus. The Sacrament of the Eucharist was commended to the Church at meat, saith Tertullian. Is not this the express word of our Lord? for, when he saith, Do this, is it not manifest, that he commandeth to celebrate the Eucharist at the end of Supper as himself presently had done? Sure enough the Primitive Church understood it so, for the Ministry of Tables in the Acts of the Apostles, for which the Apostles provide themselves Deacons, and the Feasts of Love, which S. Paul regulates at Corinth, are enough to show us, that the Eucharist came at the end of them. And so Tertullian shows that it was in his time, when he says, that they received the Eucharist at their Assemblies before day also; that is to say, as well as at their Feasts of Love, at which our Lord ordained it. But, though there be no Precept extant in the Scripture, that the Eucharist be used at those Assemblies of the Church, which are held merely for the Service of God, besides those Feasts of Love, yet if my reasons, propounded in the Apostolical Form of Divine Service, p. 291. have not failed, which hitherto, so far as I know, are not contradicted, it doth appear by the Scripture, that it was so under the Apostles. And therefore, that only Presbyters are to celebrate the Eucharist, the Church will be confidently assured, because it appears, by these words of Tertullian, that this was the Primitive practice of the Church. Especially, if by any circumstance of Scripture, it may appear to have been derived from the Apostles. Which, perhaps, comparing the premises with the nature of the Eucharist, will not fail us. To show, that those who did eat of the Sacrifices of the Gentiles, were accessary to their Idolatries, the Apostle, 1 Cor. X. 16— instanceth in the Jews, who, by eating of their Sacrifices, did communicate with the Altar, that is, with God, to whom that which was consumed upon the Altar belonged. And because Christianity supposeth, that the Gentiles Sacrifices were offered to Devils, therefore, (the Gentiles communicating with Devils, by eating the remains of their Sacrifices, as the Jews with God) that it was not lawful, to eat of their Sacrifices, for them that communicated with God, in the Eucharist, as the Jews did with the same true God, and the Gentiles with the Devils, by their Sacrifices. Thus, the Apostles argument supposeth, that, in the Eucharist, Christians do participate of the Sacrifice of the Cross, as Jews and Gentiles do, of their Sacrifices, and so, that the purpose thereof is, that, by it, we may participate of the Sacrifice offered to God upon the Cross. Which, being carried by our Lord within the Veil, into the most Holy Place of the Heavens, to be presented to God, as it is declared at large, Hebr. IX. 11— is, notwithstanding, no less participated by Christians, than the Jews do participate of their peace-Offerings. Which the Apostle teaches again, when he tells the Hebrews, XIII. 10. that we have an Altar, that is, a Sacrifice, of which they that serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat; that is, no Jews. For, seeing the Priests only eat the remains of  Sacrifices, whereas the remains of peace Offerings are eaten also by the Sacrificers, that which the Priests touch not, it is manifest that no Jew can have right to touch. And, that the Sacrifice of the Cross is such, he proceedeth to prove, because, as he had declared in the premises, it is of that kind, that was carried within the Veil; and again, because, in correspondence, to the burning of the rest of those Sacrifices, without the Camp, which the Law enjoined Levit. IU. 12, 20. VI 30. XVI. 21. our Lord suffered without Jerusalem. Now, because it concerned the discourse propounded by the Apostle, to show, how Christians participate of that Sacrifice, whereof he hath proved that Jews do not; he addeth, Let us therefore go forth to him out of the Camp, bearing his reproach, for we have here no abiding City, but seek one to come: Let us therefore by him offer the Sacrifice of Praise continually to God, even the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his Name. Which, if we will have to be pertinent to the premises, must all be meant of the Eucharist, in which, the Sacrifice of the Cross is communicated to Christians. Not as if thereby the Apostle did establish that strange prodigious conceit, of repeating the Sacrifice of the Cross, and sacrificing Christ anew, in every Mass. In as much as the Apostle clearly declareth, that the same one individual Sacrifice, which Christ carried into the Holy of Holies, through the Veil, to present to God, is that which all Christians participate of, in the Eucharist, always. And therefore the Eucharist is a Sacrifice, no otherwise, then as all Eucharists, that have been, or shall be, to the world's end, can be understood, to be the same one individual Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross: Which how it is to be understood, this is not the place to dispute. Here is further to be remembered, that which I have proved, in the Apostolical Form of Divine Service, p. 343, 373. that it is Ordained by the Apostles, which hath been practised by the Church after them, in all ages, that, at the celebration of the Eucharist, supplications and prayers be made, for all estates and ranks in the Church, for all things, concerning the common necessities of it. The reason and intent whereof, is still more manifest by the premises. For, if the prayers of the Church be accepted of God, in consideration of the Sacrifice of the Cross, appearing always before the Throne of God, within the Veil, to intercede for us: Is it not all reason, that the Church, when it celebrateth the remembrance thereof upon earth, should offer and present it to God, as the only powerful means, to commend the Prayers of the Church unto God, and to obtain our necessities at his hands? If these things than be so, let us call to mind the Prophetical Vision, represented to S. John in the Apocalypse, of the Throne of God, and of the Church Triumphant, divided, into XXIV Presbyters, sitting about the Throne of God, and the people of the Church, standing and beholding the Throne and the Elders, in the very same manner, as they did, at the Assemblies of the Church Militant, at Divine Service. Whereby, it is manifest, that God granteth the Decrees, which are foretold in that Prophecy, at the Prayers of the Church Triumphant, presented to his Throne, in the same manner, as the Prayers of the Church Militant here upon earth. And upon these premises, I suppose, it will be no hard thing to make the consequence, from that which is said, Apoc. IU. 8. The XXIV Elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one Harps, and golden Vials, full of incense, which are the Prayers of the Saints. The consequence being no more but this, that, seeing all things else, in this Vision, are correspondent to the order of the Militant Church, therefore it is plain, that the Presbyters in the Church Triumphant, are said to hold in their hands the Prayers of the Saints, because, in the Church Militant, the Presbyters were to present the Prayers of the Church to God, and by consequence, to celebrate the Eucharist, which the Prayers of the Church were always presented to God with. Which is further confirmed, in that the Church, or the place, in Heaven, where this Assembly of the Church Triumphant is represented to S. John, is called divers times, in the Apocalypse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not in the notion of an Altar, (which, notwithstanding, it signifies, more than once, in this very Prophecy, when the Altar of Incense, before the Throne, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apoc. VI 9 VIII. 3, 5.) but, of a Sanctuary, or Place of Sacrificing. So Apoc. XI. 2. Rise, measure the Temple of God and the Sanctuary, which, in the Greek, is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it follows, and those that worship in it: For, in an Altar, no man worships. Again, Apoc. XIV. 18. Another Angel came forth out of the Sanctuary; For, out of the Altar he could not come, and yet it is in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Again, Apoc. XVI. 7. And I heard one speak out of the Sanctuary, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This signification is expounded in H. Stevens Glosses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Altarium, Sacrarium: and in those of Philoxenus, Sacrarium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so it is Translated, in the Latin of Polycarpus his Epistle to the Philippians, where he calls the Widows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As also in that noted passage of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where it is manifest, that the Church is called a Sanctuary, or Place of Sacrificing, seeing no man can be said to be without the Altar, because not within it. Neither is it any marvel, that in the representation of the Triumphant Church, in this Prophetical Vision, by correspondence with the Assembly of the Church upon earth, regard is had chief, to the celebration of the Eucharist. Because, as it is that part of the Service of God, which is altogether peculiar to the Church, as the Sacrifice of the Cross is peculiar to Christianity, whereas other Offices of Divine Service, Prayer, the Praises of God, and Teaching of the People, are common, not only to Judaisme, but, in some sort, to other Religions, never Ordained by God: So is it the Chief and principal part of it: though, in this Age, where so much hath been said of Reforming the Church, we hear not a word, of restoring the frequent celebration and communion of it. It is to be wished indeed, that continual Preaching be maintained in all Churches, as it is to be wished, that all God's people were Prophets: And it is to be commended, that the abuse of private Masses is taken away. But if order be not taken, that those which are set up to Preach, may Preach no more, than they have learned out of the Scriptures, it will be easy, to drive a worse Trade of Preaching, then ever Priests did of private Masses: The one tending only to feed themselves, the other, to turn the good order of the world, which is the Harbour of the Church, into public confusion, to feed themselves; the profaning of God's Ordinance, being common to both. And if the taking away of private Masses, must be, by turning the Eucharist out of doors, saving twice or thrice a year, for fashion's sake, it is but Lycurgus his Reformation, to stock up the Vines, for fear men be drunk with the wine. The Church of England is clear in this business. The Order whereof, as it earnestly sighs, and groans, toward the restoring of public Penance, the only mean, established by the Apostles, to maintain the Church, in estate to communicate continually, so, it recommendeth the continual celebration of the Eucharist, at all the more solemn Assemblies, of Lords days and Festivals. As for the Sermon, it is to be when it can be had, and were it now abated, when such Sermons cannot be had, as were fitting, it is easy to undertake, that there would be room enough left, for the celebration of the Eucharist. In the mean time, the Reformers of this Age, had they considered so well as it behoved them, what they undertook, should easily have found, that the continual celebration of the Eucharist, at all the more solemn Assemblies of the Church, and the Discipline of Penance, to maintain the people, in a disposition fit to communicate in it, is such a point of Reformation in the Church, that without restoring it, all the rest, is but mere noise, and pretence, if not mischief.  
Now, the reason, why the celebration of the Eucharist is reserved to Presbyters alone, in consequence to the premises, is very reasonable, and will be effectual to show, that it is common to all Presbyters, and therefore, that there is no such thing as Lay Elders. For, seeing all agree, that Presbyters have their share in the Power of the Keys, though the Chief Interess in it be the Bishops, according to the Doctrine of the Church, and, seeing the work of this Power, is to admit, to the Prayers of the Church, as S. John showeth, when he describeth Excommunication, by not praying for the sins of the excommunicate; and seeing it appeareth by S. James, that the Prayers of the Church, for the sins of them whom the Church prayeth for, are the Prayers of the Presbyters, what can we conceive more reasonable, and consequent to the premises, then, that the Power of the Keys, is convertible with the Office of celebrating the Eucharist, belonging to the Bishop and Presbyters by virtue of it? For, what can be more agreeable, then, that the Prayers of the Church, which the Eucharist is celebrated with, be offered by those, that are to discern, who is to be admitted, who excluded, from the same? This is the meaning of Josephus the Jew in Epiphanius against the Ebionites, where, being baptised by the Bishop of Tiberias, at his parting he gives him money, saying, Offer for me, for it is written, Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained. Expressing thereby, the sense of Primitive Christians, who, when they were admitted to the Prayers of the Church, which the Eucharist is offered to God with, made account thereby, that the Power of the Keys was passed, and continually did pass upon them, to the remission of sins. Whereupon we see, that it is an ordinary censure of the ancient Canons, that he which did so or so, his oblations be not received, that is, that he be out of the number of those, for whom the Prayers of the Church are made, which the Eucharist is offered with. Therefore, Ignatius thus prosecuteth the words last quoted: He that is without the Sanctuary, saith he, comes short of the Bread of God. For if the Prayer of one or two be so forcible with God, what shall we think of the Prayer of the Bishop, and the whole Church? For, the efficacy of the Prayers of the Church, dependeth upon the Unity of the Church: And the Power of the Keys, is that, which containeth that Unity: It is therefore agreeable, that those Prayers, which are of this efficacy, be the Prayers of them, whom this Unity, and the Power which preserves it, is trusted with. And for this reason, though all Christians be Priests, as the Scripture says, 1 Pet. II. 5. Apoc. I. 6. by a far better title, than Moses promises the Israelites, Ex. XIX. 6. The Sacrifice of Prayer being the act of the whole Church: Yet notwithstanding, it is by good right, that Bishops and Presbyters are called Sacerdotes or Sacrificers, in regard of the same Sacrifice, of Prayer and Thanksgiving, for which all Christians are called Sacrificers: That is to say, by way of excellence, because that which is the act of all, is by ordinance of the Apostles, (passed upon the whole Church) reserved to be executed, and ministered by them, whom that Power, which preserveth that Unity, which enforceth the Prayers of the Church, is trusted with.  
He that refuseth this reason, as built upon consequences that convince not, must by consequence acknowledge, that the celebration of the Eucharist, is peculiar to Presbyters, merely by universal and perpetual practice of the Church, derived from the Order settled by the Apostles. Which, whether those of the Presbyteries will admit, I leave to themselves to advise. For, as for their pretence, that the Ministry of both Sacraments, is convertible with the Office of Preaching, upon which they style their Pastors, or Preaching Elders, Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, it appears to be as void of any ground from the Scriptures, as it is wide from the original and Universal practice of the Church. The Ministry of the Word, being the Office of Apostles and Evangelists, according to the Scriptures: The Ministry of Baptism, and Preaching, communicable to Deacons, and possibly to Lay men, only the celebration of the Eucharist, proper to the Power of the Keys, in Bishops and Presbyters. But, putting all the reasons that here are advanced to compromise, yet, out of the premises, we have two effectual arguments, to convince the nullity of Lay Elders. The first, from the manner of sitting in the Church: In as much as it hath been showed, that the Order and custom of it, is to be derived from the Apostles themselves, as being in use in their time. For, if the manner of their sitting in the Church, were so distinguished, that all the Presbyters sat in one Rank, in the uppermost Room, with the Bishop in the midst, that is, in the Head of them, his Seat advanced above theirs, as S. Hierome witnesseth of the Bishops of Alexandria from S. Mark, from which manner of sitting, they are called by the Greek Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in Tertullian praesidentes, how can common sense desire better evidence, that there are but two qualities, generally distinguishable in the Church, the one of Presbyters, sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. V 17. 1 Thess. V 14. sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. XIII. 14, 17. sometimes Episcopi, 1 Tim. II. 2. Tit. I. 5, 7. comprehending Bishop and Presbyters for the reasons alleged, (for to these the Deacons, as their Ministers, are to be referred) the other of the People? The same that in Tertullian are called Ordo & Plebs, in all ages of the Church, since the Apostles, the Clergy and People. Secondly, seeing it is manifest, that the Power of the Keys is above the Office of Preaching to a Christian Church, (indeed equal to that of celebrating the Eucharist) it followeth, that it is against the Order declared by the Scripture, that the Power of the Keys should be in any man, that is not allowed to Preach and celebrate the Eucharist; and therefore, that, by having the Power of the Keys, a man is by Right qualified to do it. And truly, I do much marvel, how this consequence can be refused, as to the Office of Preaching, when as S. Paul requires, both of Timothy and Titus, that the Presbyters which they ordain, be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, fit to teach. For, no common sense can allow, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having the signification, not from Preaching, but from Governing, is not to comprehend Governing Elders as well as Preachers. Therefore the Scriptures make those Preachers, whom the Presbyteries make Governing Elders. Here follows a third argument, drawn from that only Text of the Apostle, upon which their Lay Elders are grounded, with any appearance, 1 Tim. V 17. Let the Elders that Rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those that labour in the Word and Doctrine; For, by the Apostles Discourse, it is manifest, and, so far as I perceive, agreed on all hands, that the word Honour, here spoken of, is, maintenance. S. Paul's instruction supposing, the Order settled by the Apostles to be this, that there should be, in all Churches, settled in Cities, as aforesaid, a common stock, at the disposing of Bishop and Presbyters, rising from the Oblations of the faithful, out of which, first, those that attended upon the Government of the Church, and the Offices of Divine Service, then, those that could not attend the Service of God, without maintenance from the Public, might find subsistence. For hereupon it is, that S. Paul chargeth Timothy, to honour widows indeed, that were destitute of maintenance from their friends, that they might abide in prayers and supplications, as Anna the Prophetess, Luc. II. 36. and judith, VIII. 5. and the good women that waited at the Tabernacle, Ex. XXXVIII. 8. 1 Sam. II. 24. And when he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he shows, that there was then a List of them, called here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Church Writers, afterwards, Canon, which, whosoever was entered into, received appointment from the Church, 1 Tim. V 5, 9, 16. Let it therefore be said no more, that the distinction between Clergy and people, is not found in the Scriptures. For how can the Office be more expressly distinguished, then by the appointment that is allowed, for the execution of it? And therefore, when S. Peter charges the Presbyters, 1 Pet. V 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he means not the people, but he means the same which Clemens in Eusebius, when he says, that S. john was wont to go abroad from Ephesus to foreign Churches, on purpose, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, to Ordain some Clergy man, that should be signified by the Spirit: For in both places, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so S. Peter's precept, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consists of two members, not to domineer over the Clergy that were under them, that is, the Deacons, Widows, and Deaconesses, and, to be a Pattern to the Flock. In this Discourse of S. Paul, we have a further reason of difference, between the Clergy and people, from that Rule of life and conversation, to which the Clergy was subject, by the Primitive Discipline of the Church. For, if the Church allowed Widows an appointment, in consideration of their daily attendance, upon the Service of God, much more are we bound to conceive, that Presbyters, whom the Apostle allows a double appointment, are tied to double attendance on the same Service. A thing which cannot be expected of those who are tied to the World: and therefore, Tertullian De Prescript. cap. XLI. condemneth the Heretics, because their fashion was, to make secular men Presbyters. Seeing then, that the Apostle alloweth the same double appointment, to the whole Order of Presbyters, let them that set up Lay Elders, ask their own Consciences, whether they can be content to allow them the same maintenance from the Church, as themselves receive, otherwise, let them not imagine, that they can set them up by this Scripture. For, that some Presbyters should labour in Preaching, though all are required to be apt to Preach, is no inconvenience, in that State, when Congregations were not distinguished, but the whole Office, rested in the whole Order of the Clergy, in relation, to the whole Body, of the People of a Church. You see by S. Paul, 1 Cor. XIV. that one Assembly whereof he speaks there, furnished with a great number of Prophets, whether Presbyters, or over and above them. In the Records of the Church, we find divers times, a whole Bench of Presbyters presiding at one Assembly. Is any man so unsatiable of Preaching, as to think the Church unprovided of it, unless all those Preached at all times? Is it not enough, that Timothy is required, to count them especially worthy double honour that labour in it? for by this means, those that laboured not in it, when and how Timothy finds it requisite, must know, that their maintenance must come harder from his hands. For the last argument, I must not forget the perpetual practice of the Church, though I name, for the present, but the words of Clemens, Disciple to the Apostles, who, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, to compose a difference among the Presbyters of that Church, partly about the celebration of the Eucharist, advises them to agree and take their turns in it. If all the Presbyters might take their turns in it, than all might celebrate the Eucharist: if in that Church, then in all Churches. I know many Church Writers are quoted to prove Lay Elders: For that also is grown a point of Learning, to load the Margin with Texts of Scripture, and allegations of Authors, in hope, no man will take the pains to compare them, because, if he do, he shall easily find them nothing to the purpose. For instance. Myself have the honour to be alleged, for one that approve Lay Elders, even in that place, of that very Discourse, where I answer the best arguments that ever I heard made for them, only, because I said then, as now, that we are not bound to think, that all Presbyters Preached during the Apostles times. What reason then can any Reader have to presume, that any of their dead witnesses make more for their purpose, than I who am alive, and stand to see myself alleged, point blank against the position which I intended to prove, because, forsooth, in their understanding, the premises which I use, stand not with the conclusion which I intended to prove? But to speak plain English for the future, if any man can show, by any writing of any Christian, from the Apostles, to this innovation, any man endowed with the Power of the Keys, that was not also qualified to Preach and to celebrate the Eucharist, I am content to be of the Presbyteries the next morning, though I am so well satisfied, that it will never be showed, that I say confidently, it will always be to morrow.  
Now because the Power of the Keys, that is, the whole Power of the Church, whereof that Power is the root and source, is common to Bishop and Presbyters, it is here demanded, what Act we can show, peculiar to the Bishop, by precept of God's Word, for which, that Order, may be said, to be superior to that of Presbyters. A demand, suitable to the definition of the School, wherein, an Order is said to be a Power to do some special Act: But extremely wide of the Terms that have been held heretofore. Have we been told all this while, that the Presbyteries are the Throne and Sceptre of Christ, the force and Power of his Kingdom, hath so much Christian blood been drawn for the Cause, and now, in stead of showing, that they are either commanded, or consistent with the Word of God, is it demanded, that the Government in possession, in the Church, from the Apostles, show reason why it cannot be abolished, though instituted by the Apostles? Surely, though this is possible to be showed, yet, though it could not be showed, it might be beyond any Power on earth, to abolish the Order of Bishops. For my part, I conceive, I have showed heretofore, that the Power of every respective Church, was deposited by the Apostles, with the respective Bishop and Presbyters, and that therefore, in the ages next to the Apostles, the advice and consent of the Presbyters did concur with the Bishop, in ordering of Ecclesiastical matters, whereas Congregations were not yet distinct, but a Bishop and Presbyters, over the common Body of each Church. Over and above what hath been said, the condemning of Martion at Rome, and of Noetus at Ephesus, are expressly said by Epiphanius, Haer. XLII. num. I & II. Haer. LVII. nu. I. to have been done & passed, by the Act of the Presbyters of those Churches; The difference between Alexander Bishop, and Arius Presbyter of Alexandria, is said to have risen, at a meeting and debate of that Bishop and his Presbyters, in the letter of Constantine to those two, reported by Eusebius, De Vitâ Constant. II. cap. penult. And Epiphanius, Haer. LXIX. num. III. And, which is of a later date, the Excommunication of Andronicus, in Synesius his fifty seventh Epistle, I find reported, to have passed in the same sort. And all this, agreeable to the practice recorded in the Scriptures. For, when S. Paul instructeth Timothy, saying, 1 Tim. V 19, 20. Against a Presbyter receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke openly, that the rest may fear. Is it not easy to gather from hence, that he commandeth, such accusations to be brought, and proved, before Timothy with the rest of his Presbyters, but the competent censure to be executed, before the whole Congregation of the Church? And, is it not manifest, that S. James, first giveth S. Paul audience, in a Consistory of the Presbyters, to advise what course to take, before the Congregation be acquainted with the business, Acts XXI. 18—? The same being the practice of S. Cyprians time, when Cornelius of Rome writeth to him, Epist. XLVI. placuit contrahi Presbyterium; As also expressed in the Apostolical Constitutions, II. 47. by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Consistories appointed there to be held every week, for composing all differences, against the Lord's Day. And therefore, as for my part, the learned blondel might have spared all his exact diligence, to show, that Presbyters did concur with the Bishop, in acts of this nature. The cunning would be in proving the consequence, that therefore, Bishop and Presbyters are all one, which all common sense disavows. For, be it granted, which he insisteth upon so much, that, (as the Commentary upon S. Paul's Epistles under S. Ambrose his Name relateth, Eph. IU. 11.) at the first, the eldest of the Presbyters, was wont to be taken into the place of the Bishop: (For it is probable, that this course was kept in some places, though his conjectures will not serve to prove, that it was a general Rule) what will this enable him to infer, as for the power of the Bishop, being once received into the first place? who knows very well the gallant speech of Valentinian, recorded by Ammianus, lib. XXVI. to the very Army that had chosen him Emperor, and at the instant of his inauguration, began to mutiny about retracting their choice, that it was in their power to choose an Emperor, before they had done it: Intimating, that being chosen, it was not in their power to withdraw their obedience. For by the same reason, whatsoever be the means that promoted the Bishop, the measure of the power to which he was promoted, must be taken from the Law given the Church by the Apostles, expressed by the practice of it: As there is no doubt, but the Roman Emperors were advanced to an absolute Power, though by the choice of their Soldiers. It is not my purpose to say, that the Power of the Bishop, in the Church, is such: But it is my purpose, to appeal to common sense, and daily experience, and to demand, whether in those Societies, or Bodies, which consist of a standing Council, and a Head thereof, endowed with the Privilege of a Negative, the Power of the Head, and of the several members, be one and the same? If not, then is there the same difference between the Bishop and the Presbyters, by the Scriptures, interpreted by the Original practice of the Church. The Instructions addressed to Timothy & Titus, I suppose, obliged not them alone, but all that were concerned to yield obedience, to what, thereby, they are commanded to do. If any thing, concerning the subject of those instructions, could have passed without Timothy and Titus, they were all a mere nullity. For instance, if, by the Presbyters Votes, Ordination might have been made, without Timothy, they might commit sin, and the blame thereof lie on Timothy's score; to which S. Paul, if he lay hands suddenly on any man, makes him liable. So, the Angels of the seven Churches, as they are commended for the good, so are they charged with the sins of their Churches. Which, how can it be reasonable, but for the eminent power in them, without which no public thing could pass? I do here willingly mention Ignatius, because of the injustice of that exception, that is made against him. Surely, had we none but the old Copy, which, for my part, is freely confessed to be interpolated, and mixed with passages of a later hand; I would confidently appeal to the common sense of any man, not fascinated with prejudice, how that can be imagined to be always foisted in, which is the perpetual subject of all his Epistles: Dwelling only upon the avoiding of Heresy and Schism, and the avoiding of Schism, every where inculcated to consist in this, that without the Bishop nothing be done, and all with advice of the Presbyters. But, it seems to me a special act of Providence, that the true Copy of these Epistles, free from all such mixture, is published during this dispute among us. Which, the L. Primate of Ireland having first smelled out, by the Latin Translation which he published, Isaak Vossius, according as he presumed, hath now found, and published, out of the Library at Florence, fare enough from suspicion of partiality in this cause. Nor is the learned blondel to be regarded, presuming to stigmatize so clear a Record for forged. It seems, that his Book was written before he saw this Copy; and had he not condemned it, in his Preface, he must have suppressed and condemned his own work. But when it appears, that this Record is admitted, as true and native, of all that are able to judge of letters, it must appear, by consequence, that he hath given sentence against his own Book. In the mean time, it is to be lamented, that, by the force of prejudice, so learned a man, had rather, that the advantage of so many pregnant authorities, of a companion of the Apostles, against the Socinians, should be lost to the Church, than part with his own, whether opinion, or interest, condemned by the same evidence. Certainly, those weak exceptions, from the style of Ignatius, have more in them of will then of reason, to all that have relished that simplicity of language, which, (called by S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is to be seen in the writings of Apostolical persons, Irenaeus, Justine, Clemens Romanus, and after them Epiphanius, and the Apostolical Constitutions: And he was very forward to find exceptions, that could imagine, that Ignatius calleth the Order of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because he so qualifieth the Ordination of Damas', Bishop of the Magnesians, being a young man when he was ordained Bishop. As for the mention of the Valentinians Heresy in them, he hath been fully told, again and again, that the seeds of it are extant before Ignatius, in the writings of the Apostles. But, as to my present purpose, he that considers, of what consequence, the Unity of the Church is, to the advancement of Christianity, and of what consequence, not only Ignatius, but S. Cyprian, S. Hierome, and all men of judgement, profess the Power of Bishops to be, to the preservation of Unity in the Church, will not beg the question with blondel, by condemning Ignatius his Epistles, because the one half of the subject of them, is this one Rule, nothing to be done without the Bishop, all things to be done by advice of the Presbyters. That to the Philadelphians is remarkable above the rest, where he affirmeth, that, having no intelligence, from any man, of the divisions that were among them, the Holy Ghost revealing it to him, said within him, for the means of composing them, Without the Bishop let nothing be done. If it be said, that this Rule is ineffectual, hindering, rather than expediting, the course of business: The answer is, that it is enough, that thus much is determined by the Apostles, the rest remaining to be further limited, by humane right, as the state of the Church shall require.  
According to this Rule, it is justly said, that Baptism is not given, but by a Bishop, as it is given only by those, whom the Order of any Church, which was never put in force, without the Bishop, enableth to give it. A thing manifestly seen by Confirmation. What reason can we imagine, that Philip the Deacon, being enabled to do miracles, for the conversion of the Samaritans, was not enabled to give the Holy Ghost, but the Apostles must come down to do it? Was it not to show, that all graces of that kind, were subject to the graces of the Apostles, in the Visible Church, whereof they were then Chief Governors? So that, as then, those that received the Holy Ghost, were thereby demonstrated to be members of the Visible Church, in which God evidenced his presence, by that grace: So was it always found requisite, that Christians be acknowledged members of the Visible Church, by the Prayers and Blessing of their Successors. Which Order, as it serves to demonstrate this Succession, to all that are void of prejudice, so, had it been improved, to this Apostolical intent, what time as all Christians began to be baptised in infancy, (renewing the contract of Christianity, that is, the promise of Baptism, and the Chief Pastor's acknowledgement of them, for members of the Church, upon that contract, by blessing them with Imposition of Hands) without doubt, it had been, and were, the most effectual mean, to retain, and retrieve the ancient Discipline of Church. When men might see themselves, by their own solemn profession, obliged, to forfeit the communion of the Church, by forfeiting the terms, on which they were admitted to it. If it can thus be said, that Baptism is not given without the Bishop, much more will the same be said, of other acts, of the Power of the Keys, whereof that is the first. Presbyters have an interest in it, limitable by Canonical Right, but, as to the Visible Church, that any man be excommunicate, without a Bishop, is against this Rule of the Apostles. About Ordinations, divers matters of fact, are in vain alleged by blondel, and others, from the ancient Records of the Church, tending to degrade Bishops into the rank of Presbyters. If the Goths, from the time of Valeriane to the Council of Nice, for some LXX years, (as he conjectureth out of Philostorgius II. 5.) if the Scots before Palladius, as Fordone III. 8. and John Maire II. 2. relate, retained Christianity under Presbyters alone, without Bishops, they had not, in that estate, the power of governing their own Churches in themselves, but depended on their neighbours, that ordained them those Presbyters, and the Government of the Church among them then must be, as now among the Abassines, where their one Bishop does nothing but Ordain them Presbyters, as Godignus, ubi supra, relates: And, as the Catholic Christians of Antiochia lived, for some XXXIV years after the banishment of Eustathius: Theodoret. Eccles. Hist. I. 21. But, if the Goths had Bishops before Vlfitas, at the Council of Nice, as he shows out of the Ecclesiastical Histories, is any man so mad as to grant him, who never endeavours to prove it, that they were made by their own Presbyters, rather than by the neighbour Bishops of the Roman Empire, from whence they received Christianity? The Head of a Monastery in Egypt, being a Presbyter, is said, by Cassiane, Collat. IU. 2. to have promoted a Monk whom he loved, to the Priesthood. Is not this done, by recommending him to his Bishop, for that purpose, though he Ordained him not himself? The Bishops of Durham and Lichfield, are said by Bede, Eccles. Hist. Angl. III. 3, 5. to come from the Monastery of Hylas, governed by a Priest. And, it is true, that the Monks of that Monastery, having great reputation of holiness, swayed the Church there. But withal, Bede mentions expressly, the Synod of the Province, and therefore we need ask no further who Ordained them Bishops, knowing, that by the Primitive Rules of the Church, it is the Act of a Synod. Some seem to conceive this to be the meaning of the supposed S. Ambrose, upon Eph. IU. 11. where he saith, that, at first, the eldest of the Presbyters succeeded the Bishop, but that afterwards the course was changed, ut non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum; which they understand thus: That his merit, and not the Bench of Presbyters, should make the Bishop thenceforth; and therefore, that formerly, the Presbyters did it. But this is nothing: For it is plain, that Ordo here, signifies not the Bench of Presbyters, but a man's Rank in it, according to the time of his promotion to it. These & others of his slight Objections, are easily wiped away: But there are two, which seem to most men, to create some difficulty. The one is the ninth Canon of the Council of Ancyra, which, if the reading be true which he produces, and Walo Messalinus presses, intimates plain enough, that City Presbyters might Ordain Presbyters, at that time when it was made: The other is the Antiquities of the Church of Alexandria, published not long since, out of Eutychius his History, who was Patriarch there in his time, and affirms, that from S. Mark to Demetrius, the Bishop there, was not only chosen, but Ordained, by Imposition of the Hands of twelve Presbyters of that Church. To the Canon of Ancyra, I acknowledge, that the reading which they follow, is, beside the Copies which they allege, found in a very ancient written one of the Library at Oxford, as well as in the old Latin Translation of Dionysius Exiguus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That it be not lawful for Country Bishops, to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons: Nor for the City Presbyters; without leave granted from the Bishop, by Letters in every Parish. But I cannot grant this reading to be true, which so many circumstances render questionable. First, in an Arabic Paraphrase, now extant in the same Library, there is nothing to be found of that clause, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Secondly, Isidore Mercators' Translation, which seems to be that which was anciently received in the Spanish Churches before Dionysius Exiguus, wherewith that Copy agreed, which Hervetus translated, as also Fulgentius his Breviate, Can. XCII. and the Copy of Dionysius Exiguus, which Pope Adriane the I. followed, hath only this, Vicariis Episcoporum, quos Graeci Chorepiscopos vocant, non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconas Ordinare. Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis, sine Episcopi praecepto, amplius aliquid imperare, vel sine authoritate literarum ejus, in unaquaque Parochiâ, aliquid agere. Thirdly, can the reading of the last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seem probable to reasonable persons? what consequence of sense is there in saying, unless licence be granted by letters in every Parish? Which is plain in this reading, when it is said, That the City Presbyters do nothing in the Parish, that is, in the Country or Diocese, without authority by the Bishop's letters. Fourthly, seeing this is that, which is afterwards provided for, by the Council of Laodicea, Ca LVI. in the same subject, it seems very probable, that this should be the provision which the Council of Ancyra intended, as all Ignatius his Epistles, and other Canon's Apost. XL. Arelat. XIX. express it. Though, for my part, I do not believe, that we have the true reading of this Canon, in any Copy, that I have heard of or seen: Because the Arabic Paraphrase aforesaid, deduces the clause of the Country Bishops at large, that it is not granted them,  faciant Presbyteros neque Diaconos, omnino, neque in Villa neque in Vrbe, absque mandato Episcopi: Nisi rogatus fuerit Episcopus hac de re, & permiserit eis ut faciant eos, necnon scripserit eis scriptum, quod authoritatem dabit eis eadem de re. Whereupon, I do believe, that the Canon is abridged and curtailed in all Copies, and that the true intent of it, consists in two clauses: The first, that Country Bishops Ordain neither Presbyters nor Deacons, without leave under the Bishop's hand: The second, that the City Presbyters do nothing in the Diocese without the like leave: Though I undertake not to give you the words of mine own head. As for Eutychius, I cannot admit his relation to be Historical truth, having forfeited his credit in that part of it, where he says, that there were no Bishops in Egypt, beside him of Alexandria, before Demetrius. The contrary whereof appears by Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. VI 1. where he says of Egypt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That then lately, Demetrius after Julian, had undertaken the Bishopric of the Dioceses there. For where there were Dioceses, there were Bishops: And if Demetrius after Julian, governed the Dioceses of Egypt, because Bishop of Alexandria, then were there other Episcopal Churches in that Province, besides Alexandria, before Demetrius. Indeed, if there had been no Bishops under Alexandria, it could not reasonably be avoided, that the Bishop should be Ordained by the Presbyters: Otherwise, foreign Bishops, that should be called to Ordain them a Bishop, must, by so doing, purchase a Power over that Church, which never any can be said to have had, over those Capital Churches, of Antiochia, Rome, Alexandria, or Constantinople. But, supposing that there were Bishops under him of Alexandria, it is a greater inconvenience to grant, that their Chief should be made, without their consent, (which Ordination implies, by the often quoted rule of S. Paul, 1 Tim. V 22.) by the Presbyters of Alexandria. And therefore, when S. Hierome says, Epist. LXXXV. that Bishops were set over the Presbyters, by custom of the Church, to avoid Schism, because that, Alexandria à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum, Episcopum nominabant: At Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist, till Heraclas and Dionysius were Bishops, the Presbyters were wont to choose one of their number, and placing him in a higher degree, named him their Bishop: I am not to grant, that he intends by these words, that he was Ordained also by the Presbyters. For instance, Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. VI 29. relating, that at the Ordination of Fabianus at Rome, a Dove lighting upon his head, the people crying out, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, took him presently, and set him in the Bishop's Throne: And yet it cannot be said, that, therefore, the people Ordained him Bishop. So likewise, the Presbyters of Alexandria seated one of their number in the Bishop's Chair, saith S. Hierome: This installing, must needs have the force of a nomination by the Presbyters, and so sway and prejudice the consent of the Bishops assembled to the Ordination, (which regularly was to be done by a Synod of Bishops) that their choice was never known to have been void, before the time of Dionysius and Heraclas, which was enough to ground S. Hierome an argument, though ineffectual. But seeing Eusebius shows us, that there were other Bishops in Egypt, seeing the life of S. Mark in Photius saith, that he planted Churches in Pentapolis, (which seem to be those, over which, the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria is established, by the Council of Nice, Can. IX.) I must not grant, that they received their chief from the Presbyters of Alexandria, without their own consent, expressed by Imposition of Hands. This is my opinion of the credit which we are to give to these two passages, in point of Historical truth. But supposing, not granting them both, I cannot see what can be inferred from either of them, prejudicial to the Order of Bishops, and the necessity thereof, above Presbyters. For seeing it is acknowledged, that S. Mark Ordained, a Bishop always to be Head of that Church, and that by virtue of this Ordinance, the Presbyters find themselves obliged, to proceed to create one, (which they did sooner at Alexandria, then in other Churches, after the vacancy, saith Epiphanius, Haer. LXIX. 11.) it is manifest, that the authority of a Bishop, is necessary, to the validity of all Acts of the Church, by S. Marks Ordinance: when they acknowledge themselves necessitated, to make one, in the first place, that the Acts thereof may be valid. Again, as to the Canon of Ancyra, suppose Presbyters were Ordained by Presbyters, upon Commission from the Bishop, is this any prejudice to the Rule, that nothing be done without the Bishop? Or is it any advantage to them, that would have no Bishops, and so, do all against the Bishop? To my reason, it seems necessary to distinguish, between the solemnity which an Act is executed with, and the Power and Authority by which it is done. And that it cannot be prejudicial to any Power, to do that by another, which seemeth not fit, to be immediately and personally executed by it: The dependence of the Church being safe, by the Commission acknowledged, and, the Unity of the Church, by that dependence. Some acts of the Primitive Church, seem to require this distinction. As, the making of Presbyters, by the Chorepiscopi or Country Bishops, mentioned in the ancient Greek Canons. Which, by all likelihood, were not properly Bishops, because not Heads of a City Church, which is the Apostolical Rule, for Episcopal Churches. For, the aforesaid Arabic Paraphrase, of the Canon of Ancyra, describes them thus: Interpretatio ejus est Episcopi Villarum, hoc est, Vicarii Episcopi per Villas habitatas, qua fuerint in universa operatione, id est Diocesi. The meaning of Country Bishops, is, that they are Bishops of Villages, that is, the Bishops Vicars, in the best inhabited Villages, of all the Diocese. So, it seems that they were set over the greater Villages, or Bodies of Villages, which, in regard of some secular Right, resort to some one Village, lying within the Territory of some Episcopal City. Therefore the Council of Antiochia saith expressly, Can. X. that they and the Countries which they govern, are both subject to the Bishop of the City: Whereupon it seems they were Ordained by that one Bishop, (and, so, not properly Bishops, which are Ordained by a Synod, or the Representatives of it) and that this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Canon there mentions. And this is the reason, why they are called Vicarii Episcoporum, Bishop's Deputies, in the ancient Translation of the Canons, as you have seen. So, if the Canon of Ancyra enable them to Ordain Presbyters within their own precinct, (for that must be the meaning of it, when it says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying part of the Territory of the City, assigned to their peculiar care) it seems to delegate this Power of the Bishop, not to be exercised, without Letters under his hand and seal, as the Canon expresseth. Again, I suppose, no man will deny, that all Ordinations in Schism are mere nullities, though made by persons rightly Ordained, because against the Unity of the Church. And yet, we find such Ordinations made valid, by the mere Decree of the Church, without Ordaining anew. As the Meletians in Egypt, by the Council of Nice, in Epiphanius, and the Ecclesiastical Histories; and, as Pope Melchiades, much commended for it by S. Augustine, offered, to receive all the Donatists in their own ranks, besides divers others that might be produced. Among which, that expressed in the Canons Antioch. XIII. Apost. XXXVI. deserves to be remembered, whereby, Ordinations made in another Bishop's Diocese are made void. For the only reason why some things, though they be ill done, yet are to stand good, is, because the Power that doth them extendeth to them, but is ill used. So, when the Power is usurped, as in all Schism, or when that is done, which the Law makes void, it can be to no effect. Therefore, when the act of Schism is made valid, it is manifest, that the Order of Bishop & Presbyter, is conferred, in point of Right, by the mere consent of the Church, which, by the precedent Ordination, was conferred only in point of Fact, being a mere nullity in point of Right. Add hereunto, that of the Apostolical Constitutions VIII. 27. that a Bishop may be Ordained by one Bishop, being enabled by an Order of the rest of the Province, when they cannot assemble, in case of persecution, or the like. For, here, the Power is derived from all, though the solemnity be executed by one. By the same reason it is, that Confirmation, in Egypt, was done by the Presbyters: As the supposed S. Ambrose, upon Eph. IU. (agreeing with the Author of the Quaestions in Vet. & Novum Testam. Quaest. CI. among S. Augustine's Works) witnesseth: For that is it, which the one of them means by consignant, the other by consecrat, because both limit their assertion, that it was only done in the absence of the Bishop Which cannot be supposed at Ordinations, because they were regularly to be made at a Synod of Bishops. For, seeing it was done only in the absence of the Bishop, by consequence, it was done by Order and Commission from the Bishop, by which the custom was established. And therefore, cannot be prejudicial to that Power, by virtue whereof it was done, as by authority derived from it. And, to my understanding, this is the reason of that which we find done Acts XIII. 1— where, Paul and Barnabas, being Ordained, by the immediate act of the Holy Ghost, to Preach to the Gentiles, the solemnity thereof is performed by those, in whom we cannot imagine, the Power of sending them to rest. In which opinion I am much confirmed, by the practice of the Synagogue. For, though it is manifest, that the custom of promoting Judges by Imposition of Hands, came from the example of Moses, and the Ordaining of the LXX Elders, and Joshua, yet we must believe their Records, compiled by Maimoni, ●●. de Synedrio, cap. IU. when they tell us, that, in process of time, it was done without that solemnity, by an Instrument, or so, and yet, still called, nevertheless, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Imposition of Hands.  
And now, let them that demand, what is that special Act, which Bishops are able to do, and Presbyters not, take their choice. If they be content, that, the Bishops acting with this Interest, that without him nothing be done, be counted a special Act, they have the special Act which they demand, in all things that are done in the Church. If they be not, though it is easy enough to dispute it everlastingly, yet I will not contend with them about it, seeing it is enough, that nothing is done without him, to make him a fair step above his Presbyters. And yet, I conceive, there is an Act to be named, peculiar to Bishops, which is, to sit in a Council. Which, consisting of the representatives of all Churches, and not capable of all Presbyters, and the Bishops right being, that without him nothing be done in his Church, it follows, that, by the right, by which he is a Bishop, he is a member of his Synod, which no Priest can be, but by Privilege, seeing the whole Order cannot. And this according to the Scriptures. For, by the premises, the Apostles had place in the Council at Jerusalem, as Ordinary Governors of the Churches concerned in it, which Churches, had there no other representatives but Paul and Barnabas, (as Heads of the Churches, which they had founded so lately, Acts XIII. XIV.) as it appears, when, by them, the Decree is delivered to execution in the Churches, Acts XVI. 4. As for the Presbyters mentioned in it, the same evidence, which assures us that they were Presbyters, assures us also, that they were Presbyters of the Church at Jerusalem, and none else. This I conceive the fittest, to be thought the special Act of a Bishop. For, the unity of the whole Church, arises from the Power, deposited in each Church: By virtue whereof, he that communicates with any one Church, in any rank of it, communicates with all Churches in the same. Which, was in the Primitive Church, the effect of the literae formatae, or, letters of mark, by which, this Unity of the Ancient Church was maintained, in as much as, he that traveled with such a testimony, of his rank in any one Church, by virtue of the same, was received, in all Churches where he came. And therefore Synesius, in the sentence of excommunication against Andronicus, which, by his fifty seventh Epistle, he publisheth to the Churches, addeth, that if any Church, contemning the sentence of his Church, as a small and a poor one, should receive Andronieus to communion, without satisfaction given to him and his Church, thereby it shall become guilty of Schism. This holds, as such Acts are not questioned by any greater part of the Church, as not concerning the State of other Churches. Which if they be, then, as no Church, can be concluded but by the Act to which themselves concur, (whereby, all Excommunications, & Ordinations, as well as making of Canons, are the subject of Synods) so, the chief Power, must needs be most seen, in that Act which concludes all Churches concerned, which is the Act of a Synod.  
As concerning the objection, that there is no precept in the Scripture, that Bishops govern all Churches, and that many things Ordained by the Apostles, are abolished in the Church: It is a question, whether it come from less skill, or proceed to worse consequence: For, unless we will betray the advantages of the Church, to very many, and perhaps, to all Heresies and Schisms that ever were, we must confess, that, as there are precepts in the Scripture, that oblige not, so there are many things, not set down in the Scripture in the form of precepts, that oblige. What can be delivered, in a more express form of precept, then that of Saint Paul, That women pray with their heads covered, men with theirs uncovered; and yet, where is it in force? The same is to be said of the Decree of Jerusalem, against eating things strangled and blood. On the other side, we find by the Scriptures, that the Apostles kept the Lord's Day, but do not find there, that they commanded it to be kept: As for the fourth Commandment, I suppose, it is one thing to rest on the day that God ceased his work, and another, on the day that he began it. And, if there be precepts in the Scripture, that now oblige not, why may not Secinus dispute, that the precept of Baptism was temporary, for them, that had been enemies to the Faith afore? And though I say not that he shall have the better hand, (for the truth cannot be contrary to the truth) yet, it shall not be possible, for every Christian to discern, whether he hath it or no, unless there be some more sensible ballast, then nice consequences from the Text of the Scripture. If it be thus of Baptism, much more of the Eucharist, which, as you saw, is not used any more in the Church, as it was instituted. As for the Power of the Keys, it is, absolutely, by this answer, betrayed to the Socinians, who would have it peculiar to the Apostles: For, it is not where delivered as a Precept, but only as a Privilege. What means is there then to end everlasting difficulties? Surely, the same that there is, to understand all positive Laws that ever were. For if the ancient interruption of the practice of any Law, secure the Church, that it was not given to all times and places, sure, that which is not mentioned as a Precept, and yet has been always in practice, without interruption, as it was in force afore it was mentioned, so was intended to oblige, not by the mention, but by the act that first established it, evidenced by practice. Which if it be so, then is there no Power on earth, able to abolish the Order of Bishops, having been in force, in all Churches, ever since the Apostles.  
I must not pass this place of limiting all Interests, without a word or two, of the Office of Deacons in the Church. In regard of two extreme opinions, one of Geneva, that makes them mere Lay men, collectors of Alms, by necessary consequence, because under their Lay Elders; the other of some, that would have them understood to be Presbyters, as oft as S. Paul mentions but two Orders of Bishops and Deacons, Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. II. 9 But as the Apostles were at first their own Deacons, before the Church allowed them some to wait on them, and yet their whole function was then holy, though some parts of it, nearer to the end of the souls health: So, when Deacons were made, reason enforces, that they should attend on the meanest part of the Office of the Apostles, but always on holy duties. For, the Tables which the Apostles saw first furnished themselves, but were attended by the Deacons in doing it, when they were made, were the same, which S. Paul speaks of, 1 Cor. XI. 20— which the Eucharist was celebrated at, as the custom was daily to do at Jerusalem, Acts II. 42, 46. and therefore, their office, by this, was the same then, as always it hath been since, to wait upon the celebration of the Eucharist. Secondly, I have showed afore, that even the Apostles and their followers the Evangelists, were also Deacons, with as much difference, as there is between the persons whom they served, that is, between our Lord and his Apostles on one side, and the Bishop and Presbyters of a Church on the other. Whereupon the Ministers of Bishops and Presbyters, are called Deacons absolutely, and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without any addition, signifies, to execute a Deacons Office, 1 Tim. III 10. But the Apostles and Evangelists are called Deacons, with additions, signifying, whose Ministers, or to what special purpose, as hath been said. Thirdly, when S. Paul says, They that do the office of a Deacon well, purchase themselves a good step, 1 Tim. II. 13. Clemens Alexandrinus, and the practice of the Church, interprets this step, to be the rank of Presbyters: Therefore they were in the next degree to it afore. Fourthly, it hath been showed, that they sat not, but stood in the Church, as attending the Bishop and Presbyters sitting, and yet were employed in the Offices of Preaching and Baptising. And accordingly, in the Primitive Church, a great part of the Service, reading Lessons, singing Psalms, and some part of the Prayers, were ministered by them, as I have showed in the Apostolical form of Divine Service, cap. X. Which held correspondently in the Synagogue. For, the Ministers and Apparitors of their Consistories, were also their Deacons, and ministered Divien Service in the Synagogue. Whereby it appears, to be the Ordinance of the Apostles, that the younger sort of those that dedicated themselves to the service of the Church, should be trained up in the service of the Bishop and Presbyters, as well to the understanding of Christianity, as to the right exercise of Ecclesiastical Offices, that, in their time, such as proved capable, might come to govern in the Church themselves.  
That which remains, concerning the Interest of the People in the Church, will be easily discharged, if we remember, that it must be such, as may not prejudice, either the dependence of Churches, or the Chief Power of the Bishop, with the Presbyters, in each particular Church. The Law of the XII Tables, Salus populi suprema lex esto, though it were made for a popular State, not for a Kingdom, yet admits a difference between populus and plebs: and requires the chief Rule to be, the good, both of Senate and Commons, not of one part alone. So likewise, that which is said, in the Scriptures, to have been done by the Church, must not therefore be imagined, to be done by the People: Because the Church consists of two parts, called by Tertullian O●do and Plebs, in the terms of latter times, the Clergy and People, but preserving the respective Interests of Clergy and People. In the choice of Mathias it is said, They set two, Acts I. 23. what they, but the Church? in which the People, were then better Christians, then to abridge the Apostles, but, proportionably, they are always to respect the Bishop and Presbyters, if they will obey the Apostles, that command it, 1 Thess. V 12, 13. Heb. XIII. 7, 17. So, when S. Paul says, Do not ye judge those that are within, 1 Cor. V 12. speaks he to the People, or to the Church, that is, to the Bench of Presbyters, and the People, in their several interests, and that, not without dependence upon the Apostles? The words of our Lord Dic Ecclesiae, Mat. XVIII. 18. make much noise. At the end of my Book, of the Apostolical form of Divine Service, p. 428▪ you have a passage of S. Augustine, Cont. Epist. Parmen III. 2. that Excommunication is the sentence of the Church. And yet, I suppose, no man hath the confidence to dispute, that in S. Augustine's time, it was the sentence of the People. So, the Excommunication of Andronicus, in Synesius his seven and fiftieth Epistle, is entitled to the Church, yet no man imagines that the People then did excommunicate. Is not the case the same in the Synagogue? Moses is commanded to speak to the Congregation of the children of Israel, and he speaks to the Elders, Exod. XII. 2, 25. does Moses disobey God in so doing, or, does he understand the command of God, better than this opinion would have him, in speaking to the Elders, who, he knew, were to act on behalf of the People? The Law commands the Congregation to offer for ignorance, Leu. IU. 13, 14. Num. XV. 22, 24. how shall all the Congregation offer? Maimoni answers in the Title of Errors, cap. XII. & XIII. that the great Consistory offers, as often as they occasion the breach of the Law, by Teaching, that is, interpreting it erroneously. In the Law of the Cities of Refuge, it is said, The Congregation shall judge, and the Congregation shall deliver the manslayer, Num. XXXV. 35, 36. The Elders of the City of Refuge were to judge, in presence, and in behalf of the People, whether the manslayer was capable of the privilege of the City of Refuge, or not, as you read Joshua XX. 4, 6. seeing then, that these things, being done by the Elders, are said to be done by the Synagogue, or Assembly of the People, in behalf of whom they are done, is it a wrong to the Scriptures, when we say, that which they report to be done by the Church, was acted by the chief power of the Apostles and Presbyters, with consent of the People? For it is manifest in the Scriptures, that, in the Apostles times, all public Acts of the Church, were passed at the public Assemblies of the same, as Ordinations, Acts I. 23. VI 3, 6. Excommunications, Mat. XVIII. 18, 19, 20. 1 Cor. V 4. 2 Cor. II. 10. Counsels, Acts XV. 4, 27. Other Acts, 2 Cor. VIII. 19 And herewith agrees the Primitive custom of the Church, for divers ages, to be seen in a little Discourse of the Learned blondel, Of the Right of the People in the Church, published of late. And can this be thought to no purpose, unless it dissolve the Unity of the Church, or that obedience to the Clergy, which God commandeth? Is it nothing, to give satisfaction to the People, of the integrity of the proceed of the Church, and by the same mean, to oblige superiors to that integrity, by making the proceed manifest, and so to preserve the Unity of the Church? I say not, that these times are capable of such satisfaction, upon the like terms, as them: But from this practice under the Apostles, I shall easily grant the people an Interest, in such things as may concern their particular Congregations, of excepting against such proceed, as can appear to them, to be against any Rule of the Scripture, or of the whole Church. For, this Interest it is, upon which, the people is demanded, in the Church of England, what they have to say, against Ordinations and Marriages to be made. And if their satisfaction, in matter of Penance, were to be returned, it would be no more than the same reason infers. Especially, because it hath been showed, that the prayers of the People, or of the Church, is one part of the means, to take away sin by the Keys of the Church, the other being the Humiliation of the Penitent, according to that Order, and measure which the Bishop and Presbyters shall prescribe, James V. 14, 15. 2 Cor. XII. 20, 21. Mat. XVIII. 21. 1 John V. 16. And if this Interest were made effectual, by the Laws of Christian States and Kingdoms, to the hindrance of such proceed, wherein the Power of the Church may be abused, the Church shall have no cause to complain. But, that the Power should be taken from the Church, because the Laws of the State are not so good as they might be, is as unjust and pernicious a medicine, as to put the Chief Power in the hands of the People. For, seeing it hath been demonstrated, that, as it was the custom to pass such Acts, at the Assemblies of the whole Church, so was it also, to advise and resolve upon them, at the Consistories of the Clergy, it is manifest, that the suffrage of the People, often mentioned in Church Writers, was not to resolve, but to pass what was resolved afore, because nothing appeared in bar to it. For, the Interest of the People extending no further, than their own Church, and it being impossible, that all the Christians, within the Territories of Cities, belonging to the respective Churches, should all assemble at once, it is manifest, none of these matters could be resolved by number of Votes, and therefore, that the Power was not in the People, but a Right, to be satisfied, of the right use of the Power, by those that had it: Which, how it may be made effectual, to the benefit of the People, in a Christian Church and State, is not for me to determine. But by virtue of this Right it is, that, (as Justellus, in his Notes upon the Greek and African Canons, hath observed to us, especially out of the Records of the Churches of afric, and of the West) for divers Ages, the Best of the People, who, as he shows, were called Seniores & Presbyteri Ecclesiarum, were admitted to assist, at the passing of the public Acts of those Churches. In all which, as there is nothing to be found like the Power of the Keys, which Lay Elders are created to manage: So, he that will consider the interest, in which, it appears they did intervene, comparing it with the intolerable trouble, which the concurrence of the People was found to breed when the number of Christians was increased, by the Emperor's professing Christianity, will easily judge, that it was nothing else, but the Interest of the People, which, in succeeding ages, was referred to some persons chosen out of them, to manage, in the public Acts of the Church. And this custom is suitable enough, with the Office of Churchwardens in the Church of England, if it had been established, as well in the Mother, and Cathedral, as in the Parish Churches.   

CHAP. IU.  
Secular Persons, as such, have no Ecclesiastical Power, but may have Sovereign Power in Ecclesiastical matters. The Right of giving Laws to the Church; and the Right of Tithes, Oblations, and all Consecrations, how Original, how Accessary to the Church. The Interest of Secular Powers in all parts of the Power of the Church.  
THese things thus determined, and the whole Power of the Church thus limited, in Bishops and Presbyters, with reservation of the Interest of the People specified, it follows necessarily, that no Secular person whatsoever, endowed with Sovereign or subordinate Power, in any State, is thereby endowed with any part of this Ecclesiastical Power, hitherto described. Because it hath been premised for a Principle, here to be reassumed, that no State, by professing Christianity, and the protection thereof, can purchase to itself, or defeat the Church of any part of the Right, whereof it stands possessed, by the Original institution of our Lord and his Apostles; and therefore no person, endowed with any quality, subsisting by the Constitution of any State, can challenge any Right, that subsisteth by the Constitution of the Church, and therefore belongeth to some person qualified by the same. For, Ecclesiastical Power, I understand here, to be only that, which subsisteth by the Constitution of the Church; And therefore all by Divine Right, to all that acknowledge, no humane authority, capable of founding the Church: And therefore, by Divine Right, invested in the Persons of them that have received it, mediately or immediately, from the Apostles: (seeing it is no ways imaginable, how any man can stand lawfully possessed of that Power, which is effectually in some body else, from whom he claimeth not:) And therefore not to be propagated, but by the free act of them that so have it. But I intent not hereby, to exclude Secular Powers, from their Right in Church matters: But intent to distinguish between Ecclesiastical Power, and Power in Ecclesiastical matters: and these to distinguish, by the original, from whence they both proceed, because, so, we shall be best able, to make an estimate of the effect, which both of them are able to produce, according to the saying observed afore, that the water rises no higher than it descended afore. For, if, by Ecclesiastical Power, we mean that, which arises from the Constitution of the Church, it is not possible, that by any quality, not depending on the same, any man should be enabled to any act that doth. But if Power in matters of Religion, be a Power necessary, to the subsistence of all States, then have Christian States, that Power in the disposing of Christianity, which all States in general have, in the disposing of those things, which concern that Religion which they suppose and profess. And, this to prove, I will not be much beholding to the Records of Histories, or to the opinions and reasons of Philosophers: Seeing common sense alone is able to show us, that there is not any State, professing any Religion, that does not exercise an interest, in disposing of matters of Religion, as they have relation, to the public peace, tranquillity, and happiness of that people. The Power of disposing in matters of Religion, is one part, and that a very considerable one, of that public Power, wherein Sovereignty consists, which subordinate Powers enjoy not, by any title, but as derived from the Sovereign. Wherefore, having premised for a principle in the beginning, that Christianity makes no alteration in the state of  Societies, but establishes all, in the same Right, whereof they stand possessed, when they come to embrace Christianity, I must infer, that the public Powers of Christian States, have as good Right, to the disposing of matters of Christianity, (so that, according to the institution of Christ, nothing, done by the Church, may prove prejudicial to the State) as any Sovereign Power, that is not Christian, hath, in the disposing of matters of that Religion which they profess. For, seeing it is part of the profession of Christianity, to confirm and establish, not to question or unsettle, any thing, which is done by  Justice in any State, whatsoever secular Powers shall do, towards maintaining the State of this world in tranquillity, cannot be prejudicial to Christianity rightly understood: Neither can it be true Christianity, which cannot stand with the course of true  Justice. It hath been effectually proved, by Church Writers, against the Gentiles, that, supposing them not to believe the Christian Faith, notwithstanding, they cannot, with  Justice, persecute the Christians. And all upon this score, that Christianity containeth nothing prejudicial to  Society, but all advantageous. But though the Christian Religion be grounded upon truth indeed revealed from God, yet Religion; in general, is a moral virtue, and part of the profession of all  Nations: In so much as, that people, which should profess to fear no God, would thereby put themselves out of the protection of the Law of Nations, and give all  people a Right and Title, to seek to subdue them, for their good, and to constrain them to that, which the light of nature is able to demonstrate, to be both true and due. For, how can any of them expect Faith and Troth in  commerce; from them that acknowledge no reason for it? Or how can they be thought to acknowledge any reason for it, that acknowledge no God to punish the contrary? Or how can they be but enemies of mankind, from whom that cannot be expected? But, in Christianity, there is that particularity which I declared afore, that God hath declared his will and pleasure to be, that it be received into the protection of all Kingdoms and Commonwealths. Wherefore, it is further the will of God, that secular Powers, that are Christian, act in the protection of Christianity, not only as secular Powers, but as Christians: And, by consequence, that they hold themselves obliged to the maintenance of all parts of Christianity: That is, whatsoever is of Divine Right, in the Profession and Exercise of it. But, it is very well said otherwise, that, this whole Right of secular Powers in Ecclesiastical matters, is not destructive, but cumulative: That is, that it is not able to defeat, or abolish any part of that Power, which, by the Constitution of the Church, is settled upon Ecclesiastical persons, but stands obliged to the maintenance and protection of it. For, seeing this Power, in the persons endowed with it by the Constitution of the Church, is a very considerable part of that Right, which God hath established in his Church, it follows necessarily, that no Power, ordained to the maintenance of all parts thereof, can extinguish this. And truly, he that advises but with his own common sense, shall easily perceive, that, Ecclesiastical Power may be able to preserve Order and Discipline in the Church, by itself, so long as the World, that is, the State professes not Christianity, as we see it was, before the Roman Empire was Christian: But, when the State professes Christianity, it cannot be imagined, that, persons qualified by the State, will ever willingly submit, to acknowledge, and ratify the Power of the Church, in all the acts and proceed thereof, unless the coactive Power of the Sovereign enforce it. All States therefore, have Sovereign Power, as well in matters of Christian Religion as in other points of Sovereignty; That is, they are able to do all acts of Sovereign Power, in Church matters: To give Laws, as well concerning matters of Religion, as  affairs: To exercise Jurisdiction, about Ecclesiastical causes: To Command in the same, which seems to be the most eminent act of Sovereignty, seeing, that giving of Laws, and Jurisdiction, are but particulars of that general, the one, that is, giving Laws, in Generals, the other that is Jurisdiction, in particular causes: And both of them tending to limit that Power, of Command or Empire, which, otherwise, is absolute, in the disposition and will of the Sovereign. And therefore, the most  people that ever was, the Romans, have denominated Sovereignty, by this act of Command, Imperium, or Empire. But, all these acts of Sovereign Power in Church matters, being distinguished from the like acts of Ecclesiastical Power, not by their material, but formal objects, that is, not by the Things, Persons, or Causes, in which, but by the reasons, upon which, and the intents, to which they are exercised, must needs leave the Powers of the Church, entire, to all purposes, as it finds the same, in those that have it, by the constitutions of the Church.  
Here are two Points of the Power of the Church, to be settled, before we go any further: Not because of any affinity, or dependence, between them, but because the reason is the same, which causes the difficulty in both. Whether there be an Original Power in the Church, to give Laws, as to the Society of the Church: Whether there be an Original Right in the Church, to Tithes, Oblations, First-fruits, and generally, to all consecrate things, seems to most men, more than disputable, because, the accessary acts of secular Powers, (which, in all Christian States, have made the Laws, by which Christianity is exercised, the Laws of those several States, have established the endowment of the Church upon it, by that coactive Power, which they only in Chief are endowed with) being most visible to common sense, seem to have obscured the Original Right of the Church, in both particulars. Over and besides all this, those of the Congregations, deny the Church all Power of giving Laws, Rules, Canons, or, however you please to call them, to the Church: For, to this purpose, they make all Congregations absolute and Sovereign, that nothing be done in the Church, without the consent of every member of it. Not acknowledging so much as that Rule, which all humane Society besides acknowledges, the whole to be bound by the act of the greater part: But requiring, that every man's conscience be satisfied, in every thing that the Church does, unless some happily appear wilful, whom, by way of penalty, they neglect for that time. As for those of the Presbyteries, I cannot deny that they grant the Church this Power: But, it seems, upon condition that it may rest in themselves: For, to the Laws of this Church, in which they received and professed Christianity, they oppose the saying of the Apostle, that it stands not with charity, for the Church to enjoin any thing, which weak consciences may be offended at: And that of our Lord, that this would be will-worship, and serving of God according to humane traditions, which are all the arguments, which those of the Congregations allege for their opinion, so fare as I can learn. It will be, therefore, worth the while, to consider the cases, which the Apostle decides, upon that principle, though I have done it in part already, in my larger Discourse, p. 309. for, so long as the case is not understood, in which the Apostle alleges it, no marvel, if it be brought to prove that, which he never intended by it. We know he resolves, both the Romans, and the Corinthians by this sentence: With the Corinthians, the case was concerning the eating of things sacrificed to Idols: which, the Apostle manifestly distinguishes, that it may be done two ways, materially, and formally: materially, when a man eats it as a creature of God, giving him thanks for it; which the Apostle therefore determines to be agreeable to Christianity, 1 Cor. VIII. 7. formally, when a man eats it with conscience of the Idol, as a thing sacrificed to it, as the Apostle expresses it, that is, with a religious respect to it, which, therefore, he shows at large to be Idolatry, 1 Cor. X. 7, 14— Wherefore, though things sacrificed to Idols, be as free for Christians to eat, as any men else, yet, in some cases, and circumstances, it so fell out, that a Christian, eating with a Gentile, of their Sacrifices, (the remains whereof, were the cheer, which they feasted upon, and their Feasts, part of the Religion, which they served their Idols with) might be thought, by a weak Christian, to hold their Sacrificing, as indifferent, as their meat, and he that thus thought, be induced, to eat them, formally, as things offered to Idols: As eating them in the Temples of Idols, or, at a Feast made by a Gentile, upon occasion of some Sacrifices, 1 Cor. VIII. 10. X. 27. In this case, the Apostle determines, that charity requires a Christian, to forbear the use of his freedom, when the use of it, may occasion a weak Christian, to fall into misprision of Idolatry. But, among the Romans, the case which S. Paul speaks to, was between Christians converted from Jews, and from Gentiles; as appears by the particulars, which he mentions to be scrupled at, to wit, days and meats, kom. XIV. 2, 5. and the offence likely thereby to come to pass, this, that Jewish Christians, seeing the Heathenish eat things forbidden by the Law, (and, perhaps, among the rest things sacrificed to Idols, forbidden, not by the letter of the Law, but by the interpretation and determination of it, in force, by the authority of the Synagogue, or Consistory) might imagine, that Christians renounced the Law of God, and, by consequence, the God of the Law, and so, out of zeal to the true God, fall from Christianity and perish: For this is, manifestly, the offence, and stumbling, which the Apostle speaks of, Rom. XIV. 13, 15, 20. as I have showed out of Origen, in the place afore quoted. Here is then the sentence of the Apostle, that, when the use of those things, wherein Christians are not limited by the Law of God, becomes an occasion of falling into sin, to those that understand not the reason, of the freedom of Christians, charity requires a Christian, to forbear the use of this freedom. From whence, who so infers, that therefore, no Ecclesiastical Law can be of force, when it meets with a weak conscience, and therefore never, because it may always meet with such, will conclude the contrary of the Apostles meaning. For, when Christianity makes all things free to a Christian, that are not limited by God's Law, it makes not the use of this freedom necessary to Christianity, the Apostle saying expressly, that the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, Rom. XIV. 17. by consequence, not the observing, or not observing of days: That is, consists no more, in not eating, or not observing days, then in eating, & in observing them. So that, as he, that submits unto the Law of charity, must forbear his freedom once, and as often as the use of it ministereth offence, so for the same reason, must he always forbear the use of it, whensoever the use of it comes to be restrained, though not by God's Law, yet by the Law of the Church: Because the greatest offence, the greatest breach of charity, is▪ to call in question, the Order established in the Church, in the preservation whereof, the Unity of the Church consisteth. Whereunto thus much may be added, that, as the things that are determined by the Canons of the Church, are not determined by God's Law, as to the species of the matter and subject of them, yet, as to the authority from whence the determination of them may proceed, they may be said to be determined by God's Law, in as much as by God's Law that authority is established, by which those things are determinable, which the good Order and Unity of the Church requires to be determined. The evidence of which authority, is as express in God's Book, as it can be in any Book inspired by God. Those of the Congregations indeed, betake themselves here, to a Fort, which, they think, cannot be approached, when they say, that, what is written in the Scripture, is revealed from above, and therefore, the Laws that are there recorded, are no precedents to the Church, to use the like right. For, it is manifest, by the Scriptures of the Old Testament, that there were many Laws, Ordinances, Constitutions, or what you please to call them, in force at that time, which no Scripture can show, to have been commanded by revelation from God, as the Law of God. Daniel forbore the King's meat, because, a portion of it, was sacrificed to their Idols, dedicating the whole to the honour of the same: That is, he forbore to eat things sacrificed to Idols materially. Therefore, that Order which we see was afterwards in force among the Jews, was then in use and practice: Not by the written Law of God; therefore by the determination of those, whom the Law gave Power to determine such matters. The Prophet Joel reckons up many circumstances, and ceremonies, of the Jews public Fasts and Humiliations, Joel II. 15, 16, 17. which are so fare from being commanded by the law, that the Jews Doctors confess, there is no further Order, for any Fasts, in the Law, then that which they draw, by a consequence far enough fetched, out of Num. X. 9 where Order is given for making the Trumpets, which, they say, and the Prophet supposes, that their Fasts were proclaimed with. Maimoni, Tit. Taanith, cap. I. In another Prophet, Zac. VII. 3. VIII. 19 it appears, that there were set Fasts which they were bound to solemnize every year, on the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months: As also it appears by the words of the Pharisee, Luc. XVIII. 12. that, the Mundays and Thursdays, were then, and before then, observed by the Jews, as since they have been: And, as you see the like done, in the Feast of Lots, ordained in esther's time; and, that of the Dedication, in Judas Maccabcus his; And, in the same Prophet, Zac. XII. 12, 13, 14. you have a manifest allusion, to the Jews ceremonies, at their Funerals, recorded by Maimont in the title of Mourners, cap. IX. clearly showing, that they were in force in that Prophet's time: As it is manifest, that they began, before the Law itself, not only by that which we read of the Funerals of Jacob in Genesis, but chief, because it required an express Law of God, to derogate from it, as to the Priests, in the case of Aaron's sons, Levit. X. 6. XXI. 1, 10, 11, 12. Many more there are to be observed in the Old Testament, if these were not enough to evidence, that which cannot be denied, that it appears indeed by Scripture, that there were such Laws in force, but that they were commanded by revelations from God, is quite another thing: Though men of learning, sometimes, make themselves ridiculous, by mistaking, as if all that is recorded in the Scriptures, were commanded by God, when, all that comes from God, is, the record of them, as true, not the authority of them, as divine. The case is not much otherwise in the New Testament, where, it is manifest, that many Constitutions, Ordinances, or Traditions, (as the Apostle sometimes calls them, 1 Cor. XI. 2.) are recorded, which no man can say, that they obliged not the Church; and yet, this force of binding the Church, comes not from the mention of them, which we find, in several places of Scripture; (For, they must needs be in force, before they could be mentioned, as such, in the Scriptures) but, from that Power, which God had appointed, to order and determine such things, in his Church. This difference indeed there is between the Old and New Testament, that this, being all written in the Apostles time, can mention nothing of that nature, but that, which, coming from the Apostles, might come by immediate revelation from God: Which of the Old cannot be said. For, though there were Prophets, in all ages of it, and those Prophets endowed with such trust, that if they commanded to dispense with any of Gods own positive Laws, they were to be obeyed, as appears by Elias, commanding to Sacrifice in Mount Carmell, contrary to the Law of Levit. XVII. 4. (and this, by virtue of the Law, Deut. XVIII. 18, 19 because, he that gave the Law by Moses, might, by another, as well dispense with it) yet it is manifestly certain, that nevertheless, they had not the power of making those Constitutions, which were to bind the people, in the exercise of their Religion, according to the Law. For, when the Law, makes them subject, to be judged by the Consistory, whether true Prophets or not; (whereupon, we see, that they were many times persecuted, and our Lord, at last put to death, by them, that would not acknowledge them, because they had not the grace to obey them, as you saw afore;) it cannot be imagined, that they were enabled, to any such act of government, as giving those Laws to the Synagogue. Especially, seeing, by the Law, of Deut. XVII. 8-12. this power, and this right, is manifestly settled upon the Consistory. For seeing, that, by the Law, all questions arising about the Law, are remitted to the place of God's worship, where the Consistory sat in all ages; and, the determination of a case doubtful in Law, to be obeyed under pain of death, is, manifestly, a Law which all are obliged to live by: of necessity therefore, those who have power to determine what the written Law had not determined, do give Law to the people. And this right, our Lord himself, who, as a Prophet, had right to reprove even the public government, where it was amiss, establishes, as ready to maintain them in it, had they submitted to the Gospel, when he says, Mat. XXIII. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair, all therefore that they teach you observe and do: The Scribes and Pharisees, being, either limbs and members, or appendences of the Consistory, who, under pain of death, were not to teach any thing, to determine any thing that the Law had not determined; contrary to that which the Consistory had first agreed. Whereby it is manifest, that all these Laws and Ordinances aforenamed, and all others of like nature, which, all common sense must allow, to have been more than the Scripture any where mentions, are the productions, of this Right and Power, placed by God in the Consistory, on purpose to avoid Schism, and keep the body of the people in Unity, by showing them what to stand to, when the Law had not determined. So that this is nothing contrary to the Law of Deut. IU. 2. XII. 32. which forbiddeth to add to, or take from God's Law: the Law remaining entire, when it is supplied, by the Power which itself appointeth. And, he that will see the truth of this with his eyes, let him look upon the Jews Constitutions, compiled into the Body of their Talmud. Which, though they are now written, and in our Saviour's time were taught from hand to hand: though, by succession of time, and change, in the State of that People, they cannot continue in all points the same, as they were in our Saviour's time; yet, it is manifest, that the substance of them was then in force, because, whatsoever the Gospel mentions of them, is found to agree, with that which they have now in writing: And are all, manifestly, the effect of the lawful power of the Consistory. Nor let any man object, that they are the Doctrines of the Pharisees, which, they pretended, that Moses received from God in Mount Sinai, and delivered by word of mouth to his Successors; and that the Sadduces were of another opinion, who never acknowledged any such unwritten Law, but tied themselves to the letter, (as doth, at this day, one part of the Jews, which renounce the Talmud, and rest in the letter of the Law, who are therefore called Karaim, that is, Scripturaries.) For though all this be true, yet, neither Pharisees nor Sadduces then, neither Talmudists nor Scripturaries now, did, or do make question, of acknowledging such Laws and Constitutions, as are necessary to determine, that which grows questionable in the practice of the Law; but are both in the wrong, when as, to gain credit to those Orders and Constitutions, which both bodies respectively acknowledge, the one will have them delivered by God to Moses, the other will needs draw them, by consequence, out of the letter of the Scripture: And so entitle them to God, otherwise than he appointed, which is, only, as the results, and productions of that power, which he ordained to end all matter of difference, by limiting that, which the Law had not. The same reason, necessarily takes place, under the New Testament, saving the difference between the Law and the Gospel. For, under the Law, this power took place, in the practice of all Ceremonial and Judicial Laws, proper to the Synagogue: As well, as in determining the circumstances and ceremonies of the worship of God, which still remains under the Gospel, saving the difference thereof from the Law. For, under the Gospel, there belong to Christianity, two sorts of things; The first whereof, are of the substance of Christianity, as, concerning, immediately, the salvation of particular Christians. And, this kind is further to be distinguished, into matter of Faith, and matter of life, or manners. The second, concerns indeed the salvation of particular Christians, (as containing, the Unity of the Church, and the due exercise of all those Ordinances, which God will be served with, in the Unity of the Church) but mediately, as they are means, to beget, and preserve, in all Christians, those things of the former sort, that concern Faith or good manners. For, if it were morally possible to imagine, that a man, blamelessly deprived of all means of Communion with the Church, could be nevertheless endowed, with all parts of a Christian, in Faith and good manners, I do not see, how any discreet Christian, could deny such a one, the end of Christianity, which is, life everlasting. All things therefore, concerning Faith and good Works, necessary to the salvation of particular Christians, are so revealed, or rather so commanded, by our Lord and his Apostles, that it is not possible for all the Church that succeeds, to declare any thing to be such, that is not, expressly, or by consequence, contained in their writings. For how shall all the Church be able, to add any thing to this number, but by showing the same motives, which our Lord and his Apostles advanced to the World, to persuade them, not only, that what they spoke, was revealed by God, but also, that they were sent, to require the World, to believe and obey them? But, as to that which concerns the Society of the Church, and the public service of God, in the Unity of the same, what can we say our Lord in Person commanded, but the Power of the Keys, upon which it is founded, and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, in the Communion whereof, the Unity of the Church consisteth? And his Apostles, how did they proceed in determining the rest? Surely, he that will say, that they never enacted any thing, till a revelation came on purpose from God, will fall under the same inconveniencies, which render, the infallibility of the Pope, or the Church, ridiculous to common sense. Which, if they believed themselves, sure, they would never call Counsels, advise with Doctors, debate with one another, to find what may truly be said, or usefully determined, in matters of difference. In like manner, when the Apostles assemble themselves at Jerusalem, Acts XV. 1— to debate in a full meeting, with Saul and Barnabas, the Presbyters of Jerusalem, and the rest, what to resolve in the matter there questioned; I say not they were no Prophets, or had no revelations from God, when he pleased: But I say, it is manifest, that they proceeded not upon confidence of any revelation, promised them, at this time and in this place, but upon the habitual understanding, which, as well by particular revelation from God, as by the Doctrine of our Lord, they had, proportionable to the Chief Power, over the whole Church, which they were trusted with. To speak ingenuously mine own opinion, which I seek not to impose upon any man's Faith, I do believe, that some person, of those that were then assembled in Council, had a present inspiration, revealing, that Gods will was, that the Decree there enacted, should be made. My reason is, because I observe, by divers passages of the Old and New Testaments, that God was wont, to send revelations to his Prophets, at the public Assemblies of the Church of Synagogue. As, at the sending of Saul and Barnabas, Acts XIII. 2. At the Ordination of Timothy, 1 Tim. IV. 14. At the Assemblies of the Corinthians, 1 Cor. XIV. 24, 25, 30. At Josaphats' Fast, 2 Chron. XVIII. 14. At Saint John's Ordinations; whereof Clemens, in the place afore alleged out of Eusebius his Ecclesiastical Histories, saith, that the Apostle was wont to go abroad, to Ordain such as were signified by the Holy Ghost: Whereupon S. Paul saith, of the Presbyters of Ephesus, That the Holy Ghost had set them over the flock, Acts XX. 28. and therefore, when it is said, Acts XV. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, I take it, that some such revelation is intimated. But, this notwithstanding, when we see the message sent, the Church assembled, the cause debated, without assurance, of any such revelation to be made, whereof no Prophet had assurance till it came; we see, they proceeded not, upon presumption of it, but upon the conscience of their ordinary power, and the habitual abilities, given them to discharge it. So that, from the premises, we have two reasons, serving to vindicate the same Power to the Church. The first, because the Constitutions in force under the Apostles, cannot be said to come, from particular extraordinary inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but from the ordinary power, of governing the Church, which was to continue. The second, because, by the proceed of the Council of Jerusalem it appears, that no revelation was a ground, or requisite, to the determining of the matter there in difference. To which I add a third, from S. Paul's words, 1 Cor. XI. 16. If any man be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God. Where, having disputed, by many reasons, that women were to veil their faces, at the Service of God, in the Church, he sets up his rest, upon laudable custom of the Church. Now, if custom be available, to create Right in the Church, as in  Societies, than authority much more, without which, either prescribing, or allowing, neither that custom which the Apostle specifies, nor any other, could take place. And a fourth, from that observation, so advanced, and improved, that no man can deny it, but he that will make himself ridiculous, to all men of learning, besides the instances thereof in the premises, which is this: That, the Orders which the Apostles settled in the Church, saving the difference between the Law and the Gospel, are always, or at least most an end, drawn from the pattern of the Synagogue. Whereby it appeareth, that the convenience of them was evident, not by revelation, but by humane discourse; but the force of them comes from the authority of the Apostles, prescribing or allowing them in the Church: Both which are always in the Church, though in less measure. Fifthly, this is proved by the premises: Wherein I conceive it is proved, that the Clergy, in the Church, succeeds into the Authority, of the Jews Consistories, in the Synagogue: Wherefore, having showed, that those Consistories did give Law to the Synagogue, in all matters of Religion, not determined by God, it follows, that the same may be done in the Church. Sixthly, the same followeth, from the dependence of Churches. For, if Congregations be made independent, that no Christian may receive Law from man, wherein he is not satisfied of the will of God, then, having proved, that Congregations are not independent, it follows, that they are to receive Law, in all things, not contrary to the will of God. Seventhly, the exercise of this Power, in all ages of the Church, and the effects of it, in great volumes, of lawful Canonical decrees, though it be a mark of contradiction, to them that are resolved, to hate that which hath been, because it hath been, yet, to all, whose senses are not maleficiated with prejudice, it is the same evidence of this Power, (though not always of the right use of it) by which, Christianity itself stands recommended to us. Lastly, can those of the Congregations say, that no public act is done among them, without the free and willing consent of all, as satisfied in conscience, that it is the will of God, which is decreed? Then are they not men. For, among all men, there is difference of judgement. If notwithstanding, they are enforced to proceed, why depart they from the Church? For, if those that place the Chief Power in Congregations, cannot avoid, to be tied, by other men's acts, why refuse they to be tied once for all, by such general acts as Laws are? Which, as they must needs be done, by persons capable to judge, what the common good of the Church requires, (which, it is madness to imagine, that members of Congregations can be) so, they have the force, when they are once admitted, to contain the whole body of the Church, agreeing to them, in Unity: Whereas, to acknowledge no such, tends to create as many Religions as persons.  
And now, to the objection of will-worship, in the observation of humane constitutions, the answer will not be difficult. That sin, I do truly believe, to be of a very large extent, as one of the extremes, opposite to the Virtue of Religion, understanding Religion to be, all service of God with a good conscience. Thus, all the Idolatries of the Gentile, all the superstitions of Judaisme, and Mahumetism, are will-worships. For, man, being convinced of his duty to serve God, and neither knowing how to perform, nor willing to render that service which he requires, because inconsistent with his own inclinations, it follows, that, by a voluntary commutation, he tender God something, which he is willing to part with, in stead of his concupiscences. Having condemnation, both for neglecting to tender that which is due, and for dishonouring God, by thinking him to be bribed, by his inventions, to wink at his sins. And therefore, I do grant, that the Constitutions, which the Synagogue was by God's Law enabled to make, were capable to be made, the matter of Superstition and will-worship, as indeed, in our Lord's time, they were made. The reason, because, presuming to be justified by the works of the Law, and the Law, among them, being not only the written, but that which was taught by word of mouth, the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, (which, the Disciples of Christ, shall never enter into the Kingdom of heaven, unless they exceed) consisted, not only in the letter of the Ceremonial and Judicial precepts, but, in observing the determinations of their Consistories. And accordingly, I do grant, that the Rules, Decrees, and Constitutions of the Church, are capable to be made the matter of the same sin; and, that they are made so, visibly, in divers customs, and practices of the Church of Rome. But is it a good reason to say, that, because humane Constitutions may be made the subject of superstition, and will-worship, therefore the Church hath no Power to make any, therefore the members of the Church are not tied to obey any? Or, may there not be superstition, and will-worship, in abhorring, as well as in observing, humane Constitutions? If S. Paul be in the right, there may. For, if the Kingdom of God, consist in righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, not in eating or not eating, in observing or not observing days, by the same reason, it consists no more, in not doing, then in doing, that which the Law of God determineth not. Wherefore, if any man imagine, that he shall please God in not observing, in refusing, in opposing, in destroying humane Constitutions, regulating the public order of the Church, it is manifest, that this is, because he thinks he shall be the better Christian, by forbearing that, which God commands him not to forbear, seeing he can find in his heart to violate Unity and Charity, that he may forbear it.  
Here, it may be demanded of me, why I express no other ground, of this Power, in the Church, than the indetermination of those things, which Order, and Unity requires to be determined, in the Church: For, seeing matters of Faith are determined by God's Word, it seems to follow, that the Church hath nothing to do, to determine of matters of Doctrine, in difference. And, seeing the Ceremonies of Divine Service, besides the determining of that which the Scripture determineth not, pretend further, to advance, and improve devotion, in the public Worship of God; as I have discoursed more at large, in the Apostolical form of Divine Service, ca IX. It seems, if there be no other ground, for the Legislative Power of the Church, that the Church hath nothing to do, to institute such Ceremonies. To which I answer, that it is one thing to make that matter of Faith, which was not, another to determine matter of Faith, that is, to determine what members of the Church shall do, in acknowledging, or not acknowledging, that which is in question, to be, or not to be matter of Faith. For, if there be a Society of the Church, then must there be in the Church a Power to determine, what the members thereof shall acknowledge, and profess, when it comes in difference: Which is, not to qualify the subject, that is, to make any thing matter of Faith or not, but to determine, that those, which will not stand to the Act of the Whole, that is, of those persons, that have right to conclude the Whole, shall not be of it. So, the obligation, that such Acts produce, as it comes from the Word of God, which the Church acknowledges, is a duty of Faith, but, as it relates, to the determination of the Church, as a duty of charity, obliging, to concur with the Church, where it determineth not the contrary, of that which the Word of God determineth. Again, when I say, the Church hath Power, to determine that which Gods Law determines not, I must needs be understood to mean, that, which shall seem to make most for the advancement of godliness. Now, the Scripture shows, by store of examples, of Ceremonies, in the Public Service of God, under the Church, as well as under the Synagogue, that the institution of significative Ceremonies, in the Public worship of God, doth make for the advancement of godliness, otherwise, such had not been Ordained by the Apostles, and Governors of Gods ancient People. For, of this nature, is the vailing of women, at Divine Service, of which S. Paul writes to the Corinthians; the Kiss of Charity, so often mentioned in the writings of the Apostles, which the Constitutions of the Apostles, II. 57 and Origen upon the last to the Romans, show, to have been practised, before the Consecration, and the receiving of the Eucharist, to signify the Charity in which they came to communicate; the many Ceremonies of Baptism, to which S. Paul alludes, in divers places, Col. II. 11, 12. III. 9, 10. Rom. VI 4, 5. to wit, putting off old clothes, drenching in water, so as to seem to be buried in it, putting on new clothes at their coming out: Which, being used in the Primitive Church, by these passages of S. Paul, we are sure, were Instituted by the Apostles. Of this nature, are the gestures of Prayer, which we read in the Scripture, that it was always the custom of God's people, to make sitting, kneeling, or grovelling, as the inward dejection of the mind, required, a greater or less degree, of outward humiliation of the body, to produce, and maintain, as well as to signify it. Thus, our Lord stands up to read the Law, but sits down to Preach, Luc. IU. 16, 20. the one, to show reverence to the Giver of the Law, the other, authority over the Congregation, which he taught as a Prophet: And therefore, I make no doubt, but that, in receiving the Book of the Law, he used that reverence, which was, and is used in the Synagogue; the like whereof by the Acts of the Primitive Martyrs, we understand to have been used, to the Book of the Gospels; for, in the examination of one of them, you have, Qui sunt libri quos adoratis legentes? as we now, stand up at the reading of the Gospel. Of this nature, are the ceremonies of the Jews public Fasts, quoted afore out of the Prophet Joel, which, it seems, the Prophet Ionas taught the Ninevites, at their Fast, Jon. III. 5, 6. which, sure, have no force, to move God to compassion, but, as they move men to that humiliation which procures it; of this nature, is Imposition of hands, used in the Scripture, in Blessing, that is, in solemn Prayers, for other Persons, as in the Gospel over children, and sick persons, as in the Law Jacob lays hands on joseph's children, Moses on Joshua, and the LXX Presbyters, the Prophets, on such as they cured, 2 Kings VI 11. whereupon it was received, by the Ordinance of the Apostles, in Confirmation, Penance, and Ordinations; as also, it is said to be still used in some Eastern Churches, at the Blessing of Marriages. In fine, the Frontlet's, and the Scrols, which God appoints the Jews to set upon their Foreheads, and the Posts of their doors, Exod. XIII. 9 Deut. VI 8. XI. 17. for my part, I make a great question, whether he obligeth them thereby, to use, according to the letter, as they do: But, that commanding the effect, the remembrance of the Law, he should be thought to forbid the means, that is, the sensible wearing of such marks, that I count utterly incredible: Seeing it was easy for them, to use such marks, and yet, to think themselves never a whit the holier for them, without the thing signified, though in our Lord's time, they did so, as we see by his reproofs in the Gospel, and though by their writings, (Maimoni by name, in the Title of Finages, cap. III. and in the Title of Phylacteries, ca XI. & XII.) we see, that still they do. And thus, upon the reasons advanced, that is, of determining that, which the Law of God determines not, follows the whole Power of the Church, in deciding matters of Doctrine, in determining the circumstances and ceremonies of Gods public worship, and of all the Ordinances of God, for the maintenance and exercise of the same. For, in instituting Ceremonies, significative, not of Christ to come, (that indeed, and that only is Judaisme) but, of the Faith and devotion which we desire to serve God with, it is enough, that this power may be exercised, to the advancement of godliness; if it be exercised otherwise then it ought, it is still to be obeyed, because the Unity of the Church is of great consequence to maintain, though we attain not that advancement of godliness, which the use of this Power ought to procure, but does not: And, if any Power should be void, because it is not used for the best, or, absolutely, not well used, then could no humane society subsist, either Sacred or : Which must subsist, in all things, wherein it commands not the contrary, of a more ancient Law, which is God's Law in our case.  
From the premises, it will not be difficult to resolve, whether Counsels be of Divine Right, or not, distinguishing between substance and circumstance, between the purpose and effect of them, and the manner of procuring it. For, if we speak of giving Law to the Society of the Church, it is proved, that, (whether you take it for a Power, or a Duty, a Right, or a Charge, or rather both, seeing the one cannot be parted from the other) the Church may, and aught to proceed, to determine, what is not determined, but determinable, by consent of particular Churches, that is, by the consent of such persons, which have Power to conclude the consent, of their respective Churches: Whereof, we have showed, that none can ever be concluded, without the consent of their respective Bishops. But, if we speak of the circumstance, and manner of assembling, in one place, certain persons, in behalf of their several Churches, with authority, to prejudice, and foresway, and preingage the consent of the same: We have a precedent, or rather precedents, without a precept, in the Acts of the Apostles, where the Apostles are assembled to Ordain a twelfth Apostle, Acts I. 13.— where they are assembled to institute the Order of Deacons, Acts VI 2— where Paul and Barnabas come from Antiochia and the Churches depending thereupon, to the Apostles and Church of Jerusalem, to take resolution in their differences, Acts XV. 1— where Paul goes in to James, to advise, how to behave himself without offence, to the Christian Jews at Jerusalem, Acts XXI. 18— (for, the premises being admitted, all these meetings are justly and necessarily counted Synods, or Counsels, both in regard of the Persons whereof they consisted, the consent of divers Apostles, being of as much authority to the Church, as the resolution of a Synod, and in regard of the matter determined at them, concerning the whole Church, in a high degree, especially at that time.) And we have a Canon among those of the Apostles, (which appears very ancient, by the Canons of Nice, containing the same, and turning Custom into Statute Law) commanding, that Synods be held in every Province twice a year. But, when Tertullian tells us, that, in the parts of Greece, they held Counsels ordinarily, he constrains us to believe, that in other parts of the Church they did not; and, when we read of persecutions, against the ordinary assemblies of the Church, we must presume, that, as the persecution of Counsels, would have made greater desolation in the Church, so must they needs be more subject to be persecuted. And, by Eusebius, and the rest of the Ecclesiastical Histories, and by the communication of the Primitive Bishops, Clemens, Ignatius, Polycarpus, S. Cyprian, and the rest, as they follow, still extant in their Epistles, we understand, that their personal Assemblies were supplied by their Formatae, or letters of mark, whereby, the acts of some Churches, the most eminent, being approved by the rest, after they were sent to them, purchased the same force with the Acts of Counsels. Wherefore, the holding of Counsels, is of Divine right, so fare as it is manifest to common sense, that it is a readier way to dispatch matters determinable, though, when it cannot be had, not absolutely necessary. But it is always necessary, that, seeing no Church can be concluded, without the Bishop thereof, the Bishops of all Churches, concur to the Acts that must oblige their Churches. Not so their Presbyters, because it is manifest, that all Presbyters cannot concur, though upon particular occasion, some may, as the Presbyters of the Church where a Council is held, as at Jerusalem, Acts XV. 6. which we find, therefore, practised, in divers Counsels of the Church. As, to supply the place of their Bishops, by deputation in their absence, or, perhaps, as to propound matters of extraordinary consequence. As for the whole People, to be concluded by the Act of a Council, as all cannot always be present, supposing the dependence of Churches, so nothing hinders any part thereof to intercede in any thing, contrary to Christianity, that is, of the substance thereof, or of Divine right. Therefore, in the Order of holding Counsels, which is wont to be put before the Volumes of the Counsels, the people is allowed to be present, as they were at Jerusalem, Acts XV. 12, 13, 22.  
I come now to a nice Point, of the Original Right of the Church, to Tithes, First-fruits, and Oblations: For, as it cannot be pretended, that the same measure which the Law provideth, is due under the Gospel, so it is manifest, that the quality of Priests and Levites, to whom they were due, is ceased as much, as the Sacrifices which they were to attend; and it is certain, that they were maintained, expressly, in consideration of that attendance. This difficulty must be resolved, by the difference between the Law and the Gospel. The Law expressly provideth only, for the Ceremonial Service of God, in the Temple, by Sacrifices, and Figures of good things to come. But, no man doubteth, that there were always assemblies for the Service of God, all over the Country, for the opportunity whereof, in time, Synagogues were built, where the Law was taught, and public Prayers offered to God. This Office of Teaching the Law, cannot be restrained to the Tribe of Levi. So fare as the Prophets, and their Schools of Disciples, furnished it not, their Consistories, which had the Authority to determine, what was lawful, what unlawful, were consequently charged with this Office. Now, they consisted not only of the Tribe of Levi, but in the first place, of the best of their Cities, to whom were added, as assistant, some of that Tribe, (unless we speak of the Priests Cities in particular, for, credibly, the Consistories of them, consisted only of Priests.) For, that Tribe, being dispersed all over the Land, to gather their revenue, were, by that means, ready to attend on this Office, of assisting in Judgement, and Teaching the Law. So saith Josephus, Antiq. IU. 8. that the Consistories of particular Cities, consisted of seven, Chief of every City, assisted, each with two, of the Tribe of Levi, which, with a Precedent, and his Deputy or Second, (such as we know the High Consistory at Jerusalem had) makes up the number of XXIII, which the Talmud Doctors say they consisted of. Therefore, it is a mistake, of them that think, the Scribes and Pharisees, whom our Lord commands to obey, had usurped the Office of the Priests and Levites. For, what hinders the Priests and Levites, to be Scribes and Pharisees themselves, though other Israelites were Scribes and Pharisees, besides Priests and Levites? Neither Pharisees, nor Priests and Levites, had this authority, as Pharisees, or as Priests and Levites, but as members or assistants of the Consistories. The reason, because God's Law, whereby his worship was determined, was also the  Law of that People, because, the Land of Canaan was promised them, upon condition, of living according to it; therefore, the Teaching of the Law must belong to them, who, by the Law, were to Judge, and Govern the People: God stirring up Prophets from time to time, to clear the true meaning thereof from humane corruptions. So only, the Service of the Temple, and only that Tribe, which attended on the Service of the Temple, was to be provided for, the rest being provided for, by the possession of the Land of Promise. But, when the service of God in Spirit and Truth, was to be established in all places, as well as at Jerusalem, and the Church incorporated by God, into one Society and Commonwealth, for the exercise thereof, what endowment God appointed this Corporation for the Exchequer of it, is best judged, by what appears to have been done in the Scriptures, which cannot be attributed, but to the authority of the Apostles, the Governors of the Church at that time. At Jerusalem, the Contributions were so great in the beginning of Christianity, that many offered their whole estates, to maintain the community of the Church. Was this to oblige all Christians ever after, to destroy  society by communion of goods? As if there could be no other reason, why Christians should strip themselves of their estates at that time. The advancement of Christianity, then in the shell, required continual attendance of the whole Church, upon the Service of God. This, withdrawing the greater part of Disciples, which were poor, from the means of living, required greater oblations of the rich. The Scripture teaches us, that the whole Church continued in the Service of God: So that, out of the common stock of the Church, common entertainment was provided for rich and poor, at which entertainment, the Sacrament of the Eucharist was celebrated, as it was instituted by our Lord, at his last Supper. This is that which is called Breaking of Bread, Acts II. 42, 46. XX. 7. and, by the Apostle, 1 Cor. XI. 20. the Supper of the Lord, not meaning thereby, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but, this common entertainment, at which that Sacrament was celebrated, which therefore is truly called the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, not the Supper of the Lord; for, you see, the Apostle complains, that, because the rich and the poor supped not together, therefore they did not celebrate the Supper of the Lord. The same thing it is, which S. Judas, ver. 12. calls their Feasts of Love. And, the attendance upon this entertainment, was the cause of making the Deacons, which is called therefore the daily ministration, and attendance at Tables, Acts VI 1, ●. Now, will any man say, that those Primitive Christians, held not themselves tied to pay Tithes, that offered all their estates? At Corinth, I believe S. chrysostom, that this course was not frequented every day, as at Jerusalem, but, probably, the first day of the week, because upon that, the Disciples assembled at Troas, Acts XX. 7. or, perhaps, upon other occasions also; for, to have done always every where as at Jerusalem, would have destroyed  Society, which the Gospel pretendeth to preserve. But, those that offer the First-fruits of their goods to this purpose, when Secular Laws enable them not, to endow the Church with their Tithes, do they not acknowledge that duty, and that, as taught by the Apostles, so to acknowledge it? For, can any living man imagine, that they were weary of their estates, if the Apostles, from whom they received their Christianity, had not informed them, that Christianity required it at their hands? In the next place, let us consider the contributions, which the Churches of the Gentiles, were wont to send to the Christians at Jerusalem, being brought low, by parting with their estates. It is to be understood, that the Jews, that lived out of their own Country, dispersed in the Roman and Parthian Empires, not being under the Law of Tithes, which was given to the Land of Promise, nor resorting to the Temple, were, notwithstanding, in recompense of the same, wont to make a stock, out of which they sent their Oblations, from time to time, to maintain the Service of God, as is to be seen up and down in Josephus, besides Philo and the Talmud Doctors. If then, the Churches of the Gentiles, in imitation hereof, contribute their Oblations, to support the Church of Jerusalem, and the Service of God there, (being then the Mother City of Christianity, before it was settled in the Capital Cities of the Roman Empire) as by all those passages appears, which mention the Oblations of the Churches sent to Jerusalem, Acts XI. 30. XII. 25. Rom. XV. 26. 2 Cor. VIII. IX. per tot. 1 Cor. XVI. 1. Gal. II. 10. do they not thereby openly profess themselves, taught by the Apostles, that they were under the same obligation, of maintaining the service of God, in the Church, as the Jews, in the Temple? Again, the Apostle, having showed, that Christians have the same right of communicating in the Sacrifice of Christ crucified, as the Jews, in the Sacrifices that were not wholly consumed by fire, in the passage handled afore, of Heb. XIII. 8-14. pursues it thus in the next words: By him then let us offer continually to God the Sacrifice of Praise, which is the fruit of the lips, giving thanks to his Name: But to do good and communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. Where, by the Sacrifice of Praise, he means the Eucharist, as it is called usually, in the ancient Liturgies, and writings of the Fathers: For, to this purpose, is the whole dispute of that place, that, in that Sacrament, Christians communicate in the Sacrifice of Christ crucified, (which Jews can have no right to) in stead of all the Sacrifices of the Law. And therefore, by doing good and communicating, he means the Oblations of the faithful, out of which, at the beginning, the poor and the rich lived in common at the Assemblies of the Church; and, when that course could no more stand with the succeeding state of the Church, both the Eucharist was celebrated, and the persons that attended on the service of God, were maintained. Therefore this obligation ceaseth not, though the Ceremonial Law be taken away. The next argument is from the words of S. Paul, Ephes. iv 11— in which, few or none take notice of any thing to this purpose, but to me, comparing them with the premises, it seemeth so express, that it were a wrong to the Church, so much concerned in them, to let them go any longer without notice. He hath made (saith S. Paul) some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors, and Doctors. For the compacting of the Saints, for the work of ministry, for the edification of the Body of Christ. That is, as it follows, that being sincere in love, we may grow in all things, in him who is the Head, even Christ. From whom the whole Body, compacted and put together, by the furnishing of every limb, according to the working proportionable in every part, causeth the body to wax, unto the edification of itself in love. Here you are to mark these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the New Testament, signifies, in a vulgar sense, to furnish any man maintenance, as Mat. XXV. 44. 1 Tim. II. 18. Heb. VI 10. Luc. VIII. 2. 1 Pet. IU. 10. In another sense it is used to signify the Service of God, in publishing the Gospel: but, almost always, with some addition, discovering the metaphor, by expressing the subject of that service, to wit, the Word, the Gospel, the Spirit, the New Covenant, Acts VI 6. 2 Cor. V 18, 19 III. 8. In this sense it is commonly taken here, but it seems a mistake. For, when the Apostle saith, that God hath given his Church Governors and Teachers, for the Compacting of the Saints, for the work of ministry, for the edification of the Body of Christ, his meaning is, that the Body of the Church, is compacted and held together, to frequent public Assemblies, by the Contribution of the rich, to the maintenance of those that attend upon the service of God, (which is here called, the work of ministry) to the end, that, by the Doctrine of the Governors and Teachers of the Church, at the said Assemblies, it may be built up to a full measure of Christianity. This sense, the words that follow require: From whom the whole Body compacted— that is, that the Body of the Church, being enabled frequently to assemble, by the operation of those that are able, furnishing every member, proportionably to his want, cometh, by Christ, to perfection in Christianity. This sense, the parallel places of Rom. XII. 4, 7, 8. 1 Pet. IU. 4. necessarily argue: Where, having speech of those things, which, particular members of the Church, are to contribute to the improvement of the whole, both Apostles express two kinds of them, one spiritual, of instruction in Christianity, the other corporal, of means to support the Church, in holding their Assemblies. For, as those that want, cannot balk the necessities of this life, to attend upon Divine Service, unless they be furnished by the body of the Church: So, much more, those that minister the Service of the Church, cannot attend upon the same, unless they be secured of their support. And for this cause, the first Christians at Jerusalem, and by their example, they that sent their Oblations to the Church, laid them down at the Apostles feet, to signify, that they submitted them to their disposing: For this cause Deacons were created, to execute their disposition of the same: For this cause, the contributions of the Church of Antiochia, are consigned to the Presbyters of Jerusalem, Acts XI. 30. that they, who were Ordained by that time, (for, afore there is no mention of them) might dispose of them under the Apostles: For this cause Timothy is directed, how to bestow this stock among the Widows and Presbyters, that the Widows might attend upon prayer day and night, and upon other good works, concerning the community of the Church, 1 Tim. V 5, 10. as Anna the Widow in the Gospel, Luc. II. 36, 37. and as the good women that kept guard about the Tabernacle, Ex. XXXVIII. 8. 1 Sam. II. 22. And for this cause, S. Peter forbiddeth the Presbyters to domineer over the Clergy, 1 Pet. V 3. to wit, in disposing of their maintenance, out of this common stock of the Church. Here, it will be said, that all this expresses no quantity, ot part of every man's estate, to ground a right of Tithes, and, that no man desires better, then to give what he list. And, the answer is as ready, that no man desires more, provided he list to give what Christianity requires: And, that for the determination of what Christianity requires, he list to stand to the perpetual practice of the Church, when as, by those things which we find recorded in the Scriptures, it appears to be derived from the Apostles themselves. First, it is not the Law that first commanded to pay Tithes: Because we know, they were paid by Abraham and Jacob, (they that think they were not due by Right, before the Law, because Jacob vows them, Gen. XXVIII. 20. do not remember our Vow of Baptism, the subject whereof is things due before) & God requires them as his own before. For God saith, first, that Tithes are his own, Leu. XXVII. 30. to wit, by a Law in force afore the Law of Moses, and then gives them to the Priests, for their Service in the Tabernacle. Then, it cannot stand with Christianity, which supposeth greater grace of God than the Law, to allow a scarcer proportion, to the maintenance of God's Service, than the Law requires. Now, the Law requires, first, two sorts of First fruits, the one to be taken by the Priest at the Barn, Num. XVIII. 12. the other to be brought to the Sanctuary, Exod. XXII. 29. XXIII. 19 Deut. XXVI. 1— the quantity of either being, in the moderate Account, a fiftieth, as S. Hierome upon Ezek. XLV. agreeing with the Jew's Constitutions in Maimoni, of First-fruits, cap. II. and of Separations, cap. III. determineth it, though the Scripture, Ezek. XLV. 13. require but the sixtieth: After that, a tithe of the remainder to the Levites; then, another tithe of the remainder, to be spent in sacrificing at Jerusalem; that is, for the most part, upon the Priests and Levites, to whom, and to the poor, it wholly belonged every third year, Deut. XIV. 22, 28. Ex. XXIII. 19 XXXIV. 20. Add hereunto the firstborn, all sinne-offerings, and the Priests part of peace-offerings, the skins of Sacrifices, (which alone Philo makes a chief part of their revenue) all consecrations, and the Levites Cities, and it will easily appear, it could not be so little as a fift part of the fruit of the land, that came to their share. Now, that any rate should be determined by the Gospel, agrees not with the difference between it and the Law. This, constraining obedience by fear, commands, under penalty of vengeance from heaven, to pay somuch: That, persuading men, first, freely to give themselves to God, cannot doubt, that they which do so, will freely part with their goods for his service. And therefore, if the perpetual practice of Christians, must limit the sense of those Laws, which the Scripture limits not, we see the first Christians at Jerusalem fare outdo any thing that ever was done under the Law, and we see that all Christian people, in all succeeding ages, have done, what the Church now requires but to be continued.  
To this original Title, accrues another by Consecration, which is an act of man, enforced by the Law of God. There is, in the Law of Moses, one kind of Ceremonial Holiness, proper to persons, consisting in a distance, from things, not really unclean, but, as signs of real uncleanness. As, from meats and drinks, and, touching creatures, & men, and women, in some diseases, of which our Lord hath said, that, what goeth into the mouth polluteth not, much less, what a man only toucheth; and so, hath showed, that all this ceaseth under the Gospel. But there is another kind of Holiness, belonging to Times, and Places, as well as Persons, commanded in the Law, upon a reason common to the Gospel, when it is said, Leu. XIX. 30. Observe my Sabbaths, and reverence my Sanctuaries. For, did this belong only to the Temple, or Tabernacle, instituted by God's express command, for that ceremonial service of God, which was unlawful any where else, it might seem to be proper to the ceremonial Law, and to vanish with the Gospel. But, the perpetual practice of that people shows, that, hereby they are commanded to use reverence in their Synagogues, which were neither instituted by any written precept of the Law, nor for the ceremonial service of God, which was confined to the Temple, but for public Assemblies, to hear the Law read and expounded, and to offer the Prayers of the people to God. For, in the Psalms of Asaph, which is the only mention of Synagogues in the Old Testament, they are called, not only Houses, and Assemblies of God, but also Sanctuaries, as here, Ps. LXXIII. 17. LXXIV. 4, 7, 8. LXXXIV. 13. And the Talmud Doctors, related by Maimoni, extend this Precept to them, showing at large, the reverence which they required; whereupon Philo in his Book De Legatione ad Caium, calls them places of secondary Holiness, to wit, in respect of the Temple. And in Maimoni, in the Title of Prayer and the Priest's Blessing, cap. XI. you have at large, of the Holiness of Synagogues, and Schools, which they esteem more Holy than Synagogues. They may have joy of their Doctrine, that endeavour to show, that the Jews Synagogues were not counted Holy Places, because in the Gospels, as well as in Eusebius Histories, IV. 16. (where he allegeth, out of a certain ancient writing against the Montanists, that none of them was ever scourged by the Jews in their Synagogues) and Epiphanius against the Ebionites, it appears, that the Jews used to punish by scourging in their Synagogues: For, it hath taken so good effect, as to turn Churches to Stables. But he that understands their reason right, will infer the contradictory of their conclusion from it. For, because Synagogues were the places, where matters of God's Law were sentenced, as I shown afore, therefore was that sentence to be executed in Synagogues. The like reason there is, for the Holiness of Persons, consecrate to the service of God, in the like precept, Levit. XIX. 32. Stand up before the grey head: and reverence the Presbyters: and fear thy Gods. I am the Lord. Where, the gradation shows, that this Text concerns not the fear of God, but the reverence due to their Judges and Doctors of the Law. It is a vulgar mistake, that Sovereign Powers are called Gods in the Scriptures. The Jews are in the right, that their Judges, made by Imposition of Hands, are they, whom the Scripture calls Gods. For so it is used, to signify those that were to judge God's people, by God's Law, Exod. XXI. 6. XXII. 8, 9 Neither doth it signify any but the Consistory, Ps. LXXXII. 1, 6. being, it seems, at that time, when this Psalm was penned, for Absalon, or for Saul, against David: For, these are they, to whom the word of the Lord came, as our Saviour says, john IX. 35. that is, whom the execution of the Law was trusted with. Now, you have seen, that Presbyters were a degree under Judges: and therefore, the gradation can hold only thus; First, stand up before the grey hairs, that is, them who are only honourable for their age: Secondly, reverence Presbyters, which, besides years, having studied the Law till thirty or forty years of age, had authority to Teach the Law: And lastly, fear your Judges, who have power to sentence matters of difference. Thus the gradation continues in the same kind, and thus this precept is interpreted by the Talmud Doctors, in Maimoni, in the Title of Learning the Law, c. 6. & Moses of Kotzi upon this Precept. Having therefore showed, that the Clergy in the Church, succeed into the authority, which the Consistories bore under the Synagogue; it follows, that, the precept of the Apostle, 1 Thess. V 12, 13. Heb. XIII. 17. imports this reverence due to them, as persons consecrate to the service of God. And so this holiness, is the same in Persons, as in Places, consecrate to that purpose. There is no man so simple, as to think Churches capable of that holiness, by which Christian souls are holy: But, because the actions of God's service, proceeding from souls so qualified, are presumed to be Holy, therefore the Times, the Places, the Persons, deputed to such actions in public, are to be reverenced in regard of that deputation, for their works sake, saith the Apostle, in an Ecclesiastical, not in any spiritual capacity, common to Persons with Times and Places: Because this qualification serves to maintain, in the minds of people, the reverence they own to those acts of God's service, whereunto they are deputed. Which, those that never believed heretofore, do now see, by that ruin of Christianity, which these few years have brought to pass amongst us. This ground, the Jews Doctors seem very well to understand, when they question, why the open street, or Piazza, is not Holy, seeing, the Public Fasts of the Jews, were many times held in them: Those Assemblies being, it seems, so great, that the Synagogue would not contain the people: (Where, by the way, you see, why our Lord reproves the Pharisees, because they loved to pray standing in the corners of streets, and to sound a trumpet before their alms, Mat. VI 2, 5. because those Fasts were solemnised in the street, with sound of Trumpet;) Their answer is, that the market place, or street, or Piazza, is used accidentally to this purpose, but the Synagogue is deputed expressly to it. Maimoni, Of Prayer and the Priest's Blessing, cap. XI. The reason then, of this Ecclesiastical, or moral holiness, is the deputation to the holy Ordinances of Divine Service, which deputation, if it be by Ordinance of the Apostles, solemnised upon persons, by prayer, with Imposition of Hands, why shall it not be solemnised by Consecration of Places, which is nothing else, but the solemn deputation of them to their purpose, by prayer to God, as persons are consecrated, when they are deputed to the service of God? And, is it not strange, that any man should find a negative reverence due to the places of God's service, but, all positive reverence, nothing else then superstition revived? For, what reason can be given, why men should abstain from light, or vain, or secular business, employment, or carriage, in Churches, but because the mind is to be possessed, and exercised about the contrary? And what reverence and devotion to God, in the Ordinances of his Service, can be maintained, without making difference between common and Consecrate Places, is not to be seen by the practice of this time, that hath laid all reverence and devotion aside, and therefore, it seems, will never be seen again, until that reverence be revived again, and sensibly expressed, to Persons and Places dedicated to God's service, (for Times deputed to God's service, are not subject to sense, therefore, not capable of the like) by such solemnities, as may be fit to maintain that inward devotion, which the Ordinances of God's service, to which they are deputed, are to be performed with. And, not only Times, Places, and Persons, are capable of this moral quality, of relative Ecclesiastical Holiness, but whatsoever, either by disposition of God's Law, or by man's act, is affected to the service of God. For, so saith our Saviour, That the Temple consecrates the gold which it is adorned with, and the Altar the gift that is offered upon it; and that therefore, He that sweareth by the Temple, or the Altar, sweareth by God, to whose service they were offered, Mat. XXIII. 17, 19, 20— And the Jews Corban, which our Lord reproveth, as used to bind that which was against God's Law, Mat. XV. 5. was nothing but an Oath, by the Oblations consecrated to the reparations of the Temple, as you may see in Grotius. And, as First-fruits and Tithes, which the Law consecrates to God, render him sacrilegious and accursed, that touches them against the intent of the Law, as you see by that allegory of the Prophet, Jer. II. 3. Israel is a thing consecrate to the Lord, the First-fruit of his revenue: all that devour him are guilty, evil haunts them: So the Law, in obliging men to consecrate what they would to the Lord, makes the consecrate thing anathema, that is, the person accursed, that applies it to any other use, Levit. XXVII. 28. Under the Gospel the difference is only this, that nothing is consecrate, by disposition of the Law, without the act of man, moved by the Law of Christianity, to consecrate it: According to that difference between the Law and the Gospel, alleged before, that, because the Law constraineth to obedience for fear of mischief, the Gospel winneth obedience by love of goodness, therefore, in correspondence thereunto, the Law was to require the maintenance of God's service, under such Penalties as they should not dare to incur; the Gospel, by the same freedom of mind, which constrained men to give themselves to God, was to constrain them, to give their goods to the maintenance of his Service. For the rest, as under the Law, the Gold is consecrated by the Temple, and the Sacrifice by the Altar; and so, all consecration, tended to communion with God, by the participation of Sacrifices offered to God: So, having showed, how the Gospel ordaineth, that Christians also communicate with God, in the Sacrifice of the Cross, by the Sacrament of the Eucharist, by the same reason it follows, that, what is given to build and repair, and beautify Churches, to maintain the Assemblies of the Church, to support them that minister God's Ordinances, to enable the poor to attend upon the Communion of the same, is consecrated by the Altar of the Cross, and the Sacrifice thereof, represented in the Eucharist, being the chief part of that service, which the Church tenders to God, and that which is peculiar to Christianity. S. chrysostom truly, construes, the reason why our Lord would not have Mary Magdalen reproved, for pouring out such an expense on his body to no purpose, which might have done so much good among the poor, Mat. XXVI. 11. to be this, that Christians might understand themselves, to be bound, as well to maintain the means of God's service, as the poor that attend upon it. And, let any man show me the difference of the sin of Achan, from that of Ananias and Sapphira, For, as he became accursed, by touching that which was deputed to maintain God's service, and was so, before he denied it: So, no man can imagine, that these had been guiltless, if they had confessed: For they are charged by the Apostle, not only for lying to the Holy Ghost, but for withdrawing part of the price, Acts V 3. And therefore, by the premises, having showed, that the goods which were laid down at the Apostles feet, were thereby affected, applied, and deputed to maintain the Body of the Church, in the daily Communion of the Service of God, especially of the Eucharist, which they frequented, Acts II. 42, 46. it followeth, that they were consecrated to God by the Altar, as all Oblations of Christians, to the maintenance of God's service, are, by the Sacrifice of the Cross, represented and commemorated in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, being the chief part of the service of God under the Gospel, and that which is only proper to Christians. And, by consequence, that which is consecrate to the service of God, under the Gospel, is anathema, for the same reason, as under the Law, because, they are accursed, that take upon them to apply it to any other use.  
These things premised, it will not be difficult, to determine the limits, of Sovereign and Ecclesiastical Power, in the conduct and establishment of matters of Religion, in a Christian State. Which, seeing it chief consists, in the Right of giving those Laws, by which this establishment and conduct is executed; and having showed, that the Right of Sovereign Power, in Church matters, is not destructive, but cumulative to the Power of the Church, and that there is an Original Right in the Church, of giving Laws, as to the Society of the Church: It follows, that the Right of making those Laws, whereby Religion is established in a Christian State, belonging, both to the Sovereign Power, and to the Church, are not distinguishable by the subject, (for I have premised, that Sovereign Powers may make Laws of Church matters) but by the several reasons, and grounds, and intents of both. That is to say, that the determining of the matter of Ecclesiastical Laws, in Order to the sentence of Excommunication, which the Church is able to enforce them with, belongs to the Church, that is, to those, whom we have showed, to have that power, on behalf of the Church: But, the enacting of them, as Laws of  Societies, in order to those Privileges and Penalties, which States are able to enforce Religion with, belongs to the Sovereign Powers, that give Law to those States. For, here it is to be known, that any Religion, is made the Religion of any State, by two manner of means, that is, of temporal Privileges, and temporal Penalties: For, how much toleration soever is allowed several Religions, in any State, none of them can be counted the Religion of the State, till it be so privileged, as no other can be privileged in that State. Though it becomes the Religion of that State still more manifestly, when Penalties are established, either upon the not exercise of the Religion established, or upon the exercise of any other besides it. Those of the Congregations seem indeed hitherto to maintain, that no Penalty can be inflicted, by any State, upon any cause of Religion, to which Point I will answer by and by. Which if it were so, then could no Religion be the Religion of any State, but by temporal Privileges. In the mean time, having determined, that, by the Word of God, Christianity is to be maintained by Secular Power, and, seeing it cannot be ingraffed into any State, but by making the Laws thereof, the Laws of that State, in this doing, my conclusion is, that the matter of Ecclesiastical Laws, is determinable by the Church, the force of them, as to such means, as the State is able to enact them with, must come from the State. The reason is, first, from that of the Apostle, pronounced by him in one particular case, but, which may be generalized to this purpose, 1 Cor. VII. 20, 24. Every one, in what state he is called to be a Christian, therein let him continue. Which if it hold, neither can any quality, in any  Society, give any man that Right, which ariseth from the Constitution of the Church, nor on the contrary. Wherefore, seeing it is manifest, that there is in the Church, a Power of giving Laws, to every respective part of it, as it is granted, that there is in all Sovereign Powers, in respect of all persons and causes, it follows, that they are distinguishable, by the several reasons, on which they stand, and arise, and the several intents, to which they operate, and the effects they are able to produce. Secondly, no Religion, but Judaisme, was ever given immediately by God to any State, and that, by such Laws, as determine both the exercise of Religion, and the  Government of that people. But, all Nations think they have received Religion, from some Divinity which they believe, and therefore, by the Law of Nations, the ordering of matters of Religion, must needs belong to those, by whom, and from whom, several Nations believe they have received it. Much more Christianity, received from and by our Lord and his Apostles, must needs be referred to the conduct of those, whom, we have showed, they left trusted with it. But the Power to dispose of the exercise of Religion, is a point of Sovereignty, used by all States, according to several Laws. Wherefore, Christianity, much more obliging all Sovereigns, to use this Power, to the advancement of it, the coactive Power of secular Societies, must needs take place much more, in establishing Christianity, by such constitutions, as Christianity may be established with. Thirdly, the whole Church, is by Divine Right, one Visible Society, though to an invisible purpose, and the Power of giving Laws, either to the whole, or to several parts of it, of Divine Right. But, neither the whole, nor the parts of it, are necessarily convertible with any one State, and yet the Church under several States, many times in extreme need, of the use of that power, which God hath given his Church, to determine matters determinable: Therefore, this power cannot be vested in any of the States, under which the Church is concerned, but in those that have Power, in behalf of the Churches, respectively concerned. The fourth argument is very copious, from the exercise of this power, in the Religion instituted by God, among his ancient people, of which nature there is nothing in the New Testament, because, in the times whereof it speaks, Sovereign Powers were not Christian. I have showed in divers places of this Discourse, that the High Consistory of the Jews at Jerusalem, had power to determine all questions, that became determinable, in the matter of Laws given by God. And yet there is great appearance, that this Consistory itself, was not constantly settled there, according to Law, till Josaphats' time, at least, not the inferior Consistories, appointed by the Law of Deut. XVI. 18. as the Chief, by the Law of Deut. XVII. 8— to be settled in the several Cities. For, if so, why should the Judges, and Samuel, ride circuit, up and down the Country, to minister justice according to the Law, as we read they did then, Jud. V 10. X. 4. XII. 14. 1 Sam. VII. 16. but not after Josaphats' time. And, for this reason, it seems, Josaphat himself, being to put this Law in force, first, sent Judges up and down the Cities, 2 Chron. XVII. 8, 9 afterwards settled them according to the Law, in the Cities of Juda as well as at Jerusalem, 2 Chron. XIX. 5, 8. Besides, Josephus, in express terms, rendering a reason of the disorder upon which the war against Benjamin followed, attributes it to this, that the Consistories were not established according to Law, Antiq. V 2. And again, Antiq. V 5. he gives this for the cause, why Eglon undertook to subdue the Israelites, that they were in disorder, and the Laws were not put in use. And therefore it is justly to be presumed, that the exact practice of this Law, on which, that of all the rest depended, took not place, till Josaphat applied the coactive power, then in his hands, to bring to effect, that which God had established in point of Divine right. The Consistory then, by the Law, is commanded to judge the People: That is, the Sovereign Power of the people, is commanded to establish the Consistory: Josaphat finds this command to take hold upon him, as having the Power of that People in his hands. So again, God had commanded, that Idolaters should be put to death, and their Cities destroyed, the Consistory enquiring, and sentencing, as appears by the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni, of Idolatry, cap. IU. Deut. XIII. 2, 13, 14. But, suppose the disease grown too strong for the cure, (as we must needs suppose the Consistory unable, to destroy an Idolatrous City, when most Cities do the like; or to take away High Places, when the Land is overrun with them) then must the coactive Power of the Secular arm, either restore the Law, or be branded to posterity, for not doing it, as you see, the Kings of God's people are. The Precept of building the Temple, was given to the Body of the People, therefore it takes hold upon David, and the Powers under him, his Princes, his Officers, and Commanders, 1 Chro. XIII. 2. XXVIII. 1. In fine, the Consistory, by the Law, was to determine matters undetermined in the Law, whether in general, by giving Laws in questionable cases, or in particular, by sentencing causes: But, if the people slide back, and cast away the yoke of the Law, none but the Sovereign Power can reduce them under the Covenant of the Law, to which they are born. Therefore, that Covenant is renewed, by Asa, by Hezekiah, by Josias, by none but the King, as first it was established by Moses, King in Jesurun, Deut. XXIX. 1. XXXIII. 5. 2 Chron. XV. 12, 14. XXIX. 10. XXXIV. 31. And, it is a very gross mistake, to imagine, that the people renewed it, or any part of it, without the consent of the Sovereign, under Esdras and Nehemias', Esd. XI. 1 — Neh. X. 29— V. 12. For, Esdras having obtained that Commission, which we see, Es. VII. 11— may well be thought thereby established, in the quality of Head of the Consistory, by the Sovereign Power, as the Jews all report him: But howsoever, by that Commission, we cannot doubt, that he was enabled to swear them to the Law, by which he was enabled to govern them in it, his commission supposing a grant, of full leave, to live according to their Law. But in Nehemias', we must acknowledge a further power, of Governor under the King of Persia, as he calls himself expressly, Neh. V 14, 15. which quality, seems to me, answerable to that, of the Heads of the Captive Jews in Babylonia, of whom we read divers times in Josephus, as well as in the Jews writings, that they were Heads of their Nation in that Country, having Heads of their Consistories under them, at the same time, as Esdras under Nehemias'. The proceed then, of Esdras and Nehemias', as well as of the Kings of Juda, prove no more, then that which I said in the beginning of this Chapter, that Sovereign Powers have Right, to establish, and restore, all matters of Religion, which can appear to be commanded by God. For, it is not in any common reason to imagine, that by any Covenant of the Law, renewed by Esdras and Nehemias', they conceived themselves enabled, or obliged, to maintain themselves by force, in the profession and exercise of their Religion, against their Sovereign, in case he had not allowed it them: Therefore, of necessity, that which they did, was by Power derived by Commission from the Kings of Persia, (and so with reservation of their obedience to them) who, granting Nehemias' and Esdras Power to govern the People in their Religion, must needs be understood to grant them both, the free profession and exercise of the same. But, having showed, that the Church hath Power, by Divine Right, to establish, by a general Act, which you may call, a Canon, Constitution, or Law, all that God's Law determineth not, mediately, and by consequence, I conceive it remains proved by these particulars done under the Old Testament, that the Church is to determine, but the determinations of the Church, to be maintained by the coactive Power of the Secular arm, seeing they cannot come to effect, in any Christian State, otherwise. Which also is immediately proved, by some acts, recorded in Scripture, whereby that is limited, which Gods Law had not determined. It is said, 1 Chro. XXV. 1. That David, and the Captains of the Militia, divided the sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, to the service of God. Here, it were an inconvenience to imagine, that Commanders of War should meddle with ordering the Tribe of Levi, and the service of the Temple. It is not so: We are to understand there, by the Militia, the Companies of Priests, that waited on the Service of the Temple, the Captains of whom, with David, divided the Singers, as they did the Priests, 1 Chron. XXIV. 3, 6, 7. Though elsewhere, 1 Chron. XXIII. 6. David alone is mentioned to do it, as, by whose Power, a business concerning the state of a Tribe in Israel, was put in effect and force. So, Hezekias and his Princes, and all the Synagogue, advised about holding the Passeover, in the second month, 2 Chron. XXX. 2. that is, he advised with the Consistory, who are there, as in Jer. XXVI. 10, 11. called the Princes, for so the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni, in the Title of coming into the Sanctuary, ca IU. teach us to understand it. So, David and his Princes, gave the Gibeonites, to wait upon the Levites; whereupon they are called Nethinim, that is, Given, Esd. VIII. 20. where, by David and the Princes, we must understand by the same reason, David and the great Consistory of his time. So also, Maimoni in the Title Erubin, subinit. or rather the Talmud Doctors, whose credit he followeth, tell us, that Solomon and his Consistory brought that Constitution into practice, concerning what rooms meats may be removed into, upon the Sabbath. Herewith agrees the practice of Christian Emperors, if we consider the style, and character, of some of their Laws in the Codes, by which the rest may be estimated: seeing it is not possible to consider all, in this abridgement. There, you shall find a Law, by which, the Canons of the Church are enforced, and the Governors of Provinces tied, to observe and execute them, long before the Code of Canons, was made, by Justinian, a Law of the Empire. There you shall find, the Audiences of Bishops established, and the sentences of them enforced by the Secular arm, the authority of them having been in force, in the Society of the Church, from the beginning, as hath been said. There you shall find Laws, by which men are judged Heretics and Schismatics, as they acknowledged the Faith determined by such and such Counsels, or not, as they communicated with such & such Bishops, or not: which, what is it, but to take the Act of the Church for a Law, and to give force to it by the Secular arm? Which, what prejudice can it import, to any Christian State upon the face of the earth? For, first, such Assemblies of the Church, at which public matters are determinable, cannot meet, but by allowance of the State. In particular, though the Church hath Right to assemble Counsels, when that appears the best course, for deciding matters in difference, yet, it cannot be said, that the Church was ever able to assemble a general Council, without the command of Christian Princes, after the example of Constantine the Great. And this is the State of Religion, for the present, in Christendom. The Power of determining matters of Religion, rests, as always it did, in the respective Churches, to be tied, by those determinations: But, the Power to assemble, in freedom, those judgements, which may be capable to conclude the Church, must rest in the free agreement of the Sovereignty's in Christendom. Secondly, it hath been cautioned afore, that all Sovereign Powers have right to see, not only that nothing be done in prejudice to their Estates, but also in prejudice to that which is necessary to the salvation of all Christians, or that which was from the beginning established in the Church, by our Lord and his Apostles. Therefore, when Counsels are assembled, neither can they proceed, nor conclude, so, as to oblige the Secular Powers, either of Christendom, or of their respective Sovereignty's, but by satisfying them, that the determinations, which they desire to bring to effect, are most agreeable to that which is determined by Divine Right, as well as to the Peace of the State. And so the objection ceases, that by making the Church independent upon the State, as to the matter of their Laws and determinations, we make two Heads in one Body. For, seeing there is, by this determination, no manner of coactive Power in the Church, but all in the State, (for Excommunication constrains, but upon supposition, that a man resolves to be a Christian) there remains but one Head, in the  Society of every State, so absolute, over the persons that make the Church, that the independent power thereof, in Church matters, will enable it, to do nothing against, but suffer all things from the Sovereign. And yet, so absolute, and depending on God alone, in Church matters, that if a Sovereign, professing Christianity, should not only forbid the profession of that Faith, or the exercise of those Ordinances, which God hath required to be served with, but even the exercise of that Ecclesiastical Power, which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church, it must needs be necessary, for those that are trusted with the Power of the Church, not only to disobey the commands of the Sovereign, but to use that Power, which their quality, in the Society of the Church, gives them, to provide for the subsistence thereof, without the assistance of Secular Powers. A thing manifestly supposed, by all the Bishops of the Ancient Church, in all those Actions, wherein they refused to obey their Emperors seduced by Heretics, and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them, to the prejudice of Christianity: Particularly, in that memorable refusal of Athanasius of Alexandria, and Alexander of Constantinople, to admit the Heretic Arius to Communion, at the instant command of Constantine the Great. Which most Christian action whosoever justifies not, besides the appearance of favour to such an Heresy, he will lay the Church open to the same ruin, whensoever the Sovereign Power is seduced by the like. And, such a difference falling out, so that, to particular persons, it cannot be clear, who is in the Right, it will be requisite for Christians, in a doubtful case, at their utmost perils, to adhere to the Guides of the Church, against their lawful Sovereigns, though to no further effect, then to suffer for the exercise of Christianity, and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity.  
Now, what strength and force, the exercise of the Keys, which is the Jurisdiction of the Church, necessarily requires from the Secular arm, may appear, in that this Power, hath been, and may be enforced, by Sovereigns of contrary Religions. The first mention of Excommunication among the Jews, is, as you have seen, under Esdras, who proceeded by Commission from the King of Persia. In the Title of both Codes, of Justinian and Theodosius, De Judae is & Coelicolis, you have a Law of the Christian Emperors, whereby, the Excommunications of the Jews are enacted, and enforced, by forbidding inferior powers to make them void. And, thus was the sentence of the Church against Paulus Samosatenus, ratified by the Heathen Emperor Aureliane, as you may see in Eusebius his Histories, VII. 30. For, though the matter thereof were not evident to him, that was no Christian, yet, the authority might be, the support whereof, concerned the Peace of the Empire. And so it was evident in that case: For there being a difference in the Church of Antiochia; between the Bishop, and some of the Clergy and People, and the Synod there assembled, having condemned and deposed the Bishop; if this deposition were allowed by the Synod of the Church of Rome, no man will deny, that there was thereby sufficient ground, for him that was no Christian, to proceed, and take away possession of the Church, and Bishop's house, from him that by such authority was deposed. And thus, you see how true it is which I said, that in Christian States, the Power of the Church cannot be in force, without the Sovereign, because Excommunication, which is the Sword thereof, and the last execution of this spiritual Jurisdiction, might be made void otherwise. As for the prejudice, which may come to a Christian State, by a Jurisdiction, not depending upon it in point of right, but only in point of fact, there seem to be two considerable difficulties made: The first, the Excommunication of the Sovereign: Ormore generally thus, that the Keys of the Church may then interpose in State matters: The second, in regard that I have showed, that, by the words of our Lord, this Power may take place in matters of interest between party and party: For if in any, why not in all? and if in all, where shall the secular Power become, that Power that is able to judge all causes, being able to govern any State? To the first, the answer is evident, that, so fare as Excommunication concerns barely the Society of the Church, any person, capable of Sovereign Power, is liable to it, upon the same terms as other Christians are, because, coming into the communion of the Church, upon the same condition as other Christians, the failing of this condition, must needs render the effect void. But, if we consider, either the temporal force, by which it comes to effect, or the temporal penalties which attend on it, to these, which cannot proceed, but by the will of the Sovereign, it is not possible that he should be liable. Thus I had rather distinguish, then, between the greater Excommunication and the less, as some do, who conclude, that the Sovereign cannot be subject to the greater, but to the less. For there is, indeed, but one Excommunication, as there is but one Communion, abstinence from the Eucharist, being no permanent but a transient estate, under which whosoever comes, if he give not satisfaction to the Church, becomes contumacious, and so, liable to the last sentence. Let no man marvel at the good Emperor Theodosius, giving satisfaction of his penitence to the holy Bishop S. Ambrose. The reason was, because Christianity, then fresh from the Apostles, was understood, and uncorrupt. It was understood, that he held not his Empire, by being of the Church, nor, that his subjects ought him any less obedience, for not being of it. He that taught him to be subject to God, taught his people also, to be subject to him for God's sake, as Christians always were to Heathen Emperors, even Persecutors. Which, if it were received, it is not imaginable, that the Powers of the world could be prejudiced by any censure of the Church. As for the objection, that excommunicate persons are not to be conversed with, by S. Paul's rule, it is answered by all Divines, that it ceases, in such relations (for example, of Parents, and children) as are more ancient than the Society of the Church, which it therefore presupposeth: and so is to cease, in things necessary to  Society, which Christianity, as it presupposeth, so it enforceth, and not overthroweth. In like manner, it is to be said, that all proceed, either of the Popes, or of the Scottish Presbyteries, in those cases which the burden of Issachar mentions, are the productions of the corruption, or misunderstanding of Christianity. For, as Aristotle says, that some things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so must we say, that those things only exclude from the Church, which, by the very nature and essence of them, are inconsistent with Christianity, being those things, which a Christian renounces, when he is admitted into the Church. Now, the affairs of States, such as are, Treaties, and alliances with foreign States, reason of Government at home, in Jurisdiction, giving Laws, and commands of State, are such things, as are not necessarily bad or good, but may be the subject either of virtue or vice: much less, can it be manifest, not only to the Body of Christians, but even to the Guides of the Church, when Governors forsake, and when they cleave to their Christianity, though it is certain, that they do either the one or the other always. Wherefore, for particular actions, of the same kind with those, for which private persons are liable, when they become notorious, Princes also, and public Persons are subject to the censure of the Church. But for public Government, the reason whereof must not be known, the kind thereof, in the whole exrent, being capable of good as well as bad; it is nothing but the misunderstanding and corruption of Christianity, that engages the Church in them, by the fault of those, that by their quality in the Church, seek to themselves some interest in public affairs, which Christianity generally denies to be due. And, the same is to be said of them, that make public affairs, the subject of their prayers and Preaching. Which, though it may be done to good purpose, and in opposition to worse, yet, seeing Christianity requires, not only that it may be so in the Church, but also that it may not be otherwise, as it must needs proceed from a decay of Christianity, so it must needs tend to the utter ruin of it. As for the drawing of  causes, to the cognisance of Ecclesiastical Judicatories, by some things that have been said, or done, to the advancement of the Presbyteries in Scotland, or here, it appears there is cause of scruple: But it is because the reason is overseen, upon which our Lords saying proceeds. For, if the reason, why our Lord will have the differences of Christians ended within the Church, is, that those that are without, may not take notice, of the offences that are among Christians, this will not hinder Christians to plead before Christians, and therefore, will hinder no Jurisdiction of  States, as ceasing so fare as the State becomes Christian. Wherefore, it is not without cause, that the Audiences of Bishops, have been, by the Laws of the Empire, and other Christian States succeeding the same, limited to such kinds of causes, as seemed to stand most upon consideration of charity, and so, fittest to be sentenced by the Church. But Matrimonial causes, seem to me necessarily to belong to this cognisance: Because of that particular disposition, which, our Lord, in his Gospel, hath left concerning Marriage. For, if this be peculiar to Christians, as Christians, then, whatsoever becomes questionable, upon the interpretation of this Law, concerning the Church, as it is the Church, must needs fall under the sentence of those, that are enabled to conclude the Society of the Church. And therefore, it is without question, as ancient as Christianity, that no Marriage be made which the Church alloweth not, the Benediction whereof upon Marriages, is a sign of the allowance of the Church presupposed; as that upon the Marriage of Booz and Ruth, Ruth IU. 11. presupposeth the act to be allowed by the Elders or Consistory of Bethlehem, as you have it afore. These difficulties thus voided, it remains, that the Secular Powers stand bound in conscience, to enforce the Jurisdiction of the Church, where the exercise of it, produceth nothing contrary to the principles of Christianity, or the quiet of the State.  
As for the interest of the State in Ordinations, the same reason holds. It is very manifest, by many examples, of commendable times, under Christian Emperors, that many Ordinations have been made, at the instance, and command of Emperors and Sovereign Princes. And why not? what hindereth them, to make choice of fit persons, than the Clergy and People can agree to choose? And what hindereth the Church, upon consideration of their choice, to reform their own? But, when Sovereign Powers, by General Laws, forbidden Ordinations to proceed, but upon persons nominated by themselves, how then shall the Right of the Church take place? or what shall be the effect of S. Paul's precept to Timothy, To lay hands hastily on no man, lest he partake of other men's sins? Which cannot take place, unless he that Ordain, be free not to Ordain. The Precedent Thuanus, writing of the Concordates between Leo the tenth and Francis the first, (by which, the Canonical way of Election of Bishops was abolished in France) saith freely, that that great Prince, never prospered after that Act: giving this for his reason, because thereby, that course of electing Bishops was taken away, which had been introduced from the beginning by the Apostles. In fine, of this particular, I shall need to say no more but this, according to the general reason premised, that, qualities ordained by the constitution of the Church, are to be conferred by persons qualified so to do, by the constitution of the Church: But, with this moderation, that Secular Powers be satisfied, not only, that the persons promoted, be not prejudicial to the Peace of the State, whereof they have charge, by their proper qualities, but also, that, as Christians, they be not assistant, to the promotion of those, who profess the contrary of that, which they, as Christians, professing, are bound to maintain.  
In the last place, it will not be difficult, from the premises to determine the interest of the State, in settling, maintaining, and disposing of the endowment of the Church. For, seeing the reasons premised, (which now are laughed at, by those that will not understand wherein Christianity consists) have prevailed so far, with all Christian people, that all Tithes, and many other Oblations and Endowments, are, and have been, in all parts, consecrated to God, as the First-fruits of Christians goods, for the maintenance of his Service; it remains the duty of the Secular Sword, to maintain the Church in that right. For, that public Power, that shall lay hands on such goods, shall rob both God and the People: God, in respect of the Act of Consecration, passed upon such goods: the People, in respect of the Original right and reason of the Church, which first moved Christians to consecrate the same: By virtue of which right, that which first was consecrated, being taken away by force, Christian people remain no less obliged, to separate from the remainder of their poverty, that which shall be proportionable to that, which all Christian people have always consecrated to God, out of their estates. And, those, that persuade good Christians, that such consecrations, have proceeded only from the cozenage of the Clergy, for their own advantage, may as well persuade them, that they were cozened, when they were persuaded to be Christians, seeing such consecrations have been made, by all Christian people. As for the disposing of that which is given to the public use of the Church, I say not the same. I hold it necessary, that the Church satisfy the State, that, whatsoever is given to such use, may be to the common good of the people, and so leave the imperfection of Laws to blame, that it is not. A thing which I think may very reasonably be done. For first, all Cathedral Churches, being by the institution of the Apostles, entire Bodies in themselves, distinct from other Churches, according to that which hath been proved of the dependence of Churches, all Oblations to any Church, originally, belong to the Body thereof in common, at the disposing of the Bishop and Presbyters thereof, which is known to have been the Primitive Order of the Church, derived from the practice of the Apostles, which I have declared out of the Scriptures. Though they have complied with the bounty of those, that have endowed Parish Churches, and consented to limit the endowments of every one of them, to itself alone. Secondly, it is manifest, that the Clergy, are under such a Discipline of the Primitive Church, that, so long as they continue to live in such a discipline, they can neither waste the endowment of the Church upon themselves, nor use it to the advancement of their Families: Which Discipline, if the Secular Power be employed to retrieve, it will not be thereby, destructive to the Power of the Church, but cumulative. As likewise, if it be employed to the most advantageous distribution, of that mass of Church goods, which lies affected, and deputed to any Cathedral Church, through the whole Diocese thereof, in case the distribution made by Humane Right, appear prejudicial to those charitable purposes, which are the means, by which, the Service of God, through that Church or Diocese, is maintained and advanced. Provided always, that a greater Sacrilege be not committed, by robbing the Bishop and Presbyters, of the Right and Power, which they have from the Apostles; in disposing of the endowment of their Church. These things promised, it is easy to undertake, that there never was so great a part of the fruits of this Land, mortified, and put out of commerce, and applied and affected to the Church, but that it was, in that estate, more advantageous to the public strength, security, and plenty of the Nation, as well as to the service of God, and the charitable maintenance of those that attend it, in case the Secular Power had been improved, to dispose of it for the best, than it can be, in any particular hands, especially in the hands of Sacrilege.   

CHAP. V.  
How the Church may be Reform without violating Divine Right. What Privileges and Penalties a Christian State may enforce Christianity with. The Consent of the Church, is the only mark to discern what is the subject of Reformation, and what not. All War made upon the Title of Christianity, is unjust, and destructive to it: Therefore Religion cannot be Reform by force. Of the present State of Christianity among us, and the means that is left us, to recover the Unity of the Church.  
THat which hath been said, as it concerns the present case of this Church, seems to be liable to one main Objection, which is this: That if the power of Bishops and Presbyters be such as hath been said, by Divine Right, that nothing can be done without them, in their respective Churches, it will follow, that, in case the State of the Church be corrupt, by process of time, and their default especially, so that the common good of the Church require Reformation, by changing of Laws in force; if they consent not, it cannot be brought to pass without breach of Divine Right. This may well seem to be the false light, that hath misguided well affected persons, to seek the Reformation presently pretended. For seeing it is agreed upon among us, that there was a time and a State of the Church which required Reformation, and that, if the Clergy of that time had been supported in that power, which, by the premises, is challenged on behalf of the Clergy, this Reformation could not have been brought to pass: It seems therefore to the most part of men, that distinguish not between causes and pretences, that where Reformation is pretended, there the power lawfully in force to the Society of the Church, aught to cease, that the Reformation may proceed, either by Secular power, or if that consent not, by force of the People. To strengthen this objection, as to the Reformation of this Church, it may further be said, that, though it is true, that the Order of Bishops hath been propagated in this Church, at and since the Reformation, by Ordinations made according to the form of that Apostolical Canon, That a Bishop be Ordained by two or three Bishops; yet, if we judge of the Original intent of that Canon, by the general practice of the Church, it will appear, that it is but the abridgement of the IV Canon of the Council of Nice, which requireth, that all Bishops be Ordained by a Council of the Bishops of the Province: Which, because it cannot always be had, therefore it is provided, that two or three may do the work, the rest consenting, and authorising the proceeding. A thing which seems necessarily true, by that which hath been said, of the dependence of Churches, consisting in this, that the Act of part of the Church obliges the whole, because that part which it concerns, and the Unity of the whole which it produceth, stands first obliged by it, being done according to the Laws of the whole. By which reason, the Act of Ordination of a Bishop, obliges the whole Church to take him for a Bishop, because the Mother Church to which he belongs, and the rest of Cathedral Churches under the same, do acknowledge it. And this is that which the Ordinance of the Apostles hath provided, to keep the Visible Communion of the whole Church in Unity. To which it is requisite, that a Christian communicate with the whole Church, as a Christian, a Bishop Presbyter or Deacon, as such. But when among the Bishops of any Province, part consent to Ordinations, part not, the Unity of the Church cannot be preserved, unless the consent of the whole follow the consent of the greater part. And therefore, though the Canon of Nice be no part of Divine Right, yet seeing the precept of the Unity of the Church, (being the end which all the Positive Laws of Church Government aim at) obligeth before any Positive precept of the Government thereof, which we see are many ways dispensed with for preservation thereof, and that it appears to be the general custom of the Primitive Church, to make Ordinations, at those Provincial Counsels, which by another Apostolical Canon XXXVIII, were to be held twice a year, it seemeth, that there can no valid Ordination be made, where the greater number of the Bishops of the Province dissent. Which is confirmed by the Ordination of Novatianus for Bishop of Rome, which, though done by three Bishops, (as the Letter of Cornelius to the Eastern Bishops, recorded by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. VI 43. testifieth) yet was the foundation of that great Schism, because Cornelius was Ordained on the other side by sixteen, as we read in S. Cyprian. Now it is manifest, that the Ordinations by which that Order is propagated in England, at and since the Reformation, were not made by consent of the greater part of Bishops of each Province, but against their mind, though they made no contrary Ordinations. And by the same means it is manifest, that all those Ecclesiastical Laws, by which the Reformation was established in England, were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church, if we set aside the Secular Power, that gave force unto that which was done, contrary to that Rule wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth. But in other parts, the Reformation established was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters, or any consent able to conclude the Church, by the Constitution of the Church, that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot, if not worse, that is, detested among them Upon which precedent it sounds plansibly with the greatest part among us, that, the Unity of the whole being dissolved by the Reformation, the Unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved, but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us.  
Before I come to resolve this difficulty, it will be requisite to examine, what Privileges and Penalties, the Secular Power is enabled to enforce Religion within a Christian State: Because it hath been part of the dispute of this time, that some Privileges of the Church are contrary to Christianity, as also some Penalties upon matter of Conscience: And the resolution of it will make way to my answer. Now the resolution hereof must come from the ground laid from the beginning of this Discourse, that Christianity importeth no temporal Privilege, or advantage of this present World; and therefore, that Christianity enableth no man to advance and propagate his Christianity by force. For, as it is contrary to the nature thereof to be forced, seeing the Service of God which it requireth, is not performed by any man that is not willing to do it, nor the Faith believed, but by them that are willing to believe it: So, seeing it gives no man any privilege of this world, which he cannot challenge by a lawful title of Humane Right, and that no title of Humane Right can enable any man, to impose upon another that Faith which Humane reason reveals not, therefore can no Humane power force any man to be a Christian, by the utmost penalty of death: which is that which force endeth in, to them that submit not. It is true, the Law of Moses imposeth death for a penalty in two cases of Religion; the first of Idolaters, the second of those that disobey the Consistory. But it is to be considered, that Idolatry is a sin which the light of nature convinceth, and is always attended with the consequences of such horrible sins, as the Apostle declareth, that God suffered the Gentiles to fall into, for their Idolatries, in the beginning of the Epistle to the Romans. Besides, that Penalty, by the Law, lies, but in respect of the seven Nations, whom God, (for their Idolatries, and the consequences thereof, such as I have mentioned) gave up to destruction by the sword of his people, on whom he bestowed their inheritance: And in respect of Israelites, whom God having entered into Covenant with, on condition to serve him alone, had thereupon endowed with Secular power, to punish the transgressors of it. So that the power of inflicting death in these cases, proceedeth upon the sentence of destruction and death, pronounced by God against the seven Nations, and committed to the execution of his People: And, upon the Sovereign power estated upon the people, by virtue of their Covenant with God: Which, though more than Humane for the Original, yet must needs be available, according to Humane Right, to the same effect, which the same Power, established by Title of Humane Right, is able to produce. And therefore, this Penalty, by these Laws, cannot belong to any, that absolutely refuse to submit to Christianity. Besides, it is to be observed, that those acts which this Law punishes with death, are specified by the Law, to be the worshipping of the Sun and Moon, and other Gods, Exod. XXII. 20. Deut. XVII. 3. the persuading to worship other Gods, and, for Cities to fall from God to do it, Deut. XIII. 5, 6, 12. and therefore this punishment cannot be extended to other Acts, which, by interpretation and consequence, may be argued into the general nature, or rather notion of Idolatries. A thing necessary to be said, because it is manifest, that there have been those, that have made reading Service or a Sermon, much more kneeling at the Communion, Idolatry, who, if they should proceed to improve their madness, to that consequence which naturally it produceth, must proceed to destroy  Society, by destroying all them, whom, in their madness, they take for Idolaters, as that wretched person did his Father, for persuading him to receive the Communion kneeling. As for those that disobeyed the Consistory, it is to be remembered, that hath been formerly observed, that Religion, and the  State of God's ancient people, made but one Society, by virtue of the Law, that estated them in the Land of Promise, upon condition of worshipping God, and governing themselves in their  life according to the same: By consequence whereof, whosoever should refuse to stand to that judgement, which God by the Law appointeth, to determine the differences which should arise about the interpretation, and limitation of that which the Law had not expressed, must endanger a breach among the people, which, it is all one, whether you call Rebellion or Schism. Now, it is no inconvenience to grant, that, whosoever shall pretend, under the Title of Christianity, to trouble the  peace of that people and State wherein he liveth, be thought guilty of such punishment, as the height of his offence shall deserve. Because, as this crime is most capital, as nearest concerning the public, so is it most manifest, that Christianity cannot be wronged by the punishment of it, seeing it hath been showed, that Christianity enableth no man to trouble the public peace. So that, if any man make it a part of his Religion, to maintain his Religion by force, being by such profession fallen from the innocence of Christianity, he is justly exposed to the violence of all temporal Laws, that punish those which trouble the public peace. This is the case of them, that thought themselves tied in conscience, by the Bull of Pius the fift against Q. Elizabeth; and it is the case of all them, that under any title of Religion whatsoever, pretend to maintain the profession or exercise thereof by faction or force. For, it is easy to see, that the Primitive Christians maintain themselves so against the Gentiles, that, supposing them no Christians, yet it doth appear, that they could not rightfully persecute them for their Christianity. Which none can maintain, but those, that profess to assert their Christianity, by nothing else, but by suffering for it. And here it is worth our noting, that about the time of our Lord, there was a Constitution of the Consistory, against Rebellious Elders, as they call them, (that is, such as, having attained the degree of Doctors of the Law, should Teach any thing to be lawful or unlawful by the Law, contrary to the determination of the Consistory) that they should be put to death, as you may see in Maimoni, in that Title. Which, how far it was ever in force, is hard to be said, because, by the Gospels we understand, that the Nation had not power of life and death at that time. For, that it was about that time that they say it was established, appears, because they report it to have been made in regard of the differences then on foot between the Scholars of Hillel and Sammai, which we know were not long before our Lord's time. This Constitution is nothing else, but the limitation of that which the Law of Deut. XVII. 8. establisheth, to particular circumstances. And upon supposition of this Constitution it is, that our Lord expresseth the difference between Moses Law and his Gospel, when he saith, Mat. V 19 He that shall break the least of these Commandments, and teach men so, shall be least in the Kingdom of heaven, but he that teacheth and doth them, shall be great in the Kingdom of heaven. For the very terms of that Constitution, being death to him that should both teach and do contrary to the determination of the Consistory, it is manifest, that our Lord, alluding to that Constitution of the Synagogue, declareth hereby, that, on the contrary, there is no penalty of death upon him that should teach and do contrary to his precepts, as those of the Consistory, but greater, that is, to be least in the Kingdom of heaven. Whereby he showeth, that the Gospel appointeth no temporal punishment to those that break Christ's precepts, but denies not that  States might. For the Gospel, supposing and establishing  Society, supposeth also those Penalties without which it subsisteth not. And the punishment of those that violate  Society, under the title of Christianity, is not by the Gospel, but by the  Power, which it presupposeth, and voideth not, because, Preaching, that Christianity cannot be prejudicial to States, it confirmeth, as to Christianity, that power which all States have towards all Religions, to see, that they prove not prejudicial to the public peace. We have then two cases of Religion punishable with death: The first, when that which is contrary to the Law of Nature, is, by the corruption of natural light, made matter of Religion, as hath been said of Idolaters, and, as it may be said of the whole spawn of Gnostics, from Simon Magus to the Manichees, their Heirs and Successors, which, as they corrupted Christianity with Heathenism, so, they took away the difference of good and bad, and brought in, under pretence of Religion, such horrible uncleanness as nature abhors: Which being, by mistake of the Gentiles, imposed upon the Primitive Christians, as, by the defence which they make for themselves, they do evidence sufficiently, that they are wronged by those reports, so they declare, that if they were true, they would not refuse the persecutions which they plead against. The 2d case is, when any thing prejudicial to  Society, is held and professed as part of Christianity. For, as that which is prejudicial to the public Peace, must needs be punishable by those Powers, which are trusted with the maintenance of public Peace, and that with the utmost punishment, when the case deserves it: So it is certain, that it is not Christianity which is punished in so doing, because Christianity contains nothing prejudicial to  Society and public Peace. Setting these cases aside, if no man can be constrained by capital punishment to become a Christian, it followeth, that no Heretic, Schismatic, or Apostate from Christianity can be punishable with death, merely for the opinion which he professeth. The same reasons rightly improved, seem to conclude, that no man is punishable by the  death of Banishment from his native Country and People, merely for an opinion, which he believeth and professeth, though falsely, to be part of Christianity. For, you see, there is a great difference between the case of the Law and the Gospel; The Law is the condition of a Covenant between God and the People of Israel, by which they were all estated in the Land of Promise, and every one in his several interest in the same: So that, whosoever should renounce or violate the condition of this Covenant, which is the Law, must needs become liable to the punishment of Death, when the Law establisheth it; and therefore to that of Banishment, or  Death, or any less punishment, when the Law enableth to establish it. But the Gospel is the condition of a Covenant, which tenders the Kingdom of heaven to all those that embrace and observe it: And therefore requires all Nations, Kingdoms, States, and Commonwealths, to enter into one Society of the Church, merely for the common service of God, upon conscience of the same Faith, and duty of the same obedience: But otherwise, acknowledging the same obligation, both of  and Domestic Society, as afore. Whereupon it follows, that as Christians, embracing Christianity freely, (because it cannot be truly embraced otherwise) purchase themselves thereby no Right or Privilege, against the Secular Powers which were over them afore: So no Secular Powers that are Sovereign, by professing Christianity themselves, purchase any Right and Power, (as to God) of enforcing Christianity upon their Subjects, by such Penalties, as the Constitution of those  Societies which they govern, enables them not to inflict, according to the common Law of all Nations. Wherefore, seeing common reason discovereth not the truth of Christianity to us, and therefore the common Law of Nations enjoineth not Christianity, as the condition of  Society, but that  Societies, as they subsisted before Christianity, so still subsist upon principles, which, for their Original, are afore it, though for their perfection after it, it seems, that the Sovereign Powers of  Societies, are not enabled to make Christianity, the condition of being a member of those States which they govern. But if Secular Powers be not enabled to punish the renouncing of Christianity, or of any part of it, with Natural or  death, doth it therefore follow, that all men are, by God's Law, to be left to their freedom, to believe and profess what they please? I suppose there are very great Penalties, under the rate of those, which the Constitution of  Societies, by the Common Law of Nations, will enable the Sovereign Powers thereof, to punish the neglect of Christianity with, when they have avowed it for the Religion of the States which they govern. For, in that case, the neglect of Christianity, is not only a sin against God, and a good conscience, but against  Society, and that reverence which every man owes the Powers that conclude his own People, in thankfulness to the invaluable benefit of peaceable protection, which he enjoies by the same. Secondly, seeing that all Religion, excepting true Christianity, is a most powerful means of disturbing the public peace of  Societies, though perhaps it profess no such thing expressly, it follows by consequence, that all Powers, that are trusted with the preservation of public Peace, are enabled to forbid that which is not true Christianity, by all penalties, under those that have been excepted. So that, when true Christianity is forbidden under such penalties, the fault shall be, not in usurping, but in abusing the Power, in applying it to a wrong subject, not in straining it to that which it extendeth not to. And in so doing, that is, in suffering that which is so done, it is not to be thought that Christianity can be wronged, though wrong be done to the men that are Christians. For, seeing it is the common profession of Christians, to bear Christ's Cross, and seeing it was the disposition of God, to advance Christianity to the Stern of the Roman Empire, and to the Rule of other Christian Kingdoms and Commonwealths, by demonstrating, that it was not prejudicial to  Society, by the sufferings of the Primitive Christians, it followeth, that, whatsoever a man holds for true Christianity, cannot be demonstrated to be so, as God hath appointed Christianity to be demonstrated, but by the sufferings of them that profess it. And therefore it remains agreeable to reason, that God hath given Secular Powers such right to restrain pretended Christianity, that when it is used against the true, it cannot be said to be usurped, but abused. It will be said, for it is said already, that any constraint to Christianity by temporal punishment, will serve but to confirm some, and engage them to that which they have once professed contrary to truth; and that others, who, to avoid punishment, shall outwardly submit to what inwardly they approve not, must needs forfeit all power of Christianity, by preferring the world before any part of it. To which it must be answered, that, all this granted, proves not that it is unjust, or that  Powers have no right to make such Laws, but that it is not expedient, the exercise of it, being, probably, to no good purpose, which defeats not the right, till it be proved, that it cannot be exercised to any good purpose: which in this point cannot be done. For, it is as probably said on the other side, that, by temporal Penalties, a man is induced, to consider with less prejudice, that which the Law of his Country pretendeth to be for his good, and to relish it aright, when, upon due consideration, it appears to be no otherwise: And so, the punishment of the Law, tends to the same purpose, as all afflictions are sent by God, to drive men to their good against their will: And, that those, who feignedly submit to Christianity, may, as Aristotle says, be Sunburnt by walking in the Sun, though they walk not in the Sun for that purpose: That is, by trying the effect of Christianity, in the worship of God, and reformation of men's lives, among whom they live, by being under such Laws, may be won to embrace it for itself, which, at first, they embraced for the worldly privilege of it. To which purpose, there can be no mean so effectual, as the restoring of the public discipline of Penance in the Church: By which it becomes most evident, what inward esteem men set upon Christianity, by the esteem they set upon the Communion of the Church; And, that the sentence of Excommunication is abhorred, not for the temporal Penalties, which, by  Laws attend upon it, but for the Society of the Church, which it intercepteth, And truly, this last inconvenience of Hypocritical profession, can by no means be avoided, wheresoever Christianity, or any opinion supposed to be a necessary part of it, is made the Religion of any State. For evidence whereof, I must repeat first, that which was supposed afore, that there are but two reasons, for which any Religion can be said to be the Religion of any State, to wit, Privileges and Penalties. In the second place, I must suppose here, that, as exemption from any penalty is a privilege, so exemption from a privilege is a penalty. Wherefore, seeing no Religion can be the Religion of any State, but by such privileges, as another Religion is not capable of, it is manifest, that Toleration of Religion, as it is a Privilege, in comparison of punishment, so it is a punishment, in comparison of that Religion which is privileged. These things supposed, it will not be difficult to render a reason, why Christianity must of necessity decay, and why the power of it is so decayed, since the world came into the Church. For when men came not to Christianity, till they had digested the hardship of the Cross, and resolved to prefer the next world afore this, it is no marvel, if they endured what they had foreseen, and resolved against. But, seeing temporal privilege, as well as temporal punishment, may belong to true Christianity, no marvel if men follow the reason of privilege, not of Christianity, when they go both together, though, by consequence, they will be ready to change as the privilege changes.  
Now, as to the Privileges which Christianity is endowed with, by the Act of God, or made capable of by the same, from Sovereign Powers, when they make Christianity the Religion of those States which they govern: It is very easy to resolve from the premises, that the Clergy are not exempt by Divine Right from any Law of those States under which they live. For, seeing the Clergy is a quality which presupposeth Christianity, and subsisteth by virtue thereof, and that no quality, subsisting by the constitution of the Church, or by Christianity, endoweth any man with any temporal right, wherewith he is not invested, by the quality which he holdeth, in his own Country, it followeth, that no man, by being of the Clergy, can be privileged against Secular Power, or against those Laws which are the Acts of it. And therefore, the example of Abiathar High Priest, removed from his Office by Solomon, for Rebellion and Treason, 1 Kings II. 26. (to wit, because, as it is there expressed, he had deserved to be removed out of the world) is an effectual argument to this purpose. For if that Office, to which his person was designed by God's express Law, (supposing him to be lawful High Priest) might be taken away for a crime committed against the Majesty of the King, subsisting by an Act subsequent to the Law established by God, because the Law which allowed a King, enjoined obedience by all the Penalties of the Law: And indeed, seeing the Clergy is but a degree qualifying men in Christianity above the People, those temporal privileges, which by Divine right are pretended to belong to the Clergy, must needs belong to the People in an inferior degree, by the same right: much more the Clergy, presupposing the Church, as the Church the State, must needs leave all men that are qualified by it, obliged, upon the same terms as it finds them, to the States wherein they profess themselves Christians. Which cannot be, when both Societies of the Church and the Commonwealth consist of the same persons. But, though the Clergy be not exempt from any Secular Jurisdiction by Divine Right, yet they are so capable of exemption by Divine Right, that no man can deny, the Privilege granted by the first Christian Emperors, the Causes of the Clergy to be heard and determined within the Clergy themselves, to be very agreeable to reason of Christianity. For, if our Lord hath commanded, and the Apostles ordained, the differences of Christians to be ended within themselves, that they might not prove a scandal to Christianity, it is but correspondent & consequent thereunto, that, for avoiding the scandals which the differences of the Clergy may occasion, or to make them less public, they be ended within themselves, seeing it is manifest to all understandings, that the reverence of the Clergy, is of great interest to the advancement of Christianity. On the other side, seeing the Discipline which the Clergy are liable to by Christianity, is so much stricter, then that which the  Laws of any Commonwealth whatsoever can require and determine, that Clergy men cannot incur the penalties of Criminal Laws, but they must be supposed, to have violated the stricter discipline of the Church which they are under, afore: It follows, that it is so fare from Christianity, to privilege them against such Laws, that the Church cannot otherwise be cleared of the scandal, then by Ecclesiastical censures, correspondent to the temporal punishments which they incur. But if thus it be true, that no man by virtue of his Christianity, is endowed with any Secular Privilege, of that  Society wherein he liveth: By the same reason it must be true, that no man is, by his Christianity, uncapable of any Right, common to all members of the State in which he liveth, unless some Law of Christianity can be produced, whereby it may appear, to be incompetible with the quality he holdeth in the Church. Which hath been pretended with much noise, to render the Clergy of this Church uncapable of employment in Secular affairs, in point of Divine Right, but will be very difficult to prove by the Scriptures, in regard that Christianity containeth nothing, but that which tendeth to the maintenance of  Society, as on the other side,  Society, and the Powers thereof, tendeth to the maintenance of Christianity. Therefore, the words of our Lord, That his Disciples should not be as the Gentiles, among whom the great ones domineer over the rest, and in so doing were called Gracious Lords, Mat. XX. 25. Mar. X. 42, 43. Luc. XXII. 25, 26. being spoken to his Disciples as Christians, not as Apostles, in commendation of humility and meekness, a quality concerning all Christians, cannot prove the Clergy forbidden secular employment, but they must, by the same reason, enforce all  Power to be unlawful among Christians, as also, in the Society of the Church, all superiority of power, as unlawful, as that which is here challenged on behalf of Bishops and Presbyters. On the other side, that which they are supposed to destroy, they manifestly presuppose, that is to say, a Superiority of power among the Disciples of Christ, by the names of greater and less, compatible with the quality of his Disciples: And therefore concern not the lawfulness of power, but the right use of it, and so, forbidden no sort of Christians any power whereof any Christian is capable. The words of S. Paul are more pertinent to this purpose, 2 Tim. II. 4. for it is a comparison that he borroweth, from the custom of the Roman Empire, wherein Soldiers, as they were exempted from being Tutors to men's persons, or Curators to their estates, so they were forbidden to be Proctors of other men's causes, to undertake husbandry or merchandise. Therefore when S. Paul saith to Timothy, No man that goeth to the army, entangleth himself in business of the world, that he may please him that imprested him; He raises indeed a particular exhortation to Timothy, upon a general ground of reason, appearing in the Roman Laws, that those of Timothy's quality oblige not themselves to business inconsistent with it: But can he be understood hereby, to make that a Law to the Militia of the Church, which was a Law to the Militia of the Empire? Or can an exhortation drawn from a comparison, be thought to create a general Law to all of Timothy's quality in general or in particular, further than the reason of the comparison will infer in every particular case? It is true, that Soldiers were forbidden business of profit, were exempted employments of public service, as was that of Tutors and Curators, because thereby they became obliged to the Laws, or to their own profit, to the prejudice of their attendance upon their colours: That is to say, that, for the great distance between  and Military employment, in that State, the Laws had rendered Soldiers uncapable of such qualities. And so it is confessed, that the Laws of the Church, the Canons, rendered the Clergy uncapable of the like, during the distance between the Church and the State not yet Christian. For so we find, that in S. Cyprians time, Clergy men were forbidden to be Tutors or Curators, for the like reason, because their obligation to the Laws in that estate, would have excused them to the Church: And because, that by reason of the distance between the State of the Church at that time, it could not tend to any public good of the Society of the Church. But in States that profess Christianity, can it be said, that the attendance of Clergy men upon the affairs of the Commonwealth, cannot be to the public good of the Church, consisting of all the same persons, only in a distinct reason and quality, whereof the Commonwealth consisteth? To me it seems fare otherwise, that in all public Assemblies of States, whether for making Laws, or for Jurisdiction, or for Counsel, or for preservation of public Peace, to banish those from them, whose quality and profession entitles them to the most exact knowledge and practice of Christianity, is to banish the consideration of Christianity, from the conclusions and effects of those Assemblies. For, though it be seen by experience, that the Clergy come short of the holiness, and exact conversation in Christianity, which they profess, yet it will be always seen likewise, that the people fail more, and before them, and that they are first, corrupted, by and with the people, then, corrupters of the people. And, as for the service of the Church, which they cannot attend upon in the mean time, supposing the Order here challenged, to be instituted by the Apostles, the inconvenience ceaseth. For, supposing all Cathedral Churches to be Corporations, trusted to provide for the government of all Congregations contained in, them in Church matters, and the Ministry of the Offices of Divine Service at the same, whatsoever Clergy man shall, by public employment, destitute his Congregation, shall leave it to the care of the Church originally entrusted with it: Which Churches, being all Nurseries and Seminaries of Clergy, designed for the Service of their respective Bodies, may easily, by the means thereof, see all Offices discharged from time to time, to all Congregations which they contain. And this is that which I desired to say here in general, to this most difficult point, of the Privileges and Penalties, which Christianity may be established and enforced with by a State that professes it: As for the particulars, which, upon those general reasons, may be disputed in point of lawful or unlawful, as also, for the point of expedience, whereby, that which in general may be done, aught or ought not to be done when the case is put, I leave to them that are qualified and obliged, to proceed in determining the same.  
To come, then, to the great difficulty proposed, it is to be acknowledged, that the Power of the Church, in the persons of them, to whom it is derived by continual succession, is a Law ordained by the Apostles, for the unity and edification of the Church: So that no part of the Whole, can stand obliged by any Act, that is not done by the Council and Synod of Bishops, respective to that part of the Church which it pretendeth to oblige. But withal it is to be acknowledged, that there are abundance of other Laws, given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles, whether they concern matters of Faith, or matter of Works, whether immediately concerning the salvation of particular Christians, or only the public Order of the Church, which, proceeding from the same, if not a greater power than the Succession of the Church, are to be retained, all, and every one of them, with the same Religion and conscience. And, with this limitation, the distinction which the Church of Rome is usually answered with, is to be admitted, between succession of Persons and succession of Doctrine; Not as if it were not a part of Christian doctrine, that the Succession of the Apostles is to be obeyed, as their Ordinance, but because there are many other points of doctrine delivered the Church, by our Lord and his Apostles, all and every one of them equally to be regarded with it. Again, I have showed, that the Secular Power is bound to protect the Ecclesiastical, in determining all things, which are not determined by our Lord and his Apostles, and to give force and effect to the acts of the same: But in matters already determined by them, as Laws given to the Church, if, by injury of time, the practice become contrary to the Law, the Sovereign Power being Christian, and bound to protect Christianity, is bound to employ itself, in giving strength, first, to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles. By consequence, if those whom the power of the Church is trusted with, shall hinder the restoring of such Laws, it may and aught, by way of penalty to such persons, to suppress their power, that so it may be committed to such, as are willing to submit to the superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles. A thing throughly proved, both by the Right of Secular Powers in advancing Christianity with penalties, and in establishing the exercise of it, and, in particular, by all the examples of the pious Kings of God's people, reducing the Law into practice, and suppressing the contrary thereof. Seeing then, that it is agreed upon, by all that profess the Reformation, that many and divers things ordained by our Lord and his Apostles, whether to be believed, or to be practised in the Church, were so abolished by injury of time, that it was requisite they should be restored, though against the will of those, that bore that power, which the Apostles appointed necessary to conclude the Church; it followeth, that, the necessity of Reformation inferreth not the abolishing of the Succession of the Apostles, but that more Laws of our Lord and his Apostles, and of more moment, were preferred before it, where it could not regularly be preserved: Which, when it may be preserved, is to be so far preserved before all designs, which may seem to humane judgement expedient to the advancement of Christianity, that whosoever shall endeavour, without such cause, to destroy the power derived from the Apostles, by conferring it upon those, that succeed them not in it, and much more, whosoever shall do it to introduce Laws contrary to the Ordinance of the Apostles, shall be thereby guilty of the horrible crime of Schism. For it is to be remembered, that there are some things immediately necessary to the salvation of particular Christians, whether concerning Faith or good manners; and there are other things necessary to the public order and peace of the Church, that by it Christians may be edified in all matters of the first kind. The denying of any point of the first kind, may, for distinctions sake, be called Heresy, when a man is resolute and obstinate in it: But in the other kind, it is not a false opinion that makes a man a Schismatic, till he agree to destroy the Unity of the Church for it. It can scarce fall out indeed, that any man proceed to destroy the Unity of the Church, without some false opinion in Christianity: Yet it is not the opinion, but the destroying of a true, or erecting of a false power in the Church, that makes Schism. And it can scarce fall out, that any man should broach a doctrine contrary to Christianity, without an intent to make a Sect apart; yet, only a false persuasion in matters necessary to salvation, is enough to make an Heretic. This is the reason, that both Heresy and Schism, goes many times under the common name of Heresies or Sects, among the ancient Fathers of the Church. Otherwise, it is truly said, that Heresy is contrary to Faith, Schism to Charity: because the crime of Heresy is found in a single person that denies some point of Faith, though the name of it be general, only to those, and to all those that make Sects apart. In the mean time we must consider that the word Schism, signifies the state as well as the crime, in which sense, all that are in the state of Schism, are not in the crime of Schism, but those that give the cause of it. For as it is resolved, that War cannot be just on both sides that make War, so is it true, that the cause of all divisions in the Church must needs be only on one side, and not on both: And that side which gives the cause, are rightfully called Schismatics, though both sides be in the state of Schism, as he in S. Augustine said of Tarquin and Lucrece, that being two in one act, yet one of them only committed Adultery. If then, the Laws given by our Lord and his Apostles be restored, by consent of some part of the Council and Synod, requisite to oblige any respective part of the Church, and the Succession of the Apostles propagated by them alone, in opposition to the rest that consent not unto them, the cause of Schism cannot lie on this side, which concurreth with the Primitive Succession of our Lord and his Apostles, but upon them that violate the Communion of the Church, by refusing such Laws, and the right of such persons, as acknowledge the same, the condition of the Unity and Communion of the Church, consisting as much in the rest of Laws given by our Lord and the Apostles, as in that of the Succession and power of the Apostles: Which is the case of the Church of England. But whoever, by virtue of any authority under heaven, shall usurp Ecclesiastical Power, shall usurp the Succession of the Apostles, and take it from them that rightfully stand possessed of it, upon pretence of governing the Church by such Laws, as he is really persuaded, but falsely, to be commanded the Church by our Lord and his Apostles, this whosoever shall do, or be accessary to, is guilty of Schism.  
The issue then, of this whole dispute, stands upon this point, how, and by what means, it may be evidenced, what Laws of the Faith and Manners of particular Christians, of the public Order of the Church, have been given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles. A point which cannot be resolved aright, but by them which resolve aright, for what reasons, and upon what grounds and motives they are Christians. For without doubt, the true reasons and motives of Christianity, if they be pursued, and improved by due consequence, will either discover the truth of any thing disputable in the matter of Christianity, or, that it is not determinable by any revealed truth. Here it is much to be considered, that the truth of things revealed by God, is not manifested to the minds of them, to whom, and by whom God reveals them to the World, by the same means, as to them whom he speaks to by their means. Moses and the Prophets, our Lord and his Apostles, when they were sent to declare the will of God to his People, were first assured themselves, that what they were sent to declare to the world, was first revealed to themselves by God, and then were enabled, to assure the world of the same. By what means they were assured themselves, concerns me not here to inquire. It is enough, that they were always enabled to do such works, as might assure the world, that they were sent by God. For how could they demand of any man to believe them, till they shown him a reason to believe? Indeed, though there can no reason be given why matters of faith are true, there may be a reason given why they are credible; Because many things are true, the reason whereof man's understanding comprehends not, yet God can show him reason why he should believe. Thus was the Law of Moses, thus was the Gospel of Christ advanced to the world and received, God having bestowed on them that advanced the one and the other, a power to do works, the greatness and strangeness whereof might be able to prevail over the difficulty of those things, which they propounded to be believed and obeyed. For though it is no inconvenience, that God should grant revelations to many persons, to whom he granteth not the power of doing such works, as may serve to convince the world, that those revelations are sent by God: yet, that he should employ any man to declare unto the world, any thing that God requireth to be believed and obeyed, without any means to make evidence of his Commission, ordinary reason will show to be too gross an inconvenience. This being the motive of Faith in general, the difficulty that remains will be, how it becomes evident to the senses of all ages, all places, all persons of the world, that can be obliged to receive the Faith, being done and seen, only by those persons that were sent, and to whom. A difficulty endless to those, that advise not as they should do with their own common sense. For it is manifest, that we receive an infinite number of truths, which never came under our own senses, from the sense of others, when we find, all those that have had the means to take sensible notice of them, agree in the same. Such are all things, that are, or are done, in any distance from any man's senses, whereof he cannot be informed, but by Historical faith. For all that is related from them that have seen, carries with it the credit of Historical truth, as far as common sense obliges to believe, that all that relate, can neither be deceived, nor agree to deceive. Whereupon, that which all agree in becomes unquestionable, because it is as easy to know what may be seen, as it is impossible, that all that agree in a report, should agree in a design to deceive. The common notions in Euclid are unquestionable; and is it more questionable, that there is such a City as Rome or Constantinople, such a Country as Persia and China, to those that never were there? Would Physicians and Astronomers build their studies, or be suffered to build their practice, upon experiments and observations related by particular persons, did not common sense assure, that men would not take the pains to abuse others, only to be laughed at and detested themselves? The question then being, (to suppose a question where there is none, because there is a question what is the true answer) whether the miracles recorded in the Scripture were done or not, neither could they that first received them agree to deceive or be deceived, but stood convict, because they must have done violence to their own senses otherwise, and, being once admitted unquestionable, to the world's end they remain no otherwise. For, the effect of them continuing, in that the Law or the Gospel is in force by virtue of them, they remain as certain, as he that sees a City builded a thousand years since, knows that there were men alive at the building of it. The Jews therefore are in the wrong, when they argue for the Law against the Gospel, that, because there never was, or indeed can ever be such an appearance, of all them of one age, to whom the Gospel is addressed, as there was of the Israelites, at the giving of the Law, when all of that age, that were to be tied by it, were present at once, to be witnesses that it was sent from God, therefore no Law abrogating the same, can by any means become credible. For, as, for the love of this advantage against Christianity, they deny that which the first sending of Moses expressly affirmeth, Exod. IV. 5. that all the miracles which he was endowed with, tended to win faith of the people, that God sent him: And will have all the credit of the Law, to stand precisely, upon the appearance and standing of Mount Sinai as they call it, where they will have all the people of Israel to have been Prophets, of Moses rank, whom God spoke face to face with, without any commotion or rapture of his or their senses: So they consider not, how the truth of this appearance of Mount Sinai, is manifested to their posterity: Seeing that by the same means as it becomes evident to those that live under other times, the motives of Christianity may also be conveyed and evidenced to them, that are not present at the doing of the works. This for the evidence: As for the sufficience of the motives to the Gospel, in comparison of those of the Law, the possibility thereof necessarily follows upon God's omnipotence: the actuality of it is sufficiently proved, by the judgement of all Nations, that have embraced the Gospel, in comparison of one that embraced the Law. Especially if we consider the predictions of the Law and the Prophets going before, and the conversion of the Gentiles following upon the publication of the Gospel: Which being reckoned among the miracles that render the Gospel to be believed, do necessarily bring all the motives of the Law, to depose for the truth of the Gospel. Thus much premised, it will be possible to resolve in a few words, the subject of voluminous disputes. All men know, how those of the Church of Rome, would have us believe and receive the Scriptures, upon the credit of the Church, affirming them to come from God: And consequently, whatsoever the Church determines, to be the true meaning of the Scriptures, and the Word of God: So that there can be no true faith, in any man that disbeleeves any part of it: Whether by the Church they mean the Pope, or a Council, or whosoever they shall agree to have right to conclude the Church. On the other side, it were easy to say who they are, that profess to believe the Scriptures, upon the immediate dictate of the Spirit of God to their spirit, that they come from God. And, though I cannot say, that, consequently, they deny any man to have faith, that believes not all that their Spirit dictates to be the meaning of God's word, because the dictates of several Spirits are so contrary, that this can be no Rule: yet when the qualities of men's persons, with the dictates of their Spirits, are alleged in bar to the received doctrine of the Church, it is manifest, that men expect such light to be struck out of the darkness and confusion of such dictates, that the Church shall at length be convinced to believe and receive it. And truly those that profess that they could not believe the Scriptures, but by the immediate dictate of the Spirit, by the same reason can conclude nothing to be the will of God, and the true intent of his Word, without it. This, if it were meant only, of the testimony of the Spirit of God, witnessing with our Spirit, that we are the children of God, and sealing the assurance of this favour to our persons and actions, than would it not take away the grounds upon which, and the means by which, we are effectually moved and brought to be Christians, both in profession and in deed: So that, by consequence, means might be had, whereby a mans own Spirit might be enabled, to discern between the dictates of God's Spirit, and that of the world. But being advanced in answer to this difficulty, as the first ground of faith, and the last resolution of it, cannot be so understood; But of necessity importeth, that no man can be assured, by the assurance of faith, of any truth, without that means, by which God reveals himself to them, by whom he declares his will to others. That either any person on behalf of the Church, or any private spirit, should pretend to any such endowment, is contrary to common sense, and their own proceed: When they use the like means to inform themselves, both why to believe the Scripture, and what the meaning of it, and the will of God is, as other men do. And, if they do pretend more, they must show such evidence, as God hath ordained to convince the world, before they can pretend to oblige any man to believe them. Besides, that so, it would not be possible to render a reason, why God hath given his Scriptures at all, seeing that, notwithstanding, he must furnish, either some persons in behalf of the Church, or all believers, with revelations to convince them, what is his will and meaning by the Scriptures. But if they admit of such means, as God hath appointed Christians to decide, whether it be the Spirit of God, or of the world, that witnesseth with their Spirit, then is the question where it was: Because, as God gives his Spirit to those that are Christians, upon such qualities, and to such intents, as they who pretend to the Spirit of God, aught to find in themselves, and to propose to themselves, and no other, so are they assured, that it is the Spirit of God, that moves them, because they are assured of those qualities and intentions in themselves, and by no other means. Now, having showed before, upon what grounds Christianity is to be embraced, I demand, whether it be in the compass of any reason, that is convinced of the truth of Christianity, to question, whether the Scriptures are to be received or not. Certainly, he were a strange man, that should consent to be a Jew, or a Mahumetane, and yet make a question whether the Book of the Law came from Moses, or the Alcoran from Mahomet or not. Therefore, supposing that we stand convict of the truth of Christianity, by the same means we stand assured, that God hath caused those great works to be done, by Moses and the Prophets, by our Lord and his Apostles, by which the world stands convict, that they were sent by God, and by the same, that the Scriptures, wherein those works and their doctrine is related, are from God. Neither can the Church act to the assuring of any body herein as the Church, but as a multitude of men endowed with common sense, which cannot agree to deceive or to be deceived. For if the profession of Christianity go before the being of the Church, and Christianity cannot be received, till it be acknowledged, with the records thereof, to be from God, than this assurance, though it come from the agreement of the men that make the Church, goes in nature before the quality of a Church, and therefore comes as well from the consent of Jews for the Old Testament, as of Christians for the New. Nor let it trouble any man, that by this means, faith may seem to be the work of reason, & not the grace of God, seeing it may very reasonably be demanded, Where is the necessity of grace, to enable a man to believe what he sees reason to believe? For though the matter of faith be credible of itself, yet it is not evident of itself, & though sufficient reason may be showed, why a man ought to believe, yet on the other side, there are many scandals, and stumbling blocks in the way, to hinder him from believing, the chief of which is the offence of the Cross, whereof our Lord saith, Happy is he that is not offended at me: For it cannot seem strange, that a man should refuse to believe that which he sees sufficient reason to convince him to believe, when as, by believing, he becomes liable to bear the Cross of Christ, specially not being enforced by the light of reason, evidencing the truth of Christianity, and determining the assent of the mind, as fire does wood to burn, but swayed by external motives, working upon the mind, according as they find it disposed to goodness. For when this disposition is not perfectly wrought by God's grace, nothing hinders sufficient motives to prove uneffectuall, to them whom the Cross of Christ scandalizeth. This being resolved, it follows by necessary consequence, upon what reasons and by what means, the meaning of the Scriptures, or rather the will of God concerning all matters questioned in Christianity, is determinable. For it is not the same thing, many times, to know the meaning of the Scriptures, as it is to know how far it is God's will that it bind the Church. The name of the Scripture enforceth no more, but that all is true which it containeth. Now it containeth many times, the say, and do of evil men as well as of good, of Satan himself sometimes, wherein, it intends only to assure, that such and such things were said and done. And, not to insist on the Law of Moses, (which is all the word of God, and no part of it binding to us, as the Law of Moses) because another disposition of Gods will may appear by other Scriptures, in the New Testament itself, are found many things, that now have not the force of precepts, though it appear that they did sometimes bind the Church: Such is the practice of the Feasts of Love, which S. Paul presses so hard, as I shown afore; such is his precept that women be vailed, men bare, when they pray in the Church; the decree of the Apostles at Jerusalem, against eating blood, and things strangled and sacrificed to Idols; the precept of S. James of anointing the sick; the ceremonies of Baptism, which I shown afore, out of S. Paul, to have been in use in the Primitive Church; yea, the very custom of drenching in Baptism, which no man doubts but the institution signifies, and yet is now scarce any where in use. If therefore, there be question of the will of God, what is the true meaning of the Scriptures, and how far it binds the Church, the same common sense of all men, that assures the truth of the Scriptures, must assure it. The knowledge of original languages, the comparison of like passages, the consideration of the consequence, and text of the Scripture, the records of ancient Writers, describing affairs of the same times, and if there be any other helps to understand the Scriptures by, they are but the means to improve common sense, to convince or be convinced of it. If that will not serve to procure resolution, there remains nothing else but the consent of the Church, testifying the belief and practice of the first times that received the Scriptures, and thereby convincing common sense of the meaning of them, as the intent of all Laws is evidenced, by the original practice of the same. So that this whole question, What Laws God hath given his Church, falls under the same resolution, by which matters of faith were determined in the ancient Counsels, in which, that which originally and universally had been received in the Church, that was ordained by them to be retained for the future, as demonstrated to have been received from our Lord and his Apostles, by the same kind of evidence, for which we receive Christianity, though not so copious, as of less importance. And therefore it will not serve the turn to object, that the mystery of iniquity was a working even under the Apostles, as S. Paul saith, 2 Thess. II. 7. to cause the belief and practice of the Primitive Church always to stand suspect, as the means to bring in Antichrist. For it is not enough to say, that Antichrist was then a coming, unless a man will undertake to specify, and prove by the Scriptures, that the being of Antichrist consists in that which he disputes against. For if we will needs presume, that the government of the Church which was received in the next age to the Apostles, is that wherein Antichristianism consists, because the mystery of iniquity was a work under the Apostles, why shall not the Socinians argue with as good right, that the belief of the Trinity and Incarnation, is that wherein Antichristianism consists, being received likewise in the next age to the Apostles, under whom the mystery of iniquity was a work? Or rather, why is either the one or the other admitted, to argue, from such obscure Scriptures, things of such dangerous consequence, unless they will undertake further to prove by the Scriptures, that Antichrist is Antichrist for that which they cry down? Which I do not see that they have endeavoured to do, for the things in question among us, about the Government of the Church. Besides this, my reason carries the answer to this objection in it, because it challenges no authority, but that of historical truth, to any record of the Church: Appealing for the rest to common sense to judge, whether that which is so evidenced to have been first in practice, agreeing with that which is recorded in the Scriptures, be not evidently the meaning of those things, which we find by the Scriptures, to have been instituted by our Lord and his Apostles. And this it is which for the present I have pretended to prove by this Discourse: Which, being spent chief in removing the difficulty of those Scriptures, which have been otherwise understood in this business, confesseth the strength of the cause to stand upon the original, general, and perpetual practice of the Church, determining the matters in difference by the same evidence, as Christianity stands recommended to us, proportionably to the importance of them. Which, as it is not such as is able to convince all judgements, which are not all capable to understand the state of the whole Church, yet is it enough to maintain the possession of right derived to this instant, so that no power on earth can undertake to erect Ecclesiastical authority, without and against the succession of the Apostles, upon the ground of a contrary persuasion, without incurring the crime of Schism.  
I will not leave this point, without saying something of their case, that have Reform the Church without authority of Bishops, that have abolished the Order, and vested their Power (in which I have showed that they succeed the Apostles, as to their respective Churches, with dependence on the whole) upon Presbyteries, or whatsoever besides. Which to decline here, might make men conceive, that I have a better or worse opinion of them then indeed I have. For a Rule and model, or Standard to measure what ought to be judged in such a case, suppose we, (that which is possible in nature, the terms being consistent together, though not at all likely to come to pass in the course of the world) a Christian people, greater or less, destitute of Pastors endowed with the Chief authority left by the Apostles in all Churches. I suppose, in this case, no man can doubt, but they are bound to admit the same course, as those that are first converted to be Christians: That is, to receive Pastors from them that are able to found and erect Churches, and to unite them to the Communion of the whole Church, which is no less authority, then that of a Synod of Bishops, that only, or the equivalent of it, in the person of an Apostle, or Commissary of an Apostle, being able to give a Chief Pastor to any Church. But suppose further, that this authority cannot be had, shall we believe that they shall be tied to live without Ecclesiastical communion? When it is agreed, that, as the Unity of the Church is part of the substance of the Christian Faith, necessary to the salvation of all, so the first Divine Precept that those Christians shall be bound to, is, to live in the Society of a Church. For, where several things are commanded by God, whereof the one is the means whereby the other is attained, it is manifest, that the Chief Precept is that which commandeth the end, and that which commandeth the means subordinate to the other. Now it is manifest, that all Powers, and all Offices endowed with the same in the Church, are Ordained by God, and enjoined the Church, to the end that good Order may be preserved in the Church: And good Order is enjoined, as the means to preserve Unity, and the Unity of the Church commanded, as the being of that Society, whereby Christians are edified, both to the knowledge and exercise of Christianity, by communicating with the Church, especially, in the Service of God, and in those Ordinances wherein he hath appointed it to consist. Seeing then this edification is the end for which the Society of the Church subsisteth, and all Pastors and Officers ordained, as means to procure it, as it is Sacrilege to seek the end without the means, when both are possible, so I conceive it would be Sacrilege, not to seek the end without the means, when both are not. Now it is manifestly possible, that the edification of the Church may be procured effectually, by those that receive not their Power, or their Office, from persons endowed with it themselves afore: Especially, if we suppose them to receive the same Power, to be exercised by the same Laws, which those that received it from the Apostles themselves, had, and acknowledged, from the beginning. The consequence of all this is plain enough. The resolution of Gulielmus Antissiodorensis among the School Doctors, is well known and approved: That the Order of Bishops, in case of necessity, may be propagated by Presbyters, supposing that they never received Power to do such an Act, from them that had it. My reason makes me bold to resolve further, that, in the case which is put, Christian people may appoint themselves Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, provided it be with such limits of Power, to be exercised under such Laws, as are appointed before, by our Lord and his Apostles: And, that upon these terms, they ought to be acknowledged by the rest of the Church, whensoever there is opportunity of communicating with the same, provided that they, and their Churches, submit to such further Laws, as the rest of the Church hath provided, for the further regulating of itself, according as the part is to submit to the determination of the whole: And that this acknowledgement of them, would be effectual, in stead of solemn Ordination, by Imposition of Hands of persons endowed with that Power, which is intended to be conveyed by the same. Whereby I make not personal succession to be no Precept of God, (which if it were not, than no Schism were necessarily a Sin, and by consequence, all that can be said of the Society of the Church, would be a Fable) but commanded in Order to another, of living in the Society of a Church, and therefore not binding, when both are not possible, but the Chief is. Beside this main reason included in my resolution, drawn from the Rank of Precepts given by God, as these are, the same may be concluded by this consequence: That whosoever will consider how many Ordinances, instituted by the Apostles, have been either totally abolished, or very much changed, by the necessity of time, rendering them useless to the succeeding condition of the Church, will not marvel to see their authority maintained, in the rest of the Laws wherewith they have regulated the Church, without perpetual succession, where it cannot be had, though otherwise not to be abolished without sacrilege. How far this was the case of those whom I speak of, I will not undertake. It seems they could not have this authority propagated, by them that then had it, not consenting to those Apostolical Laws, which, as it is agreed among us, were necessarily to be restored in the Church. It seems also, that authority was not altogether wanting to the authors of such reformations, being still of some Order in the Church. For Presbyters, though they succeed not the Apostles in the Chief authority established by them in all Churches, yet their office was, from the beginning, to assist them in the government of those Churches whereof they were made Presbyters, not by way of execution of their commands only, as Deacons, but by exercising the same power, where they could not discharge it themselves, though with dependence on them in all matters not determined afore. Here was some degree of necessity, to bar the personal Succession of the Apostles. But no necessity can be alleged, why they erected not Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons over themselves, with such limits of Power as the Apostles from the beginning determined, seeing it is manifest, that the superiority of them, was generally thought to come from the corruption of the Papacy, not from the institution of the Apostles: And therefore cannot be excused by necessity, because they did not find themselves in necessity, but by their own false persuasion created it to themselves. Which notwithstanding, seeing they profess all that is necessary to the salvation of all Christians, either in point of Faith or Manners, seeing, as to the public Order of the Church, they intended, and desired, and sought to restore that, which, to their best understanding, came from the institution of our Lord and his Apostles, they cannot easily be condemned, to have forfeited the being of a Church, out of which, there is no salvation, by this or other mistakes of like consequence, of them that consider the abuses from whence they departed. For the Church is necessarily a Humane, though no  Society, which we are commanded by God, in the first place, to entertain: And, as there is no Society of men, wherein a particular member can prevail, to settle such Laws, and such Order, as are properest to the end of it, so must he live and die out of Communion with the Church, that stays, till he find a Church, that maintains all that was instituted by our Lord and his Apostles. Wherefore, though that which they have done contrary to the Apostles order cannot be justified, yet there is a reasonable presumption, that God excuses it, being no part of that which he hath commanded all to believe to salvation, or which he hath commanded particular men to do: Because the public order of the Church is commanded particular persons, as members of the Church, which cannot be done, without consent of the whole, that is, of them that are able to conclude it. But if any Secular Power upon earth, shall presume to erect this Ecclesiastical Power, by taking it away from them that lawfully have it, (that is, by an Act of those that have the Power before, done by virtue of some Humane Law, which Act the Law of God doth not make void) and giving it to those, that have it not by any such Act; And that, upon another ground than that which hath been specified, of bringing back into force and use, such Laws of our Lord and his Apostles, as have by neglect of time been abolished and brought out of use, this Power, whatsoever it is, shall not fail, in so doing, to incur the Crime of Schism, and all that concur or consent to the bringing of such an Act into effect, shall necessarily incur the same. Much more, if it be done with a further intent, by the means of persons thus invested with Ecclesiastical Power, to introduce Laws contrary to the institution of our Lord and his Apostles.  
But, though it is possible to imagine a case, in which the consent of Christians may erect an Ecclesiastical authority over themselves, by means whereof they may live in the Society of a Church, yet there is no manner of case imaginable, in which any people, or any power but the Sovereign, can establish or maintain the exercise of Religion, in any thing which they conceive never so necessary to Christianity, by the power of the Sword, which is the force of the Seculararm. The reason is peremptory, because the profession of Christ his Cross, is essential to Christianity, or rather the whole substance and marrow of it. For, if it were lawful for any persons whatsoever, to defend themselves by force, upon no other title, but for the maintenance of themselves, in the exercise of their Christianity, then must it needs follow, that, by virtue of their Christianity, they may lawfully use all Sovereign power, by which force and the sword is maintained: Contrary to the principle premised at the beginning, that no good, no right of this world, accrues to any man by virtue of his Christianity, or decrues from another for want of it: As the power of the Sword, which is used by Title of Christianity, is necessarily taken from him who otherwise is possessed of it, by them which defend themselves against the same, upon the Title of Christianity; And by consequence, all goods, all rights, all estates and qualities of this World, that accrue unto any man, by the use and success of such Arms, are necessarily held and possessed by no Title, but that of Christianity. For, they that have right to defend themselves, cannot be subject to the Cross, whensoever they are able to defend themselves, seeing they may as well impose it upon their enemies, if they have success, as bear it themselves, if they have not; Though neither is it Christ's Cross, which a man bears for want of success. And if this had not been the profession of the Primitive Christians, how could they have defended themselves by reason, and maintain, that the Gentile Powers ought not to persecute them? Seeing that all Powers are bound to maintain themselves, because therein consists the maintenance of the world in peace. So unreasonable is it which hath been said, that Tertullian understood not himself, when he affirmeth, that the Christians were then able to defend themselves against persecution, were it not contrary to their profession so to do. For, as no man of common sense would tell the Romans, that the Christians were able to resist them, if they were not, because they knew well enough how able they were: So no man zealous of Christianity, would think to advantage it, by such commendations, as the enemies of it might discover to be false. And therefore, if we reason not amiss, this is the difference between Christianity and Mahumetism. For Mahomet also pretended to be persecuted for religion by the Gentiles of Arabia, witness the computation of their years, from the expulsion, or Persecution, or flight of Mahomet from Mecca: But when we see that he took up arms thereupon, and begun an order which all his Successors have observed, to propagate their Religion by the same means, we see by this means, the difference between Christianity and Mahumetism. And it is to be considered, by them that bring Jews again into Christian States, how they will secure those States, against this danger from Judaisme. For, since they have made it part of their profession, to expect a Messiah, that shall conquer the Nations, and restore them to the Land of Promise: upon appearance that such a Messiah is come, they are not like to rest, if they can hope to be his followers, as they rested not under Adriane, and at other times, when they have disturbed the peace of the States under which they lived, upon the like hope. This also, if we reason not amiss, is the justest title of all the wars, that Christians have made upon the Mahometans, for the holy Land, because the title upon which the Mahometans first subdued it, makes them enemies to all  Nations, that are Christian, seeing that the title of Religion, is as good against all, as against any, and whatsoever person or people usurpeth Sovereign Power upon it, proclaimeth thereby defiance to all States, which he shall be able to deal with. And therefore this is not the case of the people of Israel under Moses: The Title whereupon they challenged the Land of Promise from the Nations presently in possession, being the deed of God's Gift, and the consideration and condition upon which God granted it, their undertaking his Law. For, though it is true, that they claimed the Land of Promise upon Covenant with God, to be ruled by his Laws, in which their Religion is contained, and though this deed of God's gift, could not be evident by natural reason to other Nations, yet, seeing they professed themselves constituted only God's Commissaries, to punish the sins of the seven Nations, and to root them out for their Idolatries, not to impose their Religion upon any other Nations, or to seek any interest out of the Land of Promise, it followeth, that by this profession, they did not give other Nations just cause to resist them by force, neither had they any right to hinder them, in their pretended conquest of the Land of Promise. And therefore the Kings of the Amorites beyond Jordan, Sihon and Og, hindering them by force to accomplish and execute this Commission of God, we see they received an accessary command to subdue them by force, and destroy them; and thereupon, an accessary grant of their dominions, for an addition to their inheritance. So, my intent hereby is not to say, that God may not dispose of the goods of this world, to those that enter into Covenant of religion with him, as the condition of the same: Or, that man may not lawfully make use of such a disposition of his, made known by that Revelation, which is unknown to those, against whom it is granted: (for I avow that he did so to the children of Israel under Moses, and that they lawfully did so against the seven Nations) But that he did it not by the New Covenant of Christianity, because it invites the Sovereign Powers of all Nations, upon condition to enjoy the same Rights, which they stand possessed of when they embrace it. And, that he did not, by any Revelation, afterwards, make the like grant to Mahomet, as a privilege of the Religion which he pretendeth to have received from God, because, if Christianity be true, no other Religion must succeed it. Whereupon it follows, that those Christians, that shall take upon them to bear Arms, and make War, upon the Title of Christianity, do make themselves thereby, enemies to all  Nations that are Christian, as Mahumetans are: Because, as we know that Mahumetism is not from God, so we know, that Christianity enables no man to use the Power of the Sword, wherein Sovereignty consists; And that if any might maintain themselves in their Religion by the Title of Christianity, than all that might come to have the same opinion, might do the like, and so, all States might be troubled, by fight for Christianity, within themselves, though not subdued, as by Mahumetans, seeking to impose their Religion upon others.  
Against this place, there is only one objection of moment, so far as I can imagine, out of the Scriptures, and that is from the example of the Maccabees. For, on the one side, it is manifest, that the arms which they took up against Antiochus Epiphanes, their lawful Sovereign, are approved by God, not only as foretold by Daniel and Ezekiel, and other Prophets, that by them God would give his people freedom, and rule of the Land of Promise, but also, because the Apostle manifestly commendeth their faith, when he reckoneth their sufferings among those great effects which it brought forth, Heb. XI. 35, 36. And upon this account it is, that, in propounding this objection, I said, that it is taken out of the Scriptures, not meaning thereby the Books of the Maccabees, but those Scriptures, which, by consequence, seem to approve of the Maccabees proceed. For, on the other side, it is manifest, that they justified their arms upon title of Religion, by the first breaking out of it, 1 Mac. II. 24, 26, 27. where the zeal of the Law, and the example of Phinehas, is expressed to be that, which moved Mattathias to kill the Jew whom he saw sacrificing to Idols, and to maintain it by arms. Whereby it is manifest, that, out of zeal to the Law, they took arms to defend it, lest it should be extinguished by the Tyranny of Antiochus; and therefore, that, when their arms took effect, and purchased them freedom, and the Sovereignty to the race of Mattathias, all this they held by Religion, and by no other title. And, for this reason it is, that they are called Maccabees, though other extravagant reasons have been imagined by men of excellent learning. For, it is to be observed, that all those that suffered, as well as fought in this cause, are called Maccabees, no less than Judas Maccabaeus, and therefore, the histories of their acts are called the Books of the Maccabees, in which is comprised as well the story of the Mother & the seven children, and others that suffered for the Law, as the acts of Judas and his Successors: And, Josephus his Book, in praise of that Mother and her children, is entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The reason of which is found in the Syriack, in which language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Zelotes, as you have it in Ferrarius his Nomenclator Syriacus. And that this was the Title of their arms, is more manifest by the case of the Jews under Caligula, when, out of his madness, he commanded to set up his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem. For as, by Philo de Legatione ad Caium, we understand, that they were willing to undergo any thing, and continue in obedience, so they might enjoy their Religion: So Josephus dissembleth not, in the relation of that business, Antiq. XVIII. 11. that they would have taken arms, rather than endure it, if Caligula had not been slain in the mean time. The clearing of this difficulty is to be fetched from the difference between the Law and the Gospel, expressed in the words of our Lord to his Disciples, that required him to call for fire from heaven, upon those that would not entertain him, Luke IX. 55, 56. Ye know not of what spirit ye are: For the Son of man is not sent to destroy men's souls, that is, their lives, but to save them. For the Law worketh wrath; and, where there is no Law, there is no transgression; and, by Law is the knowledge of sin, saith the Apostle, Rom. IU. 20. V 15. VII. 7. Therefore, the Law suffered him that was next of kin to any man that was slain, to kill him that slew him, before it was judged, whether he was slain by chance, or by malice, Num. XXXV. 16— Therefore, the Law commanded him that was tempted to Idolatry, to seek the death of him that tempted him, were he his father, or never so near of kin, Deut. XIII. 6,— 11. In fine, the Law being the condition of a temporal estate, assigned at first by God to the people of Israel, observing it, can there be any marvel, that it might be lawful for that people, to defend it by force, and by that defence to regain the same estate? Or will this draw any consequence in Christianity, to make it lawful to take arms upon the title thereof, and so to hold estates of this world, by the same title, in case those arms take effect? For, the Gospel is the condition of life everlasting, promised to those that embrace it, including the Cross of Christ, and therefore, renouncing all advantage of this world, and, equally belonging to all people, and therefore maintaining all, in the same estate of this world which it finds. Therefore, the zeal of Elias, when he punished with fire from heaven, those that attempted to seize him at the unjust command of an Idolatrous King, our Lord declares, not to suit with the Spirit of the Gospel, (the profession thereof being to take up Christ's Cross, and to bear it with patience) though under the Law it might be commendable. Whereunto agreeth that which I said before, that Heresy and Schism, upon causes, only contrary to Christianity, and, that are not against the Law of Nature and Nations, are no capital crimes in Christian States: And that, in stead of death, which the Law inflicteth upon him that obeyeth not the Consistory, but causeth Schism, the punishment allotted by the Gospel is, only to be least in the kingdom of Heaven. For, if Sovereign Powers lawfully established, being Christian, are not enabled by their Christianity, to inflict death, on the said crimes, when, setting aside Christianity, they are not liable to it, much less is any man under a Sovereign Power, enabled by his Christianity, to use the Sword, wherein Sovereignty consists, for the maintenance of it. Neither is it contrary to this, that, under the Gospel, S. Peter punishes Ananias and Saphira with death, and the Apostles, as I shown before, were endowed with a miraculous power of inflicting bodily punishment upon those which obeyed them not, the effects whereof were seen upon those whom they cast out of the Church, as also upon Elymas, struck with blindness by S. Paul, for resisting his Gospel: Nor, that the souls under the Altar, Apoc. VI 10. pray for the vengeance of their blood, to be showed upon the inhabitants of the earth. For, that which this Prophetical Vision representeth, is to be understood, suitably to Christianity, and to the Kingdom of God attained by it. Since, therefore, revenge is contrary to the principles of Christianity, we cannot imagine, that blessed souls desire it, but the cry which they make, must be understood to be, the provocation of God to vengeance, which their sufferings produce: So much more pertinently attributed to blessed souls, in as much as, being acquainted with God's counsels, they approve and rejoice in his Justice, and the advancement of his Church by the means of it. Now the power granted the Apostles, of inflicting bodily punishments, upon those that disobeyed them, tended first, to manifest that God was present in the Church, and, by consequence, to subdue the world to Christianity, and to win authority to the Church and the censures of it: Whereas Elias, when he called for fire from heaven, as the Apostles desired our Lord, might have been secured himself, by the like miracles, without destroying his enemies: So he caused Baal's Priests to be put to death, not to vindicate the cause in debate, which was already done by a miracle, but to do vengeance on them as malefactors: And so Elizeus curseth the children to death, on purpose to punish the affront offered his person: In all which particulars, you have manifest characters of the Law, inflicting death for the punishment of sin, whereas, under the Gospel, which giveth life, the inflicting of bodily punishment serveth to procure the good of the world, by manifesting the truth of the Gospel, and the presence of God in his Church, which was known and supposed under the Law, because those who had received the Law, could not make any question, that God was amongst his people, and spoke to them by his Prophets.  
When I say, that it might be lawful to take arms upon the title of Religion under the Law, I say not that it was so in all cases, or that it was not lawful for the Jews to be subject to foreign Powers, (which was the doctrine of Judas of Galilee, complained of by Josephus) but, that it was possible for some case to fall out, wherein it might be lawful. As for the conceit of Judas of Galilee, it is manifestly taken away by God's command to the Jews under Nabuchodorosor, Jer. XXIX. 7. Seek the peace of the City to which I have sent you Captives, for in the peace thereof you shall have peace. And it is most remarkable, that our Lord, being falsely accused of this doctrine to Pilate, by the Jews, it pleased God to suffer it so far to prevail afterwards, that the arms which they took afterwards against the Romans, and the miseries which they endured by the Zelotes, and finally, the ruin of the City, Temple, and Nation, must needs be imputed to this doctrine, which they falsely accused our Lord of, to gain the good will of the Romans. But of Christianity, it must be said on the contrary, that there is no case possible, wherein it can be just to take arms for preservation or reformation of it, upon the title thereof, that is to say, where there is not a Power of bearing arms, established by some other title of humane right. For where there is any such Power and Right established, upon a title which the Law of Nations justifieth, it is not to be said, that Christianity voideth or extinguisheth the same, seeing it hath been said, that it preserveth the state of this world, upon the same terms, in which they are, when it is embraced: But nevertheless it moderateth the use of it, so that it cannot, with Christianity, be employed in very many cases, in which the Law of Nature and Nations justifies the use of it.  
These things thus premised, it will be easy to show, that the Presbyterians offer wrong, when they demand, that the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters be proved to be of Divine Right, by some Precept of God's Law, recorded in the Scriptures: Supposing that, otherwise, it will be in the Secular Power, of itself to erect an Ecclesiastical Power, by taking it from them that have it, and giving it to them that have it not, and requiring, that so it be done. For, it is notorious to the world, that, from the beginning they claimed that Presbyteries should be erected in stead of the Government of the Church of England, upon this ground, that the Presbyteries are commanded by God, and that therefore the superiority of Bishops, as contrary to his Law, is to be abolished: And that upon this pretence, the people were drawn in to seek the innovation endeavoured at this time. So that, to require now that it be proved, that the superiority of Bishops is commanded by God to be unchangeable by men, otherwise, that it be changed, is to require that the conclusion may stand, without any premises to prove it. Notwithstanding, to pass by this advantage, suppose we the superiority of Bishops neither forbidden nor commanded, but introduced by Ecclesiastical Right, grounded upon the Power given the Church, of giving Laws to the Church, by determining that which Gods Law determineth not: Supposing, but not granting this to be true, it will remain nevertheless without the compass of any Secular Power upon earth, to erect this Ecclesiastical Power, by taking it from them which have it, and giving it to them which have it not. For, wheresoever there is a Church, and the Government thereof not contrary to God's Law, in those hands which have it by man's, there the Apostles precept of obeying the Governors of the Church; 1 Thess. V 14. Heb. XIII. 17. must needs oblige the People to those Governors that are established not against Gods Law. And this Precept of the Apostle being of that Divine Right by which Christianity subsisteth, cannot be voided by any Secular Power, by which the Church subsisteth not, in point of Right, but only is maintained in point of fact. For, the obligation which they have to the Church, and the Unity thereof, and the Order by which that Unity is preserved, and the Government in which that Order consisteth, being more ancient than the maintenance of Christianity by the State, cannot be taken away by any obligation or interest thereupon arising: And therefore, as the first Christians that were under Christian Powers, in the time of Constantine, were bound to adhere to the Pastors which they had by the Law of the Church (for which reason neither did Constantine, Constantius, or Valens, ever endeavour to intrude those Bishops, which they were seduced to think necessary for the quiet of some Churches, being indeed dangerous to Christianity, by their own Power, but by a pretended legal Act of the Church) after Constantine took Christianity into the protection of the Empire, upon the same terms as afore: So are all Christians to the world's end obliged, to adhere to the Pastors which they shall have by the Law of the Church, not contrary to God's Law, against the command of any Secular Power to obey others. And to demand that Ecclesiastical Power not contrary to God's Law, be dissolved by Secular, to which the persons endowed therewith are Subjects, is to demand that there remain no Christians in England, that can be content to suffer for their Christianity, by obeying God's Law before man's, especially when they can obey both, acting by Gods, and suffering by man's. But, though I insist upon this right of the Church, yet it is not my purpose to balk the fruit of the Divine Right of Bishops, upon such terms as it hath been asserted: That is to say, as that which no man may lawfully destroy, though not as that which, being destroyed, voideth the being of a Church, (if it can be done without Schism) because not commanded particular Christians, as the substance of Christianity, but the Society of the Church, for the maintenance and support of it. For, if no Secular Power be able to give that Power to the Presbyteries, which must be taken from the Bishops, supposing that the superiority of Bishops stands neither by, nor against the Law of God, but only by the Law of the Church, according to Gods: How much more, when it is demonstrated, that it subsisteth by the Act of the Apostles, shall it be without the compass of any Secular Power to dissolve it? And therefore, the consequence hereof, in the present state of Christianity among us, is further to be deduced, because many men may be persuaded of their obligation to the Church, upon supposition of the Divine Right of Bishops, who perhaps perceive not the former reason of their obligation to them here asserted, as to the Ordinary Pastors of the Church.  
To proceed then, out of the premises, to frame a judgement of the state and condition of Christianity in England at the present, and from that judgement to conclude, what, they that will preserve the conscience of good Christians, are to do or to avoid, in maintaining the Society and Communion of the Church: Put the case, that an Ecclesiastical Power be claimed and used, upon some persuasions contrary to the substance of true Christianity, and pretending, thereby to govern those that adhere to the same persuasion, in the Communion of those Ordinances, which God requireth to be served with, by his Church, according to the same persuasion: I suppose, no man will deny this to be the crime of Heresy, containing not only a persuasion contrary to the foundation of Faith, but also an Ecclesiastical Power founded upon it, and thereby a separation from the Communion of the Church, which acknowledgeth not the same. Put the case again, that an Ecclesiastical Power is claimed and used, not upon a persuasion contrary to any thing immediately necessary to the salvation of all Christians, (as, the foundation of Faith, and all that belongeth to it, is) but upon a persuasion contrary to something necessary to the Society of the whole Church, as commanded by our Lord Christ or his Apostles to be regulated thereby; and this, with a pretence to govern those that adhere to the same persuasion, in the Communion of all Ecclesiastical Ordinances, according to it, this I cannot see how it can be denied to be the crime of Schism. And this, God be blessed that I cannot say it is done in England, but, in consequence to the premises, I must say, that this is it which hath been, and is endeavoured to be done in it, and therefore to be avoided by all that will not communicate in an act of Schism. I do not deny that Presbyters have an interest in the Power of the Keys, and by consequence, in all parts of Ecclesiastical Power, being all the productions thereof: But I have showed, that their Interest is in dependence upon their respective Bishops, without whom, by the Ordinance of the Apostles, and the practice of all Churches, that are not parties in this cause, nothing is to be done. When as therefore Presbyters, dividing among themselves the eminent Power of their Bishops, presume to manage it without acknowledgement of them, out of an opinion, that the eminence of their Power is contrary to the Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles, or, that, not being contrary to the same, it is lawful for Presbyters, to take it out of the hands, either of Bishops or of simple Presbyters, had they been so possessed of it. When as they join with themselves some of the People, in the quality of Lay Elders, or what ever they will have them called, and of these constitute Consistories for all several Congregations, endowed with the Power of the Keys over the same, though in dependence upon greater Assemblies, out of the opinion that this is the Ordinance of our Lord & his Apostles, and this, not to manage the Interest of the People, that nothing pass contrary to the Laws given the Church by God, which are their inheritance as well as the Clergies, but, in a number double to that of the Presbyters in all Consistories, and in a right equal to them, man for man; so that it may truly be said, that the whole Power of Clergy and People, is vested in these Lay Elders, that one quality consenting, being able to conclude the whole: When as the determination, who shall or shall not be admitted to Communion, returneth at last to a number of Secular persons, making them thereby Judges of the Laws of Christianity, and enabling them thereby, to give and take away the Ecclesiastical being of any member of the Church, in those cases, to which that power extendeth, and investing a  Court with the Power of the Keys in the same: (All these points being members of the Ordinance for the establishment of the Presbyteries.) I say then, that, by that Ordinance, an Ecclesiastical Power is erected, upon so many persuasions, of things concerning the public Order of the Society of the Church, contrary to the Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles, by a Secular Power, interessed only in point of Fact, in Church matters, without any ground of Right to do it; and that, therefore, the endeavouring to establish these Presbyteries is an act of Schism, which particular Christians, though they never, by any express act of their own, tied themselves to be subject to Bishops, are nevertheless bound not to communicate in, because they are bound upon their salvation to maintain the Unity of the Church, and the Unity of the Church, established upon these Laws, whereof the Succession of Bishops is one. As for the design of the Congregations, it is easily perceived to come to this effect: That, to the intent that Christian people may be tied to no Laws, but such as the Spirit of God which is in them, convinces them to be established upon the Church by the Scripture, and that thereupon, the ordering of all matters concerning the Society of the Church, may proceed upon conviction of every man's judgement: Therefore, every Congregation of Christians, assembling to the Service of God, to be absolute and independent on any other part, or the whole Church, the Power being vested in the members of the said Congregation, under the Authority of the Pastor and Elders, as aforesaid. And, that therefore, every Congregation constituting itself a Church, constitutes by consequence, and destitutes Pastors, Elders, and Members: So that, by this design, an Ecclesiastical Power being erected upon so many persuasions, contrary to the Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles, the act of Schism is more visible. Though, for the claim and Title, by which this Ecclesiastical Power is erected in both ways, that of the Congregations is more suitable to Christianity, (because that of the Presbyteries more forcible) both equally destructive to the right of the Church: For, that a Parliament, by which Power the Assembly of Divines was called, (not disputing now the Power of a Parliament in England, but supposing it to be as great for the purpose, as any Christian State can exercise) should erect an Ecclesiastical Power, by taking it from those that have it, and giving it to those that have it not, is without the Sphere of any Power, which stands not by the Constitution of the Church. For, if the Church subsisted before any Secular Power was Christian, by a Power vested by our Lord in his Apostles, extending it in one visible Society, beyond the bounds of any Dominion, with equal interest in the parts of it through several Dominions, what title, but force, can any State have to do it, if we presuppose the Society of the Church, as such, unable to do it? Therefore, by the Society of the Church, and by Christians as Members thereof, it must be done, whatsoever is done, either in Reforming the Church, or in Separating from the Church. And therefore the proceeding of the Congregations, when they separate from the Church of England, by a Right founded upon the Constitution of the Church, is more agreeable to Christianity, than the proceeding of the Presbyteries, when they pretend to Reform the Church of England, by the Power of the Parliament, supposing it to be as great as any Secular Power can be in Church matters. But I intent not hereby to grant that it is a rightful Title, upon which those of the Congregations separate from the Church of England. For as men cannot make themselves Christians, but the doing of it must presuppose a Church, as at the first it presupposed the Power of constituting a Church, estated by our Lord upon his Apostles: (Because our Lord hath required of those that will be saved, not only to believe his Gospel, but also to profess Christianity, and this Profession to be consigned in the hands of those, whom he trusteth with the conduct of his Church, and by them accepted, because if not sincere and complete, it is not to be admitted) so, the continuance in the Communion of the Church, presupposing an acknowledgement of the Christianity professed therein, to contain nothing destructive to salvation, professeth an obligation of acknowledging the Governors thereof, in order to the same. And this obligation unavoidable, by the premises, unless Christian people, by those Governors, appear to be defeated of the benefit of such Laws, given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles, as appear to be of greater consequence to the Service of God, for which the Society of the Church subsists, than the personal succession of Governors, and the Unity of the Church, wherein it consisteth, can be imagined to be. Which in our present case is so far from being true, that the premises being true, all the particulars, for which the Congregations separate, and which the Presbyteries would Reform, the Chief Power of the Clergy over the People, the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, the dependence of Congregations upon the City Church, the Power of giving Laws to the Church, the Right of First-fruits, Tithes, and all Consecrate things, and above all the Unity of the Church, and the Personal Succession of Governors in which it consisteth, are all demonstrated to have been ordained by the Apostles. The same is to be said of the Ceremonies, as to the whole kind, though not to the particulars questioned. For first, it is proved, that the Rule of Charity requires all Christians, to forbear the use of that freedom which Christianity alloweth, in all things determined by the Law of the Church, not contrary to Gods. Secondly, though it be granted, that the particulars questioned were not instituted by the Apostles, (for indeed, the customs of several Nations, that have received Christianity, are so different, that, for example, that which the Apostle commandeth, that men pray covered, 1 Cor. XI. 3. cannot be used among those Nations, that uncover the head, in sign of reverence, which the Ancients did not: And this is the true reason, why the same Ceremonies of Divine Service, are not in use now, as under the Apostles) yet whosoever shall separate from the Church upon this ground, that significative Ceremonies are not to be used in the Service of God, shall do it to establish a Law contrary to the Apostles, who ordained such to be used, as I shown afore. Besides, the Church of England, and Governors thereof, do not maintain any infallible Power of conducting the Church, professing themselves the Reformation which their Predecessors made, and therefore, are so far from refusing any Law of God to be a Law of this Church, that if any Humane Constitution had been recommended to them, (evidently necessary or useful, to make the Laws of our Lord and his Apostles effectual to this particular Church) by such an authority as the Secular Power hath over them, it is visible to all English, that, for the Peace of the Church and themselves, they would not have refused it. And therefore, the true reason of this Separation, or Reformation is, because they will not part with that Power, which is in them derived from the Apostles, and at once with the Unity of the Church, necessarily, in this Case, depending on the same.  
I suppose what will be answered, that all this is done to Reform the Church, to bring in plentiful and powerful Preaching, and Praying as the Spirit shall indite; for, not knowing any thing else to be pretended, and having showed the rest of the change to be contrary to the Ordinances of the Apostles, though I see no man is so hard hearted; as not to think his own design to be the Reformation of the Church, without ever proving it to be so, yet I must needs think it part of my charge, to say somewhat also to this. I do acknowledge, then, a charge upon the Church, to provide, that Christians, made members of the Church by Baptism, be taught more and more in the true intent of their Christianity, and exhorted to the performance of it, by virtue of the Precept of our Lord, Mat. XXVIII. 19, 20. Go Preach, and make Disciples all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you: Which, being given the Apostles, is, by the same reason, given to all whom they should assume, or Ordain, or cause to be Ordained, to exercise their Power, or any part of it, in dependence upon the same, and according as the same should determine in time or place. But, that any thing is determined, as of Divine Right, or by the Scriptures, when, where, how often, how seldom, in what manner, and how frequent Preaching is, by the Church, to be furnished to the Church, he will make himself ridiculous that undertakes to affirm. That the Church is to endeavour, that this Office be as frequent, as may be to the edification of the Church, appears indeed by the Scriptures: Not those which speak of publishing the Gospel, under the terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or any equivalent, as Rom. X. 14-1 Tim. IU. 2, 5. 1 Cor. IX. 16. But those that express the diligence of the Apostles, and Apostolical persons of their time, in teaching the Assemblies of Christians, Acts II. 42, 46. V 42. VI 2, 4. XI. 26. and the frequenting of this Office in those times, 1 Cor. XIV. 1 Tim. V 17. Rom. XII. 6. 7. But, that it should be so easy for them, that now are admitted to the Service of the Church, to Preach continually, so as to edify the Church by their Preaching, as it was for Apostles, Apostolical persons, and Prophets, is not for a reasonable man to imagine. And those that stand so much upon Preaching twice every Lord's Day, would find themselves at a marvellous exigent, if they should prove, either the necessity of it, in point of Right, by the Scriptures, or the utility of it, in point of Fact, by the abilities of the men whom themselves set about it. As for Prayer, I yield that it is a Precept of God, that the Prayers of Christian Congregations be presented to God by the Presbyters: But what Prayers? none but those which the Eucharist was celebrated with, of which I spoke afore. All the world will never show any title in the Scriptures, or the original practice of the Church, to prove, that the Apostles ordained these prayers before or after the Sermons of Presbyters, which are now made the greatest part of the exercise of Christianity, unless it be because the Sermon went before the Eucharist, as Acts XX. 7. 1 Cor. XIV. 16. The Prayers which the Presbyters offer to God in behalf of the Church, being, by the institution of the Apostles, only those which the Eucharist is celebrated with. I acknowledge, that, under the Apostles, the Prayers of the Church were not prescribed, but conceived by those that were employed in that office by the Church; But, in consideration of the Prophetical Revelations, and immediate inspirations, which, the persons employed about that Office, were then graced with, to show the truth of Christianity, and the presence of God in the Church. And therefore, since those graces ceased, I have showed, in the Apostolical Form of Divine Service, p. 348. that those Prayers of the Church which went not with the Eucharist, were ministered by Deacons, because it was found necessary, that both the one and the other should be done in a prescript form, to avoid the scandals of Christianity, that we see come, by referring it to all persons, that are trusted to officiate public service. And I am astonished, that any Christian should imagine, that God should be pleased with the conceptions of the mind, or expressions of the tongue (setting aside the affection of the heart) that any man prays with. But now, by the pretence on foot, which makes the exercise of Christianity to consist in a Sermon, and a Prayer conceived before or after it, not only the celebration of the Eucharist, which the Apostles ordained to be as frequent as the Prayers of the Presbyters, and which the Church of England recommends on all Sundays and Festivals, is turned out of doors, to three or four times a year: But also all the public Service of God, by Prayer, Reading the Scriptures, and the Praises of God, forbidden, when the Preachers mouth opens not: And, by referring the form of Prayer, and matter of Doctrine, to each man's discretion, the exercise of Religion is turned into a Lecture of State, infused into the conscience of the hearers, by desiring of God the interest of that faction for which a man Preaches. And by this means, they that do challenge to themselves the title of Apostles, when they style themselves Ministers of Christ, and of the Gospel, are now discovered, by their adversaries of the Congregations, to be Ministers of that Power which set them up, as indeed they must needs be, when a double number of Votes in their Presbyteries, is able to cast them out of the Church, if they prove not faithful Ministers.  
The ruin of Christianity is yet greater, in going about to Reform Religion by the Sword, and taking up Arms upon the Title of Christianity, whether it be pretended or not. For, they that say, that the Christians of Tertullia's time, would have defended themselves by force, against the persecutions of the Roman Emperors, if they had been able, must needs say, that Christians may and aught to defend themselves, upon the Title of their Christianity: As both Buchanane and Bellarmine by consequence must do, when they say, that the reason why S. Paul commands Christians to be subject to the Secular Powers of his time, was, because they were not able to resist. But I do remember to have read in Burroughs his Lectures on Hoses, (which I speak to do him right) that the Title of this War is not grounded on Religion, as Religion, but as professed by this Kingdom. Which, I conceive cannot be said by those that advance the Covenant, or allow two clauses of it. The first, when it promiseth to maintain the King's person and estate in maintenance of Religion: For, if the maintenance of the State be limited within the condition of Religion, than it is professed by consequence, that the Sovereign Power of the State is not to be maintained, when Religion is not maintained by it, which if it did maintain, Religion were to be maintained. Therefore Religion is the ground, upon which those that enter into the Covenant undertake to maintain one another, without any exception in the maintenance of the same. Therefore that War is made upon the Title of Religion, which maintains not the State but in the maintenance of it. The second, when it faith, that this is done, that those which groan under the yoke of Antichrist, may be moved to do the like. Which, belonging to the Subjects of Popish Princes, professeth Religion to be the Title of those Arms, which all of like Religion may use, what ever the State be under which they live. Now would I fain know of any friend of the Covenant, What is the difference between it and the Holy League of France under Henry the third, as to this point, and in this regard? There is indeed difference enough, between the subjects in which the two Leagues suppose Religion to consist, and there is as much in the Rule of the same, which both suppose: But as to the right which Religion introduceth, of maintaining itself by force, both Covenants agree in supposing it. And thereby, found temporal right upon the Grace of Christianity, contrary to that which I presuppose from the beginning, seeing whatsoever is purchased by such Arms, is the production of that Title under which they are born. True it is, that Religion is not the only Title of that League or this Covenant, both of them pretending as well abuse in Government. But it is to be considered on the other side, that these two Titles are not subordinate but concurrent: That is, that this Right of maintaining Religion by force of Arms, riseth from the truth of Religion in itself presupposed, and not by the establishment of Religion by the Laws of any State, for the Religion of the same: Because not by that Power by which these Laws were made. And therefore, by consequence, makes those, that take Arms, and join in Covenant, supreme Judges of all that is questioned in Religion. Which being of much more consideration to all Christians, than the good estate of any Commonwealth, though both Titles concur in this War, yet it would be possible, that War might be made upon the Title of Religion alone, contrary to the Premises. The learned Casaubon once called the Doctrine of Gregory the VII Pope, when he undertook to deprive Christian Princes of their Estates, because they stood Excommunicate, Haeresim Hildebrandinam, The Heresy of Pope Hildebrand: And not without cause. For, seeing the foundation of Christianity consisteth in things to be done, as well as things to be believed, and that the sum of that which Christians profess to do, consists in bearing Christ's Cross, how shall he be other than an Heretic, that renounceth the profession of Christ's Cross? Or how can he be understood to profess Christ's Cross, that holds any thing purchased by the Arms which are born upon the Title of Christianity? For as all is his that conquers in lawful Arms, so cannot he be understood to renounce all for Christ's Cross, that holds any thing by it, which he is bound to maintain, with the Title whereby he holds it. Thus that Pope is not unjustly called an Heretic by some, as Heresy imports a vice of a particular man's mind, not a Sect in the Society of the Church, seeing it cannot be said that this position is enjoined, though suffered in the Church of Rome, as it must be said of that Church, the Society whereof, and the Power which governeth that Society, subsisteth by Arms grounded on Christianity. Therefore supposing an Ecclesiastical Power, and by consequence a Church constituted by force used upon this ground, it would be hard to clear it of Heresy, the constitution whereof cannot stand with the profession of Christ's Cross.  
But not to aggravate consequences, seeing it is manifest, that all errors in Religion overthrow the foundation by consequence, but to show what regret I have to say that which I must not conceal, I will advance the only possible expedient that I can imagine, to restore the Unity of the Church among us. For, that of a Nationall Synod, which is most obvious and plausible, seems to me impossible to be used lawfully and effectually both in our case. I am not so faintly in love with the Cause which I expose myself to so much offence to maintain, as to make a question how the Church of England were to be reestablished if right might take place, that is, by re-estating the Synod thereof in full possession of that right which hereby I have proved, that they are outed of only by force. But I speak now upon supposition, that there is force on their side that refuse this right, upon opinions contrary to the same, and with an intent to advance a course, by which it may be discerned, how fare the Church of England may abate of the right which is denied only by force, for so good a purpose, as to reconcile unto it those, who may otherwise fall into Churches in name, but Schisms indeed. And in this case my reason is, because, those who challenge the right of a Synod must proceed as authorized to judge between, or rather to give Law to all parties: Now, being divided as we are, between Right, and force, or the opinion of either or both, it is not imaginable, that either those that think themselves to have Right, can, or those that think themselves to have force, will submit to receive sentence or Law from their adversaries, unless we think them either no men, to change their judgement when they come to have Power on their side, or no Christians, to acknowledge that to be Right, which they are assured is not. What remains then to restore peace, when no party can yield? Surely, in all bodily diseases, those parts and principles, and elements of nature which remain untainted, must be the means to recover the whole: And in this distemper of the Church, so much of Christianity as remains commonly acknowledged by all parties, rightly husbanded, may serve to reunite them in one, upon better intelligence. And, the despair which any party ought to have, of reducing the rest to themselves, aught to persuade all to condescend to this good husbandry. What remains then common to all parts, beside the profession of Christianity & the Scriptures, to agree them about the meaning and consequences of them, in matters questionable, being that which remains in debate? Can I say that all parts acknowledged, that which the Church from the beginning, every where, hath received and used, to be agreeable to the Scripture, I should think the business half done: But since it is otherwise, we must have recourse to a more remote ground, or principle, which may serve for a reason to produce those consequences, which follow from the said Rule, in matters in debate, seeing we pretend not to make a Rule without cause. And this must be, by examining the first motives of Christianity, for what reasons we undertake the profession of it, which, being well rendered, and shot home to the mark, will not fail, either to decide any thing in controversy, or to show, that it concerns no man's Christianity, that it be decided. Now, the only means to bring forth and discharge these reasons to public satisfaction, is an open and free Conference, for space of time, or persons, executed by persons advanced by the several parties, to improve what any man can bring forth, to the clearing of any thing in debate, and managed by persons chosen for their discretion, to keep the debate from wand'ring, till all be said to all points. For, seeing it must needs appear, what are the terms of agreement, when all reasons are spent, it will be lawful for those, in whom rests the Succession of the Apostles, and all claiming under them, to consent to estate the Ecclesiastical Power, and the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Offices, upon persons to be agreed upon according to terms agreed: And this consent, as effectual to reunite the Church, as ever anciently Schisms were lawfully restored to the Church, by admitting Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and People, to communicate in their own ranks, and making good all acts done in Separation, by subsequent consent, not as to God, but as to the Church, which I have showed afore was many times done. As for those which have used this Power already, they shall condescend no further by this agreement, but to use that part of it, which shall be limited them by the agreement, upon an unquestionable title for the future.  
But, if our sins be still so powerful, as not to suffer a lawful course to take place, let me admonish those infinite numbers of Christian souls, that sigh and groan after the Unity of the Church, what means God shows them to discharge the conscience of good Christians to him, while the temporal Laws of the State, which ought to actuate it, do suspend their Office: Which are in effect, the persons of those in whom the Succession of the Apostles is vested, and the Clergy claiming under them: And that general Law of Christianity, (for which those things which we insist upon cannot be quitted) of sticking to all that the Church originally, always, every where, hath professed and used. From them let them seek the communion of the Church, not only in the exercise of such Christian Ordinances, as men, cast upon desert coasts, and utterly destitute of Ecclesiastical Society for the present, (for so our distractions have made us) can participate in, but also, in such acts of the Power of the Keys, as pass not the inward court of the conscience. Neither let them ever think themselves necessitated to communicate with Schism, while the Law which is the source of all Laws, and the persons which are the seed of all public persons of the Church continue. And let them know further, that in adhering to the Society of a Church never so much destroyed by force, no Secular Power, whether lawful or unlawful, shall ever have more rightful title to persecute them, than the Roman Emperors had to persecute the Apostles and Primitive Christians, part of their profession being, not to defend themselves by force grounded upon the title of Christianity, but to suffer with patience what force shall inflict for it. Which doing, as the purchase is not of this world, so let them not doubt to find the effect of the promises which are to come.    

A REVIEW.  

CHAP. I.  
SInce the writing of this Discourse, I have understood by relation, and by some Pamphlets, that there is one opinion on foot, among the many of this time, that there is no such thing as a Society of the Church, by the Ordinance of our Lord, and the institution of his Apostles; That, wheresoever we read of the Church in the Scriptures, there we are to understand no more, but only a number of men that are Christians, who may or aught to assemble together for the service of God, as they find opportunity and means: But, that there should be thought to be any condition of communicating in the Service of God, which should make all Christians a Society, called the Church, as excluding those that are not qualified with it, this they think to be an Imposture that hath made way for Antichrist. And though this opinion be so groundless, that very few Readers will expect any opposition to be made; yet, because my intent was, by this Discourse, to improve the Reasons heretofore advanced, and to try the effect and consequence of them, in destroying the grounds of the divisions framed among us; And because, if that which I propound be the truth, it will, with a little husbanding, be effectual to convince all manner of errors, it will be requisite here to give notice, that all the reasons which this first Chapter produceth, to prove the Power of the Keys, and the punishment of Excommunication, the effect thereof, to belong to the Church, are effectual to prove the Society of the Church, which this Power constitutes, and therefore the effect thereof evidenceth. And truly, though there is an infinite distance between the productions and consequences of this opinion, and that of Erastus, (in as much as this manifestly tendeth to challenge to all Christians freedom of doing what they please in the exercise of their Christianity, without any account to the State under which they live; that of Erastus challenging to the State all Power to govern all Christians in their Christianity) yet, if we consider the ground on which both stand, they will appear to be as the Rivers that rise out of Apenninus, which empty themselves, some into the Sea of Tuscany, others into the Gulf of Venice. For, I suppose, every man's common reason will furnish him so much of the metaphysics, as to make it appear, that every thing which hath a being, is by that being distinct from other things: So that, if there be no difference between the Society of the Church, and that of the State, when it professes Christianity, but that both make one Community, Corporation, or Commonwealth, as that of the ancient people of God under the Law; then is there no Society of a Church, when the State is Christian, seeing it is agreed upon on all hands, that there is one of the State, and this opinion enforces, that there is no more but one. True it is, that there are two things to say, either that, before Constantine, the Power of Excommunication stood only by Humane right, that is, by custom of the Church, or that, by the Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles, it was to stand only before Christianity were received by Kingdoms and Commonwealths, but afterwards, the Power of governing the Church, hitherto in the Body of the Church, to be dissolved into the Secular Power of the State. But whether this or that, in all cases, he that taketh away the Power of the Keys in opening, and that of Excommunication in shutting up the Church, must needs appear to take away the Society and Communion of a Church, either because it never was, or because it ceaseth when the State becomes Christian. This consideration improves very much the reasons of this Chapter against Erastus, making his opinion liable to all those Scriptures, which acknowledge a Society of the Church, and the sense of all Christians which suppose the same: And deserveth here to be represented, because it may be observed, that the proceeding of the Discourse, did not give leave to press it to this effect. For, the intent of it being to limit the concurrence of Secular and Ecclesiastical Power in Church matters, it was necessary to declare in the first place, upon what ground God hath instituted the Society of the Church, by Revelation from above, having before constituted  Societies of the same persons whereof the Church consisteth, by the Law of Nature and Nations, and the operation of his ordinary Providence. Especially, seeing that Christianity addresseth itself to all Nations, and therefore intendeth to constitute one Church of all  Societies which embrace the same. For, seeing it is manifest, that Religion hath always been a very general Title of many Wars and commotions against the Public peace, and that therefore all States must needs be jealous of that Religion, which asks no leave of the State to believe what it believes, but professes an obligation of believing, though never so contrary to the Laws of the State, it appears to have been requisite, that there should be in Christianity, some condition that might clear it from this jealousy; especially, because one Society of the Church, consisting of the persons which constitute many States, must needs be concluded in point of conscience, by a Power of the Church, not derived from that of the State, and so, possibly, the Subjects of a State, be concluded in conscience by strangers to that State, as they are members of the Church. This is the difficulty, which was to be removed in the beginning of this Discourse, that it might appear no ways prejudicial to  Societies, that God should institute one Society of the Church, to consist of all persons of several States, that profess Christianity. And, the removing of this difficulty consists in the right understanding of Christ's Cross, and the profession of it, which is the substance of Christianity. For, if we be called to the Cross of Christ by our Christianity, we cannot thereby be called to any advantage, estate, or possession of this world, which we have not by our quality in the State. And when it is said, that temporal dominion is not founded in Grace, it is as much as if it were said, that it is not founded in Christianity, because the great Grace of God in giving Christ, is the ground of all other grace tending to life everlasting. Now, if Christianity import no right, no interest, no advantage of this world, but maintaineth the State of this world, in the same condition which it findeth, when the world embraces Christianity, because it obligeth all men to yield obedience to Sovereign Powers, (which maintain all men in possession of their rights) for conscience sake, then is the difficulty removed, neither can it be prejudicial to States, that the persons whereof they consist, are called by God to a Society of the Church, subsisting by the grant and patent of God, and not of any State.  
If it be thus, the question will be asked in the next place, How a Society of men can subsist in this world, without any privilege or right of this world; and, seeing it must be the grant of some privilege from God, which the world gives not, that must make the Church a Society, Community, Corporation, or Spiritual Commonwealth, what this privilege is, and wherein it consisteth. For, to the constitution of this Society, there goes more than to believe the Faith with the heart, which, being of itself invisible, cannot be sufficient to constitute the Society of the Church, which must be visible: More than to profess Christianity to the world; for so do they, we see, that dispute, that there is no such thing as any Society of the Church, because they suppose not, that Christianity obligeth them to communicate in the public Service of God, and the Ordinances wherein it consisteth: But, this being supposed, together with the condition upon which men are admitted to Christianity, as the condition upon which they communicate in the same, there needs nothing else to make the Church such a Society as we speak of. It may perhaps seem strange, that this privilege, of holding Assemblies for the public Service of God, and the obligation which all Christians are under, of communicating in the same, should be advanced for the ground upon which all the right of the Church standeth, seeing it is but collected by consequence, and not expressly laid down in the Scriptures, that there is such a Precept or privilege. For, that this is the ground upon which the Society of the Church standeth, and the source from whence all the right thereof issueth, is not matter of faith or salvation, but of Theological Discourse, by consequence of reason to be drawn out of the Scripture, without which, they may be as good Christians, which, without it, cannot acquit themselves of those difficulties, which, he that knoweth the ground from whence the rights of the Church by consequence of reason may be deduced, shall be able to resolve. Here than we have a privilege, because granted by God against all the Powers of the world, not as to use any force of this world to defend ourselves in it, for than should the Power of the Sword depend upon the constitution of the Church, but as to God, to secure Christians in conscience to God, in case they disobey the Powers of the world, to whom they are always bound to be subject, when they forbidden them to communicate in the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church, which God commandeth: But no privilege of this world, which counts it no advantage, to suffer for that duty to God, which flesh and blood could spare with ease. And, by virtue of this Patent, or Charter-privilege from God, the Church is constituted a Visible Society and Community of all Christians, though to an invisible purpose. It will not be out of the way to remember here a passage of Pliny's Epistles, X. 97. by which it may appear, how the Assemblies of the Church were forbidden by the Romans, when he says, that the Apostate Christians pleaded for themselves, that they had not frequented the Assemblies of the Church, since that, (according to the instructions of Trajane) he had by his Edict interdicted Corporations, which he calls Hetaerias, and the Laws Collegia or Colleges, Digest. XLVII. 23. For, seeing on the one side Tertullian, de Jejunio cap. XIII. argueth upon supposition, that the Assemblies of Christians were not against the Laws when he writ; on the other side, it appears, by the Laws 1 & 3 ff. de Collegiis & Corporibus, that the Emperors, by their instructions to the Governors of Provinces, and the Senate by their Decrees, did make such Societies unlawful, as often as they found cause; it seems that, so often as they pleased, they comprised the Christians within those Laws, and that, when the Christians were comprised in those Laws, their Assemblies were thereby interdicted, as they were by Pliny's Edict. Josephus truly, Antiq. XIV. 17. recordeth a Decree of Julius Caesar, by which he declareth, that, when he interdicted other Societies of that nature, he excepted the Assemblies of the Jews: So that, since it appears, that, for divers years after the death of our Lord, the Christians went for Jews without distinction at Rome, it is probable, that, at the first, they were not inquired into by any Law of this kind, because the Jews were not liable to the like. But that, when they were inquired into, they held themselves tied to assemble notwithstanding these Laws, appears by Pliny, because it is manifest, that those who pleaded for themselves, that they had left the Assemblies of the Church, were Apostates. This privilege of holding Assemblies, granted Christianity by Divine right, on purpose to constitute the Community of the Church, is supposed in that notable Discourse of S. Paul, Eph. IU. 4-16. wherein the Apostle declareth, as I have showed p. 218. that God hath appointed two sorts of Graces in his Church, which may be distinguished by the terms of corporal and spiritual: Corporall, in supporting the assemblies thereof by the goods of this world; and spiritual, in edifying the Church to the perfection of Christianity, at those Assemblies. So that, the end of all the Graces, which God hath given his Church, being the edification of the Church, & the means of that edification, the frequentation of the Assemblies thereof, and the condition of that means, the Unity of the Church, it must needs appear, that the Apostle supposeth a Society of the Church, because he argueth upon the means which God hath provided, to maintain the visible assemblies thereof in Unity, so that all might be edified, at those Assemblies, to perfection in Christianity. For, seeing the unity of Ecclesiastical Assemblies, importeth the Communion of all Christians, in all the Offices of Divine Service, it is manifest, that he which requireth the Unity of Ecclesiastical Assemblies, supposeth a Society of the Church, to procure and maintain the same. But it is not this passage of S. Paul alone, wherein this privilege is supposed, intimated, or expressed, but, wheresoever there is mention in any part of Scriptures, of any Ordinance of the Service of God, instituted or exercised at the Assemblies of Gods faithful people, (provided that it may appear otherwise, by the Scripture, to be common to the Law and the Gospel) there you have the Charter or Patent of this grant and privilege, and, by consequence, of the Society of the Church founded upon it.  
But, though Erastus securely taketh it for granted, that Christian States have right to exercise their Sovereign Power in Church matters, because it was so in the Synagogue, yet I do not understand how he would convince them that at this time deny this consequence among us: Seeing there is so much difference between the Law and the Gospel, between the Church and the Synagogue, that, that which is held in the one, cannot be presumed to hold under the other, without a reason common to both. And so far as that reason prevails, and no further, must the Power and Interest of States in Church matters be understood to prevail. And truly, there is a saying of S. Jeromes, which may justly move a tender spirit to doubt, whether this Interest of States in Church matters be from God or not: For, seeing it is most true, and visible to experience, which he says, Ecclesiam postquam coepit habere Christianos Magistratus, factam esse opibus majorem, virtutibus autem minorem: That the Church, since it began to have Christian Magistrates, is become greater in wealth, or power, but less in virtues: And, that it is a presumption in reason, that, that which goeth before, is the cause of that which followeth upon it, when no other cause appeareth, well may it be doubted, that the Interest of Secular Powers in Church matters is not from God, from which, so great a decay of Christianity proceedeth, which must not be imputed to any thing which God hath appointed. To which agreeth that Legend in the life of Pope Sylvester, which saith, that when Constantine had endowed the Church so largely, there was a voice from heaven heard to say, Hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam, To day is there poison poured out upon the Church. The reason then, which here I render, upon which, the Kings of God's ancient people had that power in matters of Religion, which by the Scriptures we know they did exercise, I hope will appear reasonable, to them that have perused the IV Chapter, and seen, how it is not destructive, but cumulative to that, which, by the Law, in matters of the Law, is given to the Consistory. And, since it accrued to the King, not by the Law, because not constituted by it, but by the desire of the People, admitted, and assented unto by God, by which he became Head of a People already in Covenant with God, what difference is there between this case, and the case of a whole people, together with the Powers of the same, converted to Christianity, but this, that the Israelites were in Covenant with God before they were under Kings, (for though Moses and the Judges had Regal Power, yet it was not by a standing Law) Christian Nations, under the Powers of the World, before they became Christian? Unless it be further, that the Church is one of all Nations, the Synagogue, of equal extent with the People of Is●ael, which is not of consequence to this purpose. The Apostle, rendering a reason, why he commands Secular Powers to be prayed for at the Assemblies of the Church, 1 Tim. II. 2, 3, 4. assigneth the end of them to be, That we may lead a quiet life in all godliness and honesty: Which is manifestly said in respect of Secular Powers that are not Christian: For of them the Church justly expects protection and quietness, paying them prayers, subjection, and duties. But he adds further this reason; Because this is good and acceptable to God our Saviour, who would have no man to perish, but to come to the knowledge of his truth. If then, the will of God be, that the Sovereign Powers of the Gentiles be converted to Christianity, is it not his will that they employ themselves to the advancement of it, not only as Christians, but as Sovereigns, which cannot be expected from Gentiles? There is reason therefore to ground this Interest, upon the declared will of God, concerning the calling of the Gentiles, the Apostle having declared, that their Secular Powers are invited to the Faith, and the Prophecies of the Old Testament having declared, that their Kings & Queens should come to the Church and advance it, Psal. II. 10, 11, 12. LXXII. 10, 11. Es. XLIX. 23. LX. 13. This reason is far more effectual to me, by the Prophecies left the Church in the Apocalypse; The main scope and drift whereof, I am much persuaded to be nothing else, but to foretell the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity, and the punishment of the Heathens that persecuted the same. For, if the intent of those Prophecies be to show, that it was Gods will, that the Empire should become Christian, and that the reign of the Saints upon earth there foretold, is nothing else, but the advancement of Christianity to the Government of the Empire, and, by consequence, of other Kingdoms, into which the Empire was to be dissolved, it cannot be doubted, that Christian Powers attain the same right in matters of Religion, which the Kings of God's ancient People always had, by the making of Christianity the Religion of any State. This opinion it was not my purpose to publish, at the writing of this Discourse, because it is like to become a mark of contradiction to the most part, being possessed, more or less, of a far other sense. But having considered since how many and horrible scandals are on foot, by the consequences of that sense, (so that I cannot condemn myself of giving scandal, by publishing the best means I can see to take it away) and, having met with another reason, necessitating me to declare it, for the effectual proceeding of this Discourse, I will put it down in the Review of the last Chapter, where that necessity rises, desiring those that seek further satisfaction in this reason, to read it there for that purpose. As for the objection that was made, from the decay of Christianity, after the Powers of the World protected it, and enriched the Church, it is a mere mistake, of that which is accidental, for the true cause. For, the coming in of the World to the Church, is one thing, and the Power of the State in Church matters is another, though this depend upon that: And it is true, that the coming of the World into the Church, was the decay of Christianity, but the Power of the State in the Church, is a prop to sustain it from utter ruin. Many people are many waters, Apoc. XVII. 15. but the Gospel is the wine that cometh from the Vine in the Gospel, John XV. 1. This wine then, mixed with much water, that is, the Gospel received by much people, retaineth not the true relish, in the works of them that profess it. David saith of himself, Psal. XVIII. 44, 45. A people whom I have not known shall serve me: At the report of me they will obey me: Strangers will lie to me. At the report of David's victories, strangers submitted unto him: Some of whom nevertheless were false hearted Subjects. This is the case of them that profess Christianity, and live not according to it, who seem to have learned Machiavels principle, to join themselves to that party which they mean to destroy. As the multitude that came with the Israelites out of Egypt, upon sight of God's miracles, set them on murmuring against God in their straits, Exod. XII. 38. Num. XI. 4. The cold of winter concenters the heat of the stomach, and fortifies digestion. So, the appearance of persecution, fortified the Primitive Christians to digest it: But the heat of the air entices forth natural heat, and disposes to putrefaction: So the peace of the Church dissolveth the best resolutions for Christianity. For, as the stomach cannot order and govern that abundance of crude and undigested humours, which the weakness of natural heat breeds, so neither can the discipline of the Church hold those in compass, that come not to Christianity with so strong a resolution as to suffer for it. The cause then of the corruption of discipline, is the coming of all sorts to Christianity, whether for fashion's sake, or for hope of advantage, which Eusebius hath observed that it was visible in Constantine's time. As for the Power of the State in Church matters, it is ordained for a counterpoison to this mischief, to give that force to the discipline of the Church, which carnal Christians would not submit to otherwise. The Apostles in their time had a power to inflict bodily punishment upon offenders, as S. Peter upon Ananias and Saphira, S. Paul upon Elymas, which, in excommunication, he calls delivering to Satan, because, by some plague on the body, it appeared, that they came within his power by being excommunicate. This power it is which the Apostle calls the Rod, 1 Cor. IV. 21. and of it his meaning is when he says, 2 Cor. X. 6. That he was ready to punish all disobedience when their obedience should be complete. To me therefore it seems more than probable, which hath been conceived of late, that God provided this extraordinary gift, expressly for those times, when the Church was destitute of the protection of Secular Powers, as on the contrary, that, against the time that this gift ceased, he provided the protection of Secular Powers, for the maintenance of Christianity. These things thus debated, it will be worth the considering, how, by the appointment of God it necessarily comes to pass, that the Power of the Church, founded upon a very mean and inconsiderable privilege, (as to the world) of assembling for the public Service of God, comes to be of greatest consideration, in swaying the weightiest affairs of Christian Kingdoms and Comonwealths. And, in consequence thereunto, not what discretion, but what justice there is in those vain discourses, which require of the Clergy of such times, that meanness, and poverty, and contemptible estate and condition of living, which our Lord and disciples spent their time in from the beginning. Not considering, that, by the same reason, the people of the Church must not continue such as now they are, but must return to be such as then they were: That the right of the Church cannot be maintained in effect, without a Power answerable to the body that is to be governed by it, nor that Power maintained, without a support proportionable. And, that Christianity is not necessarily seen, in having or not having this or that estate in this world, but in using the Power, with that meekness, and charity, and uprightness, the goods of this world, with that temperance, continence, and freedom of heart which Christianity requires. Nor is it to be doubted, that the Church was poisoned with those riches which the Christianity of the Empire cast upon it: But not by having those riches, but by the manners of the people, which, coming into the Church corrupted with the love of them, must needs, by consequence, corrupt the Clergy whom they came so near. In fine, that the Reformation of the Church in a Christian State, consists not in stripping the Church either of Power or Possessions, but in providing better Laws for the use of them, and the execution of the same.  
You may have observed, that, in the premises, I have declared, the Society of the Church, to be founded upon a Command from God to all Christians, of Communicating in the public Service of God, (producing an obligation to God, and therefore to the World, a Privilege of doing it, though the Powers of the World forbidden it to be done) & upon a Law, for the condition, under which they are admitted to communicate in it. Of this Precept, or of the obligation and privilege depending upon it, I have hitherto made evidence. That which remains to make the proof of my purpose complete, is, to show that there is a Law given by God, for the condition under which men are admitted to communicate with the Church: For, seeing the execution of this Law must needs be committed to the Church, that is, to Christians, (not supposing for the present the Church to be a Society, but only a multitude of Christians, nor disputing what part of the Church, or what persons in the Church, are trusted with the execution thereof in behalf of the Church) upon this trust followeth immediately that common Power, which constituteth the Society of the Church. Which Power, because it is founded upon the obligation, or the privilege of holding Assemblies for the common Service of God, therefore the act wherein it is immediately seen, is the voiding of any man's right to communicate in the Offices of Divine Service, at the common assemblies of the Church for that purpose. I say it is immediately seen in this act, when it is complete: Otherwise it is to be conceived, that, as it is exercised, so also it may be said to be seen more immediately, in all those acts which tend to Excommunication, as degrees or steps to it, which is the utmost that the Church, as the Church, can do, being the taking away of a Christians life, as to the Church, as the greatest works of State Justice are, the taking away of the Natural or  being of any member of it. Seeing then, the utmost Power of the Church is used in Excommunication, it follows, that it is evidenced and seen by Excommunication, that is to say, that all reasons which show the Church to be endowed with the Power of Excommunication, do show it to be constituted a Society, Community, Corporation, or spiritual Commonwealth, by the Power of doing it. Now the Law which is the condition upon which men are admitted to communicate with the Church, is nothing else but the profession of Christianity, upon which, the Apostles of our Lord were first enabled to constitute Churches, by baptising them whom they should win to be Disciples, according to the Commission of our Lord, Mat. XXVIII. 19 those only being Disciples which undertook Christianity, and therefore were afterwards called Christians, being first called Disciples, even after their Baptism. Now, Christianity consisting, not only in believing whatsoever our Lord Christ revealed, but in the acknowledgement of an obligation to do whatsoever he commanded; it follows, that this Law of Christianity consists of all Precepts, of things to be believed, and things to be done, which our Lord Christ hath declared to his Church. And not in these alone, in regard that our Lord hath commanded Christianity, not only to be believed, but also to be professed, at the utmost peril of life and estate: Therefore I said, that the Law, which is the condition of communicating with the Church, is the profession of Christianity, which entitleth to Baptism. This profession, seeing it cannot be made but to Christians, that know what Christianity is, and thereby are able to judge of the profession made, how agreeable to Christianity, of the person making the profession, how sincerely, how cordially he does it, it followeth, that the Power of the Church is committed to them that are trusted to judge of the profession of Christianity, every one according to the Interest which he justly pretendeth in that judgement. Therefore is this Power called the Power of the Keys, because it openeth the door to the Communion of all Ordinances of Divine Service in the Church, when it findeth the profession both agreeable to Christianity, and to the heart & life of him that makes it, and shuts the same when it findeth things otherwise. Therefore is it called the Power of remitting, and retaining sins, because God hath promised the free grace of remission of sins, to all that make true profession of Christianity: The benefit of which promise, as it is good to him that makes such profession, by virtue of his own act, as to God, so, by virtue of the act that admits of the same, it is good as to the Church: Though it cannot be good as to God, unless it be good also as to the Church, by reason of the command of God, that every Christian be a member of the Church. For, if it were morally possible, that any man should attain to the knowledge, and submit to the obedience of Christianity in such an estate of life, and such Society of this World, wherein it were not morally possible for him to hold Communion with the Church, or those, who in behalf of the Church, by the Laws of it, are enabled to admit him to the Communion of the same by Baptism, I would make no scruple to think that man in the state of salvation, without Baptism, or the Church. And the same is to be said of all those, that cannot be admitted to the Communion of the Church, without professing, or doing something contrary to Christianity, which is the case of all that stand excommunicate upon unjust causes, so that their Christianity obligeth them to communicate with no part of the true Church. For seeing the Unity of the Church requires, that he that is excommunicate to one part of the Church, be excommunicate to all the Church, (seeing the Unity of the Whole cannot be preserved, unless the Whole make good each act of the part, which it hath power to do) it follows, that he who is excommunicate for an unjust cause, cannot with his Christianity communicate with any part of the Church, his title to heaven remaining entire. But this case ceasing, the remission of sins depends upon the Church, by reason of the profession of Christianity, which, as God requires every Christian to make, so he enables the Church to admit. And this is the Argument for the Power of Excommunication, which is drawn from the Power of admitting to Baptism, evidenced by divers Scriptures, and divers particulars in the Primitive practice of the Church, agreeable to the same. And truly, it was enough to point at some particulars, for he that would undertake to produce all that is to be had, in the records of the Church, to depose for this reason, and this right of the Church, might easily fill great Volumes with nothing else. Nevertheless I will here add one particular more, because it seems this reason of the right and interest of the Church is evidently seen in it: And it will not require many allegations, seeing it is a known Rule of the ancient Church, that Clinics should not be admitted to the Clergy, alleged by Cornelius of Rome, to Fabius of Antiochia, in Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. VI 43. against Novatianus the Father of the Novatians, to show, that he could not be Bishop of Rome in opposition to him, being made Presbyter contrary to that Rule. What was then the reason of this Rule, and what were they that were called Clinics? It is very evident that there were very many in the Primitive times, that believed Christianity, but durst not profess it, because it was no prejudice to believe it, but to profess it, so as to be baptised, and come under the Discipline of the Church, might be a matter of life and death in case of persecution. Besides, believing and not professing, that is, not pretending to Baptism, they avoided the strictness of Ecclesiastical Discipline. What should the Church do in the case of these men, when they came to demand their Baptism, undertaking the Rule of Christianity? Surely, as they could not utterly exclude them from the Church, that had never offended, or failed in that which they had undertaken to it, so, of necessity, they must stand at a greater distance to such persons, as having their Christianity more in suspicion then otherwise. Wherefore, in danger of death, they were not to refuse them Baptism, but in case they recovered again, it was very reasonable, that they which had attained their Baptism only in consideration of the danger of death, and must have given better trial of themselves otherwise, before they were admitted, should therefore stand so far suspected afterwards, as not to be admitted to the Clergy, which required a greater proficience in Christianity, then that which qualified a man only for Baptism. These than are they which were called Clinici, because they were baptised in bed, as requiring their Baptism, when they found themselves upon the bed of their sickness, which might be that of their death: And this is the reason of the Rule, that they should not be admitted to the Clergy: And by this reason the right and interest of the Church is evident, in admitting the profession of Christianity, in those that thereby demanded to be admitted to Baptism.  
In the next argument, drawn from the Discipline of Penance, it may be thought that I make it a difficult task, to prove the Power of Excommunication to belong to the Church, when I premise to that purpose, an assumption so hard to believe as this is, that the Church, by the discipline of the Apostles, as well as by the practice and Rules of the Primitive times, was not bound to re-admit to the Communion of the Church, those that had fallen from their Christianity, by sins most destructive to the same. But it is to be considered, that, to the validity of this argument it is only requisite to show, that those that had fallen, were to sue to be admitted to Penance in the first place, that, upon satisfaction given, of the sincerity of their resolution towards Christianity, they might be readmitted to the Communion of the Church. All which supposeth, that, before such satisfaction given, they had forfeited the same. And the argument being effectual upon these terms, must needs convince so much the more, if it can further appear, that, in case of the most heinous offences, it was in the disposition of the Church, to readmit them to Communion or not. Add then, to the evidence hereof, the example of Martion, Father of the Marcionites, in the beginning of his Heresy in Epiphanius, who, being put out of the Church, and denied Penance by his own Father, a Bishop of great piety and zeal in Pontus, because, professing continence, he had corrupted a Virgin, and afterwards at Rome, because of the Rule by which the whole Church subsisteth, to make good the acts of all parts thereof, within the Power of those parts, unless voided by superiors, fell hereupon to set up his Heresy. And truly, so rigid a position as that of the Novatians, if it be considered aright, could very hardly have found any fellows, if it had been unheard of in the Church. But, though the Montanists were rejected at Rome, as to the point of receiving Adulterers, seeing yet the question remained concerning Apostates, so doubtful, as to give Novatianus a party in it, what can be more manifest, then, that they had the pretence of Apostolical discipline, and the Scriptures, to set off their Schism with? A thing still more evident, because that, from the relation of that which passed between Cornelius of Rome, and Fabius of Antiochia, in Eusebibius, Eccles. Hist. VI 43, 44. it appeareth, that the Church of Antiochia remained for a time in suspense, whether to acknowledge Cornelius or Novatianus for the right Bishop. Whereupon, the Bishops of the East, writing to Julius of Rome, from a Council held at Antiochia, in Sozomenus Eccles. Hist. III. 8. do reckon it as a motive to persuade him not to interpose in the cause of Athanasius, deposed by the Council held there afore, that they also had formerly done the like in the case of Novatianus. And by this eminent instance we learn, how much the Unity of the Church is to be preferred before Discipline. The name of Saints, and the like, in the Writings of the Apostles, is convertible with that of Christians, being given to all the members of those Churches, to which they address their Epistles: Though it be manifest by those very Epistles, that, as our Saviour had foretold, so were those Church's nets that held both good and bad fish, floors that had both corn and chaff. What property of speech is there then, to make good the language of the Apostles? Surely, if the Church be a visible Society of men, subsisting, not by the nature of the persons, but by institution and appointment of voluntary acts, capable to qualify them upon whom they pass, then, upon the constitution of members of the same, there must needs accrue unto them, qualities and denominations correspondent to the acts upon which they arise. Now, the profession of Christianity, is not the proper and essential act of it, because it may be feigned and fruitless, but it is a sign to ground a reasonable presumption upon, that the person is such, as he is thereupon presumed to be. But, being admitted to the Communion of the Church upon this presumption, he purchases thereupon a Right to be taken for such as those are to be, so long as he continueth in the same. Now, if the discipline of Christianity could be held up together with the Unity of the Church, then must it be understood, that the Church is commanded to exact it of all members of the Church, upon the same obligation, as it is commanded all Christians for their souls health. But, though it be absolutely necessary to the salvation of Christians, to live as Christians, yet it is not so necessary for any Christian, to procure that another Christian do it, therefore is the care of it commanded the Church, or whosoever is to have that care on behalf of the Church, so far as it may be useful to procure the general good of the Church. And surely, the effect and benefit of this discipline was invaluable, both to those that passed through it, and to the confirmation of the Church. But when a person of eminence must be made desperate, by refusing to readmit him to the Church, (which perhaps was the case with S. Paul towards the incestuous person at Corinth, whom S. chrysostom and Theodoret take to be a person qualified in that Church, as I have showed in the Apostolical Form of Divine Service, p. 119. and so, capable to lead a party after him) or, when the multitude and equality of offenders takes away the benefit of example, and teaches them to pardon themselves, by making a Church of themselves otherwise, (which, if S. Augustine had not said it, we might have gathered to have been the case, after the Persecution of Decius, under Cornelius and S. Cyprian) without doubt the loss of it, is a mischief nothing comparable to that which would follow, by dissolving the Unity of the Church. And, if, so near the source of Christianity, much were abated, what shall we think must be abated, when so much water is mingled with the wine of the Gospel, by admitting good and bad to the marriage of the Lamb? Neither is it my meaning to determine precisely, how far the Church may or must abate, yet thus much I will infer for a consequence, that, as always, there was a difference between the right of Communion with the Visible Church, and invisible Communion with the Church of the firstborn, which is the right and title to life everlasting, as between the profession and performance of Christianity; so, seeing the condition of Communion with the Church is still released and enlarged more and more, to retain Unity in corrupt Christianity, the condition of communion with God remaining always the same, the Visible communion of the Church is always a presumption of invisible Christianity, because always necessary to it, though not sufficient alone: and therefore, though not always a reasonable presumption, because so much difference between the condition of visible and invisible, yet always a legal presumption, effectually qualifying more Christians, as to the Society of the Church. And this is the reason of that which I say here p. that the estate of the Church is then most happy and most pure, when this legal presumption is most reasonable.  
It is not only true which I say p. 30. that the Power of binding and losing, which the Priests and Doctors exercised under the Law, that is, of declaring this or that to be bound or lose, that is, unlawful or lawful, by the Precepts of the Law, cannot be that which our Lord meaneth, Mat. XVIII. 18. when he saith, Whatsoever ye bind on earth— but, also, that the reason holdeth not under the Gospel, to ground a general Commission correspondent to the Power in force under the Law, upon which it may be thought to be said, Whatsoever ye bind— For, the reason of this Power under the Synagogue, was the matter of positive Precepts, not commanded because it was good, but good because it was commanded: Which, where it was not determined by the Law, was to be supplied by the Power of the Consistory, established Deut. XVII. 8, 12. the determination whereof being declared by authority derived from thence, made any thing lawful or unlawful before God, by virtue of the general Precept, by which the authority subsisted. For which reason the Consistory is to offer sacrifice for the transgression of private persons, as you see here p. 158. so often as they are led into transgression by the Consistory deciding amiss. And this reason holds under the Gospel, in regard of matters of Positive right, concerning the Society of the Church, not determined by any divine Precept. For, if the Church have determined the matter of them, further than it is determined by Divine right, then is that bound or unlawful which is so determined, unless the authority by which it is determined, declare, that the determination is not to take place. This is the effect of that Legislative Power which I challenge for the Church, Chap. IU. from p. 170. and concerns only those positive Precepts, which tend to maintain the Society of the Church in Unity. But in those things which concern the substance of Christianity, because they are commanded as good, the obligation being more ancient than the Constitution of the Church, as grounded upon the nature of the subject, and the eternal will of God, this power hath no place: And therefore cannot be understood to be signified, by the terms of binding and losing, as borrowed from the language of the Talmud Doctors: But whereas in the Synagogue it was things or cases, under the Gospel it is persons, that are said to be bound or lose. For, of every case questionable in point of Christianity, there is no infallible authority given to assure all Christians, that, following it, they shall always please God in all actions. But, as it is possible to judge of the state of all persons toward God, upon supposition of their profession, so, there is authority founded in the Church, of binding and losing, that is, of remitting and retaining sins, by admitting to, or excluding from the Church. In fine, this interpretation is inconsequent to the words that went afore, Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican, if we take them in Erastus his sense, that thereby our Lord gives leave, to sue such, before the Secular Powers of the Romans, as would not stand to the sentence of their own Consistories. For this plainly concerns matter of Interest, not matter of Office, seeing it would be very impertinent, so to understand our Lord, as to command them to be sued in the Gentiles Courts, that would not stand to the sentence of the Jews Consistories, in matters of Conscience. But, if we understand binding and losing, according to this opinion, to be, declaring this or that to be lawful or unlawful before God, then doth it not concern matter of Interest, but matter of Conscience or Office. Besides, this interpretation is impertinent to that which follows, Again, I say unto you, if two of you agree upon earth about any thing, to ask it, it shall be done for them, by my Father which is in heaven. For, where two or three are assembled in my Name, there am I in the midst of them. Whereas, the interpretation which here is advanced, of binding and losing the persons of them that are admitted to, or excluded from the Communion of the Church, agreeth with that which went afore; Let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican, and no less with that which followeth, tending to declare the means of losing such as should be so bound, to wit, the Prayers of the Church, as hath been declared. As for the conceit of Erastus, that this Precept of our Lord should concern only the Jews, that lived under the Romans, and not be intended for an Order to be observed in all ages of the Church, it is so unreasonable, that I find no cause to spend words in destroying it: Only, be it remembered, that it is contrary to the Order instituted by our Lord and his Apostles, that the differences of Christians should be carried out of the Church, to be pleaded and heard in the Courts of the Gentiles, according to that which was practised afore in the Synagogue, as hath been said. So that this sense of Erastus, as you see by that which follows, it is contrary to the practice of the Church under the Apostles.  
As for the reason touched p. 43. that the practice of the Church before Constantine is the best evidence to show the proper Power and Right of it, it is here opportune to resume the distinction made afore, and upon it to frame a general argument against both. Which shall be this. Either there was a Society of the Church by right, as we know there was in point of fact, before Constantine, or there is no such thing to be grounded upon the Scriptures in point of right, but was only an usurpation and imposture of the Primitive Clergy of the Church. This later assertion is that which hath been refuted by the premises, proving first a privilege, or a precept, of communicating in the service of God, given to the community of Christians, secondly, a condition under which they were admitted to communicate and to be Christians, and continued in the same estate. But, if there were a Society of the Church before Constantine, constituted by Divine right, then could not the same have been dissolved, but by the same Power that constituted it from the beginning, neither can it be known to be dissolved, but by the same evidence, by which it appears to have been constituted, that is, unless it can be made to appear by the Scriptures, that God ordained it to subsist, only till the Roman Empire, and other States and Kingdoms received Christianity, then to be dissolved into the Power of those States being become Christian, which I am confident no man will undertake to show out of the Scriptures. If it be said, that it subsisted till Constantine, not by Divine right, but according to Divine right, that is to say, by the Power given the Church by God, of ordering those things which were not determined by any Divine Precept, and yet became determinable, the case is the same, and the reason is where it was: For, if the Church by the Power given it by God immediately, be enabled to make itself a Society for the better maintenance and propagation of Christianity, and have executed that Power, by enabling every part of the Church to maintain itself in the Unity of the Whole, by the same Power, in order to, and dependence upon the Whole, then are all Christians bound by a Divine Precept, of obeying the Governors of the Church, before they can be bound to obey the Secular Powers in Church matters. The one Power being constituted by the immediate revelation and appointment of God, in matters concerning the Society of the Church, the other, constituted indeed by the Providence of God executed by man, but enforced, by the Law of Christianity, to be obeyed in all things not excepted by the same, whereof this is one. And, if the consent of the Christian world can be of any moment, in a matter wherein the Clergy are parties indeed, as they must needs be, but must challenge their right at their utmost hazard, it is not possible to give a more pregnant instance for the right of Excommunication in the Church, than the troubles of Athanasius of Alexandria, and Alexander of Constantinople, for refusing to admit Arrius to communicate with the Church, being cast out by the Council of Nice, the act whereof they could not void, the good Emperor being seduced to think it necessary for the quiet of the Church. And, not only by this particular, but by all the proceed of the first Christian Emperors in the affairs of the Church, (who had great advantage in discerning the true Interest of the State and the Church, not only by the advice of those Bishops which had received it fresher from the source, but by sensible knowledge of the whole right which they found the Church in possession of, when they came to be members of it) it is manifest, that they never sought to bring to effect that which they were persuaded to be necessary for the establishment of Christianity, (whether truly or falsely) as well as for the quiet of their Estates and People, by the immediate act of their own Sovereign Power, but by the act of those, that were then held able to conclude the Church: Employing their Secular Power in consequence to the same, to enforce such acts, (though not always valid to oblige the Church) by temporal Penalties, on them that refused, as enemies to the public Peace.  
Seeing then that the Church is a Society, Community, Corporation, or spiritual Commonwealth, subsisting by the immediate revelation and appointment of God, without dependence upon those Christian States wherein it is harboured, as to the Right by which it subsisteth, and the matter wherein it communicateth, but depending upon them for the force, which is necessarily requisite, to maintain the whole People of all Christian States, in the communion of their respective Churches, and by them of the whole, it followeth of necessity, that it is endowed with Rights correspondent to those, wherein the Sovereignty of States consisteth. The Power of the Sword is the principal of those Rights, into which the rest are resolved, when they are enforced to have recourse unto it, for the execution of that which becomes requisite to make them available. And the Church hath the Sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, which is used two manner of ways, as the Sword is, either to subdue strangers, or to cut off malefactors. Let no man imagine, that any private person is enabled to propagate the Gospel, and constitute new Churches, of persons newly converted to Christianity, without competent Commission from the Church. To bring men to be Christians indeed, is that, which, not only any of the Clergy, but any Christian may do, and is to do, when he finds himself able to act towards it, without disadvantage to Christianity. It is that which the Ecclesiastical Histories inform us, that Frumentius and Aedesius did in India, and the captive maid in Iberia, as well as those of the dispersion of Jerusalem in Phoenicia and Cyprus, and at Antiochia, Acts XI. 19, 20. But, the authority by which they became a Church, they were to seek where it was before, at Alexandria, and Constantinople, as well as those at Jerusalem, Acts XI. 22. Because, in the Church, the Sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, is deposited, and trusted with the Church, for the propagation as well as the maintenance of it, and, though all Christians must needs understand themselves to be under an habitual trust, or a commission dormant, to persuade all that they can to the Christianity which they have themselves, yet, the express commission of the Church imports further, the exercise of that Power which the Society thereof already useth, towards them, that, by virtue of the said Commission, shall be brought to be Christians: At least, it may import so much, if we suppose it granted to such purpose. The Sword of the Spirit is used within the Church, to the punishment of malefactors, upon two sorts of causes. For, if any man forfeit his Christianity, either by denying the Faith, upon profession whereof he was admitted to Christianity, or by living contrary to the same, the same Sword of the Spirit which pronounces him cut off from God, cuts him off from the Church. And, in regard that it is part of Christianity, to believe that God hath ordained a Church, the consequence whereof is, to oblige all Christians to maintain themselves in the Unity of the same, which cannot be done by those that refuse to be concluded by it, in all things not contrary to God's Law; the same Sword of the Spirit that subdues all men to be Christians, upon condition to live members of the Church, cuts them off from the Communion of the Church, that will not live within compass of the Unity of it. The Power of the Sword being supposed in the Church, Jurisdiction follows, which consists not so much in judging, as in executing the sentence. Not that there is any such thing as Jurisdiction, (such as the  Laws of the Romans, and all other People understand, which proceeds by constraint of outward force) in the Church: But, because the Church being constituted of such as desire to continue Christians, upon supposition of this will to continue a Christian, he may be said to be constrained to hear the Church, that cannot communicate with the Church, unless he do so as it requires. Upon the same ground subsists the Right of Ordinations, answerable to that part of Sovereignty in States, which consists in creation of Magistrates and Officers, (for it is, without doubt, beside the intent of the Roman Laws, to call the Sovereign a Magistrate, Magistrates being generally Ministers of the Sovereign) which creates a particular Power over the Clergy, by the Jurisdiction of the Church. For, in regard that (as it hath been said on divers occasions in this Discourse) the Clergy is promoted, upon supposition of some degree of proficience in Christianity, over and above that, upon supposition whereof, men are admitted to be only Christians, it followeth not, that those, who by their conversation render themselves unworthy of that degree which they hold in the Clergy, do, by the same means, render themselves unworthy of the Communion of the Church. Therefore, the punishment of a Clergy man may be competent, by only voiding his degree, when another Christian cannot be competently punished, but by putting him from the Church. Whereby it appears, that the Power of Ordaining, as well as censuring persons Ordained, is grounded upon the Power of the Keys, as giving or taking away, not the communion of the Church, but a degree and quality above it, which supposeth it. Again, upon the constitution of the Society of the Church, follows the Power of making Canons, Constitutions, and Ordinances, obliging the respective body thereof, correspondent to the Legislative Power of Kingdoms and Commonwealths, wherein the justice of them most appears, though the strength of them is more seen, in the Power of the Sword, which gives all Laws force. And so, it is no more inconvenience, to all these Canons the Laws of the Church, than it is, to call the Power of Excommunication the spiritual Sword of the Church. Neither is it any more for the Church, to have this Power, then that which States ordinarily allow the meanest Corporations which they Privilege, to wit, to give Laws to their own Bodies, for the maintenance and execution of the Laws, originally given them by those who are enabled to institute them. In fine, in correspondence to the Exchequer of a State, is the Title that God hath given his Church to the Oblations of the Faithful, their First-fruits, and Tithes: The right whereof he hath endowed the Church with, leaving the seizure, to the voluntary tender of those, whom he calleth to be voluntary Christians. And thus, and by this correspondence with a State, the parts of Ecclesiastical Power are more clearly and more intelligibly distinguished, in my opinion, then by the ordinary terms of Jurisdiction and Order. For first, these terms, being introduced by the Canonists and School Doctors, seem to presuppose a coactive Jurisdiction in the Church, upon the constitution, and original Title of the Church, such as the Church of Rome challenges, and the Decretal Epistles of the Popes presuppose, whereby they challenge to themselves that Power by Divine Right, which, by the sufferance of Princes and States, they did exercise, (entangling the Schools of Divines with as inextricable difficulties, to make it good, as Christian States with commotions, to shake off the consequences thereof) merely for neglect of the principle here presupposed, that Christianity importeth no right of this world, and therefore, that the coactive Power of the State remains where it was before it. Secondly, it seemeth, that the Power of Order and Jurisdiction are not contradistinct but subordinate, the Power of Order being the production and consequence of the Power of Jurisdiction, if it be rightly understood: For, by the same reason which proveth here, p. 199 that the power of consecrating the Eucharist belongeth to Presbyters, upon the Power of the Keys, and that all Benedictions with Imposition of Hands, whether in Confirmation, Ordination, Penance, Marriage, or whatsoever else, are marks of that Power, which alloweth those acts which are blessed, to be done in the Church, as you have it here p. 23. by the same reason it follows, that the ministry of all Ordinances of God deposited with the Church, is a mark of that superiority, which, those that minister the same have in the Church. And therefore, if the Power of Order be in respect of Christ's own Body, as ordinarily they describe it, it proceeds from the Power over his mystical Body, which is that of Jurisdiction as they make it. Or if, as others will have it, the Power of Order consists in the ministry of such divine Ordinances, as are the means to procure and increase God's grace, in the persons to whom they are ministered; the same reason takes place: Because they are not to be ministered, but by them whom the Church trusteth to do it, to that true intent which it teacheth. Wherefore, it seemeth, that the term of Jurisdiction ought to express the common source of all Ecclesiastical Power, which it doth not, because that, as Jurisdictiis but a part of Sovereignty in a State, so the Power from which the metaphorical jurisdiction of the Church floweth, (which I conceive, cannot be better expressed, then by calling it the Power of the Keys, as the Gospel hath done) produceth other branches of Ecclesiastical Power, correspondent to other parts of Sovereignty in a State, as hereby you have seen.   

CHAP. II.  
HAving thus determined whereupon the Power of the Keys is founded, and wherein it consisteth, it remained to proceed and declare what persons it is trusted with: For, seeing the persons of whom Christian States consist, are the same, of whom the Churches, or parts of the whole Church that are contained in those States, consist, if there be no provision of God's Law, tying the Right of managing this Power, and the productions and branches thereof, to some qualities consequent to the constitution of the Church, it will necessarily fall as an escheat to the State, and we shall be tied to grant it Power to confer those qualities by which it is managed, and all this will be truly said to no purpose. Here, in the first place, I must insist upon a point, the truth whereof, the Presbyteries and Congregations have equally divided between them, and left it entire to the Church. For, those of the Congregations, finding, that the design of the Presbyteries, had ordered a Presbytery for the government of every Congregation that assembles together for the common service of God, had reason to infer, that all those Presbyteries ought to be endowed with the Power of the Keys, as to their own Bodies. To which, assuming another demand, that the chief Power in every Congregation was that of the People, it followeth, that all Congregations are independent and absolute, not to be concluded by any Church, or Synod representative of Churches, above themselves. On the other side, the Presbyterians, finding, that no Unity can be preserved without dependence, and desiring to preserve Unity among themselves, though not with the Church, have designed the Power of the Keys, as to the act of Excommunication, to rest in Representatives of the Presbyteries of Congregations, which nevertheless, they call by the same name of Presbyteries, or Classes, the same being subject to Synods of Presbyteries, and those to Nationall Assemblies. Whereas, there is never any mention, in all the Scriptures, of any Presbytery, or Company, College, or Bench of Presbyters, as likewise there is no mention of any Church, but in a City: No mention of more Churches than one in the greatest City, and the most populous, for number of Christians, that is mentioned in all the Scriptures: Though no common reason can question, but there were more Congregations, considering that it cannot be thought, that all the Christians, contained in the greatest and most Christian of all those Cities, could assemble together at once for the common service of God. Upon these premises it is necessary to infer, that the Apostles Order was that, which we see was the Rule of their practice, that the several Bodies of those that should be converted to Christianity, within several Cities and the Territories thereof, should constitute several Churches, to be governed by the several Presbyteries thereof, constituted and regulated as shall be declared in the consequences. Which being established, it will not be difficult to infer, that the Power of the Keys, and the consequences thereof, are deposited in the said Churches, that is, trusted with them that are endowed with the Power of Governing those Churches. To which, if you add this, that the Churches of particular Cities, were to depend upon the Churches of Mother Cities, upon which particular Cities depended for the  Government; you have a reason and Rule of the whole frame of Church Government designed by the Apostles, as general as could be given to a Society, that was to consist of several Nations and Sovereignty's without limits, but not more general, than the Original constitution of the whole Church, derived from their design, will evidence to be agreeable to those impressions and marks of it, which are here produced out of the Scriptures.  
This Position is liable to an Objection, from those, which the ancient Canons of the Greekish Counsels call Chorepiscopi, which we may translate Country Bishops, because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth the Country, in opposition to, or in difference from the City. For, if Churches constituted in Cities, have their several Presbyteries, the Heads whereof being Bishops, are, by consequent, Governors in chief of their respective Churches, how are Bishops constituted in the Country, that is, in any of the chief Villages under any City? For, by this means, either we have a Church in a Village, or a Bishop without a Church, and so, the practice of the Church, not to be reconciled with that which I make the design of the Apostles, if either be true. The answer to this, in general, must come from that, which you have here afterwards, p. 62. that the Rule is as generally expressed in these terms, as any Rule general to those cases that may fall out so divers. For, the general intent and reason of it is, to preserve the Unity of the Whole Church, by the subordination and dependence of the parts thereof, to and from other parts, and so the Whole. If some particular provision prove necessary some time and place, to attain this end, it is not to be thought that the general Rule holds not therefore. For the particular here in hand, one thing I conceive may be questionable in point of Fact, and matter of Historical Truth, concerning these Country Bishops, which the Canons quoted p. 146. speak of. For, in the beginning of the XI Canon of Antiochia, it is said, that they received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Ordination of Bishops; In the end of it, it is provided that they be Ordained by the Bishop of the City to whom they are subject. The first clause seems to intimate, that they have the same Ordination with other Bishops, which is by the Synod of the Province, or those that represent the same: Besides that, we find, by the subscriptions of the Counsels, that they were called to Counsels, as if they received their trust immediately from the Synods of their Provinces. By the second clause, it seems they receive their authority immediately from the Bishop of the Province, whereupon they are called Vicarii Episcoporum, the Bishop's Deputies, as you see in the place afore named. What my judgement is in this point you may have seen before, p. 146. neither do I see cause to repent me of it. For, howsoever they were Ordained, and from whomsoever they received their trust, it is manifest by the Canons of Ancyra and Laodicea there quoted, that they received it upon such terms as to be subordinate to the Bishop of the City, which otherwise Bishops were not, but immediately to the Synod of the Province, and the Bishop of the Mother City. Neither is it contrary to the ground of that general Rule which I maintain, that it should be within the Power of the Church, contained in any Province, (that is to say, the Synod of the same) to Ordain, that, (in regard some Village under some City of that Province, grew considerable for the extent of it, and the multitude of Christian souls contained in it) therefore it should have a Bishop beside the Bishop of the City. Always provided, that the dependence of Churches might be preserved, wherein the Unity of the whole consisted. But it is manifest, that this dependence might be maintained two several ways, supposing a Bishop to be constituted in a Village: First, Ordaining him to be subordinate to the Bishop of the City: Which is the case of those whom we speak of, whose Power is tied up, as you have seen, by the said Canons of Ancyra and Laodicea. But, should they be left free from all dependence on the City Bishop, than were they absolute Bishops, and their Churches, though in Villages, and therefore less; yet, for their respective Power and right, the same with other Churches constituted in Cities: Which seems to be the case of the Churches of afric, where Bishops were so plentiful, that every good Village must needs be the Seat of an Episcopal Church. Neither doth this destroy the Rule which I maintain, that Cities and Churches were originally convertible, but argues, that Villages, in some Countries, had that privilege, which, in others, was proper to Cities.  
To that which is said, p. 53. of the difference between Prophecies, and between Apostles and Prophets, I add this consideration, That the Apostles of our Lord were necessarily Prophets, because of the promise of the Holy Ghost, to lead them into all truth, to remember them of our Lord's Doctrine, and to make them understand the Scriptures, all which are contained in the thing signified by this word Prophesy, though the original thereof import only foretelling things to come, as it is manifest by S. Paul, 1 Cor. XIV. But all Prophets are not necessarily Apostles, that is, sent by God to declare their Commission to his people, or to charge them with those things which God revealed to themselves. I grant, that the Prophets under the Old Testament were such, by reason of that Law by which God appointeth them to be obeyed, and therefore giveth a Rule, how to discern between true and false Prophets, Deut. XVIII. 18. And hereupon it is, that their writings are the Word of God, and, that Prophecy is said to have failed, after those, whose Writings we have. Not, that we are bound to disbeleeve Josephus, when he relates, of John Hyrcanus the Prince of the Nation, and others, that they foresaw things to come; (to say nothing of Simeon and Anna, the Blessed Virgin and Zachary, because the light which they had, may be taken for the dawning of that day that was to come under the Gospel) but because they were not sent with means to make evidence of their Commission, and so, to charge the people of God. As, at the present, though God may grant revelations, yet no obligation upon the Church follows, because no Commission can be made to appear. Whereby we may measure the difference between the Prophets of the Old Testament, and the Prophets which we read of in the Churches of the New. Those, having Commissions to the people in Covenant with God, containing his pleasure, in the interpretation, limitation, dispensation of the same, were above God's positive Law, in as much as God, by them, might abate it some time, and some where, as by Elias in Mount Carmell. These, we do not find that they had to do beyond the Churches whereof they were, to evidence the presence of God in the Church by his Graces, to inform them of things to come, to instruct their own Churches, but, always supposing the constitution of the Church, and the Laws whereby they were settled by the Apostles. And therefore, if the Prophets of the Old Testament were under the Consistory, to be judged by them, as I have said here, p. 104. much more were the Prophets of the New Testament subject to the Apostles, when as, by like reason, they were to be subject to the Government of their own Churches, seeing there is no appearance of any privilege for them, against the common obligation of obedience to the same. Whereupon, the Montanists, who made a Schism upon presumption of some instructions they had from their supposed Prophets, were not only abused in point of Fact, to take them for Prophets which were not, but were guilty of Schism in point of Right, because God had given no Power to those, whom he granted those Graces to under the Gospel, against the ordinary government of his Church.  
I will add here, to that which you find, of the State of the Jews at Alexandria, p. 56. a remarkable passage of an Edict of Claudius in favour of the Jews, recorded by Josephus, Antiqu. XIX. 4. where, having said, that he had understood, that the Roman Governors, from the taking in of Alexandria, had always maintained the Jews in their Rights, he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And, that, when the Prince of the Jews Nation was dead, Augustus did not forbid them to make Princes, but would have all subject to him, continuing in their own customs, and not constrained to transgress the Religion of their Fathers. Which, if we compare with the words of Philo adversus Flaccum, where he affirms, that the Consistory of the Jews at Alexandria, was established or confirmed by Augustus, it will appear, that the Jews had the same Government in Egypt, as in Palestine, and Babylonia, to wit, by a Head of their Nation and a Consistory. Zorobabel was their Prince when they first returned from the Captivity; but, as the little Chronicle of the Jews relates, he afterwards left Judaea, and returned into Babylonia, where his posterity continued Heads of the Captives, (as they are called by Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for many generations. In Judaea, setting aside Nehemias' and the Governors which he mentions, V 14, 15. (because it seems they had not their Power from the Nation, and the Right which they had within themselves, by being privileged to live by their own Laws, but by an immediate Commission from the Sovereign, as the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies, being Babylonish, as we see by Dan. III. 2. and, as the Commission of Nehemiah imports, by which he is enabled to make war against his fellow Governors, which afterwards was usual under the Persian Empire.) Josephus affirms, that the Government was in the hands of the High Priests, from the return out of Captivity, till the time of Mattathias his sons, Antiqu. XI. 4. and, that, after him, till the destruction of Jerusalem, it was not otherwise, the Scriptures of the New Testament are sufficient to inform us. As for the Consistories under these Heads of the Nation, we find much mention of them in the Jews Writings, at Babylonia: And at Jerusalem, from the Constitution thereof under Esdras, by the Commission granted him from the Sovereign, Ez. VII. 26. we have the continuance and subsistence of them, in the Gospels, and Josephus. Now, about the time of Herod the Great, the little Chronicle of the Jews relates, that Hillel, of the posterity of Zorobabel and David, came down from Babylonia to Jerusalem, and became of such esteem in the knowledge of the Law, that, by the Talmud Doctors, he and his posterity, in succession, are reckoned for Heads of the Consistory. Which, how it can stand with the relation of the Scriptures, before the destruction of the Temple, I do not so well understand. But, when afterwards, by the kindness of King Agrippa to his Nation, and his love to the Law, as it seems most probable, they took up their residence at Tiberias, it seems there is not much doubt to be made, that, from thenceforth, those of this stock continued Patriarches, and the Consistory there under them, till the times of Epiphanius, and the Emperors, whose Laws you have in both Codes, Tit. de Judaeis & Coelicolis, and in fine, so long as their privileges lasted in Palestine. In like manner therefore in Egypt, (where Philo, in the same Discourse, reckons, that there lived a million of Jews in his time) and at Alexandria, we have from the same Philo intelligence of the Consistory, from Josephus, of the Head of the Nation, whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and is, without doubt, the same that the Emperor Adriane, in his Epistle to Servianus, recorded by Vopiscus in the life of Saturninus, calls Patriarcha. The words of Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are these: — For, having apprehended XXXVIII (even all that were found in their Houses) of our Senate, which our Saviour, and Benefactor Augustus chose, to take charge of the Jews affairs, by his instructions to Magnus Maximus, when he went to govern the Country the second time— Here are XXXVIII of LXX named, whereof the Consistory consisted: Here is the very Order of Augustus named, which Claudius his Edict, alleged by Josephus, pointeth at: In fine, he that is called in Claudius his Edict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Hadrianus Epistle Patriarcha, is here called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whose Power seems to have been correspondent to that of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Babylonia, of the High Priest at Jerusalem, and of the Patriarch at Tiberias.  
There is, in the Ecclesiastical Histories, a consideration very proper to evidence the reason why Constantinople was afterwards the second in rank after Rome, which is here touched p. 59 And it is that of the power of Eusebius, and of Nicomedia the City of his Bishopric. For, because, during the time of Diocletian, Nicomedia was, as it were, the Seat of the Empire, he having made it his main Residence, with an intent to have it so continue; thereupon, saith the History, Eusebius, growing to great eminence in the Church, undertook the support of Arius, against Alexander of Alexandria. If, therefore, the Bishop of Nicomedia had attained such authority in the Church, by the ambulatory residence of the Empire there, since the time of Diocletian, well might the preeminence settle at Constantinople, when Constantine had fixed the Seat of the Empire there, and that, by the virtue of the Rule given by the Apostles, though the effect thereof come after the act of Constantine.  
To that which I have said, from p. 62. of the great difference that is to be found in the execution of the Apostles Rule, that Churches should be planted in Cities, or in the greatest Residences, in several Counties, that is to be added, which Sozomenus, Eccles. Hist. VI 20. hath recorded, concerning that Province which he calls Scythia, the Romans Moesia Inferior, in which, at the time of the Emperor Valens, there was but one Bishop, of the Mother City Tomi, the place of Ovid's banishment; For, this is the same case, with that which is related by Eutychius, of Egypt, before Demetrius was Bishop of Alexandria, that there was no more Bishops in it besides that one, the same which Godignus relates of the Abassines, that there is, to this day, but one Bishop in all that Dominion, as you have it here p. 64.  
To all the reasons here produced for the Dependence of Churches, add the consideration of the Unity of the Church, how it was commanded by God in point of right, and how provided, and maintained, in point of Fact, by the Church. For, if the Church be a Visible Society, commanded to live in Unity, then is the Unity thereof commanded to be Visible: That is, it is commanded, that Christians preserve Unity with all Christians, not only in Faith and Love, inwardly, in the mind, but also in the outward Communion of all those Ordinances, wherein God hath appointed his Service, under the Gospel, to consist. And this is manifest by the words of S. Paul to the Ephesians, exhorting them to continue in Unity, because they have one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of All, Eph. IU. 4. For if these motives and reasons were proper to the Church of the Ephesians, then might it very well be thought, that Christians are obliged thereby, only to live in Unity, with those of the same Church; But, since they are common to all Christians of all Churches never so remote, it followeth, that the Precept of upholding the Unity of the Church, obligeth all Christians visibly to communicate with all Christians. By which reason, the same may be proved, by all or most of those Scriptures, which recommend, or which only mention the Unity of the Church. But it is most peremptorily proved by that which hath been produced in the first Chapter, to show the condition upon which all men are to be admitted to the Communion of the Church, which is, the Profession of Christianity. For, seeing that is one and the same, in all parts and Climates of the World, as introduced by the same Power, and derived from the same Fountain, it follows, that no Church hath any further to inquire about any man's right of communicating with the Church, but whether his Profession be allowed by his own Church, and whether that hold Communion with the Whole. And truly, because it is the same condition which entitles all men to the Communion of the Church all over the world, that is, to Profess the substance of Christianity, therefore all Churches are to procure, that there be nothing to hinder this Communion, when that condition is performed, and every person of those Churches, in their several qualities, that nothing else be demanded. But, when some Churches, or some parts of one and the same Church, demand for the condition of communicating with others, something more than was appointed for the condition of it from the beginning, separation and Schism follows, the cause whereof is commonly doubtful, because it appears not, how fare several Churches, or parts of the same, are to yield to the acts of others, which would conclude the whole if they should yield, when it appears not, how the matter of them agrees with that condition of Communion with the Church, that was delivered from the beginning. But, when both sides charge the blame on the contrary party, they show, that they are both agreed, that the blame must lie on one side, and therefore, that the unity of the Church is such as hath been said, because, Schism in the Church, no more than War in  Society, can be just on both sides. Now, it is very manifest, that, in the Primitive Church, this unity was actuated by intercourse of letters from Church to Church, begun first, and established by the Apostles themselves, whose writings are almost all Epistles; For, by their Epistles, as the matter of Christianity is more and more declared, so, the intercourse and correspondence of the Church is preserved, in as much as it is manifest, that their Epistles require nothing of the Churches to which, but the same which they require of the Churches from which they writ, so that there must needs be correspondence between all that acknowledge the Apostles holding correspondence. The same course was continued, not only by the Epistles of the Primitive Bishops, which are a great part of their writings still remaining, but, a great deal more, by the intercourse of their Formatae, or letters of mark, which, every Christian that traveled into a strange Country taking with him from his own Church, found, not only the Communion of the Church open to him wheresoever he came, but also, that assistance in his affairs, which Christians are to expect from the charity of Christians. And, of this kind, the Epistle to the Romans may be accounted, because of the recommendation of Phoebe, XVI. 2. as of a deaconess in the Church of Cenchreae near Corinth. The effect of this course is visible in all the proceed of the Primitive Church, whereof we have some memorable instances here afore related. When, by the result of a Council, such or such Bishops are removed from their Churches, it is ordinarily signified to other Churches, by the letters of the Council, with this warning, That none of them, from thenceforth, writ to the persons so sentenced, nor receive letters from them as Bishops. Martion, being put out of his Father's Church of Pontus, is refused to be admitted to Communion at Rome, lest the unity of the Church should be dissolved, if the act of a Church so far distant, should not be made good by that of Rome, being an act in the Power of that Church to do. Therefore, upon the doing of the act, it was to be signified, that it might be known what was to be done. The Excommunication of Andronicus, is, by Synesius his eight and fiftieth Epistle, signified to the Churches, with this protestation, That if any Church admitted him, without giving satisfaction to theirs, it would thereby cause Schism, and dissolve the unity of the Church. Infinite more might be produced to this purpose; for, hereupon it is, that all Bishops, are, many times, in the Primitive Records of the Church, accounted to have a charge of the whole Church, because of their interest to give advise, and thereby, to concur in the settling of all affairs of other Churches, that might conduce to the quiet or unquietness of the Whole: Which, as it was solemnly done by the Assemblies of Synods, so, it was every day done by this intercourse, which, in time of Persecution, supplied the use of them, to better effect than they were found to produce in time of peace. And this seems to me a peremptory argument against the Presbyteries, because this intercourse was a matter of daily necessity, whereas, by the design of the Presbyteries, there is no standing Body, to which the Church can have recourse, for assistance, in the ordinary occasions thereof which concern other parts, but the Presbyteries of Congregations, which themselves condemn as uncapable to deal in such matters, when they give them not power to excommunicate. Therefore, it is of consequence, that, in the greatest residences of the World, those Bodies of Churches should be always standing, to which the Church might have daily resort, either to receive or communicate advise, judgement, sentence, and whatsoever was to pass for the maintenance of unity in the exercise of Christianity, so that, what there should be received, might by consequence, be presumed, to be received by all Christians contained under the same, not having any pretence to oppose such a consent as they were prejudiced with. And thus, upon the proof of the institution of Churches in Cities, it follows, that the Power of the Keys, and all the productions and branches of the same, as to their respective Bodies, in concurrence with other Churches of like Rank, and dependence on those of higher, is, by consequence, deposited with the same.  
To conceive aright of the correspondence between the Constitution of the Church and the Synagogue, which, it is manifest, our Lord himself pointed at, in choosing XII Apostles, and LXX Disciples, as it is touched here p. 72. we are to deduce it from the vailing of the Gospel within the Law, and the discovering of the New Testament, by taking away the vail of the Old. By reason whereof, the Church is the spiritual Israel, as the Synagogue was Israel according to the flesh, no otherwise then the Gospel is the Law spiritually understood: A thing so manifest by all the passages of the Old Testament, produced, expounded, and applied, not only by the Apostles, but by our Lord himself in the New, that he shall, of necessity, do great wrong to Christianity, that shall take in hand to maintain it against Judaisme, without drawing this ground into consequence. Now it is manifest, that the People of Israel, being made a free People, by the act of God, bringing them out of Egypt, and entitling them to the Land of Promise, upon the Covenant of the Law, had Moses, not only for their Prophet and chief Priest, (for by him Aaron and his Successors are put in possession of the Priesthood, and the Tabernacle itself, and all the pertinences thereof made and consecrated) but also for their King, their Lawgiver, their Judge, and Commander in Chief of their forces under God, if not rather God by Moses. For, after the decease of Moses, we see, that, either God, by some extraordinary immediate signification of his will and pleasure, stirred up some man to be in his stead for the time, or, if there were none such, than he took upon him to rule their proceed himself, in as much as, by answering their demands by Vrim and Thummim, he directed them what to do, and what courses to follow, in the public affairs, that concerned the State of that People. Whereupon, when they required Samuel to make them a King, he declareth, that it was not Samuel, but himself, whom they had rejected, because they had rejected him whom God had immediately given them, in his own stead, so that, by his natural death, the Power returned to God as at the beginning. Under Moses, the XII Heads of the Tribes, Representatives of the XII Patriarches, commanded the Militia of their respective Tribes, divided into Thousands, Hundreds, Fifties, and Ten, which division, by divers passages of the Scriptures, appears to have continued to after ages, without doubt, for no other reason, but because the Lot of every Tribe was divided amongst them according to the same. And the chief of these divisions are they, whom Moses, upon Jethroes advise, assumed to himself, to judge the causes of less moment, referring the greater to him, who, over and above that charge, was to go between the people and God, in all things which he should please immediately to determine, as you may see by the Text of Exodus XIX. 16, 19, 20. This Office it is, which, he assumed afterwards LXX of the Elders of Israel, to assist him in, which, by the Law, so often quoted, of Deut. XVII. 8— are, afterwards, made a standing Court, resident at the place of the Tabernacle, to judge the last result of all causes concerning the Law, and to determine all matter of Right not determined by the letter of the same. So that, by consequence, the judgement of inferior causes arising upon the Laws given by God, resorteth unto the inferior Consistories of several Cities, constituted by the Law of Deut. XVI. 18. though perhaps, partly, in the Hands of those Captains, before the Laws were altogether provided or put in force, which dependeth much on the possession of the Land of Promise. This is the reason, that those of the High Consistory are called the Elders of Israel, but those of other Consistories, barely Elders, or the Elders of such or such a City, as Deut. XXII. 2, 3. Let thy Elders go forth, and, let the Elders of the next City take— Thy Elders, that is, the Elders of Israel: So those of the Great Consistory are ordinarily called in the Gospel, as also the Scribes of the People, and thy Scribes, is used there, for those of the High Consistory, whereas the bare name of Scribes extended far further, to other manner of persons. As also, the bare name of Rulers, and that of Rulers of the People of Israel, are to be understood with the like difference. Now, wherein consists the correspondence between the Order of the Church, and this of the Synagogue? The King of the Church, without doubt, is our Lord Christ alone, who hath absolute Power over it, and because he is in heaven, his Militia is also heavenly, even Michael and his Angels, that fight for the Church, against the Devil and his Angels, as the XII Standards of Israel, is camped without the Tabernacle, which is the Church, containing all Christians. But the XII Apostles and LXX Disciples, must needs be understood to hold correspondence with the XII Heads of the Tribes and LXX Elders. And the whole reason and ground of this correspondence, to consist in the whole Power of governing the spiritual Israel of God, which is his Church, to remain in their hands, as the Rulers, and as the Counsel thereof, while it was altogether in one Body, from thence to be propagated into the like, when it came to be divided into several Bodies, by the founding of several Churches, as you have seen that it was among the Jews, in Palestine, Egypt, and Babylonia. Wherefore, as there can no question be made, that the Jews, by virtue of God's Law, created themselves that Government which they established in their dispersions, by sufferance of their Sovereigns, according to the form designed by the Law, by a Consistory, in the Mother Cities of their dispersions, with inferior Consistories, where the number of Jews was so great as to require a form of Government: No more can it be doubted, that, when Churches were founded in the greatest Residences, concurring with Churches founded in the like, and depending on those of the Mother Cities, for the maintenance of Unity in the Whole, all this, though executed by humane discretion, was done by virtue of the Rule designed by the Apostles. And, as all Israel had no power to add or take from the Law, yet was to be concluded, in that which the Law had not determined, by the Consistory, so, all the Church, having no Power to make any thing of divine Right that was not so from the beginning, hath Power to determine, what the Church shall either do, or acknowledge, for the preservation of Unity in itself, in all matters not determined by Divine Right. As for the Priest's Office, from which most men desire to derive the preeminences of the Clergy, although it were manifestly peculiar to Israel after the flesh, and to cease with the same, seeing the Church hath no other Sacrifice but that one of Christ upon the Cross, not repeated, but represented continually, by the Prayers of the Church, at the celebration of the Eucharist, as the reason which must make all those Prayers effectual by the peculiar Covenant of Christianity, it follows, that those that are entrusted with the Government and maintenance of Christianity, are, by consequence, entrusted with the offering of this Sacrifice, and of these Prayers of the Church unto God, by the same reason, for the which, I said afore, that the Consecration of the Eucharist floweth from the Power of the Keys: So that, whether they be called Elders or Priests, they have both denominations from the quality of Presbyters. Seeing then, that the Apostles are, by their Commission, the XII Patriarches of the spiritual Israel of God, which is his Church, and so, the Chief Governors of the same, let not the Presbyterians imagine, that they can degrade them to the rank of their buckram Elders, or show us, what particulars, mentioned in the Scriptures, the Apostles acted as Apostles, and what, as Elders, (as, that they concurred in the Council at Jerusalem in the common quality of Elders) unless they can produce other Scriptures of other Apostles, superior to these, that appoint it: All these recording the acts of chief Governors of the whole Church, as founders of it by their Original Commission, and Lawgivers to it, in whatsoever our Lord had not determined afore. And, though their proceed, are throughout, a pattern of meekness and condescension to all ranks in the Church, using their Power, with that humility which our Lord had commanded to his Chief Disciples, to give satisfaction to all, of the reasonableness of their proceed, (because there was then just presumption, that others would use the like reverence to them, in receiving satisfaction, as they in tendering it) yet, by S. Paul to the Corinthians, we see, how far it reached, when any pretence opposed itself against it. Suppose now, for the purpose, that Barnabas was one of the LXX, as Epiphanius affirms, shall we endure it to be affirmed, that, when he is sent by the Church at Jerusalem to Antiochia, Acts XI. 20. he is sent by the appointment of certain of the people, who had a Commission from our Lord, before they were Christians, even for the founding of that Church, wherein, they who are thought to send then, received Christianity? Surely, the Commission of our Lord, Mat. XXVIII. 18— extendeth to the LXX, as well as to the XII, though in dependence on them, as the XII Princes of Israel. And therefore, as it is manifest, that Barnabas was sent to Antiochia, because those that had made Christians at Antiochia, had not power to found a Church there, by ordering their Assemblies, which Barnabas is said there to have done, so is it manifest, that he could not receive this power from the people of the Church at Jerusalem, (which may better challenge it then any Lay Elders, whose Title must come from the People, as I have showed Chap III. and will show by God's help by and by, more at large) but, that he must be understood to be sent by the Church, because by the XII, and by the LXX, with the consent and concurrence of the Clergy and People. And sent, so to order a new plantation of the spiritual Israel, that, notwithstanding, one of those that sent him, taking the charge afterwards into his own hands, might become Patriarch of that Tribe, which should be planted in and under that City: As also, Barnabas himself to become the Head of another plantation in Cyprus, or Paul, (who by virtue of the Power received by Barnabas at Jerusalem, was by him assumed to his assistance) being afterwards acknowledged to be called by God into the rank of the XII, to become a Patriarch of those plantations, which received Christianity by his means: And thus, it is no inconvenience which some of the Fathers have incurred, by affirming, that the XII have the rank of Bishops, and the LXX of Presbyters, if we refer them to the whole Church, not to any particular Church, but only by correspondence: For so were the XII Patriarches to the people of Israel, as the LXX were Presbyters and Elders to the same, as I said of the Consistory: Every part of the Church planted in and under any City, having nevertheless, according to one and the same form, a Ruler of a Bishop, and a Council of Presbyters. And yet is it nothing inconvenient, in another regard, that the Council of Neocaesarea, Can. XIII. compares Country Bishops to the LXX, the City Bishops being by correspondence consequently compared to the XII: Because, on the one side those Country Bishops were to be subordinate to the Bishops of their Cities, as the LXX were to the XII: On the other side, the LXX, being answerable to the LXX Elders of Israel, must needs be understood, to be of a higher quality then common Presbyters.   

CHAP. III.  
THat it is no new reason that here is rendered, p. 91. why the name of Episcopus, under the Apostles, was common to those, that are since distinctly called Bishops and Presbyters, may appear by a passage in Amalarius de divinis Officiis, quoted out of the supposed S. Ambrose upon the Epistles, produced by Salmasius, In Apparatu: quia beatis Apostolis decedentibus, illi qui post illos ordinati sunt ut praeessent Ecclesiis, illis primis exaequari non poterant, neque miraculorum testimonium par illis habere, sed in multis aliis inferiores illis esse videbantur, grave illis videbatur Apostolorum sibi vendicare nuncupationem. Diviserunt ergo nomina ipsa, & iisdem Presbyterorum nomen reliquerunt, alii verò Episcopi sunt nuncupati, hique Ordinationis praediti potestate, ita ut plenissimè iidem praepositos se Ecclesiarum esse cognoscerent. This is manifestly the very reason that I insist upon: For, saith he, because, the blessed Apostles deceasing, those that were ordained to be over Churches after them, could not be equalled to those first, nor attain to the like grace of miracles, but appeared to be beneath them in many other things, it seemed too much for them to challenge to themselves the name of Apostles. Hereupon they divided the names, and left them the name of Presbyters, and the others were called Bishops, and they endowed with the Power of Ordaining, that they might know themselves to be set over the Churches, in the fullest right. I marvel what pleasure Salmasius had to allege this passage, which if it be admitted, is enough alone, to overthrow all that he hath said in this point. For first, he supposeth, as the received Doctrine of the Church, that Bishops, in their several Churches, succeeded the Apostles: Secondly, he answers all S. Hieromes reasons, to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are all one, because they are called by the same name in the Scriptures, by giving another reason, even that which you have here: Lastly, he saith that Bishops are set over their Churches plenissimè, in the fullest right, and that therefore Ordination was reserved to them, which is to say, that, in all things they have a special Interest, but especially Ordination is their peculiar. And with this reason agrees Theodoret, when he says, that, at such time as the name of Bishops was common to Presbyters, those who were called Bishops afterwards, were called Apostles; extending the name of Apostles to others besides the Apostles of Christ. This is then a sufficient reason, why the name of Bishops, should be afterwards appropriated to that rank, wherein they succeed the Apostles and Evangelists in their respective Churches, (because they could not be called by the same which their predecessors had born) though formerly common both to Bishops and Presbyters. And this is the meaning of those words of S. Augustine, which seemed difficult in the Council of Trent, because, the opinion, which derived all the power of Bishops from the Pope, was so strong there: Etsi secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit, in multis tamen Augustinus Episcopus Hieronyme Presbyters minor est. Let not the humility of S. Augustine be drawn into consequence, and the property of his words shall enforce no more than I say. He knew well enough, how stiffly S. Hierome had argued, that a Bishop and a Priest is all one in the terms of divine Right, because the name of Episcopus is attributed to Presbyters by the Apostles. Is it to be presumed that S. Augustine acknowledges this to be his own opinion, because it is plain he intends not to cross S. Hierome in it, having other differences with him afore? On the contrary, it hath been showed by other passages of his writings, that his opinion was otherwise. To use therefore that civility, which his meekness prompted him to condescend to S. Hierome with, he granteth his premises, neither refusing, nor admitting the consequence, saying, Though, according to the titles of honour which now have prevailed in the Church, a Bishop be greater than a Presbyter, notwithstanding, in many things Jerome the Priest is greater than Augustine the Bishop. Where, by naming the titles of Honour which now have prevailed in the Church, he insinuates the reason, for which, I here maintain that they were thus distinguished afterwards, and therefore supposes the ground of it: Otherwise, he might as easily have granted S. Hieromes consequence, and pleased him more. And yet, I conceive, that, when he says a Priest may be greater than a Bishop, it may very well be admitted, not only as a condescension of humility, but as an expression of truth, not only in respect of learning, or other personal considerations, but of authority in the Church, by reason of the dependence of Churches here premised. The state and government of Churches is very properly compared by Origen, contra Celsum VII. to the State of Greekish Commonalties, the Bishop bearing the place of the Magistrate, and the Bench of Presbyters, of the Senate, as I have hitherto compared them to the Jews Consistories; and, as Pope Pius in his Epistle to Justus of Vienna, calls the Presbytery of the Church at Rome, Pauperem Senatum Christi in Vrbe Româ; The poor Senate of Christ in the City of Rome. In this estate and condition, the eminence of the Bishop above the Presbyters is visible, though not by the humility of Pope Pius, who perhaps comprises both Bishop and Presbyters in the same quality of a Senate, yet by the comparison of Origen, the eminence of the Magistrate above his Council, in all Commonalties, being so visible as it is. But, when congregations come to be distinguished, as well as Churches, and a greater flock assigned to some Presbyters, then to Bishops in other parts of the Church, and those Presbyters to do all Offices to their Flock, which those Bishops did, saving that they depended on the City Church, whereas those Bishops depended only on the Church of the Mother City, (and therefore had Power to make Ordinations within their own Churches, which Presbyters never could do;) what hinders in this case, I say not S. Augustine (for I suppose he names himself but for an instance, being indeed Bishop of an eminent City) to be less then S. Hierome, but, some Bishop to be less than some Priest, even for his lawful authority in the Church? A consideration of great consequence to the right constitution of Counsels, especially the most General, and, for which, there is not wanting a valuable reason, intimated in the proceed of divers of the ancient Counsels of the Church, that is, that the Church cannot be reasonably concluded by number of present votes, as the Council of Trent imposes upon us, but, by the consideration of Christian Nations, and Provinces of the Church, represented in those Counsels. For, as we see, that, in the ancient Counsels, a few Bishops were many times admitted to act in behalf of their Provinces, as having Commission to conclude them, in which case, they must needs be considerable, according to the Provinces for which they stood: So, in all things, which may concern the Whole, not only every man's rank of Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon is to be considered, but also, the eminence of the Church in which he bears the same. So that, by this reason, nothing hinders a Presbyter of some chief Church to be of more consideration to the Whole, than a Bishop of some mean Church, such as we spoke of in afric. And therefore, it would be inconsequent, that the determinations of Synods should pass indifferently by the Votes of Bishops, unless we suppose, that consideration is had of the chief Churches; and this consideration answered, in the eminence of that respect, which the Bishops of those chief Churches enjoy, inswaying the determinations of those Synods to which they concur. And this consideration might, perhaps, have served to take off part of S. Hieromes displeasure against Bishops, grounded upon the Power which their Deacons had, by their means, above Presbyters, which he, in regard of the great difference between the two degrees in general, thinks to be so great an inconvenience, Epist. LXXXV ad Euagrium. For, though it is most true, in regard of the Presbyters and Deacons of the same Church, that it was a disorder, that Deacons, in regard of their nearness to the Bishops, should take upon them above Presbyters, yet, if we compare the Deacon of a chief Church, with the Presbyter of a small country Parish, no man can say, that he is of less consideration to the Whole Church, in regard of his rank, unless he mean to make Steven or Philip, Titus or Timothy, (or any of those that waited on the Apostles in person, and were properly their Deacons, as I have said, in assisting them to preach the Gospel where they came) to be meaner persons in the Church, than one of those Presbyters, which Paul and Barnabas, Titus or Timothy Ordained, in the Churches of those Cities where they came.  
To that which I say p. 92. to prove, that the word Angel, in the Epistle to the VII Churches, Apoc. TWO & III. being an obvious and proper metaphor to signify a Bishop or Presbyter, cannot therefore be used to signify a College of Presbyters, the word being no collective, nor any construction enforcing it to be used for a collective, in all that Epistle, I add here the comparison of two passages, by which it may be gathered, for what reason, and in what consideration, the Spirit speaketh to the Body of those Churches, in the Epistle directed to the Angels of them, and, by consequence, who those Angels are: The first is that of S. Paul to Titus II. 10. A man that is an Heretic after the first and second admonition avoid. For, is it S. Paul's purpose to command, that only Titus avoid those whom he should declare Heretics? Surely, that would be to no great effect, unless we understand, that, by virtue of this precept, both Titus is enabled to charge the Churches under him to avoid them, and they thereupon obliged to do it. The other is the Epistle under the name of Ignatius to Polycarpus, wherein, after such advice as he thought fit for Polycarpus, without turning his speech from him to another person, he proceeds to exhort his people, with such instructions, as he found to be most requisite. Which seems to be the reason why many count that Epistle counterfeit, and none of Ignatius his own, though, for my part, I confess, I am not yet persuaded to think so, not only because of the character, both of the matter and language of it, which seemeth to me to carry the stamp of Apostolical upon it, as the rest of Ignatius, but also particularly, because of the example of this Epistle of S. John to the VII Churches, wherein, it is plain, he involves both Pastor and flock in the same praises, reproofs, advices, and exhortations, the reasons being the same in both, because both sent to be read to the People in the Church, as the Epistle to the Colossians and the Laodiceans, Coloss. iv 15. and, as the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, Eusebius says, was wont to be read in that Church in his time. Now, if the instructions concerning the people be addressed to Titus and Polycarp, is it not because of some eminence of authority in them, by which they might be brought into effect among their people? How much more that which is addressed unto the Angels of VII Churches, being a style apt to signify a person of eminent authority over others, but never used to signify a Body of persons, much less, with parallel authority among themselves?  
It is commonly conceived, that the Souls under the Altar, which we read of Apoc. VI 10. were seen by S. John, lying under the Altar of  Sacrifices, at the foot whereof, the rest of the blood that was not sprinkled on the Altar was poured out, and, the blood being the life or Soul of living creatures, in the language of the Scriptures, that therefore, the souls of those that were slain for the profession of Christianity, are seen by S. John under the Altar. Against this apprehension I allege, p. 95. that it is not the Altar of  Sacrifices, but the Altar of Incense, (within the Tabernacle, but without the Veil) which is represented in these Visions, correspondent to the Primitive fashion of Churches, where, the Communion Table, (called also the Altar, because of the Sacrifice of the Cross represented upon it) stood in the midst of that compass, which the Seats of the Bishop and Priests did enclose. For, though, in the Temple, the people prayed without the Sanctuary, the Priest whose Office it was, at the same time offering Incense with their Prayers, yet in the Church, where all the people are within the Sanctuary, as Priests, the XXIV Presbyters are described with golden Vials full of Incense, which is the people's prayers, as David saith, Let my prayer be set forth in thy presence as the Incense, Apoc. V. 8. and besides, the Angel puts Incense upon his Censer, to the prayers of the Saints, Apoc. VIII. 3. therefore his fire is from the Altar of Incense, within the Tabernacle, though without the Veil. Besides, it is not imaginable, how the souls of those that were slain, could appear to S. John in Vision of Prophecy, lying under the Altar of  Sacrifices▪ where the blood of Sacrifices was poured out, and that in such a multitude, as we know there was of the Primitive Martyrs: Especially, seeing the circumstances of the Text enforces, that they are the same Souls, which, first, cry for vengeance, and have long white Robes given them because they are not presently satisfied, Apoc. VI 9, 10, 11. and, which are afterwards described, standing and praising God in the white Robes that were given them afore, Apoc. VII. 9 And therefore, when they are said to be seen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the meaning is not that they were seen lying under the Altar of  Sacrifices, but, standing in the lower part of the Sanctuary, beneath the Altar of Incense. Unless we take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here for the Sanctuary, as I show that it is taken in the Apocalypse, p. 115. and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— is for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The name of Ministers, when it answers the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures, if it be put absolutely, without any addition, signifies the Rank and Office of those that are ever since called Deacons in the Church: But many times it is put with the additions here mentioned p. 99 of Ministers of the Word, Ministers of the Gospel, of the New Testament, of the Church, which serve as circumlocutions and descriptions of the Office of Apostles to the whole Church, or their Deputies and Commissioners the Evangelists, as when S. Paul writes to the Colossians, I 23, 25. that he was made a Minister of the Gospel, or, of the Church, according to the dispensation of God which is given me towards you, to fulfil the Word of God, that is, the Mystery that hath been hidden from generations and ages, and now is manifested to his Saints: It is here manifest, that he calls himself a Minister of God, or of the Church, in regard of publishing the Gospel, and planting the Church, which belongs not to the Presbyters of Churches, whose name and office is respective to their particular Churches. And this notion of the word is almost always to be gathered, by the text and consequence of those passages where it is found. Therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it is absolutely put 1 Tim. III. 8 stands in relation to Bishops and Presbyters mentioned afore, in the notion of Waiting upon them, (whereas, when it is put with the addition here specified, it stands in relation to God, making as much difference, between Ministers of the Word, and barely Ministers, as between executing the immediate commands of God, as Apostles do, and executing the commands of Bishops, in regard of whom, mentioned afore, they are called, barely, and without any addition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ministers in that place.) And so the VII at Jerusalem were first constituted to wait upon the Apostles, by doing that Service, which they did themselves at the first, for the Church: whereupon, it was afterwards a custom in the Church, that there should be VII Deacons in every Church, as there were at Jerusalem, Concil. Neocaesar. Can. XIV. And therefore, the Author of the Questions of the Old and New Testament in S. Augustine's Works Q. CI. having observed, that the Apostles call Presbyters their fellow Presbyters, addeth, Nunquid & Ministros condiaconos suos diceret Apostolus? Non utique, quia multo inferiores sunt. Et turpe est judicem dicere primicerium. Would the Apostle call Deacons his fellow Deacons? Surely no, for they are much inferior. And it is absurd to call a Pronotary a Judge. Where, he makes the same difference, between Presbyters and Deacons, as Christian between Judges and Ministers of Courts, and that, according to the Original custom of the Synagogue, as well as of the Church, as by and by it shall appear. Notwithstanding, the Office of Bishops is called a Ministry very anciently, by Pope Pius, in his Epistle to Justus of Vienna, as also the Office both of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, Concil. Eliber. Can. XIX. but in another notion, in opposition to the coactive power of the World, as proceeding, originally, not by constraint, but by consent: and so they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and their office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, because their office is for the behoof of the people; and in their stead: But they cannot therefore be called Ministers of the People, as Deacons are Ministers of Bishops and Presbyters, because, then, they should be ruled by the people, and execute that which they prescribe, (as the Apostles, being Ministers of God in Preaching the Gospel, are bound to execute his Commission, and nothing else) which, the Clergy of Christian Churches may not do.  
That it may be beyond any Power upon earth, to abolish the Order of Bishops out of the Church of England, without abolishing the Church also, as is said here p. 129. I prove Chap. V to wit, that no Secular Power can take away Ecclesiastical Power, from them that lawfully have it, according to the institution of the Apostles, though not by virtue of it.  
To show, that, in the judgement and practice of the Primitive Church, all Power of baptising was derived from the Bishop, as is said here p. 136. we have but to remember the custom of the Church, mentioned in so many Canons, of sending the Chrism to all Parish Churches, from the Mother Church, once a year. By which Ceremony it appeared, that the Bishop trusted his authority of admitting to the Church by Baptism, with the respective Pastors of the same. And therefore, it is not unreasonably judged, that this custom of Chrisming was, many times, in stead of Confirmation, to those Churches that used it. Besides, in that, from the beginning, no Ecclesiastical office was to be ministered by any but the Bishop in his presence, the dependence of all Ecclesiastical authority, whereby the same are ministered, upon the Bishop, is evidenced to us. Thus, in the passage of Eusebius, concerning origen's Preaching before he was of the Clergy, mentioned p. 106. it is further to be observed, that the instances there alleged seem to show, that the Primitive Bishops, did many times admit those that were of no degree in the Clergy, to preach in their own presence. Which, that it was a further privilege, then only to preach, may appear by that which is related out of the life of S. Augustine, in the Primitive government of Churches, p. 113. that he was employed by the Bishop his predecessor, to preach to the people in his presence, and stead, because he had seen it so practised in the East, though in those parts it were not done. In like manner, it is manifest by many Records of the Church, that none might Baptise, Celebrate the Eucharist, or reconcile the Penitent, in the Bishop's presence, but himself: for of Confirmation and Ordaining, I need say nothing.  
The fourth reason against the vulgar reading of the XIII Canon of the Council at Ancyra. p. 141. will be more clearly understood, by setting down the effect of the LVI Canon of Laodicea, which, coming after that of Ancyra, and, taking Order, that, for the future, there should be no Country Bishops made any more, provides further, that those which were already constituted, should do nothing without the consent of the Bishop, as likewise the Presbyters to do nothing without the same. Which, being the provision which the latter Canon establisheth, leaveth it very probable, that the other, going afore, and intending to take order in the same particulars, should consist of two clauses correspondent to the same.  
That there were other Churches, and Bishops, in Egypt, besides that of Alexandria, before the time of Demetrius, besides that which hath been said p. 142, 143. stands more probable by the Emperor Adrian's Epistle, related by Vopiscus in the life of Saturninus; Illi qui Serapin colunt Christiani sunt; Et devoti sunt Serapi, qui se Christi Episcopos dicunt. Nemo illic Archisynagogus Judaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum Presbyter, non mathematicus, non aruspex, non aliptes. Here he names Bishops at Alexandria; to wit, such as resorted thither, from other Cities of Egypt. And, though a man would be so contentious, as to stand in it, that the name Episcopus might then be common to Bishops and Presbyters both, yet, when he speaks of Presbyter Christianorum in the very next words, he cannot reasonably be thought to speak of Presbyters in those that went afore. And when Tertullian saith, that Valentine, the Father of the Valentinians, expected to have been made a Bishop for his wit and eloquence, and, because he failed of it, applied his mind to make a Sect apart; whereof himself might be the Head, adversus Valentin. cap. IU. unless we suppose more Bishops than one in Egypt at that time, we tie ourselves to say, that he would have been Bishop of Alexandria: Which, had it been so, Tertullian, probably, would have expressed, for the eminence of the Place.  
The correspondence between the Office of Deacons in the Synagogue and the Church, mentioned p. 156. may thus appear: Judges and Officers shalt thou appoint thee in all thy Gates, that is, in all thy Cities; saith the Law, Deut. XVI. 18. joining together Judges and Officers in divers other places, Num. XI. 16. Deut. I. 15, 16. These Officers the Greek translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Vulgar Latin Doctores, for what reason, I do not see that any man hath declared. By the Talmud Doctors they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which seems to import Appparitores Synagogae, which Maimoni describes to be young men, that have not attained the years and knowledge of Doctors; And, the punishment of scourging, he saith, was executed by these. He reporteth also an old saying of their Talmud Doctors, that the reason why samuel's sons would not ride circuit as their Father did, was, because they would inflame the Fees of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, their Ministers, or Apparitors, and Scribes, or Clerks. And Buxtorfe, in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reports another of their say, That, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, the Wise were embased to the learning of Apparitors, and Apparitors to that of Clerks. So then, they were next under their Wise men or Doctors, but above Scribes or Clerks, by this account: But, seeing there was no more difference between them, it is no marvel, if sometimes it be not considered. Maimoni, in the Title of learning the Law, showeth, that the Jews had every where Schoolmasters appointed to teach young children to read, of the condition of whom he writeth there at large cap. III. these are they, whom the Vulgar Latin meaneth, by Doctores, as appears by the supposed S. Ambrose, upon 1 Cor. XII. 25. who would have those, whom S. Paul there calls Doctors, to be the very same. And therefore they are the very same, that the LXX meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Jews say that they were of the Tribe of Simeon, and, that, so, the Prophecy of Jacob was fulfilled, Divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel; the Levites being dispersed throughout all the Tribes, to take Tithes at the barn door, and the Simeonites, to teach to write and read. S. Hierome Tradit. Heb. in Genesin, Jarchi in Gen. XLIX. 7. And indeed, the name by which the Scripture calleth them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though the Original of it be not found in the Scriptures, (as how should any language be all found in so small a Volume?) yet, in the Jews writings, and also in the Syriack Testament, the word from whence it is derived signifieth contracts, as Coloss. II. 14. So that, by their name, they must be such as write contracts, that is, Clerks or Notaries. Therefore, if the Judges and Doctors of the Jews Consistories are correspondent to the Presbyters of Christian Churches, which by many arguments hath been declared, then, the Apparitors and Notaries of the same, must, by consequence, be answerable to our Deacons. And so Epiphanius, in the Heresy of the Ebionites, maketh the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons of the Christians to be the same, that, among the Jews, were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Rulers of Synagogues, Presbyters and Deacons: For, as the Deacons were wont to minister a great part of the Service in the Church, so still, the Service in the Synagogue is performed by him, whom, still, they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Minister of the Synagogue.  
To this III Chapter I must add two considerations: The one is of the scope of that little Piece, of the Right of the People in the Church, which the learned blondel hath lately added to Grotius his Book, De Imperio Summarum Patestatum in Sacris. Which is, in brief, to derive the right and Title of Lay Elders from the people, and, from that Interest, which, by the Scriptures, it appears that they had from the beginning, under the Apostles, in Church matters. Whereby, he hath given us cause to cry aloud, Victory, as quitting the reason and ground upon which the bringing of Lay Elders into the Church, was first defended, and is hitherto maintained among us, to wit, that only Text of 1 Tim. V 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double Honour, especially those that labour in the Word and Doctrine. For, this Scripture being abandoned, the rest that are pretended, are so far from concluding, that they cannot stand by themselves. Now, that this Text cannot be effectual to prove that purpose, he argueth there upon the same reason which here I have advanced, p. 123. to wit, because the same Honour, that is, maintenance, is thereby allowed to those that labour in the Word and Doctrine, and those that do not: Whereupon, it must needs appear, to him that knows a great deal less of the Antiquity of the Church then blondel does, that they are Clergy men, whose maintenance is provided for by the Apostle. Now, to comply with him, that hath so ingenuously yielded us the Fort, I do avow, that he hath reason to believe, that, (there being so great difference between the State of the Church, since whole Nations profess Christianity, and that which was under the Apostles, and, the confusion appearing so endless, and unavoidable, that must needs arise in Church matters, by acquainting all the People with the proceeding of them, and expecting their satisfaction and consent in the same) it cannot be contrary to God's Law, to delegate the Interest of the People, to some of the discreetest and most pious of them, chosen by them, to concur in their Right. For, in this quality, do those Elders of the People, of which Justellus writeth, act in Ecclesiastical matters, as you may see by that which I have said, in the Apostolical Form of Divine Service, p. 96. and in all other the particulars which he allegeth. And, if this be it which the Presbyterians demand, in behalf of their Lay Elders, let them first accord themselves with those of the Congregations, concerning the due Interest of the People in Church matters, and my opinion shall be, that the Church may safely join issue with them, not to yield a double number of Votes to Lay Elders, in the proceeding of all Church matters, as the Ordinance for establishing the Presbyteries appoints, (which is to make the Clergy truly Ministers, not of God, but of the People) but to grant them a right of Intercession, in behalf of the People, (when as the proceeding may be argued to be contrary to God's Law) grounded upon the practice recorded in the Scriptures, and continued under the Primitive Church, by which the people were satisfied, even of the proceed of the Apostles themselves in Church matters. For, by this Right and Interest, the Acts of the Church shall not be done by any Vote of the People, but, the Rule of Christianity, and the Constitution of the Church according to God's Law, shall be preserved, which are the inheritance of Christian people.  
The second is, concerning the different interest of Clergy and People, in judging the causes of Christians, before any State professed Christianity, supposing that which hath been proved in the first Chapter, that our Lord and his Apostles ordain, that they go not forth of the Church, to be judged in Heathen Courts, upon pain of Excommunication to them that carry them forth. For, S. Paul seems to appoint, that the least esteemed of the Church be constituted Judges in those causes, 1 Cor. VI 4. and therefore, not Bishops, nor Presbyters, nor Deacons, which must needs be of most esteem in the Society of the Church, but the simplest of the people. Which, though it must needs be said by way of concession, or supposition, that is, that they should rather appoint such men, then carry their Causes to Secular Courts (otherwise, it were too gross an inconvenience, to imagine, that the Apostle commandeth them to appoint the simplest to be their Judges) yet, seeing the truth of his words requires, that the supposition be possible, so that it might in some case come to effect, it seems that his injunction comes to this, that, in case the chief of the Church, the Clergy, were so employed, that they could not attend to judge their controversies within themselves, they should make Judges out of the People. Which seemeth not suitable to the rest of the Interest of the Clergy, hitherto challenged. This difficulty is to be answered, by distinguishing, as the Roman Laws distinguish, between Jurisdiction, and Judging, though in far less matters. For Jurisdiction, is sometimes described in the Roman Laws, to be the Power of appointing a Judge, because it was never intended, that the Magistrate, which was endowed with Jurisdiction, should judge all in person, but, should give execution and force, to the sentences of such Judges as himself should appoint. So that, the advice of the Apostle, supposeth indeed, that some of the People might be appointed to judge the Causes of Christians within the Church, but leaves the Jurisdiction in those hands, by whom they should be appointed Judges. Which, though it be attributed to the Church indistinctly by the Apostle, yet, seeing, by our Lord's appointment, the sentence was to be executed by Excommunication, therefore, of necessity, the appointing of Judges must proceed upon the same difference of Interesses, as it hath been showed that Excommunication doth. And though Saint Paul suppose, that there might be cause to have recourse to Laymen, for the sentencing of differences in the Church, (as indeed, the life of S. Peter, in the Pontifical Book, relateth, that he did Ordain, or appoint certain persons, to attend upon this business, that himself might be free for more spiritual employment, which seemeth to be meant of Laymen constituted Judges) yet, by the Apostolical Constitutions, we find, that it was usually done by the Clergy, II. 47. And Polycarpus, in his Epistle to the Philippians, exhorting the Presbyters, not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rigid in judgement, must needs be thought to have respect to this Office. And, besides many more instances that might be produced of good antiquity in the Church, it is manifest, that this is the beginning of Bishop's Audiences.   

CHAP. IU.  
THat which is said, p. 166. that Christian States, have as good right to dispose of matters of Christianity, as any State that is not Christian hath, to dispose of matters of that Religion which it professeth: proceedeth upon that ground of Interest in matters of Religion, which is common to all States, to wit, that the disposing of matters of Religion is a part of that Right wherein Sovereignty consists, in as much as it concerneth all  Societies, to provide, that under pretence of Religion, nothing prejudicial to the public peace thereof may be done. And truly, those Religions that come not from God, may very well contain things prejudicial to  Society, in as much as those unclean Spirits, which are the authors of counterfeit Religions, do also take delight in confounding the good order of humane affairs. Notwithstanding, in regard, the obligation which we have to  Society, is more felt, and better understood, then that which we have to the Service of God, therefore, those that are seduced from true Religion, are nevertheless, by the light of Nature, enabled to maintain  Society, against any thing, which, under pretence of Religion, may prove prejudicial to the same. This is then the common ground of the interest of all States in matters of Religion, which, Christianity, both particularly, and expressly establisheth. Particularly, in as much as, they that assure themselves to have received their Religion from the true God, must needs rest assured, that he, who is the author of  Society, doth not require to be worshipped, with any judgement or disposition of mind prejudicial to his own ordinance. Which reason, because it taketh place also in Judaisme, I have therefore, as I found occasion, endeavoured to declare, how that containeth nothing prejudicial to the Law of Nations. And expressly, in as much as the Gospel addresseth itself to all Nations, with this provision, that nothing be innovated in the  State of any, upon pretence thereof, but, that all, out of conscience to God, submit to maintain that estate wherein they come to be Christians, so far as it is not subject to change, by some course of humane right. For when S. Paul, 1 Cor. VII. 22— commands all men to serve God, in that condition, of circumcision or uncircumcision, single life or wedlock, bondage or freedom, wherein they are called to be Christians; his meaning is not to say, that a slave may not become free with his Christianity, but, that he must not think himself free by his Christianity. And, upon this ground, common to all States, it is verified, that Christian States have as much right in Christianity, as those States that are not Christian have, in that Religion which they profess. Another ground there is peculiar to Christianity, by virtue of the will of God declared to be this, that Christianity be received and maintained by the Sovereign Powers of the Gentiles, to whom God appointed the Gospel to be preached. Of which afterwards.  
That, when the World is come into the Church, that is, when States profess Christianity, it is not to be expected, that persons of great Quality in the State, submit to the Power of the Church, unless the coactive Power of the State enforce it, as it is said p. 168. depends upon that which I said afore, that the profession of Religion is common to all Nations, insomuch that he deserves not the benefit of  Society, that renounces it. For, if the profession of Religion in general, be requisite for all them that will enjoy  Society with any  Nation, then is the Communion of that Religion, which the State wherein a man lives professes, a temporal Privilege to all that enjoy it, in as much as thereby they are reputed to have that Communion with God, which the rest of that State must needs be reputed to have, because the Religion of the State must needs be reputed to be true. And, this reputation being so necessary in  Society, that no man, esteeming it as he ought, can lightly abandon it, it follows of necessity, that many will be willing to profess Christianity, when the State professes it, that would not be willing to submit unto the Power of the Church, (by which they may be deprived of the privilege of Communion in it, unless they perform, as well as profess it, in the judgement of those whom that Power is trusted with) if the coactive Power of the State did not enforce it.  
That which is said p. 169. that Sovereignty is called by the Romans Imperium or Empire, is chief meant of the Title of Imperator, given Augustus and his Successors, and the reason which, I conceive, it imports. For, when the People was Sovereign, Generals of Armies, received commonly from their Armies the Title of Imperatores, upon any remarkable exploit of War done upon their Enemies. But they received afore of the People, that which they called Imperium or Empire, (to wit, the Power of the Sword) by a peculiar Act, beside those, by which they were either made Magistrates, or set over their Provinces. Wherefore, the Title of Imperator, (given Augustus, in another sense and notion, than other Generals had it from their Armies, or, than Magistrates received their commands as Generals from the People, saith Dion lib. XLIV.) seemeth to extend as far as the property of the word reacheth, to all Acts of Sovereignty which a commanding Power can enforce. All Laws being nothing else but Commands of that Will, which hath Power to determine what shall be done, in those things which those Laws do limit and determine: All Magistracies, Offices, and Jurisdictions nothing else but Commands of that will, which hath Power to entrust whom it chooseth, with the execution of Laws, or with Power of Commanding in such things wherein it hath determined nothing afore. All these branches then, and productions of Sovereign Power, are in force, and may be exercised by Christian States, as well upon Ecclesiastical matters, and Persons interessed by the Church, as others. But, not to defeat nor void that Ministerial Power, which the Church having received immediately from God, enjoyeth thereby, a Right answerable to all the branches of Sovereign Power, in matters proper to the Church, as you have seen it declared p. 32.  
The evidence of a Legislative Power in the Church, is said p. 175. to be as express in God's Book, as it can be in any Book inspired by God: not as if it were not possible, that God should declare by inspiration, more clearly, that this Power belongeth to the Church, than now it is declared in the Scriptures, (for then could there be no dispute about it) but, that it is as express as it can be in these Scriptures, supposing them to be inspired by God. For, seeing those of the Congregations think, that they have a sufficient answer to all that is brought for a Legislative Power in the Church, out of the Scriptures, by saying, that the Scriptures are given from above, and therefore the matters therein declared, being immediately commanded by God, are no ground of the like Power for the Church: It was necessary to remonstrate unto them, that, if this answer were good, not only there were no such Power de facto declared, but also no such Power could be declared by such Scriptures. And therefore, that we are to look about us, and to consider, by what circumstances of things expressed in such Scriptures, it may appear to common reason, that the Church practised it not without authority and warrant from the Scriptures.  
If the Prophets of the Old Testament had this Power by the Law, that, if they dispensed with any positive precept of it, that precept was to cease for the time, (which is not any dream of the Jews Doctors, but an opinion received from their predecessors, without which, they involve themselves in most inextricable difficulties, that either deny, or give any other reason of the toleration of High Places, before the Temple was built, and after that, of the Sacrificing of Elias in Carmell, as also of the forbearance of Circumcision in the Wilderness) it is no marvel, if the reproof of Ahab by Elias, 1 Kings XXI. 19— of his son by Elizeus, 2 Kings VI 32. of Herod by our Lord and S. John Baptist, are imputed to the peculiar right of Prophets in God's people, p. 179. For, seeing that the Law was the condition of the temporal happiness of that people, whereof those Princes were Sovereign; and, seeing the Prophets were stirred up by God, to reduce and preserve the Law in force and practice, as well as to point out the true intent and meaning of it, which the Gospel was fully to declare, it is very reasonable, and consequent, that their office should take place as well in regard of the Prince as of the people. Especially, seeing it was sufficiently understood, that the people, by acknowledging them Prophets, were not tied to defend them by force against the public power vested in the Prince, in case it were abused to destroy them, or bring their Doctrine to no effect, as it is manifest by the sufferings of the Prophets in the Old Testament, but, to reform themselves, according to their Doctrine, in their own particulars, and, to expect the reformation of the people from those that had the power of it. And therefore, it is extremely inconsequent, that, by their example, in the time of Christianity, Preachers should make the personal actions, or public government of their lawful Sovereigns, the subject of their Sermons, seeing that all parts of Christianity may be throughly taught the people, and every person of the people as fully understand how grievous every sin is, as if they be stirred to malign and detest their Superiors, by being told of their sins. How much more, when the actions in their whole kinds are not sins, but may be involved with such circumstances, as make them consistent with Christianity? Besides, seeing it is not every Preacher that is to regulate the proceed of the Church, in such sins of public persons, as appear to destroy Christianity, to run before the public censure of the Church, in declaring what it ought to do, is not the zeal of a Christian, but such a scandal, as leaves the person that does it liable himself to censure.  
The sin of Will-worship, which I acknowledge, p. 188. is as far distant from that voluntary service of God under the Gospel, which answers to the voluntary Sacrifices of the Law, in my meaning, as it is in deed. For, as the Law had voluntary Sacrifices, or freewill offerings, not commanded by it, but to be offered according to it, the price whereof consisted in the frank disposition of him that offered the same: So can it not be doubted, that the Sacrifices of Christians, their Prayers and their Alms, all the Works of Free bounty and goodness, together with Fasting, and single life with continence, and whatsoever else gives men more means and advantages to abound in the same, may be offered to God out of our freewill, not being under any Law requiring it at our hands. Only the difference is this, that, whereas the Sacrifices of the Law are things neither good nor bad, but as they are tendered to God, either in obedience to the Law, or according to the same, all Sacrifice which we can tender to God under the Gospel, must needs consist in the spiritual worship of God: Not in the means whereby it is advanced, that is, more plentifully or cordially performed. Now, though the spiritual worship of God is always commanded, yet, seeing it is not commanded to be done and exercised always, it is much in the disposition of Christians, what times, what places, what manner, what measure, what circumstances they will determine to themselves, (being not always determined by God's Law) for the tendering of the Sacrifice of Christians, which, being so determined, shall be as truly a voluntary Sacrifice, or freewill Offering, as any under the Law, and so much more excellent as the Law is less excellent than the Gospel. If this may be received to go under the name of Will-worship, I am so far from counting Will-worship a sin, that I acknowledge that to be the height of Christianity, from whence it proceedeth. But I conceive the word is not improperly used, to signify that, which the Jews are reproved by our Lord, after the Prophet Esay, for, because they worshipped God according to Doctrines taught by Traditions of men. Not because they practised the Law according to the determinations of the Greek Consistory, which, as I have many ways showed, they had express power by the Law to make; and therefore our Lord also commands them to obey, Mat. XXIII. 2. But, because they thought there was a great deal of holiness, in practising the Precepts of the Law, precisely as their Elders had determined, which, setting aside the obedience of God's Ordinance, was nothing in God's esteem, in comparison of that justice, and mercy, and piety, wherein the service of God, then, as always, consisted. We cannot but observe, that this sin is taxed by the Prophets oftentimes, as well in the practice of those precepts which are expressed in the Scripture of Moses his Law, as, by our Lord and the Prophet Esay, in the ptactice of those which were introduced by humane authority, Psal. XL. 7- L. 8- Es. I. 12- Jerem. VII. 21— and therefore, consisteth not in observing things introduced by men, but in tendering to God, for the service of God, that which was not necessarily joined with the inward holiness of the heart, which God is to be served with. This sin of the Jews I conceive is found correspondently in other professions, not only of Gentiles and mahumetans, which cannot worship God without it, but also of Christians, professing true Christianity, when they worship not God according to it: But, not because they acknowledge humane constitutions, which, by God's Ordinance, cannot be avoided, but, because they may vainly please themselves, in imagining, that they please God in observing them, without that disposition of the heart which God is to be served with. And this sin of the Jews, as Eusebius calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Epiphanius also, in some of the ancient Heretics, calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which satisfies me, that it may be called Will-worship in English: Though, whether the former voluntary and frank service of God, is not also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I dispute not here.  
The reason why the Ceremonies of Divine Service, which are here p. 192. proved to have been used under the Apostles, cannot continue the same in the Church of all times and places, I have briefly expressed p. 325. so that, notwithstanding, the Ceremonies of the service of God in public aught to be such, as may conduce to the same end, for which, it may appear those were instituted, which were in force under the Apostles.  
That it is a mistake to think that Sovereign Powers are called Gods in the Scripture, as is said p. 214. appears further by Exod. XXII. 28. Thou shalt not curse Gods, neither shalt thou speak evil of the Ruler of thy people. For, in this place, the Prince of the people, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a name common to Kings, Judges, and all their Governors in Chief, that were of their own Nation, whether absolute, or under strangers. Therefore the Sacrifice enjoined Levit. IU. 22. belonged to the King when they were under Kings, as the Jews agree. Therefore it is given the King also Ezek. XII. 10. VII. 27. XIX. 1. And therefore this Law is acknowledged by S. Paul, to belong to the High Priest, Acts XXIII. 5. because, as I said afore, the High Priests had then the Chief Power within their own People, as they had upon the return from Babylonia. Wherefore, seeing this Precept consists of two parts, the second whereof belongs to the King, the first must belong to the Judges of their Consistories, according to the resolution of the Jews, that all and only Judges made by Imposition of Hands, are called Gods in the Scriptures.  
That which is here said p. 228. of the quality of Governor under the King of Persia, in which, and by which, Nehemiah restoreth the Law, and swears the people to it, is to be compared with that which you find here since, in the 57 page of this Review. Whereby it will rather appear, that he was Governor of that Province, by the like Commission as other Governors of Provinces were constituted by, in the Babylonian, and after it in the Persian Empire, then by any right belonging to him among his own people, such as the posterity of Zorebabel had, to be Governors of the Jews that remained in Babylonia, when they were privileged to live according to their own Laws, by their Sovereign. But, whether this or that, as to the point here in hand, both are to the same purpose.  
I must not pass over this place, without taking into consideration the reasons, upon which, and the consequences, to which Erastus his opinion seems to be advanced, in the late sharp work de Cive, where it is determined, that the interpretation of the Scriptures (for which, I may as well say the Power of Giving Laws to the Church, seeing the greatest difficulty lies in determining controversies of Faith) the constitution of Pastors, the Power of binding and losing, belongs to every Christian State, to be exercised by the ministry of Pastors of the Church: For, if this may take place, then is all that hath been said to no purpose. And truly, I must embrace and applaud one position, upon which all this proceeds, that the Church, to which any Right, or Power of acting according to any right, is attributed in the Scriptures, must needs be a Society that may be assembled, and therefore stands obliged to assemble: But, that hereupon alone it should be inferred, and taken for granted, that therefore, a Christian State, and a Christian Church are both the same thing, distinguished by two several causes and considerations, when both consist of the same persons, I have all the reason in the World to stand astonished. For, it is not the persons, (which are supposed here to be the same) that any question can be made of, neither can the Church and the State be said to be the same thing, because they are all the same. For, we speak not here of the nature of the persons, their souls or bodies, or any thing that either of both is endowed with, but we speak here, of the quality of a State, or a Church, affecting all those persons together, upon some voluntary act of God, or of themselves, or both, without making any change in the nature of any person so qualified, only supposing the person whose act it is, able to do the act, upon which they are qualified to be a State or a Church, and, by doing it, to oblige or privilege the persons on whom it passes. Which kind of things, are oftentimes, by Philosophers, Divines, and Lawyers, called, to very good purpose, Moral things: Such are all manner of rights, in all manner of Societies whatsoever, being nothing else, but abilities of doing something, which are not in other men not endowed with the same. So likewise, seeing that all the objects, of any faculty, natural or moral, any habit of virtue or vice, (or, that which is neither, but consists in skill or knowledge, or any perfection of nature, for which a man is neither good nor bad) may be denominated, and qualified, by the faculties or habits that are exercised upon them, by the same reason, as colour is said to be seen, or, as that is said to be right and just, which is done according to justice; therefore, by the same common reason, if there be such a thing as Holiness in the souls of men, which disposes them to reverence God, by tendering him that service which may express it, then are the Means, and the Circumstances, the Times, the Places, and the Persons by which this reverence is publicly tendered to God, capable to be denominated Holy, by a moral quality, derived from that Holiness which dwells in the souls of Christians, and not only capably, but actually so qualified in point of right, supposing that which hath been proved p. 212— that the practice of God's people evidenced by the Scriptures, proves the reverence of the same to be effectual and necessary, for the maintenance of that reverence of God, in those acts of his service, wherein the Holiness of Christians consisteth. This, though it belong not to my present purpose, I have set down upon this occasion, out of a desire, further to declare the nature of that Holiness, for which, Times, Places, and Persons, as also all other means which God is served by, are said to be Holy, and for what reason I call it p. 217. sometimes Moral, sometimes Ecclesiastical Holiness, sometimes also Relative, as others many times do call it. For, seeing it is grounded upon the relation which is between all faculties moral or natural, between all habits of virtue and vice, or whatever else, and the objects which they are exercised about, it is manifest, how properly it is called Relative. Again, seeing it hath been declared, that those qualifications, and denominations, which arise upon some act of God, or man, having power to oblige either others or themselves, are therefore called Moral, in opposition to such, as make a change in the nature of men's souls and bodies, when they become endowed therewith, because these Moral qualities accrue, without any change in the nature of them to whom they accrue, therefore that Holiness, which belongs to things uncapable of that Holiness which dwells in the souls of Christians, is properly called moral Holiness, as grounded upon the Will of God, appearing to have appointed the reverence of them, to maintain that reverence of him wherein Holiness consisteth. And as, for this reason, in general, it is called moral Holiness, so, it is also called Ecclesiastical, for the same reason expressed in particular, as depending upon that Will of God, by which, Christianity, and the Church, and the service of God therein subsisteth. To return then to my purpose, which gave me occasion to declare this here, seeing that, when the question is made, whether the Church and the State, consisting of the same persons, be the same thing or not, there can be no question understood, of the nature, that is, the souls and bodies of the persons, which are supposed to be the same, but, of the Moral being of a State, whether the same give it the quality of a Church, or not 3. And, seeing the being of such things depends upon the act by which they are constituted, we have no more to inquire but this, whether the same Act constitute a Church, which constitutes a State: And then, a very little enquiry will serve to show, that though all Churches, and all States, subsist by the Act both of God and man, yet they are several Acts by which they are States, and by which they are Churches: So several, that the Church subsists by immediate revelation from God, by our Lord and his Apostles, which no State doth; and whatsoever it is that makes any man a member of any State, it is not that which makes him a Christian, and so, a member of the Church, but something else. And therefore there is a fault in the reason of the inference propounded, which concludes thus, that a Church must be that which hath Power to assemble the persons whereof it consists now the State is it which hath Power to do that. For, as it cannot be denied, that all States must needs have Power to assemble themselves, so it must not be granted, that the Church hath not Power to do the same, because it hath been proved here from the beginning, that the Church hath Power of assembling, not from any State, but immediately and originally from God, whether for the service of God, or for determining whatsoever shall become determinable, for the maintenance of Unity among all those that are to communicate in the service of God, and the Offices of the same. Truly, so long as by Circumcision men became both members of a State, and of the Communion of God's service, the Church and the State were all one Society, as hath often been observed here, for the difference between the Law and the Gospel, both subsisting by the same Act of God, (calling them to be his people, and to inherit the Land of Promise, both upon condition of keeping his Law) and by the same act of the people embracing the same. Which holds not in Christianity, addressing itself to all Nations, and therefore preserving States in the condition which it finds, and yet founding a Society of the Church, upon the privilege and Charter of assembling for the service of God, and the Power which is requisite to preserves the Unity of all that assemble, in the condition, upon which they communicate in the service of God. Which Society, as it was visibly distinct from all States, for all the time between our Lord and Constantine, so is it acknowledged, by this author, to have subsisted even under the Apostles, when as he alleges their Writings, to prove, those rights which they attribute to the Church, to belong to those States which are Christian: Which, for my part, I very much marvel how he could think fit to do, knowing, that such acts as the Apostles attribute to the Church, are so far from being the acts of the State, under which the Church then was, that they were prohibited by it, so often as the assemblies of Christians were forbidden, as you have seen that many times they were. By that which hath been said it may appear, what reason Ecclesiastical Writers had, to make a difference between the names of the Synagogue and the Church, appropriating the former to the Jews, and this to the Christians, which I, for my part, so far as custom will give leave, desire to observe, though for the original signification, I see the name of Ecclesia was at the first most properly attributed to the whole body of God's people assembled together in the Wilderness, as, for example, at the giving of the Law. For, in all the divers significations in which it is used, speaking of Christianity, there is one and the same consideration of assembling together to be seen, though, upon several reasons, and to several purposes from the Synagogue. The whole company of those that shall meet and assemble together in the world to come, is called sometimes the Church, and so is the whole company of the Visible Church upon earth: Because, though they cannot meet bodily to communicate in the service of God, yet they ought to meet with that judgement and disposition of mind, that they may both communicate bodily in this world, when occasion is, and actually meet altogether in the world to come. So is the company of Christians, contained in, either barely one City, or the Head City of a Province or Nation, called the Church of that City, Province, or Nation, because they so meet severally, that any of them may assemble with any, because under the same conditions. But, when one Congregation is called a Church, as sometimes it is in the Scriptures, it is for the same manner of assembling, as the whole people of Israel was assembled in the Wilderness.  
These things generally premised, it will not be difficult to defeat the productions of this assumption, in the particulars specified. And first, according to that which is here determined p. 192. I admit, that the Power of interpreting the Scriptures is nothing else but the Power of determining controversies of Faith: Though it is not, as by consequence, to be admitted, that those interpretations which come from this Power are as much the Word of God, as that which is interpreted by the same, or infallible, or that we are bound to stand to them as much as to the Scriptures themselves. For, the Word of God, if we will understand it properly, is that only, and all that which God giveth in Commission to be declared and enjoined his people, and therefore this author very skilfully observeth, that the Word of God in the New Testament is as much as the Gospel, which God gave in charge to our Lord Christ, and he to his Apostles, to be published to the world, with a charge from God to embrace it: For so also, the Law was the Word of God to Moses, and all the Revelations granted the Patriarches and Prophets, were the Word of God to them, because by them God declared how he would conduct his People: Whereas, after the prophets of the Old Testament, though we find that there were Prophets that spoke by inspiration, not only by Josephus, speaking of those times of God's people whereof there is no mention in the Scriptures, but also by that which is said in the New Testament of Simeon and Anna, Zachary and the Blessed Virgin, and of the Prophets of Churches; yet we do not find it said, that the Word of the Lord came to any of them, because they received nothing in charge from God to his People. Wherefore, that which the Church hath received from those persons, that spoke, not only by inspiration and revelation, but also by Commission from God, the evidence of which Commission containeth all the motives to Christianity, must not be compared with any thing, which it may receive in charge any other way, though it be such as may produce an obligation to receive and observe it, of a nature answerable to the ground and intent of it, which I have declared in the place afore quoted. Neither is it to be said that God faileth his Church, in any thing due to it, upon those promises whereby it subsisteth, if he have not provided it of such a Power to be received as infallible, unless we will say, that God hath tied himself to preserve it free from the temptation and trial of Heresies and Schisms, which he hath sufficiently declared that he never intended to do. Now, that, having determined, an infallible Power to be requisite, for the determining of matters of faith, by interpretation of the Scriptures, this author, in consequence to his assumptions which I have spoke of, should challenge it to belong to all Christian States, I cannot choose but marvel: Seeing, that, as the Scriptures come by revelation and inspiration from God, so, whatsoever shall pretend to like authority, must needs proceed from the same: Which, if the Church, that is, all that act upon the interest and title thereof, derived from the immediate appointment of God, do, by their proceed disclaim, as I have declared, much more is it to be presumed, that all States, notwithstanding the profession of Christianity, must needs stand obliged to do. For, all States content themselves with the procuring of  justice, for which they are instituted, not tying themselves to question, whether that which is done be agreeable to the will of God, which the Gospel declareth, either for the thing that is done, which the Gospel many times determineth more strictly, than the Laws of  States do, or for the sincerity of intention which it is to be done with. Wherefore, if Christianity come to be limited by the determinations of  Powers, then must the truth of the Gospel, and the spiritual righteousness which it requireth, be measured by those reasons, which the public peace, and  justice, which preserveth the same, may suggest. Whereas it hath been declared, that it is not the bare profession of Christianity, that intitleth any man to any degree of superiority in the Church, but that, promotion to all degrees of the Clergy, doth, by the original institution and appointment thereof, presuppose some degree of proficience in the understanding and practice of Christianity, rendering them both able and willing to regulate all controversies of Christianity, not according to Interest of State, but according to the will of Christ, and that spiritual righteousness which he advanceth. And, though it is many times seen, that Secular persons are more learned and pious in Christianity, than others of the Clergy, yet, I suppose, no man of common sense will presume it so soon, of him that is not enabled nor obliged to it by his profession, as of him that is. And when the question is, what is agreeable to the appointment of God in such matters as these, I suppose, it is no presumption that God hath instituted any thing, because it is possible, (for, in moral matters, what is absolutely and universally impossible?) but because it is most conducible to the intent purposed: And, that to the purposed end, of maintaining the truth of the Gospel, and that spiritual righteousness which it advanceth, it is more conducible, that those things which concern it, be determined by those that are enabled by their profession, to spend their time in searching the truth, and engaged by the same, to advance the spiritual righteousness of Christ, then barely Christians, as Secular Powers. As for the reason of this resolution, because, if the Power of determining matters of Faith, might be in any person, not subject to the State which the determination must oblige, all that are to be obliged by it, must become thereby subjects to the Power that maketh it: As, supposing the temporal Power of the Pope, it is insoluble, so, supposing what hath been premised, it ceaseth. For, seeing nothing prejudicial to the public Peace, or, to the Powers of the World that maintain the same, can be within the Power of the Church to determine, it cannot be prejudicial to any Christian State, to receive the resolutions and determinations of Ecclesiastical matters from Counsels, which may consist of persons not subject to them, as well as of such as are. For, if any thing prejudicial to the public peace, and lawful Powers that maintain it, be advanced under pretence of Christianity, that is, if this Power be abused, then have the Secular Powers right to God, as well as Power to the world, to punish such attempts: But the Church, neither right to God, nor Power to the world, of resisting them, though their Power be ill used, to the suppression of Christianity, and of that Ecclesiastical Power that standeth by it, because it is to be maintained by suffering the Cross and not by force.  
As for the Power of binding and losing, it is very well understood to consist, as well in judging that which is questioned to be consistent or inconsistent with that Christianity which a man professeth, as in remitting or retaining sin, that is, in allowing, or voiding the effect of Baptism, which is, the Communion of the Church. But, whereas it is said, that the first is the right of the State, the second the office of the Pastors of the Church, I demand, whether these Pastors shall have Power to descent, in case the judgement of the State agree not with their own, or not: For, that this may fall out it is manifest, and, that any man, by his quality in the Church, should be bound to proceed, in remitting and retaining sin, according to his own judgement, when as, by his subjection to the State, he is bound to proceed according to the judgement thereof, is an inconvenience as manifest. Whereas, that a man should be bound by his obligation to the Church, to proceed according to his own judgement in Church matters, and by his subjection to the State, to suffer for it, when it is contrary to the judgement thereof, is so fare from being an inconvenience, that it is the necessary consequence of bearing Christ's Cross.  
The same reason takes place, in that which is said, that the election of Pastors belongs to the State, and the Consecration to Pastors. For I have often showed in the premises, that Imposition of Hands is a sign of consent, to the constituting of those who receive the same, implying a Power of dissenting, for the use whereof they are to render account, if it be used amiss. And truly, that Paul and Barnabas should be called Apostles, Acts XIV. 4, 13. in regard of their sending by the Holy Ghost, Acts XIII. 1— I count it not strange: For the extent of the word, and the use thereof will bear it: Though it is manifest, that otherwise, Barnabas had Commission from the Church at Jerusalem, Acts XI. 22. that is, from the Apostles: Paul, not from men, nor by men, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father that raised him from the dead, Gal. I. 1. though acknowledged first, (as to the Commission which he received with Barnabas, Acts XIII. 2.) by the Church of Antiochia, but afterwards, in the right of the XII Apostles, by themselves at Jerusalem, Gal. II. 9 But I count it strange, that, to prove the Power of the State in choosing Pastors, it should be alleged, that this dictate of the Holy Ghost, by which Paul and Barnabas were set apart to the work for which they were designed, Acts XIII. 2. was to be acknowledged for the dictate of the Holy Ghost, by the Church of Antiochia. I have showed, that, under the Old Testament, the Consistory were to judge of Prophets, and to obey them being received, which power was sufficiently abused among them. I do believe also, that there was means given the Church to be resolved in the same, that the precept of the Apostle, 1 Cor. XII. 3. 1 John IU. 1— tendeth to that effect, that the grace of discerning Spirits, 1 Cor. XII. 9 was to such a purpose: I remember the words of S. Ambrose upon the beginning of Saint Luke, speaking of the Old Testament, Erat autem populi gratia discernere spiritus, ut sciret quos in Prophetarum numerum referre deberet, quos tanquam bonus nummularius reprobare: Now, saith he, it was a grace that the people had, to discern spirits, so as to know whom to reckon among the Prophets, whom, like a good Banker, to refuse: And I have found in a written copy, containing expositions of divers Greek words of the Old and New Testament, this Gloss, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, discerning of Spirits, (spoken of 1 Cor. XII. 9) is the distinguishing between those that prophesied truly and falsely; And this I believe to be S. Paul's meaning, because of the correspondence of that which S. Ambrose relateth of the Synagogue. I must, therefore, needs believe, that the Church was provided by God, of means to be resolved, who spoke by the Holy Ghost, who only pretended so to do: But, that Christian States should have Power to elect Pastors, because Christian Churches were able to judge whom the Holy Ghost had elected, whom not, is a consequence which I understand not. For, as it was then one thing to elect, another to discern whom the Holy Ghost had elected, so, a Christian State is now far another thing then the Church of Antiochia was at that time.  
Neither is it any thing available to this purpose, which this author laboureth to prove, that the Sovereign Power, together with the Power of interpreting the Word of God, were both in the High Priests of the Jews, and afterwards in the Kings of God's people, after that they were established. For, by the particulars here declared from p. 225. it will appear, that it was not otherwise in the Kings of God's people, than it is now in Christian Princes and States, (excepting that the Law was given to one People, the Gospel sent to all Nations) to wit, as for the Power of enforcing God's Law, in the way of Fact: Whereas, the Power of determining the Law of God in the way of Right, was as much estated upon the Consistories of that People, by God's Laws, as the Power of giving Rules to the Church, is now upon the Synods of the same. Neither is the People of Israel a Priestly Kingdom, as Moses calls them, Exod. XIX. 6. because the Priests were to be Kings of them. For, the Original imports a Kingdom of Priests, which Onkelus translates Kings and Priests, as also the New Testament, Apoc. I. 6. V 10. Which if it signify, that all the Israelites should be both Kings and Priests, then certainly it enforceth not, that their High Priests should be their Kings: But that they should be Kings, because redeemed from the servitude of strangers, to be a people Lords of themselves; and Priests, because redeemed to spend their time in sacrificing and feasting upon their sacrifices, (which is the estate, under the figure whereof God promiseth unto them, that which he meant to his Church, and they still expect under their Messiah, Es. LXI. 6.) though they sacrificed not in person, but by their Priests appointed in their stead, by Imposition of the Elders hands, Num. VIII. 10. As for the charge of Josuah to go in and out at the word of Eleazar, Num. XXVII. 21. it is expressly declared there to be said, in regard of the Oracle of God by Vrim and Thummim, which the High Priest was to declare, as you see by Deut. XXXIII 8. and Josuah to consult in all his undertake. For, this is one of the principal reasons, why the government of that people, before they had Kings, was, as Josephus calls it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the Empire of God, because he, by his Oracles of Vrim and Thummim, prescribed how they were to proceed in their public affairs. Another reason being this, because he stirred them up Judges when he pleased, which, being of his immediate appointment, are so far acknowledged by him, that when they were weary of Samuel, and desired a King, God declareth, that it was not Samuel, but himself, whom they refused. And therefore, it is not to be said, that of Right the High Priests ought to have had the Power, though de facto the Judges had it during their time: For, if it be said, that the Israelites cast off God, Jud. II. 10. because they would not be subject to the High Priest, but embraced the Judges it could not be understood, how they should refuse God by refusing Samuel, that was one of the Judges. Therefore, the Sovereign Power was of right in the Judges, for which it is said, Jud. XVII. 7. as also XVIII. 1. XIX. 1. XXI. 25. that there was no King in Israel, speaking of the time before the Judges, (when Josephus, and all the circumstance shows these things fell out) though they were not always obeyed, Jud. II. 17. because, as Prophets, they laboured to recall the people from their Idolatries.  
That which is here said of the Marriage of Booz and Ruth, p. 241. seems to be confirmed by the opinion of Epiphanius, that our Lord was invited to the Marriage at Cana in Galilee, that, as a Prophet, he might bless the Marriage. For, what is this but the same that the Church always practised afterwards, in Blessing Marriages, to signify, that they were approved to be made, according to the Law of God? For which reason also, the custom of celebrating Marriages with the Sacrament of the Eucharist was established, that the Power of the Keys, from which the Communion of the Eucharist proceeds, might declare thereby an approbation of that which was done.   

CHAP. V.  
SEeing it is here declared p. 255. that, whosoever thinks himself authorized by his Religion to unsettle the public peace, or to maintain his Religion by force, his  obedience being dispensed with by the same, is thereby an enemy to the State, and liable to temporal punishment, according to the degree of that which he doth, it may be thought requisite here to resolve two cases, that may be put in this point. The one, whether the enemies of the Religion in force, may become liable to punishment, for blasphemies and slanders upon the Religion of the State. The other, to what temporal punishment men may become liable, by exercising their Religion, not being expressly permitted by the State to be exercised. To the first, my answer is resolutely affirmative. For, seeing that Christianity enjoineth us to seek the good of all that are enemies to it, it is not imaginable, that it should oblige any Christian to defame or blaspheme any contrary Religion, seeing that must needs redound to the disgrace of them that profess it, most of all if they be the public Powers that maintain it, all irreverence of whom upon what cause soever, must needs tend to weaken the arm of Government, and thereby to unsettle the public peace. And therefore, you see what testimony the Apostles have from a stranger, Acts XIX. 37. You have brought these men, that are neither Church. robbers, nor blasphemers of your Goddess: By which instance we may be assured, that Christianity obligeth us not, to seek by scorn to bring any man out of love of a false Religion, if they did it not to Idolaters. And truly, though the Israelites are commanded to destroy all monuments of Idolatry, with all the scorn possible, yet that is to be understood in the Land of Promise, which God made them masters of, upon that condition, but, under other Dominions, it is provided by the second Commandment, Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them: not, thou shalt not blaspheme them, or show despite against them. Josephus indeed, interpreteth that precept of the Law, Thou shalt not curse Gods, to mean, that they are forbidden thereby to blaspheme the Gods of the Gentiles. Wherein, though, it seems, he flattereth the Romans, (for you may have seen another sense thereof before) yet this interpretation is presumption enough, that they were not commanded by the Law to do it. I will not therefore condemn the Christians of the East, for singing to Julian's face, (as the Ecclesiastical Histories tell us) Their Idols are silver and gold, and, confounded be all they that worship carved images: Because we know particularly, that the Christians of his time were resolved to surfer for their Christianity, rather than to defend themselves by force: And therefore, cannot interpret it to be done in scorn to him, but to protest their resolution against Heathenism, as also many zealous acts of the Primitive Martyrs must be interpreted. But I will make this inference, to prove that in point of right, which you have seen was true de facto, that, because Christianity preserveth the estate of the world in the same terms, and under the same Powers, which it findeth, therefore it enjoineth no man to blaspheme the Religion of the lawful Powers of the world, because thereby themselves would be brought into contempt, to the undermining of the obedience due to them. And therefore this inference proceedeth not upon supposition of the truth of Christianity, but upon a reason common to all  Societies, whether Christian or otherwise, which Christianity prejudiceth not, but maintaineth. As for the second doubt, it must also be resolved, that those, whom Christian States hold themselves not enabled to put out of the World, or out of the State, for professing any Religion, those they cannot so punish for the exercise of that Religion which they profess. For, if it be so necessary for all men to profess and exercise some Religion, that they should be out of the protection of the Law of Nations, that should profess to have none, and that, to profess a Religion and not to live according to it, is a bare profession, that is, a presumption, that he hath none that doth so, it follows, that civility, and the Law of Nations will enable all men to live after the Religion which they profess: And therefore enable no State so to punish men for so doing. In the mean time, no State is hereby obliged to leave the exercise of other Religions, beside that which itself professeth, either free, or Public. For, I conceive the exercise of Religion is understood to be free, in regard of those Penalties, which are in the Power of every State to inflict, on those that conform not to their own, according to that which hath been said. And to be public is a further privilege, though it necessarily import no more than Toleration containeth. For, the Christians before Constantine had not only Churches, and those endowed with Lands and Revenues, as it appeareth by Eusebius, but those Lands and Revenues were the common goods of those Churches, merely because it was counted Sacrilege, to spoil that Religion which was not counted Sacrilege. And yet this was no more than Toleration, for, when the Sovereign Power would have Christianity go for Sacrilege, immediately they were spoiled of all under Diocletian.  
That which is here resolved p. 259. that, merely a false opinion in matter of Religion is not to be punished with Banishment, which is  death to the State whereof a man is, occasions a question concerning Athanasius, banished to Triers by Constantine, and the same Athanasius and many more by Constantius, Valens, and others, wherein the injustice of the punishment lay, whether the Power was only abused, or also usurped. Whereunto it is to be answered, that the sentence of Constantine upon Athanasius, neither imported Banishment, nor passed merely in consideration of his opinion in Religion. For, seeing the place of abode to which he was confined, was within the State whereof he was, so that, not changing Laws, or Language, (for he must needs be understood over all the Roman Empire) he could not be said to live among them that were barbarous to him, or he to them barbarous, he continued free of the State whereof he was afore, though not in possession and use of that rank and estate which he bore in it. As for the cause of this sentence, it is manifest by the relation, that it passed in consideration of the public peace, which seemed to suffer, because Athanasius submitted not the trust which he had from the Church to the judgement of the Emperor, in abandoning that which the Council of Nice had done in deposing Arius. But the ground of Constantius his sentence upon Liberius of Rome, and Eusebius of Vercellae, was merely for acting according to their opinion in Religion. Liberius, for not condemning Athanasius in the common cause of the Church, Eusebius, for voting according to his judgement in the Council at Milan. As for the sentence upon Liberius, it is the same with that upon Athanasius, but that upon Eusebius, being condemned to live in the deserts of Egypt, seems to have as much difference from it, as there was between relegatio and deportatio among the Romans, the one being but a confinement to a strange people under the same State, the other to no people, but to some desert Island, or inhabitable place, such as the deserts of Egypt were, which is, to be removed from the Society of  people. Wherefore, as it is no inconvenience to grant, that Constantine used ill the Power that he had, so, that Constantius usurped that which he had not, seeing we know, that the Arians under him, so persecuted the Catholic Christians, as I have proved, that no Sovereign Power can allow any Subject to be persecuted for Religion's sake, neither ever did the Catholics persecute them again. By the premises it may appear, that the punishment which is commonly called by the term of Banishment, may, by the disposition of Sovereign Powers, be so aggravated or so lightened by the circumstances, that the right of inflicting it may be sometimes said to be abused, sometimes usurped. Therefore my position, as the reason of it, proceeds only upon that which amounts to  Death, depriving a man of his right of continuing free of the State whereof he is.  
I cannot here pass by that passage of Synesius, Epist. LVII. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wherein he is thought so plainly to determine, that Clergy men are uncapable of employment in Secular affairs, whereof here p. 268. be it but to show, how men's trust is abused, when they examine not such allegations. I grant these are his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that to join  skill with the Priesthood, is to spin two wools together that will not make one thread. I grant he saith, that the Egyptians and Hebrews had once Priests for their Kings: But that God parted them, because his work was done with humane weakness. But shall I count that to be against God's Law in Synesius his opinion, which he counts those Bishop's happy that could go through with? which he himself declares that he was not desirous to lay aside from his own care? which he desires a coadjutor to be joined with him to assist him in? The case was this: It was a part of the Bishop's Office, as still it ought to be, to intercede with the  Powers, for favour to all charitable causes. For, among the ancient People of God, it was the Prophet's Office, (who may well be called the Preachers of Christianity during that time) as you see 2 Kings IV. 12. and therefore of duty belongs to the chief Doctors of it now. In the African Canons it is divers times provided, that it belong to the Bishop's charge. Synesius finding himself foiled in the execution hereof by Andronicus, makes a proposition to his Church, that he may have one to assist him in it, that he might not be diverted from his Priestly Office for it, intending notwithstanding, to attend it himself, as he should find opportunity so to do. Is this the proposition of one that thought it against God's Law, for a Bishop or Clergy man to do it? For, certainly, the coadjutor which he desires, must be understood to be a Clergy man, because it is the Interest of the Church, in which he is to act: Whereupon the Church proceeds there to Excommunication, because wronged in it by Andronicus. So likewise, S. Augustine may complain of the multitude of business which diverted him from more spiritual employment, to end the suits of Christians which then resorted to the Bishop; But did S. Augustine think it against God's Law that he should be exercised in it, and yet continue in that exercise? That is the point here questioned, whether against God's Law, or according to it; as for the point of expedience I dispute it not here, though, if Synesius be against that, a man may very well say to his reasons, that, for any man▪ to act in Secular matters towards an Interest of power or profit, is a thing inconsistent with the Priesthood, which is to act towards the Interest of Christianity; And therefore God hath parted all such employment from the Government of his Church: But, that the Rulers of Christianity should act in the Interest of Christianity, and to the advantage thereof in Secular, especially in public affairs, is that which all parties now declare to be well done, when it is done by Law, by doing it themselves without Law.  
The distance between  and Military employment among the Romans, whereof p. 271. appears by the provision introduced by the Emperors, in favour of Soldiers, that their last Wills should be good, though made without the Solemnities of Law: Which the Laws themselves ff. de Testam. Milit. l. 1. Instit. ead. VI declare, was provided, in regard to the simpleness or innocence of Soldiers, that is, because of the ignorance in the Laws, proceeding from that strict attendance upon their Colours, to which Soldiers stood obliged all the time of their service, which was, with most of them, the greatest part of their lives. It is not my purpose to say, that the Clergy are not to be so constant to the service of the Church, as Soldiers to their Colours: But, that the service of the Church, when the State is Christian, requires not that distance from  business, as the service of the Wars among the Romans. If the service of the Church consisted only in Preaching, it would be much otherwise: But, if the service of the Church consist in the maintenance and advancement of Christianity, then, neither can the Clergy understand wherein consists the Interest of Christianity, without understanding the affairs of the world wherein it is seen, neither can they act towards the maintenance and advancement thereof, without understanding it. Wherefore, though it appear, not only by S. Cyprian, but by Can. Apost. LXXX. LXXXII. and others, that, when States were not Christian, the Clergy were forbidden Secular business, yet, when the State is Christian, to forbid it, were to forbid the means of maintaining Christianity, in the dispatching of such business.  
To that which is acknowledged p. 273. c. V that no part of the Church can be concluded, but by the Act of the Synod respective to it, I add further, that the Act thereof cannot pass, but by the greater part of it. For, unless the consent of the Whole follow the consent of the greater part, in doing those Acts which must oblige the Church, as in making Canons and Ordinations, it cannot appear, how the precept of the Apostles, of obeying the present Rulers of the Church is neglected, in any Schism, that is effected by any part of them, and, by consequence, there would be no such crime as that of Schism, in any such case. As for example, in the case of the Church of Corinth, upon which, the Epistle of Clemens was written and sent, which he declares p. 62. when he says, that it is much a shame for the profession of Christians, that the ancient Church of Corinth should maintain a faction against the Presbyters, for one or two persons: to wit, of the same rank of Presbyters, as we must needs understand it. When, therefore, both sides follow some of the Rulers of the Church, how should Schism be incurred, if, by that precept, the lesser part were not obliged to be concluded by the greater, in things not determined by God's Law? So, in the Ordination of Novatianus, how shall it be taken for Schismatical, being done by three Bishops, unless we grant, that the lesser part is to be concluded by the greater, under the pain of incurring the crime of Schism? Thus, that which is here propounded, p. 249, 250. proceedeth upon the same ground with that which followeth p. 314, 315. which to confirm, I add here a memorable passage out of the said Epistle of Clemens, whose Doctrine, being received from the very mouths of the Apostles, must needs be accounted their own. Thus than Clemens p. 54. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (so it must be read, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Our Apostles received the Gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ from God. And so Christ was sent forth from God, and the Apostles from Christ: Thus both were orderly done by the will of God. Having therefore received instructions, and being assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed by the Word of God, they went forth preaching, that the kingdom of God was coming. Preaching then through Countries and Cities, they constituted the first-fruits of them overseers and ministers of those that should believe. This he thus prosecutes, p. 57 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — And our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife about the name of Bishop; And for that cause, perfectly foreknowing it, they constituted the aforesaid, and gave order for the future, that when they should fall asleep, other approved persons should succeed into their Ministry. Those therefore that were constituted by them, or afterwards by other approved persons— we conceive to be unjustly put out of their Ministry. The sense of these words is some what obscure, by reason of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth here, afterwards, as in Acts XIII. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Gentiles besought that these things might be spoken to them the Sabbath after: And so Cappellus & de Dieu upon that Text of the Acts, have observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the same signification by josephus. But here the case is plain, that it cannot be otherwise understood, because of that which follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which must needs be those that were made afterwards. Now the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so far as I can learn, is not where read in all the Greek tongue but here, so that we must take the signification either from the original, or from the consequence of the discourse. The original bears the sense which I conceive in translating it an Order, well enough, being the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But the consequence of the Discourse necessarily requires it: For what reason doth he express, why those whom he speaks of should be thought unjustly removed, but because the Apostles had appointed, that those whom they constituted should be succeeded by others? I grant that he allegeth other considerations, aggravating the fault of the Corinthians in putting out their Governors, that is, their Bishop and Presbyters, for one or two of the Presbyters: But he hath said nothing by all this which I have here produced, unless we grant, that it was not in their power to do it, merely in this consideration, because they succeeded such as were constituted by the Apostles. For the Apostles had done nothing, in appointing that others should succeed them whom they constituted, if this succession could be voided by any Power but that which appointed it.  
From the distinction advanced p. 276. between those things that are commanded every Christian, and those things that are commanded the Body of the Church, perhaps, a resolution may be deduced, what is absolutely necessary to salvation, and what not: And also, what is absolutely necessary to salvation to be known, and what not. The Book de Cive maintains this Position, that there. is but one Article of the Faith, necessary to salvation, which is, that our Lord Jesus is the Messiah. But the sufficience of it is further declared, to imply, the receiving of Christ for a Doctor sent by God, in all things without exception to be believed and obeyed, which manifestly infers the profession of all Christianity, and the sincerity of the same. And, upon these terms, I see no reason how to deny, that, upon this condition, the thief upon the Cross is promised life everlasting, and the Eunuch of Aethiopia admitted to Baptism, that is, to remission of sins, and the title to life everlasting: According to that which is said here p. 16. that, in danger of death, or, when there appeared an ardent zeal to Christianity, men were admitted to Baptism without regular trial, to wit, upon the free and zealous profession of Christianity. So Philip is ordered by the Spirit, to give Baptism, on the like terms as the Church used to do. But this makes no alteration in the necessity of those things, that are to be known and undertaken, by those that regularly come to Baptism, which continue no less necessary to salvation, though the obligation of knowing and acknowledging them cannot take place, either at all, in them that die immediately, or, in them that are thus baptised, before their Baptism. It may then, with a great deal of reason be said, that all that, and only that which is contained in the Covenant of Baptism, is necessary to salvation, among which is the Unity of the Church, and the obligation of every Christian to contribute towards the preservation of it: But otherwise, what this Covenant containeth, this is not the place to dispute.  
Some of the particulars remembered p. 289. that are in the Scriptures, and yet oblige not the Church, deserve to be considered more at large. That the Apostle speaks not barely of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, 1 Cor. XI. but of the celebration thereof at their Feasts of Love, beside that which hath been said upon divers occasions, in this Discourse, appears further by this Gloss, which I find in the written Copy lately alleged, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Lord's Supper, saith he, is, to dine in the Church. Whereby it may appear, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, is properly called the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, but not properly the Supper of the Lord. There is nothing can be propounded in a more express form of Precept, than the decree of forbearing things sacrificed to Idols, by the Council at Jerusalem: And yet it is manifest, that it was but local: For, if it had obliged the Church of Rome, S. Paul could not have given them another Rule, not to condemn one another, Jews and Gentiles, for eating or not eating. For, that this case is comprised within that Rule, it appeareth, because S. Paul is afraid that Jewish Christians should fall away from Christianity, as enjoining to renounce the Law, and by consequence the Author of it, which was manifestly the scandal of those at jerusalem. But, if it had obliged the Church of Corinth, much less could S. Paul have given leave to eat things sacrificed to Idols materially, as God's creatures, which, you have seen that he doth. That, under the Apostles, Baptism, was drenching of all the body under water, appears by S. Paul's Discourse, Rom. VI 3, 4, 5. for, how should the death and Resurrection of our Lord Christ be represented by Baptism otherwise? And so, the exception that is taken against the Baptism of Novatianus, is, that he was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eusebius Eccles. Hist. VI 43. Had water poured about him in bed, because of his sickness. So, the solemnity of drenching was due, though, I shown afore, that the substance of the exception is grounded upon the weakness of his resolution to Christianity, who would not undertake to profess it while persecution appeared: For, if that had not been, the solemnity would not have been avoided. The Veil of women in the Church, which the Apostle requires 1 Cor. XI. that it was to cover their faces, though laid upon the head, I will seek no other argument but Tertullian, though it were possible to find more. For he, in his Book De Velandis Virginibus, proveth, that the Virgins were not exempted from wearing the like, because at Corinth, whither S. Paul directed this charge, they were not. And this the property of the Greek seemeth to argue, when the Apostle calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. XI. 4, 7. which differs something from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this signifying that which is only upon the head, (and so was the Veil, and therefore the woman is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 10.) the other, that which is so upon the head, that it comes down from the head, as to the purpose, before the face. Neither do I see any reason, why we may not understand the Apostle, when he says, that the women ought to have power on their head because of the Angels, to have respect unto the Legend reported in the Book of Enoch, (which we see was read in the Church in the Apostles time, by the TWO Epistle of S. Peter, and that of S. Judas) of those Angels that are reported there to have been seduced by the beauty of women, out of Gen. VI 2. Not as if the Apostle did suppose that report to be true, or did intent to give credit to the Book, but that, by alluding to a passage commonly known, he may very well be thought to intimate, that a like inconvenience to it, (not disputing whether true or not for the present) might fall out in the Church. For so, when he saith, that the Fathers drunk of the rock that followed them in the Wilderness, 1 Cor. X. 4. it is not, I suppose, his intent, to affirm the truth of that which the Jews still tell, and therefore without doubt did tell before S. Paul's time, that the water followed the Fathers over mountains and valleys, in their journey to the Land of Promise, but, that the Fathers drank of that water, which, the Jews say, followed them. For, of the Jews themselves, the learned Buxtorfe, in his Preface to the Great Lexicon, is of opinion, that they do not relate such fables, as stories, but as Parables, and, I conceive, I have met with some things in their writings, that seem to make it probable. So again, when S. Peter and S. jude cite the Book of Enoch, it is not their intent to credit it, or tie us to believe that which they cite out of it, but to argue thus from it, that, if those that read it, cannot but applaud the decorum which it keeps, making the good Angels so reverend that they would not curse or blaspheme Satan, what are we to think of those whom they speak of, that blasphemed, either Secular Powers, as it is commonly understood, or, which perhaps is more probable, the good Angels? And thus by the way, you see how to answer the reason, for which some stick to receive these Epistles for Canonical Scripture, though it hold also in divers of S. Paul's, in which are many say alleged out of Apocryphal Scriptures. And thus, the Apostles expression will be most artificially modest, supposing his meaning to be only this, that women ought to be vailed, because of that which we read in the Book of Enoch to have befallen the Angels. Now in those Countries, where the vail was not used, at the receiving of Christianity, it seems, this precept of S. Paul was not held to oblige. As for men covering or uncovering their head in Preaching, it can be nothing to S. Paul's meaning, because, uncovering the head in sign of reverence, was a custom unknown in his time. Thus you see, these particulars, propounded in the form of precepts, notwithstanding, do not oblige the Church.  
Those that scruple the superiority of Bishops, as a step to bring in Antichrist, are not only to consider that which is said here, p. 291. that the Socinians have the same scruple of the substance of Christianity, but also that which some of the Sects of this time give out, as you see in the beginning of this Review, that the making of the Church a Society or Community, was the beginning of Antichrist, which I have showed, was the act of our Lord and his Apostles: And also, that which Erastus objecteth unto the Presbyteries, that by the means of Excommunication, the Papacy, which is the Power of Antichrist, was advanced. Whereby he hath requited all their aspersions upon Episcopacy, and shown all the world, that the imputation of Antichrist is a saddle for all Horses, that it is argumentum galeatum, a reason that will serve to discredit any adversary, if it may have passport, without showing, by the Scriptures, wherein the being of Antichrist consisteth.  
And herewith my purpose was to rest contented for the present, thinking this enough for this particular cause, to answer the objection of Antichrist with. But I have considered since, that the whole credit of the ancient Church, and the benefit that might redound to the resolution of all differences and difficulties, from the acknowledgement thereof, but in the nature of Historical truth, is utterly lost to us, by the means of this prejudice: In particular, that, by the Papers which passed between his late Majesty of happy memory, and Master Alexander Hinderson, lately published, it appears, that the whole issue of that dispute ended in it. Upon these considerations therefore, I have thought fit further to answer, by denying the truth of this interpretation of S. Paul and the Apocalypse; and to justify this denial, by propounding so probable a meaning of those Prophecies to another effect, as all those that apply them to the Papacy, do show they could never attain to, because they are fain to Prophesy themselves, for the meaning of part of them, which they confess is not fulfilled. And this I do here the rather, because, hereby, I shall declare the utmost of that argument, which I have used, for the Interest of Secular Powers in Church matters, grounded upon the Prophecies of the calling of the Gentiles, whereby God, declaring his will of bringing States to Christianity, declareth by consequence, that he calleth them to the same Interest in matters of Religion, which we know was exercised by the Kings of his ancient people.  
And hereof the Apocalypse will make full proof, being nothing else but the compliment of all the Prophecies of the Old Testament, concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and therefore fulfilled in the subduing of the Roman Empire to Christianity, and the vengeance taken upon the persecutors thereof: Which, though it cannot be fully proved, without expounding all and every part of it to this effect, yet because, by the main hinges upon which it turns, reasonable men may perceive, that it cannot, nor ever will be expounded to any other purpose, I will stop here a while to show this, that men for the future may advise, before they act upon supposition of such uncertain conceits.  
I begin with the opening of the first Seal, Apoc. VI 1, 2. because, as our Saviour Christ, rides forth, thereupon, at the beginning, so at the end of the Prophecy, XIX. 11. he appears again, riding on the white horse, which he appears mounted on at the beginning: So that he which went forth to conquer at the first, returns to take vengeance at the last, as he is there described. In the next place, I will not much entreat any man to grant me, that the souls under the Altar, VI 9 are the Martyrs which suffered for the Gospel under the Roman Emperors in the ten Persecutions: For, that S. John, addressing this Prophecy to the Churches of Asia, I. 11. and that with a promise of happiness to them that should read and keep it, I. 2. should not speak of things done, during those times when those Churches stood, and wherein they were concerned, is a thing that no common sense can imagine. God then, being importuned by the blood of the Martyrs, showeth, that he determines to take vengeance of the same. Which he further declares, by the vision of seven Angels, ready to blow seven Trumpets, Apoc. VIII. 2. For with these seven, appears another, that puts much incense to the Prayers of the Saints, upon the Golden Altar before the Throne. What prayers of the Saints, but those which the souls of the Martyrs had made for vengeance before? For immediately thereupon, the said Angel takes the Censer, upon which he had put Incense to the Prayers of the Saints, v. 3. and fills it with fire from the Altar, and throws it upon the earth, and there comes forth noise, thunder, lightning, and earthquake, Apoc. VIII. 5. the figures of this Vengeance. Besides, it appears, that after the VI seals, he proceeds to declare the vengeance promised the Martyrs, because, immediately after the sixth Seal, there appears four Angels ready to destroy the earth, Apoc. VII. 1. But, because God would show his Prophet, that he meant as well to preserve a number of his own, as to take vengeance upon the Persecutors, therefore he suffers them not to proceed, till his own be marked. These Prayers are therefore called also the Prayers of all the Saints, Apoc. VIII. 3. to show us, that, though they are expressed, at the opening of the fifth Seal, to be only the Prayers of the Martyrs, Apoc. VI 9 yet we are to understand, that those which are sealed and saved from the vengeance inflicted on the Persecutors, do join in the same: For the Martyrs, that had long white Robes given them, Apoc. VI 10. do appear again praising God in those white Robes, Apoc. VII. 9, 14. But we must needs imagine, that the meaning of the Vision is, that those which were sealed and saved, joined also in the same praises of God. For Apoc. XIV. 1, 3. where the same CXLIV thousand, that were sealed afore, appear again, and immediately the same voice of God's praises is heard, (like the noise of Harpers, but as loud as thunder, or as many waters) it is said, that no man could learn the Song, but the CXLIV thousand, redeemed from the earth. So then, both the Martyrs, and those that are sealed, join in the praises of God, therefore in the prayers also, for the fulfilling whereof, those praises are tendered, which are therefore called the Prayers of all the Saints, because, as well those that were sealed and saved, as those that suffered Martyrdom, are to be conceived to join in them, as well as in the Praises of God. And therefore the Plagues which they procure, began from the going forth of the Gospel, because from thence began the sufferings of the Martyrs, which appeared at the beginning of the fifth Seal, as also the Praises tendered to God by those that were sealed and escaped: Though they were not to be accomplished, but with the number of their brethren, that were to be slain as well as themselves. Now the sum of the Prophecy, being propounded in the Figure of a Book with seven Seals, which none but the Lamb could open, Apoc. V the effect of the seventh is divided into seven Trumpets, wherewith seven Angels publish the vengeance, which God had promised to take, upon the Persecutors of his Martyrs, at the opening of the fifth Seal, Apoc. V. 9, 10, 11. VIII. 2. So that, the Martyrs being those that suffered by the Roman Empire, the vengeance is that which was taken upon the Roman Empire. This, as the most judicious of our late Expositors confesseth and proveth, so, had he considered the consequence of it, he would have found himself constrained, not to part the tenth Chapter, and that which followeth, from the rest that went afore, but to expound all to one and the same effect, the oversight whereof, is, in truth, the cause of his whole mistake. For, whereas the Angel pronounceth three woes to come, upon the sounding of the three last Trumpets, Apoc. VIII. 13. two whereof are repeated after the fifth and sixth, IX. 12. XI. 14. is it not manifest, that the effect of the seventh Trumpet, is divided into, and comprised in seven Vials of the last plagues, Apoc. XV. 1, 7. as the effect of the seventh Seal was, in seven Trumpets? otherwise, how comes it to pass, that, where the third woe is proclaimed, upon the sounding of the seventh Trumpet, Apoc. XI. 14. there follows nothing but rejoicing? Only because, the joy of the Saints for the advancement of Christianity, is joined with the woe that comes upon the Persecutors. And the joy is mentioned here, the woe deferred, till the seven Vials, which contain the effect of the seventh Trumpet, come. Therefore they are called the last plagues, Apoc. XV. 1. to wit, of those which the Martyr's blood, Apoc. VI 9, required. For the Plagues, as they began, so they must needs be accomplished, after the Persecutions. And all this gap, between the sixth Trumpet, and the seven Vials, is made on purpose, to reveal more largely, the cause of those last Plagues, to wit, the Persecution which God punishes. For, what signifies the victory of Michael and his Angels, over the Devil and his, and the taking of the child up to God's Throne, Apoc. XII. 5, 7. but God's decree that Christianity should prevail? Wherefore, the flight of the woman into the Wilderness, following in time the fall of Satan into the world which caused it, Apoc. XII. 6, 9 must needs begin as soon as Persecution for Christianity began. And the same CXLIV thousand, which were sealed afore the Trumpets, Apoc. VII. 3— appear again with the Lamb after six of them, Apoc. XIV. 1. as having escaped the Persecution represented in the thirteenth Chapter, as well as the Plagues attending on it, and therefore were sealed that they might escape it. Therefore, the same persons being preserved, the same Persecutors must be understood. The same it is which S. Paul had Prophesied of, 2 Thess. II. though, it seems there was more revealed to S. John, by succession of time. For whereas, by many passages of S. Paul's Epistles, it appears, that he had conceived, that the end of the world was to come, within the age of men then living, perhaps at the fall of Jerusalem, as the Apostles also imagined, when they asked our Lord, when the destruction of Jerusalem should be, and what the signs of his coming, and the end of the world, Mat. XXV. 3. to prevent the ill consequences of this opinion, S. Paul, having the truth further revealed, tells them this must not be, till a departure come first, and the man of sin, the son of perdition be revealed, that opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or worshipped, so as to seat himself in the Temple of God, declaring himself to be God. Which can be truly said of none, but the Roman Emperors, who did indeed exalt themselves above all called God, that is, all their imaginary idol Gods in that they took upon them to make Gods, whom they would, and were themselves worshipped with divine honours so much more devoutly, as they were able to do more good or harm. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is here, as 1 Cor. VIII. 5. a term of abatement, signifying those that are called Gods and are not, in which sense only the Apostle could say, there be Gods many, and Lords many. For it is a mistake to think that Princes are called Gods in Scripture, as I have showed afore. Now the Religion of the Gentiles was this, that, when the Statue of a God was seated in a Temple built to him, thenceforth they thought his Deity dwelled in it, and the Temple thereby consecrated. In which sense, S. Paul, speaking of the succession of Roman Emperors as of one person, (as Dantel & S. John, use to call the body of Chaldean, Persian, Grecian, or Roman Emperors a Beast) saith, that he should exalt himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so as to seat himself in the Temple of God. Which, as it may be understood of any of them, who had all Temples built them, and their Statues placed in those Temples, as the Deities of the same, so it may be particularly understood of Caligula, who would have placed his Statue in the Temple of the true God at Jerusalem, though we suppose the Epistle written long after his death. And so, that insoluble difficulty ceases, which Grotius his exposition of this passage suffers, to wit, that this second Epistle to the Thessalonians must be written before the death of Caligula, which no man can easily believe, there being between the Baptism of our Lord, upon the XV of Tiberius according to the Gospel, and the death of Caligula, but a matter of XI years, whatsoever passed between the Baptism of Christ and his death, and between the death of Caligula and the writing of this Epistle. This is then the first of the two Beasts that S. john sees in the thirteenth of his Revelations, blaspheming God, and persecuting his Church, even the succession of the Roman Emperors. The second is the same, whereof S. Paul prophesies in the next words, 2 Thess. II. 8, 9 representing in one person, as before the Succession of the Roman Emperors, so now the Succession of Magicians and Heathen Philosophers, the Priests and the Divines, whom Satan employed to disguise, interpret, and maintain Heathenism in opposition to Christianity. Simon Magus may well be reckoned inprimis of the list, together with much of the fry of his Gnostics, who, though wearing the name of Christians, yet, practising manifest Idolatries with their Magic, occasioned the persecution of true Christianity, by compounding a false out of it and Heathenism. But Apollonius Tyaneus must needs be accounted of this Body, who did many strange things in S. john's time, to support Heathenism, and was therefore by the Pagans opposed to our Lord Christ, as you may see by Vopiscus, in the life of Tacitus, and Hieracles his Book to that purpose, refuted by Eusebius: After him came all those Pythagorean or Platonic Philosophers, who after S. john's time, as they were the maintainers of Heathenism against Christianity, were doubtless also Magicians, as their Father Pythagoras seems to have been, by his travels in the East, and many passages of his life. Such were Apuleius, Plotinus, Porphyry, jamblichus, Maximus, and with such the Histories show that the persecuting Emperors, Maxentius, Maximiane, Licinius, and Julian conversed: Who, both by learned writings, and by strange works, done by familiarity with unclean spirits, laboured to support the credit of their Idols. Two instances I must not conceal in this place, the one recorded by Dionysius Alexandrinus in an Epistle to Hermammron, produced by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. VII. 10. where he relateth of Valeriane, how he cherished the Christians at the first, insomuch that his Court was a kind of Church: Unto which he addeth as followeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now, he that persuaded him to be rid of them, was his Doctor, the Ruler of the Synagogue of Egyptian Magicians: Who commanded the pure to be slain and persecuted, as opposites and hinderers of their abominable and detestable enchantments: which, he proceeds to declare, what they were, and how they became of no effect, wheresoever the Christians came. And perhaps, if we had the Epistle at length, it would appear, that Dionysius had interpreted the Beast and the false Prophet as I do: For the words which Eusebius quotes, begin thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Accordingly, saith he, is revelation made to S. John: For he saith, and there was given him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemy, and it was granted him to continue two and forty months. Proceeding to that which I reported afore of Valeriane, in these terms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We may well marvel at both in Valeriane, and especially we may consider how he stood affected before him, (that is, before the Magician, whom he spoke of, had access to him) how gentle and kind he was to the men of God. For when he saith, that Saint John's Revelations were according to what he there relates, he seems to make Valeriane the Beast, the Magician, the false Prophet whom he speaks of afterwards. The other is out of an Edict of Constantine reported by Eusebius, De Vitâ Constant. II. 49, 50. where the great Emperor declares to all the Empire, that Apollo, that gave answers at Delphi, having answered out of the dark cave there, that the just upon earth hindered him from speaking truth, and that was the reason why his Oracles proved false, Diocletian hereupon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Being deceived in the error of his soul, curiously inquired of those about him, who were the just upon the earth. And one of the Priests about him answered, the Christians. But he, swallowing the answer like honey, drew those swords that were found out against injustice, against blameless piety. And this, he professes afore God, that he heard himself, being then a youth, in the Emperor's presence. By these two particulars we may make an estimate, how the rest of the Persecutions were moved, and therefore, that the Body of these Philosophers and Magicians, the Priests and Interpreters of Heathenism, is called in the Revelution the false Prophet. So that the subject of S. Paul's and S. John's Prophecies is all one; but the beginning of the Persecution seems to be more distinctly set down by S. Paul, though more was revealed to S. John, concerning the end of it. And now ye know what stayeth him to be revealed at his own time, saith S. Paul, 2 Thess. II. 6, 7. for the mystery of iniquity is at work already, only till he that stayeth be set aside, and then shall the wicked one be revealed. He, or that which stayeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Law. For, as long as the Christians were to conform to the Law, and not to departed from the Jews, which departure, the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before, the design of Satan, to bring this Persecution to effect, was but a mystery of iniquity, that is, a wicked design in secret. For, at the first, Christians were in the same condition with Jews, as we see by the Edict of Claudius, that all Jews should quit Rome, saith the Scripture, Acts XVIII. 2. that the Christians saith Suetonius. And that the first Persecutions were stirred by Jews, we see by S. Paul's Epistles, which shows us, that those false Christians that conformed to the Law, did it, that they might not be persecuted. Therefore, the breach with the Jews, setting them on work, to calumniate the Christians, is justly said, to reveal the secret counsel of Satan, to stir Persecution against Christianity. Now this breach may well be said to have begun at or about the very time when S. Paul writ this to the Thessalonians, that the mystery of iniquity was now in working. For, it was before this, that S. Paul was constrained to separate his Disciples from the Synagogue, Acts XIX. 9 And it seems to be after this, that the Apostle writes to the Hebrews, to come forth of the Synagogue, Heb. XIII. 13. So that when Nero persecuted the Christians, both the departure, and the revealing of this secret counsel of Satan began, till, as the breach, so it became open and professed. As for the end, which S. Paul expresseth, when he calleth the Beast the son of perdition, and saith, that God shall destroy the false Prophet with the appearance of his presence, the Angel, Apoc. X. 5. seemeth to make it the end of the world, when he sweareth that time shall be no more. But, when he adds, to limit, and to expound this asseveration, That time shall be no more, but that the mystery of God which he gave his servants the Prophets the good news of, should be accomplished, we understand thereby his meaning to be, that time shall be no more to that effect, but, that the ancient Prophecies should be quite fulfilled. And, what remained to be fulfilled of ancient Prophecies, but the calling of the Gentiles, which was accomplished, while the Vials were pouring out on the Empire, for persecuting the Christians? As for the raising of the dead again, and the judging of them, and the reign of the Saints with Christ a thousand years, which necessarily come in upon the seventh Trumpet, or the seven Vials, Apoc. XI. 18. XX. 4. there will remain no great difficulty in it, if we think fit to understand it, as the like Prophetical Visions in Ezekiel and Daniel, from whom it is manifest S. John had it, are evidently to be understood. The judgement which Daniel saw exercised upon the Beast, which persecuted the Jews, Dan. VII. 9— if we will not interrupt the consequence of his Prophecies, and the coherence of the Text in that place, and offer violence to our own senses, is not that which shall come at the general Resurrection, but it is that, which God shows his Prophet, that he would exercise upon the Princes that should afflict his people, (Antiochus Epiphanes by name) and do them justice. Just so are the Christians here judged, and the Kingdom given them, as it is said to be given there to the Jews, because they were freed under the Maccabees, and became Lords of themselves. And as Ezekiel saw dry bones revive, to figure the restoring of the Israelites, Ezek. XXXIII. 3. so proper is it to understand, the dead Christians to rise again, and be judged, and reign, because they are restored to freedom and authority under Constantine. And this it is which is called the first Resurrection, Apoc. XX. 6. in respect of the general Resurrection, which, he sayeth afterwards, shall not be, till after a thousand years, Apoc. XX. 11. so that, when he saith, The rest of the dead revived not till the thousand years be fulfilled; the meaning is plain, that we must not mistake this Resurrection, for that which shall be at the end of the world. Neither is it said, that the world shall end, with the thousand years, after this judgement, and Satan Sealed up, and Christians advanced to the Empire: For, Satan must be loosed again, and seduce Gog and Magog, to War against Jerusalem, (perhaps after the Jews are converted to Christianity, for this is all that will remain unfulfilled of the Apocalypse) and this may spend many hundred years, after the thousand are expired. And truly, I would make no great difficulty, if need were, to take the thousand years for an indefinite time, provided that the time which Christian Princes reigned in the world, were not less. But if we count from the latter sack of Rome by Gensericus, to the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, there will not be much difference: Nor could the term have been put more properly to this Prophecy, then by that Empire, which ruled those parts, to the Churches whereof S. John sends his Revelations. And this sense will be a necessary warning to this age, that the Scriptures concur with the works of the time, to show, that Satan is lose. Thus you see what occasion there was for the opinion of the Chiliasts among the ancient Christians, which had it proceeded only of a Kingdom of the Saints, might as well have been understood of the Dominion of Christian Princes under Constantine, as that of Daniel is rightly understood, of the Jews Dominion after Mattathias. And being so understood, it will without doubt add very much to the strength of that motive to Christianity which is drawn from the Prophecies concerning the calling of the Gentiles. But the imagination of Christ's bodily coming, whereof the Scripture says nothing, as it did (if we believe Dionysius Alexandrinus in Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. VII. 24.) and may add to the truth many things prejudicial to Christianity, so may it also prove pernicious to the State of Christendom. If it be objected, that the desolation of Rome, by Alaricus and Gensericus, was nothing to that which is Prophesied of Babylon, Apoc. XVII. XVIII. let the Prophecies of Esay and Jeremy against Babylon be considered, which, we know, stood hundreds of years after Cyrus, so that Scaliger saith, that we must expect Elias, with the Jews, to reconcile their Prophecies with the Histories. Nor is it to the purpose, that Babylon was utterly ruined at length: For, should Rome be utterly ruined, so long after Alaricus, as Babylon was after Cyrus, they would not think the Revelation thereby fulfilled in my sense. No more am I to think, those Prophecies against Babylon, for cruelty to the Jews, fulfilled, by what fell out, when no man remembered the Jews or those Prophecies. But these descriptions of the Apocalypse, borrowed many time's word for word out of the Prophecies of the Old Testament, are nothing else but lofty pathetical figures, hyberbolically expressing the condition of Heathen Rome, which, in respect of the Empire quite taken from the Pagans, was left as desolate as Babylon under Cyrus. This is then the whole compass of the Apocalypse, Christ goeth forth at the Preaching of the Gospel, after the first Seal, to subdue the Empire to Christianity. The next three Seals foretell, that God would punish them with the sword, famine, and pestilence for neglecting it. Which they, by the instinct of Satan, imputing to the neglect of their Idols, as all Histories show, fall to persecute the Christians, till the Martyr's blood calling for vengeance in the fifth Seal, under the sixth, the change under Constantine comes, the seventh bringing forth those Plagues, which the seven Trumpets, and seven Vials, out of the last of them, import. Till, the Seat of the Empire being removed, and Rome sacked once and again, Christ appears again, to punish the Persecutors, and false Prophets that set them upon it, to do the Christians justice, and give them the Empire. And this is that appearance which S. Paul speaks of, to whom God revealing the fortune of his Church by degrees, shows the end of the Persecution, not the continuance of Christianity, a thousand years after and more, which S. John hereby learns. And this interpretation so much more reasonable, as it is more unreasonable, that all this should be sent to the seven Churches, telling them, that they should be happy in reading and understanding, and keeping it, which, for the most part concerned no soul in them, then, that he should send them this encouragement, to stick to their Christianity, in the midst of those Persecutions, which here he fortels.   
FINIS.   

Errata  
PAg. 4. lin. 7. for, God obliging read God, obliging pag. 5. l. 28. Sovereigns. And r. Sovereign's: And p. 35. 27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 62. 1 Those r. These 64. 5 County r. Country 70. 13 his r. this. 76. 25 being r. men 94. 17 that do r. that: do 141. 30 Apost. XL r. Apost. XXXVIII. 151. 8 larlely r. lately 152. 2 seventh r. eighth 166. 30 But r. For 168. 27 Powers r. Power 180. 2 these r. those 192. 12 as r. is 196. 16 Finages r. Fringes 251. 22 within r. with, in 266. 26 Place this clause, beginning, And indeed, and ending, the same right, in p. 267. 8 after Christians. 271. 14 of r. and 285. 11 this r. his  
After p. 62. lin. ult. add, And Sozomenus VII. 19 saith that in Cyprus and Arabia, it was usual to consecrate Bishops in Villages: as also among the Novatians and Montanists in Phrygia. On the other—  
In the Review.  
Pag. 19 lin. 8 for disciples read his disciples 32. 22 more r. men 32. 24 r. p. 77. 36. 21 it is r. is 51. 7 general r. can be general 61. 5 Counties r. Countries 74. 20 then r. them 89. 20 as Christian between r. as between 111. 15 Greek r. Great 120. 23 preserves r. preserve 132. 8 Laws r. Law 165. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.