distinct and determinate form of Consecration and Ordination and except this form be determined by a special precept of Scripture it cannot be of divine Obligation But any such special precept which should prescribe the distinct forms of Consecration and Ordination we find not at all We have some examples of constituting Church-Officers by Election with the imposition of Hands and Prayer yet this was common to all even to Deacons So that the very forms of making Bishops and Presbyters as we find them both in the English Book of Ordination and the Pontifical of Rome are meerly Arbitrary as having no particular ground but at the best only a general Rule in Scripture which leaves a liberty for several distinct Forms If any notwithstanding all this out of an high conceit of Episcopacy will refuse Communion with such Churches which have no Bishops and yet are Orthodox or will account those no Ministers who are ordained by Presbyters without a Bishop let such take heed least they prove guilty of Schisms The substance of all this is That Bishops are not the primary subject of the power of the Keys CHAP. XII Whether Presbytery or Presbyters be the Primary Subject of the Power of the Keyes section 1 IN divers parts of Europe where Episcopacy hath been abolished Presbytery did succeed and that as it is asserted by many upon such grounds as will prove it as pure an Aristocracy as that of Episcopacy was The parties indeed have been changed and instead of Bishops we have Presbyters and though the former imparity be taken away yet the form of Government which is Aristocratical remains I have formerly heard many complain that the Bishops had cast off the Presbyters and now some do not like it well that the Presbyters have cast off the Bishops yet both do seem to agree to exclude the people as distinct from the Clergy engrossing the whole Power to themselves These pure Aristocratical Forms have for the most part proved dangerous especially in the Church because they do much incline unto Oligarchy and usually degenerate into the same section 2 But to observe some Order I will 1. Examine what these Presbyters are 2. Whether these being known can according to Christ's Institution be the Primary Subject of this power 3. Add something concerning our English Presbytery 1. These Presbyters are of two sorts 1. Some are preaching 2. Some are not preaching but only ruling Presbyters or Elders The former are trusted with the Dispensation of the Word and Sacraments the latter are not Both have the same Name and are Elders yet differ much in respect of their Ecclesiastical being Of the preaching Elder I shall speak more at large in the second Book in the Chapter of Ecclesiastical Officers This word Elder we do not find used either in the Old or New Testament in an Ecclesiastical sense before we read it in the Acts and after that we find it used about fifteen times in that kind of Notion The first place is Acts 11.30 the last 1 Pet. 5.1 Except we add that of 2 John 1. In many of these places the word doth signifie a preaching Elder and Minister of the Gospel and that most clearly and evidently and if in any place it doth signifie some other Elder it will be most difficult if not impossible to define what he should be Yet this Elder which is presupposed to be distinct from the Minister of the Gospel is said to be an Officer of the Church which together with the preaching Presbyter hath power of Jurisdiction in Eccesiastical Causes To prove that there is such an Elder and that of Divine Institution three places are principally insisted upon and these I find discussed and expounded 1. In the London Divines 2. Before them in Gillaspec 3. Before him in Gersome Bucerus and they all go one way The first of these we read Rom. 12.8 He that ruleth with diligence that is let him that ruleth rule with diligence where he that ruleth must be a ruling Elder distinct from the preaching But 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not properly signifie a Governour or Ruler invested with power of Command and Jurisdiction but a prime person set above before over others for inspection guidance and due ordering of Persons Things or Actions 2. Suppose in this place it should signifie one invested with Jurisdiction how doth it appear that it is such a Ruler Ecclesiastical as is distinct from a preaching Elder There is nothing in the place to evince it 3. Seeing a Minister of the Gospel is a Ruler in Discipline as is by themselves confessed how may it be proved that the person here meant is not the preaching Elder though not as a preaching Elder but a Pastor over a Flock For it must signifie him alone or him joyntly with that other kind of Elder For if both be Rulers both must rule well 4. It cannot be demonstrated that the place speaks of Discipline at all For the place speaks of Gifts whereof one person may have many and his Duty is to exercise them all for the Edification of the Church section 3 The second place is 1 Cor. 12.28 Where the word translated Governments must signifie this Ruling Officer distinct from the preaching Elder But first We find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for to signifie a Pilot Acts 27.11 and the same word in the Septuagint used in the same signification Ezek. 27.28 29. and Jonah 1.6 when the Hebrew word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chobel In them also I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tachbuloth six several times to signifie Counsels or Wisdom and translated in four of these places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Prov. 1.5 c. 11.14 c. 20.21 c. 24.6 And though it be true that Wisdom and Counsel are necessarily required in a good Governour invested with Power yet always they are essential to a good Counsellor and without them he cannot give good direction But 2. If we parallel the 28.29 30. verses with the 8.9 10. verse of the same Chapter we shall find that Governments signifie such as have the gift of Wisdom 2. Let Governments be Governours and the same Ecclesiastical will it follow that they were ruling Elders distinct from preaching and ruling Elders Are there none other kind of Governours but these 3. This place doth not speak of external Government and Discipline but of the Gifts of the Spirit given for the good of the Church And I never knew rational and impartial Schollars ground so great an Office upon so weak a Foundation and argue from such an obscure place in respect of this Eldership It s far from proving any Divine Institution of such an Office as it doth not so much as imply it section 4 The third place is 1 Tim. 5.17 Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially those who labour in the Word and Doctrine From hence they infer that there are ruling Elders which labour in the
represented to us either immediately by examination of their knowledge and knowledge of their practise either from our own sight or their expressions mediately by the testimony of others who are judged by us to be credible By this the grosly ignorant and such as trade and constantly live in sin and are obstinate and refuse to be reformed are excluded To these must be added such as are grosly erroneous and blasphemers and such as deny plain and saving truth with divers others For all these may have sufficient knowledge and for their lives may be blameless and for their outward carriage eminently just honest holy But that which makes the Question difficult is the difference between such as never were born in the Church nor baptized nor admitted for Christians and those who have been either born in the Church baptized lived and continued Christians by profession or such as upon their profession and promise when they were at age were baptized and admitted Shall their Birth give them right to Baptism and their Baptism right to Membership and the gross ignorance of them born in the Church and baptized make them no Members or deprive them of their native and baptismal Right Or shall it not But suppose they have some knowledge of Christ and the principles of Christianity and yet be Idolaters Covetous Drunkards Railers Incestuous Persons for one that is called a Brother and a real Member of a particular Church may be such as is evident from 1 Cor. 5.11 12. Besides such a Brother may deny to hear the Church as is implied Mat. 18.17 Yet these may own their Baptism profess their Faith in Christ and utterly renounce all other Religions The Question therefore is Whether these and such like are not Members of a Church Christian If they be not how can the Church censure judge them and cast them out Yet such owning their Baptism and the Faith whereinto they were baptized may be censured and if they will not hear the Church may be cast out These are neither Pagans nor Mahumetans nor unbelieving Jews they will abhor them God will judge them as Christians as being baptized as having heard the Gospel as owning Christ and professing their hope to be saved by him though he will say unto them Depart from me ye workers of iniquity These if cast forth do not cease to be Brethren till they renounce Christianity These associate with Christians frequent Christian Assemblies for Divine Worship and usually are under the Ministry and if there be any External Government by their very Baptism owned are Subjects to the Power of the Keys Many as bad as these and some worse were in the Church of the Jews and yet not Loammi but reckoned amongst the people of God till God took away both his Word and Spirit from them The Nicolaitans and the Disciples of Jezabel were as bad as these yet they were Members of the Churches where they lived how else could they be cast out as Christ commands The Valentinians and many of the Gnosticks were worse than these and yet many of them were in and of some Christian Church visible These must be either without or within except we can find a third place for them as they of the Church of Rome have invented Purgatory for such as were not good enough for Heaven or bad enough for Hell. They as I conceive do far better who inclose them within the pale of the visible Church and seek to reform them then they who place them in the outward Court and leave them amongst the Gentiles It were but reasonable that they who are so pure and strict in their new invented way would declare in proper terms their minimum quod sic and make the same evident out of the Scriptures But this they have not done they seem to us whatsoever they are amongst themselves to be Scepticks section 4 As there is a Controversie about Qualification so there is about Separation Separation presupposeth Union and Communion Ecclesiastical For as in Nature there can be no Separation but of things some ways joyned and united so it is in Government both Civil and Ecclesiastical For there cannot in proper sense be any Separation from the Church but of such as have been in a Church Members of a Christian Community or Subjects of an Ecclesiastical visible Polity This Communion is either with the whole as the party governing or with the Members amongst themselves as fellow-subjects if a Discipline be setled and it is in Doctrine and Profession or in Worship or in Discipline or in some of these or all But the Communion with the Church in general and with God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son is of an higher kind Communion presupposeth this Separation is either passive or active and voluntary Passive is when any is separated either justly or unjustly from a Christian Society and this may be negative or positive Negative is a non-admission after they had been formerly admitted and this may be done upon sufficient reason or without any just and sufficient cause Positive is a plain ejection of such as are in the Church Separation active is that which is voluntary and as the former so this may be just or unjust and may admit of several degrees according as the Union and Communion is For some separation may be total some partial and of partial some may be greater some less The reason why I take occasion to speak of this subject is because these are times of separation and it were good to know what may be justly done what not either in seperating others by non-admission or ejection or in separating our selves And this is a certain rule that all Union and Communion instituted commanded or approved of God ought to be observed and whosoever shall violate this must needs be guilty there can be no just or sufficient cause to do so The Church of England was formerly a true Protestant and Reformed Church and had the same publick Doctrine the same Form of publick Worship the same publick Discipline Yet because the first Reformation was judged imperfect and many Abuses and Corruptions entered in afterward which did alter it for the worst therefore a further and a new Reformation was thought to be at least expedient if not necessary That the first Reformation in respect of Discipline was imperfect is evident first from the book of common-Common-Prayer in the Rubrick of the Communion which plainly implies that the ancient Discipline was not and it seems could not at that time be restored and till the restoring of it the Commination must be used Yet it was never restored neither did any seem to seek it Again the imperfection thereof appears by that Book made by the Commissioners in the latter end of the Reign of Edward the Sixth which is called Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum Yet that though imperfect was never established nor by the Bishops put in practice The latter Abuses Innovasions Superstitions brought in by the Bishops and
effectual comfortable and lasting it will prove This union is not made either by Baptism or profession but it presupposeth both And though it may be made by a free and voluntary consent yet all Vicinities of Christians who by Divine Providence have an opportunity to associate are by a Divine Precept bound to unite and consent to such an Union And this Union is so firm not because of Man's Consent but God's Precept and Institution to which it shall be conformable From this a multitude of Christians become morally one Person spiritual and as such may act and do many things And every particular Member of this Body is bound to seek the good of the whole and every part and the good of this particular Society more than of any other though he must endeavour the good of all so far as God shall enable him Upon this Union therefore follows a Communion For as they all partake in all things and priviledges and rights which are common to all so they must communicate their Gifts Cares Labours for the promoting of the general good of all and particular good of every one As by this Union they become one Person so they receive a Power and Ability to act as one Person for the special good of themselves Yet it doth not give them power to separate either from the Universal Church or from other Communities in any thing God hath made Common either to the Universal Church or other particular Communities section 5 By this time you understand that a Community Christian is a society of Christians yet this is not all it must be a Society of Christians fitted for and immediately capable of an external form of Government Spiritual and the same Independent For in a Common-wealth of necessity there must be a Supreme and Independent Power otherwise it hath not the Essence and Being of a Common-wealth Therefore in Politicks both Civil and Ecclesiastical we speak of a Community as it is actually the Subject of a form of Government or fitted immediately to be such otherwise we shall be haeterogeneous or at least exorbitant Take notice therefore that this Community is not a Civil Society nor the Society of all Christians living at the same time on the Earth which make up the Body of the Church Universal or Visible as subject to Christ nor of a Family or Congregational or any petty Christian Society but of such a Society Christian as is immediately capable of an Independent Discipline 2. Though some Acts of Discipline may by a Paternal Spiritual Power be performed and so likewise in a Congregation some degrees of Power Ecclesiastical may reside and be exercised yet this is not sufficient to make them such a Society as we speak of 3. In this Community and Independent Power of Discipline is virtually contained 4. This cannot be except it consist of such Members as are fit both to model a Common-wealth and manage a supreme Power of the Keyes 5. This Community before a form of Government be introduced is but like a homogeneal or similar Body and then becomes Organical when it 's the actual subject of a Common-wealth and a formal visible Polity And besides the consent required to the constitution of a Community there must be another consent to make it a Politie and the latter is distinct and really different from the former For a multitude of Christians as such are not the immediate matter of a Spiritual Visible State but a Community and a sufficient Community as such is the subject of this Political Form. 6. That Company of Christians which is not sufficiently furnished with Men of Gifts and Parts and yet presumes to set up an Independent Judicature must needs offend For where God gives not sufficient Ability he gives not Authority That every petty Congregation which enjoys Word Sacraments Ministry have an entire Intensive Independent Judicative Power in it self and therefore may refuse to associate with others is the opinion of some which can hardly be proved out of the Word of God. section 6 Thus I have explained the Definition and in the next place proceed to shew the Original of this Community and how particular Persons become Members of the same Whether any are incorporated by Election or Birth yet both the Matter and Form of this Society is from God. For we read in the Books of the New Testament that the first Original of Societies of Christians was this 1. The Apostles endued with the Holy Ghost from above preached That Jesus of Nazareth was crucified at Jerusalem for our Sins rose again was made Lord and King and that Remission of Sins and Eternal Life was granted to all such as should repent and believe in him Such as heard the Doctrine believed it professed their Faith and promised to live accordingly were baptized and so admitted as visible Subjects of Christ's Kingdom So they were made Christians and remote materials of this Community 2. When they were once multiplied so as to make several Congregations for Worship and there were found fit Men to be Pastours Pastours were ordained and set over the Flocks and these became Societies for Christian Worship 3. When there was a competent number of such in a Vicinity as were able to manage a Supreme Independent Power they associated and combined together in one Body for to introduce a form of external Government If any after they became a Community or a Politie were converted within their precincts and did manifest his conversion so far as man might judge of it he was Baptized and was admitted a Member of their Community This was the manner of entring into and being incorporated into this Body And now if any Pagans Jews Mahometans by the Doctrine of the Gospel be reduced to the Christian Faith then they must enter in this manner they must be admitted This Association and Incorporation is not from the Laws Decrees and meer consent of Men but from the Power or Commandment and Institution of God who requires that such as are once made Christians should Associate and that others in whose Power it is should admit them These are like Branches ingrafted not Natural but are made Members by Election And whosoever is thus incorporated he is first made a Member of the Universal Church and a Subject to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost before he can be a Member of any particular Society For he must of necessity be first a Christian before he can be a Member of a Christian Society for the matter is before the form If his Profession be sincere presently upon his conversion he is made a living member of Christ and an heir of Glory far greater priviledges than to be a visible member of any visible spiritual polity And though there is a certain priority of Order yet one and the same person may be made a living member of Christ a member of a Christian Community and of a visible spiritual polity at one and the same time section 7 As
upon them spiritual power 5. But the greatest Usurper is the Pope who usurpeth a power both intensively and extensively far greater than is due section 5 As the Power may be acquired so it may be lost For 1. When a Church is so far decayed as not to be able to exercise an independant jurisdiction or order as their association so their power is so much abated 2. When a Church doth wholly cease to be a Church then their power is wholly lost Yet when it 's hindred either by the Magistrate or by schisms and rents in it self so that it cannot exercise it yet it 's vertually in them And many times such is the neglect of Christians that they will not associate nor reduce themselves into Order when they might do it this is a great sin 3. When Representatives turn into a faction and betray their trust they lose their power as Representatives 4. All Officers are divested when for some just cause they are deposed or degraded but this belongs not to this part CHAP. VIII Of the disposition of Power Civil and the several forms of Government section 1 AFter the acquisition both of Civil and Ecclesiastical power follows the disposition of both which will take up a great part of this first Book And 1. Of the manner of disposing Civil Power This Disposition seems to be the same with acquisition because it cannot be acquired but by a certain subject neither can it be said properly to be actually acquired but at the very same time and by this very Act it 's placed in that subject Yet because Power Civil may be so communicated and acquired that it may be disposed of several ways and from these several ways of disposing arise several distinctions and differences of Common-Wealths I thought good to make Disposition a distinct thing from Acquisition and so handle it for the better understanding of this particular I will 1. premise some general Observations 2. Briefly declare the several ways of disposing Majesty and the several forms of Governments 3. Inquire into the Constitution of the Common-Wealth of England 4. Deliver some things concerning our condition in these late times section 2 The Observations are these The 1. which belongs unto that of Acquisition is That no power can be fully acquired till it be accepted of as well as communicated For no man can be bound to be a Sovereign against his will. 2. That Majesty is then disposed when it is placed and ordered in a certain constant subject which thereby may be enabled and bound to protect and govern 3. That to be disposed in this or that subject in this or that manner is accidental to Majesty though to be disposed is essential to a Common-Wealth 4. From the different ways of disposing this Power arise the different kinds as they call them of Common-Wealths For from the placing of it in one or more arise Monarchical Aristocratical and popular States 5. Majesty being the same in general in all States it may be disposed several ways and in several degrees in one or more Hence arise the difference of one Monarchy from another one Aristocracy from another one popular State from another 6. Though it may be a Question whether the disposing of Power in one or more can make a specifical difference yet Monarchy and Polyarchy are taken for different species of Common-Wealths essentially different Majestas disponitur pure in uno despotice hinc imperium section 3 Despoticum Regale monarchicum section 3 Despoticum Regale regaliter pluribus optimatibus hinc Aristocratia Democratia plebe hinc Aristocratia Democratia miste in pluribus hinc Status popularis omnibus hinc Status popularis The knowledge of this Scheme depends upon the difference and distinction of the parts and members of a Community For besides those which are but vertually members there are such as are sui juris independant upon others and these are divided into three Ranks As 1. Such as are only free 2. Such as are of the Nobility 3. Some that are super-eminent The two former are called in Latin Plebs optimates And amongst these optimates there may be very great difference as we find a Pompey or a Caesar amongst the Romans a Duke of Briganza amongst the Portugals who inherited a vast Estate in Lands These are called the Tres ordines the three States or Ranks of the whole Body of the People with us King Peers and Commons The super-eminent are few the Peers more in number yet not very many the Commons are the greatest multitude by far and make up the main body of the Society Yet with us of these there be several degrees and subdivisions Amongst the Commons we find the Freeholders and the Gentry and a great disparity in both Amongst the Peers there is a difference 1. In respect of the manner of acquiring of this Dignity and so some of them are such by ancient tenure amounting to so many Knights-fees some by Writ some by Patent These are called in Latin Barones Feudatarii rescriptitii diplomatici There is another distinction with us of Lords for some are Temporal some Spiritual The highest of these amongst us are those of Royal Extraction In France the Princes of the Blood. In some Countries as in Denmark and some say in Poland there be Peers and Lords which hold in Allodio and these are independant upon the King in divers respects such also the Princes of Germany be for the most part And in those States where such are found the Government usually is Aristocratical These Kings Dukes and Monarchs became such at first either for the antiquity of their Family and their greate Estates or for their super-eminent wisdom and vertue or for their rare exploits in War or Peace For such as are Generals and great Commanders in wars prudent and successful much beloved by Souldiers may do much dethrone Princes set up themselves and if it will not be fairly given they will forcibly take the Crown and sometimes they may deserve it and prove the fittest to wear it These are the three Ranks and Orders of the People section 4 These being known well will give some light to that which follows concerning the disposing of Majesty whether real or personal though all Majesty actually ruling must be in some sense personal First this super-eminent power may be placed Purely in one Purely in more in one and then that the State is called a Monarchy Yet it may be disposed in more than one several ways 1. More absolutely 2. More strictly limitted An absolute Monarch whether Elective or Hereditary is such as hath a full power over his subjects goods and persons as his own so that the people have neither propriety in their goods nor liberty of their persons They are but his servants and little better than slaves such Pharaoh's Subjects when Joseph had purchased their stocks their Lands their persons for the Crown seem to have been This Government is absolutum dominium and
ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted c. Where 1. Many by the Holy Ghost understand spiritual power or power of and from the Spirit 2 This power is not a power of Ordination or Jurisdiction in foro exteriori but a power of Remission and Retention of sins in foro interiori poenitentiali as the Schoolmen and Casuists speak 3. They remit and retain sins by the Word and Sacraments Therefore in the ordination of Presbyters both in the Pontifical of Rome and our ordination-Ordination-book these words are used and after them are added with some ceremony this passage Be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and his holy Sacraments And again the Bible delivered into the hands of the party ordained Take thou authority to preach the Word of God and to administer the Holy Sacraments 4. This is the power of the Keys promised Matthew 16.19 which place he himself understands of Conversion by the Word 5. This is the essential power of a Presbyter as a Presbyter section 6 In the third place as neither the context antecedent nor consequent help him so neither do the words themselves For except the similitude and agreement between his Fathers Mission and his be Universal and adequate or some ways specifically determined unto this particular imparity of the twelve and seventy and also of Bishops and Presbyters his Exposition can never be made good That it is not Universal is evident and that by his own Confession who tells us that the Father sent Christ to redeem but Christ never sent the Apostles to do any such thing As and So are notes of similitude indeed and therefore his Fathers Mission of him and his Mission of the Apostles must agree in something And so they do 1. He was sent so were they 2. He received the Spirit so did they 3. He was sent to preach and do miracles so were they 4. His Mission was extraordinary so was theirs Sicut est nota similitudinis and as a Lapide saith may signifie similitudinem Officii principii finis miraculorum amoris yet none of these can serve his turn Therefore saith Grotius and that truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliquam non omnimodam similitudinem significat Gerrard upon the same words as used by our Saviour Joh. 17.18 multiplies the analogy and makes these two missions agree in fifteen particulars yet he never thought of this Christ as he observes was sent 1. To redeem 2. To preach the Gospel so they were sent not to redeem but to preach and did succeed him not in his sacerdotal but prophetical Office by the Word and Sacraments to apply the Redemption not as Priests to expiate sins Seeing therefore the analogy is not universal nor any ways by the Context antecedent or consequent or the Text it self determined to this particular but to another as is apparent therefore his Exposition is frivolous his Supposition false and the Text no ground of an Hierarchical Episcopacy Yet he proceeds to prove this imparity from examples 1. Of Peter and John sent to Samaria that by imposition of hands as of Bishops they whom Philip had converted as a meer Presbyter might receive the Holy Ghost 2. From Barnabas sent as a Bishop as he takes for granted to Antioch to confirm the believing Jews converted by the dispersed Saints in that Faith they had received But will it follow that Peter and John and Barnabas were Bishops invested with the power of ordination and jurisdiction because they were sent by the Church of Jerusalem not to ordain or make Canons or censure but by imposition of hands and prayer give the Holy Ghost and confirm the new Converts of Samaria and Antioch how irrational and absurd is this 3. He instanceth in Timothy left by Paul at Ephesus and Titus left by him at Creet to ordain Elders and order other matters of those Churches not fully constituted and perfected for Doctrine Worship and Discipline But let it be granted that they had power of Ordination and Jurisdiction yet 1. It will not follow from hence that because they had it therefore Presbyters had it not Nor 2. That they had it without Presbyters where Presbyters might be had Nor 3. That they had it as Bishops which is the very thing to be proved 4. The plain truth is that they had it in those places and for that time as commissioned and trusted by the Apostle to do many things in that Church according to the Canons sent them by the Apostles which they had no power to make themselves Dr. Andrews taking all Apostolical power to be divine affirms Episcopacy to be a distinct order and of divine institution and grounds himself upon the testimony of Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Hierome Ambrose Chrysostome Epiphanius and Theodoret who all write that Ignatius Polycarpus Timothy Titus and others were made Bishops and of a distinct Order above Presbyters by the Apostles themselves Yet 1. If he mean by Apostolical whatsoever is done by the Apostles then many things Apostolical are not Divine much less of Divine Institution and Obligation For many things were done by them in matters of the Church by a meer ordinary power 2. The testimony of all these Fathers is but humane and according to his own rule cannot be believed but with an humane and fallible Faith Et quod fide divina non credendum fide divina non agendum 3. If he meant that those had power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as Bishops he contradicts himself affirming that this power of the Keyes was given immediately by Christ not to Peter not to the Apostles but to the Church and the Church had it to the Church it was ratified the Church doth exercise it and transfer it upon one or more qui ejus post vel exercendae vel denunciandae facultatem habeant Tortura Torti p. 42. So that none can have it but as delegates of the Church not as Bishops or Officers section 4 The last instance from Scriptures is in the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia and he affirms these were Bishops But 1. So they might be and yet only Presbyters 2. Suppose they were more then Presbyters and super-intendents at least it doth not follow they were Hierarchical Bishops For if they were it must appear from some divine Record or else how can I certainly believe it 3. Let them be Hierarchical Prelates yet it must be made evident by what warrant and institution they became such The institution must be grounded either upon the practise or precepts of Christ or his Apostles yet all these grounds have been formerly examined But 4. Doth any man think that these Letters and Messages were sent only to seven Persons who were Bishops It s evident and clear as the Sun they were directed to the whole Churches to the Ministers which are called by the name of Angels and to the people For the whole Church of Ephesus of Smyrna and of the rest is
New Testament where it s used a hundred and eleven times at least and in all these places signifies an Assembly or Society Religious except in Acts 19.32 39 41. where it signifies both a tumultuous and also an orderly Assembly or Society or Convention as a civil Court of Judgment which signification is here applied by our Saviour to a Spiritual Judicatory for Spiritual Causes Though this be a special signification yet it signifies the number and Society of Believers and Disciples who profess their Faith in Christ exhibited and this is this Church-Christian and the People of God. Yet it signifies this People under several Notions as sometimes the Church of the Jews sometimes of the Gentiles sometimes the Universal Church sometimes particular Churches sometimes the Militant Church either as visible or mystical sometimes the Church Triumphant sometimes a Church before any form of Government be introduced sometimes under a form of Government so it 's taken and supposed by our Saviour here Grotius his Conceit that our Saviour in these words alludes to the manner of several Sects Professions as of Pharisees Sadduces Essenes who had their Rules of Discipline and their Assemblies and Convention for the practice of them may be probable Yet without any such Allusion the place is plain enough from the context and other Scriptures Erastus upon the place is intollerable and most wofully wrests it so doth Bishop Bilson in his Church-Government and is point-blank contrary to D. Andrews who in his Tortura Torti doth most accurately examine interpret and apply the words and most effectually from thence confute Bellarmine One may truly say of that Book as he himself said of Austin's Treatise De Civitate Dei it was opus palmarum For Civil Common Canon-Law Politicks History School Learning the Doctrine of the Casuists Divinity and other Arts whereof he makes use it is one of the most learned and accurate of any put forth in our times By his Exposition of this Text he utterly overthrows the immediate Jus Divinum of Episcopacy in matters of Discipline and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction He plainly and expresly makes the whole Church the primary subject of the Power of the Keys in foro exteriori Therefore suppose the Bishops were Officers by a Divine Right as he endeavours to prove tho' weakly in his Letters to Du Moulin yet at best they can be but the Churches Delegates for the exercise of that Power And it is observable that divers of our Champions when they oppose Bellarmine's Monarchical Government of the Church peremptorily affirm the Power of the Keyes to be in the whole Church as the most effectual way to confute him yet when they wrote against the Presbyterian and the Antiprelatical party they change their Tone and Tune But to return unto the words of Institution 1. The word Church here signifies an Assembly 2. This Assembly is an Assembly for Religion 3. The Religion is Christian. 4. This Assembly is under a form of External Government 5. This Government presupposeth a Community and Laws and Officers Ecclesiastical These presupposed it 's a juridical Assembly or a Court. 6. Because Courts are Inferiour Superiour and Supream it signifies all especially Supream 7. It determines no kind of Government but that of a free State as shall more appear hereafter 8. Christ doth not say Dic Regi tell the Prince or State nor Dic Petro tell Peter or the Pope as though the Government should be Monarchical either Civil or Ecclesiastical nor Dic Presbytero tell the Elders nor Dic Apostolis Episcopis aut Archiopiscopis that the Government should be purely Aristocratical nor Dic Plebi that the Government should be purely Democratical nor Dic Synodo tell the Council general or particular But it saith tell the Church wherein there may be Bishops Presbyters some Eminent Persons neither Bishops nor Presbyters There may be Synods and all these either as Officers or Representatives of the Church and we may tell these and these may judge yet they hear and judge by a power derived and delegated from the Church and the Church by them as by her Instruments doth exercise her Power As the body sees by her eye and hears by the ear so it is in this particular but so that the similitude doth not run on four feet nor must be stretched too far This being the genuine Sense favours no Faction yet admits any kind of Order which observed may reach the main end For this we must know and take special notice of that Christ will never stand upon Formalities but requires the thing which he commands to be done in an orderly way Yet it 's necessary and his Institution doth tend unto it to reserve the chief Power in the whole Body otherwise if any party as Bishops or Presbyters or any other part of the Church be trusted with the power alone to themselves they will so engross it as that there will be no means nor ordinary jurisdiction to reform them Of this we have plain Experience in the Bishops of Rome who being trusted at first with too much Power did at length arrogate as their own and no ways derived from the Church and so refused to be judged For if the Church once make any party the primary subject of this power then they cannot use it to reduce them Therefore as it is a point of Wisdom in any State to reserve the chief power in the whole Community and single out the best and wisest to exercise it so as if the Trustees do abuse their power they may remove them or reform them so it should be done in the Church If any begin to challenge either the whole or the Supream power as Officers many of these nay the greater part of them may be unworthy or corrupted and then the Church is brought to straits and must needs suffer Some tell us that the King of England by the first Constitution was only the Supream and Universal Magistrate of the Kingdom trusted with a sufficient power to govern and administer the State according to the Laws and his chief work was to see the Laws executed Yet in tract of time they did challenge the power to themselves as their own and refused to be judged Yet in this Institution if Peter if Paul tho' Apostles do offend much more if Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops Presbyters do trespass we must tell not Peter not Paul not an Apostle not a Bishop not any other but the Church No wit of Men or Angels could have imagined a better way nor given a better expression to settle that which is good and just and prevent all parties and factions and yet leave a sufficient latitude for several orderly ways to attain the chief end section 7 The Judge being known the Judicial Acts of this Judge must be enquired into in the fifth place and these are two the first is binding the second loosing For all Judgment passed upon any person is either against him and that is binding