as some say at the King's command and that without Law and Authority of Parliament were confessed by many and exclaimed against generally and divers charged the Bishops as guilty of Usurpation And how could they be less when they imposed the reading of the Book of Sports and Recreations on the Lord's Day and punished divers Ministers refusing to read it and which was not tolerable the Rule of their Proceedings in the Exercise of their Power were Canons never allowed by Parliament besides the business of Altars and bowing towards them which had no colour of Law. Many began to set up Images in their Churches and innovate in Doctrine In consideration of all these things a Reformation if it might be had was thought necessary not only for the perfection of the first but also for to cut off the late introduced Corruptions and prevent the like for the future An opportunity seemed to be put into the hands of a Parliament with an Assembly of Divines for Advice to do this A Reformation they promise begin to act in the way and the expectation was great But instead of perfecting the former Reformation they cause a new Confession of Faith and new Catechisms to be made instead of the former Litany and Set-form of Worship a new Directory is composed and allowed for Discipline the Episcopal Power is abolished and the former Government dissolved the Presbyterian way and that very near to that of Scotland is agreed upon So that whatsoever was formerly determined by Law is null and void In the end all that was done in Doctrine Worship and Discipline in a time of War without and against the mind of the King did vanish was rejected by many and received by few and such an Indulgence under pretence of favouring tender Consciences was granted that every one seemed to be left at liberty Hence sprang so many Separations and Divisions that England since she became Christian never saw the like There were Divisions in Doctrine so many as could not be numbred and men were in their judgments not only different but contrary And the former Errours pretended to be great were few in number far less noxious in quality to these latter which were very many and some of them blasphemous and abominable All the old damned Heresies seemed to be revived and raked out of Hell and the more vain and blasphemous the Opinion was it was by some the more admired For Worship instead of some Ceremonies or Superstitions at the worst all kind of Abominations brake out of the bottomless Pit. Some professed high Attainments and Dispensations to the contempt of Sabbaths Sacraments and Scripture it self Some turned Ranters as though the old abominable Gnosticks had been conjured up from Hell. Some become Seekers till they lost all Religion Some were Quakers and most rude uncivil inhumane Wretches deadly Enemies of the Ministery and most violent Opposers of the Truth and some no ways ill affected but otherwise well disposed people seemed to be suddenly bewitched as the Galatians were and could give no Reason nor Scripture for the Separation and Alterations To be Anabaptists seemed to be no Offence in comparison of the former For Discipline some adhered to the Prelatical Form and refused Communion with the Presbyterian Party who with the Scottish Kirk thought their way to be the pattern in the Mount. The Congregational was of another mind and stood at as far a distance from them on one hand as the rigid Prelatical Party did on another Yet in all this God preserved an Orthodox Party who retained the substance of the Protestant Religion with moderation and these are they whom God will bless and make victorious in the end For all these came to pass and were ordered by Divine Providence to discover the Frailty of all the Wickedness of some the Hypocrisie of others to mainifest the Approved to confirm the Sincere and let men know what a blessing Order and Government in Church and State must needs be Here are many Separations some passive but many active As for the Quakers Seekers Above-Ordinance-Men Ranters their Separation under pretence of greater Purity is abominable The Antipedobaptists and the Catabaptists cannot justify themselves and in the end it will appear The Dissenting Bretheren and Congregational Party after they began to gather Churches with the rigid Prelatists and Presbyterians cannot be excused They who actually concurred to procure a Liberty and Indulgence especially the Zealots in that work who had a design to promote their own way have much to answer for and their account will be heavy And surely they are no ways innocent who took away the former Laws and Government before they had a better and in their own power effectually to establish them And whosoever departed from the former legal Doctrine Worship and Discipline in any thing wherein it was agreeable to the Word of God must needs be worthy of blame as also those who took an ill course to introduce that which was better They who will not Communicate with others or refuse to admit unto Communion with themselves in all parts of Worship such as are Orthodox and not changeable with Scandal are Offenders and cannot be free from Schism in some degree The Usurpations of the Bishops and the Innovations made by them and their Party together with their Negligence and Remisness in the more material parts of Discipline gave no little cause of Divisions and Separations To be hasty high rigid in Reformation is a cause of many and great Mischiefs This Church of England upon the first Reformation within a few Years brought forth to God even under that imperfect Reformation many precious Saints and glorious Martyrs And after the Persecution how did she multiply and yield as many able and godly Ministers and gracious Servants of God as any Church in the World of that compass And all those good Children were begotten nursed and encreased whilst under one supreme independent national Judicatory And though the first Reformation was imperfect and the Church in some things corrupted and many Members of the same without sufficient cause persecuted by some of the ungodly and unworthy Bishops yet for any of the Subjects and Members to separate from her without some weighty cause must needs be a sin A Reformation might have been made without pulling down the whole Frame and opening a way to the ensuing Divisions Imperfection is no sufficient cause to separate from that Church wherein any person receives his Christian being or continuance or growth of that being neither is every kind of Corruption No Church but hath some defects but hath some corruptions and no man should depart from any Christian Society further than that Society is departed from God. To depart and divide upon conceits of greater purity and perfection or out of a spirit of Innovation or in any thing which is approved of God and not contrary to his Word cannot be lawful Let every one therefore reflect upon the former Divisions and
and the parts the Soveraign and the Subject According to this method though mine ability be not much I have spoken of a Community both Civil and Ecclesiastical and of a Common-wealth 1. Civil then 2. Ecclesiastical In both the first part is the Soveraign where I enquire 1. Into his power civil and then into the spiritual power of the Keys in the Church 2. I proceed to declare how the Civil Soveraign acquires or loseth his power and how the Church derives her power or is deprived of it 3. The next thing is the several ways of disposing the power civil in a certain subject whence arise the several forms of Government civil and the disposal of the power of the Keys the primary subject whereof is not the Pope or Prince or Prelate or Presbyter or People as distinct from Presbyters but the whole particular Church which hath it in the manner of a free State. Here something is said of the extent of the Church After all this comes in pars subdita both Civil and Ecclesiastical where I speak of the nature of subjection and of the distinction division and education of the Subjects both of the State and Church All this is done with some special reference both to the State and Church of England desiring Peace and Reformation If any require a reason why I do not handle Ecclesiastical Government and Civil distinctly by themselves without this mixture the reasons are especially two 1. That it might be known that the general Rules of Government are the same both in Church and State for both have the same common principles which by the light of Reason Observation and Experience may be easily known but especially by the Scriptures from which an intelligent Reader may easily collect them Therefore it 's in vain to write of Church-Government without the knowledge of the Rules of Government in general and the same orderly digested The ignorance of these is the cause why so many write at random of Discipline and neither satisfie others nor bring the Controversies concerning the same unto an issue 2. By this joynt handling of them the difference between Church and State Civil and Ecclesiastical Government the power of the Sword and Keys is more clearly as being laid together apparent For this is the nature of Dissentanies Quod juxta posita clarius elucescunt This is against Erastus and such as cannot distinguish between the power of ordering Religion for the external part which belongs unto the civil Soveraigns of all States and the power of the Keys which is proper to the Church as a Church Yet if these two Reasons will not satisfie and some Reader may desire and wish they had been handled dictinctly he may read them as dictinct and several even in this Book I my self had some debate within my self what way I should handle them yet upon these reasons I resolved to do as I have done section 12 A Common-wealth once constituted is not immortal but is subject to corruptions conversion and subversion The Authors of Politicks following the Philosopher make these accidents the last part of their Political Systems and some speak of them more briefly some at large and declare the causes and prescribe the Remedies both for prevention and recovery Corruption is from the bad constitution or male-administration and both Soveraign and Subject may be and many times are guilty The conversion and woful changes and also the subversion and ruine is from God as the supream Governour and just Judge of Mankind who punisheth not only single and private Persons and Families but whole Nations and Common-wealths Of these things the Scripture humane Stories and our own experience do fully inform us But of them if it may be useful I shall speak more particularly and fully in the second Book the subject whereof in general is Administration in particular Laws and Canons Officers of the State and of the Church and Jurisdiction both Civil and Ecclesiastical The reasons why I desire to publish this first and severally from the latter part are partly because though the first draught of that latter part was finished above half a Year ago yet I intend to enlarge upon the particulars partly because I desire to know what entertainment this first part may meet withal for if it be good I shall be the more encouraged to go forward but chiefly because the most material Heads and Controversies are handled in this which is far more difficult The latter will be more easie yet profitable and useful especially if some of greater ability would undertake it The God of Truth and Peace give us Humility Patience Charity and the Knowledge of his Truth that holding the Truth in Love we may grow up unto him in all things which is the Head even Christ to whom be Honour Glory and Thanks for ever Amen FINIS * vid. Comin de bell Neap. lib. 5. Scope of the Work. Means to prevent Errors Sect. 1. The reason of differences in Church-Affairs What a Common-wealth in general is Foundation of the Work. Constitution Community in general De C. D. lib. 19. Cap. 21. Cap. 22. What Community Civil is Original of community Members of a Community Ecclesiast Community A good ground of Childrens right to Baptisme What hinders Reformation A Community formed is a Commonwealth De C. D. Lib. 19. cap. 13. Neighbour a notion of Society Majesty in the People really c. Real Majesty greater than Personal The mistake of Junius Brutus Buchanon Heno A Parliament cannot alter a form of Government A happy Community Majesty Personal Acts of Personal Majesty 1. Without Within Soveraigns must order Matters of Religion Civil matters Properties of Majesty Fundamental Charter of Civil Majesty Power how got Justly got extraordinary How Kings must govern Ordinarily By Election Best Government By Conquest Vsurpation Subjects may defend their Rights What destroys Personal Majesty Bracton Kings duty Binds not posterity Majesty when forfeited When Subjection ceases a Isa. 22.2 Vers. 21. b Rev. 1.18 1 Cor. 3.7 d Mat. 16.29 e Joh. 20.22 23. f 1 Cor. 5.12 g Ibid. h Ibid. 13. 11 Quaest. in vesperiis Dib 4. dist 8. Quaest. 2. What a King is What the King cannot do Parliament best Assembly Parliament Members qualified Wittena Gemote What the House of Commons is The End of calling the House of Lords What Barons called to Parliament Power of Parliament without the King. Why Kings Consent required First subject of Personal Majesty What the Parliament cannot do Who gave Crown Prerogatives and Parliament-being Kings of England no absolute Monarchs Cause of England 's Miseries What observable in our sad Divisions How to judge of our Divisions What charged on the King. Disobedience to King unlawful Parliament accused acquitted The cause changed Treaty at the Isle of Wight The 〈◊〉 works 〈◊〉 God among us Sect. 22. What may be the best way of settlement Qualification of Parliament members What to be looked into by a Parliament first * Non assumit Rex vel jus clavium vel censurae sed quae exterioris politiae Tort. Torti pag. 318. Rex qua Rex habet primatum Ecclesiasticum objective qua Christianus effective qua Rex actu primo qua Christianus secundo Mason de Minist Angl. l. 3. pag. 312. Primitive Bishop His Power Hierarchical B. B. His Power Hierarch Jure Humano * De Repub Eccles. lib. 2. c. 3. sect 7 8 9. Sect. 7. * Act. 8.14 * Ludovicus Arabelensis Lewis Arch-Bishop of Arles President in the Council of Basil. English Bishops What Dean and Chapters were English Bishops not Jure Divino * Lib. 3. c. 3 4. Tit. de praescript adversus haereticos Job 37.12 Prov. c. 12.5 * Gal. 1.1 * De. polit Ecclesiastica l. 3. c. 7. p. 26. * Tort Tor. p. 41. * Vignierus de excommunicatine venatorum The Church the Subject of the Keyes As in the Fundamental Office of Christ. Church-government what Who guilty of Schism Who Schismaticks Parish no Congregation Christian What Church the primary subject of the Keys The supposed end of the Congregational notion The subject of the whole Treatise * Isa. 49.23 Chap. 60.16 22. * Chap. 55.34 * 1 Cor. 11.34 * In his Book of the Church c. 8. p. 63. Best means to reform and unite a Church Divided What 's the chief interest of a Nation as Christian. Soveraign real Personal Measure of subjection rightly bounded The rational part of a people the heir of real Majesty The Sacrament what Education What makes a Church-Member Who a Visible Saint Division Subordination of that Church when Subordination of Bishops prudential Episcopal Hierarchy not of Divine Authority Bishops over Presbyters uncertain The Pope the Man of Sin c. Prelacy the occasion of Hierarchy and that of Papacy England under no foreign Primate What a Bishop was at first No Divine Testimony for Bishops Bishops of good use not of necessity A special Work of the Levite
these were not called but the chief of them as Earls who possessed twenty Knights Fees and Barons which had to the value of thirteen Knights Fees and a third part of one 3. That because these were too many some of them were call'd to Parliament some omitted and only such as were called were counted Barons the rest not 4. This being taken ill the Barons caused King John adigere to covenant under the Broad Seal to summon severally by so many Writs the arch-Arch-Bishops Abbots Earls and the greater Barons of the Kingdom 5. Yet Henry the Third so little regarded that compact that he called and kept a Parliament with an hundred and twenty Spiritual and only twenty five Temporal Lords though he had numbred two hundred and fifty Baronies in England 6. Edward the First omitted divers of those whom Henry the Third had summoned So that it will be a very difficult thing to rectifie or reduce unto the first institution this House as distinct from that of the Commons For it should be known 1. What kind of persons must constitute this other House 2. What their Priviledges be 3. What they must do which the House of Commons may not must not do section 15 By all this something of the nature of the Parliament may be known But then what is the power of this assembly either severally considered without the King or jointly with the King And that they may make Orders and Ordinances pro tempore will be granted and also which is far more if the King have no Negative voice the Legislative and Judicial power is in them and their ultimate Resolves and Dictates in all matters of Counsel must stand And if so then reason will conclude that if the King refuse to be personally or virtually present and to act with them they may do any thing for the good of the Kingdom without him which they may do jointly with him Yet because Laws and Judgment are ineffectual without execution therefore the King being trusted with the execution was required to give his consent that he might take care of the Execution For to that end was he trusted with the Sword of Justice and War that he might protect the people and see that Laws and Judgments be executed If we consider the Parliament as consisting of King Peers and Commons jointly it is the first subject of Personal Majesty and to it and it alone belongs all the Jura Majestatis personalis They have the power Legislative Judicial Executive to exercise it in the highest degree and may perform all acts of administration as distinct from the Constitution They are the highest assembly for Legislation the highest Counsel for advice the highest Court for Judicature section 16 This is the power of the Parliament which can do many and great things yet some things they cannot do for they are limitted not only by the Laws of God but also by the Laws of the Constitution Sir Roger Owen tells That the Parliament cannot do all things For 1. Many Acts are Voted for errors in matter of fact and for contrariety in words and sometimes they have idle and flattering proviso's 2. A Parliament hath not power to ordain that a Law shall not be abrogated for the space of twenty years for a latter Parliament may repeal their Acts. 3. That a Parliament cannot Enact that if there were no Heir to the Crown that the people should not be able to chuse a new King. 4. It cannot change the form of our Policy from a Monarchy to a Democraty 5. It cannot take away divers Prerogatives annexed to the Crown of England or that the King should not be able to dissolve the Parliament at will and pleasure yet in another place he tells us that he cannot dissolve the Parliament at will and pleasure and again he is not above the Parliament because he cannot be above himself and in Parliament he is Maxime Rex He further informs us that the common Law is the King's Inheritance and how the Parliament may wither away the Flowers of the Crown The true reason why the Parliament cannot do some of these things nor others not mentioned by him is because they have not real but personal Majesty They cannot alter the Government nor take away divers things belonging to the Crown because they did not give the Prerogatives of the Crown at the first the Commons of the Realm gave them as he confesseth The form of Government was first constituted by the Community of England not by the Parliament For the Community and people of England gave both King and Parliament their being and if they meddle with the Constitution to alter it they destroy themselves because they destroy that whereby they subsist The Community indeed may give a Parliament this power to take away the former Constitution and to frame and model another but then they cannot do this as a Parliament but as trusted by the people for such a business and work nay they may appoint another assembly of fewer or more to do such a work without them They may set up a Consilium sapientum which may determine what matters are fit to be proposed to the Parliament and in what order and also contrive a Juncto for all businesses which require expedition and secrecy which may act without them whether the Parliament it self can do such things or no may justly be doubted What may be done in extraordinary cases is one thing what may be done in an ordinary way another When he saith that the Parliament cannot change the form of Policy from a Monarchy he presupposeth our State of England to be a Monarchy yet if he distinguish not between the Constitution and the administration he may be guilty of an error For it 's not a Monarchy but only in respect of the Executive part in the Intervals of Parliaments Our Ancestors abhorred absolute and arbitrary Monarchs therefore before they did establish a King they made a bridle to keep him in and put it upon him This is plain from Bracton Fortescue the Coronation Oath and the Mirror section 17 From all this we may conjecture what the Constitution of England was It was no absolute Monarchy that 's plain enough Neither was it a State of pure disposition but mixt Neither were the Jura Majestatis divided some to the King some to the Lords some to the Commons it was of a far better mould The personal Majesty primary was in King Peers and Commons jointly in the whole assembly as one body this may appear several ways as 1. From this that it was a Representative of the whole Nation and as it was a general Representative of all England and no ways else was it invested with this personal Sovereignty It must represent the whole Community all the Members thereof of what rank or condition soever not only the Laity but the Clergy too these are words used in our Laws and good enough though disliked by
of the same and Scotland vanquished In all our sad divisions which happened from first to last and are not wholly yet ended to this day Two things are worthy the serious consideration of wiser men than I am 1. What party for time past hath been most faithful to the English interest 2. What course is to be taken for to setle us more firmly for time to come For the first we must understand what the English interest is The interest of England is twofold Civil and Ecclesiastical for we are English men and Christians The Civil interest is salus populi Anglicani there is no doubt of that for the peace safety liberty happiness of our dear Country is the end whereat we are all bound both by the written and natural Laws of God to aim The interest Ecclesiastical is the Protestant Religion and the perservation of the substance thereof Prelacy Presbytery Independency much less Antipaedobaptism and other Sects are not essential but accidental to it This being the interest of England we cannot judge of the faithfulness either of the King 's or Parliaments party by the quality of the persons of either side For there were both good and bad on both sides who had their several grounds of adhering to this or that party and their several ends and neither their grounds nor ends good Nor can any man justifie all proceedings and actings of either side both had their errours Nor must we judge of them according to their protestation for both could not by such contrary means attain the same end as both sides protested to maintain the King the Parliament the liberty of the Subject the Laws and the Protestant Religion Neither in this particular must the Laws of the English Constitution and Administration be the rule for both acted not only above the Laws but contrary to the latter of them at least For no Laws could warrant the Parliament to act without the King or the King without the Parliament much less was it justifiable that there should be in one Kingdom two not only different but contrary commands supreme and from different heads and persons This was directly against the very nature of all Common-Wealths which have only one first mover and one indivisible supreme power to animate and act them section 19 The Rule therefore must be the Laws of God as above the Laws of Men and we must consider according to these divine Rules what was the state of the Controversie the justice and equity of the cause made evident and the just necessity of doing that which was done Neither must we look at the cause only as just in it self but also how it 's justly or unjustly maintained For men may use such means as shall never reach the just end intended but also such as may be destructive of the cause it self and raze the very foundation of it Besides all this before a perfect judgment can be made the secret counsels contrivances designs hidden actings of the chief Actors should be known yet these many times lie hid and are not known or if known yet to very few and some of these few cannot found the bottom Many things are charged upon the King as acting against the English interest as Civil as that he dissolves Parliaments without just and sufficient cause that he intermits Parliaments for sixteen years together that having signed the Petition of Right he acts contrary to it imposeth Ship-money calls a Parliament signs the Act of Continuance deserts it calls the Members from it calls another Parliament at Oxford challengeth a negative Voice to both the Houses raiseth a War against it though he was informed that this tended to the dissolution of the Government that whosoever should serve to assist him in such Wars are Traitors by the fundamental Laws of this Kingdom and have been so adjudged in two Acts of Parliament 11 Richard 2. and 1 Henry 4. And that such persons ought to suffer as Traitors These with other particulars charged upon him seem directly contrary unto the civil Interest of the Kingdom Again to Marry a Popish Lady upon Articles directly contrary to the Laws of England and the Protestant Religion established by Law to entertain Twenty eight Popish Priests with a Bishop to tolerate Mass in the Court to receive Three Agents from the Pope one after another Pisano Con Rosetti to maintain the Queen-mother to engage the generality of the People of England to retard the relieving of Ireland to admit divers of the Popish Irish Murtherers and Rebels into his Army to call our English Forces sent to relieve the poor distressed Protestants of Ireland out of that Nation and employ them against the Parliament of England to suffer some of the Heads of the Irish Rebels to be so near his Person to endeavour to bring in the Duke of Lorrain with his Forces into this Nation to contract with the Irish Rebels upon condition to enjoy their Religion to furnish him with Ten thousand Irish Rebels to strengthen his party in England with divers other acts like unto these is conceived to be not only inconsistent with but plainly destructive of the English Protestant Interest And if this be true it must needs be so Yet it might be said that the King endeavoured to maintain his own regal Power the Episcopacy and Liturgy established by Law and that he did not oppose the Parliament but a seditious party in the Parliament and other Sectaries whose principles were destructive both of all civil and also Ecclesiastical Government and without the judgment of able Lawyers and learned Divines he did not undertake the War either against Scotland or England or any other It 's true that of those who adhered to the King and liked not the Parliaments proceeding there were some consciencious persons who judged the King an absolute Monarch and did not like many things done by that party yet they thought it the Duty of Subjects to suffer and that it was no ways lawful to resist But the Casuists say That Ignorantia excusat a tanto non a toto their Ignorance might make their Crime less yet no ways free them from all Guilt It was not Invincible they might easily have known that the King of Enland was no absolute Monarch seeing he could not impose any Subsidy upon the Subject nor make or repeal a Law without the Parliament neither could he by his Letters or personal Command revoke the Judgment of any Court. And though they might be Civilians or read Foreign Writers which take our Kings for absolute Sovereigns yet no ancient Lawyers no Parliaments did declare them to be such Nay they might have known that they themselves obeying the King 's personal Commands disobeyed him as King and that serving him in the Wars they were guilty of High Treason against the Kingdom and against the King's Crown and Dignity Of these Royalists some have been high and cruel against their Brethren the Parliamenteers and have censured them
conduce to that end Or else we are wilfully divided and no way will serve the turn but our own The first is the cause of our difference in Judgement the second of our disaffection and without an unity of the whole or at least of the major part the business will hardly be effected For we are not in any immediate capacity of a general Unity till time hath wasted and consumed some of our divisions and also the bitter enmity and rancour which continues in the Spirits of many to this day Therefore our settlement must begin in generals and necessaries and proceed by degrees 2. The Foundation to be laid is first to find out the ancient Constitution before it was corrupted too much and understand the great Wisdom of our Ancestors gained by long experience in the constitution of this our State. This may be done by some experienced Statesmen and Antiquaries in Law and that as well if not better out of Parliament than in Parliament For a Parliament it self must have some Foundation and certain Rule of their very being before they can act steadily and regularly and not spend their time of every sevâ—â—al Parliament in molding their Government a new It 's a vain and presumptuous imagination to think that we have attained to a greater measure of Wisdom than our Ancestors attained unto And let us not undo what is already done if it be consistent with the best model 3. Let no man think that the publick interest either Ecclesiastical or Civil of England is the interest of any one person or Family or any few persons or Families much less of any Sect Party Faction It cannot be denied but whilst the Succession of our Kings was limited to a Family the succession was more certain For so the next successour was more easily known and competition which in this case is so dangerous was more easily avoided Yet even this could not prevent the difference between the Houses of York and Lancaster And when the issue of Henry 8 failed we had been in greater danger if the King of Scots had not been a Protestant and one who was conceived would prove firm to the English Protestant Interest But when this limited succession shall prove as it may do inconsistent with the publick interest it s not so much to be regarded For why should the honour or priviledge of one Family prejudice the universal safety of a Nation We know that vast Empires and Kingdoms have by an unlimited Election continued long And that which might help much in this Case is that policy of the German Empire in the Interregnum to have an administrator General 4. In modelling the Government we must have a special eye unto the Constitution that it be such as that it may not only be consistent with but effectually conduce to the promoting of peace and righteousness in the administration of the State and also to the advancement of the Christian Religion in the Church And I conceive our ancient Government for these ends was excellent and did also preserve and regulate the liberty of the people and also wisely limit the supream Magistrate 5. The Parliament being a general Representative of the whole Nation and now of three and trusted with our liberty estates lives and in some measure with the Religion we profess should consist and be made up of eminent and wise men Therefore the Election of them for the manner should be more regular and orderly in respect of the Electors and better limited and more strictly tied to a right Qualification of the Persons elected which should neither be unworthy nor unfit It may indeed fall so out that in these irregular and sometimes tumultuous Elections some wise and eminent persons may be chosen and the same may prove predominant and leading Members in that great Assembly but this is but a chance and no certainty nor use of right reason in it 6 When a Parliament is once assembled and begins to act if there be any thing that concerns the preservation and continuance either of the being of the State or of the Substance of the Protestant Religion that must be first dispatched and the next the punishment of crying Sins which are the Ruines of States 7 As for Religion so far as it concerns the State it 's fit that there be some general Rule both of our Profession and Worship but the Rule of profession must be brief and grounded upon plain Scriptures and so near to ancient Confessions as that no rational Christian who acknowledged the Scriptures to be the Word of God could or would scruple The Rule of Worship also must be plain and Clear. Let nothing be imposed upon all which any rational Christian as such may not recive without scruple As for Discipline as I have begun so I will go on in the next Chapter But these things have been and will be considered by far wiser men therefore I will not enlarge section 23 I might have said something more of the manner of disposing Soveraign power and with Besoldus have observed that as there may be two persons who make but one Monarch so there may be one King of two or more distinct and several Kingdoms This latter disposal was debated much in Calvin's case by the Sage Judges of the land in which debate some of them especially Chancellour Egerton did little less than make the King an absolute Monarch and the two Kingdoms in effect one but the Parliament was of another mind And the matter was far above their Courts and Cognizance the union could not be determined but by the Parliaments of both Kingdoms neither could this be done by them if the union made any alteration in the Constitution of either Kingdom In respect of mine intention this Chapter is very large in respect of the matter very brief and my desire is that others would more seriously and impartially enquire into this subject so far as it concerns our own Constitution which no doubt may be found out and if it prove defective may be perfected if men were peaceable and sought the publick good CHAP. IX Of the disposition of Ecclesiastical Power and first whether it be due unto the Bishop of Rome section 1 THe most difficult point in Politicks is that of the Jura Majestatis and the right disposal of them in a fit subject and concerning the nature of Civil power the manner of acquiring and disposing of it I have already spoken and also of Ecclesiastical power and the acquisition thereof now it remains I say something of the manner of disposing the power of the Keys in the right subject This is a matter of great dispute in these our times Therefore when I expected to find all clear because a Jus divinum grounded on the Scriptures was pretended on all hands I found it otherwise As when one of our Worthies had disemboked the Megellanick straits and was entred into that sea they call Pacificum he found the word Pacifick
God was nothing but jus ad recte agendum a right to do right in matters of Religion If they did otherwise they abused their power they lost it not And if an Heathen Prince or State should become Christian they acquire no new Right but are further engaged to exercise their power in abolishing Idolatry and establishing the true Worship of the true God. This may be signified by the Titles of Nursing-Fathers of the Church Defenders of the Faith Most Christian Most Catholick King. All which as they signified their Right so they also pointed at their Duty which was to protect the true Church and maintain the True Christian Catholick Faith. 4. Though Regal and Sacerdotal power were always distinct and different in themselves yet they were often disposed and united in one Person Thus Melchisedeck was both King and Priest Thus Romulus was Prince and the chief Pontiffe For he is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Halicar Antiqu. Rom. lib. 2. The succeeding Kings took the same place After the Regal power was abolished it was an high Office. When Rome became Imperial the Emperours took the Title of Supream Pontiffe and some of them after they became Christian retained it Yet still as the Powers so the Acts were distinct For Melchisedeck as King ruled his People in Righteousness and Peace as Priest officiated received Tithes and blessed Abraham As they were sometimes united so they were divided For God entailed the Sacerdotal power upon the house of Aaron and afterwards the Regal power upon the family of David Neither did Christ or his Apostles think it fit to make the Ministers Magistrates or the Magistrates Ministers Yet in this Union or Division you must know that this Sacerdotal and Ministerial power was not this Civil power of Religion which always belonged to the Civil Governours even then when these two powers were divided 5. If Civil powers stablish Religion and that by Law call Synods order them ratifie their Canons divest spiritual and Ecclesiastical persons of their temporal priviledges or restore them yet they do all this by their civil power by which they cannot excommunicate absolve suspend much less officiate and preach and administer Sacraments In this respect if the civil power make a civil Law against Idolatry Blasphemy Heresie or other scandal they may by the same power justly punish the offenders by the sword and the Church censure them by the power of the Keyes 6. This jus Religionis ordinandae this power of ordering matters of Religion is not the power of the Church but of the State not of the Keyes but of the sword The Church hath nothing to do with the sword nor the State with the Keyes Christ did not say tell the State and whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Neither did he say of the Church that she beareth not the sword in vain Therefore he must needs be very ignorant or very partial that shall conceive that the State is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the power of the Keyes section 3 These things premised give occasion to consider how the Oath of Supremacy is to be understood especially in these words wherein the Kings or Queens of England were acknowledged over all persons in causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil all supream head and because that word Head was so offensive it was changed into Governour For the clearing hereof it 's to be observed 1. That by these words it was intended to exclude all foreign Power both Civil and Ecclesiastical especially that which the Bishops of Rome did challenge and also exercise within the Dominions of the Crown of England 2. That the Kings and Queens of Enland had no power supream in making Laws and passing judgements without the Parliament Therefore by supream Governour was meant supream Administratour for the execution of the Laws in the intervals of Parliament In this respect the Canons and injunctions made by the Clergy though confirmed by royal assent without the Parliament have been judged of no force 3. That by Ecclesiastical causes are meant such causes as are materially Ecclesiastical yet properly civil as before For matters of Religion in respect of the outward profession and practice and the Parties professing and practising are subject to the civil power For by the outward part the State may be disturbed put in danger of Gods judgements and the persons are punishable by the sword even for those crimes Yet neither can the sword reach the soul nor rectifie the conscience except per accidens That by Ecclesiastical is not meant spiritual in proper sense is clear because the Kings of England never took upon them to excommunicate or absolve neither had those Chancellours that were only Civilians and not Divines power to perform such acts Yet they received their power from the Bishops and it was counted Ecclesiastical 4. In respect of these Titles those Courts which were called Spiritual and Ecclesiastical derived their power from the Crown And the Bishops did correct and punish disquiet disobedient criminous persons within their Diocess according to such authority as they had by Gods word and as to them was committed by the authority of this Realm These are the words of the Book of Ordination in the consecration of Bishops The words seem to imply that they had a mixt or at least a twofold power one by the word as trusted with the power of the Keyes the other from the Magistrate or Crown and that was civil Such a mixt power they had indeed in the high Commission Yet though this may be implyed yet it may be they understood that their power by the word of God and from the Crown were the same The act of restoring the ancient jurisdiction to the Crown 1 Eliz. 1. doth make this further evident For it 's an act of restoring the ancient jurisdiction in Ecclesiasticals especially to the Crown for that 's the Title Where it must be observed that the power was such as the Parliament did give 2. That they did not give it anew but restore it 3. They could not had no power to give it if it belonged to the Crown by the Constitution but to declare it to be due upon which Declaration the Queen might resume that which the Pope had usurped and exercised 4. It 's remarkable that not the Queen but the Parliament by that act did restore it as the act of the Oath of supremacy was made by a Parliament which by that act could not give the King any power at all which was not formerly due In respect of Testaments temporal jurisdiction Dignities Priviledges Titles as due unto the Church by humane Constitution and donation all Ecclesiastical causes concerning these were determinable by a civil power How tithes are a lay-fee or divine right hath been declared formerly Hence it doth appear that the Oath of Supremacy was not so easily understood as it was easily taken by many and the Oxford Convocation I believe but that they
commended or reproved and charged with divers sins and threatned with such punishments as must fall upon all After all these proofs from Scripture recourse is had to Antiquity and Universality as sufficient grounds of a prescription which is a good kind of title But 1. In divine things especially such as are of ordinary and universal obligation Antiquity and Universality without a Divine Institution will not serve the turn 2. The Hierarchy prescribes as much and as high as Episcopacy invested with power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as proper to it self yet it s confessed to be only of humane institution 3. What is it how is it defined What Divine Institution can be made evident of that which they say is so universal and ancient 4. Who are the witnesses by whose testimony this Antiquity and Universality is proved They are besides some of later times but few and all within the Roman Empire many of them Bishops themselves and some of them bitter Enemies one against another They are not one of an hundred amongst the Bishops not one of a thousand amongst others Yet the Church in the Apostles times was enlarged to the ends of the Earth And as then so now there were in every Century thousands that did never write or if they did they wrote not of Episcopacy and many of them might be as great Schollars as those whose books are extant 5. There was a special reason why there might be Bishops and the same Hierarchical in the principal parts of the Roman Teritory as shall be touched hereafter 6. Suppose these Bishops to have the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction yea the whole power of the Keyes which includes the Legislative in making Canons can any man prove that they had it always in all places and if so that they had it severally in their several precincts and not joyntly with their fellow Bishops as Representatives in Counsels and also with Presbyters and others too It s well enough known that other besides Bishops had their suffrage in Synods Arles President of the Council of Basil proves stoutly that Presbyters have their Votes and without them he could not have carried the cause against Panormitan and his faction section 8 After the primitive and the Hierarchical Episcopacy comes in the English which hath something singular He that will understand the nature of it more fully must read Dr. Zouch Dr. Mucket Dr. Cosens the Civilian his Tables with him who calls himself Didoclavius upon him By all whom we may understand 1. It was not the primitive Episcopacy 2. It was clearly Hierarchical for we had Bishops and two arch-Arch-Bishops of York and Canterbury the one the Metropolitan of England the other of all England The Bishops took their Oath of obedience to the Arch-Bishops as appeareth by the book of ordination They did arrogate the power of ordination to themselves though Presbyters did in the ordination impose hands with them and some of them confessed they had it only with the Presbyter joyntly Yet we know how that by others is eluded 3. Not to say any thing of their Titles Dignity Revenue Baronies annexed to their Sea their place in the house of the Peers in Parliament and their priviledges they had cast off in effect not only the people but Presbytery For though the Presbytery had their Clerks both in the Convocation of York and also at London if the Parliament sat there yet they took upon them in the end to nominate these Clerks and deprive the Ministers of their right of Election As for the Deanes and Chapters which should have been eminent Persons and chosen by the Presbytery in every Diocess to represent them they were degenerate from their original Institution and the Bishops who should have done nothing but joyntly with them did all things without them They in effect though unjustly engrossed the whole power of Administration 4. Yet this is observable that 1. They could make no Canons but joyntly in one Assembly 2. That joyntly amongst themselves without the Presbytery they had not this power 3. That no Canons were valid without the Royal Assent 4. Neither by the Constitution was the Royal Assent sufficient without the Parliament 5. That they derived much of their Ecclesiastical power from the Crown For by the Oath of Supremacy is declared that the King of England is over all persons even in Ecclesiastical causes Supream Governour In which respect all their secular Power Revenue Dignity and also their nomination and confirmation with their investiture is from him He calls Synods confirms their Canons grants Commissions to exercise Jurisdiction purely Ecclesiastical In the first year of King Edward the sixth by a Statute they were bound to use the Kings name not their own even in their Citations and as before they must correct and punish offenders according to such Authority as they had by the Word of God and as to them should be committed by the ordinance of this Realm So that if the Popish Bishops derive their power from the Pope and the English from the King neither of them could be jure divino And by this the title of most Bishops in Europe is meerly humane and that in two respects 1. Because its Hierarchial 2. Derived either from an higher Ecclesiastical or an higher secular power section 9 Thus far I have enquired though briefly and according to my poor ability into the definition and institution of a Bishop the subject of the Question which is this Whether a Bishop or Bishops be the primary subject of the Keyes The meaning whereof is 1. Whether they be the primary and adequate sole subject of the whole power of the Keyes whereof the principal though not all the branches are making Canons and receiving last appeals without any provocation from them For they may be subjects and not primary they may be subjects of some part and not of the whole power 2. Whether they be such subjects of this power in foro exteriori For in foro interiori the Presbyters have as much as they 3. Whether they be such subjects of such power in foro exteriori quatenus Episcopi reduplicative 4. Whether as such they be such a subject by Divine Institution For solution hereof it s to be considered 1. That except there be an Universal consent and the same clearly grounded upon Scripture both what a Bishop is and 2. That made evident that his Title is of Divine Institution the affirmative cannot be proved 2. That though a Bishop could be clearly proved to have the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction yet it will not follow from thence that he is the primary subject of that power For the negative many things may be said 1. Neither the papal nor the English Bishop so far as the one derives his power from the Pope and the other from the Crown can be the primary subject of this power the secondary they may be 2. For such as derive not their power from
of a Congregation to govern and order it self in divers cases not so incident to a national Church well ordered Amongst others there be four acknowledged and reckoned up by Mr. Parker himself The first is when one and the same Cause may concern not only one single Congregation but divers several other neighbouring Churches The second is the Inability of the Eldership of an independent Congregation The third is Male administration The fourth is Appeal upon Male-administration presumed Concerning these four Cases I observe 1. That no single Congregation doth continue long but some of these Cases if not all will fall out 2. That in these cases there can hardly be any Redress 3. That a national Church is ordinarily furnished with sufficient Remedies against these Evils Upon all this it follows that in some cases a national Church is of a better constitution than a Congregational Whereas Mr. Parker in the case of Male-administration grants Appeals in that very concession he divests his Congregation of her independent Power and makes it to be no Politie at all For if as he saith a congregational Church be and that by divine Institution the primary Subject of the Power of the Keys how can it be subject to another Church or Churches as if it Appeal it must needs be Par in parem non habet potestatem is a certain Rule For obligatio ex delicto will not here take place To be independent and dependent cannot agree to the same Church at the same time And is it likely that Christ denieth the power of the Keys to that Church which in all the forementioned cases was sufficiently furnished with effectual means of redress and give it to that which is in it self insufficient There be several kinds and degrees of Communion between particular Churches independent and that for mutual help and edification yet all those kinds and degrees of Communion are but extrinsecal and the Communion is but like that of Leagues and Friendship between State and State which can no ways reach Appeals And as it is in several distinct States so it 's in several distinct Churches That of Dr. Jackson is very remarkable and worthy consideration That the best Union that can be expected between visible Churches seated in several Kingdoms or Commonweals independent one upon another is the Unity of League or Friendship and this Union may be as strict as it shall please such Common-weals and Churches to make it and to subject such a Church in such a case unto another is to build a Babel or seat for Antichrist This implies that a Church may be National and he gives a good reason why it should be no more And according to this Rule Mr. Parker by granting in this case Appeals doth no better than build a Babel and so I fear many others do by making every Congregation independent section 15 But to say no more in this place of Appeals the power of receiving whereof is a branch of Majesty and the exercise of this power belongs to Administration and comes under the head of Jurisdiction where they are to be handled at large I further do conceive that the condition of these independent Congregations is no better than that of petty States as those of the Netherlands and the Cantons of Switzerland These cannot subsist without a strift Confederation or a foreign Protection and both are dangerous and sometimes if not often prove prejudicial Though the States-General of the Low-Countries have their Commission from the several Republicks and with this Clause Salva cujusque populi Majestate yet they are ready many times to usurpe and exercise more power than is due unto them But foreign Protection sometimes proves a supreme Power But the danger of our independent Churches as with us is far greater because they are so petty and far less bodies and no ways by any certain Rules firmly united From all this Discourse a rational Reader will conceive that a national Church in my sence is far more agreeable to the Rules of Government which we find in Scripture than so many independent Polities Ecclesiastical in one Nation Some still do conceive and they have reason for it that as this Nation of an independent Congregation was at first invented to oppose the Diocesan Bishop so the dissenting Brethren pitched upon it in opposition to the Scottish Kirk and the English Scotified Presbyterian And as in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth some great ones and Counsellours of State protected the new Conformist and made use of him to poise the Bishop so in our days there were Statists who knew how to make the Congregational party subservient to their civil interest not only to poise but to beat down the Presbyterian and which they far more aimed at their party both in England in the Parliament and Army and also in Scotland which in the end was done to some purpose For at last the Independent became predominant had great Friends was much favoured obtained good maintenance and some of them were put in the best places and enjoyed the best preferments in the City Universities and Country Nay some of them do not scruple plurality of places as though the word Pluralist were only unlawful and Plurality the thing it self legal and just enough Some of them do much mislike the Parochial divisions yet like Parochial Benefices well enough and are unwilling once possessed of them to part with them yet this power and profit is made not only by them but others the great interest few seek a real Reformation with sincerity of heart section 16 To draw near a conclusion not only of this Chapter but of this discourse of the party supreamly Governing in Church and State it s the duty of us all in the best manner and by the best means to endeavour and make it our chief design to reform and unite this divided and distracted Church of ours For this end we should first lay aside our Divisions as they proceed either from ignorance or errour or disaffection and let us see and try how far we may agree in the general and clear truths of Scripture revealed for to direct us in the right ordering of a Christian Society and put on charity which is the bond of perfection and let the peace of God rule in our hearts to which we are called in one body Col. 3.14 15. For if we do not hold the Truth in love Eph. 4.15 no good thing will be done These are the only and effectual means whereby the Foundation of our Church-happiness can be laid 2. Let no person or party assume any power but what Christ hath given him or them upon a clear title 3. Let us give every one their due As for the Pope we must leave him to God who will in his due time take order with him Let civil Soveraigns have their right in matters of Religion Let the Bishop be reduced to his Ancient Superintendency and Inspection Let the Pretbyters be contented
consider the present distractions and examine himself how far he either is or hath been guilty and confess his sin to God desiring pardon and for time to come endeavour peace and supply the defects of understanding which in some things is the cause of difference in judgment with the greater measure of Charity For though we had less knowledge then we have and yet more charity the breaches of the Church might easily be made up Thus far I have digressed and enlarged upon this Subject out of a desire to perswade every Member of a particular Church to submit unto the lawful Power thereof and continue united in the same Body till God shall give a Command and Commission to come out or separate section 5 The end of this Discourse concerning the distinction of the subjects of the same Church is to shew the nature and measure of subjection and the manner how we become subjects and what the Duties of Subjects are Something might be added concerning the manner of Admission which Mr. Parker and so many of the Congregational Way do think was not good and allowable His and their Exceptions I will not here mention but will with them confess 1. That as they be born in such a Parish or forced by the Magistrate they could not be Members of the Church 2. That Baptism without instruction of such as are capable is not sufficient 3. That it 's fit that every one when they are instructed so as to understand the substance of the Covenant should publickly in their own persons profess their Faith and make their Vow 4. That when this is done some care should be taken of their lives that it may be known whether they walk according to their Profession and their Promise Yet this may be said that by good Ministers something to this purpose was done though by others it was neglected And the Church even from the first Reformation required and intended this in the strict command of Catechising and in Confirmation For though Confirmation was no Sacrament nor proper to a Diocesan Bishop by Divine Institution yet the end was good and the effect might have been happy if it had been duly observed For it would have so qualified the Members of the Church that we should not have had so many ignorant so many scandalous in every Parochial Precinct But it was either neglected or abused But because to be a right qualified Member of a visible Church is not sufficient let every one remember that it 's his duty to be a Citizen and Subject of Heaven and to live accordingly For as the Apostle saith Phil. 3.20 Our conversation is in heaven so we turn it though there may be more in the Original For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be turned Jus municipum aut civium aut municipatus as Hierome Tertullian and Sidonius understands it with Beza à Lapide Musculus Heinsius The sence is that we are Burgesses Denisons and Subjects of Heaven and incorporated into an Heavenly Politie therefore let our life be holy and heavenly and let us converse most and chiefly with God and remember that we are but Pilgrims and Strangers upon Earth and by the observation of the Laws of this heavenly Kingdom we tend to our abiding Mansions above And if our lives and carriage be such though men may persecute us cast us out separate from us refuse to admit us yet we know our God approves us we have fellowship with him and with Jesus Christ his Son whilst we walk in the Light as he is Light and in the end we shall be happy and our Joy will be full section 6 As the Subjects must be divided and subordinated in a Civil State so must they be in a Church The people of Israel were three times numbred and divided the first numbring was by tens hundreds and thousands that Moses might make Officers and Judges for the civil Government Exod. 18. The second which was most exact and purely Ecclesiastical as you may read in the four first Chapters of the Book of Numbers which was so entitled by the Septuagint because of this Numeration and Division of the People They were also numbred the third time Numb 26. The end of the second numbring was that they might according to an excellent order encamp about the Tabernacle and also march in order before and after it The first division upon the numeration was of the Body of Israel into two parts 1. That of the Levites which was subdivided into four parts The second of the other twelve Tribes in one body first separated from the Levites and this was subdivided into four Squadrons and in every Squadron three Tribes which acccording to their Ensigns quartered at a distance East West North South of the Tabernacle the Levites being within them The Description of the Universal Church Revel 4. as learned Men have observed alludes to this order And both these Scriptures teach us that without numeration division and subordination there can be no order in the Worship of God or the Government of the Church And the first thing done upon this division according to God's command was the removing of the Lepers and Unclean out of the Camp which was the more orderly and easily done upon the former division and doth teach what must be in the constitution of a Church and exercise of Discipline section 7 Of the division either of particular Churches of one City and the territories thereunto belonging or of several Churches in one Province according to the Cities of the several Provinces we read nothing at all in the Scripture Neither can any such thing be evidently and certainly proved from the seven Angels of the seven Churches of Asia the less now called Natolia As for the divisions made afterwards in the Roman Empire I shall say something anon The Church of England if we may believe Mr. Brerewood was anciently divided into three Provinces according to the three Provincial Cities York London Cacruske in Monmouth-shire though after that we find Valentia and Flavia Caesariensis added to make five of which divisions we find something in Cambden Yet afterwards we find another division of the whole Island into two Provinces York and Canterbury These were divided into several Diocesses the Diocesses into Archdeaconries the Archdeaconries into so many Rural Deanries the Rural Deanries into Parishes This was an orderly way and did facilitate Government much The Church of Scotland was divided into Provinces and Shires and upon the Reformation as some tell us these Shires into Classical Presbyteries but afterwards reduced in our times under a certain number of Bishops Yet Arch-Bishop Spoteswood inform us out of their publick Records that from the first Reformation they had Superintendents In the Reformation intended in England when Episcopacy was taken out of the way and the Presbytery introduced they divided the Church according to the Counties the Counties into Classes the Classes into Congregations The Subordination was of Congregations to a
from an inferiour to a provincial Synod and from the Provincial to the Patriarchal which was the highest Court except the Christian Emperours call a General Council And that was said to be a General Council which extended beyond the bounds of one Patriarchate especially if it included all 9. After these Patriarchates began to be such eminent places many ambitiously sought them and there was great contention amongst themselves who should be greatest and have the precedency Neither could General Councils by their determinations prevent them for time to come 10. The Patriarch of Rome though but at the first one of the three and afterwards of the five and according to some of the seven if you take in Justiniana Prima with Carthage did challenge the precedency and preeminency of them all And though the Council of Chalcedon gave the Constantinopolitan See equal priviledges with his yet he would not stand to their determination but afterward challenged greater power then was due began to receive Appeals from Transmarine parts beyond the bounds of his Diocess and to colour his Usurpation alledged a Canon of the Nicene Council which was not found in the Greek Original He will be President in all General Councils no Canons must be valid without his Approbation His Ambition aspires higher when the title of Universal Bishop had been denied the Patriarch of Constantinople by Gregory the Great Boniface his Successour assumes it And by degrees they who follow him usurpe the Power and at length the civil Supremacy is arrogated and the Roman Pontiffe must dispose of Kingdoms and Empires and will depose and advance whom he pleaseth And is not he the Man of Sin and the Son of Perdition who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God shewing himself that he is God 2 Thes. 2.3 4. From all which words he that goes under the name of M. Camillas defines Antichrist in this manner Antichristus est Pontifex maximus Elatione vicariatu assimulatione Christo oppositus lib. 1. c. 3. de Antichristo As the Roman State subdued and subjected unto themselves the former Empires and Monarchies of the World and this in themselves after that became Vassals and Servants unto one Absolute Imperial Monarch and by him Rome-Heathen raigned over the Kings of the Earth Revel 17.18 So in tract of time Rome-Christian usurped Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical over all Churches and her Patriarch swallowing up all the power of the former Patriarchs became Universal Monarch and Visible Head of the Universal Church The occasions true causes of this Usurpation and the means whereby he by degrees aspired to this transcendent power are well enough known Some will tell us that Episcopacy or rather Prelacy was the occasion at least of the Hierarchy and the Hierarchy of the Papacy For if there had not been a Bishop invested with power in himself and a provincial Jurisdiction given to one Metropolitan and many Metropolitans subjected to one Patriarch the Bishop of Rome could have had no advantage nor colour for his Usurpation This makes many prudent men jealous of Episcopacy especially as many understand a Bishop to be one invested with the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and that by divine Law without the Presbytery Division and Subordination which are essential to Government could be no proper cause of the Papal Supremacy But the trusting of power Ecclesiastical in one man extending and enlarging the bounds of one particular Church and independent Judicatory too far and subordinating the People and Presbyters to the Monarchical Jurisdiction of one Bishop the several Bishops to one Metropolitan the several Metropolitans to one Patriarch and several Patriarchs to one Roman Pontiffe did much promote and effectually conduce to the advancement of one man to the Universal Vicarage At the first institution of the Hierarchy neither the people nor Presbytery were excluded the Patriarchates were of a reasonable extent the Patriarchs independent one upon another and the end intended was Unity and the prevention of Schism and the subordination seemed to be made out of mature deliberation Yet humane Wisdom though never so profound if it swerve from the Rules of divine Institution proves Folly in the end Let not all this discourage any Ecclesiastical Community or disswade them from division co-ordination subordination if so be they keep the power in themselves as in the primary Subject and reserve it to the whole and not communicate it to a part and keep themselves within a reasonable compass From all this we may conclude that a Secession from Rome and the rejection of his Ecclesiastical Supremacy if so be we retain the true Doctrine and pure Worship of God is no Schism especially in England For 1. there were many Provinces out of the great Patriarchate and no ways subject to any of them but they had their own proper Primates and Superindendents Amonst these England was one and by the Canon of Nice had her own Jurisdiction and was under no Patriarch but a Primate of her own 2. The Bishop of Rome was at first confined to that City and after he was made Patriarch he had but the ten Suburbicarian Provinces and the rest of the Provinces of Italy had Milan for their Metropolis 3. That after the Conversion of the Saxons that that Bishop should exercise any power in England was a meer Usurpation And to cast off an usurped power and the same Tyrannical could be no Schism at all There is a Book printed at Oxford in the year 1641 wherein we find several parcels of several Authors bound up in one The first Author is Dr. Andrews the second Bucer the third Dr. Reynolds the fourth Bishop Usher the fifth Mr. Brerewood the sixth Mr. Dury the seventh Mr. Francis Mason The design of the whole is to maintain Episcopacy and in part to prove the Hierarchy 1. Some of the formentioned Authors do grant with Hierome that the Church was first governed by the common advice of Presbyters though this position in strict sence is not true as hath been formerly proved 2. Some grant that at the first Institution of Bishops a Bishop was nothing else but a President or Moderator in Presbyterial Meetings 3. That afterwards these were constant and standing with a power of Suderintendency not only over the people but the Presbyters within a City and the Territory thereof 4. That when a Church was extended to a Province in the Metropolis thereof they placed a chief Bishop called a Metropolitan who had the precedency of all the other City Bishops 5. That these Bishops could do no common act binding the whole circuit without the Presbytery 6. That there were such Bishops and Metropolitans in the Apostles times thus Dr. Usher doth affirm and he quotes Ignatius to this purpose 7. That there was an imparity both in the State and Church of Israel under the Old Testament and so likewise