7. It is very compauble that in one government there should be many â—anks and sorts of men contributing thâ—ir caâ—e towards it so that all these cares be not coordinate but subordinate and every rank of men take care in its proper place and with subordination to some principall power that must have the chief care of it This the Papists as they hold so they practise for they make the magistrate but subservient to the care that the Pope is to take in governing the church yielding to his judgement and commands and executing his decrees and buls without controul But the presbyterians that are not yet agreed how to levell the duties of the ministers and of the magistrate about taking care of the government of the church have cast us into an endlesse unceâ—tainty which of them is to have the greatest â—hiefest care For whereas Rivetus saith that the magistates chief and first care is the administration of sacred things and the government of the church and his second care the government of the Common-wealth Walaus Apollonius Mr. Gillespie and a hundred more will tell us that that care doth mainly and first belong to ministers and next to them that magistrates have an auxiliary ecclesiasticall power by which they are to ayd the ministers in the government of the church So that if each party conceiveth that the care of the church doth not belong chiefly to the other but that he is to look to it as he thinks fitting and not to trust the main care with any one but himself I fear we shall need a third party to take care that these two may care but for one thing 8. Those words of Jesus Christ I will give thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind c. and against that church which they say is the Romish church the gates of Hell shall not prevail seem literally to confer a very great power yea to give an infallibility the power of remitting and retaining sins and of granting indulgences being not repugnant to the non-erring power But the giving this great power of the keyes of Heaven and of binding and loosing expressed in very high and emphaticall terms cannot be applyable to a presbyterian church against which the gares of hell shall not prevail nor can it stand with the little modulus of power of a presbytery which yet hath found no legs to walk on they not resolving us yet whether the pastor or the people or both must excommunicate that the sentence of excommunication may be valid nor how farre it reacheth 9. Particularly that saying of the Papists that there cannot be a greater argument that their judgements are infallible then this that God ratifieth them in Heaven is much according to the literall arguing of the Scripture saying that whatsoever shall be bound c. that is as they interpret it whatsoever shall be decreed by them and passed on earth shall afterwards be ratified and approved in Heaven For were their judgements fallible then God would not have tyed himself by his promise to approve of all the erroneous judgements of men which they say cannot be said without blasphemy But the fallibility of the judgements of presbyterian judicatories is repugnant to the letter of the Scripture which promiseth to ratify all the judgements that are passed by men on earth 10. So for the power of the Pope in absolving and loosing men from their oaths and promises and fidelity due to their soveraign it doth very well agree with the letter of the Scripture whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven for here is a power given without any modification But that of presbyterian jâ—dicatory not challenging such a power and yet grounding their power upon the same Scripture must so much the more recede from the Scripture and therefore they need a place of Scripture as pregnant for their power as the Romanists have for theirs 11. Lastly the jurisdiction held by the Papists is a true valid jurisdiction for it is coercive and extendeth to the body estate liberty and good name the Pope and Bishops have their prisons but the presbyterian is a name without a thing for they are loth to call it coercive it must be then perswasive I wish they would hold there suspend their excommunication of any person till he be perswaded so to be which I think he will never be or till they can inform him that excommunication is an ordinance of Jesus Christ as well as the preaching of the word and the administration of the Sacraments as they tell us in the 63. page of their answer to the reasons of the dissenting brethren which neither do I think they ever will be able to doe 12. But though the ecclesiasticall presbyterian power as it is held to be independent and not subordinate to the magistrate is lesse consonant to Scripture and reason then the papall ecclesiasticall power yet I must say thus much for the brethren of the presbytery that their excommunication as they hold it from a power coordinate and independent from the magistrate is more consistent with reason then that excommunication held by the learned and rever Dr. Hammond agreeth with his subordinating the ecclesiasticall episcopall power to the magistrate as supreme governour of the church under Christ for according to the Doctors opinion one cannot conceive of the power of excommunicating but as the power of the magistrate and of excommunication but as a law of the magistrate which yet I believe he will not grant For were he willing to grant thus much then besides that he and I should not differ he would get reason and Scripture more on his side then 〈…〉 ur brethren of the presbytery or the Papâ—…s have Now that some remaining within the communion of Rome have acknowledged as much as we concerning the nullity of a double jurisdiction the power of the magistrate in sacred things and the nature of the Kingdom of God I could prove by many of them truth breaking forth through the darknesse of popery whereas Mr. Rutherfurd and Gillespie were blind in so clear day of revealed truth I have already alâ—edged Claude Fauchet John du Tiller who tâ—ll us that there was no such thing as a double jurisdiction for many hundred years after Christ and with them agreeth the authour of the Review of the Councill of Trent whâ—… the 6. book chap. 5. saith that the 〈…〉 Fâ—ance hold their jurisdiction not from the Pope but from the King of France We have also alledged Tosâ—atus upon the 16. of Nauhew asserting that among the Jewes there was no distinction of jurisdiction Hotomannus a famous Lawyer and a Papist in his book of the Liberties hath these words It is certain that ecclesiasticks as ecclesiasticks have neither fisck nor territorie nor any jurisdiction but only liberty to declare what is fitting to be observed without receiving or execut on of their opinion But I will insist
and the civil and therefore no need to make two of one that ecclesiasticall presbyterian jurisdiction is bounded by the same limits as is the civill jurisdiction which is against the nature of all other jurisdictions different from the magistrates power though subordinate to it as is the maritall and paternall powers none doubting but a father in England hath a power over his son in France and that a wife is subject to her husband however distant from him Now it is granted by all that the jurisdiction of churches combined and that of synods never went beyond the magistrates jurisdiction that the churches of Persia Aethiopia and India were not tyed to observe the deciees of the first councill of Nice nor the reformed churches of France those of the synod of Dordrecht neither the church of Barwick to submit to the orders of the generall assembly of Scotland and yet some do not stick to maintain that a man excommunicated in Scotland is also bound by the same sentence in France or Holland because if we may believe them it is reasonable that the sphear of activity within which excommunication acteth should as much spread down wards as upwards and that since a man bound by excommunication at Edenburgh is also tyed in heaven good reason he should be bound and fast in any part of the earth 4. This also which all churches classes and synods assume makes their jurisdiction wholly concurring in nature and property with the jurisdiction of the magistrate which is that as in all civil and politicall assemblies the major and the stronger part in votes not in reasons doth carry it so decrees and canons because the major part have voted them to be such are therefore receivable by inferiour ecclesiasticall judicatories as they call them whereas since they pretend that ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is of a quite different nature from that of the magistrate it were most convenient that it should not be like it in this main particular but that private men or churches should adhere to truth not to multitude not numbring the votes but weighing the reasons And indeed this was well considered by the Parliament in their ordinance for calling of the assembly for though they took upon themselves that power of legislation jurisdiction whose votes are not weighed but numbred and which cannot be otherwise exercised in this world yet they very prudently conceived that such a jurisdiction could not be assumed by churchmen as such in matters of religion for they never intended that whatsoever should be transacted or defined by the major part of the ministers of the Assembly should be received for a canon and an ecclesiasticall law that should stand in force since they expressely enjoyn in the rules which they prescribed to the assembly 1. that their decisions and definitions should be presented to the Parliament not under the name of law made to them but of humble advice 2. that no regard should be had to the number of the persons dissenting or assenting but that each party should subscribe their names to their opinion 5. Another argument to prove that the ecclesiasticall and the magistrates power are not coordinate but that the ecclesiasticall is subordinate to that of the magistrate and that they both are of the same nature is that both of them magistrate and ministers challenge not only the duty of messengers from God in delivering to the people the lawes of God but also as judges exercise power about making new lawes which do oblige to obedience for conscience sake for the assemblies presbyteries of Scotland do not only presse obedience to the lawes expressely set down in Scripture but also to their canons decrees and constitutions 6. Another argument to prove the identity of the powers ecclesiasticall and civil is that both are conversant about lawes and constitutions that are made by men such are most of the canons and constitutions of synods and ecclesiasticall assemblies which are no more expresse Scripture then the Instinian Code and therefore it is altogether needlesse to constitute two coordinate humane legislative powers 7. But suppose that all the decrees canons constitutions of presbyteries and church-assemblies were word of God and divine precepts this very thing that they are divine constitutions and that one jurisdiction or other must be conceived enjoyning by a sanction and commanding obedience to them argueth that ecclesiasticall and civil jurisdiction are but one For what can the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction do more then to give a sanction to the lawes of God which thing the magistrate is to do If he must give a sanction to the decalogue why not to all other precepts which are equally of divine institution 8. It is absurd to put under the Gospell a difference betwixt the jurisdiction or law of Christ and the law of God the universall Monarch as Mr. Gillespie speaketh p. 261. for there is no precept of the decalogue there is nothing good holy honest and of good report but is the law of Jesus Christ and therefore since the magistrate cannot be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a minister of God as St. Paul calls him but he must be a minister of Jesus Christ and that he cannot be keeper of the decalogue and of the law of God under Moses administration but he must be also the keeper of the law of Christ what need to constitute two coordinate judiciall powers each of them being pari gradu subordinate to Jesus Christ Lastly if the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is not of this world and that this Kingdom as our brethren tell us is the presbyterian government then this Kingdom must have a jurisdiction and lawes quite different from the Kingdom and jurisdiction of this world which yet doth not prove true by the parallels we have made of both jurisdictions Mr. Gillespie a member of that Assembly pag. 85. endeavoureth to shew what a wide difference there is betwixt these two jurisdictions in their nature causes objects adjuncts but I might upon the same grounds maintain the like wide difference betwixt martiall navall testamentall paternall maritall and civil power all differing and yet subordinate to that of the magistrate I might also attribute to each society its peculiar power placing in a colledge of physicians a medicall power subordinate to God the God of bodies health and outward safety as the civil is subordinate to the God of the Universe and the ecclesiasticall to Christ For if the God of nations hath instituted the civil power and the God of saints the ecclesiasticall as Mr. Gillespie speaketh what hinders but that the God of nature hath instituted the medicall power And if morall good be the object of the civil power and spirituall good of the spirituall power why may not bodily health be the object of the medicall power CHAPTER VI. Whether Iesus Christ hath appointed a jurisdiction called ecclesiasticall as King and head of his Church Of the nature of the Kingdom of God In what sense the magistrate is
and no superinduction of character power duty gift or licence being conferred by the ordaining ministers so neither is there any thing taken away by any act of theirs of deposition or exauctoration only every one withdraweth his feather protection and countenance the magistrate withdraweth his licence the ministers say they will not hereafter hold him a fellow and partner in the work of the Gospell with them the people declare their dislike of the man and professe they will make use no further of his ministery which act is no more an act of jurisdiction then the refusing to take physick is an act of jurisdiction over the physitian CHAPTER XIII The nature of the ministers power and of that of binding and loosing the power of the keyes Amyraldus and Mr. Lightfoots judicious exposition of the power of binding and loosing The power of governing and ruling is not the ecclesiasticall contended for Mr. Gillespies arguments answered NExt we are to consider the nature and extent of the power of the ministers of the Gospell wholly the same with that the Prophets under the old Testament had a power not forcing the body but enlightening the understanding and convincing the heart ruling the affections and bringing them captive to the obedience of the crosse A power which the new Testament mentions in a hundred places either in the same words or in equivalent terms and yet never so much as once understandeth by it a presbyterian synodicall or ecclesiasticall power of deposing excommunicating and of making lawes and canons authoritatively but alwayes meaneth the vertue and efficacy of the spirit of God in the word and ministery called the power of God Rom. 1. v. 16. 1 Cor. 1. v. 14. and chap. 2. v. 5. and chap. 4. v. 19 20. Ephes 3. v. 20. 1 Pet. 1. v. 5. A power by excellency called POWER 1 Cor. 2. 4. by which we are the sons of God Joh. 1. v. 12 13. which no man can withstand Act. 6. v. 10. by which the eyes are enlightened and men turned from darknesse to light Act. 26. v. 18. pricking burning and affecting the heart with sorrow hope joy Act. 2. v. 7. Luc. 24. v. 32. diving into the secrets of the heart Hebr. 4. v. 16. where we have a description of the powerfull effects of the words except by the word we are to understand the word incarnate before whom all things created are said to be naked It is a power which is called the power of the resurrection Philipp 3. v. 10. also the power and demonstration of the spirit 1 Cor. 2. v. 4. a power of the wisdome and salvation of God and opposed to the power of Sathan and darknesse Act. 26. 18. Col. 1. v. 13. a power described in magnificent terms and mightily emphaticall 2 Corinth 10. v. 6. c. This is the power called otherwise the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing by which the slaves to sin and Satan are loosed and the despisers of the word by resisting the holy Ghost become more hard and bound I know of no other power of binding and loosing no other keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to the church-officers though properly speaking the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of binding and loosing are not committed to ministers as the word is but as the spirit is in the word so that it is not the ministers but the word that bears the keyes the opening of the heart with those keyes as it is only the work of the spirit so is it known only to the spirit of God in the heart of man convinced and converted and not to the minister himself who only apprehendeth his office of being the word-bearer but is not sensible of its efficacy and workings Amyraldus thes 10. de 5. falso dictis sacramentis saith that the power of binding and loosing did only belong to the Apostles and that that power consisted in three particulars 1. that being led by an unerring spirit whatsoever in revealing the mystery of the Gospell they preached and approved for sound doctrine was to be received with like credit as if it had been delivered by Christ himself and whatever they said was amiss or false was likewise to be taken as if it had been pronounced so in Heaven this saith he is according to the Hebrew Idiome to bind and to loose 2. in inflicting corporall punishments and vexation by Satan upon those that dishonoured Christianity 3. in freeing those that were delivered to Satan upon their repentance and forgiving their sins He is yet much more expresse and diffuse upon this subject but I study brevity which makes me I do not here insert his own words in Latin but however he saith enough to undermine the foundation upon which the presbyterians build their excommunication which hitherto being mainly supported by that power of binding and loosing and the two chief stayes namely this place of Matth. 18. of binding and loosing and that of the incestuous person 1 Cor. 5. failing there now remaineth but a poor single crutch to draw along excommunication cut out of these words tell it unto the church Mr. Lightfoot an exceeding learned and reverend Divine giveth a very probable exposition of the power of loosing and binding in his Harmony Matth. 16. which doubtlesse doth carry in it more solidity and weight then the vulgar explication given by the Reverend Assembly and others of the power of censuring excommunicating and absolving He saith that the power of binding and loosing was given only to the Apostles as far as some part of Moses law was to stand in practise and some to be laid aside some things under the law prohibited were now to be permitted and some things permitted to be now prohibited so that in these words whatsoever c. Christ promiseth to the Apostles such an assistance of his spirit and giveth them such a power that what they allowed to stand in practise should stand and what to fall should fall in short what they bound on earth should be bound in heaven And that exposition is the more receivable because the Greek text speaks not of binding or loosing persons but things saying not whomsoever you shall bind but whatsoever things ye shall bind c. that is whatsoever things ye shall dispense with or oblige unto He also on the 1 Cor. 5. parallels this place of binding and loosing to Joh. 20. v. 22. whose sins yea retain they are retained c. and saith that that power was a peculiar gift to the Apostles when Christ breathed on them by which they spoke strange tongues healed diseases killed and made alive delivered up to Satan and bestowed the holy Ghost or the power to work the same miracles Which exposition strengtheneth the precedent which is but a branch and an effect of that miraculous power conferred on the Apostles For by the same power of miracles or of binding and loosing whereby they delivered to Satan and healed diseases they also
prescribed how far some rites of Moses were dispensable We have then three expositions of the words of Christ whatsoever ye shall bind c. none of which make for a presbyterian excommunication but contrarily they destroy it for all these three expositions are sutable to the literall and mysticall meaning which is absolute and without condition Christ promising to bind and loose in heaven whatsoever shall be bound and loosed on earth whereas those that expound that place of binding and loosing of excommunication are forced to put a condition to the absolute words of Christ telling us that they must be understood clave non errante in case there is no errour in him that excommunicates And therefore Beza against Erastus and some others fearing the many inconveniences and absurdities that follow upon the literall sense that Gods binding and loosing in heaven should steer according to the binding and loosing on earth by excommunication and absolution expounds the words of Christ as if he had said whatsoever shall be bound and loosed in heaven shall also be bound and loosed on earth that is the minister excommunicating on earth doth but declare what God hath already done in heaven which is the opinion of some schoolmen namely of Dominicus à Soto lib. 4. dist 14. qu. 1. art 3. saying that the words ego te ligo I excommunicate thee are equivalent to these I declare that God hath already excommunicated thee But I think this exposition is cumbered with more absurdities then the vulgar 1. Who knoweth the mind of God 2. and whether he hath excommunicated from the inward or from the outward communion surely not from the inward for then excommunication should not be a soul-saving ordinance as the Rever Assembly tell us nor from the outward this being an act of man not of God except one say that the minister outwardly acted what in his secret counsell he hath decreed but still the difficulty will be how the minister is acquainted with Gods secret and not revealed will and if he be acquainted with it how can an outward action in which the pastor may erre be a consequent of an unerring sentence of God But however the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing is to be understood the new Testament speaketh of governments in the church and of ruling and rulers and it enjoyneth the faithfull to obey those that rule over them and St. Paul biddeth Timothy not to receive lightly an accusation against an elder So farre then the word of God alloweth a government distinct from that of the magistrate and endoweth the ministers of the Gospell with a power of ruling and governing But this power is neither of the nature of the magistrates power nor of that they call ecclesiasticall which we have proved to be wholly the same with the magistrates power This power of the ministers ruling and governing is something like that power that Princes and masters of heathen schools had over their disciples scholars and auditors as Plato Zeno Aristotle who had a great power over their minds but no jurisdiction over their bodies estates and outward liberties it is true they kept them in awe respect and obedience but it was a voluntary submission to their precepts like that of Alexander the great to the commands of the Physitians This being the ministeriall power in a shadow it is more expressely set down in the Scripture and no doubt that power is the noblest power and greatest power in the universe next to that of creating and redeeming the world a power that the Son of God had and managed in this world none have such warrant of authority as to be Ambassadours from Christ none have such an errand there is no tye of obedience like that to their commands But still this ministeriall power commands and authority and the obedience due to them are not of the nature of the power and obedience observed in churches or magistrates judicatories For 1. The magistrates and churches judicatories do not only enjoyn the commands of God but also their own but the ministers of the Gospells power is only to deliver what they have received of the Lord 1 Cor. 11. even Moses Deut. 4. v. 5. acknowledgeth that he taught nothing but what God enjoyned him 2. Accordingly a member of a church doth not obey the word of his Pastor but of God Col. 2. v. 22. Marc. 7. v. 7. 1 John 3. v. 24. chap. 5. v. 3. When the pastor hath no command of the Lord as 1 Cor. 7. v. 25. then he delivers his own judgement and counsell and that counsell a church-member hath no command to obey though he ought to have discretion and condescension enough to follow it if he conceiveth it tends to mutuall edification Yet in a church constituted there being need of a power of magistracy either delegated or assumed by a confederate discipline and a magistrate-like jurisdiction being set up in his congregation he ought as every church-member even when he apprehendeth no tye to obey the pastors command as Gods command to obey by an obedience either active or passive the commands of that magistrate which himself hath elected when by a joint consent they all agreed upon a form of discipline 3. Church-judicatories if they make any lawes decrees or resolve upon a censure to be inflicted upon a church-member they require obedience and submission without arguing or disputing the case or having the liberty either to yield to them or to decline them if they list But the true pastorall power commandeth only understanding free and wise men that are able to judge 1 Cor. 10 v. 15. like those of Beroea who so hearkened to the voice of St. Paul that ere they obeyed it they consulted the Scripture to know whether it were so as he taught them 4. The ecclesiasticall presbyteriall power like that of the magistrate requireth obedience to its lawes ordinances and decrees not because they are good just and equitable but because it so pleased the law-givers for a man excommunicated never so unjustly is to submit to the validity of the sentence not to the equity which as our brethren and Mr. Gillespie teach us is not in the breast of the party judged but of the judge But the true ministeriall power requireth no obedience to its commands but of such as are perswaded or convinced of the goodnesse truth and equity of the law and sentence The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both to believe be perswaded to obey which intimateth that he truly performeth the pastorall commands who believeth in the name of the Lord Jesus for this is the main commandement of Christ as the next is that we should love one another Such commands are not obeyed by the motion of the body but by that of the heart and affections The power of magistracy commandeth the hand to give almes to the poor but the power of the minister commandeth to give them with a ready mind one
in severall acts of theirs as when they convert others which otherwise is the work of the publick ministery and when a brother forgiveth heartily a brother and beseecheth God to forgive him or a wronged party complaineth to God in secret of a notable injurie received openly for which he cannot have satisfaction by men And of this kind of binding and loosing by private men may be understood the words Matth. 18. v. 18. as Theophylactus Erastus and Gualterus expound them But this private men do not by any duty inherent in their outward calling and office but by a dispensation of God whose spirit bloweth where it listeth employing the ministery of a weak simple woman or artificer either to confound or convert the great and wise ones of the world sometimes binding and loosing without any intervention of private mens prayers and complaints but only at the sight of some great oppression sustained even when the party oppressed is taken away or of blood shed which as it doth cry to heaven so may it be said to bind in heaven Therefore ministers being by vertue of their office and calling to bind and to loose I do not understand how any other persons as lay-elders and members of presbyteries and synods should have an ordinary power to bind and to loose and have the keyes of heaven committed to them and yet not be entrusted with the word of reconciliation and with the preaching of the Gospell Hath the Lord Jesus Christ given a commission by halves so as that some church-officers shall have a power of binding and loosing for the Rever Assembly ascribeth to all church-officers indifferently that power who are not to have the power of preaching and of administring the sacraments I further acknowledge that the church hath had from the time of the Apostles helps of government of which Ambrose speaketh and such as the Jewish synagogues had but that they had one part of the power of the keyes which they will have to be the government had not the other part which is of preaching the Gospell and converting men to Christ I read no where neither in Scripture nor in antiquity for as the power of the keyes cannot be severed from the power of binding and loosing so neither of these two qualifications will admit a division as that lay-elders should have but a share in the handling of the keyes and ministers should have them entirely Whosoever readeth the outlandish divines all presbyterians will find that they ascribe no power of the keyes to other church-officers then ministers of the Gospell that what power other officers as lay-elders have is meerly by concession of the pastors and as Maresius saith by communication Loco 15. § 75. these be his words sic residet penes senatum ecclesiasticum omnis jurisdictio ecclesiastica ut illa proprie sit radicaliter in pastoribus in senioribus vero qui illis assident communicative So Capellus the sium parte priore dividing the church-officers thes 32. gives the whole power of the keyes and of excommunicating to the pastors not the rectors Pastores habent potestatem docendi arguendi increpandi si opus sit à sacris arcendi atque submovendi quod excommunicare dicitur So that they do but claw the other church-officers with the key of discipline which as Maresius speaketh is radically in the pastors and to that purpose speaketh a great Divine whom I alledge Paraenes p. 600. when lay-men sit in councills and there deliver their opinions as judges about articles of faith and the use of the keyes this is done more by the concession of pastors then by any right or ancient custome Here by the way it is observable that as the power of binding and loosing and the power of the keyes are convertible and equivalent terms in a proposition so one of them is not more divisible then the other Now sure it is there can be no such thing as a lesse measure of power of the keyes committed to lay-elders and a greater to ministers for this power of the keyes being a power of introducing men into the church either visible or invisible specially that power by which God opens the hearts of men by the preaching of the Gospell it cannot be conceived that it ought to be or is performed by halves as that the lay-elders should have one half of that power committed to them and that Jesus Christ had given them the keyes of heaven but not the main operation of the keyes as if one should give the keeping of his keyes to his steward but not the power to open the doors with them Since then it is not likely that the Lord Jesus Christ hath committed the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven by halves the like also must be thought of the power of binding loosing which are by all divines taken for one and the same It is the opinion both of the rever dissenting brethren and of the Rever Assembly in a book called reasons of the dissenting c. p. 6. and 58. that both keyes are given together and not one without the other though as the Rever Assembly saith one may be abler to exercise one then the other which sheweth that no church-officer can albeit abler to rule then to preach be endowed with a power of ruling without the power of preaching But the Rever Assembly saith both keyes are given together but neither to be exercised without a call and sometimes one may be called to exercise the one and not the other It is not possible for me to apprehend what weight this hath for since they acknowledge that no church-officer doth receive one key without the other it is not possible he can be called to the handling of one key only except they will say he is called to keep the other key idle hung by his side It being thus made evident that the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing are committed solely to the ministers of the Gospell who are entrusted with the word of reconciliation it is likewise of necessary consequence if there be any such thing as a power of excommunication and inflicting church-censures as a consequent of binding and loosing that this said power should appertain to the ministers of the Gospell only and that neither lay-elders deacons nor members of churches be enabled to excommunicate by any warrant of binding and loosing from Christ None of these things being as I hope deniable and the power of excommunication being thus restrained to the ministers of the Gospell alone if it be made good that excommunication is no law of Christ it will follow necessarily either that excommunication is not an act of the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing committed to the ministers of the Gospell or that their power is none of the power of the keyes but exorbitant transcending the limits set by Christ and bringing forth acts which are none of Christs CHAPTER XV. That God hath not given to the
visible church since this presbytery must have a president and overseer why may not this overseer be called Bishop if Bishop why not Pope who in reference to his cardinall-consistory is the same as this Arch-president is related to his presbytery both being over the whole catholick church 3. The Lord Jesus Christ hath stated what number may constitute a private church for where two or three are gathered in his name he hath promised to be in the midst of them and whatever number of men shall meet in one place with one accord in a church-way to hear the word it may be denominated a church and have warrant from Christ to be so called But our brethren cannot shew us that all the private churches of Scotland under one presbytery can be called properly a church being rather a politicall and prudentiall consociation and could they shew us that such an aggregation is of the institution of Christ how can they disprove but that all the private churches in the world may be likewise by the institution of Christ under one presbytery 4. It being then equally the institution of Christ that 100000. yea all the churches of the world as well as four or five thousand for so many may be in Scotland should be under one presbytery were such a presbytery not over all the churches of the world but only over all the churches of France Scotland and Holland and invested with judiciall power from Christ to make lawes authoritatively to excommunicate to exauctorate and inflict censures without any appeal then this would be such an Imperium in imperto a jurisdiction within the jurisdiction of others as our brethren the Scots have raised within the dominion and jurisdiction of the magist rate of Scotland Such a presbytery no doubt might excommunicate as well one of the States of the United Provinces as once the presbytery of Scotland did the Marquesse of Huntley who 8. years after viz. in the year 1616. was released from that excommunication by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in England for which I believe he had as good warrant from Jesus Christ as the presbytery of Scotland had when they excommunicated him and so both might by the like warrant excommunicate or absolve any man sentenced in the church of the Abyssins And therefore it cannot be thought so monstrous a thing in the Pope and his Conclave to excommunicate the Emperour of Germany and the King of France as they often have done it being certain that a presbytery in Scotland hath no greater jurisdiction over one of the subjects of the magistrate of Scotland then the Pope hath over the King of the Romans 5. A thing very considerable it is that the holy Scripture as it often by the word church understandeth a particular church so sometimes as 1 Corinth 11. v. 22. it meaneth the place where a particular church is assembled but the Scripture as it never means by the word church the place that containeth a nationall presbyterian church so neither the nationall church it self 6. It is no lesse considerable that a true visible church is not circumscribed by the jurisdiction of the magistrate except that church be also the Commonwealth and that he that is head of the church be also head of the Commonwealth as it was with the people of Israel for members of a particular church need not be dwellers in the same jurisdiction it being ordinary beyond seas for particular churches to be made up of members dwelling in severall dominions in the confines of Geneva Savoy Burgundie France 7. But is there any command or institution of Christ that no more churches or so many churches as are within one magistrates jurisdiction should be united under one presbytery and that that presbytery power of the keyes and of binding and loosing should be bounded by the limits of the magistrates territory If their power doth extend as far as heaven no doubt it cannot be bounded by the limits of any earthly Prince 8. This aggregation of many private churches under one presbytery is either voluntary or commanded by God If commanded let our brethren bring us any passage of Scripture prescribing a certain measure of judiciary power of the presbytery over private churches If it be free and voluntary and every private church may without violation of divine prescript either associate or not associate then those churches cannot be blamed if they forbear to associate under one presbytery and in case they should associate if they be their own carvers and do not enstive their liberty to a power that is not of their own tempering and moulding It is true a woman hath no tye to marry no more then a private church to associate she hath that liberty either to subject her self to the power of a husband or remain single but she cannot either before or after she is married put what condition she pleaseth to the power of a husband It is not so with private churches who have no set rule of obedience due to the power of an ecclesiasticall judicatory 8. That this power of presbytery over many particular churches is a power of magistracy either assumed by common consent or delegated from the civil magistrate may be proved in that under the heathen Emperours it was a power of consent every particular church reserving to it self such a measure of power as they thought fit and that it was so we shall see God willing when we come to the history of the nature of the power that the Christian churches had under the heathen Emperours But under Christian Emperours no church-judicatory ever had any power but by commission from the magistrate as we shall likewise shew afterwards And the diversity of rites and customes of churches as in fasting keeping Easter using divers formes of liturgies forbidding of appeals from Africa to Rome though all these churches were under the magistrates jurisdiction doth shew that as the supreme magistrate permitted many countreys to enjoy their customs municipall lawes so did he the like for rites and ceremonies which every church took up as they liked best Which is an argument that there was not such a power as an ecclesiasticall presbytery binding all private churches to their constitutions and that every church was independent there being amongst them no other consociation but only that which consisted in a communion of the same faith and doctrine 9. As the intensivenesse of the power of a nationall church hath ever been and ought to be still so much as private churches were willing to yield for they alwayes reserved to themselves a full church-power taking the decrees and constitutions of other churches rather as examples and friendly advises so the extensivenesse of that power hath been alwayes limited by the bounds of the magistrate so that each church was more or lesse independent as the magistrate over them had a larger or narrower territory If so many Kings as Moses Josua did subdue should turn Christians so many independent
not of their own nation and religion then they performed by a confederate discipline what the magistrate was to enjoin and command them The confession of Basilartic 6. hath a notable saying speaking of the duty of magistrates to propagate the Gospell as they are magistrates This duty was enjoyned a magistrate of the gentils how much more ought it to be commended to the Christian magistrate being the Vicar of God If then the heathen magistrate fails of his duty in not propagating the Gospell those that live under him and are better minded ought to supply the part of the magistrate in that particular and yet in doing of that they do but perform their own duty and businesse like as a master leading his horse down the hill his man being out of the way doeth both his own businesse and that of his man and both employeth his own strength in guiding an unruly horse and supplieth that of his man or which expresseth more lively the thing in hand as the Duke of Somerset in training up Prince Edward in the true religion did both do his own duty and that of Henry the 8. his father who being wanting to his duty in shewing his power authority to have his son brought up in the true Protestant religion Somerset Cranmer and others were not to be wanting to theirs and yet were not to act by a power distinct from the power of the King for if so then when ever a power is exercised rightly and yet against an unlawfull command of a superiour we had need to give a new name to that power and there would be as many kinds of power as duties to be performed Having done with Origen I come to Ambrose whom I was to alledge upon the 1. of Timothy relating to the places of St. Paul and Origen and to the power of magistracy assumed by churches There he teacheth the custom both of the synagogues of Christian churches of having elders that composed in stead of the magistrate controversies arising amongst church-members saying that first synagogues and afterwards churches had elders without whose advice there was nothing done in the church and wondreth that in his time which was about the year 370 such men were out of use which he thinks came by the negligence or rather pride of some Doctors who thought it was beneath them to be esteemed the lesse in the church as S. Paul saith of them while they are to decide controversies not as judges invested with a coercive power but only as arbitrators and umpires But the true cause why these elders ceased which he wisheth had been still continued he mentioneth not but the true cause is when the magistrate that was for above 300. years heathenish became Christian these arbitrators and elders ceased in great part at least they were more out of churches then in churches and in stead of them the Emperours created judges which yet retained much of the nature of those whereof Origen and Ambrose speak and which were invested as most of the Lawyers affirm as Cujacius for one with them my Rev. Father in his book de Monarchia temporal and in his Hyperaspistes lib. 3. cap. 15. not with a coercive jurisdiction but as they term it audience hence comes the Bishops and Deanes and Chapters Audit However such arbitrators sate in a court and were chosen by the Christian Emperours and were not members as before ever since St. Pauls time chosen by the members of that church where the contention did arise betwixt brother and brother and at that time it was not thought a violation of the command of St. Paul if a wronged brother had gone to secular judges because they were not infidels but Christians faithfull and saints as the Apostle termeth them 1 Cor. 6. 2. therefore it was free for any lay-man or other either to repair to the Audit of the Bishop or to the secular judge Which custome Ambrose doth not like so well as when Jewes and Christians were obliged by the law of their discipline to have controversies decided by their own elders Certain it is that these elders though they were not as Ambrose wisht they had been in his time arbitrators in those churches whereof they were members kept that office a long time under Christian Emperours but with more authority and dignity because they were countenanced by the Emperours their masters We have them mentioned pretty late even in Theodosius Honorius and Arcadius time for in one law they enjoin that ordinary judges should decide the contentions between Jewes and Gentils not their own elders or arbitrators Thereupon it is worth considering that that title which in the Theodosian Code is de Episcopali audientia in the Justinian Code is de Episcopali judicio a main proof that these judgements in episcopall courts had much still of the nature of those references in churches under the heathen Emperours These episcopall courts were set up by the Emperours to favour the clergy that they might be judged in prima instantia by their own judges for if either party had not stood to the sentence of that court they might appeal to the secular court The words of the 28. Canon of the councell of Chalcedon are very expresse If a clerk hath a matter against a clerk let him not leave his Bishop and appeal to secular judgement but let the cause first be judged by his own Bishop Now this episcopall court being in substance the same power with that of the elders mentioned by Ambrose which were first in synagogues and then in Christian churches under the heathen Emperours one may plainly see how weak and sandy the grounds are upon which ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing in the hands of church-officers is built which government say they is the government of Christ and is to be managed by those church-officers by a warrant from Christ the mediatour For Constantine erecting an episcopall court and empowering the judges of the court to decide causes and controversies did not intend to give them a commission of binding and loosing or to put into their hands the keyes of Heaven so delegating a power which was none of his to give but only granted what was in his own power namely that some magistrates under him should set all things in order in the church and among the clergy Besides he intended to set up that magistracy which was through the necessity of the times assumed first by synagogues then by Christian churches under persecution for sure Constantine did not place the power of the keyes of binding and loosing in the exercise of that power managed either by the elders which Ambrose mentioneth or by the episcopall court erected by himself Neither Constantine nor any of his successours did ever conceive that churches were to be governed by any other power then their own as all other societies of men were In this episcopall court any cause between man and man
magistrate Since then an irreconcilable brother ought to be esteemed as an heathen is it any whit against Christian charity for the party offended to sue him before an heathen magistrate This exposition is very naturall having nothing strained but most like to be the sense of Jesus Christ As for the 18. verse concerning binding and loosing we have examined what strength can be in it for excommunication not discussing whether it may not be as well applyed as Chrysostome Austin Theophy lact thought to every private man as to the operation of the word in the ministry or whether this verse hath any coherence with the precedent discourse of Christ Neither will I enter into the controversy whether Iudas was partaker of the Eucharist for it is not much materiall to know it all agreeing he was not removed by any excommunication or casting out and that he did eat of the passeover which eating was equivalent to that of the Lords Supper Now lest more heads of objection of this Hydra of excommunication should arise if all should not be cut off we must examine what strength the example of the incestuous person 1 Cor. 5. hath for excommunication But this extract being already too much lengthened and the drift of it all along being to prove that the casting out of any member of a church being the same with the putting out of the synagogue is no act of ministry or of church members as such but an act of magistracy I need not to speak of it at all besides that these 3. or 4. observations will take off all hold for excommunication 1. It is granted by Calvin Beza Walaeus Apollonius Mr. Rutherfurd and Mr. Gillespie that St. Paul mentioneth but one censure inflicted upon the incestuous person viz. excommunication and that the delivering of him to Satan was the casting him out of the congregation 2. Now it being evident that this delivering to Satan was no excommunication but a judgement quite of another nature it is likewise equally evident that the putting away of the incestuous person being the same with delivering him to Satan was no excommunication 3. This casting out of the incestuous person makes nothing for that excommunication which is only a putting a man by from partaking of the Eucharist for though examples may be brought out of the Scriptures of men cast out or kept from the temple or synagogues yet there is no one example nor any reason for it that a man admitted to enter either into the temple or the synagogue should not be partaker of the same mystery or ordinances celebrated with the rest 4. Calvin thinks that St. Paul by these words put away the wicked from among you did not point particularly at the incestuous person but rather at the devil or the wicked one indefinitely as the plotter and contriver of all evil which St. Paul saith was put away from them by that delivery of the incestuous person to Satan 5. Wendelinus in his common places of excommunication saith that the putting away of the incestuous person from among the Cormthians was not only an exclusion from godly converse as praying hearing and receiving the â—ucharist with him but also from civil commerce in eating trading and talking with him Which exposition is the most naturall I know and proveth that this putting away was no act of ecclesiasticall power distinct from the civil for alwayes every court punisheth according to its kind a court of Exchequer doth not summon men for causes that are of the cognizance of a court-Martiall so neither should an ecclesiasticall court impose penalties that are to be inflicted by a civil court such as is the depriving of a man of civil liberty 6. Learned Mr. Lightfoot saith that all the power of the church of Corinth in delivering the incestuous person to Satan was by the strength of Paul's spirit that went along with them so that the people of Corinth acting by no power of their own no church ought to do as that church then did except they be sure of the assistance of the same spirit Next in order followeth the necessity of self-examination 1 Cor. 11. made an argument to prove that ministers must examine every communicant and judge of mens worthinesse For Beza Walaeus Mr. Rutherfurd and Mr. Gillespie thus argue If it be the duty of every man to examine himself much more is it the duty of a minister to examine him Never was an argument more inconsequent and lesse concludent by which the Papists may as well prove auricular confession If men must confesse their sins to God much more must ministers require every man to confesse their sins to them For quite on the contrary from this Text these or the like inferences should be drawn If all men must examine themselves much more ought ministers to examine themselves or this If every church-member ought to examine himself then ought the ministers to exhort them to that self-examination or this If every church-member ought to prepare himself for the word and Sacraments then ministers are not to prepare them otherwise then by shewing them and giving them directions for their due preparation leaving every one to do the work himself CHAPTER XXIX That excommunication is contrary to common sexse and reason THere being no Scripture for excommunication in the next place we shall see that there is no reason for it I do not deny but that a private church as well as any other society by vertue of a power of magistracy seated in them may expell a member out of their society but that this is done in obedience to a pâ—sitive command of Christ by a jurisdiction independent from the magistrate and by warrant from those words whatsoever ye shall bind on carth c. I conceive to be absurd impertinent a yoke laid upon Christians necks which is none of Christs as if whomsoever pastors do bind or excommunicate on earth Christ also doth bind or excommunicate in Heaven and whomsoever they absolve or loose on earth Christ also doth absolve and loose in Heaven 1. Since the words Matth. 16. and 18. be the very same words it is absurd to understand them in the 16. chapter absolutely but in the 18. conditionally Now they would have the words Matth. 16. whatsoever ye shall bind c. spoken to Peter to be without condition and absolute that God should approve of and ratify whatever opening loosing and binding should ensue upon Peters preaching and converting of souls for Calvin Pareus and most Divines will not have in that place any thing understood of church-censures but only of the operation of the word by the preaching of Peter But though it were granted that in the 18. chapter Christ spake of church censures by excommunication what reason is there why they should not be understood as absolute and without condition in one chapter as well as in the other For in the 18. chapter they put a condition to the absolute words of Christ saying that
all that is bound on earth by excommunication is not alwaies ratified and approved of in Heaven for were not as they say a modification put to the words of Christ all the judgements and sentences on earth had need be infallible It is true that parallel places of Scripture may admit various senses as it may be these very words of Christ or that something more may be implyed in one place then in the other But yet whether both places or either of them be meant of the operation of the word or of the miraculous power granted unto the Apostles and particularly as Mr. Lightfoot expoundeth them of a power to dispense with the Christian church in something that was to be retained or quitted of the Mosaicall laws and rites yet it must be acknowledged that both places are alike to be understood absolutely and without condition that whatever should be bound or loosed by them on earth should also infallibly be either bound or loosed in Heaven For to understand one place absolutely and the other conditionally and clave non errante when no errour can intervene I conceive ought not to be admitted in Divinity In short either the words Matth. 16. absolutely spoken must be false and admit some exception which cannot be said without blasphemy or the same words repeated in the 18. chapter must not be understood of excommunication nor of any church-censure 2. Since it is evident that the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of binding and loosing are equivalent expressions and those both equally committed to ministers if by the keyes are not meant the power of excommunicating absolving neither can the power of binding and loosing mean excommunication For sure these keyes cannot be understood of an outward admission or exclusion but only of the conversion of a sinner by the preaching of the word But suppose that these keyes were also to admit into the visible church yet they can not be employed to put out of the church a key being an instrument either to let in or keep out but not to expell those that are in 3. Who can conceive that those words Matth. 18. whatsoever ye shall bind c. being uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ with such a prefatory asseveration verily I say unto you should not be true without a condition and an exception put to them and yet that the same words Matth. 16. without such a preface should be perpetually absolutely true And who would believe that the Lord Jesus Christ had pronounced in such an emphaticall way vertily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind c. only to signify an externall admission or exclusion in the doing of which acts ministers may erre out of ignorance either of right or of fact if not out of hatred or too much indulgence and favour 4. Since they say that a man by excommunication is delivered to Satan what an uncharitable act do they commit against any one be he never so wicked by putting him into such a condition as they know is worse then his former when they are not sure whether occasionally it may better him neither is it in their power to drive away Satan again from the man as it was in St. Paul Besides no man would punish a child a servant or a malefactour with a punishment that shall last to his lifes end as to torture him till death or to whip him as long as he liveth or put him in a prison that may prove perpetuall for still the earthly father or judge reserveth to himself the liberty to give over correcting when it pleaseth him But those that deliver a man to Satan by excommunication do inflict a penalty which it is not in their power to take off again being not able when they list to recover a man out of the Devils pawes 5. Most school-men and Divines hold that the sentence of excommunication is of a quite different nature from the lawes and sentences of men which have the force and validity of law be they never so unjust and must be obeyed either actively or passively for if no law were valid but that which is just and righteous then should no law be obeyed by any but those that could see equity and justice in it Which sheweth the nullity of excommunication for whosoever doubts whether such an excommunication was pronounced upon right grounds and good information or whether excommunication in it self is lawfull may well count the excommunication null and of no weight yea if the party excommunicated doth but say that he was wrongfully excommunicated and clave errante or that those that did it had no power so to do he may disannull as to himself and so to all others the excommunication For as long as the knowledge of a valid excommunication is grounded upon matter of fact which is known but to few most men may still question that which they are not concerned to believe and whereof they have no certain knowledge 6. Some to avoid that inconvenience that God should be made to ratify what the pastor acts in excommunicating say and it is the opinion of Beza that excommunication is rather a declaration of what God hath already done in Heaven then an act preceding Gods in approving or disapproving the ministers sentence But one and the same inconvenience followeth thereupon whether excommunication be taken for an act preceding the act of God or subsequent to it For if excommunication be a declaration of what God hath already done or decreed to be done it would follow that all the acts of pastors in excommunicating were infallible for if they were fallible it were not possible to know when excommunication ought to be received for a valid act untill the mind and counsell of God were revealed and it were known to be agreeable with the censure of excommunication And therefore Wicliff thought all excommunications void and null except he that excommunicateth were first informed that the party whom he was to excommunicate was excommunicated by God and this was held one of his errours in the councill of Constance Art 11. 7. Calvin in the 3. book of his Institutions chap. 4. § 14. saith that excommunication is no farther valid then as binding in heaven answereth to that on earth for he hath no stronger argument to make void the Romish excommunication then by retorting that many among them are either bound or loosed on earth unworthily which notwithstanding are not bound or loosed in Heaven If this exception against all Romish excommunication is good in Calvins mouth why should it loose its strength in my mouth for by the same argument I disannull all excommunication because all sentences of God in Heaven do not alwayes correspond to those that are pronounced upon earth 8. The same Calvin upon Matth. 18. pleading for the nullity of Romish excommunication useth this argument that the power of the keyes and of binding loosing belong only to those that have received the holy Ghost
Which indeed overthroweth all kind of excommunication for if the validity of an outward act dependeth upon the inward grace the validity of the act will be uncertain till dooms-day to those that know not whether he that hath pronounced the sentence of excommunication is endowed with the holy Ghost or no. Perkins goeth along with Calvin upon the third of the Revelation making all excommunication void which is not pronounced by one that hath the spirit For saith he to the society only of the regenerate and faithfull is it said Whatsoever ye shall bind c. 9. But were it so that every pastor excommunicating had received the holy Ghost yet the validity of all excommunication could not be thence inferred since even a man endowed with the holy Ghost except he hath received a spirit of divination may be ill informed and erre ignorantly ignorantia facti aut juris 10. Those that by binding and loosing in Heaven understand only approving of the sentence past on earth have no stronger plea for excommunication except all sentences of excommunication be the product of an infallible judgement for God is so far from approving of an unjust sentence that his will is that it should be disannulled 11. But how can it consist with reason that God at once should ratify approve and dislike a sentence pronounced on earth for they will have him to ratify in Heaven an unjust sentence passed on earth because they say his will is that the party should stand to the sentence though unjust and not intrude to the Sacrament without he be legally absolved and yet the while they say that God doth not ratify or approve of an unjust excommunication because unjust so that at once the same sentence will be valid and invalid valid because legally passed yet invalid because unjust 12. Those that by binding and loosing understand pardoning and retaining sins though they speak truth making the place Matth. 18. v. 18. parallel to that of John 20. v. 22. whatsoever sins c. yet they say nothing for excommunication which is neither pardoning nor retaining of sins It is not pardoning for then excommunication must be counted a blessing neither can it be retaining of sins for since as they say the end of excommunication is that the soul may be saved retaining of sins or rather of pardon cannot be a means to that end 13. Since excommunication is a putting out of the communion I would fain know whither that outing is from the communion of a private church or from the communion of the catholick visible church or else from the communion of the Saints which is spoken of in the Creed for I know but of these three communions If it be only a putting out of the communion of a private church then a man excommunicated in one congregation or parish is not excommunicated in the neighbour church If it be a putting out of the catholick visible church then a man excommunicated in London shall be likewise excommunicated in any part of the world And if the vertue of excommunication extendeth all over the world as indeed so it must be since it reacheth to heaven then any church or pastors of that communion whatsoever may excommunicate any one within that communion and a presbytery in Scotland may excommunicate a man in Switzerland and therefore it must not seem strange that the Pope doth excommunicate Emperours and Kings since they are of his communion 14. Excommunication cannot be a putting out of the communion of Saints and of the invisible church of which none is outed but by his falling from grace 15. Neither can excommunication be a putting out of a presbyterian church nor out of such an hierarchie as was lately in England which are but meer politick systems of many particular societies either under the magistrate of the land or under a power of magistracy assumed by common consent as is the body of the reformed churches in France for then such an excommunication were rather like a banishment or deprivement of liberty then a spirituall censure which are no more bounded and circumscribed by the limits of the magistrate then remission or retention of sins or the vertue of baptisme are 16. Neither can it be proved that those words whatsoever ye shall bind c. are to be understood of exclusion rather from the Eucharist then from the assembly or from either and that there is greater danger of corrupting good manners in receiving the Eucharist with a dissolute man then in conversing with him when as quite contrary to eat with carnall and deboist persons is a more contagious commerce then to partake of the Eucharist with them 17. Neither can they infer out of that Text whatsoever c. or any other whether a church a synod a presbytery whether one minister or two may excommunicate But if the power of excommunicating be included within the power of the keyes and of binding loosing which we have made good to belong only to the dispensers of the word and not to church-members or to lay-elders it will necessarily follow that one single pastor set over four or five thousand communicants must have power to excommunicate alone without the assistance of other ministers for every single minister having received entirely the povver of the keyes and of binding and loosing must needs also have received ability to do vvhatsoever is included vvithin that povver 18. It is to be noted that Christ doth not speak of binding and loosing of men but of things for he doth not say whomsoever but whatsoever and therefore our adversaries the Papists extend the povver of excommunication further then the presbyterians do for they excommunicate not only men but any other living creatures as Mice vvhereof Thuanus hath a notable example CHAPTER XXX That excommunication was mainly subservient to the working of the mystery of iniquity That the corrupting of the doctrine of the Eucharist made way for excommunication I Should next shew that excommunication was mainly subservient to the working of the mystery of iniquity but this I have handled at large in my Paraenesis St. Paul saith that in his time the mystery of iniquity began to work Satan was then very busy to infuse bad principles which first put forth themselves in the affectation of primacy and in the corruption of the doctrine of the Eucharist The laity had no hand in it for as Ministers have alwayes been the principall chanels to conveigh knowledge and grace when assisted by the spirit of God so when God gave them over to the guidance of their own spirits they have been still the only agents and instruments to bring in tyranny and heresy into the church The corruption then beginning at the head amongst the leaders of flocks their main care hath been to set up themselves not only over the inheritance of the Lord but also over their own fellow-labourers and collegues for the attaining of which and to seem great in the eyes of all men they