ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted c. Where 1. Many by the Holy Ghost understand spiritual power or power of and from the Spirit 2 This power is not a power of Ordination or Jurisdiction in foro exteriori but a power of Remission and Retention of sins in foro interiori poenitentiali as the Schoolmen and Casuists speak 3. They remit and retain sins by the Word and Sacraments Therefore in the ordination of Presbyters both in the Pontifical of Rome and our Ordination-book these words are used and after them are added with some ceremony this passage Be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and his holy Sacraments And again the Bible delivered into the hands of the party ordained Take thou authority to preach the Word of God and to administer the Holy Sacraments 4. This is the power of the Keys promised Matthew 16.19 which place he himself understands of Conversion by the Word 5. This is the essential power of a Presbyter as a Presbyter section 6 In the third place as neither the context antecedent nor consequent help him so neither do the words themselves For except the similitude and agreement between his Fathers Mission and his be Universal and adequate or some ways specifically determined unto this particular imparity of the twelve and seventy and also of Bishops and Presbyters his Exposition can never be made good That it is not Universal is evident and that by his own Confession who tells us that the Father sent Christ to redeem but Christ never sent the Apostles to do any such thing As and So are notes of similitude indeed and therefore his Fathers Mission of him and his Mission of the Apostles must agree in something And so they do 1. He was sent so were they 2. He received the Spirit so did they 3. He was sent to preach and do miracles so were they 4. His Mission was extraordinary so was theirs Sicut est nota similitudinis and as a Lapide saith may signifie similitudinem Officii principii finis miraculorum amoris yet none of these can serve his turn Therefore saith Grotius and that truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliquam non omnimodam similitudinem significat Gerrard upon the same words as used by our Saviour Joh. 17.18 multiplies the analogy and makes these two missions agree in fifteen particulars yet he never thought of this Christ as he observes was sent 1. To redeem 2. To preach the Gospel so they were sent not to redeem but to preach and did succeed him not in his sacerdotal but prophetical Office by the Word and Sacraments to apply the Redemption not as Priests to expiate sins Seeing therefore the analogy is not universal nor any ways by the Context antecedent or consequent or the Text it self determined to this particular but to another as is apparent therefore his Exposition is frivolous his Supposition false and the Text no ground of an Hierarchical Episcopacy Yet he proceeds to prove this imparity from examples 1. Of Peter and John sent to Samaria that by imposition of hands as of Bishops they whom Philip had converted as a meer Presbyter might receive the Holy Ghost 2. From Barnabas sent as a Bishop as he takes for granted to Antioch to confirm the believing Jews converted by the dispersed Saints in that Faith they had received But will it follow that Peter and John and Barnabas were Bishops invested with the power of ordination and jurisdiction because they were sent by the Church of Jerusalem not to ordain or make Canons or censure but by imposition of hands and prayer give the Holy Ghost and confirm the new Converts of Samaria and Antioch how irrational and absurd is this 3. He instanceth in Timothy left by Paul at Ephesus and Titus left by him at Creet to ordain Elders and order other matters of those Churches not fully constituted and perfected for Doctrine Worship and Discipline But let it be granted that they had power of Ordination and Jurisdiction yet 1. It will not follow from hence that because they had it therefore Presbyters had it not Nor 2. That they had it without Presbyters where Presbyters might be had Nor 3. That they had it as Bishops which is the very thing to be proved 4. The plain truth is that they had it in those places and for that time as commissioned and trusted by the Apostle to do many things in that Church according to the Canons sent them by the Apostles which they had no power to make themselves Dr. Andrews taking all Apostolical power to be divine affirms Episcopacy to be a distinct order and of divine institution and grounds himself upon the testimony of Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Hierome Ambrose Chrysostome Epiphanius and Theodoret who all write that Ignatius Polycarpus Timothy Titus and others were made Bishops and of a distinct Order above Presbyters by the Apostles themselves Yet 1. If he mean by Apostolical whatsoever is done by the Apostles then many things Apostolical are not Divine much less of Divine Institution and Obligation For many things were done by them in matters of the Church by a meer ordinary power 2. The testimony of all these Fathers is but humane and according to his own rule cannot be believed but with an humane and fallible Faith Et quod fide divina non credendum fide divina non agendum 3. If he meant that those had power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as Bishops he contradicts himself affirming that this power of the Keyes was given immediately by Christ not to Peter not to the Apostles but to the Church and the Church had it to the Church it was ratified the Church doth exercise it and transfer it upon one or more qui ejus post vel exercendae vel denunciandae facultatem habeant Tortura Torti p. 42. So that none can have it but as delegates of the Church not as Bishops or Officers section 4 The last instance from Scriptures is in the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia and he affirms these were Bishops But 1. So they might be and yet only Presbyters 2. Suppose they were more then Presbyters and super-intendents at least it doth not follow they were Hierarchical Bishops For if they were it must appear from some divine Record or else how can I certainly believe it 3. Let them be Hierarchical Prelates yet it must be made evident by what warrant and institution they became such The institution must be grounded either upon the practise or precepts of Christ or his Apostles yet all these grounds have been formerly examined But 4. Doth any man think that these Letters and Messages were sent only to seven Persons who were Bishops It s evident and clear as the Sun they were directed to the whole Churches to the Ministers which are called by the name of Angels and to the people For the whole Church of Ephesus of Smyrna and of the rest is
really contradicted by violent storms so it falls out here I hoped to have landed in a Region of perpetual peace but I was found in a Terra del Fuego a land of fire and smoak like unto Palma one of the seven Canary Islands where in September 1646 or thereabouts a fire first raged fearfully in the bowels of the earth and at length brake out and ran in five several fiery sulphurious streams into the main In like manner this power of the Keys runs in five several Channels but very turbulently and impetuously For the Pope the Prince the Prelate the Presbyter the Plebean rank do every one of them severally challenge it and nothing under a Jus divinum will serve the turn Therefore I will 1. Examine their several Titles 2. Deliver mine own judgement 3. Add something of the extent of a particular Church section 2 And this shall be my Method and the several Heads of my ensuing Treatise before I enter upon the second part of the Constitution of a Common-wealth which is Pars subdita The first title is that of the great Roman Pontiffe who perhaps will storm and that with indignation against any who shall presume to examine it This Bishop is the greatest Prelate and Clergy-man in the world And as old Rome from a poor beginning and a few people became the Imperial City of the world so this Prelate from a poor pesecuted Minister of the Gospel attained to this pitch of glory and contrary to the example of Christ and his Apostles lives in so great splendour pomp and State terrene that the Princes of the world cannot parallel him and for the power which he doth exercise and challange he his far above them His Court is very magnificent and cannot be maintained without a vast Revenue Some say that he is that second beast which came out of the earth and had two horns of a Lamb but spake as a Dragon and exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him c. Rev. 13.11 12. His name is Satanos his number 25. He assumed the title of Universal Bishop about the year of our Lord 666. So that his number in the name in the radical sum and in the time of his appearance is 666. And for orders sake I might 1. Observe the power 2. Relate the several reasons whereby the title to this power is confirmed 3. Examine whether they be sufficient or no 1. The power which is challenged is transcendent and very great and that not only extensively but intensively too it 's such as men never had and therefore could never give And therefore though he came out of the earth yet he derives it from Heaven To be the first Patriarch of the Imperial See will not serve the turn neither will he be content to be a man and fallible he must be infallible Neither will this satisfie him he must be the visible Head of the Universal Church universal Bishop and Monarch over all persons all Churches in all Causes Ecclesiastical Nay this Power is so extensive that he must have something to do in Heaven and much to do in Hell. He must be above all General Councils They cannot Assemble Conclude Dissolve without his power He must be President all Canons and Judgments which they pass without him are of no force and only what he approves is valid His very Letters must be Laws and if he please of Universal Obligation His Reservations and Dispensations are very high his judgments irreversible he receives last appeals from all Churches in the World he Judgeth all is Judged of none His power to execute is strange and his policy wonderful He hath plenitude of power Ecclesiastical Yet this will not suffice him he hath acquired temporal Dominions and is a secular Prince And because his Territories are not large he hath found out a way to possess himself of the Sword and all temporal power in ordine ad spiritualia must be his section 3 But what are the reasons whereupon this vast power is grounded Surely they do build upon a rock and not upon the sand Their reasons are taken from Politicks from the ancient Writers and from Scriptures too 1. From Politicks they take this for granted that amongst humane Governments Monarchy is the best 2. That amongst Monarchies Despotical excels this they dare not expresly affirm yet the papal power which is challenged is such 3. That if Monarchy be the best then surely the Government of the Church is Monarchical for that being instituted from Heaven must needs be the most perfect 4. That the first Monarch visible of the Church was Peter 5. That Peter was made such by Christ and received a power to transmit it to others and appoint his Successours 6. That he fixed his See at Rome and made the Bishop of that City his Heir so that he is haeres ex asse 7. That so soon as any person is legally elected Bishop of that See he is ipso facto the Universal Monarch and the proper subject of plenitude of all Ecclesiastical power 2. The Epithetes the Elogies the Encomiums of the Bishop and the See of Rome are collected out of ancient Writers and marshalled in order and they make a goodly show and who dare say any thing against them 3. Yet because these are not of divine Authority therefore they search the holy Scriptures and find it written that Peter was the only person and Apostle to whom Christ gave the Keys of Heaven's Kingdom and he must bind and loose on earth and what he shall so do on earth shall be made good in Heaven If this will not serve the turn Christ saith to Peter and to no other Apostles If thou love me feed my Flock my Lambs my Sheep and to feed is to govern and the Flock Lambs and Sheep are the Church section 4 Yet notwithstanding all these reasons many rational men think and they have reason for it that this power is so great that it 's intolerable presumption for any person to challenge it impossible for any man duly to manage it but only Jesus Christ who knew no sin and was not only man but the Son of the living God. Besides wise men do certainly know that the power was usurped and possessed by degrees first and afterwards the greatest Wits were set on work to invent a title the usual way of all unjust Usurpers 1. As for their Politicks they help them little for in that reason from Government they presuppose all and prove nothing from first to last neither can any wit of man prove any of their supposals yet all must be proved and that demonstratively and every one of them made evident otherwise the vast mighty Fabrick falls to the ground Many of themselves know in their Conscience the invalidity and weakness of every one of them 2. As for these passages of ancient Writers which seem so much to honour and advance that Church above others many of them are Hyperbolical and Rhetorical
had already sworn could have found as many reasons against it as against the Covenant especially if it had been new as the Covenant was Many wise men at the first did scruple it and some suffered death for refusal Amongst the rest Sir Thomas Moor a learned and a very prudent man could not digest it and though he might have an high conceit of the Papal Supremacy yet that might not be the only reason of his refusal but this because he knew the Crown had no Ecclesiastical power properly so called Though this was not thought to be the true but only the pretended cause of his death For in his Vtopia he seems to dislike the Indisputable Prerogative which was a Noli me tangere and to touch it so roughly as he did might cost dear as it did Yet I have taken the Oath of Supremacy in that sense as our Divines did understand it and I was and am willing to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's section 4 That which hath been said in this point in brief is this That though the Civil Powers have a right to order matters of Religion in respect of the outward part and so far as the Sword may reach it according to Divine Law yet they have no power of the Keys which Christ committed to the Church For if we consider all the power exercised in matter of Religion by David Solomon and the pious Kings of Judah by the Christian Emperours and Princes by the Kings of France and England it was but civil Neither is the power of our Parliaments any other For though they make Acts concerning the publick Doctrine and Discipline yet these are but civil They are not Representatives of the Church but of the State whether the Convocation was an essential part of the Parliament or a full representative of the Church I will not here debate I find some great Lawyers which deny both And if their denial be true then England had no general Representative of the Church in latter times As for Erastians and such as do give all Ecclesiastical power of Discipline to the State and deny all power to the Ministers but that of dispensing Word and Sacraments it 's plain they never understood the state of the Question and though a Minister as a Minister have no power but that of Word and Sacraments yet from thence it will not follow that the Church hath not a power spiritual distinct from that of the State in matters of Religion CHAP. XI Whether Episcopacy be the primary subject of the Power of the Keys section 1 THE Prelate presumes that the power of the Keys is his and he thinks his title very good and so good that though he could not prove the institution yet prescription will bear him out For he hath had possession for a long time and Universality and Antiquity seem to favour him very much Yet I hope his title may be examined and if upon examination it prove good he hath no cause to be offended except with this that I of all others should meddle with it But before any thing can be said to purpose we must first know the nature and institution of a Bishop which is the subject of the Question Secondly Put the Reader in mind that the Question is not in this place whether a Bishop be an Officer of the Church either by some special or some general Divine Precept but whether he be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the primary subject of the power of the Keys For he may be an Officer and yet no such subject Concerning a Bishop the subject of the Question two things are worthy our consideration 1. What he is 2. How instituted at the first The Definition and Institution seem rather to belong unto the second part of Ecclesiastical Politicks where I shall entreat of Ecclesiastical Officers and the constitution of them Yet I will here say something of both in order to the Question though I be the briefer afterward section 2 What a Bishop is may be difficult to know except we do distinguish before we do define For we find several sorts of Bishops in the Church Christian. There is a Primitive a Prelatical or Hierarchical and an English Bishop distinct and different in some things from both the former for whom I reserve a place in the end of this Chapter The Primitive Bishop is twofold 1. A Presbyter 2. A President or Superintendent 1. A Presbyter in the New Testament is a Bishop For the Elders of Ephesus were made by the Holy Ghost Bishops or Superintendents over God's flock Acts 20.28 And the qualification of a Bishop 1 Tim. 3.1 2 3 c. is the qualification of an Elder Tit. 1.5 6 7 c. For whatsoever some of late have said to the contrary yet Presbyter and Bishop were only two different words signifying the same Officer And this is confessed by divers of the Ancients who tell us that the word Bishop was appropriated to one who was more than a Presbyter in after-times 2. A Bishop signified one that was above a Presbyter in some respects as a Moderatour of a Classis or President of a Synod But such a Presbyter might be only pro tempore for the time of the Session and after the Assembly dissolved he might return to be a bare Presbyter again For to be a Moderatour or President was no constant place The word in this sense we find seldom used if at all 2. A President was a kind of Superintendent with a care and inspection not only over the people but the Presbyters too within a certain precinct and this was a constant place and the party called a Bishop and by Ambrose and Austine with divers others called primus Presbyterorum and these were such as had no power but with the Presbytery joyntly and that without a negative voice And the Presbytery might be a Representative not only of the Presbyters strictly taken but of the people too For we may read in Cyprian and other Authours that these Bishops in more weighty matters of publick concernment did nothing without the counsel and consent not only of the Presbyters but the people This I call a primitive Bishop not only because he is ancient but also because the place or office is agreeable to the rules of Reason of Government and the general Rules of the Apostles concerning Order Decency Edification There is also an Hierarchical Bishop who may be only a Bishop or an Archbishop and Metropolitan or a Patriarch and these challenge the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and in Jurisdiction include and engross the power of making Canons This kind of Episcopacy is ancient as the former This last Bishop is he upon whom Spalatensis and many others do fix and though they grant that he should do nothing without the Counsel of the Presbytery yet they give him full power without the Presbytery which they joyn with him only for advice The English Bishop is in
something different from all these as shall be made evident hereafter From these distinctions it 's apparent that the word Bishop is equivocal and must be defined several ways according to the several significations which is easily done by that which hath been said already section 3 For the first institution of Episcopacy there is as great difference in that as in the former and that not only in respect of the time when it was instituted but also of the Author of the institution Those that are zealous for Episcopacy must needs have the institution to be Divine whosoever the Author may be whether Christ or his Apostles Some learned and pious men make Christ the immediate Author in that mission 1. Of the twelve Apostles 2. Of the seventy Disciples In which mission they observe 1. An imparity between the twelve and the seventy which imparity they say continued in the Bishops succeeding the Apostles and the Presbyters succeeding the Disciples but these will satisfie no considerate man. For though it be granted that there was some imparity yet 1. The mission of both was immediately from Christ. 2. It was for the same work to preach the Gospel and do Miracles in confirmation of the same 3. They were limited and confined to the Jew 4. There was no imparity of power and jurisdiction of the one over the other both were immediately subject to Christ. 5. That some of the Ancients say the Bishops succeeded the Apostles and Presbyters the seventy Disciples can hardly be true or any ways made good Seeing therefore this mission of both was immediate and for Doctrine and not for Discipline it cannot reach the power challenged grounded upon it The School of Sorbonne was of this mind and say it was a ground of the Hierarchy But if it was a ground it was but very infirm for the Hierarchy was but introduced jure humano non divino as may and will be made evident Others wave this and make the institution Apostolical yet in this they differ For some say it was from the Apostles as Apostles and immediately inspired and in this particular and then it is Divine indeed Others tell us it was from them as acting by an ordinary and Ecclesiastical power Again it may be grounded upon some Apostolick Precept of Divine Universal and perpetual Obligation or upon their Practice and Example The former the Convocation at Oxford in their Scruples against taking the Covenant dare not affirm and indeed no such Precept doth appear Again the Precepts of the Apostles were either General or Special And if there be not some special divine Precept for this institution it cannot be of perpetual Obligation nor necessary Epiphanius confuting the Heresie of Aerius if he be consistent with himself must needs be of this mind because he affirms that the businesses of the Church may be fully dispatched and performed by Presbyters and Deacons without a Bishop Hierome makes Episcopacy an humane Constitution and not Divine In this some excuse him but Spalatensis saith he cannot be excused Medina chargeth him and other of the Fathers with the Aerian Heresie As for those words of his Quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod non faciat Presbyter they may seem to reserve a power of Ordination as proper to the Bishop and in this Respect Episcopacy may be of a divine Constitution Yet Marsilius understands by Ordination the constitution of the Church not the ordination of Ministers And there is great reason to think so because otherwise his words are directly false and known to be so if meant of Ordination of Presbyters by imposition of hands for long before his time the Bishops did many things which a Presbyter could not do neither could a Bishop Ordain without Presbyters If they had this Power to themselves alone and that by divine Donation Hierome must plainly contradict himself If Hierome meant the Hierarchical Episcopacy which then in many places was the only Episcopacy then it 's most certain that that was not from God but man not from divine but humane Constitution And the Hierarchical subordination seems to be ordained directly to avoid Schism which that learned man saith was the Occasion of that Episcopacy section 4 Though it would take up a full Volume to answer in Particular all those who have asserted and endeavoured to prove the Divine right of this Hierarchical Prelate invested with the Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and therefore here I might be silent yet seeing the substance of all the rest may be read in Spalatensis therefore I will single him out and consider the force of his Reasons which are insisted upon by others to this day And here we must observe 1. That the Bishop which he maintaineth is Hierarchical and one invested with the Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction 2. That his intention and design is to prove him to be of Divine Institution 3. To this purpose he alledgeth several Scriptures and he seems to find the fundamental Charter in these words of our Saviour As my Father sent me so I send you c. John 20.21 22. Where I will observe 1. His interpretation of the words 2. His supposition of imparity between the twelve Apostles and seventy Disciples 3. Examine whether the Texts antecedent or consequent or the words themselves do favour him 1. Therefore he determines the agreement betwen his Fathers mission of him and his Mission of them to be this That as his Father gave him power to ordain and constitute them in a superior rank of power and Jurisdiction and the seventy Disciples of an inferior Order so he gave them Power likewise to appoint their successors in a twofold rank 1. Bishops with a full Apostolical ordinary power 2. Presbyters without any such power of Ordination and Jurisdiction for so he means 2. In this Exposition he presupposeth an imparity of power but very absurdly For he gives the Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to the Bishops alone but none at all to the Presbyters And whereas imparity is a difference only in degrees he makes the difference of the Bishops and Presbyters to be essential and specifical But of this before and if any desire to see more let them read the Doctors of Sorbonne concerning this particular in their tract De Ecclesiastica Politica potestate Thus you have heard 1. His Exposition 2. His Supposition Now it follows we enquire Whether either of them have any warrant or so much as colour from the Context Antecedent or Consequent The Antecedent favours him not For ver 19. it 's said not that the Apostles but Disciples were together and the Seventy are called Disciples and some of them might be there and his words directed to them and if this be so the very foundation of the argument from this place is rased Neither doth the words following help him but are point-blank against him For verses 22 23. it 's said He breathed upon them and saith unto them Receive
Pope or Prince if they be the primary subject they must be such either severally every one in his several Diocess or joyntly in a Synod If severally then every one is a Monarch in his Diocess and so the government of the Church is Monarchical and every several Bishop supream and independent And if so where are our Arch-Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs And why do we dispute against the Monarchical Government and not grant to Bellarmine and others that it is Monarchical in general though we deny the Pope to be the sole Monarch If joyntly in a Synod or Council provincial or national of one Nation and several Provinces or several Nations or general then they are not such as Bishops but either as members of the Synod or as delegates If as members of the Synod and none can be members but Bishops as Bishops then the government of the Church is purely Aristocratical and then it s worse then a pure Monarchy where there can be but one Tyrant whereas in a pure Aristocracy there are usually many Tyrants or at least it proves an Oligarchy And in this respect neither can a provincial Council be subject to a antional nor a national to a general If as Delegates they have this power as in general Councils they are then they cannot be the primary subject And all these if they will make their cause good they must prove which they can never do that none but Bishops have right of suffrage in Councils 3. If their title be good it must be grounded either upon Scripture or universal and perpetual custom but from neither of these can it be proved as shall appear hereafter For by Scripture its evident that the Church was made by Christs institution the immediate and primary subject and so confessed by Bishops by many great Schollars and by general Councils too The first Church which was made such a subject included the Apostles who in their ordinary capacity were but parts and members though eminent members of the same 4. If any shall say that Bishops as Officers of the Church are the primary subject of this power that implies a contradiction because if the power of all Officers as Officers is derivative and as the Apostles being Officers of Christ derived their Apostolical Power from Christ so if Bishops be Officers of the Church they derive their Power from the Church which is the primitive subject section 10 Though both the Definition and the Institution of a Bishop be uncertain and there is no Universal consent in respect of either yet I think a constant Superintendent trusted with an Inspection not only over the People but the Presbyters within a reasonable Precinct if he be duly qualified and rightly chosen may be lawful and the place agreeable to Scripture yet I do not conceive that this kind of Episcopacy is grounded upon any divine special Precept of Universal Obligation making it necessary for the being of a Church or Essential Constitution of Presbyters Neither is there any Scripture which determines the Form how such a Bishop or any other may be made Yet it may be grounded upon general Precepts of Scripture concerning Decency Unity Order and Edification but so that Order and Decency may be observed by another way and Unity and Edification obtained by other means But there are many in these our days which make Episcopacy invested with power of Ordination at least of that necessity that if Ministers be not ordained by them they are no Ministers They make the being of the Ministry and the power of the Sacraments to depend on them and they further add that without a succession of these Bishops we cannot maintain our Ministry against the Church of Rome But 1. Where do they find in Scripture any special Precept of universal and perpetual Obligation which doth determine that imposition of Hands of the Presbytery doth essentially constitute a Presbyter and that the imposition of Hands if it did so was invalid without an Hierarchical Bishop or a certain constant superintendent with them And if they will have their Doctrine to stand good such a Precept they must produce which they have not done which I am confident they cannot do 2. As for Succession of such Bishops after so long a time so many Persecutions and so great Alterations in the Churches of all Nations its impossible to make it clear Eusebius himself doth so preface unto his Catalogue of Bishops that no rational man can so much as yield a probable assent unto him in that particular But suppose it had been far clearer yet it could not merit the force of a divine Testimony it would have been only humane and could not have been believed but with a probable Faith. Nay Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius and others do not agree in the first and immediate Successors of the Apostles no not of the Roman Church For Irenaeus makes Clemens the third whom Tertullian determines to be the first from the Apostles Yet they all agree in this that the Succession of Persons without Succession of the same Doctrine was nothing Tertullian confesseth that there were many Churches which could not shew the Succession of Persons but of Doctrine from the Apostles and that was sufficient And the Succession of Persons is so uncertain that whosoever shall make either the being of a Church or the Ministry or the power of the Sacraments depend upon it shall so offend Christ's little ones and be guilty of such a scandal as it were better for him that a Mill-stone were hanged about his neck and he cast into the Sea. The power of saving mens Souls depends not upon Succession of Persons according to humane Institutions but upon the Apostolical Doctrine accompanied by the divine Spirit If upon the exercise of their Ministerial Power men are converted find Comfort in their Doctrine and the Sacraments and at their end deliver up their Souls unto God their Redeemer and that with unspeakable Joy this is a divine confirmation of their Ministry and the same more real and manifest than any Personal Succession To maintain the Ministry of England from their Ordination by Bishops and the Bishops by their Consecration according to the Canons of the Council of Carthage was a good Argument ad hominem yet it should be made good as it may be by far better Arguments and such as will serve the Interest of other Protestant and reformed Churches who have sufficiently proved their Ministry legal and by Experience through God's Blessing upon their Labours have found it effectual But suppose the Succession of our English Episcopacy could be made good since the Reformation it 's to little purpose except you can justifie the Popish Succession up to the time of the Apostles which few will undertake none I fear will perform Divers reasons perswade me to believe they cannot do any thing in this particular to purpose but amongst the rest this doth much sway with me that there can be no Succession without some
distinct and determinate form of Consecration and Ordination and except this form be determined by a special precept of Scripture it cannot be of divine Obligation But any such special precept which should prescribe the distinct forms of Consecration and Ordination we find not at all We have some examples of constituting Church-Officers by Election with the imposition of Hands and Prayer yet this was common to all even to Deacons So that the very forms of making Bishops and Presbyters as we find them both in the English Book of Ordination and the Pontifical of Rome are meerly Arbitrary as having no particular ground but at the best only a general Rule in Scripture which leaves a liberty for several distinct Forms If any notwithstanding all this out of an high conceit of Episcopacy will refuse Communion with such Churches which have no Bishops and yet are Orthodox or will account those no Ministers who are ordained by Presbyters without a Bishop let such take heed least they prove guilty of Schisms The substance of all this is That Bishops are not the primary subject of the power of the Keys CHAP. XII Whether Presbytery or Presbyters be the Primary Subject of the Power of the Keyes section 1 IN divers parts of Europe where Episcopacy hath been abolished Presbytery did succeed and that as it is asserted by many upon such grounds as will prove it as pure an Aristocracy as that of Episcopacy was The parties indeed have been changed and instead of Bishops we have Presbyters and though the former imparity be taken away yet the form of Government which is Aristocratical remains I have formerly heard many complain that the Bishops had cast off the Presbyters and now some do not like it well that the Presbyters have cast off the Bishops yet both do seem to agree to exclude the people as distinct from the Clergy engrossing the whole Power to themselves These pure Aristocratical Forms have for the most part proved dangerous especially in the Church because they do much incline unto Oligarchy and usually degenerate into the same section 2 But to observe some Order I will 1. Examine what these Presbyters are 2. Whether these being known can according to Christ's Institution be the Primary Subject of this power 3. Add something concerning our English Presbytery 1. These Presbyters are of two sorts 1. Some are preaching 2. Some are not preaching but only ruling Presbyters or Elders The former are trusted with the Dispensation of the Word and Sacraments the latter are not Both have the same Name and are Elders yet differ much in respect of their Ecclesiastical being Of the preaching Elder I shall speak more at large in the second Book in the Chapter of Ecclesiastical Officers This word Elder we do not find used either in the Old or New Testament in an Ecclesiastical sense before we read it in the Acts and after that we find it used about fifteen times in that kind of Notion The first place is Acts 11.30 the last 1 Pet. 5.1 Except we add that of 2 John 1. In many of these places the word doth signifie a preaching Elder and Minister of the Gospel and that most clearly and evidently and if in any place it doth signifie some other Elder it will be most difficult if not impossible to define what he should be Yet this Elder which is presupposed to be distinct from the Minister of the Gospel is said to be an Officer of the Church which together with the preaching Presbyter hath power of Jurisdiction in Eccesiastical Causes To prove that there is such an Elder and that of Divine Institution three places are principally insisted upon and these I find discussed and expounded 1. In the London Divines 2. Before them in Gillaspec 3. Before him in Gersome Bucerus and they all go one way The first of these we read Rom. 12.8 He that ruleth with diligence that is let him that ruleth rule with diligence where he that ruleth must be a ruling Elder distinct from the preaching But 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not properly signifie a Governour or Ruler invested with power of Command and Jurisdiction but a prime person set above before over others for inspection guidance and due ordering of Persons Things or Actions 2. Suppose in this place it should signifie one invested with Jurisdiction how doth it appear that it is such a Ruler Ecclesiastical as is distinct from a preaching Elder There is nothing in the place to evince it 3. Seeing a Minister of the Gospel is a Ruler in Discipline as is by themselves confessed how may it be proved that the person here meant is not the preaching Elder though not as a preaching Elder but a Pastor over a Flock For it must signifie him alone or him joyntly with that other kind of Elder For if both be Rulers both must rule well 4. It cannot be demonstrated that the place speaks of Discipline at all For the place speaks of Gifts whereof one person may have many and his Duty is to exercise them all for the Edification of the Church section 3 The second place is 1 Cor. 12.28 Where the word translated Governments must signifie this Ruling Officer distinct from the preaching Elder But first We find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for to signifie a Pilot Acts 27.11 and the same word in the Septuagint used in the same signification Ezek. 27.28 29. and Jonah 1.6 when the Hebrew word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chobel In them also I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tachbuloth six several times to signifie Counsels or Wisdom and translated in four of these places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Prov. 1.5 c. 11.14 c. 20.21 c. 24.6 And though it be true that Wisdom and Counsel are necessarily required in a good Governour invested with Power yet always they are essential to a good Counsellor and without them he cannot give good direction But 2. If we parallel the 28.29 30. verses with the 8.9 10. verse of the same Chapter we shall find that Governments signifie such as have the gift of Wisdom 2. Let Governments be Governours and the same Ecclesiastical will it follow that they were ruling Elders distinct from preaching and ruling Elders Are there none other kind of Governours but these 3. This place doth not speak of external Government and Discipline but of the Gifts of the Spirit given for the good of the Church And I never knew rational and impartial Schollars ground so great an Office upon so weak a Foundation and argue from such an obscure place in respect of this Eldership It s far from proving any Divine Institution of such an Office as it doth not so much as imply it section 4 The third place is 1 Tim. 5.17 Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially those who labour in the Word and Doctrine From hence they infer that there are ruling Elders which labour in the
Classis of the Classis to a Provincial Synod of a County of these Provincial Synods to a general Assembly section 8 Of the division of the Church within the Roman Empire we may read in several Histories both Civil and Ecclesiastical and in the Acts and Canons of several Councils And from this division Hierarchy which is Ancient derives its Original To understand this you must know that Hierarchy presupposeth Episcopacy For before there were Bishops there could be no Subordination of Inferiour or Superiour Bishops What these Bishops were and how they did first arise and what their power was the Scripture saith nothing much less gives any Divine precept special for the Institution of them or the manner of their Consecration That of Timothy Titus and the Angels of the Churches will not evince any such thing as hath been said before That there were Bishops anciently and betimes in the Christian Church within the Roman Empire cannot be doubted if humane story be of any force After these Bishops whom the general rule of decency and order together with the light of reason might manifest to be convenient were multiplied according to the number of the Cities wherein Christian Churches were planted set up in these Cities and these Cities Subordinated unto others in the same Province these Bishops began to be Subordinate to the Arch-Bishops For as a Bishop is one above a multitude of Presbyters so an Arch-Bishop is one above a multitude of Bishops The Bishop of the chief City and Metropolis in a Province was called a Metropolitan The Bishop of the chief City of a Diocess of the Roman Empire was called a Primate or Patriarch By Diocess you must not understand an Episopal Diocess but a far greater compass For the Roman Empire was first divided into Diocesses the principal whereof were three one in Asia another in Africk as now we understand it another in Europe These greater circuits were divided into Provinces as we read the Empire of Persia was parted into an hundrd twenty seven Provinces in the Reign of Abasuerus And some tell us that the Provinces of the Roman Empire were at first an 120. The chief City of the Asian Diocess was Antioch of the Aegyptian and African Alexandria of the European Rome According to these three Cities where the great Officers of the Empire kept their Residence were set up three Patriarchs one of Rome one of Alexandria one of Antioch and all the City Bishops and Provincial Metropolitans were under these if they were within that division as there were several Provinces out of these Diocesses as that of Carthage in Africk of York in Britain Justiana Prima in Dacia To the three Patriarchates in after-time were added other two as that of Constantinople or New Rome and that of Jerusalem The first division and subordination of the Church was made about the time of the second Century and followed the division of the Empire that then was and as then divided Yet it did not reach the whole Empire though there might be Christians in all the parts thereof and many more far beyond the bounds thereof That there was such an Hierarchical Order before the great Council of Nice is evident from divers Canons of the same and continued after as appears by the Council of Chalcedon and Constantinople and others What the limits and bounds of the first three Patriarchates were we may read in some Authors But you must know that this division of the Empire was several times altered by divers of the Emperours even by Constantine himself so that the Ecclesiastical Division and Model could not be always exactly conformable unto it Of this model Spalatensis saith but little Mr. Brerewood a little more Dr. Reynolds is very brief Dr. Usher is a little more large in his Lydian or Proconsular Asia Yet far more might be discovered of these particulars both out of Humane and also Ecclesiastical Histories section 9 This little may give us some light in the matter of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Observe therefore first That supposing Bishops some ways in a large sence to be jure divino above Presbyters yet as Spalatensis affirmeth they by divine Law are equal amongst themselves For if they succeed the Apostles though some grant primatum ordinis yet there is no Primacy of Jurisdiction of one above another For Peter's Supremacy asserted by the Romans can have no sufficient ground in Scripture Ignatius in his Palma Christiana doth maintain the title of Arch-bishop and goes about though very weakly to prove even out of the Scriptures that Primates are jure divino yet he seems to understand by Primacy that only of order but he is hardly worth the taking notice of 2. That yet before the Nicene Council there was an Hierarchy of the Church in some parts of the Roman Empire for there were Bishops Metropolitans Patriarchs 3. This Hierarchy was a conforming of the Church in division and subordination to the Civil State of the Empire For as the State was divided first into greater parts called Diocesses and the Diocesses into Provinces and the Provinces into Cities and their Territories so the Church was divided As the Cities their Officers were subordinate to the Provincial Officer who did reside in the Metropolis of the Province and the Officers provincial were under the power of the chief Officer who kept his residence in the chief City of the Diocess so the City Bishops were subject to the Metropolitan of the Province and the Metropolitans of the Provinces to the Patriarch residing in his Patriarchal City 4. Tho' this was a prudential Order and good for Administration yet it was but humane in the State and also humane in the Church For in neither was it of divine Institution For if it had been such they could not justly have altered it as they did afterwards in several places 5. That therefore the Episcopal Hierarchy though ancient and of long continuance yet is not of divine Authority neither do we find any divine Ordination for it 6. Therefore the Argument from Episcopacy to Hierarchy is gross For a Bishop was before a Metropolitan or Patriarch and though some kind of Bishop should be of divine Institution yet an Hierarchical Bishop may be and is an humane invention 7. It was not thought good to erect one supreme independent Judicatory Ecclesiastical in the whole Roman Empire For they made three Patriarchs independent one upon another and if they had all been put in one yet many parts of that Empire and of the Church within it had been without those bounds 8. Whether the Patriarchs at first had Jurisdiction over the Metropolitans and the Metropolitans over the Bishops and they over the Presbyters is very uncertain And if they had no Jurisdiction according to this subordination there could lie no Appeal from the Bishop to the Metropolitan nor from the Metropolitan to the Patriarch It 's likely that the power was in Synods and men might Appeal