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
commended or reproved and charged with divers sins and threatned with such punishments as must fall upon all After all these proofs from Scripture recourse is had to Antiquity and Universality as sufficient grounds of a prescription which is a good kind of title But 1. In divine things especially such as are of ordinary and universal obligation Antiquity and Universality without a Divine Institution will not serve the turn 2. The Hierarchy prescribes as much and as high as Episcopacy invested with power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as proper to it self yet it s confessed to be only of humane institution 3. What is it how is it defined What Divine Institution can be made evident of that which they say is so universal and ancient 4. Who are the witnesses by whose testimony this Antiquity and Universality is proved They are besides some of later times but few and all within the Roman Empire many of them Bishops themselves and some of them bitter Enemies one against another They are not one of an hundred amongst the Bishops not one of a thousand amongst others Yet the Church in the Apostles times was enlarged to the ends of the Earth And as then so now there were in every Century thousands that did never write or if they did they wrote not of Episcopacy and many of them might be as great Schollars as those whose books are extant 5. There was a special reason why there might be Bishops and the same Hierarchical in the principal parts of the Roman Teritory as shall be touched hereafter 6. Suppose these Bishops to have the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction yea the whole power of the Keyes which includes the Legislative in making Canons can any man prove that they had it always in all places and if so that they had it severally in their several precincts and not joyntly with their fellow Bishops as Representatives in Counsels and also with Presbyters and others too It s well enough known that other besides Bishops had their suffrage in Synods Arles President of the Council of Basil proves stoutly that Presbyters have their Votes and without them he could not have carried the cause against Panormitan and his faction section 8 After the primitive and the Hierarchical Episcopacy comes in the English which hath something singular He that will understand the nature of it more fully must read Dr. Zouch Dr. Mucket Dr. Cosens the Civilian his Tables with him who calls himself Didoclavius upon him By all whom we may understand 1. It was not the primitive Episcopacy 2. It was clearly Hierarchical for we had Bishops and two arch-Arch-Bishops of York and Canterbury the one the Metropolitan of England the other of all England The Bishops took their Oath of obedience to the arch-Arch-Bishops as appeareth by the book of ordination They did arrogate the power of ordination to themselves though Presbyters did in the ordination impose hands with them and some of them confessed they had it only with the Presbyter joyntly Yet we know how that by others is eluded 3. Not to say any thing of their Titles Dignity Revenue Baronies annexed to their Sea their place in the house of the Peers in Parliament and their priviledges they had cast off in effect not only the people but Presbytery For though the Presbytery had their Clerks both in the Convocation of York and also at London if the Parliament sat there yet they took upon them in the end to nominate these Clerks and deprive the Ministers of their right of Election As for the Deanes and Chapters which should have been eminent Persons and chosen by the Presbytery in every Diocess to represent them they were degenerate from their original Institution and the Bishops who should have done nothing but joyntly with them did all things without them They in effect though unjustly engrossed the whole power of Administration 4. Yet this is observable that 1. They could make no Canons but joyntly in one Assembly 2. That joyntly amongst themselves without the Presbytery they had not this power 3. That no Canons were valid without the Royal Assent 4. Neither by the Constitution was the Royal Assent sufficient without the Parliament 5. That they derived much of their Ecclesiastical power from the Crown For by the Oath of Supremacy is declared that the King of England is over all persons even in Ecclesiastical causes Supream Governour In which respect all their secular Power Revenue Dignity and also their nomination and confirmation with their investiture is from him He calls Synods confirms their Canons grants Commissions to exercise Jurisdiction purely Ecclesiastical In the first year of King Edward the sixth by a Statute they were bound to use the Kings name not their own even in their Citations and as before they must correct and punish offenders according to such Authority as they had by the Word of God and as to them should be committed by the ordinance of this Realm So that if the Popish Bishops derive their power from the Pope and the English from the King neither of them could be jure divino And by this the title of most Bishops in Europe is meerly humane and that in two respects 1. Because its Hierarchial 2. Derived either from an higher Ecclesiastical or an higher secular power section 9 Thus far I have enquired though briefly and according to my poor ability into the definition and institution of a Bishop the subject of the Question which is this Whether a Bishop or Bishops be the primary subject of the Keyes The meaning whereof is 1. Whether they be the primary and adequate sole subject of the whole power of the Keyes whereof the principal though not all the branches are making Canons and receiving last appeals without any provocation from them For they may be subjects and not primary they may be subjects of some part and not of the whole power 2. Whether they be such subjects of this power in foro exteriori For in foro interiori the Presbyters have as much as they 3. Whether they be such subjects of such power in foro exteriori quatenus Episcopi reduplicative 4. Whether as such they be such a subject by Divine Institution For solution hereof it s to be considered 1. That except there be an Universal consent and the same clearly grounded upon Scripture both what a Bishop is and 2. That made evident that his Title is of Divine Institution the affirmative cannot be proved 2. That though a Bishop could be clearly proved to have the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction yet it will not follow from thence that he is the primary subject of that power For the negative many things may be said 1. Neither the papal nor the English Bishop so far as the one derives his power from the Pope and the other from the Crown can be the primary subject of this power the secondary they may be 2. For such as derive not their power from
from an inferiour to a provincial Synod and from the Provincial to the Patriarchal which was the highest Court except the Christian Emperours call a General Council And that was said to be a General Council which extended beyond the bounds of one Patriarchate especially if it included all 9. After these Patriarchates began to be such eminent places many ambitiously sought them and there was great contention amongst themselves who should be greatest and have the precedency Neither could General Councils by their determinations prevent them for time to come 10. The Patriarch of Rome though but at the first one of the three and afterwards of the five and according to some of the seven if you take in Justiniana Prima with Carthage did challenge the precedency and preeminency of them all And though the Council of Chalcedon gave the Constantinopolitan See equal priviledges with his yet he would not stand to their determination but afterward challenged greater power then was due began to receive Appeals from Transmarine parts beyond the bounds of his Diocess and to colour his Usurpation alledged a Canon of the Nicene Council which was not found in the Greek Original He will be President in all General Councils no Canons must be valid without his Approbation His Ambition aspires higher when the title of Universal Bishop had been denied the Patriarch of Constantinople by Gregory the Great Boniface his Successour assumes it And by degrees they who follow him usurpe the Power and at length the civil Supremacy is arrogated and the Roman Pontiffe must dispose of Kingdoms and Empires and will depose and advance whom he pleaseth And is not he the Man of Sin and the Son of Perdition who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God shewing himself that he is God 2 Thes. 2.3 4. From all which words he that goes under the name of M. Camillas defines Antichrist in this manner Antichristus est Pontifex maximus Elatione vicariatu assimulatione Christo oppositus lib. 1. c. 3. de Antichristo As the Roman State subdued and subjected unto themselves the former Empires and Monarchies of the World and this in themselves after that became Vassals and Servants unto one Absolute Imperial Monarch and by him Rome-Heathen raigned over the Kings of the Earth Revel 17.18 So in tract of time Rome-Christian usurped Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical over all Churches and her Patriarch swallowing up all the power of the former Patriarchs became Universal Monarch and Visible Head of the Universal Church The occasions true causes of this Usurpation and the means whereby he by degrees aspired to this transcendent power are well enough known Some will tell us that Episcopacy or rather Prelacy was the occasion at least of the Hierarchy and the Hierarchy of the Papacy For if there had not been a Bishop invested with power in himself and a provincial Jurisdiction given to one Metropolitan and many Metropolitans subjected to one Patriarch the Bishop of Rome could have had no advantage nor colour for his Usurpation This makes many prudent men jealous of Episcopacy especially as many understand a Bishop to be one invested with the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and that by divine Law without the Presbytery Division and Subordination which are essential to Government could be no proper cause of the Papal Supremacy But the trusting of power Ecclesiastical in one man extending and enlarging the bounds of one particular Church and independent Judicatory too far and subordinating the People and Presbyters to the Monarchical Jurisdiction of one Bishop the several Bishops to one Metropolitan the several Metropolitans to one Patriarch and several Patriarchs to one Roman Pontiffe did much promote and effectually conduce to the advancement of one man to the Universal Vicarage At the first institution of the Hierarchy neither the people nor Presbytery were excluded the Patriarchates were of a reasonable extent the Patriarchs independent one upon another and the end intended was Unity and the prevention of Schism and the subordination seemed to be made out of mature deliberation Yet humane Wisdom though never so profound if it swerve from the Rules of divine Institution proves Folly in the end Let not all this discourage any Ecclesiastical Community or disswade them from division co-ordination subordination if so be they keep the power in themselves as in the primary Subject and reserve it to the whole and not communicate it to a part and keep themselves within a reasonable compass From all this we may conclude that a Secession from Rome and the rejection of his Ecclesiastical Supremacy if so be we retain the true Doctrine and pure Worship of God is no Schism especially in England For 1. there were many Provinces out of the great Patriarchate and no ways subject to any of them but they had their own proper Primates and Superindendents Amonst these England was one and by the Canon of Nice had her own Jurisdiction and was under no Patriarch but a Primate of her own 2. The Bishop of Rome was at first confined to that City and after he was made Patriarch he had but the ten Suburbicarian Provinces and the rest of the Provinces of Italy had Milan for their Metropolis 3. That after the Conversion of the Saxons that that Bishop should exercise any power in England was a meer Usurpation And to cast off an usurped power and the same Tyrannical could be no Schism at all There is a Book printed at Oxford in the year 1641 wherein we find several parcels of several Authors bound up in one The first Author is Dr. Andrews the second Bucer the third Dr. Reynolds the fourth Bishop Usher the fifth Mr. Brerewood the sixth Mr. Dury the seventh Mr. Francis Mason The design of the whole is to maintain Episcopacy and in part to prove the Hierarchy 1. Some of the formentioned Authors do grant with Hierome that the Church was first governed by the common advice of Presbyters though this position in strict sence is not true as hath been formerly proved 2. Some grant that at the first Institution of Bishops a Bishop was nothing else but a President or Moderator in Presbyterial Meetings 3. That afterwards these were constant and standing with a power of Suderintendency not only over the people but the Presbyters within a City and the Territory thereof 4. That when a Church was extended to a Province in the Metropolis thereof they placed a chief Bishop called a Metropolitan who had the precedency of all the other City Bishops 5. That these Bishops could do no common act binding the whole circuit without the Presbytery 6. That there were such Bishops and Metropolitans in the Apostles times thus Dr. Usher doth affirm and he quotes Ignatius to this purpose 7. That there was an imparity both in the State and Church of Israel under the Old Testament and so likewise
nascenti pagina Romae Ne vacet Egeriam consuluisse Numae Nôsset Sparta isthaec duro formata Lycurgo Secula mansisset quot stetit illa dies Nec tibi Parthenope gemino quater amplius anno Mutâsset dominos plebs malefida suos Nec sibi foedâsset fastos tam turpiter Anglus Mille per incertas mobilis usque vices Quam bene Lawsoni magni dignissimus haeres Nominis ille salo jura dat ipse solo Qui regnare doces qui parere libenter Imperium calami cedimus ecce tibi Te tantum genuit vicus brevis angulus orbis Langcliff nascenti conscia terra mihi Eborac invideant vel Athenae debeo plura Jam pro te patriae pro patriâque tibi J. Carr M. D. The Arguments of the several Chapters CHAP. I. THE Propriety of God acquired by Creation and continued by Preservation the ground of God's Supream Dominion and Power which is Vniversal over all Creatures more particular and special over Men and Angels who are capable of Laws Rewards Punishments not only Temporal but Eternal The exercise of this Power over men immediate or mediate Mediate in his Government by men over men is either Temporal and Civil or Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Of the Government Spiriritual before Christ's incarnation and after his Session at the right hand of God. Of the Church Christian Triumphant Militant Mystical Visible Vniversal Particular The particular parts of the Vniversal Church as visible the principal subject of the following Discourse Of our Differences and the Causes thereof of hope of better times and the Author's disposition and intention CHAP. II. Of a Community Civil What Politica is what a Common-wealth the subject of Politica What the parts of a Common-wealth what a Community in general which is the subject of a Common-wealth the name and nature of it Of a Community Civil the matter and the form thereof the Original of Civil Communities the members both natural and naturalized whether they be imperfectly or formally or eminently such The capacity of this Association to receive the form of a Civil Government Liberty Equality Propriety Adjuncts to this Community CHAP. III. Of an Ecclesiastical Community The Definition of it the explication of the Definition The distinction of the Members less or more perfectly such the manner of Incorporation Liberty Equality and aptitude to receive a form of Discipline Proprieties of this Society Where something concerning Children born of Christian Parents whether they be members of the Church or no. CHAP. IV. Of Power Civil The parts of Politica Constitution and Administration what Constitution is and what the parts of a Common-wealth both Civil and Ecclesiastical which are two 1. Soveraign 2. Subjects What Power in general what Power Civil what Supream Power or Majesty Civil the Branches thereof which are called Jura Majestatis the multitude of them reduced to order by several Writers and by the Author The Properties of Majesty which is real or personal What Soveraign real and personal may do The subject of Real Majesty in England the personal Majesty of the Parliament and of the King. CHAP. V. Of the Acquisition of Civil Power and the Amission thereof Civil Power not essential but accidental to any Person It 's acquired in an extrordinary or ordinary way In an ordinary way by consent or Conquest justly or unjustly as by Vsurpation Vsurpation no good Title The Person Vsurping Power at the first by subsequent consent may acquire a good Title Succession and the several ways of Succession Amission of Power by violence or voluntary consent or death Whether any can be made Soveraign by condition Whether Soveraign Power once acquired may be forfeited how and to whom the forfeiture may be made CHAP. VI. Of Power Ecclesiastical The Power is Spiritual not Civil Why it 's called the Power of the Keys as different from that of the Sword. Binding and loosing the same with shutting and opening and both belong chiefly to Legislation and Jurisdiction This Power is Supream and Independent in every particular Church constituted aright according to the Rules of the Gospel The Branches and several Acts of it as making of Canons the constitution of Officers Jurisdiction disposing of the Churches goods Of the extent and also the bounds of the Power Certain distinctions of Spiritual Government as Internal External Vniversal Particular Formal Material or Objective CHAP. VII Of acquiring or losing Ecclesiastical Power The just acquisition of this Power extraordinary in the highest measure as in Christ or in an inferiour degree as in the Apostles How ordinary Churches derive it from Christ by the Gospel-Charter in an ordinary way The Power of the Church and Church-Officers unequal The several ways of Vsurping and also of losing this Power CHAP. VIII Of the disposition of Power Civil from the several manners of which arise the several forms of Government General Observations premised The several ways of disposing Majesty or Supream Power in a State. Pure Forms Monarchies Despotical and Regal Pure Aristocracies and Democracies Mixt Governments when the Power is placed in the several States joyntly The Constitution of England Our Kings and their Title Peers Commons Parliaments and the limits of their Power The limits of the King 's personal Majesty Our late divisions and confusions Whether King or Parliament as separate could be justified by the fundamental constitution of England By what Rule the Controversie must be tried Whether Party at the first was more faithful to the English Protestant interest How the state of the Controversie altered The high and extraordinary actings of all Parties The good that God hath brought out of our Disorders and Confusions Whom God hath hitherto most punished What is to be done if we intend a Settlement of State and Church CHAP. IX Of the Disposition of Power Ecclesiastical and whether the Bishop of Rome be the first Subject of it under Christ. The many and great differences about the first subject of the Power of the Keys The Pope the Prince the Prelate the Presbyter the People challenge it as due unto them by a Divine Right Their several pretended Titles examined Whether that of the Bishop of Rome be good or valid His greatness state and pomp The opinions of some Authors concerning him The power he challengeth is Transcendent The reasons to prove his title taken from Politicks Ancient Writers the Scriptures The insufficiency of them though some may seem to prove the possession yet none make good the Title CHAP. X. Whether Civil Soveraigns have any right unto the power of the Keys Their power and advantage to assume and exercise this power Their power not spiritual but temporal The power of ordering Matters of Religion what it is and how it differs from the power of the Keyes Jus Religionis ordinandae rightly understood belongs to all higher Powers The Kings and Queens of England though acknowledged over all persons in all causes both Civil and Ecclesiastical supream Governours yet
had not the power of the Keys What meant by those words of the Oath of Supremacy Erastians worthy of no answer because they mistake the state of the Question and do not distinguish between the power of the Sword and the power of the Keyes CHAP. XI Whether Bishops be the primary subject of the power of the Keys The different Opinions concerning the Definition and Essence of a Bishop as also concerning the first Institution of Episcopacy St. Hierom's opinion in this point Spalatensis his Arguments to prove the divine Right of Bishops as invested with the Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction examined and answered Dr. Andrew's judgment in this point After the primitive and also the Hierarchical Bishop which differ much the English Episcopacy different from both the former in some things proper to its self is examined Though some Episcopacy be grounded upon a divine general Precept yet it 's not the primary subject of the power of the Keys neither is Episcopal Government proved to be necessary by any special Evangelical Precept of universal and perpetual Obligation CHAP. XII Whether Presbytery be the primary Subject of the power of the Keys The abolition of Episcopacy and Surrogation of Presbytery in several reformed Churches The nature institution and distinction of Ecclesiastical Presbyters The places of Scripture whereon the Divine Right of Law or Rulong Elders is grounded examined The Reasons why Presbyters cannot be the primary Subject of this Power The Arguments of the Authors of Jus Divinum Ecclesiastici Regiminis insufficient to prove it The English Presbytery as intended and modelled by the Parliament with the Advice of the Assembly of Divines inquired into the perfections and imperfections of the same as modelled by the Parliament without the King. Certain reasons which may be imagined why the Parliament would not trust the Ministers alone with this power CHAP. XIII Whether the power of the Keys be primarily in the People The Opinion of Morellius and the Brownists of Blondel of Parker and his mistake in Politicks applyed to the Church to make it a mixt Government The judgment of the Author concerning the Power of the Keys to be primarily under Christ in the whole Church exercised by the best and fittest for that work The explication of his meaning concerning the Power the Subject of the power and the manner how this power is disposed in this Subject The Confirmation of the Proposition that the power of the Keys is in the whole Church both by the institution and exercise of this power Where is premised a confutation of Mr. Parker's Opinion grounded upon two several places as he understands them The principal places of Scripture concerning Church-Government in foro exteriori explicated to find out where this power is by institution for Legislation Jurisdiction and making of Officers CHAP. XIV Concerning the extent of a particular Church The several extensions of the Church in excess according to the opinions of such as subject all Churches particular to that one Church of Rome of such as subject all to a general Council Whether Mr. Hudson is justly charged by Mr. Hooker and Mr. Ellis and divers others as guilty of Popery in asserting the Vnity of the universal Church The Congregational extent what Congregations are How they are gathered Whether the primary subject of an Independent power The Arguments of Mr. Parker and the Dissenting Brethren from Scripture and Politicks answered A National extent examined What means to be used for to compose our differences and to settle peace amongst us CHAP. XV. Of Subjection Civil What Subjection in general is the degrees of it What a subject in a Civil State is the definition explained What the duties of Subjects be What offences are contrary to this subjection what Rebellion and Treason the several degrees of Treason What Vsurpation is whether any subjection be due to usurped Powers When a power is dissolved How far the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance bound the English subject Whether the Civil War did dissolve the Government Whether the late Warlike Resistance made against the King's party and his Commissions was Rebellion or no Something of the Question Whether upon any cause it be lawful for the Subjects to resist or take up Arms against their lawful Soveraign as it 's handled by Arnisaeus Whether after the War said to be between King and Parliament was commenced there was any ordinary Legal power which could induce an Obligation to subjection Whether the Act of alteration or any other Form since proposed could introduce an Obligation Whether it be lawful to submit unto an extraordinary power when no Legal power according to the Fundamental Constitution can be had The distinction division and education of Subjects CHAP XVI Of Subjection Ecclesiastical What Ecclesiastical Subjection is The distinction of Ecclesiastical Subjects The qualification of a Church-member Something of separation from a Church The alterations divisions made and the Errors Blasphemies professed in the Church of England in these late times The manner of admission of Church-Members The ancient and also the modern division of Ecclesiastical Subjects and their subordination The Hierarchical Order The Education of Church-members LIB I. CHAP. I. Of Government in General and the Original thereof section 1 PRropriety is the ground of Power and Power of Government and as there are many degrees of Propriety so there are of Power Yet as there is but one Universal and absolute Propriety so there is but one supream and universal Power which the most glorious blessed and eternal God can only challenge as his due For he contrived all things by his wisdom decreed them by his will and produced them by his Power and to this Day worketh all things according to the counsel of his will Ephes. 1.11 In this respect he is worthy to receive Glory and Honour and Power because he hath created all things and for his pleasure they are and were created Rev. 4.11 By Creation he began by Conservation he continued to be actually the Proprietary of all things for he made them of nothing and gave them being and existence so that they wholly always depend upon him and are absolutely his Therefore he hath power to dispose of them as he pleaseth and to order them to those ends he created them This ordination of them which began immediately upon Creation continueth and shall continue to the end and is either General of all things or Special of some special more noble and more excellent Creatures Such are Men and Angels endued with understanding and Free-will and capable of Laws rewards and punshments both Temporal and Eternal The ordination of these is more properly and strictly called Government which is a part of divine Providence The Government of Angels no doubt is excellent and wonderful though we know little of it because not revealed section 2 That of men is more fully manifested to us as men in that Book of books we call the holy Scriptures the principal subject
Seventy two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not only there but in other places which I forbear to mention And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bind is sometimes to govern or exercise the acts of coercive power So Psal. 105.22 to bind his Princes compared with Psal. 2.3 where bands and cords are the Laws and Edicts of Christ. And the same word in the Chaldee is obligavit ad obedientiam aut poenam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dan. 6.7 8 9. is Translated by the Seventy two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Decree obligatio interdictum It 's also remarkable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shut up signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deliver into the hand of enemies or to destruction Job 16.11 Psal. 78.48 Hence that phrase of delivering up to Satan 1 Cor. 5.5 1 Tim. 1.20 and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to separate or exclude Lepers out of the holy Camp as Numb 12.14 15. and in other places which was a Typical adumbration of that act of Jurisdiction which we call Excommunication section 4 This Power of the Keys is spiritual because exercised within a Spiritual Community Do not ye judge them that are within saith the Apostle I have nothing to do to judge them without For what have I to do to judge them also that are without God hath reserved them to his own Tribunal But them that are without God judgeth Yet those without the pale of the Church are not exempted from the Civil Jurisdiction of the Christian Magistrate if within his Territories The Power of Hell and Death is not the power of the Sword. The power given to the Church was not given to the State. The power of the Kingdom of Heaven is not the power of the Kingdom of the Earth The power promised unto and conferred upon the Apostles was not estated upon the Civil Magistrate though Christian This power opens and shuts the Gates of Heaven binds and loosens sinners as lyable to eternal punishments which no Civil Sword can do Therefore it 's spiritual section 5 As it is Spiritual so it 's Supreme for a particular Church being a Commonwealth or Spiritual state must needs have a Spiritual Tribunal independent within it self except we will divest it of the very Essence and soul wherewith it 's animated Yet it cannot be such in respect of him whose Throne is Heaven whose Footstool is the Earth Or if by the Divine prospective of Faith we pierce into the Heaven of Heavens and approach that sparkling Throne where Christ sits at the right Hand of God possessed of an universal and eternal Kingdom every particular and all particular Churches must bow and wave the title of independent In a word in all imperial Rights which God and Christ have reserved and not derived by the fundamental Charter of the Scripture all particular Churches with all their Members nay all their Officers even Ministers are but subjects governed in no wise governing Supreme therefore it is both in respect of its own Members within and also of other Churches enjoying equal power within themselves and are not Queens and Mothers but Sisters in a parity of jurisdiction with it but no superiority of Command over it For the parity of them without is not destructive of her Soveraignty over her own within The universal Vicaridge and plenitude of Monarchical power arrogated by the Patriarch of Rome cannot justly depress or take away the Rights of any particular Church This Power was first challenged then usurped after that in a great measure possessed exercised and pleaded for The pretended right and title was invented after they had possession and with a fair colour did for a long time gull the world which at length awaked out of an universal slumber and found it to be a dream section 6 As this Power is 1. Spiritual 2. Supreme so 3. It 's divisible and may be branched into divers particular jura or rights which are four 1. Of making Canons 2. Of Constituting Officers 3. Of Jurisdiction and 4. Of receiving and dispensing of Church-goods Thus they may be methodized Jus Ecclesiasticum duplex 1. leges ferendi exequendi per Rectorum constitutionem jurisdictionis exercitium 2. bona Ecclesiastica dispensandi There may be other petty Jura yet easily reducible unto these And this division though grounded evidently upon Scripture and will by the ingenious be easily granted yet it may seem new to some upon whose understanding the old perhaps hath made too deep an impression For I find the old distinction of this power into two parts The 1. Of Order The 2. Of Jurisdiction to be retained by many unto this day Yet they do not unanimously define what this Clavis or potestas ordinis is Some will have it to be the same with Clavis Scientiae which the Schoolmen understood of that juridical knowledge which was antecedaneous and subordinate unto the Decree or definitive sentence Others say it is the power of Ordination and making of Ministers Others take it to be the power of a Minister ordained to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments In which respect it cannot belong to the external Government of independant Churches For a Minister as such is so a Deputy of Christ as that in the due execution of his Office he is above any particular Church and above the Angels And his power in this regard is rather moral than political As under this notion some give him jurisdiction in foro interiori which the Papists call forum poenitentiale But in foro exteriori he cannot challenge it as a Minister For then it could not be communicated to any other with him as to ruling Elders representing the people This the Bishops formerly assumed to themselves with a power to delegate the same to others section 7 These Keys or Powers in the root are but one and the same power supernatural which is a principle of supernatural acts the first branch whereof is the Legislative This ever was and doth still continue in the Church and is most necessary for to regulate and determine the acts both of Government and subjection For without a certain directive and binding Rule no State could ever long continue And God himself whose Power is absolutely supreme did limit himself by a certain Law before he began to require obedience from his Creatures and exercise his power ad extra For it 's his will and pleasure that neither men nor Angels should be subject unto him but according to a certain Rule This the Apostles Elders and Brethren put in practice Act. 15. And the jus Canonicum Novi Testamenti issued from this Power Unto this Head are reduced the forms of Confession for Doctrine Liturgies for Worship Catechisms for instruction in the Principles of Religion and Canons for Discipline in every well constituted Church In this Legislation Ecclesiastical they either do declare what God before hath determined or determine in things which God hath left indifferent what is profitable
ratifie it in Heaven Yet in making of Canons they have power so far as to declare in Essentials to bind in positive Laws and in Circumstantials In ordaining of Officers the designation of the persons is theirs In Jurisdiction they have power to hear examine take witnesses apply the controversie or cause to the Canon determine and see the sentence executed and all this in a Soveraign and independant manner within the circuit of their own Church And whereas it may be said all this power amounts but to a little and is confined to a narrow compass It 's true it 's but a particle Yet the Church is more happy and the Government more excellent because it depends so little on man so much on Christ. And this power though diminutive yet through God's blessing is effectual and tendeth much unto the preservation of purity piety unity and edification and if well managed is an excellent means to enlarge Christ's Kingdom and further our eternal Salvation The result of all is this that particular Churches are not supreme but subordinate both in respect of the internal Government which is purely divine and also in respect of the external universal which is purely Monarchical under Christ. The Church of Rome doting upon her universal Head and Vicar-general presupposed and took for granted that the community of all Christians in the world were but one visible Church under and subject unto one and the same supreme independant Judicatory This no question is an error For though there be an universal visible Church yet it 's subject only unto one supreme Consistory in Heaven but not on earth either in a Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical form as shall be hinted hereafter And suppose the Pope had been an Ecclesiastical Monarch because the Patriarch of the first See in the Imperial City yet he could not be universal but only in respect of the Church within the confines of the Empire which did enclose all the other Patriarchates and was but a little parcel of the world CHAP. VII Of the manner of acquiring Ecclesiastical Power section 1 HAving manifested what Ecclesiastical Power of Discipline is I must search how it 's acquired for this as well as civil is derivative and that from Heaven and in a more special manner It 's not natural but acquired It 's also continued by Succession not Hereditary but Elective not in a Line as the Sacerdotal power confined to the Family of Aaron It 's first in God the Fountain of all power and from him derived to Christ as man and Administrator-general For so after his resurrection he said unto his Disciples All power in heaven and earth is given me some measure of this he by Commission delegates unto the Apostles Yet that power of theirs as extraordinary was not successive or to be derived to those who followed them as ordinary Officers of the Church for it expired with them Yet there was an ordinary power of Discipline derived to them and they never except in ordinary cases did exercise it but with the Church This some say was acquired by those words of Christ to Peter To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. Mat. 16.19 This power was given to Peter many of the Ancients say as representing the Church others think it was given him as Head of the Church others as representing the Apostles from whom it was derived to the Bishops or else as others tell us to the Elders of the Church But of this hereafter But whatsoever power the Apostles might have either severally or jointly considered it 's certain that Christ derived it to the Church whereof the Apostles were Members yet extraordinary Officers The Church acquired it therefore by free donation from Christ when he said tell the Church and afterwards whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven Mat. 18.17 18. By this Church is meant no Vtopian aerial or notional body but such a society of Christians brought under a form of Government as may and can exercise this power as the Church of Corinth Ephesus Antioch Jerusalem or any of the Churches of Asia section 2 But though I intend in this to be brief yet I will observe some order and this in particular it is Power Ecclesiastical is acquired by lost immediate designation of Christ Apostles mediate institution and that justly unjustly Seeing none hath this spiritual power except given from God therefore it must needs be acquired as it 's derived It 's derived immediately to Christ as man the Apostles as his delegates Christ as man by his humiliation unto death the death of the Cross acquired an universal power over all persons in all causes spiritual And he received it upon his Resurrection and upon his Ascension being solemnly invested and confirmed began to exercise the same The Apostles being extraordinary Officers under Christ received their extraordinary power which was both intensively and extensively great from Christ. And 1. For the lost sheep of Israel before Christs death 2. For all Nations after the Resurrection 3. More fully and solemnly invested after Christs Ascension they began to act and that both in an ordinary and extraordinary way and that in Discipline as shall appear hereafter As they were extraordinary they could not as ordinary they might have successors section 3 As the power is derived in an ordinary way so it 's acquired by the Church mediately This Church did first consist of the Apostles the seventy Disciples and other believers of the Jews After that we find several Churches consisting of Jews and Gentiles After that a Church as taken from a Christian Community is once made up of persons a multitude of persons associated and endued with a sufficient ability to manage the power of the Keys in that visible body politick presently it acquires this power by virtue of Christ's Institution in these words Tell the Church c. as before For in that very Rule he gives to direct us how to deal from first to last with an offending brother he institutes the external government of the Church and both erects and also establisheth an independant tribunal After a Church is once constituted and this power acquired it 's exercised either by a general Representative or by Officers both these must be invested with power before they can act And these acquire their power by delegation or by being constituted Officers By these means the power may be acquired justly section 4 Yet it may be possessed or exercised unjustly It 's usurped when any arrogate it or take upon them to exercise it without just warrant from the Gospel Therefore 1. When a multitude of Christians who have no ability to manage it shall erect an independant judicatory they are Usurpers 2. When one Church challengeth power over another 3. When Presbyters alone or Bishops alone engross the whole power Ecclesiastical both of making Canons and of Jurisdiction and constituting Officers 4. Magistrates who as such take
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
God was nothing but jus ad recte agendum a right to do right in matters of Religion If they did otherwise they abused their power they lost it not And if an Heathen Prince or State should become Christian they acquire no new Right but are further engaged to exercise their power in abolishing Idolatry and establishing the true Worship of the true God. This may be signified by the Titles of Nursing-Fathers of the Church Defenders of the Faith Most Christian Most Catholick King. All which as they signified their Right so they also pointed at their Duty which was to protect the true Church and maintain the True Christian Catholick Faith. 4. Though Regal and Sacerdotal power were always distinct and different in themselves yet they were often disposed and united in one Person Thus Melchisedeck was both King and Priest Thus Romulus was Prince and the chief Pontiffe For he is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Halicar Antiqu. Rom. lib. 2. The succeeding Kings took the same place After the Regal power was abolished it was an high Office. When Rome became Imperial the Emperours took the Title of Supream Pontiffe and some of them after they became Christian retained it Yet still as the Powers so the Acts were distinct For Melchisedeck as King ruled his People in Righteousness and Peace as Priest officiated received Tithes and blessed Abraham As they were sometimes united so they were divided For God entailed the Sacerdotal power upon the house of Aaron and afterwards the Regal power upon the family of David Neither did Christ or his Apostles think it fit to make the Ministers Magistrates or the Magistrates Ministers Yet in this Union or Division you must know that this Sacerdotal and Ministerial power was not this Civil power of Religion which always belonged to the Civil Governours even then when these two powers were divided 5. If Civil powers stablish Religion and that by Law call Synods order them ratifie their Canons divest spiritual and Ecclesiastical persons of their temporal priviledges or restore them yet they do all this by their civil power by which they cannot excommunicate absolve suspend much less officiate and preach and administer Sacraments In this respect if the civil power make a civil Law against Idolatry Blasphemy Heresie or other scandal they may by the same power justly punish the offenders by the sword and the Church censure them by the power of the Keyes 6. This jus Religionis ordinandae this power of ordering matters of Religion is not the power of the Church but of the State not of the Keyes but of the sword The Church hath nothing to do with the sword nor the State with the Keyes Christ did not say tell the State and whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Neither did he say of the Church that she beareth not the sword in vain Therefore he must needs be very ignorant or very partial that shall conceive that the State is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the power of the Keyes section 3 These things premised give occasion to consider how the Oath of Supremacy is to be understood especially in these words wherein the Kings or Queens of England were acknowledged over all persons in causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil all supream head and because that word Head was so offensive it was changed into Governour For the clearing hereof it 's to be observed 1. That by these words it was intended to exclude all foreign Power both Civil and Ecclesiastical especially that which the Bishops of Rome did challenge and also exercise within the Dominions of the Crown of England 2. That the Kings and Queens of Enland had no power supream in making Laws and passing judgements without the Parliament Therefore by supream Governour was meant supream Administratour for the execution of the Laws in the intervals of Parliament In this respect the Canons and injunctions made by the Clergy though confirmed by royal assent without the Parliament have been judged of no force 3. That by Ecclesiastical causes are meant such causes as are materially Ecclesiastical yet properly civil as before For matters of Religion in respect of the outward profession and practice and the Parties professing and practising are subject to the civil power For by the outward part the State may be disturbed put in danger of Gods judgements and the persons are punishable by the sword even for those crimes Yet neither can the sword reach the soul nor rectifie the conscience except per accidens That by Ecclesiastical is not meant spiritual in proper sense is clear because the Kings of England never took upon them to excommunicate or absolve neither had those Chancellours that were only Civilians and not Divines power to perform such acts Yet they received their power from the Bishops and it was counted Ecclesiastical 4. In respect of these Titles those Courts which were called Spiritual and Ecclesiastical derived their power from the Crown And the Bishops did correct and punish disquiet disobedient criminous persons within their Diocess according to such authority as they had by Gods word and as to them was committed by the authority of this Realm These are the words of the Book of Ordination in the consecration of Bishops The words seem to imply that they had a mixt or at least a twofold power one by the word as trusted with the power of the Keyes the other from the Magistrate or Crown and that was civil Such a mixt power they had indeed in the high Commission Yet though this may be implyed yet it may be they understood that their power by the word of God and from the Crown were the same The act of restoring the ancient jurisdiction to the Crown 1 Eliz. 1. doth make this further evident For it 's an act of restoring the ancient jurisdiction in Ecclesiasticals especially to the Crown for that 's the Title Where it must be observed that the power was such as the Parliament did give 2. That they did not give it anew but restore it 3. They could not had no power to give it if it belonged to the Crown by the Constitution but to declare it to be due upon which Declaration the Queen might resume that which the Pope had usurped and exercised 4. It 's remarkable that not the Queen but the Parliament by that act did restore it as the act of the Oath of supremacy was made by a Parliament which by that act could not give the King any power at all which was not formerly due In respect of Testaments temporal jurisdiction Dignities Priviledges Titles as due unto the Church by humane Constitution and donation all Ecclesiastical causes concerning these were determinable by a civil power How tithes are a lay-fee or divine right hath been declared formerly Hence it doth appear that the Oath of Supremacy was not so easily understood as it was easily taken by many and the Oxford Convocation I believe but that they
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
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
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
Word and Doctrine and others which do not This presupposeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned especially is taken here partitively Yet that cannot be proved For it may be added rather to signifie the reason why then the persons to whom as distinct from other ruling Elders double honour is due For in the Assembly it was alledged that the participle in the Original here as in other places includes the Cause And then the Sense is Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially because they labour in the Word and Doctrine which seems to be the genuine sense and agrees with that Esteem them very highly in Love for their Works sake 1 Thes. 5.13 2. Double Honour which is Maintenance is not due to ruling Elders who preach not the Gospel For the Lord Ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel they which do not they which do not preach the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.14 3. Suppose it could be proved from this place that there were ruling Elders distinct from such as preach How will it appear from hence what their place was in the Church and what their Power and what their Work Yet put all these places together they cannot prove the Divine Institution of such an Office with the power of Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical for we do not find any special precept making this Office universally and perpetually necessary binding all Christian Churches to observe it section 5 But let us suppose such an Officer the Question is Whether the Elder with the preaching Presbyters be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the power of the Keyes inforo exteriori That they are not the immediate subject is evident 1. From the same reason why Bishops are not For Christ gave the power to the Church the whole Church as shall be manifest hereafter but the Elders are not the whole Church 2. If they be the primary subject then they are such as Officers or Representatives but neither of these ways can they be such a subject The disjunction is good except they can give us another consideration according to which they may have this power in this manner The Minor which is that neither as Officers nor as Representatives can they be the primary subject is thus proved 1. Not as Officers For the power of an Officer though Universal as these are but Elders of particular Congregations is always derivative and therefore he cannot be the first subject of that power which is derived from an higher Cause Upon this ground Mr. Hooker takes his advantage against Mr. Rutherford and the seven dissenting Brethren against the Assembly As for Mr. Hooker he seems to take for granted as he endeavours to prove that Jurisdiction belongs unto an Officer as an Officer But this cannot be true 1. Because there are Officers who have no Jurisdiction as Censors Sheriffs Constables and many other in the State and Deacons in the Church 2. Suppose some Officers have Jurisdiction yet they are not the first subject of it 3. He supposeth as the Dissenting Brethren do that every Officer is fixed in and related only unto a single Congregation whereas its evident and Mr. Parker confesseth it that there may be Officers which joyntly take the charge of several Congregations both for Worship and Discipline as in the Netherlands and this agreeable to the Word of God. Yet even these much more such as are fixed to several particular Congregations can have no power out of those Congregations whereof they take charge whether severally of one or joyntly of many In this respect his Argument is good against such as affirm that power of Jurisdiction belongs to Officers as Officers and in particular to Elders as Elders Yet both the Assembly and Dissenting Brethren confound and that in the arguing the power of the Ministry with the power of outward Discipline which ought not to be done But the principal thing is that Officers as such cannot be the primary subject of power for that belongs to them who make them Officers section 6 As they cannot have it as Officers so they cannot have it primarily as Representatives They may have power as Officers they may have it as Representatives yet not in this high manner or degree For all Representatives derive their power from the Body represented To clear this point we must observe 1. That many several Congregations which in respect of Worship are so many several bodies distinct may associate and become one for Discipline When they are thus associate the power is first in the whole and derived from the whole unto the parts and from the parts unto the whole as in a single Congregation the power is in the whole and every single Member even the Officers are subject to the whole which makes Officers and gives them their Power 3. That in this Association of many Congregations when they Act in a Synod or Representative the parties which make up the Representative do not act as Officers though they be Officers in the several Congregations but as Representatives Neither as Representatives of several Congregations severally considered but as joyntly united in one body to represent the whole As in a Parliament many Members are Officers yet do not act as Officers but all joyntly act as one Representative of the whole body 4. When many Congregations united in one body for to set up one Independent Judicatory do act by a Representative the whole body of these Congregations not the several Congregations are Ecclesia prima and the Representative or Synod is the Ecclésiae orta 5. That the power of Discipline doth not issue from the power of Teaching and Administration of the Sacraments For then none but Ministers should have the power of the Keyes and not any could be joyned with them because they have their power by Vertue of the Ministerial Office. section 7 Yet the Authors of Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici do affirm that the ruling and preaching Elders are the primary subject of this power and endeavour to prove it and that by several Arguments all which may be answered by the very stating of the Question For they seem to me for to confound Ecclesiam constituendam constitutam Officers ordinary and extraordinary calling immediate and mediate the Government of the Universal Church and particular Churches forum interius exterius Statum exercitium Though the matter is clear enough yet I will examine two of their Arguments The first is this All those that have Ecclesiastical Power and the Exercise thereof immediately committed to them from Jesus Christ are the immediate subject or Receptacle of that Power But the Church Guides have Ecclesiastical Power and the Exercise thereof immediately committed unto them from Jesus Christ. Therefore they are the immediate Subject or Receptacle of that Power For Answer hereunto we must understand 1. What this Power Ecclesiastical in the Question is 2. What kind of Subject is here meant 3. What
New Testament where it s used a hundred and eleven times at least and in all these places signifies an Assembly or Society Religious except in Acts 19.32 39 41. where it signifies both a tumultuous and also an orderly Assembly or Society or Convention as a civil Court of Judgment which signification is here applied by our Saviour to a Spiritual Judicatory for Spiritual Causes Though this be a special signification yet it signifies the number and Society of Believers and Disciples who profess their Faith in Christ exhibited and this is this Church-Christian and the People of God. Yet it signifies this People under several Notions as sometimes the Church of the Jews sometimes of the Gentiles sometimes the Universal Church sometimes particular Churches sometimes the Militant Church either as visible or mystical sometimes the Church Triumphant sometimes a Church before any form of Government be introduced sometimes under a form of Government so it 's taken and supposed by our Saviour here Grotius his Conceit that our Saviour in these words alludes to the manner of several Sects Professions as of Pharisees Sadduces Essenes who had their Rules of Discipline and their Assemblies and Convention for the practice of them may be probable Yet without any such Allusion the place is plain enough from the context and other Scriptures Erastus upon the place is intollerable and most wofully wrests it so doth Bishop Bilson in his Church-Government and is point-blank contrary to D. Andrews who in his Tortura Torti doth most accurately examine interpret and apply the words and most effectually from thence confute Bellarmine One may truly say of that Book as he himself said of Austin's Treatise De Civitate Dei it was opus palmarum For Civil Common Canon-Law Politicks History School Learning the Doctrine of the Casuists Divinity and other Arts whereof he makes use it is one of the most learned and accurate of any put forth in our times By his Exposition of this Text he utterly overthrows the immediate Jus Divinum of Episcopacy in matters of Discipline and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction He plainly and expresly makes the whole Church the primary subject of the Power of the Keys in foro exteriori Therefore suppose the Bishops were Officers by a Divine Right as he endeavours to prove tho' weakly in his Letters to Du Moulin yet at best they can be but the Churches Delegates for the exercise of that Power And it is observable that divers of our Champions when they oppose Bellarmine's Monarchical Government of the Church peremptorily affirm the Power of the Keyes to be in the whole Church as the most effectual way to confute him yet when they wrote against the Presbyterian and the Antiprelatical party they change their Tone and Tune But to return unto the words of Institution 1. The word Church here signifies an Assembly 2. This Assembly is an Assembly for Religion 3. The Religion is Christian. 4. This Assembly is under a form of External Government 5. This Government presupposeth a Community and Laws and Officers Ecclesiastical These presupposed it 's a juridical Assembly or a Court. 6. Because Courts are Inferiour Superiour and Supream it signifies all especially Supream 7. It determines no kind of Government but that of a free State as shall more appear hereafter 8. Christ doth not say Dic Regi tell the Prince or State nor Dic Petro tell Peter or the Pope as though the Government should be Monarchical either Civil or Ecclesiastical nor Dic Presbytero tell the Elders nor Dic Apostolis Episcopis aut Archiopiscopis that the Government should be purely Aristocratical nor Dic Plebi that the Government should be purely Democratical nor Dic Synodo tell the Council general or particular But it saith tell the Church wherein there may be Bishops Presbyters some Eminent Persons neither Bishops nor Presbyters There may be Synods and all these either as Officers or Representatives of the Church and we may tell these and these may judge yet they hear and judge by a power derived and delegated from the Church and the Church by them as by her Instruments doth exercise her Power As the body sees by her eye and hears by the ear so it is in this particular but so that the similitude doth not run on four feet nor must be stretched too far This being the genuine Sense favours no Faction yet admits any kind of Order which observed may reach the main end For this we must know and take special notice of that Christ will never stand upon Formalities but requires the thing which he commands to be done in an orderly way Yet it 's necessary and his Institution doth tend unto it to reserve the chief Power in the whole Body otherwise if any party as Bishops or Presbyters or any other part of the Church be trusted with the power alone to themselves they will so engross it as that there will be no means nor ordinary jurisdiction to reform them Of this we have plain Experience in the Bishops of Rome who being trusted at first with too much Power did at length arrogate as their own and no ways derived from the Church and so refused to be judged For if the Church once make any party the primary subject of this power then they cannot use it to reduce them Therefore as it is a point of Wisdom in any State to reserve the chief power in the whole Community and single out the best and wisest to exercise it so as if the Trustees do abuse their power they may remove them or reform them so it should be done in the Church If any begin to challenge either the whole or the Supream power as Officers many of these nay the greater part of them may be unworthy or corrupted and then the Church is brought to straits and must needs suffer Some tell us that the King of England by the first Constitution was only the Supream and Universal Magistrate of the Kingdom trusted with a sufficient power to govern and administer the State according to the Laws and his chief work was to see the Laws executed Yet in tract of time they did challenge the power to themselves as their own and refused to be judged Yet in this Institution if Peter if Paul tho' Apostles do offend much more if Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops Presbyters do trespass we must tell not Peter not Paul not an Apostle not a Bishop not any other but the Church No wit of Men or Angels could have imagined a better way nor given a better expression to settle that which is good and just and prevent all parties and factions and yet leave a sufficient latitude for several orderly ways to attain the chief end section 7 The Judge being known the Judicial Acts of this Judge must be enquired into in the fifth place and these are two the first is binding the second loosing For all Judgment passed upon any person is either against him and that is binding
and the parts the Soveraign and the Subject According to this method though mine ability be not much I have spoken of a Community both Civil and Ecclesiastical and of a Common-wealth 1. Civil then 2. Ecclesiastical In both the first part is the Soveraign where I enquire 1. Into his power civil and then into the spiritual power of the Keys in the Church 2. I proceed to declare how the Civil Soveraign acquires or loseth his power and how the Church derives her power or is deprived of it 3. The next thing is the several ways of disposing the power civil in a certain subject whence arise the several forms of Government civil and the disposal of the power of the Keys the primary subject whereof is not the Pope or Prince or Prelate or Presbyter or People as distinct from Presbyters but the whole particular Church which hath it in the manner of a free State. Here something is said of the extent of the Church After all this comes in pars subdita both Civil and Ecclesiastical where I speak of the nature of subjection and of the distinction division and education of the Subjects both of the State and Church All this is done with some special reference both to the State and Church of England desiring Peace and Reformation If any require a reason why I do not handle Ecclesiastical Government and Civil distinctly by themselves without this mixture the reasons are especially two 1. That it might be known that the general Rules of Government are the same both in Church and State for both have the same common principles which by the light of Reason Observation and Experience may be easily known but especially by the Scriptures from which an intelligent Reader may easily collect them Therefore it 's in vain to write of Church-Government without the knowledge of the Rules of Government in general and the same orderly digested The ignorance of these is the cause why so many write at random of Discipline and neither satisfie others nor bring the Controversies concerning the same unto an issue 2. By this joynt handling of them the difference between Church and State Civil and Ecclesiastical Government the power of the Sword and Keys is more clearly as being laid together apparent For this is the nature of Dissentanies Quod juxta posita clarius elucescunt This is against Erastus and such as cannot distinguish between the power of ordering Religion for the external part which belongs unto the civil Soveraigns of all States and the power of the Keys which is proper to the Church as a Church Yet if these two Reasons will not satisfie and some Reader may desire and wish they had been handled dictinctly he may read them as dictinct and several even in this Book I my self had some debate within my self what way I should handle them yet upon these reasons I resolved to do as I have done section 12 A Common-wealth once constituted is not immortal but is subject to corruptions conversion and subversion The Authors of Politicks following the Philosopher make these accidents the last part of their Political Systems and some speak of them more briefly some at large and declare the causes and prescribe the Remedies both for prevention and recovery Corruption is from the bad constitution or male-administration and both Soveraign and Subject may be and many times are guilty The conversion and woful changes and also the subversion and ruine is from God as the supream Governour and just Judge of Mankind who punisheth not only single and private Persons and Families but whole Nations and Common-wealths Of these things the Scripture humane Stories and our own experience do fully inform us But of them if it may be useful I shall speak more particularly and fully in the second Book the subject whereof in general is Administration in particular Laws and Canons Officers of the State and of the Church and Jurisdiction both Civil and Ecclesiastical The reasons why I desire to publish this first and severally from the latter part are partly because though the first draught of that latter part was finished above half a Year ago yet I intend to enlarge upon the particulars partly because I desire to know what entertainment this first part may meet withal for if it be good I shall be the more encouraged to go forward but chiefly because the most material Heads and Controversies are handled in this which is far more difficult The latter will be more easie yet profitable and useful especially if some of greater ability would undertake it The God of Truth and Peace give us Humility Patience Charity and the Knowledge of his Truth that holding the Truth in Love we may grow up unto him in all things which is the Head even Christ to whom be Honour Glory and Thanks for ever Amen FINIS * vid. Comin de bell Neap. lib. 5. Scope of the Work. Means to prevent Errors Sect. 1. The reason of differences in Church-Affairs What a Common-wealth in general is Foundation of the Work. Constitution Community in general De C. D. lib. 19. Cap. 21. Cap. 22. What Community Civil is Original of community Members of a Community Ecclesiast Community A good ground of Childrens right to Baptisme What hinders Reformation A Community formed is a Commonwealth De C. D. Lib. 19. cap. 13. Neighbour a notion of Society Majesty in the People really c. Real Majesty greater than Personal The mistake of Junius Brutus Buchanon Heno A Parliament cannot alter a form of Government A happy Community Majesty Personal Acts of Personal Majesty 1. Without Within Soveraigns must order Matters of Religion Civil matters Properties of Majesty Fundamental Charter of Civil Majesty Power how got Justly got extraordinary How Kings must govern Ordinarily By Election Best Government By Conquest Vsurpation Subjects may defend their Rights What destroys Personal Majesty Bracton Kings duty Binds not posterity Majesty when forfeited When Subjection ceases a Isa. 22.2 Vers. 21. b Rev. 1.18 1 Cor. 3.7 d Mat. 16.29 e Joh. 20.22 23. f 1 Cor. 5.12 g Ibid. h Ibid. 13. 11 Quaest. in vesperiis Dib 4. dist 8. Quaest. 2. What a King is What the King cannot do Parliament best Assembly Parliament Members qualified Wittena Gemote What the House of Commons is The End of calling the House of Lords What Barons called to Parliament Power of Parliament without the King. Why Kings Consent required First subject of Personal Majesty What the Parliament cannot do Who gave Crown Prerogatives and Parliament-being Kings of England no absolute Monarchs Cause of England 's Miseries What observable in our sad Divisions How to judge of our Divisions What charged on the King. Disobedience to King unlawful Parliament accused acquitted The cause changed Treaty at the Isle of Wight The 〈◊〉 works 〈◊〉 God among us Sect. 22. What may be the best way of settlement Qualification of Parliament members What to be looked into by a Parliament first * Non assumit Rex vel jus clavium vel censurae sed quae exterioris politiae Tort. Torti pag. 318. Rex qua Rex habet primatum Ecclesiasticum objective qua Christianus effective qua Rex actu primo qua Christianus secundo Mason de Minist Angl. l. 3. pag. 312. Primitive Bishop His Power Hierarchical B. B. His Power Hierarch Jure Humano * De Repub Eccles. lib. 2. c. 3. sect 7 8 9. Sect. 7. * Act. 8.14 * Ludovicus Arabelensis Lewis Arch-Bishop of Arles President in the Council of Basil. English Bishops What Dean and Chapters were English Bishops not Jure Divino * Lib. 3. c. 3 4. Tit. de praescript adversus haereticos Job 37.12 Prov. c. 12.5 * Gal. 1.1 * De. polit Ecclesiastica l. 3. c. 7. p. 26. * Tort Tor. p. 41. * Vignierus de excommunicatine venatorum The Church the Subject of the Keyes As in the Fundamental Office of Christ. Church-government what Who guilty of Schism Who Schismaticks Parish no Congregation Christian What Church the primary subject of the Keys The supposed end of the Congregational notion The subject of the whole Treatise * Isa. 49.23 Chap. 60.16 22. * Chap. 55.34 * 1 Cor. 11.34 * In his Book of the Church c. 8. p. 63. Best means to reform and unite a Church Divided What 's the chief interest of a Nation as Christian. Soveraign real Personal Measure of subjection rightly bounded The rational part of a people the heir of real Majesty The Sacrament what Education What makes a Church-Member Who a Visible Saint Division Subordination of that Church when Subordination of Bishops prudential Episcopal Hierarchy not of Divine Authority Bishops over Presbyters uncertain The Pope the Man of Sin c. Prelacy the occasion of Hierarchy and that of Papacy England under no foreign Primate What a Bishop was at first No Divine Testimony for Bishops Bishops of good use not of necessity A special Work of the Levite
them even but one from the Soveraign he is an imperfect Soveraign take away all he ceaseth to be a Soveraign Again the Subject of Majesty and of all the rights and parts thereof must be only one either Physically or Morally If you divide the Subject you destroy them For if in this Common-wealth we give part of these to the King part to the Peers part to the Commons we make it a Babel and destructive of it self For suppose the King have the Militia to himself he may command the Purse make void the Laws revoke Judgments reject Parliaments and none can hinder him because neither Peers nor Commons have any right to the Sword whereby to defend themselves Therefore little heed is to be given to that Book or bitter Invective entitled Elenchus motuum nuperorum which informs from the Lawyers if we may believe him that these Soveraign Rights were thus divided 6. From this that it 's Indivisible follows it that it 's incommunicable For to whomsoever they are communicated they cease to be Subjects and the Soveraign to be a compleat Soveraign and this Communication tends to the dissolution of the Government 7. It 's perpetual that is fixed in a certain subject to continue in the same according to the fundamental Laws of Constitution Therefore the Temporary or occasional power though very great of a Dictatour or Regent or Protectour who are but trusted with it for a time in extraordinary cases and upon occasion cannot be Majesty when there is an Interregnum or suspension of the Government by reason of Sedition Faction Rebellion Civil War or some other cause it 's good and expedient for the safety of a State to set up some extraordinary Governour or Governours trusted for a time with transcendent Power till the State disturbed and not capable of any Union be setled which done that Power doth cease and Majesty is fixed in his proper primary and constant subject that the Government may run in the old Channel except they intend to make an alteration of the Constitution section 15 There is another kind of personal Majesty inferiour to and different from the former We find it in some Princes of Europe as in the Emperour of Germany the Kings of Denmark Sweden Poland and England For our Kings had not only the title of Majesty but some power with the title For in the intervals of Parliament he was Soveraign alone and all and every one yea the greatest were his subjects He called and summoned Parliaments made all Officers by sea and land sent and received Ambassadours conferred all Honours the subjects sware Allegiance to him His Dignity was eminent his State great and so many advantages he had that if he should have used them all he might easily have undone his subjects and so have undone himself Yet he had not the power of the purse He was sworn to corroborate the just Laws and Customs which the people had chosen In the Parliament he made a third party yet so that neither in acts of Lawes or Judgement could he do any thing without the Peers and Commons and as Sir Roger Owen in his Manuscript observes together with them he was greater than himself Yet as Kings have sometimes curbed Parliaments so Parliaments have Kings and disposed of the Militia the Navy the Ports the chief Offices Nay they have sometimes judged Kings accusing them of acting against the fundamental Constitution and challenging such Power as tended to the dissolution of the same and have deposed them But of this particular something may be said hereafter these kinds of Soveraigns have so much power whether more or less as the Constitution gives them yet it will be a difficult thing to keep them within their bounds CHAP. V. Of the manner how Civil Power is acquired WHat the Nature of Power in general and Majesty Civil is hath been declared The next thing to be considered is the Subject who from it is denominated a Soveraign and we must enquire first how this Power is acquired 2. How disposed in a certain Subject As for the acquisition it 's certain Man as Man or as a Member of a Community cannot have it from himself but it must be communicated to him from God who being the Universal Soveraign is the Fountain and Original of it and derives some part of it unto Man and a greater measure unto Mortal Soveraigns than other Men. Yet he doth not this immediately but mediately for the most part It 's extrinsecal and comes aliunde not only unto Men but Angels A Paternal Power which is more Natural is acquired by Generation though sometimes by Adoption This Generation from divine Benediction is the seminary of all Societies which as Societies and Communities may be so disposed and compleat as virtually to contain in them a Power of a Common-wealth and by a general consent constitute an actual Soveraign The Soveraign before he was made such was not invested with Majesty but it was extrinsecal unto him And here that distinction between the Power it self the Designation of the Persons Governing and the Form of Government is worthy taking notice of The Designation of the Persons and the Form of Government is from God leaving Man at Liberty but not so the Power which is more from him than the other two Though the parties justly possessed of power may be thought to have the propriety of it yet they have not any for let it be never so firmly conveyed upon them by designation and submission yet they are but trusted with it Princes tell us they hold their Crowns and Kingdoms per Deum Gladium If they mean that they derive their power from God so as that they neither receive nor hold it from the Bishops of Rome or the Emperour or any other Mortals it may be true yet they have their power so from God that they are invested with it by Humane Designation And as for their Sword it may by a Conquest make way for a Government but it cannot constitute it The fundamental Charter of all Civil Majesty is the fifth Commandment taken in a large sence and understood by other Scriptures which speak more expresly and distinctly of Civil Government In this Commandment including much more by Analogy than is expressed we may observe that there is a power of Superiority and Excellency as in Fathers so in the Princes and Rulers of the World and that from God who made them Men Fathers Princes 2. That all Government should be Paternal Not that the first-born of the most ancient Family in every Tribe Kinred Nation should be a Soveraign for that we seldom find but that they should as Fathers love their Subjects and seek their Good and tender them as Fathers do their Children 3. That by virtue of Gods Command so soon as they are actually Governours Honour and Subjection are due unto them 4. That all Vicinities as far as they are able ought first to associate and then establish an
and expedient aecording to the general Rules of order decency unity and edification according to that distinction of Laws into declarative and constitutive section 8 After Laws are made and established they must be put in execution otherwise though they be both wisely and justly enacted and in themselves very excellent yet they are in vain and to no purpose This cannot be done without Officers therefore there must needs be a power of making Church-Rulers Under this Head we must comprehend Election Examination Ordination Suspension Degradation and whatsoever concerns the making reforming or disposing of Offices When Canons are made Officers with power of jurisdiction be constituted yet all is to no purpose except they proceed to hear and finally determine all Causes and Controversies within their Spiritual jurisdiction Therefore there must be Jus jurisdictionis cum ultima provocatione Hitherto appertain all Ecclesiastical Tribunals Judges judicial proceedings the discussion of all causes within their Cognisance sentences of Authoritative admonition Suspension Excommunication Absolution and Execution of all Besides all these because the Church whilest on Pilgrimage towards her Heavenly City hath need of these earthly and temporal goods neither can the publick Worship of God or her Officers be maintained nor her poor Saints relieved without them therefore every particular Church should be furnished with a Revenue and have a kind of publicum aerarium of her own which is not to be disposed of according to the will and pleasure of any private person or persons But there must be a power as to make Officers for other things so for this particular to receive keep and dispense the Church's Treasure this of themselves without publick consent they cannot do Therefore though the making of Deacons belong unto the second part of this Independant power yet jus dispensandi bona Ecclesiae publica is a distinct power of it self Christ and his Apostles had a common purse Joh. 13.29 so had the Church Act. 6.1 2 3 c. For this end they had their Collections at set times 1 Cor. 16.1 2. This Treasury belonged to the Church not to the State and did arise from the free gifts of such as were of ability and well disposed before there was any Tenure in Franke Almoigne as afterwards there was section 9 Before I conclude this Point concerning power lest instead of a well-composed body I make an indigested lump of heterogeneous stuff I will enquire how far it doth extend what be the limits wherewith it 's bounded what measure and degrees thereof a particular Church as such by Scripture-Charter may challenge For this purpose we may take notice of the subject of Power which is primary or secondary In the primary it 's primitive total supreme In the secondary it 's derivative partial and subordinate The power in both is the same essentially yet in the one as in the Fountain in the other as in several Channels This seems to be intimated by that submission required by the Apostle unto the King as supreme or unto Governours sent by him 1 Pet. 2.13 14. The King is Emperour who was the immediate subject of Supremacy Governours were Presidents and Vicarii Magistratus who are the instruments of the supreme as principal in government Coincident with this seems to be that distinction so frequent with Mr. Parker inter statum exercitium According to which he defines the government of the Church quoad statum to be Democratical because the power of the Keys is in the whole Church which with him is a Congregation as in the primary subject But quoad exercitium to be Aristocratical in the Rulers who derive their power from Christ by the Church This shall be examined hereafter This difference of the primary and secondary subject is to be observed lest we make every one who hath power and is trusted with the exercise thereof the prime and immediate receptacle of Church-power from Christ which is not to be done section 10 In the second place we must repeat a distinction taken up in the beginning of this Treatise which may briefly be contracted in this manner Ecclesiae Regimen est Internum Externum Vniversale Particulare formale Objectivum The Internal is Gods. The external Universal as such Christ doth justly challenge The external particular formally and properly Ecclesiastical is committed to particular Churches The external particular materially considered is the Christian Magistrate's due because the matters of the Church in this respect are an object of his Civil Power That distinction of Cameracensis potestas est ordinis aut Regiminis the same with that of Biel and many other Schoolmen hath some affinity with this For the power of Order with them is the power of a Minister as an Officer under Christ of the Universal Church and is exercised in foro poenitentiali or interiori The power of Government and Prelation which Defensor pacis saith the Bishops had per accidens is the same with this external Government of the Church as exercised in foro exteriori Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Rev. 2.2 or judiciali as they term it All the power of a particular Church is confined to matters Ecclesiastical as such in that particular community and is exercised only in foro exteriori This must needs be so because the internal Government of the Church which by the Word and Spirit immediately rules the conscience so as to cast the impenitent both soul and body into Hell belongs to God as God. The external government of the Universal Church as Universal is purely Monarchical under Christ in which respect all particular Churches are meerly subjects and no ways independant no nor governing section 11 Yet in the third place if this be not so manifest and satisfactory the point may be illustrated if we parallel the Government of the Church with that of Israel As that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Theocratie of Israel God was pars imperans and the absolute Monarch and reserved to himself the jura Majestatis For he made their Laws appointed their chief Officers Generals Judges he anointed their Kings proclaimed their Wars concluded Peace and received last Appeals Yet in many petty causes and matters of State and that often he trusted their Elders Officers and Princes and committed to them exercise of power and actual government And their Kings were but a kind of Vicarii Magistratus under him So Christ hath retained to himself the government of the universal Church as such as also the Legislative power of particular Churches in all Essentials and Necessaries and hath enacted general Statutes for Accidentals and Circumstantials He hath the principal power of making Officers for he determines how many kinds of necessary Officers there should be limits their power prescribes their qualification sets down their duty and gives them their Commission Their judicial proceedings run in his name and their sentence is so far valid on earth as he shall
conduce to that end Or else we are wilfully divided and no way will serve the turn but our own The first is the cause of our difference in Judgement the second of our disaffection and without an unity of the whole or at least of the major part the business will hardly be effected For we are not in any immediate capacity of a general Unity till time hath wasted and consumed some of our divisions and also the bitter enmity and rancour which continues in the Spirits of many to this day Therefore our settlement must begin in generals and necessaries and proceed by degrees 2. The Foundation to be laid is first to find out the ancient Constitution before it was corrupted too much and understand the great Wisdom of our Ancestors gained by long experience in the constitution of this our State. This may be done by some experienced Statesmen and Antiquaries in Law and that as well if not better out of Parliament than in Parliament For a Parliament it self must have some Foundation and certain Rule of their very being before they can act steadily and regularly and not spend their time of every sevâ—â—al Parliament in molding their Government a new It 's a vain and presumptuous imagination to think that we have attained to a greater measure of Wisdom than our Ancestors attained unto And let us not undo what is already done if it be consistent with the best model 3. Let no man think that the publick interest either Ecclesiastical or Civil of England is the interest of any one person or Family or any few persons or Families much less of any Sect Party Faction It cannot be denied but whilst the Succession of our Kings was limited to a Family the succession was more certain For so the next successour was more easily known and competition which in this case is so dangerous was more easily avoided Yet even this could not prevent the difference between the Houses of York and Lancaster And when the issue of Henry 8 failed we had been in greater danger if the King of Scots had not been a Protestant and one who was conceived would prove firm to the English Protestant Interest But when this limited succession shall prove as it may do inconsistent with the publick interest it s not so much to be regarded For why should the honour or priviledge of one Family prejudice the universal safety of a Nation We know that vast Empires and Kingdoms have by an unlimited Election continued long And that which might help much in this Case is that policy of the German Empire in the Interregnum to have an administrator General 4. In modelling the Government we must have a special eye unto the Constitution that it be such as that it may not only be consistent with but effectually conduce to the promoting of peace and righteousness in the administration of the State and also to the advancement of the Christian Religion in the Church And I conceive our ancient Government for these ends was excellent and did also preserve and regulate the liberty of the people and also wisely limit the supream Magistrate 5. The Parliament being a general Representative of the whole Nation and now of three and trusted with our liberty estates lives and in some measure with the Religion we profess should consist and be made up of eminent and wise men Therefore the Election of them for the manner should be more regular and orderly in respect of the Electors and better limited and more strictly tied to a right Qualification of the Persons elected which should neither be unworthy nor unfit It may indeed fall so out that in these irregular and sometimes tumultuous Elections some wise and eminent persons may be chosen and the same may prove predominant and leading Members in that great Assembly but this is but a chance and no certainty nor use of right reason in it 6 When a Parliament is once assembled and begins to act if there be any thing that concerns the preservation and continuance either of the being of the State or of the Substance of the Protestant Religion that must be first dispatched and the next the punishment of crying Sins which are the Ruines of States 7 As for Religion so far as it concerns the State it 's fit that there be some general Rule both of our Profession and Worship but the Rule of profession must be brief and grounded upon plain Scriptures and so near to ancient Confessions as that no rational Christian who acknowledged the Scriptures to be the Word of God could or would scruple The Rule of Worship also must be plain and Clear. Let nothing be imposed upon all which any rational Christian as such may not recive without scruple As for Discipline as I have begun so I will go on in the next Chapter But these things have been and will be considered by far wiser men therefore I will not enlarge section 23 I might have said something more of the manner of disposing Soveraign power and with Besoldus have observed that as there may be two persons who make but one Monarch so there may be one King of two or more distinct and several Kingdoms This latter disposal was debated much in Calvin's case by the Sage Judges of the land in which debate some of them especially Chancellour Egerton did little less than make the King an absolute Monarch and the two Kingdoms in effect one but the Parliament was of another mind And the matter was far above their Courts and Cognizance the union could not be determined but by the Parliaments of both Kingdoms neither could this be done by them if the union made any alteration in the Constitution of either Kingdom In respect of mine intention this Chapter is very large in respect of the matter very brief and my desire is that others would more seriously and impartially enquire into this subject so far as it concerns our own Constitution which no doubt may be found out and if it prove defective may be perfected if men were peaceable and sought the publick good CHAP. IX Of the disposition of Ecclesiastical Power and first whether it be due unto the Bishop of Rome section 1 THe most difficult point in Politicks is that of the Jura Majestatis and the right disposal of them in a fit subject and concerning the nature of Civil power the manner of acquiring and disposing of it I have already spoken and also of Ecclesiastical power and the acquisition thereof now it remains I say something of the manner of disposing the power of the Keys in the right subject This is a matter of great dispute in these our times Therefore when I expected to find all clear because a Jus divinum grounded on the Scriptures was pretended on all hands I found it otherwise As when one of our Worthies had disemboked the Megellanick straits and was entred into that sea they call Pacificum he found the word Pacifick
strains and far from being any ground either of Logical or Theological proofs 2. Such as were proper might agree to that Church for that time when it was honoured with persons of eminent piety and learning which were found in it as being the seat of the Empire And such things might be true of that Church then which do not agree unto it now 3. It 's found by the searching of the ancient Manuscripts that some things have been foisted into the Books of these ancient Authors in favour of that Church For they who could even before the fourth Century was ended corrupt the Copy if not the Latine Original of the Nicene Council and put in a Canon for to warrant receiving appeals from Africk which was not found in the Greek Original are not much to be trusted 4. Suppose many or all of those ancient commendations which were proper should be true yet they will not amount to that plenitude of power which in after times was exercised and to this day is challenged by the Bishops of that See. 5. None of those honourable testimonies are of Divine authority or firmly grounded upon the Scriptures And what the Scriptures give them that we will not deny them 3. As for their arguments from Scriptures I have wondred that any rational man should ever use them as they are by them applied to the Pope To argue That because Christ said to Peter to thee I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and if thou lovest me feed my Sheep therefore the present Bishop of Rome is the Head and absolute Monarch of the Universal Church and invested with plenitude of power is very irrational There is such a vast distance between these Scriptures and the conclusion and so many mediums to be used before they can come at it and the same so uncertain that no man that will make use of his reason can assent unto the conclusion when all is said that can be said in behalf of this Universal Vicar from these Texts If we should maintain our cause against them by such arguments they would reject us with scorn and indignation Let his party plead and plead again for his Universal and transcendent power I am sure of one thing that if he loved Christ as Peter professed he did and had a mind sincerely bent to feed his Flock he would never challenge much less exercise such vast power That Christ left a power sufficient to the Church we verily believe but that he delegated so great a power or delegated it unto him we utterly deny and have great reason for it Yet because we will not submit unto his papal Majesty we must be condemned as Schismaticks and Hereticks deprived of all hope of Salvation as having no Communion with that Church whereof he is Head and lodged in Hell the lowest Hell. And all this is done upon the weakest grounds that ever rational man did use But we appeal to Heaven where Christ will be our Advocate and plead our cause and carry it too If it were needful I would single out the chiefest arguments used by them of Rome to maintain this Title and answer them distinctly But this is done already by many worthy and learned men Therefore I will take it for granted as that which hath been made good and evident that the Pope is not the first and proper subject of the power of the Keys CHAP. X. Whether the Civil State have any good Title to the Power of the Keys section 1 YET if the Pope cannot have and hold this power yet the Princes Soveraigns and civil States especially Christian will assume it and they have the strongest and the surest way of all others if they once get possession for to keep it and that 's the Sword. King Henry 8. did not only refuse to submit unto the Roman supremacy but took it to himself and became within his own Dominions over all persons in all causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil supream Head and Governour So the Priest by the Prince was divested of a considerable part both of his power and also his Revenue But whether he could be the proper subject of this spiritual Power or make good his Title to it was much doubted and that by many As King he was but caput regni non Ecclesiae and as such he might have some Civil but no Ecclesiastical Power at all Yet though it was called Ecclesiastical yet it was not such Grammatice sed Rhetorice not properly but by a Trope a Metonymie of the adjunct for the Subject circa quod For the power of a State Temporal is only Civil if properly and formally considered yet the Civil Soveraign had always something to do in matters of Religion concerning which it may make Laws pass Judgment and execute the same yet the Laws the Judgments the Execution were Civil not strictly Ecclesiastical Therefore such as maintained the Regal Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals were so wise as to say that it was but materially and objectively in the Crown In which sense it was always due to Civil Powers as Civil as appears from Deut. 13. and many other places of Scripture as also from many Examples not only of the Kings of Judah but of Ninivy Babylon and Persia. That many of these Heathen Princes and also of the Kings of Israel did abuse this power for the establishment or exercise of a false Religion and Idolatry is no argument to prove they had it not but that they did not use it aright 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circa sacra did always belong and that by divine institution to the Civil Higher Powers section 2 For the better understanding of this point several things are to be observed 1. That as there is no people so barbarous but profess and practise some Religion so there is no State or orderly Government but acknowledgeth some Deity or Divine Power upon which they conceive their publick Peace Safety Prosperity and good Success doth depend as we may by the very Scriptures and also by other Histories be informed For every Nation had their publick gods besides their Family-tutelar Deities It 's true though by the light of Nature considering the Glorious works of Heaven and Earth they might have known the true God yet they changed the Glory of God into a Lye or false God and conceived that to be a God which was no such thing 2. The supream Governours of these States had a special care to order the matters of that Religion which they publickly received They made Laws appointed Priests for the Service and Worship of their Gods. This is also evident from Scripture and from other Histories too This ordering of Religion as publick was always held a right of the publick Power 3. Yet they had no power to establish or observe any Religion or Worship but that which God had instituted according to the Laws of Nature or divine Revelation if they did they abused their Power For that very power as from
Parliament determines 1. Their Courts 2. The parties subject to their power 3. The causes belonging to their Cognisance 4. The manner of proceeding 5. The Acts of Jurisdiction 7. As for their Courts they 1. Make them to be Congregational Classical Provincial National 2. Define the number of the persons how many must be of the Quorum 3. They subordinate the Inferiour to the Superiour and all to the Supream which was the Parliament 4. They determine the times of their Sessions which of the Inferiour Courts were more frequent of the Superiour more seldom 5. The order of Appeals is from the Inferiour to the Superiour 8. The parties subject to their Jurisdiction were all in their several precincts 9. The Causes were not Civil or Capital but Ecclesiastical especially ignorance and scandal 10. Their manner of proceeding was upon Information Summons Confession Conviction by Witnesses 11. The Acts of Jurisdiction were Suspention removal from Office or Sacraments receiving and restoring The matter and substance of these Ordinances was enlarged and more distinctly and orderly declared in the Book of Discipline one thousand six hundred forty eight section 10 This Model though imperfect had something of the ancient primitive Discipline in many things was agreeable to the general rules of Scripture and if exercised constantly by wise and pious Men might have done much good especially in preventing ignorance and scandal for time to come Yet it had many enemies as the Prelatical and Episcopal party because it was not a Reformation but an abolition of Episcopacy The dissenting Brethren liked it not because it extended so far beyond the Congregational bounds took in whole Parishes did not require a sufficient qualification of the Members and subordinated Congregations and Inferiour Assemblies to the Superiour and Greater The prophane and ignorant were against it because it called them to account and required knowledge and a stricter kind of life and this was a commendation of it Some approved it not because it was so like unto and almost the same with the Kirk Discipline of Scotland Many were offended with it because of the ruling and lay-Elders as some call them Besides it was set up in the time of the bloody War and without the Kings consent who was a great enemy unto it Neither were the Statutes of the former Discipline repealed Though some did but assert the Jus Divinum of it yet that was not made so clear as to satisfie many no not the Parliament it self Though the Ordinances and the book of Discipline require it to be generally put in practice yet no man was eligible for an Officer that had not taken the national Covenant yet that was not generally imposed or taken nor could any but a Covenanter have any Vote in the Election As the institution of it was an Act of the Civil Power in the Parliament without the being so it reserved the chiefest power unto it self and to future Parliaments and it would not trust the Ministery or the Elders with it And there might be several reasons for it 1. First after Reformation began end ever since our separation from Rome the Ecclesiastical power was restored to the Crown 2. In times of Popery the Church and especially the Pope and Clergy had encroached and entred too far upon the Civil Power 3. The general Assemblies of Scotland were thought too much independent upon the Crown and to have too great an influence upon the State. 4. That seeing the Church required the assistance of the State it was judged necessary that it should so far depend upon the State as it required the help of the State. Yet if the Discipline had been the pure and simple form instituted by Christ and his Apostles there had been no cause of these jealousies no need of these policies By all this its evident that the Presbytery of England could not be the primary subject of the power of the Keyes because they received their institution from the Parliament which reserved the chiefest power unto it self It s true that there was something Ecclesiastical in it yet even that depended upon the Civil Power more than upon an Ecclesiastical Assembly or representative though general CHAP. XIII That the Government of the Church is not purely Democratical but like that of a free State wherein the Power is in the whole not in any part which is the Authors judgement section 1 THat the power of the Keyes is not primarily in the Pope nor in the Civil Soveraign nor in the Prelate nor in the Presbyter not in both joyntly as in a pure Aristocracy hath been formerly declared It remains we examine the peoples title as distinct from that of the Bishop and the Presbyter as they are formaliter eminenter cives Ecclesiae parts of a Christian Community The people and number of Believers thus considered are rather Plebs than Populus To understand this it s to be considered that in a Christian Community there are neither Optimates properly not Plebs There may be and are as you heard before such as are incompleat and virtual members as Women Children and other weak Christians who are not fit to have any Vote in the Publick Affairs of the Church much more unfit to exercise and mannage the power of the Keyes There are also compleat members and amongst these some more eminent than the rest To place the power in the inferiour rank or to make that party predominant is to make the government Democratical And this opinion is not worth the confutation because it s not only disagreeing with plain Scripture but with the rules of right reason In this regard they are generally rejected Some charge Morellius and the Brownists with this errour but I have not seen their Books The Learned Blondel may seem to be of this mind because he placeth the power in Plebe Ecclesiastica But upon due examination it will be found otherwise Mr. Parker who asserts the Government in some respect to be Democratical rejects Morellius yet he himself cannot be altogether excused For he will have the Government to be mixt and partly Democratical in the People partly Aristocratical in the Officers or Governours He further explains himself and saith its Democraticum quoad Statum for the Constitution Aristocraticum quoad exercitium for the Administration and Exercise of the Power For he distinguisheth between the Power which is in the whole Church and the Dispensation or Exercise thereof which is in the Governours or Officers who he saith have not all the power of dispensation because the Church reserves so much as is convenient and belonging to her Dignity Authority and Liberty given her of Christ. But this is a mistake in Politicks and the general Rules of Government For a State is mixt or pure in respect of the Constitution not the Administration and the Question is not concerning the secondary but the primary subject of power which the Officers deriving the power from the whole Church cannot be for they have
it only at the second hand as he himself confesseth I will not examine his many arguments because there is none of them ad idem and to the purpose or point in hand and they all and every one as he misapplies them presuppose an errour For they all should be limited to the Fundamental Power in Constitution but here Power of Constitution and of Administration are confounded as also the power of the Church with the power of Officers section 2 After the examination of all these Titles I proceed to deliver mine own judgment and to make good the Title of my Mother the Church For I believe this to be the truth in this point That the primary subject of the Power of the Keyes is the whole Church For order sake I will. 1. Explain the proposition 2. Confirm the same In the Explication I will inform the Reader 1. What I mean by the power of Keyes 2. What by the whole Church 3. How and in what manner I understand the whole Church to be the primary subject of this power 1. This power is not the power of Civil Soveraigns nor of Officers as Officers Civil or Ecclesiastical in foro exteriori or of Ministers as Ministers nor the Universal Power of Christ nor the Extraordinary power of Apostles or any other Extraordinary Officers but it is an Ordinary power of making Canons of constituting Officers of Jurisdiction and other Acts which are necessary for the outward Government of an Ecclesiastical Community committed unto and conveyed upon the Church by Christ. 2. By the whole Church is not to be understood the Universal Church militant and triumphant nor the whole Church mystical nor the whole Church militant and visible of all times nor of the visible Church of all Nations existent in one time but a whole particular Church visible in some certain place and Vicinity that shall be fit to manage the power of the Keyes independently as the Church of Jerusalem of Antioch of Corinth of Ephesus of Smyrna c. Those who determine the Series or order of appeals to ascend from a Congregation to a Classis from a Classis to a Provincial Synod from a Provincial to a National of one Nation to a National of several Nations or from that unto an Oecomenical or General Council extend the whole Church far further than I do As for the Papal party they presuppose all particular Churches to make but one visible Church not only for Doctrine and Worship but for outward Discipline too and the Church of Rome must be the Mother and Queen of all other Churches in the World yet they differ about the primary subject of the power of the Keyes Some determine the Pope as Peters Successour to be the visible Head and Universal Monarch of this Church Others as the Councils of Constance and Basil Cameracensis Gerson and the faculty of Paris give this power to the whole Church to be exercised in general Councils Mr. Ellis doth charge some of our own who affirmed this power to be in the Universal Church with Popery and Mr. Hooker conceives he hath demonstrated Learned and Judicious Mr. Hudson to be guilty of the same but he is mistaken as since is made evident These two cannot possibly be reconciled whilest they proceed upon contrary principles Mr. Hooker of New-England understands by a visible Church such a Church as is under a form of external Discipline and subject unto one independent Judicatory but neither Mr. Hudson nor others of his mind understand any such thing There is an Universal visible Militant Church on Earth this Church is truly Totum integrale and also an Organical body the Head and Monarch is Christ all Ministers Officers all Believers Subjects the Word and Sacrament priviledges and every Christian either by Birth or Baptism according to Divine Institution is first in order of nature a Member of this Universal or Organical Body before he be a Member of any particular Church or Congregation and is so to be considered And many if not all the places of Scripture alledged by Mr. Hudson are truly understood to speak of this Universal Church though some of them seem to be affirmed only of the Church mystical as such yet so that in divers respects they may agree to both This cannot be Popery neither doth it presuppose any point of Popery or other errour The grand errour of the Papist in this particular is to affirm that one Church particular is above all Churches in the World not only in dignity but in power so that all particular Churches must be subject unto her and her Bishop invested with universal Jurisdiction To subject the Universal Church Militant in one body to Christ can have no affinity with this And to subject every particular Church to the Universal exercising her power in a Representative is no such errour nor so dangerous as that of the Soveraignty of Rome And though there be no such thing because the distance is so great that the Association is impossible yet the Pope and his party did abhor to think of it That Question about visible and invisible is but a toy to this The Church therefore which is the subject of the Question is a Church a particular Church a whole particular Church Yet there is a particular Church primary and secundary primary is the Church considered as a community and a secondary Church by way of Representation The primary is the proper subject of real power the Representative of personal Whether this Church be Congregational or of larger extent shall be examined hereafter 3. Thus you have heard 1. What the power is 2. What the subject is Now 3. We must consider in what manner this power is in this primary subject It s not in it Monarchically nor Aristocratically nor Democratically or any pure way of Disposition but in the whole after the manner of a free State or Polity For there Universi praesunt singulis singuli subduntur universis so it s here All joyntly and the whole doth rule every several person though Officer though Minister though Bishop if there be any such is subject to the whole and to all joyntly And in this Model the power is derived from the whole to the parts not from the parts to the whole though this Community should consist of ten thousand Congregations This power is exercised in the highest degree by a Representative general in an inferiour degree by Officers or inferiour Assemblies Upon this principle though in another manner the Councils of Basil and Constance did proceed against the Pope as being but a part though an eminent part as the times were then of the Church Yet this proposition is not so to be understood as though this Church were the first Fountain and Original of this power for she is not she derives and receives it from Christ as Christ from God. But she is the primary subject in respect of her parts and members section 3 For the confirmation of this
Proposition I will 1. Examine two places alledged by Mr. Parker and many others for to manifest the Original of Church-discipline which I conceive are not so pertinent 2. I will most of all insist upon the words of Institution 3. I will enlarge upon those places which speak of the exercise of this power that from the manner of administration we may understand the constitution The two places are Matthew 16.19 and John 20.22 23. The first is concerning the promise the second concerning the donation of the power of the Keyes as they are by many expounded The words of the promise are these I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven c. Many and different are the interpretations of this place as given by Writers both Ancient and Modern Popish and Protestant The difference is in two things especially 1. What this power should be 2. To whom it was to be given The power with many is the power of Discipline in foro exteriori with others the power of a Minister as a Minister 2. The person to whom this power is here promised no doubt is Peter but under what notion Peter must be considered is here the Question Some will have it to be Peter as a Monarch and Prince above the rest of the Apostles including his Successours the Monarchical Bishop of Rome Some will have Peter here considered as the mouth and representative of the Apostles and in them of all Aristocratical Bishops as their Successours Some will have him to represent the Ministers some the Elders some the Church it self And these again divide and cannot agree whether this Church here meant be the Universal Church or a particular if Universal whether Universal mystical or visible if visible whether this be the Church it self or a Representative of the same if Representative whether it must be represented by Bishops only or by Bishops and Presbyters or by Presbyters alone or by Bishops Presbyters and People If a particular Church whether it be Congregational or Diocesan or some other so that from this pronoun THEE we have Chymical extractions of all sorts of Governments Ecclesiastical pure and mixt Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical of all kind of Churches as Universal National Congregational of all kind of Governours as Popes Bishops Presbyters the People Yet I conceive this place is not meant of Discipline but rather of Doctrine The Church is the Universal against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail the Keyes are the Word and Sacraments accompanied with the power of the Spirit As building is conversion and edification so binding and loosing admission into or exclusion out of this Church The Architect and chief Master builder is Christ as he is the principal Agent in binding and loosing His Servants and co-workers are Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel amongst whom Peter was most eminent amongst the Jews Paul amongst the Gentiles For Christ used Peter first to convert the Jews Acts 2. then to convert the Gentiles Act. 10. And Paul laboured more abundantly than them all The binding and loosing in Heaven was the making of their Ministry by the power of the Divine Spirit to be effectual To this purpose D. Reynolds Spalatensis Causabon Cameron Grotius with divers of the Ancient and Mr. Parker himself who notwithstanding applies this to the power of Discipline intending thereby to prove the power of the Keyes to be Democratically in a Congretional Church Yet let it be supposed that Peter as receiving the Keyes doth represent the community of Believers Or if as such he represent them how will it appear that this Church or community is a single Congregation Or if it be such a single Congregation how will it follow from hence that the power is in this Congregation Democratically Mr. Parker should have considered that there is a great difference 1. Between Peter as professing that Christ was the Son of the living God for as such he was only a Disciple admitted by Christ into his Kingdom and Peter receiving the Keyes for as such he was above a Disciple and hath power to admit others into this Kingdom not as a Disciple but as a Minister of the Gospel section 4 The place for actual donation and performance of the former promise is said to be that of John 20.22 23. The words of Christ the Donour are these Receive ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained These have been alledged as by him so by others to prove 1. The power of the Keyes in foro exteriori 2. That this power is in the Bishops alone 3. That the Priests have power upon auricular confession to absolve and here they ground their Sacrament of Penance and their sacerdotal power in foro poenitentiali From hence some of ours have endeavoured to prove the parity of Apostles and so of Bishops against the Popes Supremacy for here they find the power promised only to Peter by name given to all the Apostles For to understand these words the better we must observe in them Donation and in it the Donour the Donee the Power the Acts of the Power the ratification of these Acts. The Donour or Person giving is Christ the parties receiving this power immediately are Apostles as Extraordinary Servants and Officers the thing given and received was the Holy Ghost that is Ability and Authority Divine and Spiritual necessary and requisite for the place the Acts were remitting and retaining the same with binding and loosing Mat. 16.19 The ratification of these Acts was the making them effectual by the concurrence of the Divine Spirit For these Acts could not be Spiritual and Divine and so powerful upon the Immortal Souls of Men nor the Apostles so much as Ministerial and Instrumental Agents in this work without a Divine Power and Confirmation of the Supream Judge making their Sentence valid and executing the same Hence that sweetest Joy and admirable Comfort of those who are Remitted and the Terrours and Torments of those that are Condemned These Acts are performed by the Word and Sacraments and the Application of the Promises or Communications to particular Persons which Application is made either more at large to a Multitude at one time or to single Persons upon some Evidence of their Qualification and it may be made infallibly so far as God shall direct infallibly or fallibly for want of clear Evidence in which Case the Sentence must be passed conditionally by Man though absolutely by God. All this is nothing to external Discipline or if it should extend so far the party remitting and retaining are not the Church but the Officers of the Church and the Officers of a Church not under a form of outward Government but under another Consideration An Ecclesiastical external Common-wealth doth presuppose an Ecclesiastical Community and the same consisting of Believers and the same united and associated for Worship and Divine performances tending to Eternal Salvation and
some consideration or because the Apostles were in it and acted as Extraordinary Ministers of Christ invested with an Universal power over all Churches or because they were received afterwards in every particular Church or because the matter was determined in Scripture and out of it declared to be the mind of God which seems to be implied in these words It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us ver 28. For all Canons should be so made as to be clearly grounded upon some special or general precepts of Scripture which were revealed by the Holy Ghost for they should bind more in respect of the matter and the reason upon which they are grounded than in respect of the multitude of Votes For one good reason from the Scriptures is more binding than the consent of all general Councils in the World. Another Query there is why this Controversie should be determined at Jerusalem and not at Antioch or any where else whether it was because that was the Mother-Church or because the Apostles were there at that time resident or because other Churches were not so fully constituted or because there might be there representatives from all other Churches or because they who sprang the Controversie at Antioch came from Jerusalem and pretended the Authority of the Apostles and of that Church and because it was agreed at Antioch to refer the cause to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem Besides all these there is another doubt concerning the Members which did constitute this Synod whether the Apostles only or the Apostles with the Elders or besides these the Brethren as distinct from them or whether if all these were of the Synod the Elders and Brethren had any decisive voice or no But to leave these doubts It s certain out of the Text. 1. That upon a controversie raised at Antioch by some who came from Jerusalem it could not be after much disputation there ended 2. That it was agreed that Paul and Barnabas with others of them should go unto Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders about this Question 3. When these Delegates came to Jerusalem they were received of the Church the Apostles and Elders 4. Upon this and them acquainted with the controversie the Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter 5. In this Assembly after much disputation both Peter and James gave strong reasons why Circumcision and the Ceremonies of the Law should not be imposed upon the believing Gentiles 6. Upon these convincing reasons it pleased the Apostles and Elders and the whole Church to send special Messengers and Letters concerning the definitive sentence of the Councel unto Antioch 7. The Synodical Letters were written in the name of the Apostles Elders and Brethren in this stile It pleased us and seemed good unto us Divers particulars are here observable as 1. That we do not read that Paul acted any thing as a Judge in this controversie joyntly with the rest of the Synod and perhaps the reason might be because he was considered as a party for no man not an Apostle should be judge and party in the same cause 2. That the Apostles did not act as immediately inspired in this particular and according to any extraordinary but an ordinary Ecclesiastical power for there was much disputation 3. They did not suddenly and instantly proceed to vote the matter but they met to consider of it and debated and disputed much before they determined 4. The determination was not grounded upon the multitude of Votes but upon Divine Revelation and Scripture though not expresly yet by way of consequence as appears both from the words of Peter and of James 5. That which is the principal thing for which this Text is alledged is this that the controversie is not refered to one Apostle as to Paul alone or Peter alone or James alone but to the Apostles joyntly and not to them alone but to the Elders nor to them and the Elders alone but to them with the Bretheren and the whole Church 6. That all these gave their consent for it pleased the Apostles and Elders and the whole Church If Peter alone had been made Judge then the Pope if only the Apostles then the Bishops if the Elders alone then the Presbytery if the Bretheren alone then the People would have challenged every one severally the Legislative power in Synods to themselves alone Lastly by this we learn upon what occasion such great Assemblies are requisite if not necessary we might add that they convened by the permission not commission of the Civil Power section 11 By this you understand how and by whom the Legislative Power was exercised Of the exercise of the second branch of power in making Officers we read Acts 1.15 For 1. Upon the death of Judas one of the sacred Colledge of the Apostles a place was void This was the occasion 2. Peter conceives that another must be surrogated and succeed him in that place 3. In an Assembly of an hundred and twenty as a Chair-man he proposeth the matter 4. Acquaints them with the occasion of a new Election and lets them understand the necessity of it saying There must one be Ordained as a Witness with us of Christ's Resurrection The reason he concludes from these words of Psal. 119.8 His Office Charge or Bishoprick let another take By which words God signifies and commands that upon the death of Judas another must take the Charge with the rest of the Apostles 5. Upon this the Assembly proceeds without any Conge-disler or Lience from any other to the Election and propose two Justus and Matthias both well qualified and in that equality that they knew not whether to prefer 6. Because they could not determine whether was the fitter nor upon a Determination give a Commission to make an Apostle therefore by prayer and lot they refer and commit the cause to God who chuseth Matthias In this Election divers things are considerable 1. That if Matthias and Justus were of the number of the seventy Disciples as it 's very probable if not certain there was an imparity between the twelve Apostles and seventy Disciples in respect of their place yet what this imparity was and whether it should continue in the ordinary Officers of the Church succeeding them is not here expressed 2. That the Election of the highest Officer in the Church even of an Apostle was committed to this Assembly as fit to judge of his Qualifications 3. That none should take upon them to elect a Minister or Officer of the Church who is not able to judge of his fitness for the place 4. That God gives none any power to elect or ordain and constitute any a Minister Officer or Representative of the Church who is not duly qualified for to do the work of the place for which he was elected Justus and Matthias must be able with the Apostles to bear witness of the Resurrection of Christ. 5. The principal thing for the point in hand to be observed
is that neither Peter nor any of the eleven do take upon them to elect or design any person or persons by themselves alone but commit it to the whole Assembly and the whole Assembly elected prayed cast losts 6. That though these persons very eminent and full of the Spirit could and might design the persons but not give the power of Apostleship To this Head belongs the constitution of Decons Acts 6. Where we read of the occasion and in some sort of the necessity of this Office. For 1. The Apostles knew there was a kind of necessity of such an Officer as a Deacon and it was no ways fit to distract themselves in serving of tables and neglect the great business of word and prayer 2. That they call the multitude together 3. They propose the matter unto them and signifie what manner of persons Deacons should be and commit the election of persons amongst them rightly qualified to them 4. They elect persons fit for the place 5. They present these persons 6. The Apostles pray and lay hands on them Whether they used any form of words in this imposition of Hands we do not read The thing principally to be considered in this business is that the Apostles themselves alone do not take upon them to chuse and constitute these Deacons To this may be added that Paul doth not take upon him to send the charity and benevolence of the Corinthians collected for the poor Saints at Jerusalem but refers it to themselves to approve by Letters such as they would use as their Messengers 1 Cor. 16.3 section 12 The third branch of the power of the Keyes is that of Jurisdiction which we find exercised in the Church of Corinth or rather a command of the Apostles binding them as having that power to exercise it reproving them in that they had not done it already in a particular case and giving directions how it should be done Out of the Apostles directions 1 Cor. 5. we might pick a model of Church-government for there we have an Ecclesiastical community under a form of Government and that is the whole Church of Corinth 2. We have the members of this community and they are the sanctified in Christ Jesus and such are called to be Saints 3. We have the relation of these one to another they are Brethren yet every particular brother subject to the whole Church 4. We have the power of Jurisdiction and the same in the whole body 5. We have the power of Excommunication and by consequence of absolution and other Ecclesiastical censures and these in the whole Church which is reproved because they do not exercise it upon so great an occasion and for so great a cause They are commanded to purge out the old leaven and to cast out and put from amongst them that wicked person because they had power to judge 6. The persons subject to this Jurisdiction is every one that is a brother of that Church 7. We have the causes which make these persons and brethren of that Church liable to censure and they are scandals whereof we have a catalogue whereby we may understand by analogy others not expressed 8. We have the form of the sentence of Excommunication which must be solemnly passed in a publick Assembly convened proceeding and passing Judgement in the Name of Christ. 9. In this Judgement we have the Apostle passing and giving his vote by Writing with the rest of that Church 10. We find that neither the Apostle nor they can judge them that are without but they are reserved to Gods Judgement 11. We have the end of Excommunication which here is twofold 1. In respect of the party Excommunicated 2. Of the Church and his fellow-members In respect of the person Excommunicated the destruction of the Flesh by some punishment for a time that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. In respect of the Body of the Church the preservation of the same from infection of the old leaven of malice and wickedness that so not only single persons but the whole Society may be continued pure This is the rule of Excommunication the rules of absolution we find 2 Cor. 2. where we may observe first the person capable of it and it is such an one as having been punished by many and the punishment proves sufficient because by it he is grieved humbled for his sin in danger to be swallowed up with over much sorrow and by Satan to be tempted to despair in a word when the party is penitent and he appears really to be so 2. The nature of Absolution which is to forgive and confirm our love unto him 3. This sentence of Remission and Reconciliation must be pronounced in the Person of Christ. 4. The Persons who must pass this Sentence and see it executed are the same who Excommunicated him who here were Paul and the Church of Corinth 5. The end of this Act of Judgement which is to comfort and restore the party Penitent yet in this you must conceive all this is to be done in an orderly and not in a confused and tumultuous manner both for the Time the Place the Order of Proceeding and the Persons who manage the Business and denounce the Sentence For these things must be committed to some eminent Persons who are fit for such a work For though all must agree yet some must exercise the Power in the Person of the Church We might further Instance in the seven Churches of Asia For Ephesus though reproved for her falling from her first love yet is commended for her severity against the Nicolaitans Rev. 2.6 The Church of Pergamos is blamed for suffering such amongst them as taught the Doctrine of Baalam and the Nicolaitans so is the Church of Thyatira because she suffered that woman Jezabel who called her self a Prophetess to teach and seduce Christs Servants to commit Fornication and to eat things Sacrificed to Idols This was the remisness of Discipline and neglect of the exercise of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction wherewith not only though perhaps principally the Angels but the whole Churches are charged section 13 The total Summ of all these particulars is this That the Primary Subject of the Power of the Keyes is the whole Church This appears From the Institution acording to which we must Tell the Church The Church must bind and loose 3. Her Judgment shall be ratified in Heaven Exercise thereof in Legislation by the whole Church Constitution of Officers by the whole Church Jurisdiction by the whole Church If any shall say that the power is in the Apostles or Bishops or Superintendants lawfully constituted its true if that its in the Presbyters it s so if that its in the Brethren or People it cannot be denied Yet if any will argue from these places that its in the Bishops alone or in the Presbyters alone or in the Brethren alone or in the Officers or Representatives of the whole Church primarily it cannot be true If
of the same much and dangerously corrupted many things may be lawfully done which under a well-setled Government will prove very unlawful For though where there is no outward form of ordinary Vocation and Ordination established that which Volkelius maintains against Swinglius for one that is vitae inculpatae idoneus ad docendum to take upon him the charge of a Minister and do Christ what service he is able may be lawful Yet to do so where there is an Eutaxie in a setled Church must be unjust because amongst other things such an one shall trangress the Rule of Decency and Order 14. Though Christ and his Apostles did deliver unto us all the essential and fundamental Rules of Church-Government and we find them in the Scripture yet many accidentals were left to sanctied reason to be directed to the general Rules And in this respect we must make use of our Christian prudence both in modelling and reforming of Christian Churches But if we stand upon these Rules of prudence in accidentals and circumstantials as of Divine Institution and Obligation we cannot be excused 15. Though there may be several orderly ways and means to attain the chief end of Church-discipline yet those are the best which most observe the essentials of Government and the general Rules and are most effectually conducing to that end 16. Seeing therefore there may be several and different means in respect of accidentals and they severally may attain and reach the end it 's the duty of us all 1. To unite our selves in the bond of Charity 2. Observe the fundamental and essential Rules of Government which are clearly known 3. With a meek humble and pure heart seek out such particulars as are not yet made clear unto us and wherein we may differ for the present till at length we may satisfie one another CHAP. XIV Of the extent of a Particular Church section 1 AFter the examination of the several Titles of such as challenge the supream Power of the Keys and the declaration of mine own Judgment the third thing proposed was the Extent of a particular Church That there is a supream power of the Keys that there is a primary subject of this power that this power is in the Church that it 's disposed in this Church in a certain order and manner in one or more purely or mixtly few if any will deny But that it is disposed in the whole Church after the manner of a free State so that every particular Christian Community is the primary subject of it is not so easily granted though I conceive it as many other worthy and excellent men do to be truth delivered unto us by Christ and his Apostles Yet let this be agreed upon yet there is another difference concerning the bounds and extent of this Church This is not the proper place I confess to handle this particular For extent presupposeth a Church constituted and in being and it 's an accident of the same therefore pars subdita which is the second integral part as of a State so of a Church should first have been spoken of In this point I find a threefold difference for some extend this Church which is the primary subject of the power of the Keys very far and make it to be the universal Church of all Nations Others confine it to be a single Congregation A third party will admit of a Diocess or a Province or a Nation and be contented to stay there This Question if we understand it presupposeth Union and Communion There is an Union and also a Communion in Profession and Worship an Union Mystical an Union in Government external which we call Discipline An Union in Profession and Worship there is and ought to be of all Orthodox Christians in the World. For they all profess the same Faith and worship the same God in Christ hear the same Word celebrate the same Sacraments It 's true they do not neither can they so meet in one place as to partake of the same individual Ordinances for there is no necessity of any such thing Yet whosoever shall refuse to joyn in the same individual Worship of the same God in Christ according to the Gospel when it may be done as when one converseth with Christians in some remote parts he cannot be free from Schism For all refusal of Communion with Christ's Saints and Servants without just and sufficient cause is a Schism So if any party or persons shal not admit of other Christians only upon this account because they agree not with them in some accidentals which are neither necessary nor in themselves considered conducing to Salvation they must needs be Schismaticks For any Separation which hath not sufficient and evident warrant from some Divine Precept is unlawful There is a mystical Union of all true Believers for there is one body one spirit one hope of calling one Lord one faith one baptism one God and Father of all who is above all through all in all Ephes. 4.4 5 6. There is an Union for Government external of this the question is to be understood And this Union is so necessary in every Common-wealth whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that it 's no Common-wealth if it be not one and so one that every particular person especially in a Church be subject to one and the same supream independent Judicatory Concerning the universal Extent there are as you heard before two Opinions They first make one Church the Church of Rome to have power over all other Churches and invests the Bishop of that Church with an universal power of Legislation and Jurisdiction this is a Popish Errour indeed The second Opinion subjects all particular Churches to the universal whereof they are but parts this is no Popery nor do the present Popes and Church of Rome like it This universal Church cannot act but by a general Representative and such a general Representative there yet never was since the Church was enlarged from Sea to Sea and from the River unto the World's end Such a general Council and Court either standing or occasional few I think do expect As for the Councils of Nice Chalcedon Ephesus Constantinople they were no such Councils nor general in proper sence they were confined within the Roman Empire and if well examined they left out several parts of that too The meaning therefore of some who submit particular Churches to the universal is this That so many several parts and particular Churches as can combine in one Synod may in some extraordinary cases and difficulties especially if they be of general concernment submit unto such a Synod as being of greater authority and ability if rightly constituted Yet if these particular Churches have their proper independent Judicatories this submission is but a voluntary act and rather like a Reference or Transaction than any Appeal When and in what cases such References are fit to be made I will not here enquire Besides these Universalists if we
may so call them who extend the bounds of this Church too far there are others who confine it to a too narrow compass as many do conceive they determine it to be a Congregation Of this judgment was Mr. Parker a learned man in the Raign of King James in our times the dissenting Brethren and their party which follow their Principles and put them in practise to this day They were called the dissenting Brethren because in the Assembly of Divines for Advice they dissented from the Presbyterian party Afterward they were called Congregationals because they confined the Church to a Congregation and Independents because in their single Congregations they erected an independent Judicatory and challenged an independent power of the Keys as due by the Institution of Christ to every single Congregation gathered by them But let their names be what they will and the reason of their names what they shall please le ts consider the thing it self And before the Question can be discussed to purpose we must enquire 1. What their Congregation is 2. How they are gathered 3. Whether this narrow compass be grounded upon Scripture or no For the nature of a Congregation as they seem to take it Mr. Parker gives in a clear account For with him 1. A Congregation is a Multitude of Christians which may ordinarily and conveniently assemble in one place to communicate in the Ordinances of God. 2. He confesseth that the Essence thereof doth not consist in the act of assembling for then upon every dissolution and parting of the Company assembled it would cease to be a Church Yet Mr. Hooker prevents this caution as needless for he makes those whom Mr. Parker calls Christians and himself visible Saints to be the matter and confederation either explicit or implicit to be the form and this federation ties them together not only when they assemble but at other times too This is that which Mr. Parker calls Union by Convention Yet 3. He adds that though they ought to be no more numerous than may ordinarily assemble in one place yet they may and sometimes do meet severally and have several Ministers who severally officiate in several Assemblies and take charge of the whole Church in common But 4. They have but one Consistory He instanceth for this last in the German Churches and the Cities of Holland Polit. Eccles. lib. 3. sect 1. 2. Whether this be the notion of a Church with the present Congregational party or no I know not I have much desired to have seen something wherein all that party agrees in made publick to satisfie such as desire to know their minds By this Definition they exclude Parishes or parochial Churches which are united under one Minister Diocesan Churches united under one Bishop Provincial Churches united under one Arch-bishop and Metropolitan Yet both of them Mr. Parker and Mr. Hooker might easily have known 1. That neither the Parochial nor Diocesan nor Provincial Church was accounted the primary subject of the power of the Keys as they affirm their Congregation to be 2. That a Parish is not now nor with understanding men ever was taken for a Congregation Christian as a Parish in a civil notion For therein may be Heathens Jews Mahumetans Schismaticks Hereticks Apostates But it 's called a Church or Congregation Ecclesiastical in respect of the Minister and those Christians of that Precinct who ordinarily assemble to perform the acts of Divine Worship 3. If the name Church may be given to a few Christians in one Family and House as it is Philem. 2. Col. 4.15 I know no reason but it may be given to a number and society of Christians in one Parish where by reason of Vicinity and Co-habitation they may ordinarily and conveniently meet together for divine Service which some of their Congregations cannot do section 2 The manner of gathering these Congregations is not in the same Vicinity or elsewhere to convert Heathens or Jews or Mahumetans or Papists to make them Christians Though no doubt some of them being pious and learned men if providence give them occasion would indeavour to do it But they gather Christians Protestant Christians from amongst Christians and such as they find fitted to their own hand without any pains of theirs but by the sweat and labour and care and prayers of some other faithful Pastours and Ministers of Christ under whose hands they formerly have been to whose charge they have been committed and under whose Ministery God hath prospered them These amongst others they either perswade to be of their Congregations or if they offer themselves voluntarily they admit them and this to the great grief of their own faithful Pastours When they accept of these they neither teach them any new Article of Faith which formerly they professed not nor press upon them any new Duty according to the Commandments of Christ which is either necessary or conducing to Salvation There is no essential of Christianity which they can superadd to what they had before Only if ceasing to be Episcopal or Presbyterian or Parochial they are willing to confederate with them to walk after their manner and be of their party they are willing to receive them If this be their manner of gathering Churches as it 's well known it is with some I dare say they have no Example much less any Precept in the Scripture for it They admit indeed of some which are very unworthy and such as many Presbyterians would not accept with hope that upon their solemn covenanting they will prove better I do not write this out of partiality or prejudice for some of that party are my special Friends and I dearly love them some are pious prudent and learned and I honour them much Yet I desire them seriously to consider what they do and also so far as they can to forecast what is likely to be the issue if they do not unite more firmly amongst themselves and combine with other pious Ministers and people of God both in Worship and Discipline For they may make perhaps five hundred or encrease to a thousand independent Congregations and can any wise man imagine that these can continue long without some Subordination and certain Rules of a former Union And can this be consistent with the interest of any Christian Civil State If they be searching out some better way according to the Rules of Christ with a sincere resolution to fix upon it when it 's once found as some of them do intimate they are their proceedings are more tolerable God hath fearfully punished divers of their Congregations and they have been divided amongst themselves and some of their Members fallen off and have proved far worse than ever they were whilest they continued under their own pious Ministers section 3 But to come to the principal thing which is their Congregational Extent for to that narrow compass they confine that Church which must be the primary subject of this power The Question is not whether
some Congregations in some cases may be the subject of this power in this degree nor whether every well constituted Congregation may not have and exercise Discipline within themselves for some particulars For this will be granted them For both the Presbyterian and also the Parochial Congregations and Vestries did so under the Bishops But whether their Congregations gathered in their manner be this primary Subject and this according to any precept of Christ Or if we leave out that restriction of being gathered in their manner whether by any Institution and precept of Christ the independent power of Discipline doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primarily belong unto a Congregation For if it do then it belongs in this manner to them and them alone as single Congregations and to no other Association of Christians And if any other Association do assume it they transgress a precept of Christ which is of universal and perpetual Obligation For to prove the affirmative Mr. Parker makes use of the words Synagoga and Ecclesia as most commonly taken in Scripture And the dissenting Brethren instance in the first Apostolical Churches Mr. Parker's first Argument is taken from the signification of the words Ecclesia and Synagoga in Scripture And 1. He presupposeth that these signifie a Congregation 2. That a Congregation is an Assembly meeting in one place 3. Hence he infers that nulla Ecclesia prima quae non Congregatio His meaning is that if the people of any Precinct as of a Diocess or Province exceed the bounds of a Congregation so that they cannot conveniently and ordinarily meet in one place they are not that first Church to which the power of the Keys doth primarily and originally agree And he alledgeth for this purpose Dr. Reynolds saying That in every place of the Old and New Testament Synagoga Ecclesia est and as well Synagoga as Ecclesia when they are said to speak of a Congregation political signifie only an Assembly meeting in one place Polit. Eccles. lib. 3. sect 3. For answer hereunto it will be sufficient to examine the signification of these words as used in the Scripture and by that we shall see whether the Argument from the signification of the word be good or no. To this end it may be observed that the word Synagoga is used by the Septuagint a hundred seventy times if not above in the Old Testament under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we find it an hundred and twenty times and in the first eight places it signifies the Congregation of all Israel which consisted of six hundred thousand fighting men besides women and children as Exod. 12.3 6 19 47 verse and chap. 16.1 2 9 10. Judges 20.12 It 's an Assembly of four hundred thousand at least The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 37 turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Congregation and in the three first places an Assembly or Congregation of Nations as Gen. 29.3.35.11.48.4 Cyrus his Army gathered out of many Nations is Kahal Synagoga Jeremy 50.9 So the vast Army of Gog and Magog is Synagoga a Congregation Ezek. 38.4 Again as Synagoga may signifie a Congregation of many thousands and a far greater number than Mr. Parker's Congregation so the word Ecclesia is used under the word Kahal seventy times as formerly upon another occasion was noted and in the first place it signifies the Congregation of all Israel both in Levit. 8.3 and also Deut. 18.16 It many times signifies the Assembly of Israel sometimes a general Representative In the New Testament Heb. 12.23 it 's the general Assembly of the first-born which are written in Heaven Eph. 4.22 it 's that body whereof Christ is Head and Chap. 2.20 that building whereof the Apostles and Prophets are the foundation and Christ the chief corner-stone From all this it 's clear that the words Ecclesia and Synagoga signifie besides Civil and Military Ecclesiastical Assemblies and the same either political or local and the place is either particular or special or general in which sence a whole Region and vast Country may be one place So that one fallacy 1. is in the word place 2. another in the word Assembly meeting in one place For 1. The Assembly and Meeting may be rare and extraordinary as the words do divers times signifie as is evident and this cannot agree to Mr. Parker's ordinary and convenient Meeting 2. They signifie Assemblies meeting in far greater numbers than in his Congregation For the number of persons which made up divers of these Assemblies were thousands nay hundreds of thousands as four hundred thousand five hundred thousand nay millions and whole Nations And if so then they who stand for a National Church will desire no more the Provincial and Diocesan party will be content with fewer Again the words sometimes signify a political Society consisting of such persons as shall never meet together in one place except at Christ's right hand and in the place of Glory So that if the former distinction used in stating the question be remembred and the question be understood thus That some Congregations such as Mr. Parker describes the Church to be may sometimes in some respect be the subject of an independent power of the Keys then these places are not much against him But if he understand it so that if any Church exceed the bounds of his Congregation of so many as may ordinarily and conveniently meet together it 's not of Christ's Institution nor can be the primary Subject of this power then his Argument a nomine ad rem from the word to the thing is no Argument But suppose the words should always signify one Congregation which may ordinarily meet in one place which yet they do not how will it follow from any of those places that such a Congregation and none other is this primary subject section 5 His second Argument is taken from the description of the Church as represented to John the Divine Rev. 4. For he takes it for granted that the Church there mentioned consisting of twenty four Elders and the four Beasts was a congregational Church or rather that the Church there was a Congregation in his sence Answ. But 1. Let it be granted that there is a description of a Church and the same Christian visible yet it will no ways agree to his Congregation For 1. There is an allusion made to the Congregation of Israel pitching in four Squadrons under four several Ensigns as the Ensign of Judah was a Lion and three Tribes under every Ensign with the Priest and Levites encamping next the Ark between it and the Squadrons This was a Congregation as you heard before of 600 000 Men besides Women and Children 2. This Congregation of the four Beasts and twenty four Elders sing a Song of praise unto the Lamb Christ and acknowledge that he was slain and had redeemed them to God by his blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation Rev. 5.8 9. This is a Congregation
that they are Members of such a Church for every single Member is subject to the whole Here is no exemption of any though they should be Bishops Metropolitans Patriarchs The Patriarchs of Rome may challenge a transcendent power to be above all Laws and all Judgments he will command all judge all will be commanded will be judged by none But all this is but an unjust and insolent Usurpation For Christs Institution in those words Tell the Church excludes such powers dethrones such persons He that will sit in the Church of God as God must needs be the Son of Perdition From this subjection ariseth an Obligation to acknowledge the just power of the Church to be faithful unto it and by all means to seek the good thereof to obey the Laws and submit unto the just Judgment of the same section 2 This being the brief Explication of subjection whence a Christian is denominated a subject of a particular Church under a form of Government the next thing to be done is to enquire who are subjects how they may be distinguished and how they may be divided and how educated Subditi enim Ecclesiae distinguuntur distincti dividuntur educantur 1. They are distinguished both from others and also among themselves from others they are differenced for some are within some without some are Brethren some are not This is implied by the Apostle when he saith If any man that is called a Brother and what have I to do to judge them that are without Do not ye judge them that are within 1 Cor. 5.11 12. Therefore there are such as are not Brethren such as are without and cannot be judged by the Church these are no Subjects There are Brethren such as are within and may be judged these are Subjects By this distinction Mahumetans Pagans unbelieving Jews are excluded For none can be a Member of a Church Christian but a Christian who by Baptism is solemnly admitted to be a Subject of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and a Member of the Universal Church And whosoever shall be such may be a Member and so a Subject of a particular visible Church Yet one may be a Member of one particular Church and not of another for as in civil politicks none can be a subject of two several States civil at one time so in Ecclesiastical Government no person can be a subject of two particular Independent Churches at the same time Therefore when the Apostle saith Do not ye judge them within is to be understood of the Members of that particular Church of Corinth For they could not judge them of the Church of Rome of Ephesus of Jerusalem or any other but their own yet here is to be observed that manifest Apostates though they have been Christians cannot be received into a Christian Church nor such as have been Members of an Heretical Superstitious Idolatrous Church till they have renounced their Heresie Superstition Idolatry Neither must any subject himself to any such Church nor continue in it if formerly he hath been a Member for all sinful Communion is unlawful Yet wherein there is no such thing and God in his Providence casts him upon another Church he may subject and also continue As in a civil State there are sojourners and strangers and also plenary subjects so there may be in a particular Church For all such as are Members and Subjects of one Church and yet either sojourn or inhabit in another for less or longer time they are not Subjects till they be incorporate yet they are Subjects of the Catholick Church in any part of the World. And upon Letters Testimonial or any other sufficient Information they may be admitted to Communion in Word Prayer and Sacraments for these are priviledges of the Universal Church and common to all Christians of Age as Christians But these doth not render them Members of that particular Church for Discipline without Submission and Admission Only if they do offend against the just Canons of that Church where they are Strangers The Rule of delictum in alieno territorio c. holds good and they may be censured where the Offence is committed and where the Scandal is committed Of plenary subjects some are such by Birth some by Election Those by Birth are like the native Jew those by Election are like the Proselite Yet this is to be observed that as one who was an Heathen might be made both a Proselite and a Member of that Church of Israel at the same time and the same Act so one that was of no Church as being no Christian may be made a Christian and a Member of a particular Church visible at once Therefore we must distinguish of such as are incorporated into a Church for as Ephes. 2.11 12. There were such who were Gentiles and so none of God's people and aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and strangers to the Covenants of Promise who afterwards ver 19. were no more Strangers and Forraigners but fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the Houshould of God and so of no people made a people and more of no Christians made Christians There be others who formerly were Christians and that which is more Subjects of some one particular Church which are made Subjects of another This is so to be understood as that to be a Christian or a Member of a particular Church is not meerly from Birth but from birth of Christian Parents who are Members of the Church Universal and sometimes nay often of a particular Church under a form of Government Neither doth this Birth without Divine Ordination incorporate us into the one or other For to be a Christian is not from Nature but from God's gracious Ordination which requires that even those who are born in the Bosom of the Church and baptized too should when they come to Age be instructed in the Covenant and also own their Baptism by profession of their Faith and promise for to keep the Covenant The neglect of this is the cause why many Congregations have such unworthy Members Yet it 's not necessary by any Divine Precept that all should be excluded whom we do not certainly know to be real Saints And here I will take occasion to debate of two things much controverted in these times 1. Of the qualification of a Member of the Church 2. Of separation from a Church section 3 For the qualification of the Church-member it 's agreed that visible Saints though not real may be Members of a Church But the Question is what a visible Saint is By visible the Congregational party in particular Mr. Hooker of New England understands one that shall appear to such as should admit him to be a Saint This Saintship is as he informs us in knowledge and practise and he grants a latitude in both This visibility is that whereby they appear to us to be Saints in respect of their knowledge and practise And thus they appear and may be
as some say at the King's command and that without Law and Authority of Parliament were confessed by many and exclaimed against generally and divers charged the Bishops as guilty of Usurpation And how could they be less when they imposed the reading of the Book of Sports and Recreations on the Lord's Day and punished divers Ministers refusing to read it and which was not tolerable the Rule of their Proceedings in the Exercise of their Power were Canons never allowed by Parliament besides the business of Altars and bowing towards them which had no colour of Law. Many began to set up Images in their Churches and innovate in Doctrine In consideration of all these things a Reformation if it might be had was thought necessary not only for the perfection of the first but also for to cut off the late introduced Corruptions and prevent the like for the future An opportunity seemed to be put into the hands of a Parliament with an Assembly of Divines for Advice to do this A Reformation they promise begin to act in the way and the expectation was great But instead of perfecting the former Reformation they cause a new Confession of Faith and new Catechisms to be made instead of the former Litany and Set-form of Worship a new Directory is composed and allowed for Discipline the Episcopal Power is abolished and the former Government dissolved the Presbyterian way and that very near to that of Scotland is agreed upon So that whatsoever was formerly determined by Law is null and void In the end all that was done in Doctrine Worship and Discipline in a time of War without and against the mind of the King did vanish was rejected by many and received by few and such an Indulgence under pretence of favouring tender Consciences was granted that every one seemed to be left at liberty Hence sprang so many Separations and Divisions that England since she became Christian never saw the like There were Divisions in Doctrine so many as could not be numbred and men were in their judgments not only different but contrary And the former Errours pretended to be great were few in number far less noxious in quality to these latter which were very many and some of them blasphemous and abominable All the old damned Heresies seemed to be revived and raked out of Hell and the more vain and blasphemous the Opinion was it was by some the more admired For Worship instead of some Ceremonies or Superstitions at the worst all kind of Abominations brake out of the bottomless Pit. Some professed high Attainments and Dispensations to the contempt of Sabbaths Sacraments and Scripture it self Some turned Ranters as though the old abominable Gnosticks had been conjured up from Hell. Some become Seekers till they lost all Religion Some were Quakers and most rude uncivil inhumane Wretches deadly Enemies of the Ministery and most violent Opposers of the Truth and some no ways ill affected but otherwise well disposed people seemed to be suddenly bewitched as the Galatians were and could give no Reason nor Scripture for the Separation and Alterations To be Anabaptists seemed to be no Offence in comparison of the former For Discipline some adhered to the Prelatical Form and refused Communion with the Presbyterian Party who with the Scottish Kirk thought their way to be the pattern in the Mount. The Congregational was of another mind and stood at as far a distance from them on one hand as the rigid Prelatical Party did on another Yet in all this God preserved an Orthodox Party who retained the substance of the Protestant Religion with moderation and these are they whom God will bless and make victorious in the end For all these came to pass and were ordered by Divine Providence to discover the Frailty of all the Wickedness of some the Hypocrisie of others to mainifest the Approved to confirm the Sincere and let men know what a blessing Order and Government in Church and State must needs be Here are many Separations some passive but many active As for the Quakers Seekers Above-Ordinance-Men Ranters their Separation under pretence of greater Purity is abominable The Antipedobaptists and the Catabaptists cannot justify themselves and in the end it will appear The Dissenting Bretheren and Congregational Party after they began to gather Churches with the rigid Prelatists and Presbyterians cannot be excused They who actually concurred to procure a Liberty and Indulgence especially the Zealots in that work who had a design to promote their own way have much to answer for and their account will be heavy And surely they are no ways innocent who took away the former Laws and Government before they had a better and in their own power effectually to establish them And whosoever departed from the former legal Doctrine Worship and Discipline in any thing wherein it was agreeable to the Word of God must needs be worthy of blame as also those who took an ill course to introduce that which was better They who will not Communicate with others or refuse to admit unto Communion with themselves in all parts of Worship such as are Orthodox and not changeable with Scandal are Offenders and cannot be free from Schism in some degree The Usurpations of the Bishops and the Innovations made by them and their Party together with their Negligence and Remisness in the more material parts of Discipline gave no little cause of Divisions and Separations To be hasty high rigid in Reformation is a cause of many and great Mischiefs This Church of England upon the first Reformation within a few Years brought forth to God even under that imperfect Reformation many precious Saints and glorious Martyrs And after the Persecution how did she multiply and yield as many able and godly Ministers and gracious Servants of God as any Church in the World of that compass And all those good Children were begotten nursed and encreased whilst under one supreme independent national Judicatory And though the first Reformation was imperfect and the Church in some things corrupted and many Members of the same without sufficient cause persecuted by some of the ungodly and unworthy Bishops yet for any of the Subjects and Members to separate from her without some weighty cause must needs be a sin A Reformation might have been made without pulling down the whole Frame and opening a way to the ensuing Divisions Imperfection is no sufficient cause to separate from that Church wherein any person receives his Christian being or continuance or growth of that being neither is every kind of Corruption No Church but hath some defects but hath some corruptions and no man should depart from any Christian Society further than that Society is departed from God. To depart and divide upon conceits of greater purity and perfection or out of a spirit of Innovation or in any thing which is approved of God and not contrary to his Word cannot be lawful Let every one therefore reflect upon the former Divisions and
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
of the Ministers in the Church of the New Testament Thus Dr. Andrews 8. That most Reformed Churches have Bishops or Superintendents and something answerable to Bishops The design of all this seems to be this to prove that Episcopacy and Hierarchy are Apostolical and Universal Yet none of these produce any clear divine Testimony for this much less any divine Precept to make this Regiment to be of perpetual and universal Obligation Neither doth any of them all tell us distinctly what the power of Bishops of Metropolitans of Patriarchs was nor whether they exercised their power as Officers or Representatives or by an immediate Jus divinum derived from Christ unto them All that can be made clear is that some kind of Bishops may be lawful and have been ancient and of good use tho' of no necessity As for the Hierarchy it 's meerly Humane and being at first intended for Unity was in the end the cause of the most bloody Schisms that ever were in the Church and an occasion of intolerable Ambition Emulation and Contention section 10 Subjects Ecclesiastical being distinguished and divided must be educated and so I come to Education and Institution Tho' spiritual Education be far more useful and necessary yet we find most men more careful to improve their Children for this World than the World to come The reason is they seek these earthly things more than God's Kingdom love the World more than God and prefer their Bodies before their Souls we should provide for both yet for the one far more than the other For what will it avail us to be temporally rich and spiritually poor to gain the World and lose our Souls This therefore is a special work of the Church to educate her Children and nurse them up for Heaven and the Magistrate Christian is bound to further her in this work Adam tho' Lord of the whole Earth and one who might give his Chrildren far greater Estates in Land than any man ever could yet brought them up not in idleness but honest labour But his principal care was to teach them how to serve their God and when they were at age to bring their Offerings before him God saith of Abraham I know him that he will command his children and his houshold after him and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him Gen. 18.19 Joshua saith As for me and mine house we will serve the Lord Josh. 24.15 It was the command of God that Israel should diligently teach their Childrin the words of God and talk of them when they sit in their houses and when they went abroad and at their lying down and rising up Deut. 6.7 How often doth Solomon exhort to this duty and earnestly perswade all especially Children to hearken unto understand remember and constantly follow the Instruction of their Parents and their Teachers This was the care of Moses of Joshua the Judges and good Kings of Judah For this end the Priests Levites and Scribes were ordained of God and the Schools of the Prophets were erected for this work This was one prime work of the Levite to teach Jacob God's Judgments and Israel his Laws Deut. 33.10 This same commandment of spiritual Education is repeated in the New Testament Parents must bring up their Children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. This was the great work of Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers For they must not only pray but teach and labour not only for conversion but the edification of the Churches children Every Christian should help and further one another in this work As Parents in their Families should have knowledge and be able to instruct their Children so all Schools should have a care to inctruct the Schollars not only in Languages and humane Learning but also in the saving Doctrine of Salvation This was the reason why by the Canons of the Church they were bound to Catechise the Children committed to their charge The Universities and Colledges were bound to this likewise and were Seminaries not only for Lawyers Philosophers and Physitians but especially for Divines who though they improved their knowledge in Arts and Languages yet it was in subordination to their diviner and more excellent Profession To this Head belongs correction good example and prayer For the principal Teacher is the Spirit who must write God's truth in the heart and make all means of Education effectual The publick and principal Officers trusted by Christ with this work are the Ministers of the Gospel whose work is not meerly and onely to preach and expound but to catechise In these works we are either very negligent or imprudent For we should plant and water and pray to God for the encrease we should lay the foundation and build thereon yet some will do neither some will preposterously water before they plant and build before they lay the foundation and so do Christ little service and the Church little good Some â—ake upon them the Charge and are insufficient Men may teach by word or writing By word first the principle should be methodically according to the ancient Creeds and Confessions be taught this is the foundation Without this Sermons Expositions reading of Scriptures and Books of Piety will not be so profitable and edifying as they might be People should be taught to believe the saving and necessary truths of the Gospel obey his commands pray for all blessings and mercies and especially for the Spirit that their faith may be effectual their obedience sincere and also to receive the Sacrament aright and make right use of their Baptism Expositions should be plain and clear that the people may not only hear but understand and be moved by the truth understood Sermons should be so ordered as that the Texts proposed and the Doctrines and divine Axiomes thereof may be cleared understood according to the drift and scope of the Spirit And the application should be pertinent to inform the understanding with the truth and remove errours and when that is done to work effectually upon the heart and make it sensible of sin past and pertinent by the precepts the comminations and the promises to comfort and raise up the soul dejected and this especially by the promises of the Gospel and upon motives to exhort to duty and upon reasons restrain from sin This Ordinance and means of divine institution is much abused many ways by instilling of erroneous and novel opinions with which the people are much taken if delivered with good language by impertinencies digressions quaint terms and formalities But of these things I have spoken in my Divine Politicks This institution is so necessary that without it the Church cannot subsist nor the Government thereof be effectual section 11 Thus you have heard that the subject or as some call it the object of Politicks is a Common-wealth the subject whereof is a Community
of a Congregation to govern and order it self in divers cases not so incident to a national Church well ordered Amongst others there be four acknowledged and reckoned up by Mr. Parker himself The first is when one and the same Cause may concern not only one single Congregation but divers several other neighbouring Churches The second is the Inability of the Eldership of an independent Congregation The third is Male administration The fourth is Appeal upon Male-administration presumed Concerning these four Cases I observe 1. That no single Congregation doth continue long but some of these Cases if not all will fall out 2. That in these cases there can hardly be any Redress 3. That a national Church is ordinarily furnished with sufficient Remedies against these Evils Upon all this it follows that in some cases a national Church is of a better constitution than a Congregational Whereas Mr. Parker in the case of Male-administration grants Appeals in that very concession he divests his Congregation of her independent Power and makes it to be no Politie at all For if as he saith a congregational Church be and that by divine Institution the primary Subject of the Power of the Keys how can it be subject to another Church or Churches as if it Appeal it must needs be Par in parem non habet potestatem is a certain Rule For obligatio ex delicto will not here take place To be independent and dependent cannot agree to the same Church at the same time And is it likely that Christ denieth the power of the Keys to that Church which in all the forementioned cases was sufficiently furnished with effectual means of redress and give it to that which is in it self insufficient There be several kinds and degrees of Communion between particular Churches independent and that for mutual help and edification yet all those kinds and degrees of Communion are but extrinsecal and the Communion is but like that of Leagues and Friendship between State and State which can no ways reach Appeals And as it is in several distinct States so it 's in several distinct Churches That of Dr. Jackson is very remarkable and worthy consideration That the best Union that can be expected between visible Churches seated in several Kingdoms or Commonweals independent one upon another is the Unity of League or Friendship and this Union may be as strict as it shall please such Common-weals and Churches to make it and to subject such a Church in such a case unto another is to build a Babel or seat for Antichrist This implies that a Church may be National and he gives a good reason why it should be no more And according to this Rule Mr. Parker by granting in this case Appeals doth no better than build a Babel and so I fear many others do by making every Congregation independent section 15 But to say no more in this place of Appeals the power of receiving whereof is a branch of Majesty and the exercise of this power belongs to Administration and comes under the head of Jurisdiction where they are to be handled at large I further do conceive that the condition of these independent Congregations is no better than that of petty States as those of the Netherlands and the Cantons of Switzerland These cannot subsist without a strift Confederation or a foreign Protection and both are dangerous and sometimes if not often prove prejudicial Though the States-General of the Low-Countries have their Commission from the several Republicks and with this Clause Salva cujusque populi Majestate yet they are ready many times to usurpe and exercise more power than is due unto them But foreign Protection sometimes proves a supreme Power But the danger of our independent Churches as with us is far greater because they are so petty and far less bodies and no ways by any certain Rules firmly united From all this Discourse a rational Reader will conceive that a national Church in my sence is far more agreeable to the Rules of Government which we find in Scripture than so many independent Polities Ecclesiastical in one Nation Some still do conceive and they have reason for it that as this Nation of an independent Congregation was at first invented to oppose the Diocesan Bishop so the dissenting Brethren pitched upon it in opposition to the Scottish Kirk and the English Scotified Presbyterian And as in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth some great ones and Counsellours of State protected the new Conformist and made use of him to poise the Bishop so in our days there were Statists who knew how to make the Congregational party subservient to their civil interest not only to poise but to beat down the Presbyterian and which they far more aimed at their party both in England in the Parliament and Army and also in Scotland which in the end was done to some purpose For at last the Independent became predominant had great Friends was much favoured obtained good maintenance and some of them were put in the best places and enjoyed the best preferments in the City Universities and Country Nay some of them do not scruple plurality of places as though the word Pluralist were only unlawful and Plurality the thing it self legal and just enough Some of them do much mislike the Parochial divisions yet like Parochial Benefices well enough and are unwilling once possessed of them to part with them yet this power and profit is made not only by them but others the great interest few seek a real Reformation with sincerity of heart section 16 To draw near a conclusion not only of this Chapter but of this discourse of the party supreamly Governing in Church and State it s the duty of us all in the best manner and by the best means to endeavour and make it our chief design to reform and unite this divided and distracted Church of ours For this end we should first lay aside our Divisions as they proceed either from ignorance or errour or disaffection and let us see and try how far we may agree in the general and clear truths of Scripture revealed for to direct us in the right ordering of a Christian Society and put on charity which is the bond of perfection and let the peace of God rule in our hearts to which we are called in one body Col. 3.14 15. For if we do not hold the Truth in love Eph. 4.15 no good thing will be done These are the only and effectual means whereby the Foundation of our Church-happiness can be laid 2. Let no person or party assume any power but what Christ hath given him or them upon a clear title 3. Let us give every one their due As for the Pope we must leave him to God who will in his due time take order with him Let civil Soveraigns have their right in matters of Religion Let the Bishop be reduced to his Ancient Superintendency and Inspection Let the Pretbyters be contented
to be Officers or at the best Representatives and not challenge to themselves alone the Original power of the Keys Let the People not be wronged or any ways deprived of that right which is theirs by the Rules of the Gospel 4. Let us make our Christian associations neither greater nor less than Christ allows us and which may be fittest for a good administration 5. Let 's not impose upon others any form or model of Church Government which is not agreeable to Christs Institution nor assert those things to be of Divine Authority which are not clearly grounded upon some Divine Precept 6. In things not necessary either to Salvation or the good of the Church or not plainly conducing to the edification thereof le ts grant a latitude And in such things though we may differ in judgment yet le ts agree in affection and in charity bear one with another till we be better informed 7. Let the Nation continue divided into Counties as it is and the Divisions of the Church be made accordingly or some other way if any better may be found out 8. Let the primary subject of the power of the Keys to be the whole and exercised by the best in every Precinct but let the highest causes and the most difficult cases with the Nomothetical part be reserved for the general Representative In all this the assistance of the State is to be implored and we must do nothing to the prejudice of their just power nor give them any causes of jealousies or suspitions 9. Some special care must be taken not only for the edification of the more knowing and professing Christians but also for the instruction of the ignorant and reformation of the prophane and scandalous and this latter is the more difficult work This cannot be done so well by Itinerants as by fit persons fixed in their several charges 10. The chief interest of the Nation as Christian is as you formerly heard the substance of the Protestant religion which consists not in Episcopacy or Presbytery or Independency nor meerly in a separation from the Church of Rome as corrupt and parted from the purity and simplicity of the Gospel for this is but negative but in certain positives of Doctrine Worship and Discipline clearly agreeable to the Gospel Neither need we go to lay a new Foundation but consider what the former Doctrine Worship and Discipline was and retain the best reject the superfluous rectifie that which was amiss and supply and perfect the defects When all this is done it were good that some forms of these established by Authority may be made publick yet so that all these may be plain and clear and consonant to the Gospel By doing thus we might testify to the world that we continue Protestants and reformed Christians and that our design was reformation and not confusion and abolition of saving truth amongst us The summ of this Discourse is Christ hath given the power of the Keys the Church to which it 's given is the primary subject and is bound to exercise it by her Officers and Representatives for the Churches good For as the Apostolical so this power was given for edification not destruction 2 Cor. 10.8 CHAP. XV. Of subjection in general and the subjects of a Civil State. section 1 IN the former part I have according to my poor ability declared 1. What the Act of Government is 2. That the subject of it being a Common-wealth both Civil and Ecclesiastical it hath two parts 1. The Constitution 2. The Administration of the same 3. That the matter of a Common-wealth is the Community and the Form and Order of Superiority and Subjection 4. That there are two integral parts of a Common-wealth 1. Pars imperans the Soverain 2. Pars subdita the Subject 5. What the power of a Soveraign is how it is acquired how disposed and that both in a Civil State and Church Now according to order comes in Pars subdita to be considered both in a Civil and an Ecclesiastical notion What a Subject in a Civil State is cannot be known in particular except we know the nature of subjection in general The word in Greek which signifies to be subject is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be subordinate For subjection presupposeth order not physical and local but moral of Superior and Inferiour That which makes a Superiour is power and power over another which is not invested with it in which respect he is inferiour in relation to him that hath power over him And so soon as God hath made one Superiour to another instantly the party inferiour is bound to subjection which is a thing due unto this Superiour God hath set him in a place under not above nor in the same rank and by this very placing of him he is made a subject by Divine Ordination And this is the first degree of subjection from which follows an obligation to active and voluntary submission And this obligation ariseth not only from this that the power over him is Gods not as he is Creatour meerly and the Author of Nature as Suarez doth express it nor only as he is a Supream Lord by Creation and Preservation committing some measure of his Power to man but also from this that he commandeth man to submit Actual subjection is an acknowledgment of this power in such a person and a voluntary submission This voluntary submission is a duty and that which God requires in the word honour in the fifth Commandment and the Apostle from God when he saith Let every soul be subject to the higher powers This submission is 1. A resigning up of their own understanding will and power unto the understanding will and power of his Superiour so far as God hath made him Superiour By this submission he becomes his Vassal and Servant and renounceth other Lords and Masters in that kind Upon this submission follows either an obligation to obey just commands or to suffer upon disobedience There are several kinds and also degrees of this objection there is a subjection of Children to Parents Servants to Masters Wives to Husbands Schollars to their Teachers Souldiers to their Commanders People unto their Soveraigns and of all unto God. And because he is Supream and we are wholly both in his power and under it alone therefore subjection in the highest degree and a total and an absolute resignation of our selves unto him and him alone is due And the truth is no submission or subjection is due to any other but all to him For when we submit to other higher and lower lawful powers we submit unto him in them who participate some portion of his power not of their own For there is no power but of God nay there is no power but which is Gods. This subjection is not meerly to be under the predominant force and strength but also under the directing Wisdom and the justly commanding will of another Thus far of subjection in general section 2 The subjection