Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	bishop_n	call_v	presbyter_n	3,415	5	10.3134	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85314	Separation examined: or, a treatise vvherein the grounds for separation from the ministry and churches of England are weighed, and found too light. The practise proved to be not onely unwarrantable, but likewise so hurtful to the churches, that church-reformation cannot with any comfort go forward, so long as such separation is tolerated. Also an humble request presented to the congregational divines, that since the differences between them and the classical-divines are very small they would please to strike in with the classical-divines in carrying on the worke of reformation, before the inundation of these corrupt opinions, have destroyed both ordinances and religion. / By Gi. Firmin minister to the church in Shalford in essex.	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.	1652 (1652)	Wing F964; Thomason E656_12; ESTC R206624	107,263	123

questioned till our Separatists rose up who are not comparable to them in parts or holinesse 2 I pray what doe you make of those Ministers who were ordained in the Primitive Churches Cyp. Epis 33 they were ordained in Cyprians time by Bishops and Presbyters and by Hieroms time the Bishops had ingrossed that power into their owne hands as appeares by that speech of his Excepting Ordination Epist ad Evagr. what doth a Bishop that a Presbyter doth not so that by this time it should seeme that the Presbyters were turned out and the Bishops only Ordained It is possible this might be but in some Churches for the fourth councell of Carthage ordered That no Bishop should Ordaine without the councell of his Clergy Can. 22. Can. 3. Now what were these no Ministers Anti-christ was not yet got into his Seat for the yeares of his reigne had been expired before this time It is strange that those should be no true Ministers who lived so neare the Apostles times and under persecution also as in Cyprians time neither was Cyprian surely the first Bishop that did Ordaine for there were Bishops before him yea besides this Ordination by Bishops we finde the Papists contending strongly for strange Rites which they use in Ordination and they say they were also used in those Primitive times for the anointing of the hands of the Presbyter that is ordained this they would prove from Cyprian or at least the Author of The Card. worke of Ch. who shou ld seeme to be as old as Cyprian also from Eusebius Hist Eccles l. 10. c. 4. which place would seeme to favour it and others there are whom they quote See Greg. De Val. to 4. d. 9. q. 5. Also for the shaving of the heads of their Ministers this we finde indeed in August time Ep. 26. Ep. 147. And this Calvin himselfe doth not deny to have been used then and gives the reason why it was used which Greg. de Val. scornes and gives other reasons To. 4. D. 9. q. 5. p. 3. If the Decret Epistles of Anicetus be of any Authority we shal finde it in his days long before Augustin and I wonder that Greg. Val. doth not quote him I am apt to think being they were so prone to Ceremonies in other Ordinances that something was added to this also Iust l. 4. c. 19 Sect 27. and I marvel that in the fourth Councell of Carthage where they set down their rites in Ordinations of other officers and some very ridiculous that the ordination of Presbyters should be the most pure but still with Bishops as well as Presbyters which is the thing now in hand 3 A Bishop if you consider him meerly as a Bishop was but a Minister and set apart to doe the worke of a Minister the same which all other Ministers may doe Bishops did Pray Preach Baptize administer the Lords Supper Ordaine Suspend Excommunicate and these things other Ministers doe and may doe that he did lift up himselfe above other Ministers that was his errour that he would take upon him the sole power of Ordination and Excommunication this was his errour but as the addition of an human invention did not null the Ordinances as suppose only growne persons had been baptized and that by dipping and after dipping they had been signed with the signe of the Crosse would this have nulled the Ordinance in the Anabaptists esteeme no more this usurpation of the power of administring these Ordinances did null a Bishop so as he was no Minister the Ordinances were and are Christs institutions Indeed you may call him an Over-growne Presbyter but a Presbyter 3 Ep. Ioh ver 10. Diotrophes loving of pre-eminence did justly deserve reproofe and John did no doubt deale with him but yet for present did not deny him to be a Minister though a corrupt one for the sole power of Ordination they tell us It is the order of the Church of England as of the Councell of Carthage that when a Presbyter is Ordained all the Presbyters that are present shall lay hands As for the sole power of Excommunication though it was an errour grosse enough yet by the 17. Canon Concil Sardic Ofius who was the cause of that Ganon being made was also at the Councel of Nice it should seeme the Bishops by that time had got that power to excommunicate alone which Canon provides a remedy for a person wrongsully excommunicated by his Bishop to got releefe by Appeales now if that corruption had got in so early long before Anti-christ had got to his Seat no wonder though it was found among our Bishops yet I hope they were true Ministers whom they Ordained As a Bishop was a Lord Bishop his Lordship was but a meere civill addition annexed to the Bishoprick by Regallfavour his Lordship was no ingredient into Ordination 4 The Lawes of this Realme doe account nothing Divine in a Bishop but his being a Presbyter Lond. vind 125. Dr. Seam answ to Diat p. 85. and therefore the Parliament in their Ordinance for Ordination tels us that they did ordaine as Presbyters not as Bishops much lesse as Lord Bishops yea I have heard a reverend Minister now Pastor of a Congregationall Church in Essex say that when the Bishop ordained him he told him I doe ordaine you as I am a Presbyter 5 The Ministers of England are ready to acknowledge those defects and corruptions which did cleave to their entring into the Ministry by the Bishops heare their owne words London Vindica p. 124. We doe not deny but that the way of Ministers entring into the Ministry by the Bishops had many defects in it for which they ought to be humbled but we adde that notwithstanding all the accidentall corruptions yet it is not substantially and essentially corrupted They acknowledge then the errour and desire to be humbled for it what more would you have God will accept of this I doubt not and why not you How to mend Dr. Seamans Divinity I know not where you have also the errour acknowledged implicitely for it is in answer to this Objection then giving his judgement in the case When sinne cleaves to the manner of Calling Answer to Diat p. 85. through the generall errour or corruption of all sorts of people who are concerned in it c. it is nototherwise to be invalidated here below then by doctrinall Censure and Repentance and not by iteration Repentance through Christs Bloud doth take away corruption out of Gods fight and will it not when they are so ingenuous out of your sight 6 There is a maxime taken up among the Independents Many may truly beare the name yea they owne it and practise accordingly yea and others and it goeth for as good Divinity as any the Gospel hath viz. That errours in Non-fundamentals must be borne withall in Churches we must labour indeed to convince people of such but if they will not be so convinced we must not

proceed any further to cast them out I have heard the New England Ministers sharply censured because they have excommunicated for some errours i.e. denying of some Ordinances which are supposed to fall within the compasse of Non-fundamentals This maxime is cryed up among the Separatists For the Thesis it selfe considering into what a narrow compasse Fundamentals are pent up I thinke it to be Apocryphall Divinity and just it is with God to let in errours in Fundamentals when such Church and Truthdestructive Principles are drunke in by godly Christians yet let us bring this rule and lay it to the case in hand I hope they doe not make rules for themselves if it be a true Christian Rule it is for all Christians Here then we have men qualified by God with Ministeriall and abundance of them personal gifts they have the election or consent of the people they are separated to the worke of the Ministry by persons who were Ministers but did erroneously assume too much to themselves now grant that here is an errour yet I hope it is not in a fundamentall point Some great Divines call Ordination but an Adjunct and your selves lesse you thinke it a Toy so then if you must not be separated from a Church for errours in Non-fundamentals then neither ought you to separate from a true Church for an errour which is not fundamentall Certainly if that rule hath place any where then here you will by this rule keepe Anabaptists Anti-Sabbatarians Antinomians truly such Anti-Psalmists Arminians c. within your Churches and not cast them out but forsooth a little errour in comparison of them and that acknowledged in the Ministers that is ground sufficient to cast off them and call them Antichristians c. yet there are no conscientious men but these the Separatists Gospel will afford Rules for them but not for other Christians As you trouble the Ministers here so I doubt they will trouble you in the Ordinations of your Ministers that is to make it cleare to them that private men have power to Ordaine I have seene it my selfe when two private men have imposed their hands upon him who was to be their Pastor Another I know whom a Carpenter and a Taylor Ordained with imposition of hands I doubt the Ministers will put you hard to it to prove that this is according to the Rule yea when other Ministers but of other Churches were present these have imposed hands If we consult with the Gospel we shall finde it rather to favour a Bishop though no Lordly one by the example of Timothy and Titus from whom our Bishops proved their Superiority and sole power of Ordination to Ordaine then private men and that in the presence of divers other Ministers I am sure this will be hard to prove from Scripture I shall speake a few words to this point afterward Suppose any of the Bishops had been of that opinion that none but persons growne and making confession of their Faith ought to be Baptized and they would Baptize only by dipping would not the Anabaptists have judged this to be true Baptisme would they null this Baptisme because he was a Bishop since he was a Minister set apart to that worke c. as Austin baptized many thus after he had been in England a while who yet was an Arch-Bishop was that no true Baptisme I doe not thinke that the Anabaptists if they have any braines in their heads will deny that Baptisme were nul if that were good so is Ordination for the substance of it If there have been no true Ministers nor Ordinances nor Churches but where there hath been no humane mixtures nor wicked persons then there hath been but few Ministers Ordinances or Churches since there was a Church upon earth and if there ought to be separation from such Ministers and Churches then we should have found Separatists enough how hardly was Superstition kept out in the Church of the Jewes before the Captivity say how many yeares Alsle Chron. p. 2153. Goodw. Mo. Ar. l. 1. c. 10. Chemnitius in 10. Ioh. takes theeves there to be the Pharisees for their order was not instituted by God nor brought in by the Prophets but only a humane invention and through their owne boldnesse Afterward when Christ came were they cleare what thinke you then of corrupt Caiphas the High Priest his corrupt entring into and his continuance in the place for one yeare So the Pharisees a Generation that God never instituted their Schoole began some say two hundred and forty yeares some say more before Christ and for their Superstitious inventions they were not barren in them but did Christ so soon as he came to Preach call away the people and bid them separate here are corrupt Officers c. No we finde no such word nay he bids then heare Matth. 23. After Christ I pray tell me how long did the Churches continue without Superstitious mixtures I doubt you will finde the Church hath not been long free but we doe not finde separation presently and nulling of Ministers as now Men should doe well to give us a precept or example out of the Word where Ordinances have been dispensed true for the substance though some humane mixtures have been joyned to them that therefore they were iterated If they cannot give us a direct precept or example shew us it by a necessary consequence from Scripture I wonder men should be so forward to iterate Baptisme and Ordination as these Separatists call for without Scripturall grounds 9 There are hundreds of Ministers in England who were not Ordained by Bishops but you separate from those also they had the election of the people first then with fasting and prayer solemnly set apart to the worke by divers godly and learned Divines who were against Bishops yet these are also scorned by your selves as much as the others but forsooth because they were Ordained by Bishops and had not renounced their Ordination and taken their Ordination from you therefore that infection spreads even to all Generations Out of what I have said I may pick up some answers to this but for troubling the Reader and the truth is they are in some sence unreasonable men I deale with but this let me say it is strange that when an Ordinance is purged in it selfe and those who administer it renounce what defects have cleaved to their owne Ordination only for the substance owning it as another Ordinance may be corrupted or rather have corruptions annexed to it but not nulled by those accidentall corruptions that this infection should adhere so strongly that it cannot be mended but by nulling of it Friends this cavilling will not doe in the Day of Judgement Besides I pray give me an instance where it was ever practised that persons that were not Baptised did Ordaine a Minister If you aske me What need that question for we are Baptised therefore it doth not concerne us By whom I pray If you say by the Ministers

then I desire no more if they were so farre Ministers as to administer Baptisme to you then they may well administer Ordination to us renounce therefore the Baptisme you had by them so I am sure you cannot ordaine and when you are regularly re-baptised and can warrant your Act and prove that you have the power to Ordaine then we will listen to you For my owne Ordination it was in the face of my people the day was spent in fasting and Prayer those who carried on the worke were Mr. Dan. Rogers Mr. Marshall Mr. Ranew with other godly Ministers who joyned with them in the imposing of hands the Ministers lived about me I never saw that Ordinance carried on with more solemnity in my life the people shewed their election by suffrage holding up their hands all was done according to the Pattern but yet I am a man as much scorned as other men who were Ordained by Bishops I can submit to God in that scorne that these cast upon me for I deserve it at his hands only there was a foule errour committed at my Ordination and it is told up and downe by some of this kinde against whom I write and I pray what is it This The Ministers imposed hands in my Ordination this hath been talked of as a strange thing but let me answer for the Ministers it was no errour much lesse such a great one as you make it 1 If private men Carpenters and Taylors may impose hands why may not Ministers but the former have done it Ergo. 2 All the Ordinations that ever I saw in New England were performed with imposition of hands I have seene Deacons ordained thus 3 If you be wiser then the Elders in New England Answ to the 32. que p. 67. Survey of Church Dise p. 2. p. 74. and Master Hooker then over-throw them for they conceive it nearest to the institution 4 If you observe the examples in the New Testament which are our Guides in Church affaires we shall finde Ordinations have been thus performed as Acts 6.6 Act. 13.3 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Tim. 5.22 Heb. 6.2 Laying on of hands Which place by Classicall men Congregationall men and Separatists is interpreted of Ordination I doe not here bring in the practise of Churches in former times because I intend not to handle the controversie Whether imposition of hands be necessarily required in ordination but bring you in as many examples from Scripture where there were Ministers Ordained without imposition of hands as also the practise of other true Churches Orthodox and sound who doe Ordaine without c. or else be ashamed of your ignorance and charge not those men with errour where none was but a true following the patterne The substance and essence then of Ordination being this That persons qualified Ministerially be set apart or separated for the worke of the Ministry by persons in Office ordinarily it must be thus what may be done extraordinarily when no Officers can be had is another case the Ministers in England have that Ordinance for the substance and they have the election and consent of the people it is hardly to be supposed that every individuall person in a Parish will consent to every godly Minister but consent there is hence these two concurring to the Call which is the forme of a Minister many Presbyteriall Ministers are true Ministers I dare say more but I am sure now I save my selfe But I have not done with Ordination yet I shall meet with it once againe afterwards Let us now come and try the second ground for separation scil The Worship of God the fault here must be reduced to one of these three heads either 1 Because they cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God in these Churches Or 2 Because the Ordinances of God are mixed with humane inventions that they cannot partake of them without sinne Or 3 Because here are other Ordinances set up in the Churches then ever Christ did institute I cannot conceive any more For the first Suppose it were so that there were a defect of some Ordinances is that a sufficient ground for separation Mr. Hooker saith no. If a Father of a Family wants a Rod in his house The preface to Survey of Church Discip is it ergo no family there may be some disorder in the house for want of good Government yet a family Divers Divines of great note conceive by that text Nehem. 8.17 18. That the Church of the Jewes did omit the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles almost the space of a thousand yeares the Arke was absent from the Tabernacle from the time of Eli to the time of David 1 Sam. 4.11 compared with 2 Sam. 6 17. and it was a great fault the Scribes rejected the Baptisme of John but where doe you finde any separation all this while that the godly should not joyne with that Church and partake in what Ordinances they had But this objection hath no place in these Churches for Prayer Preaching Administration of the Sacraments yea Discipline they had in the Episcopall dayes they did suspend from the Lords Supper and the Bishops gave the Ministers power but suspension is the lesser Excommunication and now to be sure there are none wanting at least should not be if the Ministers were not hindred in setting up all the Ordinances Obj. No say you the Classicall Churches have no explicite Covenant for the forme of them they will not admit it into their Churches therefore we separate I shal meet with this in another place only for the present disprove what Mr. Hooker hath said and the former examples I have given you but yet you will have a hard peece of work to prove this to be a sufficient ground for your separation as afterwards I hope I shall make good For the second Humane mixtures in Ordinances This indeed was the ground of the old Separatists yet in those dayes many holy and learned Divines wrote against the Separation but in these dayes that stumbling blocke is removed and this let me say that if you read over all the Church-stories since there was a Church upon the earth there cannot be found any example of such separatists as are now amongst us the old Donatists had their Ministers yea Bishops as well as Presbyters the separate Churches of later dayes had their Ministers and how strictly did they maintaine and practise all those Ordinances which ours laugh at as singing of Psalmes Infant-Baptism observation of the Sabbath and such opinions as those learned and godly men Mr. Ainsworth Robinson Johnson did abhorre are swallowed downe among ours so that these men cannot ground their practice from any example heretofore and as for the Scripture if they can finde any grounds there I must confesse I am altogether ignorant in the Scripture Suppose there should be some human mixtures though for my part I know of none are all the Ordinances so polluted preaching and prayer were kept pure in the Episcopall dayes

the people being but a homogeneall body to reject i.e. excommunicate an ossicer will cost more to prove had Reverend Mr. Hooker beene alive and saw what work Church-members make here in England in very many Churches I thinke it would have caused him to bethinke himselfe againe of the peoples power Something we heare of is done in a Church not farre from the place where he lived it cannot be kept close the light of that fire shines into England For the people to withdraw their subjection from such an officer when there are no other officers to joyne with them to excommunicate him this is not denied for by their subjection to him they made him their officer that was some part so they may withdraw their subjection againe But for Excommunication Mr. Cotton saith It is one of the highest acts of rule in the Church Keys p. 16 and therefore cannot be performed but by some Rulers Mr. Burroughs saith Iren. 51. If the Church be without officers they cannot doe that which belongs to officers to doe they have no Sacraments amongst them neither can they have any spirituall jurisdiction exercised amongst them onely brotherly admonition and withdrawing from such as walke disorderly for their owne preservation So then here is a way for the people to preserve themselves though they cannot excommunicate and those Texts which Reverend Mr. Hooker brings Matth. 7.15 and Phil. 3.2 doe not prove the Church as a homogencal body to have power to excommunicate their officers though they may prove withdrawing as also Rom. 16.17 may prove it For the reason of his consequence that staple rule ejusdem est Instituere destituere this maxime is turned every way sometimes to prove the people may excommunicate their officers because they doe Instituere The people in Election put forth no act of jurisdiction therefore they may put forth the highest act of jurisdiction in excommunication that there is no act of jurisdiction in election Doctor Ames acknowledgeth Ovas rationales possunt eligere sibi Pastorem sicut sponsa eligit sibisponsum non per jurisdictionem aut Gubernationem sed potius per subjectionem In the answer before he affirmes the same and else-where now what arguing is this Bellar. ener to 2 l. 3. c. 2. S. 19. Ib. S. 13. to argue from subjection to the highest Act of Jurisdiction there was no Authority in election for electio non cogit yet there is more power seene in Civill elections then Church-elections as I shall touch afterward but in Excommunication Authority appeares That also is denied that the people doe instituere in constituted Chruches and ordinarily what may be done in an extraordinary case is no ordinary rule Here the maxime is turned to prove that they may Jnstituere because they can destituere but that will be denyed unlesse it be in the sence before mentioned i. e. in what manner and how farre they did instituere i.e. by a subjection to be their Officer so they may with-draw their subjection from him and not owne him to be their Officer but to Excommunicate is more Quest But suppose this be granted that the Fraternity cannot excommunicate their Officer but with-draw their subjection they may you say and so he ceases to be their Officer but what is he now an Officer to other Churches A. If the with-drawing their subjection and rejecting be irregular then though they make him not their Officer de facto which he is still de jure yet his relation to the Church-Catholick visible doth still hold and another Church giving him a Call he hath then power actu secund● to administer the Ordinances there For instance the separatists cast off him whom before they chose for their Officer supposing now unlesse he will renounce his ordination he is no Minister doth he therefore cease to be a Minister how bufie some Congregationall Churches are in with-drawing from their Officers it is too manifest and many goe to the Anabaptists some turne Seekers and-if all the Members doe thus doe they now cease to be Ministers 2 But if the with-drawing be regular the cause just tried c. then that which is sufficient ground for their with-drawing from him is just cause why he should be excommunicated being pertinaciously scandalous or Hereticall as Mr. Hooker supposeth If then the case of a Church be so as they are cast by providence into some remote place where are no Churches besides to combine with then as their election of him c. as I said before may supply the want of ordination so this with-drawing in such an extraordinary case may be Analogum to excommunication but say our Divines if that Church be in combination with other Churches as now under a Classis then the people shall not need to stay there in their with-drawing but the case being judged and tryed by the Classis they as they ordained him when the people elected him the people consenting doe excommunicate him then as a man cast out of one Church is cast out from the Catholick Church visible so he who is cast out from being an Officer to this Church is cast out from being a Minister to the Church-Catholicke visible For the other Argument Burro Iren p. 50 Nort. resp ad Apoll. p. 76 78 the people conveying of power to an Officer I know of no power the people conveyes only a designation of such a person to officiate in this or that Society but their power they receive from Christ immediatly as our Congregationall men affirme and hence they act in his Name not in the name of the Church 5 The last answer I would give to this Proposall is this if you conceive this to be the only way of Reformation then you must give the Ministers strong proofe that you may ordaine the Ministers will as much question your power to ordaine as you question the Bishops power so that we take it for granted you are able to prove this because you are so punctuall you say for reforming by the word But of this practise I much doubt 1 My ground is because I finde not one Iota of any such thing in the New Testament Obj. Though you doe not in the New Testament yet in the Old Testament there is Numb 8.10 A. That place is the only resuge but 1 It is commonly answered That it is no faire arguing to goe to the Old Testament for one thing we would have and when another comes to the same Politie for an argument for their turne now to debarre them and tell them this is the old Politie either leave out the Jewish Politie altogether or else give others leave to fetch Arguments from thence as well as your selves 2 If you will goe to that Politie why may I not as well prove That the Civill Magistrate may ordaine as well as Moses did Aaron Levit. 8. 3 But in that Church at that time there were Officers Aaron and his sonnes thence if that be a rule it must follow

proceedeth whether the people obey or not it was therefore their revenge by way of censure in Discipline which they had in readines when the obedience of the Church is fulfilled in discerning and approving the equity of the Censure which the Apostle or Elders have declared to them from the word That phrase discerning and approving of the equity needs a little more clearing but I leave them However this Reverend Divine seems to refer that obedience unto the wil of Christ by the words going before his exposition yet that hinders not but it may in some sence be applyed to their officers who also obey Christ for that phrase is not strange to have people obey their officers Heb. 13.17 O bey your Rulers there may be some thing in it not only obey your Teachers but Rulers when they rule as when they preach Mr. Norton expressing Resp ad Apol. p. 67. as I conceive how the brethren act with the Eldership for so I remember it was in his Tables which I had had some thoughts to have Printed them but in that great fire when Colchester was besiedged having lent them to a friend they were burnt as I heare Partes judicii in rebus jurisdictionis quales sunt fratrum examinatio dijudicatio sententiatio Causae per modum obedientiae Presbyterio debitae 2 Cor. 10.16 cap. 2.9 Mr. Gillespie also besides his own opinion giveth reasons Aar rod p. 289 c. and alledgeth divers Divines who interpret this place of Church censures these words when your obedience is fulfilled gives him one ground for his interpretation for as Estius and Novarinus explain the Apostles reason it is in vain to excommunicate all such as are worthy of excommunication when there is a generall renitency in the Church but still we observe the people act obedientially to their officers that they did not at that time was their fault Besides if excommunication be the highest act of Rule and therefore cannot be performed where Rulers are not as saith Mr. Cotton and if a homogeneall body can expresse no spirituall Jurisdiction but onely withdraw as saith Master Burroughs then the people having Rulers are not now made Rulers nor have the power of jurisdiction there is indeed jurisdiction exercised among them by reason of their Rulers to whom they consent and obey Government is proper to the Presbytery saith acute Mr. Norton Resp ad Apol. p 65 67 and shewes under seven particulars how the Presbyters governe in Church affairs and so in this exercise of Discipline if so then the people are governed in this act how then doth a people governed act in reference to Rulers governing but by way of obedience So that to mee there appeares a vaste difference betweene the power of Discipline as it is in the hands of the Presbytery and as in the hands of the people though the Ministers cannot excommunicate without the people I speake a few words to this point here because I would spare the labour in another place As for the Analogy drawne from the civill power the people are the first subject of civill power Ergo the Fraternity is the first subject of Church power For the Antecedent I leave that but the consequence I should deny there is a great disproportion First The People are not the effect of their Magistrates or follow after them as the people of Israel were not of Saul but the Fraternity quâ sic is the effect of the Ministry The Apostles converted and after them the Ministers converted Converting is but to make the people such for whom the power of the keyes is given Secondly There is some thing in this In Corporations if the people have elected a man to be an Alderman or Mayor if he refuse it there is a Fine set upon him some have been fined 20 li. some more according as the Corporations are but if the body of the people will choose an Officer and he will refuse it what then I know no kind of Church act that reaches him this shewes there is something more in civill then Church power Thirdly The people do give to their Magistrates a power to make Lawes c. for their good but the Church gives no power into the hands of her Ministers but they have all their power immediately from Christ Fourthly Hence the people may limit their people or inlarge it But the people cannot limit nor inlarge the power the Ministers have Fiftly We see the Magistrates Act in the name of the people in the name of the Commonwealth of England but Ministers doe not act in the name of the Church but Christ as saith Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Norton before quoted More might be produced but I content my selfe with these and though that maxime be received Salus populi Suprema lex yet it hinders not but the people may save themselves though they be not the first subject of the keyes Mr. Richardson whom Dr. Ames and Mr. Manuscr Tables Hooker honoured much and follow much placeth the power of binding and loosing in the Governours not in the people This discourse I have runne into by answering to the first Proposall which being the maine I have bestowed more lines about it the rest I shall run over quickly Come we now to the second The second Proposall may be this The second Proposall No Congregational Divine dares put the forme of a Church in the explicitenesse of the Covenant but these doe Survey pare first p. 47 48. Wee would have an explicite Covenant in every particular Church this we judge to be the forme of a Church and we cannot joyne with a Church without it A. Many people have taken up this by the end a Covenant is the forme of a Church understanding it of an explicite Covenant but they know not what a Forme is if they did they would be more wary then they are But let us heare what Congregationall men say from whom you take up this word 1 Mr. Hooker saith an implicite Covenant preserves the true nature of the true Church c. and an implicite Covenant is when in their practise they doe that whereby they make themselves ingaged to walke in such a society according to such rules of government which are exercised amongst them and so submit themselves thereunto but doe not make any verball profession thereof Thus the people in the Parishes in England when there is a Minister put upon them by the Patron or Bishop they constantly hold them to the fellowship of the people in such a place attend all the Ordinances there used and the Dispensations of the Minister so imposed upon them c. by such actions they declare that by their practises which others hold forth by publick profession thus farre Mr. Hooker so Mr. Norton Resp ad Apollon p. 22.28 so the Confession of Church Disc by the Synod of New England 2 You have a Nationall Covenant a solemne one I thinke it is strong enough if you