would gladly know whether those Authors who are so zealous for absolute hereditary Powers can give us an instance of any wise and just people that at the first constitution did give their free and full consent to such a Government They never did nor I think ever can instance in this particular section 10 The second Question is Whether Majesty acquired can be forfeited Where you must note that to forfeit any thing is to lose the right unto it For it 's one thing to lose the right another to lose the possession For as before one may lose his right and retain the possession and lose his possession and yet retain his right Therefore the Question is not de possessionis sed de juris amissione 2. The Question is not Whether they may forfeit to God for that they undoubtedly may but whether they may forfeit unto men 3. Who those Men are to whom it may be so forfeited so as they may take the forfeit and that justly For solution of this Question 1. This I take as a certain rule that whatsoever is given and held upon condition that may be lost and forfeited 2. A right once forfeited falls to the party who gave it and set down the conditions 3. They who from God give Majesty to any person or family at the first before they had any right unto it are the people and community to be governed 4. There is no rational and intelligent people in the World will bind themselves to subjection but upon condition of a just protection No a people conquered will not yield to be the subjects of the Conqueror but upon this condition And though his Sword may take away their lives yet it cannot make them his Subjects without their voluntary submission 5. No wise people if they can do otherwise will so submit themselves as to lose the propriety of their goods the liberty of their persons the enjoyment of their Religion or to be governed by an Arbitrary Power without just Laws 6. Princes Kings and Conquerors may either by themselves or their Ministers of State insensibly encroach and usurp yet these encroachments and usurpations cannot constitute a Right contrary to the fundamental Laws And there can hardly be found any other way whereby many becom absolute and arbitrary Lords but this way 7. The party to which the forfeiture is made is not the Subjects as Subjects but the people and community who only can invest one or more with Majesty and constitute a Government Neither can Magistrates as Magistrates nor any Officers as such take the forfeiture Neither can Parliaments except such as participate in the personal Majesty do any such thing Yet if the Soveraign once forfeit the Subjects cease to be Subjects Nor can a great multitude of these if they make not the whole body either actually or mutually though they cease to be Subjects challenge the forfeiture By this you may easily understand how loosely the Question between Arnisaeus and his party and Buchanan Arthusius Heno Junius Brutus and their adherents is handled 8. It 's certain that Soveraigns by Law who have not the Legislative power in themselves solely and are bound by Oath to govern according to Laws which they themselves cannot make may forfeit 9. Such personal Soveraigns as constantly act not only against the Laws of God and nature but against the fundamental Laws by which they receive and hold their power may and do forfeit And this is one reason why all Tyrants in exercise do excidere jure suo etsi haereditario which Arnisaeus himself affirms Yet as he wisely observes it 's not safe always to take the forfeiture For it is better by petitions prayers to God or patient suffering for a while so that they suffer not the State in the mean time to come to ruine to seek and expect a redress than suddenly to involve the people in blood and hazard the Common-wealth and put it in such a condition as that it shall not be able in any due time to settle Yet a real necessity of defence doth alter the case Hitherto concerning the manner how Majesty may be acquired or lost CHAP. VI. Of Power Ecclesiastical section 1 THE former Rules may easily be applied to a particular Church for it 's a Spiritual Commonwealth and must as such have Governors and them invested with a Supreme Power yet such and of the same nature as the Church is that is Spiritual and Ecclesiastical This Power as all other in Civil States is derivative from Heaven and of a very narrow scantling And that I may be more perspicuous and direct the Reader by some line or thred of method I will say something of the Power 1. As it is Spiritual 2. As Supreme 3. As divisible into several Branches section 2 In the first place it's Spiritual and that in many respects as the Authors of Jus Divinum Ecclesiastici Regiminis have sufficiently demonstrated For the persons rule actions and end are to be considered not under a Civil but a Spiritual notion As stiled by Divines and that according to the Spirit 's language and the phrase of Holy Writ to be Potestas Clavium And the acts thereof are opening shutting or which are the same binding loosing These are Metaphorical terms taken out of the Old into the New Testament For our Saviour did love to use the Spirit 's words The first and chief place where we read these words in a Political sense with reference to Government is that of the Evangelical Prophet And the Key of the House of David will I lay upon his shoulder so he shall open and none shall shut and he shall shut and none shall open Where by Key is meant Dominatio or Potestas gubernandi So Fererius Schindler Mollerus according to the former use do understand it For there it 's said I will commit thy Government into his hand section 3 It 's not material to enquire whether the Power or Key of the House of David was a Power over the Family or of the Family over the Kingdom nor whether Eliakim was a Priest or a Prince over the Palace or the Temple It 's certain David was a type of Christ his House and Kingdom of the Church and his Regal Power of Christ's Regal Supremacy For he hath the Keys of Hell and Death even that Key of David which bindeth the soul and conscience and disposeth of mans spiritual and eternal estate and that by an irrevocable sentence This Power signified by Key or Keys is not Civil but that of the Kingdom of Heaven which he promised first and conveyed afterward upon the Apostles As for the acts of these Keys being exercised they are said to be sometimes shutting and opening sometimes binding and loosing And though these seem to differ yet they are the same and are acts of Government For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to open is to loose as Psal. 102.20 where it 's turned by the
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
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
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
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
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
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
effectual comfortable and lasting it will prove This union is not made either by Baptism or profession but it presupposeth both And though it may be made by a free and voluntary consent yet all Vicinities of Christians who by Divine Providence have an opportunity to associate are by a Divine Precept bound to unite and consent to such an Union And this Union is so firm not because of Man's Consent but God's Precept and Institution to which it shall be conformable From this a multitude of Christians become morally one Person spiritual and as such may act and do many things And every particular Member of this Body is bound to seek the good of the whole and every part and the good of this particular Society more than of any other though he must endeavour the good of all so far as God shall enable him Upon this Union therefore follows a Communion For as they all partake in all things and priviledges and rights which are common to all so they must communicate their Gifts Cares Labours for the promoting of the general good of all and particular good of every one As by this Union they become one Person so they receive a Power and Ability to act as one Person for the special good of themselves Yet it doth not give them power to separate either from the Universal Church or from other Communities in any thing God hath made Common either to the Universal Church or other particular Communities section 5 By this time you understand that a Community Christian is a society of Christians yet this is not all it must be a Society of Christians fitted for and immediately capable of an external form of Government Spiritual and the same Independent For in a Common-wealth of necessity there must be a Supreme and Independent Power otherwise it hath not the Essence and Being of a Common-wealth Therefore in Politicks both Civil and Ecclesiastical we speak of a Community as it is actually the Subject of a form of Government or fitted immediately to be such otherwise we shall be haeterogeneous or at least exorbitant Take notice therefore that this Community is not a Civil Society nor the Society of all Christians living at the same time on the Earth which make up the Body of the Church Universal or Visible as subject to Christ nor of a Family or Congregational or any petty Christian Society but of such a Society Christian as is immediately capable of an Independent Discipline 2. Though some Acts of Discipline may by a Paternal Spiritual Power be performed and so likewise in a Congregation some degrees of Power Ecclesiastical may reside and be exercised yet this is not sufficient to make them such a Society as we speak of 3. In this Community and Independent Power of Discipline is virtually contained 4. This cannot be except it consist of such Members as are fit both to model a Common-wealth and manage a supreme Power of the Keyes 5. This Community before a form of Government be introduced is but like a homogeneal or similar Body and then becomes Organical when it 's the actual subject of a Common-wealth and a formal visible Polity And besides the consent required to the constitution of a Community there must be another consent to make it a Politie and the latter is distinct and really different from the former For a multitude of Christians as such are not the immediate matter of a Spiritual Visible State but a Community and a sufficient Community as such is the subject of this Political Form. 6. That Company of Christians which is not sufficiently furnished with Men of Gifts and Parts and yet presumes to set up an Independent Judicature must needs offend For where God gives not sufficient Ability he gives not Authority That every petty Congregation which enjoys Word Sacraments Ministry have an entire Intensive Independent Judicative Power in it self and therefore may refuse to associate with others is the opinion of some which can hardly be proved out of the Word of God. section 6 Thus I have explained the Definition and in the next place proceed to shew the Original of this Community and how particular Persons become Members of the same Whether any are incorporated by Election or Birth yet both the Matter and Form of this Society is from God. For we read in the Books of the New Testament that the first Original of Societies of Christians was this 1. The Apostles endued with the Holy Ghost from above preached That Jesus of Nazareth was crucified at Jerusalem for our Sins rose again was made Lord and King and that Remission of Sins and Eternal Life was granted to all such as should repent and believe in him Such as heard the Doctrine believed it professed their Faith and promised to live accordingly were baptized and so admitted as visible Subjects of Christ's Kingdom So they were made Christians and remote materials of this Community 2. When they were once multiplied so as to make several Congregations for Worship and there were found fit Men to be Pastours Pastours were ordained and set over the Flocks and these became Societies for Christian Worship 3. When there was a competent number of such in a Vicinity as were able to manage a Supreme Independent Power they associated and combined together in one Body for to introduce a form of external Government If any after they became a Community or a Politie were converted within their precincts and did manifest his conversion so far as man might judge of it he was Baptized and was admitted a Member of their Community This was the manner of entring into and being incorporated into this Body And now if any Pagans Jews Mahometans by the Doctrine of the Gospel be reduced to the Christian Faith then they must enter in this manner they must be admitted This Association and Incorporation is not from the Laws Decrees and meer consent of Men but from the Power or Commandment and Institution of God who requires that such as are once made Christians should Associate and that others in whose Power it is should admit them These are like Branches ingrafted not Natural but are made Members by Election And whosoever is thus incorporated he is first made a Member of the Universal Church and a Subject to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost before he can be a Member of any particular Society For he must of necessity be first a Christian before he can be a Member of a Christian Society for the matter is before the form If his Profession be sincere presently upon his conversion he is made a living member of Christ and an heir of Glory far greater priviledges than to be a visible member of any visible spiritual polity And though there is a certain priority of Order yet one and the same person may be made a living member of Christ a member of a Christian Community and of a visible spiritual polity at one and the same time section 7 As
unto another till a form of Government and Discipline be setled Yet they are subject to Christ as the Head of the universal Church visible subject to God as supream Lord subject to their Pastours if they have any For they are commanded to obey them who rule over them and to submit unto them c. Heb. 13.17 For Ministers are Officers and Representatives of Christ and therefore must needs have power in foro interiori conscientiae as the Schoolmen speak Yet Ministers as Ministers have no power of the Keys in foro exteriori they are only eminent members of the Community otherwise the Government external of the several Congregations in one Community should be purely Aristocratical in them and Monarchical in a single Congregation 2. They are equal as members of a Community in respect of Power and Government which is not yet introduced or at least considered as not actually brought in they cannot command or judge one another neither can the whole sentence any single member For that were to act as a Common-wealth which as yet is not 3. The whole is in an immediate capacity to form a Government as you heard before This may be done immediately by the eminent and compleat members or by a delegation of a power of modelling the Government by a few of the principal and fit for such a work and afterwards approved and ratified by all And though the general Rules of Discipline are plainly delivered in the Scriptures yet few will understand them or apply them right and it 's an hard thing to abolish the corruptions of former Governments so that many times a Discipline is setled and perfected only by degrees and in a long time Not only the constitution but a reformation of a Church meets with many difficulties One reason is there is so little of Christianity in many and none in some that yet profess their Faith in Christ which either they do not understand or refuse to practise This hath given occasion to some to gather Churches out of Churches and to separate How justly or wisely this hath been done something may be said hereafter CHAP. IV. Of a Common-wealth in general and Power Civil section 1 THE subject of a Common-wealth being a Community which is twofold Civil and Ecclesiastical It remains and order requireth that I say something of a Common-wealth You heard before that the subject adequate of Politicks was a State or Common-wealth and that the parts of this Act are two 1. The Constitution 2. The Administration The Constitution as you may remember is the first part of Politicks whereby an order of Superiority and Subjection is setled in a Community wherein three things were principally to be examined 1. What a Community in general 2. What a Community civil 3. What a Community Ecclesiastical is and all this is done Therefore to proceed observe that a Community is like a matter without form in respect of something that it must receive yet a matter and a subject disposed and in proxima potentia to receive a form to perfect it and this form is that we call a Common-wealth a Polity a State wherein we may observe four things 1. That it is an order 2. An order of superiority and subjection this is the general nature of it 3. An order of superiority and subjection in a Community 4. Such an order tending to the peace and happiness of a Community 1. It 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Order or as some understand the Philosopher an Ordination which is a disposing of things in their proper place For as the learned Father observes Ordo est parium dispariumque rerum sui cuique loca tribuens dispositio It 's inter plura which may be equal or unequal For there may be an order of Priority and Posteriority in time or place amongst equals Therefore 2. It 's an order of Superiority and Subjection in respect of Power Yet 3. Because there is a superiority and subjection in a Family a Colledge a Corporation therefore it 's an order of superiority and subjection in a Community whether civil or Ecclesiastical 4. Because there may be such an order in a Community of wicked men and Devils if that might be called a Community where the Association is unjust as properly it cannot therefore it must be such an order as tends and conduceth directly to the peace and happiness of the Community This an unjust order cannot do To understand this the better you must know that all Communities spiritual and temporal are grounded upon that Commandment of God Love thy Neighbour as thy self where that word Neighbour may signifie indeed a single person yet it includes a notion of society and the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Socius This Neighbour therefore is either a single person yet as a Society or collective as in a Family Kindred Congregation Corporation Community This Love is the true cause of all association and is the special duty of all parties associated A Common-wealth is grounded upon a branch of that great Love the fifth Commandment which presupposing superiority and subjection in respect of power requires certain duties of the parties superior and subject both in a greater and lesser society And because these duties cannot be performed in great Societies except this Order be setled therefore by that Commandment all Communities are bound so far as they are able to erect a form of Government In which respect Politicks are from God not only allowing and approving them nor meerly as enabling men but commanding them enabled to establish and preserve them established for the better manifestation of his glory and their own greater good temporal and spiritual From hence it 's evident that Politicks both civil and Ecclesiastical belong unto Theology and are but a branch of the same section 2 In this Common-wealth two things are most worthy our consideration 1. The Superiority 2. Subjection for it consists of two parts Which are Imperans Subditus the Soveraign Subject And because the Soveraign is Civil Ecclesiastical I will begin with the Civil and so proceed to the Ecclesiastical And seeing that Imperans the Soveraign is a concrete and therefore signifies the Power Subject of this Power I will first speak of Power then of the Subject of this Power The Power must be considered what it is in General Special In respect of the Subject I will declare the manner how it is acquired disposed This is the Method which I intend to observe and wherewith I acquaint the Reader My observation of it will make the Discourse more clear and distinct The Readers knowledge of it will help both his understanding and his memory Pars imperans the Soveraign civil which is the first part of a Common-wealth is one invested with Majesty civil Where observe 1. That it is a part of a Politie and that 's the general nature of it and is an essential or integral part which together with the
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
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
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
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
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
these Church-guides are 4. What immediate Commission from Christ may be for that 's the medium or third Argument 1. This Ecclesiastical Power is not that Universal and Supream Power which is in Christ nor the extraordinary Power of extraordinary Officers as Apostles and others It 's an ordinary Power of a particular Church and the same as Universal and Independent in respect of such a Church It 's a Power in foro exteriori for outward Government It 's a Power supream of making Canons constituting Officers and passing Judgment without Appeal or from which there lies no Appeal 2. The Question is concerning the Subject of this Power which Subject may be primary or secondary here the primary must be understood 3. Church-guides as they understand them are ruling and preaching Elders 4. Immediate Commission from Christ is when Christ immediately gives power to any person and by that Donation designs him without any act of Man intervening Thus Paul was designed an Apostle not of Man not by Man but by Jesus Christ this immediate Commission is extraordinary These things premised make it evident 1. That the Terms of the Syllogism are more then three because the words are so Ambiguous 2. Suppose the words to be clear and the terms but three yet the Minor is denied 1. Because by Church-guides are meant Elders who are ordinary Officers of particular Congregations and therefore can have no immediate Commission in proper sense 2. Though they should be immediately commissioned as they are not yet the premises are insufficient to infer the conclusion Their drift and design is to prove that they have all their power from Christ alone and not from the Church But they must know that as they have their Office so they have their Power They have their Office from the Church immediately from Christ mediante Ecclesia For they are chosen tryed approved by the Church and so designed to such an Office by the Church and can exercise the power of Discipline as Officers in no Church but where they are Officers Again the conclusion it self might be granted if by Ecclesiastical power they meant Official power and yet nothing to purpose because the thing in question is not proved nor so much as mentioned in the conclusion Yet they endeavour to prove the Minor from 2 Cor. 10.8 where the Apostle speaks of the Authority which the Lord had given them But 1. What Authority was this Interpreters say it was Apostolical and so extraordinary 2. Whether Apostolical or not yet it was their Authority to Preach the Gospel as appears verse 16. This is not the power of Discipline the thing in question The rest of the Scriptures alledged to prove the Minor speak either of the power of Officers and power extraordinary or of the power as Ministers Only Matthew 18.17 18. is to be understood of the power of Discipline yet that place determines the Church not the Elders to be the primary subject and this is directly against them as shall be shewed hereafter section 8 A second argument is this All those whose Ecclesiastical Officers for Church-Govenment under the new Testament are instituted by Christ before any formal visible Christian Church was gathered or constituted they are the first and immediate subject of the power of the Keyes from Jesus Christ. But the Ecclesiastical Offices of Christs own Officers were so instituted Therefore they are the first subject of the Keyes Cap. 11. p. 183. of the second Edition Answer 1. I find in this Syllogism four terms For in the Major according to their own exposition the Officers were such as that not only their Offices were instituted but that at the same instant made Officers by Christ before any Christian Church had being or existence These Offices and Officers were extraordinary p. 184. In the Minor they include not only these Offices and Officers but those of future times which were not extraordinary 2. If they rectifie the Syllogism and understand the Minor only of such Officers as were actually in Office before there was any Christian Church and then they argue a specie ad genus and infer a general from a particular 3. How will they prove that ruling Elders distinct from preaching Presbyters were instituted by Christ or the Apostles by vertue of a special precept of universal Obligation 4. The Question is not of Official Power either Ordinary or Extraordinary 5. Upon perusal of the Scriptures alledged to make good this argument it will appear they confound Officers and power Extraordinary and Ordinary the Church in fieri facto power universal and particular section 9 Hitherto I have enquired into the nature of Presbytery and examined whether it can be the primary subject of Church-power in foro exteriori it remains I say something of the English Presbytery which was 1. Intended 2. Upon the advice of the Assembly modelled 3. Now in some parts of the Nation practised according to the book of Discipline For this end we must observe 1. The Nation was formerly and of old for civil Government divided into Counties and the same division now retained for Discipline For the Parliament thought it not good to follow the division of Provinces and Diocesses The Knights of the several Counties chose certain Ministers for the Assembly who with some Members of both Houses give their advice in matters of Doctrine Worship and Discipline which was so far effectual as the Parliament should approve The discipline approved is made probationer for three years declared and published in nine Ordinances The first whereof was agreed upon about Aug. 28. 1644 The last Aug. 28. 1646. 2. Before this model could be finished there was much debate and contention especially between the dissenting brethren and the Assembly For though by the Covenant the Discipline ought to be reformed according to the Word of God and the best reformed Churches yet there was not the agreement which ought to have been For both parties pretended to make the Word of God the Rule yet some thought the government of the Kirk of Scotland some that of New-England to be the best and nearest to the Word and most conformable to that infallible Rule So that though at the instance of our English Commissioners that clause according to the Word of God was inserted yet it proved not effectual to determine the Controversie because their judgments were so different 3. In this Model the first work is to make Officers and determine their power 4. The first Offices were called Tryers who upon the division of several Counties into a certain number of Precincts called Classes which consisted of certain secular and Ecclesiastical persons whose names were certified to the Parliament by the Parliament were allowed and from the Parliament received their power 5. These were Extraordinary Officers and their first and chiefest work was upon Election Examination and Approbation to constitute Congregational Eldership 6. These once constituted were invested with power for the exercise whereof the
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
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
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
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
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
gathered out of every Nation This can be none of Mr. Parker's Congregation section 6 His third Argument is taken from Matthew 17.18 and from 1 Cor. 5. In the first place 1. Christ saith Tell the Church 2. This Church is the primary subject of the power of the Keys But 3. He doth not say this Church is Congregational in his sense neither can any wit of man prove it out of that place 4. The word Church in that place is indefinite and signifies first a Christian community without any determination of the number of persons greater or less 5. Though this Community and whole Body be principally meant yet it s here signified as exercising her judicial power by her Representatives who may easily meet in one place when the whole Body cannot and that place may be capacious enough to receive them yet far too narrow to contain the whole Church and all the Members and every one of them represented in that place As for 1 Cor. 5.4 which is the second place quoted by him he argues from these words when ye are gathered together that a Church is a Congregation consisting of so many as ordinarily meet in one place Answ. 1. It 's granted that according to the Apostles directions the incestuous person must be Excommunicated in a publick Assembly of persons meeting in one place But 2. The Church may assemble personally or virtually in their own persons or by and in their Representatives That this Church did meet virtually in her Representatives at least no Man can doubt but that all and every one of that Church were personally present in that Assembly no man can prove for it was a meeting as he confesseth for the Exercise of power of Jurisdiction 3. Suppose all the Church of Corinth could and did meet in that Assembly how will it follow that every other Church as that of Jerusalem could do so to or that if any Church was so numerous that they could not ordinarily meet but in several places will it follow that therefore it could not be the primary subject of this power But something more to this hereafter section 7 To reserve his fourth Argument to the last I proceed unto his fifth which is drawn from Communion in Word Prayer Sacraments and his sixth in watching one over another In that of Communion he confounds Worship and the Exercise of Discipline which are two very different things and also he grosly equivocates in the matter of identity which even fresh-men know to be three-fold in genere specie numero For he conceives there can be no Communion but amongst those who meet in one place to exercise those heavenly duties Answ. 1. It 's true that if the number of persons in one Church exceed they cannot all be edified and enjoy a sufficient Communion in Worship by one man Officiating at one time in one place where they cannot all assemble But what 's this to purpose It 's nothing to Government Communion in Worship is one thing in Government another The Communion of one particular Church in this latter respect is political and consists in this that they have the same Supream and Independent Judicatory according to certain Laws as they are subject to the same independent Judicatory in the same Precinct Communion in Word Prayer and Sacraments is rather Moral then Political and may be had and is enjoyed many times in many places where there is no external Discipline setled or exercised The end of Word and Prayer is first to make Christians and then to edify them and these are no sooner made and multiplied but they must hear pray participate the Sacraments before any Form of Discipline be instituted and if every one would constantly do his duty in these things both privately and publickly there would be no need of Discipline 2. Whereas he conceiveth that there can be no such Communion and Edification but one and the same individual Assembly he is much mistaken and besides his words are very ambiguous For the better understanding hereof we must know that the end of Communion in Word Prayer Sacraments is Conversion and Edification as before 2. These ends may be attained as well in several Congregations under one Supream Judicatory for Discipline as in one Congregation Independent or several Congregations having their several Supream Judicatories for both of them depend upon the Ministry as Instrumental and upon the Spirit as the principal Agent which caeteris paribus may be as effectual in several Congregations not Independent and every one of them severally as in one though Independent and at the same time And though Discipline may further Edification in a Congregation yet it may be furthered as much when it s Exercised by one Independent Power over several Congregations as when it 's Exercised by one Supream Power of one Congregation over it self Experience doth clearly evince this and might satisfie us But I have wondred at the design of some men who go about to bind Men to the individual participation in the same Ordinances if they will be of the same Church as though that could be no Church where all the Members could not or did not thus individually participate For few of their own Congregations are so ordered as that all the Members Communicate at one time but some at one time before the rest some at another after the rest That which is required of all Christians is no such thing but that they all Worship God both in private and publick according to the same general rules of the Gospel As for mutual watching one over another that 's the duty of all Christians as Christians and as fellow Subjects and Brethren under the same God and Lord Jesus Christ though there never were any Discipline setled And this is done far better by them who cohabit and constantly or for the most part converse one with another then by them who live ten twenty thirty miles distant one from another as some of the Congregationals do nay Members of one and the same Congregation bound to this watching one over another live one at London another at York one in Ireland another in Scotland and their Pastour and most of their Brethren in England section 8 To return unto his fourth Argument from the form of Apostolical Churches as of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth c. which is the same which the dissenting Brethren insisted upon in the Assembly I might refer him and them to what the Assembly hath Learnedly answered The Argument is to this purpose The first Apostolical Churches were only Congregational yet the primary subject of the power of the Keys Therefore all other Churches should be Congregational and as such they are the primary subject of the power of the Keys Whether this be that which is intended let every one judge who is acquainted with the Controversie The Argument is that of induction taken from example That which they assume as clear out of Scripture to them is that all and
every one of the first Apostolical Churches were Congregational and only Congregational and none of them Parochial or Classical or Synodical or Diocesan or National or had any Presbytery above a Presbyter That which they would hence infer is that only a Congregational is the first Church agreeable to the first institution and the first subject of the power of the Keys The Argument in form may be this All rightly constituted Churches ought to be like the first Apostolical Churches But all the first Apostolical Churches were Congregational Therefore all rightly constituted Churches are Congregational The Major is very doubtful and admits of many restrictions The Minor is denied The conclusion as inferred from these premises is not to purpose 1. The Major presupposeth that all good examples are to be followed and that they are equivalent to a binding precept But this is certain whatsoever they or others may say that examples as examples though good do not bind to imitation for they only bind by vertue of some Precept or Divine Institution The Apostles in the first plantation of Churches did many good things which we cannot imitate and if we could yet if their practice in those things was not grounded upon a precept of universal and perpetual obligation it doth not bind us They did many things by vertue of some particular precept binding them as Apostles and no ways else and some things in extraordinary Cases upon extraordinary Occasions In this respect the first Churches planted by them might differ in many things from all other Churches in future times Therefore if the Major should be to purpose it must be understood so that all Churches rightly constituted are bound and that by some Divine Precept of Universal Obligation and perpetual force to be like unto the Apostolical first Churches in all things and especially in this that they were Congregational How they will prove this I know not and if they prove it not clearly they do nothing to purpose 2. The Minor is denied both by the Episcopal and Presbyterian and in particular by the Divines of the Assembly who more particularly and distinctly answer all the proofs brought by them to affirm it Their proof is by way of Induction as the Church of Jerusalem Samaria Damascus Antioch and so of the rest were Congregational Where 1. The term Congregational must be understood 2. We must enquire whether the induction be sufficient or no. 1. A Church may be said to be Congregational in respect of Worship or Discipline In respect of Worship two ways 1. Of Prayer and Word 2. Of the Administration of the Sacraments either of Baptism or the Lords Supper as the Assembly doth well distinguish Now how will they prove that the whole Church of Jerusalem with all the Members thereof did constantly meet in one place to administer and receive the Lords Supper where is the Text that expresly or by consequence saith any such thing Again a Congregational Church may be in respect of Discipline and that several ways For 1. A Congregation may signifie a Community of Christians as the primary subject of the power of the Keyes 2. This Community exercising in this power and that either by a Representative of the whole or some part If they understand them to be Congregational in respect of the exercise of Discipline so that their Representatives of part or the whole might all of them congregate and meet at one time in one place as ordinary or extraordinary occasion should require in this sense it will be granted that even the Church of Jerusalem in its greatest extent was Congregational but this is not their sense For they mean by Congregational such a Community and Vicinity of Christians as that all and every one of the Members may ordinarily and conveniently meet at one and the same time in one and the same place not only for Discipline but Worship and so that if any multitude of Christians exceed this proportion they must divide and erect a new Independent Judicatory and they were bound so to do if they did not they ceased to be such Churches as Christ did institute and could not be the primary subject of the power of Discipline How they should prove the Minor in this sense I do not understand They who first took up this Congregational Notion perhaps had a design to overthrow Diocesan Bishops and this was thought an effectual means for that end and if this conceit had not first possessed their minds they would never have imagined any such thing to be so much as implied in these examples But suppose some such thing to be implied at least for expressed it is not in these places the Induction may be said to be imperfect For there were many Churches planted by the Apostles and far more than are mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles For Paul upon his Conversion went into Arabia and then returned again to Damascus Gal. 1.17 Other of the Apostles no doubt went into Aegypt Aethiopia India Persia Armenia Spain France Germany Yet none of these Churches are mentioned in the Scripture-History Therefore it might be said there is not a sufficient enumeration of particulars to make up a general But suppose these Churches to have been Congregational at first it 's certain they enlarged and multiplied to far great numbers in after times and though this be certain yet it 's no ways certain that upon this multiplication they did divide into independent Congregations and erected independent Judicatories in every particular Congregation and were bound so to do and that by a Divine Precept And I wonder much at Mr. Parker that he should argue so much against a Diocesan Church and yet grant that all Israel consisting as he himself confesseth of many Myriades should be but one Congregation which was of a far greater extent than a Diocess Whether this Congregation was as now it is by many managed amongst us be not formally Schism as it is charged by some Learned Men I will not here debate But this I must needs say that such Congregationals as by this notion go about to unchurch all other Churches which are not cast in the same mold must needs be guilty of some such crime It was first set up to oppose Diocesan Churches and now to oppose Presbyterian Classes But there is another thing which I wish all Wise and Judicious Men to consider whether this doth not tend unto or at least give occasion of Schism and also to inform themselves what effects it hath had hitherto yet so as to distinguish between these effects of it which are per se and flow from the nature of it and such as are per accidens Yet in the mean time Charity Meekness Humility Pity of weak Brethren becomes us all who profess our selves Christians and we ought to stand well affected towards all who seem to us to look towards Heaven Let us further consider how far rational and pious men agree and according to those things
be so much reason and wisdom in their Determinations as that they will bind more by vertue of the matter than the authority and votes of their persons We might add that in these Independent Congregations there is neither any conveniency or necessity that all the Members should meet either for Juridical or Legislative Acts though it be expedient that all should know what is done They call women and children together for Worship but not for matters of Judgement and Discipline It 's sufficient if such as are rational and judicious have suffrage in the same matters Marsilius in his Defensor Pacis determines the Power of Legislation to be in Populo aut civium universitate Yet he grants that the Laws may be made Per valentiorem partem or their Trustees and that what is so done by them is done by all But in this particular he excludes women children servants strangers though inhabitants if not incorporated likewise Mr. Parker who gives the whole and independent Power of the Keys into a Congregation under a Democratical form yet will have the exercise of this power in the Officers in an Aristocratical mode Seeing therefore that neither multitude of persons nor distance of place nor impossibility of a vertual and sufficient Convention of all the Members being the differences between a National and Congregational Church and conceived to be the impediments of good Government are no impediments I know no reason but that all the Christians of a Nation may be as well governed by a subjection to one supream Judicatory as a Congregation independent section 13 But let us oppose this National Community under one supream Tribunal to a thousand or more Independent Congregations as hitherto we have compared it with one single Congregation and then that which was affirmed will be more apparent For 1. a National Community Christian may have the same Members the same gifted Men the same Officers and the like Assemblies for Worship as subjected unto one Tribunal which the same number of Christians in the same nature divided into a thousand or more Independent Polities may have And the same gifted Men and Officers may act more effectually for the good of the whole when they are thus united then when scattered and divided like the vital Spirits in so many several Bodies For vis unita fortior and the being more firmly orderly and regularly united may more easily animate and effectually move and direct one body though great then so many bodies independent one upon another and severed though little 2. Again in this National Body every Congregation Classis Province may act order hear and determine matters belonging to their Cognisance and within their Precincts without troubling any general Representative except in the highest most difficult businesses of general concernment which with all extraordinary matters are reserved for that highest Assembly And all this is done according to the Rules of Government allowed by God and practised by the best Polities in the World. 3. The Congregationals grant that any of their single Congregations independent in a difficult point or business may take the advice of twenty thirty forty other Congregations or more yet if the Major part of them or all should agree and give their judgment that one Congregation shall not be bound by their advice but shall have power to judge against it or subscribe unto it seeing in this case no Scripture binds this or other Congregations to be independent or perhaps allow any such thing except in some extraordinary cases it were worth the serious consideration of wise men whether it be more agreeable to the Rules of good Government and the general Precepts of Church-discipline that one of these Congregations alone should have the power to determine and that finally this difficult cause and all the rest only to advise then that joyntly with this one all the rest and most of them as good and some perhaps better should have power not only to advise but determine And whether this determination of all joyntly were not likely to prove better and more effectual and more conducing to the end of Discipline than that Determination of one But against this two things may be said 1. That all those other Congregations may err but this is but to suppose and to suppose a thing both unlikely and extraordinary that forty well constituted Churches may err and that one be free from errour 2. By this it seems to follow that in some difficult cases one National Church may not only take the advice of many others but subject themselves unto them But 1. we are bound only to submit unto the Word of God made clear unto us though it be very likely that many seeking God and making right use of the means are more likely to find out truth and understand the Word of God better than one 2. I staid at a National Church and did not expatiate further because experience hath taught us how prejudicial it hath been even to this State to suffer Appeals to be made either unto Forreign Churches or States Neither is it fit in respect of the Civil Soveraign Christian that the Church within this State should any ways depend upon any other Church whatsoever section 14 I had said before that a national Multitude of Christians associated into one Body and subjected to one supream Power of the Keys may be as easily and as well governed and edified as if they were divided into many several Communities and independent Congregations Now I add that in divers cases they may be more easily and better governed and edified This might be made manifest 1. From the many conveniences which will follow from the Multiplication of Independencies in a national Church and Christian State all which by an internal connexion and subordination may be avoided Histories read with attention and understanding will manifest this and the experience of these times in our Church and Nation 2. From the disproportion and also the difference between the Church and State in respect of the extent and the multitude of independent Polities Ecclesiastical within the bowels of one entire Civil Common-wealth Christian. I do not mean that the Constitution of the Church and State should be the same so that if the State be Monarchical the Church should be such too or if Aristocratical it should be Aristocratical For though God hath determined the model of the Church yet he hath not so particularly defined the Constitution of the State. Neither do I affirm that the Church by any Divine Precept is bound to be co-adequate to the State only this I say it will be convenient advantagious to the Church and agreeable to the general Rules of Decency and Order 1. That it be co-adequate to the State. 2. That there be but one independent Church in in one national State except there be some special impediment But not to insist so much upon these a third and greater reason to prove this is taken from the insufficiency
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
is great danger to the Common-wealth therefore as every thing is armed with some power to defend it self so a sufficient strength is required in every political Body for to continue the safety thereof And this is a Sword not only of Justice but of War. This Sword of War especially cannot be well managed without a sufficient skill which cannot be had without instruction exercise and experience Hence the Art Military is not only useful but necessary in every well ordered State. One thing especially requisite in this profession is to have good Commanders men of valour and prudence able to lead and instruct others God himself would have Israel his own people a Warlike Nation Therefore after that he had given them possession of the Land of Canaan he left some certain Nations unsubdued only that the Generations of the Children of Israel might know how to teach them War at least such as knew nothing before of it Judg. 3.1 2. Those who lived in the times of Joshua were well experienced but the Generation following had no experience neither could they learn any without some Enemies constantly to exercise them Therefore though Wars be heavy Judgements yet it 's the will of God there should be warlike dissentions and that for many ends 1. To punish the wickedness of the World. 2. To let men know how sweet a blessing Peace is 3. To be a Nursery and School of breeding gallant men especially when he by them intends to do some great work In consideration of these things its good that any State in time of peace not only chuse Captains train Souldiers provide Arms but also send some into forraign Wars to learn experience Of this part of Institution as also of that of Learning you may read at large in Contzen Polit. lib. 4. lib. 10. Of the Laws of War Grotius may be consulted That some Wars are lawful especially such as are necessary and undertaken for our defence there 's no doubt and not only defensive but offensive arms may be justified out of the Holy Scriptures and from the Example of Abraham Joshua many of the Judges and David who were excellent Commanders under whom many gallant men served when God intended to ruin Judah he threatens to take away the mighty Man Esay 3.2 It 's a sad presage when the Gentry and Nobility of a Nation become vicious and effeminate and this was one cause of that heavy Judgment of God which many of them suffered in the late Wars Wherein England gained great skill and experience both by Sea and Land yet with the woful expence of much of her own blood And how happy had we been if so much valour had been manifested in the ruine of the Enemies of Christ and his Gospel Whosoever desires to understand more of this Subject as belonging to Politicks let him read Military Books If this be so necessary for the defence and safety of an earthly State how much more is the spiritual Militia necessary for the defence of our Souls section 18 There is another profession and the same useful for many things but in particular for to enrich the State it s that of Merchandise and Traffick These Merchants are of several sorts some deal in petty Commodities and sell by parcels some are for whole sale but the chiefest are such as are great Adventurers and Trade by Sea and Traffick with all Nations These are the great Monyed Men of the World who have great Princes and whole States their Debtors These furnish us with Rarities and Varieties of the Earth and enrich us with the Commodities of East and West South and North and the remotest parts of the World. These make new discoveries and might furnish us with many rare inventions Books and Arts but most intend rather private gain than publick good It were to be wished that our luxurious and wicked expences were turned another and better way to maintain Schollars in those Countries where they maintain Factours for the improvement of Learning and the propagation of Religion The King of Spain and the Jesuites are the only Politicians in this kind though it be a Question whether this profession be not derogatory to Nobility Yet King Solomon and Jehosaphat were Adventurers in Corporations and great Cities these Tradesmen and Merchants have their several Companies and their Orders and are called by some Systemes which cannot be well regulated without some Laws of the Soveraign power CHAP. XVI Of Subjects in an Ecclesiastical Politie section 1 OF subjection in general and subjection to a Civil Power I have spoken and because there is an Ecclesiastical power and subjection due unto it therefore order requires that I conclude the first part of Politicks with the explication of the nature of spiritual subjection and subjects This spiritual relation and duty arising from it presupposeth subjection 1. Absolute to God as Creatour and Preserver 2. To him as Redeemer 3. To Christ as Head and Universal Administratour of the Church and to him as having instituted an Ecclesiastical Discipline and promising to every particular Church using the Keys aright in their judical proceedings to be with them so as to make their judgment effectual and that what they bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and what they loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven So that this subjection is due to the power of Christ in every particular visible Church For when a multitude of Christians associate and according to the Rules of Christ erect an independent Judicatory it s the duty of every one in that Association to submit unto it if he will be a Member of the same and enjoy the benefit of that external Government and by the very institution of Christ though there be no solemn Confederation they are bound so to do This subjection is different from that which is due from the people to their proper Pastours The power external of the Keys as you heard is 1. In the whole Church particular according to the extent as the primary subject of the same 2. In the Representative exercising this power 3. In the Officers The Representative is either general to which every particular person must submit or particular to which the particular Members of that Association and Division are bound to submit and none else Submission is due unto the Officers according to their intensive and extensive power and no further The Rule and Measure of this subjection are the special or general precepts of Christ and his Apostles and if a Church or its Representatives or Officers transgress these precepts they cannot justly challenge any submission as due unto them In this respect its necessary there should be Canons to regulate both the fundamental and also the derivative power and the same agreeable to the Gospel The want of these and the observation thereof may be an occasion if not a cause of separation whereof the Church it self may be guilty and will prove so to be This subjection ariseth from this
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
whereof is the Government of man as ordered to his final and eternal Estate This Government is two-fold 1. That of strict Justice 2. That of sweet mercy in Christ For it pleased the Eternal Sovereign to bring Man fallen back again and raise him up to an Estate of eternal Glory this was his great design wherein he most gloriously manifested his divine perfections of Wisdom Justice Power and especially of free Mercy this man we find in a two-fold capacity the first is temporal confined to this mortal life the second is spiritual and in both he is subject to his Maker and Eternal King who doth not always exercise his Power himself immediately either in the constitution or administration of these earthly States but as he useth the ministry of Angels so he makes men his Deputies and Vicegerents these are called Higher Powers ordained of God who are trusted with and bear the Sword to protect the good and punish the bad according to certain Laws and Rules of Wisdom and Justice This power may reach the Persons and the goods of mortal man but not the Soul and Conscience which are exempted and reserved to the Tribunal of God who cannot only kill the Body but cast both Body and Soul into Hell and reward Men with Spiritual and Eternal Rewards which the Powers of the World cannot do Of this Government by the temporal Sword something shall be said in the following discourse but with some reference to that which is Spiritual that the generals wherein they do agree the particulars wherein they differ the subordination of the one unto the other may be the better known All men should be of this spiritual Society but are not many excluded through their own fault and just Judgment of God This separation was made betimes for we read of Cain cast out of God's presence and excommunicate of the Sons of God and the Sons of Men before the Flood of Jews and Gentiles after that the World was peopled by the Sons of Noah and the Family of Abraham Isaac and Jacob singled out of all other Nations and this before the Incarnation and the Glorification of the Messias And since then we may observe that there are Christians opposed to Pagans and Idolaters which do not acknowledge one only God to Mahometans who acknowledge the true God who made Heaven and Earth but not God Redeemer by Jesus Christ to Jews who confess God the Creator and Jesus Christ in general but as yet to come to Apostates who first professed the Truth but afterwards denying it are Excommunicated by a Sentence and Decree of Heaven Though these be many and of several and different sorts yet they are reducible to two Societies or Cities the one of God the other of the Devil as the learned Austin did well observe in his excellent Treatise of the City of God this Spiritual Society was governed by God as sole Monarch from the beginning without any Vicar or Deputy universal till such time as Christ having finished the great work of expectation was set at the right hand of God and made the Administrator general of the Church Christian for now that is the name of this Spiritual Society This Church and especially as Christian may be considered under several Notions and distinguished into that which now triumphs in Heaven and is secure of everlasting Bliss and that which is militant aiming at a final Victory and expecting a perpetual Peace 2. This militant Church may be conceived to be either as mystical consisting only of real Saints and such as by a lively Faith have Fellowship with Christ and are living members of his Body or visible of such as acknowledge and profess their Faith in God and in his Son Jesus Christ already exhibited and set at the Right hand of God and because the sincerity of this Profession is known certainly to God alone therefore in this visible Society we find Judas amongst the Apostles Simon Magus amongst Christians Pharisees and Saduces though a generation of Vipers amongst the Disciples of John Baptist yet these are but Chaff upon the Floor mingled with the Wheat and by the Fan in Christ's hand to be separated and burned with unquenchable fire section 3 This Visible Church militant may be considered either as Universal or Particular The Universal is the number of all Christians living on Earth who by their profession of Faith in Christ already come signifie that subjection to Christ and their relation one to another as Brethren In this respect the Government of the Church is Monarchical under one Head Jesus Christ who never appointed any one Vicar Universal or supream Independent Judicatory visible on Earth with plenitude of Power over all Christians of all Nations The Word Sacraments Ministry and the outward means of Conversion belonging to this Church as considered under this notion and every particular person therein is first admitted into this Society and made a Member thereof before he can be a Member of any particular Church Though one baptized in a particular Church under a form of externel Government may be solemnly received both as a member of the universal and also that particular Body at one and the same time yet in order of nature he must be conceived as a member of the universal before a Member of that particular For we are first Christians and subject to Christ before we can be subject to the Power of any particular Church For we are baptized into one Body Universal and in the Name of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost not into the Church of Rome Corinth Ephesus Jerusalem or into the Name of any of the Governours or Officers of these Churches particular visible Churches are parts of the universal and are first so many several Communities denominated usually from some place and after that by association and consent receive a form of Government visible and external This kind of spiritual visible policy and the Government thereof is the principal subject of the ensuing discourse wherein I aim at Peace and Truth desiring not to kindle but to quench or at least abate the flames of dissention which so long and so violently have raged amongst us section 4 The Government of these particular Churches at this present time is the subject of so many Disputes amongst us that some doubt whether there be any such thing or no some presuppose it but know not what it is some make it to be the same with Civil Government and put all the Power in the Civil Magistrates hands and only except the Word and Sacraments which they grant to Ministers some take those from the Ministers and make this administration common to others with them and because there is no certain order established amongst us therefore many are our divisions and fanatick Sects are multiplyed Some are subtil and politick agents and divide the Church that they may disturb the State these care not much what the Doctrine is so they can separate those
which should be united Some desire to propagate their own Opinions though false unprofitable blasphemous and their design is to draw Disciples after them These prevail the more because they find the minds of many so ready to receive any impression For some have itching ears and every new and strange opinion doth affect and much take with them Few are well grounded in the principles of Christian saving truth so as to have a distinct methodical knowledge of them with an upright humble heart disposed to practise what they know for a distinct knowledge of Fundamentals with a sincere desire and intention to practise and live accordingly are excellent means to avoid Errors for such God will guide in his truth some aim at an higher perfection than this life can reach and boasting of their high attainments insolently censure others or look upon them with scorn and contempt as far below them Some design to make Men Scepticks in all matters of Religion that then their minds being like Matter ready to receive any form they may more easily imprint upon them what they please yet in the issue many of them prove Atheists and enemies to all Religion The grand Politicians and chief Agents who do least appear animate the Design take all advantages watch all opportunities single out the fittest persons and make men even of contrary Judgments and of a temper quite different from themselves instrumental and efficient to their own Ruine yet I hope that God in the end will not only discover but disappoint them All these bandy together and do conspire to destroy the Protestant English interest and it 's a sad thing that Orthodox Christians take little notice of these things but fearfully wrangle about matters of less moment to the great prejudice of the necessaries and substantials of Religion section 5 All this is come upon us for our neglect and abuse of a long continued Peace and the light of the Gospel shining so gloriously amongst us We are guilty but God is just and also merciful and wonderfully wise For he is trying of us to purge away the Tin and dross and he expects that we should search more accurately pray more fervently and more humbly depend upon him whose wisdom is such as that he can and will bring light out of darkness good out of evil and a far more excellent Order out of our confusions The prayers of the upright for this end are made and heard in heaven already and what we desire in due time shall be effected For he will comfort Sion he will comfort all her waste places and he will make her Wilderness like Eden and her Desart like the Garden of the Lord. This indeed is a work to which man contributes little hinders much retards long that Gods hand and Wisdom may the more appear and that he may have the glory In the mean time Christ takes care of the universal Church and the parts thereof converting some confirming others and directing all true believers to eternal Glory and though a storm be raised and the same very terrible yet it 's nothing but we may be confident when we consider the skill and miraculous power of our Heavenly Pilot. section 6 My intention is not to instruct the learned who are more fit to be my Masters yet to these endued with far more excellent gifts I would give occasion and also make a motion to exercise their improved parts and learning in this Subject and do this poor distracted Church of ours a part of the universal some far more glorious service God may make me though very unworthy an instrument of his Wisdom to inform the ignorant and remove their Errors and correct their mistakes It may also through God's Blessing contribute something unto Peace by uniting well affected minds I am enemy to no man yet professedly bent against errors and that not only in others but also in my self if once I know them I am not pre-engaged to any Party but a servant unto truth and devoted unto Peace I wish I may not be prejudicate or partial or precipitate as many do who contend to maintain a Party or a Faction but do not care to search out the truth these do not close up but open the breaches amongst us and make them wider and leave others unsatisfied Our differences be so many and so great that we seem to be uncapable of any Peace yet God can do wonders and we may trust in him who in his time will give us Peace if not on Earth yet certainly in Heaven the place of our Eternal Rest. CHAP. II. Of Government in general and of a Community Civil CHurch-Government presupposeth the Rules of Government in general therefore he that will know the latter must understand the former For he that is ignorant of Government must needs be ignorant of Church-Government and this is the very case of many in our days and this is one cause of many differences amongst us at this time to give some light in this particular I will say something of Government in General the Government of God whereby he more immediately orders man to his final and immortal estate I have according to my poor ability declared in my Theopolitica or Divine Politicks therefore I will confine my discourse to the Government of man by man or rather the Government of God by men set over men For God communicates some measure of his Power to mortal men and such as are entrusted with it become his Vicegerents and bear his name according to that of the Psalmist I have said ye are Gods Psal. 82.6 My design in this Treatise is not to deliver an exact Systeme of Politicks yet I will make use of those rules I find in political writers of better rank but with a reservation of a liberty to my self to vary from them as I shall see just cause To pass by the distinction of Government Monastical and Oeconomical I will pitch upon that which is Political The subject whereof is a Community and Society larger than that of a Family and may be sufficient to receive the form of a Common-wealth section 2 To this end we must observe what Politica which some call the rule of Government of a Politie is 2. What a Politie or Common-wealth 3. What the parts of Politica be Politica or Politicks is the act of well ordering a Common-wealth A Common-wealth is the order of Superiority and Subjection in a Community for the Publick Good. Of Politicks there be two parts the constitution administation of a Common-wealth These Rules are the foundation of the following Discourse and inform us that Politica is an act that is a rule of Divine Wisdom to direct some operations of the Creature for so I understand it here 2. That the Object of this rule is a Common-wealth 3. That the proper act is to direct how to order a Common-wealth aright so that it may attain its proper end 4. That the subject
upon them spiritual power 5. But the greatest Usurper is the Pope who usurpeth a power both intensively and extensively far greater than is due section 5 As the Power may be acquired so it may be lost For 1. When a Church is so far decayed as not to be able to exercise an independant jurisdiction or order as their association so their power is so much abated 2. When a Church doth wholly cease to be a Church then their power is wholly lost Yet when it 's hindred either by the Magistrate or by schisms and rents in it self so that it cannot exercise it yet it 's vertually in them And many times such is the neglect of Christians that they will not associate nor reduce themselves into Order when they might do it this is a great sin 3. When Representatives turn into a faction and betray their trust they lose their power as Representatives 4. All Officers are divested when for some just cause they are deposed or degraded but this belongs not to this part CHAP. VIII Of the disposition of Power Civil and the several forms of Government section 1 AFter the acquisition both of Civil and Ecclesiastical power follows the disposition of both which will take up a great part of this first Book And 1. Of the manner of disposing Civil Power This Disposition seems to be the same with acquisition because it cannot be acquired but by a certain subject neither can it be said properly to be actually acquired but at the very same time and by this very Act it 's placed in that subject Yet because Power Civil may be so communicated and acquired that it may be disposed of several ways and from these several ways of disposing arise several distinctions and differences of Common-Wealths I thought good to make Disposition a distinct thing from Acquisition and so handle it for the better understanding of this particular I will 1. premise some general Observations 2. Briefly declare the several ways of disposing Majesty and the several forms of Governments 3. Inquire into the Constitution of the Common-Wealth of England 4. Deliver some things concerning our condition in these late times section 2 The Observations are these The 1. which belongs unto that of Acquisition is That no power can be fully acquired till it be accepted of as well as communicated For no man can be bound to be a Sovereign against his will. 2. That Majesty is then disposed when it is placed and ordered in a certain constant subject which thereby may be enabled and bound to protect and govern 3. That to be disposed in this or that subject in this or that manner is accidental to Majesty though to be disposed is essential to a Common-Wealth 4. From the different ways of disposing this Power arise the different kinds as they call them of Common-Wealths For from the placing of it in one or more arise Monarchical Aristocratical and popular States 5. Majesty being the same in general in all States it may be disposed several ways and in several degrees in one or more Hence arise the difference of one Monarchy from another one Aristocracy from another one popular State from another 6. Though it may be a Question whether the disposing of Power in one or more can make a specifical difference yet Monarchy and Polyarchy are taken for different species of Common-Wealths essentially different Majestas disponitur pure in uno despotice hinc imperium section 3 Despoticum Regale monarchicum section 3 Despoticum Regale regaliter pluribus optimatibus hinc Aristocratia Democratia plebe hinc Aristocratia Democratia miste in pluribus hinc Status popularis omnibus hinc Status popularis The knowledge of this Scheme depends upon the difference and distinction of the parts and members of a Community For besides those which are but vertually members there are such as are sui juris independant upon others and these are divided into three Ranks As 1. Such as are only free 2. Such as are of the Nobility 3. Some that are super-eminent The two former are called in Latin Plebs optimates And amongst these optimates there may be very great difference as we find a Pompey or a Caesar amongst the Romans a Duke of Briganza amongst the Portugals who inherited a vast Estate in Lands These are called the Tres ordines the three States or Ranks of the whole Body of the People with us King Peers and Commons The super-eminent are few the Peers more in number yet not very many the Commons are the greatest multitude by far and make up the main body of the Society Yet with us of these there be several degrees and subdivisions Amongst the Commons we find the Freeholders and the Gentry and a great disparity in both Amongst the Peers there is a difference 1. In respect of the manner of acquiring of this Dignity and so some of them are such by ancient tenure amounting to so many Knights-fees some by Writ some by Patent These are called in Latin Barones Feudatarii rescriptitii diplomatici There is another distinction with us of Lords for some are Temporal some Spiritual The highest of these amongst us are those of Royal Extraction In France the Princes of the Blood. In some Countries as in Denmark and some say in Poland there be Peers and Lords which hold in Allodio and these are independant upon the King in divers respects such also the Princes of Germany be for the most part And in those States where such are found the Government usually is Aristocratical These Kings Dukes and Monarchs became such at first either for the antiquity of their Family and their greate Estates or for their super-eminent wisdom and vertue or for their rare exploits in War or Peace For such as are Generals and great Commanders in wars prudent and successful much beloved by Souldiers may do much dethrone Princes set up themselves and if it will not be fairly given they will forcibly take the Crown and sometimes they may deserve it and prove the fittest to wear it These are the three Ranks and Orders of the People section 4 These being known well will give some light to that which follows concerning the disposing of Majesty whether real or personal though all Majesty actually ruling must be in some sense personal First this super-eminent power may be placed Purely in one Purely in more in one and then that the State is called a Monarchy Yet it may be disposed in more than one several ways 1. More absolutely 2. More strictly limitted An absolute Monarch whether Elective or Hereditary is such as hath a full power over his subjects goods and persons as his own so that the people have neither propriety in their goods nor liberty of their persons They are but his servants and little better than slaves such Pharaoh's Subjects when Joseph had purchased their stocks their Lands their persons for the Crown seem to have been This Government is absolutum dominium and
which are the great Bulwark of the Kingdom had been intermitted for sixteen years at length when no man did expect one is called but suddenly dissolved Yet the Scots entred with a puissant Army into the Kingdom made a necessity of calling a second which is summoned confirmed by an act of continuance acts high makes great demands continues long Yet it 's deserted by the King and many of the Members opposed by an Army defends it self undertakes the King in England Scotland Ireland It maker a new broad Seal having formerly seized upon the Navy and the Ports recruits it self by new Elections Then they fall out with the Army after that they are divided amongst themselves In the end follows the seclusion of many of the Members and the remnant act and by the Army and the Navy doth great things but at last even this remnant by this Army is totally routed and dissolved This is that long-sitting Parliament which some say might have been good Physick but proved bad Diet. Never Parliament of England varied more never any more opposed never any suffered more never any acted higher never any effected greater things It made an end of Kings and new model'd the Government 3. The King deserting the Parliament set up his Royal Standard and is opposed fought beaten finally and totally conquered delivered by the Scots into the Parliaments hands is confined secured as a guilty person tried judged condemned to death executed His Family and Children banished and disinherited of the Crown wander in foreign Countries and many great Ones suffered and fell with him Many foreign States stood amazed when they saw the potent Prince and Monarch of three Kingdoms reigning in greater power and splendour than ever any of his Predecessours cast down so suddenly from the heighth of his excellency laid in the dust and brought to nothing 4. The Civil Government was much changed from the primitive Constitution neither could the Petition of Right help much because the King and Ministers of State would not observe it but acted contrary unto it So that it was arrived almost at the height of an absolute Monarchy But as the winding of a string too high is the breaking of it so it fell out with Monarchy 1. The Parliament first require an explication of that Act for Liberty afterwards limit the Regal Power curb it assume it exercise it and in the end take it wholly away Some indeed of the Lords and Commons declare That they had no intention to change the fundamental Government by King Peers and Commons and perhaps really intended what they spake yet they could not perform for that very frame was taken asunder and abolished Upon which followed three several models one after another The 1. By the act of alteration The 2. By the new instrument The 3. and last by the humble petition of advice and yet we are not well setled So difficult it is after that a Constitution is once dissolved to establish a new frame So that it may be truely said that never King acted so much against a Parliament never Parliament prevailed so much against a King. Some were for the State of Venice and that form of Government as the most perfect model for England Some intend levelling some did judge it best that the General should have continued onely General for a while and to head onely the godly party a strange fancy and conceit 5. As for the Church many of the English began to look towards Rome many came home unto the Church and turned Papists Innovasions were daily made in Doctrine and Discipline and Prelacy seemed to advance with the Royal Power But this great Parliament puts a stay to all begins to reform and in reforming incline to an extream They take away Episcopacy Root and Branch abrogate the Liturgy make some alterations in the Doctrine compose a new Confession of Faith a Directory for worship and begin to settle a Presbyterian Discipline Yet that in the very rise was opposed by the Dissenting Brethren and never could be fully and universally so imposed as to be received Hereupon contrary to promise the Golden Reins of Discipline were loosed a general Liberty taken and swarms of Sects appear profess and Separate Errors Heresies Blasphemies do almost darken this Church and overspread the same Never from the first receiving of Christianity in this Nation was there so great a change in Religion known to be made in so short a time 6. Yet after all these bloody Wars and greatest Alterations in Church and State the substance of the Protestant Religion continues the Universities stand Schools remain Learning flourisheth Sabbaths are observed Ministers maintain'd never better Sermons never better Books The Orthodox Christian is confirmed Matters in Religion are not so much taken upon trust and tradition as formerly Arts and Languages advance the light of the Gospel shines The Laws abide in force Justice is administred peace enjoyed the Protestant Interest in forraign parts maintain'd England is become a warlike Nation furnished with gallant Men both by Sea and Land is courted by great Princes is a terrour to our Enemies a protection to our Friends and if we could agree amongst our selves it is an happy Nation Yet all this is from the wonderful wisdom of our God who knows how to bring Light out of darkness good out of Evil and from his Exceeding mercy who hath heard the Prayers of a remnant of his people in behalf of this Nation to which he intends good if our sins do not hinder And for my part I will not cease to Honour and to pray for such as from their hearts have endeavoured our good and especially for such which God hath made so eminently instrumental for our present happiness Such as are trusted with great power and employed in great business are many times perplexed with great difficulties and especially in distracted times And if they do something amiss we should not harshly Censure much less envy them but rather pity them and pray for them and remember our own frailty and that if we had been in their place we might have done worse But to draw unto a Conclusion of this long Chapter and not to offend the Reader let 's consider what may be done to finish and perfect any thing begun tending to our settlement Far be it from me to presume to prescribe any thing to wiser men who have seriously considered of this very thing already Yet I may be bold to deliver mine own Opinon with humble submission to my betters and if I err I may have the greater hope of pardon because I shall speak as one unbiassed and aiming with a sincere heart at the publick good of the English Church and State which though fearfully shaken and shattered are not yet destroyed And 1. This is certain that there are but two reasons of our unsettlement 1. Ignorance 2. Wilfulness For we either know not how to settle and what the best means are which most effeually
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
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-Bishops of York and Canterbury the one the Metropolitan of England the other of all England The Bishops took their Oath of obedience to the Arch-Bishops as appeareth by the book of ordination They did arrogate the power of ordination to themselves though Presbyters did in the ordination impose hands with them and some of them confessed they had it only with the Presbyter joyntly Yet we know how that by others is eluded 3. Not to say any thing of their Titles Dignity Revenue Baronies annexed to their Sea their place in the house of the Peers in Parliament and their priviledges they had cast off in effect not only the people but Presbytery For though the Presbytery had their Clerks both in the Convocation of York and also at London if the Parliament sat there yet they took upon them in the end to nominate these Clerks and deprive the Ministers of their right of Election As for the Deanes and Chapters which should have been eminent Persons and chosen by the Presbytery in every Diocess to represent them they were degenerate from their original Institution and the Bishops who should have done nothing but joyntly with them did all things without them They in effect though unjustly engrossed the whole power of Administration 4. Yet this is observable that 1. They could make no Canons but joyntly in one Assembly 2. That joyntly amongst themselves without the Presbytery they had not this power 3. That no Canons were valid without the Royal Assent 4. Neither by the Constitution was the Royal Assent sufficient without the Parliament 5. That they derived much of their Ecclesiastical power from the Crown For by the Oath of Supremacy is declared that the King of England is over all persons even in Ecclesiastical causes Supream Governour In which respect all their secular Power Revenue Dignity and also their nomination and confirmation with their investiture is from him He calls Synods confirms their Canons grants Commissions to exercise Jurisdiction purely Ecclesiastical In the first year of King Edward the sixth by a Statute they were bound to use the Kings name not their own even in their Citations and as before they must correct and punish offenders according to such Authority as they had by the Word of God and as to them should be committed by the ordinance of this Realm So that if the Popish Bishops derive their power from the Pope and the English from the King neither of them could be jure divino And by this the title of most Bishops in Europe is meerly humane and that in two respects 1. Because its Hierarchial 2. Derived either from an higher Ecclesiastical or an higher secular power section 9 Thus far I have enquired though briefly and according to my poor ability into the definition and institution of a Bishop the subject of the Question which is this Whether a Bishop or Bishops be the primary subject of the Keyes The meaning whereof is 1. Whether they be the primary and adequate sole subject of the whole power of the Keyes whereof the principal though not all the branches are making Canons and receiving last appeals without any provocation from them For they may be subjects and not primary they may be subjects of some part and not of the whole power 2. Whether they be such subjects of this power in foro exteriori For in foro interiori the Presbyters have as much as they 3. Whether they be such subjects of such power in foro exteriori quatenus Episcopi reduplicative 4. Whether as such they be such a subject by Divine Institution For solution hereof it s to be considered 1. That except there be an Universal consent and the same clearly grounded upon Scripture both what a Bishop is and 2. That made evident that his Title is of Divine Institution the affirmative cannot be proved 2. That though a Bishop could be clearly proved to have the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction yet it will not follow from thence that he is the primary subject of that power For the negative many things may be said 1. Neither the papal nor the English Bishop so far as the one derives his power from the Pope and the other from the Crown can be the primary subject of this power the secondary they may be 2. For such as derive not their power from
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
any say its in the whole Church primarily in the Officers and Representatives secondarily for Exercise that 's the undoubted Truth and must needs be granted In all the former examples of the exercise of this power it s very remarkable and specially to be noted that where there was a Church with which the Apostles who were far and very far above all others who did succeed them might act they would not act alone but joyntly with the Elders Multitude Brethren and the reasons hereof are obvious 1. Because they would follow and observe Christs Institution 2. Give example for future times 3. They know that as they when their Faith was weak did strive amongst themselves for priority and superiority so there would many come after them who would contend what person or persons or party should be greatest Yet notwithstanding all this its certain that where the Government of a Church is not regular or a form of Discipline is not setled God in his infinite mercy supplies these defects by an Orthodox Pious Faithful Painful Ministry which is the Fundamental Office of Christ and the means of Conversion and Salvation of Mens Souls And though we have certain clear Rules for the generals and necessaries of Discipline yet as in extraordinary cases the Apostles did not observe them so neither in the like cases are we strictly bound to do otherwise If any desire the Testimony of former times and the practice of Ancient days Fathers Councils Histories might be alledged as they have been by many Learned Men of Latter times but of any one Person Blondel hath done most Dr. Andrews is punctual and peremptory in this right disposal of this power in the proper subject For after that he had spoken first of the Institution then of the Exercise he thus concludes and that most pithily Res ipsa rei ipsius promissio ratihabitio usus denique Ecclesiae datur ab Ecclesia habetur confertur in sive unum sive plures qui ejus post vel exercenda vel denunciandae facultatem habeant For this also he alledgeth the Council of Constance Cameracensis Cusanus Gersom and the School of Sorbone Tortura Torti pag. 42. The Congregational party must needs acknowledge this in general For this is it which Mr. Parker which Mr. Hooker of New-England go about to prove but their way is certainly too Democratical though Mr. Parker grants that their Government in respect of the Exercise is Aristocratical yet that expression is no ways good For if in proper sence any State Ecclesiastical or Civil be Aristocratical then the Optimates or such as answer unto them must needs be the primary Subject and the rest even Officers are Subjects and derive their power from the Aristocratical party But perhaps he means that the whole Church which he considers as Democratical singles out the best and fittest to be Governors and trusts them with the exercise of the power and from them the Government is denominated Aristocratical But in this sence all States should be Aristocratical section 14 For the more full and perfect understanding of this Government and Discipline Ecclesiastical we must know and remember it 1. That there are certain general Rules of Government which God himself observes in his Government both temporal and spiritual of the World and especially in the ordering of Men and Angels 2. These general Rules are observed by all well ordered States in the World and in the Constitution and Administration of them we may easily find them and without them we cannot well or fully understand their Model 3. All those are found in many places of the Scriptures neither without them can the Scriptures be well understood 4. Besides the fundamental and essential Rules of Government there are many Accidentals according to which all particular Polities may differ one from another 5. Church-Government as here handled is nothing else but the application of these general and essential Rules to a particular Community and Society of Christians whereby they may be continued in Unity Piety and Peace and mutually further one another in the Way to Heaven 6. These ends may be attained by a fathful godly diligent Ministry without any form of outward Discipline 7. Yet a form of Discipline established will much further help and strengthen the Ministery in this Work and effectually conduce to the attaining of these ends keep Christian Societies closer together and make them far more permanent firm and powerful 8. Every Christian in any Society Ecclesiastical is bound by his very Baptism without any further Federation to submit unto these general and essential Rules once applied 9. That in erecting a Church-discipline there must be a special care taken of two things chiefly 1. Of the Constitution that it be agreeable especially in essentials to Christ's Institution otherwise men may refuse and that justly to submit unto it 2. Of the Administration that it be committed to the wisest and the best who are most fit to manage it 10. Because many of the Ministers are not qualified for this business and there are many no Ministers of eminent piety learning and wisdom I see no reason why onely the Clergy or Ministery and every one of that Profession should alone be trusted with the power of Administration and these eminent persons excluded Where do we find the Spirit promised only unto Ministers and Bishops Do we not know and by experience that excellent Gifts and amongst others the Spirit of Wisdom and Government are given to others as well as to some of them Nay how many unworthy and unfit persons do we find entred into the Ministery And with us besides others the causes thereof are because Presentations and Admissions are granted for carnal relations favour gifts good turns and also because that Parishes are not fitly united and divided and the maintenance in many places of great charge is very poor Otherwise I know no reason why the Congregational Party should so much exclaim against Parishes For the work of Ministers is not only to edifie Believers but also to endeavour the conversion of Heathens and Publicans especially in their particular Assignations For if these division parochal were duly made Parishes might be very fit Assignations for the work and maintenance of the several Ministers and the same agreeable to the general Rule of Decency and Order 11. In the Constitution and Administration of particular Churches neither the practise of Christ nor his Apostles much less of the Primitives times can be any binding Rule For 1. Christ and the Apostles did many extraordinary things which we neither may nor can do 2. Divine Precepts either general or special are the only Rule which we are bound to follow 3. They did many things as the present times and the condition of persons and places required which may not be done by us or any other except we have the same power and in the like case 12. In the Constitution of a Church or in the Reformation
man was made 3. When Nations who knew not Christ should come unto him These I say were not fulfilled in the Apostles times 4. Many of the Primitive Christians after their conversion continued for a certain time without any set-form of external Government or perfect Rules of New-Testament-worship except to Word and Prayer were setled Hence those words of the Apostle The rest will I set in order when I come 4. Even within the compass of that time which the Scripture-History reacheth there was a great inequality in the Apostolical Churches for the number of the persons which was far greater in one Church than in another and in the same Church fewer at the plantation and far more numerous afterward For the Kingdom of God was like leaven which did spread and diffuse it self and to a grain of Mustard-seed which did grow mightily 5. After many of these became formal Polities they encreased so much that without divisions and subdivisions they could not be well ordered so as that every part should be subjected to the whole This Ecclesiastical History testifies 6. Seeing 1. That the inequality of the first Churches planted by the Apostles was so great in the former respects 2. That some of them were incompleat not fully formed not grown up to their full stature 3. That most of them did mightily encrease and enlarge afterwards 4. That the Prophesies of the glorious Enlargement of the Church began but to be fulfilled in the times of the Apostles therefore those first Churches as in the Apostles times could be no obligatory examples to us for matter of extent except with admission of some great latitude From all this it follows that the Rules whereby this Controversie must be decided must be the generals of decency and order so far as they may prove most efficaciously conducent unto the preservation and edification of the Body Yet we must have a special care to observe the Institution and the Examples agreeable thereunto And that Church which is ordered according to these Rules and most effectually tends unto these ends is the best and most approved of Christ. He doth not respect and value Churches as they are Congregational Presbyterian or Episcopal nor as of more narrow and larger compass nor as of less or greater number but as so ordered as to discover false Brethren reject Hereticks purge out the old Leaven cast out scandalous persons free from the Doctrine of Nicolaitans and Jezabel and keep themselves in Unity and Purity And surely as our Christian Profession is disgraced so is God highly displeased because we so miserably distract God's people and urge upon them such accidentals with so great importunity though they be neither essential nor necessary to good Government section 10 I might instance 1. In the Church of Israel which no doubt was National from the times of Moses till the Raign of Jeroboam all which time it continued entire in one body adequate to the State and was never divided into independent Congregations This example is not to be slighted as it is by some For this Church was modeled enlarged and confined by God himself neither was it in this particular any Type or Shadow of something to come which upon the coming of Christ and the Revelation of the Gospel was to vanish And this at least will prove that a National Church under one supream Judicatory is not unlawful in it self 2. I might add that it 's no where prohibited in the New Testament 3. That it 's agreeable to the Rules of Decency and Order 4. That it 's not contrary to the Institution 5. If the State be Christian it may have much help and many advantages from the State especially when the divisions of Church and State are the same But 6. If a Congregational Church may be lawful then a National may be so too And the reason of the consequence is because a National may be as easily and as well nay more easily and better governed than a single Congregation much more than thousands of independent Congregations in one and the same State. That the multitude of Christians in one Nation associating and uniting in one body and subjecting it self to one supreme Judicatory may be better ordered than many independent Congregations in the same Nation is evident For 1. they may be far more firmly united and far more free from Schisms and Separations 2. Order which is the life of Government may far more easily be established and observed 3. It will be far stronger to preserve it self from all opposition both within and without 4. It will be furnished with far more excellent persons endued with excellent qualities for to make Officers and Representatives 5. It will be of far more Authority 6. It will be far more able to reform and reduce into order the greater Multitudes and whole Congregations and the greatest persons 7. It will be far more able to receive Appeals to make Canons give Advice hear and determine the most difficult Causes and to execute their highest Judgments One reason of all this is because so many Gifts of the Spirit may be united in one To clear this more fully we may consider a difference 1. Between a single Congregation independent and a national Community under one and the same power of the Keys 2. Between a multitude of these independent Congregations supposing all the Christians of a Nation made up their several Polities and all the Congregations of a Nation united severally for Worship and some acts of Discipline yet all subject to one supreme Judicatory Ecclesiastical For the first difference it 's two-fold 1. In the number of persons 2. In the distance of place in respect of the parts and members of these Bodies both which if they be too great are thought to be impediments of Government As for the number of persons 1. They must not be too many as they ought not to be too few 2. They are far more for number in a National than in a Congregational Church 3. As for this great multitude of a Nation if not too vast reason and the same confirmed by experience will tell us that by distinction and a wise division with a co-ordination of parts equal and a subordination of the less to the greater and all the several parts unto the whole a multitude though of millions may be united into one organical Body and governed as one Man. And by the way we may take notice of a mistake in Mr. Hooker of New England who thinks that a Church or Community of Christians cannot be an organical Body till Officers be made whereas the making of Officers is an act of Administration and presupposeth the Constitution whereby it 's properly and formally organical before any act of Administration But to return that whereby so many are made one is order which unites Heaven and Earth and all things therein in one Body much more a petty multitude of Christians of one Nation This is apparent in all
Bodies Politick as Universities Corporations Counties Armies and Common-wealths This is God's way of Government which the wisest Governours did always imitate Thus Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them Rulers over the People Rulers of thousands Rulers of hundreds Rulers of fifties and Rulers of tens And they judged the people at all seasons the hard causes they brought to Moses but every small matter they judged themselves Exod. 18.25 26. In this Text considered with the antecedent many things as proper to Government are observable 1. There must be Laws 2. Officers 3. Courts according to the tria Jura Majestatis of Legislation making Officers and Jurisdiction These presuppose a Community and a Constitution 1. There must be a power of making Laws that belongs to the Soveraign 2. Laws by this power must be made for Administration which without them must needs be arbitrary and irregular 3. Those Laws once enacted must be promulgated that they may be known 4. Once known they must regulate both the peoples obedience and the acts of Officers and judgment of the Judges After Laws once established they must be executed and that cannot be orderly and effectually done without a division of the people For 1. they must be numbred divided into tens fifties hundreds thousands tribes 2. They must be co-ordinate and equally poised tens with tens fifties with fifties hundreds with hundreds thousands with thousands 3. They must be subordinate ten to fifty fifty to an hundred and hundreds to thousands and all unto the whole When this is done Officers by whom these Laws must be executed must be made These must first be well qualified 2. The people must chuse them Deut. 1.13 3. Moses must appoint them their places assign them their circuits give them their charge 4. They must have their Courts and Sessions judge execute the Laws and be subordinate the lesser Courts to the superiour and all to the Supream For their Causes especially if difficult must ascend till they came to Moses and he brought them to God who was their Soveraign this was extraordinary But afterwards they had their Sanhedrim and Court of Appeals This subordination seems to be implied in those words of our Saviour Matth. 5.22 But I say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement and whosoever shall say unto his brother Racha shall be in danger of the council but whosoever shall say Thou Fool shall be in danger of hell fire One thing in all this is considerable That Moses did not make every Division nor every Court severally independent but subordinated all unto one supream Consistory A Multitude though National therefore is no impediment to good Government especially when they are numbred divided co-ordinated and subordinated and so by a certain and fixed order made one section 11 As a Multitude is no hinderance so neither is a national distance of parts For if we should enquire into the Constitution of the Chaldean or the Persian Empires of both which we might learn much out of the Holy Scriptures especially in the Books of Ezra both first and second called Nehemiah and Ester and Daniel most of all we should find 1. That the extent of them was far more than National and the distance of the parts far greater 2. That these were divided subordinated not only in the parts less to the greater but also in their Officers both for War and Peace the Revenue and the Administration of Justice and so by order united under one Head. The Empire of Rome the parts whereof were severed at a very great distance as from the River Euphrates in the East to the Ocean upon the West of France and from Aegypt Southward to the North of the Lesser Asia was according to their principles of Policy as well governed as any European petty State at this time is The Turkish Seigniory tho' of great extent is as well ordered as divers several Kingdoms Christian confined to a far more narrow compass Their order is good their strength great their Counsel which doth manage it politick their Laws for administration of Justice certain their divisions from matters of Religion few or none and their internal strength must needs be firm and the continuance of their Dominion hath been long Some attribute the excellency of their Government to their severity in punishments and their bounty in rewards yet though these add something yet these are but the least part The Dominions of Spain are many and scattered at a very great distance round about the Globe on both sides the Line within and without the Tropicks yet all these are subjected to one supream Judicatory and are tolerably governed and by a great deal of policy have been kept together till of late France indeed is stronger because divided into thirty Provinces it 's united in one Vicinity and subject to one Monarch Yet in these vast Dominions and great Empires the union of their many parts so distant did depend not only upon ordinary means but some extraordinary acts of Divine Providence From all this it 's evident that by division co-ordination subordination the supream power of one Nation nay of many Nations may be diffused through the whole Body so as to animate it and reach every part even the remotest section 12 Yet it may be objected that all the Members of a National Church can never meet together in one place and Assembly It 's true they cannot neither is it needful Joshua called and assembled all Israel when yet none but their Elders their Heads their Officers their Judges were called and convented Josh. 23.2 Upon which place Masius thus comments Cum dictum esset omnem Israelem fuisse convocatum ipsa deinde universitas ad eos deducitur qui populum omnem repraesentabant So that all Israel met in their Representative Thus David thus Solomon did use to convocate all Israel As our State hath its Wittena Gemot the Parliament which Cambden calls Pananglium so a National Church may have a general Assembly to represent the whole And this may be so composed as to be an abridgement and contraction of the quintessence of the wisdom piety and learning of a National Church This is a most excellent way for a Community to act by This may be both the terminus à quo ad quem of all these publick acts which are of weight and general concernment By this the Nomothetical Power is exercised to this by Appeal the highest causes are brought and finally determined yet here it 's to be observed that a Representative of the whole is not the whole properly but synecdochically and an Instrument whereby the whole doth so act yet if any thing be done amiss in a former particular Assembly the whole may correct it by a latter 2. That if the Constitution of a general Representative be right and the Members thereof duly qualified and act according to their qualification there will
Subject as a Subject The Question is therefore Whether he that is a Soveraign may not be in some case resisted by the people and if he may in what case a resistance is lawful and free from the guilt of Rebellion Our Case in England is extraordinary and not easily known by many of our own much less by strangers not acquainted with our Government The Resistance in the late Wars was not the first that was made against the Kings of England by the people of England though it differed from all the former The difference was between the King and Parliament whereof he was a part yet severing himself from the whole body And the Parliament was no Subject considered as a Parliament for then the King himself being an essential part thereof should be a Subject As he was divided willingly or wilfully from it he could be no King no Soveraign For if the power was in the King and Parliament joyntly it could not be in him alone Besides when there is no Parliament we know he is a King by Law and the Kingdom is Regnum pactionatum non absolutum If he make himself absolute by that very act he makes himself no King of England For the common and fundamental Law knows no such King. Yet this was all either he or his party could say to justifie themselves If he say the Militia was his the Parliament will say it 's theirs as well as his and except he be absolute it must needs be so For if the supream power be in King Peers and Commons joyntly the Militia which is an essential part of this power could not be his alone The Parliament conceived that when he left them he left his power with them if that could be made good by the Fundamental Constitution then all England was bound to subject to them for the time and obey their just Commands And if it were not so how could all such as took up Arms with the King against them be adjudged Traytors as they were If these things be so there could be no Rebellion upon the Parliaments side because according to the Rules the Parliament was no Subject the King then separated from the Parliament refusing to Act with them Acting and Warring against them was no Soveraign The Question in the time of those bloody and unnatural Dissentions was stated several ways as Whether it was Rebellion in Subjects Commissioned by the Parliament to resist evil Counsellours Agents Ministers of State and Delinquents sheltring themselves under the King as divided from the Parliament and acting against the Laws by his Commissions or Whether the Parliament of England lawfully Assembled where the King virtually is may by Arms defend the Religion established by the same Power together with the Laws and Liberties of the Nation against Delinquents detaining with them the Kings seduced person or Whether the Parliament might not grant a Commission to the Earl of Essex by a force to apprehend Delinquents about the King to bring them to a due Tryal and this even against the personal will of the King Or whether after the Parliament had passed a Judgment against the King they might not lawfully give Commission to General Fairfaxe to apprehend the Kings person and bring him to the Parliament or Supposing the King to be an Absolute Monarch whether any of these things could be done by any Commission from the Parliament as the Condition of the Kingdom stood at that time Thus and several ways was the Question then stated and debated But the Truth is that if the Fundamental Government be by King Peers and Commons joyntly and that neither the Parliament consisting of these three States nor the Parliament as distinct from the King nor the King as divided from the Parliament could alter this Constitution nor lawfully act any thing contrary unto it then so soon as the Commission of Array on one side and of the Militia on the other were issued out and were put in Execution the Subjects in strict sense were freed from their Allegiance And if they acted upon either side their actings were just or unjust as they were agreeable or disagreeable to the Fundamental Laws and the general and principal end of Government For even then their subjection to the Laws of God and Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom did continue and they were even then most of all bound to endeavour with all their power the good and preservation of their Country bleeding and conflicting with the pangs of Death And in that cause no man was bound too scrupulously to observe the petty Rules of our ordinary administration which were proper for a time of Peace which could not help but hinder her recovery In such an extraordinary case many extraordinary things if not in themselves unjust might have been done to prevent her ruine And if the Parliament had gone at first far higher than they did they had prevented the ruin of the King the dis-inherison of His Children and very much effusion of blood which followed afterwards The business then was easie which afterwards became difficult and could not be effected but with the loss of many thousands and the hazard of themselves for their Cause at first was well resented and had many advantages but was much prejudicial by too much intermedling with Religion and making some alterations in the Church before the time section 9 The next Question is whether since the Commencement of the War there was any certain ordinary legal Power which could induce an Obligation or there was any such Power after the Wars was begun it continued after the War was ended till the secluding of the Members and upon that seclusion ceased The answer unto these two Questions seems not to be difficult For there neither was nor could be any such certain ordinary legal Power which could in the strict letter of the Law bind all English Subjects to subjection For during a Parliament this binding power is in King Peers and Commons joyntly in the Intervals of Parliament it s in the King acting according to the Laws of Administration But all this while nay to this day there is no such Parliament no such King. And both in the time of the Wars and after both King and Parliament acted not only above but contrary to many of our Laws which in the time of Peace are ordinarily observed Neither of them could give us any Precedent for many things done by them and those few Precedents alledged for some of their Actions were extraordinary and Acts of extraordinary times If the Counties and People of England had not been ignorant and divided the division of King and Parliament did give them far greater power than they or their Forefathers had for many years But it did not seem good to the Eternal Wise and Just Providence to make them so happy Punished we must be that was his sentence and punished we have been yet few of us receive correction or return to him that Smote us Some
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
represented to us either immediately by examination of their knowledge and knowledge of their practise either from our own sight or their expressions mediately by the testimony of others who are judged by us to be credible By this the grosly ignorant and such as trade and constantly live in sin and are obstinate and refuse to be reformed are excluded To these must be added such as are grosly erroneous and blasphemers and such as deny plain and saving truth with divers others For all these may have sufficient knowledge and for their lives may be blameless and for their outward carriage eminently just honest holy But that which makes the Question difficult is the difference between such as never were born in the Church nor baptized nor admitted for Christians and those who have been either born in the Church baptized lived and continued Christians by profession or such as upon their profession and promise when they were at age were baptized and admitted Shall their Birth give them right to Baptism and their Baptism right to Membership and the gross ignorance of them born in the Church and baptized make them no Members or deprive them of their native and baptismal Right Or shall it not But suppose they have some knowledge of Christ and the principles of Christianity and yet be Idolaters Covetous Drunkards Railers Incestuous Persons for one that is called a Brother and a real Member of a particular Church may be such as is evident from 1 Cor. 5.11 12. Besides such a Brother may deny to hear the Church as is implied Mat. 18.17 Yet these may own their Baptism profess their Faith in Christ and utterly renounce all other Religions The Question therefore is Whether these and such like are not Members of a Church Christian If they be not how can the Church censure judge them and cast them out Yet such owning their Baptism and the Faith whereinto they were baptized may be censured and if they will not hear the Church may be cast out These are neither Pagans nor Mahumetans nor unbelieving Jews they will abhor them God will judge them as Christians as being baptized as having heard the Gospel as owning Christ and professing their hope to be saved by him though he will say unto them Depart from me ye workers of iniquity These if cast forth do not cease to be Brethren till they renounce Christianity These associate with Christians frequent Christian Assemblies for Divine Worship and usually are under the Ministry and if there be any External Government by their very Baptism owned are Subjects to the Power of the Keys Many as bad as these and some worse were in the Church of the Jews and yet not Loammi but reckoned amongst the people of God till God took away both his Word and Spirit from them The Nicolaitans and the Disciples of Jezabel were as bad as these yet they were Members of the Churches where they lived how else could they be cast out as Christ commands The Valentinians and many of the Gnosticks were worse than these and yet many of them were in and of some Christian Church visible These must be either without or within except we can find a third place for them as they of the Church of Rome have invented Purgatory for such as were not good enough for Heaven or bad enough for Hell. They as I conceive do far better who inclose them within the pale of the visible Church and seek to reform them then they who place them in the outward Court and leave them amongst the Gentiles It were but reasonable that they who are so pure and strict in their new invented way would declare in proper terms their minimum quod sic and make the same evident out of the Scriptures But this they have not done they seem to us whatsoever they are amongst themselves to be Scepticks section 4 As there is a Controversie about Qualification so there is about Separation Separation presupposeth Union and Communion Ecclesiastical For as in Nature there can be no Separation but of things some ways joyned and united so it is in Government both Civil and Ecclesiastical For there cannot in proper sense be any Separation from the Church but of such as have been in a Church Members of a Christian Community or Subjects of an Ecclesiastical visible Polity This Communion is either with the whole as the party governing or with the Members amongst themselves as fellow-subjects if a Discipline be setled and it is in Doctrine and Profession or in Worship or in Discipline or in some of these or all But the Communion with the Church in general and with God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son is of an higher kind Communion presupposeth this Separation is either passive or active and voluntary Passive is when any is separated either justly or unjustly from a Christian Society and this may be negative or positive Negative is a non-admission after they had been formerly admitted and this may be done upon sufficient reason or without any just and sufficient cause Positive is a plain ejection of such as are in the Church Separation active is that which is voluntary and as the former so this may be just or unjust and may admit of several degrees according as the Union and Communion is For some separation may be total some partial and of partial some may be greater some less The reason why I take occasion to speak of this subject is because these are times of separation and it were good to know what may be justly done what not either in seperating others by non-admission or ejection or in separating our selves And this is a certain rule that all Union and Communion instituted commanded or approved of God ought to be observed and whosoever shall violate this must needs be guilty there can be no just or sufficient cause to do so The Church of England was formerly a true Protestant and Reformed Church and had the same publick Doctrine the same Form of publick Worship the same publick Discipline Yet because the first Reformation was judged imperfect and many Abuses and Corruptions entered in afterward which did alter it for the worst therefore a further and a new Reformation was thought to be at least expedient if not necessary That the first Reformation in respect of Discipline was imperfect is evident first from the book of Common-Prayer in the Rubrick of the Communion which plainly implies that the ancient Discipline was not and it seems could not at that time be restored and till the restoring of it the Commination must be used Yet it was never restored neither did any seem to seek it Again the imperfection thereof appears by that Book made by the Commissioners in the latter end of the Reign of Edward the Sixth which is called Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum Yet that though imperfect was never established nor by the Bishops put in practice The latter Abuses Innovasions Superstitions brought in by the Bishops and
consider the present distractions and examine himself how far he either is or hath been guilty and confess his sin to God desiring pardon and for time to come endeavour peace and supply the defects of understanding which in some things is the cause of difference in judgment with the greater measure of Charity For though we had less knowledge then we have and yet more charity the breaches of the Church might easily be made up Thus far I have digressed and enlarged upon this Subject out of a desire to perswade every Member of a particular Church to submit unto the lawful Power thereof and continue united in the same Body till God shall give a Command and Commission to come out or separate section 5 The end of this Discourse concerning the distinction of the subjects of the same Church is to shew the nature and measure of subjection and the manner how we become subjects and what the Duties of Subjects are Something might be added concerning the manner of Admission which Mr. Parker and so many of the Congregational Way do think was not good and allowable His and their Exceptions I will not here mention but will with them confess 1. That as they be born in such a Parish or forced by the Magistrate they could not be Members of the Church 2. That Baptism without instruction of such as are capable is not sufficient 3. That it 's fit that every one when they are instructed so as to understand the substance of the Covenant should publickly in their own persons profess their Faith and make their Vow 4. That when this is done some care should be taken of their lives that it may be known whether they walk according to their Profession and their Promise Yet this may be said that by good Ministers something to this purpose was done though by others it was neglected And the Church even from the first Reformation required and intended this in the strict command of Catechising and in Confirmation For though Confirmation was no Sacrament nor proper to a Diocesan Bishop by Divine Institution yet the end was good and the effect might have been happy if it had been duly observed For it would have so qualified the Members of the Church that we should not have had so many ignorant so many scandalous in every Parochial Precinct But it was either neglected or abused But because to be a right qualified Member of a visible Church is not sufficient let every one remember that it 's his duty to be a Citizen and Subject of Heaven and to live accordingly For as the Apostle saith Phil. 3.20 Our conversation is in heaven so we turn it though there may be more in the Original For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be turned Jus municipum aut civium aut municipatus as Hierome Tertullian and Sidonius understands it with Beza à Lapide Musculus Heinsius The sence is that we are Burgesses Denisons and Subjects of Heaven and incorporated into an Heavenly Politie therefore let our life be holy and heavenly and let us converse most and chiefly with God and remember that we are but Pilgrims and Strangers upon Earth and by the observation of the Laws of this heavenly Kingdom we tend to our abiding Mansions above And if our lives and carriage be such though men may persecute us cast us out separate from us refuse to admit us yet we know our God approves us we have fellowship with him and with Jesus Christ his Son whilst we walk in the Light as he is Light and in the end we shall be happy and our Joy will be full section 6 As the Subjects must be divided and subordinated in a Civil State so must they be in a Church The people of Israel were three times numbred and divided the first numbring was by tens hundreds and thousands that Moses might make Officers and Judges for the civil Government Exod. 18. The second which was most exact and purely Ecclesiastical as you may read in the four first Chapters of the Book of Numbers which was so entitled by the Septuagint because of this Numeration and Division of the People They were also numbred the third time Numb 26. The end of the second numbring was that they might according to an excellent order encamp about the Tabernacle and also march in order before and after it The first division upon the numeration was of the Body of Israel into two parts 1. That of the Levites which was subdivided into four parts The second of the other twelve Tribes in one body first separated from the Levites and this was subdivided into four Squadrons and in every Squadron three Tribes which acccording to their Ensigns quartered at a distance East West North South of the Tabernacle the Levites being within them The Description of the Universal Church Revel 4. as learned Men have observed alludes to this order And both these Scriptures teach us that without numeration division and subordination there can be no order in the Worship of God or the Government of the Church And the first thing done upon this division according to God's command was the removing of the Lepers and Unclean out of the Camp which was the more orderly and easily done upon the former division and doth teach what must be in the constitution of a Church and exercise of Discipline section 7 Of the division either of particular Churches of one City and the territories thereunto belonging or of several Churches in one Province according to the Cities of the several Provinces we read nothing at all in the Scripture Neither can any such thing be evidently and certainly proved from the seven Angels of the seven Churches of Asia the less now called Natolia As for the divisions made afterwards in the Roman Empire I shall say something anon The Church of England if we may believe Mr. Brerewood was anciently divided into three Provinces according to the three Provincial Cities York London Cacruske in Monmouth-shire though after that we find Valentia and Flavia Caesariensis added to make five of which divisions we find something in Cambden Yet afterwards we find another division of the whole Island into two Provinces York and Canterbury These were divided into several Diocesses the Diocesses into Archdeaconries the Archdeaconries into so many Rural Deanries the Rural Deanries into Parishes This was an orderly way and did facilitate Government much The Church of Scotland was divided into Provinces and Shires and upon the Reformation as some tell us these Shires into Classical Presbyteries but afterwards reduced in our times under a certain number of Bishops Yet Arch-Bishop Spoteswood inform us out of their publick Records that from the first Reformation they had Superintendents In the Reformation intended in England when Episcopacy was taken out of the way and the Presbytery introduced they divided the Church according to the Counties the Counties into Classes the Classes into Congregations The Subordination was of Congregations to a
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
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
or for him and that is loosing The former is called binding because it more strictly doth bind him to suffer that punishment to which he was liable upon the Transgression of the Law. There was an Obligation upon him 1. To Obedience 2. Upon Disobedience there follows a Guilt which is an Obligation to Punishment 3. Judgment doth continue this Obligation and makes the Punishment unavoidable The latter is a loosing because upon some condition performed it frees him from the punishment and the bond of guilt Of this binding there be several degrees For as in a Civil Government there be several degrees of punishment according to the several degrees of the offences so it 's in the Church One of the highest punishments and degrees of binding is to make one as an Heathen and a Publican These words are differently understood and expounded Grotius thinks that our Saviour in them did not intend Excommunication Many take it for granted that to be censured and judged an Heathen and Publican is to be cast out of the Church and excommunicated And from these two words Heathen and Publican divers and amongst the rest Quinquecclesiensis and D. Andrews do observe a twofold Excommunication The one is the greater and that is to be as an Heathen the other the less which is to be as a Publican The Heathen was out of the Church the Publican was not The Heathen might not the Publican might come into the Temple the Heathen were strangers to the Common-wealth of the Israel and were Loammi the Publican being a Jew was in the Church but like a scandalous Brother Whether this distinction be here intended or no it 's certain 1. That there are degrees of Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Penalties 2. That by this being as an Heathen and Publican is meant an Ecclesiastical not a civil punishment in matter of Religion 3. Both were deprived of Ecclesiastical Communion In the text If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican Three things are to be observed 1. The Penalty and the Execution 2. The Sentence to be Executed 3. The Crime or Cause The Execution is to account him as an Heathen and a Publican which is not to take away his House Lands Goods Civil Liberty Life but to separate from him and have no Communion with him in matter of Religion and Spiritual Society and to testifie their dislike of him by shunning his company 2. The sentence is the judgement of the Church whereupon this Separation and Non-communion is grounded For the Church must judge and pass the sentence before we can have any sufficient warrant for refusal of society 3. The crime or cause must be made evident before the Judge pass Sentence and it is not only the trespass or offence but impenitence manifested to the Ecclesiastical Judge Not to hear the Church is for the guilty Brother not to confess and reform upon the Churches publick admonition This puts him in an immediate capacity of condemnation and punishment But more of Ecclesiastical censures in the second Book section 8 The Ratification of this sentence of the Church which is the sixth thing followeth in these words Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven c. which are added as Hillary saith well in terrorem metus maximi to strike a terrour into the hearts of all such as shall make themselves liable to the censures of the Church Yet they are not only for terrour but for the sweetest consolation of the penitent absolved by the Church and so also for the encouragement of the Church to proceed in Discipline against the greatest For though she hath not the sword nor any coactive force to imprison fine banish put to death and the prophane and worldly wretches do not fear her censures yet her censures shall be executed from Heaven and be more terrible than any punishments inflicted by sword of civil Sovereigns This Ratification includes two things 1. That when this judgment is once past according to the Rules of Christ the supream Judge doth approve and decree it to be irrecoveverable 2. That he will by a Divine and never failing power execute it so that neither can any appeal or complaint of a nullity make it void nor any contrary strength or force hinder the execution In this respect Hillary saith its Judicium immobile and cannot be reversed Hierom that it s corroborated and cannot be infringed Tertullian that its Prejudicium ultimi judicii and stands good as that ever shall section 9 The means whereby this Ratification is obtained and the manner how it is effected come in the last place to be observed The means is their consent and prayer For if two of them shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask it shall be done for them by my Father which is in Heaven which words do signifie that they should agree upon the sentence and pass the same with prayer The manner how it comes to pass to be effected is that when two or three of them are gathered together in Christs name he will be in the midst of them ver 20. For it s not to be done in their own name or by their own power but they must assemble and proceed in Christs name and in his name give the definitive sentence According to this Law the Apostle gave direction in Christs name to gather together and with the power of Jesus Christ to deliver the scandalous person to Satan 1 Cor. 5.4 So that Christ will be present with them direct them and assist them and the work shall be more his than theirs section 10 Having 1. Examined two places not pertinent 2. Enlarged upon the words of the Institution I will thirdly confirm the proposition from such places as treat of the exercise of this power 1. These are such as speak of Legislation 2. Of making Officers 3. Of Jurisdiction The first of Legislation and making of Canons concerning matters controverted As for Canons concerning things not controverted we find single Apostles especially Paul and he most of all in his first Epistle to Timothy declaring and delivering them without any other joyned with them The exercise of this Legislative power we find in that famous Synod held at Jerusalem Acts 15. The difference of the interpretations of this text is no less than of the former For some question whether it was a formal Synod having power to bind or only an Assembly for advice Some make it not only a Synod invested with a binding force but judge it to be a most excellent pattern for all Synodical Assemblies in time to come yet these are not certain whether it was general in respect of all Churches then extant But let it be a Synod having a binding force it s doubted how the Canons could bind other Churches who sent no delegates to represent them and Act for them Whether did they bind because it was a general Council in