something different from all these as shall be made evident hereafter From these distinctions it 's apparent that the word Bishop is equivocal and must be defined several ways according to the several significations which is easily done by that which hath been said already section 3 For the first institution of Episcopacy there is as great difference in that as in the former and that not only in respect of the time when it was instituted but also of the Author of the institution Those that are zealous for Episcopacy must needs have the institution to be Divine whosoever the Author may be whether Christ or his Apostles Some learned and pious men make Christ the immediate Author in that mission 1. Of the twelve Apostles 2. Of the seventy Disciples In which mission they observe 1. An imparity between the twelve and the seventy which imparity they say continued in the Bishops succeeding the Apostles and the Presbyters succeeding the Disciples but these will satisfie no considerate man. For though it be granted that there was some imparity yet 1. The mission of both was immediately from Christ. 2. It was for the same work to preach the Gospel and do Miracles in confirmation of the same 3. They were limited and confined to the Jew 4. There was no imparity of power and jurisdiction of the one over the other both were immediately subject to Christ. 5. That some of the Ancients say the Bishops succeeded the Apostles and Presbyters the seventy Disciples can hardly be true or any ways made good Seeing therefore this mission of both was immediate and for Doctrine and not for Discipline it cannot reach the power challenged grounded upon it The School of Sorbonne was of this mind and say it was a ground of the Hierarchy But if it was a ground it was but very infirm for the Hierarchy was but introduced jure humano non divino as may and will be made evident Others wave this and make the institution Apostolical yet in this they differ For some say it was from the Apostles as Apostles and immediately inspired and in this particular and then it is Divine indeed Others tell us it was from them as acting by an ordinary and Ecclesiastical power Again it may be grounded upon some Apostolick Precept of Divine Universal and perpetual Obligation or upon their Practice and Example The former the Convocation at Oxford in their Scruples against taking the Covenant dare not affirm and indeed no such Precept doth appear Again the Precepts of the Apostles were either General or Special And if there be not some special divine Precept for this institution it cannot be of perpetual Obligation nor necessary Epiphanius confuting the Heresie of Aerius if he be consistent with himself must needs be of this mind because he affirms that the businesses of the Church may be fully dispatched and performed by Presbyters and Deacons without a Bishop Hierome makes Episcopacy an humane Constitution and not Divine In this some excuse him but Spalatensis saith he cannot be excused Medina chargeth him and other of the Fathers with the Aerian Heresie As for those words of his Quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod non faciat Presbyter they may seem to reserve a power of Ordination as proper to the Bishop and in this Respect Episcopacy may be of a divine Constitution Yet Marsilius understands by Ordination the constitution of the Church not the ordination of Ministers And there is great reason to think so because otherwise his words are directly false and known to be so if meant of Ordination of Presbyters by imposition of hands for long before his time the Bishops did many things which a Presbyter could not do neither could a Bishop Ordain without Presbyters If they had this Power to themselves alone and that by divine Donation Hierome must plainly contradict himself If Hierome meant the Hierarchical Episcopacy which then in many places was the only Episcopacy then it 's most certain that that was not from God but man not from divine but humane Constitution And the Hierarchical subordination seems to be ordained directly to avoid Schism which that learned man saith was the Occasion of that Episcopacy section 4 Though it would take up a full Volume to answer in Particular all those who have asserted and endeavoured to prove the Divine right of this Hierarchical Prelate invested with the Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and therefore here I might be silent yet seeing the substance of all the rest may be read in Spalatensis therefore I will single him out and consider the force of his Reasons which are insisted upon by others to this day And here we must observe 1. That the Bishop which he maintaineth is Hierarchical and one invested with the Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction 2. That his intention and design is to prove him to be of Divine Institution 3. To this purpose he alledgeth several Scriptures and he seems to find the fundamental Charter in these words of our Saviour As my Father sent me so I send you c. John 20.21 22. Where I will observe 1. His interpretation of the words 2. His supposition of imparity between the twelve Apostles and seventy Disciples 3. Examine whether the Texts antecedent or consequent or the words themselves do favour him 1. Therefore he determines the agreement betwen his Fathers mission of him and his Mission of them to be this That as his Father gave him power to ordain and constitute them in a superior rank of power and Jurisdiction and the seventy Disciples of an inferior Order so he gave them Power likewise to appoint their successors in a twofold rank 1. Bishops with a full Apostolical ordinary power 2. Presbyters without any such power of Ordination and Jurisdiction for so he means 2. In this Exposition he presupposeth an imparity of power but very absurdly For he gives the Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to the Bishops alone but none at all to the Presbyters And whereas imparity is a difference only in degrees he makes the difference of the Bishops and Presbyters to be essential and specifical But of this before and if any desire to see more let them read the Doctors of Sorbonne concerning this particular in their tract De Ecclesiastica Politica potestate Thus you have heard 1. His Exposition 2. His Supposition Now it follows we enquire Whether either of them have any warrant or so much as colour from the Context Antecedent or Consequent The Antecedent favours him not For ver 19. it 's said not that the Apostles but Disciples were together and the Seventy are called Disciples and some of them might be there and his words directed to them and if this be so the very foundation of the argument from this place is rased Neither doth the words following help him but are point-blank against him For verses 22 23. it 's said He breathed upon them and saith unto them Receive
ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted c. Where 1. Many by the Holy Ghost understand spiritual power or power of and from the Spirit 2 This power is not a power of Ordination or Jurisdiction in foro exteriori but a power of Remission and Retention of sins in foro interiori poenitentiali as the Schoolmen and Casuists speak 3. They remit and retain sins by the Word and Sacraments Therefore in the ordination of Presbyters both in the Pontifical of Rome and our Ordination-book these words are used and after them are added with some ceremony this passage Be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and his holy Sacraments And again the Bible delivered into the hands of the party ordained Take thou authority to preach the Word of God and to administer the Holy Sacraments 4. This is the power of the Keys promised Matthew 16.19 which place he himself understands of Conversion by the Word 5. This is the essential power of a Presbyter as a Presbyter section 6 In the third place as neither the context antecedent nor consequent help him so neither do the words themselves For except the similitude and agreement between his Fathers Mission and his be Universal and adequate or some ways specifically determined unto this particular imparity of the twelve and seventy and also of Bishops and Presbyters his Exposition can never be made good That it is not Universal is evident and that by his own Confession who tells us that the Father sent Christ to redeem but Christ never sent the Apostles to do any such thing As and So are notes of similitude indeed and therefore his Fathers Mission of him and his Mission of the Apostles must agree in something And so they do 1. He was sent so were they 2. He received the Spirit so did they 3. He was sent to preach and do miracles so were they 4. His Mission was extraordinary so was theirs Sicut est nota similitudinis and as a Lapide saith may signifie similitudinem Officii principii finis miraculorum amoris yet none of these can serve his turn Therefore saith Grotius and that truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliquam non omnimodam similitudinem significat Gerrard upon the same words as used by our Saviour Joh. 17.18 multiplies the analogy and makes these two missions agree in fifteen particulars yet he never thought of this Christ as he observes was sent 1. To redeem 2. To preach the Gospel so they were sent not to redeem but to preach and did succeed him not in his sacerdotal but prophetical Office by the Word and Sacraments to apply the Redemption not as Priests to expiate sins Seeing therefore the analogy is not universal nor any ways by the Context antecedent or consequent or the Text it self determined to this particular but to another as is apparent therefore his Exposition is frivolous his Supposition false and the Text no ground of an Hierarchical Episcopacy Yet he proceeds to prove this imparity from examples 1. Of Peter and John sent to Samaria that by imposition of hands as of Bishops they whom Philip had converted as a meer Presbyter might receive the Holy Ghost 2. From Barnabas sent as a Bishop as he takes for granted to Antioch to confirm the believing Jews converted by the dispersed Saints in that Faith they had received But will it follow that Peter and John and Barnabas were Bishops invested with the power of ordination and jurisdiction because they were sent by the Church of Jerusalem not to ordain or make Canons or censure but by imposition of hands and prayer give the Holy Ghost and confirm the new Converts of Samaria and Antioch how irrational and absurd is this 3. He instanceth in Timothy left by Paul at Ephesus and Titus left by him at Creet to ordain Elders and order other matters of those Churches not fully constituted and perfected for Doctrine Worship and Discipline But let it be granted that they had power of Ordination and Jurisdiction yet 1. It will not follow from hence that because they had it therefore Presbyters had it not Nor 2. That they had it without Presbyters where Presbyters might be had Nor 3. That they had it as Bishops which is the very thing to be proved 4. The plain truth is that they had it in those places and for that time as commissioned and trusted by the Apostle to do many things in that Church according to the Canons sent them by the Apostles which they had no power to make themselves Dr. Andrews taking all Apostolical power to be divine affirms Episcopacy to be a distinct order and of divine institution and grounds himself upon the testimony of Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Hierome Ambrose Chrysostome Epiphanius and Theodoret who all write that Ignatius Polycarpus Timothy Titus and others were made Bishops and of a distinct Order above Presbyters by the Apostles themselves Yet 1. If he mean by Apostolical whatsoever is done by the Apostles then many things Apostolical are not Divine much less of Divine Institution and Obligation For many things were done by them in matters of the Church by a meer ordinary power 2. The testimony of all these Fathers is but humane and according to his own rule cannot be believed but with an humane and fallible Faith Et quod fide divina non credendum fide divina non agendum 3. If he meant that those had power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as Bishops he contradicts himself affirming that this power of the Keyes was given immediately by Christ not to Peter not to the Apostles but to the Church and the Church had it to the Church it was ratified the Church doth exercise it and transfer it upon one or more qui ejus post vel exercendae vel denunciandae facultatem habeant Tortura Torti p. 42. So that none can have it but as delegates of the Church not as Bishops or Officers section 4 The last instance from Scriptures is in the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia and he affirms these were Bishops But 1. So they might be and yet only Presbyters 2. Suppose they were more then Presbyters and super-intendents at least it doth not follow they were Hierarchical Bishops For if they were it must appear from some divine Record or else how can I certainly believe it 3. Let them be Hierarchical Prelates yet it must be made evident by what warrant and institution they became such The institution must be grounded either upon the practise or precepts of Christ or his Apostles yet all these grounds have been formerly examined But 4. Doth any man think that these Letters and Messages were sent only to seven Persons who were Bishops It s evident and clear as the Sun they were directed to the whole Churches to the Ministers which are called by the name of Angels and to the people For the whole Church of Ephesus of Smyrna and of the rest is
Pope or Prince if they be the primary subject they must be such either severally every one in his several Diocess or joyntly in a Synod If severally then every one is a Monarch in his Diocess and so the government of the Church is Monarchical and every several Bishop supream and independent And if so where are our Arch-Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs And why do we dispute against the Monarchical Government and not grant to Bellarmine and others that it is Monarchical in general though we deny the Pope to be the sole Monarch If joyntly in a Synod or Council provincial or national of one Nation and several Provinces or several Nations or general then they are not such as Bishops but either as members of the Synod or as delegates If as members of the Synod and none can be members but Bishops as Bishops then the government of the Church is purely Aristocratical and then it s worse then a pure Monarchy where there can be but one Tyrant whereas in a pure Aristocracy there are usually many Tyrants or at least it proves an Oligarchy And in this respect neither can a provincial Council be subject to a antional nor a national to a general If as Delegates they have this power as in general Councils they are then they cannot be the primary subject And all these if they will make their cause good they must prove which they can never do that none but Bishops have right of suffrage in Councils 3. If their title be good it must be grounded either upon Scripture or universal and perpetual custom but from neither of these can it be proved as shall appear hereafter For by Scripture its evident that the Church was made by Christs institution the immediate and primary subject and so confessed by Bishops by many great Schollars and by general Councils too The first Church which was made such a subject included the Apostles who in their ordinary capacity were but parts and members though eminent members of the same 4. If any shall say that Bishops as Officers of the Church are the primary subject of this power that implies a contradiction because if the power of all Officers as Officers is derivative and as the Apostles being Officers of Christ derived their Apostolical Power from Christ so if Bishops be Officers of the Church they derive their Power from the Church which is the primitive subject section 10 Though both the Definition and the Institution of a Bishop be uncertain and there is no Universal consent in respect of either yet I think a constant Superintendent trusted with an Inspection not only over the People but the Presbyters within a reasonable Precinct if he be duly qualified and rightly chosen may be lawful and the place agreeable to Scripture yet I do not conceive that this kind of Episcopacy is grounded upon any divine special Precept of Universal Obligation making it necessary for the being of a Church or Essential Constitution of Presbyters Neither is there any Scripture which determines the Form how such a Bishop or any other may be made Yet it may be grounded upon general Precepts of Scripture concerning Decency Unity Order and Edification but so that Order and Decency may be observed by another way and Unity and Edification obtained by other means But there are many in these our days which make Episcopacy invested with power of Ordination at least of that necessity that if Ministers be not ordained by them they are no Ministers They make the being of the Ministry and the power of the Sacraments to depend on them and they further add that without a succession of these Bishops we cannot maintain our Ministry against the Church of Rome But 1. Where do they find in Scripture any special Precept of universal and perpetual Obligation which doth determine that imposition of Hands of the Presbytery doth essentially constitute a Presbyter and that the imposition of Hands if it did so was invalid without an Hierarchical Bishop or a certain constant superintendent with them And if they will have their Doctrine to stand good such a Precept they must produce which they have not done which I am confident they cannot do 2. As for Succession of such Bishops after so long a time so many Persecutions and so great Alterations in the Churches of all Nations its impossible to make it clear Eusebius himself doth so preface unto his Catalogue of Bishops that no rational man can so much as yield a probable assent unto him in that particular But suppose it had been far clearer yet it could not merit the force of a divine Testimony it would have been only humane and could not have been believed but with a probable Faith. Nay Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius and others do not agree in the first and immediate Successors of the Apostles no not of the Roman Church For Irenaeus makes Clemens the third whom Tertullian determines to be the first from the Apostles Yet they all agree in this that the Succession of Persons without Succession of the same Doctrine was nothing Tertullian confesseth that there were many Churches which could not shew the Succession of Persons but of Doctrine from the Apostles and that was sufficient And the Succession of Persons is so uncertain that whosoever shall make either the being of a Church or the Ministry or the power of the Sacraments depend upon it shall so offend Christ's little ones and be guilty of such a scandal as it were better for him that a Mill-stone were hanged about his neck and he cast into the Sea. The power of saving mens Souls depends not upon Succession of Persons according to humane Institutions but upon the Apostolical Doctrine accompanied by the divine Spirit If upon the exercise of their Ministerial Power men are converted find Comfort in their Doctrine and the Sacraments and at their end deliver up their Souls unto God their Redeemer and that with unspeakable Joy this is a divine confirmation of their Ministry and the same more real and manifest than any Personal Succession To maintain the Ministry of England from their Ordination by Bishops and the Bishops by their Consecration according to the Canons of the Council of Carthage was a good Argument ad hominem yet it should be made good as it may be by far better Arguments and such as will serve the Interest of other Protestant and reformed Churches who have sufficiently proved their Ministry legal and by Experience through God's Blessing upon their Labours have found it effectual But suppose the Succession of our English Episcopacy could be made good since the Reformation it 's to little purpose except you can justifie the Popish Succession up to the time of the Apostles which few will undertake none I fear will perform Divers reasons perswade me to believe they cannot do any thing in this particular to purpose but amongst the rest this doth much sway with me that there can be no Succession without some
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
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
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
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
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
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
Rulers of the World. And he makes use of Angels Men Armies all Creatures to execute his righteous Judgments 6. Majesty hangs very loosely upon such as do possess it they have no strong hold of it It 's easily separable from man and man from it and it 's more easily lost than acquired and acquired many times more easily than kept Therefore it is that a Scepter is so easily turned to a spade and a spade unto a Scepter 7. Here is the proper place to examine 1. Whether Majesty can be conferred upon any person or persons upon condition 2. Whether once conferred and received it can be forfeited Not to be conditionally given and received not to be liable to forfeiture are not Jura Majestatis as Mr. Hobbs improperly calls them but if they any ways agree to Majesty as it will be hard to prove they do they are rather adjuncts than any thing else For the first Whether they be given upon condition or no cannot be well determined except we distinguish of this Power as given by God and as given by Man. 2. Between Majesty real and personal 3. Between personal of the first and of the second degree 4. Between the Sovereign materially and formally considered 1. God never gave any Power or Majesty Real or Personal but upon condition 1. That the receiver use it well 2. That he may take it away at will and pleasure 2. Real Majesty cannot by Man be given upon condition to a Community as free and such in proper sense 3. A Community may give personal Majesty upon condition and by the Laws of God cannot give it otherwise And the Condition is that they use it well and for the good of the people according to the eternal Laws of divine Wisdom and Justice for that very end for which God ordained all higher Powers and civil Government And no good Sovereign will desire it upon any other terms Hence the Oaths solemnly administred to the Sovereigns of the World which the people impose upon them not as Subjects but as members of a Free Community and this imposing referrs to the first Constitution and the fundamental Law of Government This is clear enough in the first institution of a King in England as the Myrrour tells us The Conqueror received the Crown upon the same terms And some good Lawyers inform us that before the King had taken his Oath to the people he could not require an Oath of Allegiance from them Therefore Sir Edward Coke must be warily understood when he makes the Coronation but a formality For though the setting of the Crown upon their Heads which is but a sign of Dignity and Honour be but a Ceremony yet the matter of his Oath is essential to the making of him King and if that being the substance of the fundamental Contract be not presupposed as first consented unto he cannot be a King. Bracton who advanceth our Kings as high as any antient Lawyer saith Ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo Lege quia lex facit Regem Attribuat igitur Rex Legi quod lex attribuit ei videlicet dominationem potestatem Non enim est Rex ubi dominatur voluntas non lex l. 1. c. 8. And here he seems to understand not only the Law of constitution but administration That he means the latter is plain when he saith Non debet esse major eo in Regno suo in exhibitione juris He formerly asserted that Rex non habet param in Regno suo which is true in respect of every single person otherwise we know the King may be judged With this agrees that of the Myrrour That it was the great abusion of all to say the King was above the Laws to which he ought to be subject And we know who makes these Laws Arnisaeus who is so zealous for absolute Monarchs confesseth with the Philosopher that ubi leges dominantur the King cannot be absolute He observeth three kinds of Oaths which Princes take The 1. Is to maintain Religion The 2. To do their Duty The 3. Whereby they subject themselves to the Laws Such are the Oaths to be taken by the Kings of Poland Swethland Denmark and England whose Coronation-Oath includes all the three Yet this very man having no better Author than Holinshed is bold to affirm that our Kings were absolute hereditary Monarchs Bodin and Bisoldus seem to be of the same mind And if they be such then saith Arnisaeus they are Kings before they take their Oaths and hereditary too But who told him so How will he prove it We know for certain it 's otherwise and our Antiquaries in Law will say that he is very ignorant and yet very bold if not an impudent flatterer That Bodin with him and others should make the King of France absolute there may be some colour if we look upon their practice for they act very highly as absolute Princes Yet if Hottoman a better Lawyer and a far greater Antiquary than either Bodin or Arnisaeus be true the Kings of France are made Kings and receive their Crowns from the first investiture and that upon conditions Neither is there any Government which hath a rational and just constitution which may be known by ancient Records or unwritten constant Customs but will manifest that the Sovereigns thereof receive their Crowns and keep them upon certain conditions different from the written and natural Laws of God. And it 's remarkable that no Constitution can be good or allowable which is not agreeable to those Laws It 's true that if a people design one or more Persons to be their Sovereign and promise absolutely to acknowledge them by that designation and promise they are bound to grant him or them all the power whereby he or they may be absolute Sovereigns and if they will keep their promise they must not they cannot put any conditions upon him or them which may tend to the diminution of the Power already given And they may give it so as that he may as absolutely transmit it and derive it to his Posterity Yet if any shall do thus and set up such an absolute Sovereign that very Person or his Successor may be considered materially as such or such men or formally as such Sovereigns Materially considered especially as such as not yet invested they may be bound to such conditions as upon the non-performance of them they may forfeit But consider them as actually and absolutely invested there can be no such Obligation neither can any Conditions or Oaths be imposed upon them except they be willing to accept of them Yet if any people constitute such a Soveraignty it 's to be examined how justly and wisely they have done and whether they have not enslaved both themselves and their posterity and laid the foundation of their own misery and ruine And if this Constitution be neither just nor wise I cannot see how it should bind posterity And I
really contradicted by violent storms so it falls out here I hoped to have landed in a Region of perpetual peace but I was found in a Terra del Fuego a land of fire and smoak like unto Palma one of the seven Canary Islands where in September 1646 or thereabouts a fire first raged fearfully in the bowels of the earth and at length brake out and ran in five several fiery sulphurious streams into the main In like manner this power of the Keys runs in five several Channels but very turbulently and impetuously For the Pope the Prince the Prelate the Presbyter the Plebean rank do every one of them severally challenge it and nothing under a Jus divinum will serve the turn Therefore I will 1. Examine their several Titles 2. Deliver mine own judgement 3. Add something of the extent of a particular Church section 2 And this shall be my Method and the several Heads of my ensuing Treatise before I enter upon the second part of the Constitution of a Common-wealth which is Pars subdita The first title is that of the great Roman Pontiffe who perhaps will storm and that with indignation against any who shall presume to examine it This Bishop is the greatest Prelate and Clergy-man in the world And as old Rome from a poor beginning and a few people became the Imperial City of the world so this Prelate from a poor pesecuted Minister of the Gospel attained to this pitch of glory and contrary to the example of Christ and his Apostles lives in so great splendour pomp and State terrene that the Princes of the world cannot parallel him and for the power which he doth exercise and challange he his far above them His Court is very magnificent and cannot be maintained without a vast Revenue Some say that he is that second beast which came out of the earth and had two horns of a Lamb but spake as a Dragon and exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him c. Rev. 13.11 12. His name is Satanos his number 25. He assumed the title of Universal Bishop about the year of our Lord 666. So that his number in the name in the radical sum and in the time of his appearance is 666. And for orders sake I might 1. Observe the power 2. Relate the several reasons whereby the title to this power is confirmed 3. Examine whether they be sufficient or no 1. The power which is challenged is transcendent and very great and that not only extensively but intensively too it 's such as men never had and therefore could never give And therefore though he came out of the earth yet he derives it from Heaven To be the first Patriarch of the Imperial See will not serve the turn neither will he be content to be a man and fallible he must be infallible Neither will this satisfie him he must be the visible Head of the Universal Church universal Bishop and Monarch over all persons all Churches in all Causes Ecclesiastical Nay this Power is so extensive that he must have something to do in Heaven and much to do in Hell. He must be above all General Councils They cannot Assemble Conclude Dissolve without his power He must be President all Canons and Judgments which they pass without him are of no force and only what he approves is valid His very Letters must be Laws and if he please of Universal Obligation His Reservations and Dispensations are very high his judgments irreversible he receives last appeals from all Churches in the World he Judgeth all is Judged of none His power to execute is strange and his policy wonderful He hath plenitude of power Ecclesiastical Yet this will not suffice him he hath acquired temporal Dominions and is a secular Prince And because his Territories are not large he hath found out a way to possess himself of the Sword and all temporal power in ordine ad spiritualia must be his section 3 But what are the reasons whereupon this vast power is grounded Surely they do build upon a rock and not upon the sand Their reasons are taken from Politicks from the ancient Writers and from Scriptures too 1. From Politicks they take this for granted that amongst humane Governments Monarchy is the best 2. That amongst Monarchies Despotical excels this they dare not expresly affirm yet the papal power which is challenged is such 3. That if Monarchy be the best then surely the Government of the Church is Monarchical for that being instituted from Heaven must needs be the most perfect 4. That the first Monarch visible of the Church was Peter 5. That Peter was made such by Christ and received a power to transmit it to others and appoint his Successours 6. That he fixed his See at Rome and made the Bishop of that City his Heir so that he is haeres ex asse 7. That so soon as any person is legally elected Bishop of that See he is ipso facto the Universal Monarch and the proper subject of plenitude of all Ecclesiastical power 2. The Epithetes the Elogies the Encomiums of the Bishop and the See of Rome are collected out of ancient Writers and marshalled in order and they make a goodly show and who dare say any thing against them 3. Yet because these are not of divine Authority therefore they search the holy Scriptures and find it written that Peter was the only person and Apostle to whom Christ gave the Keys of Heaven's Kingdom and he must bind and loose on earth and what he shall so do on earth shall be made good in Heaven If this will not serve the turn Christ saith to Peter and to no other Apostles If thou love me feed my Flock my Lambs my Sheep and to feed is to govern and the Flock Lambs and Sheep are the Church section 4 Yet notwithstanding all these reasons many rational men think and they have reason for it that this power is so great that it 's intolerable presumption for any person to challenge it impossible for any man duly to manage it but only Jesus Christ who knew no sin and was not only man but the Son of the living God. Besides wise men do certainly know that the power was usurped and possessed by degrees first and afterwards the greatest Wits were set on work to invent a title the usual way of all unjust Usurpers 1. As for their Politicks they help them little for in that reason from Government they presuppose all and prove nothing from first to last neither can any wit of man prove any of their supposals yet all must be proved and that demonstratively and every one of them made evident otherwise the vast mighty Fabrick falls to the ground Many of themselves know in their Conscience the invalidity and weakness of every one of them 2. As for these passages of ancient Writers which seem so much to honour and advance that Church above others many of them are Hyperbolical and Rhetorical
had already sworn could have found as many reasons against it as against the Covenant especially if it had been new as the Covenant was Many wise men at the first did scruple it and some suffered death for refusal Amongst the rest Sir Thomas Moor a learned and a very prudent man could not digest it and though he might have an high conceit of the Papal Supremacy yet that might not be the only reason of his refusal but this because he knew the Crown had no Ecclesiastical power properly so called Though this was not thought to be the true but only the pretended cause of his death For in his Vtopia he seems to dislike the Indisputable Prerogative which was a Noli me tangere and to touch it so roughly as he did might cost dear as it did Yet I have taken the Oath of Supremacy in that sense as our Divines did understand it and I was and am willing to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's section 4 That which hath been said in this point in brief is this That though the Civil Powers have a right to order matters of Religion in respect of the outward part and so far as the Sword may reach it according to Divine Law yet they have no power of the Keys which Christ committed to the Church For if we consider all the power exercised in matter of Religion by David Solomon and the pious Kings of Judah by the Christian Emperours and Princes by the Kings of France and England it was but civil Neither is the power of our Parliaments any other For though they make Acts concerning the publick Doctrine and Discipline yet these are but civil They are not Representatives of the Church but of the State whether the Convocation was an essential part of the Parliament or a full representative of the Church I will not here debate I find some great Lawyers which deny both And if their denial be true then England had no general Representative of the Church in latter times As for Erastians and such as do give all Ecclesiastical power of Discipline to the State and deny all power to the Ministers but that of dispensing Word and Sacraments it 's plain they never understood the state of the Question and though a Minister as a Minister have no power but that of Word and Sacraments yet from thence it will not follow that the Church hath not a power spiritual distinct from that of the State in matters of Religion CHAP. XI Whether Episcopacy be the primary subject of the Power of the Keys section 1 THE Prelate presumes that the power of the Keys is his and he thinks his title very good and so good that though he could not prove the institution yet prescription will bear him out For he hath had possession for a long time and Universality and Antiquity seem to favour him very much Yet I hope his title may be examined and if upon examination it prove good he hath no cause to be offended except with this that I of all others should meddle with it But before any thing can be said to purpose we must first know the nature and institution of a Bishop which is the subject of the Question Secondly Put the Reader in mind that the Question is not in this place whether a Bishop be an Officer of the Church either by some special or some general Divine Precept but whether he be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the primary subject of the power of the Keys For he may be an Officer and yet no such subject Concerning a Bishop the subject of the Question two things are worthy our consideration 1. What he is 2. How instituted at the first The Definition and Institution seem rather to belong unto the second part of Ecclesiastical Politicks where I shall entreat of Ecclesiastical Officers and the constitution of them Yet I will here say something of both in order to the Question though I be the briefer afterward section 2 What a Bishop is may be difficult to know except we do distinguish before we do define For we find several sorts of Bishops in the Church Christian. There is a Primitive a Prelatical or Hierarchical and an English Bishop distinct and different in some things from both the former for whom I reserve a place in the end of this Chapter The Primitive Bishop is twofold 1. A Presbyter 2. A President or Superintendent 1. A Presbyter in the New Testament is a Bishop For the Elders of Ephesus were made by the Holy Ghost Bishops or Superintendents over God's flock Acts 20.28 And the qualification of a Bishop 1 Tim. 3.1 2 3 c. is the qualification of an Elder Tit. 1.5 6 7 c. For whatsoever some of late have said to the contrary yet Presbyter and Bishop were only two different words signifying the same Officer And this is confessed by divers of the Ancients who tell us that the word Bishop was appropriated to one who was more than a Presbyter in after-times 2. A Bishop signified one that was above a Presbyter in some respects as a Moderatour of a Classis or President of a Synod But such a Presbyter might be only pro tempore for the time of the Session and after the Assembly dissolved he might return to be a bare Presbyter again For to be a Moderatour or President was no constant place The word in this sense we find seldom used if at all 2. A President was a kind of Superintendent with a care and inspection not only over the people but the Presbyters too within a certain precinct and this was a constant place and the party called a Bishop and by Ambrose and Austine with divers others called primus Presbyterorum and these were such as had no power but with the Presbytery joyntly and that without a negative voice And the Presbytery might be a Representative not only of the Presbyters strictly taken but of the people too For we may read in Cyprian and other Authours that these Bishops in more weighty matters of publick concernment did nothing without the counsel and consent not only of the Presbyters but the people This I call a primitive Bishop not only because he is ancient but also because the place or office is agreeable to the rules of Reason of Government and the general Rules of the Apostles concerning Order Decency Edification There is also an Hierarchical Bishop who may be only a Bishop or an Archbishop and Metropolitan or a Patriarch and these challenge the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and in Jurisdiction include and engross the power of making Canons This kind of Episcopacy is ancient as the former This last Bishop is he upon whom Spalatensis and many others do fix and though they grant that he should do nothing without the Counsel of the Presbytery yet they give him full power without the Presbytery which they joyn with him only for advice The English Bishop is in
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
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
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
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
in this place is subjection to a publick power and the same is 1. Civil 2. Ecclesiastical 1. Civil subjection will be best known if I first define a subject 2. Consider how many degrees and distinctions of Subjects there be Bodin taking Civis and Subditus for the same saith that Civis est liber homo qui summae alterius potestati obligatur De Rep. lib. 1. c. 6. Arnisaeus is more exact for thus he defines Subjects Sabditi sunt partes Reipublicae quae summae potestati quoad omnia obligantur pro quo omnibus juribus privilegiis fruuntur Constit. Pol. cap. 12. As for Bodin he mistakes much by confounding Civis subditus For though every Subject be Civis yet every Civis is not a Subject A person is said to be Civis as a Member of a Community before any form of Government be introduced A Subject presupposeth a Supream power determined and thereupon being under that power becomes a Subject The one is a Member of a Community the other of a Common-Wealth In the latter Definition we may observe 1. The General 2. The special Nature and Difference of a Subject The general nature is That Subjects are a part of the Common-Wealth For as you heard before a Common-Wealth hath two parts 1. The Soveraign 2. The Subject By parts are meant Members or integral parts which united constitute and make up the Body of a State wherein none can be found but they are either Subjects or Soveraign In this that they are parts they differ not from the Soveraign who is also a part though the most eminent and principal In the special nature thereof we may observe two things 1. The duty of a Subject 2. The benefit The duty is implied in the Obligation the benefit in the Enjoyment of some advantages In the duty we may observe three things 1. An Obligation 2. The party to whom Subjects are obliged 3. The measure of their Obligation The Obligation as I said formerly follows upon a subjection and the subjection upon the designing of a Soveraign For in a designation of a Soveraign by a general consent according to reason and Gods Ordination men deprive themselves of that unlimited liberty which they had as Members of a Community and bind themselves to a certain rule and order of inferiority they divest themselves of some power and take a lower place and resign themselves up unto a Superiour will. Upon this resignation and from it they become subject and by their very place are bound to submit So that this Obligation follows a kind of former subjection But neither of the former Authors tell us what the Act or thing is to which they stand obliged though both of them do imply it And it is a constant submission and fidelity and both voluntary And though they may perhaps refuse to give this submission and fidelity yet they are bound to yeild it This is the Obligation 2. The party to whom they are bound is the Soveraign and they mean the Civil Soveraign And because they are bound unto this Soveraign in respect of his power they express the power and imply the party invested with this power and he cannot be a Soveraign except his power be Supream and Universal in respect of the whole body of the Community therefore they say Subjects are bound to the Supream Power for though they are under the power of Officers and Inferiour Rulers yet the power of such is but the power of the Soveraign trusted in their hands for the exercise thereof This Soveraign as you heard before may be either as the whole Community reserving the chief and radical power to themselves or personal as a general representative or a chief and universal Magistrate 3. The measure is quoad omnia in respect of all things as their Goods Persons Lives Actions in reference to the Publick good Yet this Obligation must be legal as the Power is legal regular and rightly bounded For absolute submission is due to God alone according to the first Commandment of the first Table a limited submission is only due to man according to the first Commandment of the second Table For man is first bound to God and then to man in an inferiour degree and every Subject as bound to man is first bound to real Majesty and to seek the good of the whole then to personal Majesty so far as it extends to the benefit of the whole and no further for as Salus populi the good of the People is the chief end whereat all power should aim so it 's also the chief end of subjection And according to the measure of the power is the measure of subjection they must be Commensurable and Coadequate neither less nor greater As power must be just and conformable to the Laws of God so subjection must be too and we cannot be bound to submit in any thing that is unjust and unreasonable neither ought we neither is it wisdom to give too great or an absolute power unto any so as to destroy our propriety and just liberty This is the duty section 3 The benefit follows for no subjection but should aim at some good and it 's either unjust or vain if no benefit redound from it The benefits here mentioned are Rights and Priviledges In every well constituted and well ordered State there are certain general Rights and also Priviledges both real and personal which are not due unto Strangers No rational people will subject themselves but upon condition of Protection both from wrongs within the State and from violence of Foreigners and so to better their Estate For power being ordained of God was intended for the good of the parties to be governed For the Sword is put by God into the hands of higher powers for to punish the Unjust and protect the Just in their rights and due As for Priviledges he understands them in an unusual sence For Priviledges being reckoned amongst Laws which were favourable as opposed to such are called odious and bring grievances and charges upon the Subject are usually made for the benefit of some single persons For if they were general as here they are taken they were not priviledges properly except in respect of Strangers of other States which in that particular State none but the Subjects could enjoy From this subjection it follows that if the Soveraign require Fealty and Homage he acknowledging his power must solemnly testifie it and if it be demanded confirm it by oath For as Princes and personal Soveraigns swear to the people so the people are bound to engage themselves to them again And by this Oath of Fealty they renounce all other powers not only Forreign but Domestick too For upon what reason can protection be due if the persons protected be not Faithful and Loyal according to the constitution of the State. By this subjection if the Soveraign make Laws the Subject is bound to obey or suffer And if the command be unjust he
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
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