102. the ninth and last year of Clemens 6. Simeon named Act. 15. 14. after his Kinsman James the Brother of our Lord was martyred consecrated his Successour at Jerusalem an 63 or 64. Euseb l. 3. c. 10. and 16. so that for full eleven years he was of an inferiour Order for so many passed after the mention of him in the Acts. 7. Dionysius spoken of Act. 17. 24. was the first Bishop of Athens Euseb l. 3. c. 4. To these may be added Archippus Bishop of Coloss Apollo of Corinth Epaphroditus of Philippi Tychicus of Chalcedon Sylvanus Sosthenes c. but it will be sufficient to review the Catalogue of the four Patriarchal Sees 1. After James the first Bishop of Jerusalem fourteen of the Circumcision succeeded him Euseb l. 4. 5. whereof Justus was the last who died an 131. which is full twenty years before Blondel's Ara. 2. At Antioch after S. Peter Euodius was Bishop till an 98 then Ignatius till an 108 after him Cornelius who died before 140. 3. Eight successive Bishops sate at Rome till 140. in which year Higinus was consecrated Antonini Pii Tertio 4. At Alexandria five are accounted from S. Mark the last whereof Eumanes was ordained an 134. Num. 4. That all these had the same power which is now claimed by Bishops is evident from Rev. 1. 20. where as the seven Angels of the Asian Churches are distinguished from the Churches so every of those Angels had a power of Jurisdiction in their respective Churches to redress abuses For why should they be particularly taxed for scandals and irregularities therein if they had no power to reform and remedy them It seems too severe to charge neglects on them who have no power to take cognizance of crimes and to correct them That those Asian Churches were fixed and determinate distinct Churches the Presbyterians cannot deny who affirm they were governed by Presbyters for that must needs be a determinate Body which is governed by one or by many The Independents shift we find here a Congregational Church wherein were many Congregations many Ministers many Believers many Pastours is frivolous for there might and many such there were yet these might be and were under one President over them in Chief for such as these many are to be found in our Cities where there are Bishops to rule them and it is evident that those Prefects were and did exercise authority over both Laity and Clergy from the rule given to Timothy by S. Paul before alledged John Frigivile of Gaunt writ his Reform Pol. an 1593 wherein he avers p. 64 c. Q. Elizabeth maintained the Government and State of the Clergy in England as God had ordained in the Law and confirmed in the Gospel for said he p. 14. Though the Apostles were equal among themselves concerning authority yet no sooner was the Church encreased but different degrees began S. Paul charged Timothy who was Bishop of one of those Seven Churches not to admit an accusation against a Priest therefore he might admit or reject an accusation against a Priest and therefore he had Jurisdiction even over a Priest Dr. Raynolds's Conference with Hart p. 535. thus states it In the Church at Ephesus were sundry Elders and Pastours to guide it yet among those sundry there was one Chief whom our Saviour calleth the Angel of the Church here then is our Saviour's approbation for the Chiefty of the Order and this is he whom afterwards in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop Num. 5. The Apostles having ordained Bishops to succeed them in the Government of the Church they who were so ordained were thereby authorized to ordain others and so on to the end of the world Matt. 28. ult which in the judgment of the best Interpreters imports Though the Apostles continued not in their Persons yet should in their Successours That there should be such a Succession is concluded from Scripture Act. 1. 20. must one be ordained to take Judas his Bishoprick which by Divine disposition fell upon Matthias who as Euseb reports l. 2. c. 1. was of the Seventy an inferiour because a distinguished Rank to that of the Apostles which seems probable from v. 21. it being the employment of the Seventy to accompany and attend them Saint Paul appointed Timothy to depute faithfull persons to officiate in the Church 2 Tim. 2. 2. yea so great care had the Apostles for a Succession that as Clemens reports they Note Lift or Catalogue of approved men who should succeed the present Bishops in each Church Num. 6. In the Apostles times certainly immediately after there were three Orders in the Church not as Calvin who first conjured up Lay-Elders to be his officious Agitatours recites them nor as Mr. Dallee conjectures but as they are accounted in the Church of England Bishops Priests and Deacons Indeed it is very likely there was first but one Order the Apostolical or Episcopal the Apostles or Bishops discharging all Church Administration and Offices But they having a power entire in themselves and radically they were enabled to derive and communicate what they thought fit for the necessities of the Church to others Accordingly the Church increasing as it is recorded in the Acts the Order of Deacons was instituted who were not empowered onely to collect receive and distribute Alms to the necessities of the poor but to higher Ecclesiastical Offices For we find Philip both preached and baptized Acts 8. 35 38. That this Philip was not the Apostle but the Deacon Calvin thinketh so because he supposeth the Apostles were not then removed from Jerusalem Gualter is positive from the Testimony of Epiph. de Sim. c. and all ancient Writers Certainly Saint Cypr. ad jub is clear A Philippo Diacono quem iidem Apostoli Petrus scil Johannes miserant baptizati erant Beza reckoning the Pastoral Offices and duties adds Sub quibus c. under which we comprehend the Administration of Sacraments and the blessing of Marriage from the perpetual use of the Church in which particulars the Deacons often supplied the place of the Pastours so he Confess c. 5. Aphor. 25. This he attempts to prove from Joh. 4. 2. 1 Cor. 1. 14. with him concurrs Bull. Fleming Magdab who all received it from Just Mar. Ambr. Hter Aug. the Greek Par. and Tert. who is most express Dandi quidem c. The chief Priest that is the Bishop hath the first right of administring Baptism then the Presbyters and Deacons How long these two Orders continued in the Church is not fully resolved Some conceive from Act. 14. 23. about an 49. Claudii Septimo the third Order that of Presbyter was superinduced others conjecture not so early however Cities and their Territories submitting to the Sceptre of Christ Presbyters were constituted before all the Apostles died yet the Bishops still reserved the power of Ordination and by consequence of Jurisdiction as in the Greek Chruch even to this day Bishops alone Ordain as Arcud de
an Apostle the Apostles as Governours over their Plantations were called Bishops and Bishops with respect to the ministerial Mission were called Apostles Timothy and Titus saith Walo p. 44. were styled Apostles but in very truth were Bishops by the same right and of the same order that those are of this day who govern the Church and have authority over Presbyters This he undertakes to prove p. 62. Bishops hold the chief degree in Ecclesiastical Order as heretofore they did who were called Apostles but the Apostles and the Presbyter-Bishops were of a distinct Order as he labours to assert from Act. 15. 6. 22 23. in these words Tunc dicebatur in Conciliis ex utroque ordine compositis c. Then it was said of the Council moulded up of both Orders that of the Apostles and that of the Presbyters id p. 269. This he seconds with an observation from the Greek Interpreters p. 26 27. who concluded the Apostles were of an higher dignity than the Presbyters fairly resolving with them they were several Orders p. 269. and that Ordination could not be common to both p. 229. Cast all this together viz. The Order of the Apostles was of higher dignity than that of Presbyters the Apostles then were in truth Bishops these Bishops had command over the Presbyters they were distinct Orders all this in the Age of the Apostles and that Ordination could not be common to both the result will be there was then a disparity in Church Officers the identity of Name will not conclude an identity in Office Presbyters were under the Jurisdiction of Bishops to them and them onely Ordination appertained which is to assert from Scripture Diocesan Bishops in the Prelatists sense Calvin and Beza acknowledge there is a Subordination of many Ministers to one President by Divine appointment hoc fert natura c. This we have from nature the disposition of men requires it So Cal. l. 4. Inst c. 6. sect 8. It was it is and ever will be necessary ex Ordinatione Dei perpetua by the perpetual Ordinance of God there be one President So Beza defen p. 153. But hath this President any power yea a double power first regendae communis actionis jus to govern the common action summon Presbyters appoint time and place and propose matters c. The second is by authority to execute what is decreed by common consent Cal. l. 4. Inst c. 4. sect 2. But is he not capable of a standing power yea he may receive a farther latitude from the positive Laws of men who without any violation of Divine Ordinance may settle it on one man for his life For either in the days of the Apostles or immediately after the Episcopal Office became elective and perpetual to one man Quod certè reprehendi nec potest nec debet Bez. defens p. 141. inde But is not the application hereof merely humane No not wholly humanum non simpliciter tamen sed c. I may call it humane not simply but comparatively without any injury to the Fathers or so many Churches In good time The consectary of this if I mistake not is to reject this Presidentiary-power as such is repugnant to God's Ordinance to reject it upon the form of application is an injury to the Fathers and many Churches It is necessary from nature and the Divine Institution and the fixing of it in one person for life to distinct acts and purposes is Apostolical either in the Apostles Age or immediately thereupon and is Catholick ever since Very right for the conceit of a successive annual Presidency held by turns is both novel never any Church for 1500 years received it and also particular those who after did are so few that 500 for one have opposed it All antiquity hath avouched several persons whose names are found in the Scriptures to have been Bishops These names following are in the Scripture and Ancients of undoubted credit have averred them for Bishops as 1. James sirnamed the Just to have been Bishop of Jerusalem we have Blondel's Testimony for this from antiquity 2. Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus the Post-scripts which Beza saith were to be seen in all the Manuscripts he could meet with of the Epistles directed to him which if authentick strongly prove this if they be suspected these great names will make it good Epiph. Hier. Chrys Aug. Doroth. in Synop. who lived in Dioclesian's time Euseb l. 3. Eccl. Hist c. 4. to whose authorities Bucer in 4. ad Ephes Pellican in 1 Tim. 1. Zwinglius de Eccles and Walo as before is cited have subscribed but that which fully clears it is that the Fathers assembled in Council at Chalcedon have witnessed that untill their time twenty seven Bishops had successively sate at Ephesus from Timothy where it was granted so many there were though it was disputed whether all of them in that time were ordained at Ephesus or some of them ordained at Constantinople 3. Titus was Bishop Prelate of Crete as the Scripture declareth Tit. 1. where the two claimed Prelatical powers are found to be settled on him that of Ordination vers 5. in every City of that Territory or Region and that of Jurisdiction in the same verse to set in order the things that are wanting or left undone as we translate the words but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may rightly be rendred Correct things out of order which supposeth a power to censure and reform irregularities The voice of Antiquity is clear here Theod. Hier. Chrys the Scholiast c. of both of them we have good warranty for their authority over the Clergy S. Paul 1 Tim. 1. 3. besought Timothy to send out a prohibition against false teachers and he commanded Titus sharply to rebuke vain talkers and deceivers and if they will prate on to stop their mouths and to silence them Titus 1. 11 12 13. 4. Onesimus spoken of Col. 4. 9. and Philem. 10. was from a Servant to S. Paul advanced to be Deacon Hier. advers er Joh. Hier. and from a Deacon to be Bishop Euseb l. 3. c. 30. 5. Linus mentioned 2 Tim. 4. 21. and Clemens Phil. 4. 3. were Bishops of Rome by universal Tradition Diodate upon these words my yoke-fellow and fellow-labourer notes The Apostle here speaks to the chief Pastour who was to reade the Epistles directed to him in the publick Assembly Bidel Exerc. in Ign. Ep. c. 3. is very clear Clemens after the death of Linus and Cletus being the onely survivor alone retained the name of Bishop all others being styled barely Presbyters for which he assigns these reasons First for that he alone remained of all the fellow-la-bourers with the Apostles Secondly because the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters then prevailed This was in the Apostles times for Clemens was Bishop of Rome an 94. as Gualt reckons in his Chronol when Simon the Canaanite was living as Bulling thinks in his Annot. in Tab. 6. certainly S. John was for he died not till an
Concord l. 6. c. 4. sect Igitur observes Indeed in the Latin Church Presbyters did lay on hands with the Bishop at the Ordination of a Presbyter yet this was observed not for its validity but for its solemnity and attestation For the African Fathers who ordered it ascribed the entire power to the Bishop Cod. Afric c. 55. 80. and even at Rome besore S. John's death Presbyters were settled in several Parishes by Enaristus Caron p. 44. and therefore we may believe before that the same was done in earlier converted Churches Mr. Toung in his Notes on S. Clem. 1. Ep. ad Cor. out of a Book which Mr. Petty brought from Greece hath this Sentence S. Peter was in Britain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 settled Churches by laying hands on Bishops Priests and Deacons It will not be amiss to superadd how far the Waldenses concurred in judgment upon this case with the Church of England which we find Parsons third part of the Three Conversions of England cap. 3. p. 44. who relates from Vrspurg Trithem Antomin and others that they onely approved three Ecclesiastical Orders at which his tender Conscience was moved viz. That of Deaconship Priesthood and Bishops which is very probable for the Fratres Bohemi to continue a succession of Bishops sent twelve men to the Waldenses in Austria to be ordained Bishops by their Bishops which was accordingly done and Corranus a Spaniard one of the Waldenses flying thence into England was retained a Preacher at the Temple and dedicated a Dialogue to the Lawyers there an 1574. in the close whereof he maketh a confession of his Faith where he declares his judgment herein I hold saith he there be divers Orders of Ministers in the Church of God viz. Some are Deacons some Priests some Bishops to whom the instruction of the People and the care of Religion is committed This we are sure of S. Bernard complains heavily many Bishops were of their Communion This was the primitive Establishment Conc. Cart. 3. and 4. Chal. Act. 1. for which reason Nazian in Vita Basil enforms us that he rose to his Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the order and rule of spiritual ascent one degree after another So S. Hier. writes of Nepot in Ep. Fit Clericus per solitos gradus c. Num. 7. If S. Augustine's known and generally approved rule be admitted then the Order of Bishops is truly Apostolical because maintained in all Apostolical Chruches before any general Council had determined it And Tert. his Sorites will make it good which was that is truest which is first that is first which was from the beginning that was from the beginning which was from the Apostles that was from the Apostles which was inviolably and religiously observed in all Apostolical Churches Calvin speaks fairly to the case and so doth Beza too if their words may be taken who have tricks to eat them in the former saith the Bishops of the ancient Church made many Canons with that circumspection they had nothing almost contrary to the word of God in their whole Oeconomy l. 4. Instit c. 1. sect 14. but more fully thus they did not frame any other form of Government in the Church than that which God prescribed in his word The latter averreth what was then done was done optimo Zelo if so then they did it from warranty either from the Scripture or universal Tradition S. Hierome himself once said it was an Apostolical Tradition and when he said it was a Custome he proved it a good one because ordered for a good end as a safe remedy against Schism and an Apostolical Custome because taken in the Apostles times when one said I am of Paul c. which happened an 58. The disparity of Bishops and Priests was so religiously maintained in the primitive Church that the Fathers in the Council of Chalc. Act. 1. adjudged it sacrilege to bring down a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter and the Doctrine of parity was condemned as flat Heresie in Aerius because he positively affirmed that there was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. one Order one Honour one Dignity in the Priesthood Dr. Crack Defens Eccl. Anglic. contra Arch. Spal p. 242 243. Bishops then as they were settled in matricibus Ecclesiis the Apostolical mother Churches so have been continued in all successive Ages without any considerable opposition for 1500 years which is so strong and cogent an argument to some who have not been over-fond of Episcopacy they have resolved it unanswerable since the Order hath been canvassed by some yet is still retained either in the Name or Thing in all the Eastern and Southern Churches generally in the Western and Northern reformed and others unless in two or three petty Associations in comparison of the rest where by reason of some cross circumstances it cannot be obtained though highly approved and much affected by most of their learned men never disowned or abominated by any but those whose zeal for the good Old Cause is immoderate S. Augustine's expression insolentissima insania insolent madness Num. 8. If these Structures be built upon the Foundation of the Apostles Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner Stone the Fabrick is as firm as Mount Sion which may not be removed For if the Apostles did settle Bishops in their several Plantations and these such as the Prelatists plead for then that is the one necessary Government to be retained in the Church For the Apostles being inspired by the Holy Ghost they did then act and order the Church according to his directions Amesius himself resolves what is Apostolical Stands by Divine Right his words are Med. Theol l. 2. c. 15. n. 28. The Apostles were acted by the Divine Spirit no less in their Institutions than in the very Doctrine of the Gospel propounded by word or writing This he delivers to assert the Divine Authority and unalterableness of the Lord's day and will therefore hold here For if Episcopacy stand in the Church by the same authority that the Lord's day doth which Dr. Hammond hath fully proved then it hath the same Divine Authority for its Establishment This King James saw and so Premonition p. 44. is very positive That Bishops ought to be in the Church I always maintained as an Apostolical Order and so the Ordinance of God The Dissenters who allow of Church Government as such have often declared what concerns the rule of Government in the Church by Officers appointed by Christ is unchangeable Now that the Bishops are those Officers hath been evidenced from Scripture Rules and Precedents and confirmed by the suffrage of a cloud of Witnesses who as they accord in their Testimonies so were faithfull unto death some whereof were the chosen Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection some were immediate Successours to those ordained by the Apostles others of the highest reputation in the Church for testifiers of Catholick Tradition all of them had and still have such credit in the
the Elderships should have the power of excommunicating all offenders even Princes themselves Hereupon in a just indignation he expressed his abhorrence of this bold seditious Proposition yet with great indiscretion he causelesly vented his wrath against Excommunication as it was a Church Discipline His Arguments improved by his Followers are these He supposed Excommunication did totally cut off the excommunicated from the internal and invisible Communion of the Church whereupon his Followers argued If the power of Excommunication be in the Church Officers then it lies in their power to save or damn men But his supposition is false and the inference of his Followers is wild as one and the most learned of them hath observed for he saith finis hujusmodi disciplinae c. The end of this discipline not final Sentence was is so still that the censured being deprived of the spiritual privileges of the Church they might be humbled to salvation This is the whole truth and nothing but the truth for its onely a barr from the external visible Society of Believers not to exclude men from heaven but to encline them to put themselves in a capacity to be received again into the peace of the Church for the enjoyment of those great privileges of holy commerce which all men religiously affected earnestly desire and value A method of Discipline which Christ and his Apostles thought proper to reduce and reclaim sinners It is medicinal in Saint Augustine's expression To. 9. Serm. de Poeniten med if that Tract be his ordained and applied for edification not destruction if for destruction it is for that of the Flesh that the Spirit might be saved 1 Cor. 5. 15. or it s a Chastisement the censured are thereby chastised of the Lord that they should not be condemned with the world 1 Cor. 11. 32. which Chastisement is not sweet or joyous for the present but grievous yet yieldeth the peaceable fruits of righteousness to them that are exercised thereby Heb. 12. 11. 2. Excommunication say they is a censure inferring a civil Penalty therefore if the Church makes use of it she enlargeth her Phylacteries by an encroachment on the civil Power But where do those wrathfull Objectours find this or how can they prove it It was always reckoned in the Catalogue of spiritual gifts practised by the Church for spiritual ends and uses and exercised upon the members of the Church qua tales in that capacity onely if upon contempt hereof a civil Penalty was incurred this proceeded not from the quality and nature of the censure but from the authority of the civil Magistrate who so far respected the Church that he made provisions against the contempt of her Discipline That which the Church aims at is either to reduce the offender or to warn others or to discharge her duty in discountenancing and disowning dangerous prevailing Heresies Schisms and Scandals all which are of spiritual concernment and cognizance 3. The Bishops claim this power by Divine Right and why not Forsooth this is contrary to the Oath of Supremacy and sets up two Supremes in one Kingdom This is an high Charge I am persuaded if the great Turk was acquainted with this noble Argument he would in a rage destroy all the poor Christian Bishops in his Empire or else he would scorn and deride it as it justly deserveth For the Argument runs thus Ministers by a Divine Right challenge a power to baptize Proselytes communicate Christians and doe other offices belonging to their Functions Therefore they set up two Supremes in one Kingdom or thus The Scripture declareth the Holy Ghost made them Overseers to feed the Church of God sure they may pretend to Divine Right who derive their title from the Holy Ghost Therefore the Scripture contradicteth that Supremacy which it establisheth But in sober sadness did none of the first Christian Emperours or after Kings understand their Religion and Prerogative did they ever declare the Imperial and Episcopal power were incompatible were they all so blind they could not espie this so obvious an inconsistency or did any of our own great Councils before that of 40. ever make such a determination As for our own Kingdom we may without disparagement to their great wisedoms compare many of our Kings with the ablest of any or all of them King Henry the Eighth was a wise Prince one that would not bate an Ace of his Sovereignty yet he never scrupled at the Divine Right of Episcopacy Q. Elizabeth was as jealous of her Prerogative and as zealous for it as the highest and most masculine Spirit yet she reverenced and maintained the Order The greatest for Learning and Judgment the Father and the Son were as Prelatical as the Prelatists What King James his opinion was of Episcopacy is before related what it was concerning his Supremacy which he cogently asserted he thus expressed Premonition p. 108. It consists not in making Articles of Faith but in commanding obedience be given to the word of God in reforming Religion according to his prescribed will in assisting the spiritual Power this is to be noted with the temporal Sword in procuring due obedience to the Church mark this too in judging and cutting off all frivolous Questions and Schisms as Constantine did and finally in making a decorum to be observed in all things and establishing Order in all indifferent things King Charles the First of blessed memory hath above and beyond all others resolved the case in his answer to Henderson's Papers in his Reply to the Answer of the Isle of Wight Divines Rel. Car. fol. 691. and in his final Answer fol. 709. Sir Henry Spelman in his large History of Titles p. 157. thus stated it God hath committed the Tabernacle to Levi as well as the Kingdom to Judah and though Judah hath power over Levi as touching the outward Government even of the Temple it self yet Judah meddled not with the Oracle and the holy Ministery but received the will of God from the mouth of the Priest This is evident God for the promoting of Piety and Justice among men hath ordained two distinct Powers the Regal and the Sacerdotal which in the times of the Patriarchs were formally united and inseparably followed the first born of the male kind in every Family This he seemed to alter in the persons of Moses and Aaron investing Moses the younger Brother with the Regality Aaron the elder in the Priesthood both these received their Commissions from God Num. 16. Every power is the Ordinance of God but the Regal as Supreme the Sacerdotal as Subordinate which subordination is not essential or causal but moral by virtue of God's Constitution and accidental for Order's sake Certainly God who gives all power can order a subordination of powers derived from him the one to be superiour the other inferiour and God was pleased to dispose the distribution of those under the Mosaical dispensation that as the Priests were not to usurp the Regal for Abimelech was
Servant to Saul 1 Sam. 22. 12. and David was Lord to Nathan 1 Reg. 1. 24. so neither were the Kings to execute the Sacerdotal Function but were bound to consult their Priests and Prophets as Joshua was Eleazer Num. 27. 21. by God's appointment and David did Abiathar 1 Sam. 23. 6. We are sure Saul Jeroboam Vziah were severely checked for exercising such Acts as formerly belonged to the Priests not that they were debarred from regulating and providing for the due discharge of the Priestly Offices for that is a part of their duty 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. and Arist l. 1. Ethic. c. 13. was herein Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but they are to permit the Priests the exercises of their Functions and in matters of Religion to require the Law at their mouths Mal. 2. 7. which all Christian Kings have always granted Mr. Hobbs owneth that after the Ascension of our Lord the power Ecclesiastical was in Apostles after them in such as they had ordained and so delivered downward to others ordained by them and the great Erastian name hath yielded them a power to decide cases of Conscience and to declare what is lawfull what not This was respectively done but he fell far short of the mark for certainly to baptize Proselytes is a larger portion of power than bare interpreting or teaching the Law even a power to admit Members into the Christian Society and in all reason they who have power to admit have power occasionally to exclude hence that Gentleman was forced to confess they had power to bind and loose which in Scripture signifies to forbid and decree which is more than any Casuist or Preacher as such pretends to and is rather proper to a Legislative or Judicial Power which was sometimes exercised by the Church as when the Apostles upon a complaint where no less men than S. Paul and Barnabas were Advocates for the Plaintiffs passed an obligatory Decree Act. 15. 28. 16. 4. That Precept or Permission Tell the Church at least implies the Church had then power to take cognizance of trespasses and to say the civil Magistrate is that Church is ridiculous for then the sense would be Tell the trespass to Constantine three hundred years after it was committed for till then there was no certainly known Christian Emperour and Christians were not by the Discipline of the Church to seek for remedy at heathen Tribunals in the first instance Now as there was a subordination of these Powers so there was a distinction the one was the power of the Sword committed to the civil Magistrate to reward well-doers and to punish evil-doers of all kinds Rom. 13. 4. an Heretick a Schismatick an Idolater or Blasphemer as well as a Thief a Murtherer or a Traitor and this hath its immediate effect upon the outward man body and goods with reference to the concerns of this life Ezr. 7. 26. the other is the power of the Keys to labour in word and Doctrine to exhort and rebuke with all authority to rule well in spiritual concerns to bind and to loose 1 Tim. 1. 17. Tit. 1. 5. Matt. 16. 19. the proper operation whereof is upon the Soul with reference to the world to come There is a difference saith the above cited Joh. Frig. Refor Pol. between Dominion and Jurisdiction neither the Apostles nor chief Bishops exercised Dominion but their Offices having Jurisdiction p. 16. as in France saith he p. 17. the King hath the civil Dominion the Parliaments the Jurisdiction so in England the Queen hath the Dominion but the Bishops the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction hence Arist l. 10. Ethic. c. 9. n. 10. resolves Legislatours are differenced from Practitioners of Faculties 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Professours are to Act Legislatours to prescribe rules for acting The King's power is the supreme that of Priests subordinate which difference proceeds not from the natural excellency of the one power above the other but from the all-wise disposition of God who is the chief power empowring as he is said to be natura naturans The Bishops with their subordinate Ministers are the Executours of Christ's last Will and Testament the King is the Supervisor and the Judge too to grant them Letters of Administration Bishops and Priests are the Ministers of Religion Kings are the Rulers of it and them The substance of the whole is the true Sons of the Church of England are the sole Assertors of the King's Supremacy not onely in expressions and complement but in fact and real operation not upon reasons of State or dictates of Prudence but the rule of Conscience which none of the Dissenters therefrom will allow Not the Erastians for they play at fast and loose with the King's Supremacy and by distinctions and limitations fix it certainly no where but make it as variable as their fortunes One of the most esteemed Partizans made this interpretation thereof The King is the supreme Governour but not the supreme Power Gallant Law Sophistry as if it were possible he could govern in chief who had not a power sutable thereto The Independents plead an exemption from it The Presbyterians utterly deny it Such a Supremacy as the Kings claimed and the two Houses of Parliament Erastian-wise craved indeed at first they did but beg it which after they plundred I disclaim said Henderson second Paper num 7. The true Nonconformist makes it the main work of his Book to charge it with Antichristianism The Pontificians perfectly abhor it The Prelatists are the onely defenders of it The Pontificians make Kings their Churches Ministers and Presbyterians make them their Kirk Ministers not the Ministers of God The Erastians and Independents are agreed they are originally the People's Ministers not God's The Prelatists assent with the Law of Christ and the Laws of the Kingdom the King is God's Minister Rom. 13. The Presbyterians and Independents resolve the Kingdom is in and under the Church and then the Government of that must be conformed to that of this If then the Presbyterians be rampant the civil Government must be Aristocratical If the Independents be the masters of Misrule it must be Democratical but if it happen the Erastians be the Sultans then the Game is King and no King at the best he is but their Trustee he must stand on his good behaviour and pass his accounts to the Patriots for the contracting good People If the Pope be the great Cham the civil Government must truckle SECT 3. To bring the matter nearer home there was a time when the blades of Fortune in 40 thought it prudent to declare they had no intentions for any alterations It was when the Earl of Essex his Army had scented and followed the Scent very hotly and when the King had objected the designs amongst them they formed a Declaration to renounce all such purposes Aug. 9. 42. as before they had protested against it as a slander and for once such an one as the Father of lies had