therefore termed Despoticum herile Imperium And such a Monarch seems to be that which by Aristotle is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There be Princes invested with Majesty who challenge the Legislative power unto themselves will by a Proclamation or Edict command the goods of their Subjects and imprison their persons at will and pleasure These though they be limited by the fundamental Constitution and their Oaths are in the exercise of their power as absolute as the former This kind of Government may do well where the Subjects are turbulent insolent and unruly or of a base and servile spirit or rude and savage But where the people are ingenuous tractable and of a better disposition it 's very unreasonable for it will either cause Rebellions and Seditions or much debase their spirits This kind of Monarchy is apt to degenerate into a Tyranny of one person Yet if this kind of Sovereign be wise just and vertuous the people may live happily under his protection Yet such a power and so unlimited is not fit to be trusted in the hands of every one And if it be hereditary woe to the people that live under it Yet this power may be trusted in the hands of one yet so as that it may be allayed limited and justly and wisely poised and the Sovereign as a King. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew signifies a Governor in general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek is a word of great latitude and so is Rex in Latin and also Sultan in the Arabick and Mauritanian Language Yet some are such imperious Dictators and Masters of words that the word King must needs signifie an absolute Monarch That it often signifies a Monarch and one that hath the title of Majesty there is no doubt But the bare word or title not distinctly inform us of the power or the manifold differences of Kings which must be known another way as by the constitution of those particular States where the chief and most eminent Governours have that title For there is a great difference and that in respect of power between the Kings of Spain and France and the Kings of Poland Swethland and Denmark Neither doth the King of England in this respect exactly agree with any of them But if the word cannot the definition surely of a King should determine his power Yet neither will the common usual definition do it For thus he is commonly defined A King is a Monarch who governeth free men justly according to the Laws to the good of the Common-wealth The Genus is that he is a Monarch And if such in strict senc◠as such he can have neither Superiour nor Peer in his Kingdom The specifical difference is taken from the Subject the rule the end of his Government For his proper act is Regere to govern The subjects of his Government are Freemen The Rule is just Laws The end the publick good Abstract the specifical difference and lay the word King and Monarch aside and it agrees to all Governours Civil whatsoever For Civil government being grounded upon the eternal moral Law Love thy Neighbour as thy self and more particularly upon the fifth Commandment no person or persons invested with Sovereign power can be defined any other way and neither their power nor the exercise thereof is good further than it agrees with this definition And the more their government swerves from this Rule the more of the Tyrant is in them and if the violation of it be more than their observation and that habitually too then they are really Tyrants in exercitio For denominatio fit a parte praedominante But I have wondred why Authors have made this the specifical difference of a King which certainly it cannot be Yet this definition leaves many things doubtful For it determines not what liberty is and whether it can be perfect without propriety Nor doth it tell us what these Laws are according to which he must govern whether the Laws of God only or the Laws also of men and if of men whether the Laws of constitution or administration if of administration whether they must be made by himself alone or by some others without him or with him For if the Laws be made by him alone he is an absolute Despotical Sovereign if by others either with him or without him he is not such For there may be a King at least in name above Law and a King by Law and such as cannot command or bind the meanest Subject nor judge him but according to Law. Such a King is not a pure Monarch which I now treat of Therefore a King that is a pure Monarch differs from a Despotical Sovereign in respect of his Subjects and the measure of his power and according to this definition in the exercise of it The Subjects of the one are free and have propriety of person and goods the Subjects of the other have neither The power of the one is more absolute and of larger extent or rather more intensive The exercise of the power of the one is bounded by just Laws the power of the other is not limitted or directed by Laws and so tends not so much to advance the weal of his Subjects as his own greatness and in this respect can be no lawful and good Governour if he act according to his absolute and arbitrary power which God never gave him And Despotical Sovereigns if wise and just will do as Trajan did that is act according to the Rule of Justice and of a limitted power though they be not bound by man to do so section 6 An absolute and pure Monarchy is a very dangerous form of Government and very inclinable and propense to Tyranny and such a Sovereign as is invested with such transcendent power degenerates and turns Tyrant Experience in all times and places makes this evident Monarchy indeed in some respects is the best Government Yet such is the imperfection and corruption of man that it proves not to be so If Monarchs were like God or Saints and Angels it might be better But in a succession whether elective or hereditary we find in tract of time few good many bad and very wicked In Israel the first King was not right the fourth too bad and after the Kingdom was divided into the Tribe of Israel and Judah in Judah we find few like David many very wicked in the Kingdom of Israel not one good Yet the Laws both Civil and Ecclesiastical were made to their hands and that by God himself Sovereign power is a weighty burthen and requires much strength and excellent abilities Moses himself cannot bear it alone he hath need of one hundred and Seventy Elders and the same endued with the spirit of government to be his assistants If a Sovereign be imprudent or weak of understanding not able to judge of good counsel or negligent or timorous or wilful or destitute of good Agents and Instruments for Administrations the Government begins to
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
Proposition I will 1. Examine two places alledged by Mr. Parker and many others for to manifest the Original of Church-discipline which I conceive are not so pertinent 2. I will most of all insist upon the words of Institution 3. I will enlarge upon those places which speak of the exercise of this power that from the manner of administration we may understand the constitution The two places are Matthew 16.19 and John 20.22 23. The first is concerning the promise the second concerning the donation of the power of the Keyes as they are by many expounded The words of the promise are these I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven c. Many and different are the interpretations of this place as given by Writers both Ancient and Modern Popish and Protestant The difference is in two things especially 1. What this power should be 2. To whom it was to be given The power with many is the power of Discipline in foro exteriori with others the power of a Minister as a Minister 2. The person to whom this power is here promised no doubt is Peter but under what notion Peter must be considered is here the Question Some will have it to be Peter as a Monarch and Prince above the rest of the Apostles including his Successours the Monarchical Bishop of Rome Some will have Peter here considered as the mouth and representative of the Apostles and in them of all Aristocratical Bishops as their Successours Some will have him to represent the Ministers some the Elders some the Church it self And these again divide and cannot agree whether this Church here meant be the Universal Church or a particular if Universal whether Universal mystical or visible if visible whether this be the Church it self or a Representative of the same if Representative whether it must be represented by Bishops only or by Bishops and Presbyters or by Presbyters alone or by Bishops Presbyters and People If a particular Church whether it be Congregational or Diocesan or some other so that from this pronoun THEE we have Chymical extractions of all sorts of Governments Ecclesiastical pure and mixt Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical of all kind of Churches as Universal National Congregational of all kind of Governours as Popes Bishops Presbyters the People Yet I conceive this place is not meant of Discipline but rather of Doctrine The Church is the Universal against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail the Keyes are the Word and Sacraments accompanied with the power of the Spirit As building is conversion and edification so binding and loosing admission into or exclusion out of this Church The Architect and chief Master builder is Christ as he is the principal Agent in binding and loosing His Servants and co-workers are Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel amongst whom Peter was most eminent amongst the Jews Paul amongst the Gentiles For Christ used Peter first to convert the Jews Acts 2. then to convert the Gentiles Act. 10. And Paul laboured more abundantly than them all The binding and loosing in Heaven was the making of their Ministry by the power of the Divine Spirit to be effectual To this purpose D. Reynolds Spalatensis Causabon Cameron Grotius with divers of the Ancient and Mr. Parker himself who notwithstanding applies this to the power of Discipline intending thereby to prove the power of the Keyes to be Democratically in a Congretional Church Yet let it be supposed that Peter as receiving the Keyes doth represent the community of Believers Or if as such he represent them how will it appear that this Church or community is a single Congregation Or if it be such a single Congregation how will it follow from hence that the power is in this Congregation Democratically Mr. Parker should have considered that there is a great difference 1. Between Peter as professing that Christ was the Son of the living God for as such he was only a Disciple admitted by Christ into his Kingdom and Peter receiving the Keyes for as such he was above a Disciple and hath power to admit others into this Kingdom not as a Disciple but as a Minister of the Gospel section 4 The place for actual donation and performance of the former promise is said to be that of John 20.22 23. The words of Christ the Donour are these Receive ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained These have been alledged as by him so by others to prove 1. The power of the Keyes in foro exteriori 2. That this power is in the Bishops alone 3. That the Priests have power upon auricular confession to absolve and here they ground their Sacrament of Penance and their sacerdotal power in foro poenitentiali From hence some of ours have endeavoured to prove the parity of Apostles and so of Bishops against the Popes Supremacy for here they find the power promised only to Peter by name given to all the Apostles For to understand these words the better we must observe in them Donation and in it the Donour the Donee the Power the Acts of the Power the ratification of these Acts. The Donour or Person giving is Christ the parties receiving this power immediately are Apostles as Extraordinary Servants and Officers the thing given and received was the Holy Ghost that is Ability and Authority Divine and Spiritual necessary and requisite for the place the Acts were remitting and retaining the same with binding and loosing Mat. 16.19 The ratification of these Acts was the making them effectual by the concurrence of the Divine Spirit For these Acts could not be Spiritual and Divine and so powerful upon the Immortal Souls of Men nor the Apostles so much as Ministerial and Instrumental Agents in this work without a Divine Power and Confirmation of the Supream Judge making their Sentence valid and executing the same Hence that sweetest Joy and admirable Comfort of those who are Remitted and the Terrours and Torments of those that are Condemned These Acts are performed by the Word and Sacraments and the Application of the Promises or Communications to particular Persons which Application is made either more at large to a Multitude at one time or to single Persons upon some Evidence of their Qualification and it may be made infallibly so far as God shall direct infallibly or fallibly for want of clear Evidence in which Case the Sentence must be passed conditionally by Man though absolutely by God. All this is nothing to external Discipline or if it should extend so far the party remitting and retaining are not the Church but the Officers of the Church and the Officers of a Church not under a form of outward Government but under another Consideration An Ecclesiastical external Common-wealth doth presuppose an Ecclesiastical Community and the same consisting of Believers and the same united and associated for Worship and Divine performances tending to Eternal Salvation and