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
God was nothing but jus ad recte agendum a right to do right in matters of Religion If they did otherwise they abused their power they lost it not And if an Heathen Prince or State should become Christian they acquire no new Right but are further engaged to exercise their power in abolishing Idolatry and establishing the true Worship of the true God. This may be signified by the Titles of Nursing-Fathers of the Church Defenders of the Faith Most Christian Most Catholick King. All which as they signified their Right so they also pointed at their Duty which was to protect the true Church and maintain the True Christian Catholick Faith. 4. Though Regal and Sacerdotal power were always distinct and different in themselves yet they were often disposed and united in one Person Thus Melchisedeck was both King and Priest Thus Romulus was Prince and the chief Pontiffe For he is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Halicar Antiqu. Rom. lib. 2. The succeeding Kings took the same place After the Regal power was abolished it was an high Office. When Rome became Imperial the Emperours took the Title of Supream Pontiffe and some of them after they became Christian retained it Yet still as the Powers so the Acts were distinct For Melchisedeck as King ruled his People in Righteousness and Peace as Priest officiated received Tithes and blessed Abraham As they were sometimes united so they were divided For God entailed the Sacerdotal power upon the house of Aaron and afterwards the Regal power upon the family of David Neither did Christ or his Apostles think it fit to make the Ministers Magistrates or the Magistrates Ministers Yet in this Union or Division you must know that this Sacerdotal and Ministerial power was not this Civil power of Religion which always belonged to the Civil Governours even then when these two powers were divided 5. If Civil powers stablish Religion and that by Law call Synods order them ratifie their Canons divest spiritual and Ecclesiastical persons of their temporal priviledges or restore them yet they do all this by their civil power by which they cannot excommunicate absolve suspend much less officiate and preach and administer Sacraments In this respect if the civil power make a civil Law against Idolatry Blasphemy Heresie or other scandal they may by the same power justly punish the offenders by the sword and the Church censure them by the power of the Keyes 6. This jus Religionis ordinandae this power of ordering matters of Religion is not the power of the Church but of the State not of the Keyes but of the sword The Church hath nothing to do with the sword nor the State with the Keyes Christ did not say tell the State and whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Neither did he say of the Church that she beareth not the sword in vain Therefore he must needs be very ignorant or very partial that shall conceive that the State is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the power of the Keyes section 3 These things premised give occasion to consider how the Oath of Supremacy is to be understood especially in these words wherein the Kings or Queens of England were acknowledged over all persons in causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil all supream head and because that word Head was so offensive it was changed into Governour For the clearing hereof it 's to be observed 1. That by these words it was intended to exclude all foreign Power both Civil and Ecclesiastical especially that which the Bishops of Rome did challenge and also exercise within the Dominions of the Crown of England 2. That the Kings and Queens of Enland had no power supream in making Laws and passing judgements without the Parliament Therefore by supream Governour was meant supream Administratour for the execution of the Laws in the intervals of Parliament In this respect the Canons and injunctions made by the Clergy though confirmed by royal assent without the Parliament have been judged of no force 3. That by Ecclesiastical causes are meant such causes as are materially Ecclesiastical yet properly civil as before For matters of Religion in respect of the outward profession and practice and the Parties professing and practising are subject to the civil power For by the outward part the State may be disturbed put in danger of Gods judgements and the persons are punishable by the sword even for those crimes Yet neither can the sword reach the soul nor rectifie the conscience except per accidens That by Ecclesiastical is not meant spiritual in proper sense is clear because the Kings of England never took upon them to excommunicate or absolve neither had those Chancellours that were only Civilians and not Divines power to perform such acts Yet they received their power from the Bishops and it was counted Ecclesiastical 4. In respect of these Titles those Courts which were called Spiritual and Ecclesiastical derived their power from the Crown And the Bishops did correct and punish disquiet disobedient criminous persons within their Diocess according to such authority as they had by Gods word and as to them was committed by the authority of this Realm These are the words of the Book of Ordination in the consecration of Bishops The words seem to imply that they had a mixt or at least a twofold power one by the word as trusted with the power of the Keyes the other from the Magistrate or Crown and that was civil Such a mixt power they had indeed in the high Commission Yet though this may be implyed yet it may be they understood that their power by the word of God and from the Crown were the same The act of restoring the ancient jurisdiction to the Crown 1 Eliz. 1. doth make this further evident For it 's an act of restoring the ancient jurisdiction in Ecclesiasticals especially to the Crown for that 's the Title Where it must be observed that the power was such as the Parliament did give 2. That they did not give it anew but restore it 3. They could not had no power to give it if it belonged to the Crown by the Constitution but to declare it to be due upon which Declaration the Queen might resume that which the Pope had usurped and exercised 4. It 's remarkable that not the Queen but the Parliament by that act did restore it as the act of the Oath of supremacy was made by a Parliament which by that act could not give the King any power at all which was not formerly due In respect of Testaments temporal jurisdiction Dignities Priviledges Titles as due unto the Church by humane Constitution and donation all Ecclesiastical causes concerning these were determinable by a civil power How tithes are a lay-fee or divine right hath been declared formerly Hence it doth appear that the Oath of Supremacy was not so easily understood as it was easily taken by many and the Oxford Convocation I believe but that they
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
Proposition I will 1. Examine two places alledged by Mr. Parker and many others for to manifest the Original of Church-discipline which I conceive are not so pertinent 2. I will most of all insist upon the words of Institution 3. I will enlarge upon those places which speak of the exercise of this power that from the manner of administration we may understand the constitution The two places are Matthew 16.19 and John 20.22 23. The first is concerning the promise the second concerning the donation of the power of the Keyes as they are by many expounded The words of the promise are these I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven c. Many and different are the interpretations of this place as given by Writers both Ancient and Modern Popish and Protestant The difference is in two things especially 1. What this power should be 2. To whom it was to be given The power with many is the power of Discipline in foro exteriori with others the power of a Minister as a Minister 2. The person to whom this power is here promised no doubt is Peter but under what notion Peter must be considered is here the Question Some will have it to be Peter as a Monarch and Prince above the rest of the Apostles including his Successours the Monarchical Bishop of Rome Some will have Peter here considered as the mouth and representative of the Apostles and in them of all Aristocratical Bishops as their Successours Some will have him to represent the Ministers some the Elders some the Church it self And these again divide and cannot agree whether this Church here meant be the Universal Church or a particular if Universal whether Universal mystical or visible if visible whether this be the Church it self or a Representative of the same if Representative whether it must be represented by Bishops only or by Bishops and Presbyters or by Presbyters alone or by Bishops Presbyters and People If a particular Church whether it be Congregational or Diocesan or some other so that from this pronoun THEE we have Chymical extractions of all sorts of Governments Ecclesiastical pure and mixt Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical of all kind of Churches as Universal National Congregational of all kind of Governours as Popes Bishops Presbyters the People Yet I conceive this place is not meant of Discipline but rather of Doctrine The Church is the Universal against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail the Keyes are the Word and Sacraments accompanied with the power of the Spirit As building is conversion and edification so binding and loosing admission into or exclusion out of this Church The Architect and chief Master builder is Christ as he is the principal Agent in binding and loosing His Servants and co-workers are Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel amongst whom Peter was most eminent amongst the Jews Paul amongst the Gentiles For Christ used Peter first to convert the Jews Acts 2. then to convert the Gentiles Act. 10. And Paul laboured more abundantly than them all The binding and loosing in Heaven was the making of their Ministry by the power of the Divine Spirit to be effectual To this purpose D. Reynolds Spalatensis Causabon Cameron Grotius with divers of the Ancient and Mr. Parker himself who notwithstanding applies this to the power of Discipline intending thereby to prove the power of the Keyes to be Democratically in a Congretional Church Yet let it be supposed that Peter as receiving the Keyes doth represent the community of Believers Or if as such he represent them how will it appear that this Church or community is a single Congregation Or if it be such a single Congregation how will it follow from hence that the power is in this Congregation Democratically Mr. Parker should have considered that there is a great difference 1. Between Peter as professing that Christ was the Son of the living God for as such he was only a Disciple admitted by Christ into his Kingdom and Peter receiving the Keyes for as such he was above a Disciple and hath power to admit others into this Kingdom not as a Disciple but as a Minister of the Gospel section 4 The place for actual donation and performance of the former promise is said to be that of John 20.22 23. The words of Christ the Donour are these Receive ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained These have been alledged as by him so by others to prove 1. The power of the Keyes in foro exteriori 2. That this power is in the Bishops alone 3. That the Priests have power upon auricular confession to absolve and here they ground their Sacrament of Penance and their sacerdotal power in foro poenitentiali From hence some of ours have endeavoured to prove the parity of Apostles and so of Bishops against the Popes Supremacy for here they find the power promised only to Peter by name given to all the Apostles For to understand these words the better we must observe in them Donation and in it the Donour the Donee the Power the Acts of the Power the ratification of these Acts. The Donour or Person giving is Christ the parties receiving this power immediately are Apostles as Extraordinary Servants and Officers the thing given and received was the Holy Ghost that is Ability and Authority Divine and Spiritual necessary and requisite for the place the Acts were remitting and retaining the same with binding and loosing Mat. 16.19 The ratification of these Acts was the making them effectual by the concurrence of the Divine Spirit For these Acts could not be Spiritual and Divine and so powerful upon the Immortal Souls of Men nor the Apostles so much as Ministerial and Instrumental Agents in this work without a Divine Power and Confirmation of the Supream Judge making their Sentence valid and executing the same Hence that sweetest Joy and admirable Comfort of those who are Remitted and the Terrours and Torments of those that are Condemned These Acts are performed by the Word and Sacraments and the Application of the Promises or Communications to particular Persons which Application is made either more at large to a Multitude at one time or to single Persons upon some Evidence of their Qualification and it may be made infallibly so far as God shall direct infallibly or fallibly for want of clear Evidence in which Case the Sentence must be passed conditionally by Man though absolutely by God. All this is nothing to external Discipline or if it should extend so far the party remitting and retaining are not the Church but the Officers of the Church and the Officers of a Church not under a form of outward Government but under another Consideration An Ecclesiastical external Common-wealth doth presuppose an Ecclesiastical Community and the same consisting of Believers and the same united and associated for Worship and Divine performances tending to Eternal Salvation and
New Testament where it s used a hundred and eleven times at least and in all these places signifies an Assembly or Society Religious except in Acts 19.32 39 41. where it signifies both a tumultuous and also an orderly Assembly or Society or Convention as a civil Court of Judgment which signification is here applied by our Saviour to a Spiritual Judicatory for Spiritual Causes Though this be a special signification yet it signifies the number and Society of Believers and Disciples who profess their Faith in Christ exhibited and this is this Church-Christian and the People of God. Yet it signifies this People under several Notions as sometimes the Church of the Jews sometimes of the Gentiles sometimes the Universal Church sometimes particular Churches sometimes the Militant Church either as visible or mystical sometimes the Church Triumphant sometimes a Church before any form of Government be introduced sometimes under a form of Government so it 's taken and supposed by our Saviour here Grotius his Conceit that our Saviour in these words alludes to the manner of several Sects Professions as of Pharisees Sadduces Essenes who had their Rules of Discipline and their Assemblies and Convention for the practice of them may be probable Yet without any such Allusion the place is plain enough from the context and other Scriptures Erastus upon the place is intollerable and most wofully wrests it so doth Bishop Bilson in his Church-Government and is point-blank contrary to D. Andrews who in his Tortura Torti doth most accurately examine interpret and apply the words and most effectually from thence confute Bellarmine One may truly say of that Book as he himself said of Austin's Treatise De Civitate Dei it was opus palmarum For Civil Common Canon-Law Politicks History School Learning the Doctrine of the Casuists Divinity and other Arts whereof he makes use it is one of the most learned and accurate of any put forth in our times By his Exposition of this Text he utterly overthrows the immediate Jus Divinum of Episcopacy in matters of Discipline and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction He plainly and expresly makes the whole Church the primary subject of the Power of the Keys in foro exteriori Therefore suppose the Bishops were Officers by a Divine Right as he endeavours to prove tho' weakly in his Letters to Du Moulin yet at best they can be but the Churches Delegates for the exercise of that Power And it is observable that divers of our Champions when they oppose Bellarmine's Monarchical Government of the Church peremptorily affirm the Power of the Keyes to be in the whole Church as the most effectual way to confute him yet when they wrote against the Presbyterian and the Antiprelatical party they change their Tone and Tune But to return unto the words of Institution 1. The word Church here signifies an Assembly 2. This Assembly is an Assembly for Religion 3. The Religion is Christian. 4. This Assembly is under a form of External Government 5. This Government presupposeth a Community and Laws and Officers Ecclesiastical These presupposed it 's a juridical Assembly or a Court. 6. Because Courts are Inferiour Superiour and Supream it signifies all especially Supream 7. It determines no kind of Government but that of a free State as shall more appear hereafter 8. Christ doth not say Dic Regi tell the Prince or State nor Dic Petro tell Peter or the Pope as though the Government should be Monarchical either Civil or Ecclesiastical nor Dic Presbytero tell the Elders nor Dic Apostolis Episcopis aut Archiopiscopis that the Government should be purely Aristocratical nor Dic Plebi that the Government should be purely Democratical nor Dic Synodo tell the Council general or particular But it saith tell the Church wherein there may be Bishops Presbyters some Eminent Persons neither Bishops nor Presbyters There may be Synods and all these either as Officers or Representatives of the Church and we may tell these and these may judge yet they hear and judge by a power derived and delegated from the Church and the Church by them as by her Instruments doth exercise her Power As the body sees by her eye and hears by the ear so it is in this particular but so that the similitude doth not run on four feet nor must be stretched too far This being the genuine Sense favours no Faction yet admits any kind of Order which observed may reach the main end For this we must know and take special notice of that Christ will never stand upon Formalities but requires the thing which he commands to be done in an orderly way Yet it 's necessary and his Institution doth tend unto it to reserve the chief Power in the whole Body otherwise if any party as Bishops or Presbyters or any other part of the Church be trusted with the power alone to themselves they will so engross it as that there will be no means nor ordinary jurisdiction to reform them Of this we have plain Experience in the Bishops of Rome who being trusted at first with too much Power did at length arrogate as their own and no ways derived from the Church and so refused to be judged For if the Church once make any party the primary subject of this power then they cannot use it to reduce them Therefore as it is a point of Wisdom in any State to reserve the chief power in the whole Community and single out the best and wisest to exercise it so as if the Trustees do abuse their power they may remove them or reform them so it should be done in the Church If any begin to challenge either the whole or the Supream power as Officers many of these nay the greater part of them may be unworthy or corrupted and then the Church is brought to straits and must needs suffer Some tell us that the King of England by the first Constitution was only the Supream and Universal Magistrate of the Kingdom trusted with a sufficient power to govern and administer the State according to the Laws and his chief work was to see the Laws executed Yet in tract of time they did challenge the power to themselves as their own and refused to be judged Yet in this Institution if Peter if Paul tho' Apostles do offend much more if Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops Presbyters do trespass we must tell not Peter not Paul not an Apostle not a Bishop not any other but the Church No wit of Men or Angels could have imagined a better way nor given a better expression to settle that which is good and just and prevent all parties and factions and yet leave a sufficient latitude for several orderly ways to attain the chief end section 7 The Judge being known the Judicial Acts of this Judge must be enquired into in the fifth place and these are two the first is binding the second loosing For all Judgment passed upon any person is either against him and that is binding
that they are Members of such a Church for every single Member is subject to the whole Here is no exemption of any though they should be Bishops Metropolitans Patriarchs The Patriarchs of Rome may challenge a transcendent power to be above all Laws and all Judgments he will command all judge all will be commanded will be judged by none But all this is but an unjust and insolent Usurpation For Christs Institution in those words Tell the Church excludes such powers dethrones such persons He that will sit in the Church of God as God must needs be the Son of Perdition From this subjection ariseth an Obligation to acknowledge the just power of the Church to be faithful unto it and by all means to seek the good thereof to obey the Laws and submit unto the just Judgment of the same section 2 This being the brief Explication of subjection whence a Christian is denominated a subject of a particular Church under a form of Government the next thing to be done is to enquire who are subjects how they may be distinguished and how they may be divided and how educated Subditi enim Ecclesiae distinguuntur distincti dividuntur educantur 1. They are distinguished both from others and also among themselves from others they are differenced for some are within some without some are Brethren some are not This is implied by the Apostle when he saith If any man that is called a Brother and what have I to do to judge them that are without Do not ye judge them that are within 1 Cor. 5.11 12. Therefore there are such as are not Brethren such as are without and cannot be judged by the Church these are no Subjects There are Brethren such as are within and may be judged these are Subjects By this distinction Mahumetans Pagans unbelieving Jews are excluded For none can be a Member of a Church Christian but a Christian who by Baptism is solemnly admitted to be a Subject of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and a Member of the Universal Church And whosoever shall be such may be a Member and so a Subject of a particular visible Church Yet one may be a Member of one particular Church and not of another for as in civil politicks none can be a subject of two several States civil at one time so in Ecclesiastical Government no person can be a subject of two particular Independent Churches at the same time Therefore when the Apostle saith Do not ye judge them within is to be understood of the Members of that particular Church of Corinth For they could not judge them of the Church of Rome of Ephesus of Jerusalem or any other but their own yet here is to be observed that manifest Apostates though they have been Christians cannot be received into a Christian Church nor such as have been Members of an Heretical Superstitious Idolatrous Church till they have renounced their Heresie Superstition Idolatry Neither must any subject himself to any such Church nor continue in it if formerly he hath been a Member for all sinful Communion is unlawful Yet wherein there is no such thing and God in his Providence casts him upon another Church he may subject and also continue As in a civil State there are sojourners and strangers and also plenary subjects so there may be in a particular Church For all such as are Members and Subjects of one Church and yet either sojourn or inhabit in another for less or longer time they are not Subjects till they be incorporate yet they are Subjects of the Catholick Church in any part of the World. And upon Letters Testimonial or any other sufficient Information they may be admitted to Communion in Word Prayer and Sacraments for these are priviledges of the Universal Church and common to all Christians of Age as Christians But these doth not render them Members of that particular Church for Discipline without Submission and Admission Only if they do offend against the just Canons of that Church where they are Strangers The Rule of delictum in alieno territorio c. holds good and they may be censured where the Offence is committed and where the Scandal is committed Of plenary subjects some are such by Birth some by Election Those by Birth are like the native Jew those by Election are like the Proselite Yet this is to be observed that as one who was an Heathen might be made both a Proselite and a Member of that Church of Israel at the same time and the same Act so one that was of no Church as being no Christian may be made a Christian and a Member of a particular Church visible at once Therefore we must distinguish of such as are incorporated into a Church for as Ephes. 2.11 12. There were such who were Gentiles and so none of God's people and aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and strangers to the Covenants of Promise who afterwards ver 19. were no more Strangers and Forraigners but fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the Houshould of God and so of no people made a people and more of no Christians made Christians There be others who formerly were Christians and that which is more Subjects of some one particular Church which are made Subjects of another This is so to be understood as that to be a Christian or a Member of a particular Church is not meerly from Birth but from birth of Christian Parents who are Members of the Church Universal and sometimes nay often of a particular Church under a form of Government Neither doth this Birth without Divine Ordination incorporate us into the one or other For to be a Christian is not from Nature but from God's gracious Ordination which requires that even those who are born in the Bosom of the Church and baptized too should when they come to Age be instructed in the Covenant and also own their Baptism by profession of their Faith and promise for to keep the Covenant The neglect of this is the cause why many Congregations have such unworthy Members Yet it 's not necessary by any Divine Precept that all should be excluded whom we do not certainly know to be real Saints And here I will take occasion to debate of two things much controverted in these times 1. Of the qualification of a Member of the Church 2. Of separation from a Church section 3 For the qualification of the Church-member it 's agreed that visible Saints though not real may be Members of a Church But the Question is what a visible Saint is By visible the Congregational party in particular Mr. Hooker of New England understands one that shall appear to such as should admit him to be a Saint This Saintship is as he informs us in knowledge and practise and he grants a latitude in both This visibility is that whereby they appear to us to be Saints in respect of their knowledge and practise And thus they appear and may be