Word and Doctrine and others which do not This presupposeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned especially is taken here partitively Yet that cannot be proved For it may be added rather to signifie the reason why then the persons to whom as distinct from other ruling Elders double honour is due For in the Assembly it was alledged that the participle in the Original here as in other places includes the Cause And then the Sense is Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially because they labour in the Word and Doctrine which seems to be the genuine sense and agrees with that Esteem them very highly in Love for their Works sake 1 Thes. 5.13 2. Double Honour which is Maintenance is not due to ruling Elders who preach not the Gospel For the Lord Ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel they which do not they which do not preach the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.14 3. Suppose it could be proved from this place that there were ruling Elders distinct from such as preach How will it appear from hence what their place was in the Church and what their Power and what their Work Yet put all these places together they cannot prove the Divine Institution of such an Office with the power of Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical for we do not find any special precept making this Office universally and perpetually necessary binding all Christian Churches to observe it section 5 But let us suppose such an Officer the Question is Whether the Elder with the preaching Presbyters be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the power of the Keyes inforo exteriori That they are not the immediate subject is evident 1. From the same reason why Bishops are not For Christ gave the power to the Church the whole Church as shall be manifest hereafter but the Elders are not the whole Church 2. If they be the primary subject then they are such as Officers or Representatives but neither of these ways can they be such a subject The disjunction is good except they can give us another consideration according to which they may have this power in this manner The Minor which is that neither as Officers nor as Representatives can they be the primary subject is thus proved 1. Not as Officers For the power of an Officer though Universal as these are but Elders of particular Congregations is always derivative and therefore he cannot be the first subject of that power which is derived from an higher Cause Upon this ground Mr. Hooker takes his advantage against Mr. Rutherford and the seven dissenting Brethren against the Assembly As for Mr. Hooker he seems to take for granted as he endeavours to prove that Jurisdiction belongs unto an Officer as an Officer But this cannot be true 1. Because there are Officers who have no Jurisdiction as Censors Sheriffs Constables and many other in the State and Deacons in the Church 2. Suppose some Officers have Jurisdiction yet they are not the first subject of it 3. He supposeth as the Dissenting Brethren do that every Officer is fixed in and related only unto a single Congregation whereas its evident and Mr. Parker confesseth it that there may be Officers which joyntly take the charge of several Congregations both for Worship and Discipline as in the Netherlands and this agreeable to the Word of God. Yet even these much more such as are fixed to several particular Congregations can have no power out of those Congregations whereof they take charge whether severally of one or joyntly of many In this respect his Argument is good against such as affirm that power of Jurisdiction belongs to Officers as Officers and in particular to Elders as Elders Yet both the Assembly and Dissenting Brethren confound and that in the arguing the power of the Ministry with the power of outward Discipline which ought not to be done But the principal thing is that Officers as such cannot be the primary subject of power for that belongs to them who make them Officers section 6 As they cannot have it as Officers so they cannot have it primarily as Representatives They may have power as Officers they may have it as Representatives yet not in this high manner or degree For all Representatives derive their power from the Body represented To clear this point we must observe 1. That many several Congregations which in respect of Worship are so many several bodies distinct may associate and become one for Discipline When they are thus associate the power is first in the whole and derived from the whole unto the parts and from the parts unto the whole as in a single Congregation the power is in the whole and every single Member even the Officers are subject to the whole which makes Officers and gives them their Power 3. That in this Association of many Congregations when they Act in a Synod or Representative the parties which make up the Representative do not act as Officers though they be Officers in the several Congregations but as Representatives Neither as Representatives of several Congregations severally considered but as joyntly united in one body to represent the whole As in a Parliament many Members are Officers yet do not act as Officers but all joyntly act as one Representative of the whole body 4. When many Congregations united in one body for to set up one Independent Judicatory do act by a Representative the whole body of these Congregations not the several Congregations are Ecclesia prima and the Representative or Synod is the Ecclésiae orta 5. That the power of Discipline doth not issue from the power of Teaching and Administration of the Sacraments For then none but Ministers should have the power of the Keyes and not any could be joyned with them because they have their power by Vertue of the Ministerial Office. section 7 Yet the Authors of Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici do affirm that the ruling and preaching Elders are the primary subject of this power and endeavour to prove it and that by several Arguments all which may be answered by the very stating of the Question For they seem to me for to confound Ecclesiam constituendam constitutam Officers ordinary and extraordinary calling immediate and mediate the Government of the Universal Church and particular Churches forum interius exterius Statum exercitium Though the matter is clear enough yet I will examine two of their Arguments The first is this All those that have Ecclesiastical Power and the Exercise thereof immediately committed to them from Jesus Christ are the immediate subject or Receptacle of that Power But the Church Guides have Ecclesiastical Power and the Exercise thereof immediately committed unto them from Jesus Christ. Therefore they are the immediate Subject or Receptacle of that Power For Answer hereunto we must understand 1. What this Power Ecclesiastical in the Question is 2. What kind of Subject is here meant 3. What
gathered out of every Nation This can be none of Mr. Parker's Congregation section 6 His third Argument is taken from Matthew 17.18 and from 1 Cor. 5. In the first place 1. Christ saith Tell the Church 2. This Church is the primary subject of the power of the Keys But 3. He doth not say this Church is Congregational in his sense neither can any wit of man prove it out of that place 4. The word Church in that place is indefinite and signifies first a Christian community without any determination of the number of persons greater or less 5. Though this Community and whole Body be principally meant yet it s here signified as exercising her judicial power by her Representatives who may easily meet in one place when the whole Body cannot and that place may be capacious enough to receive them yet far too narrow to contain the whole Church and all the Members and every one of them represented in that place As for 1 Cor. 5.4 which is the second place quoted by him he argues from these words when ye are gathered together that a Church is a Congregation consisting of so many as ordinarily meet in one place Answ. 1. It 's granted that according to the Apostles directions the incestuous person must be Excommunicated in a publick Assembly of persons meeting in one place But 2. The Church may assemble personally or virtually in their own persons or by and in their Representatives That this Church did meet virtually in her Representatives at least no Man can doubt but that all and every one of that Church were personally present in that Assembly no man can prove for it was a meeting as he confesseth for the Exercise of power of Jurisdiction 3. Suppose all the Church of Corinth could and did meet in that Assembly how will it follow that every other Church as that of Jerusalem could do so to or that if any Church was so numerous that they could not ordinarily meet but in several places will it follow that therefore it could not be the primary subject of this power But something more to this hereafter section 7 To reserve his fourth Argument to the last I proceed unto his fifth which is drawn from Communion in Word Prayer Sacraments and his sixth in watching one over another In that of Communion he confounds Worship and the Exercise of Discipline which are two very different things and also he grosly equivocates in the matter of identity which even fresh-men know to be three-fold in genere specie numero For he conceives there can be no Communion but amongst those who meet in one place to exercise those heavenly duties Answ. 1. It 's true that if the number of persons in one Church exceed they cannot all be edified and enjoy a sufficient Communion in Worship by one man Officiating at one time in one place where they cannot all assemble But what 's this to purpose It 's nothing to Government Communion in Worship is one thing in Government another The Communion of one particular Church in this latter respect is political and consists in this that they have the same Supream and Independent Judicatory according to certain Laws as they are subject to the same independent Judicatory in the same Precinct Communion in Word Prayer and Sacraments is rather Moral then Political and may be had and is enjoyed many times in many places where there is no external Discipline setled or exercised The end of Word and Prayer is first to make Christians and then to edify them and these are no sooner made and multiplied but they must hear pray participate the Sacraments before any Form of Discipline be instituted and if every one would constantly do his duty in these things both privately and publickly there would be no need of Discipline 2. Whereas he conceiveth that there can be no such Communion and Edification but one and the same individual Assembly he is much mistaken and besides his words are very ambiguous For the better understanding hereof we must know that the end of Communion in Word Prayer Sacraments is Conversion and Edification as before 2. These ends may be attained as well in several Congregations under one Supream Judicatory for Discipline as in one Congregation Independent or several Congregations having their several Supream Judicatories for both of them depend upon the Ministry as Instrumental and upon the Spirit as the principal Agent which caeteris paribus may be as effectual in several Congregations not Independent and every one of them severally as in one though Independent and at the same time And though Discipline may further Edification in a Congregation yet it may be furthered as much when it s Exercised by one Independent Power over several Congregations as when it 's Exercised by one Supream Power of one Congregation over it self Experience doth clearly evince this and might satisfie us But I have wondred at the design of some men who go about to bind Men to the individual participation in the same Ordinances if they will be of the same Church as though that could be no Church where all the Members could not or did not thus individually participate For few of their own Congregations are so ordered as that all the Members Communicate at one time but some at one time before the rest some at another after the rest That which is required of all Christians is no such thing but that they all Worship God both in private and publick according to the same general rules of the Gospel As for mutual watching one over another that 's the duty of all Christians as Christians and as fellow Subjects and Brethren under the same God and Lord Jesus Christ though there never were any Discipline setled And this is done far better by them who cohabit and constantly or for the most part converse one with another then by them who live ten twenty thirty miles distant one from another as some of the Congregationals do nay Members of one and the same Congregation bound to this watching one over another live one at London another at York one in Ireland another in Scotland and their Pastour and most of their Brethren in England section 8 To return unto his fourth Argument from the form of Apostolical Churches as of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Corinth c. which is the same which the dissenting Brethren insisted upon in the Assembly I might refer him and them to what the Assembly hath Learnedly answered The Argument is to this purpose The first Apostolical Churches were only Congregational yet the primary subject of the power of the Keys Therefore all other Churches should be Congregational and as such they are the primary subject of the power of the Keys Whether this be that which is intended let every one judge who is acquainted with the Controversie The Argument is that of induction taken from example That which they assume as clear out of Scripture to them is that all and
had not the power of the Keys What meant by those words of the Oath of Supremacy Erastians worthy of no answer because they mistake the state of the Question and do not distinguish between the power of the Sword and the power of the Keyes CHAP. XI Whether Bishops be the primary subject of the power of the Keys The different Opinions concerning the Definition and Essence of a Bishop as also concerning the first Institution of Episcopacy St. Hierom's opinion in this point Spalatensis his Arguments to prove the divine Right of Bishops as invested with the Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction examined and answered Dr. Andrew's judgment in this point After the primitive and also the Hierarchical Bishop which differ much the English Episcopacy different from both the former in some things proper to its self is examined Though some Episcopacy be grounded upon a divine general Precept yet it 's not the primary subject of the power of the Keys neither is Episcopal Government proved to be necessary by any special Evangelical Precept of universal and perpetual Obligation CHAP. XII Whether Presbytery be the primary Subject of the power of the Keys The abolition of Episcopacy and Surrogation of Presbytery in several reformed Churches The nature institution and distinction of Ecclesiastical Presbyters The places of Scripture whereon the Divine Right of Law or Rulong Elders is grounded examined The Reasons why Presbyters cannot be the primary Subject of this Power The Arguments of the Authors of Jus Divinum Ecclesiastici Regiminis insufficient to prove it The English Presbytery as intended and modelled by the Parliament with the Advice of the Assembly of Divines inquired into the perfections and imperfections of the same as modelled by the Parliament without the King. Certain reasons which may be imagined why the Parliament would not trust the Ministers alone with this power CHAP. XIII Whether the power of the Keys be primarily in the People The Opinion of Morellius and the Brownists of Blondel of Parker and his mistake in Politicks applyed to the Church to make it a mixt Government The judgment of the Author concerning the Power of the Keys to be primarily under Christ in the whole Church exercised by the best and fittest for that work The explication of his meaning concerning the Power the Subject of the power and the manner how this power is disposed in this Subject The Confirmation of the Proposition that the power of the Keys is in the whole Church both by the institution and exercise of this power Where is premised a confutation of Mr. Parker's Opinion grounded upon two several places as he understands them The principal places of Scripture concerning Church-Government in foro exteriori explicated to find out where this power is by institution for Legislation Jurisdiction and making of Officers CHAP. XIV Concerning the extent of a particular Church The several extensions of the Church in excess according to the opinions of such as subject all Churches particular to that one Church of Rome of such as subject all to a general Council Whether Mr. Hudson is justly charged by Mr. Hooker and Mr. Ellis and divers others as guilty of Popery in asserting the Vnity of the universal Church The Congregational extent what Congregations are How they are gathered Whether the primary subject of an Independent power The Arguments of Mr. Parker and the Dissenting Brethren from Scripture and Politicks answered A National extent examined What means to be used for to compose our differences and to settle peace amongst us CHAP. XV. Of Subjection Civil What Subjection in general is the degrees of it What a subject in a Civil State is the definition explained What the duties of Subjects be What offences are contrary to this subjection what Rebellion and Treason the several degrees of Treason What Vsurpation is whether any subjection be due to usurped Powers When a power is dissolved How far the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance bound the English subject Whether the Civil War did dissolve the Government Whether the late Warlike Resistance made against the King's party and his Commissions was Rebellion or no Something of the Question Whether upon any cause it be lawful for the Subjects to resist or take up Arms against their lawful Soveraign as it 's handled by Arnisaeus Whether after the War said to be between King and Parliament was commenced there was any ordinary Legal power which could induce an Obligation to subjection Whether the Act of alteration or any other Form since proposed could introduce an Obligation Whether it be lawful to submit unto an extraordinary power when no Legal power according to the Fundamental Constitution can be had The distinction division and education of Subjects CHAP XVI Of Subjection Ecclesiastical What Ecclesiastical Subjection is The distinction of Ecclesiastical Subjects The qualification of a Church-member Something of separation from a Church The alterations divisions made and the Errors Blasphemies professed in the Church of England in these late times The manner of admission of Church-Members The ancient and also the modern division of Ecclesiastical Subjects and their subordination The Hierarchical Order The Education of Church-members LIB I. CHAP. I. Of Government in General and the Original thereof section 1 PRropriety is the ground of Power and Power of Government and as there are many degrees of Propriety so there are of Power Yet as there is but one Universal and absolute Propriety so there is but one supream and universal Power which the most glorious blessed and eternal God can only challenge as his due For he contrived all things by his wisdom decreed them by his will and produced them by his Power and to this Day worketh all things according to the counsel of his will Ephes. 1.11 In this respect he is worthy to receive Glory and Honour and Power because he hath created all things and for his pleasure they are and were created Rev. 4.11 By Creation he began by Conservation he continued to be actually the Proprietary of all things for he made them of nothing and gave them being and existence so that they wholly always depend upon him and are absolutely his Therefore he hath power to dispose of them as he pleaseth and to order them to those ends he created them This ordination of them which began immediately upon Creation continueth and shall continue to the end and is either General of all things or Special of some special more noble and more excellent Creatures Such are Men and Angels endued with understanding and Free-will and capable of Laws rewards and punshments both Temporal and Eternal The ordination of these is more properly and strictly called Government which is a part of divine Providence The Government of Angels no doubt is excellent and wonderful though we know little of it because not revealed section 2 That of men is more fully manifested to us as men in that Book of books we call the holy Scriptures the principal subject
every one of the first Apostolical Churches were Congregational and only Congregational and none of them Parochial or Classical or Synodical or Diocesan or National or had any Presbytery above a Presbyter That which they would hence infer is that only a Congregational is the first Church agreeable to the first institution and the first subject of the power of the Keys The Argument in form may be this All rightly constituted Churches ought to be like the first Apostolical Churches But all the first Apostolical Churches were Congregational Therefore all rightly constituted Churches are Congregational The Major is very doubtful and admits of many restrictions The Minor is denied The conclusion as inferred from these premises is not to purpose 1. The Major presupposeth that all good examples are to be followed and that they are equivalent to a binding precept But this is certain whatsoever they or others may say that examples as examples though good do not bind to imitation for they only bind by vertue of some Precept or Divine Institution The Apostles in the first plantation of Churches did many good things which we cannot imitate and if we could yet if their practice in those things was not grounded upon a precept of universal and perpetual obligation it doth not bind us They did many things by vertue of some particular precept binding them as Apostles and no ways else and some things in extraordinary Cases upon extraordinary Occasions In this respect the first Churches planted by them might differ in many things from all other Churches in future times Therefore if the Major should be to purpose it must be understood so that all Churches rightly constituted are bound and that by some Divine Precept of Universal Obligation and perpetual force to be like unto the Apostolical first Churches in all things and especially in this that they were Congregational How they will prove this I know not and if they prove it not clearly they do nothing to purpose 2. The Minor is denied both by the Episcopal and Presbyterian and in particular by the Divines of the Assembly who more particularly and distinctly answer all the proofs brought by them to affirm it Their proof is by way of Induction as the Church of Jerusalem Samaria Damascus Antioch and so of the rest were Congregational Where 1. The term Congregational must be understood 2. We must enquire whether the induction be sufficient or no. 1. A Church may be said to be Congregational in respect of Worship or Discipline In respect of Worship two ways 1. Of Prayer and Word 2. Of the Administration of the Sacraments either of Baptism or the Lords Supper as the Assembly doth well distinguish Now how will they prove that the whole Church of Jerusalem with all the Members thereof did constantly meet in one place to administer and receive the Lords Supper where is the Text that expresly or by consequence saith any such thing Again a Congregational Church may be in respect of Discipline and that several ways For 1. A Congregation may signifie a Community of Christians as the primary subject of the power of the Keyes 2. This Community exercising in this power and that either by a Representative of the whole or some part If they understand them to be Congregational in respect of the exercise of Discipline so that their Representatives of part or the whole might all of them congregate and meet at one time in one place as ordinary or extraordinary occasion should require in this sense it will be granted that even the Church of Jerusalem in its greatest extent was Congregational but this is not their sense For they mean by Congregational such a Community and Vicinity of Christians as that all and every one of the Members may ordinarily and conveniently meet at one and the same time in one and the same place not only for Discipline but Worship and so that if any multitude of Christians exceed this proportion they must divide and erect a new Independent Judicatory and they were bound so to do if they did not they ceased to be such Churches as Christ did institute and could not be the primary subject of the power of Discipline How they should prove the Minor in this sense I do not understand They who first took up this Congregational Notion perhaps had a design to overthrow Diocesan Bishops and this was thought an effectual means for that end and if this conceit had not first possessed their minds they would never have imagined any such thing to be so much as implied in these examples But suppose some such thing to be implied at least for expressed it is not in these places the Induction may be said to be imperfect For there were many Churches planted by the Apostles and far more than are mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles For Paul upon his Conversion went into Arabia and then returned again to Damascus Gal. 1.17 Other of the Apostles no doubt went into Aegypt Aethiopia India Persia Armenia Spain France Germany Yet none of these Churches are mentioned in the Scripture-History Therefore it might be said there is not a sufficient enumeration of particulars to make up a general But suppose these Churches to have been Congregational at first it 's certain they enlarged and multiplied to far great numbers in after times and though this be certain yet it 's no ways certain that upon this multiplication they did divide into independent Congregations and erected independent Judicatories in every particular Congregation and were bound so to do and that by a Divine Precept And I wonder much at Mr. Parker that he should argue so much against a Diocesan Church and yet grant that all Israel consisting as he himself confesseth of many Myriades should be but one Congregation which was of a far greater extent than a Diocess Whether this Congregation was as now it is by many managed amongst us be not formally Schism as it is charged by some Learned Men I will not here debate But this I must needs say that such Congregationals as by this notion go about to unchurch all other Churches which are not cast in the same mold must needs be guilty of some such crime It was first set up to oppose Diocesan Churches and now to oppose Presbyterian Classes But there is another thing which I wish all Wise and Judicious Men to consider whether this doth not tend unto or at least give occasion of Schism and also to inform themselves what effects it hath had hitherto yet so as to distinguish between these effects of it which are per se and flow from the nature of it and such as are per accidens Yet in the mean time Charity Meekness Humility Pity of weak Brethren becomes us all who profess our selves Christians and we ought to stand well affected towards all who seem to us to look towards Heaven Let us further consider how far rational and pious men agree and according to those things
let us keep communion and heartily serve our God humbly imploring his Divine Majesty in the name of Christ to open our eyes and sanctifie our hearts that at length we may be united in the same Judgement and Affection and with one Mind and with one Mouth glorifie God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. section 8 After the consideration of a Congregational extent as too narrow and of an Universal as too large I proceed to say something of a National extent as a man between The Congregationalist will censure it as too great by far the Universalist as too little by much Yet I shall willingly as in other things refer my self to the Judgement of Moderate Pious Judicious Impartial Men Let them condemn me or acquit me as they shall see just cause First it must be remembred that the subject of this whole Treatise is the Government of men by men under God and Jesus Christ our Blessed Saviour Of Gods more immediate Government I have spoken in my Divine Politicks where I shew it 's Monarchical Supream Universal and cannot be bounded to any part of the whole Universe For he being immense and not only virtually but actually present in all places at all times is only fit to govern all Nations and the whole World as the Universal Soveraign but this is far above the power not only of Men but of Angels Therefore whatsoever he doth in Heaven we know that when through his blessing mankind was multipled and especially after the Flood and had replenished the Earth they were divided into several Societies and were subject to several independent Tribunals We never find them under one neither do we in his word or works read of a Catholick King over all Nations nor of an Universal Bishop over all Churches Howsoever some have pretended such a Title yet they could never shew their Patent subscribed by the Hand of Heaven But suppose they could have acquired the possession of the whole earth which never any did yet no one Man no one Council no one Consistory had been able sufficiently to manage so vast a power and in any tolerable manner to govern all mankind at one time living upon Earth It seemed good indeed to our wise God both in former and latter times to enlarge the power of some States and especially that of the Romans Yet that very Empire of so large extent took in but a little part of the whole Earth and this appears plainly now since by Navigation some of the remote parts of the Globe and both the Hemispheres thereof have been discovered Yet in the greatest extent it was thought by some of their wisest Princes the best Policy Cogere terminos Imperii to limit and bound it because they thought the body of too big a bulk to be well ordered either by Prince or Senate or People or by all together But to return to the matter in hand the Question is Whether a national Community of Christians may not lawfully be subjected to one supream Judicatory Ecclesiastical To understand the Question the better it 's to be observed 1. That a Community of Christians may be said to be national several ways or in several respects as 1. When all the Christians of one and the same Nation do associate and unite in one body 2. When these Christians are the major part of the people 3. When the whole Nation or the generality thereof have received and do profess the same Christian Faith. I will here suppose the major part or generality to be Christians and the association and incorporation to be made by a tacit or explicit consent which sometimes may be confirmed by the Laws of the Supream Power Yet this generality may be so understood as that there may in the same Nation be found Turks or Mahumetans Pagans Atheists Jewes which cannot be of this body and that also there may be some Schisms and Separatitions amongst such as profess themselves Christians and sometimes they may be none This in my sense is a national Community of Christians and a Church-confident before any form of external Discipline be introduced 2. When I speak of subjection I do not say that they are always in all Nations bound by any Divine Precept to be so but that they may and that lawfully according unto the Scriptures 3. I understand that this subjection so as that every several member be subject not to one man or one party but to the whole and that either properly taken or virtually for a Representative of the whole which shall have power in the name of the whole body to make Canons and in Judgement to receive last Appeals 4. I understand the Question of Nations indefinitely taken for if any be of so vast extent as that one independent Court may be either insufficient or inconvenient I rather exclude then include such For suppose all Tartary should be counted one Nation or all Chinae I conceive they are too large 5. I mention only a national Community for if that be granted the Classical and Provincial must needs come in The Congregational party I know holds the Negative And here upon the by I will take the liberty for to answer Mr. Parker's seventh argument for his Congregational way It 's taken from Politicks and to this purpose That as little States are more easily and better governed then great ones so is a Congregational Church which is but of a narrow compass than a Classical Diocesan or Provincial or National which is far greater Answ. Though less Communities may be better governed than one too great yet a great one of moderate extent may be better governed and defended than one that is too little For Gods one peculiar People and Nation which was first under Judges then under Kings was subject to one Supream Tribunal for a long time above five hundred Years and afterwards it was divided into two Yet it was better governed under one than under two when subject to one individual Tribunal than when to two but of this more hereafter section 9 For the confirmation of this we must note 1. That there is no Divine Precept in the New Testament which particularly determines either the extent of place or number of persons to which a particular independent Church is confined we do not find their either the minimum or maximum quod sic Therefore some Latitude must needs be granted 2. That the History of the New Testament doth not reach those times wherein it pleased God to fulfil those Prophesies which promised That Kings should become Nursing-fathers and Queens Nursing-mothers of the Church and she should suck the breasts of Kings who should come unto her light 2. When one should become a thousand and a small one a strong Nation I saith the Lord will hasten it in its time Where one saith he alludes to the Creation which he finished in six days hastening and could not rest and keep his Sabbath till all was ended and
Pope or Prince if they be the primary subject they must be such either severally every one in his several Diocess or joyntly in a Synod If severally then every one is a Monarch in his Diocess and so the government of the Church is Monarchical and every several Bishop supream and independent And if so where are our Arch-Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs And why do we dispute against the Monarchical Government and not grant to Bellarmine and others that it is Monarchical in general though we deny the Pope to be the sole Monarch If joyntly in a Synod or Council provincial or national of one Nation and several Provinces or several Nations or general then they are not such as Bishops but either as members of the Synod or as delegates If as members of the Synod and none can be members but Bishops as Bishops then the government of the Church is purely Aristocratical and then it s worse then a pure Monarchy where there can be but one Tyrant whereas in a pure Aristocracy there are usually many Tyrants or at least it proves an Oligarchy And in this respect neither can a provincial Council be subject to a antional nor a national to a general If as Delegates they have this power as in general Councils they are then they cannot be the primary subject And all these if they will make their cause good they must prove which they can never do that none but Bishops have right of suffrage in Councils 3. If their title be good it must be grounded either upon Scripture or universal and perpetual custom but from neither of these can it be proved as shall appear hereafter For by Scripture its evident that the Church was made by Christs institution the immediate and primary subject and so confessed by Bishops by many great Schollars and by general Councils too The first Church which was made such a subject included the Apostles who in their ordinary capacity were but parts and members though eminent members of the same 4. If any shall say that Bishops as Officers of the Church are the primary subject of this power that implies a contradiction because if the power of all Officers as Officers is derivative and as the Apostles being Officers of Christ derived their Apostolical Power from Christ so if Bishops be Officers of the Church they derive their Power from the Church which is the primitive subject section 10 Though both the Definition and the Institution of a Bishop be uncertain and there is no Universal consent in respect of either yet I think a constant Superintendent trusted with an Inspection not only over the People but the Presbyters within a reasonable Precinct if he be duly qualified and rightly chosen may be lawful and the place agreeable to Scripture yet I do not conceive that this kind of Episcopacy is grounded upon any divine special Precept of Universal Obligation making it necessary for the being of a Church or Essential Constitution of Presbyters Neither is there any Scripture which determines the Form how such a Bishop or any other may be made Yet it may be grounded upon general Precepts of Scripture concerning Decency Unity Order and Edification but so that Order and Decency may be observed by another way and Unity and Edification obtained by other means But there are many in these our days which make Episcopacy invested with power of Ordination at least of that necessity that if Ministers be not ordained by them they are no Ministers They make the being of the Ministry and the power of the Sacraments to depend on them and they further add that without a succession of these Bishops we cannot maintain our Ministry against the Church of Rome But 1. Where do they find in Scripture any special Precept of universal and perpetual Obligation which doth determine that imposition of Hands of the Presbytery doth essentially constitute a Presbyter and that the imposition of Hands if it did so was invalid without an Hierarchical Bishop or a certain constant superintendent with them And if they will have their Doctrine to stand good such a Precept they must produce which they have not done which I am confident they cannot do 2. As for Succession of such Bishops after so long a time so many Persecutions and so great Alterations in the Churches of all Nations its impossible to make it clear Eusebius himself doth so preface unto his Catalogue of Bishops that no rational man can so much as yield a probable assent unto him in that particular But suppose it had been far clearer yet it could not merit the force of a divine Testimony it would have been only humane and could not have been believed but with a probable Faith. Nay Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius and others do not agree in the first and immediate Successors of the Apostles no not of the Roman Church For Irenaeus makes Clemens the third whom Tertullian determines to be the first from the Apostles Yet they all agree in this that the Succession of Persons without Succession of the same Doctrine was nothing Tertullian confesseth that there were many Churches which could not shew the Succession of Persons but of Doctrine from the Apostles and that was sufficient And the Succession of Persons is so uncertain that whosoever shall make either the being of a Church or the Ministry or the power of the Sacraments depend upon it shall so offend Christ's little ones and be guilty of such a scandal as it were better for him that a Mill-stone were hanged about his neck and he cast into the Sea. The power of saving mens Souls depends not upon Succession of Persons according to humane Institutions but upon the Apostolical Doctrine accompanied by the divine Spirit If upon the exercise of their Ministerial Power men are converted find Comfort in their Doctrine and the Sacraments and at their end deliver up their Souls unto God their Redeemer and that with unspeakable Joy this is a divine confirmation of their Ministry and the same more real and manifest than any Personal Succession To maintain the Ministry of England from their Ordination by Bishops and the Bishops by their Consecration according to the Canons of the Council of Carthage was a good Argument ad hominem yet it should be made good as it may be by far better Arguments and such as will serve the Interest of other Protestant and reformed Churches who have sufficiently proved their Ministry legal and by Experience through God's Blessing upon their Labours have found it effectual But suppose the Succession of our English Episcopacy could be made good since the Reformation it 's to little purpose except you can justifie the Popish Succession up to the time of the Apostles which few will undertake none I fear will perform Divers reasons perswade me to believe they cannot do any thing in this particular to purpose but amongst the rest this doth much sway with me that there can be no Succession without some
distinct and determinate form of Consecration and Ordination and except this form be determined by a special precept of Scripture it cannot be of divine Obligation But any such special precept which should prescribe the distinct forms of Consecration and Ordination we find not at all We have some examples of constituting Church-Officers by Election with the imposition of Hands and Prayer yet this was common to all even to Deacons So that the very forms of making Bishops and Presbyters as we find them both in the English Book of Ordination and the Pontifical of Rome are meerly Arbitrary as having no particular ground but at the best only a general Rule in Scripture which leaves a liberty for several distinct Forms If any notwithstanding all this out of an high conceit of Episcopacy will refuse Communion with such Churches which have no Bishops and yet are Orthodox or will account those no Ministers who are ordained by Presbyters without a Bishop let such take heed least they prove guilty of Schisms The substance of all this is That Bishops are not the primary subject of the power of the Keys CHAP. XII Whether Presbytery or Presbyters be the Primary Subject of the Power of the Keyes section 1 IN divers parts of Europe where Episcopacy hath been abolished Presbytery did succeed and that as it is asserted by many upon such grounds as will prove it as pure an Aristocracy as that of Episcopacy was The parties indeed have been changed and instead of Bishops we have Presbyters and though the former imparity be taken away yet the form of Government which is Aristocratical remains I have formerly heard many complain that the Bishops had cast off the Presbyters and now some do not like it well that the Presbyters have cast off the Bishops yet both do seem to agree to exclude the people as distinct from the Clergy engrossing the whole Power to themselves These pure Aristocratical Forms have for the most part proved dangerous especially in the Church because they do much incline unto Oligarchy and usually degenerate into the same section 2 But to observe some Order I will 1. Examine what these Presbyters are 2. Whether these being known can according to Christ's Institution be the Primary Subject of this power 3. Add something concerning our English Presbytery 1. These Presbyters are of two sorts 1. Some are preaching 2. Some are not preaching but only ruling Presbyters or Elders The former are trusted with the Dispensation of the Word and Sacraments the latter are not Both have the same Name and are Elders yet differ much in respect of their Ecclesiastical being Of the preaching Elder I shall speak more at large in the second Book in the Chapter of Ecclesiastical Officers This word Elder we do not find used either in the Old or New Testament in an Ecclesiastical sense before we read it in the Acts and after that we find it used about fifteen times in that kind of Notion The first place is Acts 11.30 the last 1 Pet. 5.1 Except we add that of 2 John 1. In many of these places the word doth signifie a preaching Elder and Minister of the Gospel and that most clearly and evidently and if in any place it doth signifie some other Elder it will be most difficult if not impossible to define what he should be Yet this Elder which is presupposed to be distinct from the Minister of the Gospel is said to be an Officer of the Church which together with the preaching Presbyter hath power of Jurisdiction in Eccesiastical Causes To prove that there is such an Elder and that of Divine Institution three places are principally insisted upon and these I find discussed and expounded 1. In the London Divines 2. Before them in Gillaspec 3. Before him in Gersome Bucerus and they all go one way The first of these we read Rom. 12.8 He that ruleth with diligence that is let him that ruleth rule with diligence where he that ruleth must be a ruling Elder distinct from the preaching But 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not properly signifie a Governour or Ruler invested with power of Command and Jurisdiction but a prime person set above before over others for inspection guidance and due ordering of Persons Things or Actions 2. Suppose in this place it should signifie one invested with Jurisdiction how doth it appear that it is such a Ruler Ecclesiastical as is distinct from a preaching Elder There is nothing in the place to evince it 3. Seeing a Minister of the Gospel is a Ruler in Discipline as is by themselves confessed how may it be proved that the person here meant is not the preaching Elder though not as a preaching Elder but a Pastor over a Flock For it must signifie him alone or him joyntly with that other kind of Elder For if both be Rulers both must rule well 4. It cannot be demonstrated that the place speaks of Discipline at all For the place speaks of Gifts whereof one person may have many and his Duty is to exercise them all for the Edification of the Church section 3 The second place is 1 Cor. 12.28 Where the word translated Governments must signifie this Ruling Officer distinct from the preaching Elder But first We find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for to signifie a Pilot Acts 27.11 and the same word in the Septuagint used in the same signification Ezek. 27.28 29. and Jonah 1.6 when the Hebrew word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chobel In them also I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tachbuloth six several times to signifie Counsels or Wisdom and translated in four of these places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Prov. 1.5 c. 11.14 c. 20.21 c. 24.6 And though it be true that Wisdom and Counsel are necessarily required in a good Governour invested with Power yet always they are essential to a good Counsellor and without them he cannot give good direction But 2. If we parallel the 28.29 30. verses with the 8.9 10. verse of the same Chapter we shall find that Governments signifie such as have the gift of Wisdom 2. Let Governments be Governours and the same Ecclesiastical will it follow that they were ruling Elders distinct from preaching and ruling Elders Are there none other kind of Governours but these 3. This place doth not speak of external Government and Discipline but of the Gifts of the Spirit given for the good of the Church And I never knew rational and impartial Schollars ground so great an Office upon so weak a Foundation and argue from such an obscure place in respect of this Eldership It s far from proving any Divine Institution of such an Office as it doth not so much as imply it section 4 The third place is 1 Tim. 5.17 Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially those who labour in the Word and Doctrine From hence they infer that there are ruling Elders which labour in the
these Church-guides are 4. What immediate Commission from Christ may be for that 's the medium or third Argument 1. This Ecclesiastical Power is not that Universal and Supream Power which is in Christ nor the extraordinary Power of extraordinary Officers as Apostles and others It 's an ordinary Power of a particular Church and the same as Universal and Independent in respect of such a Church It 's a Power in foro exteriori for outward Government It 's a Power supream of making Canons constituting Officers and passing Judgment without Appeal or from which there lies no Appeal 2. The Question is concerning the Subject of this Power which Subject may be primary or secondary here the primary must be understood 3. Church-guides as they understand them are ruling and preaching Elders 4. Immediate Commission from Christ is when Christ immediately gives power to any person and by that Donation designs him without any act of Man intervening Thus Paul was designed an Apostle not of Man not by Man but by Jesus Christ this immediate Commission is extraordinary These things premised make it evident 1. That the Terms of the Syllogism are more then three because the words are so Ambiguous 2. Suppose the words to be clear and the terms but three yet the Minor is denied 1. Because by Church-guides are meant Elders who are ordinary Officers of particular Congregations and therefore can have no immediate Commission in proper sense 2. Though they should be immediately commissioned as they are not yet the premises are insufficient to infer the conclusion Their drift and design is to prove that they have all their power from Christ alone and not from the Church But they must know that as they have their Office so they have their Power They have their Office from the Church immediately from Christ mediante Ecclesia For they are chosen tryed approved by the Church and so designed to such an Office by the Church and can exercise the power of Discipline as Officers in no Church but where they are Officers Again the conclusion it self might be granted if by Ecclesiastical power they meant Official power and yet nothing to purpose because the thing in question is not proved nor so much as mentioned in the conclusion Yet they endeavour to prove the Minor from 2 Cor. 10.8 where the Apostle speaks of the Authority which the Lord had given them But 1. What Authority was this Interpreters say it was Apostolical and so extraordinary 2. Whether Apostolical or not yet it was their Authority to Preach the Gospel as appears verse 16. This is not the power of Discipline the thing in question The rest of the Scriptures alledged to prove the Minor speak either of the power of Officers and power extraordinary or of the power as Ministers Only Matthew 18.17 18. is to be understood of the power of Discipline yet that place determines the Church not the Elders to be the primary subject and this is directly against them as shall be shewed hereafter section 8 A second argument is this All those whose Ecclesiastical Officers for Church-Govenment under the new Testament are instituted by Christ before any formal visible Christian Church was gathered or constituted they are the first and immediate subject of the power of the Keyes from Jesus Christ. But the Ecclesiastical Offices of Christs own Officers were so instituted Therefore they are the first subject of the Keyes Cap. 11. p. 183. of the second Edition Answer 1. I find in this Syllogism four terms For in the Major according to their own exposition the Officers were such as that not only their Offices were instituted but that at the same instant made Officers by Christ before any Christian Church had being or existence These Offices and Officers were extraordinary p. 184. In the Minor they include not only these Offices and Officers but those of future times which were not extraordinary 2. If they rectifie the Syllogism and understand the Minor only of such Officers as were actually in Office before there was any Christian Church and then they argue a specie ad genus and infer a general from a particular 3. How will they prove that ruling Elders distinct from preaching Presbyters were instituted by Christ or the Apostles by vertue of a special precept of universal Obligation 4. The Question is not of Official Power either Ordinary or Extraordinary 5. Upon perusal of the Scriptures alledged to make good this argument it will appear they confound Officers and power Extraordinary and Ordinary the Church in fieri facto power universal and particular section 9 Hitherto I have enquired into the nature of Presbytery and examined whether it can be the primary subject of Church-power in foro exteriori it remains I say something of the English Presbytery which was 1. Intended 2. Upon the advice of the Assembly modelled 3. Now in some parts of the Nation practised according to the book of Discipline For this end we must observe 1. The Nation was formerly and of old for civil Government divided into Counties and the same division now retained for Discipline For the Parliament thought it not good to follow the division of Provinces and Diocesses The Knights of the several Counties chose certain Ministers for the Assembly who with some Members of both Houses give their advice in matters of Doctrine Worship and Discipline which was so far effectual as the Parliament should approve The discipline approved is made probationer for three years declared and published in nine Ordinances The first whereof was agreed upon about Aug. 28. 1644 The last Aug. 28. 1646. 2. Before this model could be finished there was much debate and contention especially between the dissenting brethren and the Assembly For though by the Covenant the Discipline ought to be reformed according to the Word of God and the best reformed Churches yet there was not the agreement which ought to have been For both parties pretended to make the Word of God the Rule yet some thought the government of the Kirk of Scotland some that of New-England to be the best and nearest to the Word and most conformable to that infallible Rule So that though at the instance of our English Commissioners that clause according to the Word of God was inserted yet it proved not effectual to determine the Controversie because their judgments were so different 3. In this Model the first work is to make Officers and determine their power 4. The first Offices were called Tryers who upon the division of several Counties into a certain number of Precincts called Classes which consisted of certain secular and Ecclesiastical persons whose names were certified to the Parliament by the Parliament were allowed and from the Parliament received their power 5. These were Extraordinary Officers and their first and chiefest work was upon Election Examination and Approbation to constitute Congregational Eldership 6. These once constituted were invested with power for the exercise whereof the
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
any say its in the whole Church primarily in the Officers and Representatives secondarily for Exercise that 's the undoubted Truth and must needs be granted In all the former examples of the exercise of this power it s very remarkable and specially to be noted that where there was a Church with which the Apostles who were far and very far above all others who did succeed them might act they would not act alone but joyntly with the Elders Multitude Brethren and the reasons hereof are obvious 1. Because they would follow and observe Christs Institution 2. Give example for future times 3. They know that as they when their Faith was weak did strive amongst themselves for priority and superiority so there would many come after them who would contend what person or persons or party should be greatest Yet notwithstanding all this its certain that where the Government of a Church is not regular or a form of Discipline is not setled God in his infinite mercy supplies these defects by an Orthodox Pious Faithful Painful Ministry which is the Fundamental Office of Christ and the means of Conversion and Salvation of Mens Souls And though we have certain clear Rules for the generals and necessaries of Discipline yet as in extraordinary cases the Apostles did not observe them so neither in the like cases are we strictly bound to do otherwise If any desire the Testimony of former times and the practice of Ancient days Fathers Councils Histories might be alledged as they have been by many Learned Men of Latter times but of any one Person Blondel hath done most Dr. Andrews is punctual and peremptory in this right disposal of this power in the proper subject For after that he had spoken first of the Institution then of the Exercise he thus concludes and that most pithily Res ipsa rei ipsius promissio ratihabitio usus denique Ecclesiae datur ab Ecclesia habetur confertur in sive unum sive plures qui ejus post vel exercenda vel denunciandae facultatem habeant For this also he alledgeth the Council of Constance Cameracensis Cusanus Gersom and the School of Sorbone Tortura Torti pag. 42. The Congregational party must needs acknowledge this in general For this is it which Mr. Parker which Mr. Hooker of New-England go about to prove but their way is certainly too Democratical though Mr. Parker grants that their Government in respect of the Exercise is Aristocratical yet that expression is no ways good For if in proper sence any State Ecclesiastical or Civil be Aristocratical then the Optimates or such as answer unto them must needs be the primary Subject and the rest even Officers are Subjects and derive their power from the Aristocratical party But perhaps he means that the whole Church which he considers as Democratical singles out the best and fittest to be Governors and trusts them with the exercise of the power and from them the Government is denominated Aristocratical But in this sence all States should be Aristocratical section 14 For the more full and perfect understanding of this Government and Discipline Ecclesiastical we must know and remember it 1. That there are certain general Rules of Government which God himself observes in his Government both temporal and spiritual of the World and especially in the ordering of Men and Angels 2. These general Rules are observed by all well ordered States in the World and in the Constitution and Administration of them we may easily find them and without them we cannot well or fully understand their Model 3. All those are found in many places of the Scriptures neither without them can the Scriptures be well understood 4. Besides the fundamental and essential Rules of Government there are many Accidentals according to which all particular Polities may differ one from another 5. Church-Government as here handled is nothing else but the application of these general and essential Rules to a particular Community and Society of Christians whereby they may be continued in Unity Piety and Peace and mutually further one another in the Way to Heaven 6. These ends may be attained by a fathful godly diligent Ministry without any form of outward Discipline 7. Yet a form of Discipline established will much further help and strengthen the Ministery in this Work and effectually conduce to the attaining of these ends keep Christian Societies closer together and make them far more permanent firm and powerful 8. Every Christian in any Society Ecclesiastical is bound by his very Baptism without any further Federation to submit unto these general and essential Rules once applied 9. That in erecting a Church-discipline there must be a special care taken of two things chiefly 1. Of the Constitution that it be agreeable especially in essentials to Christ's Institution otherwise men may refuse and that justly to submit unto it 2. Of the Administration that it be committed to the wisest and the best who are most fit to manage it 10. Because many of the Ministers are not qualified for this business and there are many no Ministers of eminent piety learning and wisdom I see no reason why onely the Clergy or Ministery and every one of that Profession should alone be trusted with the power of Administration and these eminent persons excluded Where do we find the Spirit promised only unto Ministers and Bishops Do we not know and by experience that excellent Gifts and amongst others the Spirit of Wisdom and Government are given to others as well as to some of them Nay how many unworthy and unfit persons do we find entred into the Ministery And with us besides others the causes thereof are because Presentations and Admissions are granted for carnal relations favour gifts good turns and also because that Parishes are not fitly united and divided and the maintenance in many places of great charge is very poor Otherwise I know no reason why the Congregational Party should so much exclaim against Parishes For the work of Ministers is not only to edifie Believers but also to endeavour the conversion of Heathens and Publicans especially in their particular Assignations For if these division parochal were duly made Parishes might be very fit Assignations for the work and maintenance of the several Ministers and the same agreeable to the general Rule of Decency and Order 11. In the Constitution and Administration of particular Churches neither the practise of Christ nor his Apostles much less of the Primitives times can be any binding Rule For 1. Christ and the Apostles did many extraordinary things which we neither may nor can do 2. Divine Precepts either general or special are the only Rule which we are bound to follow 3. They did many things as the present times and the condition of persons and places required which may not be done by us or any other except we have the same power and in the like case 12. In the Constitution of a Church or in the Reformation
may so call them who extend the bounds of this Church too far there are others who confine it to a too narrow compass as many do conceive they determine it to be a Congregation Of this judgment was Mr. Parker a learned man in the Raign of King James in our times the dissenting Brethren and their party which follow their Principles and put them in practise to this day They were called the dissenting Brethren because in the Assembly of Divines for Advice they dissented from the Presbyterian party Afterward they were called Congregationals because they confined the Church to a Congregation and Independents because in their single Congregations they erected an independent Judicatory and challenged an independent power of the Keys as due by the Institution of Christ to every single Congregation gathered by them But let their names be what they will and the reason of their names what they shall please le ts consider the thing it self And before the Question can be discussed to purpose we must enquire 1. What their Congregation is 2. How they are gathered 3. Whether this narrow compass be grounded upon Scripture or no For the nature of a Congregation as they seem to take it Mr. Parker gives in a clear account For with him 1. A Congregation is a Multitude of Christians which may ordinarily and conveniently assemble in one place to communicate in the Ordinances of God. 2. He confesseth that the Essence thereof doth not consist in the act of assembling for then upon every dissolution and parting of the Company assembled it would cease to be a Church Yet Mr. Hooker prevents this caution as needless for he makes those whom Mr. Parker calls Christians and himself visible Saints to be the matter and confederation either explicit or implicit to be the form and this federation ties them together not only when they assemble but at other times too This is that which Mr. Parker calls Union by Convention Yet 3. He adds that though they ought to be no more numerous than may ordinarily assemble in one place yet they may and sometimes do meet severally and have several Ministers who severally officiate in several Assemblies and take charge of the whole Church in common But 4. They have but one Consistory He instanceth for this last in the German Churches and the Cities of Holland Polit. Eccles. lib. 3. sect 1. 2. Whether this be the notion of a Church with the present Congregational party or no I know not I have much desired to have seen something wherein all that party agrees in made publick to satisfie such as desire to know their minds By this Definition they exclude Parishes or parochial Churches which are united under one Minister Diocesan Churches united under one Bishop Provincial Churches united under one Arch-bishop and Metropolitan Yet both of them Mr. Parker and Mr. Hooker might easily have known 1. That neither the Parochial nor Diocesan nor Provincial Church was accounted the primary subject of the power of the Keys as they affirm their Congregation to be 2. That a Parish is not now nor with understanding men ever was taken for a Congregation Christian as a Parish in a civil notion For therein may be Heathens Jews Mahumetans Schismaticks Hereticks Apostates But it 's called a Church or Congregation Ecclesiastical in respect of the Minister and those Christians of that Precinct who ordinarily assemble to perform the acts of Divine Worship 3. If the name Church may be given to a few Christians in one Family and House as it is Philem. 2. Col. 4.15 I know no reason but it may be given to a number and society of Christians in one Parish where by reason of Vicinity and Co-habitation they may ordinarily and conveniently meet together for divine Service which some of their Congregations cannot do section 2 The manner of gathering these Congregations is not in the same Vicinity or elsewhere to convert Heathens or Jews or Mahumetans or Papists to make them Christians Though no doubt some of them being pious and learned men if providence give them occasion would indeavour to do it But they gather Christians Protestant Christians from amongst Christians and such as they find fitted to their own hand without any pains of theirs but by the sweat and labour and care and prayers of some other faithful Pastours and Ministers of Christ under whose hands they formerly have been to whose charge they have been committed and under whose Ministery God hath prospered them These amongst others they either perswade to be of their Congregations or if they offer themselves voluntarily they admit them and this to the great grief of their own faithful Pastours When they accept of these they neither teach them any new Article of Faith which formerly they professed not nor press upon them any new Duty according to the Commandments of Christ which is either necessary or conducing to Salvation There is no essential of Christianity which they can superadd to what they had before Only if ceasing to be Episcopal or Presbyterian or Parochial they are willing to confederate with them to walk after their manner and be of their party they are willing to receive them If this be their manner of gathering Churches as it 's well known it is with some I dare say they have no Example much less any Precept in the Scripture for it They admit indeed of some which are very unworthy and such as many Presbyterians would not accept with hope that upon their solemn covenanting they will prove better I do not write this out of partiality or prejudice for some of that party are my special Friends and I dearly love them some are pious prudent and learned and I honour them much Yet I desire them seriously to consider what they do and also so far as they can to forecast what is likely to be the issue if they do not unite more firmly amongst themselves and combine with other pious Ministers and people of God both in Worship and Discipline For they may make perhaps five hundred or encrease to a thousand independent Congregations and can any wise man imagine that these can continue long without some Subordination and certain Rules of a former Union And can this be consistent with the interest of any Christian Civil State If they be searching out some better way according to the Rules of Christ with a sincere resolution to fix upon it when it 's once found as some of them do intimate they are their proceedings are more tolerable God hath fearfully punished divers of their Congregations and they have been divided amongst themselves and some of their Members fallen off and have proved far worse than ever they were whilest they continued under their own pious Ministers section 3 But to come to the principal thing which is their Congregational Extent for to that narrow compass they confine that Church which must be the primary subject of this power The Question is not whether
man was made 3. When Nations who knew not Christ should come unto him These I say were not fulfilled in the Apostles times 4. Many of the Primitive Christians after their conversion continued for a certain time without any set-form of external Government or perfect Rules of New-Testament-worship except to Word and Prayer were setled Hence those words of the Apostle The rest will I set in order when I come 4. Even within the compass of that time which the Scripture-History reacheth there was a great inequality in the Apostolical Churches for the number of the persons which was far greater in one Church than in another and in the same Church fewer at the plantation and far more numerous afterward For the Kingdom of God was like leaven which did spread and diffuse it self and to a grain of Mustard-seed which did grow mightily 5. After many of these became formal Polities they encreased so much that without divisions and subdivisions they could not be well ordered so as that every part should be subjected to the whole This Ecclesiastical History testifies 6. Seeing 1. That the inequality of the first Churches planted by the Apostles was so great in the former respects 2. That some of them were incompleat not fully formed not grown up to their full stature 3. That most of them did mightily encrease and enlarge afterwards 4. That the Prophesies of the glorious Enlargement of the Church began but to be fulfilled in the times of the Apostles therefore those first Churches as in the Apostles times could be no obligatory examples to us for matter of extent except with admission of some great latitude From all this it follows that the Rules whereby this Controversie must be decided must be the generals of decency and order so far as they may prove most efficaciously conducent unto the preservation and edification of the Body Yet we must have a special care to observe the Institution and the Examples agreeable thereunto And that Church which is ordered according to these Rules and most effectually tends unto these ends is the best and most approved of Christ. He doth not respect and value Churches as they are Congregational Presbyterian or Episcopal nor as of more narrow and larger compass nor as of less or greater number but as so ordered as to discover false Brethren reject Hereticks purge out the old Leaven cast out scandalous persons free from the Doctrine of Nicolaitans and Jezabel and keep themselves in Unity and Purity And surely as our Christian Profession is disgraced so is God highly displeased because we so miserably distract God's people and urge upon them such accidentals with so great importunity though they be neither essential nor necessary to good Government section 10 I might instance 1. In the Church of Israel which no doubt was National from the times of Moses till the Raign of Jeroboam all which time it continued entire in one body adequate to the State and was never divided into independent Congregations This example is not to be slighted as it is by some For this Church was modeled enlarged and confined by God himself neither was it in this particular any Type or Shadow of something to come which upon the coming of Christ and the Revelation of the Gospel was to vanish And this at least will prove that a National Church under one supream Judicatory is not unlawful in it self 2. I might add that it 's no where prohibited in the New Testament 3. That it 's agreeable to the Rules of Decency and Order 4. That it 's not contrary to the Institution 5. If the State be Christian it may have much help and many advantages from the State especially when the divisions of Church and State are the same But 6. If a Congregational Church may be lawful then a National may be so too And the reason of the consequence is because a National may be as easily and as well nay more easily and better governed than a single Congregation much more than thousands of independent Congregations in one and the same State. That the multitude of Christians in one Nation associating and uniting in one body and subjecting it self to one supreme Judicatory may be better ordered than many independent Congregations in the same Nation is evident For 1. they may be far more firmly united and far more free from Schisms and Separations 2. Order which is the life of Government may far more easily be established and observed 3. It will be far stronger to preserve it self from all opposition both within and without 4. It will be furnished with far more excellent persons endued with excellent qualities for to make Officers and Representatives 5. It will be of far more Authority 6. It will be far more able to reform and reduce into order the greater Multitudes and whole Congregations and the greatest persons 7. It will be far more able to receive Appeals to make Canons give Advice hear and determine the most difficult Causes and to execute their highest Judgments One reason of all this is because so many Gifts of the Spirit may be united in one To clear this more fully we may consider a difference 1. Between a single Congregation independent and a national Community under one and the same power of the Keys 2. Between a multitude of these independent Congregations supposing all the Christians of a Nation made up their several Polities and all the Congregations of a Nation united severally for Worship and some acts of Discipline yet all subject to one supreme Judicatory Ecclesiastical For the first difference it 's two-fold 1. In the number of persons 2. In the distance of place in respect of the parts and members of these Bodies both which if they be too great are thought to be impediments of Government As for the number of persons 1. They must not be too many as they ought not to be too few 2. They are far more for number in a National than in a Congregational Church 3. As for this great multitude of a Nation if not too vast reason and the same confirmed by experience will tell us that by distinction and a wise division with a co-ordination of parts equal and a subordination of the less to the greater and all the several parts unto the whole a multitude though of millions may be united into one organical Body and governed as one Man. And by the way we may take notice of a mistake in Mr. Hooker of New England who thinks that a Church or Community of Christians cannot be an organical Body till Officers be made whereas the making of Officers is an act of Administration and presupposeth the Constitution whereby it 's properly and formally organical before any act of Administration But to return that whereby so many are made one is order which unites Heaven and Earth and all things therein in one Body much more a petty multitude of Christians of one Nation This is apparent in all
be so much reason and wisdom in their Determinations as that they will bind more by vertue of the matter than the authority and votes of their persons We might add that in these Independent Congregations there is neither any conveniency or necessity that all the Members should meet either for Juridical or Legislative Acts though it be expedient that all should know what is done They call women and children together for Worship but not for matters of Judgement and Discipline It 's sufficient if such as are rational and judicious have suffrage in the same matters Marsilius in his Defensor Pacis determines the Power of Legislation to be in Populo aut civium universitate Yet he grants that the Laws may be made Per valentiorem partem or their Trustees and that what is so done by them is done by all But in this particular he excludes women children servants strangers though inhabitants if not incorporated likewise Mr. Parker who gives the whole and independent Power of the Keys into a Congregation under a Democratical form yet will have the exercise of this power in the Officers in an Aristocratical mode Seeing therefore that neither multitude of persons nor distance of place nor impossibility of a vertual and sufficient Convention of all the Members being the differences between a National and Congregational Church and conceived to be the impediments of good Government are no impediments I know no reason but that all the Christians of a Nation may be as well governed by a subjection to one supream Judicatory as a Congregation independent section 13 But let us oppose this National Community under one supream Tribunal to a thousand or more Independent Congregations as hitherto we have compared it with one single Congregation and then that which was affirmed will be more apparent For 1. a National Community Christian may have the same Members the same gifted Men the same Officers and the like Assemblies for Worship as subjected unto one Tribunal which the same number of Christians in the same nature divided into a thousand or more Independent Polities may have And the same gifted Men and Officers may act more effectually for the good of the whole when they are thus united then when scattered and divided like the vital Spirits in so many several Bodies For vis unita fortior and the being more firmly orderly and regularly united may more easily animate and effectually move and direct one body though great then so many bodies independent one upon another and severed though little 2. Again in this National Body every Congregation Classis Province may act order hear and determine matters belonging to their Cognisance and within their Precincts without troubling any general Representative except in the highest most difficult businesses of general concernment which with all extraordinary matters are reserved for that highest Assembly And all this is done according to the Rules of Government allowed by God and practised by the best Polities in the World. 3. The Congregationals grant that any of their single Congregations independent in a difficult point or business may take the advice of twenty thirty forty other Congregations or more yet if the Major part of them or all should agree and give their judgment that one Congregation shall not be bound by their advice but shall have power to judge against it or subscribe unto it seeing in this case no Scripture binds this or other Congregations to be independent or perhaps allow any such thing except in some extraordinary cases it were worth the serious consideration of wise men whether it be more agreeable to the Rules of good Government and the general Precepts of Church-discipline that one of these Congregations alone should have the power to determine and that finally this difficult cause and all the rest only to advise then that joyntly with this one all the rest and most of them as good and some perhaps better should have power not only to advise but determine And whether this determination of all joyntly were not likely to prove better and more effectual and more conducing to the end of Discipline than that Determination of one But against this two things may be said 1. That all those other Congregations may err but this is but to suppose and to suppose a thing both unlikely and extraordinary that forty well constituted Churches may err and that one be free from errour 2. By this it seems to follow that in some difficult cases one National Church may not only take the advice of many others but subject themselves unto them But 1. we are bound only to submit unto the Word of God made clear unto us though it be very likely that many seeking God and making right use of the means are more likely to find out truth and understand the Word of God better than one 2. I staid at a National Church and did not expatiate further because experience hath taught us how prejudicial it hath been even to this State to suffer Appeals to be made either unto Forreign Churches or States Neither is it fit in respect of the Civil Soveraign Christian that the Church within this State should any ways depend upon any other Church whatsoever section 14 I had said before that a national Multitude of Christians associated into one Body and subjected to one supream Power of the Keys may be as easily and as well governed and edified as if they were divided into many several Communities and independent Congregations Now I add that in divers cases they may be more easily and better governed and edified This might be made manifest 1. From the many conveniences which will follow from the Multiplication of Independencies in a national Church and Christian State all which by an internal connexion and subordination may be avoided Histories read with attention and understanding will manifest this and the experience of these times in our Church and Nation 2. From the disproportion and also the difference between the Church and State in respect of the extent and the multitude of independent Polities Ecclesiastical within the bowels of one entire Civil Common-wealth Christian. I do not mean that the Constitution of the Church and State should be the same so that if the State be Monarchical the Church should be such too or if Aristocratical it should be Aristocratical For though God hath determined the model of the Church yet he hath not so particularly defined the Constitution of the State. Neither do I affirm that the Church by any Divine Precept is bound to be co-adequate to the State only this I say it will be convenient advantagious to the Church and agreeable to the general Rules of Decency and Order 1. That it be co-adequate to the State. 2. That there be but one independent Church in in one national State except there be some special impediment But not to insist so much upon these a third and greater reason to prove this is taken from the insufficiency
is great danger to the Common-wealth therefore as every thing is armed with some power to defend it self so a sufficient strength is required in every political Body for to continue the safety thereof And this is a Sword not only of Justice but of War. This Sword of War especially cannot be well managed without a sufficient skill which cannot be had without instruction exercise and experience Hence the Art Military is not only useful but necessary in every well ordered State. One thing especially requisite in this profession is to have good Commanders men of valour and prudence able to lead and instruct others God himself would have Israel his own people a Warlike Nation Therefore after that he had given them possession of the Land of Canaan he left some certain Nations unsubdued only that the Generations of the Children of Israel might know how to teach them War at least such as knew nothing before of it Judg. 3.1 2. Those who lived in the times of Joshua were well experienced but the Generation following had no experience neither could they learn any without some Enemies constantly to exercise them Therefore though Wars be heavy Judgements yet it 's the will of God there should be warlike dissentions and that for many ends 1. To punish the wickedness of the World. 2. To let men know how sweet a blessing Peace is 3. To be a Nursery and School of breeding gallant men especially when he by them intends to do some great work In consideration of these things its good that any State in time of peace not only chuse Captains train Souldiers provide Arms but also send some into forraign Wars to learn experience Of this part of Institution as also of that of Learning you may read at large in Contzen Polit. lib. 4. lib. 10. Of the Laws of War Grotius may be consulted That some Wars are lawful especially such as are necessary and undertaken for our defence there 's no doubt and not only defensive but offensive arms may be justified out of the Holy Scriptures and from the Example of Abraham Joshua many of the Judges and David who were excellent Commanders under whom many gallant men served when God intended to ruin Judah he threatens to take away the mighty Man Esay 3.2 It 's a sad presage when the Gentry and Nobility of a Nation become vicious and effeminate and this was one cause of that heavy Judgment of God which many of them suffered in the late Wars Wherein England gained great skill and experience both by Sea and Land yet with the woful expence of much of her own blood And how happy had we been if so much valour had been manifested in the ruine of the Enemies of Christ and his Gospel Whosoever desires to understand more of this Subject as belonging to Politicks let him read Military Books If this be so necessary for the defence and safety of an earthly State how much more is the spiritual Militia necessary for the defence of our Souls section 18 There is another profession and the same useful for many things but in particular for to enrich the State it s that of Merchandise and Traffick These Merchants are of several sorts some deal in petty Commodities and sell by parcels some are for whole sale but the chiefest are such as are great Adventurers and Trade by Sea and Traffick with all Nations These are the great Monyed Men of the World who have great Princes and whole States their Debtors These furnish us with Rarities and Varieties of the Earth and enrich us with the Commodities of East and West South and North and the remotest parts of the World. These make new discoveries and might furnish us with many rare inventions Books and Arts but most intend rather private gain than publick good It were to be wished that our luxurious and wicked expences were turned another and better way to maintain Schollars in those Countries where they maintain Factours for the improvement of Learning and the propagation of Religion The King of Spain and the Jesuites are the only Politicians in this kind though it be a Question whether this profession be not derogatory to Nobility Yet King Solomon and Jehosaphat were Adventurers in Corporations and great Cities these Tradesmen and Merchants have their several Companies and their Orders and are called by some Systemes which cannot be well regulated without some Laws of the Soveraign power CHAP. XVI Of Subjects in an Ecclesiastical Politie section 1 OF subjection in general and subjection to a Civil Power I have spoken and because there is an Ecclesiastical power and subjection due unto it therefore order requires that I conclude the first part of Politicks with the explication of the nature of spiritual subjection and subjects This spiritual relation and duty arising from it presupposeth subjection 1. Absolute to God as Creatour and Preserver 2. To him as Redeemer 3. To Christ as Head and Universal Administratour of the Church and to him as having instituted an Ecclesiastical Discipline and promising to every particular Church using the Keys aright in their judical proceedings to be with them so as to make their judgment effectual and that what they bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and what they loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven So that this subjection is due to the power of Christ in every particular visible Church For when a multitude of Christians associate and according to the Rules of Christ erect an independent Judicatory it s the duty of every one in that Association to submit unto it if he will be a Member of the same and enjoy the benefit of that external Government and by the very institution of Christ though there be no solemn Confederation they are bound so to do This subjection is different from that which is due from the people to their proper Pastours The power external of the Keys as you heard is 1. In the whole Church particular according to the extent as the primary subject of the same 2. In the Representative exercising this power 3. In the Officers The Representative is either general to which every particular person must submit or particular to which the particular Members of that Association and Division are bound to submit and none else Submission is due unto the Officers according to their intensive and extensive power and no further The Rule and Measure of this subjection are the special or general precepts of Christ and his Apostles and if a Church or its Representatives or Officers transgress these precepts they cannot justly challenge any submission as due unto them In this respect its necessary there should be Canons to regulate both the fundamental and also the derivative power and the same agreeable to the Gospel The want of these and the observation thereof may be an occasion if not a cause of separation whereof the Church it self may be guilty and will prove so to be This subjection ariseth from this
consider the present distractions and examine himself how far he either is or hath been guilty and confess his sin to God desiring pardon and for time to come endeavour peace and supply the defects of understanding which in some things is the cause of difference in judgment with the greater measure of Charity For though we had less knowledge then we have and yet more charity the breaches of the Church might easily be made up Thus far I have digressed and enlarged upon this Subject out of a desire to perswade every Member of a particular Church to submit unto the lawful Power thereof and continue united in the same Body till God shall give a Command and Commission to come out or separate section 5 The end of this Discourse concerning the distinction of the subjects of the same Church is to shew the nature and measure of subjection and the manner how we become subjects and what the Duties of Subjects are Something might be added concerning the manner of Admission which Mr. Parker and so many of the Congregational Way do think was not good and allowable His and their Exceptions I will not here mention but will with them confess 1. That as they be born in such a Parish or forced by the Magistrate they could not be Members of the Church 2. That Baptism without instruction of such as are capable is not sufficient 3. That it 's fit that every one when they are instructed so as to understand the substance of the Covenant should publickly in their own persons profess their Faith and make their Vow 4. That when this is done some care should be taken of their lives that it may be known whether they walk according to their Profession and their Promise Yet this may be said that by good Ministers something to this purpose was done though by others it was neglected And the Church even from the first Reformation required and intended this in the strict command of Catechising and in Confirmation For though Confirmation was no Sacrament nor proper to a Diocesan Bishop by Divine Institution yet the end was good and the effect might have been happy if it had been duly observed For it would have so qualified the Members of the Church that we should not have had so many ignorant so many scandalous in every Parochial Precinct But it was either neglected or abused But because to be a right qualified Member of a visible Church is not sufficient let every one remember that it 's his duty to be a Citizen and Subject of Heaven and to live accordingly For as the Apostle saith Phil. 3.20 Our conversation is in heaven so we turn it though there may be more in the Original For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be turned Jus municipum aut civium aut municipatus as Hierome Tertullian and Sidonius understands it with Beza à Lapide Musculus Heinsius The sence is that we are Burgesses Denisons and Subjects of Heaven and incorporated into an Heavenly Politie therefore let our life be holy and heavenly and let us converse most and chiefly with God and remember that we are but Pilgrims and Strangers upon Earth and by the observation of the Laws of this heavenly Kingdom we tend to our abiding Mansions above And if our lives and carriage be such though men may persecute us cast us out separate from us refuse to admit us yet we know our God approves us we have fellowship with him and with Jesus Christ his Son whilst we walk in the Light as he is Light and in the end we shall be happy and our Joy will be full section 6 As the Subjects must be divided and subordinated in a Civil State so must they be in a Church The people of Israel were three times numbred and divided the first numbring was by tens hundreds and thousands that Moses might make Officers and Judges for the civil Government Exod. 18. The second which was most exact and purely Ecclesiastical as you may read in the four first Chapters of the Book of Numbers which was so entitled by the Septuagint because of this Numeration and Division of the People They were also numbred the third time Numb 26. The end of the second numbring was that they might according to an excellent order encamp about the Tabernacle and also march in order before and after it The first division upon the numeration was of the Body of Israel into two parts 1. That of the Levites which was subdivided into four parts The second of the other twelve Tribes in one body first separated from the Levites and this was subdivided into four Squadrons and in every Squadron three Tribes which acccording to their Ensigns quartered at a distance East West North South of the Tabernacle the Levites being within them The Description of the Universal Church Revel 4. as learned Men have observed alludes to this order And both these Scriptures teach us that without numeration division and subordination there can be no order in the Worship of God or the Government of the Church And the first thing done upon this division according to God's command was the removing of the Lepers and Unclean out of the Camp which was the more orderly and easily done upon the former division and doth teach what must be in the constitution of a Church and exercise of Discipline section 7 Of the division either of particular Churches of one City and the territories thereunto belonging or of several Churches in one Province according to the Cities of the several Provinces we read nothing at all in the Scripture Neither can any such thing be evidently and certainly proved from the seven Angels of the seven Churches of Asia the less now called Natolia As for the divisions made afterwards in the Roman Empire I shall say something anon The Church of England if we may believe Mr. Brerewood was anciently divided into three Provinces according to the three Provincial Cities York London Cacruske in Monmouth-shire though after that we find Valentia and Flavia Caesariensis added to make five of which divisions we find something in Cambden Yet afterwards we find another division of the whole Island into two Provinces York and Canterbury These were divided into several Diocesses the Diocesses into Archdeaconries the Archdeaconries into so many Rural Deanries the Rural Deanries into Parishes This was an orderly way and did facilitate Government much The Church of Scotland was divided into Provinces and Shires and upon the Reformation as some tell us these Shires into Classical Presbyteries but afterwards reduced in our times under a certain number of Bishops Yet Arch-Bishop Spoteswood inform us out of their publick Records that from the first Reformation they had Superintendents In the Reformation intended in England when Episcopacy was taken out of the way and the Presbytery introduced they divided the Church according to the Counties the Counties into Classes the Classes into Congregations The Subordination was of Congregations to a
from an inferiour to a provincial Synod and from the Provincial to the Patriarchal which was the highest Court except the Christian Emperours call a General Council And that was said to be a General Council which extended beyond the bounds of one Patriarchate especially if it included all 9. After these Patriarchates began to be such eminent places many ambitiously sought them and there was great contention amongst themselves who should be greatest and have the precedency Neither could General Councils by their determinations prevent them for time to come 10. The Patriarch of Rome though but at the first one of the three and afterwards of the five and according to some of the seven if you take in Justiniana Prima with Carthage did challenge the precedency and preeminency of them all And though the Council of Chalcedon gave the Constantinopolitan See equal priviledges with his yet he would not stand to their determination but afterward challenged greater power then was due began to receive Appeals from Transmarine parts beyond the bounds of his Diocess and to colour his Usurpation alledged a Canon of the Nicene Council which was not found in the Greek Original He will be President in all General Councils no Canons must be valid without his Approbation His Ambition aspires higher when the title of Universal Bishop had been denied the Patriarch of Constantinople by Gregory the Great Boniface his Successour assumes it And by degrees they who follow him usurpe the Power and at length the civil Supremacy is arrogated and the Roman Pontiffe must dispose of Kingdoms and Empires and will depose and advance whom he pleaseth And is not he the Man of Sin and the Son of Perdition who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God shewing himself that he is God 2 Thes. 2.3 4. From all which words he that goes under the name of M. Camillas defines Antichrist in this manner Antichristus est Pontifex maximus Elatione vicariatu assimulatione Christo oppositus lib. 1. c. 3. de Antichristo As the Roman State subdued and subjected unto themselves the former Empires and Monarchies of the World and this in themselves after that became Vassals and Servants unto one Absolute Imperial Monarch and by him Rome-Heathen raigned over the Kings of the Earth Revel 17.18 So in tract of time Rome-Christian usurped Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical over all Churches and her Patriarch swallowing up all the power of the former Patriarchs became Universal Monarch and Visible Head of the Universal Church The occasions true causes of this Usurpation and the means whereby he by degrees aspired to this transcendent power are well enough known Some will tell us that Episcopacy or rather Prelacy was the occasion at least of the Hierarchy and the Hierarchy of the Papacy For if there had not been a Bishop invested with power in himself and a provincial Jurisdiction given to one Metropolitan and many Metropolitans subjected to one Patriarch the Bishop of Rome could have had no advantage nor colour for his Usurpation This makes many prudent men jealous of Episcopacy especially as many understand a Bishop to be one invested with the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction and that by divine Law without the Presbytery Division and Subordination which are essential to Government could be no proper cause of the Papal Supremacy But the trusting of power Ecclesiastical in one man extending and enlarging the bounds of one particular Church and independent Judicatory too far and subordinating the People and Presbyters to the Monarchical Jurisdiction of one Bishop the several Bishops to one Metropolitan the several Metropolitans to one Patriarch and several Patriarchs to one Roman Pontiffe did much promote and effectually conduce to the advancement of one man to the Universal Vicarage At the first institution of the Hierarchy neither the people nor Presbytery were excluded the Patriarchates were of a reasonable extent the Patriarchs independent one upon another and the end intended was Unity and the prevention of Schism and the subordination seemed to be made out of mature deliberation Yet humane Wisdom though never so profound if it swerve from the Rules of divine Institution proves Folly in the end Let not all this discourage any Ecclesiastical Community or disswade them from division co-ordination subordination if so be they keep the power in themselves as in the primary Subject and reserve it to the whole and not communicate it to a part and keep themselves within a reasonable compass From all this we may conclude that a Secession from Rome and the rejection of his Ecclesiastical Supremacy if so be we retain the true Doctrine and pure Worship of God is no Schism especially in England For 1. there were many Provinces out of the great Patriarchate and no ways subject to any of them but they had their own proper Primates and Superindendents Amonst these England was one and by the Canon of Nice had her own Jurisdiction and was under no Patriarch but a Primate of her own 2. The Bishop of Rome was at first confined to that City and after he was made Patriarch he had but the ten Suburbicarian Provinces and the rest of the Provinces of Italy had Milan for their Metropolis 3. That after the Conversion of the Saxons that that Bishop should exercise any power in England was a meer Usurpation And to cast off an usurped power and the same Tyrannical could be no Schism at all There is a Book printed at Oxford in the year 1641 wherein we find several parcels of several Authors bound up in one The first Author is Dr. Andrews the second Bucer the third Dr. Reynolds the fourth Bishop Usher the fifth Mr. Brerewood the sixth Mr. Dury the seventh Mr. Francis Mason The design of the whole is to maintain Episcopacy and in part to prove the Hierarchy 1. Some of the formentioned Authors do grant with Hierome that the Church was first governed by the common advice of Presbyters though this position in strict sence is not true as hath been formerly proved 2. Some grant that at the first Institution of Bishops a Bishop was nothing else but a President or Moderator in Presbyterial Meetings 3. That afterwards these were constant and standing with a power of Suderintendency not only over the people but the Presbyters within a City and the Territory thereof 4. That when a Church was extended to a Province in the Metropolis thereof they placed a chief Bishop called a Metropolitan who had the precedency of all the other City Bishops 5. That these Bishops could do no common act binding the whole circuit without the Presbytery 6. That there were such Bishops and Metropolitans in the Apostles times thus Dr. Usher doth affirm and he quotes Ignatius to this purpose 7. That there was an imparity both in the State and Church of Israel under the Old Testament and so likewise
of the Ministers in the Church of the New Testament Thus Dr. Andrews 8. That most Reformed Churches have Bishops or Superintendents and something answerable to Bishops The design of all this seems to be this to prove that Episcopacy and Hierarchy are Apostolical and Universal Yet none of these produce any clear divine Testimony for this much less any divine Precept to make this Regiment to be of perpetual and universal Obligation Neither doth any of them all tell us distinctly what the power of Bishops of Metropolitans of Patriarchs was nor whether they exercised their power as Officers or Representatives or by an immediate Jus divinum derived from Christ unto them All that can be made clear is that some kind of Bishops may be lawful and have been ancient and of good use tho' of no necessity As for the Hierarchy it 's meerly Humane and being at first intended for Unity was in the end the cause of the most bloody Schisms that ever were in the Church and an occasion of intolerable Ambition Emulation and Contention section 10 Subjects Ecclesiastical being distinguished and divided must be educated and so I come to Education and Institution Tho' spiritual Education be far more useful and necessary yet we find most men more careful to improve their Children for this World than the World to come The reason is they seek these earthly things more than God's Kingdom love the World more than God and prefer their Bodies before their Souls we should provide for both yet for the one far more than the other For what will it avail us to be temporally rich and spiritually poor to gain the World and lose our Souls This therefore is a special work of the Church to educate her Children and nurse them up for Heaven and the Magistrate Christian is bound to further her in this work Adam tho' Lord of the whole Earth and one who might give his Chrildren far greater Estates in Land than any man ever could yet brought them up not in idleness but honest labour But his principal care was to teach them how to serve their God and when they were at age to bring their Offerings before him God saith of Abraham I know him that he will command his children and his houshold after him and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him Gen. 18.19 Joshua saith As for me and mine house we will serve the Lord Josh. 24.15 It was the command of God that Israel should diligently teach their Childrin the words of God and talk of them when they sit in their houses and when they went abroad and at their lying down and rising up Deut. 6.7 How often doth Solomon exhort to this duty and earnestly perswade all especially Children to hearken unto understand remember and constantly follow the Instruction of their Parents and their Teachers This was the care of Moses of Joshua the Judges and good Kings of Judah For this end the Priests Levites and Scribes were ordained of God and the Schools of the Prophets were erected for this work This was one prime work of the Levite to teach Jacob God's Judgments and Israel his Laws Deut. 33.10 This same commandment of spiritual Education is repeated in the New Testament Parents must bring up their Children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. This was the great work of Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers For they must not only pray but teach and labour not only for conversion but the edification of the Churches children Every Christian should help and further one another in this work As Parents in their Families should have knowledge and be able to instruct their Children so all Schools should have a care to inctruct the Schollars not only in Languages and humane Learning but also in the saving Doctrine of Salvation This was the reason why by the Canons of the Church they were bound to Catechise the Children committed to their charge The Universities and Colledges were bound to this likewise and were Seminaries not only for Lawyers Philosophers and Physitians but especially for Divines who though they improved their knowledge in Arts and Languages yet it was in subordination to their diviner and more excellent Profession To this Head belongs correction good example and prayer For the principal Teacher is the Spirit who must write God's truth in the heart and make all means of Education effectual The publick and principal Officers trusted by Christ with this work are the Ministers of the Gospel whose work is not meerly and onely to preach and expound but to catechise In these works we are either very negligent or imprudent For we should plant and water and pray to God for the encrease we should lay the foundation and build thereon yet some will do neither some will preposterously water before they plant and build before they lay the foundation and so do Christ little service and the Church little good Some â—ake upon them the Charge and are insufficient Men may teach by word or writing By word first the principle should be methodically according to the ancient Creeds and Confessions be taught this is the foundation Without this Sermons Expositions reading of Scriptures and Books of Piety will not be so profitable and edifying as they might be People should be taught to believe the saving and necessary truths of the Gospel obey his commands pray for all blessings and mercies and especially for the Spirit that their faith may be effectual their obedience sincere and also to receive the Sacrament aright and make right use of their Baptism Expositions should be plain and clear that the people may not only hear but understand and be moved by the truth understood Sermons should be so ordered as that the Texts proposed and the Doctrines and divine Axiomes thereof may be cleared understood according to the drift and scope of the Spirit And the application should be pertinent to inform the understanding with the truth and remove errours and when that is done to work effectually upon the heart and make it sensible of sin past and pertinent by the precepts the comminations and the promises to comfort and raise up the soul dejected and this especially by the promises of the Gospel and upon motives to exhort to duty and upon reasons restrain from sin This Ordinance and means of divine institution is much abused many ways by instilling of erroneous and novel opinions with which the people are much taken if delivered with good language by impertinencies digressions quaint terms and formalities But of these things I have spoken in my Divine Politicks This institution is so necessary that without it the Church cannot subsist nor the Government thereof be effectual section 11 Thus you have heard that the subject or as some call it the object of Politicks is a Common-wealth the subject whereof is a Community
of the same much and dangerously corrupted many things may be lawfully done which under a well-setled Government will prove very unlawful For though where there is no outward form of ordinary Vocation and Ordination established that which Volkelius maintains against Swinglius for one that is vitae inculpatae idoneus ad docendum to take upon him the charge of a Minister and do Christ what service he is able may be lawful Yet to do so where there is an Eutaxie in a setled Church must be unjust because amongst other things such an one shall trangress the Rule of Decency and Order 14. Though Christ and his Apostles did deliver unto us all the essential and fundamental Rules of Church-Government and we find them in the Scripture yet many accidentals were left to sanctied reason to be directed to the general Rules And in this respect we must make use of our Christian prudence both in modelling and reforming of Christian Churches But if we stand upon these Rules of prudence in accidentals and circumstantials as of Divine Institution and Obligation we cannot be excused 15. Though there may be several orderly ways and means to attain the chief end of Church-discipline yet those are the best which most observe the essentials of Government and the general Rules and are most effectually conducing to that end 16. Seeing therefore there may be several and different means in respect of accidentals and they severally may attain and reach the end it 's the duty of us all 1. To unite our selves in the bond of Charity 2. Observe the fundamental and essential Rules of Government which are clearly known 3. With a meek humble and pure heart seek out such particulars as are not yet made clear unto us and wherein we may differ for the present till at length we may satisfie one another CHAP. XIV Of the extent of a Particular Church section 1 AFter the examination of the several Titles of such as challenge the supream Power of the Keys and the declaration of mine own Judgment the third thing proposed was the Extent of a particular Church That there is a supream power of the Keys that there is a primary subject of this power that this power is in the Church that it 's disposed in this Church in a certain order and manner in one or more purely or mixtly few if any will deny But that it is disposed in the whole Church after the manner of a free State so that every particular Christian Community is the primary subject of it is not so easily granted though I conceive it as many other worthy and excellent men do to be truth delivered unto us by Christ and his Apostles Yet let this be agreed upon yet there is another difference concerning the bounds and extent of this Church This is not the proper place I confess to handle this particular For extent presupposeth a Church constituted and in being and it 's an accident of the same therefore pars subdita which is the second integral part as of a State so of a Church should first have been spoken of In this point I find a threefold difference for some extend this Church which is the primary subject of the power of the Keys very far and make it to be the universal Church of all Nations Others confine it to be a single Congregation A third party will admit of a Diocess or a Province or a Nation and be contented to stay there This Question if we understand it presupposeth Union and Communion There is an Union and also a Communion in Profession and Worship an Union Mystical an Union in Government external which we call Discipline An Union in Profession and Worship there is and ought to be of all Orthodox Christians in the World. For they all profess the same Faith and worship the same God in Christ hear the same Word celebrate the same Sacraments It 's true they do not neither can they so meet in one place as to partake of the same individual Ordinances for there is no necessity of any such thing Yet whosoever shall refuse to joyn in the same individual Worship of the same God in Christ according to the Gospel when it may be done as when one converseth with Christians in some remote parts he cannot be free from Schism For all refusal of Communion with Christ's Saints and Servants without just and sufficient cause is a Schism So if any party or persons shal not admit of other Christians only upon this account because they agree not with them in some accidentals which are neither necessary nor in themselves considered conducing to Salvation they must needs be Schismaticks For any Separation which hath not sufficient and evident warrant from some Divine Precept is unlawful There is a mystical Union of all true Believers for there is one body one spirit one hope of calling one Lord one faith one baptism one God and Father of all who is above all through all in all Ephes. 4.4 5 6. There is an Union for Government external of this the question is to be understood And this Union is so necessary in every Common-wealth whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that it 's no Common-wealth if it be not one and so one that every particular person especially in a Church be subject to one and the same supream independent Judicatory Concerning the universal Extent there are as you heard before two Opinions They first make one Church the Church of Rome to have power over all other Churches and invests the Bishop of that Church with an universal power of Legislation and Jurisdiction this is a Popish Errour indeed The second Opinion subjects all particular Churches to the universal whereof they are but parts this is no Popery nor do the present Popes and Church of Rome like it This universal Church cannot act but by a general Representative and such a general Representative there yet never was since the Church was enlarged from Sea to Sea and from the River unto the World's end Such a general Council and Court either standing or occasional few I think do expect As for the Councils of Nice Chalcedon Ephesus Constantinople they were no such Councils nor general in proper sence they were confined within the Roman Empire and if well examined they left out several parts of that too The meaning therefore of some who submit particular Churches to the universal is this That so many several parts and particular Churches as can combine in one Synod may in some extraordinary cases and difficulties especially if they be of general concernment submit unto such a Synod as being of greater authority and ability if rightly constituted Yet if these particular Churches have their proper independent Judicatories this submission is but a voluntary act and rather like a Reference or Transaction than any Appeal When and in what cases such References are fit to be made I will not here enquire Besides these Universalists if we