ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted c. Where 1. Many by the Holy Ghost understand spiritual power or power of and from the Spirit 2 This power is not a power of Ordination or Jurisdiction in foro exteriori but a power of Remission and Retention of sins in foro interiori poenitentiali as the Schoolmen and Casuists speak 3. They remit and retain sins by the Word and Sacraments Therefore in the ordination of Presbyters both in the Pontifical of Rome and our Ordination-book these words are used and after them are added with some ceremony this passage Be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and his holy Sacraments And again the Bible delivered into the hands of the party ordained Take thou authority to preach the Word of God and to administer the Holy Sacraments 4. This is the power of the Keys promised Matthew 16.19 which place he himself understands of Conversion by the Word 5. This is the essential power of a Presbyter as a Presbyter section 6 In the third place as neither the context antecedent nor consequent help him so neither do the words themselves For except the similitude and agreement between his Fathers Mission and his be Universal and adequate or some ways specifically determined unto this particular imparity of the twelve and seventy and also of Bishops and Presbyters his Exposition can never be made good That it is not Universal is evident and that by his own Confession who tells us that the Father sent Christ to redeem but Christ never sent the Apostles to do any such thing As and So are notes of similitude indeed and therefore his Fathers Mission of him and his Mission of the Apostles must agree in something And so they do 1. He was sent so were they 2. He received the Spirit so did they 3. He was sent to preach and do miracles so were they 4. His Mission was extraordinary so was theirs Sicut est nota similitudinis and as a Lapide saith may signifie similitudinem Officii principii finis miraculorum amoris yet none of these can serve his turn Therefore saith Grotius and that truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliquam non omnimodam similitudinem significat Gerrard upon the same words as used by our Saviour Joh. 17.18 multiplies the analogy and makes these two missions agree in fifteen particulars yet he never thought of this Christ as he observes was sent 1. To redeem 2. To preach the Gospel so they were sent not to redeem but to preach and did succeed him not in his sacerdotal but prophetical Office by the Word and Sacraments to apply the Redemption not as Priests to expiate sins Seeing therefore the analogy is not universal nor any ways by the Context antecedent or consequent or the Text it self determined to this particular but to another as is apparent therefore his Exposition is frivolous his Supposition false and the Text no ground of an Hierarchical Episcopacy Yet he proceeds to prove this imparity from examples 1. Of Peter and John sent to Samaria that by imposition of hands as of Bishops they whom Philip had converted as a meer Presbyter might receive the Holy Ghost 2. From Barnabas sent as a Bishop as he takes for granted to Antioch to confirm the believing Jews converted by the dispersed Saints in that Faith they had received But will it follow that Peter and John and Barnabas were Bishops invested with the power of ordination and jurisdiction because they were sent by the Church of Jerusalem not to ordain or make Canons or censure but by imposition of hands and prayer give the Holy Ghost and confirm the new Converts of Samaria and Antioch how irrational and absurd is this 3. He instanceth in Timothy left by Paul at Ephesus and Titus left by him at Creet to ordain Elders and order other matters of those Churches not fully constituted and perfected for Doctrine Worship and Discipline But let it be granted that they had power of Ordination and Jurisdiction yet 1. It will not follow from hence that because they had it therefore Presbyters had it not Nor 2. That they had it without Presbyters where Presbyters might be had Nor 3. That they had it as Bishops which is the very thing to be proved 4. The plain truth is that they had it in those places and for that time as commissioned and trusted by the Apostle to do many things in that Church according to the Canons sent them by the Apostles which they had no power to make themselves Dr. Andrews taking all Apostolical power to be divine affirms Episcopacy to be a distinct order and of divine institution and grounds himself upon the testimony of Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius Hierome Ambrose Chrysostome Epiphanius and Theodoret who all write that Ignatius Polycarpus Timothy Titus and others were made Bishops and of a distinct Order above Presbyters by the Apostles themselves Yet 1. If he mean by Apostolical whatsoever is done by the Apostles then many things Apostolical are not Divine much less of Divine Institution and Obligation For many things were done by them in matters of the Church by a meer ordinary power 2. The testimony of all these Fathers is but humane and according to his own rule cannot be believed but with an humane and fallible Faith Et quod fide divina non credendum fide divina non agendum 3. If he meant that those had power of Ordination and Jurisdiction as Bishops he contradicts himself affirming that this power of the Keyes was given immediately by Christ not to Peter not to the Apostles but to the Church and the Church had it to the Church it was ratified the Church doth exercise it and transfer it upon one or more qui ejus post vel exercendae vel denunciandae facultatem habeant Tortura Torti p. 42. So that none can have it but as delegates of the Church not as Bishops or Officers section 4 The last instance from Scriptures is in the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia and he affirms these were Bishops But 1. So they might be and yet only Presbyters 2. Suppose they were more then Presbyters and super-intendents at least it doth not follow they were Hierarchical Bishops For if they were it must appear from some divine Record or else how can I certainly believe it 3. Let them be Hierarchical Prelates yet it must be made evident by what warrant and institution they became such The institution must be grounded either upon the practise or precepts of Christ or his Apostles yet all these grounds have been formerly examined But 4. Doth any man think that these Letters and Messages were sent only to seven Persons who were Bishops It s evident and clear as the Sun they were directed to the whole Churches to the Ministers which are called by the name of Angels and to the people For the whole Church of Ephesus of Smyrna and of the rest is
some consideration or because the Apostles were in it and acted as Extraordinary Ministers of Christ invested with an Universal power over all Churches or because they were received afterwards in every particular Church or because the matter was determined in Scripture and out of it declared to be the mind of God which seems to be implied in these words It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us ver 28. For all Canons should be so made as to be clearly grounded upon some special or general precepts of Scripture which were revealed by the Holy Ghost for they should bind more in respect of the matter and the reason upon which they are grounded than in respect of the multitude of Votes For one good reason from the Scriptures is more binding than the consent of all general Councils in the World. Another Query there is why this Controversie should be determined at Jerusalem and not at Antioch or any where else whether it was because that was the Mother-Church or because the Apostles were there at that time resident or because other Churches were not so fully constituted or because there might be there representatives from all other Churches or because they who sprang the Controversie at Antioch came from Jerusalem and pretended the Authority of the Apostles and of that Church and because it was agreed at Antioch to refer the cause to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem Besides all these there is another doubt concerning the Members which did constitute this Synod whether the Apostles only or the Apostles with the Elders or besides these the Brethren as distinct from them or whether if all these were of the Synod the Elders and Brethren had any decisive voice or no But to leave these doubts It s certain out of the Text. 1. That upon a controversie raised at Antioch by some who came from Jerusalem it could not be after much disputation there ended 2. That it was agreed that Paul and Barnabas with others of them should go unto Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders about this Question 3. When these Delegates came to Jerusalem they were received of the Church the Apostles and Elders 4. Upon this and them acquainted with the controversie the Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter 5. In this Assembly after much disputation both Peter and James gave strong reasons why Circumcision and the Ceremonies of the Law should not be imposed upon the believing Gentiles 6. Upon these convincing reasons it pleased the Apostles and Elders and the whole Church to send special Messengers and Letters concerning the definitive sentence of the Councel unto Antioch 7. The Synodical Letters were written in the name of the Apostles Elders and Brethren in this stile It pleased us and seemed good unto us Divers particulars are here observable as 1. That we do not read that Paul acted any thing as a Judge in this controversie joyntly with the rest of the Synod and perhaps the reason might be because he was considered as a party for no man not an Apostle should be judge and party in the same cause 2. That the Apostles did not act as immediately inspired in this particular and according to any extraordinary but an ordinary Ecclesiastical power for there was much disputation 3. They did not suddenly and instantly proceed to vote the matter but they met to consider of it and debated and disputed much before they determined 4. The determination was not grounded upon the multitude of Votes but upon Divine Revelation and Scripture though not expresly yet by way of consequence as appears both from the words of Peter and of James 5. That which is the principal thing for which this Text is alledged is this that the controversie is not refered to one Apostle as to Paul alone or Peter alone or James alone but to the Apostles joyntly and not to them alone but to the Elders nor to them and the Elders alone but to them with the Bretheren and the whole Church 6. That all these gave their consent for it pleased the Apostles and Elders and the whole Church If Peter alone had been made Judge then the Pope if only the Apostles then the Bishops if the Elders alone then the Presbytery if the Bretheren alone then the People would have challenged every one severally the Legislative power in Synods to themselves alone Lastly by this we learn upon what occasion such great Assemblies are requisite if not necessary we might add that they convened by the permission not commission of the Civil Power section 11 By this you understand how and by whom the Legislative Power was exercised Of the exercise of the second branch of power in making Officers we read Acts 1.15 For 1. Upon the death of Judas one of the sacred Colledge of the Apostles a place was void This was the occasion 2. Peter conceives that another must be surrogated and succeed him in that place 3. In an Assembly of an hundred and twenty as a Chair-man he proposeth the matter 4. Acquaints them with the occasion of a new Election and lets them understand the necessity of it saying There must one be Ordained as a Witness with us of Christ's Resurrection The reason he concludes from these words of Psal. 119.8 His Office Charge or Bishoprick let another take By which words God signifies and commands that upon the death of Judas another must take the Charge with the rest of the Apostles 5. Upon this the Assembly proceeds without any Conge-disler or Lience from any other to the Election and propose two Justus and Matthias both well qualified and in that equality that they knew not whether to prefer 6. Because they could not determine whether was the fitter nor upon a Determination give a Commission to make an Apostle therefore by prayer and lot they refer and commit the cause to God who chuseth Matthias In this Election divers things are considerable 1. That if Matthias and Justus were of the number of the seventy Disciples as it 's very probable if not certain there was an imparity between the twelve Apostles and seventy Disciples in respect of their place yet what this imparity was and whether it should continue in the ordinary Officers of the Church succeeding them is not here expressed 2. That the Election of the highest Officer in the Church even of an Apostle was committed to this Assembly as fit to judge of his Qualifications 3. That none should take upon them to elect a Minister or Officer of the Church who is not able to judge of his fitness for the place 4. That God gives none any power to elect or ordain and constitute any a Minister Officer or Representative of the Church who is not duly qualified for to do the work of the place for which he was elected Justus and Matthias must be able with the Apostles to bear witness of the Resurrection of Christ. 5. The principal thing for the point in hand to be observed
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
them even but one from the Soveraign he is an imperfect Soveraign take away all he ceaseth to be a Soveraign Again the Subject of Majesty and of all the rights and parts thereof must be only one either Physically or Morally If you divide the Subject you destroy them For if in this Common-wealth we give part of these to the King part to the Peers part to the Commons we make it a Babel and destructive of it self For suppose the King have the Militia to himself he may command the Purse make void the Laws revoke Judgments reject Parliaments and none can hinder him because neither Peers nor Commons have any right to the Sword whereby to defend themselves Therefore little heed is to be given to that Book or bitter Invective entitled Elenchus motuum nuperorum which informs from the Lawyers if we may believe him that these Soveraign Rights were thus divided 6. From this that it 's Indivisible follows it that it 's incommunicable For to whomsoever they are communicated they cease to be Subjects and the Soveraign to be a compleat Soveraign and this Communication tends to the dissolution of the Government 7. It 's perpetual that is fixed in a certain subject to continue in the same according to the fundamental Laws of Constitution Therefore the Temporary or occasional power though very great of a Dictatour or Regent or Protectour who are but trusted with it for a time in extraordinary cases and upon occasion cannot be Majesty when there is an Interregnum or suspension of the Government by reason of Sedition Faction Rebellion Civil War or some other cause it 's good and expedient for the safety of a State to set up some extraordinary Governour or Governours trusted for a time with transcendent Power till the State disturbed and not capable of any Union be setled which done that Power doth cease and Majesty is fixed in his proper primary and constant subject that the Government may run in the old Channel except they intend to make an alteration of the Constitution section 15 There is another kind of personal Majesty inferiour to and different from the former We find it in some Princes of Europe as in the Emperour of Germany the Kings of Denmark Sweden Poland and England For our Kings had not only the title of Majesty but some power with the title For in the intervals of Parliament he was Soveraign alone and all and every one yea the greatest were his subjects He called and summoned Parliaments made all Officers by sea and land sent and received Ambassadours conferred all Honours the subjects sware Allegiance to him His Dignity was eminent his State great and so many advantages he had that if he should have used them all he might easily have undone his subjects and so have undone himself Yet he had not the power of the purse He was sworn to corroborate the just Laws and Customs which the people had chosen In the Parliament he made a third party yet so that neither in acts of Lawes or Judgement could he do any thing without the Peers and Commons and as Sir Roger Owen in his Manuscript observes together with them he was greater than himself Yet as Kings have sometimes curbed Parliaments so Parliaments have Kings and disposed of the Militia the Navy the Ports the chief Offices Nay they have sometimes judged Kings accusing them of acting against the fundamental Constitution and challenging such Power as tended to the dissolution of the same and have deposed them But of this particular something may be said hereafter these kinds of Soveraigns have so much power whether more or less as the Constitution gives them yet it will be a difficult thing to keep them within their bounds CHAP. V. Of the manner how Civil Power is acquired WHat the Nature of Power in general and Majesty Civil is hath been declared The next thing to be considered is the Subject who from it is denominated a Soveraign and we must enquire first how this Power is acquired 2. How disposed in a certain Subject As for the acquisition it 's certain Man as Man or as a Member of a Community cannot have it from himself but it must be communicated to him from God who being the Universal Soveraign is the Fountain and Original of it and derives some part of it unto Man and a greater measure unto Mortal Soveraigns than other Men. Yet he doth not this immediately but mediately for the most part It 's extrinsecal and comes aliunde not only unto Men but Angels A Paternal Power which is more Natural is acquired by Generation though sometimes by Adoption This Generation from divine Benediction is the seminary of all Societies which as Societies and Communities may be so disposed and compleat as virtually to contain in them a Power of a Common-wealth and by a general consent constitute an actual Soveraign The Soveraign before he was made such was not invested with Majesty but it was extrinsecal unto him And here that distinction between the Power it self the Designation of the Persons Governing and the Form of Government is worthy taking notice of The Designation of the Persons and the Form of Government is from God leaving Man at Liberty but not so the Power which is more from him than the other two Though the parties justly possessed of power may be thought to have the propriety of it yet they have not any for let it be never so firmly conveyed upon them by designation and submission yet they are but trusted with it Princes tell us they hold their Crowns and Kingdoms per Deum Gladium If they mean that they derive their power from God so as that they neither receive nor hold it from the Bishops of Rome or the Emperour or any other Mortals it may be true yet they have their power so from God that they are invested with it by Humane Designation And as for their Sword it may by a Conquest make way for a Government but it cannot constitute it The fundamental Charter of all Civil Majesty is the fifth Commandment taken in a large sence and understood by other Scriptures which speak more expresly and distinctly of Civil Government In this Commandment including much more by Analogy than is expressed we may observe that there is a power of Superiority and Excellency as in Fathers so in the Princes and Rulers of the World and that from God who made them Men Fathers Princes 2. That all Government should be Paternal Not that the first-born of the most ancient Family in every Tribe Kinred Nation should be a Soveraign for that we seldom find but that they should as Fathers love their Subjects and seek their Good and tender them as Fathers do their Children 3. That by virtue of Gods Command so soon as they are actually Governours Honour and Subjection are due unto them 4. That all Vicinities as far as they are able ought first to associate and then establish an
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
Classis of the Classis to a Provincial Synod of a County of these Provincial Synods to a general Assembly section 8 Of the division of the Church within the Roman Empire we may read in several Histories both Civil and Ecclesiastical and in the Acts and Canons of several Councils And from this division Hierarchy which is Ancient derives its Original To understand this you must know that Hierarchy presupposeth Episcopacy For before there were Bishops there could be no Subordination of Inferiour or Superiour Bishops What these Bishops were and how they did first arise and what their power was the Scripture saith nothing much less gives any Divine precept special for the Institution of them or the manner of their Consecration That of Timothy Titus and the Angels of the Churches will not evince any such thing as hath been said before That there were Bishops anciently and betimes in the Christian Church within the Roman Empire cannot be doubted if humane story be of any force After these Bishops whom the general rule of decency and order together with the light of reason might manifest to be convenient were multiplied according to the number of the Cities wherein Christian Churches were planted set up in these Cities and these Cities Subordinated unto others in the same Province these Bishops began to be Subordinate to the Arch-Bishops For as a Bishop is one above a multitude of Presbyters so an Arch-Bishop is one above a multitude of Bishops The Bishop of the chief City and Metropolis in a Province was called a Metropolitan The Bishop of the chief City of a Diocess of the Roman Empire was called a Primate or Patriarch By Diocess you must not understand an Episopal Diocess but a far greater compass For the Roman Empire was first divided into Diocesses the principal whereof were three one in Asia another in Africk as now we understand it another in Europe These greater circuits were divided into Provinces as we read the Empire of Persia was parted into an hundrd twenty seven Provinces in the Reign of Abasuerus And some tell us that the Provinces of the Roman Empire were at first an 120. The chief City of the Asian Diocess was Antioch of the Aegyptian and African Alexandria of the European Rome According to these three Cities where the great Officers of the Empire kept their Residence were set up three Patriarchs one of Rome one of Alexandria one of Antioch and all the City Bishops and Provincial Metropolitans were under these if they were within that division as there were several Provinces out of these Diocesses as that of Carthage in Africk of York in Britain Justiana Prima in Dacia To the three Patriarchates in after-time were added other two as that of Constantinople or New Rome and that of Jerusalem The first division and subordination of the Church was made about the time of the second Century and followed the division of the Empire that then was and as then divided Yet it did not reach the whole Empire though there might be Christians in all the parts thereof and many more far beyond the bounds thereof That there was such an Hierarchical Order before the great Council of Nice is evident from divers Canons of the same and continued after as appears by the Council of Chalcedon and Constantinople and others What the limits and bounds of the first three Patriarchates were we may read in some Authors But you must know that this division of the Empire was several times altered by divers of the Emperours even by Constantine himself so that the Ecclesiastical Division and Model could not be always exactly conformable unto it Of this model Spalatensis saith but little Mr. Brerewood a little more Dr. Reynolds is very brief Dr. Usher is a little more large in his Lydian or Proconsular Asia Yet far more might be discovered of these particulars both out of Humane and also Ecclesiastical Histories section 9 This little may give us some light in the matter of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Observe therefore first That supposing Bishops some ways in a large sence to be jure divino above Presbyters yet as Spalatensis affirmeth they by divine Law are equal amongst themselves For if they succeed the Apostles though some grant primatum ordinis yet there is no Primacy of Jurisdiction of one above another For Peter's Supremacy asserted by the Romans can have no sufficient ground in Scripture Ignatius in his Palma Christiana doth maintain the title of Arch-bishop and goes about though very weakly to prove even out of the Scriptures that Primates are jure divino yet he seems to understand by Primacy that only of order but he is hardly worth the taking notice of 2. That yet before the Nicene Council there was an Hierarchy of the Church in some parts of the Roman Empire for there were Bishops Metropolitans Patriarchs 3. This Hierarchy was a conforming of the Church in division and subordination to the Civil State of the Empire For as the State was divided first into greater parts called Diocesses and the Diocesses into Provinces and the Provinces into Cities and their Territories so the Church was divided As the Cities their Officers were subordinate to the Provincial Officer who did reside in the Metropolis of the Province and the Officers provincial were under the power of the chief Officer who kept his residence in the chief City of the Diocess so the City Bishops were subject to the Metropolitan of the Province and the Metropolitans of the Provinces to the Patriarch residing in his Patriarchal City 4. Tho' this was a prudential Order and good for Administration yet it was but humane in the State and also humane in the Church For in neither was it of divine Institution For if it had been such they could not justly have altered it as they did afterwards in several places 5. That therefore the Episcopal Hierarchy though ancient and of long continuance yet is not of divine Authority neither do we find any divine Ordination for it 6. Therefore the Argument from Episcopacy to Hierarchy is gross For a Bishop was before a Metropolitan or Patriarch and though some kind of Bishop should be of divine Institution yet an Hierarchical Bishop may be and is an humane invention 7. It was not thought good to erect one supreme independent Judicatory Ecclesiastical in the whole Roman Empire For they made three Patriarchs independent one upon another and if they had all been put in one yet many parts of that Empire and of the Church within it had been without those bounds 8. Whether the Patriarchs at first had Jurisdiction over the Metropolitans and the Metropolitans over the Bishops and they over the Presbyters is very uncertain And if they had no Jurisdiction according to this subordination there could lie no Appeal from the Bishop to the Metropolitan nor from the Metropolitan to the Patriarch It 's likely that the power was in Synods and men might Appeal