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
really contradicted by violent storms so it falls out here I hoped to have landed in a Region of perpetual peace but I was found in a Terra del Fuego a land of fire and smoak like unto Palma one of the seven Canary Islands where in September 1646 or thereabouts a fire first raged fearfully in the bowels of the earth and at length brake out and ran in five several fiery sulphurious streams into the main In like manner this power of the Keys runs in five several Channels but very turbulently and impetuously For the Pope the Prince the Prelate the Presbyter the Plebean rank do every one of them severally challenge it and nothing under a Jus divinum will serve the turn Therefore I will 1. Examine their several Titles 2. Deliver mine own judgement 3. Add something of the extent of a particular Church section 2 And this shall be my Method and the several Heads of my ensuing Treatise before I enter upon the second part of the Constitution of a Common-wealth which is Pars subdita The first title is that of the great Roman Pontiffe who perhaps will storm and that with indignation against any who shall presume to examine it This Bishop is the greatest Prelate and Clergy-man in the world And as old Rome from a poor beginning and a few people became the Imperial City of the world so this Prelate from a poor pesecuted Minister of the Gospel attained to this pitch of glory and contrary to the example of Christ and his Apostles lives in so great splendour pomp and State terrene that the Princes of the world cannot parallel him and for the power which he doth exercise and challange he his far above them His Court is very magnificent and cannot be maintained without a vast Revenue Some say that he is that second beast which came out of the earth and had two horns of a Lamb but spake as a Dragon and exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him c. Rev. 13.11 12. His name is Satanos his number 25. He assumed the title of Universal Bishop about the year of our Lord 666. So that his number in the name in the radical sum and in the time of his appearance is 666. And for orders sake I might 1. Observe the power 2. Relate the several reasons whereby the title to this power is confirmed 3. Examine whether they be sufficient or no 1. The power which is challenged is transcendent and very great and that not only extensively but intensively too it 's such as men never had and therefore could never give And therefore though he came out of the earth yet he derives it from Heaven To be the first Patriarch of the Imperial See will not serve the turn neither will he be content to be a man and fallible he must be infallible Neither will this satisfie him he must be the visible Head of the Universal Church universal Bishop and Monarch over all persons all Churches in all Causes Ecclesiastical Nay this Power is so extensive that he must have something to do in Heaven and much to do in Hell. He must be above all General Councils They cannot Assemble Conclude Dissolve without his power He must be President all Canons and Judgments which they pass without him are of no force and only what he approves is valid His very Letters must be Laws and if he please of Universal Obligation His Reservations and Dispensations are very high his judgments irreversible he receives last appeals from all Churches in the World he Judgeth all is Judged of none His power to execute is strange and his policy wonderful He hath plenitude of power Ecclesiastical Yet this will not suffice him he hath acquired temporal Dominions and is a secular Prince And because his Territories are not large he hath found out a way to possess himself of the Sword and all temporal power in ordine ad spiritualia must be his section 3 But what are the reasons whereupon this vast power is grounded Surely they do build upon a rock and not upon the sand Their reasons are taken from Politicks from the ancient Writers and from Scriptures too 1. From Politicks they take this for granted that amongst humane Governments Monarchy is the best 2. That amongst Monarchies Despotical excels this they dare not expresly affirm yet the papal power which is challenged is such 3. That if Monarchy be the best then surely the Government of the Church is Monarchical for that being instituted from Heaven must needs be the most perfect 4. That the first Monarch visible of the Church was Peter 5. That Peter was made such by Christ and received a power to transmit it to others and appoint his Successours 6. That he fixed his See at Rome and made the Bishop of that City his Heir so that he is haeres ex asse 7. That so soon as any person is legally elected Bishop of that See he is ipso facto the Universal Monarch and the proper subject of plenitude of all Ecclesiastical power 2. The Epithetes the Elogies the Encomiums of the Bishop and the See of Rome are collected out of ancient Writers and marshalled in order and they make a goodly show and who dare say any thing against them 3. Yet because these are not of divine Authority therefore they search the holy Scriptures and find it written that Peter was the only person and Apostle to whom Christ gave the Keys of Heaven's Kingdom and he must bind and loose on earth and what he shall so do on earth shall be made good in Heaven If this will not serve the turn Christ saith to Peter and to no other Apostles If thou love me feed my Flock my Lambs my Sheep and to feed is to govern and the Flock Lambs and Sheep are the Church section 4 Yet notwithstanding all these reasons many rational men think and they have reason for it that this power is so great that it 's intolerable presumption for any person to challenge it impossible for any man duly to manage it but only Jesus Christ who knew no sin and was not only man but the Son of the living God. Besides wise men do certainly know that the power was usurped and possessed by degrees first and afterwards the greatest Wits were set on work to invent a title the usual way of all unjust Usurpers 1. As for their Politicks they help them little for in that reason from Government they presuppose all and prove nothing from first to last neither can any wit of man prove any of their supposals yet all must be proved and that demonstratively and every one of them made evident otherwise the vast mighty Fabrick falls to the ground Many of themselves know in their Conscience the invalidity and weakness of every one of them 2. As for these passages of ancient Writers which seem so much to honour and advance that Church above others many of them are Hyperbolical and Rhetorical
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
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
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
and the parts the Soveraign and the Subject According to this method though mine ability be not much I have spoken of a Community both Civil and Ecclesiastical and of a Common-wealth 1. Civil then 2. Ecclesiastical In both the first part is the Soveraign where I enquire 1. Into his power civil and then into the spiritual power of the Keys in the Church 2. I proceed to declare how the Civil Soveraign acquires or loseth his power and how the Church derives her power or is deprived of it 3. The next thing is the several ways of disposing the power civil in a certain subject whence arise the several forms of Government civil and the disposal of the power of the Keys the primary subject whereof is not the Pope or Prince or Prelate or Presbyter or People as distinct from Presbyters but the whole particular Church which hath it in the manner of a free State. Here something is said of the extent of the Church After all this comes in pars subdita both Civil and Ecclesiastical where I speak of the nature of subjection and of the distinction division and education of the Subjects both of the State and Church All this is done with some special reference both to the State and Church of England desiring Peace and Reformation If any require a reason why I do not handle Ecclesiastical Government and Civil distinctly by themselves without this mixture the reasons are especially two 1. That it might be known that the general Rules of Government are the same both in Church and State for both have the same common principles which by the light of Reason Observation and Experience may be easily known but especially by the Scriptures from which an intelligent Reader may easily collect them Therefore it 's in vain to write of Church-Government without the knowledge of the Rules of Government in general and the same orderly digested The ignorance of these is the cause why so many write at random of Discipline and neither satisfie others nor bring the Controversies concerning the same unto an issue 2. By this joynt handling of them the difference between Church and State Civil and Ecclesiastical Government the power of the Sword and Keys is more clearly as being laid together apparent For this is the nature of Dissentanies Quod juxta posita clarius elucescunt This is against Erastus and such as cannot distinguish between the power of ordering Religion for the external part which belongs unto the civil Soveraigns of all States and the power of the Keys which is proper to the Church as a Church Yet if these two Reasons will not satisfie and some Reader may desire and wish they had been handled dictinctly he may read them as dictinct and several even in this Book I my self had some debate within my self what way I should handle them yet upon these reasons I resolved to do as I have done section 12 A Common-wealth once constituted is not immortal but is subject to corruptions conversion and subversion The Authors of Politicks following the Philosopher make these accidents the last part of their Political Systems and some speak of them more briefly some at large and declare the causes and prescribe the Remedies both for prevention and recovery Corruption is from the bad constitution or male-administration and both Soveraign and Subject may be and many times are guilty The conversion and woful changes and also the subversion and ruine is from God as the supream Governour and just Judge of Mankind who punisheth not only single and private Persons and Families but whole Nations and Common-wealths Of these things the Scripture humane Stories and our own experience do fully inform us But of them if it may be useful I shall speak more particularly and fully in the second Book the subject whereof in general is Administration in particular Laws and Canons Officers of the State and of the Church and Jurisdiction both Civil and Ecclesiastical The reasons why I desire to publish this first and severally from the latter part are partly because though the first draught of that latter part was finished above half a Year ago yet I intend to enlarge upon the particulars partly because I desire to know what entertainment this first part may meet withal for if it be good I shall be the more encouraged to go forward but chiefly because the most material Heads and Controversies are handled in this which is far more difficult The latter will be more easie yet profitable and useful especially if some of greater ability would undertake it The God of Truth and Peace give us Humility Patience Charity and the Knowledge of his Truth that holding the Truth in Love we may grow up unto him in all things which is the Head even Christ to whom be Honour Glory and Thanks for ever Amen FINIS * vid. Comin de bell Neap. lib. 5. Scope of the Work. Means to prevent Errors Sect. 1. The reason of differences in Church-Affairs What a Common-wealth in general is Foundation of the Work. Constitution Community in general De C. D. lib. 19. Cap. 21. Cap. 22. What Community Civil is Original of community Members of a Community Ecclesiast Community A good ground of Childrens right to Baptisme What hinders Reformation A Community formed is a Commonwealth De C. D. Lib. 19. cap. 13. Neighbour a notion of Society Majesty in the People really c. Real Majesty greater than Personal The mistake of Junius Brutus Buchanon Heno A Parliament cannot alter a form of Government A happy Community Majesty Personal Acts of Personal Majesty 1. Without Within Soveraigns must order Matters of Religion Civil matters Properties of Majesty Fundamental Charter of Civil Majesty Power how got Justly got extraordinary How Kings must govern Ordinarily By Election Best Government By Conquest Vsurpation Subjects may defend their Rights What destroys Personal Majesty Bracton Kings duty Binds not posterity Majesty when forfeited When Subjection ceases a Isa. 22.2 Vers. 21. b Rev. 1.18 1 Cor. 3.7 d Mat. 16.29 e Joh. 20.22 23. f 1 Cor. 5.12 g Ibid. h Ibid. 13. 11 Quaest. in vesperiis Dib 4. dist 8. Quaest. 2. What a King is What the King cannot do Parliament best Assembly Parliament Members qualified Wittena Gemote What the House of Commons is The End of calling the House of Lords What Barons called to Parliament Power of Parliament without the King. Why Kings Consent required First subject of Personal Majesty What the Parliament cannot do Who gave Crown Prerogatives and Parliament-being Kings of England no absolute Monarchs Cause of England 's Miseries What observable in our sad Divisions How to judge of our Divisions What charged on the King. Disobedience to King unlawful Parliament accused acquitted The cause changed Treaty at the Isle of Wight The 〈◊〉 works 〈◊〉 God among us Sect. 22. What may be the best way of settlement Qualification of Parliament members What to be looked into by a Parliament first * Non assumit Rex vel jus clavium vel censurae sed quae exterioris politiae Tort. Torti pag. 318. Rex qua Rex habet primatum Ecclesiasticum objective qua Christianus effective qua Rex actu primo qua Christianus secundo Mason de Minist Angl. l. 3. pag. 312. Primitive Bishop His Power Hierarchical B. B. His Power Hierarch Jure Humano * De Repub Eccles. lib. 2. c. 3. sect 7 8 9. Sect. 7. * Act. 8.14 * Ludovicus Arabelensis Lewis Arch-Bishop of Arles President in the Council of Basil. English Bishops What Dean and Chapters were English Bishops not Jure Divino * Lib. 3. c. 3 4. Tit. de praescript adversus haereticos Job 37.12 Prov. c. 12.5 * Gal. 1.1 * De. polit Ecclesiastica l. 3. c. 7. p. 26. * Tort Tor. p. 41. * Vignierus de excommunicatine venatorum The Church the Subject of the Keyes As in the Fundamental Office of Christ. Church-government what Who guilty of Schism Who Schismaticks Parish no Congregation Christian What Church the primary subject of the Keys The supposed end of the Congregational notion The subject of the whole Treatise * Isa. 49.23 Chap. 60.16 22. * Chap. 55.34 * 1 Cor. 11.34 * In his Book of the Church c. 8. p. 63. Best means to reform and unite a Church Divided What 's the chief interest of a Nation as Christian. Soveraign real Personal Measure of subjection rightly bounded The rational part of a people the heir of real Majesty The Sacrament what Education What makes a Church-Member Who a Visible Saint Division Subordination of that Church when Subordination of Bishops prudential Episcopal Hierarchy not of Divine Authority Bishops over Presbyters uncertain The Pope the Man of Sin c. Prelacy the occasion of Hierarchy and that of Papacy England under no foreign Primate What a Bishop was at first No Divine Testimony for Bishops Bishops of good use not of necessity A special Work of the Levite