the Prerogatives of Princes unless they misuse it and if they do as they go beyond their Commission so they deserve their punishment in this lâ—fe among the worst of Rebels and Traytors and are sure to have it in the next For as their Power is not only purely spiritual void of all temporal force and coercion so are they in the first place and above all things forbidden to use any violence or raise any disturbance against Government So that if any Prince think good to oppose them in the Execution of their Office and to punish them for so doing they are not to oppose him but only to sacrifice their lives in justification of their cause and submission to his will and for so doing they shall have their Reward But if they shall make use of any other Weapons whatsoever beside Prayers and Tears and Sufferings they then suffer deservedly as disturbers of the publick Peace And so much the more in that they have been so expresly forewarned by our Saviour that whosoever shall draw the Sword in his cause shall be sure to perish by it And as upon this principle he founded his Church so upon it his Apostles built it when in pure obedience to his command they preached the Gospel all the World over And if any Prince were pleased to countermand them they did not plead any exemption from the Government much less did they Libel it but only represented the Innocence and Justice of their Cause and if he were not satisfied declared their readiness to submit to his pleasure and the penalty of the Law And in this they enjoyed no other exemption from the Prerogative of Princes than what is or ought to be chalenged by every private Christian who is indispensably bound to make profession of his Christian Faith and if the Laws of his Country so require to seal it with his Blood This was the constitution of the Church and the practice of it in its first profession and is the constitution of the Church of England in its Reformation For whereas a foreign Italian Bishop had for a long time usurped wel-nigh all both secular and spiritual Power into his own hands and by an exorbitant abuse of it had enslaved the Prince and empoverished the people only to enrich himself and his own Courtiers they that were concern'd after long patience and much provocation at last resolved upon what motives concerns not us to resume their Rights The King that Power which was exercised by the Kings of Judah of old and by Christian Kings and Emperours in the primitive Church And the Bishops that Power wherewith they were as immediately entrusted by virtue of our Saviours general commission to the Apostolical Order as any other foreign Bishop or Bishops within their respective Diocesses whatsoever And to prevent all jealousie in the Prince lest they should play him the same game that his Holiness had done who in ordinc ad spiritualia had finely stript him of almost all his Temporal Jurisdiction by excepting all Ecclesiastical both Persons and Causes from his cognizance They therefore freelv declare him Supreme Governour first Over all Persons so that no Ecclesiastical Subject might as formerly appeal from his Tribunal And in all Causes so that every Subject whatsoever was bound to submit to his Decrees and Determinations so far forth as either to obey his Laws as long as he own'd and protected true Christianity as the Christian Bishops of old did to the Christian Emperours Or if he opposed it chearfully and peaceably to submit to their Penalties as they did to the Roman Persecutors And whereas from the Precedent of the Apostles in the first Council at Jerusalem the Governours of the Church in all Ages enjoyed a power of making Canons and Constitutions for Discipline and good Order yet by the example of the Primitive Church they submitted the exercise thereof to his sovereign Authority protesting in verbo sacerdotis as it is stated in that famous Act called The Submission of the Clergy That they will never from henceforth presume to attempt alledg claim or put in ure enact promulge or execute any new Canons Constitutions Ordinances provincial or other or by whatsoever other name they shall be call'd in the Convocation unless the King 's most royal Assent and License may to them be had to make promulge and execute the same and that his Majesty do give his Royal Assent and Authority in that behalf Whereby they do not pass away their power of making Ecclesiastical Canons but only give security to the Government that under that pretence they would not attempt any thing tending to the disturbance of the Kingdom or injurious to the Prerogative of the Crown Which in truth is such a submission as all the Clergy in the World ought in duty to make to their Sovereign at least in gratitude for his Protection and that without any abatement or diminution of their own Authority viz. The standing Laws of Christianity being secured to submit all other Matters to his sovereign Will and Pleasure Whereby as they would bring no damage to the Church in that this power is exercised meerly in matters of Order and Discipline if the Prince did not approve of their Constitutions it would be no difficult thing to provide for Decency some other way so they would bring great security to the State when the Prince was assured that under that pretence they would not as the Roman Clergy had done distuâ—b or undermine his Authority And as they parted not with their Spiritual Legiâ—lative Power so not with any other Power proper to their Function as the Power of preaching the Christian Religion administring the holy Sacraments and conferring holy Orders Neither did any Prince in the least ever claim or exercise any of them And because the Romanists in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth made a mighty noise with this Objection as if by virtue of her Supremacy her Majesty had challenged a Spiritual or Ministerial Power in the Church the Queen has with great indignation disown'd any such Power and defied the Calumny And yet when she had made her disclaimour of any Spiritual Power in the Church she parted not with her Royal Supremacy over those that had it as we are particularly instructed by our Church in her 37th Article Where we attribute to the Queens Majesty the chief Government by which Title we understand the minds of some dangerous Folks to be offended we give not our Princes the ministring either of God's Word or the Sacraments the which things the Injunctions lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their Charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers And lastly to mention
And therefore we do not find that the Apostles acted with a plenitude of Power till he had given them a new Commission after his Resurrection and it is remarkable that in St. Matthew 16. 19. he vests them with the power of Binding and Loosing in the Future Tense But in St. John 20. 23. after his Resurrection it is expressed in the Present Tense Then it was that he gave them that Authority which himself had exercised whilst he remain'd on Earth But then when immediately in pursuance of their new Commission the Apostles thought themselves obliged to choose one into their Order to supply the Vacancy made by the death of Judas What can be more evident than that they thought the Apostolical Office by our Saviour's Appointment distinct from and superiour to all other Offices in the Church So that it is manifest that the Form observed by the Apostles in the Planting and Governing of Churches was Model'd according to our Saviour's own Platform and after that it is not at all material to enquire whether he only drew the Model or erected the Building But whichsoever he did it is improved into an impregnable Demonstration from the undoubted Practice of the Apostles and from them the perpetual Tradition of the Catholick Church in that it is plain that they thought themselves obliged to stand to this Original Form of Church-Government For the Apostles we all know and all Parties grant during their days kept up the distinction and preeminence of their Order and from them the Bishops of the First Ages of the Church claim'd their Succession and every where challenged their Episcopal Authority from the Institution of Christ and the Example of his Apostles And now are we enter'd upon the second main Controversie viz. The Authority of the Apostolical Practice against which three things are usually alledged That neither can we have that certainty of Apostolical Practice which is necessary to constitute a Divine Right nor secondly is it probable that the Apostles did tie themselves to any one fixed Course in Modelling Churches nor thirdly if they did doth it necessarily follow that we must observe the same And the first of these is made out from the equivalency of the names Bishop and Presbyter secondly from the Ambiguity of some places of Scripture pleaded in behalf of different Forms of Government thirdly from the Defectiveness Ambiguity Partiality and Repugnancy of the Records of the succeeding Ages which should inform us what was the Apostolical Practice But as to the first I shall wholly wave the dispute of the signification of the words because it is altogether beside the purpose and if it were not our other Proofs are so pregnant as to render it altogether useless Neither indeed would this ever have been any matter of Dispute had not our Adversaries for want of better Arguments been forced to make use of such slender pretences But how impotently Salmasius and Blondel who were the main Founders of the Argument have argued from the Community of the Names the Identity of the Office any one that has the patience to read them over may satisfie himself As for my own part I cannot but admire to see Learned men persist so stubbornly in a palpable Impertinency when from the Equivalency of the words Bishop and Presbyter in the Apostles time they will infer no imparity of Ecclesiastical Officers notwithstanding it is so evident and granted by themselves that the Apostles enjoyed a superiority of Power over the other Pastors of the Church which being once proved or granted and themselves never doubted of it to infer their beloved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Parity of the Clergy from the Equivocal signification of those two words is only to out-face their own Convictions and their Adversaries Demonstrations For if it be proved and themselves cannot deny it that there was an inequality of Offices from the Superiority of the Apostles it is a very Childish attempt to go about to prove that there was not because there were two Synonymous Terms whereby to express the whole Order of the Clergy But to persist in this trifling Inference as Salmasius has who when he was informed of its manifest weakness and absurdity would never renounce it but still repeated it in one Book after another without any improvement but of Passion and Confidence is one of the most woful Examples that I remember of a learned man's Trifling that has not the ingenuity to yield when he finds himself vanquish'd not only by his Adversary but his Argument Neither shall I trouble my self with other mens disputes about particular Texts of Scripture when it is manifest from the whole Current of Scripture that the Apostles exercised a superiority of Power over the other Pastors of the Church and that is all that is requisite to the Argument from Apostolical Practice for as yet it is nothing to us whether they were Presbyters or Bishops that they set over particular Churches that shall be enquired into when we come to the Practice of the Primitive Church it is enough that they were subject to the Apostles for then by Apostolical Practice there was a Superiority and Subordination in Church-Government And therefore I cannot but wonder here too at the blindness of Walo Messalinus who in pursuance of his Verbal Argument produces this passage out of Theodoret and spends a great deal of the first part of his Book in declaiming upon it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then the same men were call'd Presbyters and Bishops and those that we now call Bishops they then call'd Apostles but in process of time the name of Apostolate was appropriate to them who were truly and properly Apostles and the name of Bishop was applied to them who were formerly call'd Apostles Than which words beside that they contain the true state of the Question there is scarce a clearer passage in all Antiquity to confound his cause For what can be a plainer Reproof to their noise about the Equivalency of words than to be told that it is true that the words Bishop and Presbyter signified the same thing in the Apostles time but that those that we now call Bishops were then call'd Apostles who exercised the Episcopal Power over the other Clergy but that afterward in process of time they left the word Apostolate to those who were strictly and properly so call'd and stil'd all other Bishops who in former times were stiled Apostles What I say can be more peremptory against his Opinion that concludes from the equivalency of Names to the parity of Power than this that notwithstanding the words were equivalent yet the Episcopal Power was then in the Apostles whose successors in their supremacy came in after-times to be call'd Bishops And if so then is it evident that there was the same imparity of Church-Officers in the Apostles time as in succeeding Ages Nay our friend Walo is not content to make this out for us only as to the
so expresly derived down by single Persons and when the truth of the Apostolical Doctrine is vouched by the certainty of this Succession it is a very cold answer to tell us that the Fathers talk only of a succession of Doctrines and not of Persons Fourthly This Personal Succession so much spoken of is sometimes attributed to Presbyters even after the distinction came in use between Bishops and them I pray by whom Why by Irenaeus But does Irenaeus when he speaks of the Bishops and Presbyters of his own time confound their names and offices or any other Author of the same Age Nay do they not carefully distinguish them from each other though when they speak of things as done in the Apostles times they may speak in the language of those times The names therefore of Bishop and Presbyter being not then distinguished it was but proper for them to express things as they were then expressed So that though Irenaeus never would stile a Bishop of his own time by the name of Presbyter but ever carefully distinguished the two Orders yet when he speaks of the Bishops of the first time it is neither wonder nor impropriety if he call them Presbyters for I will yield so far to our Adversaries that they were so called till the death of the Apostles and then succeeding into their Power it was but fit that they should be distinguished by some proper name from the inferiour Clergy And there lies the root of all our Adversaries pretences that they will have the Office of a Bishop to have been born at the same time with the distinction of the Name Which if we will not grant them as without a manifest affront to the Apostles we cannot their whole Cause sinks to nothing For that is the only proof alledged in behalf of the sententia Hieronymi that the Offices were not distinguisht before the names But of that in its due place already at present I challenge them to produce any one Author that treating of things after the separation of the words was made ever calls a Bishop a Presbyter or a Presbyter a Bishop And in that I am very much their friend for if they can it utterly overthrows their main Argument that Bishops and Presbyters were the same in the Apostles times from the promiscuous use of their names in that we find them promiscuously used after the distinction But that by the word Presbyteri Irenaeus does not mean a simple Presbyter is plain from the words themselves in which he prescribes against the novelties of the Hereticks by the undoubted antiquity of the Churches Tradition which he says was conveyed by the Apostles themselves to the Ancients who succeeded them in their Episcopacy so that by his Presbyteri he means as he explains himself such of the Ancients qui Episcopatus successionem habent ab Apostolis i. e. the Ancient Bishops This is all that I meet with material upon this Head for when they go about to prove by the Authority of Ignatius himself that Episcopacy is not a Divine but an Ecclesiastical Constitution they are to be given up for pleasant men that will attempt any Paradox in pursuit of the Cause And it exceeds even the rashness of Blondel himself who that as he speaks his St. Jerom might not stand alone like a Sparrow upon the house top has after his rate of inferring fetched in all the Fathers to bear him company except only Ignatius whom it seems he despaired of making ever to chirp pro sententiâ Hieronymi but now it seems at last that the holy Martyr himself might not be made the solitary Sparrow by being deserted by all the Fathers he is brought over to the Party but with such manifest force to himself as plainly shews him to be no Volunteer in the Cause Thus when he commends the Deacon Sotion for being subject to the Bishop ut gratiae Dei and to the Presbytery ut legi Jesu Christi By the Law of Jesus Christ we are taught to understand divine Institution but by the grace of God only humane Prudence though that too was directed to it by the special favour or Providence of God as the only means of preserving peace and unity in the Church Be it so the grace of God no doubt is as firm a ground of Divine Institution as the Law of Christ so that if Episcopacy was established by Gods special favour we are as well content with it as if it had come by the Grace of Christ. Neither does this Interpretation derogate any thing from the Episcopal Order but very much from our blessed Saviours Wisdom viz. that when he had established Presbyteries in his Church for the Government of it that establishment was found so ineffectual for its end that Almighty God was afterward constrained for preventing of Schisms and preserving of Unity in the Church in a special manner to inspire the Governours of it in after-ages to set up the Form of Episcopal Government And yet that was no less disparagement to himself than his Son for seeing what our Saviour did in the establishment of his Church he did by the Counsel of his Father if its Institution proved defective for its end it was an equal over-sight of both and the After-game of Episcopacy was only to supply a defect that they did not fore-see but were taught by Experience A very honourable representation this of the Wisdom of the Divine Providence However take it which way we will we cannot desire a plainer acknowledgment of Divine Institution for so it come from God it matters not which way he was pleased to convey it to us And now have we not reason to wonder when we see men attempt to bring this holy Martyr off with such slights so expresly against his own declared Opinion who every where grounds his Exhortation of Obedience to the Bishop upon the command of God and adds even in the words following the forecited passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet not to him but to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Christ who is the Bishop of us all and therefore for the honour of him that requires it it is our bounden duty to be obedient without hypocrisie What can be plainer than that the power of the Bishop stands wholly upon the command of God So again in the Epistle to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us take care not to oppose the Bishop as we would be obedient to God and if any man observe the silence of his Bishop let him reverence him so much the more For every one that the Master of the Family puts into the Stewardship we ought to receive him as the Master himself and therefore it is manifest that we ought to reverence the Bishop as we would our Lord. And therefore it is a great over-sight to affirm that there is not one Testimony in all Ignatius Epistles that proves the least semblance of an Institution of Christ for Episcopacy when
that claims no higher Obligation confesses it self to be no Religion for none it is unless Enacted by Divine Authority The second is that of Mr. Selden and his Followers that acknowledges the standing Laws of the Christian Church to have been derived from a Divine Institution but derives all manner of Government and Authority in it from the Civil State The third is the Opinion of some Learned and Moderate Divines both at home and abroad that grant indeed the necessity of some kind of Government in the Church but deny it to have been setled and fixed by our Saviour in any one Form or upon any certain Order of men and leave it wholly at some-bodies disposal though who that somebody is they have not as yet clearly determined to appoint Officers and Governours as shall be thought most prudent and suitable to the present Circumstances of things Now upon any of these Principles it is not at all material whether we assert any such thing as a Church of England or not for they are all but so many Contradictions both to the being of a Church and to themselves at least if we pursue each party to the bottom of their Opinion they only assert the Shadow or Ghost of a Church upon such Principles as are directly inconsistent with the Fundamental Constitution of all Christian Churches and so have as it were stoln away the Church of England from itself setting up the name against the thing the Idea against the Reality and the Notion against the Practice For the first supposes a Church without Religion the second a Society without Government the third a Government without Governours And what can be more absurd and inconsistent For a Church without Religion is no Church a Society without Government is no Society and a Government that is not lodged somwhere is no Government So that though these Opinions are not equally wicked in themselves the first being open and avowed Atheism yet are they equally destructive to the Fundamental Constitution of the Christian Church as it is a Society founded not by any human Authority but Divine Right With Mr. Hobbs and his Church I shall be very brief because his Notions here as indeed they are every where are no better than gross and palpable Contradictions Neither should I spend much pains upon the second opinion because the absurdity of it is so easily demonstrable from the Nature of Society it self but seeing Mr. Selden a very Learned Person has taken infinite pains in the Argument searched all Authors and all Records to heap together every thing that might serve his cause I shall wait upon him through all the material parts of his Discourse But with the third sort I intend to treat more largely because that is the Church at this present in fashion and is become popular and plausible by the Authority of some Learned men that have owned and asserted it And therefore I shall carefully demonstrate its vanity and falsehood from our Saviours express Institution from the certain practice of the Apostles from all the most undoubted Records of the Church and lastly from the great inconveniences that would unavoidably follow upon it And when we have gained these three Fundamental points we may then and not till then proceed to farther proposals for the true settlement of the Church of England for without them whatever men may talk of it all their Discourse of a Church is no more than a Notion and a Phantasm a Platonick Common-Wealth and a World in the Moon First then as for Mr. Hobbs his Opinion it is scarce worth any mans Confutation because it so plainly confutes itself For what can be more absurd and ridiculous than to make as he does the serious Belief of Religion necessary to the security of Government and yet discover to all those that he would have brought under the Power of this persuasion that it is in reality nothing but an useful and necessary Imposture And yet into this preposterous course of Politicks does Mr. Hobbs suffer himself to be driven by his pedantick Pride and Vanity That though it be above all things necessary to the Empire of our Sovereign Lord Leviathan that the common people be abused with the Belief and scared with the dread of invisible Powers yet lest they should be tempted to think the great Philosopher himself so weak as to be betrayed into the same Opinion he Publishes a Book to all the World to no other purpose beside Flattering the Tyrant Cromwel than to declare that neither himself nor any wise man ought to regard the Tales of Religion and that they are only designed to abuse the ignorant and the silly Just as if this great Statesman should go about to fright Birds from his Corn as he speaks with an empty Doublet an Hat and a crooked Stick but yet lest the Jack-Daws should take him for one of their own silly Flock he should take special care to inform them that himself knows it to be only a man of Clouts This alone is sufficient to discover the vanity and the danger of the Hobbian Religion when it is nothing else but an open Declaration of Atheism and Impiety Though indeed this way of trifling is so natural to Mr. Hobbs that as much as he loves his own Opinions he always contradicts them And this is a plain Demonstration of the Ignorance of the pretenders to Wisdom in this Age that so Inconsistent and Unphilosophical a Writer should obtain so much Credit and Authority among them For though he have a very facetious Wit and is the Author of many pleasant sayings yet he was never Master of one Philosophick Notion But for their conviction I shall challenge them to shew me more incoherent and inconsistent reasonings than are his undoubted and Mathematical Demonstrations against the Being of God and the Principles of Religion First then would you believe that there is a God or not Mr. Hobbs gives you your choice Choose which you please he will demonstrate either by the same Topick Will you have no Deity It is manifest there can be none because there can be no first Mover because nothing can move itself and therefore when men go about to prove a Deity from the succession of Causes and Effects they prove nothing but the necessity of Eternal motion for as it is true that nothing can move itself so is it true that nothing can move any thing else unless itself be first moved Here then the Demonstration is pregnant that there can be no first Cause because nothing can move it self and because all motion is Eternal But will you have a Deity The Demonstration of it is as undeniable For he that from any effect he seeth come to pass should reason to the next and immediate Cause thereof and from thence to the Cause of that Cause and plunge himself profoundly in the pursuit of Causes shall at last come to this that there must be as even the Heathen Philosophers
whereby he has obliged all the Members of it to the open profession of the Christian Faith and to Communicate in the Sacraments and all other Ordinances of publick Worship which Society is so far from having the least Dependence upon the Civil Power that it was at first Erected not only without the Allowance but against the Edicts and Decrees of all the Powers of the Earth and subsisted so apart from all Kingdoms and Common-wealths for above 300 years all which time though it borrowed no Force or Assistance from the Imperial Laws yet by vertue of our Saviours Divine Authority it obliged all Christians to embody together into a visible Society Which Obligation is not only distinct from but antecedent to all humane Laws that require the same thing And therefore in a Christian state men are not Christians by vertue of the Law of the Common-wealth but it is the Law of God that constitutes the Being and Formality of a Christian Church Now this being granted me which cannot be denyed without denying the foundations of the Christian Faith the whole cause of Erastianism is run upon a palpable Contradiction For if the Church be a Society founded upon Divine Right it must have at least as much Power of Government within it self as is necessary to its own Peace and Preservation otherwise it is no Society much less of any Divine Appointment And if it be indued with a Power of Government it must have a Power of inflicting penalties upon Offenders because without that the common sense of mankind will tell us that all Government is ineffectual And then as it is a Society so it is no civil Society as appears by our Saviours own Declaration that his Kingdom is not of this World and by the fundamental Principle of these men that for that very reason maintain it cannot be indued with any juridical Authority From all which viz. That it is a Society but no civil Society that every Society must have Government and all Government a Power of inflicting Penalties what can more demonstratively follow than That its Penalties are distinct from those that are inflicted by the civil Power and if so that then Excommunication in the Christian Church whatever it is must be something distinct from all civil Inflictions So that methinks Mr. Hobbs his Notion is much more Coherent with it self for whilst he allows the Church no Right of Society but what is granted it by the civil Government it is but reasonable that the Power upon whose Charter it subsists should retain to it self the Authority of governing it according to the Laws and Rights of its own â—â—stitution But to derive all its Rigâ—â— of Society from God and at the same time allow it no Power of Government but from the State is that gross Contradiction I charge them with in that Society without Government is no Society So that this one Notion That the Church is a spiritual Corporation distinct from the Common-wealth and antecedent to its being embodied to it prevents and anticipates all the Erastian Arguments because that alone plainly infers that it must be endued with a jurisdiction distinct from the civil Government And indeed the main Dispute depends upon this one Principle Whether the Church be a Society founded by Divine Institution if it be that alone vests it with a Power of Excommunication if it be not it is in vain to strugle against Conclusions when we have once own'd the Premises for then are we clearly return'd back to the Church of Leviathan that stands uponno other Foundation than that of humane Laws Now upon this immoveable Principle I joyn Issue with our learned Authour and shall wait upon him through all parts of his Discourse and through all Ages of the world as he has divided them into six Epochas 1 From Adam to Moses 2 From Moses to the Captivity 3 From the Captivity to our Saviour 4 From our Saviour to the end of the first Century 5 From the end of the first Century to the Reign of Constantine 6 From Constantine to our own Age of all which he has endeavour'd severally to prove that there was either no such thing as Excommunication in Use or if there were that it was a meer humane Invention First he undertakes to prove that there was no such punishment as Consistorian Excommunication in all the interval from the Creation to Moses For whereas it is the custom of some zealous men to fetch all things from the beginning of the World they have here it seems exemplified this matter in the Fall of Lucifer from Heaven in the expulsion of Adam from Paradise and in the banishment of Cain from the Society of mankind Now in answer to these he replies two things First that these punishments were not properly Excommunication Secondly that if they were examples are not enough to make a Divine Law I will freely grant him both and yet infer from hence what is enough to my purpose The necessity of Government to the preservation of Society and of inflicting penalties to the preservation of Government When it appears from hence that even God himself who is endued with infinite Wisdom and Power has no other moral way but this to govern the world And that is all that in this part of the Dispute can be material to our present Argument for the Dispute being divided into two parts Whether there be such a punishment as Excommunication and Whether the Power of inflicting it be appropriate to certain Officers of our Saviours appointment I suppose no man ever pretended to prove that our Saviour at the beginning of the World instituted an Apostolical order of men for the government of Religion so that here all the Controversie that can be is Whether there were not an absolute necessity of some jurisdiction in this as well as all other matters of humane life and for it we have our Authour 's full suffrage proving in his first and second Chapters that the sons of Noah and the Patriarchs who lived before the Law must have had their Courts of judicature tam circa Sacra quà m Profana from the nature and end of Society in that without this Power it must unavoidably fall into disorder and confusion Utrum aurem praefecturae fuerint illis tunc temporis juridicae tametsi nulla omnino restarent earundem in sacris literis alibive vestigia non magis esset dubitandum quà m utrùm in societatem vitae civilem coalescerent tunc ipsi atque animalia ut genus humanum reliquum essent politica rectèque ac honestè pro seculi persuasione vivendi rationem omnino inirent atque ut Dubia Lites Controversiae cum effectu civili i. e. judiciorum executione dirimerentur scelera ac delicta cohiberentur adeoque in Officiis contineretur quisque suis curaret And therefore he makes all Government to be establisht by the Law of Nature as being absolutely necessary to the preservation of all humane Society Which
all cases that came in upon the account of their new Persuasion that is to say all cases that concern the Christian Church So p. 207. Et qui annis proximius sequentibus è Gentilibus sine Judaismi Proselytismi Christi disciplinam amplexati sunt Judaeorum nihilominus nomine ita simul cum reliquis Judaeis paritâ—r veniebant eorumque diu juribus aliis non paucis ita utebantur ut non videatur omnino dubitandum quin inter jura illa etâ—am hoc de excommunicatione Judaica quantum ad species ejus seu gradus nam quantum ad causas necessum erat ut alitâ—r se res haberet quod nemo non videt pariter à cunctis ut ante pro re nata adhiberetur But if the causes for which Excommunication was inflicted in the Christian Church were as the Parenthesis informs us of a different nature from those for which it was inflicted among the Jews then without any farther dispute it is evident that the exercise of the Christian Excommunication was distinct from that of the Jews So lastly to mention no more p. 225. Nec disciplina illa apud eos alia quam Judaismus vere reformatus sen cum fide in Messiam seu Christum rite conjunctus Unde Judaei omnimodi quantum ad hanc rem in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non credentes tribui solebant We are here proving that there was no discipline in the Christian Church but what was in the Jewish state before Christianity but now it is the discipline of reform'd Judaism i. e. of Christianity But passing by these humble concessions or rather contradictions it is enough to our purpose that though all Christians were Jews all Jews were not Christians so that though the Christians enjoyed the same Rights in common with the Jews yet they must have some Rights peculiar to themselves as Christians Non aliter as our Author expresses it atque is qui Civis Romani aliusve Reipublicae seu sodalitii aliâ—ujus socius jura pristina retinet utcunque in persuasionem aliquam inter suos singularem pro libitu transeat In the same manner as a Citizen of Rome retains his former Rights notwithstanding he enters himself into any new Society to which ought to be added that the rights of the Society into which he enters himself are distinct from those wherewith he was antecedently vested as a Citizen of Rome And therefore all this long discourse is quite beside the purpose that because the Christians enjoyed the same priviledges with Jews that therefore they enjoyed none as Christians which is to say that there are no Christian Priviledges And so is that of the Edicts of the Roman Emperors who it seems knew nothing of the difference between Christians and Jews What then was there none because the enemies or strangers to the Church were unacquainted with its peculiar Constitutions And yet here too our Author is quite beside the purpose not only in matter of Right but in matter of Fact as to the Authorities he alledges the first and chiefest whereof is the Edict of the Emperour Claudius for the banishment of all Jews from Rome by vertue whereof says he Aquila who was a Christian was banisht too and very good reason because he that was a Christian was a Jew too and if he was banisht as a Jew it is no matter whether he were a Christian or not when the Edict was made against the whole nation of the Jews His other instance is out of Celsus who objects it both against the Christians and Jews that all that great difference they made about their Messias was about a very trifle But does Mr. Selden think that Celsus his Authority is sufficient to prove it so If he does then I must confess that Celsus and himself seem to have been much of the same opinion for he frequently tells us that the Christians and Jews were the same men only that those were believers these unbelievers as if the difference were as inconsiderable as Celsus made the coming of the Messias But if his Authority be not sufficient as I suppose no good Christian will grant it is especially in this case then it 's here alledged apparently to no purpose And whereas he adds that Origen answers that the Jews who believe in Jesus do not withstanding live according to the Laws of their Nation he ought to have added too that they live according to the Laws of their Messias For it was that great and sacred Law of the Gospel that made a vast difference between a Jew and a Christian which was so great that it was not greater between a Jew and a Gentile But however if there were any difference at all it spoils all our Authors discourse that proceeds upon this only principle that there was none which is so absurd that it has all along forced him upon the forementioned cowardly contradiction viz. That there was none but what was made by Christianity But suppose that the Christians exercised a Jurisdiction among themselves by vertue of the imperial Edicts to the Jews as he tells us what if they had never been authorised by any such Edicts would they have had no Authority to censure or Excommunicate scandalous Offenders Did St. Paul proceed against the incestuous Corinthian by the grant of Claudius to the Jews to govern themselves by their own Laws and Customs If he did not then he acted by vertue of some other Authority if he did then when any of the following Emperours reverst this Edict the Authority of St. Paul in this matter had ceased What then became of the Church when Nero presently after forbad the exercise of Christianity or any part of it in the Roman Empire was not then Excommunication in the Christian Church an unlawful thing No says our Author because this Decree was made against the Christian Church in particular and therefore did not deprive them of those priviledges that belonged to them in common with the Jews But however upon this principle it is manifest that it debarred them of this Power as peculiar to the Christian Church and then whatever Jurisdiction they exercised as Jews they had no right of exercising any Discipline in the name of the Lord Jesus as St. Paul commands the Corinthians And then all the Ecclesiastical Discipline that was executed in the times of their several Persecutions was open Rebellion against the State But beside what if he had been pleased to reverse all priviledges granted to the Jews then the power of Ecclesiastical Discipline must have ceased among Christians And lastly when he adds for his last reserve for keeping up a Discipline in the Church contrary to the commands of the civil Power the confederacy of the primitive Christians who obliged themselves by mutual compacts and covenants to submit to the Discipline of the Church he should have consider'd that all such confederations were upon his principles nothing less than conspiracies
by that exact collation of their Titles and Constitutions that is prefixed to Gothofred's Edition of the Theodosian Code And as for his own Novels he frequently makes particular reference to the Canons of the Church challenging to himself a power of punishing Offences against the Ecclesiastical Canons by vertue of this one general Law which he declares to have been the sense of himself and his Predecessors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Canons of the Church ought to have the force of Laws And accordingly he begins his Laws concerning Ecclesiastical matters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We enact that the Canons of the Church i. e. the four first general Councils shall be received into the number of our Laws And by that Edict alone if there had been no other they were all Constituted Laws of the Empire And according to this Principle he declares in the Preface to his 83 Novel that he only follows the ancient Canons and Constitutions of the Church And particularly in his 137 Novel where he endeavours the restitution of Ecclesiastical Discipline he only enjoyns the observation of the thirty sixth Apostolical Canon viz. That the Bishops of each Province meet twice a Year for the more effectual Government of the Church and this he professes to do not as Author but as Protector of the Ecclesiastical Laws and therefore in the Preface to this Novel he challenges to himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power of Legislation in reference to the Civil Laws but in reference to the Laws of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power of Patronage or Protection This seems to have been the Constitution of the Church in those happiest and most flourishing Ages of it whereby it appears that the Emperours of those Times were so far from assuming the power of Excommunication to themselves that they would not so much as abet any matter of Religion with their civil Sanctions that was not determin'd beforehand by the Spiritual Power Whether they ever exceeded their own bounds I think not my self obliged to enquire they being lyable to that as well as to other mistakes and misearriages of Govenment Though I remember not any instances of that kind till the latter and degenerate ages of Christendom when barbarity was introduced by the incursions of the Goths and Vandals and other salvage Nations It is enough to my purpose that the Power of the Keys in the Church was acknowledged by the Christian Emperours from Constantine to Justinian and it is more than enough in that whether they own'd it or not it was setled by our Saviour upon the Apostles and their Successors to the end of the World But secondly Emperours Kings and Princes have limited the Ecclesiastical Order in the exercise of this Power and assign'd them either larger or narrower bounds of Jurisdiction as they judged most consistent with reasons of State by which they evidently declare what was their opinion of the censures of the Church for if they had supposed Church-officers to have acted by a Divine Authority they durst never have presumed to set bounds to the Power of God by their own arbitrary Decrees As if it were not possible for the Governours of the Church to go beyond their Commission and under pretence of a Divine Authority encroach upon that power that God has committed to Princes Which if they can do and some have done what affront is it to the Authority of God himself to restrain his Ministers within those bounds of Jurisdiction that he has prescribed to them Nay is not this very thing a very plain confession of a distinct Authority when to limit a power supposes it So that it is so far from being any Argument of their disowning the Divine Institution of an Ecclesiastical power that 't is a demonstrative and undoubted proof of their acknowledgment of it This being granted I shall not concern my self to enquire into the warrantableness of the several Precedents alledged though most of them relate only to the restraint of dilatory vexatious and uncanonical proceedings for my only business is to gain the suffrage of the Princes of Christendom to my Cause for which I am no ways bound to prove them free from all errours and miscarriages of Government so that if they might at any time bear too hard upon the power of the Church especially when the Church has given them too much reason so to do that is so far from being any prescription against its due exercise that it is a declaration of these Princes that have been most unkind to it that they own its Power provided it be kept within its due bounds But what the general sense of Christendom has been concerning the distinction of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Powers sufficiently appears by those great differences that have been raised about the bounds of their Jurisdiction And though the Christian Emperours have of later times been forced from time to time to struggle against the encroachments of the Bishops of Rome yet they never question'd that I know of the divine Right of their Episcopal Authority And therefore neither here shall I concern my self to examine the particular precedents pleaded by both Parties for the advancement of their respective Powers when it is certain that both Powers may and often have exceeded their just limits which yet is such an inconvenience that considering the passions and partialities of men is utterly unavoidable And we cannot expect that God should give such Laws as that it should not be in the Power of humane liberty to break them for then the Laws were given to no purpose it is enough that they are sufficient to guide those that will resign themselves to be govern'd with honesty and integrity and it is not in the power of Laws to effect more So that it is a very frivolous objection much insisted upon by some ill-minded men that seeing the competition of these two Powers has been occasion of creating so many mischiefs and inconveniences to Christendom it were better that one of them were removed which beside the bold way of arguing that because they think in their great wisdoms that God ought not that therefore he has not constituted two distinct Powers it is such an Objection that no constitution can possibly avoid for which way soever the Government of the World may be setled there is no remedy but that through the corruption and folly of mankind it may and often will be liable to abuses And particularly in this case there is no difficulty in discerning the bounds that God has set to these two Powers if men would be honest and upright and if they will not it is no fault of the Law that they will break it For Christianity is wholly founded upon the Doctrin of the Cross which obliges them in all cases either to obey or to suffer peaceably So that how great soever the Authority of Churchmen may be there is no danger of its interfering with or entrenching upon
that passage of Sozomen l. 1. c. 9. in which some learned men fancy they find some footsteps of this Law it is quite to the other purpose that I but now mentioned viz. the Bishops Power of determining causes by the mutual consent of Parties When this Edict was forged and by whom it is uncertain but it is probably conjectur'd by Gothofred from the Barbarity of its stile and great likeness of it to that of Constantines Donation to have been forged in the same Shop and by the same hand But if this Edict were as true as the rest are which give Bishops Power to sentence causes praeeunte vinculo compromissi yet where do we find any Edict for enabling them to enforce their decrees by Excommunication Not one syllable of that in all the Roman Laws but on the contrary the Civil Magistrates and their Officers are commanded to put the Bishops Sentence in execution Is it not then a very forced way of Arguing that because the Roman Emperours granted the Christian Bishops some jurisdiction they must of necessity have granted them the Power of Excommunication though there is no such Edict extant in all their Laws They conferr'd many Priviledges upon the Clergy in the Titles De Episcopis Ecclesiâ—s Clericis de Religione yet there is nothing in both the Codes and all the Novels to vest them with any power of Excommunication and therefore as those other they enjoyed by the Emperours favour not by any antecedent Right so seeing they exercised this Power and that not by vertue of any Imperial grant it is evident that they received their Authority from some other hand So that to conclude there cannot be a more pregnant Argument against our Author's opinion than the body of the Imperial Law in which there is not one Instance recorded that ever any Emperour pretended to this Power himself or granted it to his Bishops for from thence it unavoidably follows that if they had it at all they had it from some other Commission And thus am I come to the conclusion of this Argument for though there are many Precedents of latter Times yet I am not concern'd to justifie what was done by Huns Goths and Vandals whose practices were the meer effects of Ignorance and Barbarity and oblige us rather to pity than to follow their Examples PART II. HAving hitherto treated with the false Pretenders to the Church of England I come now in the last place to treat more amicably with some of its mistaken Friends and they are those that own a Government in it but without Governours allowing indeed that there ought to be some sort of Government establish'd in the Church but then they deny any particular Form of it to have been settled by Divine Right or Apostolical Constitution and leave it wholly to the choice and determination of Humane Authority So that though the Church of England happen to be at present govern'd by Bishops and though upon that account we may owe duty and subjection to them as our lawful Superiours yet they are not set over us by any Divine Commission but purely by his Majestie 's good Will and Pleasure who at his Restitution to his Kingdoms might have forborn to restore the then Abolish'd Order of Bishops and instead of that have establish'd some other Form of Government that he judged most suitable to the present state of things which if he had done that then had been the Church of England Now the Birth of this Opinion seems to have happened on this manner Mr. Calvin having founded his Geneva Platform upon Divine Institution as he particularly does in the Fourth Book of his Institutions Chap. 11. though some men that are more his Disciples than they are willing to own are pleased to deny it And in pursuance of this Decree Beza and all the other first Apostles of his Church having spent all their pains in endeavouring to make it good out of the Word of God the learned men that came after them both in the French and Dutch Churches because they must needs go beyond those that went before them proceeded to advance the Argument from Scripture to Antiquity and have with infinite industry sifted all the Writings of the Ancients to prove that there was no other Form of Government in the Church but by Presbyters in the first Ages of it next and immediately after the Apostles The chief Labourers in which Cause among many other less learned were Blondel Salmasius and Dallé who spent the greatest part both of their Life and Learning upon this Argument But they proceeding for the most part in a sceptical and destructive way not so much relying upon the Testimony as impairing the credit of Antiquity which it seems they supposed the best way to maintain their Argument this soon gave occasion to some Learned men conversant in their Writings to conclude against all pretences to the Divine or Apostolical Institution of any unalterable and perpetual Form of Church-Government whatsoever and so to think of allaying those Controversies about a Jus Divinum that had been lately and still were managed among us with so much heat and noise by leaving it as they say our Saviour and his Apostles did to the prudence of every particular Church to agree upon its own Form as it judgeth most conducing to the end of Government in that particular Church This is the state of the Question as they determine it and the Opinion is grown popular and plausible in great Vogue both among the Learned and Unlearned and is almost become the Rule and Standard of all our Ecclesiastical Polity In so much that there are many worthy Gentlemen as any one may observe in his ordinary Conversation that were stout and loyal Confessors to the Church of England under its Sufferings that at this time look upon it as an Arbitrary and indifferent thing And therefore in pursuance of my design in behalf of the Church of England I am obliged to examine the reasons and Principles upon which it is founded and to shew that it is so far from tending to the Peace of an Establish'd Church that it is destructive to the Being and Settlement of all the Christian Churches in the World And though here I have many learned worthy men for my Adversaries yet I hope to manage the Dispute with that Candour and Integrity that none shall have any reason to complain of any more unkindness than what is absolutely necessary to my doing right to the Church of England And this I am sure can give no Offence to good men how much soever I may chance to cross with their particular Sentiments and Opinions And as for bad men for there are of both sorts engaged in the Opinion I were not true to my own Integrity if I suffered my self to be in the least swayed by their good or bad Opinion for I write not to please but to convince them which I know as long as they continue bad is but
an incomparable treasure of Ecclesiastical Antiquity And therefore omitting Daille's beloved Negative and internal Arguments which his Adversary has for ever routed with a prodigious force of reason and dexterity of learning I shall only give an account in short of the main rational point of the Controversie That is what antient Testimonies are to be alledged either for or against their Antiquity On the one side they are frequently owned and quoted by all the first general Councils and therefore must have been enacted in the Interval between the Apostles and the Council of Nice They are cited by many of the most ancient Fathers as Canons of the first and most early Antiquity And they are expresly referred to by the most famous Emperours in their Ecclesiastical Laws All which concurrent Testimony any moderate man would think sufficient to give Authority to any Writing and yet it is all over-ruled by a single Decree of Pope Gelasius supposed to be made Anno Domini 494. in which the Apostolical Canons are reckoned among the Apocryphal Books But first is it reasonable to set up the Opinion of one man against many that were more ancient and so much the more competent witnesses than himself Secondly it is uncertain whether any such Decree as is pretended were ever made by Gelasius in that we never hear any thing of it till at least three hundred years after his time Thirdly if there were any such Decree it is certain that this Passage concerning the Canons of the Apostles was foisted into it it not being found in any of the most ancient Copies and Hincmarus a Person of singular learning in his time that makes mention of this Decree of Gelasius as early as any Writer whatsoever expresly affirms that there was no mention of the Apostolical Canons in the whole Decree De his Apostolorum Canonibus penitus taâ—uit sed nec inter Apocrypha eos misit Where he expresly affirms that in the Decree these Canons were altogether omitted and ranged neither with the Orthodox nor with the Apocryphal Books This Testimony is given in with as peremptory terms as can be expressed and therefore Daillé for no other reason than to serve his cause quite inverts the Proposition and changes misit into omisit that is turns I into No. But men that can deal thus with their Authors need never trouble their heads with Testimonies of Antiquity for after this rate it is in their power to make any Author affirm or deny what they please But fourthly suppose Gelasius had made any such Decree how does that destroy the Antiquity of these Canons when he has condemned the Books of Tertullian Arnobius Lactantius and Eusebius for Apocryphal And yet Tertullian lived three hundred years before the Decree and therefore why may not the Apostolical Canons be allowed their reputed Antiquity too notwithstanding that Sentence which only relates to the Authority his Holiness is pleased to allow them in the Roman Church and not at all to their Antiquity unless perhaps he designed to declare that they were not framed by the Apostles themselves as he might fancy from their Title not knowing that whatever was of prime Antiquity in the Church was by the first Writers of it stiled Apostolical as being supposed to descend from the Tradition of the Apostles themselves Fifthly will Monsieur Daillè allow this Decree of Gelasius sufficient to give any Book the Apocryphal stamp If he will then he must reject many of the best Fathers and in their stead admit the Acts of St. Sylvester the Invention of the Cross and the invention of St. John Baptists head for whilst the History of Eusebius together with the other Fathers is rejected such Fables as these are warranted by that barbarous and Gothish Decree And that is enough though there were nothing else to destroy the Authority of this mans censure his meer want of Judgment Now comparing this one pretended Testimony of Gelasius under all the disadvantages that I have represented with the express counter-testimony of so many Councils Fathers and Emperours if any man be resolved notwithstanding all to stick to it I will say no more than this that his Cause is much more beholden to him than he to his Cause And now having given this account of these Apostolical men that conversed with the Apostles themselves or immediately succeeded them in the Government of the Church if we descend to their Successours from Age to Age we are there overwhelmed with the croud of Witnesses But because they have been so often alledged and urged by learned men I should have wholly waved their citation had not our Adversaries made use of several shifts and artifices to evade their Authority And therefore though I shall not trouble the Reader with their direct Testimonies yet to shew the vanity of all our Adversaries pretences I shall endeavour to vindicate the credit of the Ancients against all their Exceptions And here the first pretence is the ambiguity of their Testimony which is endeavoured to be made out by these three things First That personal succession might be without such superiority of order Secondly That the names of Bishop and Presbyters were common after the distinction between them was introduced Thirdly That the Church did not own Episcopacy as a divine Institution but Ecclesiastical and those who seem to speak most of it do mean no more First then a succession there might be as to a different Degree and not as to a different Order Before we distinguished between Order and Power now between Order and Degree and by and by between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction But these distinctions are only the triflings of the Schoolmen whose proper faculty it is to divide every thing till they have reduced it to nothing For what does the degree of a Church-Officer signifie but such an order in the Church and what order is there without a power of Office according to its degree and therefore it is plain prevaricating with the evidence of things to impose these little subtilties upon the sense of Antiquity they good men meant plainly and honestly and when they give us an account of Apostolical Successions they were not aware of these scholastick distinctions and intended nothing else than a succession in the government of their several Churches Thus when Irenaeus gives us a Catalogue of twelve Bishops of Rome Successours to the Apostles in that See what did he mean but the supreme Governours of that Church when that was the only signification of the word Bishop in his time He never dream'd of their being stript of the Apostolical power and so only succeeding them in an empty Title in the meer name or the metaphysical notion of Bishops and they were no more if they had no more power than the rest of the Clergy But secondly This new distinction spoils the former evasion viz. That the Apostles were superiour in order not in power over the LXX but now a
superiority of order is made equivalent to a superiority of power for that from the time of our Saviours Resurrection is granted them by our Adversaries though it is denied their Successours Thus we enlarge or abate or evacuate that Commission that God himself has given them at our own meer will and pleasure If it be convenient for our cause to assert in one place that they were vested with no superiority of Power they shall be put off with an empty superiority of order separated from power If in another that Assertion seem not so convenient to our purpose they shall be presently advanced to an absolute supremacy over the other Pastors of the Church but then that must last only during their lives and as for their Successours we are pleased to degrade them from the Apostolical both Order and Authority and allow them nothing but an empty degree of I know not what but to say no more of the difference between Order and Degree As for the distinction between Order and Jurisdiction though in one place I affirm that the Apostles were a distinct Order from the other Clergy without any superiority of Jurisdiction yet in another if my cause require it there shall be but one order in the Christian Clergy and no difference but what is made by Jurisdiction and the Bishops themselves shall be equal to Presbyters in order by Divine Right and only superiour in jurisdiction by Ecclesiastical Constitution For so I read that for our better understanding of this we must consider a twofold power belonging to Church-Officers a Power of Order and a Power of Jurisdiction for in every Presbyter there are some things inseparably joyned to his Function and belonging to every one in his personal capacity both in actu primo and in actu secundo both as to the right and power to do it and the exercise and execution of that power such are preaching the Word visiting the Sick administring Sacraments c. but there are other things which every Presbyter has an aptitude and a Jus to in actu primo but the limitation and exercise of that Power does belong to the Church in common and belongs not to any one personally but by a further power of choice or delegation to it such is the power of visiting Churches taking care that particular Pastors discharge their duty such is the power of Ordination and Church-Censures and making Rules for Decency in the Church This is that we call the power of Jurisdiction Now this latter power though it belongs habitually and in actu primo to every Presbyter yet being about matters of publick and common concernment some further Authority in a Church constituted is necessary besides the power of Order and when this power either by consent of the Pastors of the Church or by the appointment of a Christian Magistrate or both is devolved to some particular Persons though quoad aptitudinem the power remain in every Presbyter yet quoad executionem it belongs to those who are so appointed Whatever truth there is in this the Assertion is plain that our Saviour appointed but one order in the Clergy and that the difference which has since been made by the consent of the Church consists in nothing else but Jurisdiction And this is very consistent with the former Assertion that there was no difference between the Apostles and the LXX beside distinction of order when now there is no more by divine appointment than one order in the Church And yet after all this their fluttering between Order and Power Degree and Order Power of Order and Power of Jurisdiction all superiority of Order so much as it is is so much superiority of Power Thus to take their own Instance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the President of the Assembly was so far superiour over his Colleagues in Power as he was in Order For whatsoever was peculiar to his Office gave him some more advantage in the Government of the Common-wealth than they had for the very power of calling and adjourning Assemblies presiding and moderating in them is no small degree of Power in a Republican Government But seeing the difference between a superiority of Order and Power is thought to be made out best by these parallel Instances of Commonwealths let us run the parallel with the Apostles and the LXX for if to be superiour only in Order is to be President in an Assembly or Prolocutor in a Convocation and if this were all the Office peculiar to the Apostles then when our Saviour appointed seventy Disciples and twelve Apostles he made twelve Prolocutors over a Convocation of seventy Seeing therefore that is too great a number of Speakers for so small an Assembly it is manifest that when he separated them for a distinct Office he intended something more by an Apostle than meerly a Chairman in a Presbytery and whatever it is it is either an higher power than others had or it is nothing at all Secondly This Succession is not so evident and convinced in all places as it ought to be to demonstrate the thing intended For it is not enough to shew a List of some Persons in the great Churches of Jerusalem Antioch Rome and Alexandria but it should be produced at Philippi Corinth and Caesarea c. This I perceive to be our Adversaries darling Objection being the only matter made use of to shift off several heads of Argument This was the proof of the defect of the Testimony of Antiquity as to places and is now here the only evidence of its ambiguity and by and by will be called in as the only instance of its Repugnancy But certainly their fondness to it is not grounded upon any great vertue that they see in it but they are only forced for want of more material Arguments to lay a mighty stress upon such poor pretences as in any other dispute they would be a shamed to own For first supposing the Succession cannot be shewn in all Churches is that any proof against the Succession that can And suppose I cannot produce a List of Bishops at Philippi Corinth and Caesarea shall I thence conclude against the Succession though I have very good History for it at Jerusalem Antioch Rome and Alexandria This is such an Inference as rather shews a mans good will to his Opinion than his Understanding But I have already proved that it is highly reasonable to conclude the customs of those Churches that are not known from those that are and apparently absurd to question the Records of those that are preserved for the uncertainty of those that are not But secondly What though we do not find in all Churches an accurate Catalogue of the succession of all Bishops do we find any Instance in any one ancient Church of any other form of Goverment If we can that were something to the Argument but that is not pretended in the Exception But otherwise because the exact
setling of Church-Government but July 9. that nine of the Laity and three or the Clergy in every Diocess should have power to exercise all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as shall be ordered by Parliament and to have their monthly meetings for that purpose that five of the Commissioners shall be a Quorum and have full power to try all Ecclesiastical Causes and to appoint Deputies under them in several places and that if any of the nine Commissioners should die or resign that five or more of them are to chuse another presently Thus far they proceeded under the Government of Midsummer-Moon but about the beginning of the Dog-days they vote that no Clergy-man shall be of the Commission and that the Committee shall be empowered to appoint five of the Clergy in every County under them to grant Ordinations Now all these Proceedings as ridiculous as they are and destructive of the very Being of a Church yet had the King joyned with his Parliament had upon this Principle been justifiable And so it will be in their power to vote up and down what Orders and Offices in the Church they please to day Episcopacy to morrow Presbytery next day Independency then a Committee and that of Lay-men too and if they please at last to abolish all Orders of the Clergy in that there are none by this Principle established by Divine Right these are excellent models of Church-Government and admirable methods of providing for the peace and settlement of it But if this trust be vested in the People beside that this too would require some proof out of the Word of God before it be granted and that it is liable to all the former inconveniences in that the putting the power of the Church into their hands makes the peace and settlement of it to depend upon the most giddy most ignorant and most uncertain thing in the world Besides all this I say this is so far from destroying any divine and unalterable Form of Church-Government that it sets up the Socinian model of Independency for F. Socinus was the first founder of it by Divine Right In that according to it all Societies of Christians are by our Saviour entrusted with a Power within themselves of electing of Church-Officers and governing Church-Affairs as they shall judge most conducible to Peace Order and Tranquillity which is the exact model of Independent Government Now this model if they will own it is not the Church of England that they plead for but Independency and if it is that they assert let them say so and not carry on the Cause of the Congregational Churches under the name of the Church of England but if they disavow it as they all do I shall only challenge them how to avoid it But to conclude this Argument in this one Principle do all the Enemies of the Church lay their ground-work that there is no known and setled Seat of Ecclesiastical Power and therefore that whoever happens to have its present possession seeing he never received it by any Commission from our Saviour he may without any offence against the standing Laws of Christianity be deposed from it The inconvenience whereof is so great that it seems to me a very forcible Argument from the nature and necessity of the thing it self for some certain divine establishment of Church-Government in that without it it is plainly impossible either to secure any peace or exercise any Authority in the Church because whoever obtains it has it not from any divine Commission and if no Commission then no Authority However I cannot but admire that those learned men who take away the divine right of some particular Form of Church-Government have not all this while been aware that they run us into all the exorbitancies and confusions of Independency in that when they have once removed the settlement by Divine Right they leave it do what they can entirely in the Peoples power to set up their own Form of Government Seeing then that unless the Christian Church be subject to Government it can be no more than a Rabble and a Riot Seeing unless the Government thereof be vested in some certain Order of men it must be for ever obnoxious to unavoidable disorders and confusions and seeing it was with particular care setled by our Saviour on his Apostles and conveyed by the Apostles to the Christian Bishops as their proper Successours I cannot see how the Divine and Apostolical Right of Episcopacy if the providence of God had designed to make it unquestionable could have been made more evident either from Common Reason or Catholick Tradition But secondly As the taking away of the divine and perpetual Right of Episcopacy does on one hand open a door for Independency so it does on the other for Popery For next to rescuing the Kings of England from the Usurpation of the Popes of Rome upon their Crowns under the pretence of an oblique or direct Supremacy over them and the reforming of many Superstitions both in Worship and Doctrine the main design of our endeavoured Reformation was to assert and retrieve the Rights of the Episcopal Order against his illegal encroachments For whereas the Original Government of the Catholick Church was vested in the Apostolical Order whereby as every Bishop had supreme ordinary Power within his own Diocess so a general Council of Bishops had supreme Power over the Universal Church So that whatever priviledges or preheminences were granted to the Bishops of particular Churches by Ecclefiastical Constitution yet their essential Power was equal and could no way exert it self as to the Catholick Church but in Council and so the Church was governed for many hundred years till the Bishop of Rome taking advantage of those peculiar priviledges and preheminences that were granted to his See as the seat of the Empire did by degrees assume to himself an absolute Sovereignty over all the Pastors of the Universal Church transferring all Ecclesiastical Government to the Court of Rome where it was managed by himself and his Officers with all the arts of Tyranny and Oppression And here first began the breach our reforming Bishops at first not disputing the preheminence of his See because that concerned not them which he had for a long time enjoyed in most other parts of the Western world and perhaps might still have done would he have been contented with it But alas they were no more fond even of the Title of Patriarch as great as it was than they are of their mock Title of Servus servorum Domini Nothing less would satiate their ambition than a sole and absolute Sovereignty over all and to this purpose they impudently applied all those promises that our Saviour made to his Apostles and their Successors of being for ever present with and assistant to them in the exercise of their Office to the Popes Person and they having once assumed this Power resolved to keep it and for many Ages reigned absolute Monarchs over the Christian World And here I say