A Brief Essay concerning the INDEPENDENCY OF Church-Power THAT the non-complying Bishops and Clergy were at the Revolution duly authorized in their respective Charges is by none denyed that they have not as yet been deprived by a Synod of Bishops or had any Ecclesiastical Censure passed agâinst them is equally evident For tho' there were some Bishops in the Upper House when the Act of Deprivation passed against their Brethren yet their Votes supposing them Legal were Foreign to their Character and given in virtue of a meerly Civil Capacity they voted not as Bishops but as Lords of Parliament And since the Right by which they sit is a Lay-privilege The Acts which they do in consequence of such a Privilege must be of the same Secular Nature the Case standing thus the Question is Whether an Act of Parliament supposing it legally Constituted can void an Ecclesiastical Authority and unmake the Governors of the Church I shall briefly undertake to maintain the Negative by shewing the Churches Power to be distinct from and independent of the State But to prevent mis-construction I desire to be understood that by Church Power I mean only that which is purely Spiritual And that Ecclesiastics as such can make no direct or indirect claim to any other And therefore First They are no less the Subjects of Princes than the Laity Secondly Their meerly Secular Estates their Civil Privileges and Jurisdictions are all under the Cognizance of the State of which they may be legally though not always equitably disseized whenever the Legislative Authority of a Kingdom shall think fit to do it Having premised this I shall endeavour to prove their Independency in things purely relating to their Function 1. From the Original of Ecclesiastical Authority 2. From the End and Design of it 3. From the Practice of the Primitive Church 1. From the Original of Ecclesiastical Authority The Power of Governing the Church and performing the Offices of Religion is neither any Gift of the People nor held by Commission from Kings and Princes It springs from a greater Original and derives no lower than Heaven it self Our Blessed Saviour who Redeemed the Church was pleased to settle the Administration of it by his own Appointment From Him the Apostles received Authority to teach and govern such as were Converted by them the Words of their Commission are plain and expressed with all imaginable Advantage As my Father hath sent me even so send I you whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted c. St. John 20. 21 23. Upon this Account the Apostles are called the Ambassadors and Ministers of Christ 1 Cor. 4. 1. And the People are commanded to obey and submit themselves to those who have this Spiritual Authority Heb. 13. 17. Neither was this Power to expire with the Apostles but be conveyed by Succession through all Ages of the World there being the same cause for its Continuance as for its first Institution And accordingly we find from St. Paul that one reason of his giving Titus the Super-intendency of Crete was to Ordain Elders in every City Tit. 1. 5. Thus Clemens Romanus 1. Ep. ad Cor. tells us the Apostles in their Travels used to Ordain Bishops c. for the advantage of such as were only Christians in prospect as well as for those who were already converted And thus the Sacred Order has been continued without interruption for near 1700 Years Now our Saviour we know was no Temporal Prince He refused to interpose in a case of Property and declared expresly that his Kingdom was not of this World St. Luke 12. 14. St. John 18. 36. From whence 't is plain that the Authority which our Saviour gave the Church can have no dependance upon the State because it was never derived from thence 'T is true all Power both Sacred and Civil came originally from God yet under the Jewish and especially under the Christian Institution the Crown and Mitre have been divided And tho' the same Persons are capable of both yet the Claim must be made upon a different Account and conveyed by Titles perfectly distinct And since the Ecclesiastical Authority doth not hold of the Civil Magistrate it cannot be forfeited to Him As the State cannot Consecrate Bishops and Priests so neither can they recal their Character or restrain them in the Exercise of their Function there being no reason a Privilege should be either extinguished or limited by those who were never Masters of the Grant For what a Man has no Power to give he can have no Right to take away This will further appear if we consider the Means by which the Advantages of Christianity are conveyed to us Now that the Sacraments are necessary for this purpose is evident from Scripture For concerning Baptism 't is said That except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God St. John 3. 5. And the Lord's Supper is stiled by St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. 6. The Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ that is the Means by which the Benefits of Christ's Death are applyed to us So that without being partakers of the Sacraments we can have no pretence to the Covenant of Grace no Title to the Assistance of God's Spirit nor any Assurance of a Blessed Immortality Now I suppose none of the Laity will pretend to an Authority to Administer the Sacraments They will not challenge a Right to Seal Covenants in God's Name or to represent Him in Acts of Solemn Blessing and Absolution No Man as the Apostle argues ought to take this Honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron Heb. 5. 4. The Fate of Corah and Uzziah Numb 16. 2. Chron. 26. are sufficient to deter all Secular Persons from an Encroachment of this Nature which if made God would both punish the Usurpation and null the Act As a Prince would be obliged to do in point of Government if any Person should forge a Commission in his Name Now since the Sacraments which are both necessary to make us Members of the Church and to convey the Advantages of Christianity to us are by our Saviours special Appointment entrusted with the Clergy and the Administration of them is lodged in their Hands from hence it follows that those who have the sole Right of Admitting into a Society or Excluding from it and of dispensing the Rewards and Punishments are the proper and only Governors of that Society and can have no Dependance upon any other Secondly The Independency of Ecclesiastical Authority may be proved from the End and Design of it I suppose I need not prove that the Christian Religion as contained in the New Testament is the last Revelation which God intends to make to the World Now this being granted we must suppose that our Blessed Saviour Founded his Church upon such Laws and gave it such lasting Principles of Government as should best maintain its Continuance and secure those important Truths He
had entrusted it with Least of all can we imagine He would build it upon a Sandy Foundation and make it depend upon the Arbitrary Power of its Enemies Our Saviour foresaw that all the Princes of the World would disbelieve and many of them Persecute his Doctrine for several Ages together and therefore would be very improper Persons to have been trusted with the Sovereign Administration of Ecclesiastical Affairs Had the Government of the Church been derived from them or depended upon their Allowance Christianity had been a very short liv'd Religion and never out-grown its Infancy In this Case the Publick Assemblies Ordinations Sacraments and Discipline must have lain at the Mercy of Unbelievers and the Clergy ought not to have executed their Function nor taken care of their Flock unless the Civil Magistrate would have given them leave For if the Spiritual Supremacy were the Right of Princes tho' they might possibly abuse the Management of this Prerogative yet it ought to lie absolutely at their Disposal and under their Regulation And for any Person to meddle in Ecclesiastical Matters without a Commission from them but especially against their Commands would be an open Violation of their Right which no Man ought to be guilty of tho' for the support of the best Religion because we ought not to do Ill that Good may come of it And since no Society can subsist without Government and Discipline if the Bishops could Exercise no Spiritual Authority without a Lay-permission it would be in the Civil Magistrates Power to make the Perpetuity of the Church impracticable and the Christian Religion would depend upon the pleasure of the Prince But besides the Absurdity of this way of Reasoning we have in the Third Place The Practice of the Apostles and of the whole Primitive Church to prove that the Ecclesiastical Authority was perfectly sui juris and never under the Controul of the Secular Magistrate Thus when the Sanhedrim of the Jews who acted by the Authority of the Romans and had the Assistance of the Captain of the Temple when they Imprisoned the Apostles and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the Name of Iesus Act. 4. 19. to this their Answer is plain and positive whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God judge ye verse 20. that is to say they had a Commission from Heaven to preach the Gospel which they were bound to execure and which no Temporal Jurisdiction had any Authority to revoke Whereas had the Church been under the Check of the State in Matters purely Spiritual St. Peter and St. John were much to blame for â—efusing to obey their Superiors they ought to have acquieâ—ced in the Sanhedrims Prohibition and not to have purâ—ued their Function after they were so solemnly silenc'd and thaâ— by those whom themselves owned to be Rulers of the People Act. 4. 8. Either therefore the Church must be Constituted Independent of the State or the Apostles can never be cleared of the Charge of Sedition The same Imputation will upon the Modern Principles affect the Bishops of the Universal Church for the first 300 Years who held publick Assemblies Governed their Clergy and their People and perform'd all parts of their Office not only without any Authority from their respective Princes but often contrary to their express Commands which matter of Fact is so well known that it would be superfluous to enlarge upon the proof of it If it be said that these were Heathen Princes but when the Emperors became part of the Church the Case was otherwise To this I answer That the change of the Emperor's Religion could not gain them any such new Jurisdiction as is pretended For as Magistracy in general does not imply a Right to Spiritual Authority so neither does the denomination of Christian give it any such Advantage For I suppose Spiritual Dominion is no more founded in Grace than Temporal In short if Princes receive any such Authority by virtue of their Christianity it must be conveyed either by Revelation or implied in the notion of Baptism As to the Point of Revelation The Scripture no where teaches us that Princes upon their turning Christian should have their Commission enlarged with the addition of Episcopal or Priestly Power I grant it was foretold that Kings should be nursing Fathers to the Church Isa. 49. 23. but then it is added that they shall bow down to Her with their Faces towards the Earth and elsewhere that they shall Minister to Her or serve Her Isa. 60. 10. We see therefore we must not strain upon the Letter in these Expressions nor press the Metaphor too far unless we will conclude Contradictions Therefore the Character of their being Nursing Fathers is sufficiently fulfilled by their affording Christians Protection and Encouragement under their Government and by finishing the Contempt of Religion But that the Magistrates Conversion should alter the Seat of Ecclesiastical Government put a Period to the Apostolical Succession and dissolve the Church into the State is not so much as the least hinted And as for Baptism there is no Authority of any kind implied in the Receiving that Sacrament If there were every Christian would have an equal share in this Privilege which would make the Constitution of the Church monstrous in which all its Members would be Governors and so none under an Obligation of being governed If it is objected that the Oxford Greek Manuscript published the last Year has proved by a Collection of several Instances that Bishops though unjustly deprived have for the sake of Peace laid down their Function and not contested their Right with their Successors provided they were not Hereticks And that the People made no scruple to Communicate with the New Bishops To this it may be returned that this Manuscript has been lately undertaken and shewn to be altogether unserviceable to the Publisher's Design Vid. A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops c. where the Learned Vindicator has proved First that though the Instances alledged in the Manuscript were applicable to the present Dispute they would fall far short of gaining the Cause I shall just mention some of his Reasons He hath shewn the Author of the Manuscript to be defective in point of Antiquity and little more than 400 Years Old and that none of the Instances rise higher than the fourth Century that they are not universal in respect of Place all of them being confin'd to the Greek Church and most to the single See of Constantinople Farther the Learned Vindicator observes that the Precedents cited by the Manuscript are nakedly represented without shewing whether the People who deserted the Deprived Bishops believed them unjustly Deprived If they did not 't is no wonder they withdrew their Obedience Neither do his Instances prove that the People thought them tried by an incompetent Authority as well as unjustly deprived Now this ought to have been proved to have made the Manuscript
serviceable to the Publishers purpose For though an unjust Sentence ought to be submitted to when pronounced by a proper Iudge yet when the Cause does not lie within the Cognizance of the Court all the Proceedings are null and void It should have been made out that the Bishops insisted on their Right and challenged Submission from their People for if they acquiesced the Case does not come up to the Matter in Hand But here the Manuscript fails as it does also in clearing whether the Behaviour of the Bishops and People was founded upon Principles at that time owned For if want of due Information or Fear or Interest made them act as they did we have no reason to be governed by their Examples The Vindicator pâ—â—â—eeds to give in Counter-evidence and proves from St. Cyprian who disputes the Case of Sehism at large and lived in an Age very valuable for Antiquity and Integrity That the Catholick Church maintained the Right of Canonical Bishops both against Secular Magistrates and Schismatical Intruders As appear'd in the Case of Cornelius Bishop of Rome who was owned by the whole Church notwithstanding the Opposition made by Decius the Emperor and Novarian the Anti-bishop And Martian Bishop of Arles was refused the Communion of his Brethren for owning that of Schismaticks He observes that the Principles insisted on by St. Cyprian were not peculiar to his own Age but maintained likewise by St. Augustin and Optatus in their Disputes against the Donatists The Vindicator pursues the Argument and proves the Anti-bishops and their Adherents guilty of Heresy for the avoiding of which the Author of the Manuscript himself allows separation to be justifiable and necessary this charge he presseth upon them not only because they defend their Novelties by Principles but by such Principles as strike at the Root of Ecclesiastical Government For their being Bishops supposes all Spiritual as well as Civil Authority derived from the State which Doctrines make it impossible for the Church to subsist in a time of Persecution And since no Society whether Spiritual or Secular can stand without an intrinsick Power of Government and the Advantages of Society cannot be had any longer than the Society whence they arise continues From hence it follows that those Opinions which destroy any Society must destroy all those Advantages which were design'd in the Constitution and guarded by it Such Tenents when they relate to the Church may with propriety enough be called Fundamental Errors which brings them under the Modern and received notion of Heresy The Learned Vindicator in the second part of his Book goes on and shows that though the Oxford Manuscript how favourable soever would have been a very slender Defence for the Anti-bishops and their Party yet they have not so much as the Countenance of this Record the Instances produced being Foreign to the present Controversy For in all the Cases mentioned in this Manuscript excepting that of Callinicus which is dubious and not to their purpose either the Deprivations were passed in an Ecclesiastical Synod or were grounded upon Resignation or Heresy or else the Deprived Bishops insisted upon their Right and with their People formed distinct Communions from their Intruders And thus in the Course of 900 Years which is the length of the Manuscript they have not one Instance to prove that a Lay-Deprivation had any Force against the Spiritual Authority of the Church So singular as well as destructive are the Principles our Adversaries establish themselves upon Lastly The Learned Vindicator subjoins a Collection of Canons drawn from those called the Apostles from the Council of Gangra Antioch Carthage and Constantinople which in all rational Conjecture were added by the Author of the Manuscript though omitted by the Publisher In these Canons 't is solemnly Decreed That if any Deacon or Priest should despise their Bishop and hold separate Meetings from him unless he were deprived by a Synod they were to be degraded This Fault in the Laity was punished with Excommunication And if a Bishop withdrew Communion from his Metropolitan unless Synodically deprived he was to be deposed By all which we may understand how far these Councils were from supposing that the Civil Magistrate had any Power to deprive Ecclesiasticks of their Spiritual Authority These are some of the Heads upon which the Learned Vindicator proceeds and which he maintains with admiâ—able strength of Reason and Authority If the Reader is inclin'd to see the Argument pursu'd at Length and with its just Advantages he may please to consult his excellent Discourse From the Independency of the Church thus proved these Conclusions naturally follow First That it is no more in the Power of the State to deprive the Church Governors of their purely Spiritual Authority than it is in the Power of the Church to remove the Magistracy or disincorporate the State For all Punishment and Censure supposes Jurisdiction in the Person who inflicts it But this Supposition is inconsistent with the Notion of Independency Those who are Independent being in this sense equal so far as their Independency reaches and have no Privileges to Command or Duties to Obey on either side From whence it follows Secondly That the Bishops notwithstanding the Lay-Deprivation have the same Spiritual Authority they formerly had and their People the same Obligation to remain in their Communion The Consequence of which is Thirdly That the Anti-bishops who are possessed of their Sees have no Authority to Govern These the People are bound to avoid upon the Score of Intrusion and Schism I say upon the Score of Schism For since they have subjected the Power of the Keys to the Civil Supremacy given up as much as in them lies the Fundamental Rights of the Church and made the Being of Religion precarious and dependent on the Pleasure of the Magistrate Since they have either Usurped the Authority of Lawful and Canonical Bishops or own'd those who are guilty of such Invasions the Charge of Schism and Separation must lie at their own Doors Such dangerous Innovations as these as long as they are maintained must cut off all Religious Correspondence and make Communion impracticable Insomuch that those who joyn with the Intruders will justly fall under the same Imputation of Schism for revolting from their Lawful Bishops and making themselves One with those who are divided from the Church Fourthly This Privilege of Independency in Matters purely Spiritual will reach the Inferior Clergy For their Authority being derived from the Bishops and of the same Nature with theirs it can be subordinate or related to no other Head of Jurisdiction And therefore these can be no more discharged the Exercise of their Function by a Lay Power than the Bishops Thus we see Communion with the pretended Church of England must be Unlawful even supposing the Law-Authority unexceptionable and that the Church-Service remain unaltered However let us put the Case for we may suppose any thing that the depriving Authority was it self defective