that they had no such Sentiments AND indeed how shall we judge or how shall we know what are the CHURCH'S peculiar Rights and what not but by the Words of CHRIST'S Commission and the Practice of the most Primitive Churches thereupon The Performance of those Sacred Offices which CHRIST by His Commission has taken away from the Civil Powers and vested in a distinct Order of Men we own to be the peculiar Authorities of the CHURCH And accordingly the Primitive Fathers did not allow the Laity to have Authority therein They never condescended so far as to suffer them either to consecrate the Eucharist or to lay on Hands in Ordination When therefore as to the Designation of Bishops to such and such particular Districts CHRIST'S Commission gives no Restraining or Appropriating Rules at all and the constant Practice of the CHURCH has been to admit the Laity to have an Interest and a Vote therein and to promote by their Election I do not know what can confute the Claim of a Divine Relation and an Independent Authority herein if this will not IF then the Designation of Bishops and Clergymen to their several Districts be no Part of the CHURCH'S sacred and unalienable Rights certainly the Removal or Deprivation of such Persons can be no Invasion of them because doubtless they who have a competent Authority to promote must be allowed to have the same also to Remove THE Conclusion of the Whole then is There is no such Thing in our Days as a Clergyman's having a Divine Right to his District His Claim and Right is wholly Human and Legal founded on the Laws of the Land and the established Constitutions of the CHURCH and Country in which we live Consequently then what the STATE does in a legal Way in such Deprivations is done by a competent Authority it is Valid in all Respects and binds the Consciences of all Men. It transfers the Obligations as to Religious Communion from the former Possessor to the latter It makes it our Duty to adhere to such Bishops as in such Cases the Laws of the Land regularly advance And it makes our adhering to the Communion of the Bishops so deprived to be both sinful and schismatical II. THE second Objection is That what I have here advanced seems not to agree with the Practice and Principles of the CHURCH for the first three hundred Years As to the Practice of the CHURCH in those Times I have in some Measure thus accounted for it already That it proceeded from the Exigencies and Necessity of Affairs at the Time when the Christians were either under Persecution and so were constrained to act in Opposition to their Secular Governors because Christianity could not otherwise be propagated Or else it was done under the Connivance and Permission of such Temporal Powers In either of which Cases what was necessary to be done by the Bishops and Governors of the CHURCH for the Promotion of the Christian Religion they undoubtedly had a Divine Right and Authority from GOD to do But then in such Cases the CHURCH did not claim a Divine Authority of Excluding the Jurisdiction of the Emperors and Secular Governors but they excluded themselves by refusing to intermeddle in this Government Even the mildest of the Heathen Emperors who as Tertullian tells us Apol. cap. v. forbid the Christians to be enquired after or persecuted seem to have dealt with them only as Gallio the Deputy of Achaia did I will be no Judge of such Acts xviii 15. Matters When therefore the Christian Bishops and Clergy were so far either neglected or favoured by their Heathen Governors as to be left to themselves they had Nothing more to do than to make wise Laws and proper Canons and see them duly executed And if against those who among themselves were mutinous and turbulent and schismatical they pleaded the just Obligation of their Sanctions and set forth very emphatically the Disorder and Guilt of those who in such Cases revolted from their proper Bishop and despised his Authority and separated from his Communion they certainly Argued very justly and Acted very rightly All Christians were bound in Conscience to conform themselves to such good and wise Rules and to submit to such just and lawful Authority But what is all this to the Rights of the Temporal Powers whose Authority does not appear so much as once to have fallen under their Debates for the first three hundred Years WHEN the Romans had conquered Judea they yet left the Jews in a great Measure to the Management of their own Civil Government And what Herod or the high Priest and the Sanhedrim in such Cases enacted or ordained was doubtless in Conscience to be obeyed and it was a Sin to be mutinous and seditious against them But sure this Privilege could never be extended to the exclusion of the Power and Authority of the Roman Emperors So here the Roman Emperors put the Christians under a Necessity of Acting independently on the Temporal Power because they would not concern themselves therein But this does not at all prove that therefore all Secular Powers must for ever be excluded I am amazed therefore to find such a Fondness as I do for the Rules and Sentiments of the Cyprianick Age in this Controversy I cannot but smile at Mens Attempts to determine it by the Practice and Principles of St. Cyprian or any other Father of those Times All that they say is out of the Question and foreign to the Purpose They only plead the Power and Authority of the Church's Sanctions among themselves and the Guilt of separating from the Communion of their Bishops while there was no other who would meddle in the Government of it In such Cases theirs was the only proper Authority to be regarded because the Secular Powers had declined all Jurisdiction therein But this is no more a Proof that the Authority of Kings and Princes must for ever be excluded from all Ecclesiastical Affairs than the Decrees of Herod and the Jewish Sanhedrim are a Proof that Julius and Augustus Caesar had no Authority in Judaea WHAT shall we say then to Dr. Hickes who would send all Christian Emperors and Kings to these very Times to learn new Lessons and to know from these Examples what Power they ought to exercise in Ecclesiastical Prop. 26. Affairs Certainly this is a very odd Way of Arguing That because Heathen Emperors would not meddle with the Government of the Christian Church therefore Christian Kings and Princes must not As tho' the Neglects and Disregards of the one were to be a Bar and an Interdict to the just Rights and Claims of the other That this is the Truth of the Case and that there is no more than this in it will be undeniably plain and clear 3. FROM the great Concessions and large Compliances that the Christian Bishops and Clergy soon made when the Roman Emperors favoured their Interest and interposed their Authority in the Management and Settlement of
now to give up his Sovereignty and Supremacy in all Spiritual Ecclesiastical Causes and in all Moral Actions into the Hands of his spiritual Governors of that Church of which he was now becoming a Member He is now no longer to claim an universal Supremacy in his Dominions but himself becomes a Subject to his Subjects and their spiritual Inferior the Bishops in his Kingdom being as so many Kings and spiritual Monarchs who have a Divine Right to tye up his Hands from having any thing to do in the Government of the Church or in Matters of Religion Would not all the Secular Potentates in the World have spurn'd at and despised the Preachers of so senseless a Religion as an Imposture and a Cheat that under a Pretence of Godliness was contrived to wrest one great Part of their Authority out of their Hands And would not such an Attempt as this too deservedly have caused the Word of Truth to be evil spoken of Most assuredly it would And yet this is the very Thing that an Independent Authority in Church Government naturally and universally tends to DR Hickes is pleased to say Constit p. 76. That the Governors of the Church lose Nothing of their Power Authority or Jurisdiction by admitting Sovereign Princes into the Church I beg leave to ask then Whether it is not altogether as reasonable both for the Honour and Interest of Christianity that Christian Princes should lose Nothing of their Temporal Authority by embracing this our Holy Religion And if it be I am sure that the Schemes which are now laid out for Kings and Princes to rule by under the Church's independent Power cannot be of GOD because they make Spoil and Havock of the secular Powers and rob them of one entire Branch of their Sovereignty and Dominion And yet this is not the worst Evil that attends this Claim For V. IT not only robs Kings of all Sovereignty in religious and spiritual Affairs but is extended also to their Administration of the Temporal I have already observed That these Gentlemen bring all the moral Actions of humane Life under the peculiar Cognizance of the spiritual Government of the CHURCH Every Thing in which the Consciences of Men are concern'd they claim as falling wholly within this spiritual Jurisdiction so much as a Judge between two private Luke xii 14. Men in the Division of a small Estate But our Modern Independents in Church Government make themselves Judges of Kings and of their Titles to their Thrones They in effect divide the Kingdoms of the Earth according to their Decisions and Determinations By a pretended Supremacy from CHRIST they put a Check upon the Legislature in the Laws that they provide for the Security of the Nation and labour to controul the States of the Realm in the Administration of their secular Affairs They sanctify even Sedition and Rebellion by their spiritual Authority and take upon them to absolve the Subjects from all the strictest Oaths whereby they have sworn Allegiance to their King They endeavour to bind it upon the Consciences of Men to set up one King and to dethrone another according to their personal Sentiments and Opinions Now I would willingly be informed by them what Part of CHRIST'S Commission it is that gives them this Authority or that in any disputable Titles to the Throne makes them the Judges of it And yet the Modern Independents in Church Goverment do not only assume all this to themselves but they also lay as much Stress on their own Notions and Assertions of this Kind as tho' they had a Spirit of Infallibility or an immediate Revelation from Heaven What less than this could induce them to charge all the Great Men of our Church however learned and equally pious with themselves as Teaching and Acting and Praying contrary to the essential Righteousness of GOD only because they teach and act and pray contrary to their particular Sentiments and Schemes in Civil Government What is this but to arrogate to themselves a Spirit of Infallibility in the Interpretation of those Scriptures on which they build their Notions and Opinions Will not the Reader stand still here and Pause a little and Question the Truth of what I say Will he not think it incredible that spiritual Men should approach so near to Blasphemy as to set up their own political Principles as the infallible Tests of Truth and Righteousness Certain it is that CHRIST'S Commission is of another Nature and never was intended to authorize the Governors of the Church to frame the Government of Nations too according to their disputable Models and controverted Schemes and to damn all Mankind as Hereticks and Schismaticks and Rebels who will not come in to them and desert the legal Constitutions of their Country This is foreign to the Business of the Gospel the Propagation of the Christian Faith by Preaching and Baptizing and Administring Sacraments and Training up Christians in Holiness and Devotion is a Sphere at so great a Distance from all this of Secular Government and Political Controversies that GOD certainly never gave the Governors of the Church any Divine Authority therein And therefore an Independent Authority in Church Governors which is industriously set up to this End must be an Imposture and a Cheat and contrary to the Will of CHRIST and of GOD. And Bishops and Clergymen by Virtue of CHRIST'S Commission may as well claim a Right to go into Westminster-Hall and turn out the Judges as giving Judgment contrary to the essential Righteousness of God as to teach the People that it is a Sin to be subject to the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom where they live This brings me to my VI. LAST Argument which is That this Independent Authority in the Government of the CHURCH is utterly inconsistent with the Supremacy and Sovereignty of all Secular Potentates Two such Independent Authorities in the Government of the same Body of Men appear utterly incompatible They so frequently interfere and thereby bring such Mischiefs and Distractions into the World that they cannot possibly be both of them from GOD. He who is a God of Peace and Order and not of Confusion must not be supposed to have intended any two such Powers without a Subordination of the one to the other THE Supporters of that Claim being aware of this Argument would evade it by saying That the Mischiefs complained of proceed not from the Inconsistency of two such Powers but from the Encroachments of the two contending Parties And that all this would be prevented effectually if each would keep within their proper Limits and neither of 'em put their Sickle into the other's Harvest This is Regale Pontiff p. 15. smoothly and finely said indeed but Nothing to the Purpose because it is Arguing against plain Matter of Fact For they both of them claim a Right to the same Harvest and who then shall judge between them to preserve the Peace and Quiet of the Christian World Are
to that Government were such that it was become impossible for them to execute their Spiritual Offices in the CHURCH with any Security to the Peace and Safety of the STATE They could not perform Divine-Service in Publick because they would not own the Authority of the King who was to be prayed for therein The Bishops could not ordain other Clergymen for the same Reason They could not do it without obliging them by the Laws of the Land to own those Secular Powers whom they themselves did not own They could not govern the Clergy as Bishops by the Laws of the Land are bound to govern them without Teaching them and Instructing them to teach their People the Duty of Obedience to that King whom they themselves looked on as an unlawful King Neither could they answer the Ends or do the Business of the Government by sitting in Parliament as the Law expects and requires that all the Bishops of the Kingdom should do Nay in all their Exercise of Divine Offices they must undeniably lie under a strong Byass and Temptation of instilling dangerous Doctrines and Principles inconsistent with the Peace and Security of the Kingdom Can it be supposed then that any National Government wants a sufficient and competent Authority of removing such Bishops from their Sees and of putting other Orthodox Bishops in their Room And must They ask the Clergy's Leave to do this Or must they borrow a competent Authority from the CHURCH to do this effectually Miserable are the Princes who are in such a Case Wretched is the Kingdom that wants a competent Authority to do any Thing which appears necessary to be done with any of its Subjects of what Order soever to support it self and preserve its own Authority Who then can believe that Almighty GOD ever intended this Those who object against the Validity of such a Deprivation should consider two Things 1. THAT there is no Persecution of Christianity in it Had those Bishops been deprived for any Doctrines or Articles of the Christian Faith it would have looked more plausibly on their Side and might with more Reason have been called Persecution Or if upon their Deprivation their Districts and Sees had been left destitute of Orthodox Bishops regularly consecrated to perform the Divine Offices as others had done before them This would have made a great Alteration in the Case But when it is for an avowed Disaffection to the established Civil Government and judged necessary for the Security of it that Necessity proves it lawful and answers all Objections that can possibly be brought against it And therefore to pretend that such a Deprivation is not valid as to the People living within their Districts of such deprived Bishops because it is not Canonical is in effect saying nothing at all For Deprivation signifies nothing to the Purpose if it does not in the Effects of it bind all the Consciences of the Subjects to disown the Authority of the Persons so deprived and discharge them from all Obligations of future Submission to and Communion with them This is a Power without which Civil Government cannot stand and therefore Secular Powers must be granted to have a competent Authority to all such Purposes or else they are not only Subjects and Inferiors but even Slaves to their spiritual Sovereigns and must depend precariously on the Good-will and Favour of their Clergy whether they shall sit easy and safe on their Thrones or no. And all the Laws and Canons and Constitutions of the CHURCH if they be wise and good and christian must be made with a due Regard and Subserviency to this End or else they lose all their Validity and are to be looked upon as Nothing For this is a sure Principle never to be disputed That all National Governments have as sufficient and competent an Authority to do every Thing which is necessary to preserve the STATE as the Bishops and Clergy can have for the Support of RELIGION and the CHURCH AND if this Authority will extend to the valid Deprivation of the disaffected and disloyal Governors of the Church the plain Consequence of it is That all the Subjects of the Kingdom are in Duty and Conscience discharged from any farther spiritual Relation to or Communion with the Persons so deprived What is it then that our Non-jurors mean by Exclaiming against this even as tho' it were a Sin against the Holy Ghost To tell the World That all other Bishops who will not adhere to the deprived ones can perform no valid Acts of Priesthood their Prayers Dr. Hickes Collect. p 32. are Sin and their Sacraments no Sacraments and their Absolution Null and of no Force That all other Christians who are not in the Communion of the deprived Bishops are cut off from the Church of Christ can have no Benefit by His Promises no Assistance of His Grace no Mercy thro' His Blood Nay that altho' they die Martyrs for Christ yet Martyrdom it self cannot make amends for this Sin If a Stranger to our Gospel were to hear this he would certainly conclude that Christianity aimed at Nothing more than the Exaltation of the CHURCH'S Power and that Nothing greater was required to Salvation than to own these deprived Bishops to be the Heads of it Whereas in Truth the Commission given is only to preach the Gospel to administer the Sacraments and to exercise such Offices and such Powers as shall be necessary to the Propagation of the Christian Religion Without any Check upon Secular Potentates in their Administration of Civil Government or any Exemption from their Jurisdiction They have no Authority that interferes with Civil Powers To confirm all which it must not be forgotten 2. THAT in this Deprivation the STATE took away no Power which the CHURCH truly and properly speaking gives Dr. Hickes indeed insinuates p. 24. That as only Bishops have from Christ a Right to ordain so they only have a Right to deprive one another But this Argument is formed with more Cunning than Ingenuity and the Opposition is not fairly put It should not have been between Ordaining and Depriving but Ordaining and Deposing from the Sacred Order of the Priesthood In the one the CHURCH gives in the other She takes away Her spiritual Authority But Depriving is of another Nature it leaves the Persons all the Catholick Authority which the CHURCH gave if they can find Places where they may lawfully Exercise it and only restrains them from doing so in such and such Dominions It is chiefly Removing them from the Districts and Sees which they held of the Secular Powers and thereby from all Right to the Exercise of their Spiritual Offices among any of the King's Subjects And if Kings and Princes have not a competent Authority to do this they are too weak to stand and consequently much weaker than GOD and CHRIST ever intended that Civil Government should be THE chief Objections to what is here delivered are these three I. IT is pleaded That there is
such a Divine Relation between a Bishop and the People of his District as no Secular Powers can take away II. THAT the Authority in spiritual Affairs here allowed to Kings and Princes is contrary to the Practice and Principles of the first three Hundred Years III. THAT this is bringing the Church and its Clergy into Slavery I. As to the Divine Relation pretended to be between a Bishop and the People of his See or District Pray how comes that about It is compared I know by some Reg. Pont. p. 3. Men to Marriage But who made that Match or gave the divine Sanction to the Contract Or if that were true how comes there to be so many common Causes of Divorce In short this is the Notion of those only who make every Thing that has been occasionally done by the Governors of the Church to have been done by a divine and unchangeable Authority But the only Way to judge rightly of this Matter is to consider what is the original Ground of that Relation and by whose Designation and Authority it has been made Now as to this 1. I BELIEVE that every Body will grant That in promoting Bishops to such and such Sees and Clergymen to their Districts or Parishes a Regard ought and will be had to the Sentiments and the Judgment of the Spiritual Governors of the Church who as I said above in Consequence of their Commission from CHRIST to plant and govern it must be supposed Invested with a Trust as to the spiritual Qualifications of the Persons to be employed in Holy Offices And this Care and Trust and just Authority they are supposed to discharge in their Admission of Persons into Holy Orders In which they have Authority to provide that no Persons unqualified should be admitted into the Service of GOD. But then when the Church has effectually taken this Care it must certainly be granted also in the 2. Second Place THAT Christian Princes and States have both an Interest in this Affair and a Trust also committed to Them in providing proper Spiritual Guides and Pastors for their People And where they have both an Interest and a Trust it will be very hard to say that they have no Authority Suppose that the Governors of the CHURCH should incline to appoint such Persons as the STATE can have no Confidence in or no Security from must they be allowed no Authority even where their Peace and Safety appear to be very deeply concern'd Sure this is too unreasonable and absurd to be believed Or again Suppose that the Governors of the CHURCH should be careless and neglect providing for their Sees would not the Temporal Powers be bound to supply that Defect and to take Gare that the People should not want proper Guides and Pastors It is absurd then to think that they have no Authority in a Matter which they are bound in Conscience to take Care of Now as all this seems very agreeable to common Reason let us go on and consider 3. WHAT has been the Practice of the CHURCH in this Particular And here we shall find that generally speaking every One who appeared to have an Interest in the Management of Ecclesiastical Affairs were allowed to have an Influence and some Power in the Designation of the Person to be employed in such a Place or District THE CHURCH commits a Catholick Power or Authority in Consecration or Ordination which Authority is to be exercised so far as lawfully it may thro' the whole CHURCH of CHRIST without any Assignment of this or that particular Jurisdiction So the Form of Consecration runs with us Receive ye the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Bishop in the Church of GOD. And that such was the Manner of Primitive Ordinations the Reverend and very Learned Dr. Potter Ch. Gov. p. 452. now Lord Bishop of Oxford proves from hence That Ministers were then sometimes ordained without any Designation at all to particular Districts And indeed without this general Commission in Ordination I do not see how they could be said to be invested with a Spiritual Power or Authority thro' the Whole Christian Church This Power then being thus convey'd by the Church the Designation of the Persons to this or that particular District was made several Ways In the Apostles Time such and such Persons were sent by them to such and such Cities and great Towns to minister therein and govern the CHURCH according to the Directions given But afterwards the Clergy of the vacant Diocese sometimes chose their own Bishop and sometimes the eldest Presbyter succeeded in Course But then to shew that every Thing which the Bishops and Clergy at that Time did was not done by a Divine Authority What was sometimes done in this Affair by the Clergy was sometimes done by the People also when the Bishops of another Province advanced any new Bishop to a vacant See it was always done with the Consent and Approbation of the People Usually this Approbation and Consent of the People was had as to the Person before his Consecration The forementioned Right Reverend Bishop has cited a Passage out of the VIIIth Book of the Apostolical Constitutions c. 4. in which it is decreed That such a Bishop must be ordained as was elected by the People for his eminent Merit and their Consent was to be a third Time asked And to the same Purpose there are several Passages in St. Cyprian whereby it plainly appears that the People had so much Authority that they were usually consulted and their Vote and Consent asked in the Designation of the Bishop that was to preside over them Which shews most plainly that such a Designation was not made by the divine appropriated Powers of the Bishops and Clergy only And it is very well known that what the People had at the Beginning came by Degrees into the Hands of Kings and Princes They had the Nomination of Bishops to their several Sees and I would therefore have a very good Reason given why those Rulers who had Authority in Promoting them should not be allowed the same in Removing them Or how such a Removal can be called an Invasion of the sacred Rights of the Priesthood when they were promoted by the Election or Nomination of the Laity as well as of the Bishops I KNOW it will be said That all this was only a prudent Condescention and Compliance with the People of their Flock without any Authority But to this I answer Does not Voting and Electing and an almost constant and establish'd Usage of Consigning Persons to such and such Districts by Voting and Electing look like a good Degree of Authority in the Matter And would the Fathers of the Church have suffered all this if they had had the same Notions with some in our Days Would they have condescended so far if they had known it to be an Invasion of the CHURCH'S Independent Powers No certainly their Practice in this Case is a sufficient Demonstration