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
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
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
in every Epistle he so plainly enforces his Exhortation of obedience to the Bishop purely by vertue of the command of Christ. And thus have I cleared the Records of the Church from the defect of ambiguity grounded upon those four pretences That the Succession might be only of a different degree That it is not clear and convincing in all places That where it is clearest it it meant of a succession of Doctrine and not of Persons And lastly That if it were of Persons yet Presbyters are said to succeed the Apostles as well as Bishops By which last we have already cleared the next thing objected to shew the ambiguity of the Testimony of Antiquity which was the promiscuous use of the names Bishop and Presbyter after the distinction between their Office was brought in by the Church which I have already shewn to be false and that if it were true it utterly destroys their Argument of the Identity of a Bishop and a Presbyter in the Apostles times from the promiscuous use of the names But because new Instances are here brought to prove the same thing we must follow And first as for the passages cited out of Clemens Romanus he is confessed to have written before the distinction of the names and therefore is here cited to no purpose But the great and only Testimony is that of the Gallican Church who in their Epistle to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome give Irenaeus the title of Presbyter though he had been nine years Bishop of Lyons And this looks very big if it were true but it is a meer Chronological Blunder of Blondel against the clearest Testimony of all Antiquity For first the Martyrs of Lyons in their Epistle to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia speaking of their Bishop Pothinus they give give him that Title but in this Epistle to Eleutherius they or as Blondel will have it the Church of Lyons give Irenaeus only the Title of Presbyter and both Eusebius and St. Jerom affirm that he was no more at the writing of it To all which Blondel objects that they both place the Martyrdom of Pothinus and his Frenchmen immediately after that of Polycarp and the Asiaticks which was in the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius and therefore the other was about the same time so that when Irenaeus went to Rome with the Letter to Eleutherius which was in the seventeenth year of that Emperour he had been so long Bishop But to this it is easily answered that though the Relation of these two Martyrdoms immediately follow one another in Eusebius his Cronicon and St. Jeroms Translation yet it does not at all follow that they immediately followed in time Because these two Martyrdoms are all that they mention concerning the fourth Persecution which lasted the greatest part of the Reign of Marcus Aurelius so that though one were in the seventh the other might be in the seventeenth of that Emperour and therefore we ought to follow Eusebius his more accurate account in his History who there expresly places it in the seventeenth year and withal affirms that Irenaeus was then only Presbyter rather than from so weak a surmise from the nearness of the Stories in his Chronicon to bring confusion upon the whole History especially when it so fairly clears it self in that this Letter was directed to Eleutherius who succeeded in the Church of Rome in the sixteenth year of Marcus Aurelius and in the same year that he came to that See the Gallican Persecution began and therefore it was impossible that Irenaeus could be advanced to the Bishoprick before that time so that it is like the rest of Blondels stretches to infer from a remote guess that the Persecution was in the seventh year when it is evident from the clearest Story that it was not till the sixteenth or seventeeth And now this Chronological mistake being removed this Testimony is clearly evacuated and so this business is wholly ended The last thing alledged to prove the Ambiguity of the Testimony of the Ancients is that the Church did not own Episcopacy as a Divine Institution but Ecclesiastical But of this Argument I shall choose to discourse in the last place in answer to the sententiae Hieronymi because it is the only positive Argument that they produce in their own behalf And for that reason I refer it to the last place that when I have made it appear that they have nothing material to except against what they oppose I may then shew that they have as little to confirm what they assert and both together will prove more than enough to put an end to this controversie As for the other two things that remain to shew the incompetency of the Testimony of Antiquity viz. its Partiality and Repugnancy little or no answer will serve their turn For as for the Partiality all the proof that is material to our Argument is that the Fathers judged the practice of the Apostles by that of their own times And very good reason too because they conformed the practice of their own times to that of the Apostles But if our Adversaries would infer that the Fathers had no other ground of judging of the Practice of the Apostles but meerly by the prejudice of their own customs it is only a precarious Assertion and a direct impeaching them of a more than vulgar folly and ignorance But the Fathers here glanced at are St. Chrysostom and the Greek Commentators that follow him Thus who can imagine any force in Chrysostoms Argument that the Presbyters who laid hands on Timothy must needs be Bishops because none do Ordain in the Church but Bishops unless he makes this the medium of his Argument that whatever was the practice of the Church in his days was so in Apostolical times But there is no need of that poor medium to enforce his Argument the force of it lies in the universal practice of the Church for it was never heard of that meer Presbyters took upon them the Power of Ordination and therefore the meer exercise of that Power is a manifest proof that those that had it were somewhat more than Presbyters and even St. Hierom himself who will have them sometime though when he knows not to have shared with the Bishop in all other parts and branches of Jurisdiction excepts the Power of Ordination as peculiar to the Episcopal Order And there lies the force of St. Chrysostoms Argument in the practice of the Church in all Ages not in in the custom of his own And when he is vindicated it is not to much purpose to add any thing of the Greek Commentators because they all follow him and though they may sometimes fall short in their reasonings yet it is manifest that they believed Episcopacy to have been received by the Catholick Tradition of the Church and that is all the deposition they are capable to give in this cause The last thing objected is the repugnancy of the Testimony and this is proved from
the difference of some accounts concerning the Succession of some Bishops But this has been objected two or three times already and as often answered and therefore at present I shall say no more to it than only granting the truth of the Premises to mind the Reader of the weakness of the conclusion that from the uncertainty of some Persons in the Succession infers an uncertainty of the form of Government it self And now am I come to our Adversaries only positive proof in their own behalf that is the Authority of St. Jerom for though they pretend to one or two Authors more yet still at the last push St. Hierom is the only man And the sum of all that is pretended from him is this That though the Apostles exercised a superiority over the other Pastors of the Church during their own lives yet immediately upon their decease having it seems provided no Successours in that Power that themselves enjoyed the Church was every where governed by the whole Body or Common-Council of Presbyters but this Form of Government being quickly found very apt to breed Schisms and Divisions it was for the better prevention of them agreed upon all the world over to chuse one Presbyter out of the rest and settle a Supremacy of Power upon him for the more effectual Government of the Church Antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo Ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptisaverat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret ut schismatum semina tollerentur From whence it is inferred that though this Form of Government hapned to be set up in the after-ages of the Church yet it was not upon the account of any Divine Right or Apostolical Constitution but purely upon prudential motives and by the Churches discretion that might have instituted either that or any other alterable Form as it judged most tending to its own peace and settlement Before I come to answer the whole Argument I cannot but observe what disingenuous advantage these men make of the hasty expressions of that good Father let him in the heat and eagerness of dispute but drop an inconsiderate word that may reflect upon the Records or the Reputation of the ancient Church it immediately serves to justifie all their Innovations And thus I remember Monsieur Daillé in his shallow Book of the Use of the Fathers frequently makes good as he thinks his charge against them all only by impleading St. Hierom but though he is made use of to serve them at all turns yet in this Argument they devolve the whole credit of all the ancient Church upon his single Authority And is it not very strange that two or three hasty passages of this single Father not only against the concurrent Testimony of all the ancient Church but against his own express Opinion should be seized upon with so much zeal and greediness to give defiance to all the practice of Antiquity That is bold enough but it is much more so to force all the rest of the Fathers against their own Consciences and Declarations to subscribe to his Opinion as Blondel has done who having first placed St. Jerom in the front and flourished all his sayings with large Commentaries ranges all the rest of the Fathers under his Colours excepting only Ignatius though since he too has had the honour to be admitted into the service but he has drawn them into the Party by such a forced and presumptuous way of arguing that I know not a greater Instance of the power of Prejudice in a learned man I once thought to have taken him particularly to task but his trifling is so grosly palpable that there needs no more to expose it to any mans contempt than that he can endure the Penance of reading him over And how was it possible for any man to discourse after a wiser rate that undertakes to prove that Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius Eusebius Chrysostom Theodoret Theophylact were Presbyterians It is just such another design as to go about to prove that Calvin Beza Blondel Salmasius Daillé and all the other Calvinian Fathers have been zealous Assertors of Episcopacy And yet this task too some men have undertaken and I suppose will make good by the same Topicks and doubt not but they will both gain belief together Now in answer to the great Authority of St. Jerom there are many things alledged and insisted upon by learned men some plead that it is contrary to his own express and declared Opinion and therefore is not to be taken for his setled and deliberate sense of the thing but only for an hasty and over-lavish expression Others endeavour to expound him to a good sense consistent with himself and the rest of the Fathers viz. that writing against some proud Deacons that would set themselves above Presbyters he tells them that it was much the same insolence as if they should go about to prefer themselves above the Bishop in that the distance was much the same they alone being reckoned in the Priesthood with the Bishop whereas the Deacons had no higher Office in the Church than to serve Tables and poor Widows So that the difference was the same as in the Levitical Priesthood the Bishop and the Presbyters being as Aaron and his Sons who alone were accounted into the Priestly Office whereas the Deacons had only the Office of Levites that were no better than Servants to the Priests And though Presbyters at that time exercised no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Church yet they were formerly joyned with the Bishop himself in the Government of it and shared in all acts of Power and Discipline excepting only Ordination And for this reason because they were placed so near to the highest Order that they were capable by vertue of their own Order to exercise almost all the Offices of that it was not to be endured that such inferiour Ministers as the Deacons were should prefer themselves above them Quis patiatur ut mensarum viduarum minister supra eos se tumidus efferat ad quorum preces Christi Corpus sanguisque conficitur Though this probably was all the design of St. Jerom yet because he seems to have said more than he designed I shall not contend about his meaning but shall give my Adversaries the whole advantage of his Authority and let them make the best of it Neither shall I go about to overthrow it by the contrary Testimony of the Ancients for though that were easily done the cause does not require it but granting the Authority of St. Jeroms Opinion and that it was never contradicted by any ancient Writer I will demonstrate the falshood of the Opinion it self from its own absurdity
And therefore in answer to it I will at present only return these few brief Considerations each whereof will be enough to satisfie men if they will be reasonable and altogether more than enough to silence them if they will not The first ill consequence then of this Opinion is only this that it charges our Saviour and his Apostles of not making sufficient provision for the lasting peace and settlement of the Church so that had not After-ages supplied their defects in such things as were absolutely necessary to the Government of it there had been no remedy for curing or avoiding eternal schisms and divisions for according to this account of the Original of the Episcopal superiority all the world were by sad experience convinced of its great necessity for the prevention of factions and confusions Now what a dishonourable reflection is this upon the Wisdom of our Saviour and his Apostles to institute a Society of men in the World without providing a competent Government to secure its continuance in peace and unity But then secondly whilst this Conceit explodes the claim founded upon Divine Right it is forced to grant a necessity founded upon natural Reason so that acccording to it Episcopal Government is made necessary by vertue of all those Laws of God and of Nature that provide for the Churches peace and the preservation of Society For if this were the ground of that universal agreement in the Institution of Bishops that St. Jerom speaks of in his toto Orbe decretum est viz. ut schismatum semina tollerentur and if there were no remedy for the prevention of this evil whilst the Government of the Church was administred by the whole Body of the Presbyters the consequence is unavoidable that though our Saviour or at least his Apostles had no more discretion that to leave all Church-Officers in an equality of Power yet the light of Nature and the Laws of Society made it necessary to establish a superiority of one Order above another Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot sacerdotes The security of the Churches peace depends upon the preheminence of the Bishops power which were it not supreme and paramount in reference to the other Clergy we should quickly have as many Schisms as Priests says St. Jerom Setting aside the Authority of the man the reason and experience of the Argument it self is unanswerable For in such a vast body of men as the Clergy it is obvious to every mans understanding that considering the passions of mankind there could be no possible agreement and by consequence no Government without a superiority of power in some above others Now this is another pretty handsome reflection upon the wisdom of our Saviour and his Apostles that they were so shamefully defective in their first settlement of the Church as shewed them to be so far from being directed by any divine and infallible Spirit that they fell short of the principles of common discretion For though any man of an ordinary understanding might easily discern how impossible it was to avoid Schisms while the Power of the Church resided in the whole Body of the Clergy partly by the bandying of the Presbyters one against another partly by the siding of the People with some against the rest partly by the too common use of the Power of Ordination in Presbyters by which they were more able to increase their own Party by ordaining those who would joyn with them and by this means perpetuate Schisms in the Church when I say these inconveniences were so obvious what a prodigious neglect or weakness must it be to leave the Church through all Ages in such a shattered and tottering condition insomuch that it must unavoidably have perished had not some that came after them invented better means to prevent or redress mischiefs than they had left them For upon this it was that the graver and wiser sort considering the abuses following the promiscuous use of this power of Ordination and withal having in their minds the excellent frame of the government of the Church under the Apostles and their Deputies for preventing future Schisms and Divisions among themselves unanimously agreed to chuse one out of their number who was best qualified for so great a trust and to devolve the exercise of the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to him so that it seems we are more obliged to those wiser and graver sort than to the Apostles for their care in preventing Schisms and Divisions through all Ages of the Church But thirdly this conceit bottoms upon no better foundation than a bold and presumptuous conjecture And there is no dealing with such men as are able to blast the credit of all the most undoubted Records of ancient times with an imaginary and sinister suspicion for when we have pursued the Succession of Bishops through all Ages of the Church up to the very times next to the Apostles it requires somewhat a bold face to tell us that though this perhaps may be sufficiently evident from the practice of the Primitive Church and of the Apostles and their Deputies yet there was a dark interval between the death of the Apostles and the time of the most ancient Fathers in which it was abolished and a new Form of Government set up but that being found inconvenient it was thought good and agreed upon in all Churches to lay that aside and restore the old Apostolical superiority These are very hard conceits especially when they cannot so much as pretend to give us any the least probable account where and when and by whom this was done And this is pretty modest to bear up so confidently against all the current of Antiquity without so much as any pretences of ground or evidence to rely upon But so it hapned once upon a time in which toto Orbe decretum est though when that time was we have no more certain knowledg than we have in what degree of Latitude this totus Orbis lies Perhaps it was as Blondel will have it about the thirty fifth year after the death of St. John and what if he had been pleased to have said the fifteenth or sixty fifth year the guess had been altogether both as learned and as well grounded However is it not a pleasant thing to tell us boldly and at all adventure in toto Orbe decretum est without so much as telling us when or where or attempting to prove the matter of Fact especially when it is plainly impossible that so universal and remarkable a change should be so unanimously agreed upon and effected and that upon such great and urgent reasons without ever being so much as taken notice of Why may we not as well discredit any Record chuse what you please by pretending there once was or perhaps might have been an unknown time in which all mankind conspired
confined my self to the discourses of men of sense and learning i. e. no Smectymnuans and have distinctly considered and I hope confuted all their material pretences against the Episcopal superiority in the Premises But as for Grammatical Criticisms and Historical Digressions they concern not us because they concern not our Enquiry And if learned men would but come up roundly and keep ingenuously to the main point of the Controversie they must rub their foreheads pretty hard to out-face the evidence of our cause But alas the custom of them all is to range up and down through the whole field or rather wood of Antiquity and pursue every thing little or great that starts within their view And they seem to make choice of this Subject rather from it to take occasion of shewing the variety of their Reading than with any design to make good the undertaking of their Title Page And it is very observable that among the many thousand Pages that have been of late years wasted in the Anti-episcopal cause it will be very hard to find half an hundred directly to the purpose And that of it self is Argument enough that they have but very little to say against it And what that is I have in the Premises fully represented for I protest that as I will answer it to Almighty God I know no other pretences that are at all pertinent or material besides those that I have considered But in the last place beside the direct and positive Argument that I have thus far pusued from ourSaviours own express Institution the undoubted practice of the Apostles and the most unquestionable Records of the Primitive Church I come to the last Topick propounded those enormous inconveniences that unavoidably result from the contrary Opinion I shall represent only two The first is this that if the Form of Government in the Christian Church be not setled by the Founder of it that then we are at a loss to know by whom it may or ought to be determined For the Society of the Church being founded upon an immediate Divine Right no Person can justly challenge any Authority in it as such unless by vertue of some Grant or Commission from the divine Founder of it If therefore those Commissions that were granted by our Saviour to his Apostles do not descend to some certain Order of men as their Successours in that Authority wherewith they were invested who shall challenge the exercise of it after their decease To this we never received any certain Answer but are only told in the general That the particular Form of Government in the Church is left wholly to the prudence of those in whose power and trust it is to see that the peace of the Church be secured on lasting foundations But then I would fain know who those are that are intrusted with this Power It would have been very well worth their pains to have determined the particular Persons expresly appointed by God to this Office Especially when it is laid down as a fundamental Principle that all things necessary to the Churches peace must be clearly revealed in the Word of God and if so then no one particular Form may be established in it by any Authority whatsoever because no one particular Form as is all along pleaded is prescribed by the Word of God and yet it is plainly necessary to the Churches peace if Government be so that it be governed by some one particular Form But yet however when we come to enquire after these Trustees to whose power it is left to see the peace of the Church secured on lasting foundations the answer is ever ambiguous and unconstant Sometimes it is the Civil Magistrate and sometimes the People But this very uncertainty where this Power is lodged is both in it self and according to the fundamental Notion of the Hypothesis that we oppose a manifest confutation of the whole design For if our Saviour have not determined to whom it appertains that is evidence enough that he never intended by this way to provide for the peace and settlement of his Church For if he had appointed such Feoffees in Trust as is imagined he would at least have left it certain who they were that he intended which not having done that is demonstration enough that it was never his intention to set any such pretended Guardians over his Church But be it where it will it is very strange that these Learned men should be so intent upon the fineness of their Model as never to consider the wild consequences of either way when reduced to practice For be it in the Civil Magistrate they would first have done very well according to their own Rule ro have searched for some Commission in the Word of God whereby our Saviour entrusted this power with him We find indeed Prophesies and Predictions that Princes should become Patrons and Protectors of his Church but that they should be vested with a Power of instituting and abolishing Church Orders and Offices at pleasure is such a wild conceit as will not find any the least countenance from the Word of God Secondly By what Authority was the Church governed from our Saviour to the Reign of Constantine when if he had appointed the Civil Magistrate Overseer of his Infant Church there was then none that cared to execute his Office Beside thirdly If Church-Officers derive their Authority in the Church from the meer appointment of the Civil Magistrate they are then only of Humane Institution and derive not their Power from any appointment of our Saviour and so are only Ministers of State and not of the Gospel But to put it into the power of any mortal man to alter the whole frame of Government in the Church as he pleases is the most improper way in the world to provide for its peace and settlement For by this means it will be ever in the power of any Common-wealth lawfully to overturn all manner of Ecclesiastical Order at pleasure If to day perhaps the Bishops either by chance or by vertue of some Grant from the Civil Government enjoy the Supreme Power in the Church it may with good Authority to morrow depose them and translate their Power to the Presbyters from the Presbyters to the Deacons from the Deacons to the People and from the People to the Pope and it would be very consistent no doubt with the wisdom of Christ in founding his Church and providing for the peace and settlement of it to leave its whole frame of Government thus at the Mercy of any mans Power or Will We have one example of this project put in practice upon Record in the Long Parliaments Midsummer-Model of Reformation when they vote June 12. 1641. that all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction should be put into the hands of such Commissioners as their Worships should think fit In pursuance of which they vote June 21. that six of the Clergy and six of the Laity should be appointed in every County for the
THE CASE OF THE Church of England Briefly and truly stated In the three first and fundamental PRINCIPLES Of a Christian Church I. The Obligation of Christianity by Divine Right II. The Jurisdiction of the Church by Divine Right III. The Institution of Episcopal Superiority by Divine Right By S. P. a Presbyter of the Church of England LONDON Printed for Henry Faithorne and John Kersey and sold by Walter Davis in Amen-Corner 1681. A Scheme of the general CONTENTS PART I. THree popular Principles destructive of the Church of England Page 1. The absurdity of Mr. Hobb's Principle that the Sovereign Power is the only founder of all Religion in every Commonwealth p. 7 Mr. Seldens account of the Jurisdiction of the Church to be meerly Civil p. 27 His account of Excommunication from Adam to Moses considered p. 37 The same from Moses to the Captivity and from the Captivity to the time of our Saviour p. 42 The same in our Saviours time and first as to its Usage p. 54 Secondly as to the Right which is proved to have been neither Judicial nor Imperial but purely Divine p. 62 Excommunication in the Christian Church proved to have been of Apostolical Antiquity p. 71 The Texts of Scripture upon which it is grounded carry in them true and proper Jurisdiction and appropriate its exercise to the Church p. 76 And that by Divine Institution not meer voluntary Confederacy p. 89 All Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction left entirely by the Christian Emperours to the Ecclesiastical State and that the Imperial Laws extant both in the Theodosian Code and Justinian are no new Laws but only the Canons of the Church ratified with temporal Penalties p. 91 PART II. AN account of the birth of the Opinion that there was no Form of Government setled in the Christian Church by Divine Institution Page 117 That our Saviour founded his Church in an imparity of Ecclesiastical Officers demonstrated this imparity proved to consist in a superiority of Power as well as Order and the Institution of it shewn to be of perpetual obligation p. 124 The Authority of the Apostolical Practice vindicated against divers exceptions The vanity and absurdity of the Objection from the ambiguity of the names Bishop and Presbyter The divine Obligation of Apostolical practice in this matter proved p. 135 The practice of the Primitive Church in the Ages next and immediately after the Apostles The pretence of the defect of the Records of the Church in the first Age falls as foul upon Christianity it self as the Form of Government p. 143 The Argument first from the defect as to places considered and confuted p. 148 Secondly front the defect as to Times and Persons p. 150 The constant Tradition of the Church proved first by the Testimony of St. Clement of Rome Secondly of Ignatius his Epistles demonstrated to be genuine p. 155 The same proved from the Apostolical Canons and the Canons proved to be of Primitive Antiquity p. 177 The Testimonies of the Ancients vindicated from the pretence of ambiguity and first in that they have not informed us whether the Succession were only of Order or of Power p. 183 Secondly In that it is not universal but whether it be or not it is sufficient in that there are no Records against it and the Records of all the chiefest Churches are clear for it p. 189 Thirdly In that this Succession is sometimes attributed to Presbyters this shewn to be apparently false and if it were true frivolous p. 203 That the ancient Church owned Episcopacy as of Divine Institution and not Ecclesiastical p. 213 St. Jeroms Authority throughly considered and turned upon himself so as to make this Objection out of him against it the strongest Argument to prove the Divine Institution of Episcopacy p. 216 The Custom of the Church of Alexandria of the Ordination of their Bishop by Presbyters refuted and the Story of Eutychius concerning it shewn to be false and foolish p. 231 If we take away the Divine Right of some Form of Church-Government it unavoidably resolves the Church into Independency and Confusion p. 243 The Government of the Church by Episcopacy as setled by Divine Right the only effectal Bulwork against Popery p. 252 A Postscript p. 263 PART I. WHEN I consider on one side with what triumph the Church of England was together with His Majesty restored with what Laws guarded with what Vigour asserted with what Zeal defended and on the other with what folly and peevishness opposed that none of its implacable Enemies have ever been able to discover any the least real Defects or Corruptions in its Constitution That by the confession of all wise men it approaches nearest of any Church in the World to the primitive Purity that it is free from all Impostures and Innovations that it does not abuse its Children with Pious Frauds and Arts of Gain nor sacrifise the Interests of Souls to its own Wealth and Grandeur that it asserts the Rights of Princes against all Priestly Usurpations that it does not enrage the People with Enthusiasm on one hand nor enslave them with Superstition on the other That its Doctrins are Pure Simple and Apostolical and its Discipline Easie Prudent and Merciful In a word that it is a Church that wants nothing but only that we would suffer her to be what she professes and desires to be When I say I considered all this with my self it could not but strike me with wonder and amazement that a Church so unanimously owned so powerfully protected so excellently constituted so approved by all wise and good men should in all this time be so far from obteining any true and effectual settlement that it should be almost stript naked of all the Rights and Priviledges of a Christian Church exposed to scorn and contempt deserted by its Friends trampled upon by its Enemies and truly reduced to the state of the Poor despised Church of England But then considering farther with my self what might be the grounds and occasions of such a wild and seemingly unaccountable Apostasie I quickly found three very prevailing Principles utterly inconsistent with the being of a Christian Church wherewith the generality of mens minds are possest and especially those that have of late appeared the most Zealous Patriots of the Church of England No wonder then if the building be so weak and tottering when it is erected upon such false and rotten Foundations so that whilst these treacherous Principles lie at the bottom of the Work it is plainly impossible to bring it to any sure and lasting settlement And t is these false and unhappy Principles that I shall now endeavour to represent and by plain reason to remove They are chiefly these three the first is that of Mr. Hobbs and his Followers that own the Church of England only because it is Establisht by the Law of England and allow no Authority either to that or any other Religion than as it is injoined by the Sovereign Power Though a Religion
whatever first engaged him to undertake the Argument and it is usually reported that the Provocation was so very slight that I cannot but think it beneath the Spirit of so great a man he has prosecuted it with greater Zeal and Keenness than he expresses in other Writings Nay he cannot forbear upon all occasions digressing into this Subject insomuch that this is the main matter of his Preface to his Book de Anno Civili the Subject whereof one would think is remote enough from this Argument And yet after all his expence of Pains and Learning he has been so far from serving the purpose of his Design that he has directly opposed it And if he had only studied to furnish the Church with Arguments to justifie her Authority and Jurisdiction he could not have done her more service than he has done by this violent Attempt upon it This I know cannot but seem a very strange Charge against a Person of his Parts and Learning but therein I say appears the strength of Prejudice and Partiality that it puts men beside the use of their Natural Understandings and hires them to set their Wits on work only to serve a Cause or gratifie a Passion And when once a man has taken up a Falshood to defend the more Skill and Learning he spends upon it the worse it is for when an Errour is but slightly maintain'd the mistake may proceed from Inadvertency but when it is asserted with great Industry and long Study that discovers the man to be under a setled and habitual misunderstanding And when all is done every thing will be True or False as it is whether we will or no. And if the Power of the Church be setled upon Divine Right 't is not all the Wit nor all the Eloquence nor all the Learning in the World that can unsettle it the Winds may blow and the Waves may beat but they can never shake it because it is founded upon a Rock For a proof hereof I shall first give a brief Account of this learned Authors method of Discourse and then secondly in the same way of arguing by which he endeavours to destroy the Original power of the Church I shall undertake to make out a demonstrative proof of its Divine Authority Only I must premise that whereas he treats only of the Power of Excommunication that Dispute must involve in it all other Acts of Government in that they are all supposed by the Power of inflicting Punishment Now Mr. Seldens Account of the rise of Excommunication is briefly this that it was never establisht in the Jewish Church by any Divine Command that there was no use of it whilst they enjoyed the Civil Power among themselves and therefore that we meet with no Footsteps of it till after the Babylonian Captivity and that then and there it was first taken up among the Jews by Confederacy and mutual Compact For being then deprived of all judicial Power and zealous for the honour of their Nation they covenanted among themselves to punish all contumacious Offenders against their Laws and Customs by Excommunication Which consisted of two things First solemn Imprecation of the Divine vengeance Secondly Separation from their Converse that partly by the fear of the Wrath of God and partly by shame and modesty they might be brought to Repentance which as it was no proper Jurisdiction so it could take no effect not only against the will of the Sovereign Power but of every refractory Offender that might if he pleased despise their Sentence and in spite of it enjoy the liberty of his own Conversation And therefore to make the Sentence appear more terrible to the People they expressed it in the same forms of Speech in which Moses expressed Capital punishments which is the thing that gave the Occasion to learned men of mistaking as if the same Phrases had signified the same thing from the beginning though the only intention of the Jews was thereby to declare that they would no more own Excommunicate persons to be Members of their Society than if they had been cut off from it by a sentence of Death and that if it were in their Power they would not spare to do it according to the Law of Moses That this sentence related only to their Civil Liberties and was no abridgment of their freedom as to publick Worship and though the Offender upon whom it passed was said to be cast out of their Synagogue yet that is to be understood as it was their Court of Judicature not their place of Worship and so signifies Civil Out-lawry not Ecclesiastical Excommunication But though this Device was at first made use of in this case of necessity for want of more effectual Government yet having once obtained the Power of custom among them when they were restored to their Country and Civil State they reserved it among their Civil Penalties and used or omitted alter'd or abated its Exercise according to discretion as is wont to be done in all other Acts of humane Judicature That this was the State and Notion of the thing in the time of our Saviour and his Apostles who took it up in imitation of the Jews and therefore expressed it by the same forms of Speech so that in their Discourses it signified no other Separation than what it did among the Jews That thus the Use of it continued till the open breach between the Jews and Christians and then the Christian Church being wholly separated from the Jewish into a Society by it self they enter'd into such a Confederacy among themselves as the Jews did in the time of their Captivity of inflicting censures upon such as by their unchristian Practices should bring scandal upon the Church That this Power at first resided in the whole Congregation not in any particular Officer and that thus it continued till the Ambition of the Bishops wrested it into their own hands and for it pretended the Authority of our Saviour's Commission And so they enjoyed it till the time of Constantine the Great who taking the Church into his Care and Government reassumed this Power to himself as a natural Right of the Sovereign Prerogative and so it descended to all his Successors in the Empire who as appears by the Records of every Age varied its Use and exercise at their own pleasure And as Princes came into the Church this Right of course Escheated to them and was accordingly challenged by them as is largely proved by the History of Europe and particularly of our own Nation This is the short Account of his long Performance the sum whereof is That Excommunication had no Divine but meerly an humane Original and that it is no Ecclesiastical but a civil Punishment and therefore that it appertains not to the Church but to the civil Magistrate Now to Answer or rather Confute all this I need only to represent That the Christian Church is a Society founded upon the immediate Charter and Command of our Saviour
against the Government For if the Church have no right of exercising any Discipline within it self but by the grant of the Empire then the grant of the Empire being reversed it has none at all And thus has he fairly brought this confederate Discipline of the primitive Church which he has contrived purely to avoid any Government founded upon Divine Right into down-right Rebellion And no wonder when all Confederacies against the Commands of the Sovereign Power can be no better unless when warranted by Divine Authority And now it is no wonder if after these Premises our Author begins his next Chapter with a Confession that it does not appear when the present form of Excommunication began in the Christian Church Quandonam primo discrepantia ejusmodi inter Christianae Judaicae seu vetustioris Excommunicationis effectus inciperet non quidem satis liquet Sed ante Origenis ac Tertulliani etiam Irenaei tempora juxta jam dicta effectum quoad Sacrorum communicatinis negationem inolevisse non dubitandum Though I should have thought it a sufficient proof that it descended from the Apostles when we find it in the Church immediately after them and find no beginning of its Institution especially when it could have no other because the Apostles challenging no Civil Authority they could have no other power but a cutting off from the Spiritual Priviledges of the Christian Church And here I cannot but remark it as the peculiar disingenuity of all the Adversaries both of the Government and Governours of the Church i. e. Excommunication and Episcopacy that they will allow their usage in all Ages of the Church but only that of the Apostles and because they imagine that in their time there are no demonstrative evidences of their Practice for that reason destroy their Reverence and neglect their Authority whereas had these men the common modesty of Mankind they would revere them for their so ancient and Catholick Practice and when with all their search they cannot discover any later beginning of them they would conclude it at least a very fair probability that they descended from Apostolical Prescription And in our present case one would wonder that when our Author has traced this usage both in the Eastern and Western Churches into the Age immediately after the Apostles without being able to discover any other time of its first Institution how any man should doubt of its Apostolical Antiquity What Records can be more evident than the Canons of the Apostles the Writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian that lived in the first Century after them and St. Cyprian in the second who do not only mention this Power of the Church as a thing then in common use but speak of it as an ancient Right derived from their Ancestors I shall give one Instance for all because our Author has the boldness to quote it and yet to overlook the Consequence and that is out of Irenaeus who expostulating with Victor Bishop of Rome about his rash Excommunication of the Asiatick Churches thus bespeaks him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never were any men Excommunicated after this rate Upon which our learned Author observes Excommunicationis usus qualiscunque ut ab anterioribus seculis illuc propagatus utrinque pariter tunc admittitur from hence it appears that on all sides the use of Excommunication was admitted as descending from the foregoing Ages after this could any man think it possible that when he had allowed this Testimony of Irenaeus who by his own computation flourished about Seventy years after St. John that he should ever doubt of its being an Apostolical practice Or could any man desire to reduce his Adversary to a greater absurdity than is here so frankly own'd that Irenaeus who lived in the age immediately after the Apostles should speak of this thing as the custom of former ages and yet that there should be no such custom in the Apostolical age And of the same nature is his discourse of the time when this power was first appropriated to the Christian Bishops which he confesses to be altogether unknown though he finds it in common use in the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian and that is time enough to give it right to Apostolick prescription especially when he does not so much as pretend to any Record that the Keys were ever in the Peoples hands Neither has he any ground for this Imagination but only his old conceit that among the Jews every man had this power and therefore among the Christians Whereas there is not the least ground of surmise that there was any such custom among the ancient Jews but that it was a meer off-spring of the Talmudical folly Or if there were yet it was too foolish to be admitted into the serious discipline of the Christian Church for of what use could it be when any man might Excommunicate whom he pleased and when he might be absolved from the heaviest sentence of the Court by any three persons that he could pack together such ridiculous trifling is at first view too absurd to be entertain'd in the Christian Church And as it does not appear that the People ever exercised this power de facto so neither does it that they could ever chalenge it de jure in that we do not find that our Saviour ever vested the Body of Believers in any Power of governing his Church but on the contrary that when ever he gives out his Commissions he ever addresses himself to particular Persons And thus are we faln upon the main Controversie where we ought to have begun and where we might have ended but he that pursues an Adversary must follow his motion otherwise certainly the matter of right ought to have been determin'd before the matter of Fact and therefore the first question ought not to have been whether the primitive Christians exercised any such Jurisdiction but whether they received any Commission from our Saviour for their Authority which if either proved or disproved would prevent the following dispute concerning the practice of the Church but seeing our Author is pleased to take this method we shall tread in his steps and thus he brings it in that when the Bishops had unwarrantably assumed this Power to themselves they justified their usurpation by pretended Patents made to themselves in several Texts of Scripture as the Power of the Keys and of binding and loosing and if any man hear not the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican And now to elude the true meaning of these and the like passages what infinite pains has been taken by our Author and other learned men I need not represent but whatever shifts men may invent their true meaning discovers and clears it self by this one plain and obvious consideration viz. That our Saviour had already set up his Kingdom or Society of his Church upon which supposition all these grants can signifie nothing less than a donation of Power Thus when he chooses Officers
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
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
no more whereas the witty and learned Cardinal Perron run upon the same mistake and it is a mistake that they all wilfully run upon King James in his Reply le ts him know that though Christian Kings and Emperours never arrogated to themselves a power of being Sovereign Judges in matters and controversies of Faith yet for moderation of Synods for determinations and orders establisht in Councils and for discipline of the Church they have made a good and full use of their Imperial Authority And that for this very good reason that very much concerns all Princes that they might see and judg whether any thing were done to the prejudice of their Power or the disturbance of the Commonwealth And much more to the same purpose And therefore for further satisfaction I shall refer the Reader to the excellent Discourse it self It is enough that I have given a plain and easie account of the distinct powers of Church and State and shewn that whoever denies the distinction disowns Christianity that our Saviour has vested his Church with a Power peculiar to it self that the Church has in all Ages exercised it that the Christian Emperours never denied it and lastly that the Church of England and the Reformed Princes thereof have remarkably own'd it But Thirdly Constantine and his Successors took upon them the Title of Pontifex Maximus to which according to the Constitution of the Roman Empire appertain'd the supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdâ—ction By virtue of which Authority they granted to the Church among other Priviledges this power of Excommunication in the same manner as Claudius and other Heathen Emperours gave leave both to Jews and Christians to govern themselves by their own Laws and Customs And though the Emperour Gratian refused to wear the Pontifical Habit as a piece of Pagan Superstition yet it no where appears that he refused the Dignity it self And this Discourse our Author prosecutes with much Zeal and Learning But what do these men make of the Christian Church or rather of Christ himself that he should make no other provision for its Government than to leave it wholly to the superintendency of Heathen Priests This is such a wild conceit in it self that I must confess I could never have imagin'd any learned man could ever have made use of it against the Constitution of the Christian Church And yet this learned Gentleman is not only serious but vehement and confident in it he urges it over and over and though he repeats every thing that he says so that indeed one half of his Discourse is nothing but a Repetition of the other yet here he doubles his Repetitions and every where lays this Principle as the foundation of the practice of all After times But can any man believe that Constantine the Great took upon him the power of Government in the Christian Church if he really believed in Christ himself by virtue of a Power derived from the Usurpation of Julius Caesar Or that he could imagine that the Heathenish Priestly Power belong'd to him after his owning Christianity when by that the whole frame of the old Roman Religion was declared to be Idolatrous so that the Roman High Priest was nothing better than the supreme Head of Idolatry An Honour certainly which no Christian Emperour would be very fond of astuming to himself Julian indeed challenged both the Title and the Dignity as the greatest Ornament of his Imperial Crown but the Reason was because he was so vainly fond of the Pagan Religon But how any man of common sense that had renounced Paganism should yet own himself High Priest by virtue of that Religion that he had renounced seems too great a Contradiction for any man of common sense to believe But what if they accepted of the Title as our Author very well knows they did of Divinity it self or rather what if it were customarily given to them by others For I met with no other Monuments of it but some old Complemental Inscriptions so that it being a customary Title of Honour it might easily for a time pass in the crowd of the other Imperial Titles For it seems it continued not long being rejected by Gratian who lived about fifty Years after the Conversion of Constantine And though our learned Author affirms that the pious Emperour only refused the Vestment but not the Dignity it is very obvious to any man of much less understanding than himself that the Emperour could have no reason to refuse one but for the sake of the other for the Case is plain that there was no superstition in the Vestment but only upon the account of the Office and for that reason there was little if any use of the Title afterwards But lastly the Power of Judicature was first granted to the Bishops by the favour of the Christian Emperours and especially by an Edict of Constantine the Great whereby he grants the Bishops a full Power of hearing and determining all causes Civil as well as Ecclesiastical and withal declares their Decrees to be more firm and binding than the sentence of any other Judicature and from this great indulgence of the Emperour it is not to be doubted but that among other forensique penalties they made use of Excommunication Of the inference I shall give an account by and by but as for the Edict it self if it could do any service to our Authors design it at last proves supposititious as is fully proved by Gothofred in his excellent Edition of the Theodosian Code his reasons are too many to be here recited I will give but one for all viz. That this Law is contrary to all the Laws of the Roman Empire for though several Emperours do in their several Novels give the Bishops Power to decide causes by way of Arbitration or the consent of both parties which Power they enlarged or contracted as they pleased and to this all the other precedents produced by our Author relate yet that one party should have liberty of appeal from the civil Court at any time before judgment given without the consent of his Adversary is such a wild and extravagant priviledg as is inconsistent with all the rules of the Imperial Law And yet that is the only design of that Edict Quicunque itaque litem habens sive possessor sive petitor erit inter initia litis vel decursis temporum curriculis sive cum negotium peroratur sive cum jam coeperit promi sententia judicium eligit sacro-sanctae legis Antistitis ilico sine aliqua dubitatione etiamsi alia pars refragatur ad Episcopum cum sermone litigantium dirigatur Which I say is such an absurd liberty as would utterly destroy all the Power of the civil Magistrate if the humour or perversness of any man could so easily baulk their sentence But beside the absurdity of the Law it self there is no such Edict extant in the Justinian Code nor any mention of it in any ancient Writers of Ecclesiastical History For as for
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
And therefore these Persons that relie so much on this distinction would have done very well to have considered with themselves wherein consists the Essence of Order when separated from Power which if they had done they would soon have discerned that they had only deceived themselves with an idle and an empty Word However it were worth their while to define what it was that was peculiar to the Apostolical Order beside the Supreme Government of the Church especially when as it is acknowledged by all Parties the Apostles enjoyed during their own lives the supreme Power in the Government of the Church and that the Parity of Presbyters arose not till after their Deaths they having appointed no Successors in their Apostolical Supremacy From whence what can be more apparent than that their Office could not possibly consist in any thing less than a superiority of Power over all the other Pastors of the Church And now when our Saviour himself has thus expresly Establish'd the Government of his Church in an imparity of Order and Power what farther Prescript would men have for the continuance of his own Establishment That alone is sufficient to prescribe to all Ages and Nations and if any man shall dare to remonstrate to its Obligation he must have confidence enough to presume that he is indued with more Wisdom or entrusted with more Authority than our Saviour himself For otherwise he cannot but think that he is obliged in Conscience and Modesty too rather to esteem this Model than any one of his own or any others Contrivance Yes but though it be proved that the Apostles had superiority of Order and Jurisdiction over the other Pastors of the Church by an Act of Christ yet it must further be proved that it was Christ's intention that Superiority should continue in their Successors or it makes nothing to the purpose For a bare Divine Command say they is not sufficient to make a Law immutable unless there be likewise expressed that it is the Will of God that it should always continue No no you are too nice and shie of your Obedience in this particular Case and may upon the same ground set your selves loose from all the Laws of the Gospel that are not enjoyn'd with an express declaration of their being Immutable and thereby you have quit your selves of the greatest part of your Christian Duty For we shall find but very few Precepts either of our Saviour or his Apostles tied with this double Knot and it seems without that they are not strong enough to tie any man to Obedience Neither do I see how upon this Principle we can avoid that frivolous Objection of the Socinians against the perpetual necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism viz. That seeing it was Instituted by our Saviour only to pass men from Judaism and Gentilism to Christianity it is therefore now of no necessity among Christians unless our Saviour had declared that it was his Will and Intention that it should always continue in his Church Especially when this Ceremony was taken up from the practice of the Synagogue where when any man had once renounced Heathenism and entred himself into the Jewish Church it was never after repeated in any of his Posterity but they were all by vertue of their Fore-fathers Baptism esteem'd as born in a state of Holiness and Regeneracy But however this general Principle is so far from Truth and Sobriety that it is a plain thrusting our own Presumptions upon the Will of God which being once declared it binds us for ever till himself is pleased to reverse it his meer Institution is its own perpetual Obligation and whatever he commands no Power can take it off but that which bound it on And therefore it is a vain scrupulosity if I may call so sceptical a pretence by that name to require of him not only to fasten his Laws by enacting them but as it were to clinch them too by declaring their perpetuity In all other Cases but this it is supposed that whatever he commands he commands for ever till he declares the contrary for though his Positive Laws be revocable in themselves yet being revocable only by God himself and his own Power since he hath already in his Word fully revealed his Will unless therein he hath declared when their Obligation shall cease they continue Irreversible It therefore being once granted that the Apostles had a superiority of Jurisdiction by an Act of Christ it plainly follows that without any farther declaration of its perpetuity their Power is irreversible Especially when the Rule whereby we are left to judg of the mind and intention of the Law-giver is the Reason of the Law viz. That the Reason continuing the Law should remain in force though I cannot see of what use this should be to those who will give leave to demand no other reasons of any Divine Positive Laws beside the Will of the Law-giver For if that be the only reason of the Law then it is in vain to pretend to judg of it by any other But yet however I shall close with them upon their own Principle and to save farther trouble I would only put them to assign what particular Ground and Reason there was of establishing a Superiority and Subordination of Church-Officers then that is ceased for all succeeding Ages of the Church and till they can give themselves and us some competent satisfaction in this desire them to acquiesce in our Saviour's Institution But alas this was never so much as attempted and is manifestly impossible to be perform'd for that man no doubt would make wise work of it that should undertake to give the World a satisfactory Account of the particular Grounds and Reasons that should make an inequality of Power in Ecclesiastical Officers necessary in our Saviour's Days and needless ever since But if this cannot be done as it is certain at first view that it never can then certainly the meer Institution of our Saviour in a matter of so great moment to the Church is sufficient of it self to pass a perpetual and indispensible Obligation upon all Ages of it And now upon these Grounds that I have already obtain'd from our Saviour's express Institution I need not dispute with our Adversaries for that is one of their little shifts whether the Missions of the Apostles and the Seventy were only Temporary For whether they were or were not it is from thence evident what Model of Government our Saviour framed for his Church and that is all that is needful to my purpose And therefore I will freely grant that our Saviour's design in Life-time seems to have been not so much to found Churches himself as to have prepared and instructed his Disciples how to do it after his departure So that he rather made a Specimen of the Constitution of his Church than erected any standing Fabrick of it For the Foundations of it were to be laid in the evidence of his Resurrection from the dead
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
to put an abuse upon all their Posterity As to say in this case that there once was such a season in which all the world agreed though no body knows when or where to make an universal and perpetual alteration of the Form of Church-Government But to conclude grantting these men all that they contend for I would fain know what greater advantage any reasonable man can desire either to make good the title or to enhance the excellency of Episcopal Government than St. Hierom and Blondel give us viz. that it was practised by the Apostles but that upon their decease their Authority devolved upon the Body of Presbyters which Form of Government was every where found so incompetent and inconvenient that all Churches in the world were within the space of thirty five years or thereabouts convinced of the necessity of retrieving the old Apostolical Inequality as they ever intended to secure the peace and unity of the Church This is pretty well and advantage enough to satisfie any modest or reasonable man and therefore with it I shall rest contented Only I cannot but remarque the strange partiality of our Adversaries in this cause not only to set up this absurd suggestion of St. Jerom concerning the unknown time of an universal alteration of Church-Government and that not only without the Testimony of any Record for if there had been any then it had not been unknown but against the faith of all History and the most certain Tradition of the Church there being nothing more clear in Ecclesiastical Story than the succession of single Persons in the Government of the Church from the Apostles down to his own Age especially in the greatest and most eminent Churches such as Rome Jerusalem Antiochia and Alexandria so that there could have been no such universal change as St. Jerom dreams of when in these great Churches Episcopacy was established antecedently to any such supposed alteration But beside this they oppose the custom of one particular Church and that attested only by one Author to the known practice not only of all other Churches but of that particular Church it self Thus because the same St. Jerom says with the same hast and inconsideration that there was a custom in the Church of Alexandria from St. Mark down to Heraclas and Dionysius for the Presbyters of that Church in the vacancy of the See to chuse one out of their own number and from thence-forward call him their Bishop in the same manner as when an Army makes their own General or the Deacons may chuse one out of themselves and constitute him their Arch-deacon Now I say supposing this Story to be true is it not very severe by the singular practice of one Church to overthrow the Constitution of all other Churches For what if at Alexandria they had a peculiar or a corrupt custom does that impair or destroy the Catholick practice of the Christian Church It is possible not only for one particular Church to deviate in some circumstances from their Primitive Institution but that is no Argument against a certain right Yes but say they this custom was derived from St. Mark himself But that would require some better proof than the bare Assertion of St. Jerom For it is possible there might have been a preposterous practice in after-times which he to give the more Authority to it might in his lavish heat ascribe to the Founder of it But granting the truth of the whole Story what was this custom Was it for Presbyters to ordain their Bishop St. Jerom seems willing to say so but dares not and therefore expresses himself in odd ambiguous and general terms Unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant which signifies nothing certain but that he intends not Ordination is evident by the words that immediately follow Quid enim facit exceptâ ordinatione Episcopus quod Presbyter non faciat Which words upon whatsoever account they are added come in here very impertinently if he had by the Story spoke of Ordination At least out of these general words nothing more can be collected than their right or custom of electing their own Bishop as was the custom of Cathedral Churches afterwards Nay that too is more than is true or can be proved for St. Jerom does not say that the Bishop was chosen by the Presbyters but out of the Presbyters so that he does not give them so much as the right of Election but only appropriates to them the capacity of being elected and that was all the peculiar priviledge of the Presbyters of that Church that they alone were qualified to succeed in the See and if any one will from hence infer as Mr. Selden is pleased to do their power not only of Election but Ordination he may thank himself and not St. Jerom for his conclusion For there is not any the least ground for the inference beside the learned Gentlemans resolution to have it so and therefore when he gives us an account of several both Divines and Lawyers that understand no more by this passage than meerly capitular Election he confutes them with no other argument than only by saying positively that they are ipst Hieronymo adversissimi But alass wise men will not quit their own Opinions only to submit to the confidence of other mens Assertions and therefore he ought either to have proved more or to have said nothing Nay so far were they from having any power of Ordination that they had not that of Election when it is so very well known that the Patriarch of Alexandria was of old time chosen not by the Presbyters but by the People so that to ascribe their Election to the Presbyters is plainly to contradict the known custom of that Church But be that as it will too it is very strange as Mr. Selden himself observes that there are not to be found the least footsteps of this Alexandrian custom in any legitimate ancient Author but only St. Jerom. For if there had been any such custom in this Church of which we have as good and as many Records as of any other Church in the world it is scarce credible but that upon some occasion or other some Writer should have taken notice of it and therefore so universal a silence cannot but bring a very great suspicion upon the truth of St. Jeroms relation at least it is very unreasonable upon the single report of one hasty man concerning the peculiar custom of one Church to renounce as our Adversaries do the known practice of all the Churches in the world beside But to avoid this heavy Objection of singularity our learned Adversary has taken vast pains to find out a second Witness and then two Witnesses we know according to our Law can prove any thing and at length he has discovered an Arabian Author and with more than ordinary joy and transport immediately publishes the particular Story by it self with large and learned Notes upon it but
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
began the breach the lopping off of that infinite power and by consequence the stopping of those vast treasures that continually flowed from all parts of Christendom into the Popes Coffers Though many other corruptions that were crept into the Church partly by the negligence of the Popes while they alone governed in it partly by the Incursions of barbarous Nationâ— they as justly complained of and might probably have had them all reformed if they would have yielded to him his two fundamental points Wealth and Empire And as that was then their just complaint so is it still of all the Bishops that are by force kept in his Communion Not only all their Revenues but which is much more dishonourable all their Power being taken from them they being every where unless such as retain to the Court of Rome little better than the Popes Curates nay not so much being stript of all Authority and the Government of their Diocesse wholly put into other hands And here comes in the great Mystery of Jesuitism for this complaint was so Universal that it was impossible for the Pope alone to withstand it and therefore this project was at last fixed upon being at first started by a fanatique Souldier to set up a new Order of Ecclesiasticks exempt from all other Jurisdiction and immediately dependent upon and absolutely subject to the Pope and by them chiefly to manage all the Affairs of Christendom And there lies all the strength of the Jesuits in their Vow of absolute Obedience to their Superiour and of their Superiour to the Pope so that whatever they are commanded be it never so unaccountable to their own Consciences they are implicitely bound to execute upon pain of damnation And this device has taken so successfully that notwithstanding all that opposition that has been made to the Order they have for many years exercised an absolute Tyranny not only over all the People but almost all the Governours of that Church And to justifie these irregular proceedings the Bishops are by little tricks and senseless distinctions of the School-men degraded into the same Order with the Presbyters and then the Priests of the Jesuits Order are as well qualified to exercise Jurisdiction as themselves especially if licensed thereto by the Popes Dispensation according to the Decree of Innocent the IV. Ex delegatione Domini Papae quilibet Clericus potest quicquid habet ipse conferre So that by this device they may be enabled to give Priests Orders as well as exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction This design was all along aimed at in the Institutions of their Regular Priests but never effectually compassed till the foundation of this Society So that you see that the whole mystery of Jesuitism at last resolves it self into Presbytery and the fundamental Principle of both consists in slighting and opposing the Episcopal Order And therefore it is a little observable that they were both born into the World at the same time it being the year 1541. when Calvin made himself Pope of his Lay-Cardinals at Geneva and Ignatius obtained to be made Superiour of his Order at Rome Since which time between them both Christendom has enjoyed very little peace or quiet and particularly by their joynt-malice was wrought just that time an hundred years viz. 1641. the overthrow and destruction of the Church of England And if the Church of Rome could but get rid of the Church of England by the help and zeal of the other Factions she would quickly scorn and defie all their little Pretences For when they have run into all their sub-divisions there can be no more than two other Forms of Government either the Genevian of Presbytery or the Racovian of Independency but both being so palpable Innovations in the Christian Church and withall of so very late a date it will be no difficult matter for the Church of Rome to defend her own Title how bad soever against such upstart and absurd Competitors But when they have to do with the Church of England they are then apparently bafled with the undeniable practice and constitution of the Primitive Church And this is so observable that I do not remember any learned Writer of the Church of Rome that has undertaken to charge any fault or defect upon the Constitution of our Church it self Here their only Topick is to upbraid her with those abuses that have been put upon her by other by-designs in which indeed she is very much concerned as a Sufferer but no way guilty as an Actor For what is that to me if when I see gross and scandalous abuses in the Church I endeavour to remove or reform them other men that pretend to come in to my assistance shall under that pretence design nothing but Plunder and Sacriledge That lies wholly upon their Conscience but I am innocent and it is very disingenuous and foolish too to load me with their wickedness Let them prove that there were no corruptions in their Church that needed Reformation and then I must confess I am convicted but if they cannot then the baffle lies plainly at their own doors and it is in vain to charge me with the miscarriage of other men This I say is the state of the Controversie between the Church of England and the Church of Rome as to this point and whilst we keep to this Station nothing is more easie than to maintain our ground but if once we quit it we fall under all the disadvantages of Innovators And however we may afterwards annoy the Enemy we can never defend our selves And that I say is the case of all other parties in their opposition to the Church of Rome excepting the Church of England and those that stick to the same Primitive Constitution As therefore we are concerned to fortifie our selves against the Romans let us secure this Bulwark that they can never force but if we once forsake it we have nothing left but to encounter Innovation with Innovation and then when both Parties are in the wrong it is not much material who overcomes This is all I think good at this present to propound in the behalf of the Church of England and when these Principles are laid at the foundation of the building it will then and not till then be seasonable to proceed to more practicable Propositions and therefore I shall say no more at present than only to summon in all good and honest men to the maintenance of this just Cause as they will one day answer it to Almighty God against all the present open and wicked attempts of Atheism and Superstition and as they have any fear of God or man as they love their Country or their Posterity as they have any sense of Interest or Honour or Conscience neither by their carelesness nor their cowardise to betray the best Church in the world to the fury and the folly of the worst of men And in this case let no man make excuses or raise difficulties from the badness or