call for Divine Vengeance as in the Tyranny of Agamemnon on old Chryses the Priest of Apollo Hence the Priest of On or Heliopolis his Daughter was thought the greatest and sittest Match for Joseph Joseph's Wife 4 Priests Daughter that next unto Pharaoh sate Lord over all the Land of Egypt Priests Lands Sacred and inalienable nor were the Priests Lands touched by Joseph or Pharoah under the Exigences of that Famine while all the Land else was sold unto him for Bread but they were all fed on the Royal Stores at free Cost And as Philo and Josephus magnify the Jewish High-Priesthood above rather than under Royalty Priests Prior to Kings in point of sanctity posterior in point of power so do the Profane Histories of the Heathens in point of Sanctity give Priesthood the Priority tho in point of Power they give it to the Regale And it is the more to be wondred this in Heathens who being altogether Carnalized one should have thought would have given all to the armed Prince and no more than his Grace had pleased to the Sacrisicing Hierophant Nay tho Humility be one of the dictinctives of Christianity and so ought most signally to appear in its Priests against all even the slightest arrogances or self Reflections yet we find when the assertion of the Sanctity has been necessary to take off Imperial insolence several the best of Catholick Fathers have imitated St. Paul Christian Priests magnifying their Office against Kingly Vsurpations in magnifying their Office to the vindication of their Liberty for instances of which there will be occasion in due place § 4. To assert therefore the inviolable Right and Authority of a Divine Ordinance or Commission against the Powers and Designs of Kings I could here well alledge Elias his dealing with Baal's Prophets at Mount Carmel before Abab's eyes and against his will the assembling of the Elders of Judah and Israel under the first Babylonish Captivity before Ezekiel to consult their common Affairs against the interests of the King of Babylon and all the opposition of Prophets made against wicked Princes But letting these pass Jeroboam's Case the singular and extraordinary Case of Jeroboam will not be content to be omitted By the Constitution of the Law Exod. 23.14 15 16 17. and 34 23 24. all the Men Children of the twelve Tribes were to appear before God three times in the year at the place of his Residence which in Jeroboams time was in Solomons Temple at Jerusalem Now Jeroboam by particular Prophecy and Providence became King of the Ten Tribes that revolted from Rehoboam the Son of Solomon But Jerusalem was the very Metropolis of Rehoboams Kingdom so that fearing that by this observation of the Law in all his Males appearing three times a year to Worship at Jerusalem his People would return to the House of David he turned them away from that form of Religion and Society with God at Jerusalem to the Calves he had set up as the Symbols of God's presence at Dan and at Bethel And because the Tribe of Levi would not be with him he himself became a Priest and made such as he could get every one that would of the meanest People And now if Worldly Policy and Civil Counsels will excuse a deflexion from Divine Ordinances here were all imaginable Pleas for excuse or justification herein But God that gave this Law for such appearances at the place of his presence had back'd it with a promise to prevent all fears of a Surprize No Man saith God shall desire thy Land when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year But because Jeroboam might perhaps take this Promise only to respect or intend a security against Aliens not their fellow Tribes therefore God sent him a Prophet to Bethel with a miraculous Power to reclaim him from his diffidences to the observation of the Law which not working upon the King this thing became a Sin and Snare to him his House and his People to their utter excision a Document for ever to all Earthly Powers not to entail upon themselves Jeroboam's Case exemplary to all Kings their Posterities and their People the Curse of the Almighty in the violation of his Ordinances But to conclude all with some general Considerations on Christianity I do not at all doubt but that the Dr. will assert to us Christians a Right and Liberty Right of frequent Christian Worship on Holy Day and oâ— her frequent days and houâ—â— with other Usâ—gâ—â— both Natural and Divine to Assemble often in Publick Worship and Holy Services of the Church not only on the Lords Day and at our Festivals Fasts and Vigils but every day two three or more times a Day if we can have leisure tho' our Princes should forbid us these Times and Frequences I may well add that we may do these Devotions in Consecrated Places and several Catholick Appendages of Devotion tho' for these there be no express Command in Scripture and for most of them no Instances The Antient Church owned several Usages in the Church for Canons Apostolical Canons Apostolical and not a few of that Collection which we have under that Character descended from the Apostolical Age and Practice as the Traditions of the most Antient Fathers evince and the Substrate Reasons of them will still be of very great Use and Eternal Convenience And must we be bound to quit all these even not Mystick Institutions at the Arbitrary pleasure of Civil Powers while yet Constantine * Constant Mag. ad Synod Tyr. ap Ensch de vit Coâ—d l. 4. c. 42. l. 3 c. 57. beyond whom I thought no Clergy man would prescribe or claim Prerogative for all Christian Princes thought himself obliged to Revere and Submit to such Traditional Canons which were by the Catholick Church received as of Apostolical Age or Original CHAP. IV. Of the Divine Right of Christian Synods § 1. NOW if we have a Divine Right of Convening for Worship in popular Assemblies with an unalienable Authority of using many unscriptural Usages and convenient Appendages in this Service why should not our Spiritual Governours have Authority to Assemble in Consultation for the good Conduct of the Common Assemblies or what Prerogative is violated by this Liberty But because a positive Constitution of God is what Time-servers and Anti-Hierarchists do so particularly demand from us tho' very unwilling that you should so squeeze and torment their pretences to a Divine Title I will however to gratify even the peevish endeavour to do the Church and them too Reason in this Point § 2. As then our Faith is a Mysterious Doctrine Our Faith and Sacraments Mysterious discovered originally to certain Christian Patriarchs and Preachers of Righteousness whose Doctoral Office and Order has descended by Ecclesiastical Ordinations to the whole Church so our Sacramental Ordinances are Priestly and Hallowing Mysteries committed also by Divine Ordinance
such a value for the Synagogue as to think its Constitutions Fundamental to the Church or such an Imperial Authority over it much less when the Scriptures give the Polity of the Synagogue none the least mention much less Recommendation and Authority to prescribe Law to the Christian Church for ever but by its Absolute and Total Silence herein seem to intend that that Polity should instead of such prescriptive Power together with the Law be nailed to our Saviours Cross and be afterward decently buried in an Eternal Oblivion And hence tho' Men of Rabbinic Learning are very fond to derive our Forms from their Patterns yet we find no such Conceptions hereof among the Antients as no shades of it in the Scriptures nor Authority for it any where § 7. But supposing the Jewish Princes had managed the Synods of the Synagogue according to the Drs. Aphorisms and pretended a rightful Authority so to do does it follow that they really had that Right which they pretended to If bare Pretences of Princes will create a Right the dispute is over but then I must tell the Dr. he had never had any opportunity or inducement to have written his Book for this sort of Supremacy But if bare pretences alone create no Right and the Christian Emperours exactly followed them herein then Christian Princes have hereupon only pretence for this their Authority So that the Drs. Cause required stronger Assertions of Right in the Jewish Kings Assigned in the Laws and Constitutions of God Mishpat Hammelech by which they were very particularly constituted But herein there is the profoundest Silence I Sam. 8.11 to 19. and that little that is said of the Mishpat Hammelech the manner of the King which they wickedly craved instead of God tho' it imports a Domination Cyp. Ep. 65. § 1. Et ut hoc ulcisceretur excitavit eis Saul Regem qui eos injuriis gravibus afligeret per omnes contumelias paenas superbum populum calcaret et premeret ut contemptus Sacerdos de superbo populo divinâ ultione vindicaretur yet does not so much assert a Right as denounce it an uncontroulable oppression in punishment to their contempt of God and Samuel But yet God that was resolved so to deliver them up upon their own desires yet limits the oppressions to Matters Secular only not permitting the insolence to rage also over their Sacred and Religious Liberties that there might from hence be no ground for any such barbarous and impious Prescription for any Princes Arbitrary lusts herein whatsoever § 8. But to be as Concessive to the Dr. as 't is possible suppose this Domination to have extended to their Religious Polity and Liberties also will he hence prescribe from the malice of Jewish Kings permitted by God in punishment to a Rebellious People for the Right of such Practices in Princes upon the Christian Church and the same Christian Princes too And yet excepting this he has nothing in the Bible that looks like any Ordinance for the suppression of the Popular Liberties and none at all for the Hierarchical § 9. Since then there is no Law nor Praecedent in the Old Testament for this sort of Ecclesiastical Power or Authority in either Jewish or Christian Princes let us consider what other Law or Constitution can be sound out or supposed for its legal Original And first we must consider the State of the Question in the first Christian Emperors who are said to Claim Use The Original of Censtantiaes Supremacy and to be rightly Invested with this Authority and particularly in Constantine the Great Now he being supposed to claim all these Prerogatives as his Right antecedent to the actual Exercise thereof must sound it in one or other of those Originals above summed up § 4. and yet I believe none of these will quadrate with the Hypothesis For first if it be founded in the Natural Law of Sovereignty simply then all Sovereigns Heathens Turks Jews would simply have it and all Acts of Synods otherwise managed would not only be Nullities but Rebellious Seditions which yet I presume no Doctor will allow Not in any express Revelation of God for there is none such in either Testament not in any Gâ—â—â—ral Laws of Nations as being antecedent to and more general than Christianity and in Interests Temporal only not in any Common Charter of Christian Nations as such for such Charter and such Nations there were none before Constantine not in any Canons Ecclesiastical for all those before Constantine's time had no respect to any Temporal Powers not in any Contract of his with the Church for such is no where mentioned in his History which yet had been the most signal thing in it nor at last in any Law of his own making for no man can make a right or valid Law but by some antecedent Authority vested in him so to do and of this the Question properly lies Now since here are none of the Originals extant in History or Nature or Revelation the only remaining Plea must be prescription from immemorial precedents that might warrant a legal presumption for some of these Originals But Constantine had not one instance before him for this his Synodical Supremacy for the three first Centuries after Christ and the Plantation of the Powers Ecclesiastical but all the prescription throughout those Ages was for the Hierarchy in whose hands Constantine at his Conversion found it lodged in full Vigour and Authority and is known and recorded to have owned it for Divine as will appear in the second part So that the Right that is attributed by our Laws to our Kings The Legal Original of our Kings Supremacy belonged not to Constantine the Great and therefore must be lodged in some other Constitution viz. the same as that of all our Common Laws and Original Contract between the King and the Estates of this Realm and that upon a Civil Incorporation of the Church and its Powers and Ordinances into the Civil State and Secular Authority But if any man shall think that the Churches Authorities were given by God in order to Church Duties and that the Church can no more part with one than the other as being inseparable and conservient to Divine ends and so make an invidious objection about our Frame I hope no man will expect that 〈◊〉 should be such a Fool to expose my self to a Middlesex Jury and so leaving this matter to God and the Sense of all that love his Church I am their Humble Servant but as to Constantine the Great I dare swear he never dream'd of the business § 10. Nay there was in his time a very obvious prejudice against such an Opinion viz. that God whose Ways are not as ours Why Kings were not made the first Apostles nor his Thoughts like those of the Sons of Men seeing the ineptitude of the Emperors immersed in Secular Cares to engross all Holy Authorities to themselves and the Suspicion
at least miraculously super-natural pass we to the consideration of the Mystick part of Religion upon what Authority that is founded by what Ministers it is Celebrated and what Rights Powers and Liberties they have in the administration of it Divine Institution § 2. First then all the Authority of Mystick Religion must be founded in Divine positive Institution in order to a Mystical and Foederal Consociation with God For none can prescribe Rights of such Communion but he that is the Founder thereof So that all Mysteres invented by Men in order to such Mystic Commerce either with true or false Gods are Impostures and Sorceres of which yet the Priests own not themselves to be the Inventers but the Numen with whom they pretend to have and procure a Society confessing thereby that all true and Holy Foederal Mysteries are and can only be of Divine Institution without which no Solemnities in Religion could merit or procure a Sacred Reverence and Reception But being once received amongst the Heathens as Divinely order'd Mysteries they Mysteries and Priests inviolable and their Priests were hold inviolable by the Civil Powers who subimitted the Conduct of their Wars and Chief Assairs to their Mystick Interpretations and Responses § 3. Since then Mystick Institutes of Society and Communion with God must be purely of Gods positive Ordinance so by that must they be designed to be under Order and Conduct which no Man also can by any Humane or Natural Right assume Prieste of Divine Ordinance the delegation of God being as necessary to Authorize the Minister as the Institution of God to the Ministry and therefore in the Law and Gospel both are ordained together And even before the Law even from the beginning of Publick Worship the Patriarchs were of God made Prophets Friests Patriarâ—hs by Divine Ordinance and Preachers of Righteousness to the Anâ—â—diluvian World and offer'd Sacrisices in order to a Mystick Communion and Foedoral Society with God For thus Noah immediately after the Flood by vertue of his Prophetick Priesthood which he had before it offer'd a Bâ—rnt Offering for expiation and and a siveet favour to render God propitious Noah as a Priest and Prophet a grand Type of Christ. not only to his then little Family but to all future Generations as the then great Priest and Mediator for all Posterities to come and therein a Type of the High-Priest of our Salvation who after he had founded his Church as an Ark on the Baptismal Waters afterward Sanctified it with his Blood us one final propitiation for the World never from thence to experience or need another Baptismal lustration but the Christian And in like manner the other Mystical Rites Laws and Sacrifices of the other Patriarchs carried in them a Typical reference to Mysteries hid under them from Generations and unveiled under the Gospel Successive Orders from a Prophetick Original which therefore being Prophetical and presigurative must be first at least Ministred by Prophets tho' their continuance might descend by Order of Succession in them which were no Prophets but then however the Order owing its Original to a Prophetick Ordinance still juscifies this truth that the Ministers of Mystick Offices in Religion must be such as derive Authority herein from a Divine Ordination And tho at first sight the succession of the Priesthood seems to have generally descended to the First-Born very probably according to the Jewish Traditions Sacred Succession in the First Born no natural Right of Primogeniture but of Gods positive Ordinance which seem well grounded in the Mosaick History yet the certain Right of such Sacred Succession was not founded in the Natural Right of Primogeniture but the Ordinance of God adorning it with such a Sanctity tho I know St. Augustine and others are willing to believe the Antediluvian Patriarchs not to be the First-Born because of the great Age of their Parents before they begat the Patriarchs descending from them but upon this I think there is no dependence either way nor Matter neither since at last it comes all to one viz. That their Sacred Patriarchate was the positive Ordinance and Gift of God and was so therefore in all Successors whatsoever without exception At length it was transferred by God from the Phylarchal Successors in the Families of Jacob to the House of Levi The Succession translated to the Tribe of Levi c. inalienably and the Sons of Aaron from which Tribe and Family t was never alienable by any Kings of their own or Foreign Nations upon this Principle above set that a Society of Divine Constitution cannot be rightly dissolved or aliened but by him that founded it Nor do the frequent Changes of the High-Priests under Heathen Powers conclude against this Truth because God's having before destroyed the Succession and the Genealogies by his Provdences tending gradually to a dissolution of that State according to Gods own Will and he ratifying however for the time the intruded by the Spirit of Prophecy shews those changes to be valid not upon bare humane presumption but the Divine purpose The arbitrary changes of High-Priests on what grounds admitted And as the Law of God rendred the Rights of the Priesthood inalienable by any Civil Constitution so the like imagined Sanctity of the Heathen Priesthoods rendred them unobnoxious Sanctity of Heathen Priests as being the supposed Secretaries of their Gods And indeed so great was ever the lustre of the Priesthood with Princes and People that probably the Priests who had led the People to an apostacy from God in the design at Babel Priests from the dispersion at Babel becoming the first Kings under their Chief Leader Nimrod did upon their dispersions share the before one Kingdom of God into many which they severally assumed to themselves and became the first Kings according to the old Custom of the same Persons being Kings and Priesis as Rex Anius Rex idem hominum Phabique Sacerdos For so Melchisedek Melchisedek Priest and King Priest of the most High God in his yearly days was King of Salem and if there be any Argument from the Antitype Christ Jesus to the Type it is certain that in his humane Nature he performed his Priestly Office in offering himself up a Sacrifice for us before he sate down on the Throne of Majesty on high and by proportion Melchisedek his grand Type might be a Priest first in order of reason if not time before he was King the Priesthood being most certainly planted by God among Men before any Kingly Power Kingly Power then arising after the Priestly and lodged at first in the dispersed Priests over their respective partitions Kingly Power arising out of Priestly no wonder when after the Dignities were divided into different Subjects that yet the High-Priests retained the same Honours as before even with the Lay Princes not exorbitating into open Tyranny which their violation was ever accounted to be and to
of our Nature and all prohibitions of it as such simply are meer Nullities as to the Rule of practical Conscience And if so how extreamly wide of Truth is it at large to say That it has ever been looked upon as one principal part of the Princes Prerogative that no Companies be allowed to meet together without his knowledge and permission Where I must take Permission to be Voluntary and such as the Prince may rightly deny or else 't is nothing to the purpose For if a Prince only permit because he has no right to deny a priviledge the enjoyed priviledge depends not on the Right of his Princely Permission The Dr. I suppose will be loath to extend this Rule to the Restriction of Gossipings among the Good Wives of our Parishes or of Gentlemen to their Innocent Sports Hospitalities and Entertainments the Concourse of People to Fairs and Markets or places of Commerce or to Coffee Houses to hear what News comes or flies Abroad concerning the Affairs of the World while in these there are no Apprehensions of Danger But if it be said that the Apprehensions of Danger are the presumed Cause of such restraining Laws Necessary Meetings liable to no Restriction upon false Fears I Reply That if in truth the Powers have such Apprehensions of Meetings barely Innocent they have just Right upon such fears to restrain them because apprehended not as Innocent but at least dangerous and the Subject Knowing or presuming this to be the Reason of the prohibition ought in Duty to obey it Tertul. Apologet Cum probi own boni coeunt cuâ—t pii cum casti congregantur non est factio dicenda sed curia But this Rule will not hold in Meetings necessary whatever the Publick Apprehensions of them be For a necessary Duty cannot give place to false and unnecessary Fears But now in all Meetings not prohibited nor prohibitable by the Prince if the Prince must have always actual Knowledge of such Meetings to discharge them from Guile not only Majesty would hereby be rendred Ridiculous but the Wearers of is be oppressed with inrodes of People for giving in such Informations and Petitions for Leave But if the Dr. had set it thus That such Meetings as the Prince shall by Law require Notice of to be given to himself or his Vicegerents in that behalf in any or every place in order to leave hereupon to be given or denyed Leave not necessary to be asked without a Law requiring such Petition according to Right or Pleasure he had spoken much more correctly For in such Case 't is fit application should be made not to obtain a Right but to secure the Peace and Honour of the Prince who tho' he has no right to deny the Meeting yet has to be secured from all dangers thereof Now the Christians having no such command as this from the Heathen Powers to ask leave for their Assemblies but instead thereof being absolutely prohibited were under no Obligation of Law or Conscience to give Knowledge of their Meetings which would not have been a means to procure leave but persecution nor yet to obey the irreligious Law of Prohibition Had Heathen Princes set them such a Rule of Leave and License there is no doubt but the Christians would have gratefully accepted and as constantly have observed it and have given all manner of security for their Innocency From whence it follows That the Roman Laws as designed and pointed against Christians Assembling on Necessary Causes and a Divine Right were Nullities as to the Precept and Tyrannies as to the Sanctious and that Severity which the Dr. adduces as a Weight of Authority Cyp. Ep. 25. § 2. Humanis by sacrilegis â—e ibus c. vid. inter omnes Prudentium Peristephanôn does in truth nothing else but reproach their Cruelty What was it then that Tertullion so sagaciously knew Was it that the Christians deserved the Censure of those Laws which he as well as all other Primitive Advocates do Arraign of Inhismanity and Impiety Or was it that they actually fell under the Censure of those Laws at the Roman Tribunals This did not require so great a sagacity to discern since all the Heathen Mob that had been trained up to cry out Christianos ad Leonem knew this as well as he Now then why was this Instance against the Liberty of Christian Assemblies brought Was it to justifie the Roman Laws and to condemn the practices of Christians as Illegal If not 't is Impertinent if it be Lord what an Advocate for Christianity is here or would he have been in these Holy Ages Or was it to deny the Christian Church to be then Tertul. Apologet. Corpus sumus de Conscientiâ Religionis disciplinae veritate spei faedere Coimus in caetum Congregationem disciplinam praeceptorum inculcationibus densamus ibidem etiam Castigationes censura Divina Nam judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu Summuâ—â—que futuri judicii praejudicium est siquis ita deliquerit ut à communicatione orationis conventûs onmis sancti commerciirelegetur Praesident probatiquoque Seniores c. either in Right or Fact Incorporated Not so surely since the very self same Tertullian asserts such a Corporation in Fact and Divine Right even in Apology to these very Heathen Powers whom he did not hereby design to enrage but mollifie and so might have taught the Dr. to have laid by this invidious way of pleading and to have looked upon the Church * The Church a Society of it self as a Society of Divine Constitution and Authority without any Civil Incorporation into Secular States and when the Dr. shall reflect upon this Insinuation he will find it drives the point beyond his intention to the denying not only the Conciliar Synods but even the Assemblies of Christian Worship to be of a Divine Right and Authority for the Roman Laws were as much against one as the other And therefore I hope this was none of those Matters in Argument that challenge the precedent approbation of my Lord of Canterbury Ep. Dedic who if the Dr. could persuade him from caring for Convocations yet can never admit an Hipothesis or an Argument that will oppress the Right of daily Worship also § 3. It will hereupon be seasonable to examine what Authority Princes Supremacy of Heathen Princes meerly Secular or Heathen have over Christian Assemblies of what Kind or Nature soever that thereby we may prepare a way for discovering the Supremacy of Princes espousing Christianity § 4. First then To require Fidelity all Princes may require fidelity to all their Civil Duties from all Christian Persons Assemblies or Synods and consequently to offer at nothing in prejudice to any Civil Prerogatives or Rights whatsoever and for this they may if they doubt demand such reasonable Security as can be had or as is usually given in like Cases § 5.
Secondly To punish Christians for not living by their own Rules They may require them to live by their own Rules and punish them Temporally if they break them a Falsity in a Religious Profession being Criminal at any Bar whatsoever § 6. Thirdly To call Assemblies upon Protection They may require any Christian Assemblies or Synods to inform and instruct the Prince or any of his People in Matters Christian on the engagement of Publick Protection § 7. Fourthly Of being present except in matter of Communion Every Prince has a Right of Presence in any Christian Assemblies except in Matters of Christian Communion peculiar only to the Initiated For all Religion Mystical requires a peculiar Society of its Votaries and admits no Aliens whatsoever but in all things without that Communion even a Secular Prince may appear in peaceable and friendly manner § 8. Fifthly Of Inspection and Caution over Assemblies c Every Prince may appoint all ways of Inspection and Caution to preserve the Peace against all disorders that may be suspected or occasioned in such Synods upon Pretences or Transactions of Religion as being the publick Guardian of all Secular Justice and Peace by Virtue of Civil Laws Sanctions and all Processes of Legal Government But if a Prince breaks in upon Authorities elsewhere lodged by God this may be done indeed with impunity but not with Right and may oblige to patience under Legal Sufferings but not to any practical Obedience or Observation CHAP. IX Of the Authority of Christian Princes over Ecclesiastical Synods in point of Reason § 1. VVE have above prescribed for a Divine Right in the Catholick Church to hold Ecclesiastical Synods by the Authority of her Spiritual Governours and in them freely to Deliberate Consult Act Determine and Decree in Matters of Doctrine and Discipline and Communion to a Spiritual Obligation unto Canonical Obedience in all the Subject Members The Foundations hereof we have laid in the Scriptures and deduced an Universal Succession of this Practice upon a Continued and Catholick Uncontested Claim of a Divine Authority in the Church for the three first Centuries We have also adjusted the True Bounds of Supremacy in meer Heathen or Infidel Princes over such Christian Assemblies We are now to go on and consider the Ecclesiastical Sovereignty of Christian Princes over Ecclesiastical Synods how far it reaches and on what grounds it stands § 2. And first it must be granted Prince to lose 〈◊〉 Authority by being Christian that the Authority of a Christian Sovereign must comprehend that of all others in it self there being no Reason that Princes should lose any Prerogatives of their Crowns by becoming Christian it being for the benefit of Mankind that their Princes should be all Christian and therefore not sit that they should suffer any Diminution by that whereby the World receives so vast a Benefit But because this alone is not like to give content we will sum you up the Prerogatives of Dr. Wake taken from our Crown here and ascribed equally to all other Sovereign Princes professing Christianity what where and whensoever § 3. By the Submission of that most Holy The 〈◊〉 of the Submission of the 〈…〉 VIII Undefiled Humbled and Orthodox Convocation under K. I had almost said St. Henry VIII and the Statute thereupon it is fixed that our Convocations are not to convene without the Kings Writ nor attempt to Make Enact Promulge or Execute any Canon c. without Royal License c this being but an Affirmance of an Antecedent Right at Common Law which the Dr. deduces down by Historical Accounts from the first Christian King of the English Saxons and not content therewith he extends the Supremacy beyond the Letter of the Law and Lodges it in the very formal Right and Reason of the Christian Magistracy precluding hereby all possible hopes of any the least relief from our present Tyes notwithstanding all our old Franchises our present Merits and our future Dangers For the ill Consequences of a Local and Positive Law might have had remedy but the Fundamental and General Laws of Sovereignty admit not the least Correction or Alteration § 4. Now the Doctrine of the Dr. briefly consists in these Aphorisms 1. That under the Dominion of the Christian Magistrate 1. p. 14 41 48 76. the Church has no inherent Right or Authority to convene in Synods but what it derives from the express Concession of the Christian Prince 2. For that all Synods are but of Counsel to the Prince 2 p. 84 85 136 to 139 289 38 286. and entirely in his Hands and so 3. Not any to be sent to the Synod 3. p. 28 39 40 103 104 105. but such as he shall allow nor 4. When convened to Sit 4. p. 79 to 83 106 107 110 112 c. 132. Debate Propose Deliberate Conclude or Decree any Matter of Doctrine or Discipline whatsoever 5. Nor in any Method Form 5. p. 44 53 54 71. or Manner whatsoever save what the Prince admits and that 6. The Prince may Ratify 6. p. 81 to 86 133. Annihilate or Alter all their Acts and Procedures or as many of them as he pleases and 7. Suspend the Execution of all 7. p. 85 to 89 125 126. and any of their Canons and Sentences 8. The Authority of their Acts being entirely and only his 8. p. 288. and Lastly 9. That no Synod hath Right to dissolve its self 9. p. 77 to 79. without the Kings License VVhere we may Note that all these are Articles Negative of all those Liberties and Authorities of the Church under the Christian Princes which she claimed of Divine and Vncontested Right under Heathen Powers for the three first Centuries of Christanity immediately lost and to be swallowed up of every Prince as soon as he commences Christian Wherefore it is necessary to look to the bottom of this Matter upon which the Dr. builds this overthrow of all the Churches Authorities under Christian Powers Now his Arguments are of two Classes the first seated in the Substrate Reasons and Equity hereof the second derived from the General and Uniform Claim and Practice of all Christian Princes § 5. The Des Arguments from Reason As for the former sort of Arguments which would have been the chiesest most convincing and most satisfactory the Dr. has not collected them into any proper Order or Sections in order to a set illustration of his Principles as it had been to have been wish'd but only by light touches and glances here and there seldom and consusedly Interspersed given us little hints and intimations of them Now herein perhaps he has bespoken our excuse 〈◊〉 7. for that his hast and interfering Avocations would not allow him to be exact But hereupon to set things off in the clearest light and view I can I will corrade those Reasons on which he Bottoms the Right of Christian Princes to these Anthorities These
is none but on other Reasons exteriour either of State Peace or other insuperable dissiculties nor can such mistaken or enforced Protections give the Protector an Ecclesiastical Headship over all those Systems of different Religions to act them all as Dr. Wake allows them to Act the Church because there is no Right bottomed upon Error See Chap 1. Sect. 5. and because many times they are exempt from his Jurisdiction as in the Chappels of Embassadors and Foreign Factories whose Protection is not Founded upon a supposed possibility of Truth but upon the Reasons of Commerce and Negotiation § 8. Incorpon on dissers from Protection But if the Dr. shall here make Protection only to consist in an Incorporation of the Church into the State and her Canons into the Laws as this is quire another thing from bare Protection and thought to be of a more transcendent Elevation so it will then appear that none of the Christion Roman Emperors did so instate the Church which consequesitly must then be out of Protection and so free from their Supremacy the Exercise whereof therefore must have been an Usurpation and a Nullity § 9. But we shall by and by discern a little better the Form and Nature of a Protection of the Church For if the Catholick Church had a Divine Right in the Liberties and Authorities Synodical continued universally inviolate and unquestioned for 300 Years downward from the Apostles how can this Body be protected by any Magistrate or Powers that shall claim off in point of Title and take it away thereupon in point of Fact any or all of these Divine Priviledges Protection inconsistent with violation of Right given by God and granted to her Priests for her Conduct and Conservation and this under a pretence of Protection while the Churches Constitution is apparently ruined and her Synods heretofore free declared now for Criminal if not held in Villenage This is so contrary to the very Dictates of Nature in the Reason and Form of Protection that all Systems and Factions of Religion disclaim such Bondage and challenge a liberty as presubstrate and praevious to Protection which is otherwise inconceivable and the pretence thereof a meer sham upon humane Understanding The Iews therefore as busie as they are to be enfranchised in their several Dispersions yet would never endure the Civil Powers thereupon so to prescribe all the Politie of the Synagogue and to Null Cancel Ratify or Alter their Methods and an attempt of this Nature upon them would appear as dreadful a persecution as Caius his erecting his Image in their Synagogues Jews Papists Sectaries all for Ecclesiastical Liberty Not only the Romish Church but all other Sectaries and the Scotch Kirk illustriously scorns to admit any servitude notwithstanding not only the National Protection but Promotion being all sensible that a Liberty of Religious Government and Church Discipline is more valuable than all worldly Wealth or Interests and without which they cannot apprehend any Protection to Religion or the Societies that profess it And to close up all since in all Ecclesiastical History those Synods have been most injurious or injuriously dealt with that were least free and their Authority thereby vacated with all Churches for ever I wonder what reputation the Dr. will secure to a Provincial or National Synod with Neighbour Churches Liberty necessary to validity and reputation whether Popish or Reformed or with future Generations should it be in Fact so managed by a Prince as the Dr. avers it may rightly be in all its Motions and Issues Or how can we blame the Popes Management of the Council of Trent and such others if we will justify ten tiems a greater Bondage in the Councils called by Princes What security is there for Uniformity in Doctrine Regularity of Discipline and Authority with the Christian Church if all be to be done only ad nutum P pis The Dr. tells us of Bp. p. 115. King Charles the first and A. B. Land Lands Concurrence with K. Charles the First his Writ for and License to the Convocation Very well and that King and that Prelate too might do so in observing the Forms which could not be altered without Act or Rupture of Parliament but does it follow that they were either of them of the Drs. Enslaving Principles under Sovereignty in General When that Great Primate declares against Fisher a free General Council to be the supremest Judicatory in the Catholick Church and would he not then think the same of a Provincial Council for a Provincial Church tho' both convened and permitted to sit by the Will and Order of Princes Men may Act under the Forms of those Laws when not actually Executed to our injury which they do not simply approve of in themselves and against such a Prosecution of which Laws they would openly and avowedly Complain as did the Council at Ariminum c. And I take it that it must pass for an eternal Rule Truth and Piety free Principles that as Truth and Piety are free-born Principles so are the Depositaries or Trustees of them also to be free in the Culture and Propagation of them And they that withdraw the Necessary freedom of these Trustees withdraw their Protection from the Principles themselves Not to be committed to Slaves they being too noble and glorious to be committed to the Care and Conduct of Slaves or Vassals § 10. Having thus enquired into the first reason for this Alienation of Synodical Powers from the Mitre to the Crown The forms of alienation improper let us in the next place examine the Form of it hereupon which must consist in a Devolution Occupation or Contract with the Spiritual Powers If by Devolution this must be founded either in the Original Ordinance and Constitution of God or from the Natural Right of Sovereigns over all Persons of the same Religion The first ground hereof I want and can I doubt be no where found and we shall have occasion hereafter to make Experiment whether it can or no. And as to the second I shall readily yield it if it can be made our that in all Religion Natural and Revealed the Prince that is of it shall have the entire Conduct of it For then indeed it must rest in the Hierarchy only till they get a King of their Faith to whom then they must turn over all their Powers But why should this Divine Charter Devolve over to Princes any more than that of a little Borough This of the Borough was granted by Kings Be it so tho' 't is not necessarily so for that popular States may so six themselves and after admit a King to protect them but without any Devolution But be it so Can then our King be denied a Devolution of a Charter in a Town which he Protects because a former King founded it tho' in a mere Secular Interest and Government and must a Charter founded by the King of Kings Devolve to a Temporal
Prince out of those Hands and that Society in which it was vested in a matter quite different from the Secular Polity I do desire a proof hereof as weighty and important as the Matter and Consequences hereof are What then is it liable to a Despotick Occupation This again is what a Borough will not yield upon a Quo Warranto but will be ready to make a Counter demand of Quo Warranto from their Prince In vain would he plead for it on the Right of Protection while he strikes at all their Municipal Rights and Liberties Be sure except the English Church here But we we only are the Poor Tame Dispirited Drowsie Body that are in Love with our own Fetters and this is the only scandalous part of our Passive Obedience to be not only silent but content with an Oc n of our P rs which are not forfeited nor forfeitable to any Worldly Powers whatsoever And as to any Contract 't is neither pretensible nor pretended by the Doctor tho' too much in truth in latter Ages has been exchanged by the Church for Worldly Interests wherein mainly lies the great Ruine of Christianity § 11. But now we descend to the second Cause in which this unlimited Supremacy of Princes is by the Doctor founded namely Civil Interests as of Peace and the Princes Prerogative To both which I for my own part am willing to surrender all if it be necessary But before this however I would fain know how do the Laws of Peace require a Violation of those Rights which God hath lodged in the Hierarchy as a means to reconcile all in one Body unto a common Peace with God and each other If the Clergy use their Powers to that End who has Right to hinder them Who to break the Peace with them But if they do not there are other just ways of securing them from doing wrong than by disabling them from doing Good that very Good which God hath set them apart and sanctified them to do And these ways are in the Power and Sovereignty of an Heathen Prince Chap. 8. as is above manifested and therefore are sufficient to the same ends in the Authority of a Christian Prince from whose Coercion in matters of Crime the Priesthood how much soever to be revered by Princes ought not to be made a Shelter or Protection Under these Powers of Heathen Princes the Christian Synods made no Rupture on the Peace or Prerogative of the Empire Church Ordinances innocent in all States tho' as undeservedly accused for this by the Heathens as we are suspected of it now Why should the same Spiritual Liberties within a Christian Kingdom be thought more dangerous than they were to Heathens I will not speak out how the Churches of Christendom have been crushed between the Upper and the Nether Milstones but sure I am hence are all the Confusions both under the Papacy and the Reformation Be sure here by all means to except England Nor is it possible to make any true and signal Conversions to the better as long as there is a common Slavery upon the Hierarchical Powers for as we hate the Bondage of Rome so they hate the Bondage of the Church under Secular Domination and so hereby is maintained a perpetual and irreconcileable aversion which no illustrious Piety can extinguish while the Powers thereof are Chained down to mere Politick Ends and Services § 12. So that as there is no necessity No Expediency in the Slavery of the Church so neither is there any expediency to recommend any such unlimited Domination For as Things and Persons Consecrated to God are to be treated with a Respect and Reverence suitable to that Sanctity and Relation to God so a Prostitution of them under Secular Contempt is no small Impiety towards God and no small Guilt Blemish and Indecency in thern that cause it Now of all things under the Sun nothing is so hated feared and despised as Servitude and no Servitude more reproachful than that of Priests which were from the beginning a most Noble Free and Honourable Order in all Nations not excepting the very Barbarous Nor yet of all sorts of Slavery is there any so Indecorous and Grieving as that which oppresseth the Sanctity Authority and Operation of their very Functions for maintenance of which the Bishops of the Primitive Church were chiefly sought out unto Martyrdom And yet as hateful as such Vassallage is in it self 't is less Odious under an Heathen than a Christian Prince For from an open Enemy 't is natural enough and no new thing to expect Oppressions but when a Prince hath been Consecrated by God's Priests into the Communion of the Catholick Church he is thereby federally engaged to assert all the Rights and Authorities of that Divine Communion vested by our Lord in the Christian Hierarchy as much as every common Christian or Priest himself our Salvation in common being promoted by the Conduct of them Can then a claim of an Oppressive Supremacy be deemed a Glorious Jewel in a Christian Crown which if exercised must of necessity forfeit the Kings Salvation And is it not a dangerous Complaisance it Priests to fan such an Ambition as must end in the Ruine of the Church the Priesthood and the Soul of the Prince which the Liberties and Powers Hierarchical were designed to Convert Direct and Preserve It is not perhaps without an especial Providence that Eusebius has preserved the Memory of this Artificial kind of Persecution practised upon the Church by the Emperor Licinius Lecinius his crasty Persecution Who prohibited the Bishops from Visiting the Neighbour Churches or to hold Synods Consultations and Advices concerning matters profitable that so either by disobeying his Law they might be subjected to Punishment or by obeying his Order dissolve the Laws of the Church For that 't is no otherwise possible to set great Concerns at Right but by Synods by which he attempted to break that Concordant Harmony in the Church A place well worth every Princes and Doctors deep and most affective Consideration that under pretence Peace there may be no Licinius set up over the Hierarchy within the Communion of the Christian Church For besides the Domestick Cares and Exigencies of every Church requiring a constant Watch and frequent Consultations the concerns of the whole Catholick Church under Heaven ought to affect every Province and Bishopâ—ick thereof to a frequent course of Communications in order to a general Union and Vniformity in all the principal matters of Christianity a duty never to be performed but by a liberty of Synods in order thereunto in which the Rights of the Catholick Church run a parallel with those of Civil Powers 'T is true indeed this Communication is actually broken off but the Right and Duty thereof is mâ—â—aâ—colled and eternal obliging all Churches to reâ—tore it and I believe all Princes to pâ—rmit and assist the restitution Let therefore the Church be bound in all humility
for departing from this Rule and that is much the same thing with not having departed from it But not so good Sir for in a confessed Right there is no need of a Justification but it is sufficient in such and so very many Synods held without any reference to Emperours that there was no Rule or Law against them nor ever any Censure of Irregularity past upon them If the Prince was angry at it he might call another to review the matters but he never could condemn the Provincial Conventions merely for being made without his License Of the Total Authority This in all Acts Synodical he avowedly attributes to the Prince yet unhappily falls sometimes into contrary instances and concessions unawares as for example chap. 2. § 24. p. 55. He says That in the sixth Council of Toledo we find the very Constitutions themselves in some measure drawn by up the Order of Cinthilus their King and only Confirmed by the Synod Now where the Right of Confirmation was there was the chief Internal Synodical Authority Again ch 2. § 36. p. 87. He says of the first Council at Ephesus That they appointed the Emperors Order for suspending the Sentence of Celestine and Cyrils to Provincial Synods to be inserted into their Acts and thereby gave a kind of Conciliary Authority to it But if Councils in themselves have all their Authority Conciliary from the Prince how could that Council give any to his Order Or how was it pertinent to the Doctors Principle ch 2. § 25. p. 56. to alledge Receswinthus magno precatu deliberationis exhortantem exhorting the eighth Council of Toledo with great entreaty to consider the matters he laid before them Of the Princes Ability to Judge matters Theological ch 2. § 31. p. 71 72. The Arguments given for this are very languid and repugnant to common experience and may as well be applied to the Reputation of a Beggars Judgment in Matters Divine But yet it must be allowed that before a Prince gives the Definitions of a Synod a Legal Sanction or his own recommendatory Suffrage 't is fit he should understand them but the Spiritual Authority lies not in the Prince but in the Spiritual Truth in matter of Faith enforced by the Canonical Order of Ecclesiastick Ministries tho' the Doctor ascribes the Authority of imposing belief on the Subjects to the Confirmations of the Kings lb. p. 75. I hope saith he they will think it to be their Duty in order to his consirming their Decrees with a good Conscience to convince him of the Truth of them and not expect that he should not only believe himself but should oblige others to BELIEVE what neither he nor they see any reason to believe The Fathers that scouted the second Sirmian Creed that dated it self in the Presence of Constantius and under the Consulship of Flavius Ensebius and Hypatius in the tenth of the Calends of â—nne for ascribing so late a beginning in but the Presence of a Prince how would they have blessed themselves had they heard any man ascribe to Princes an Anthority of making Subjects believe or had they read any such paslage as this ch 2. § â—3 p. 79. It is I conceive allowed on all bends that their Definions are no further obligatory than as they are rulified and confirmed by the Civil Authority For tho' the Faith of Christ neither depends upon the Authority of Man nor is subject to the Power either of Synods or Princes as to what concerns the truth of it Yet what that Faith is which shall be allowed to be professed in every Community by the Laws of it and receive not only Protection but Encouragement from the Civil Power must be left to the Prince to determine So far 't is tolerable well And the Definitions of Synods in favour of it will signifie very little till what they have determined to be the Right Faith be also allowed by the Civil Magistrate to the publickly Professed and Taught and be received into his Favour and under his Patronage as such Sute the Doctor forgot the three first Centuries and all other times of Princely Persecutions under which the Synodical assertions of the Faith signisied more to the convincing Men to Faith Ten Thousand times than all the Encouragement of Christian Princes ever could did or will And therefore whatsoever liking any other Arch-Bishop might have had to this Doctrine of the Doctors I hope this is none for which the Doctor will challenge his present Graces approbation Of Ecclesiastical Censures These the Dr. makes all annihilable by the Will of Princes But how then shall what they bind on Earth be bound in Heaven and their sins be retained which they retain if they are Repealable by an Earthly Prince Has this Earthly Potentate a Commission to bind and loose remit and retain in Earth and Heaven too as the Church had and has still except he can take it away The Doctor should have considered here that Kings are only concerned in Church Censures as by the Laws they are to have a Civil effect not as to their Spiritual validity before God in Heaven Of the Right of Summons Ch. 3. § 5. p. 107. They have Right to nothing but a Summons and it were no great matter whether they had a Right to that or no. Ch. 3. § 25. p. 141. Yet I humbly conceive that so antient and settled a Custom ought to be held to What! tho' 't is no matter whether they had this Right or no Of the Bottom of the Regal Supremacy This he solemnly and universally places in the Sovereignty of all Christian Princes as such but ch 3. § 25. p. 144. he lodges it in the Trust reposed and granted by the People The Government has intrusted him our King with the Power of giving them leave to sit and act when he pleases and when he pleases he may deny them to do either This is indeed the Truth and only Truth in this matter 't is a concession and trust of the Estates to our Princes established by Common and Statute Law which whether God approves or no must be left to his Judgment at last when Men shall be called to account for what they have done herein or hereupon But in the mean time this Truth is a prejudice against that universal Right of all Christian Sovereigns herein by mere vertue of their Sovereignty Of the Parallel of Counsellor and Jury Chap. 5. § 15. p. 289. Will not their Resolutions be their own because the King declared to them the general Matter upon which they were to consult Is a Counsellor at Law of no Vse or has he no freedom of Opinion because his Client puts his Case to him Or does our Law unfitly call the answer of a Petit-Jury its Verdict because the Judge summed up the Evidence to them and directed them not only upon what points but from what proof they were to raise it What strange Notions must c. But what strange Notions must that Man have that thinks a Synod to have only a freedom of Opinion like a Counsellor without any Decisive Authority and yet compare that very freedom of Opinion to the Verdict of a Jury which is Authoritatively Decisive To compare the King to a Client and a Synod to his Counsellor and in the same breath to make the King a Judge and so of Counsel to the Jury Whatsoever esteem the rest of this Book may acquire among the learned of the Law I do not pretend to Divine but I believe this will raise no extraordinary Transports and so let it pass And now I have done with my Remarks upon the Doctors Incongruities which tho' necessary to shew the weakness of the Work that a false Reputation may not recommend the ill Principles I had never offered to publick notice had he not used his Generous Adversary not only with extreme Spight but undeserved Contempt insulting over him as a Man of no Honesly Logick Law or History c. I could have added a great many more such absurdities but the employ is uneasie and so I quit it and shall only wish that the Doctor may humble himself to God for the wrongs he has done to the Church and when he has done so he will quickly endeavour to make her Reparation FINIS
noted in prejudice to the Rectitude of Prescriptions taken from the practice of Sovereign and Uncontroulable Powers that by Virtue or what else you will call it of that unaccountable Eminency they may and many times do go beyond the Lines and Measures of Right appertaining to them and who is there that shall say to any such Prince What doest thou So that prescription though it will actually carry it in such a Kings Courts where the Judges are at his own choice and pleasure yet is not a safe nor certain Criterton of real Right before free and equal Judgments as would appear in other Courts or by the Resolution of Foreign Lawyers where their Judgments are not subjected And therefore that Prescription for Kings which will and must pass with Lawyers in foro for Prerogative must not presently be taken for infallible Right by all Men and particularly by Divines till the whole Nature of the Matter and the Reasons of the Royal Interest appear equal For the verification hereof I need not go back so far as the Licentiousness of the Cesars nor so far off as to the Mahometans Kingdoms let us but look over the Southern Lake and see how Prerogative prescribes over the miserable Subjects there and every where else where the Sword is Arbitrary and think the Observation will appear very well bottomed So that when the Dr. would argue for all his Exorbitant Powers of Princes over Synods from their customary Claims and Practices to the convincing of Mens Minds of the Rectitude of them he ought all along or by a general Set of Reason once for all to have set forth the unexceptionable Equity as well as Custom of such Practices for otherwise the customary Practices of a Boundless Power will not ipso facto prove their own Equity nor be fair presumptions for it alone with free and unsubjected Judgments § 4. To shew the reasonableness of these Cautions and Exceptions let us but consider how great and large a Prescription Mahometism has in those Infidel Countries and Popery in great part of Christendom and Heathen Idolatry once had from almost the Tower of Babel till Constantine's Days over the General World under the support of the Princes Prerogatives and yet we see all those were and are meer Nullities because there is no equal bottom for them but the certain iniquity vacates all that Right of Prescription which yet did and still does pass in Law thro' all the abused Countries so that prescription is rather a Rule of Right among Subjects than in Sovereigns § 5. The Dr. heeded not to any good Originals for his prescriptions Now the Dr. is so far from pretending to any Express Law or Constitution for the general Right of all Princes in those Powers which he has so liberally assigned them that he does not so much as suggest nor seem to consider the presupposition of any such as the Original of these Prescriptions Only in Fact such things have been done pretended and claimed by Christian Princes and never by others without their Concession and so concludes therefore it was and is their Right as Christian Magistrates without any reference to or supposition expressed of any Legal Original no not so much as indefinitely and generally whereas it was to have been expected that he should have definitely Specified some Law or Act as the supposable Original or Foundation of them either the Law of Nature or Providence or some Divinely Revealed Law Grant or Prophecy or the Law of Nations or Common Charter of Christian Nations as such or Canons Ecclesiastical or Contract between the Ecclesiastical and Civil Powers or at least and at last some Original Imperial Law over the Roman World whence all the lesser Princes of the divided Empire retain the Right so Founded An exact Lawyer would have laid some or other of these Foundations for the prescribed practice but the Dr. was sensible it was a dangerous adventure to assign Originals and so let it pass but by thus slipping it over he shews it impossible to be done and so fixes a fatal prejudice against the Truth and Credit of his Reasonings since he shews no Original Cause Reason or Equity presumable for the Right of such a Prescription And therefore since he so fatally fails at the bottom we cannot expect any great success or assurances from his meer Historical Allegations § 5. We will therefore go on with him and make Experiment of his most Antient and most Divine Instance in the Jewish Kings Jewish Princes p. 10. There is saith he no one so great a Stranger to the Holy Scriptures as not to know what Authority the Jewish Princes under the Law pretended to as to this Matter What that Matter is he just before declares in generals A Right not only to Exercise Authority over Ecclesiastical Persons but to Interpose in the ordering of Ecclesiastical Affairs too And then adds How far the first Christian Emperors followed their Examples were other Authors silent yet that one Assertion of Socrates would not suffer us to be ignorant where he Affirms that ever since they became Christians H. H. Praf l. v. p. 259. C. the Affairs of the Church have depended on them and the greatest Synods have been Assembled by their Order and still says he continue to be so Assembled § 6. We are not now to examine in this Part the History and Facts of Christian Emperours in managing the Synods save only by the by 't is Observable that the Dr. has cited Socrates against himself For the Dr. asserts Content p. X. Ch. 1. § 6. That all Synods whatsoever were Assembled by Princes but Socrates says only the greatest as well knowing that most of the lesser Synods Convened and Acted all without the Imperial Knowledge or Concurrence But to return to the proper Matter of the present Enquiry it seems to the Dr. that the Emperours herein followed and copied after the Platforms of the Jewish Princes herein manifest to every one that Reads their History in Scripture Synagogue Forms not extant in Scripture as if the Scriptures had given us a Draught and Model of the Synodical Polity and Forms under Jewish Kings This had been a fine thing indeed an happy Scheme for Church-Government but there is none so great a Stranger to the Scriptures as not to know that they mention nothing hereof nor of any Pretensions their Princes made to it Here are no Frames of the Great Sanhedrim no Tables of their City-Councils no Platforms of their Synagogues nor their Synodical Conduct under their Princes exhibited to us So that 't was so far impossible in Fact that the Christian Emperors herein exactly followed the Jewish Patterns that there were no Jewish Patterns in Gods Word to be followed at all much less with exactness nor is it probable that the Christian Emperours did so much as think of these Jewish Kings in their Synodical Councils or had the Forms been certain that they could have had
of Imposture in Religions inlaid with the Power of the Sword the Merchandize the Hypocrites would make of it Athan. ad Orthodox Tom. 1. P. 944. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set up Bishops by Kingly force 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before its Divine Credit could be throughly established in the Hearts of Mankind and the Reproaches consequent against it there upon did not think sit to call many Mighty or many Noble Wise or great at first to the Profession of Christianity nor permit any Princes by his Providence to exercise any formal Authority in the least over the Church for 300 years tho' Abgarus Mamaea and Philip Gordius are said to have been Christian that the propagation of the Christian Church and Faith might not be attributed nor attributable to the Power of Man but of God only Else it had been as easie and as miraculous for our Lord to have made Princes his first Converts and Apostles and founded this Supremacy in them and their Successors beyond all Question for ever But that it might never in time to come fall under the reproachful Imputation and Character of a State Engine he lodged the Spiritual Powers elsewhere for three Centuries entirely that hereupon the Church might be emboldened as upon sure grounds to assert her proper Powers unalienated and pure against all Atheistical Calumnies whatsoever thro' all Ages that so tho' they were to be subject to Civil Powers to the enforcement of their Duties and for repression of Enormities yet not to the Omission of their Duties and Cares to which God hath called them which is the general Rule and Standard of Subjection in all Countries Ages and Nations Universally and forever § 11. The Christian Character of the first Princes in the Prescription But there is one thing more to be considered in the two first Emperors instanced by the Doctor for this universal Domination of Princes over Synods and that is their Christian Character to qualifie them for this Omnipotency For tho' the Doctor in his few interspersed Reasons for it gives no distinctive grounds for an higher and interiour Supremacy in Christian than in Heathen Princes yet for a good Grace Praef. p. 5. he tells us That whatever Privileges do belong herein to the Christian Magistrate p. 94 96. they belong to him as such which must I suppose be the Rule of Interpreting other Places where he more loosly omits the Christian Qualification But here I would fain know what 't is shall denominate a Prince Christian and that in order to this Authority Internal Authority in Societies grounded upon an Internal Right of Communion For all Internal Authority in all Powers presupposes a right to Communion more or less as the ground of Authority in all Societies whatsoever And therefore the Authorities asserted by the Doctor to all Christian Princes must suppose a right to Communion in all the matters subject to that Internal Authority For he that has no right to receive Sacraments has no Internal Right of Authority to make Laws about them he who is not within the Communion has no Right to pass Sentence for the Ejection or the Restitution of others He may presume to do it upon an uncontroulable Force and Tyranny and the reasons pretended for it may be in themselves good and necessary and so be admitted and observed by the Church at the Command of an Usurping Power not in Conscience of his just Authority but for the reason of the thing and for the avoiding unnecessary Persecution But a Right Internal there is none to them that are without Now tho' Constantine and Constantius so much concerned themselves about Church Synods yet were they not yet Baptised into the plenary Communion of Saints in the Christian Church nor so much as made Competents or Catechumens by Imposition of Hands and consequently what they did about Ecclesiasticals was not of an Office or Nature Internal to Ecclesiastical Polity or Communion but common only to the Prerogative of Princes in General or if it was of Internal importance 't was Usurpation and a Nullity in it self Had they been Catechumens or Competents a pretence might have thereupon been formed that they alone might make Ordinances for those preliminary Statious but not surely for Baptism Consirmation Lords Supper Holy Orders Anathemas Absolutions c. Had they been Baptized and so qualified for Confirmation and the Eucharist it might not have looked so odd in them to have set Rules for such Sacraments and the common Laity in their Celebration but for Ordinations and Hierarchical Powers of the Spirit over the Souls of the Laity and Clergy how incongtuous must it have been in any Emperour to assume the whole Legislature and Ordinance In these therefore the Laws of Princes may well follow Ecclesiastical Constitutions by the Sanction of Secular Penalties but the Constitutions of Sacred Canons ought not to be taken sway from the Hierarchy and lodged only in a Lay-hand that holds a long Sword and for no other Reason but this that the Sword is in it least they that use it Sacrilegiously perish by it Eternally Constantius his want of Right over Synods For as to Constantius whom most accuse to be aresolute Heretick and they that speak most sostly of him represent him as Patron of Heresie through simple Ignorance he thereby became not a Guardian of the Church or the publick Peace thereupon hereby to sound his Right of Supremacy but a very great Persecutor and Embroiler of the Catholick Church even by managing Synods which no doubt in an Unbaptized state of Heresie he had no true Right nor proper Authority to do for whatsoever Right a mere Alien Prince may have while he professes no Enmity no doubt a Professed Enemy has no Lawful Authority to manage that Divine Society and its Principles which he designeth to destroy by that very management And so I resolve that Constantius having declared himself against the Homoonsion had no Authority to call or manage any Synod at all and that no Obedience or Conformity to his Calls were due in Conscience to his Power tho' it might be in Duty â—to God and Care for his Soul as well as the Souls in general of the whole Church the whole Authority of meeting being in the Catholick Bishops but none at all in him or his Arians I might here add that the Fathers might Convene upon his Call for fear of Persecution not in Conscience of Duty to it but I think this did not so far enslave them as to obey but the hopes they had of doing him and the whole Church the useful Services of true Faith and Piety And hence it was that when upon their Petition he would not in answer concede their Dissolution at Ariminuns Right of Dissolution they dissolved themselves not thinking themselves guilty of any sin of Disobedience for who could imagine so of the Conscience of 400 Catholick Bishops suffering for the Faith under Constantius his Tyranny