who stood upon the supposition That Christ had appointed a Presbyterian Government to be always continued in his Church And it is easily observable that you have omitted nothing that was pleaded by them whereby Prelacy might be rendered detestable as an unlawful Vsurpation but whether you have done the same thereby to render Presbytery as such I appeal to that very Chapter You are so far from it that the same design is managed throughout the whole Book where your Plea is against the Divine Right of any one individual Form of Government but the instance is mostly against Episcopacy Presbytery is seldom mentioned with any mark of disrespect or if it be it is accidentally I do not remember any one set discourse particularly levelled against it as there is sometimes against the Independents but all along against the Church of England both in this and several other of her most considerable Tenents and Articles Nay you expresly and in so many words give the precedency to Presbytery founding it upon one of your necessary and unalterable Divine Rights Part I. c. 1. § 7 8. pag. 23 26. and say That the Presbyterians seem more generally to own the use of General Rules and the light of Nature in order to the Form of Church-Government as in the Subordination of Courts Classical Assemblies and the more moderate sort as to Lay-Elders And to the Independents in the next place who plead the general Rules of Scripture and evidence of natural Reason Now all this you must be supposed to remove from the Episcoparians because therein you place the opposition if you do any thing And besides you say further The Episcopal Men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or the Practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many Congregations for Worship under the charge of one Person in the Primitive Church for the Ordination of a Bishop without the preceeding Election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the People and neither in Scripture nor Antiquity the least Footstep of a delegation of Church-Power and leave them no other Foundation but the Principles of humane Prudence and those not very well observed Pag. 416 417. So then upon the winding up of your Book the Church of England is represented without evidence of natural Reason and the Rules of the Light of Nature with little evidence from Scripture or the Practice of the Apostles in some instances of her Worship and Discipline but with none in others neither is Prudence her constant Guide And was not this a hopeful way and delicate means to bring over Dissenters to a compliance with the Church of England then likely to be established But none of it is to be wonder'd at if we consider the account you have given of the Government of our Church in the name of the Foreign Divines a little before pag. 409. and the inconveniencies it is liable unto as a step to Pride and Ambition and an occasion whereby Men might do the Church injury by the excess of their Power if they were not Men of excellent Temper and Moderation insomuch that our Bishops are begg'd rather to lay down their Power than to transmit that Power to those after them who it may be were not like to succeed them in their Meekness and Moderation and at last they are left to the Judgment of those who have the Power not only to redress but prevent abuses incroaching by an irregular Power And yet you have not left her barely to her Judges or the Civil Magistrate for such you can be interpreted only to mean to stand and fall at their discretion your self appear as Council against her prepossessing them with new fears and jealousies to which purpose you produce a ridiculous Prediction of Padre Paulo viz. That the Church of England would then find the inconveniencies of Episcopacy when an high Spirited Bishop should come once to rule the Church A Prophecy that in all likelihood was forged in the Brain of some Puritan and my reason for it is Because I find it placed in the front of a Latin Treatise writ by one of great intemperance and violence against the Church of England the Title whereof is Irenaei Philadelphi Epistola ad Renatum Virideum in qua aperitur mysterium iniquitatis novissimè in Anglia redivivum excutitur liber Josephi Hall quo asseritur Episcopatum esse Juris Divini Eleutheropoli 1641. The design of it is to inveigh against the praetorian Authority of Bishops with their Pride and Usurpation over the Clergy and he states the case just as you have done in your Irenicum viz. against their Solitary appropriated Power by Divine Right allowing a Ministry by the Law of Christ and that general Rules are given in Scripture for the great ends of Peace and Order But the particular Form depends upon the choice of the Presbyters and as they do judge it best agreeing with that Kingdom or Common-Wealth in which it is setled So then it seems the Presbyterians first instructed and brought over you not you them as you told my Lord of London And this also confirms what I said before viz. That you come up to the principles of them all excepting some of the rigider Scots who believe that no Church is duly administred where there are Bishops from whom my Worshipful Author declares his dissent tho' he is never the nearer to the Church of England for it that is purely your mistake and he notwithstanding follows on his design against our Church with all manner of indecency and dirty Language He begins with Arch-Bishop Land and takes occasion to vilifie him by reason of his Book against Fisher as worth no Man's reading and that it is unsaleable (a) Quis enim operam perdere voluerit in evolvendo hoc libro quem audio fidum esse custodem officinae bibliopolaâ—um thence he goes on to Richard Montacute Bishop of Norwich upon whom he empties his Spleen calling him a Chief Coal-blower (b) 〈◊〉 ciniflones Archiepiscopalis culinae primas tenet in the Archbishop's Kitchin reviling him as wise in his (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 own Eyes swelled with Pride and Malice with a little learning but more of self-conceit Bishop Andrews is his next Man whom he accuses of Plagiarism and for stealing his determination against Vsury out of Rivette upbraiding him for his ill stile (d) De ferreo stilo per scabra decurrente adding that Du Moulin and Rivette are as much before him in Learning as he thinks a Bishop to be above a Presbyter and placeth him at length amongst the Men mediocris Doctrinae of mean Learning The last I shall produce tho' there be many more against whom he raves at the same rate is Bishop Hall and he impleads him for want of Prudence in that he wrote his Book of Episcopacy carried on to it with an unseasonable itch of Scribbling casting Oyl thereby on that pyle in which the
Keys delivered unto them and thereby were invested in their Persons with the Ministerial Authority yet upon the same terms it must be farther proved That it was Christ's Intention that the same power should continue in their Successors or it makes no more to the purpose for a settled Ministery than it does for a fixed Episcopacy and this same Argument which overthrows a Superiority of Church-men over one another for want of an Express of Christs intention to continue it always overthrows also the Ministry it self both having the same bottom and alike promises This the Independant and Socinian saw and consider'd full well and upon your own grounds reject them both together with the two Sacraments because there are no express Texts declaring their Perpetuity But this is agreeable enough with the Rector of Sutton who as he makes all Gospel-Laws for Church-Government an Escheat to Westminster-Hall so is he to be supposed to receive none as perpetually obliging except those that are made and conveyed in the Hall-Phrase and by its Precedents with an express Declaration Entailing them upon the Heirs and Successors for ever But because Apostolical practice still presses you hard whose force apart from the Act and Donation of our Saviour seems to infer a divine Right the matter of Fact being apparent and beyond contradiction That the Apostles were invested with a Superiority beyond Bishops and Presbyters and did accordingly execute it Hereupon with a deep design but very Superficial Policy that is easily seen through and baffled you place their juridical consistorial Acts and Practices amongst those other Acts and Practices of theirs that were purely occasional and with regard to the present times and circumstances such as abstaining from Blood and things strangled eating or not eating the order of Widows the Love-Kiss Celibacy St. Paul's working with his own Hands Preaching the Gospel freely Circumcising Timothy c. all which are confessedly mutable and did alter in a very little time both in their Practice and Obligation But your Error is not only in ranging these quite different Practices under the same head and order whose distant natures are so plain and obvious but in that you do not consider that the Lord's Day and Infant-Baptism will for the same reason come under that head of Indifferencies and Practices mutable and therein besides the ill consequences in Religion you plainly contradict your self who tell us at the same time and in the same Section and in doing of it dart your self through with your own Weapon That tho' there be no particular express Revelation for the Lord's Day and Infant-Baptism yet Practice Apostolical or of Persons guided by an Infallible Spirit is sufficient to enact and declare them perpetually obliging For surely Apostolical practice guided by an infallible Spirit is equally manifest son a Superiority in the Ministry as for those two It is far more notorious and frequent but your Plot that was laid against the Immutability of Episcopacy engaged you to take no notice of it vid. Part I. Sect. 3. Part. II. § 20. Farther yet That you may be every ways secure in your design and wholly baffle and defeat all Plea for a divine and immutable Right from Apostolical Practice in the point of Episcopacy you go on in a sure way treading Antiquity under your Foot and impleading the most holy Primitive Bishops and Confessors of Defectiveness Ambiguity Partiality and Repugnancy that hereby you may root out their Order and destroy it from the Face of the Earth and you say in so many words That we cannot have that certainty of Apostolical Practice as to constitute a Divine Right It is not my business to argue points but to collect your particular Opinions or rather to write the History of your Theology otherwise I might here reply by demanding How and by what hands it is that we have any certainty of the Apostolical Writings or know their minds and intentions there The Church hath all along received the Canon and Sense of the Scriptures from the Faith and certainty of Antiquity and the repute and integrity of these holy Bishops Martyrs and Confessors Our Church of England certainly does so and they are her Rule in Reforming as to both and when the Authority of some Books of the New Testament were called in question the Tradition of Faith alone declared them Canonical and they remain such upon that Testimony in the account of the whole Christian World to this day And why then is the same evidence defective and less authoritative concerning their practice and sense in the point of Government But thus you expose the Scriptures their Authority their Sense to every Atheist and Enthusiust to uncertainties and conjectures or at the best to the intemperance of each violent heady and sceptical undertaker And thus it comes to pass that so much work is made for a Nicephorus Calisthus a Simeon Metaphrastes the very Jacobus de Voragine of the Greek Church those Tinkers that think to mend a hole and make three instead of it you taking away hereby the great evidence and muniments of our Christianity both as to the matter of Fact and the intent of it that which is next to the Foundation is cast down and what can the Righteous do Hence so many Whimsies and Forgeries of Mens Brains and monstrous Opinions fill up our Bodies of Divinity and your many forms of Government as by Divine Right are no less portentous than any of them as Geographers do Maps with some fabulous Creatures of their own Inventions Our Church of England I say in her Reformation supposes certainty and sufficiency in the Records of the Primitive Church and that matter of Fact is faithfully transmitted down unto us with the true sense of the Scriptures and Apostolical Practice both in matter of Doctrine and Government and her Reformation is receiv'd by the Civil Power and made Law in the Kingdom upon these terms alone viz. As bottom'd on the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and what the Catholick Fathers and ancient Bishops have thence collected particularly in the Four first General Councils or any other Council X. Elizabethae Cap. I. Sect. xxxvi And yet upon a Scandalous Interpretation of Eusebius Hist Eccles Lib. 3. Cap. 4. perverting his Sense quite contrary to his plain words and design which is to set forth the Succession of Bishops immediately from the Apostles over the known Parts of Christendom you blast the credit of all Antiquity and that with as much show of rancor and contempt as the scornfullest manner of expressing your self can declare What becomes then with our Rector of Sutton of our unquestionable Line of Succession of Bishops of several Churches and the large Diagram made of Apostolical Churches with every ones name set down in his order as if the Writer had been Clarenceaux to the Apostles themselves Is it come to this at last that we have nothing certain but what we have in the Scriptures And must then
to the Magistrate I might here also again demand By what Law in your Sense But it is your bare Opinion I am now to relate and the Reasons you produce not to shew the rottenness of them For suppose in some indifferent Rites and Ceremonies the Church representative that is the Governors of it pro tempore do prescribe them to be observ'd by all the Supreme Power forbids the doing those things if this doth not null the former supposed Obligation I must inevitably run upon these absurdities First That there are two Supreme Powers in a Nation at the same time Secondly That a Man may lie under two different Obligations as to the same thing he is bound to do it by one Power and not to do it by the other Thirdly The same action may be a Duty and a Sin a Duty in obeying the one Power a Sin in disobeying the other Therefore there can be but one Power to oblige which is that of the Supreme Magistrate where by the way I note that these last reasons are the very same that Mr. Hobbs urges against this very Branch of Church-Power in his Leviathan Part II. c. 29. and Part III. c. 10. pag. 248. The summ of all is this and I choose to express my self in the words of a very Learned and Judicious Writer upon the like occasion You distinguish betwixt the Sacred Function which you grant to be the proper Office of the Church and the Power over Sacred Things which you annex entirely to the Civil Power By which distinction you leave the Governors of the Church no other Power than to administer the Offices of Religion without any Power of punishing Offenders against the Laws of Religion I confess Part. I. c. 8. you own the Church to be a Society distinct from other Societies with Laws Ends and Governors of a distinct Nature and you had done the same before Cap. 2. § 3. p. 35. just almost before you enter'd upon this grand determination and with punishments distinct from the Civil and for Spiritual ends which you call Excommunication or an Exclusion of the offending Person from Communion with the Society and say That this Power is peculiar to the Church But this reacheth not to the point as to Church-Laws or to the Power of punishing Offenders against the Laws of Religion Besides you have called this Church the Magistrate all-along and invested him alone with Church-Power or a Power distinct from that properly called Political which can be no other than Ecclesiastical and you have instanced only in Preaching the Word and Administring the Sacraments as the two Offices in which the Authoritative exercise of the ministerial Function derived by Christ to his Disciples doth consist But all this I have shew'd to be contrary to the judgment and Practice of the whole Church of God both Bishops Fathers and Councils of the Emperors themselves in the best Ages of the Church and when they were her Defenders to the determinations of our own Church and the Laws of our Kingdom It is the design and subject of my whole Book and I am also mightily secured that I did not take one Argument that Doctor Stillingfleet had used before to be sure in his Irenicum Fourthly You give to the Prince and enstate on him as his right and due those very Offices and Acts which you have appropriated to the Pastors of the Church as their peculiar Authoritative Power such as to Ordain to Excommunicate Baptize c. and undertake to censure every Man exposing him as ignorant of the State of our own Church that is not of your judgment wherein you and Mr. Hobbs so exactly jump together for I consider what you produce out of the Manuscripts as your own particular Opinion that I have here placed your words in two distinct Columns desiring the Reader to compare and judge of them Irenicum pag. 391 c. All Christian Princes have committed unto them immediately of God the whole cure of all their Subjects as well concerning the Administration of God's Word for the cure of the Soul as concerning the Administration of things Political and Civil Governance And in both these ministrations they must have sundry Ministers under them to supply that which is appointed in their several Offices The Civil Ministers under the King's Majesty in this Realm of England be those whom it shall please his Highness for the time to put in Authority under him as for example the Lord Chancellor Lord Treasurer Lord Great-Master Lord Privy-Seal Mayors Sheriffs c. The Ministers of God's Word under his Majesty be the Bishops Parsons Vicars and such other Priests as be appointed by his Highness to that Ministration as for example The Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Winchester the Parson of Winwick c. All the said Officers and Ministers as well of the one sort as the other be appointed assign'd and elected in every place by the Laws and Orders of Kings and Princes In the admission of many of these Officers be diverse comely Ceremonies and Solemnities used which be not of necessity but only for good Order and seemly Fashion For if such Offices and Ministrations were committed without such Solemnities they were nevertheless truly committed And there is no more Promise of God that Grace is given in the committing of the Ecclesiastical Office than it is in the committing of the Civil In the Apostles time when there was no Christian Princes by whose Authority Ministers of God's Word might be appointed nor Sins by the Sword corrected there was no remedy then for the correction of Vice or appointing of Ministers but only the consent of the Christian Multitude among themselves with an uniform consent to follow the Advice and Perswasion of such Persons whom God had most endued with the Spirit of Wisdom and Counsel And at that time forasmuch as Christian People had no Sword nor Governor among themselves they were constrain'd of necessity to take such Curates and Priests as either they knew themselves to be meet thereunto or else as were commended unto them by others that were so repleat with the Spirit of God with such knowledge in the Profession of Christ such Wisdom such Conversation and Counsel that they ought even of very Conscience to give credit unto them and to accept such as by them were presented And sometimes the Apostles and others unto whom God had given abundantly his Spirit sent or appointed Ministers of God's Word sometimes the People did choose such as they thought meet thereunto And when any were appointed or sent by the Apostles or other the People of their own voluntary will with thanks did accept them not for the Supremity Impery and Dominion that the Apostles had over them to command as their Princes or Masters but as good People ready to obey the voice of good Counsellors and to accept any thing that was necessary for their edification and benefit A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scriptures and
so may Princes and Governors also and that by the Authority of God committed unto them and the People also by their Election For as we read that Bishops have done it so Christian Emperors and Princes usually have done it And the People before Christian Princes were commonly did elect their Bishops and Priests In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture for Election or appointing thereunto is sufficient If it fortuned a Prince Christian learned to Conquer certain Dominions of Infidels having none but the Temporal learned Men with him it is not against God's Law that he and they should Preach and Teach the Word of God there And also to make and constitute Bishops and Priests that the Word of God should be there Preached and the Sacrament of Baptism and others be administred But contrary they ought indeed so to do and there be Histories that witness That some Christian Princes and Lay-men unconsecrate have done the same A Bishop or Priest by the Scripture is neither commanded nor forbidden to Excommunicate But where the Law of any Region giveth him Authority to Excommunicate there they ought to use the same in such Crimes as the Laws have Authority in And where the Laws of the Region forbid them there they have no Authority at all And they that be no Priests may also Excommunicate if the Law allow thereunto Leviathan pag. 295 c. Christian Kings are still the Supream Pastors of their People and have power to Ordain what Pastors they please to Teach the Church that is to Teach the People committed to their Charge Again let the Right of choosing them be in the Church for so it was in the time of the Apostles themselves even so also the Right will be in the Civil Sovereign Christian For in that he is a Christian he allows the Teaching and in that he is a Sovereign which is as much as to say the Church by representation the Teachers he Elects are Elected by the Church And when an Assembly of Christians choose their Pastor in a Christian Common-wealth it is the Soveraign that Elects him because it is done by his Authority in the same manner as when a Town choose their Mayor it is the act of him that hath the Sovereign Power For every act done is the act of him without whose consent it is invalid Seeing then in every Christian Commonwealth the Civil Sovereign is the Supreme Pastor to whose charge the Flock of his Subjects is committed and consequently that it is by his Authority that all other Pastors are made and have Power to teach and perform all other Pastoral Offices It follows also that it is from the Civil Sovereign That all other Pastors derive their Right of Teaching Preaching and other Functions pertaining to that Office and that they are but his Ministers in the same manner as Magistrates of Towns Judges in Courts of Justice and Commanders of Armies are all but Ministers of him that is the Magistrate of the whole Commonwealth Judge of all Causes and Commander of the whole Militia which is always the Civil Sovereign If a Man therefore should ask a Pastor in the execution of his Office as the Chief Priests and Elders of the People Matth. 21.23 asked our Saviour By what Authority dost thou these things and who gave thee this Authority he can make no other just answer but That he doth it by the Authority of the Commonwealth given him by the King or Assembly that representeth it All Pastors except the Supreme execute their charges in the Right that is to say by the Authority of the Civil Sovereign that is Jure Civili But the King and every other Sovereign executeth his Office of Supreme Pastor by immediate Authority from God that is to say in God's Right or Jure Divino But if every Christian Sovereign be the Supreme Pastor of his own Subjects it seemeth that he hath also Authority not only to Preach which perhaps no Man will deny but also to Baptize and to Administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and to Consecrate both Temples and Pastors to God's Service There is no doubt but any King in case he were skilful in the Sciences might by the same Right of his Office read Lectures of them himself by which he authorizeth others to read them in the University And lastly concludes That Imposition of Hands is not needful for the authorizing a King to Baptize and Consecrate or Exercise any part of the Pastoral Function every Sovereign before Christianity having the Power of Teaching and Ordaining Teachers but it only directed them in the way of Teaching Truth And consequently they needed no Imposition of Hands besides that which is done in Baptism to authorize them to exercise any part of the Pastoral Function as namely to Baptize and Consecrate So that upon the whole matter whereas before you only contended that the sole Power of making Laws relating to Religion was subjected in the Magistrate taking it quite out of the hands of Church-Men now you place in him the whole Priesthood and allow its Offices to have no force excepting by the Power which is derived from him and the dispute is brought to this issue not that the King may govern the Church by a parity or imparity of Officers but that he may govern it without any or consecrate whom he please And this you deliver not only as your own Sense but as the Synodical Resolution of the Church of England in the days of Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth Fifthly After that you have thus invested the Magistrate with all Church-Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the full latitude and extent of it You at length abdicate the Magistrate himself and take from him in effect all Power in Religious things placing it in Believers in common who are supposed to have a Power antecedent to all positive Injunctions which you call a Liberty of Judgment and Liberty of Practice That is in my plain way of expressing my self they are under no Obligation either to take notice of what he says or to obey what he commands or to abstain from what he prohibits and so are their own Law-givers It is you say the Princes duty to defend and protect the publickly owned and professed Religion of a Nation to restrain Men from acting publickly tending to the subversion of it pag. 39. But it is no bodies duty to obey him unless he please or cannot help it And consequently the enactments of Empires are not Laws but Canons like the decrees of Councils as you have termed them and as the use of the Assemblies of the Pastors of the Church are the Common Council of the Church to the King so the Assembly of the King and his Ministers of State are the Council to the People as Elective Synods so Elective Parliaments are a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which will never be Sovereign enough to cure the distemper that