be in part a great untruth and both Athanasius Synod Nicen. Cont. heres Arian decreta p. 277 278. Ed. paris et Ep. de Synod Arimini et Seleuciae p. 889. Ep. ad ubique Orthodoxos c. p. 943. and Theodorit Eccl. hist l. 1. c. 5. 12. refer them to the Writings of the eminent Bishops and Doctors who lived an hundred and twenty years before the Synod of Nice and then used this Word Consubstantial in explaining the Divinity of the Father and the Son and 't is what Sandius in effect confesses only he thinks it for the dishonor of the Cause that all the Hereticks that were in the Church before Arius were Homousians hist Enucleat l. 1. and which in truth is only this the worst of Hereticks did not arrive to that height of impudence as to deny so received an acknowledgment in the universal Church Yet what Athanasius replyes upon Arius himself Tom. 1. disputat cum Ario pag. 134. making the Objection is a better answer here that what was in the Council asserted and declared was alwaies in the Scriptures by way of consequence and occasion was not given the Church till the rise and spreading of that Heresie for that particular and precise explication Heresies and Novelties must be and 't is the work of Councils to detect and determine against them but there would be mad work in the Church should that go for Innovation which an upstart Heresie forces the Church in new Terms to state and declare against and explain themselves thereby it must be declamed against as defective in Autority and Precedents because former Doctors had not sagacity enough the very Apostles had not Spirit of Prophecy enough to anticipate the Fictions of every Brain so to word it before-hand that the particular Heresie in its Nicety must be antidated and pre-abide upon Record bassled and contradicted He that reads over St. Jerome lib. 1. Cont. Jovinianum will find him there so urging Chastity as if Marriage it self was a sin and which that Father never design'd as his Opinion and Dailee confesses that he only speaks comparatively and is so to be understood as do and are to be many more of the Fathers cap. 5. de usu patrum though he will not allow it him in other Cases and when to serve his own particular Design of him I mean as to his Judgment of Episcopacy and will have his Epistle ad Evagrium and his Comments on Titus to the same purpose to be absolute and with no regard to those great even just Provocatious from the Bishops in preferring the Deacon before the Presbyters who as he well argues are of so much more Power and higher Order in the Church as that a Bishop is oft call'd a Presbyter in Scripture and Antiquity when so injurious were the Bishops to the Presbyters and so partial to the Deacons and indulgent that the Deacons scorn'd the Presbyters Order qui ignorantes humilitatem status sui ultra Sacerdotes hoc est Presbyteros intumescunt 〈◊〉 putent si Presbyter ordinetur Their nearer attendance on the Bishops Person and familiarity with him with other advantages attending occasioned that they found it an Injury to be promoted to the Presbyters Order as he tells us Comment in Ezek. cap. 48. and which together with the great superciliousness and insulting pride of John Bishop of Jerusalem exercized over him and giving some disturbance to his Monastick ease in the holy Land Ep. 60 61. something raised his spleen and in vindicating his own Order he spared not some little flourishes or Arguments abating of the Episcopate if thereby these indecencies might cease What effects all this had at that time we read not and that it was afterwards lookt upon by the Church as his alone Passion and particular Provocation we have all the reason in the World to believe it all ceased with his Person to be sure if not with the Passion nor do we find any one follower he had or is his Autority ever used against the solitary appropriated Power of a Bishop above a Presbyter 'till of late in these parts of Christendom who thence take the rise for their Schism and 't is the ground they stand upon for the battery and abolishing the whole Order and with-drawing their obedience and which to be sure St. Jerome never did nor attempted and herein they are particularly unlucky they beat down Bishops by St. Jerome's Autority to bring in their Schism and 't is the main Argument they still urge against them in the height of these Divisions and Distractions are now on foot in Europe and then too when they contend that St. Jerome knew no other occasion or use of Bishops but ad tollenda Schismata because Schisms and Divisions cannot be kept out of the Church but by them So that St. Jerome's Autority if any thing in their present Case must be against them and if complying with him they must for the present expedience submit unto Bishops whom they 'l allow to have acknowledged this necessity and usefulness of them what ever reasons else he saw for their institution and continuance 'T is that which Doctor Durel pleads for Arch-Bishop Cranmer that admitting him guilty of Erastianism and he did resolve the Power of the Keys into the Prince as Doctor Stillingfleet says he was and did his present Circumstances will plead much for him and the other Doctors of his time if of the same mind then with him he had been educated in many Errors with which the Church the whole Age at that time abounded and though a Reformation was on foot no wonder if in some Instances he was in the wrong 't was then their work to abdicate the Bishop of Rome and case him of that Primacy and usurpation he had exercised over this Church and it might so happen that in giving to the King what was his he abated too much of the Power of the Priesthood and the Church and which was hers and not to be given to any other and yet even this Error did he see at last acknowledged it to Doctor Leighton submitted to and subscribed the truth against it as the Dean of Windsor tell us he read it in Doctor Stillingfleet's Manuscript and in his presence And there is enough to be pleaded of this nature in the behalf of those inconsiderable Offers are made against our three eminent Bishops Whitgift Bilson and Bancroft and which will so thoroughly acquit them of the but suspition of Erastianism that the Bill must in course be flung out that is drawn up against them every one knows that is conversant in those their Writings whence Parker's Objections are taken The Point under debate was mostly very near altogether in King Henry VIII day 's betwixt the King and the Pope whether was supreme in the forensick outward Ecclesiastical Courts and Proceedings on the Persons of Men within this his Majesties Kingdom the Pope had usurped it for some time the King reassumes it Religion
Mr. Selden so much admires it must blemish our Saviour much to say he purposely call'd together a Church and design'd it none of its own to preserve it Sect. 4. The Jews Excommunication was not bodily Coercive and then there may be such a Punishment an Obligation to Obedience without force and that is not outward and this much more in the Christian Society Sect. 5. And this their Government abstracted from the Civil Magistrate is an Essay of Christ's Government so far of the same Nature to come into the World Sect. 6. The Christian Church might be both from Caesar and Christ as was the Jewish from God and Caesar and there is no thwarting The Jews and Christians distinct Sect. 7. In answer to his main Objection That all Government must be of this World Sect. 8. It is replied To assert Christ to have such a Kingdom is to thwart his design of coming into the World the whole course of his Actions and Government and those Ancients that expected him to come and Rule with them on Earth yet did not believe it to be accomplished till after the Resurrection Sect. 9. To say he therefore has no Power at all is as wide of Truth the way of Men in Error to run from one extreme to another and of Mr. Selden here Sect. 10. The Church is a Body of a differing Nature from others Sect. 11. With differing Organs and Members of its own in Subordination to one another Sect. 12. With different Offices and Duties Gifts and Endowments these either Common to all Believers or limited to particular Persons Sect. 13. As Christians in common they had one Faith into which Baptized and of which Confession was made the Apostles Creed and other Summaries of Faith and sound Doctrine Interrogatories in Baptism How Infants perform it Sect. 14. They had one and the same Laws and Rules for Obedience for which they Covenanted which is their Baptismal Vow the Abrenunciation of the World the Flesh and Devil Sect. 15. One Common Worship and Service and Religious Performance to God in their Assemblies the particular Offices and Duties there the Priest and People officiate interchangeably as in Tertullian Justin Martyr c. Sect. 16. Common Duties and Services as to God so to one another in supplying one anothers Necessities as occasion Sect. 17. In the supply of such as attended at the Altar by a Common Purse deposited in the hands of the Bishop Sect. 18. Of the Poor and Indigent whose Treasurer was the Bishop Sect. 19. The Power Offices and Duties not promiscuous but limited to particular Persons are those of the Ministry distributed into the three standing Orders of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon and which make up that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Gospel Priesthood to remain to the Restitution Sect. 20. This Power and Jurisdiction though limited to and residing in these three yet it is not in each of them alike in the same degree force and virtue the Deacon is lowest the Presbyter next the Bishop the full Orders and Vppermost Supreme and including all Sect. 21. Against this Primacy of Bishops that of Metropolitans Exarchy Patriarchy and the Supremacy of Rome is objected Sect. 22. The Metropolitan c. is in some Cases above the Bishop but not in the Power of the Priesthood 't is the same Power enlarged No new Ordination in Order to it Sect. 23. The Vniversal Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is but Pretended not bottom'd on either the Scriptures or Fathers or Councils Sect. 24. 25 26. The Bishops Superiority or full Orders and Power in the Church is reassumed and farther asserted He with his Presbyter or Deacon or some one of them are to be in every Congregation for the Presbyter or Deacon or both to assemble the People and Officiate and not under him is Schism The several instances of this Power of the Priesthood Sect. 27. To Preside in the Assemblies Pray give Thanks for Teach and Govern there No Extempore Prayers in those Assemblies Sect. 28. To Administer the Sacraments the Consecration of the Lords Supper by Prayer and Thanksgiving and Attrectation of the Elements Baptism by Lay-Persons Rebaptizations on what terms in the Ancient Church Confirmation Sect. 29. To Vnite and Determine in Council The use of Councils and Obligation Their Autority Declarative Autoritative Sect. 30. To impose Discipline the several instances and degrees of it in the Ancient Church Indulgencies and Abatements Sect. 31. To Excommunicate or cast out of the Church a Power without which the Church as a Body cannot subsist a natural Consequent to Baptism Priests not excommunicated but deposed Sect. 32. To Absolve and Re-admit into the Church this the design of Excommunication which is only a shutting out for a time in order to Mercy on whom to be inflicted It s certain force in the Execution Sect. 33. To depute others in the Ministry by Ordination the Necessity of it An instance in St. John out of Eusebius St. Clemens Romanus Calvin and Bezae's Opinion and Practice It s ill Consequences Only those of the Priesthood can give this Power to others Sect. 34. The Objection answered and 't is plain the Church is an Incorporation with Laws Rewards and Penalties of its own not of this World nor opposing its Government Sect. 35. The outward stroke is reserved to the Day of Judgment but the Obligation is present If the Church has no Power nor Obligation because not that present Power to Punish or any like it neither has any Law in the Gospel Mr. Hobbs the more honest Man says neither the Ecclesiastical or Evangelical Law obliges His and their Principles infer it Sect. 36. The Power of Christ and his Church cannot clash with the Civil Power because no outward Process till the Day of Judgment and then civil outward Dominion is to cease in its course the present Vnion and Power to be sure cannot this is clear from the several instances of it already reckon'd up Sect. 37. Their Faith is an inward act of the Soul acquitted by Mr. Hobbes and that which is more open Confession obliges if opposed but to dye and be Martyrs Sect. 38. That they Covenant against Sin makes them but the better Subjects Sect. 39. No Man that says his Prayers duly can be a Rebel because first of all to own his Prince and Pray for him The first Christians Innocency defended them when impleaded for Assembling without leave If this did not do they suffer'd Their Christianity did not exempt them from inspection Sect. 40. Charity not obstructive to Government when on due Objects a common Purse without leave dangerous not generally to be allow'd These Christians innocency indemnified them The Divine Right of Titles how asserted Nothing can justifie those Practices but their real Case The Profession of Christianity must otherwise cease Sect. 41 42. Presiding in the Church rises no higher than the Duties exercised 'T is Dr. Tillotson alone ever said To Preach Christ is to Affront Princes
him That he exalts the Church-Power above God and Christ and the Magistrate as all their Masters And indeed according to these Mens Notions to apply the Superlative to any Person or Thing is the height of Blasphemy For why God is not excepted And the most common Phrases of a most Mighty Prince a most Holy Place a most Wise Counsellor are all instances of it nor can any one Attribute of Gods be otherwise applyed to the Creature Whereas if the Word be understood and used as in common use it is to be and in complyance with things it must be suitable to the present Subject it is assign'd and limited to and the particular things it is conversant with as under such and such Heads and Orders all is easie and plain Thus God is the alone Supreme all Rule Governance and Autority being originally in him and eminently Christ is Supreme as Head of the Church to whom all Power is given of the Father for bringing Mankind to Heaven the Apostles and their Successors the Pastors of the Church were and are now Supreme on Earth in the same Power derived from Christ by the Apostles unto them The Prince is Supreme and hath all Power from God committed unto him as to Government relating to this World over all Things Persons and Causes to appropriate or alienate to Endow Limit Restrain Coerce or Compel as the alone Supreme Law-giver upon Earth and none may oppose and the great and gyant Objection that is only wrangling about and mistaking of words falls to the ground as it is in it self nothing CHAP. IV. Chap. 4. The Contents The Objections answer'd Selden's Error that there are to be no other Punishments by Christ than was before and under the Law the Query is to be what Christ did actually constitute He mixes the Temporal Actions of the Apostles and those design'd for Perpetuity Adam and Cain might have more than a Temporal Punishment Sect. 1. The great Disparity betwixt the Jewish and Christian State considered no Inferences to be drawn from the one to the other but what is on our side Sect. 2. Theirs is the Letter ours the Spirit They Punish'd by Bodily Death we by Spiritual Sect. 3. If Government was judged so absolutely necessary by the dispersed Jews that they then framed one of their own for the present Necessity and whose Wisdom in so doing Mr. Selden so much admires it must blemish our Saviour much to say he purposely call'd together a Church and design'd it none of its own to preserve it Sect. 4. The Jews Excommunication was not bodily Coercive and then there may be such a Punishment an Obligation to Obedience without force and that is not outward and this much more in the Christian Society Sect. 5. And this their Government abstracted from the Civil Magistrate is an Essay of Christ's Government so far of the same Nature to come into the World Sect. 6. The Christian Church might be both from Caesar and Christ as was the Jewish from God and Caesar and there is no thwarting The Jews and Christians distinct Sect. 7. In answer to his main Objection That all Government must be of this World Sect. 8. It is replied To assert Christ to have such a Kingdom is to thwart his design of coming into the World the whole course of his Actions and Government and those Ancients that expected him to come and Rule with them on Earth yet did not believe it to be accomplished till after the Resurrection Sect. 9. To say he therefore has no Power at all is as wide of Truth the way of Men in Error to run from one extreme to another and of Mr. Selden here Sect. 10. The Church is a Body of a differing Nature from others Sect. 11. With differing Organs and Members of its own in Subordination to one another Sect. 12. With different Offices and Duties Gifts and Endowments these either Common to all Believers or limited to particular Persons Sect. 13. As Christians in common they had one Faith into which Baptized and of which Confession was made the Apostles Creed and other Summaries of Faith and sound Doctrine Interrogatories in Baptism How Infants perform it Sect. 14. They had one and the same Laws and Rules for Obedience for which they Covenanted which is their Baptismal Vow the Abrenunciation of the World the Flesh and the Devil Sect. 15. One Common Worship and Service and Religious Performance to God in their Assemblies the particular Offices and Duties there the Priest and People officiate interchangeably as in Tertullian Justin Martyr c. Sect. 16. Common Duties and Services as to God so to one another in supplying one anothers Necessities as occasion Sect. 17. In the supply of such as attended at the Altar by a Common Purse deposited in the hands of the Bishop Sect. 18. Of the Poor and Indigent whose Treasurer was the Bishop Sect. 19. The Power Offices and Duties not promiscuous but limited to particular Persons are those of the Ministry distributed into the three standing Orders of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon and which make up that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Gospel Priesthood to remain to the Restitution Sect. 20. This Power and Jurisdiction though limited to and residing in these three yet it is not in each of them alike in the same degree force and virtue the Deacon is lowest the Presbyter next the Bishop the full Orders and Vppermost Supreme and including all Sect. 21. Against this Primacy of Bishops that of Metropolitans Exarchy Patriarchy and the Supremacy of Rome is objected Sect. 22. The Metropolitan c. is in some Cases above the Bishop but not in the Power of the Priesthood 't is the same Power enlarged No new Ordination in Order to it Sect. 23. The Vniversal Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is but Pretended not bottom'd on either the Scriptures or Fathers or Councils Sect. 24. 25 26. The Bishops Superiority or full Orders and Power in the Church is reassumed and farther asserted He with his Presbyter or Deacon or some one of them are to be in every Congregation for the Presbyter or Deacon or both to assemble the People and Officiate and not under him is Schism The several instances of this Power of the Priesthood Sect. 27. To Preside in the Assemblies Pray give Thanks for Teach and Govern there No Extempore Prayers in those Assemblies Sect. 28. To Administer the Sacraments the Consecration of the Lords Supper by Prayer and Thanksgiving and Attrectation of the Elements Baptism by Lay-Persons Rebaptizations on what terms in the Ancient Church Confirmation Sect. 29. To Vnite and Determine in Council The use of Councils and Obligation Their Autority Declarative Autoritative Sect. 30. To impose Discipline the several instances and degrees of it in the Ancient Church Indulgencies and Abatements Sect. 31. To Excommunicate or cast out of the Church a Power without which the Church as a Body cannot subsist a natural Consequent to Baptism Priests not excommunicated
in assuming of it he did not design to infringe and invade any Power of the Church and it least of all Vindicates Mr. Selden's innocency in urging them with whose Reputation it is as little consistent to say he is ignorant of the Statute Book being by Profession a common Lawyer § XXIII THE ancient Papers in the Cottonian Library seem to be the very same with that Manuscript of Doctor Stillingfleet's at least to be upon the same occasion and which the Doctor publish'd in part in his Irenicum and since it seems he thought it not publick enough there communicated it to his Friend Doctor Burnet and who has Printed it at large in the Third Book of his History of the Reformation of the Church of England and they seem to bear date about the same time according to the Computation given by John Durell since Dean of Windsor in his Ecclesiae Anglicanae Vindiciae Cap. 28. placing it in the Days of Henry 8th and so has Doctor Burnet since Correcting Doctor Stillingfleet's Mistake that it was in a Conference in the days of Edward VI. and entitling it to the Autority of the Reformation and though Doctor Stillingfleet only mistook in the time yet both he and Burnet have joyn'd together in that which is worse and have dealt unfaithfully in the transcribing of it if we may believe the Dean of Windsor's account who tells us in his forementioned Vindiciae out of the Manuscript it self which Dr. Stillingfleet gave him the opportunity to peruse that when Archbishop Cranmer had affirmed 1. That it was not only in the Power of a Bishop to create a Presbyter but in the Power of a Prince yea in the Power of the very People to create a Presbyter 2. That he who under the Gospel is designed a Bishop or Presbyter wants no Consecration that the Election and Designation is enough in order to it and Leighton a Doctor of Divinity gave his Opinion in these words 1. I suppose a Bishop according to Scripture to have Power from God as his Minister of creating a Presbyter though he ought not to promote any to the Office of a Presbyter or admit to any other Ecclesiastical Ministry in a Common-wealth unless the leave of the Prince be first had but that any other have Power according to Scripture I have neither read nor learned by Example 2. I suppose Consecration to be necessary as by imposition of hands for so we are taught by the Examples of the Apostles such says the Dean was Cranmer's Candor and so great his love of Truth he doubted not to yield to this Opinion of Leighton's and this is plain in Doctor Stillingfleet's Manuscript in which is to be seen Th. Cantuariensis set with his own hand below Leighton's Name in token of his Approbation of it and of which both the Doctors have given no account to the World being omitted in two Impressions Why Doctor Stillingfleet did leave out this passage in his Irenicum 'tis plain because it thwarts his particular design and he had lost the advantage of so considerable a Name and Autority as Cranmer's before his most false Assertion That Ordination is not appropriated to Bishops and for which in that Treatise he so contends it takes down somewhat of their Top-gallant As I remember somewhere in that Book he expresses their solitary Power he wondred no question with himself how at those years he could find out such a Book to present the World with and indeed well he might and when he had read so far as served his present turn went no farther otherwise he would have enquired also a little better into the time when this conference was and not obtruded it on the World as done by the Autority of our Reformation though 't is agreeable enough with the following Testimonies of the Bishops and Doctors of our Church in the same point of Episcopacy and which to say no worse of them are lame and imperfect as is here his account of the Manuscript But what should move Doctor Burnet to omit it I cannot imagine that it was not his purpose to leave Cranmer to Posterity as either an Erastian or Independent and of which he is justly to be suspected otherwise this is plain from his own account of him Lib. 3. Pag 289. where he tells us In Cranmer's Paper relating to this very Conference some singular Opinions of his about the Nature of Ecclesiastical Offices will be found but as they are delivered by him with all possible Modesty so they were not established as the Doctrine of the Church but laid aside as particular Conceits of his own and it seems that afterwards he changed his opinion and having said this why might he not have Printed out the whole Manuscript and which is but the very same thing only more satisfactory to the World and the Doctor had dealt more clear and ingenuous in the Matter nor is he quite to be acquitted from some little sinister end and clawing therein a thing not to the advantage of an Historian especially since he Printed out of another part of that Manuscript the Archbishops judgment so fully with Eight other Bishops concerning the Supremacy denying the Prince any Church-Power thereby and which is peculiar only to those that are chosen and sent by Christ Jesus as his Father sent him into the World and invested him with it and also in a Declaration of the Function and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests Subscribed by him and the Archbishop of York and Eleven Bishops and Twenty Divines and Canonists declaring that the Power of the Keys and other Church Functions is formally distinct from the Power of the Sword Printed in his Addenda Num. 5. at the end of his History and indeed that Archbishop Cranmer did so alter his Judgment as the Dean of Windsor tells us he did in Doctor Stillingfleet's Manuscript there is Evidence sufficient from the alone Book of Ordination and the Preface to it which was composed and made publick by him and others to be sure some of them these very Bishops and Doctors mentioned there and by Mr. Selden in his Cottonian Manuscript it being done in the first year of King Edward's Reign and where the Orders of Ministers wholly depend on the Apostles and their Institution but when all is said and done that can be such particular Conferences as these if duly considered and in their Circumstances can avail little for or against either Party nor can Cranmer's Opinion or any other Doctors be reported with Justice out of any such their Papers The greatest advantage the Reformation had in the days of King Henry VIII was that every one had encouragement to think and liberty to offer and in Conferences some must act the adverse part and every thing must be stated and proposed and urged too and though the opportunity and curiosity of some did not do amiss in collecting and preserving such Discourses yet I cannot but think it less Discretion in Printing and
as old as St. Jerome's days in the true sense of Fanaticism when the visible beaten way set out by God himself as was the Order of the Levites is slighted and deserted and they take to them Levites of their own Temulentos fanaticos nescire quid dicerent as St. Jerome farther in his Comments on Osea Men drunk but not with Wine not able to give a reason of their Profession to him that asks it NOR is there that in the Greek word § III 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is contended for and on which indeed their whole Fabrick is erected and designs advanced I know not how to give the due sense of this word thereby to undeceive such as generally lye under the prejudice of its perverted Signification than in the words of our learned Doctor Hammond in his Query of Imposition of hands for Ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A word that literally signifies to stretch out or hold up the hand but being used among the Heathens for choosing or any sort of Suffrage or giving of Sentence which among them in popular Judicatures or Choyces was wont to be done by that ceremony of stretching out or lifting up hands it is in vulgar use among Heathens and Jewish but especially among Christian Writers brought to signifie without any respect to giving of Suffrages indifferently whether by one or by more constituting or ordaining and of which whoso wants farther satisfaction may go on in that Excellent discourse and have it and also in his Annotations on Acts 14.23 I 'le only add here as the word is used but three times in the New Testament in none is it appliable to what they design from it The one place is Acts 10.41 where a multitude in voting to be sure is excluded for 't is said only of Gods Election and Ordination of the Apostles The other is Acts 14.22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is rendred when they had Ordained them Elders in every City Where nothing to do sure with the Multitude the People or Laity The last is 2 Cor. 8.19 and will amount to no more than the former and whosoever was the particular person there said to be chosen of the Churches the meaning can only be That the Apostles had assigned and appointed him to go along in that particular affair AND 't is farther observable that where-ever any Election by Suffrage or Vote is § IV either pretended to be made by the Multitude or really is so in the New Testament and some there were 't is not the naked Voting or giving up the Assent in their behalf gives what is to be or what can be supposed to be conferr'd that constitutes and sixes in any one designed Order but something farther is super-added and supervenes collates and instals makes the separation and inclosure it is pleaded at the Ordination of Matthias Acts 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communibus calculis annumerabatur by common Consent Votes and Suffrage he was added to that Number to the Eleven Apostles i. e. the whole Multitude the Hundred and twenty Disciples or Believers all concurr'd in the choice and assignation and which if granted though it needs not be yet nothing is gain'd on their side for that which constituted and gave Matthias his Portion in the Ministry and which Barsabas had not though he had his first Appointment by the whole Society as well as he was the lot falling upon him by which God not they are said to choose him i. e. to delegate unto and invest him with the Order and Power of an Apostle by the sensible Medium or Determination by lots and this the Prayer makes plain And they pray'd and said Lord thou which knowest the hearts of all men shew whether of these two thou hast chosen that he may take part of this Ministry and Apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell that he might go unto his own place and they gave forth their lots and the lot fell upon Matthias and he was numbred among the eleven Apostles They all with one accord acknowledged him a Man separate for the Ministry Another Ordination we find Acts 6. though to a much lower Office and Order in the Church when the Seven Deacons receiv'd their first Constitution where 't is plain the Apostles call'd the Multitude together told them the occasion of the designed Order such the People were to look out the Men and see and enquire that they be sit for the present Office and so they did they chose Stephen and Philip c. but it follows when they had done so they set them before the Apostles who were to give them the Power designed to accept and invest them And when the Apostles had prayed they laid their hands on them where the Multitude are allow'd to choose and here they might have an especial reason for it for their Estates in part so much as was assign'd for the Poor was to be entrusted in their hands and good reason that they approv'd of their personal Integrity yet had they not Power to constitute in the lowest degree of the Priesthood 't is the Apostles alone who had receiv'd the Power from on high and on whose Persons it was enstated could and did do it And whatever Beza supposes at the Ordination made by Barnabas and Paul that they had the joynt-suffrages of the People in order to it Acts 14.23 and which he doth in the same precarious way in all the Ordinations we meet with in Scripture though the Apostles and Presbyters are still alone mentioned as here yet 't is evident that they were the hands of Paul and Barnabas that were laid on them as of the Presbytery in other places and by which not the Votes and Elections of the People at least not without them were the Ordinations performed 't is not to be sure in the Believers in common to do it THAT not only Election but Vocation § V differ from Ordination and 't is one thing to look out cull choose and design for the Office of the Ministry and another actually to give the Power of the Keys to enstate and six in it nothing more clear than this from the Practice of our Saviour himself who first called Andrew and Peter c. then elected and chose them into the number of the Twelve yet all this while whatever of Power was given in the mean time the full to be sure and complete Power of an Apostle was not given to any one of them that was not devolved and transmitted till after his Ascension and then only they received that Power by the Holy Ghosts coming upon them at the Feast of Pentecost Acts 2. and the same has been the Sense and Practice of the succeeding Church in all Ages that the People had Votes in the choice of Bishops all must grant and it can be only Ignorance and Folly that pleads the contrary but this never was thought to create the Bishop and he must be as ignorant and stupid on the other
in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus on purpose wrote by St. Paul to instruct them in these like Affairs of the Church as to the Polity of it that they might know how to behave themselves in the Church of God as he tells Timothy in particular 1.3.15 where 't is notoriously evident that the Peoples Votes are no more required to the constituting a Bishop or Deacon then that their Hands are there actually laid upon them That the Hands of the Presbytery did consecrate we read expresly and we read of none else and such the Presbytery Timothy and Titus have the alone Charge and Power delegated to Inspect and Animadvert upon their Lifes and Manners to receive or reject as their Prudence directs the Clergy are sole Judges 't is not required that the People so much as present every particular Man's inward desire and private Motions supposing other due qualifications concurring made known to such whose is the Power for ordaining seems sufficient if any man desire the Office of a Bishop 1 Tim. 3.1 and that these Epistles are to be follow'd as the pattern in the Mount the Platform and Model of Church-Government these Men strenuously plead at other times and those other instances of Ordinations in Scripture brought by Blondel conclude nothing more In that of Matthias there is no such thing express at all the Believers being few were all together in one place and they were necessitated so to be but that they otherwise concurr'd then by their presence or that St. Peter's Speech was directed to them and not to the Apostles only is not thence to be inferr'd that in Acts 6. was chiefly he says only to provide Deacons to look after their Poor and good reason was there the People should approve of such in whose hands their Moneys was to be deposited nor can any inference be hence made on his side unless the consequence be good that such as are fit and able to choose and depute in whose hands their Money shall be entrusted are for the same reason instructed to Skill and choose their Teachers or that we set a lower price on mens Souls than we do on their Money because we can allow the Laity to provide for the latter but we think there ought to be better provision made and more care taken for the former What is argued farther from the parity of the Call and Consecration of Aaron Heb. 5. is full levell'd against himself where to be sure all concurrency of the People was excluded in every respect whatever WE 'll go on from Scripture-instances to § IX those immediately after the Apostles and see if here his Success be more we 'll accept what he says of his Twelve Centuries in immediate Succession because they are not worth the particular canvass in this Determination The point does not lye here Whether the Laity did sometimes or oftentimes concur in Ordinations but did they always concur He dares not say this but he believes not above Ten Ordinations to be made otherways Pag. 541. which he supposes to be failures and to be occasioned by the inseparable accidents of the Church Militant but no rules for Succession Though by the way 't is the chief design of the Apology it self by fewer Examples indeed not one but what is by him industriously forced and perverted to cut off the Chain and overthrow the concurrent Testimony of all Ages in the point of Episcopacy such is his slavery to his present Cause But such as consult Antiquity and the Ordinals of Churches impartially and which we have reason to believe he never did will find more and no one of them censur'd as failures that Elections and Nominations were made otherwise and that oftner than in his form At least many times sometimes by the Emperors without the People sometimes by the Emperors and People sometimes by the Emperor Clergy and People sometimes by the Clergy without either and this in very good times of the Church as instances are every where in Church-Story and particularly that it is not inseparable from the People and but by Permission and upon occasion otherwise their Votes are to be over-ruled appears from the many Laws made by the Emperors limiting what Persons are to be Ordained and what not 16. Cod. Theodos Tit. 2. Lex 3. l. 19.32 c. Sozomen Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 13. And if it be admitted what Melitius and his followers objected against Paulinus That his Ordination was not as it ought to be because without the consent of all the People as in Sozomen Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 13. yet the Ordination was not hereby voided and we have a certain Autority on the other side and much about the same time too 't is the 13th Canon of the Council of Laodicca which expresly forbids that the Election of such as are to be Ordained be at all in the People a certain Argument that the Church placed it at the most under the head of indifferences what occasion and circumstances might enjoyn or null receive or reject otherwise it could not thus become limitable by Custom or the Subject of different Laws Ecclesiastical and at last the numerous and turbulent Meetings on the occasion of Ordinations and Factions in giving their Votes even to Riots and Tumults to Blood-shedding and Murder forced that the People were excluded quite and general Laws to that purpose were made prohibiting their appearance at such times Quamdiu in Ecclesia Plebs partem habuit in Episcopis Presbyteris legendis nunquam discordiis factionibus civitates caruere donec res ipsa pax Ecclesiarum docuit Plebi hoc jus ademptum Magistratibus Clericis relinqui primò debere quod posteà soli sibi Clerici vindicabant So Blondel's own Friend Salmasius gives account and an end of the Elections by the People Defensio Regia cap. 7. And it may be farther observ'd that amongst the many Cautions and Restrictions concerning Ordinations the several Rules and Instances given by and for which they are rendred void and null'd if against or wanting in either abundance of which are to be found as That every Bishop is to be Consecrated by three other Bishops Can. 1. Apostol That the Metropolitan be always one or with his leave Can. 4. Conc. 1. Nic. Can. 19. Conc. Antioch Can. 12. Can. 6. une quarte Gen. Conc. Chalcedon That no foreign Ordinations are valid Can. 2. Conc. Constantinop unless in those Churches in Heathen Countries and no Bishop is setled or in case of Persecution Sozom. Eccl. Hist cap. 9. If a Bishop deserts his Diocess Can. 3. Concil Ephes Gen. All Ordinations procured by Money Can. 29. Apost Can. 2. Concil 4. Gen. Chalcedon That it be not by Secular Powers Can. 30. Apost If made only by Presbyters as in the Case of Colluthus Athanas Apol. pag. 784. 792. In case of some known and notorious Scandal which the Bishop that ordain'd then lay under Athanas Ep. ad Solitar vitam agentes In
stone to ruine him had procur'd the Sentence of a Synod against him licet Sciret impletam and which he knew was sufficient and cogent of it self yet he endeavour'd all he could thereby to render him lower and more contemptible to have it corroborated and confirm'd by that Autority Quâ potiuntur Aeternae Vrbis Episcopi which the Bishops of the Eternal City or of Rome did enjoy which Autority what it was is still in the dark for him there 's no mention of it in any one Degree and 't is mostly agreeable that he endeavour'd it as the more great and popular Bishops of the World by reason of that Vrbs aeterna as the City of Rome for its Pompous Magnificence is all along through that History call'd that eminent City the seat of their Residence Lib. 15. Pag. 75 76. Ed. Lugdun in Duodecimo nor does it from this whole History appear that there was then as not any distinct Power so nor any but Title affixed to the Bishops of Rome which other Christian Bishops had not The Bishops in general are called Christianae legis Antistites and Liberius of Rome has but the same Title or that of Episcopus Romanus and Vrbis aeternae Episcopi is what the whole Succession is call'd by Ibid. suprà Et lib. 20. Pag. 261. lib. 22. p. 329. AND now the whole of the Matter is driven § XXVI into this one Point or narrower room what the Power and Extent of this Church-Law or Canon Ecclesiastical was in what sense it was imposed own'd and receiv'd in the Church If universally and what was design'd for all Christendom and obliging let them produce the Rule it is not to be found in any thing yet we have consider'd and then reconcile it with the general Practice of the Church which appears another thing and to enlarge this Power whatever that above mentioned is as claim'd by the Bishop of Rome beyond a limited Exarchy or Primacy or that it any ways reaches to Antioch is to go beyond the whole Story Ecclesiastical in any tolerable Age of it 'T is to go beside the Acts of every General Council upon every occasion and all the Imperial Courses and Proceedings in point of Jurisdiction when the state came into the Church engaged for its Governance and Jurisdiction and turnâ—d their Canons into Laws There is nothing in any one Council whether General or Topical that either refers to determines actually or but implies any such thing unless what was foysted into the Canons of the first Council of Nice and recommended to the Council of Carthage for an Approbation with the rest of those Canons by Faustinus an Italian Bishop and Legate of Rome be since made Canonical Sure we are it was then detected and exploded for a Cheat by the Holy Bishops of that Council and who there and then disown'd the Superior Universal Power in the Bishop of Rome all which with the several Circumstances is to be seen in the opening of the Synod The See of Rome is still represented as but equal and in the same rank with the other Four great Churches of Christendom and its Bishop neither Presides in the Councils nor Over-rules in the Definitions of Christendom nor is the Autority any ways defective upon his absence or if convented without his License than upon the absence of or when not licensed by any other Bishop There is not an Instance of any one Reference or Appeal in Church-Affairs but still the either Patriarch Exarch Metropolitan Primate or Private Bishop is to accommodate and rectifie all as the alone Judges and Determiners under a Synod of Bishops or a Council and if new Canons be wanting 't is the Imperial Direction that the Bishop of Constantinople and the Convention of Priests be convened to consider of and to make them Cod. Justin l. 1. Tit. 2.6 Et Cod. Theodos 16. l. 45. Tit. 2. As for that of the Council of Sardica Can. 3. 4. and which seems to favour the Bishop of Rome in the right of hearing and adjusting Foreign Causes not to make any Reflexions on the Synod it self whatsoever it is 't is bottomed neither on Scriptures nor ancient Tradition or Custom but seems in particular Cases to be allow'd him for the honour of St. Peter nor can we believe it could run against the different Determinations of general Councils if so 't is to be of no Autority particularly the first of Nicea considering also that Hosius was President both at Nice and here I shall add it cannot be conceiv'd to run against it self whose Tenth Canon places the top and uppermost of all Church-Power in the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which is not consistent with a Superior Order in the Church fixed and immutable whether as to Jurisdiction and Ordination or Government only As Bellarmine and Estius are not agreed and those several Exempts we have an account of in Church Story 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and govern'd within themselves as Cyprus Bulgaria Iberia Anglia whatever they relate to and so called in respect of whether Patriarchacies Exarchies or this pretended Monarchy Universal or howsoever they came so to be they are Evidence sufficient against this claim of Rome and that every Church is not therefore Schismatical because disowning a dependency upon her especially if we reflect how strongly these Privileges are contended for in the Eighth Canon of the Council of Ephesus occasion'd by some Usurpations attempted upon Cyprus in particular and 't is there made Law that no inrode be made upon them And that which is farther considerable is that among all the Orders and Directions issued out to Church-men by the Empire for the executing the Canons and preserving the Discipline of the Church the Persons in Charge are the Bishops Metropolitan or Patriarch the Bishop under the Metropolitan the Metropolitan under the Patriarch and the Patriarch is always last and uppermost and 't is very strange to reflect that if there was an Order above these a Power Universal residing in any one Person with a care over all the Churches in Christendom so setled by Laws Ecclesiastical and Superior to all the afore-mentioned Orders in Jurisdiction and Government and this Person and Power should still be overlook't and disregarded no one Direction and Application made unto him in the Affairs so immediately his of his Charge and Inspection and this too in the days of Justinian especially since whatever was done by the Empire was in Prosecution of what was Church-Law and Canon before according to the Appointments and Decisions of it And that this is all so 't is most manifest in our Church Story Acts of Councils and particularly the Proceedings Imperial in the two Codes and the Novels Vid. Cod. Justinian lib. 1. Tit. 3.43.2 Novel 5. Epilog Novel 6. Cap. 3. Epilog alibi saepius Not that the Empire was shye in giving the See of Rome any Power or Title was its due as it must be acknowledg'd very great things were
he proves thoughout the Church Historians Fathers and Imperial Laws thus declaring assenting to and practising pag. 146. If by the Church you mean the Precepts and Promises Gifts and Graces of God preached in the Church and poured on the Church Princes must humbly obey them and reverently receive them as well as other private Men so that Prophets Apostles Evangelists and all other builders of Christ's Church as touching their Persons be subject to the Princes power Mary the word of God in their Mouths and Seals of grace in their hands because they are of God and not of themselves they be far above the Princes Calling and Regiment and in those Cases Kings and Queens if they will be saved must submit themselves to God's everlasting truth and testament as well as the meanest of their People and yet they are for all this Supreme and subject only to God as to outward Process either from the Pope or from any other Power And so pag. 147. he brings in those Passages of Tertullian Optatus and Chrysostom à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem parem super terram non habet c. the word Supreme was added to the Oath for that the Bishop of Rome taketh upon him to command and depose Princes as their lawful supreme Judg to exclude this wicked presumption we teach that Princes be supreme Rulers we mean subject to no superior Judg to give a reason of their doings but only to God pag. 164 165 166. it must be confessed he speaks not home as might be required when explaining how Kings as well as other Christians are comprized under the duty of obeying their Rulers and to be subject unto them c. surely there is a true real obedience due even from Princes to Church-Officers and their Power devolved from Christ and this learned Man seems here and in other places not to be rescued from that common prejudice and possession seized upon too many and all along continued upon casting of the Popes Superiority here in England that there can be no Church-Power at all universally obliging and requiring obedience but what implyes and infers corporal bodily subjection a change in Seculars 't is this puts him upon that great mistake that the Pastors of the Church are not influenced by the Kingly power of Christ and what is regal in him is given to the Civil Magistrate and who only succeed him in that Office perpetual Government of the Church cap. 10. and Arch-bishop Bancroft confounding these two Powers gives Beza and Cartwright as much advantage in that Particular as their Disciples and Followers can now really wish and because they say that Christ as a King prescribed the form of Ecclesiastical Government being a King the head of the Church doth administer his Kingdom per legitime vocatos pastores by Pastors lawfully called he runs them upon this absurdity that their Autority must be without any controul The Pastors must be all of them Emperors the Doctors Kings the Elders Dukes and the Deacons Lords of the Treasury c. survey of the holy pretended discipline c. cap 24. and yet after all 't is mostly Name◠and Titles that occasions this or the accidental pressing an argument as there will be occasion to consider anon and Bishop Bilson goes on and acknowledges all in effect only Bishops and Pastors are left out and tells us That the Church may be Superior and yet the Pope subject to Princes Princes be Supreme and the Church their Superior the Scriptures be superior to Princes and yet Princes supreme the Sacrament be likewise above them and yet that hindreth not their Supremacy Truth Grace Faith Prayer and other Ghostly Virtues be higher than all earthly States and all this notwithstanding Princes may be supreme Governors of their Countries and which though in over abating Terms and with too scrupulous a fear where no fear ought to be declares as fully as can be the thing it self viz. That Princes are to be subject to the Government in the Church settled by Christ in its Bishops and Pastors and which both as a Prophet a Priest and a King he derives unto them Church-Officers have a Power underived and independent to the Crown only 't is ill worded by the Warden Things Powers Gifts Virtues c. as standing and settled on Earth and not invested in Persons can really be of no force and command at all or rather and which at last will amount to the same will be what every one shall please to make them and the Prince will have as many Supremes as are pretenders to these Gifts of the Spirit and which will be enough as experience taught us this only then can be meant by these Circumlocutions and why it might not have been spoken in down-right terms I cannot imagine that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church with the Bible put into their hands as it is at their Ordination with full autority given for the Offices ministerial have a real Power and are truly Rulers in the Church have a Supremacy and Superiority peculiarly theirs and all that will come to Heaven must come under this Ministry or Government it 's jurisdiction and discipline be they Princes or Subjects on Earth or what ever worldly Government they are possessed of unless he 'l say every Man hath these Ghostly Virtues which can urge a Text of Scripture and which cannot be conceived of him and to this purpose he goes farther pag. 167 168. Though the Members of the Church be subject and obedient to Princes yet the things contained in the Church and bestowed on the Church by God himself I mean the light of his Word the working of his Sacraments the gifts of his Grace and fruits of his Spirit be far superior to all Princes The plain meaning of which can be but this Certain separate Persons invested by God beyond Christians at large with such Gifts and Graces the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and in which respect a good Emperor is within the Church and not above it as St. Ambrose is to this purpose here quoted by him pag. 171. You must distinguish the things proposed in the Church from the Persons that were Members of the Church the Persons both Lay-Men and Clerks by God's Law were the Princes Subjects the things comprized in the Church and by God himself committed to the Church because they were Gods could be subject to the Power and Will of no mortal Creature Pope nor Prince the Prince is above the Persons of the Church not above things in the Church pag. 173. 176. 178. you know we do not make the Prince Judg of Faith we confess Princes to be no Judges of Faith but we do not encourage Princes themselves to be Judges of Faith but only we wish them to discern betwixt truth and error which every private Man must do that is a Christian pag. 174 175 176. he approves of Ambrose's Answer to Valentinian that is was stout but lawful constant but
Christian when he refused to give up his Church to the Arians denied the Emperor's power over truth and to determine in Doctrines The Emperor might force him out if he pleased neither might he resist the force his Weapons being only Prayers and Tears but the truth must not yield up to him and he give his consent or seem to do it by his own departure that the Arian Doctrine be there preached this was not then thought an Affront to the Magistrate and Law nor had St. Ambrose a Commission immediate from Heaven and abetted with Miracles or was he judged a hypocrite in so doing because he did not go and preach the Cause against Arius amongst the Goths and Vandals who subscribed to his Creed at their receiving Christianity though Mr. Dean of Canterbury tells us he that pleads Conscience and preaches it in England and does not go and preach it also in Turkey is guilty of gross hypocrisie pag. 203 213. We do not make them Judges and Deciders of Truth but Receivers and Establishers of it we say Princes be only Governors that is higher Powers ordain'd of God and bearing the Sword with lawful and publick Autority to command for truth to prohibit and with the Sword punish Errors and all other Ecclesiastical Disorders as well as Temporal within their Realms that as all their Subjects Bishops and others must obey them commanding what is good in Matters of Religion and endure them with patience when they take part with Error So they their Swords and Scopters be not subject to the Popes Tribunal neither hath he by the Law of God or by the Canons of the Church any Power or Pre-eminence to reverse their Doings nor depose their Persons and for this Cause we confess Princes within their Territories to be supreme that is not under the Popes jurisdiction neither to be commanded nor displaced at his pleasure pag. 215 216. There be two Parts of our Assertion The first avouching that Princes may command for Truth and abolish Error The next that Princes be Supreme i. e. not subject to the Popes judicial Process to be cited suspended deposed at his beck The Word Supreme ever was and is defended by us to make Princes free from the wrongful and usurped Jurisdiction which the Pope claimeth over them pag. 217. 219. Bishops have their Autority to preach and administer the Sacraments not from the Prince but Christ himself only the Prince giveth them publick liberty without let or disturbance to do what Christ hath commanded them he no more conferreth that Power and Function than he conferreth Life and Breath when he permitteth to live and breath when he does not destroy the life of his Subjects That Princes may prescribe what Faith they list what Service of God they please what form of Administring the Sacraments they think best is no part of our thoughts nor point of our Doctrine for external Power and Autority to compel and punish which is the Point we stand upon God hath preferr'd the Prince before the Priest pag. 223. touching the Regiment of their own Persons and Lives Princes owe the very same Reverence and Obedience to the Word and Sacraments that every private Man doth and if any Prince would be baptized or approach the Lord's Table with manifest shew of unbelief or irrepentance the Minister is bound freely to speak or rather to lay down his life at the Princes feet than to let the King of Kings to be provoked the Mysteries to be defiled his own Soul and the Princes endanger'd for lack of oft and earnest Admonition pag. 226. by Governors we do not mean Moderators Prescribers Directors Inventers or Authors of these things but Rulers or Magistrates bearing the Sword to permit and defend that which Christ himself first appointed and ordained and with lawful force to disturb the Despisers of his lawful Will and Testament Now what inconvenience is this if we say that Princes as publick Magistrates may give freedom protection and assistance to the preaching of the Word ministring of the Sacraments and right using of the Keys and not fetch license from Rome pag. 236. Princes have no right to call and confirm Preachers but to receive such as be sent of God and give them liberty for their preaching and security for their Persons and if Princes refuse so to do God's Labourers must go forward with that which is commanded them from Heaven not by disturbing Princes from their Thrones nor invading their Realms but by mildly submitting themselves to the Powers on Earth and meekly suffering for the defence of the truth what they shall inflict A private liberty and exercise of their own Conscience and Religion was not then thought enough if the Religion of a Nation be false and though autority do abet it nor would the Autority in Queen Elizabeth's days have own'd that Person asserting and maintaining of it though not stubbornly irreligious but only wanting information in so notoriously a known case of practice pag. 238. In all spiritual Things and Causes Princes only bear the Sword i. e. have publick Autority to receive establish and defend all Points and Parts of Christian Doctrine and Discipline within their Realms and without their help tho the Faith and Canons of Christ's Church may be privately professed and observed of such as be willing yet they cannot be generally planted or settled in any Kingdom nor urged by publick Laws and external Punishments on such as refuse but by their consents that bear the Sword This is that we say refel it if you can pag. 252. to devise new Rites and Ceremonies for the Church is not the Princes vocation but to receive and allow such as the Scripture and Canons commend and such as the Bishops and Pastors on the Place shall advise not infringing the Scripture or Canons and so for all other Ecclesiastical Things and Causes Princes be neither the Devisers nor Directors of them but the Confirmers and Establishers of that which is good and Displacers and Revengers of that which is Evil which power we say they have in all things be they Spiritual Ecclesiastical or Temporal the Abuse of Excommunication in the Priest and contempt of it in the People Princes may punish excommunicate they may not for so much of the Keys are no part of their Charge pag. 256. The Prince is in Ecclesiastical Discipline to receive and stablish such Rules and Orders as the Scripture and Canons shall decide to be needful and healthful for the Church of God in their Kingdoms It is the Objection indeed and undue consequence the Church of Rome makes against us and the Oath of Supremacy and which is urged by Philander in this Dialogue betwixt him and Theophilus or betwixt the Christian and the Jesuite pag. 124 125. That we will have our Faith and Salvation to hang on the Princes Will and Laws that there can be imagined no nearer way to Religion than to believe what our temporal Lord and Master list in the
Scripture that if they shall be diligently compar'd together both between themselves and with the following Practice of all the Churches of Christ as well in the Apostles times as in the purest and Primitive time nearest thereunto there will be left a little cause why any man should doubt thereof § XX AND now I have done only Mr. Selden is once more to be encountred with who appears against all this and says that the Doctors of our Church are quite of a different Judgment and have declared the same to the World in their Writings De Syned l. 1. cap. 10. pag. 424 425. As the two Universities at once Published in the Reign of Henry VIII 1534. called Opus eximium de vera differentia Regiae Potestatis Ecclesiasticae quae sit ipsa veritas virtus utriusque Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester in an Oration de vera Obedientia Joannes Bekinsau de Supremo absoluto regis Imperio with abundance more which he tells us was to have been Printed in King Jame's days but the Printer was in the blame The Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library where an account is given of Henry VIII entrance upon the Reformation 1540. and the Question among others is Vtrùm Episcopus aut Presbyter possit Excommunicare ob quaenam delicta utrum ii soli possint jure divino whether the Bishop or the Presbyter can Excommunicate and for what Offences and whether they alone can do it by Divine Right and about which great Divines were distracted in their Opinions but the Bishop of Hereford St. David Westminster Dr. Day Curwin Laighton Cox Symons say that Lay-men may Excommunicate if they be appointed by the high Ruler or the King and all those Writings in every Bodies hands De primatu regio de potestate Papae Regiâ against Bellarmine Tortus Becan Eudemon Joannes Suarez c. in the time of King James and whose Authors were Bishop Andrews Bishop Buckeridge Dr. Collings Bishop Carlton c. and in which three first Mr. Selden instances a great appearance of Adversaries and considerable withal and did not Mr. Selden give in the Catalogue whose unfaithfulness and imposings I have so oft experienced in this kind would be much more terrible in reality than they at first look appear incouraged therefore by former success I 'le encounter him once more and undertake an Examination of so many of them as I have by me and it is very pardonable if I have not all we that live remote in the Countrey and but poor Vicars there have not the advantage of Sir Robert Cotton's Library cannot attend Auctions or but common Booksellers Shops and have not Money to imploy others especially for the obtaining such Authors as these most of which are out of Print and some very rarely to be had by any and I am the more encouraged to the search just now finding in that Book of Bishop Sanderson's I had so lately occasion to make use of some of these Authors made use of on the contrary side as those who by the occasion of the title of Supreme Head our Church being charged with giving to the Prince the Power Autority and Offices of the Priest openly disavow and disclaim it and I think I may as soon rely upon Bishop Sanderson's report as Mr. Selden's his skill as Divine and Integrity as a Christian can be no ways below him even in the Judgment of Mr. Selden's Friends THE Opus eximium de verâ differentiâ c. § XXXI comes first the work he says of the two Universities I do not know why the Universities are entitled to it but upon Mr. Selden's report for this time will grant it readily because the Autority how great soever is really on my side nor does it answer any thing at all of Mr. Selden's design in producing of it The first Part is De potestate Ecclesiasticâ and is wholly levelled at the Power of the Pope and discovers his Usurpations over the Christian both Kingdoms and Bishops that his pretended both Spiritual and Temporal Plea has no ground either on the Scriptures or Fathers for it is altogether begged and sandy I cannot so much commend the clearness of it when discoursing of Church-Power as in it self and purely in the Donation and which he allows and defends he appearing not to have the true Notion of Church-Laws and stumbles at that so usual block that all Laws must be outwardly Coercive or they cannot be call'd Laws and so can be only in the Prince whom he well enough proves to have alone that Power and what he allows the Church is to make Canons i. e. rules to be receiv'd only by those that are willing but not Laws which enforce with more to this purpose something too crudely and which the then present Age will plead something for Confirmant quidem praedicta potestatem Ecclesiasticam sed Dominum regant tribuunt autoritatem non jurisdictionem admonere hortari consolari deprecari docere praedicare Sacramenta ministrare cum charitate arguere increpare obsecrare certissimis Dei promissis spem in Deo augere gravibus Scripturarum comminationibus a vitiis deterrere eorum sit Proprium qui Apostolis succedunt quibus etiam dictum est quorum remiseritis peccata c. Leges autem poenae judicia coerciones sententiae caetera hujusmodi Caesarum Regum aliarum Potestatum but surely all these are Laws too and have real Penalties if our Saviour himself be a Law-giver and have Autority and do oblige the unwilling only they break in sunder the bonds of Duty on whose Truth these their Admonitions Increpations c. are to be founded by whose Virtue the Sacraments have their Influence and the Power of retaining is executed unless the Pains of Hell are only painted or have no force because not inflicted so soon as denounced there is a Dominion sure goes along with Christ's Kingdom too accompanying his Ordinances only 't is not by the Rules and with the Consequents of the other Jurisdictions of the World and on this account Men have been so unwary as not to discern it to speak against it or unwilling to speak plainly out concerning it a mistake has been observed in others and 't is here pretty aged but 't is most sure and certain this 't is most plain and conspicuous the whether Potestas or dominium autoritas or jurisdictio as they distinguish Power or Dominion Autority or Jurisdiction that is allow'd to be Ecclesiastical is no where in the Treatise attributed to Kings to those that have Secular Dominion this is only eorum qui Apostolis succedunt theirs that succeed the Apostles The second Part is De potestate Regiâ where first the Divine Right of Kings is asserted and then their Power in the Church or over-spiritual things where their Right of Investiture is declared from Gen. 47. and the Priests received their Benefices from them as also over the Power and Persons of the
much as it is defended with his Epistles doth not seem to be any of the most probable cap. 6. Sect. 16. I have heard I confess of Doctor Owen's Preface to his Book of Perseverance and then to be sure he is with abundance of honor his second and to omit the other ill Adventures in that unlucky Book of particular Forms of Church-Government and which savour too much of Robert Parker's musty Vessel the Doctor is beyond measure unfortunate who having by a notorious Mistake urg'd the Autority of our whole Church representative in King Edward VI day 's to avouch his most false Assertion That Episcopacy is not necessary and immutable That the King's Majesty may appoint Bishops or not appoint them or appoint other Officers for the Government of the Church cap. 8. When he goes on further to prove this by the particular Autorities of our Doctors since as Whitgift Cozius Whitgift's Chancellor Lowe Hooker Bridges c. he is if possible more unlucky yet and his Mistake more shameful he not only transcribes every Quotation out of Parker's second Book De politeia Ecclesiastica cap. 39.42 and the very Book Page Chapter Section and Figures stand all in Parker's Margin as they are wrote in his Book and which is no great Matter but and which is the harder Fate he urges and appeals to them as his Autority that Episcopacy is mutable and of but humane assignation and which thing Parker all along there owns and declares was not these Doctors Opinions he upbraids and taunts them for asserting the contrary as contradicting themselves and putting Cheats upon others because they believe Bishops by divine Right and perpetually obliging 't is his Objection upon them that their own Principles will not bear them out in it This is the case these Doctors assert over and over again as they must do if agreeing with our Church and their own Subscriptions that the Scriptures are not a full and perfect Rule for Discipline and Government and there is still a Power in the Church to make Laws as occasion offers even to vary from Examples of Discipline and Government which has there been practised Parker thinks he has the advantage and concludes upon them that then the Government by Bishops is changeable also and which is sounded only on Scripture Example and who reply that though they can make Laws in some Cases and alter them as occasion yet in all they cannot though some Examples in Scripture do not yet others do necessarily oblige and the Examples they produce necessarily obliging are these Imposition of Hands in Ordinations that to impose Hands is appropriated to Bishops as the Apostles Successors The observation of the Lord's-Day The institution of Metropolitans c. and this very account Parker himself gives us as to these Instances and all which will readily appear to any one that reads over Parker l. 2. cap. 39 40 41 42. particularly cap. 42. Sect. 8. 9. and that consults farther than Titles and Margins And that this Power of making Canons and Laws for the Government and Discipline of the Church is one of the main Foundations of the Hierarchy and therefore Parker sets himself with might and main to oppose it This will be yielded to Doctor Stillingfleet 't was this alone by which the Courts Ecclesiastical kept them within some moderate Bounds nor did they break out into Rebellion and Schism till that Power was abated in the execution and which made the Bishops so odious to them but that Episcopacy it self is as Arbitrary in its original and occasionally only as are many Church Laws and in the Power of any order of Persons or any Person now upon Earth to alter or confirm it This Parker by arguing would willingly infer upon these Doctors from their own Principles but acknowledges they did not own contrary to their Principles this Dr. Stillingfleet every ways mistakes and reports out of Parker's ill gathered Conclusion and Objection as their both Principles Practice and so every ways defames them and I shall only propose it to the Doctors consideration whether some satisfaction may not ought not to be required of him for the injury he has done to so many Worthies of our Church hereby I can assure him it has been long expected and if it be not done suddenly he may believe the World ere it be much older will be particularly disinformed at present I shall return to those Doctors mentioned in the beginning of this Section and who are not yet freed from the Contumelies laid on them by Parker as these are from his though I do not question but I shall equally vindicate both § XXVI IT is an easie thing to make any Man 's Writing in a plausible shew to run thwart to and contradict themselves the occasion and Circumstances not considered and if particular Occurrencies be not abated for the worst of Heresies will thus shelter themselves under the best Autorities How largely and frequently do the Ancient Fathers of the Church speak of the Powers and excellence of Nature and Reason when disputing against the Gentiles when Apologizing for and recommending to them the Christian Religion Justin Martyr Apol. 2. goes so far as to say the wiser sort of the Greeks were Christians such as Socrates Heraclitus c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. because living up to the Rules of Reason but must not those be wide Arguings that say and some have said it the Fathers thought the use of Reason alone able to direct and assist us for Heaven when 't is the coming of Christ in the Flesh his additional super-natural Revelations of Grace and Truth those farther discoveries and assistances to Mankind is the occasion and general subject of their Writings and a belief of which is that they endeavor to bring the Greeks unto to make evident and rational to all Men when 't was only the particular application of an Argument they aim'd at and in the design is most true that every one so far as truly rational he is Christian Christianity is no new thing nor strange 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever pursues Justice and Honesty and other commendable Actions suited to the universal eternal Rules of Nature is acceptable to God by this both the Jews under the Law and the Patriarchs and holy Men from the first Creation through the knowledg of Christ were saved as Justin Martyr disputes cum Tryphone Judeo and Eusebius has a whole Chapter to this purpose Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 4. Every one that is read in that History knows that the great cry of the Arians against the Council of Nice was they were Innovators and a licentious Pen has of late managed and pursued it afresh Sandius hist Enucleata as using Words and bringing in Doctrines which were not either in Scripture or in the Writings and Determinations of the ancient Doctors of the Church when asserting and explaining the one substance or eternal Generation of the Son of God which though it
in Bishop Bilson Cap. 9. pag. 113. As for Excommunication if you take it for removing the unruly from the Civil Society of the Faithful until they conform themselves to a more Christian sort of life this he takes to be the Power of a Christian Magistrate and he goes on and says I am not averse that the whole Church where he is wanting did and should concur in that action for thereby the sooner when all the Multitude joyn with the Pastor in one Mind to renounce all manner of conversing with such will the Parties be reduced to a better mind to see themselves rejected and exiled from all company but 't is the Pastors charge only to deliver or deny the Sacraments Pag. 114.147 but otherwise Lay-men that are no Magistrates may not challenge to intermeddle with the Pastors Function or over-rule them in their own Charge without manifest and violent intrusion on other mens Callings without the Word and Will of Christ who gave his Apostle the Holy Ghost to remit and retain Sins And so expresly again p. 149. If you joyn not Lay-Elders in those Sacred and Sacerdotal Actions with Pastors but make them Overseers and Moderators of those things which Pastors do this Power belongeth exactly to Christian Magistrates to see that Pastors do their Duty exactly according to the Will of Christ and not to abuse their Power to annoy his Church or the Members thereof neither is the case alike betwixt Pastors and Lay-Elders Pastors have their Power and Function distinguished from Princes by God himself insomuch that it were more than Presumption for Princes to execute those actions by themselves or by their Substitutes To Preach Baptize retain Sins impose Hands Princes have no Power the Prince of Princes even the Son of God hath severed it from their Callings and committed it to his Apostles and they by imposition of hands derived it to their Successors but to cause these actions to be orderly done according to Christ's Commandment and to prevent and redress abuses in the doers this is all that is left for Lay-Elders and this is all that we reserve for the Christian Magistrate and that no other Church-Power was then thought by any to belong to the Prince he was not at all considered as its Subject there was no such thing as a pretence then on foot 't is most plain Cap. 9. pag. 108. and among the many Conceits about the Power of the Keys and Subject this never entred into the heart oâ— any his words are these The Power of the Keys and right to impose Hands I mean to ordain Ministers and to Excommunicate Sinners are more controverted than the other two the Word and Sacraments and which were never questioned by reason that diverse Men have diverse Conceits of them some fasten them on the liking of the Multitude which they call the Church others commit them to the judgment of certain chosen Persons as well of the Laiety as of the Clergy whom they call the Presbytery Some attribute only but equally to all Pastors and Preachers and some especially reserve them to Men of the greatest gifts ripest years and highest calling among the Clergy But there 's none mentioned that they are in the Prince 'T is I know the usual Expression in the Pulpit Prayer and the King is placed next under Christ in these His Majestie 's Realms and Dominions and which as that Prayer it self has no good bottom that ever I could meet with for such the use of it a meer Arbitrary customary thing where did God ever make Christ his Deputy and the King Christ's as to the worldly Powers and Secular things of this life his Commission to our Saviour ran quite contrary and nothing less can be gathered from it this is to found right of Dominion in Grace with a Witness our Kings did not receive or rather reassume it upon these terms nor do they since acknowledge it as so derived King Henry VIII did not and there 's no such thing in any one Act or Statute in his days Doctor Burnet indeed in his Collection of Records gives us two instances wherein the Title of Supreme Head under Christ of the Church of England Supremum Ecclesiae Anglicanae sub Christo Caput The one in the Injunctions to the Clergy made by Cromwel Pag. 178. Num. 12. the other in the Commission by which Bonner held his Bishoprick of the King Pag. 184. Num. 14. but in his Addenda Pag. 305. Num. 1. in the Preamble to Articles about Religion set out by the Convocation and Published by the King's Autority 't is only and in Earth Supreme Head of the Church of England and which is of more Autority than the other because in Convocation It is once or twice used by King Edward before his Injunctions Articles c. and sometimes lest out but no mention of it but never used by Queen Elizabeth in any of hers or in her Proclamations nor is it commanded in her Form of bidding of Prayer nor in the Canons or Form of bidding Prayer in the days of King James 't is neither in the Oath of Supremacy or Allegiance and which is to be seen in the account we have of them by Anthony Sparrow now Lord Bishop of Norwich in his Collection of Canons Articles Injunctions c. and our Seven and thirtieth Article of Religion gives the Queens Majesty that only Prerogative was given all Godly Princes by God himself in Holy Scriptures that which had the Kings of Israel and Judah that which had the Kings of the Gentiles the King of Nineveh in the Prophecy of Jonah and which is an instance I find given by our Divines of the preceding Power in other Princes we contend for and have determined to be in ours and with which if the Prince be not invested he has no Government over his People a great part always will and all may when they will exempt their Persons and Actions from his cognizance and inspection upon pretence of their Faith and Religion but there is not a word of any one Derivation as from Christ nor as the Mediator doth he can he bestow any such Power upon them or are Kings thus under him or any ways then as Members of his Body and as Christians they are to submit to and receive his Laws in order to Heaven and these Laws are to be their Rule in their Government upon Earth which they are to obey and protect which indeed supports and exalts them as Righteousness does a Nation but 't is in and by that Autority they were invested in before Christ and they were indeed in a feeble piteous Case if no other Power to rule with than what the crucifyed Jesus can give them whose Kingdom was not of this World nor did he manage any thing by the Powers of it I know it is the least of the Designs of such that still use this Expression in their Prayers and Discourses and they have great Examples for it and of