AN ESSAY ON Ecclesiastical Authority In which the Pretence of an Independent Power in the CHURCH to a Divine Right in the Election of Bishops To the Invalidity of Lay Deprivations To the Inseparable Relation of a BISHOP to his See To an Obligation of continuing Communion with the Deprived Bishops And several other Things relating to the Nonjurors Separation from our CHURCH are particularly and impartially Examined By JOHN TURNER D. D. Vicar of Greenwich and Chaplain to His Royal Highness the PRINCE LONDON Printed for JOHN WYAT at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-yard 1617. AN ESSAY ON Ecclesiastical Authority THE many irregular and dangerous Practices of the Romish Clergy under the Pretence of an exempt Jurisdiction and an Authority Independent on the Civil Power caused the Governors of our CHURCH to take that Doctrine into their serious Consideration at the Beginning of our REFORMATION and in our XXXVIIth Article they have determined and settled it thus That the Queen's Majesty for this was done in Queen Elizabeth's Time hath the chief Power in this Realm of England and all other her Dominions unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes doth appertain And then to avoid Offence and prevent Misconstructions as the Queen had declared in her Injunctions so the said Article thus explains the forementioned Doctrine We give not hereby to our Princes the ministring either of God's Word or of the Sacraments but only that Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God Himself that they should rule all Estates and Degrees of Men committed to their Charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal And this was so confirmed by the Canons in the Beginning of King James I's Reign that if the Authority of our CHURCH might be admitted to be decisive in this Matter we see plainly what that was and is But the giving so much Jurisdiction to Princes over Ecclesiastical Persons in Ecclesiastical Causes and Affairs is complained of by some among us as an Encroachment and a dangerous Compliance an enslaving Principle which controuls the Powers of the CHURCH that as they say ought to be exempt and Independent THIS Point then not being successfully enough determined by the declared Judgment of our CHURCH in Her Articles and Canons must it seems be brought under a farther Examination And it must be considered not only as a Subject of Debate and Speculation but at this Time it is become a Matter of the greatest Moment and Importance to our Peace both in CHURCH and STATE All the Enemies of the late happy REVOLUTION are gone into the Defence of that Independent Authority to say no more And all those other Notions and Opinions whereby the Non-jurors would vindicate their Separation from the Communion of our CHURCH are built upon this Foundation And it will not be easy to make them sensible that this their Separation is Unjustifiable and Wrong if this Claim be allowed good On the other Hand if it can be proved That the CHURCH has no such exempt and independent Authority as is pretended we shall strike at the very Root of their untoward Principles and Proceedings In our Inquiry into this Matter 1. THE first Thing that occurs to our Observation is That the STATE is found in the actual and full Possession of Authority over all their Subjects and in all Affairs whatsoever antecedently to the CHURCH'S Claim We are not born Priests as we are born Subjects but are made such upon a sufficient Maturity of Age and are therefore to consider what Share of Authority the Prince loses over any of his Subjects upon their Admission into Holy Orders and what is the Foundation of the pretended Change And as to this we shall soon be sensible 2. THAT there is Nothing in natural Religion to be pleaded as the Ground of such an Exemption or Independency For according to that Kings had a Right to the Priesthood also and were the undoubted supreme Judges and Determiners of all Affairs Melchisedech and Jethro we all know were such Nor does it appear that there ever was any Separation of the Ecclesiastical Authority from the Temporal before the Mosaic Dispensation which was a Type of the Evangelical and consequently no Room for any Debates or Disputes of this Nature in the first Natural State of Mankind It must therefore all be laid in Divine Revelation and Institution From whence I think it plainly follows 3. Thirdly THAT if the CHURCH has any Right to such an exempt and independent Authority as is now pleaded for it must be founded on that Divine Commission which CHRIST gave to his Apostles and their Successors and by them to his CHURCH to the End of the World The Way then to know what there is to be said for such a Claim is to consider well the Contents of that Commission which must be looked on as the great Charter of the Gospel upon which all Her appropriated Rights and Privileges Her Authority and Powers Her Immunities and Franchises are built The Substance then of CHRIST'S Commission to his Apostles was That they should make Proselytes of all Nations Matth. xxviii 19 20. Joh. xx 21 c. by Preaching God's Word that they should Baptize them and by that Sacrament admit them into Christ's Church that they should afterwards instruct and train them up in the Pure Christian Worship and Holiness and in that Worship commemorate CHRIST'S Death in the Eucharist according to his Institution bind Offenders loose Penitents and by Ordaining Ministers make an effectual Provision for the perpetual Continuance of this Ministry which CHRIST has thus committed to 'em to the End of the World according to his Appointment So that Preaching and Performing Divine Service in the Worship of GOD Administring the Sacraments inflicting Censures and passing Sentence upon enormous Sinners Absolving the Penitent from such Sentences and Ordaining Ministers These and whatever other Particulars of Ministration in the Divine Offices of Religion are by the special Commission of CHRIST in any Part of it appropriated to the Spiritual Governors of the CHURCH become thereby the Peculiar sacred Powers of the Christian Priesthood Concerning all which it is allow'd and granted 1. That the CHURCH does not derive Her Authority to the Execution of them from any Temporal Powers or Potentates but from JESUS CHRIST alone by the forementioned Divine Commission 2. That as they were not originally derived from so neither can they be taken away or made to cease by any secular Authorities whatsoever 3. That neither can any secular Powers of themselves execute these Divine and Holy Offices The very End and Reason of taking these Holy Offices out of the Hands of the secular Powers who before had executed them and of vesting them in a distinct Set or Order of Men still requires that they should continue so separated And consequently all the Powers specify'd in
to this Distinction of the CHURCH'S Communicable and Uncommunicable Authority Whatever indirect Ends he might have to serve in his Endeavours to Support the Spiritual Authority of the Nonjuring Deprived Bishops Yet he was too well acquainted with Primitive Church History to think that all the Christian Churches Authorities are alike exclusive of the Secular Powers And accordingly as I find him quoted p. 27. he allows that the Church on valuable Considerations may in some Cases modify the Exercise of Her Just Power and make Grants and Concessions to the State Pray mind that for if Princes and States may on any Considerations be admitted to a share of the Churches Just Power Then it is plain and evident that in such Cases it is not JESUS CHRIST that by his Divine Laws excludes them but these Church-Men themselves But let us see what Instances of this kind he mentions and they are such as these That the CHURCH shall consent not to call Synods without acquainting the King and obtaining his Leave if Possible not to make Foreigners or Clerks of a Foreign Allegiance Bishops to make no Bishops but what shall be supposed worthy of the Kings Nomination to give the Builders and Endowers of Churches the Honour and Privelege of presenting worthy Clerks to supply the Cure of them and Noblemen to Erect Chapels and to choose Chaplains for their Families There are then it seems Cases and Considerations in and upon which notwithstanding all the sacred Powers of the CHURCH Kings may have Authority in calling Synods in Nominating Bishops and in the Presentation of Clerks to the Cure of Souls Here I would ask in what Cases and upon what Considerations any of these Kings or Nobles may be allowed to administer Sacraments and Ordain Ministers I know that this will not be allow'd at all by any Means or on any Considerations whatever It seems then that in Dr. Hickes's own Opinion altho' some of the Powers of the CHURCH are Exclusive and Uncommunicable to Lay Hands Yet others they may be admitted to a share of if the Consideration be but good and the Authority not abused Now I would willingly know what is the true Foundation of this Difference which Dr. Hickes himself admits of I would have it openly declared whether CHRIST'S Commission has Appropriated these Powers to the CHURCH which may be so modified and has Excluded Secular Potentates from them or on what foot that Modifications stands And at the same time let them add why the Influence of the Civil Magistrates Authority to preserve the Peace and Safety and good Order of a Kingdom may not be allowed as just a Consideration and as good a Reason of his Exercising Authority in such affairs as any munificent act of Beneficence or Protection BUT to bring this Debate with Dr. Hickes and his Friends to a Short Issue Either JESUS CHRIST by his Gospel and his Divine Commission to his Apostles has Appropriated all Ecclesiastical Authoritty to the Clergy only and Excluded the Secular Power from it or he has not If he has and the Certainty of that be made appear then they ought on no Consideration whatsoever to be allowed any Share therein because that is acting contrary to CHRIST'S Commission and Laws But if he has not then the CHURCH has no Divine Right at all of Excluding their Authority and acting Independently The Consequence of this is plain and undeniable For to Exclude the Jurisdiction of the Secular Powers where CHRIST by his Divine Commission has not Excluded them is to do it without Reason and contrary to Justice But that which Dr. Hickes and his Friends lay the greatest Stress upon is 1. The Nature of the Society and 2. The Powers by which it Subsisted in the Beginning 1. As to the Nature of the Society they tell us that it is CHRIST'S Spiritual Kingdom or Vindication Non-Juring Church prop. I. II. Incorporation which had a Being Independent on the Secular Power for above three hundred years before the Government of it was interwoven with the secular Government and Laws I grant all this to be true but because there seems to be great Stress laid on this Independency so much talked of I desire that it may be considered what it means For in a Christian Country the CHURCH and STATE are not two Distinct Societies like the Kingdoms of France and Spain made up of different People and Subjects inhabiting different Territories but are One and the same Body of Men considered in two different Relations and Capacities The same Persons are at once Members of the Church and Subjects of the State and so constitute but One Society of Men under two capacities of Government AND Even in this twofold Capacity their Affairs their Duties and Obligations are so mixt and interwoven that in a Christian State it is scarce Practicable for the Church to Govern and Manage her spiritual Affairs without influencing and affecting the State Nay in the Extent of spiritual Power now claimed it is absolutely impossible so to do So that this Contest for an Independent Authority in the Government of the Church is nothing else but a Struggle to take the Management of Religion and all religious Affairs out of the Hands of Kings and Princes And if they once do this the STATE must be brought to depend upon the CHURCH because the CHURCH will be independent on the STATE and so it would be in a very fine Condition In short while such a Power is contended for the CHURCH and STATE must inevitably clash and disagree and there is no Way to consult and secure the publick Peace without a Subordination of the one to the other in their Administration of Government AND as to the CHURCH'S having a Being independent on the secular Power for the first three hundred Years it proceeded only from the Necessity of her Circumstances and Affairs at that Time that She acted independently on the secular Potentates It was when Christianity was in a State of Persecution and the secular Powers refused to intermeddle in Her Government Then it is very true that She subsisted of Herself and this proves undeniably that the CHURCH has a Capacity so to do when Need requires But it does not prove that it is a desirable Thing for Her to be in such a Case or that She has a Divine Right and Power to exclude the secular Potentates if they think fit to interpose their Authority But I shall speak more particularly to this hereafter I am now only shewing what weak and insufficient Reasons Men allege for an Independent Authority in the Church of which I think this is a very great Instance that because She did once so subsist out of Necessity therefore She must always do so out of Choice or has a Divine Right so to do when ever She pleases 2. BUT they tell us That this Spiritual Kingdom of CHRIST is also a Royal Priesthood a Kingdom of Priests the chief Priests of which are Regal Priests or
not all our present Contentions and Feuds about the uncontroulable Supremacy of the Governors of the Church in all Religious and Spiritual Causes And is it not apparent undeniably that the very End of Claiming such a Power is to protect some Men from the Authority of the STATE How then is it possible that two such Contending supreme Sovereigns should exercise their several Powers one to remove and the other to support those Men and yet the Subjects be bound to obey them both How can two such Supremacies subsist in the same Body of Men when almost every Act of the one influences the other When in some Cases almost every Exercise of Spiritual Authority one Way or other influences and either weakens or controuls the Temporal A certain Defender of this Spiritual Ecclesiastical Independency saw the Necessity of granting That CHRIST gave the Church no Authority Regal Pontif. p. 17. that could possibly interfere with the Civil Powers This Assertion I own to be very true and therefore if the Non-jurors will but grant me that which I think no reasonable Man can deny viz. That GOD has given to Secular Powers as full an Authority for the Support and Security of the STATE as He has to the Spiritual for the Defence of the CHURCH and consequently that every Act of Independent Power of the Church that interferes with the Civil Powers is contrary to the Will of GOD and to the Intention of CHRIST'S Commission I readily join Issue with them upon this Cause and am very willing to try the Force of this Principle in those particular Cases that are made the Occasion of our present Disputes And they are 1. The Election 2. The Deprivation of Bishops and Clergymen 1. As to the Election of Bishops and Clergymen it is granted That as the CHURCH has the sole Authority of Ordaining them so with that they have of Necessity a common natural Right to take Care of the Qualifications of the Persons to be ordained and employed in Divine Service But then it is indeed reasonable that the CHURCH in the Exercise of this Power should not claim a Divine Authority to thrust and force upon a Christian State such Bishops and Clergy-men as are avowed Enemies to the Government and National Constitution where they live For this is actually to interfere with the Civil Powers It 's highly reasonable that Kings and Princes should be well-assured of the Fidelity and Allegiance of their Clergy seeing that They and their Government have an Interest therein and both the Peace and Safety of their Secular Affairs may be very much influenced by their good or evil Conduct If therefore on this Account the Laws of the Land give to our Kings the Nomination of the Persons that are to be made Bishops it is indisputably interfering with the Civil Powers to say that they have no Right there to and that every such Nomination is an Invasion of the CHURCH'S Power If the Measure of that Power be at all to be judged of by its Consistency with the Peace and Safety of the STATE it is then as clear as any Demonstration in the Mathematicks that CHRIST'S Commission has given no such Independent Power in the Choice of Bishops because that actually breaks in upon the temporal Power of Kings and Princes even in the Administration of their National Government For let us reflect Is it not by Virtue of this pretended Divine Right and Independent Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction that we see such vile and scandalous Practices in our Days as the Primitive Christians were wholly Strangers to and would have Protested against with the utmost Abhorrence and Detestation By Virtue of this pretended Independent Authority the Non-jurors take upon them to consecrate Bishops and ordain Priests not only in Opposition to the STATE but with a direct Intention if it be possible to overturn it For the first Thing that such Bishops and Clergymen have to do is to renounce all Allegiance to the KING upon the Throne and all Regard to the Present Constitution of the Kingdom To treat the KING as an Usurper to teach a Nullity in all the Oaths that are taken to Him tho' by most solemn Sanctions of the Law To set up an Ecclesiastical Community and gather Congregations against Him and therein to pray for another pretended King whom the Nation has solemnly abjured and proclaimed a Traitor Will not all this be called Interfering with the Civil Powers If it be I think then it must be granted that all this is directly contrary to CHRIST'S Commission and to the whole Design of it If there be a Dispute about the Title to the Crown most certainly the States of the Realm are the proper Judges and Determiners of the Matter And CHRIST by his Commission has given the Bishops and Pastors of his CHURCH no Divine Authority or Jurisdiction in such Determinations If therefore the Governors of the Church instead of taking Care according to their Trust that the Bishops and Clergy of the CHURCH be Men of sober Lives and sound Religion will go so much farther as to claim a Divine Right in the Choice of all the Bishops exclusive of the Nomination of the Prince only to embarrass his Government and embroil his Affairs It is as certain that such a Spiritual Power cannot be of GOD as it is that all Secular Powers are of GOD. Because two such Independent Authorities in or over the same Body of Men cannot possibly consist together The one will inevitably interfere with and be destructive of the other and such inevitable Opposition Confusion and Distraction in humane Society could never be designed or intended by Almighty GOD. The like may be said 2. AS to the Deprivation of Bishops and Clergymen I COULD heartily wish there had been no Occasion for the unhappy Debate that I am now upon And what I shall say upon it I intend with all Deference to the unhappy Persons who were deprived But seeing a pretended Invalidity in their Deprivation is made the Occasion of a Schism from our CHURCH and of great Confusions in the Nation Doubtless common Justice ought to be done to the lawful Secular Powers we live under NOW if it be indeed true that CHRIST has given no Power to his Church that interferes with the Civil Powers and most true it is and necessary for the due Government of the World that it should be so the Consequence of it is That CHRIST by His Commission has given no such Authority to His CHURCH as to keep Bishops and Clergy-men in their respective Sees when the STATE finds it necessary for the Safety of a Nation to turn them out For this also is to set up Powers that are incompatible both whose Commands cannot be obey'd because they command contrary and inconsistent Things THIS was the Case of those unhappy Bishops and Clergy who were deprived for not giving the usual Oaths of Fidelity to the Civil Government of King William Their Principles and Practices as
such a Divine Relation between a Bishop and the People of his District as no Secular Powers can take away II. THAT the Authority in spiritual Affairs here allowed to Kings and Princes is contrary to the Practice and Principles of the first three Hundred Years III. THAT this is bringing the Church and its Clergy into Slavery I. As to the Divine Relation pretended to be between a Bishop and the People of his See or District Pray how comes that about It is compared I know by some Reg. Pont. p. 3. Men to Marriage But who made that Match or gave the divine Sanction to the Contract Or if that were true how comes there to be so many common Causes of Divorce In short this is the Notion of those only who make every Thing that has been occasionally done by the Governors of the Church to have been done by a divine and unchangeable Authority But the only Way to judge rightly of this Matter is to consider what is the original Ground of that Relation and by whose Designation and Authority it has been made Now as to this 1. I BELIEVE that every Body will grant That in promoting Bishops to such and such Sees and Clergymen to their Districts or Parishes a Regard ought and will be had to the Sentiments and the Judgment of the Spiritual Governors of the Church who as I said above in Consequence of their Commission from CHRIST to plant and govern it must be supposed Invested with a Trust as to the spiritual Qualifications of the Persons to be employed in Holy Offices And this Care and Trust and just Authority they are supposed to discharge in their Admission of Persons into Holy Orders In which they have Authority to provide that no Persons unqualified should be admitted into the Service of GOD. But then when the Church has effectually taken this Care it must certainly be granted also in the 2. Second Place THAT Christian Princes and States have both an Interest in this Affair and a Trust also committed to Them in providing proper Spiritual Guides and Pastors for their People And where they have both an Interest and a Trust it will be very hard to say that they have no Authority Suppose that the Governors of the CHURCH should incline to appoint such Persons as the STATE can have no Confidence in or no Security from must they be allowed no Authority even where their Peace and Safety appear to be very deeply concern'd Sure this is too unreasonable and absurd to be believed Or again Suppose that the Governors of the CHURCH should be careless and neglect providing for their Sees would not the Temporal Powers be bound to supply that Defect and to take Gare that the People should not want proper Guides and Pastors It is absurd then to think that they have no Authority in a Matter which they are bound in Conscience to take Care of Now as all this seems very agreeable to common Reason let us go on and consider 3. WHAT has been the Practice of the CHURCH in this Particular And here we shall find that generally speaking every One who appeared to have an Interest in the Management of Ecclesiastical Affairs were allowed to have an Influence and some Power in the Designation of the Person to be employed in such a Place or District THE CHURCH commits a Catholick Power or Authority in Consecration or Ordination which Authority is to be exercised so far as lawfully it may thro' the whole CHURCH of CHRIST without any Assignment of this or that particular Jurisdiction So the Form of Consecration runs with us Receive ye the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Bishop in the Church of GOD. And that such was the Manner of Primitive Ordinations the Reverend and very Learned Dr. Potter Ch. Gov. p. 452. now Lord Bishop of Oxford proves from hence That Ministers were then sometimes ordained without any Designation at all to particular Districts And indeed without this general Commission in Ordination I do not see how they could be said to be invested with a Spiritual Power or Authority thro' the Whole Christian Church This Power then being thus convey'd by the Church the Designation of the Persons to this or that particular District was made several Ways In the Apostles Time such and such Persons were sent by them to such and such Cities and great Towns to minister therein and govern the CHURCH according to the Directions given But afterwards the Clergy of the vacant Diocese sometimes chose their own Bishop and sometimes the eldest Presbyter succeeded in Course But then to shew that every Thing which the Bishops and Clergy at that Time did was not done by a Divine Authority What was sometimes done in this Affair by the Clergy was sometimes done by the People also when the Bishops of another Province advanced any new Bishop to a vacant See it was always done with the Consent and Approbation of the People Usually this Approbation and Consent of the People was had as to the Person before his Consecration The forementioned Right Reverend Bishop has cited a Passage out of the VIIIth Book of the Apostolical Constitutions c. 4. in which it is decreed That such a Bishop must be ordained as was elected by the People for his eminent Merit and their Consent was to be a third Time asked And to the same Purpose there are several Passages in St. Cyprian whereby it plainly appears that the People had so much Authority that they were usually consulted and their Vote and Consent asked in the Designation of the Bishop that was to preside over them Which shews most plainly that such a Designation was not made by the divine appropriated Powers of the Bishops and Clergy only And it is very well known that what the People had at the Beginning came by Degrees into the Hands of Kings and Princes They had the Nomination of Bishops to their several Sees and I would therefore have a very good Reason given why those Rulers who had Authority in Promoting them should not be allowed the same in Removing them Or how such a Removal can be called an Invasion of the sacred Rights of the Priesthood when they were promoted by the Election or Nomination of the Laity as well as of the Bishops I KNOW it will be said That all this was only a prudent Condescention and Compliance with the People of their Flock without any Authority But to this I answer Does not Voting and Electing and an almost constant and establish'd Usage of Consigning Persons to such and such Districts by Voting and Electing look like a good Degree of Authority in the Matter And would the Fathers of the Church have suffered all this if they had had the same Notions with some in our Days Would they have condescended so far if they had known it to be an Invasion of the CHURCH'S Independent Powers No certainly their Practice in this Case is a sufficient Demonstration
very low and mean and I hope I shall alway carry a ready Inclination to do my Endeavour to support both the Honour and the true Interest of the Order But as all the Contempt that we seem to lie under is either with Men of profligate Principles and wicked Lives whose Reproaches can do us but little or no Harm or else with those who take Offence at our Carriage and Conduct So Nothing certainly will go farther to raise our Character and promote our Interest and engage Kings and States to entrust us with additional Honours and Powers than our Prudence and Piety and Modesty and great Humility which are none of them inconsistent with a due Regard to our just Authority And while these Virtues and Graces are sound to shine thro' all our Conduct we may vindicate our real Rights without any Scandal or great Offence But if we be vain and imprudent in our Behaviour troublesome and turbulent in our Conduct and grasp at Power and Authority in the Church only to support Factious Parties and to raise Tumults and Seditions against the STATE All this will really do us harm The Adversary will not fail to make all the Advantages that they can of it and we thus give them too just a handle thereto And this which is disagreable to the true Temper and Spirit of the Gospel will have yet a worse influence to our mighty Disadvantage It will make us cheap and mean in the Eyes of those Wise and Good Men by whose deserved Favour and Interest the Dignity and Character of our Holy Order should be supported LET any Man of common Understanding judge what the World will think or say of those Claims and Pretensions to Divine Power and Authority which apparently minister only to Ambition and Pride and Faction but are not at all serviceable to the Interest of true Religion Such are the Pretences that I have so often mentioned already of the Governors of the Church being Spiritual Kings Princes Lords Legates and supreme Monarchs in the Church Regent instead of the Church Militant and having a Share of CHRIST'S Kingly Power in his spiritual Kingdom as well as of his Priesthood In consequence of this to make all Christian Kings and Princes and States their spiritual Inferiors and Subjects from whom Submission and Obedience is to be expected in all Religious Matters under the Penalty of Excommunication and consigning them over to the Devil IN the Name of GOD what Advantage will all this be to Religion How naturally do such Pretensions put Mankind upon enquiring What Use the Clergy have made of this Authority in Times past when they had it in their Hands And when upon several Passages and Instances in History they can tell us that thro' this very Power Religion has been depraved and corrupted by the Clergy themselves who claim it What Advantage will this be to the Honour and Credit and Reputation of our Holy Order Will not every notorious Miscarriage committed under the Covert of a Divine Power from Christ in all Spiritual Causes occasion his whole Commission to be evil spoken of and turn the very Name of divine Right into Banter and Ridicule and a Name of Contempt and Derision and give too plausible a Ground for the scandalous Imputation of Priestcraft Who must bear the Blame of all this To whom is all this Contempt of the Clergy to be imputed In too great a Measure to the blameable Arrogance and boundless Ambition and spiritual Pride of some Clergymen Mankind often fall the lower by aspiring too high The Name of the Virgin Mary was always venerable and treated with great Respect among Christians until some began to adore her as a Goddess And Nothing has brought Her to be so disrespectfully treated as the Idolatry of Men in Worshipping her And so I in my Conscience believe That where there has been no scandalous Immorality of Life Nothing has made our Sacred Order meaner or lower in their Interest and Esteem than the claiming under GOD and CHRIST more Power than They ever intended to bestow upon us AND especially then are these Pretences scandalous and disadvantageous to our Character when the spiritual Authority of the Priesthood is set up in Opposition to the STATE and made use of as a Check upon the Secular Powers and a Means to weaken them in their Authority and to cramp them in the Administration of Civil Government I verily believe that the Christian CHURCH has lost more of Her true Interest by this than by any other Means whatsoever In that when the Lay Powers recover themselves out of such injurious Oppressions they never fail to make very large and ample Reprisals And here I must beg leave to remark That this Claim of an Independent Power in Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Affairs has not that I know of been set up by any of the Clergy of our Reformed CHURCH from Her first Reformation untill the late Happy Revolution And as it was then first set on foot by the Non-jurors in Defence of the Deprived Bishops and in Opposition to King WILLIAM and his Government So has it ever since been chiefly held up by those who have had little or no Affection for our National Establishment and Constitution from that Time And the Scandalous Part of all this Scuffle in Controversy and a Schismatical Separation from our CHURCH is not made on the Account of our Holy Religion and in Defence of the Powers by which that is to be Preserved but only in Behalf of a few particular Men and by those who are confessedly in the Interest of the Pretender and who have Nothing more at Heart then this groundless and unreasonable Schism in the CHURCH to dispose the Hearts of the English People to another Rebellion against the STATE Had it not been for the serviceableness of this Doctrine to breed such Confusions among us and to throw us into Factions and seditions it had never been set on Foot at first And if all other Methods of serving and supporting the Pretender's Cause had not been baffled and made ineffectual it had never been revived now For while they had Hope from other Means These were laid asleep And if Men were not blinded and infatuated above all Measure This is Demonstration clear enough that no such Ecclesiastical Power can be given by GOD and CHRIST The foremention'd Concession of our Adversaries being a most certain and indisputable Truth That Christ has given no Authority to his Church that can interfere with the Civil Powers To make an end I think I have plainly and clearly proved that altho' by CHRIST'S Commission the Divine Offices of all Christian Religious Ministrations are Appropriated to the Bishops and Clergy only Yet the General Governing Powers of this Divine Society are not That as these belong to it only of that Common Right which naturally belongs to all Societies and as they are necessary to the Attainment of that End for which it was Instituted of GOD so
to that Government were such that it was become impossible for them to execute their Spiritual Offices in the CHURCH with any Security to the Peace and Safety of the STATE They could not perform Divine-Service in Publick because they would not own the Authority of the King who was to be prayed for therein The Bishops could not ordain other Clergymen for the same Reason They could not do it without obliging them by the Laws of the Land to own those Secular Powers whom they themselves did not own They could not govern the Clergy as Bishops by the Laws of the Land are bound to govern them without Teaching them and Instructing them to teach their People the Duty of Obedience to that King whom they themselves looked on as an unlawful King Neither could they answer the Ends or do the Business of the Government by sitting in Parliament as the Law expects and requires that all the Bishops of the Kingdom should do Nay in all their Exercise of Divine Offices they must undeniably lie under a strong Byass and Temptation of instilling dangerous Doctrines and Principles inconsistent with the Peace and Security of the Kingdom Can it be supposed then that any National Government wants a sufficient and competent Authority of removing such Bishops from their Sees and of putting other Orthodox Bishops in their Room And must They ask the Clergy's Leave to do this Or must they borrow a competent Authority from the CHURCH to do this effectually Miserable are the Princes who are in such a Case Wretched is the Kingdom that wants a competent Authority to do any Thing which appears necessary to be done with any of its Subjects of what Order soever to support it self and preserve its own Authority Who then can believe that Almighty GOD ever intended this Those who object against the Validity of such a Deprivation should consider two Things 1. THAT there is no Persecution of Christianity in it Had those Bishops been deprived for any Doctrines or Articles of the Christian Faith it would have looked more plausibly on their Side and might with more Reason have been called Persecution Or if upon their Deprivation their Districts and Sees had been left destitute of Orthodox Bishops regularly consecrated to perform the Divine Offices as others had done before them This would have made a great Alteration in the Case But when it is for an avowed Disaffection to the established Civil Government and judged necessary for the Security of it that Necessity proves it lawful and answers all Objections that can possibly be brought against it And therefore to pretend that such a Deprivation is not valid as to the People living within their Districts of such deprived Bishops because it is not Canonical is in effect saying nothing at all For Deprivation signifies nothing to the Purpose if it does not in the Effects of it bind all the Consciences of the Subjects to disown the Authority of the Persons so deprived and discharge them from all Obligations of future Submission to and Communion with them This is a Power without which Civil Government cannot stand and therefore Secular Powers must be granted to have a competent Authority to all such Purposes or else they are not only Subjects and Inferiors but even Slaves to their spiritual Sovereigns and must depend precariously on the Good-will and Favour of their Clergy whether they shall sit easy and safe on their Thrones or no. And all the Laws and Canons and Constitutions of the CHURCH if they be wise and good and christian must be made with a due Regard and Subserviency to this End or else they lose all their Validity and are to be looked upon as Nothing For this is a sure Principle never to be disputed That all National Governments have as sufficient and competent an Authority to do every Thing which is necessary to preserve the STATE as the Bishops and Clergy can have for the Support of RELIGION and the CHURCH AND if this Authority will extend to the valid Deprivation of the disaffected and disloyal Governors of the Church the plain Consequence of it is That all the Subjects of the Kingdom are in Duty and Conscience discharged from any farther spiritual Relation to or Communion with the Persons so deprived What is it then that our Non-jurors mean by Exclaiming against this even as tho' it were a Sin against the Holy Ghost To tell the World That all other Bishops who will not adhere to the deprived ones can perform no valid Acts of Priesthood their Prayers Dr. Hickes Collect. p 32. are Sin and their Sacraments no Sacraments and their Absolution Null and of no Force That all other Christians who are not in the Communion of the deprived Bishops are cut off from the Church of Christ can have no Benefit by His Promises no Assistance of His Grace no Mercy thro' His Blood Nay that altho' they die Martyrs for Christ yet Martyrdom it self cannot make amends for this Sin If a Stranger to our Gospel were to hear this he would certainly conclude that Christianity aimed at Nothing more than the Exaltation of the CHURCH'S Power and that Nothing greater was required to Salvation than to own these deprived Bishops to be the Heads of it Whereas in Truth the Commission given is only to preach the Gospel to administer the Sacraments and to exercise such Offices and such Powers as shall be necessary to the Propagation of the Christian Religion Without any Check upon Secular Potentates in their Administration of Civil Government or any Exemption from their Jurisdiction They have no Authority that interferes with Civil Powers To confirm all which it must not be forgotten 2. THAT in this Deprivation the STATE took away no Power which the CHURCH truly and properly speaking gives Dr. Hickes indeed insinuates p. 24. That as only Bishops have from Christ a Right to ordain so they only have a Right to deprive one another But this Argument is formed with more Cunning than Ingenuity and the Opposition is not fairly put It should not have been between Ordaining and Depriving but Ordaining and Deposing from the Sacred Order of the Priesthood In the one the CHURCH gives in the other She takes away Her spiritual Authority But Depriving is of another Nature it leaves the Persons all the Catholick Authority which the CHURCH gave if they can find Places where they may lawfully Exercise it and only restrains them from doing so in such and such Dominions It is chiefly Removing them from the Districts and Sees which they held of the Secular Powers and thereby from all Right to the Exercise of their Spiritual Offices among any of the King's Subjects And if Kings and Princes have not a competent Authority to do this they are too weak to stand and consequently much weaker than GOD and CHRIST ever intended that Civil Government should be THE chief Objections to what is here delivered are these three I. IT is pleaded That there is
that they had no such Sentiments AND indeed how shall we judge or how shall we know what are the CHURCH'S peculiar Rights and what not but by the Words of CHRIST'S Commission and the Practice of the most Primitive Churches thereupon The Performance of those Sacred Offices which CHRIST by His Commission has taken away from the Civil Powers and vested in a distinct Order of Men we own to be the peculiar Authorities of the CHURCH And accordingly the Primitive Fathers did not allow the Laity to have Authority therein They never condescended so far as to suffer them either to consecrate the Eucharist or to lay on Hands in Ordination When therefore as to the Designation of Bishops to such and such particular Districts CHRIST'S Commission gives no Restraining or Appropriating Rules at all and the constant Practice of the CHURCH has been to admit the Laity to have an Interest and a Vote therein and to promote by their Election I do not know what can confute the Claim of a Divine Relation and an Independent Authority herein if this will not IF then the Designation of Bishops and Clergymen to their several Districts be no Part of the CHURCH'S sacred and unalienable Rights certainly the Removal or Deprivation of such Persons can be no Invasion of them because doubtless they who have a competent Authority to promote must be allowed to have the same also to Remove THE Conclusion of the Whole then is There is no such Thing in our Days as a Clergyman's having a Divine Right to his District His Claim and Right is wholly Human and Legal founded on the Laws of the Land and the established Constitutions of the CHURCH and Country in which we live Consequently then what the STATE does in a legal Way in such Deprivations is done by a competent Authority it is Valid in all Respects and binds the Consciences of all Men. It transfers the Obligations as to Religious Communion from the former Possessor to the latter It makes it our Duty to adhere to such Bishops as in such Cases the Laws of the Land regularly advance And it makes our adhering to the Communion of the Bishops so deprived to be both sinful and schismatical II. THE second Objection is That what I have here advanced seems not to agree with the Practice and Principles of the CHURCH for the first three hundred Years As to the Practice of the CHURCH in those Times I have in some Measure thus accounted for it already That it proceeded from the Exigencies and Necessity of Affairs at the Time when the Christians were either under Persecution and so were constrained to act in Opposition to their Secular Governors because Christianity could not otherwise be propagated Or else it was done under the Connivance and Permission of such Temporal Powers In either of which Cases what was necessary to be done by the Bishops and Governors of the CHURCH for the Promotion of the Christian Religion they undoubtedly had a Divine Right and Authority from GOD to do But then in such Cases the CHURCH did not claim a Divine Authority of Excluding the Jurisdiction of the Emperors and Secular Governors but they excluded themselves by refusing to intermeddle in this Government Even the mildest of the Heathen Emperors who as Tertullian tells us Apol. cap. v. forbid the Christians to be enquired after or persecuted seem to have dealt with them only as Gallio the Deputy of Achaia did I will be no Judge of such Acts xviii 15. Matters When therefore the Christian Bishops and Clergy were so far either neglected or favoured by their Heathen Governors as to be left to themselves they had Nothing more to do than to make wise Laws and proper Canons and see them duly executed And if against those who among themselves were mutinous and turbulent and schismatical they pleaded the just Obligation of their Sanctions and set forth very emphatically the Disorder and Guilt of those who in such Cases revolted from their proper Bishop and despised his Authority and separated from his Communion they certainly Argued very justly and Acted very rightly All Christians were bound in Conscience to conform themselves to such good and wise Rules and to submit to such just and lawful Authority But what is all this to the Rights of the Temporal Powers whose Authority does not appear so much as once to have fallen under their Debates for the first three hundred Years WHEN the Romans had conquered Judea they yet left the Jews in a great Measure to the Management of their own Civil Government And what Herod or the high Priest and the Sanhedrim in such Cases enacted or ordained was doubtless in Conscience to be obeyed and it was a Sin to be mutinous and seditious against them But sure this Privilege could never be extended to the exclusion of the Power and Authority of the Roman Emperors So here the Roman Emperors put the Christians under a Necessity of Acting independently on the Temporal Power because they would not concern themselves therein But this does not at all prove that therefore all Secular Powers must for ever be excluded I am amazed therefore to find such a Fondness as I do for the Rules and Sentiments of the Cyprianick Age in this Controversy I cannot but smile at Mens Attempts to determine it by the Practice and Principles of St. Cyprian or any other Father of those Times All that they say is out of the Question and foreign to the Purpose They only plead the Power and Authority of the Church's Sanctions among themselves and the Guilt of separating from the Communion of their Bishops while there was no other who would meddle in the Government of it In such Cases theirs was the only proper Authority to be regarded because the Secular Powers had declined all Jurisdiction therein But this is no more a Proof that the Authority of Kings and Princes must for ever be excluded from all Ecclesiastical Affairs than the Decrees of Herod and the Jewish Sanhedrim are a Proof that Julius and Augustus Caesar had no Authority in Judaea WHAT shall we say then to Dr. Hickes who would send all Christian Emperors and Kings to these very Times to learn new Lessons and to know from these Examples what Power they ought to exercise in Ecclesiastical Prop. 26. Affairs Certainly this is a very odd Way of Arguing That because Heathen Emperors would not meddle with the Government of the Christian Church therefore Christian Kings and Princes must not As tho' the Neglects and Disregards of the one were to be a Bar and an Interdict to the just Rights and Claims of the other That this is the Truth of the Case and that there is no more than this in it will be undeniably plain and clear 3. FROM the great Concessions and large Compliances that the Christian Bishops and Clergy soon made when the Roman Emperors favoured their Interest and interposed their Authority in the Management and Settlement of
the Affairs of the CHURCH If the Primitive Fathers had had the same Sentiments with Dr. Hickes and his Friends as to the CHURCH'S Divine Right to an Independent Authority it is impossible that they should have given in to the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Emperors as they are found to have done And whether they will impute it to the Ignorance of the Primitive Christians or whether they will make them the first Betrayers of the CHURCH'S sacred Rights I leave to themselves let them account for it as they please I am contented to observe from a very learned Treatise of our present Author Christian Prin. c. 2. Sect. 4. c. 17 21 27 34 35. great and good Archbishop who has supported his Assertions with Authorities which are indisputable That no sooner did the * Euseb Vit Const Lib. III. c. 6 7 10 12 13 17. Contanstine called the first general Council by his Imperial Authority appointed the City Nice in Bithynia for the Place of their Meeting and on the Day set for opening the Synod he came and sat among them and Reasoned with them and composed their Differences Ibid. Lib. IV. c. 42 43. He summoned another Council to meet at Tyre A. D. 335 and Threatned those who disobey'd his Summons with Banishment or Ejectment out of his See afterward he adjourned it to Jerusalem To this Council Athanasius came in pure Obedience to the Emperor and appealed from it to his Authority Ib. Lib. I. c. 44. Eusebius commends Constantine for his Piety and Religious Care in all this Dr. Cave Hist Lit. Vol. 2. p. 152. In the Assembly at Carthage A. D. 411. Marcellinus the Emperors Commissioner directed the Manner of their Proceeding appointing Seven Bishops only of a Side to enter into Debate and in the end gave Sentence in favour of the Orthodox And when upon Marcellinus his Death the Donatists would have had all that had been done rescinded Honorius confirmed their Decrees and made them Valid Ib. p. 158 c. Upon the Feuds and contrary Decrees in the Council of Ephesus A. D. 431. between John Patriarch of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius Theodosius the Emperor commands all that had been done on both Sides to be rescinded and upon a full and true Information of what had past he confirm'd the Decrees made against Nestorius As to Imperial Laws in Ecclesiastical Affairs I will mention a Few only out of the Code and Novells of Justinian God Lib. I. Tit. iii. cap. 8. If a Clergyman gave false Witness in a Pecuniary Case he was to be suspended from his Office for Three Years if in a Criminal Cause to be Degraded from the Priestly Office clericatûs honore nudatus c. ib. Novel Coll. ix Tit. vi 123. cap. x. A Clergyman playing at Tables or standing by to lay Wagers or look on was to be suspended for three Years jubemus tribus annis a venerabili Ministerio prohiberi ib. c. 17. He that shall give or take Money to procure the Election or Ordination of a Minister was to be degraded a gradu Sacerdotij retrahatur ib. c. 31. A Bishop not Consecrated according to some particular Imperial Constitutions was to be deposed Jubemus hunc omnibus modis Epicsopatu depelli Novel ix Tit. vi 123 1. A Presbyter ordained before examination if he had been accused as unfit was to be deposed a Sacerdotio repellatur c. 2. A Bishop deserting his See and not returning in a set Time was to be Deprived Ab Episcopatu expelli ib. c. 9. If a Bishop or Presbyter excommunicates any without hearing his Cause the Person unjustly excommunicated shall be Absolved by another Presbyter and he that unjustly excommunicated him shall himself be excommunicated ib. c. 11. If a Bishop that was deprived or deposed Sacerdotio pulsus presumed to return to the City he had belonged to he was to be confined in a Monastry ib. A Bishop permitting a Deacon to Marry after he was ordained was to be deprived expellatur ab Episcopatu and a Presbyter so Marrying was to be degraded expellatur a clero ib. c. 14. Many more Laws of this kind equivalent to our Acts of Parliament might be mentioned and they all demonstrate that the Christians of those Ages knew no such Principle as the Independent Power of the Church in Ecclesiastical Affairs Christian Emperors concern themselves in the Affairs of the Church and the Government of it but the Bishops admitted them to summon Councils by their Imperial Authority to appoint the Time and Place of their Meeting to direct the Matter to be treated on and the Manner of their Proceeding To Preside in and Regulate their Debates to exercise Authority over their Declarations and Canons sometimes to Revoke and sometimes to Suspend their Decrees Sometimes they not only made Laws about Church Government without the Clergy but even regulated their Qualifications and punished their Miscarriages sometimes with Commands to the Church to Degrade them and sometimes to Excommunicate ' em They took upon them to judge of the Controversies between the Bishops suspended one and set up another and threaten'd the Refractory with Deprivation if they but disputed the Authority of their Summons These Things they did sometimes at the Request of the CHURCH and often with hearty Thanks for what they had done And those Ages knew no such Thing as disputing the competent Authority by which they acted or the Validity of their Sentences so long as Nothing was done by them to the Detriment of the Christian Faith or Religion This shews most plainly that what was practised by the Independent Authority of the Bishops and Clergy for the first three hundred Years was only out of Necessity and not in a Claim of any Divine Right to exclude the Secular Powers AND now I come to the III. AND last Objection Some are apt to think the Principles I advance too prejudicial to the CHURCH'S Interest and Advantage that they tend too much to oppress and enslave Her But I hope I have not laid my self open deservedly to any such Charge I have granted it a divine unalienable Right to the Holy Offices of all Religious Ministrations to the Power of the Keys and to Ordination I have allowed it a natural and common Right to all the general Powers of Government and owned that by Virtue of CHRIST'S Commission it has a Trust useful to it in all its Exigencies and an Authority to do every Thing in the Exercise of its Spiritual Powers that is necessary to be done for the Propagation and Support of the Christian Religion Where then is the Slavery or Oppression in these Principles Or what is it that we can by the Authority of GOD and CHRIST claim more Other Privileges and Authorities may be granted to it by the STATE But of its own Right I am not convinced that it can pretend to more than these I AM in Truth very sensible that the Clergy are in some Mens Esteem and Opinion
now to give up his Sovereignty and Supremacy in all Spiritual Ecclesiastical Causes and in all Moral Actions into the Hands of his spiritual Governors of that Church of which he was now becoming a Member He is now no longer to claim an universal Supremacy in his Dominions but himself becomes a Subject to his Subjects and their spiritual Inferior the Bishops in his Kingdom being as so many Kings and spiritual Monarchs who have a Divine Right to tye up his Hands from having any thing to do in the Government of the Church or in Matters of Religion Would not all the Secular Potentates in the World have spurn'd at and despised the Preachers of so senseless a Religion as an Imposture and a Cheat that under a Pretence of Godliness was contrived to wrest one great Part of their Authority out of their Hands And would not such an Attempt as this too deservedly have caused the Word of Truth to be evil spoken of Most assuredly it would And yet this is the very Thing that an Independent Authority in Church Government naturally and universally tends to DR Hickes is pleased to say Constit p. 76. That the Governors of the Church lose Nothing of their Power Authority or Jurisdiction by admitting Sovereign Princes into the Church I beg leave to ask then Whether it is not altogether as reasonable both for the Honour and Interest of Christianity that Christian Princes should lose Nothing of their Temporal Authority by embracing this our Holy Religion And if it be I am sure that the Schemes which are now laid out for Kings and Princes to rule by under the Church's independent Power cannot be of GOD because they make Spoil and Havock of the secular Powers and rob them of one entire Branch of their Sovereignty and Dominion And yet this is not the worst Evil that attends this Claim For V. IT not only robs Kings of all Sovereignty in religious and spiritual Affairs but is extended also to their Administration of the Temporal I have already observed That these Gentlemen bring all the moral Actions of humane Life under the peculiar Cognizance of the spiritual Government of the CHURCH Every Thing in which the Consciences of Men are concern'd they claim as falling wholly within this spiritual Jurisdiction so much as a Judge between two private Luke xii 14. Men in the Division of a small Estate But our Modern Independents in Church Government make themselves Judges of Kings and of their Titles to their Thrones They in effect divide the Kingdoms of the Earth according to their Decisions and Determinations By a pretended Supremacy from CHRIST they put a Check upon the Legislature in the Laws that they provide for the Security of the Nation and labour to controul the States of the Realm in the Administration of their secular Affairs They sanctify even Sedition and Rebellion by their spiritual Authority and take upon them to absolve the Subjects from all the strictest Oaths whereby they have sworn Allegiance to their King They endeavour to bind it upon the Consciences of Men to set up one King and to dethrone another according to their personal Sentiments and Opinions Now I would willingly be informed by them what Part of CHRIST'S Commission it is that gives them this Authority or that in any disputable Titles to the Throne makes them the Judges of it And yet the Modern Independents in Church Goverment do not only assume all this to themselves but they also lay as much Stress on their own Notions and Assertions of this Kind as tho' they had a Spirit of Infallibility or an immediate Revelation from Heaven What less than this could induce them to charge all the Great Men of our Church however learned and equally pious with themselves as Teaching and Acting and Praying contrary to the essential Righteousness of GOD only because they teach and act and pray contrary to their particular Sentiments and Schemes in Civil Government What is this but to arrogate to themselves a Spirit of Infallibility in the Interpretation of those Scriptures on which they build their Notions and Opinions Will not the Reader stand still here and Pause a little and Question the Truth of what I say Will he not think it incredible that spiritual Men should approach so near to Blasphemy as to set up their own political Principles as the infallible Tests of Truth and Righteousness Certain it is that CHRIST'S Commission is of another Nature and never was intended to authorize the Governors of the Church to frame the Government of Nations too according to their disputable Models and controverted Schemes and to damn all Mankind as Hereticks and Schismaticks and Rebels who will not come in to them and desert the legal Constitutions of their Country This is foreign to the Business of the Gospel the Propagation of the Christian Faith by Preaching and Baptizing and Administring Sacraments and Training up Christians in Holiness and Devotion is a Sphere at so great a Distance from all this of Secular Government and Political Controversies that GOD certainly never gave the Governors of the Church any Divine Authority therein And therefore an Independent Authority in Church Governors which is industriously set up to this End must be an Imposture and a Cheat and contrary to the Will of CHRIST and of GOD. And Bishops and Clergymen by Virtue of CHRIST'S Commission may as well claim a Right to go into Westminster-Hall and turn out the Judges as giving Judgment contrary to the essential Righteousness of God as to teach the People that it is a Sin to be subject to the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom where they live This brings me to my VI. LAST Argument which is That this Independent Authority in the Government of the CHURCH is utterly inconsistent with the Supremacy and Sovereignty of all Secular Potentates Two such Independent Authorities in the Government of the same Body of Men appear utterly incompatible They so frequently interfere and thereby bring such Mischiefs and Distractions into the World that they cannot possibly be both of them from GOD. He who is a God of Peace and Order and not of Confusion must not be supposed to have intended any two such Powers without a Subordination of the one to the other THE Supporters of that Claim being aware of this Argument would evade it by saying That the Mischiefs complained of proceed not from the Inconsistency of two such Powers but from the Encroachments of the two contending Parties And that all this would be prevented effectually if each would keep within their proper Limits and neither of 'em put their Sickle into the other's Harvest This is Regale Pontiff p. 15. smoothly and finely said indeed but Nothing to the Purpose because it is Arguing against plain Matter of Fact For they both of them claim a Right to the same Harvest and who then shall judge between them to preserve the Peace and Quiet of the Christian World Are