THE CASE OF THE Church of England Briefly and truly stated In the three first and fundamental PRINCIPLES Of a Christian Church I. The Obligation of Christianity by Divine Right II. The Jurisdiction of the Church by Divine Right III. The Institution of Episcopal Superiority by Divine Right By S. P. a Presbyter of the Church of England LONDON Printed for Henry Faithorne and John Kersey and sold by Walter Davis in Amen-Corner 1681. A Scheme of the general CONTENTS PART I. THree popular Principles destructive of the Church of England Page 1. The absurdity of Mr. Hobb's Principle that the Sovereign Power is the only founder of all Religion in every Commonwealth p. 7 Mr. Seldens account of the Jurisdiction of the Church to be meerly Civil p. 27 His account of Excommunication from Adam to Moses considered p. 37 The same from Moses to the Captivity and from the Captivity to the time of our Saviour p. 42 The same in our Saviours time and first as to its Usage p. 54 Secondly as to the Right which is proved to have been neither Judicial nor Imperial but purely Divine p. 62 Excommunication in the Christian Church proved to have been of Apostolical Antiquity p. 71 The Texts of Scripture upon which it is grounded carry in them true and proper Jurisdiction and appropriate its exercise to the Church p. 76 And that by Divine Institution not meer voluntary Confederacy p. 89 All Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction left entirely by the Christian Emperours to the Ecclesiastical State and that the Imperial Laws extant both in the Theodosian Code and Justinian are no new Laws but only the Canons of the Church ratified with temporal Penalties p. 91 PART II. AN account of the birth of the Opinion that there was no Form of Government setled in the Christian Church by Divine Institution Page 117 That our Saviour founded his Church in an imparity of Ecclesiastical Officers demonstrated this imparity proved to consist in a superiority of Power as well as Order and the Institution of it shewn to be of perpetual obligation p. 124 The Authority of the Apostolical Practice vindicated against divers exceptions The vanity and absurdity of the Objection from the ambiguity of the names Bishop and Presbyter The divine Obligation of Apostolical practice in this matter proved p. 135 The practice of the Primitive Church in the Ages next and immediately after the Apostles The pretence of the defect of the Records of the Church in the first Age falls as foul upon Christianity it self as the Form of Government p. 143 The Argument first from the defect as to places considered and confuted p. 148 Secondly front the defect as to Times and Persons p. 150 The constant Tradition of the Church proved first by the Testimony of St. Clement of Rome Secondly of Ignatius his Epistles demonstrated to be genuine p. 155 The same proved from the Apostolical Canons and the Canons proved to be of Primitive Antiquity p. 177 The Testimonies of the Ancients vindicated from the pretence of ambiguity and first in that they have not informed us whether the Succession were only of Order or of Power p. 183 Secondly In that it is not universal but whether it be or not it is sufficient in that there are no Records against it and the Records of all the chiefest Churches are clear for it p. 189 Thirdly In that this Succession is sometimes attributed to Presbyters this shewn to be apparently false and if it were true frivolous p. 203 That the ancient Church owned Episcopacy as of Divine Institution and not Ecclesiastical p. 213 St. Jeroms Authority throughly considered and turned upon himself so as to make this Objection out of him against it the strongest Argument to prove the Divine Institution of Episcopacy p. 216 The Custom of the Church of Alexandria of the Ordination of their Bishop by Presbyters refuted and the Story of Eutychius concerning it shewn to be false and foolish p. 231 If we take away the Divine Right of some Form of Church-Government it unavoidably resolves the Church into Independency and Confusion p. 243 The Government of the Church by Episcopacy as setled by Divine Right the only effectal Bulwork against Popery p. 252 A Postscript p. 263 PART I. WHEN I consider on one side with what triumph the Church of England was together with His Majesty restored with what Laws guarded with what Vigour asserted with what Zeal defended and on the other with what folly and peevishness opposed that none of its implacable Enemies have ever been able to discover any the least real Defects or Corruptions in its Constitution That by the confession of all wise men it approaches nearest of any Church in the World to the primitive Purity that it is free from all Impostures and Innovations that it does not abuse its Children with Pious Frauds and Arts of Gain nor sacrifise the Interests of Souls to its own Wealth and Grandeur that it asserts the Rights of Princes against all Priestly Usurpations that it does not enrage the People with Enthusiasm on one hand nor enslave them with Superstition on the other That its Doctrins are Pure Simple and Apostolical and its Discipline Easie Prudent and Merciful In a word that it is a Church that wants nothing but only that we would suffer her to be what she professes and desires to be When I say I considered all this with my self it could not but strike me with wonder and amazement that a Church so unanimously owned so powerfully protected so excellently constituted so approved by all wise and good men should in all this time be so far from obteining any true and effectual settlement that it should be almost stript naked of all the Rights and Priviledges of a Christian Church exposed to scorn and contempt deserted by its Friends trampled upon by its Enemies and truly reduced to the state of the Poor despised Church of England But then considering farther with my self what might be the grounds and occasions of such a wild and seemingly unaccountable Apostasie I quickly found three very prevailing Principles utterly inconsistent with the being of a Christian Church wherewith the generality of mens minds are possest and especially those that have of late appeared the most Zealous Patriots of the Church of England No wonder then if the building be so weak and tottering when it is erected upon such false and rotten Foundations so that whilst these treacherous Principles lie at the bottom of the Work it is plainly impossible to bring it to any sure and lasting settlement And t is these false and unhappy Principles that I shall now endeavour to represent and by plain reason to remove They are chiefly these three the first is that of Mr. Hobbs and his Followers that own the Church of England only because it is Establisht by the Law of England and allow no Authority either to that or any other Religion than as it is injoined by the Sovereign Power Though a Religion
sure there is as little modesty as reason in Salmasius his Argument when he opposes the single authority of Nicephorus to the concurrent Testimony of the Ancients But much less in Daillès defence especially when we consider with what state and confidence he ushers it in Ecce Auctores habemus multis ante nos seculis denatos ab omni contra Hierarchiam suspicione semotos qui omnia Ignatii scripta rotunde ac sine ullâ haesitatione ad Apocrypha relegarunt in stichometriâ Georgio Sincello in libro antiquissimo praefixâ For what confidence can be more enormous than that when these Epistles have been attested by some of the best of the ancient Writers ters to pretend to destroy their Authority by a multitude of Writers and yet produce but one and he at the distance of seven hundred Years But the last aggravation of his confidence is when he professes that he produces the authority of this Stichometria not to prove his own Opinion but only to remove the prejudice of its Novelty and yet cite no other Authors in its behalf For all the rest of his Proofs are drawn from Negative Authority in which he is no more happy than in his many one positive Testimony For when he argues that these Epistles were unknown to every Writer that does not quote them methinks it is an hard condition that he imposes upon all Authors to cite all the Books that they read But says he because of that great authority that Ignatius had in the Christian Church when any Christian Writers had any fair occasion for it it is very likely that they would have appeal'd to his Authority which because they have not done we may justly presume that there were no such Writings extant in their time This is the whole force of his Negative Argument and yet when he comes to particulars he is so unhappy as only to produce those Authors whose custom it is to avoid this kind of Quotations as we have already shewn concerning Irenaeus And so for Clemens Alexandrinus who though he is a great quoter of Heathen and Heretical Writers yet no where cites Ecclesiastical Authors unless such as he supposed to belong to the sacred Canon And so for Tertullian who too is frequent in the Testimonies of Heathens or Hereticks but scarce ever mentions any Ecclesiastical Writers and when he does it is not to prove or confute any Doctrine by their Authority And this in the last place is the case of Epiphanius who makes no mention of a great number of Ecclesiastical Writers that lived before him and when he does it in his Book of Heresies it is only in an Historical way either to spare his own pains or to justifie the truth of his own Relations out of other Histories but never as Daillé requires of him to prove the truth of his Opinion I mention no more of his Negative men who make a great shew in the Contents of his Chapter in that they are alledged altogether impertinently to his purpose because all those Passages which he imagines they were obliged to have quoted belong not to the ancient Copies of Eusebius but are taken out of the late Interpolations And now comparing the Testimonies on both sides we may very safely turn any honest man loose to judg of the Authority of these Epistles and that being once establisht we can neither have nor desire a more ample Testimony than they give us of the Primitive Practice of Episcopal Superiority The holy Martyr every where founding the Peace and Security of the Church against Schisms and Heresies upon the Bishops supreme Authority which he as our Adversaries fancy magnifies so highly though not more than the other Orders of the Church in their respective Function that they think that alone the main objection against the truth of his Epistles Though in truth setting aside all Testimonies the Argument and Spirit of them are no small proof of their genuine Antiquity Being composed of two Arguments peculiar to the first Writers of the Church a vehement zeal for Unity and a passionate sense of Immortality They were possest with a serious belief of the reality of our Saviour's Promises and therefore they lived in this World purely in order to the Rewards of the World to come And how earnestly the Author of these Epistles thirsted after it no good Christian can read without great pleasure and being affected with some workings of the same Passion And as for his way of securing Peace and Unity in all Churches by obedience to the Bishops and under them to the Presbyters and Deacons for his fundamental Rule was that nothing was to be done without the Bishop he derives it from our Saviour's Commission and Promise to the Apostles and their Successors for ever when he constituted them Pastors of his Flock and promised to be perpetually assistant to them by his Divine Providence in the execution of their Office And therefore he does not refer the Government of the Church to them for the greater Wisdom greater Learning or any other natural Advantages of the men themselves but only upon the account of our Saviour's express Institution who had sent them as his Father had sent him and had therefore engaged himself to be present with them to the end of the world so that upon that security to follow the Bishop was to follow Christ because he had undertaken to be the Bishops Guide And this being the state of the case between Ignatius and his Adversaries their Objections will not reflect upon his discretion but our Saviours Integrity and when the cause is brought to that Ignatius is secure and if any man be pleased to raise any further controversie it is only between our Saviour and the Leviathan And there I am content to leave it The next proof of the Primitive and Apostolical Practice of Episcopacy that we meet with among the Ancients is in the Apostolical Canons i. e. a Collection of the Decrees of Synods and Councils between the time of the Apostles and the Council of Nice so that they may not improperly be stiled the Code of the Canons of the Primitive Church And now concerning them the case of the Controversie is much the same with that of Ignatius Epistles for the Testimony that they give in to the Episcopal superiority is so full and plain that it is undeniable And therefore there is no avoiding them but by impeaching their Antiquity and Authority and as the state of the controversie is the same so is the success too for it has been thoroughly disputed between the said Monsieur Daillè and a very learned Divine of our own Church and that with the very same inequality of reason too I shall not give any large account of the engagement because the Books are so lately published and may be so easily perused and therefore I shall rather refer to the Authors themselves especially because I am not a little zealous to recommend one of them as
succession of Persons in any Bishoprick has not been preserved with that care and diligence that it ought or might have been to conclude that therefore there was no certainty of the Episcopal form of Government is the same thing as to conclude that there never was any ancient Monarchy in the world because in all their Histories there are some flaws or defects or disagreements as to the names of Persons in the succession But we think it enough that where we find an established Monarchy though we meet with some intervals of History in which the Princes names that then reigned are uncertain or forgotten and meet with no Records that the Government was at that time changed into a Common-wealth to conclude that the Monarchy was all along preserved And that is the case of Episcopal Government in the Church in that in all times and places where and when Records have been preserved we find the same Form practised and therefore ought to conclude that the same was observed in those short intervals of time if we suppose there were any such in which they were lost Though I do not find that the Register of particular Persons is so defective as is pretended but that in most Churches their very names are accurately enough recorded Thus first for the Church of Jerusalem in which we find a succession of fifteen Bishops before its destruction attested by the best and most ancient Writers of the validity of whose Testimony we have no reason to doubt For it is no Objection that so many Bishops should be crouded into so narrow a Room that many of them could not have had above two years time to rule in the Church When almost all that time the Jews were in Rebellion against the Romans continually provoking them by their Insurrections to the utmost severity both against Jews and Christians for as yet the Romans understood no difference nor were they broken into any open division among themselves all these Bishops being as formally circumcised as any of the most zealous Retainers to the Jewish Religion So that it is no more wonder that so many Bishops should succeed in so short a time than that such an incredible number of Jews should perish by the Sword But secondly It is less material to enquire as Scaliger does where the Seat of the Bishops of Jerusalem was from the time of the destruction of the City by Titus till the time of Adrian For what if he had no Palace was he no Bishop Or what if we cannot tell where he assembled his Flock was there no Church Perhaps it was in a Cockloft at Pella but because we cannot tell where it was was it no where And therefore to return the Quere Was there then a Church of Jerusalem If there was whether Episcopal Presbyterian or Independent or all together I would fain know where it was and if you cannot tell me conclude as you do that there was no Church at all And so he has answered his own little Objection himself that the Church follows the Bishop and is not confined to stone Walls and therefore that the Church of Jerusalem was then at Pella though there was no such place as Jerusalem as at this day the Patriarchal Seat of Antioch is at Meredin in Mesopotamia and that of Alexandria at Grand Cairo As for the succession at Antioch I find not the least ground to doubt of its truth for I think it no objection that though it be clear it is not certain whether they succeeded St. Peter or St. Paul for be it either or both or neither it is all one so it be any that is enough that there was a succession though we did not know the particular Founder of the Church in whom it began and whoever of the Apostles it was whether one or more they had Apostolical Authority over it and whoever succeeded them succeeded in the same form of Government As for the Church of Rome all the difficulty is about the succession of Linus and Clemens being both reckoned in the first place but the conjecture is very probable that Clemens succeeded St. Peter in the Church of the Jews as Linus did St. Paul in the Church of the Gentiles and that surviving both Linus and Cletus that succeeded him till the union of the two Churches he governed both For whatever ground there is for the conjecture that there were separate Churches of Christian Jews and Gentiles in other Cities there is a very probable foundation for it at Rome in the Apostolical History Acts xxviii where St. Paul expresly declares to the Jews that from thenceforth he would preach only to the Gentiles and so in all probability gathered a distinct Church of them by themselves And therefore it is observable that in that famous passage of Irenaeus in which he derives the succession of the Bishops of Rome from St. Peter and Paul down to Eleutherius his Cotemporary that he speaks not of the Church of Rome in the single number but Ecclesiae Petro Paulo Romae fundatae canstitutae as if they had been several Churches And to this purpose it is a pretty observation of Mr. Thorndike that St. Pauls being buried in the Way to Ostia and St. Peters in the Vatican as we understand by Caius in Eusebius seems to point them out Heads the one of the Jewish Christians the other of the Gentiles in that the Vatican was then the Jury of Rome and notorious for the Residence of Jews But though these first Records could not be fully made out we have no reason to doubt of the History but rather to suspect some mistake in after-times or the omission of some circumstance that might if it had been recorded have removed the difficulty For it is very hard that when Irenaeus to mention no more gives us a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome from St. Peter down to the time when himself was at Rome and who lived not at a greater distance from St. Peter than we do from the first Archbishop in Queen Elizabeths Reign that we should suspect the whole truth of his Relation because we cannot give an account of all the particular circumstances of the Succession This I say is too hard dealing with any ancient Records though the conclusion is much harder that because we have no certainty of all the Persons that succeeded in Church-Government and of the particular manner of their Succession that therefore we have no certainty of the particular Form of it notwithstanding we have no Record of any form but one As for the Church of Alexandria there the Succession is acknowledged to be clearest as indeed it is unquestionable only it is imputed to the choice of Presbyters but of that in its proper place the evidence of personal Succession is enough and all that is pertinent to our present debate And the succession of Ephesus might have been as unquestionable but that one Leontius pleads at the Council of Calcedon that all
the difference of some accounts concerning the Succession of some Bishops But this has been objected two or three times already and as often answered and therefore at present I shall say no more to it than only granting the truth of the Premises to mind the Reader of the weakness of the conclusion that from the uncertainty of some Persons in the Succession infers an uncertainty of the form of Government it self And now am I come to our Adversaries only positive proof in their own behalf that is the Authority of St. Jerom for though they pretend to one or two Authors more yet still at the last push St. Hierom is the only man And the sum of all that is pretended from him is this That though the Apostles exercised a superiority over the other Pastors of the Church during their own lives yet immediately upon their decease having it seems provided no Successours in that Power that themselves enjoyed the Church was every where governed by the whole Body or Common-Council of Presbyters but this Form of Government being quickly found very apt to breed Schisms and Divisions it was for the better prevention of them agreed upon all the world over to chuse one Presbyter out of the rest and settle a Supremacy of Power upon him for the more effectual Government of the Church Antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo Ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptisaverat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret ut schismatum semina tollerentur From whence it is inferred that though this Form of Government hapned to be set up in the after-ages of the Church yet it was not upon the account of any Divine Right or Apostolical Constitution but purely upon prudential motives and by the Churches discretion that might have instituted either that or any other alterable Form as it judged most tending to its own peace and settlement Before I come to answer the whole Argument I cannot but observe what disingenuous advantage these men make of the hasty expressions of that good Father let him in the heat and eagerness of dispute but drop an inconsiderate word that may reflect upon the Records or the Reputation of the ancient Church it immediately serves to justifie all their Innovations And thus I remember Monsieur Daillé in his shallow Book of the Use of the Fathers frequently makes good as he thinks his charge against them all only by impleading St. Hierom but though he is made use of to serve them at all turns yet in this Argument they devolve the whole credit of all the ancient Church upon his single Authority And is it not very strange that two or three hasty passages of this single Father not only against the concurrent Testimony of all the ancient Church but against his own express Opinion should be seized upon with so much zeal and greediness to give defiance to all the practice of Antiquity That is bold enough but it is much more so to force all the rest of the Fathers against their own Consciences and Declarations to subscribe to his Opinion as Blondel has done who having first placed St. Jerom in the front and flourished all his sayings with large Commentaries ranges all the rest of the Fathers under his Colours excepting only Ignatius though since he too has had the honour to be admitted into the service but he has drawn them into the Party by such a forced and presumptuous way of arguing that I know not a greater Instance of the power of Prejudice in a learned man I once thought to have taken him particularly to task but his trifling is so grosly palpable that there needs no more to expose it to any mans contempt than that he can endure the Penance of reading him over And how was it possible for any man to discourse after a wiser rate that undertakes to prove that Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius Eusebius Chrysostom Theodoret Theophylact were Presbyterians It is just such another design as to go about to prove that Calvin Beza Blondel Salmasius Daillé and all the other Calvinian Fathers have been zealous Assertors of Episcopacy And yet this task too some men have undertaken and I suppose will make good by the same Topicks and doubt not but they will both gain belief together Now in answer to the great Authority of St. Jerom there are many things alledged and insisted upon by learned men some plead that it is contrary to his own express and declared Opinion and therefore is not to be taken for his setled and deliberate sense of the thing but only for an hasty and over-lavish expression Others endeavour to expound him to a good sense consistent with himself and the rest of the Fathers viz. that writing against some proud Deacons that would set themselves above Presbyters he tells them that it was much the same insolence as if they should go about to prefer themselves above the Bishop in that the distance was much the same they alone being reckoned in the Priesthood with the Bishop whereas the Deacons had no higher Office in the Church than to serve Tables and poor Widows So that the difference was the same as in the Levitical Priesthood the Bishop and the Presbyters being as Aaron and his Sons who alone were accounted into the Priestly Office whereas the Deacons had only the Office of Levites that were no better than Servants to the Priests And though Presbyters at that time exercised no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Church yet they were formerly joyned with the Bishop himself in the Government of it and shared in all acts of Power and Discipline excepting only Ordination And for this reason because they were placed so near to the highest Order that they were capable by vertue of their own Order to exercise almost all the Offices of that it was not to be endured that such inferiour Ministers as the Deacons were should prefer themselves above them Quis patiatur ut mensarum viduarum minister supra eos se tumidus efferat ad quorum preces Christi Corpus sanguisque conficitur Though this probably was all the design of St. Jerom yet because he seems to have said more than he designed I shall not contend about his meaning but shall give my Adversaries the whole advantage of his Authority and let them make the best of it Neither shall I go about to overthrow it by the contrary Testimony of the Ancients for though that were easily done the cause does not require it but granting the Authority of St. Jeroms Opinion and that it was never contradicted by any ancient Writer I will demonstrate the falshood of the Opinion it self from its own absurdity
if he would but have applyed to the case of the Christian Church it would have prevented the pains of all his ensuing Discourses for that being a Society of it self as founded upon Divine Right and Power of governing it self being necessary to Society what can be more evident from the nature of things themselves than that the Church must be endued with such a Power So that once supposing Society that alone infers Government and all the acts of it and to this purpose our Authour observes out of the Jewish Doctors if their Authority be to any purpose that whereas there were six Laws given by God to our first Parents to oblige all mankind the last was de Judiciis for as much as without that all the rest would have been ineffectual thus whereas Idolatry and Blasphemy which refer only to the Worship of God were forbidden by the two first they could never have had the force of Laws among mankind unless some Persons were indued with a power of judging of the nature of those Crimes and inflicting punishments in pursuance of their Sentence which he styles not only the Soul of Government but the noblest faculty of that Soul and the noblest act of that faculty And therefore when our Authour disputes whether the Christian Excommunication were taken from the Jews or the Heathen and leaves the case doubtful in that it was in Use among most nations civil and barbarous as well as the Jews as he proves by a vast collection out of the Records of the Greeks the Romans Arabians Germans Gauls Britans and others his most proper conclusion would have been That so universal a Practice could be derived from nothing less than the common sense of mankind The two next Periods are from Moses to the Captivity when the Jews enjoyed the civil jurisdiction of their own Common-wealth and from the Captivity to our Saviour when they were either wholy deprived of it or limited in its exercise according to the pleasure of the Princes to whom they were subject In the first interval he proves at large that they had no such punishment as Excommunication strictly so called but that all Officers whatsoever were punished with a loss or abatement of their civil Liberties But being deprived of the power of the Sword or the civil Government in the time of their Captivity they were forced having no more effectual way to punish Offenders against their Law by shame and dishonour As pregnant proofs both these of the necessity of Excommunication in the Christian Church as a modest man could well have desired For what can follow with greater clearness of Reason than that If the Jewish state had no Use of meer Excommunication whilst it was indued with a power of restraining vice by the civil Sword and that when it was deprived of this Power it was forced by the meer necessity of the thing to make Use of this punishment that therefore the Society of the Church having no Power of temporal coercion to punish offences against the Laws of the Society must be vested with some other power of punishment suitable to the nature and end of its Constitution Otherwise it would be a Society founded by God himself without sufficient means to govern that is preserve it self And if it have a Right or power of Discipline within it self that is the only thing that the Church demands and that our Authour denies But of these two long Periods the account as to our purpose is very short for as for the first it is granted on all hands That the Rights of Church and State were granted by the same Charter and the power of Government vested in the same Persons and therefore all their acts of jurisdiction carried in them according to the nature of the Society both a civil and Ecclesiastical Authority Whereas the Christian Church is of a quite different Constitution It is a Kingdom indeed but not of this world indued with no temporal power and instituted purely for spiritual ends and therefore its Government if it have any must be suitable to its Institution distinct from that of the civil State and enforced by such penalties as are peculiar to the Society the greatest whereof is to be cast out of it which answers to putting to death by the civil Sword So that the different constitution of these two Societies being consider'd it unavoidably follows Because the Jewish Magistrates had a compleat jurisdiction in all things that therefore the jurisdiction proper to the Church that has no civil Power must be meerly spiritual and if it have any jurisdiction proper to it self that is enough to our purpose against them who say it has none As for the second that Excommunication was taken up in the time of the Captivity meerly to supply the want of the civil Sword it is as clear an Instance as could have been produced of the necessity of this or the like punishment in all Society where there is no other coercive Power But here by the way though I do not doubt that this punishment was then first made Use of upon this ground yet I must confess that I am not satisfied of the Account that our Authour and other learned men give of it out of the Talmudical Writers For beside that they all writ when their Nation was debauched with Misnical and Talmudical Fables than which it is hard to invent any thing more absurd and silly they who were in comparison but very modern Writers had no other means of knowing what was done from the time of the Captivity but from the writings of the Prophets and the Histories of those times and therefore their Reports can have no Authority but as justified by those ancient Records And whereas Mr. Selden tells us for the Reputation of his own Learning Si cui hic dubium forsan occuâ—rat utrum corpori scriptoribus talmuaiâ—is hujusmodi in rebus quatenus historicae sunt id est quatenus in eis pro jure qualicunque Ebreis veteribus recognito atque usitato traâ—untur fides sit habenda eo scilicet quod corpus illud quo jam habetur contextum scriptoresque illi caeteri saeculorum sunt Templi urbisque excidio recentiorum is for san etiam dubitabit de Justiniani seu Triboniani fide dum Modestini Papiniani Florentini Alpheni Proculi Celsi ejusmodi aliorum qui trecentis aut circiter sunt Justiniano annis vetustiores sententias atque scita juris alibi non reperta He might have observed that these two cases were vastly different for there were certain Records and Reports of those famous Lawyers which were conveyed by writing from age to age as were the writings of other Authors Whereas there are no footsteps of any Monuments for the Rabinical Fable and as they have no ancient Authority so they discover themselves by their own foolishness to have been the inventions of a very barbarous and degenerate Age. so that our Authour if he would have found a parallel
all cases that came in upon the account of their new Persuasion that is to say all cases that concern the Christian Church So p. 207. Et qui annis proximius sequentibus è Gentilibus sine Judaismi Proselytismi Christi disciplinam amplexati sunt Judaeorum nihilominus nomine ita simul cum reliquis Judaeis paritâ—r veniebant eorumque diu juribus aliis non paucis ita utebantur ut non videatur omnino dubitandum quin inter jura illa etâ—am hoc de excommunicatione Judaica quantum ad species ejus seu gradus nam quantum ad causas necessum erat ut alitâ—r se res haberet quod nemo non videt pariter à cunctis ut ante pro re nata adhiberetur But if the causes for which Excommunication was inflicted in the Christian Church were as the Parenthesis informs us of a different nature from those for which it was inflicted among the Jews then without any farther dispute it is evident that the exercise of the Christian Excommunication was distinct from that of the Jews So lastly to mention no more p. 225. Nec disciplina illa apud eos alia quam Judaismus vere reformatus sen cum fide in Messiam seu Christum rite conjunctus Unde Judaei omnimodi quantum ad hanc rem in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non credentes tribui solebant We are here proving that there was no discipline in the Christian Church but what was in the Jewish state before Christianity but now it is the discipline of reform'd Judaism i. e. of Christianity But passing by these humble concessions or rather contradictions it is enough to our purpose that though all Christians were Jews all Jews were not Christians so that though the Christians enjoyed the same Rights in common with the Jews yet they must have some Rights peculiar to themselves as Christians Non aliter as our Author expresses it atque is qui Civis Romani aliusve Reipublicae seu sodalitii aliâ—ujus socius jura pristina retinet utcunque in persuasionem aliquam inter suos singularem pro libitu transeat In the same manner as a Citizen of Rome retains his former Rights notwithstanding he enters himself into any new Society to which ought to be added that the rights of the Society into which he enters himself are distinct from those wherewith he was antecedently vested as a Citizen of Rome And therefore all this long discourse is quite beside the purpose that because the Christians enjoyed the same priviledges with Jews that therefore they enjoyed none as Christians which is to say that there are no Christian Priviledges And so is that of the Edicts of the Roman Emperors who it seems knew nothing of the difference between Christians and Jews What then was there none because the enemies or strangers to the Church were unacquainted with its peculiar Constitutions And yet here too our Author is quite beside the purpose not only in matter of Right but in matter of Fact as to the Authorities he alledges the first and chiefest whereof is the Edict of the Emperour Claudius for the banishment of all Jews from Rome by vertue whereof says he Aquila who was a Christian was banisht too and very good reason because he that was a Christian was a Jew too and if he was banisht as a Jew it is no matter whether he were a Christian or not when the Edict was made against the whole nation of the Jews His other instance is out of Celsus who objects it both against the Christians and Jews that all that great difference they made about their Messias was about a very trifle But does Mr. Selden think that Celsus his Authority is sufficient to prove it so If he does then I must confess that Celsus and himself seem to have been much of the same opinion for he frequently tells us that the Christians and Jews were the same men only that those were believers these unbelievers as if the difference were as inconsiderable as Celsus made the coming of the Messias But if his Authority be not sufficient as I suppose no good Christian will grant it is especially in this case then it 's here alledged apparently to no purpose And whereas he adds that Origen answers that the Jews who believe in Jesus do not withstanding live according to the Laws of their Nation he ought to have added too that they live according to the Laws of their Messias For it was that great and sacred Law of the Gospel that made a vast difference between a Jew and a Christian which was so great that it was not greater between a Jew and a Gentile But however if there were any difference at all it spoils all our Authors discourse that proceeds upon this only principle that there was none which is so absurd that it has all along forced him upon the forementioned cowardly contradiction viz. That there was none but what was made by Christianity But suppose that the Christians exercised a Jurisdiction among themselves by vertue of the imperial Edicts to the Jews as he tells us what if they had never been authorised by any such Edicts would they have had no Authority to censure or Excommunicate scandalous Offenders Did St. Paul proceed against the incestuous Corinthian by the grant of Claudius to the Jews to govern themselves by their own Laws and Customs If he did not then he acted by vertue of some other Authority if he did then when any of the following Emperours reverst this Edict the Authority of St. Paul in this matter had ceased What then became of the Church when Nero presently after forbad the exercise of Christianity or any part of it in the Roman Empire was not then Excommunication in the Christian Church an unlawful thing No says our Author because this Decree was made against the Christian Church in particular and therefore did not deprive them of those priviledges that belonged to them in common with the Jews But however upon this principle it is manifest that it debarred them of this Power as peculiar to the Christian Church and then whatever Jurisdiction they exercised as Jews they had no right of exercising any Discipline in the name of the Lord Jesus as St. Paul commands the Corinthians And then all the Ecclesiastical Discipline that was executed in the times of their several Persecutions was open Rebellion against the State But beside what if he had been pleased to reverse all priviledges granted to the Jews then the power of Ecclesiastical Discipline must have ceased among Christians And lastly when he adds for his last reserve for keeping up a Discipline in the Church contrary to the commands of the civil Power the confederacy of the primitive Christians who obliged themselves by mutual compacts and covenants to submit to the Discipline of the Church he should have consider'd that all such confederations were upon his principles nothing less than conspiracies
an incomparable treasure of Ecclesiastical Antiquity And therefore omitting Daille's beloved Negative and internal Arguments which his Adversary has for ever routed with a prodigious force of reason and dexterity of learning I shall only give an account in short of the main rational point of the Controversie That is what antient Testimonies are to be alledged either for or against their Antiquity On the one side they are frequently owned and quoted by all the first general Councils and therefore must have been enacted in the Interval between the Apostles and the Council of Nice They are cited by many of the most ancient Fathers as Canons of the first and most early Antiquity And they are expresly referred to by the most famous Emperours in their Ecclesiastical Laws All which concurrent Testimony any moderate man would think sufficient to give Authority to any Writing and yet it is all over-ruled by a single Decree of Pope Gelasius supposed to be made Anno Domini 494. in which the Apostolical Canons are reckoned among the Apocryphal Books But first is it reasonable to set up the Opinion of one man against many that were more ancient and so much the more competent witnesses than himself Secondly it is uncertain whether any such Decree as is pretended were ever made by Gelasius in that we never hear any thing of it till at least three hundred years after his time Thirdly if there were any such Decree it is certain that this Passage concerning the Canons of the Apostles was foisted into it it not being found in any of the most ancient Copies and Hincmarus a Person of singular learning in his time that makes mention of this Decree of Gelasius as early as any Writer whatsoever expresly affirms that there was no mention of the Apostolical Canons in the whole Decree De his Apostolorum Canonibus penitus taâ—uit sed nec inter Apocrypha eos misit Where he expresly affirms that in the Decree these Canons were altogether omitted and ranged neither with the Orthodox nor with the Apocryphal Books This Testimony is given in with as peremptory terms as can be expressed and therefore Daillé for no other reason than to serve his cause quite inverts the Proposition and changes misit into omisit that is turns I into No. But men that can deal thus with their Authors need never trouble their heads with Testimonies of Antiquity for after this rate it is in their power to make any Author affirm or deny what they please But fourthly suppose Gelasius had made any such Decree how does that destroy the Antiquity of these Canons when he has condemned the Books of Tertullian Arnobius Lactantius and Eusebius for Apocryphal And yet Tertullian lived three hundred years before the Decree and therefore why may not the Apostolical Canons be allowed their reputed Antiquity too notwithstanding that Sentence which only relates to the Authority his Holiness is pleased to allow them in the Roman Church and not at all to their Antiquity unless perhaps he designed to declare that they were not framed by the Apostles themselves as he might fancy from their Title not knowing that whatever was of prime Antiquity in the Church was by the first Writers of it stiled Apostolical as being supposed to descend from the Tradition of the Apostles themselves Fifthly will Monsieur Daillè allow this Decree of Gelasius sufficient to give any Book the Apocryphal stamp If he will then he must reject many of the best Fathers and in their stead admit the Acts of St. Sylvester the Invention of the Cross and the invention of St. John Baptists head for whilst the History of Eusebius together with the other Fathers is rejected such Fables as these are warranted by that barbarous and Gothish Decree And that is enough though there were nothing else to destroy the Authority of this mans censure his meer want of Judgment Now comparing this one pretended Testimony of Gelasius under all the disadvantages that I have represented with the express counter-testimony of so many Councils Fathers and Emperours if any man be resolved notwithstanding all to stick to it I will say no more than this that his Cause is much more beholden to him than he to his Cause And now having given this account of these Apostolical men that conversed with the Apostles themselves or immediately succeeded them in the Government of the Church if we descend to their Successours from Age to Age we are there overwhelmed with the croud of Witnesses But because they have been so often alledged and urged by learned men I should have wholly waved their citation had not our Adversaries made use of several shifts and artifices to evade their Authority And therefore though I shall not trouble the Reader with their direct Testimonies yet to shew the vanity of all our Adversaries pretences I shall endeavour to vindicate the credit of the Ancients against all their Exceptions And here the first pretence is the ambiguity of their Testimony which is endeavoured to be made out by these three things First That personal succession might be without such superiority of order Secondly That the names of Bishop and Presbyters were common after the distinction between them was introduced Thirdly That the Church did not own Episcopacy as a divine Institution but Ecclesiastical and those who seem to speak most of it do mean no more First then a succession there might be as to a different Degree and not as to a different Order Before we distinguished between Order and Power now between Order and Degree and by and by between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction But these distinctions are only the triflings of the Schoolmen whose proper faculty it is to divide every thing till they have reduced it to nothing For what does the degree of a Church-Officer signifie but such an order in the Church and what order is there without a power of Office according to its degree and therefore it is plain prevaricating with the evidence of things to impose these little subtilties upon the sense of Antiquity they good men meant plainly and honestly and when they give us an account of Apostolical Successions they were not aware of these scholastick distinctions and intended nothing else than a succession in the government of their several Churches Thus when Irenaeus gives us a Catalogue of twelve Bishops of Rome Successours to the Apostles in that See what did he mean but the supreme Governours of that Church when that was the only signification of the word Bishop in his time He never dream'd of their being stript of the Apostolical power and so only succeeding them in an empty Title in the meer name or the metaphysical notion of Bishops and they were no more if they had no more power than the rest of the Clergy But secondly This new distinction spoils the former evasion viz. That the Apostles were superiour in order not in power over the LXX but now a
so expresly derived down by single Persons and when the truth of the Apostolical Doctrine is vouched by the certainty of this Succession it is a very cold answer to tell us that the Fathers talk only of a succession of Doctrines and not of Persons Fourthly This Personal Succession so much spoken of is sometimes attributed to Presbyters even after the distinction came in use between Bishops and them I pray by whom Why by Irenaeus But does Irenaeus when he speaks of the Bishops and Presbyters of his own time confound their names and offices or any other Author of the same Age Nay do they not carefully distinguish them from each other though when they speak of things as done in the Apostles times they may speak in the language of those times The names therefore of Bishop and Presbyter being not then distinguished it was but proper for them to express things as they were then expressed So that though Irenaeus never would stile a Bishop of his own time by the name of Presbyter but ever carefully distinguished the two Orders yet when he speaks of the Bishops of the first time it is neither wonder nor impropriety if he call them Presbyters for I will yield so far to our Adversaries that they were so called till the death of the Apostles and then succeeding into their Power it was but fit that they should be distinguished by some proper name from the inferiour Clergy And there lies the root of all our Adversaries pretences that they will have the Office of a Bishop to have been born at the same time with the distinction of the Name Which if we will not grant them as without a manifest affront to the Apostles we cannot their whole Cause sinks to nothing For that is the only proof alledged in behalf of the sententia Hieronymi that the Offices were not distinguisht before the names But of that in its due place already at present I challenge them to produce any one Author that treating of things after the separation of the words was made ever calls a Bishop a Presbyter or a Presbyter a Bishop And in that I am very much their friend for if they can it utterly overthrows their main Argument that Bishops and Presbyters were the same in the Apostles times from the promiscuous use of their names in that we find them promiscuously used after the distinction But that by the word Presbyteri Irenaeus does not mean a simple Presbyter is plain from the words themselves in which he prescribes against the novelties of the Hereticks by the undoubted antiquity of the Churches Tradition which he says was conveyed by the Apostles themselves to the Ancients who succeeded them in their Episcopacy so that by his Presbyteri he means as he explains himself such of the Ancients qui Episcopatus successionem habent ab Apostolis i. e. the Ancient Bishops This is all that I meet with material upon this Head for when they go about to prove by the Authority of Ignatius himself that Episcopacy is not a Divine but an Ecclesiastical Constitution they are to be given up for pleasant men that will attempt any Paradox in pursuit of the Cause And it exceeds even the rashness of Blondel himself who that as he speaks his St. Jerom might not stand alone like a Sparrow upon the house top has after his rate of inferring fetched in all the Fathers to bear him company except only Ignatius whom it seems he despaired of making ever to chirp pro sententiâ Hieronymi but now it seems at last that the holy Martyr himself might not be made the solitary Sparrow by being deserted by all the Fathers he is brought over to the Party but with such manifest force to himself as plainly shews him to be no Volunteer in the Cause Thus when he commends the Deacon Sotion for being subject to the Bishop ut gratiae Dei and to the Presbytery ut legi Jesu Christi By the Law of Jesus Christ we are taught to understand divine Institution but by the grace of God only humane Prudence though that too was directed to it by the special favour or Providence of God as the only means of preserving peace and unity in the Church Be it so the grace of God no doubt is as firm a ground of Divine Institution as the Law of Christ so that if Episcopacy was established by Gods special favour we are as well content with it as if it had come by the Grace of Christ. Neither does this Interpretation derogate any thing from the Episcopal Order but very much from our blessed Saviours Wisdom viz. that when he had established Presbyteries in his Church for the Government of it that establishment was found so ineffectual for its end that Almighty God was afterward constrained for preventing of Schisms and preserving of Unity in the Church in a special manner to inspire the Governours of it in after-ages to set up the Form of Episcopal Government And yet that was no less disparagement to himself than his Son for seeing what our Saviour did in the establishment of his Church he did by the Counsel of his Father if its Institution proved defective for its end it was an equal over-sight of both and the After-game of Episcopacy was only to supply a defect that they did not fore-see but were taught by Experience A very honourable representation this of the Wisdom of the Divine Providence However take it which way we will we cannot desire a plainer acknowledgment of Divine Institution for so it come from God it matters not which way he was pleased to convey it to us And now have we not reason to wonder when we see men attempt to bring this holy Martyr off with such slights so expresly against his own declared Opinion who every where grounds his Exhortation of Obedience to the Bishop upon the command of God and adds even in the words following the forecited passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet not to him but to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Christ who is the Bishop of us all and therefore for the honour of him that requires it it is our bounden duty to be obedient without hypocrisie What can be plainer than that the power of the Bishop stands wholly upon the command of God So again in the Epistle to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us take care not to oppose the Bishop as we would be obedient to God and if any man observe the silence of his Bishop let him reverence him so much the more For every one that the Master of the Family puts into the Stewardship we ought to receive him as the Master himself and therefore it is manifest that we ought to reverence the Bishop as we would our Lord. And therefore it is a great over-sight to affirm that there is not one Testimony in all Ignatius Epistles that proves the least semblance of an Institution of Christ for Episcopacy when