§ 21. Pag. 295. The Antient Emperors we are well assured tied up their Councils to very strict Rules They sent Commissioners to sit with the Bishops that so they might take care to keep them within Bounds and see that they acted according to the Rules they had prescribed to them P. 296. 'T is true the Clergy in those days did take the Liberty to Transact many things in their Convocations without any particular License from the King but that they did take upon them to do this is no proof that they had a Right to do it How this agrees with it self or with the design of proving the Rights of Kings from Matter of Fact and Usage I know not nor with what he asserts in Fact Chap. 2. § 23. p. 47 48. This is certain that as the calling of such Assemblies has always depended upon the Consent and Authority of the Prince so when they were Assembled the Subject of their Debates has been prescribed them by the same Power and they have deliberated on nothing but what they have been directed or allowed by the Prince to do Book Chap. 2. § 2. p. 10 11. It was a famous Saying of Constantine the First Christian Emperour to his Bishops That they indeed were Bishops in things within the Church but that he was appointed by God to be Bishop as to those without Remark This Saying is directly against that universal Right and Authority in Synods Ecclesiastical which the Dr. so frankly gives all Christian Princes if Constantine was a Bishop in things only without the Church Of Synods less than general Contents p. 10. He asserts all lesser Synods under the Roman Emperors to have been actually called by the Emperors Authority and so accordingly Book Chap. 2. § 6. p. 16. These also viz. lesser Synods were convened by them or were summoned by some Authovity that was derived from them p. 17. They suffered not any Assemblies of the Clergy to be made but by their leave and according to their direction So § 13. p. 29 and § 19. p. 41. But Chap. 2. § 2. p. 10. he cites Socrates Saying the greatest Synods have been Assembled by their Order and still continue to be Assembled by them Which plainly shews lesser Ones usually were not And § 26. p. 62. he reports that Iohn of Antioch Arriving at Ephesus after the Council there had condemend Nestorius formed another Synod there of about thirty Metropolitans that came thither with him and deposed Cyril President of the Imperial Council c. vide So § 36. p. 86. He mentions two Provincial Synods one at Rome under Celestine and another at Alexandria under Cyril condemning Nestorius before the Council of Ephesus yet neither of these were called by the Imperial Authority And ibid. p. 88. he relates another Synod at Rome held by Pope Leo rejecting the Acts of the second Ephesine Council under Dioscorus Called and Supported by the Emperor which Roman Synod therefore could not be Called nor Authorized by the Emperor Chap. 2. § 4. p. 14. It was necessary that in order to their meeting lawfully the express Command or Allowance of the Emperour should be had for their so doing § 19. p. 41 They cannot lawfully meet but as they are Commanded or Allowed of by them That they Princes and not the Clergy are Iudges when it is proper to Convene them But p. 43. he thus yields When ever the civik Magistrate shall so far abuse his Authority as to render it necessary for the Clergy by some extraordinary Methods to provide for the Churches Welfare that necessity will warrant that taking of themâ— And Ch. 5. § 4. p. 267 268. When the Exigences of the Church call for a Convocation then I do confess the Church has a Right to its sitting and if its Circumst ances be such as to require their frequent Sitting during those Circumstances it has a Right to their frequent Meeting and Sitting Vide. Remark But if the Church has no Right to Judge of the time proper for their sitting what benefit or use is there to be had of their Right or what extraordinary Methods of Session can they pretend to in provision for the Churches welfare especially if that be true which he says Ch. 2. § 14. p. 32. That the greatest Bishops of the Church in Constantius his days which he reckons absurdly among the best times § 15. p. 34. did think it unlawful to hold a Council against the Princes Will so that being forbidden by an Heretical Emperor and that against all Right and Justice on purpose that he might oppress them so to do they yet submitted to his Commands and chose rather to suffer by their Obedience I suppose rather not to suffer by Obedience than to Vsurp an Authority which they were sensible did not belong to them See p. 34. Remark Now if this had been spoken only of General Councils it had been agreeable to Church History and our 21 Article but the applying this against the Right of all Councils and Conventions whatsoever is what comports neither with truth nor with his other fore quoted Concessions Chap. 2. § 2. p. 19. When the Vandals had over-run the greatest part of Africa and by their Authority set up the Arrian Heresie in opposition to the Catholick Faith which beforce prevailed in those parts Hunericus their King at the desire of the Arrian Bishops summoned a general Convention of all the Catholick Bishops to meet at Carthage and accordingly upon his Summons they all came thither and refusing to renounce the terms of the Council of Nice they were deprived of their Bishopricks and sent into Banishment by him Remark It is a strange inadvertency to bring an Arian Instance for a proper Authority in matters of Christianity nay and against the Catholick Faith too against which no Princes have Authority to set up Heresie against the greater Authority of God yet that Arian Prince had as good Authority to depose the Faith as he had to Convene and Depose the Catholick Bishops that is none at all it being all a perfect unllity Bâ—â— every act of un controulable Tyranny passes with the Dr. under the reputation of Authority Chap. 2. § 15. p. 34. I believe it would be difficult in those best and most early times of the Church to find out any Instance wherein the Orthodox Bishops have ever departed from this Rule or which is much the same thing have ever been justified by the Church in those cases in which they have departed from it Remark This is in effect a Revocation of his former avowed Assertion that no lesser Synods were ever convened without the allowance of the Emperours For tho' he says it will be hard to find any contrary Instance yet having himself given four in John of Antioch Caelestine Cyril and Leo and there being infinitely more such to be produced out of the Histories of the Empire he was forced in Conscience hereof to say That they were never justified
for departing from this Rule and that is much the same thing with not having departed from it But not so good Sir for in a confessed Right there is no need of a Justification but it is sufficient in such and so very many Synods held without any reference to Emperours that there was no Rule or Law against them nor ever any Censure of Irregularity past upon them If the Prince was angry at it he might call another to review the matters but he never could condemn the Provincial Conventions merely for being made without his License Of the Total Authority This in all Acts Synodical he avowedly attributes to the Prince yet unhappily falls sometimes into contrary instances and concessions unawares as for example chap. 2. § 24. p. 55. He says That in the sixth Council of Toledo we find the very Constitutions themselves in some measure drawn by up the Order of Cinthilus their King and only Confirmed by the Synod Now where the Right of Confirmation was there was the chief Internal Synodical Authority Again ch 2. § 36. p. 87. He says of the first Council at Ephesus That they appointed the Emperors Order for suspending the Sentence of Celestine and Cyrils to Provincial Synods to be inserted into their Acts and thereby gave a kind of Conciliary Authority to it But if Councils in themselves have all their Authority Conciliary from the Prince how could that Council give any to his Order Or how was it pertinent to the Doctors Principle ch 2. § 25. p. 56. to alledge Receswinthus magno precatu deliberationis exhortantem exhorting the eighth Council of Toledo with great entreaty to consider the matters he laid before them Of the Princes Ability to Judge matters Theological ch 2. § 31. p. 71 72. The Arguments given for this are very languid and repugnant to common experience and may as well be applied to the Reputation of a Beggars Judgment in Matters Divine But yet it must be allowed that before a Prince gives the Definitions of a Synod a Legal Sanction or his own recommendatory Suffrage 't is fit he should understand them but the Spiritual Authority lies not in the Prince but in the Spiritual Truth in matter of Faith enforced by the Canonical Order of Ecclesiastick Ministries tho' the Doctor ascribes the Authority of imposing belief on the Subjects to the Confirmations of the Kings lb. p. 75. I hope saith he they will think it to be their Duty in order to his consirming their Decrees with a good Conscience to convince him of the Truth of them and not expect that he should not only believe himself but should oblige others to BELIEVE what neither he nor they see any reason to believe The Fathers that scouted the second Sirmian Creed that dated it self in the Presence of Constantius and under the Consulship of Flavius Ensebius and Hypatius in the tenth of the Calends of â—nne for ascribing so late a beginning in but the Presence of a Prince how would they have blessed themselves had they heard any man ascribe to Princes an Anthority of making Subjects believe or had they read any such paslage as this ch 2. § â—3 p. 79. It is I conceive allowed on all bends that their Definions are no further obligatory than as they are rulified and confirmed by the Civil Authority For tho' the Faith of Christ neither depends upon the Authority of Man nor is subject to the Power either of Synods or Princes as to what concerns the truth of it Yet what that Faith is which shall be allowed to be professed in every Community by the Laws of it and receive not only Protection but Encouragement from the Civil Power must be left to the Prince to determine So far 't is tolerable well And the Definitions of Synods in favour of it will signifie very little till what they have determined to be the Right Faith be also allowed by the Civil Magistrate to the publickly Professed and Taught and be received into his Favour and under his Patronage as such Sute the Doctor forgot the three first Centuries and all other times of Princely Persecutions under which the Synodical assertions of the Faith signisied more to the convincing Men to Faith Ten Thousand times than all the Encouragement of Christian Princes ever could did or will And therefore whatsoever liking any other Arch-Bishop might have had to this Doctrine of the Doctors I hope this is none for which the Doctor will challenge his present Graces approbation Of Ecclesiastical Censures These the Dr. makes all annihilable by the Will of Princes But how then shall what they bind on Earth be bound in Heaven and their sins be retained which they retain if they are Repealable by an Earthly Prince Has this Earthly Potentate a Commission to bind and loose remit and retain in Earth and Heaven too as the Church had and has still except he can take it away The Doctor should have considered here that Kings are only concerned in Church Censures as by the Laws they are to have a Civil effect not as to their Spiritual validity before God in Heaven Of the Right of Summons Ch. 3. § 5. p. 107. They have Right to nothing but a Summons and it were no great matter whether they had a Right to that or no. Ch. 3. § 25. p. 141. Yet I humbly conceive that so antient and settled a Custom ought to be held to What! tho' 't is no matter whether they had this Right or no Of the Bottom of the Regal Supremacy This he solemnly and universally places in the Sovereignty of all Christian Princes as such but ch 3. § 25. p. 144. he lodges it in the Trust reposed and granted by the People The Government has intrusted him our King with the Power of giving them leave to sit and act when he pleases and when he pleases he may deny them to do either This is indeed the Truth and only Truth in this matter 't is a concession and trust of the Estates to our Princes established by Common and Statute Law which whether God approves or no must be left to his Judgment at last when Men shall be called to account for what they have done herein or hereupon But in the mean time this Truth is a prejudice against that universal Right of all Christian Sovereigns herein by mere vertue of their Sovereignty Of the Parallel of Counsellor and Jury Chap. 5. § 15. p. 289. Will not their Resolutions be their own because the King declared to them the general Matter upon which they were to consult Is a Counsellor at Law of no Vse or has he no freedom of Opinion because his Client puts his Case to him Or does our Law unfitly call the answer of a Petit-Jury its Verdict because the Judge summed up the Evidence to them and directed them not only upon what points but from what proof they were to raise it What strange Notions must c. But what strange Notions must that Man have that thinks a Synod to have only a freedom of Opinion like a Counsellor without any Decisive Authority and yet compare that very freedom of Opinion to the Verdict of a Jury which is Authoritatively Decisive To compare the King to a Client and a Synod to his Counsellor and in the same breath to make the King a Judge and so of Counsel to the Jury Whatsoever esteem the rest of this Book may acquire among the learned of the Law I do not pretend to Divine but I believe this will raise no extraordinary Transports and so let it pass And now I have done with my Remarks upon the Doctors Incongruities which tho' necessary to shew the weakness of the Work that a false Reputation may not recommend the ill Principles I had never offered to publick notice had he not used his Generous Adversary not only with extreme Spight but undeserved Contempt insulting over him as a Man of no Honesly Logick Law or History c. I could have added a great many more such absurdities but the employ is uneasie and so I quit it and shall only wish that the Doctor may humble himself to God for the wrongs he has done to the Church and when he has done so he will quickly endeavour to make her Reparation FINIS
Heathen Princes and servile Conventions under Christian ones The Letter Distinguishing all Power into Spiritual and Temporal founds both of them in God which no Christian will deny of the Ecclesiastical Authority That this can be Rightly Exercised among Christians only not as enclosed within any Civil State or Community but as Members of a Spiritual Society of which Christ Jesus is the Head who has also given out Laws and appointed a standing Succession of Officers under himself for the Government of this Society which continued near 300 Years before any Civil Governours embraced Christianity So that the Spiritual Authority is not in its own Nature simply dependent on the Temporal That when supernatural means of Governing the Church were thought by its Founder to be no more necessary to its continuance it was left to the best ordinary means of Conduct and Preservation viz. assembling debating and by Majority of Voices deciding concerning the Rules and Principles of Government That the Law of this Society is made to their hands not to be altered added or diminished but the applying thereof to particular Cases explaining Doubts upon it deducing Consequences from it in things not explicitly determined already by that Law and enforcing Submission and Obedience to their Determinations are the proper Objects of their Power That this Society can better claim an inherent and unalterable Right to the exercise of this Power than any Sect among us it not being Lost by Magna Charta by its Giving the Church a Legal Freedom Thus the Letter p. 17 18 19 20. The Doctor The Case stated on each side Is by no means satisfied that the Church has any Command or Authority from God to assemble Synods he is not aware that either in the Old or New Testament there is so much as one single direction given for its so doing And excepting the singular Instance of Acts XV. he knows of no Example that can with any shew of Reason be offered of such a Meeting And whether that were such a Synod as of which the Question is may justly be doubted The Foundation of Synods in the Church in his Opinion is the same as that of Councils in the State The Necessities of the Churches when they began to be enlarged first brought in the One as those of the Commonwealth did the other And therefore when men are incorporated into Societies as well for the service of God Then it seems the Church is not sociated till incorporated with the civil State to spiritual as well as temporal Ends. and salvation of their souls as for their Civil Peace and Security these Assemblies are to be as much subjost to the Laws of the Society and to be regulated by them as any other Publick Assemblies are Nor has the Church any inherent Divine Right to set it at liberty from being concluded by such Rules as the Governing part of every Society shall prescribe to it as to this matter As for those Realms in which the Civil Power is of another Perswasion Natural Reason will prompt the Members of every Church to consult together the best they can how to manage the Affairs of it and to agree upon such Rules and Methods as shall seem most proper to preserve the Peace and Vnity of it and to give the least Offence that may be to the Government under which they live And what Rules are by the common consent of every such Church agreed to ought to be the Measure of assembling and acting of Synods in such a Countrey Thus the Doctor p. 365 366 c. § 2. The Doctor 's Tergiversation This is what the Doctor replies about the Affairs of Ecclesiastical Synods to the Letter Wherein any Man may plainly see that he shuffles and turns his Back in the vety Fundamental Article in Controversie not daring professedly to refute the Hypothesis of the Letter by any good Proof from Reason or Authority nor yet ingenuously confessing those well-laid Truths which he was not able to oppose but to steal away the Reader from observing this Impotency he is fobb'd off with a poor precarious and not so much as evasive a Scheme of Imaginations for which he can hardly find any Church-Advocate nor any Credentials from any Divine or valuable Humane Writings § 3. Terms explained But before we come to winnow these Elements of Independent or rather Erastian Divinity for there is a mixture of these Contraries in which Erastiaenism much preponderates it is necessary that we six the principal Terms of Matters Fundamental in his Enquiry Authority what And first for Authority in Matters of Government it is known to signifie either a just or rightful or at least lawful Power to rule the Subjects according to Equity and Laws of Justice or else an uncontroulable Freedom and Impunity only of acting which is the priviledge of all Supreme Governors as being above all Legal and Judicial Coercion with their Subjects Right Now all Acts of Authority in the former and proper Sense appear in themselves Good and Right and no Powers or Persons whatsoever can have any opposite Good and Lawful Authority But the mere Exercises of an uncontroulable Domination Uncontroulable Domination tho called by the specious name of Authority cannot vacate any Just and Valid Rights Liberties and Authorities of any Subject Persons or Societies For it must be noted that an Inherent Right and Valid Title cannot be legally extinguished by any External Violations of Breedom or Obstructions of its Fruition or Practice which tho not accountable for at any Domestick Tribunal shall yet fall under the Sentence and Condemnation of God the present Civil Impunity giving no Right to any injurious measures nor Exemption from that divine Bar. Secondly We are to define an Ecclesiastical Council or Synod Synod what wherein I will take the Doctors Definition namely 't is literally a Meeting of Ecclesiastical Persons I mean Ministers upon an Ecclesiastical Affair (a) p. 60. And it is either subordinate The sorts of Synods consisting of one or more Bishops and inferiour Ministers or Co-ordinate consisting only of one equal Order either of Bishops alone or Inferiour Ministers alone For in want of a Bishop * Cyp. Ep. 3 Ep. 18. the Inferiour Clergy are the Council for the vacant Church according to the limits and powers of their Order A Convention of Clergy †Cyp. 26 Sect. 4 Ep. 31. Sect. 5. under their proper Bishop for Ecclesiastical Consultations or Acts we now should call a Diocesan Synod A Convention of a College of Bishops for a Province we may call a Provincial Synod which generally ever was attended with the Service of Inferiour Orders Councils called General are of the fame Nature in themselves tho of a larger extent and not of a Canonical originally but of Imperial Collection Other extraordinary and unusual Conventions of Select Bishops and Ministers not delegated so much by the Church upon her regular Constitutions
as convened by the Will only of Princes may be called Synods tho of themselves they have no Canonicol Authority for their Acts which must either stand or fall by the consequent Reception or Refusal of the Church notwithstanding all the Ratifications that the Temporal Powers give them a mere Ecclesiastical Commission from a Prince Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Princes no Canonical Synod being not of the same sort of Efficacy and Authority as a free Convention of the Powers Ecclesiastical Tho therefore such Commissioners may Grammatically be called a Synod yet Canonically a Synod is a Convention of the State or Powers Ecclesiastical on their own Right and Authority whosoever calls them to the Exercise thereof Thirdly we are to consider the. Attribute of Christian as given either to Princes or private Persons Now * Euseb reekons two lay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly a Christian is a Person baptized into and continuing in the Christian Faith but loosely and improperly Hereticks claim and use the Character which also may improperly be given to such as profess a Belief thereof before ever they are admitted to any Ordinance or Station of the Church for so Constantine the Great Dem. ev l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 38. So Origen con Cels l. 3. Ambr. de Myster initiand c. 4. Aug. in Joh. c. 2.3 Tract 11. and Constantius c. have been reputed Christian Emperors tho not Baptized nor so much as admitted Catechumens or Competents till a little before their Death Which Preliminary Explications will be found of great Use in this present Controversie § 4. Being thus harnessed we will consider the strength of the Doctor 's Hyyothesis first before we come to justisie that of the Letter The Doctor 's Principle worse than the Independents First then he makes a Synod under Heathen Powers to be but an independent huddle of Christians in common contriving their Affairs by no Authority but that of Humane Prudence But then I shall say that if this be a Synod such a Concourse of mere Lay-Christians may be a Synod and determine the common Process of their Conduct For he places this Care simply in the Natural Reason of the Members of every Church not the Governors nor Powers therein constituted for he does not suppose it a regular Society till incorporated with the Civil State Nor will it help to say that he defines a Synod a Meeting of Ecclesiastical Persons upon an Ecclesiastical Affair for all Members of the Church may with Grammatical Propriety be called and accounted Eccle jastica◠Persons in distinction from Aliens or absolutely tho Custom has given this Title as a distinctive of the Clergy from the Laity So that tho I in assuming the Doctors Definition of a Synod do by Ecclesiastical Persons mean the Clergy yet 't is not certain that the Doctor intends so except only of Synods called by Christian Princes but rather these Members of the Church under Heathen Powers must be the Ecclesiastical Persons convened in Synod under them without any Distinction of Orders or Authorities among them And if we will but add one Pastor among them here we have the true form of an Independent Church or Congregation which is its own constant Synod at all Meetings only the Independent Principle claims a Divine Right and relies not alone upon mere humane Inauthoritative Prudence and so is nearer to Truth and Reason than the Doctor 's But if the Doctor 's Principles be true that such Synods are Conventions of Church-Members upon Prudence only without any inherent Right or Authority wherein they are to give the Insidel Powers the least Offence that may be I doubt that Prudence will oblige them not to convene at all For certainly we are not in Prudence to give Insidel Powers or any Persons whatsoever any needless Offence at all But certainly Subjects having no Authority to convene yet convening against the Laws of Civil Powers do incur their great Offence which natural Reason cannot prompt Men to For if Christians should be called by such Infidel Powers to account for such prohibited Conventions by what Authority they do such things if they should set forth a good Divine Authority this would be a good though not perhaps a successul Plea but if they should say we have no Authority for it but only natural Reason and Prudence how can that direct a Man to disobey Laws which destroy no Man's Authority or Right Nor can it be shifted here that they have Right but not Authority for tho even a mere Right to synodize is enough to the jus divinum asserted by the Letter yet a Right to synodize is a Right to a publick Conduct by Rules and Methods to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church and that is Authority tho never so democratical And if they have natural Reason for this Conduct that Nature that has given them just Reason has given them just Right to it for in such Matters Right and Reason is the same doing Men Right being properly called doing Men Reason If then they have natural Reason they have natural Right and if natural Right natural Authority to convene for their publick Conduct and that is a good Plea against the Laws of Infidel Powers But on the contrary if they have no Authority so to do they have no Right and if no Right no Reason and if no Reason how can this be done without Offence against the Civil Powers that forbid it and have just Right indeed to forbid all Assemblies which have no Authority Right or Reason But to conclude the Dr. has given these Synods a more fundamental Authority than he was aware of when he tells us that the necessities of the Church when it began to be enlarged Common-wealth did brought them into the Church as the necessities of the Councils of State Very well and a good Parallel but are not Councils of State endued with Authority founded on that popular Necessity The Doctor dares not say No to the State because the Leviathan is not safely to be angred but why then should not the Councils of the Church be authoritative for its Conduct and Preservation upon the same bottom of equal Necessity and that under the Heathen Powers For it appears that on this Necessity Synods were held in the Church in full Vigour and Spiritual Authority before there were any Christian States for heir Incorporation And therefore the necessity was the greater and by these the Doctor 's Rules the Authority should be so too tho yet he allows them no Authority because no Society till their Civil Incorporation which is tho the Doctor sees not the necessary Consequence to deny the Unity of the Catholic Church and its Constitution under Spiritual Governors of its own for the three first Centuries of Christianity § 5. But he further tells us Incorp that the Incorporation of the Church into the State being an Association for the saving of their Souls as well as Secularities subjects them
Princes of another Perswasion the Church has Right and Reason to hold Synods and Consults who must of Office appoint such Conventions in the Church Are they all Equals and so must run higly-pigly on Occasions as People do to quench an House on fire Or are there any Superiours or Hierarchical Rulers in it in whom the Conduct is chiefly lodged for all Ecclesiastical Concernments If this latter be the Constitution of a Church simply in it self then will I ask whether the Superiours are to Assemble themselves alone or others with them by virtue of their Superiority or are the Inferiours to give Rule to their Superiours I am not willing to believe that for the sake of a feeble Hypothesis the Dr. will overturn the Order of things especially in the Church that subsists as all other Bodies Politick do by Order but we 'll presume that the right of Convention is lodged in such a State in the Supream Order But then by that Authority whence they derived that Order have they Power to Convene Synods over that Church which by the Constitution of an Hierarchy becomes of it self a Divine and Sahred Society and is therefore called the Kingdom of God and needs no Incorporation with Civil States for the Service of God or Salvation of Souls And this I think will reduce the Dr. to a necessity of granting the Church to be a Divine Society under Orders who have a Divine Authority to hold Synods to the preservation thereof where the Prince is of another Perswasion CHAP. II. Of the Rights Liberties and Authorities of Several as well Secular as Sacred Societies under the Supremacy of Civil Powers § 1. HAving thus Discussed the Virtue of the Dr's own positive Sense of the Churches State and Powers we will in the next place proceed to examine what he has seemed willing to deny as to the Hypothesis of Divine Right asserted in the Letter And in order hereunto we will be at the pains to descend into the bottoms of Ecclesiastical and Civil Powers to try whether these were intended by their Providential Author entirely to swallow up the former as the Dr. teaches us in all particulars not excepted in God's word by a special reserve § 2. All Society then is either Subordinate between Superiours and Subjects Societies distinguished or Co-ordinate betwen Persons or Communities free and independent of each other And each of these is either Natural only from the meer obligations of Nature or Positive by voluntary Contract or Constitution Now of all these the first and most Fundamental Society is the Natural Society between God and Man Natural Society with God maintained by the Offices of Natural Religion on our part Tul. de leg l. 1. Positive Society with God and the Acts of God's Paternal Providence on his Next hereunto and immediately hereupon succeeded a positive and Faederal Society between them Apud Cyp. Ep. 30. Sect. 2. Qui a Deo cui sociari quaerit discrepat privilegium societatis amittat by the Law and Communications of the Divine Presence given in Paradise which Communications and Presence tho' the Law of Paradise determined by Man's ejection out of Paradise still continued and were designed for continuance to Posterities Ripening into an Ecclesiastical form admitting the Mystical Worship of Sacrifices as well as the Duties of Natural Piety to maintain this double Consociation And herein was laid the first foundation of Ecclesiastical Society and Communion with God which more formally ripened into publick and Canonical form In the days of Enosh when the Generations of Men increasing under this double Union in the days of Enosh Men began to call on the Name of the Lord Gen. 4.26 in publick Assemblies For then those whom under this preccedent course of Divine Communion God had Educated by his own immediate institution Vnder Prophetick Patriarchs he after constituted Prophets and Preachers of Righteousness to the Families so Ecclesiastically consociated under God and of these Ministers he founded an Order and Succession Of which Noah the Eighth from Enosh in which Noah was the Eighth from Enosh Gen. 5. 2 Pet. 2.5 Where these Families and Generations so consociated under God and the Sacred Authority and Conduct of these Prophetick Patriarchs were a formal Church or Ecclesiastical Society and were called under a Sacred Character Sons of God the Sons of God Gen 6 2. Now this Society Ecclesiastical founded not only in Nature Continuance of this state to the Flood but God's positive Constitution also contioned thro' all that vast tract of time between the Creation from its Originals and from the days of Euosh and the Flood as far as appears or is probable without the support of the Civil Sword or Magistracy according to the concurrent Traditions of the very Heathens herein that in the Golden Age Men lived uprightly of their own accord without need of Judges and without fear or apprehensions of Bonds and Punishment § 3. Matrimonial Society The second sort of subordinate Society is the Matrimonial Aug. in Gen. Quaest 143. Est enim ordo naturalis in hominibus ut serviant saeminae viris c filii parentibus quia est illic justicia est haec ut infirmior ratio serviat fortiori founded in the Structure of the Sexes and difference in the inward Vigours and Powers of the Soul and so constituted by a positive determination and Ordination of God first in the State of Paradise in a less and after the Fall into Sin in a greater degree of Subordination Gen. 2. Gen. 3. And herein God laid a Corporal Foundation and Original of all other Societies to come for all the Ends and Reasons of the Creation and Providence And hereupon as the Right of this Ordinance is Universal and Perpetual in God's intention and establishment so has it continued tho' not without abuses as the acknowledged Foundation and Rule of Lawful Succession thro' all Nations § 4. Oeconomical Society The Third Sort of Subordinate Societies succeeding the former is the Oeconomical and is either Natural between Parents and Children or positive as between Tutors and Pupils Masters and Servants § 5. Civil Society The last General Sort of Subordinate Societies fundamentally designed by God's Providence for the conservation of Mankind is the Civil entrusted with the Power of the Swórd in defence against all Violences and Oppressions Domestick or Foreign for the preservation of those Rights and Liberties which are necessary to the good order and well being of Mankind in all its forms of Society which God himself hath founded by Nature Constitution or Providence for a regular and undisturbed Lâ—se For thus St. Paul saith God's Ordinance for the good of Mankind tho' not always actually fulsilling Gods design they are God's Ordinance and as such his Ministers bearing the Sword for our good to the punishment of Evil Doers and to the praise of them that do well Rom. 13.1
but a valid and doubling Confirmation Cyp. Ep. 15. ad Cler. Rom. § 2. Presbyteris Diaconibus non defuit Sacerdotis vigor Ep. 37. ad Cler. § 1. officium meum vestra diligentia repraesentet or express ratification of that Antecedent Authority of the Clergy which the exorbitant took upon them for want of the Bishops Presence to despise there being the same reason tho' not the same degree of Want in the Absence as the Death of a Bishop and the proper vacancy of the See thereupon And therefore tho' in the denying Communion to Gaius Diddensis a Presbyter and his Deacon without his antecedent Sentence only on the Counsel of some of St. Cyprians fellow Bishops Cyp. Ep. 28. ad Cler. Integre cum disciplinâ fecislis quod consilio collegarum meorum qui praesentes erant Gaio Diddensi presbytero Diacono ejus censutstis non communicandum they acted on their own Authority yet are they commended by St. Cyprian as having acted with great Integrity and according to the Rules of Ecclesiastick Discipline It appears then that by a Primitive and Catholick Polity founded at least upon Divine Right if not Precept where-ever Episcopal Sees were fully sixed there was also a Council of Presbyters with Deacons and Officers under them for the Conduct of the Bishoprick and upon absence or Death of the Bishop for Synodical Communications with other Churches § 6. Which being pre-established it may not be amiss to consider some of those procedures in which the Primitive Bishops were wont to convene their Clergy in which I mean them alone in one Diocess without the aggregation of other Bishops for the Government of affairs And first if any Person under his Bishop promoted new or false Doctrines in Religion this became matter for the Care of the Bishop and the Counsel of his Clergy and many times the presence of the Laity infected or in danger of infection Dionys Alex. ap Euseh Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nepotis dicbum Elenchium Allegoristarum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and after a moderate discussion of the matter had by all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Thus in the Arsinoire Region under the Primacy of Alexandria one Coracion had disseminated the Doctrine of Nepos an Egyptian Bishop concerning a Carnal Millennium which had spread far and wide to the subversion of much people Whither therefore Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria coming called together the Village Presbyters and Teachers in the presence of all the Laity that had a mind to be there and to have a publick Discussion of that Doctrine of Nepos And after three days publick Canvas of Nepos his Book made with much moderation by all persons the affair ended successfully in the Conversion of Coracion the Ringleaders of the Millenaries If then Authority to Convert Men from Errors be Divine and Convocations of Clergy-Men by their Bishop be necessary or Expedient thereto as 't was in this case it follows that such Synods under a Bishop are of Divine Right and 't is as much the Bishops Divine Authority as Duty to convene them § 7. Cypr. ad Cler. Ep. 10. § 2. Nam cum in minoribus pece at is agant peccatores prenitentiam justo tempore secundum disciplinae or dinem ad exomolegesin veniant per imposstionem manus Episcopi Cleri jus communicationis accipiunt nunc crudo tempore Offertur nomen corum nondum pruitentiâ actâ nondum exâ—mologesi factâ nondum manu eis ab Episcopo Clero impositâ Euch iristia illis datur vid. Ep. 11. § 1. Ep. 12. § 1. Another Instance of Convening the Clergy by their Bishops in these Ages was for reconciling publick Penitents by Imposition of Hands of the Bishop and Clergy upon Consession first made publickly before in order to a recovery of the right of Communication Ecclesiastical and Eucharistical as also for the Censure of such as should presumptuously violate the Laws Order Union and Discipline of their Church and for Ordinations of the Clergy or less Orders All which are Acts Synodical Ibid. § 4. Acturi apud Nos the Bishop and Clergy apud confessores Causam suam c. Ep. 24. quos jam pridem communi consilio Clero proximos feceramus quando cum Presbyteris doclioribus lectores diligenter probaremus and grounded upon the Authority of the Bishop and the Reason of the Causes both which herein most certainly were as Divine as for such they were then received If a Man would be here accurate in traversing such intimations as may be picked up herein among the Antients one might swell this chapter to a greater largeness than is necessary but taking for granted that these are uncontestable and apposite evidence I leave these Presbyteries and their Divine Powers on their own Divine Foundations and proceed to the second sort of Episcopal or Provincial Synods CHAP. VII Of Episcopal and Provincial Synods in the three first Centuries and their Authority § 1. THAT there were Synodical Conventions and Provincial Councils of Bishops and such Presbyters under them as the Bishops brought with them or called to them in the First Centuries will not I suppose be denied by any owner of Episcopacy and the Volumes of the Antient Fathers So that our present enquiry is not into or concerning their actual being but their Frequency Right Authority and Uses for which they were wont so often so vigorously to assemble § 2. Tertull. De Jejun Aguntur praecepta per Graecias illus certis in locis Concilia ex universis Ecelesijs per quae altiora quaeque incommune tractantur ipsa repraesentatio totiùs nominis Christiani magnâ veneratione celebratur Et hoe quam dignum side auspicanti undique congregari ad Christum Conventus autem isti stat ionibus prius jejunationibus operati dolere cum dolentibus ita demum congaudere gaudentibus norunt vid. Alexand. Alexandrin Episc Epist ad Cath. Eccl. Epis ap Socr. Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 5. And first as to their general frequency Tertullian the most antient of all our Latin Authors tells us that thro' all the Greek Countries where Christianity had so universally spread it self Councils were by command or precept convened out of all Churches thro' or in which Councils all arduous matters were publickly treated of and in them the Reverence of the Christian Character solemnly celebrated it being the highest dignity thus every where to be convened unto Christ and that with severe Stations and Fastings for the sanctification of them Where we see he asserts the practice and devotion to be of the very highest and divinest Dignity imaginable and consequently of the like Authority equal to that Dignity in which 't is either fundamentally lodged or to which 't is inseparably concomitant Nor does the Dignity only but the necessities of affairs also recommend or enforce the exercise as well as Institution of
is none but on other Reasons exteriour either of State Peace or other insuperable dissiculties nor can such mistaken or enforced Protections give the Protector an Ecclesiastical Headship over all those Systems of different Religions to act them all as Dr. Wake allows them to Act the Church because there is no Right bottomed upon Error See Chap 1. Sect. 5. and because many times they are exempt from his Jurisdiction as in the Chappels of Embassadors and Foreign Factories whose Protection is not Founded upon a supposed possibility of Truth but upon the Reasons of Commerce and Negotiation § 8. Incorpon on dissers from Protection But if the Dr. shall here make Protection only to consist in an Incorporation of the Church into the State and her Canons into the Laws as this is quire another thing from bare Protection and thought to be of a more transcendent Elevation so it will then appear that none of the Christion Roman Emperors did so instate the Church which consequesitly must then be out of Protection and so free from their Supremacy the Exercise whereof therefore must have been an Usurpation and a Nullity § 9. But we shall by and by discern a little better the Form and Nature of a Protection of the Church For if the Catholick Church had a Divine Right in the Liberties and Authorities Synodical continued universally inviolate and unquestioned for 300 Years downward from the Apostles how can this Body be protected by any Magistrate or Powers that shall claim off in point of Title and take it away thereupon in point of Fact any or all of these Divine Priviledges Protection inconsistent with violation of Right given by God and granted to her Priests for her Conduct and Conservation and this under a pretence of Protection while the Churches Constitution is apparently ruined and her Synods heretofore free declared now for Criminal if not held in Villenage This is so contrary to the very Dictates of Nature in the Reason and Form of Protection that all Systems and Factions of Religion disclaim such Bondage and challenge a liberty as presubstrate and praevious to Protection which is otherwise inconceivable and the pretence thereof a meer sham upon humane Understanding The Iews therefore as busie as they are to be enfranchised in their several Dispersions yet would never endure the Civil Powers thereupon so to prescribe all the Politie of the Synagogue and to Null Cancel Ratify or Alter their Methods and an attempt of this Nature upon them would appear as dreadful a persecution as Caius his erecting his Image in their Synagogues Jews Papists Sectaries all for Ecclesiastical Liberty Not only the Romish Church but all other Sectaries and the Scotch Kirk illustriously scorns to admit any servitude notwithstanding not only the National Protection but Promotion being all sensible that a Liberty of Religious Government and Church Discipline is more valuable than all worldly Wealth or Interests and without which they cannot apprehend any Protection to Religion or the Societies that profess it And to close up all since in all Ecclesiastical History those Synods have been most injurious or injuriously dealt with that were least free and their Authority thereby vacated with all Churches for ever I wonder what reputation the Dr. will secure to a Provincial or National Synod with Neighbour Churches Liberty necessary to validity and reputation whether Popish or Reformed or with future Generations should it be in Fact so managed by a Prince as the Dr. avers it may rightly be in all its Motions and Issues Or how can we blame the Popes Management of the Council of Trent and such others if we will justify ten tiems a greater Bondage in the Councils called by Princes What security is there for Uniformity in Doctrine Regularity of Discipline and Authority with the Christian Church if all be to be done only ad nutum P pis The Dr. tells us of Bp. p. 115. King Charles the first and A. B. Land Lands Concurrence with K. Charles the First his Writ for and License to the Convocation Very well and that King and that Prelate too might do so in observing the Forms which could not be altered without Act or Rupture of Parliament but does it follow that they were either of them of the Drs. Enslaving Principles under Sovereignty in General When that Great Primate declares against Fisher a free General Council to be the supremest Judicatory in the Catholick Church and would he not then think the same of a Provincial Council for a Provincial Church tho' both convened and permitted to sit by the Will and Order of Princes Men may Act under the Forms of those Laws when not actually Executed to our injury which they do not simply approve of in themselves and against such a Prosecution of which Laws they would openly and avowedly Complain as did the Council at Ariminum c. And I take it that it must pass for an eternal Rule Truth and Piety free Principles that as Truth and Piety are free-born Principles so are the Depositaries or Trustees of them also to be free in the Culture and Propagation of them And they that withdraw the Necessary freedom of these Trustees withdraw their Protection from the Principles themselves Not to be committed to Slaves they being too noble and glorious to be committed to the Care and Conduct of Slaves or Vassals § 10. Having thus enquired into the first reason for this Alienation of Synodical Powers from the Mitre to the Crown The forms of alienation improper let us in the next place examine the Form of it hereupon which must consist in a Devolution Occupation or Contract with the Spiritual Powers If by Devolution this must be founded either in the Original Ordinance and Constitution of God or from the Natural Right of Sovereigns over all Persons of the same Religion The first ground hereof I want and can I doubt be no where found and we shall have occasion hereafter to make Experiment whether it can or no. And as to the second I shall readily yield it if it can be made our that in all Religion Natural and Revealed the Prince that is of it shall have the entire Conduct of it For then indeed it must rest in the Hierarchy only till they get a King of their Faith to whom then they must turn over all their Powers But why should this Divine Charter Devolve over to Princes any more than that of a little Borough This of the Borough was granted by Kings Be it so tho' 't is not necessarily so for that popular States may so six themselves and after admit a King to protect them but without any Devolution But be it so Can then our King be denied a Devolution of a Charter in a Town which he Protects because a former King founded it tho' in a mere Secular Interest and Government and must a Charter founded by the King of Kings Devolve to a Temporal
of Imposture in Religions inlaid with the Power of the Sword the Merchandize the Hypocrites would make of it Athan. ad Orthodox Tom. 1. P. 944. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set up Bishops by Kingly force 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before its Divine Credit could be throughly established in the Hearts of Mankind and the Reproaches consequent against it there upon did not think sit to call many Mighty or many Noble Wise or great at first to the Profession of Christianity nor permit any Princes by his Providence to exercise any formal Authority in the least over the Church for 300 years tho' Abgarus Mamaea and Philip Gordius are said to have been Christian that the propagation of the Christian Church and Faith might not be attributed nor attributable to the Power of Man but of God only Else it had been as easie and as miraculous for our Lord to have made Princes his first Converts and Apostles and founded this Supremacy in them and their Successors beyond all Question for ever But that it might never in time to come fall under the reproachful Imputation and Character of a State Engine he lodged the Spiritual Powers elsewhere for three Centuries entirely that hereupon the Church might be emboldened as upon sure grounds to assert her proper Powers unalienated and pure against all Atheistical Calumnies whatsoever thro' all Ages that so tho' they were to be subject to Civil Powers to the enforcement of their Duties and for repression of Enormities yet not to the Omission of their Duties and Cares to which God hath called them which is the general Rule and Standard of Subjection in all Countries Ages and Nations Universally and forever § 11. The Christian Character of the first Princes in the Prescription But there is one thing more to be considered in the two first Emperors instanced by the Doctor for this universal Domination of Princes over Synods and that is their Christian Character to qualifie them for this Omnipotency For tho' the Doctor in his few interspersed Reasons for it gives no distinctive grounds for an higher and interiour Supremacy in Christian than in Heathen Princes yet for a good Grace Praef. p. 5. he tells us That whatever Privileges do belong herein to the Christian Magistrate p. 94 96. they belong to him as such which must I suppose be the Rule of Interpreting other Places where he more loosly omits the Christian Qualification But here I would fain know what 't is shall denominate a Prince Christian and that in order to this Authority Internal Authority in Societies grounded upon an Internal Right of Communion For all Internal Authority in all Powers presupposes a right to Communion more or less as the ground of Authority in all Societies whatsoever And therefore the Authorities asserted by the Doctor to all Christian Princes must suppose a right to Communion in all the matters subject to that Internal Authority For he that has no right to receive Sacraments has no Internal Right of Authority to make Laws about them he who is not within the Communion has no Right to pass Sentence for the Ejection or the Restitution of others He may presume to do it upon an uncontroulable Force and Tyranny and the reasons pretended for it may be in themselves good and necessary and so be admitted and observed by the Church at the Command of an Usurping Power not in Conscience of his just Authority but for the reason of the thing and for the avoiding unnecessary Persecution But a Right Internal there is none to them that are without Now tho' Constantine and Constantius so much concerned themselves about Church Synods yet were they not yet Baptised into the plenary Communion of Saints in the Christian Church nor so much as made Competents or Catechumens by Imposition of Hands and consequently what they did about Ecclesiasticals was not of an Office or Nature Internal to Ecclesiastical Polity or Communion but common only to the Prerogative of Princes in General or if it was of Internal importance 't was Usurpation and a Nullity in it self Had they been Catechumens or Competents a pretence might have thereupon been formed that they alone might make Ordinances for those preliminary Statious but not surely for Baptism Consirmation Lords Supper Holy Orders Anathemas Absolutions c. Had they been Baptized and so qualified for Confirmation and the Eucharist it might not have looked so odd in them to have set Rules for such Sacraments and the common Laity in their Celebration but for Ordinations and Hierarchical Powers of the Spirit over the Souls of the Laity and Clergy how incongtuous must it have been in any Emperour to assume the whole Legislature and Ordinance In these therefore the Laws of Princes may well follow Ecclesiastical Constitutions by the Sanction of Secular Penalties but the Constitutions of Sacred Canons ought not to be taken sway from the Hierarchy and lodged only in a Lay-hand that holds a long Sword and for no other Reason but this that the Sword is in it least they that use it Sacrilegiously perish by it Eternally Constantius his want of Right over Synods For as to Constantius whom most accuse to be aresolute Heretick and they that speak most sostly of him represent him as Patron of Heresie through simple Ignorance he thereby became not a Guardian of the Church or the publick Peace thereupon hereby to sound his Right of Supremacy but a very great Persecutor and Embroiler of the Catholick Church even by managing Synods which no doubt in an Unbaptized state of Heresie he had no true Right nor proper Authority to do for whatsoever Right a mere Alien Prince may have while he professes no Enmity no doubt a Professed Enemy has no Lawful Authority to manage that Divine Society and its Principles which he designeth to destroy by that very management And so I resolve that Constantius having declared himself against the Homoonsion had no Authority to call or manage any Synod at all and that no Obedience or Conformity to his Calls were due in Conscience to his Power tho' it might be in Duty â—to God and Care for his Soul as well as the Souls in general of the whole Church the whole Authority of meeting being in the Catholick Bishops but none at all in him or his Arians I might here add that the Fathers might Convene upon his Call for fear of Persecution not in Conscience of Duty to it but I think this did not so far enslave them as to obey but the hopes they had of doing him and the whole Church the useful Services of true Faith and Piety And hence it was that when upon their Petition he would not in answer concede their Dissolution at Ariminuns Right of Dissolution they dissolved themselves not thinking themselves guilty of any sin of Disobedience for who could imagine so of the Conscience of 400 Catholick Bishops suffering for the Faith under Constantius his Tyranny