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
no more whereas the witty and learned Cardinal Perron run upon the same mistake and it is a mistake that they all wilfully run upon King James in his Reply le ts him know that though Christian Kings and Emperours never arrogated to themselves a power of being Sovereign Judges in matters and controversies of Faith yet for moderation of Synods for determinations and orders establisht in Councils and for discipline of the Church they have made a good and full use of their Imperial Authority And that for this very good reason that very much concerns all Princes that they might see and judg whether any thing were done to the prejudice of their Power or the disturbance of the Commonwealth And much more to the same purpose And therefore for further satisfaction I shall refer the Reader to the excellent Discourse it self It is enough that I have given a plain and easie account of the distinct powers of Church and State and shewn that whoever denies the distinction disowns Christianity that our Saviour has vested his Church with a Power peculiar to it self that the Church has in all Ages exercised it that the Christian Emperours never denied it and lastly that the Church of England and the Reformed Princes thereof have remarkably own'd it But Thirdly Constantine and his Successors took upon them the Title of Pontifex Maximus to which according to the Constitution of the Roman Empire appertain'd the supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdâ—ction By virtue of which Authority they granted to the Church among other Priviledges this power of Excommunication in the same manner as Claudius and other Heathen Emperours gave leave both to Jews and Christians to govern themselves by their own Laws and Customs And though the Emperour Gratian refused to wear the Pontifical Habit as a piece of Pagan Superstition yet it no where appears that he refused the Dignity it self And this Discourse our Author prosecutes with much Zeal and Learning But what do these men make of the Christian Church or rather of Christ himself that he should make no other provision for its Government than to leave it wholly to the superintendency of Heathen Priests This is such a wild conceit in it self that I must confess I could never have imagin'd any learned man could ever have made use of it against the Constitution of the Christian Church And yet this learned Gentleman is not only serious but vehement and confident in it he urges it over and over and though he repeats every thing that he says so that indeed one half of his Discourse is nothing but a Repetition of the other yet here he doubles his Repetitions and every where lays this Principle as the foundation of the practice of all After times But can any man believe that Constantine the Great took upon him the power of Government in the Christian Church if he really believed in Christ himself by virtue of a Power derived from the Usurpation of Julius Caesar Or that he could imagine that the Heathenish Priestly Power belong'd to him after his owning Christianity when by that the whole frame of the old Roman Religion was declared to be Idolatrous so that the Roman High Priest was nothing better than the supreme Head of Idolatry An Honour certainly which no Christian Emperour would be very fond of astuming to himself Julian indeed challenged both the Title and the Dignity as the greatest Ornament of his Imperial Crown but the Reason was because he was so vainly fond of the Pagan Religon But how any man of common sense that had renounced Paganism should yet own himself High Priest by virtue of that Religion that he had renounced seems too great a Contradiction for any man of common sense to believe But what if they accepted of the Title as our Author very well knows they did of Divinity it self or rather what if it were customarily given to them by others For I met with no other Monuments of it but some old Complemental Inscriptions so that it being a customary Title of Honour it might easily for a time pass in the crowd of the other Imperial Titles For it seems it continued not long being rejected by Gratian who lived about fifty Years after the Conversion of Constantine And though our learned Author affirms that the pious Emperour only refused the Vestment but not the Dignity it is very obvious to any man of much less understanding than himself that the Emperour could have no reason to refuse one but for the sake of the other for the Case is plain that there was no superstition in the Vestment but only upon the account of the Office and for that reason there was little if any use of the Title afterwards But lastly the Power of Judicature was first granted to the Bishops by the favour of the Christian Emperours and especially by an Edict of Constantine the Great whereby he grants the Bishops a full Power of hearing and determining all causes Civil as well as Ecclesiastical and withal declares their Decrees to be more firm and binding than the sentence of any other Judicature and from this great indulgence of the Emperour it is not to be doubted but that among other forensique penalties they made use of Excommunication Of the inference I shall give an account by and by but as for the Edict it self if it could do any service to our Authors design it at last proves supposititious as is fully proved by Gothofred in his excellent Edition of the Theodosian Code his reasons are too many to be here recited I will give but one for all viz. That this Law is contrary to all the Laws of the Roman Empire for though several Emperours do in their several Novels give the Bishops Power to decide causes by way of Arbitration or the consent of both parties which Power they enlarged or contracted as they pleased and to this all the other precedents produced by our Author relate yet that one party should have liberty of appeal from the civil Court at any time before judgment given without the consent of his Adversary is such a wild and extravagant priviledg as is inconsistent with all the rules of the Imperial Law And yet that is the only design of that Edict Quicunque itaque litem habens sive possessor sive petitor erit inter initia litis vel decursis temporum curriculis sive cum negotium peroratur sive cum jam coeperit promi sententia judicium eligit sacro-sanctae legis Antistitis ilico sine aliqua dubitatione etiamsi alia pars refragatur ad Episcopum cum sermone litigantium dirigatur Which I say is such an absurd liberty as would utterly destroy all the Power of the civil Magistrate if the humour or perversness of any man could so easily baulk their sentence But beside the absurdity of the Law it self there is no such Edict extant in the Justinian Code nor any mention of it in any ancient Writers of Ecclesiastical History For as for
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
against the Government For if the Church have no right of exercising any Discipline within it self but by the grant of the Empire then the grant of the Empire being reversed it has none at all And thus has he fairly brought this confederate Discipline of the primitive Church which he has contrived purely to avoid any Government founded upon Divine Right into down-right Rebellion And no wonder when all Confederacies against the Commands of the Sovereign Power can be no better unless when warranted by Divine Authority And now it is no wonder if after these Premises our Author begins his next Chapter with a Confession that it does not appear when the present form of Excommunication began in the Christian Church Quandonam primo discrepantia ejusmodi inter Christianae Judaicae seu vetustioris Excommunicationis effectus inciperet non quidem satis liquet Sed ante Origenis ac Tertulliani etiam Irenaei tempora juxta jam dicta effectum quoad Sacrorum communicatinis negationem inolevisse non dubitandum Though I should have thought it a sufficient proof that it descended from the Apostles when we find it in the Church immediately after them and find no beginning of its Institution especially when it could have no other because the Apostles challenging no Civil Authority they could have no other power but a cutting off from the Spiritual Priviledges of the Christian Church And here I cannot but remark it as the peculiar disingenuity of all the Adversaries both of the Government and Governours of the Church i. e. Excommunication and Episcopacy that they will allow their usage in all Ages of the Church but only that of the Apostles and because they imagine that in their time there are no demonstrative evidences of their Practice for that reason destroy their Reverence and neglect their Authority whereas had these men the common modesty of Mankind they would revere them for their so ancient and Catholick Practice and when with all their search they cannot discover any later beginning of them they would conclude it at least a very fair probability that they descended from Apostolical Prescription And in our present case one would wonder that when our Author has traced this usage both in the Eastern and Western Churches into the Age immediately after the Apostles without being able to discover any other time of its first Institution how any man should doubt of its Apostolical Antiquity What Records can be more evident than the Canons of the Apostles the Writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian that lived in the first Century after them and St. Cyprian in the second who do not only mention this Power of the Church as a thing then in common use but speak of it as an ancient Right derived from their Ancestors I shall give one Instance for all because our Author has the boldness to quote it and yet to overlook the Consequence and that is out of Irenaeus who expostulating with Victor Bishop of Rome about his rash Excommunication of the Asiatick Churches thus bespeaks him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never were any men Excommunicated after this rate Upon which our learned Author observes Excommunicationis usus qualiscunque ut ab anterioribus seculis illuc propagatus utrinque pariter tunc admittitur from hence it appears that on all sides the use of Excommunication was admitted as descending from the foregoing Ages after this could any man think it possible that when he had allowed this Testimony of Irenaeus who by his own computation flourished about Seventy years after St. John that he should ever doubt of its being an Apostolical practice Or could any man desire to reduce his Adversary to a greater absurdity than is here so frankly own'd that Irenaeus who lived in the age immediately after the Apostles should speak of this thing as the custom of former ages and yet that there should be no such custom in the Apostolical age And of the same nature is his discourse of the time when this power was first appropriated to the Christian Bishops which he confesses to be altogether unknown though he finds it in common use in the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian and that is time enough to give it right to Apostolick prescription especially when he does not so much as pretend to any Record that the Keys were ever in the Peoples hands Neither has he any ground for this Imagination but only his old conceit that among the Jews every man had this power and therefore among the Christians Whereas there is not the least ground of surmise that there was any such custom among the ancient Jews but that it was a meer off-spring of the Talmudical folly Or if there were yet it was too foolish to be admitted into the serious discipline of the Christian Church for of what use could it be when any man might Excommunicate whom he pleased and when he might be absolved from the heaviest sentence of the Court by any three persons that he could pack together such ridiculous trifling is at first view too absurd to be entertain'd in the Christian Church And as it does not appear that the People ever exercised this power de facto so neither does it that they could ever chalenge it de jure in that we do not find that our Saviour ever vested the Body of Believers in any Power of governing his Church but on the contrary that when ever he gives out his Commissions he ever addresses himself to particular Persons And thus are we faln upon the main Controversie where we ought to have begun and where we might have ended but he that pursues an Adversary must follow his motion otherwise certainly the matter of right ought to have been determin'd before the matter of Fact and therefore the first question ought not to have been whether the primitive Christians exercised any such Jurisdiction but whether they received any Commission from our Saviour for their Authority which if either proved or disproved would prevent the following dispute concerning the practice of the Church but seeing our Author is pleased to take this method we shall tread in his steps and thus he brings it in that when the Bishops had unwarrantably assumed this Power to themselves they justified their usurpation by pretended Patents made to themselves in several Texts of Scripture as the Power of the Keys and of binding and loosing and if any man hear not the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican And now to elude the true meaning of these and the like passages what infinite pains has been taken by our Author and other learned men I need not represent but whatever shifts men may invent their true meaning discovers and clears it self by this one plain and obvious consideration viz. That our Saviour had already set up his Kingdom or Society of his Church upon which supposition all these grants can signifie nothing less than a donation of Power Thus when he chooses Officers
the Prerogatives of Princes unless they misuse it and if they do as they go beyond their Commission so they deserve their punishment in this lâ—fe among the worst of Rebels and Traytors and are sure to have it in the next For as their Power is not only purely spiritual void of all temporal force and coercion so are they in the first place and above all things forbidden to use any violence or raise any disturbance against Government So that if any Prince think good to oppose them in the Execution of their Office and to punish them for so doing they are not to oppose him but only to sacrifice their lives in justification of their cause and submission to his will and for so doing they shall have their Reward But if they shall make use of any other Weapons whatsoever beside Prayers and Tears and Sufferings they then suffer deservedly as disturbers of the publick Peace And so much the more in that they have been so expresly forewarned by our Saviour that whosoever shall draw the Sword in his cause shall be sure to perish by it And as upon this principle he founded his Church so upon it his Apostles built it when in pure obedience to his command they preached the Gospel all the World over And if any Prince were pleased to countermand them they did not plead any exemption from the Government much less did they Libel it but only represented the Innocence and Justice of their Cause and if he were not satisfied declared their readiness to submit to his pleasure and the penalty of the Law And in this they enjoyed no other exemption from the Prerogative of Princes than what is or ought to be chalenged by every private Christian who is indispensably bound to make profession of his Christian Faith and if the Laws of his Country so require to seal it with his Blood This was the constitution of the Church and the practice of it in its first profession and is the constitution of the Church of England in its Reformation For whereas a foreign Italian Bishop had for a long time usurped wel-nigh all both secular and spiritual Power into his own hands and by an exorbitant abuse of it had enslaved the Prince and empoverished the people only to enrich himself and his own Courtiers they that were concern'd after long patience and much provocation at last resolved upon what motives concerns not us to resume their Rights The King that Power which was exercised by the Kings of Judah of old and by Christian Kings and Emperours in the primitive Church And the Bishops that Power wherewith they were as immediately entrusted by virtue of our Saviours general commission to the Apostolical Order as any other foreign Bishop or Bishops within their respective Diocesses whatsoever And to prevent all jealousie in the Prince lest they should play him the same game that his Holiness had done who in ordinc ad spiritualia had finely stript him of almost all his Temporal Jurisdiction by excepting all Ecclesiastical both Persons and Causes from his cognizance They therefore freelv declare him Supreme Governour first Over all Persons so that no Ecclesiastical Subject might as formerly appeal from his Tribunal And in all Causes so that every Subject whatsoever was bound to submit to his Decrees and Determinations so far forth as either to obey his Laws as long as he own'd and protected true Christianity as the Christian Bishops of old did to the Christian Emperours Or if he opposed it chearfully and peaceably to submit to their Penalties as they did to the Roman Persecutors And whereas from the Precedent of the Apostles in the first Council at Jerusalem the Governours of the Church in all Ages enjoyed a power of making Canons and Constitutions for Discipline and good Order yet by the example of the Primitive Church they submitted the exercise thereof to his sovereign Authority protesting in verbo sacerdotis as it is stated in that famous Act called The Submission of the Clergy That they will never from henceforth presume to attempt alledg claim or put in ure enact promulge or execute any new Canons Constitutions Ordinances provincial or other or by whatsoever other name they shall be call'd in the Convocation unless the King 's most royal Assent and License may to them be had to make promulge and execute the same and that his Majesty do give his Royal Assent and Authority in that behalf Whereby they do not pass away their power of making Ecclesiastical Canons but only give security to the Government that under that pretence they would not attempt any thing tending to the disturbance of the Kingdom or injurious to the Prerogative of the Crown Which in truth is such a submission as all the Clergy in the World ought in duty to make to their Sovereign at least in gratitude for his Protection and that without any abatement or diminution of their own Authority viz. The standing Laws of Christianity being secured to submit all other Matters to his sovereign Will and Pleasure Whereby as they would bring no damage to the Church in that this power is exercised meerly in matters of Order and Discipline if the Prince did not approve of their Constitutions it would be no difficult thing to provide for Decency some other way so they would bring great security to the State when the Prince was assured that under that pretence they would not as the Roman Clergy had done distuâ—b or undermine his Authority And as they parted not with their Spiritual Legiâ—lative Power so not with any other Power proper to their Function as the Power of preaching the Christian Religion administring the holy Sacraments and conferring holy Orders Neither did any Prince in the least ever claim or exercise any of them And because the Romanists in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth made a mighty noise with this Objection as if by virtue of her Supremacy her Majesty had challenged a Spiritual or Ministerial Power in the Church the Queen has with great indignation disown'd any such Power and defied the Calumny And yet when she had made her disclaimour of any Spiritual Power in the Church she parted not with her Royal Supremacy over those that had it as we are particularly instructed by our Church in her 37th Article Where we attribute to the Queens Majesty the chief Government by which Title we understand the minds of some dangerous Folks to be offended we give not our Princes the ministring either of God's Word or the Sacraments the which things the Injunctions lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their Charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers And lastly to mention
to provoke them And with this honest resolution I now proceed to vindicate one of the most evident but most injured Truths in the World And in it I shall be much briefer than at first I intended for when we have lopt off all that is not directly pertinent to the Enquiry as we shall reduce the Debate to a narrow compass so may we easily bring it to a speedy issue And therefore I shall purposely pass over all those things that relate only to the occasional exercise and outward administration of Church-Authority And particularly that wide argument of Dispute whether the distribution of Provinces and Diocesses were through the Roman Empire framed by the division of the Civil Government For whether it were or were not that concerns not the question of the Institution of a Ruling Clergy but only the manner or fashion of administring their Power when reduced to Practice For the extent of their Jurisdiction is is but accidental to the supremacy of their Power and whether the Circuit of a Monarchs Government be little or great it is all one as to the nature of Monarchy So that it is not at all material how the bounds of Diocesses came to be assign'd how Churches extended themselves from great Cities into the adjacent Territories till they sometimes swell'd into Provinces and how Bishops came to be subject to Metropolitans and Metropolitans to Patriarchs all which and divers other particulars though they are very copiously insisted upon by Learned men in the present Question are yet altogether useless as to its Determination because they only concern the outward and accidental Exercise and have no reference to the essential Form of Church-Government So that the only thing concern'd in our present enquiry is as Mr. Selden has rightly stated it Utrùm ex ipsâ purâ putâ Origine seu primâ ac merâ nascentis Ecclesiae Christianae Disciplinâ Episcopalis seu Ordo sive Dignitas sive Gradus Presbyterali seu Sacerdotali superior vel alius aut ei neutiquam dispar seu idem fuerit habendus That is in short whether the Church were at first founded in a superiority and subordination of Ecclesiastical Officers to each other or a parity and equality of all among themselves so that if we can prove the preeminence and superiority of one Order above all others in the Government of the Church from the beginning of it we shall thereby make good all that is essential to that Power and Authority that we challenge as proper only to the Episcopal Order and Office And this we doubt not but to perform with clear and demonstrative evidence from these three Topicks I. Of our Saviour's own express Institution II. The practice of the Apostles in Conformity to it III. The practice of the Primitive Church in the Ages next and immediatly after the Apostles And First As to our Saviour's Institution it is manifest That he founded his Church in an imparity of Ecclesiastical Officers in that he did by his own immediate Appointment authorize and set apart two distinct Orders of men for Ecclesiastical Ministries the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy Disciples whose Office if it were the same to what purpose were they distinguish'd And why when a place was vacant in the Apostolate must one be substituted by Divine Designation to complete the Number Why should not one of the Seventy without any further Election have served the turn seeing he was qualified with an Identity of Office and Order Nay to what purpose should they be reckoned apart under different Names and in different Ranks if there were no difference intended in their employments and commissions And why were they not all comprehended in one number and ranged in one Catalogue If the Twelve were nothing more than the Seventy and the Seventy nothing less than the Twelve to what purpose do we hear so oft of the Twelve and the Seventy or of the Seventy two for of that the learned dispute and not rather of the Eighty two or Eighty four For do we think that our Saviour would distinguish the Officers of his Kingdom by meer Words and empty Titles And yet the Apostleship could be nothing more if it carried in it no superiority of Office above the Seventy Some inequality we must discover and that intended too by our blessed Saviour himself else shall we never be able to give our selves any imaginable Account of their Institution And now what clearer evidence can any man demand for a Divine Right of Superiority and Subordination of Church Officers than our Saviour's own express and particular Institution Yes say they but the Inequality between the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy Disciples consisted in a superiority of Order and Office not of Power and Jurisdiction Very good This grants all that we can desire or demand to prove the Supreme Authority of the Supreme Order because every Superiour Ecclesiastical Order as such is Authoritative and therefore an eminency of Order must not only infer but include a superiority of Power seeing the Order it self as such if it be any thing is the proper and immediate seat of Authority and all the Jurisdiction of the Bishop whatsoever it is is claim'd and exercised by vertue of his Order So that if the Apostles were the highest Order of Ecclesiasticks they were for that Reason alone though there were no other the highest Judicature And in the same degrees of proportion that they were advanced above others in dignity of Title they were so in supremacy of Power because their Dignity as such is nothing elie but so much Power in the Church of God devest them of that and they immediately return to the condition of Ordinary and Unconsecrated men And the Apostles themselves were no more than all other common Believers but by vertue of their Commission to rule and govern the Church reverse that and they are degraded from their Order as well as stript of their Jurisdiction So lamentably do these learned men entangle themselves by distinguishing so vainly in this case between a superiority of Order and Power when the one is not only the very Ground and Foundation but to speak in the language of the Schoolmen from whom these Metaphysical nothings are taken the very Formality of the other and the Apostolical Power is Formally and as such the very same with the Apostolical Office So little real difference is there in this distinction that it is not possible to frame one in Notion and Conception but whoever pretends to conceive one must of necessity conceive both or conceive nothing And therefore I would very fain know wherein consists this superiority of Order and Dignity without any superiority of Power For what do men mean by Power but a right to Govern and what by Order but a superiority of some as Rulers and a subordination of others as Ruled What then is the difference between an inequality of Order and Power when they both equally signifie Superiority and Subjection
to the Reader to judge whether he could desire or contrive more evidence for the authority of any Book than is produced for the Epistles of Ignatius St. Polycarp then who was his particular Friend and Fellow-pupil under St. John and St. Irenaeus who was Disciple to Polycarp give in full and clear testimony to the Martyrs Epistles Polycarp sent a Copy of them to the Church of Philippi as appears both by his own Epistle still extant and by Eusebius his Quotation out of it and that at a time when it was vulgarly known and commonly read in the Churches of Asia Polycarp's Epistle was never call'd in question by any good Author was immediately attested by Irenaeus read with Veneration in the Churches of Asia even to the very time of Eusebius and St. Hierom. So that I know not what more undoubted or publick Testimony Monsieur Daillé could demand for his satisfaction and indeed it is hard to conceive what more effectual evidence could have been provided to secure their Authority For when St. Polycarp's Epistle was so universally known it was impossible to corrupt it And yet in this wild Supposition is Monsieur Daillé forced at last to shelter himself he allows his Epistle it self to be of undoubted Credit and the greatest part of it to have been written by Polycarp but that a certain Impostor a little before the time of Eusebius had foisted in that Paragraph in which this passage concerning Ignatius his Epistles is found which Eusebius meeting with he took it to be of the same credit with the rest of the Epistle Which is all so very ungrounded and precarious that with the same liberty he might deny or destroy the validity of any ancient Record whatsoever but beside this the Epistle was so publick so exposed to the view of all men so known to the Learned and Unlearned that it were as easie to poison the Sea as for a private man to corrupt it Or if he would attempt to do it how was it possible for Eusebius and all the World beside to be deluded by so bold an Imposture Does not Eusebius himself inform us that it was read in the Churches of Asia at the time of his writing Did he not then know what was read there and therefore if this passage were not read could he be so stupid as to be imposed upon by one single private man against the authority of all the publick Books or if he were could all the Fathers whom Daillé will have to have followed his Dance be so prodigiously blind and careless as in a thing so known and common to be deceived by him and that no man if we may believe him should discover the mistake till Nicephorus who lived five hundred Years after him But granting the Testimony to be true he denies it to be effectual because Polycarp only says that Ignatius wrote Epistles but no where affirms that those we have are the true ones So that it seems unless St. Polycarp had written particularly against Mounsier Dailâ—é himself and declared that those very Epistles that he opposes with so much zeal were written by his Friend the Martyr it was not possible for him to give sufficient testimony to their truth And yet that could not have been a more ample proof than this amounts to For he declares not only that Ignatius wrote certain Epistles but that himself made a Collection of them and this Collection was seen by Eusebius and others of the Ancients Now when we consider the Reputation of the Martyr both for his acquaintance with the Apostles his eminent dignity in the Church the gallantry of his Martyrdom when we consider the time and occasion of his writing which was at the approach of his Death and as it were his dying Exhortation to the Churches when we consider how they were recommended by Polycarp whose Epistle was publickly read in their Assemblies is it any way credible that these true Epistles should all perish before the time of Eusebius and other counterfeit ones rise up in their room and among all those learned men that then were very inquisitive after Ancient and Apostolical Tradition none should ever discern or discover it Nay that Eusebius a man so throughly versed in all Ecclesiastical Antiquities so conversant with the choicest Libraries should be so grosly and so easily cheated by a double Imposture contrived in his own time as to take the new invented Epistles of Ignatius for the old authentick Writings of that holy Martyr and then to vouch it by a forg'd Passage foisted into Polycarp against the authority of all the vulgar Books So many hard Suppositions one would think were enough to shame any modest man out of his Opinion The second Witness to these Epistles is St. Irenaeus whose testimony is no more to be doubted of than the former being extant both in Eusebius and those pieces of Irenaeus that are preserved down to our times though most of his works are perish'd But to this Monsieur Daillé answers that Irenaeus cautiously expresses his Quotation of the holy Martyr by Dixit and not Scripsit and thence conjectures that he quotes it only as a Saying or Apothegm and not as a Citation out of his Writings But 1. There is no Record of any such Saying as this neither in that particular Quotation that is preserved could we know whom Irenaeus means did we not find the same sentence in Ignatius his Epistle to the Romans so that it is a vain and a frivolous thing to forsake that and to fetch the business from unknown and unheard of Reports And. 2. This is the very form of all Irenaeus his Quotations who never uses the word Scripsit but always Dixit But then why does he not cite some Testimony against the Hereticks out of Ignatius in whom there were so many apposite to his purpose I answer for the same reason that he does not cite other as pertinent Authors as Ignatius For out of all the Ecclesiastical Writers that lived before him he has in his surviving Works but four Quotations of which that out of Ignatius is one Neither would this way of disputing have been at all pertinent in the days of Irenaeus when the Hereticks against whom he wrote allowed no Authority to the ancient Doctors of the Church but always recurred to certain wild Apocryphal Books of their own and therefore it had been but a vain thing for Irenaeus to have prest them with this Topick The next Witness is Origen who quotes him by name but against this Testimony we have these two Exceptions First That it is at too great a distance from the time of Ignatius Secondly That those Writings in which he is quoted are none of Origens First As to the first we would grant the force of the Objection if this had been the first Testimony in the cause but following Polycarp and Irenaeus it proves the constant opinion of Learned men before Eusebius and his Impostor Secondly It overthrows Daillé's
great conceit that these Epistles appeared not till two hundred Years after Ignatius whereas by his own confession Origen writ within one hundred and forty Years Thirdly It cuts off the great pretence that Eusebius was the Founder of this mistake whereas it hereby appears that if it were one he only followed his Predecessors in it But the main of the Controversie here is the second thing Whether those Books ascribed to Origen in which Ignatius is quoted are really his or not Daillé says No but his learned Adversary has with no less than evidence of Demonstration proved they were though if he had not done it St. Jerom has done it long since who plainly tells us that himself translated them out of Origen's Greek into Latine And now after these I need add nothing of the Testimony of Eusebius and those that follow him for if he be mistaken their Authority is of no use if he be not it is of little necessity but that he is not is demonstrated from these more ancient Testimonies Though if any man desire more Witnesses I shall refer him to my learned Author who has summon'd them out of every Age from that in which the Epistles themselves were writen down to that next our own But to all the Testimonies of the Ancients what do our Adversaries oppose irst Salmasius opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople by which says he the Authentick and spurious Books of the Church were distinguish'd and among many others the Epistles of Ignatius are censured for Apocryphal Books But to this it is replied by the Pious the Reverend and the Learned Dr. Hammond that the opinion of one Author especially of later date for Nicephorus lived not before the ninth Century was not of weight and authority enough to oppose to the consent of so many ancient Writers Secondly That the word Apocryphal which is used by Nicephorus does not always signifie Spurious but it is very often used by Ecclesiastical Writers as opposed to Canonical and so is given to Books whose Authors were never question'd only to seclude them from the Canon of the Scripture To the first it is replied by Daillé and that I must say with impertinency enough that the authority of Nicephorus is at least equal to Dr. Hammonds as if the Dispute were between them two whereas the Dispute was between Walo and the Doctor who when he had produced the Testimonies of the Fathers of all former Ages could not but think it very hard that the opinion of one late Writer should be opposed to all their Authority To the second he replies That it is true that the word Apocryphal is oftentimes opposed to Canonical yet it is very frequently too used by Ecclesiastical Writers as equivalent to Spurious and Counterfeit and that therefore the Doctor in vain takes refuge in the Ambiguity of the word But certainly it is the manifest design of these men to tire out their Adversaries with verbose Trifles For who could have expected this Answer that when Walo had argued from the word Apocryphal as if it only signified Spurious and that when to the Argument the Doctor had answer'd that it no ways follows because it as often signified not Canonical who I say after this would have expected that his Adversary should upbraid him with taking Refuge in the ambiguity of the word when the Ambiguity of the word alone was not only a full answer to but a clear confutation of the Argument But he replies secondly That some of the Books joyn'd with it are confessed by all to be Supposititious and therefore as they were censur'd for that reason so must the Ignatian Epistles But this is manifestly false and though if it were true it follows like all the rest For the Censure has no regard to their Author but whether Spurious or Genuine to their Authority and only designs to shut them out from creeping in among the Canonical Scriptures For that was the only danger it aim'd to prevent least the Books that either were or pretended to be of Apostolical Antiquity should creep into the Canon And it is plain from the Decree it self that Nicephorus intended nothing else than to determine the Canonical Books of Scripture and prevent all others that came nearest to them in Age from obtaining sacred Authority But says Daillé Pope Gelasius when he defines what Books are Apocryphal he does not confine it meerly to the Canonical Scriptures but to all other Ecclesiastical Writers not allowed of and therefore this must be the meaning of Nicephorus That is to say that because Gelasius in his Decree determines what Ecclesiastical Books of what kind soever are to be reputed Orthodox what Heterodox that therefore Nicephorus when he distinguishes the Canonical Books of the New Testament from the Apocryphal does not mean as himself declares but must be understood in the sense of Gelasius And yet when all is done there is no such Testimony but the whole Story is a meer Dream of their own who catch at any shadow that may seem to serve their turn For sirst it is certain That Nicephorus was not the Author of the Stichometria Secondly That the Author of it whoever he was did not pass this censure upon Ignatius his Epistles For we find in it only the name of Ignatius without any mention of his Epistles Which indeed cannot in Daillé's sense be call'd Apocryphal because they were never esteem'd Canonical For that is the true Original of the distinction that whereas there were some Books written by the Followers of the Apostles as Clemens Barnabas and Hermas left these by reason of their nearness to the Canonical Books should in process of time be reckoned with them the Church was careful to range them in a Classis by themselves And whereas there were many other Books that pretended to be dictated by the Apostles and written by their Disciples lest they should gain the Authority they pretended to it concern'd the Church to give them the Apocryphal Mark. Seeing therefore Ignatius Epistles were never upon either of these accounts in any probability of being accounted Canonical it would have been a needless Caution to refer them to the Apocryphal Catalogue And though to Ignatii Daillé after his usual way of making bold with his Quotations adds Omnia It is probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be added as it is in another Index of Apocryphal Books in the Oxford Library It being the custom of some idle men of those times to make Institutions of Divinity and then fasten them upon Apostles and Apostolical men out of which as our learned Author with great probability conjectures was afterward made that Collection which goes under the name of Apostolical Constitutions Now these spurious pieces pretending to Canonical Authority it was very requisite to prevent and discover the Imposture But whatever probability may be in this Conjecture of which we stand in no need I am
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
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
confined my self to the discourses of men of sense and learning i. e. no Smectymnuans and have distinctly considered and I hope confuted all their material pretences against the Episcopal superiority in the Premises But as for Grammatical Criticisms and Historical Digressions they concern not us because they concern not our Enquiry And if learned men would but come up roundly and keep ingenuously to the main point of the Controversie they must rub their foreheads pretty hard to out-face the evidence of our cause But alas the custom of them all is to range up and down through the whole field or rather wood of Antiquity and pursue every thing little or great that starts within their view And they seem to make choice of this Subject rather from it to take occasion of shewing the variety of their Reading than with any design to make good the undertaking of their Title Page And it is very observable that among the many thousand Pages that have been of late years wasted in the Anti-episcopal cause it will be very hard to find half an hundred directly to the purpose And that of it self is Argument enough that they have but very little to say against it And what that is I have in the Premises fully represented for I protest that as I will answer it to Almighty God I know no other pretences that are at all pertinent or material besides those that I have considered But in the last place beside the direct and positive Argument that I have thus far pusued from ourSaviours own express Institution the undoubted practice of the Apostles and the most unquestionable Records of the Primitive Church I come to the last Topick propounded those enormous inconveniences that unavoidably result from the contrary Opinion I shall represent only two The first is this that if the Form of Government in the Christian Church be not setled by the Founder of it that then we are at a loss to know by whom it may or ought to be determined For the Society of the Church being founded upon an immediate Divine Right no Person can justly challenge any Authority in it as such unless by vertue of some Grant or Commission from the divine Founder of it If therefore those Commissions that were granted by our Saviour to his Apostles do not descend to some certain Order of men as their Successours in that Authority wherewith they were invested who shall challenge the exercise of it after their decease To this we never received any certain Answer but are only told in the general That the particular Form of Government in the Church is left wholly to the prudence of those in whose power and trust it is to see that the peace of the Church be secured on lasting foundations But then I would fain know who those are that are intrusted with this Power It would have been very well worth their pains to have determined the particular Persons expresly appointed by God to this Office Especially when it is laid down as a fundamental Principle that all things necessary to the Churches peace must be clearly revealed in the Word of God and if so then no one particular Form may be established in it by any Authority whatsoever because no one particular Form as is all along pleaded is prescribed by the Word of God and yet it is plainly necessary to the Churches peace if Government be so that it be governed by some one particular Form But yet however when we come to enquire after these Trustees to whose power it is left to see the peace of the Church secured on lasting foundations the answer is ever ambiguous and unconstant Sometimes it is the Civil Magistrate and sometimes the People But this very uncertainty where this Power is lodged is both in it self and according to the fundamental Notion of the Hypothesis that we oppose a manifest confutation of the whole design For if our Saviour have not determined to whom it appertains that is evidence enough that he never intended by this way to provide for the peace and settlement of his Church For if he had appointed such Feoffees in Trust as is imagined he would at least have left it certain who they were that he intended which not having done that is demonstration enough that it was never his intention to set any such pretended Guardians over his Church But be it where it will it is very strange that these Learned men should be so intent upon the fineness of their Model as never to consider the wild consequences of either way when reduced to practice For be it in the Civil Magistrate they would first have done very well according to their own Rule ro have searched for some Commission in the Word of God whereby our Saviour entrusted this power with him We find indeed Prophesies and Predictions that Princes should become Patrons and Protectors of his Church but that they should be vested with a Power of instituting and abolishing Church Orders and Offices at pleasure is such a wild conceit as will not find any the least countenance from the Word of God Secondly By what Authority was the Church governed from our Saviour to the Reign of Constantine when if he had appointed the Civil Magistrate Overseer of his Infant Church there was then none that cared to execute his Office Beside thirdly If Church-Officers derive their Authority in the Church from the meer appointment of the Civil Magistrate they are then only of Humane Institution and derive not their Power from any appointment of our Saviour and so are only Ministers of State and not of the Gospel But to put it into the power of any mortal man to alter the whole frame of Government in the Church as he pleases is the most improper way in the world to provide for its peace and settlement For by this means it will be ever in the power of any Common-wealth lawfully to overturn all manner of Ecclesiastical Order at pleasure If to day perhaps the Bishops either by chance or by vertue of some Grant from the Civil Government enjoy the Supreme Power in the Church it may with good Authority to morrow depose them and translate their Power to the Presbyters from the Presbyters to the Deacons from the Deacons to the People and from the People to the Pope and it would be very consistent no doubt with the wisdom of Christ in founding his Church and providing for the peace and settlement of it to leave its whole frame of Government thus at the Mercy of any mans Power or Will We have one example of this project put in practice upon Record in the Long Parliaments Midsummer-Model of Reformation when they vote June 12. 1641. that all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction should be put into the hands of such Commissioners as their Worships should think fit In pursuance of which they vote June 21. that six of the Clergy and six of the Laity should be appointed in every County for the