Defense of Brief Inquiry into the Nature of Schism, Part 1 · Chapter 3

Defense of Brief Inquiry into the Nature of Schism · Part 1 · Chapter 3

p. 39CHAP. III.

An inference concerning Ordination, The Point of Succeſſion more largely debated; Our Engliſh Biſhops have no Juriſdiction, nor their Canons any power, but what is derived from the Civil Magiſtrates; who has now left us to our Liberty in the caſe of Conformity, reflections upon Mr. Norris his charge of Schiſme continued.

I Will now venture to leave this point as ſufficiently proved, that Biſhops have no Power or Juriſdiction given them by the Law of God, but what Presbyters have as well as they, I have been the larger upon it, becauſe it goes a great way in deciding the whole controverſie, and would ſave me all farther Labour, about the caſes of Ordination and Succeſſion.

As to Ordination, if Presbyters be the ſame with Scripture Biſhops, the Orders conferred by them muſt needs be valid, for as Monſieur Claude ſays, 'tis a right that cannot be taken away from them by Humane Rules; it is true indeed there may be ſuch a prudent Order agreed upon, for the due management of this work, as may make it irregular to ordain without a Preſident, but ſuch agreements cannot make the action null; for my part I never knew any Ordination amongſt Diffenters, but there was a Moderator choſen, who was chiefly concerned in the conduct of it, and ſuch a Moderator wants nothing of the Primitive Biſhop: And if there be ſome Antient Canons, that ſay the Presbyters ſhall not ordain without the Biſhop, Concil Carth. 3, 4. C. 22.ſo there are others that ſay the Biſhop ſhall not ordain without the Presbyters, and by requiring Presbyters to join in this office, it is certain they have the power, otherwiſe their laying on of hands would be a meer nullity. The truth is, neither a ſingle Biſhop, nor a ſingle Presbyter can regularly Ordain, it ought to be done by a Claſſis, and in that caſe there muſt be ſome Preſident to avoid confuſion, and that is the general practice amongſt us, and therefore our Ordinations are not only valid, but regular too.

Biſhop Carleton in his Treatiſe of Juriſdiction, ſaith, P. 7.The Power of Order by all Writers that ever I could ſee, even of the Church of Rome, is underſtood to be immediately from Chriſt, given to all Biſhops and Prieſts alike by their Conſecration; And it is very conſiderable, what Dr. Bernard mentions, concerning Arch-biſhop Uſher's Opinion in this caſe, The Judgment of the late A. B. of Armagh, p. 134, 135.wherein we have this Hiſtorical paſſage, That in 1609, when the Scotch Biſhops were to be conſecrated by the Biſhops of London, Ely, and Bath, a queſtion was moved by Dr. Andrews Biſhop of Ely, whether they muſt not firſt be ordained Presbyters, as having received no ordination from a p. 48Biſhop, the Arch-biſhop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft, who was preſent, maintained, That there was no neceſſity for it, ſeeing where Biſhops could not be had, Ordination by Presbyters muſt be eſteemed lawful, otherwiſe it might be doubted whether there were any lawful vocation in moſt of the Reformed Churches: this was applauded by the other Biſhops, and Ely acquieſced in it, &c.

It was too great a hardſhip therefore that our Biſhops put upon the poor baniſhed Miniſters of the French Churches, in requiring them to be re-ordained, which in the ſence of the impoſers, was a renouncing the validity of their former Ordination, and it is very remarkable that ſome of thoſe that were moſt zealous in that ſevere uſage of thoſe poor Refugees, and would admit none to be Miniſters that did not ſubmit to them in it, are ſince diveſted of their Epiſcopal power themſelves, and have now time to conſider, whether to allow the Ordinations of the Roman Churches, and reject thoſe of the Reformed, was not (to uſe Monſieur Claudes words) a piece of Phariſaiſme all over, that ſtrains at a Gnat and ſwallows a Camel.

And for the pretended Succeſſion, if our Presbyters which have Miniſterial Ordination (and I know no other) be really Biſhops by the Laws and Language of Scripture, We are in the Line ſtill (as the Vindicator ſpeaks) if ſuch a Line there be: though we look upon it as a moſt wretched piece of confidence and madneſs, to make the Eſſence of the Miniſtry and Church depend upon a thing ſo lubricous and uncertain.

But that we may if it be poſſible lead this Man out of his fooliſh conceit, about the neceſſity of an un-interrupted Line of Succeſſion from the Apoſtles, let us but ſtate the caſe according to his own aſſertions, and perhaps when it is rightly put it will not require much arguing; His opinion in this matter, take in theſe three points.

1. Arch-Rebel, p. 2, 3.He affirms that the Biſhops receive their Spiritual Juriſdiction from the Apoſtles, by the Line of Succeſſion, this Succeſſion he makes the foundation of their Title and Power.

2. From hence he infers, that he is no true Biſhop, who is not ordained by another Biſhop, and ſo upwards in a continued line of Epiſcopal Ordination to the Apoſtles themſelves; Arch-Rebel, p. 3.ſo that if a Man could ſhew a Spiritual Pedigree in a Line of Epiſcopacy for a thouſand years, yet if ſo long ago there was failure, he is but a Lay Impoſtor. And

3. That thoſe Churches (or what you'll pleaſe to call them) that are not under the Government of ſuch Biſhops, Reply, p. 18.as are poſſeſs't of their Authority, by ſuch a Line, are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church, have no Miniſtry, no Sacraments, no Salvation.

The firſt of theſe, that Biſhops have their power from the Apoſtles as being their Succeſſors, P. 20.will certainly infer, that they could never be poſſeſſed of it till the Apoſtles were dead, unleſs we can ſuppoſe that they were degraded, or voluntarily reſigned; this the Vindicator has deſervedly expoſed, To be the Apoſtles Succeſſors in Apoſtolical power, the Apoſtles ſtill living p. 41and in Plenitude of Power, is a very great Myſtery, and ſomething like the honeſt Vicar of N's Prayer for King Charles the II. that he might outlive all his Succeſſors; What has the Gentleman to reply to this? He puts on a marvellous grave aſpect, and charges the Vindicator with Scoffing at Timothy and Titus; but this is a poor ſhift of his own, when he has rendred himſelf ridiculous, to turn it off to Timothy and Titus, I do not believe there is any ſuch Affinity or Line of Succeſſion betwixt thoſe bleſſed Evangeliſts and this Gentleman, but a man may venture to expoſe the folly of the latter, and ſtill preſerve a due Veneration for the former.

He confeſſes it was a piece of Ignorance to pray that the King might outlive all his Succeſſors, and why then is not he as ignorant in ſaying that Timothy, and Titus, and Linus, were made the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles in their Apoſtolical Power, whilſt the Apoſtles were ſtill living, for in this caſe, the Apoſtles might have outlived their Succeſſors, and if we believe ſome Hiſtorians they did ſo; and if this be ignorance in the Vicar, it can be no extraordinary piece of Wiſdom and Illumination in the Citizen; he confeſſes this is a myſtery, and ſo he ſays is all the Goſpel, but he muſt not take upon him to obtrude ſuch ſtuff of his own upon the World, becauſe the Goſpel is a myſtery, thanks be to God, a man may eaſily diſcern, betwixt the myſteries of the Goſpel, and thoſe of T. W's making.

But if this Notion won't paſs under the pretence of Myſtery, he will invent a reaſon for it, which we have in theſe Words, They could not have been ſaid to be Succeſſors of Apoſtolical Power, if the Apoſtles whilſt living had not conferr'd it upon them, could the Apoſtles have ordained then after they were dead? No truly, no more than give Scripture Rules after they were dead; but were all that the Apoſtles ordained their Succeſſors in Apoſtolical Power, then the Presbyters which they ordained muſt be ſo too; He ſays, The Apoſtle by ordaining them in his Life-time, ſecured the Succeſſion to them, and the Government too in the Apoſtles abſence: But I wiſh he had told us how they could ſecure the Succeſſion to them, unleſs they could have ſecured them from dying before them; and for ſecuring the Government to them in the Apoſtles abſence, that was no more than what they did for the Presbyters, but if they were inveſted in Apoſtolical Power, they had enjoyed the Government as much in the Apoſtles Preſence, as in their Abſence, for the Apoſtles had all the ſame Power, and had it alike whether together or aſunder; In ſhort, if it be really true, that the Biſhops muſt either be the Apoſtles Succeſſors in Apoſtolical Power, whilſt the Apoſtles lived, or they could never be ſo, we muſt conclude, they could never be ſo, for whilſt the Apoſtles lived, they could not have Succeſſors in their Office, eſpecially ſuch as claimed their Power by ſuch Succeſſion.

The ſecond Point is equally cenſurable, viz. That he is no true Biſhop, that was not ordained by another Biſhop, and ſo upwards to the Apoſtles; This the Vindicator told him was altogether unproved, and that the Papiſts, whoſe Intereſt it is to make men believe ſo, confeſs there are inſuperable p. 42difficulties about the Succeſſion of Popes in the Roman See: The Gentleman replies, I never diſcourſed with any of that Church, who did not zealouſly affirm the Succeſſion, that all eſtabliſhed Catholick Churches do aſſert it, and that in every Dioceſs, it is as ſacredly recorded, as the Succeſſion of Kings and Emperors to their Thrones, and challenges his Adverſary to prove the contrary. Well I'll be ſo civil to him as to tell him, that, which it ſeems he knew not before, touching the uncertainty of this Line of Succeſſion.

Euſebius himſelf, notwithſtanding the Conjectures that he makes concerning the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, Eccleſ. Hiſt. lib. 3. cap. 4.after all ingenuouſly confeſſes, foreign, &c. But how many or who were the true Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, and thought ſufficient to govern the Churches founded by them, is hard to ſay, excepting thoſe which perhaps ſome one may gather, out of the writings of St. Paul upon which a Learned Prelate ſays, What becomes then of our unqueſtionable Line of Succeſſion of the Biſhops of ſeveral Churches, and the large Diagramms made of the Apoſtolical Churches, with every ones Name ſet down in his Order, as if the Writer had been Clarencieux to the Apoſtles themſelves? Is it come to this at laſt, that we have nothing certain but what we have in the Scriptures? Are all the outcries of Apoſtolical Tradition, of Perſonal Succeſſion, of Unqueſtionable Records, reſolved at laſt into Scripture it ſelf, by him, from whom all theſe Pedigrees are fetched? Then let Succeſſion know its place, and vail Bonnet to the Scriptures, and withal let men take heed of over-reaching themſelves when they would bring down ſo large a Catalogue of ſingle Biſhops from the firſt and pureſt times of the Church, for it will be hard for others to believe them, when Euſebius profeſſeth it is ſo hard to find them.

There are two things to be done, before a man can prove this uninterrupted Line; firſt, He muſt have a true Catalogue of the Names of all ſuch Biſhops as have filled the See, and then he muſt be able to demonſtrate that none of them, came in after a Surreptitious manner without Epiſcopal Ordination; the former is difficult, but the latter much harder, and yet without it, the former will amount to no more than a Wild-gooſe row of hard Words and Names.

1. It is extreamly Difficult to get a ſatisfactory Catalogue, even in that See whoſe Biſhops have made the greateſt noiſe and figure in the World, and if this Gentleman has any Friend that will conſult Baronius for him, I ſuppoſe he will forbear making challenges for the future.

Licet pleri que ſive vitio Scriptoris acciderit ſive alia ex cauſa, &c. the learned Annaliſt ſhews, Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. Num. 41.that Optatus Milevitanus rehearſing the Catalogue of Roman Biſhops down to his own times, begins thus. In the principal Chair ſate, firſt Peter, then Linus ſucceeded, to him Clemens, to him Anacletus, (paſſing by Cletus as thinking him the ſame with Anacletus) but on the other hand Epiphanius, omitting Anacletus, mentions Cletus, ſpeaking p. 43thus, The Succeſſion of the Biſhops of Rome is in this Order, Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Evariſtus; St. Auſtin following Optatus omits Cletus, thinking him the ſame with Anacletus; St. Jerom ſpeaking of Clemens ſays, he was the fourth Biſhop of Rome from Peter, that Linus was the Second and Cletus the Third, although many of the Latines think that Clemens was the ſecond; of theſe Jarring accounts, Baronius ſays, Num. 48.Si in ordine & tempore primorum Romanorum Pontificum quempiam errare contigerit, in multos errores ferri omnino cogetur.

The Author of the Roman Ceremonial, endeavours to reconcile theſe things by a fine Conjecture, Lib. 1. cap. 2.Ipſe Jeſus primum denominatione Succeſſorem conſtituit & ea ratione, &c. Jeſus Chriſt appointed his Succeſſor by Name, and after the ſame manner Peter alſo named Clemens, but on this Condition, that the Senate of the Roman Church would admit of him, but they knowing that this way of naming ones Succeſſor, would in time be very Prejudicial to the Church, would not accept of Clemens, but choſe Linus to hold the Pontificate after Peter, but that afterward, when both Linus and Cletus were dead Clemens was choſen by the Senate it ſelf.

Of theſe Primitive times the great Scaliger thus ſpeaks. Prolog. in Euſeb. Chron.Intervallum illud ab ultimo, &c. That interval of time from the laſt Chapter of the Acts of the Apoſtles, to the Middle of the Reign of Trajan, in which Quadratus and Ignatius flouriſhed, might be called foreign an obſcure confuſed time, in which nothing is delivered to us certainly concerning the Affairs of the Chriſtians, beſides a few things that the Enemies of the Church touch upon by the way, as Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, &c. Now to fill up this Chaſme, Euſebius has careleſly fetch'd things foreign out of the Hypotypoſes of I know not what Clement (for it is not, Alexandrinus foreign) and out of the Commentaries of Hegiſippus, a writer of no better Credit than the former.

Theſe Perplexities the Learned Biſhop of Worceſter thus relates, Irenic. p. 322.Come we therefore to Rome and here the Succeſſion is as muddy as the Tyber it ſelf, for Tertullian, Ruffinus and others, place Clemens next to Peter, Irenaeus and Euſebius ſet Anacletus before him, Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus, Auguſtine and Damaſus, make Anacletus, Cletus and Linus all to precede him; certainly if the Line of Succeſſion fails us here, where we moſt need it we have little cauſe to pin our Faith upon it, as to the certainty of any particular form of Church Government, which can be drawn from the help of the records of the Primitive Church.

And we do not …ly meet with theſe Difficulties, near the Head of the Line, but many Ages lower; The Series of Popes in the Roman See, after the eighth Century, is very much ruffled and confuſed, as Onuphrius tells us, Horum temporum Pontifices, ne que Praefat. act partem ſecund. de Romano Pontif.perpetuum quendam habent Scriptorem, &c. The Biſhops of thoſe times have not any conſtant certain Writer, and a great part of their Affairs are omitted, whence it comes to paſs, that theſe times are ſo uncertain and obſcure, that we cannot tell in what p. 44Order the Names of divers Popes ought to be put, and ſome new Popes have crept in, which by Computation of the time can have no place in the Roll, as Baſilius, one Agapetus, and Dommus the ſecond, which are either the ſame with others under a different name, or elſe were Schiſmaticks or perhaps were never in being, but which of theſe to affirm is uncertain and doubtful; and he tells us, that as to John the 11th. Leo the 16th. Stephen the 8th. Leo the 7th. and Stephen the 9th. He has not followed the common Opinion of Writers, but of Luitprandus Ticinenſis, and ſays there is a foul miſtake in the account of the Martins, for there never were any ſuch men as Martin the 2d and 3d. and in the Johns; quanta, bone Deus, confuſio exorta eſt ex veterum Hiſtoriarum ignorantia!

It ſeems our Learned Citizen, never dreamed that Popiſh Writers ſhould be ſo ingenuous as to confeſs theſe inſuperable difficulties in the Succeſſion, for his part he never diſcours'd with any of them that did not zealouſly aſſert it, and it may be ſo, but certainly then he never diſcourſed with the wiſeſt or honeſteſt of them, but had the good hap always to meet with men as bold and ignorant as himſelf. But

2. Were theſe Catalogues of Names, as clear and certain as they are otherwiſe, yet unleſs it were equally certain that all of theſe were truly Biſhops, and had valid Conſecration, the Line of Succeſſion is ſtill unproved; and how impoſſible is it to have this demonſtrated with that clearneſs, requiſite unto a point upon which the Truth of our Churches and Salvation of our Souls is made to depend.

For it has been often obſerved, that our Church Hiſtorians being left ſo much in the dark for the earlieſt Ages, are forced to ſupply the defects of Hiſtory with bold conjectures of their own; and where-ever they met with the Apoſtles or Evangeliſts in any place, preſently they made them the Biſhops of that place, Irenic. p. 302.ſo Philip is made Biſhop of Trallis, Ananias Biſhop of Damaſcus, Nicolaus Biſhop of Samaria, Barnabas Biſhop of Millan, Silas Biſhop of Corinth, Sylvanus Biſhop of Theſſalonica, Creſcens of Chalcedon, Andreas of Byzantium, and upon the ſame grounds Peter Biſhop of Rome.

And through the loſs of the Dyptychs of the Church, which would have acquainted us with the time of the Primitive Martyrs Suffering, called their Natalitia, ſome have miſtaken Martyrs for Biſhops, and the time of their Apotheoſis, for that of their Conſecration, and the Learned Junius reckons among theſe Anacletus, Cletus and Clemens at Rome.

And how ſhall we prove that all the perſons mentioned in the Liſts, had ſuch Ordination as is made eſſential to Epiſcopacy; it is not ſufficient to ſay there were ancient Canons, decreeing that no Biſhop ſhould be Conſecrated but by three at the leaſt, this is arguing a jure ad factum, which is no better than to argue a facto ad jus, it is certain there were abundance of excellent Canons made, and it is as certain they were very little regarded, in that ſtate of Apoſtacy and Antichriſtianiſm into which the Churches fell, and lay for ſo long a time; we know there are many examples of mens getting into p. 45the higheſt Church Preferments by Murther, Simony, Sorcery, which by the Ancient Canons nullifie their Authority and Adminiſtrations; It is certain there are many excellent Precepts in Scripture againſt judging, hating and perſecuting one another about Ceremonies, but if any ſhall argue from hence there were never any ſuch Practices, every age will afford inſtances enough for their Confutation; and if there has been ſo notorious a contempt of the Laws of Chriſt; Why ſhould we think it ſtrange, if the Canons of the Church have been deſpiſed too, when they have ſtood in the way of mens Intereſt? Every body knows Eccleſiaſtical Canons are meer Spiders Webs only to catch Flies, whilſt the greater ſort of Vermine ruſh through.

The Council of Lateran decreed, Electio facta per civilem Magiſtratum in ſacris beneficiis vim nullam habeat; and the Jus Orientale, Lib. 3. Inter. 59. foreign, Conc. Carth. 4.and the ſeventh General Council (as it is called) determine, Omnem Electionem quae fit à Magiſtratibus, Epiſcopi vel Presbyteri vel Diaconi irritam eſſe; and yet that de facto the Magiſtrates ſometimes did elect will not be denied. The ſecond Council of Nice decreed that the Orders of all Symoniacal Biſhops ſhall be null and void, foreign, Bernard con. ad Eugen. l. 4.&c. And yet Eugenius and others were notoriouſly guilty of it; and therefore the late Examiner of the Notes of the Church ſays, Notes of the Church, p. 152.It is probable the Roman Church wants a Head, and that there is now no true Pope, nor has been for many Ages for that Church to be united to, for by their own Confeſſion a Pope Symoniacally choſen, a Pope intruded by Violence, a Heretick and therefore ſure an Atheiſt, or an Infidel is no true Pope, This, &c. Is to be ſupplied with Arch-Biſhops Biſhops and all other Orders. Advertiſement on the Hiſt. of K. Charles, p. 193.and many ſuch there have been of one ſort or other, whoſe acts therefore in creating Cardinals, &c. Being invalid, it is exceeding probable that the whole Succeſſion has upon this account failed long ago, &c.

I may add hereunto, that it is the opinion of Dr. Heylin, where there is no Dean and Chapter to elect and no Arch-Biſhop to Conſecrate, there can be no regular Succeſſion of Biſhops; now where there are ſo many junctures in which this Line may fail, it would be very ſtrange if in all that Series of Ordainers and Ordinations, none of thoſe things ſhould happen which break in upon the Succeſſion.

Nay farther, when a Biſhop has advanced by lawful paces to the Chair, yet it is not impoſſible, but he may loſe this power again; I know the Papiſts have invented the Chimaera of an indelible Character to ſupport the other Chimaera of an uninterrupted Succeſſion: But Biſhop Jewel affirms, Apology, c. 3. diviſ. 7.That if the Biſhop of Rome (and I ſuppoſe it will hold of any other) do not his Duty as he ought, except he Adminiſter the Sacraments, except he inſtruct the People, except he warn them and teach them, he ought not to be called a Biſhop, or ſo much as an Elder; for a Biſhop, as ſaith St. Auguſtin, is a name of Labour, and not of Honour; and that man that ſeeketh to have the Pre-eminence, and not to profit the People, muſt know he is no Biſhop: Defence of Ap…. part 2. p. 135.And he vindicates this Saying againſt Harding from other of the Fathers, Chryſoſtom Hom. 13. Multi Sacerdotes & pauci Sacerdotes, multi p. 46nomine & pauci opere; And St. Ambroſe, Niſi bonum opus amplectaris, Epiſcopus eſſe non potes, Lib. 4. Ep. 32.de dignit. Sacerdot. c. 4. And Gregory ſpeaking in the name of wicked Prelates, Sacer dotes nominamur, non ſumus; And the Council of Valentia under Damaſus, c. 4.Quicun que ſub ordinatione vel Diaconatus vel Presbyterii vel Epiſcopatus mortali crimine dixerint ſe eſſe pollutos à ſupra dictis ordinationibus ſubmoveantur; Whoſoever he be, whether of the Order of Deacon, Presbyter or Biſhop, that is convicted of deadly Sin, let him be removed from the ſaid Orders. Now can any man imagine that in a Line of above 1600 Years length, running through Babylon it ſelf, there ſhould be none of theſe, who by their intolerable wickedneſs had nullified their Title? Wo unto Mankind, if their Salvation depend upon ſuch a Suppoſition.

Thirdly, The third Part of this Gentleman's Poſition is, That thoſe Churches, Reply, p. 18.or (if they muſt not be ſo called) thoſe Societies that are not under the Government of ſuch Biſhops, are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church, have no Miniſtry, nor Sacraments, nor Salvation.

This cuts off at a blow the Church of Alexandria, and damns all her Members for the Firſt two Hundred Years: Of the Government of that Church, we have this remarkable Account from Entychius Patriarch there.

That the Evangeliſt Mark in the Ninth year of Claudius Caeſar, Eutychii Annal. Pococks Edit. p. 328.came unto the City of Alexandria, and called the People to the Faith of Chriſt, and as he was walking in the Street broke the Latchet of his Shoe, and preſently applied himſelf to one Ananias, a Cobler, to get it mended; in the doing of it, Ananias prick'd his Finger with the Aul, after that dangerous manner, as cauſed a great effuſion of Blood and much Pain, inſomuch, as that he murmured againſt Mark; who ſaid unto him, If thou wilt believe on Jeſus Chriſt thy Finger ſhall be healed, and added, In his Name let it be made whole; and accordingly in the ſame moment it ceaſed bleeding and was well; from this time Ananias believed, and was baptized by Mark, and made Patriarch of Alexandria, and with him were appointed twelve Presbyters, Hitrom Ep. ad Evagr. 85.that when the Patriarchate was vacant, one of them ſhould be choſen, on whom the other Eleven ſhould lay their hands, and bleſs him and create him Patriarch, and then ſhould chooſe ſome worthy Perſon and conſtitute him a Presbyter in his room who was made Patriarch: And this Cuſtom continued till Alexander the Sixteenth Patriarch without interruption, which was about 235 Years. This Story St. Jerome likewiſe tells us, and by it proves the Identity of Biſhops and Presbyters, and that Presbyters have not only Power to ordain thoſe of the ſame degree with themſelves, but to conſecrate Patriarchs too.

And this Aſſertion undoes all the Reformed Churches abroad that are governed by Presbyters; To this the Gentleman replies, That many very Learned and Pious Perſons amongſt them, have declared their longing Deſires for the Epiſcopacy, but living in Popiſh Dominions, cannot have any but thoſe of the Popiſh Communion, or in Republicks that will not admit of Epiſcopacy.

p. 47But are deſires then of Epiſcopacy ſufficient to bring a Man within Catholick Communion? What then becomes of the Abſolute neceſſity of Apoſtolical Succeſſion, if affectionate Deſires after this Communion will free a Man from Schiſm? Then ſurely Schiſm lies in the want of ſuch Deſires, which comes nearer to Mr. H's Notion than this Gentleman I ſuppoſe was aware of; but after all (though 'tis pity to put him out of a good humour, ſince he happens ſo ſeldom into it) if there be no Catholick Communion without Epiſcopacy, and without ſuch Communion, our hopes for Salvation are but Fancies, as this Gentleman tells us; Deſires after Epiſcopacy will not relieve Men, it will only prove that they deſire ſuch Communion, and to be in the way of Salvation, but that at preſent they are not ſo.

And I wonder how it does appear that the Reformed Churches deſire this Dioceſan Epiſcopacy; by what Publick Acts do they declare any ſuch Deſires? What their Thoughts are concerning it we have already ſeen: It may be indeed (as the Honourable Mr. Feb. 9.40.Fines once replied in Parliament to this very thing) there are ſome amongſt them that deſire Epiſcopacy, that is, the Dignities and Revenues of Biſhops, but that any deſire Epiſcopacy as the fitteſt and beſt Government of the Church, I do not believe; for if they would have Biſhops, I know not what hindreth but they may; they have Presbyteries, and Synods, and National Aſſemblies, and Moderators therein, and how eaſily might theſe be made Biſhops? Germany and Poland are Popiſh Countries, and yet they have Superintendents or Biſhops; And why will not Republicks admit Epiſcopacy? Is it becauſe they have found it injurious to the Commonwealth? Methinks that is no great Commendation of the Order, or will they ſay it does not ſo well comport with that Form of Government? That is a ſign it is not of Divine Inſtitution; for, as God will have Goſpel-Churches in all Countries, ſo he has put nothing into their Conſtitution, but what will conſiſt with any form of Civil Polity, and has not obliged Republican States to become Monarchies, in order to their reception of the Goſpel. I know nothing the Church has to do with Civil Conſtitutions, nor will I ever be of that Eccleſiaſtical Communion which cannot ſubſiſt in Commonwealths as well as in Monarchies, but muſt overturn Publick Conſtitutions to make room for its own Settlement.

And as this Doctrine overturns the Primitive, and the Reformed Churches; ſo this Gentleman knows not how great a ſhock he has given his own by it: For Hiſtorians tell us, that thoſe Famous Biſhops who were inſtrumental in Converting ſo many in the Northern Parts of our Iſland to Chriſtianity, were ordained by the Abbot of Hye, who was only a Presbyter; and who knows how far the Line of thoſe Biſhops reaches. To this, the Gentleman has made ſome reply, telling us, Reply, p. 22.That Archbiſhop Bramhall has cleared the Northumbrian Biſhops from receiving their Conſecration of the Abbot of Hye; and ſhews that they had it from the Biſhop of Derry, under whoſe Viſitation this Abbot lived, and that this was to be found in the Records at Derry before the Iriſh Rebellion.

p. 48But it is a ſtrange piece of Conſidence in theſe Men to ſet up a Story reported by themſelves out of I know not what inviſible Records, Beda Eccleſ. Hist. l. 3. c. 4. Habereſolet ipſa Inſula rectorem ſemper Abbatum Presbyterum, &c.ſo to confront the direct words of our moſt ancient and credible Hiſtorians. Bede expreſly ſays that Iſland was wont to have an Abbot for its Governour, who was always a Presbyter, to whoſe Juriſdiction all the Province, and even the Biſhops themſelves, were ſubject after the example of their firſt Teacher Columbanus, who was not a Biſhop, but a Presbyter and Monk; and that King Oſwald when he came to the Throne, Ʋſher de Eccleſ. Brit. Primordiis. p. 701.ſent to the Elders of Scotland amongſt whom in his Exile he had been baptized, to deſire that a Biſhop might be ſent unto him, by whoſe Doctrine and Miniſtry his Realm might learn and receive the Chriſtian Faith; From this Iſland of Hye, and from the College of Monks there, Aidan was ſent, having received the Degree of Epiſcopacy, at that time when Segenius a Presbyter was the Abbot, and that Aidan being dead, Finan ſucceeded him, being likewiſe ſent by the ſame Monaſtery.

The Gentleman tells us we have the ſtory in the Biſhop of St. Aſaph to the ſame purpoſe with Bramhal, but he does not tell us that Sir George Mackenzie has anſwered him; beſides it is not the ſame ſtory, for St. Aſaph will have it to be the Biſhop of Dunkeld that joyned in this Conſecration not Derry or Derrymagh; if there was any ſuch ſtory in thoſe Records 'tis a wonder theſe Gentlemen ſhould not agree better in the telling of it.

The ingenious Dr. Vindic. of ſome Proteſt. Princ. p. 102.Sherlock, wiſely declines diſputing the matter of fact concerning this Abbots Ordination of Biſhops, and fairly grants that the Church of Rome allows the Ordinations of Abbots Soveraign, which are but Presbyters, to be both valid and regular, but ſays ſuch Ordinations were an incroachment upon the Epiſcopal Authority, and void in themſelves, which I ſhall not now queſtion, it being ſufficient and indeed only proper to my preſent purpoſe to ſhew that Abbots did Ordain, and were allowed to do it by the Church of Rome, and if ſuch orders be void then the Epiſcopal Line is broken.

And who can forbear declaiming againſt the wretched folly of Men of ſuch principles, that will thus unſettle the foundations of their own Churches, that they may overturn others, and like the Executioners of the three Children will venture a burning themſelves, that they may be ſure to throw others far enough into the fiery Furnace.

Let us hear how this Gentleman will demonſtrate this uninterrupted Line of Succeſſion, for He ought to make it as clear as any Article of his Creed, there being none more eſſential to Salvation according to his own account of it. And he tells us, The very neceſſity of ſuch a Line is a ſufficient reaſon to prove it, no man can be Miniſter of the Goſpel that is not ſent, no man has power to ſend, who hath not received it by Succeſſion from the Apoſtles; That is to ſay, it is ſo, becauſe it muſt be ſo; and it muſt be ſo, becauſe it is abſolutely neceſſary it ſhould be ſo; and if this be not proof ſufficient, we muſt go to thoſe that can give us better. But,

p. 491ſt. Why does he not prove that thore can be no true miſſion without ſuch a Line? we cannot give him credit in a matter of ſuch value, and though he repeat it a thouſand times, we will not regard it, till we ſee it proved; We do verily believe with the reſt of the Reformed Churches, that where-ever the Coetus Fidelium is, there lies an inherent fundamental right of chuſing, and calling perſons to the Miniſtry, though this is moſt regularly exerciſed by thoſe that are already Paſtors, and ought not to be done by others where ſuch may conveniently be had; but all the World beſides the Papiſts and a few odd Bigotted perſons in our own Nation, diſtinguiſh betwixt an irregularity and a nullity, and we believe that both Sacred and Civil Societies agree in this, which is founded upon the eſſence, and common principles of all Societies as ſuch, that they have a latent power to elect and inveſt their Officers, though by Cuſtom, or the Laws of the Community, the exerciſe thereof may be conſigned to a particular Order of Men amongſt them.

The Author of the Prejudices challenges Monſieur Claude to produce any Texts of Scripture, that give Lay-Men a right to ordain Miniſters in any caſe; to which he replies, This demand is but a vain wrangling, Defence of the Reform. P. IV. p. 94, 95.for when Scripture recommends to the Faithful, the taking diligent heed to the preſervation and confirmation of their Faith, and to propagate it to their Children, it gives them by that very thing a ſufficient right to make uſe of all proper means in order to that end; and every body knows the Miniſtry is one of thoſe means, and therefore the obligation the faithful are under to preſerve and propagate the Faith, includes that of Creating to themſelves Paſtors when they cannot have them otherwiſe; in ſhort when the Scripture teaches that the faithful have a right to chuſe their Paſtors, it teaches thereby that they have a right to inſtal them into their Office in caſe of neceſſity, for that call conſiſting much more eſſentially in Election than in inſtallation, which is but a formality, there is no reaſon to believe that God would have given the People a Right to chuſe their Paſtors, and to have them inſtalled by others, and that he has not given them at the ſame time a power of inſtalling them themſelves, when it cannot be done otherwiſe, ſince naturally that which we have a right to do by another, we have a right to do by our ſelves.

Nay, what if not onelyonly Monſieur Claude, but Monſieur Dodwell too, that ſpeaking head of our high-flown Clergy, acknowledges ſuch a right in particular Societies of chuſing and inveſting their Officers? No matter whether it be reconcileable with the other parts of his Scheme or no: Dodwel Separat. of Churches p. 102. P. 52.In his Separation of Churches he ſpeaks to this purpoſe. The Church with whom God has made the Covenant, is a Body Politick, though not a Civil one, and God has deſigned all perſons to enter into this Society; — It is ſufficient for my purpoſe that the Eccleſiaſtical Power be no otherwiſe from God, than that is of every ſupream Civil Magiſtrate; it is not uſual for Kings to be inveſted into their Offices by other Kings, but by their Subjects, yet when they are inveſted that doth not in the leaſt prejudice the abſoluteneſs of their p. 50Monarchy, where the Fundamental Conſtitutions of the reſpective places allow it to them, much leſs doth it give any power over them to the perſons by whom they are inveſted; If the power of Epiſcopacy be Divine, all that men can do in the caſe, is onelyonly to determine the perſon, not to confine his power — no act can be preſumed to be the act of the whole Body, P. 509.but what has paſſed them in their publick Aſſemblies (in which Body is the Right of Government.) — As nothing but the Society it ſelf can make a valid conveyance of its right, ſo it is not conceivable, how the Society can do it by any thing but its own Act — And when ever a perſon is inveſted into the Supream Power, P. 522.and the Society over which he is placed, is independant on other Societies, ſuch a perſon can never be placed in his power, if not by them who muſt after be his ſubjects, unleſs by his Predeceſſor, which no Society can depend upon for a conſtant Rule of Succeſſion. — I am apt to think this muſt have been the way of making Biſhops at firſt, how abſolute ſoever I conceive them to be when they are once made — This ſeems beſt to agree with the abſoluteneſs of particular Churches, P. 523.before they had by compact united themſelves under Metropolitans and Exarchs, into Provincial, and Dioceſan Churches; And this ſeems to have been fitted for the frequent perſecutions of thoſe earlier Ages, when every Church was able to ſecure its own ſucceſſion, without depending on the uncertain opportunities of the meeting of the Biſhops of the whole Province; And the alteration of this practice, the giving the Biſhops of the Province an intereſt in the choice of every particular Colleague, ſeems not to have been ſo much for want of power in the particular Churches to do it, as for the ſecurity of compacts that they might be certain of ſuch a Colleague as would obſerve them — It is probable that it was in imitation of the Philoſophers Succeſſions, that theſe Eccleſiaſtical Succeſſions were framed, and when the Philoſophers failed to nominate their own Succeſſors, the Election was in the Schools. Theſe are his words, and they are too plain to need a Comment: If every particular Church had Originally a power within it ſelf to chuſe and inveſt its Biſhop, and the concurrence of other Biſhops herein was not for want of Power in that particular Church, but only for ſecuring the agreement of Biſhops amongſt themſelves, We have done with the neceſſity of a continued Line of Epiſcopal Ordinations, and there may be true miſsion without it, quod erat probandum. But,

2dly, Should we grant that there is a neceſsity of an uninterrupted Line, and that this, as he learnedly ſpeaks, is a ſufficient proof that there is ſuch a Line, yet it muſt be conſidered, this neceſsity will onelyonly prove that there muſt be ſome Biſhops and Churches that are in the Line, but it will not prove that they are all ſo, nor that it is the caſe of thoſe amongſt us; for though we may ſuppoſe that God has had a true Miniſtry in all Ages, and will have, that will not demonſtrate that he hath ſuch in England, and therefore to prove the Miniſtry of the Engliſh Churches true, he muſt have ſome p. 51better Evidence than the neceſsity of ſuch a Line which will onelyonly prove it is ſomewhere, not that it is amongſt us; and it is but ſmall ſatisfaction to us, to know that there is a true Miniſtry ſome where in the World, but no man in the World can tell where it is; By this Gentlemans way of reaſoning the Papiſts pretend to prove the Infallibility of their Church, firſt they ſuppoſe the neceſsity of an Infallible Judge, and then take it for granted that this Judge is to be found amongſt them, and truly Arcades ambo.

The Vindicator put a queſtion to him, and we ſhould be glad of a better anſwer than he has yet thought fit to give us; He deſired T. W. to tell him whether this Line of Succeſsion might be continued in a Schiſmatical Church, for if by Schiſm Men and Societies are cut off from the Catholick Church as this Man affirms, ſuch Schiſmatical Churches are indeed no Churches, no parts of the Univerſal Church, and ſo cannot be the Subjects of the Apoſtolical Power; and if this Power cannot be derived through a Schiſmatical Church, then muſt he grant, either that the Church of England has not this Power, or that the Papal Churches through which it runs are not Schiſmatical; and if they be not, his own Church muſt be ſo in ſeparating from them, for he holds ſeparation to be utterly unlawful, unleſs it be from a Schiſmatical Church.

His anſwer to this, ſuch as it is, you have in the 23 page of his reply, in theſe words. I cannot underſtand his Logick in this, if by Schiſm Men and Societies are cut off from the Univerſal Church, then ſuch Schiſmatical Churches are no Churches.

But is not the conſequence as plain as can be, if Schiſm cut Men and Societies off from the Univerſal Church, then ſuch Schiſmatical Societies are no Churches? Can they be Churches, and yet cut off from the Univerſal Church? Can they be cut off by Schiſm, and ſtill united to it? He that does not underſtand the Logick of this, does not underſtand the Logick of Common Senſe; but has he nothing farther to reply? Yes he ſays, Churches they are, though Schiſmatical, while they retain the Apoſtolical Succeſſion. But the Queſtion is, whether Schiſmatical Churches can retain the Apoſtolical Succeſsion? Since by Schiſm he ſays they are cut off from the Catholick Church, and ſo Unchurched; theſe things will require a ſecond reading, and a more direct reply, and that I may provoke him to do it, I ſhall lay the caſe before him, in theſe three points.

1. If any Schiſmatical Societies may ſtill remain Churches, then Schiſm as ſuch, does not cut Men and Societies off from the Unity of the Catholick Church, and then the whole thread of his diſcourſe is ſpoiled, which every where makes Schiſm to be Separation from the Communion of the Catholick Church, out of which he ſays truly there is no true Miniſtry, nor Sacrament.

2. If all Schiſmatical Societies are Unchurched, then either they loſe the Apoſtolical Succeſsion and Power, or elſe there may be Apoſtolical Power where there is no Church; And it would be very ſtrange to find a Power to p. 52Ordain and to Adminiſter Sacraments in Societies, where there can be no Miniſtry nor Sacraments; Church Power without a Church, a Right to Gevern the Church by Apoſtolical Succeſsion, and yet no Right to the Church or any of its Priviledges; The power which is an adjunct, without the Church which is its Subject; Theſe are myſteries which I am no more worthy to underſtand, than that of Tranſubſtantiation.

3. If the Papal Churches through which this Power is conveyed be not Schiſmatical, then he makes the Founders of his own Church ſo, for he ſays, There's no way of holding Communion with the Univerſal Church, Arch-Rebel, p. 6.but by holding Communion with the Particular Churches we live amongſt, if they be not Schiſmatical.

Inſtead of ſpeaking plainly to theſe things, he asks us whether Re-ordination of thoſe that come over from the Church of Rome to the Reformed, was ever required? We anſwer No, and can give a good reaſon for it upon our Principles, but it will be hard to do ſo upon his: We do not think the validity of the Miniſtry depends upon ſuch Line, nor do we believe that either Schiſm or Hereſie, as ſuch, do utterly deſtroy their Church ſtate, indeed a renunciation of any of the fundamental Articles of our Faith would do it; but every hereſie will not: We believe the Church of Rome to be both Schiſmatical and Heretical, but do not therefore ſay their Church ſtate is utterly loſt, though greatly corrupted, for then it would be hard to allow their Ordinations, eſpecially if we thought Ordination ſo neceſſary, and that the Validity thereof depended upon the Adminiſtrators, as this Gentleman affirms.

Therefore where he ſays the Vindicator attempts to unchurch the Church of England, becauſe our Biſhops derive their conſecration from Rome, he utterly miſtakes himſelf, the Vindicator ſpoke ad hominem, and only ſhewed him what would be the conſequence of his own arguing.

He tells us It is the Judgement of all Reformed Divines, that formal Schiſm can never invalidate the power of formal and regular Ordination. But if thoſe Reformed Divines thought as be, that formal Schiſm utterly excludes out of the Catholick Church, they muſt needs acknowledge that where there is formal Schiſm, there can be no ſuch things as regular Ordination; and 'tis ſtrange this Gentleman, that makes Schiſm ſuch an unchurching thing, ſhall talk of a regular Ordination in a formal Schiſm; one would think the regularity would have been ſpoiled, if the Eſſence thereof ſhould happily eſcape, Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 107, 108.(And yet ſome of our Doctor, make this the very reaſon why the Diſſenters Ordinations are Null, becauſe they ordain in a Schiſm, granting that in caſe of neceſsity they may do it.) But as to the Reformed Divines, if they allow the Ordination of Schiſmaticks to be valid, it is either becauſe they think the validity of the Orders, does not depend upon the quallfications of the perſon conferring there, or that Schiſm does not neceſſarily exclude a Perſon or People out of the Communion of the Catholick Church; and here lies this Gentlemans Error, he would tack the candid concluſion of the Reformed p. 53formed Churches, to the unmerciful Premiſes of his own, but they will by no means comport.

This Notion of the Neceſſity of an uninterrupted Line of Succeſſion for the conveyance of Power, like Water by Pipes and Conduits, the Vindicator made bold to call a Whimſie, which has exceedingly raiſed the Gentlemans Spleen; A Whimſie (ſays he,) that's ſome Phantaſtick device, or the Creature of an unſt able unſettled Brain, which being applied to Prelates that bear the Authority of Chriſt can be no leſs than Blaſphemy.

But the Vindicator never charged this Whimſie upon the Prelates, the greateſt part of whom I dare ſay will not thank this man for hanging their Authority upon ſo ſlender a thread; 'tis his own Whimſie, and ſo ſilly a one that we will never charge it on any that do not expreſly own it; and yet if a Man ſhould venture to ſay of ſome Prelates, that they are unſtable and their Brains unſettled (as namely the late Biſhops of Oxford and Ely, &c.) I know not how it can be proved Blaſphemy, nor will any man call it ſo that has not made an Idol of the Mitre, or the Head that wears it, unleſs theſe clamours proceed from the ſame Principle with thoſe of the Epheſians, who were as tender of their Diana, as theſe men are of the Hierarchy and this Image of Succeſſion that dropt down from Jupiter.

After all we have ſaid againſt the Neceſſity of ſuch a Line, yet if this Gentleman or any for him will clear it, we will have as much Benefit by it as himſelf, having largely proved that Presbyters are the ſame with Biſhops by the Law of God, and therefore our Ordinations are as valid as theirs, but we will never ſo far betray, the Honour of the Church, nor the Peace of mens Conſciences, as to make all depend upon that which is impoſſible to be proved; and certainly if it be a thing of that conſequence this Gentleman makes it, the proof ſhould be as ſtrong and clear as that of the moſt eſſential Doctrines of our Religion; and to ſay as Mr. Dodwel is forced at laſt that a Preſumptive Title may ſerve, is to unſay all, and to confeſs that it is not the reality of ſuch a Line on which the Power depends, but the ſtrong Conceit and Preſumption of men, which is the worſt Baſis that Epiſcopacy has ever yet been fixed upon.

2. The ſecond thing in our Plea, is, That the whole Juriſdiction of our Engliſh Biſhops, and the Power of their Canons is derived from the Civil Magiſtrate and Laws of the Land.

And this I think will follow from the former, if this Prelatical Power be not from the Laws of God, it muſt be from the Laws of the Land. Here I expect ſome will reply, Datur tertium, there is the Jus Eccleſiaſticum, reſulting from the Cuſtoms and Canons of the Church, by which Biſhops formerly laid claim to this Power, even when there was no Chriſtian Magiſtrate; but this will be ſoon anſwered. For,

1. This Jus Eccleſiaſticum, has not the proper nature of a Law, nor does it oblige by virtue of ſtrict Authority; we are not bound in Conſcience, by the Canons of Ancient Foreign Churches, any farther than the matter of p. 54them brings the ſtamp of Scripture along with it; Grot. de Impſum. Poteſtat. p. 168.The Learned Grotius, has fully proved, that there never was a Council truly called General, excepting that of the Apoſtles at Jeruſalem; that Councils have no governing Power, Non ideo convocari Synodum quòd in co pars ſit imperii. Yea that the Church has no Legiſlative Power by Divine Right, That what was written in Synods for Order and Ornament are not called Laws, but Canons, and have either the force of advice only, Burnets Abridement, p. 139.or they oblige by way of agreement, &c. And our Reforming Biſhops, Cranmer, Tonſtal and others, being required to give their opinions concerning the Authority of General Councils, declared that this Authority did not flow from the number of the Biſhops but from the matter of their deciſions, and this indeed is the only true notion of Miniſterial Power, it depends purely upon the matter of their Canons, not the Authority of the Perſon, ſo that they can never by their Authority make a thing indifferent to become a Duty; Praeeant ipſi judicio directivo, ſays Grotius, they are Councils, not Parliaments, and only to ſhew men what is Sin and Duty, not to make any thing Duty, which was not ſo before. Dr. Sherlock fairly acquits himſelf of the Suſpicion of aſcribing unto a Council of Biſhops, Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 30. Vind. of the Def. of Dr. St. p. 162.any Power in matter of Faith, or Manners, or Catholick Unity; and becauſe in a former Treatiſe he had let fall an Expreſſion that might ſeem to give them ſuch a Power, he by much ſtrugling gets from under it, and ſays he meant no more than a Power of Depoſing Heretical Biſhops, but withal adds, It does not follow that any Biſhops, or any Number of Biſhops, however aſſembled, have ſuch an Authority to declare Hereſie, as ſhall oblige all men to believe that to be Hereſie which they decree to be ſo; and therefore the effects of thoſe Cenſures muſt of Neceſſity depond upon that Opinion which People have of them; thoſe who believe the Cenſure juſt, will withdraw from the Communion of ſuch a Biſhop, thoſe who do not, will ſtill communicate with him; and whether they do right or wrong, their own Conſciences muſt judge in this World, and God will Judge in the next. And elſewhere he thus ſpeaks, As for Eccleſiaſtical Cauſes, nothing is a pure Eccleſiaſtical Cauſe, but what concerns the Communion of the Church, who ſhall be received into Communion, or c…ſt out or put under ſome leſs Cenſures, &c. Here we ſee it is not in the Power of Councils or Synods to take away any of that Power from Presbyters that God has given them, this is none of the Eccleſiaſtical Cauſes belonging to them.

This is more directly aſſerted by the Author of the Summary of the Controverſies betwixt the Church of England, P. 119.and the Church of Rome, what he ſays of the Epiſcopal Office will hold true of the Miniſterial in General, That a General Council has no Authority to give away thoſe Rights and Powers, which are inherent in every Church, and inſeparable from the Miniſterial Office, for it is not in Eccleſiaſtical as it is in Civil Rights, Men may irrevocably grant away their own Civil Rights and Liberties, but all the Authority in the Church cannot give away it ſelf, nor grant the whole p. 55entire Epiſcopacy with all the Rights and Powers of it to any one Biſhop. If Biſhops or Presbyters will not exerciſe that Power, which God has given them they are accountable to their Lord for it, but they cannot give it away, neither from themſelves nor from their Succeſſors, for it is theirs only to uſe, not to part with, and therefore every Biſhop or Presbyter may reaſſume ſuch Rights, though a General Council ſhould give them away, becauſe the Grant is void in it ſelf.

By ancient Eccleſiaſtical cuſtom, Arch-Biſhops were ſet over Biſhops, Vind. Prot. Prin. p. 72.and yet Dr. Sherlock confeſſes they have not direct Authority and Juriſdiction over them; and if Biſhops have no Superiority over Presbyters, but what is grounded upon this Eccleſiaſtical Right, it will not amount to formal Authority. But,

2. No Power can be claimed by Eccleſiaſtical Right, but what has been acquired according to the Rules of thoſe Councils and Cuſtoms by which they claim; if it be a jus Eccleſiaſticum, they muſt come by it, more Eccleſiaſtico, in that method which Eccleſiaſtical Canons have preſcribed; and nothing is more evident than that the Rules of the Primitive Churches, gave all the Presbyters, and the People too, a voice in the Election of their Biſhops; the African Biſhops in a Council where Cyprian Preſided, Cypr. Ep. 68. Concil. Nic. Arab. Can. Sozom. l. 1. c. 23.determined that Plebs maximè habeat poteſtatem vel eligendi dignos ſacerdotes, vel indignos recuſandi. St. Ambroſe Ep. 82. Electio & vocatio quae ſit à tota Eccleſia verè & cartò eſt divina vocatio ad munus Epiſcopi. That this was the Primitive Cuſtom none will deny, though ſome Queſtion whether this be abſolutely neceſſary or no, and I will not ſay it is neceſſary, where the Office ſtands upon a Divine Inſtitution, but certainly, where it only ſtands upon the Plea of Eccleſiaſtical Right, the Eccleſiaſtical Method is abſolutely neceſſary to give that Right, for our Biſhops cannot pretend to ſtand upon the Foundation of thoſe Canons which they do not obſerve in their entrance upon that Office, ſince thoſe Canons muſt needs bind them as much in their Acquiſition of Power, as the People in their Subjection to them.

The beſt Title therefore our Biſhops have to ſhew for their Prelatical Juriſdiction is the Law of the Land.

Our learned Hiſtorians and Lawyers tell us, that before William the Conquerors time, there were no ſuch Courts in England, as we now call Courts Eccleſiaſtical or Spiritual, only by the Laws of Ethelſtane, the Biſhops were allowed to be preſent with the Sheriffs in their Tourne Courts, Brompton de Leg. Ethelſ.where all Ecclefiaſtical matters were heard and determined; Sir Edward Cook ſays, William the Conquerour was the firſt that by his Charter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln prohibited Sheriffs to intermeddle any more with Eccleſiaſtical Cauſes, but leave them wholly to the Biſhop; 4. l. Inſtitut. c. 53. p. 259.and yet there appears no enrolment of any ſuch Charter till the 2d. of Rich. 2d. And Cook himſelf mentions the Red Book of Henry the firſt, de general. placit. Comitat. extant in the Office of the Kings Rememb. in the Exchequer, wherein 'tis ſaid of the Sheriffs Tourne Courts; Ibi agantur primo debita Chriſtianitatis jura, ſecundo p. 56Regis placita, poſtremo cauſae ſingulorum, and he adds, certain it is the Biſhops Conſiſtories were erected, and Cauſes Eccleſiaſtical removed from the Tourne to the Conſiſtory, after the making of the ſaid Red Book.

Nothing will ſet this matter in a better Light than our Acts of Parliament, eſpecially that of the 37. Hen 8. Entituled, An Act that Doctors of Civil Law being married may exerciſe Eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction; In moſt humble wiſe ſhew and declare unto your Highneſs, your moſt faithful, humble and obedient Subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons of this Preſent Parliament Aſſembled, That whereas your Highneſs is, &c.—The Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, Deans, and other Eccleſiaſtical Perſons, who have no manner of Juriſdiction Eccleſiaſtical, but by, under and from your Royal Majeſty—to whom by Scripture all Authority and Power is wholly given, to hear and determine all Cauſes Eccleſiaſtical, and to all ſuch Perſons as your Majeſty ſhall appoint thereunto.

And long before this time our Kings were ſo tender of their Royal Rights in Eccleſiaſtical Matters, that when the Clergy in Parliament 51. Edw. 3d. Petitioned, that of every Conſultation Conditional, the Ordinary may of himſelf take upon him the true Underſtanding thereof, and therein proceed accordingly (that is, without Appeal to the King, who by his Delegates by Commiſſion under the great Seal might determine the ſame) the Kings Anſwer was That the King cannot depart with his Right, Inſtit. 4th. part cap. 74. p. 339.but to yield to Subjects according to Law, upon which Sir Edw. Cook gives an Item, Nota hoc & ſtude bene.

By the Statute, 1. Edw. 6.2. The Biſhops could hold no Court, but in the Kings Name, and it was no leſs than Praemunire to iſſue out Proceſs in their own Names, and under their own Seals, and though that Statute was Repealed in 1. Mary 2. Yet it lets us ſee the true Fountain of Prelatical Juriſdiction; and ſome are of opinion that it was revived in general terms in the 1. Eliz. 1. Which annexes and unites all Spiritual and Eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction to the Imperial Crown of England, and ſhews that the Prelatical Power of our Biſhops is wholly founded, directed and limited by the Laws of the Land.

And this is readily granted by our ableſt Civilians, particularly Godolphin in his Abridgment of the Eccleſiaſtical Laws, Introduct. p. 2….whoſe words are, No ſooner had Princes in ancient times aſſigned and limited certain matters and cauſes Controverſial to the Cognizance of Biſhops, and to that end dignified the Epiſcopal Order with an Eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction, but the multiplicity and emergency of ſuch Affairs require, for the diſpatch and management thereof, the Aſſiſtance of ſubordinate Ordinaries, &c.

Dr. Caſes of Conſc. l. 3. ch. 3. fol. 544.Jeremy Taylor, acknowledges that the Supream Civil Power is alſo Supream Governour over all Perſons, and in all Cauſes Eccleſiaſtical, and he ſays, This is a rule of ſuch great neceſsity for the conduct of Conſcience, as that it is the meaſure of determining all Perſons concerning the the Sanction of Obedience to all Eccleſiaſtical Laws, &c. And in another p. 57place, It was never known in the Primitive Church, that ever any Eccleſiaſtical Law did oblige the Church unleſs the ſecular Prince did eſtabliſh it. The Nicene Canons became Laws by the Reſcript of the Emperor Conſtantine, ſays Sozomen. When the Council of Conſtantinople was finiſhed, the Fathers wrote to the Emperor Theodoſius, Ibidem cap. 4. fol. 600.Petitioning ut Edicto Pietatis tua confirmetur Synodi ſententia; The Decrees of the Councils of Epheſus and Chalcedon had the ſame Confirmation; as to the laſt, Marcion the Emperor wrote to Palladius his Prefect: Quod ea quae de Chriſtiana fide à Sacerdotibus qui Chalcedone convenerunt per noſtra praecepta ſtatuta ſunt.

And indeed what is it that the Civil Magiſtrate may not do in the making of a Prelate in the Church of England?

He may elect the Perſon, and does ſo in reality, for he nominates Authoritatively, and whatever ſome pretend, Godolph. Repert. Canon. p. 42.the Dean and Chapter have no power to refuſe the Conge d'eſlire; and Mr. Gwin in the preface to his Readings tells us, that the King of England had of antient time the free appointment of all Eccleſiaſtical Dignities inveſting them firſt per Annulum & Baculum, and afterwards by his Letters Patents, and that in proceſs of time, he made the Election over to others under certain Forms and Conditions, and affirmeth with good authorities out of the Books of the Common Law, that King John was the firſt that granted this Liberty of Election to the Dean and Chapter, but that all Biſhopricks were at firſt Donative.

The Civil Magiſtrate may multiply Biſhops ad libitum, and if he pleaſes may appoint one in every Pariſh; by the Statute of 26 Hen. VIII. c. 14. Six and twenty Suffragan Biſhops are added to the Dioceſans, as (ſaith the Act) hath been accuſtomed to be in this Realm, the Arch-Biſhop or Biſhop was to name two, whereof the King to chuſe one, and to give him the Name Title and Dignity of Biſhop, and to that Name, Title and Dignity, the Arch Biſhop with two Biſhops or Suffragans more, is to conſecrate him, onelyonly he is to act by the Commiſſion of the Dioceſan, and to have none of the profits of the Biſhoprick; this reſtraint in the exerciſe might have been taken off, if the Legiſlative Power had ſo pleaſed; And if this Law had not given them the Epiſcopal Power, they could not have exerciſed that Power, by any Commiſsion from the Dioceſan whatſoever.

He may alſo delegate the Eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction to whom he pleaſes, either to Lay-Men or to Presbyters; 'Tis commonly aſſigned to Lay-Chancellors, they do judicially Excommunicate and Abſolve, and they have their Commiſſion to do it, from the King, not from the Biſhop; and in ſome places the Epiſcopal Juriſdiction is reſerved to a Presbyter, as in the Peculiars, we have in divers parts of England, at Bridgnorth ſix Pariſhes are Governed by a Court held by a Presbyter; and Godolphin tells us, there are certain peculiar Juriſdictions, belonging to ſome certain Pariſhes, the Inhabitants whereof are exempted from the Arch-Deacons, and ſometimes from the Biſhops Juriſdiction, of which there are fifty ſeven in the Province of p. 58Canterbury; A certain proof that the Biſhops Juriſdiction is only by humane Right or Cuſtom, becauſe the Law can exempt ſome Pariſhes from it; but by the Citizen of Cheſters Divinity, all theſe peculiars have the peculiar priviledge of being unchurched, and their exemption would be tantamount to Excommunication, becauſe they are not under the Government of the Biſhop, without which there can be no Church Unity; If any ſay, they are under the Archiepiſcopal Juriſdiction, I anſwer, they are no otherwiſe under it than the Biſhops are, and the Prelatical party themſelves acknowledge that Arch-Biſhops are but of Humane Inſtitution.

Laſtly, The Civil Magiſtrate may alſo depoſe and deprive Biſhops when they ſee juſt cauſe; and this power has been ſo lately exerted, that it needs no farther proof; I would fain know whether the deprived Biſhops be not diveſted of all Epiſcopal Juriſdiction; Perhaps this will be thought an invidious queſtion, and an inſulting over the misfortunes of thoſe learned Gentlemen, but I profeſs ſeriouſly, it is not ſpoken in any ſuch Humour; Men of Tender Conſciences though under a miſtake, will conciliate veneration from others; The worſt I wiſh them is, that God would ſhew them the evil of their former impoſitions upon the Conſciences of their poor deſpiſed Brethren; But that which induces me to mention it is, I find the Defenders of the Hierarchy confidently aſſert, that there can be but one Biſhop in one Church at the ſame time, therefore if the former be not diveſted of their power, I ſee not how the preſent Incumbents can have any by their own Rule, and ſo their Ordinations would be Null, if the others be ſtill valid; The preſent Biſhop of Worceſter in his debate with Mr. Clarkſon ſays it was the Inviolable Rule of the Church, to have but one Biſhop in a City and Church at once, and Dr. Morrice labours hard to conquer Mr. Clarkſons objection againſt it, which was, Def. of the Anſ. to Dr. St. p. 19.That Alexander was made Biſhop of Jeruſalem whilſt Narciſſus lived: He ſays Narciſſus took Alexander into the participation of the charge, but foreſeeing that Mr. C. would reply, then here were two Biſhops jointly governing one Church, contrary to Dr. St's. inviolable Rule, he adds Alexander was the Biſhop, Narciſſus retained but the Name and Title onelyonly, that is, was but a Titular, not a real Biſhop, and it ſeems that was his part of the Charge, to have onelyonly the Title and no Charge at all. Now whether T.W. thinks the late Biſhops are the Titular and the preſent the Real, or on the contrary, we will not oblige him to declare, onelyonly we gueſs at his Sentiments, by his calling the Late Arch-Biſhop the Ruler of Gods People, above half a year after he was deprived.

Perhaps this Gentleman will ſatisfie himſelf with ſaying, the late Prelates have the power ſtill, but are reſtrained from the exerciſe of it. But that would be to confront the Act of Parliament, which ſays expreſsly they are deprived of their Office, and diſtinguiſhes betwixt being ſuſpended from the exerciſe of their Office, and being deprived of the Office it ſelf, if they did not take the Oaths before the firſt of Auguſt, 1689. Primo Guliel & Mariae.they were ſuſpended from the Execution of their Office for ſix Months, and if then they ſtill refuſed, They ſhall be p. 59ipſo facto deprived, and are hereby judged to be deprived of their Offices, Benefices, Dignities and Promotions Eccleſiaſtical.

What is it then that the Civil Magiſtrate may not do in the making of an Engliſh Prelate? I know it will be ſaid he cannot conſecrate him, and it is the Conſecration that gives the Epiſcopal power, but to this I have two things to return.

1. According to their own Practice, Epiſcopal Juriſdiction is exerciſed by perſons never ſo conſecrated, as by Presbyters and Lay-Chancellors in the caſes before mentioned, and they have Authority given them to exerciſe that Juriſdiction, and that not by Deputation from the Biſhop, but by Legal Conſtitution; and what is the Office of a Biſhop, but Authority to do the work of a Biſhop?

2. Since the whole Being of Epiſcopal power, is founded upon their Conſecration, it is very reaſonable to demand from them a plain Rule in Scripture for this Conſecration of Biſhops, as diſtinct from the Ordination of Preſbyters; If they chuſe this Foot to fix their Divine Right upon, it is neceſſary a clear Scripture Canon ſhould be produced for it, but it is moſt certain they may turn over all the Leaves of their Bible, all the Days of their Life, before they can find any ſuch thing.

And as the Scripture is altogether ſilent as to the difference betwixt the Ordination of a Presbyter and Conſecration of a Biſhop, 1 Tit.(nay in the Rule for Ordination makes them the ſame) ſo this Ceremony of Conſecration has not been at all times and all caſes thought neceſſary, Repertor. Canon p. 49.or practiſed in the making of Biſhops; Godolphin tells us that antiently according to the Canon Law, and where the Popes Spiritual Power and Authority was in force, Biſhops were not ſo much by Election as Poſtulation, Sum. Roſel. poſtulat. & tit. ſi ques. Pan. 2. p. 106.and in that caſe the Elected was a Biſhop preſently, without Confirmation or Conſecration, onelyonly by the aſſent of the Superiour; And I have recited already the judgment of Mr. Dodwell, that every particular Church had a Power to inveſt its Biſhop, and that the calling in the aſſiſtance of other Biſhops, was not for want of a right in themſelves to do it; I hope theſe Gentlemen will be more cautious how they lay the whole weight of Epiſcopal Authority upon Conſecration, which it ſeems might ſometimes be omitted, leſt thereby they break their Line, and the neck of their cauſe together.

Upon the whole matter I think it is clear enough that the Engliſh Prelaty is a meer Creature of the Civil Magiſtrate, who may make every Parſon of a Pariſh a Biſhop if he pleaſes, their whole power (as diſtinct from Preſbyters) being founded upon the Laws of the Land, by the Statute 25 Hen. VIII. 19. it is declared That none of the Clergy ſhall from thenceforth preſume to attempt, alleadge, claim, or put in ure, any Conſtitutions or Ordinances, Provincial, or any other Canons, Nor ſhall Enact, Promulge, or Execute any ſuch Canons, Conſtitutions or Ordinances Provincial, by whatſoever name or names they ſhall be called in their Convocations in time coming (which ſhall always be aſſembled by the Authority of the Kings Writt) unleſs the ſame Clergy may p. 60have the Kings moſt Royal Aſſent ſo to do, upon pain of being Fined and Impriſoned at the King's will. I need not ſay how ſeverely the Canons of 40 were damned by the Houſe of Commons, where it was reſolved, That the Clergy in a Synod or Convocation, Supplement o… Bakers Chron. p. 476.hath no power to make Canons, Conſtitutions or Laws Eccleſiaſtical, to bind either Laity or Clergy, without a Parliament, and that the Canons are againſt the Fundamental Laws of this Realm, againſt the King's Prerogative, Property of the Subjects Rights of Parliament, and tend to Faction and Sedition. And the Act of Uniformity has not left the Biſhops power to add or change one Ceremony without the Conſent of Parliament.

4. Laſtly; We plead that the Civil Power has now left us to our Liberty in the caſe of Conformity, and therefore we are not guilty of Diſobedience to Authority in what we do.

I know it will preſently be replied, That the Act of Liberty only frees Diſſenters from the Penalty of the Law, not from the Precept of it; and there is a ſharp thing written (it ſeems) by Mr. Norris, to prove that the only Change made by the Toleration (as he calls it) is, that the Penal part of the Law is for the preſent laid aſide, Charge of Schiſm continued.as for the Preceptive part, that ſtands where it did, and obliges under ſin, though not under Civil Penalty, and that Diſſenters are not hereby excuſed from Diſobedience to the State, though they be not accountable to the Law for their Nonconformity: This (as far as I can learn by his Book) he grounds upon theſe two Suppoſitions.

1. That our preſent Liberty extends no farther, than to the removing the Sanction of the Law.

2. That the taking away of the Sanction, does not take away the whole Obligation of the Law: And having very civilly arraigned the Government, as doing that which it ought not to do, P. 24, 32.in granting this Liberty, and predicted, I know not what ill Conſequences to the Nation and general Intereſt of Religion, which time will ſhew: He concludes with a very great Complement upon himſelf, that he believes the Argument has ſuffered no damage by the Management of it, and that he has ſo broken the Neck of his Adverſaries Objection, P. 78.that he had need to be a skilful Artiſt that ſhall ſet it again.

I muſt confeſs this is enough to diſcourage a man from medling, that is conſcious to himſelf, how little skill he has in ſetting broken Necks; but however, we will venture to examine the matter, and if there ſhould chance to be no ſuch mortal blow given, the leſs skill will ſerve to ſet all right again.

I could wiſh the Gentleman had beſtowed a little more pains to make the firſt Point good; for the Queſtion is not, what Toleration ſignifies in the ſtrict, or forenſick ſenſe of the word, nor what Suarez ſays, nor how he criticizes, or diſtinguiſhes of it; for the words of the Statute are to be our Rule in diſcovering the Extent and Effects of it, and not the critical meaning of the word Toleration, which we have nothing to do with, being a word not to be found in the Act of Liberty from the beginning to the end of it; p. 61and to lay the ſtreſs of his Argument upon a bare word, which is not in the Statute, is ſo grand an impertinency as one would not have expected from Mr. Norris; and whatever his Admirers may ſay of this kind of Arguing, I am ſure the Lawyers will think it receives ſome damage in the management.

He tells us, Where there is an Eſtabliſht National Church, all that Toleration can do, is only to remove the Penalty, P. 15.and it cannot there be a Liberty of Allowance, but only of Impunity: But what if the very Act it ſelf expreſly ſays it is an Allowance? why then, either there may be an Allowance to diſſent from an Eſtabliſht Church, or elſe this Act of Allowance deſtroys the Eſtabliſhment; let him take whether of theſe Conſequences he pleaſes, it is all one to me. The words of the Act are, Provided always that no Congregation or Aſſembly for Religious Worſhip ſhall be permitted or allowed by this Act until the place of ſuch Meeting ſhall be certified, &c. Here the Law ſays, ſuch Aſſemblies ſo certified are allowed by this Act. Mr. Norris ſays, they are not allowed, I hope he will not be diſpleaſed, if we believe thoſe favourable words of the Law, rather than his unkind contradiction.

But he ſays, It cannot be an Allowance, and yet if it be ſo, it can be ſo; and let him argue the Notional impoſſibility as long as he pleaſes, whilſt we have the plain words of the Statute, and matter of fact to the contrary; but, ſays he, if it be an Allowance, the National Church is not Eſtabliſht, why then it is not Eſtabliſht, for an Allowance it is, if we may believe the words of the Law; and if this Act of Allowance have deſtroyed the former Eſtabliſhment, who can help it? And yet I ſee no reaſon why the Church of England may not be Eſtabliſh'd, and Nonconformity allowed too, unleſs by Eſtabliſhment ſomething more be meant, than that word can neceſſarily import: Indeed if by Eſtabliſhment he mean a direct poſitive Command, to Worſhip God according to the Mode of the Epiſcopal Party; I grant it cannot well conſiſt with an Allowance to Worſhip him otherwiſe; but certainly the Law is not to be ſet at variance with it ſelf, it has but one Voice, and ſpeaks diſtinctly and conſiſtently, and therefore if former Laws have ſaid, We command you all to Worſhip God after this manner, and a latter Law ſays, We allow you to Worſhip God after another manner, it is plain the laſt is the preſent Voice of the Law, ſignifying that it is not its deſign to tye us up to that particular Mode, and that former Command which he accounts the Eſtabliſhment, cannot diſannul the Allowance which comes after; but if they cannot conſiſt together, the former muſt be vacated by the latter.

The Church of England has ſtill a Legal Eſtabliſhment, that is to ſay, ſhe has great Priviledges, large Revenues, the Publick Places of Worſhip, and thoſe ſhe has by Law; but, as Mr. Norris tells us, All that Toleration can do where there is an Eſtabliſhment, is to remove the Penalty: So we may reply, All that Eſtabliſhment can do or ſignifie, where there is an Act of p. 62Allowance, is only to confer ſuch outward Priviledges; and as the removal of the Penal Sanction does not always aboliſh the Command, ſo the continuance of the Praemial Sanction does not continue the Obligation of the Command, where an Act of expreſs Allowance has taken it away.

2. His other Maxim, That the taking away of the Sanction does not take away the whole Obligation of the Law, wants a little explanation too; for though I readily grant, it will not in all caſes have that effect, yet I ſuppoſe in ſome it may. There are certain Laws that are as well ſatisfied with the bearing of the Penalty, as with obeying the Precept; and Mr. Norris confeſſes as much concerning thoſe Laws that are purely Penal, that is (as he ſays) that do not oblige abſolutely to the Fact, but only conditionally either to the Fact, or to the Penalty; that there are ſuch Laws I grant, only in this I differ from him: P. 50.Whereas he ſays, theſe purely Penal Laws bind to the Penalty, I think we are not bound to the Penalty by the Authority of the Law, but only by the honour and reſpect due to the Law-giver; that is, a man is not bound in Conſcience to ſuffer the Penalty if he can avoid it, without putting an affront upon the Office of the Magiſtracy; for by our Laws as well as the Law of Nature, no man is bound to accuſe himſelf of any thing that has a Penalty annexed to it, eſpecially ſince the repealing of the Oath ex Officio.

We are thus far agreed, that there are Laws that do not abſolutely bind to the Fact: Now the Queſtion is, Whether the Act of Uniformity and the reſt, as far as they relate to Proteſtant Diſſenters, be not ſome of thoſe Laws that he calls purely Penal?

Mr. Norris well obſerves, That Human Laws are not therefore purely Penal becauſe Human; and no queſtion but he is ſo far right; Human Laws may be ſo juſt and warrantable, and advantagious to the Publick Intereſt, that they may formally oblige to Obedience; how then ſhall we find out what Laws are purely penal, and what are not ſo?

Truly here the Gentleman leaves us in the dark; He tells us it is by accident that any Laws are purely Penal, and not from the Specifick Nature of the Laws themſelves; but theſe Logical terms of Accident and Specifick Nature are not ſo proper in matters of Law, nor are we ever the wiſer in this caſe for them; for who can tell what Accidents thoſe are that make this difference, ſince he has not been pleaſed to inform us? And though he adds, It is not from the different Authority of the Law, but from the different Intention of the Law-giver that any Laws are purely Penal, that is, do not oblige abſolutely to the fact, yet we are never the nearer ſatisfaction; for if the Obliging power of theſe Laws depend upon the Intention and Will of the Law-giver, one would think where that Will and Intention are different, the Authority of the Law muſt be different, for the Authority of the Law, and its Obliging power, are the ſame thing; but not to contend about the Phraſe, let us examine the Notion it ſelf, which is, That it is the different Will and Intention of the Law-giver that makes any Law purely Penal; there are two inconveniencies I think attend it.

p. 631. The Will and Intention of the Law-giver any farther than it is expreſt by the words of the Law, is very doubtful and uncertain; and more eſpecially where the Legiſlative Power is in the hands of ſo many as it is with us; for it's poſſible the King may intend one thing, the Lords another, the Commons a third; yea, there may be an infinite variety of Intentions amongſt both Lords and Commons; and if we ſay the Intention of the Majority muſt carry it, yet by what Scrutiny ſhall that be found out? And if the Will and Intention of the Law-giver muſt be underſtood only by the expreſs words of the Law, I ſuppoſe it will be hard to find any Statutes, that in expreſs terms declare, they do not intend to bind abſolutely to Obedience; and yet ſuch Laws there are, by the Gentlemans own acknowledgment: But

2. To ſay, it is the different Will and Intention of the Law-giver, that makes any Law purely Penal, will reſolve the Obliging power of Human Laws into the Will of Man, which is liable to conſiderable prejudices. And I find this ſame ingenious Gentleman in another Treatiſe, Miſcellan. conſid. of the Nature of ſin, Sect. 11, p. 370, 371.has choſen to reſolve the Obliging power of all Laws (Divine as well as Human) not into the bare will and pleaſure of the Law-giver, but in the fitneſs of the Laws themſelves to promote the common good; and this aptneſs, fitneſs or tendency to promote the common good, he tells us, is the Supream, Eternal and Irreverſible Law which preſcribes meaſures to all the reſt, and is the laſt reaſon of good and evil; and he thus analyſes the immorality of an Action into its laſt Principles; It is to be avoided becauſe it is ſin, it is ſin becauſe forbidden, it is forbidden becauſe it was in it ſelf fit to be forbidden; it was fit to be forbidden becauſe naturally apt to prejudice the common Intereſt, which is above all things to be regarded and proſecuted as the beſt and greateſt End: And though he acknowledges, Authority is to be obeyed, let the inſtance wherein Obedience is required, be never ſo indifferent, yet ſtill, the reaſon of this Obligation, is not derived from the Authority of the Law-giver, but from the common good, P. 372.which requires that the Supream Authority be obeyed; and yet by the way, I cannot ſee how his foregoing Chain of Cauſes, will admit of any meer poſitive Laws; for, did he not ſay, a thing is therefore forbidden, becauſe it is in it ſelf fit to be forbidden, as naturally apt to prejudice the common good: Now if this be ſo, an indifferent Action which is not naturally and in it ſelf apt to prejudice the common good, cannot be either forbidden or commanded; for according to his Scheme, the fitneſs to promote the common good is not only the Reaſon of our obeying Laws, but the Rule of God's making them alſo, being (as before) the Supream, Eternal and Irreverſible Law which preſcribes to all the reſt.

Now, if the Will of God muſt not be made the Ultimate Reaſon of our Obligation to obey his Laws, but their fitneſs to promote the common good, certainly the Will of Man muſt not be the Reaſon of the Obligation of Human Laws; it would be very odd and dangerous to aſcribe more to the p. 64Will of Man, than to the Will of God; therefore we muſt enquire for ſome better Reaſon, why ſome Laws oblige abſolutely to Obedience, and other not, than meerly the different Will and Intention of the Law-giver.

And I ſuppoſe the true foreign of this kind of Laws, is to be found in the matter of them, and thoſe Laws are purely Penal, which require things ſo very trivial and indifferent, as naturally and in themſelves have no fitneſs at all to promote the common good, nor any tendency that way; and though I dare by no means ſay, that this tendency to common good is a Law ſo ſupream, as that God himſelf muſt always obſerve it in his Commands and Prohibitions, and that the Obliging power of his Laws is to be reſolved into it; for I doubt not, God may command things that have no ſuch tendency in themſelves, meerly to try whether men will obey the Authority of God for its own ſake; yet I am verily perſwaded men ſhould make the common good their Rule in every Law of theirs, and that amongſt men; Salus Populi eſt ſuprema Lex, and that God has not given them Authority to command any thing, Demoſthenes Natal. Comit. Mythol. l 2. c. 7. Aquinas, q. 95. Camero praelec. tom. 1. p. 367. There was one (ſaith the Bp. of Winch. on John 16.) that would have his will ſtand for a reaſon, 1 Sam. ch. 2. Thus it muſt be, for Hophni will have it ſo, his reaſon is, becauſe he will. God grant (ſayshe) there be none ſuch found amongſt Chriſtians; and I ſay, Amen.John 161 Sam 2but what has a tendency thereunto: And therefore Cicero and others were wont to put the bonum publicum into the Definition of Human Laws, and to affirm that thoſe Edicts which command things no way tending to the publick good (quidvis potius quàm Leges cenſendae ſunt) may be called any thing rather than Laws. It is certain God has obliged Governours to ſteer by the Compaſs of Right Reaſon, and to make the Point of publick good in all their Political actions; if this be the Supream Law to all men, it muſt be ſo to them; they ought never to do an act Perſonal, or Political, but what has ſuch a tendency, if they do, they act againſt the Authority of God in this Supream Law, and therefore cannot in the ſame thing act with his Authority: And if in making ſuch Laws as have no tendency to the publick good, they act without Authority, it is certain thoſe Laws cannot bind men to Obedience, though the publick good, and a reſpect to the Perſons and Office of their Governours, may oblige them to ſubmit to the Penalty.

The Authority of God is abſolute, is originally in himſelf and from himſelf, and therefore is not under the direction of the publick good of his Creatures; but the Authority of Man is derivative, and dependant, given unto him not for his own ſake and pleaſure, but for the common Intereſt of Mankind, and is wholly directed and limited thereby; and therefore he cannot as God make Laws purely poſitive, no way tending to good, but meerly to try mens Obedience to his Authority; for he has no Authority to command ſuch things, and a compliance with ſuch Commands, may be ſubmiſſion, but cannot be proper Obedience. And it is obſervable, that there are many Statutes in England not repealed, and yet not regarded, becauſe the matter of them is found to be ſo very trivial, that no body thinks Conſcience any way concerned in them, as the Act for the tire of Wheels; that about the Age of all Calves which the Butchers kill; another requiring Butts for ſhooting in every Town; another, That no Bull ſhall be kill'd without Baiting; That none p. 65ſhall pay above a Penny for a Quart of Ale, and ſuch like, which are buried and forgotten in their own unuſefulneſs.

The matter therefore is come to this Iſſue, if thoſe things wherein we diſſent from the Epiſcopal party, be naturally and in themſelves apt to promote the common good, a meer ſuſpenſion of the Sanction will not excuſe us from obedience, becauſe the Laws requiring thoſe things, are not meer Penal Laws; But if they have no ſuch tendency at all, then, though our Liberty were no more but a ſuſpenſion of the Sanction, yet the Law being purely Penal, we are under no manner of obligation to Obedience by it.

We have therefore theſe two things to ſay for our ſelves under this head.

1. That the Act for Liberty amounts to more than a bare ſuſpenſion of the Penalty, for it allows of our Congregations, it ſecures us from diſturbance, laying a penalty upon all thoſe that ſhall preſume to do it, it exempts our Miniſters from ſerving in any Secular Offices, which is conferring a kind of reward upon them.

I cannot but take notice, how weak and ineffectual theſe Gentlemen would now make this Suſpenſion of the Penal Laws to be, and how little influence they will allow it to have upon the Preceptive part; and yet when it was their Intereſt in the Late King's Reign to decry the Suſpenſion of them by the Kings Declaration onelyonly; They pretend and plead, that if that Declaration have any Legal effect, it would diſcharge Miniſters and People from attending upon the Publick Service of God, thus Sir Robert Sawyer Pleaded in the Biſhops Trial; Pag. 100, 103.When a Law is ſuſpended the obligation thereof is taken away; Now (my Lord) with ſubmiſſion, I have always taken it, that a Power to abrogate Laws is as much a part of the Legiſlature as a Power to make Laws; A Power to lay Laws a-ſleep and to ſuſpend them, is equal to a Power of abrogating them, for they are no longer in Being as Laws, while they are ſo laid a ſleep or ſuſpended, &c.

2. Though it ſhould amount to no more but a bare ſuſpenſion of the Penalty, yet it is ſufficient to excuſe us from Diſobedience, becauſe the Laws hereby ſuſpended are meer Penal Laws, that is, ſuch as require things that are no way apt to promote the common good, thoſe that ſay they are, muſt prove it, however here we remove the Cauſe out of that Court, and muſt ſtand or fall by the intrinſick worth and nature of the things commanded.