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.

PART I. (Book 1)

WHEN I consider on one side with what triumph the Church of England was, to∣gether with His Majesty, re∣stored, 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 Corrupti∣ons 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 as∣serts the Rights of Princes against all Priestly Usurpations; that it does not

enrage the People with Enthusiasm on one hand, nor enslave them with Super∣stition on the other. That its Doctrins are Pure, Simple, and Apostolical, and its Discipline Easie, Prudent, and Mer∣ciful. In a word, that it is a Church that wants nothing but only that we would suffer her to be what she profes∣ses and desires to be. When (I say) I considered all this with my self, it could not but strike me with wonder and a∣mazement 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 Christi∣an Church, exposed to scorn and con∣tempt, deserted by its Friends, tram∣pled upon by its Enemies, and truly re∣duced to the state of the Poor despised Church of England. But then consi∣dering 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 ere∣cted upon such false and rotten Foun∣dations; 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 tis these false and unhappy Princi∣ples that I shall now endeavour to re∣present 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 ei∣ther to that or any other Religion than as it is injoined by the Sovereign Power. Though a Religion that claims no higher Obligation confesses it self to be no Re∣ligion, for none it is unless Enacted by Divine Authority. The second is that of Mr. Selden and his Followers, that acknowledges the standing Laws of the Christian Church to have been derived

from a Divine Institution, but derives all manner of Government and Autho∣rity in it from the Civil State. The third is the Opinion of some Learned and Moderate Divines, both at home and abroad, that grant indeed the ne∣cessity of some kind of Government in the Church, but deny it to have been setled and fixed by our Saviour in any one Form, or upon any certain Order of men, and leave it wholly at some∣bodies disposal (though who that some∣body is they have not as yet clearly de∣termined) to appoint Officers and Go∣vernours, as shall be thought most pru∣dent and suitable to the present Cir∣cumstances of things. Now upon any of these Principles it is not at all ma∣terial whether we assert any such thing as a Church of England or not, for they are all but so many Contradi∣ctions both to the being of a Church and to themselves, at least if we pursue each party to the bottom of their Opi∣nion, they only assert the Shadow or Ghost of a Church, upon such Princi∣ples as are directly inconsistent with the Fundamental Constitution of all Chri∣stian Churches, and so have, as it were,

stoln away the Church of England from itself, setting up the name against the thing, the Idea against the Reality, and the Notion against the Practice. For the first supposes a Church without Re∣ligion; the second a Society without Government; the third a Government without Governours. And what can be more absurd and inconsistent? For a Church without Religion is no Church; a Society without Govern∣ment is no Society; and a Government that is not lodged somwhere is no Go∣vernment. So that though these Opi∣nions are not equally wicked in them∣selves, the first being open and avowed Atheism, yet are they, equally destru∣ctive to the Fundamental Constitution of the Christian Church, as it is a So∣ciety founded not by any human Autho∣rity but Divine Right.

With Mr. Hobbs and his Church I shall be very brief, because his Notions here (as indeed they are every where) are no better than gross and palpable Contradictions.

Neither should I spend much pains upon the second opinion, because the absurdity of it is so easily demonstrable

from the Nature of Society it self, but seeing Mr. Selden, a very Learned Person, has taken infinite pains in the Argu∣ment, searched all Authors and all Re∣cords to heap together every thing that might serve his cause, I shall wait upon him through all the material parts of his Discourse. But with the third sort I intend to treat more largely, because that is the Church at this present in fa∣shion, and is become popular and plau∣sible by the Authority of some Learned men, that have owned and asserted it. And therefore I shall carefully demon∣strate its vanity and falsehood from our Saviours express Institution; from the certain practice of the Apostles; from all the most undoubted Records of the Church; and lastly from the great in∣conveniences that would unavoidably follow upon it. And when we have gained these three Fundamental points, we may then and not till then pro∣ceed to farther proposals for the true settlement of the Church of England; for without them, whatever men may talk of it, all their Discourse of a Church is no more than a Notion and a Phantasm, a Platonick Common-Wealth,

and a World in the Moon.

First then, as for Mr. Hobbs his Opini∣on, it is scarce worth any mans Confu∣tation, because it so plainly confutes it∣self. For what can be more absurd and ridiculous than to make (as he does) the serious Belief of Religion necessary to the security of Government, and yet discover to all those that he would have brought under the Power of this persuasion, that it is in reality nothing but an useful and necessary Imposture. And yet into this preposterous course of Politicks does Mr. Hobbs suffer him∣self to be driven by his pedantick Pride and Vanity. That though it be above all things necessary to the Em∣pire of our Sovereign Lord Leviathan that the common people be abused with the Belief and scared with the dread of invisible Powers, yet lest they should be tempted to think the great Philosopher himself so weak as to be betrayed into the same Opinion, he Publishes a Book to all the World to no other purpose (beside Flattering the Tyrant Cromwel) than to declare that neither himself nor any wise man ought to regard the Tales of Religion, and

that they are only designed to abuse the ignorant and the silly. Just as if this great Statesman should go about to fright Birds from his Corn (as he speaks) with an empty Doublet, an Hat and a crooked Stick, but yet lest the Jack-Daws should take him for one of their own silly Flock, he should take special care to inform them that himself knows it to be only a man of Clouts. This alone is sufficient to discover the vanity and the danger of the Hobbian Religion, when it is nothing else but an open De∣claration of Atheism and Impiety. Though indeed this way of trifling is so natural to Mr. Hobbs that, as much as he loves his own Opinions, he always con∣tradicts them. And this is a plain De∣monstration of the Ignorance of the pretenders to Wisdom in this Age, that so Inconsistent and Unphilosophical a Writer should obtain so much Credit and Authority among them. For though he have a very facetious Wit, and is the Author of many pleasant sayings, yet he was never Master of one Philo∣sophick Notion. But for their conviction I shall challenge them to shew me more incoherent and inconsistent reasonings

than are his undoubted and Mathema∣tical Demonstrations against the Being of God and the Principles of Religion. First then, would you believe that there is a God, or not? Mr. Hobbs gives you your choice. Choose which you please, he will demonstrate either by the same Topick. Will you have no Deity? It is manifest there can be none, because * 1.1 there can be no first Mover, because no∣thing can move itself, and therefore when men go about to prove a Deity from the succession of Causes and Effects, they prove nothing but the necessity of Eternal motion, for as it is true that nothing can move it∣self, so is it true that nothing can move any thing else unless itself be first moved. Here then the Demonstration is pregnant, that there can be no first Cause, because no∣thing can move it self, and because all motion is Eternal. But will you have a Deity? The Demonstration of it is as undeniable: For he that from any effect * 1.2 he seeth come to pass should reason to the next and immediate Cause thereof, and from thence to the Cause of that Cause, and plunge himself profoundly in the pur∣suit of Causes; shall at last come to this, that there must be (as even the Heathen

Philosophers confessed) one first Mover, that is, a first and an Eternal Cause of all things; which is that which men mean by the name of God. Could any man think it possible that both these Demonstra∣tions should drop from the Pen of the same infallible Philosopher? or that the man that can demonstrate after this rate should be so confident as to boast of nothing lower than Mathematical De∣monstration in all his Writings? But though Mr. Hobbs be able to demon∣strate Contradictions, yet himself can hold but one side, and that is always the wrong one. For it is the only scope of all his Natural Philosophy to affirm (I do not say to prove) that there can be no other Cause or Principle in the Uni∣verse beside the meer Aggregate of Natural Causes. By which Topick he plainly demonstrates there can be no such Being as a Deity. For if there is, either he is a Corporeal or an Incorporeal substance; but an Incorporeal Substance is the same with an Incorporeal Body: If Corporeal, then either the world or a part of it, for there can be nothing beside; but it can be neither, because by God is meant the Author of the World, and therefore

they who say the World or any part of it is God, say it has no Cause, and so that there is no God. What Demonstration can be fuller and plainer than this, that the Deity can be no Being distinct from the Universe, nor the Universe itself, nor any part of it, and therefore is no∣thing? But though it be demonstrable from the Nature of Things that there is no God, yet he tells us the belief of a Deity is necessary upon the Authority of Revelation, and out of reverence to the Publick Laws. Though he has peremptorily determined that none can know the truth of a Revelation made to another, but they to whom God himself has revealed it supernaturally, so that no Revelation, unless immediately made to my self, can be of any use to me in this Enquiry. And though he had not thus carefully prevented its proper effi∣cacy, yet when he comes to it we shall find him as much concerned to destroy the Grounds of believing any Revela∣tion, as here he is to take away the Proof of a Deity from the Nature of the Universe, and as for his Reverence to the Publick Laws, it is nothing else but his Declaration of Atheism repeted,

viz. that though I Thomas Hobbs have no ground to believe that there is any such Being as a Deity in the World, nay though I am able to demonstrate the contrary to all the World, yet for Fa∣shion-sake, and out of compliance with the Custom of my Country, I care not though I say that there is one, only I desire all people to do me the right as to observe that I only say so, and not think me so mean a Philosopher as in good earnest to believe so.

And in the same manner that he has destroyed the Evidence of a Deity, has he taken away the Obligation of all his Laws of Justice and Honesty, by sup∣posing such a State of Nature, in which mankind being exempt from all Govern∣ment may do whatever they please with∣out the violation of any Law. Which to suppose is to suppose no Deity; for if there be a Deity, there can be no sup∣position of any such State of Nature in which Mankind can be exempted from his Government. And here too he de∣monstrates contradictions from the same Topick. All men being by Nature of equal Power, and therefore mutually fearing each other, right reason dictates

to every man to defend himself by force and hostility. And yet because all o∣ther men are of equal power with him∣self, and that state of Hostility is very unsafe and uncomfortable, therefore the very same right Reason dictates to every man to seek the Friendship, as much as in him lies, of all men. But though right Reasons Natural State of Peace be so Mathematically demon∣strated, yet in the supposition of its more Ancient State of War lyes the whole mystery of Mr. Hobbs his Morals and Politics; which being founded up∣on the former supposition, that there is no Governour of the World, that alone for ever takes away the Obligation of all the Laws of Nature.

For though he afterwards in his con∣tradictory way to himself, would, when men have entered into compacts, bring them all under the Laws of Justice, yet as he goes about to establish them, he would have them bind without any Sanction, that is, without any power of binding. For having no Obligation but by vertue of mutual Compact, and this mutual Compact being entered into only for private Interest, as every man

for that reason may observe them, so for the same Reason whenever he ap∣prehends it beneficial to himself, he is obliged, as he will be true to his Fun∣damental Principle of Self-Interest, to break them.

So that the Laws of Nature, as he has founded them, are but so many Artifices of Craft and mutual Hypocrisie, where∣by mankind pretend and profess faith∣ful Obedience to the Rules of Justice, and a sincere endeavour to procure the good and welfare of the Community, yet every man resolves inwardly within himself, that he will do neither, but meerly when it tends to his private Ad∣vantage, and so he can any way ad∣vance that, what cares he what mis∣chief he does either to the Private or Public Interest of all the men in the world beside: An honorable account this of Mr. Hobbs his honesty. But of his Notions of Natural Religion I shall not here discourse any farther, finding it done more largely elsewhere, and there∣fore I have here made this brief repre∣sentation of it only, that I might give at one view a complete account of the Hobbian Religion. But our present bu∣siness

is to enquire into his Principles concerning the Church of England, or rather the Christian Church, the Church of England being nothing but that part of it, that is planted in the Kingdom of England. And here all his Notions of the Church are resolved into one Fundamental Principle, that the Sover∣eign Power in every Common-Wealth is the sole Founder of all revealed Re∣ligion, and that whatever pretences, true or false, may be made to Divine Revelation, they can have no Obliga∣tory Power, unless they can obtain it from the Sovereign Authority, and if they can, then whether true or false, they are of equal Force and Obligati∣on to the Consciences of men. Which is in express words to affirm that all re∣vealed Religion is no Religion. And yet he is every where so plain and pe∣remptory in this rank assertion, which concludes our Blessed Saviour a profli∣gate Impostor, that I can not but charge it as a reproach upon the Church of England, that such open Blasphemy should be suffered so long to pass so freely without Censure or Punishment. For having first been so impudent as to

define all Religion to be nothing else than the allowance of some Public Tales, from thence he proceeds in his Mathematical method to inform us, that the Christian Religion neither is nor can be of any Authority in any Common-Wealth, otherwise than as it is owned and ratified by the Supream Secular Powers: so that if Cromwel or any other Sovereign Prince be pleased to command his Subjects only to renounce their Saviour and their Christian Faith and declare themselves Jews or Mahume∣tans, in that Case they are indispensably bound to Obedience, in that it is not possible for the Christian or any other Law to have any binding force than what it receives from the Arbitrary Power of the Civil Magistrate. And agreeable to that General Proposition the Philosopher is pleased to inform us, * 1.3 that the whole Power of instructing the people in any Religion is derived from the Sovereign Prince. That the * 1.4 Subjects of every Common-Wealth ought to receive every thing as the Law of God that the Civil-Laws declare to be so. That by the Doctrine which the * 1.5 Sovereign commands to be taught we

are to examine and try the Truths of those Doctrines, which pretended Pro∣phets, with Miracle or without, shall at any time pretend to advance. That * 1.6 Moses made the Scripture Canonical, as civil Sovereign of the Common-wealth. That our Saviour gave his Apostles power to Preach and Baptise in all parts * 1.7 of the World, supposing they were not by their own lawful Sovereign forbid∣den. That the new Testament had not * 1.8 the force of Law, till it received it from the Authority of Constantine the Great. That the civil Magistrate has originally in himself, and by vertue of his Sove∣reign * 1.9 Supremacy a power of ordaining Priests and administring Sacraments. That Christian Kings are the only Pa∣stors of the Christian Church, and that * 1.10 the faith of all their Subjects depends only upon their Authority. And he is so entirely possessed with this notion of Kingly power, that he allows no other Authority to God himself. And thus when he appoints the punishment of death to false Prophets, because they tempt the People to revolt from the Lord their God: These words (he tells us) to revolt from the Lord your God * 1.11

are equivalent to revolt from your King; for they had made God their King by Pact at the foot of Mount Sinai. So that had they not obliged themselves by that Covenant, it had been no sin to worship other Gods, i. e. it is all one in itself to worship the true and to wor∣ship false Gods, which is plainly to say, there is none at all. And as for the worship they paid to the God of Israel, it was not due to him as Sovereign of the Universe, but only as their King by Pact; and so is no more than what eve∣ry Subject owes to his Sovereign. And * 1.12 therefore he in express terms defines the Kingdom of God to be a civil Kingdom, and to this purpose he expounds the third Commandment, That they should not take the name of God in vain; that * 1.13 is, that they should not speak rashly of their King, nor dispute his Right, nor the Commissions of Moses and Aaron his Lieutenants. And this was the end of our Saviours coming into the World to * 1.14 restore unto God by a new Covenant the Kingdom, which being his by the old Covenant had been cut off by the Rebellion of the Israelites in the Ele∣ction of Saul. And the same account

he gives of Christianity it self; that it is only receiving our Saviour for King. So that when St. Paul says to the Gala∣tians, That if himself, or an Angel from * 1.15 Heaven preach any other Gospel to them, than he had preached, let him be accursed. That Gospel was, that Christ was King, so that all Preaching against the power of the King received, in consequence to these words is by St. Paul accursed; for his speech is addressed to those, who by his Preaching had already received Je∣sus for the Christ, that is to say, for King of the Jews. So that it seems we owe no other duty to our Saviour than if he had been only a temporal Messias, seeing all that is due to him is only by vertue of that covenant, whereby we receive him for our King. Neither is this King∣dom * 1.16 of his present, but is to be esta∣blished upon the Earth after the general Resurrection, and therefore by vertue of that Pact that the faithful make with him in Baptism, they are only ob∣liged to obey him for King, whensoever he shall be pleased to take the Kingdom upon him.

Now barely to represent this Train of absurdities is more than enough to

confute them, in that they all resolve in∣to this one gross Contradiction: That for the ends of Government we are ob∣liged to believe and obey the Christian Religion as the Law of God: And for the same ends of Government, we are to understand that we owe no other Obe∣dience to it, than as it is injoyn'd by the Law of man. But though such manifest Trifles deserve not the civility of being confuted; yet it is fit to let Mr. Hobbs his credulous Disciples (and in all my Conversation I never met with a more ignorant or confident Credulity) un∣derstand after what a childish rate their mighty Master of Demonstration proves these, and indeed every thing else; For he has but one way of pro∣ving all things: First, to define his own Opinion to be true, and then by vertue of that Definition prove it to be so. And for an undenyable proof of this, we will take a review of all the fore∣mention'd propositions, where we shall find all his Mathematical Demonstrati∣ons to be nothing else but so many Po∣sitive and Dogmatical Tautologies. Thus when he proves there can be no first Mover, because he has already de∣fined,

that nothing can move it self, from whence it demonstratively follows, that all motion must be Eternal; for other∣wise, if we assert an Eternal first cause, we run upon that desperate absurdity that somthing may move it self. He had argued full as Mathematically, that no∣thing can move it self, because I say no∣thing can move it self. So again when he proves that God is neither the Uni∣verse, nor a part of it, nor somthing be∣side; he had argued as well, had he said, That there is no Being distinct from the Fabrick of the World, because there is none. So again those Books only can be Law in every Nation, that are esta∣blisht for such by the Sovereign Autho∣rity; because a Law, as I have already defined it, is nothing else than the Com∣mand of that man, or Company of men that have the Supreme Power in every Common-wealth, from whence, says he, it unavoidably follows that nothing can be a Law, but what is Enacted by the Sovereign Power. And so it would have followed as unavoidably, if he had only said, That the Sovereign only can make Law, because the Sovereign only can make Law. And yet upon this one

mighty Demonstration are built all the other bold assertions, that I have colle∣cted out of his Books, that the Sove∣reign Prince is Sovereign Prophet too, that he is sole Pastor to the People of his Kingdom, that he has the only Pow∣er of ordaining Priests, and interpreting Scripture; That Moses and Constantine by vertue of their Kingly Power made the Scriptures Canonical and all the rest, which is no more than to say, That there can be no Law of God, because there can be no Law beside the Law of man. And therefore it is needless to pursue them singly, only I cannot but observe that when he makes teaching any Do∣ctrin against the Will of the Sovereign Prince, to be a certain sign of a false Prophet; he has obtain'd his design of insinuating, that both Moses and our Saviour were manifest Impostors, in that they both proceeded contrary to the Commands of the present Powers, and that is the true Account of Mr. Hobbs his Religion: That though they were indeed Impostors and Rebels to the State, yet having had the Fortune to gain Authority in the World, and being own'd by the Laws of Christendom,

they ought to be acknowledged by all men as Divine Persons as they pretended to be. And as his honourable notion of mankind was, that notwithstanding all their pretences to Justice and Honesty, they were only a pack of dissembling Knaves; so his notion of a Christian Church is nothing else than an associati∣on of Atheistical Hypocrites professing Christianity, but not believing it. He had better have said, that there is no Church at all. And so when he tells us that it is lawful for a good Christian to deny his Christian Faith when his Sove∣reign commands him; he had better have expresly said, that there is no such thing as a good Christian at all. For the Reason he gives that profession with the Tongue is but an outward thing, and no more than any other Gesture, where∣by we signifie our Obedience, which may be honestly done, so we hold firm∣ly in the heart the Faith of Christ; this Liberty, if once allowed, would autho∣rize all the Villany in the world; for Perjury it self is but an external thing, and will by this means become lawful, so a man believe in his heart the contrary to what he says with his mouth. But

when to this he adds, that indeed such Persons as have a calling to Preach, are obliged, if called to it, to suffer Martyr∣dom for their Religion, but none other, no more being required of private Chri∣stians but their own Faith; He little considers that by this new kind of pri∣viledge, that he out of his great kind∣ness grants the Clergy, he has contra∣dicted his whole design. For if they may lawfully persist to death in Preach∣ing the Gospel contrary to the Com∣mands of the civil Sovereign; then the case is plain, that all Subjects are not bound to profess that Religion which the Sovereign enjoyns, which once granted, the whole cause of Leviathan is overthrown. And as by this particu∣lar kindness to the Clergy, he has run himself upon a flat Contradiction to his whole Design, so has he renounced his Argument against Martyrdom. For when he proves that a Christian may de∣ny his Faith, because profession is but an outward Ceremony; it is no more in a Clergy-man, and therefore as lawful and innocent in him as in any other. Howe∣ver they are very much obliged to him for this singular kindness and civility to

them, especially at that time when they enjoyed this his priviledg so highly as they did at the time of publishing his Book. All the Orthodox Clergy being then treated with a more barbarous cru∣elty than the ancient Christians were by any of the Heathen Persecutors, great numbers of them being then stinking to death in the holes and bottoms of rot∣ten Ships. And therefore when the Clergy were in that woful Condition, for him so impertinently to suggest, as he does immediately after; That no man is required to die for every Tenet that serves their Ambition or Profit; to speak very gently, this was not done like a Gentle∣man. And Mr. Hobbs could not have taken a more unseasonable time to revile the Clergy than he did. For whilst they were in Prosperity indowed with good Revenues, and entrusted with great Power, if he had fall'n upon them then, Envy might have been some ground for his Malice. But at that time when they were trampled upon by the very Scum of the People, ruin'd and undone, he could have no other Temptation to do it, but meer Hatred and Malice to the Function it self. But however, though

it be a foolish thing for any man to die for the Ambition or Profit of the Cler∣gy; yet it was a truly noble thing both of the Clergy and others to sacrifise their Lives and Fortunes in the Cause of their lawful Prince against Rebels and Traytors. And it will be an eter∣nal blemish upon Mr. Hobbs's Name and Memory, that when, beside the general duty of Loyalty, he had received many particular Favours and Obligations from his Prince, he should not only desert him himself, but should publish this Book on purpose to persuade the whole Nation, that it was so far from being any way bound to adhere to their lawful Prince, that they were brought under an Obligation of Allegiance and Loy∣alty to the then brutish Usurper; whom he flattered to so high a degree of Tyranny as to advise him to require of all men, not only a Submission to his brutal Power, but an Approbation of all his wicked Actions, a thing so infinitely vile and dishonourable, that it exceed∣ed the wickedness of the Tyrant him∣self. Now men of these irreligious Principles are so far from being fit Mem∣bers of a Christian Church, that they

are not worthy to live in any humane Society, in that they blow up the foun∣dations of all Government, as well as Religion. For Loyalty or a sense of duty to lawful Governours is founded upon no other Principle, than the Ob∣ligation of Conscience towards God; So that those men that set Subjects loose from that, turn them loose to Rebellion. And therefore, though the notion of a Deity be nothing else than an empty Doublet, an Hat, and a crooked Stick set up by Princes to scare fools to Obe∣dience, it concerns them to keep those men out of their Fields, who go about to destroy the Reverence of their Scare∣crow. However these men are not to be admitted to any Disputes about Church-government, who will not al∣low any such thing as a Church, when the Dispute proceeds only upon that Supposition. And therefore I shall leave them to enjoy the vanity of their own Conceits, and proceed to the second Adversary, who grants a Church found∣ed by Divine Right, but no right of Government within it self.

And as in the former we have seen the power of Ignorance joyn'd with

Pride and Vanity, so here may we see the Impotency of Learning joyn'd with Prejudice and Passion. For this learn∣ed Gentleman has spared for no pains in this Argument, he has ransackt all Au∣thors, and all Languages to serve his Cause; he set aside many years for com∣posing his Work, and indeed seems to have made it the main design of his Life. And whatever first engaged him to undertake the Argument (and it is usually reported that the Provocation was so very slight, that I cannot but think it beneath the Spirit of so great a man) he has prosecuted it with greater Zeal and Keenness than he expresses in other Writings. Nay, he cannot for∣bear upon all occasions digressing into this Subject, insomuch that this is the main matter of his Preface to his Book de Anno Civili, the Subject whereof, one would think, is remote enough from this Argument. And yet after all his ex∣pence of Pains and Learning, he has been so far from serving the purpose of his Design, that he has directly opposed it. And if he had only studied to fur∣nish the Church with Arguments to ju∣stifie her Authority and Jurisdiction,

he could not have done her more ser∣vice than he has done by this violent Attempt upon it. This, I know, cannot but seem a very strange Charge against a Person of his Parts and Learning; but therein, I say, appears the strength of Prejudice and Partiality, that it puts men beside the use of their Natural Under∣standings, and hires them to set their Wits on work only to serve a Cause or gratifie a Passion. And when once a man has taken up a Falshood to defend, the more Skill and Learning he spends upon it, the worse it is; for when an Errour is but slightly maintain'd, the mistake may proceed from Inadverten∣cy, but when it is asserted with great Industry and long Study, that discovers the man to be under a setled and habi∣tual misunderstanding. And when all is done, every thing will be True or False as it is, whether we will or no. And if the Power of the Church be setled up∣on Divine Right, 'tis not all the Wit, nor all the Eloquence, nor all the Learn∣ing in the World that can unsettle it; the Winds may blow, and the Waves may beat, but they can never shake it, because it is founded upon a Rock. For

a proof hereof I shall, first, give a brief Account of this learned Authors method of Discourse; and then, secondly, in the same way of arguing, by which he en∣deavours to destroy the Original power of the Church, I shall undertake to make out a demonstrative proof of its Divine Authority. Only I must pre∣mise, that whereas he treats only of the Power of Excommunication, that Dis∣pute must involve in it all other Acts of Government, in that they are all supposed by the Power of inflicting Punishment.

Now Mr. Seldens Account of the rise of Excommunication is briefly this, that it was never establisht in the Jewish Church by any Divine Command; that there was no use of it, whilst they enjoy∣ed the Civil Power among themselves; and therefore that we meet with no Footsteps of it till after the Babylonian Captivity; and that then and there it was first taken up among the Jews by Confederacy and mutual Compact. For being then deprived of all judicial Pow∣er, and zealous for the honour of their Nation, they covenanted among them∣selves to punish all contumacious Offen∣ders against their Laws and Customs by

Excommunication. Which consisted of two things, First, solemn Imprecation of the Divine vengeance. Secondly, Sepa∣ration from their Converse, that partly by the fear of the Wrath of God, and partly by shame and modesty they might be brought to Repentance, which as it was no proper Jurisdiction, so it could take no effect not only against the will of the Sovereign Power, but of every refractory Offender, that might, if he pleased, despise their Sentence and in spite of it, enjoy the liberty of his own Conversation. And therefore to make the Sentence appear more terrible to the People, they expressed it in the same forms of Speech, in which Moses expressed Capital punishments, which is the thing that gave the Occasion to learned men of mistaking, as if the same Phrases had signified the same thing from the beginning, though the only intention of the Jews was thereby to declare, that they would no more own Excommunicate persons to be Members of their Society, than if they had been cut off from it by a sentence of Death; and that if it were in their Power, they would not spare to do it according to

the Law of Moses. That this sentence related only to their Civil Liberties, and was no abridgment of their freedom as to publick Worship; and though the Offender upon whom it passed, was said to be cast out of their Synagogue, yet that is to be understood as it was their Court of Judicature, not their place of Worship, and so signifies Civil Out-law∣ry, not Ecclesiastical Excommunication. But though this Device was at first made use of in this case of necessity for want of more effectual Government; yet ha∣ving once obtained the Power of cu∣stom among them, when they were re∣stored to their Country and Civil State they reserved it among their Civil Pe∣nalties, and used or omitted, alter'd or abated its Exercise according to discre∣tion, as is wont to be done in all other Acts of humane Judicature. That this was the State and Notion of the thing in the time of our Saviour and his Apo∣stles, who took it up in imitation of the Jews, and therefore expressed it by the same forms of Speech, so that in their Discourses it signified no other Separati∣on than what it did among the Jews. That thus the Use of it continued till

the open breach between the Jews and Christians, and then the Christian Church being wholly separated from the Jewish into a Society by it self, they en∣ter'd into such a Confederacy among themselves, as the Jews did in the time of their Captivity, of inflicting censures upon such as by their unchristian Pra∣ctices should bring scandal upon the Church. That this Power at first resi∣ded in the whole Congregation, not in any particular Officer, and that thus it continued till the Ambition of the Bi∣shops wrested it into their own hands, and for it pretended the Authority of our Saviour's Commission. And so they enjoyed it till the time of Constantine the Great, who taking the Church into his Care and Government, reassumed this Power to himself as a natural Right of the Sovereign Prerogative; and so it descended to all his Successors in the Empire, who, as appears by the Records of every Age, varied its Use and exercise at their own pleasure. And as Princes came into the Church, this Right of course Escheated to them, and was ac∣cordingly challenged by them, as is large∣ly proved by the History of Europe,

and particularly of our own Nation. This is the short Account of his long Performance; the sum whereof is, That Excommunication had no Divine, but meerly an humane Original, and that it is no Ecclesiastical, but a civil Punish∣ment, and therefore that it appertains not to the Church, but to the civil Ma∣gistrate.

Now to Answer, or rather Confute all this, I need only to represent, That the Christian Church is a Society founded upon the immediate Charter and Com∣mand of our Saviour, whereby he has obliged all the Members of it to the open profession of the Christian Faith, and to Communicate in the Sacraments and all other Ordinances of publick Worship; which Society is so far from having the least Dependence upon the Civil Power, that it was at first Erected not only without the Allowance, but against the Edicts and Decrees of all the Powers of the Earth; and subsisted so apart from all Kingdoms and Com∣mon-wealths for above 300 years; all which time, though it borrowed no Force or Assistance from the Imperial Laws, yet by vertue of our Saviours

Divine Authority it obliged all Christi∣ans to embody together into a visible Society. Which Obligation is not only distinct from, but antecedent to all hu∣mane Laws that require the same thing. And therefore in a Christian state men are not Christians by vertue of the Law of the Common-wealth, but it is the Law of God that constitutes the Being and Formality of a Christian Church. Now this being granted me, which can∣not be denyed without denying the foundations of the Christian Faith, the whole cause of Erastianism is run upon a palpable Contradiction. For if the Church be a Society founded upon Di∣vine Right, it must have at least as much Power of Government within it self as is necessary to its own Peace and Pre∣servation; otherwise it is no Society, much less of any Divine Appointment. And if it be indued with a Power of Government, it must have a Power of inflicting penalties upon Offenders, be∣cause without that the common sense of mankind will tell us, that all Govern∣ment is ineffectual. And then as it is a Society, so it is no civil Society, as ap∣pears by our Saviours own Declaration,

that his Kingdom is not of this World; and by the fundamental Principle of these men, that for that very reason maintain it cannot be indued with any juridical Authority. From all which, viz. That it is a Society, but no civil Society; that every Society must have Govern∣ment, and all Government a Power of inflicting Penalties: what can more de∣monstratively follow, than That its Pe∣nalties are distinct from those that are inflicted by the civil Power; and if so, that then Excommunication in the Chri∣stian Church, whatever it is, must be something distinct from all civil Inflicti∣ons? So that methinks Mr. Hobbs his Notion is much more Coherent with it self, for whilst he allows the Church no Right of Society, but what is granted it by the civil Government; it is but rea∣sonable, that the Power upon whose Charter it subsists, should retain to it self the Authority of governing it ac∣cording to the Laws and Rights of its own ••••stitution. But to derive all its Rig•••• of Society from God, and at the same time allow it no Power of Govern∣ment, but from the State; is that gross Contradiction I charge them with, in

that Society without Government, is no Society. So that this one Notion, That the Church is a spiritual Corporation, distinct from the Common-wealth, and antecedent to its being embodied to it, prevents and anticipates all the Erastian Arguments, because that alone plainly infers, that it must be endued with a ju∣risdiction distinct from the civil Govern∣ment. And indeed the main Dispute depends upon this one Principle, Whe∣ther the Church be a Society founded by Divine Institution? if it be, that alone vests it with a Power of Excom∣munication; if it be not, it is in vain to strugle against Conclusions, when we have once own'd the Premises, for then are we clearly return'd back to the Church of Leviathan, that stands uponno other Foundation than that of humane Laws. Now upon this immoveable Principle, I joyn Issue with our learned Authour, and shall wait upon him through all parts of his Discourse, and through all Ages of the world, as he has divided them into six Epochas (1) From Adam to Moses (2) From Moses to the Captivity, (3) From the Captivity to our Saviour, (4) From our Saviour to

the end of the first Century, (5) From the end of the first Century to the Reign of Constantine, (6) From Con∣stantine to our own Age; of all which he has endeavour'd severally to prove, that there was either no such thing as Excommunication in Use; or if there were, that it was a meer humane Inven∣tion. First, he undertakes to prove, * 1.17 that there was no such punishment as Consistorian Excommunication in all the interval from the Creation to Moses. For whereas it is the custom of some zealous men to fetch all things from the beginning of the World, they have here it seems exemplified this matter in the Fall of Lucifer from Heaven, in the ex∣pulsion of Adam from Paradise, and in the banishment of Cain from the Society of mankind. Now in answer to these, he replies two things, First, that these punishments were not properly Excom∣munication; Secondly, that if they were, examples are not enough to make a Di∣vine Law. I will freely grant him both, and yet infer from hence, what is enough to my purpose. The necessity of Government to the preservation of Society, and of inflicting penalties to

the preservation of Government. When it appears from hence, that even God himself, who is endued with infinite Wisdom and Power, has no other moral way, but this to govern the world. And that is all, that in this part of the Dis∣pute can be material to our present Ar∣gument; for the Dispute being divided into two parts, Whether there be such a punishment as Excommunication, and Whether the Power of inflicting it be appropriate to certain Officers of our Saviours appointment: I suppose no man ever pretended to prove that our Saviour at the beginning of the World instituted an Apostolical order of men for the government of Religion, so that here all the Controversie that can be, is, Whether there were not an absolute necessity of some jurisdiction in this, as well as all other matters of humane life? and for it we have our Authour's full suffrage, proving in his first and second Chapters, that the sons of Noah, and the Patriarchs, who lived before the Law, must have had their Courts of judica∣ture, tam circa Sacra quàm Profana, from the nature and end of Society, in that without this Power it must unavoidably

fall into disorder and confusion. Utrum aurem praefecturae fuerint illis tunc temporis juridicae, tametsi nulla omnino restarent earundem in sacris literis alibive vestigia, non magis esset dubitandum, quàm, utrùm in societatem vitae civilem coalescerent tunc ipsi, atque animalia, ut genus humanum re∣liquum, essent politica, rectèque ac honestè, pro seculi persuasione, vivendi rationem omnino inirent; atque ut Dubia, Lites, Controversiae cum effectu civili, i. e. judici∣orum executione dirimerentur, scelera ac delicta cohiberentur, adeoque in Officiis contineretur quisque suis curaret. And therefore he makes all Government to be establisht by the Law of Nature, as being absolutely necessary to the preser∣vation of all humane Society. Which if he would but have applyed to the case of the Christian Church, it would have prevented the pains of all his en∣suing Discourses; for that being a Soci∣ety 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 ob∣serves 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 Ido∣latry and Blasphemy, which refer only to the Worship of God were forbid∣den by the two first, they could never have had the force of Laws among mankind, unless some Persons were in∣dued with a power of judging of the nature of those Crimes, and inflicting punishments in pursuance of their Sen∣tence, 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 Au∣thour 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 pro∣per 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 enjoy∣ed the civil jurisdiction of their own Common-wealth; and from the Cap∣tivity 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 sub∣ject. 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 depri∣ved 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 disho∣nour. 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 fol∣low 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, with∣out 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, ac∣cording 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 pecu∣liar to the Society; the greatest where∣of 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 jurisdi∣ction 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 a∣gainst them, who say it has none.

As for the second, that Excommuni∣cation 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 ne∣cessity of this, or the like punishment in

all Society, where there is no other co∣ercive Power. But here, by the way, though I do not doubt that this punish∣ment 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 Histo∣ries 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 * 1.18 hic dubium forsan occu••rat, utrum corpori & scriptoribus talmuai••is hujusmodi in rebus quatenus historicae sunt, id est quate∣nus in eis pro jure qualicunque Ebreis vete∣ribus recognito atque usitato tra••untur, fides sit habenda, eo scilicet quod corpus il∣lud quo jam habetur contextum, scriptores∣que

illi caeteri saeculorum sunt Templi urbis∣que excidio recentiorum, is for san etiam du∣bitabit 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 ju∣ris alibi non reperta. He might have observed that these two cases were vast∣ly different; for there were certain Re∣cords and Reports of those famous Lawyers, which were conveyed by wri∣ting from age to age, as were the wri∣tings 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 bar∣barous and degenerate Age. so that our Authour, if he would have found a parallel case, ought not to have compa∣red the Talmudical Traditions to the Digests of Justinian, but to some of the old British History (not to mention the Monk of Viterbo) who give us large Accounts of the exploits of their Coun∣try, and the succession of their Princes from Adam to Brute, without any assi∣stance

of former Records. And this I take to be the case of the Talmudical Doctors, in whose Reports there is no∣thing creditable concerning the ancient Jewish Church, farther than as it is con∣firm'd by the ancient Writers. And therefore I find no reason to accommo∣date their forms or customs of Excom∣munication to the old Jews, because I find no Records of them older than themselves. And for this reason I sus∣pect it to be a great mistake in Grotius, and the learned men that follow him, who whatever they find in the Talmudi∣cal Writers concerning Excommunicati∣on, immediately apply it to some text of Scripture, as if it were originally taken thence. Of which (though it is not much material to my purpose) I shall give a brief Account. The Talmudists then had their degrees of Excommunication, some say three, Mr. Selden says but two, neither was it inflicted only by the Court of Judicature, but by any single Person; and that either upon another, or upon himself; and that either waking or sleeping. For if any man pronounced himself, or his neighbour Excommuni∣cate, it was as binding, as the Decree of

the great Sanhedrim, or if he only dream't that he was Excommunicate, ei∣ther by the Court, or any private Per∣son, it was as effectual, as if it had been done with all the formalities of Law. And as any man had power to Excom∣municate himself, so had any Rabbi to absolve himself, and if a man were Ex∣communicate by the great Sanhedrim, he might be absolved by any three men whatsoever; with divers other ridiculous Formalities, which discover themselves to be meer inventions of the Talmudical Age, when all sense of Religion was run into idle and useless Pageantry. And therefore passing by all the rest as absurd enough of it self, I can find no Traces of their several degrees of Excommu∣nication more ancient than themselves, and therefore I suspect them, not to have been in Use in the ancient Jewish Discip∣line. And though Grotius interpret several texts of Scripture by them, it is manifest that he brings his Interpretati∣on along with him from the Rabinical Writers, without finding any ground for it in the Text it self, as will best appear by particulars. Thus that Text, Ezra 10. 8. That whosoever would not come

within three days according to the counsel of the Princes and the Elders all his sub∣stance should be forfeited, and himself se∣parated from the Congregation of those that had been carried away; seems not to have any reference to the power of Ex∣communication, but only an exercise of that absolute Authority that Ezra had received from the Persian King, Chap. 7. 26. That whosoever will not do the Law of thy God, and the Law of the King, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto Death, or to Banish∣ment, or to confiscation of Goods, or to Imprisonment. Now the Proclamation in the 10. Chap. being in pursuance of this Authority, can signifie nothing, but first, an exclusion from the priviledges granted by Artaxerxes to the Jews, which, as things then stood, amounted to nothing less than Banishment, and then Secondly, a confiscation of their Estates, and because the Estates to be con∣fiscated were to be devoted to the ser∣vice of Religion, the thing is expressed by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that signifies Conse∣cration, as well Destruction. For where∣as it properly and originally imports nothing but utter Ruin, yet because in

most cases, where the People were de∣sign'd to final Destruction, the Goods were reserved and dedicated to the ser∣vice of God, thence the same word came to signifie Destruction and Consecrati∣on. Neither does that Text of Nehe∣miah sound any more to the purpose, c. 13. 25. And I contended with them, and cursed them, &c. which seem to signifie nothing more, than as Grotius himself expresses it, Nehemiam gravibus verbis etiam cum ir ae divinae comminatione usum in istos legirupas, chiding with them se∣verely, and threatning them with the wrath of God. Much less is that of Daniel to this purpose, Chap. 12. 2. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt, i. e. says Grotius of these latter sort, erunt alij in Nidui, alij in Cherem. For supposing with him that this passage ought to be understood of the punish∣ment of those, who under the persecuti∣on of Antiochus had Apostatised from the worship of the true God, yet there is no imaginable foundation, were not mens minds prepossest with Talmudical Conceits, to understand it of these forms

of Excommunication, especially that of Nidui, which was not separation, but only a keeping the distance of four pa∣ces from others, was certainly a very small punishment for the greatest of sins among them, i. e. Idolatry. And lastly, (to mention no more) that of St. John the 9. and 22. seems least of all to the purpose. That the Jews had agreed alrea∣dy, that if any man did confess, that he was Christ, he should be put out of the Syna∣gogue. Which Grotius expounds of Nidui, because, says he, the second de∣gree of Excommunication was not in∣flicted upon the followers of Jesus, till after the Resurrection. But it looks very uncouth, that the great Sanhedrin who looked upon our Saviour as an enemy to Moses and their Religion, an Impostor, an Apostate, a Samaritan, which was much worse than an Hea∣then, should deter the People from be∣ing seduced by him with no greater pe∣nalty, than of keeping four paces di∣stance from their Neighbours; however when those that were under it, were notwithstanding admitted into the Sy∣nagogue keeping their due dist ance, they could not be said to be cast out of

it. In short, when there are no foot∣steps of the Talmudical degrees of Ex∣communication, neither in the Scripture, nor Josephus, nor in the practice of the Essenes, nor in any ancient Record; we have no reason to believe it was then in use, but on the contrary, that it was not, because otherwise, so obvious a thing could not have escaped their notice. The truth is, the plainest ac∣count we have of this thing, is from the Scriptures of the New Testament, as I shall shew when I come to that head, particularly from their custom of casting out of the Synagogue, which signifies discommoning Offenders, and is com∣monly expressed by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by Josephus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to cashire out of the Society, of which we have an eminent instance in the third Book of Maccabees, where the Egyptian Jews ex∣communicated those that under the Ty∣ranny of Ptolomy Philopator had sacri∣fised to Idols, accounting them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as no better than enemies to their Nation. This was the simple practice of this thing, as far as I can find in those times, to expel them out of their Soci∣ety, without variety of lesser or greater

degrees, but whoever were excommu∣nicate, were to all intents and purposes degraded from being Jews. But herein perhaps I am mistaken, and whether I am, or am not, I am as little concern'd as my cause, to which I now return. And here all that our Author has to the purpose is, that Excommunication among the Jews, was only an abatement of their Civil, not their Sacred privi∣ledges, which if true, would do very little service to his Conclusion, that therefore it must be so in the Christian Church, where there are no priviledges but what are Sacred, but the principle it self is altogether ungrounded, without Authority, and without reason, and that too, though we understand it of his Talmudical Excommunication; for as he justifies the Truth of it by no Autho∣rity, so the reason he gives, is as good as none, viz. That those under Nidui were admitted into the Synagogue. And so they were, as they were admitted to civil Conversation, keeping their di∣stance of four paces, and from thence alone it is reasonable to conclude, that as the sentence proceeded higher, so it was raised in both kinds of punishments.

However there is one Argument to prove the Jewish Excommunication to be a sacred, as well as civil Interdiction, and that so very obvious, that it is im∣possible that our learned Author could have overlooked it, had not his eyes been so wholly fixt upon his own Hypo∣thesis. And that is this, that they looked upon all excommunicate Persons as no Jews, or as we cited before out of the third Book of the Maccabees, as enemies to the Jewish Nation; and then it is suf∣ficiently known to all men, That no such were admitted to the publick service.

And so we come to the Period of the Christian Church, which is divided into three Ages, the first, during the time of our Saviour and his Apostles; The se∣cond, from their death, or the end of the first Century, to the Reign of Constan∣tine; The third, from the Reign of Con∣stantine, down to our own times. And that Excommunication in the first age of the Church, was of the same nature with that of the Jews, our learned Au∣thor demonstrates, because our Saviour and his Apostles practised it in imitation of their Discipline. Though for my part, I cannot understand how any

thing can follow more plainly than that Excommunication, if it were a civil pu∣nishment among the Jews, must be meer∣ly Sacred among the Christians. For if the Jews took it up, as our Author will have it, only to supply their want of civil Government, it must therefore, as he rightly infers, be used by them as a civil Penalty. Then when our blessed Saviour instituted the same in his Church, it must not be a civil, but a sa∣cred Penalty, because his Church is no civil, but a sacred Society. If indeed Christians, as Christians confederated together to maintain their secular Inte∣rests, that would make temporal punish∣ments necessary to the preservation of their Confederacy. But when they enter into a Society, purely to enjoy some spiritual Rights and Priviledges, then all separation from the Society by way of Punishment, can be nothing else than debarring them from those Rights and Priviledges. So that if Excommu∣nication among the Jews was, as our Au∣thor contends, the same with Out-lawry as to their civil Rights, what can be more evident than that it can be no such thing among Christians, because as such

they have no civil Rights to lose. And for this reason, whereas he concludes, that because Excommunication was ta∣ken up into the Christian Church in imitation of the Jewish Discipline, that therefore it was the same, if he had con∣sider'd things instead of words, he would have been so far from making his own Conclusion, that he would have concluded that, if one were civil, the other was not. So that when our Sa∣viour established the Customs of his Country in his Church, it is manifest from the nature of his Church, which was a spiritual Kingdom, that he never intended it should be exercised in any other matters, than what were peculiar to his Religion; or if he did, that he lost his Intention. And therefore it seems no better than meer obstinacy in our Author, to insist upon it so impor∣tunately, that Excommunication in the Christian Church must be the same with the Jewish, because borrowed from it, when for that reason alone it must be different, because so were the Societies, to which they related. And he might as well have argued that the Christian Baptism was the same with that of the

Jews, because it is the form of Prosely∣tism in both, whereas by one men be∣come Jews, by the other Christians. And of the same nature is Excommunication, for as by that we are admitted into the Church, so by this are we cast out of it. And whereas our Author will have it to have been the same thing both among Jews and Christians, because it is ex∣pressed by the same Phrases, it is as ab∣surd, as if he should go about to prove that no man can be banisht out of Eng∣land, because he may be banisht out of France, for though banishment out of both Kingdoms be the same punishment, yet were their banishments out of diffe∣rent Kingdoms: so by Excommunica∣tion among the Jews (passing Mr. Seldens account of it) were men cast out of the Common-wealth, and all the Rights of it, and among the Christians out of the Church, and all the benefits belong∣ing to it. And therefore, unless he could prove that there is no difference be∣tween the Christian Church, and Jewish Common wealth, it is in vain for him to insist thus weakly upon the fignifica∣tion of words, for that is determined by the nature of things, and therefore

where they are different, there is no avoiding it, but that the words by which they are expressed, must signifie diffe∣rent things.

But this being premised, our Author divides his Discourse into two parts, First, to enquire what was the use of Excommunication in the Apostolical Age; Secondly, upon what right it was founded; as for the first, he alledges se∣veral Texts of Scripture, as Gal. 1. 8. Though we, or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be Anathema. 1 Cor. 16. 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maran Atha. But to what purpose this, is past my Comprehension: For the only design of the Argument, is to prove that the Apostolical Excom∣munication was meerly Jewish, as he had before proved that the Jewish was meer∣ly civil. Now can any man imagine that such dreadful Curses as these should signifie no more than a separation from Neighbours Commerce? especially, when it is evident, that St. Paul strain'd for the highest expressions of misery; and therefore to heighten his sense, he

supposes an impossible thing, that an Angel from Heaven should teach a false Religion, which, says he, if he should, let him be Anathema, i. e. says our Au∣thour keep him not Company, a dread∣ful punishment to an Angel. As for the second Text, it is so high a Curse, that all Authors are at a loss for its mean∣ing, though among all the Conjectures about the signification of Maranatha, I think none more probable than that of Grotius: Eâ voce oratur Deus ut quamprimum talem maleficum & seducto∣rem tollat ex hominum numero. It was a casting out of the Church attended with a prayer to Almighty God to take the Offender out of the World; which was rarely done, and only in such cases, as is here supposed, when men were not only wicked, but powerful Agents, and Instruments of Wickedness; as in the case of Julian, whom the Christian Church did not only Excommunicate for his Apostasie, but because, beside that he set himself to destroy Christianity, they prayed to God, that for its preser∣vation he would speedily remove him out of the World. But whatever it sig∣nified, it was something more than a

meer Restraint of familiar Conversation, or it was nothing at all. For what pu∣nishment could it be to any man, who disown'd Christianity to be deprived of the Conversation of Christians, in an heathen City, where the Religion was a Novelty, and when their Company was so far from being desirable, that it could only expose a man to contempt and scorn? But however, granting this slen∣der Interpretation of these Texts, what can be more absurd, than that the Apo∣stle only by vertue of a Jewish Power, should Excommunicate all that opposed our Saviours Religion, both when he had no such Power, and when the Jews were the main enemies that opposed it? And yet that is the only thing that our Author undertakes in this Chapter, That there was then no Excommunica∣tion in the Christian Church, but by vertue of the Jewish Authority.

The last instance of Apostolical Pra∣ctice, is St. Pauls proceeding against the incestuous Corinthian, which, one would think is as clear a Precedent, of Ecclesi∣astical Jurisdiction, as could have been left upon Record. And yet this must be rejected as a miraculous and extraordi∣nary

case, and is not to be understood for the power of Excommunication, but for the then Apostolical power of inflicting Diseases, though nothing can be expressed in plainer words, than St. Pauls commanding the Corinthians, to put such an one from among them, for what else can that signifie than to expel him their Society? And what if any mira∣culous Effect followed it? that was not the punishment which the Apostle in∣joyn'd the Corinthians to inflict upon the Offender, for they were not, as is agreed on all hands, endued with any such Power. But all that he required of them, was to cast him out of their Church, and therefore in his second Epistle upon the offending parties Re∣pentance, he counsels them to restore him, 2 Cor. 2. And that, whatever deli∣vering to Satan may otherwise import, was all the Jurisdiction they exercised, as gather'd together in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Apostles Spirit, and if any extraordinary infli∣ctions ensued upon this sentence, that was only a Divine Ratification of the Churches decree. But when upon this occasion, the Apostle enjoyns the Corin∣thians

not to accompany, no not so much as to eat with scandalous Offen∣ders, that says our Author, signifies no more than Davids saying, Blessed is the * 1.19 man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked: And I have not sat with vain * 1.20 persons, neither will I go with dissemblers; this brought no alteration upon the state of Offenders, but only signifies the Re∣solution of particular men, as to their Conversation. It is very true, that a mans Resolution is his Resolution; but then a Command too is a Command; And that, whatever Davids case was, is the case here, where St. Paul com∣mands them in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by his Apostolical Authority to expel all wicked pretenders to Chri∣stianity out of their Society. And that, it is plain, was a manifest change of their state in the Christian Church, or the same thing with Excommunication.

But this for the Usage; as for the Right, our Author will allow none, but what was purely Judaical or Impe∣rial, and this he proves very largely, both because at first all Christians were Jews, and none else were admitted into the Church, but Jewish Proselytes, so

that notwithstanding their Christianity they continued the same national Inte∣rest, and exercised the same acts of Go∣vernment, of which Excommunication being one, it was common both to the Believing and Unbelieving Jews. That is his evidence of the Jewish Title to Ex∣communication; his proof of the Impe∣rial, is this, That the Emperors in their Edicts, by which they granted or abated their Priviledges, understood both Jews and Christians, and therefore by vertue of their grants, the Christians as well as Jews enjoyed their old power of Ex∣communication. But to what purpose all this, I must confess, I cannot divine: For it is true, that the Christians and Jews then kept up the same National In∣terest, but what is that to Excommuni∣cation in the Christian Church, which was both distinct from that of the Jews, and concern'd no civil Rights? And that is our only enquiry what that Ex∣communication was, that was peculiar to Christianity. For when the Christi∣ans continued among the Jews as to their civil Society, the question is, that seeing notwithstanding that they exercised this power among themselves as Christians,

whether that must not be distinct from the same Act as exercised among them as Jews. For (as our Author informs us) they were Jews to all intents and purposes, Nisi exceptis rebus illis quibus à Judaeis non credentibus necessariò atque è disciplinâ Christianâ singulari divinitus praescriptâ discriminarentur, that is to say, they were Jews to all intents and pur∣poses, but of Christianity. Upon such preposterous absurdities are men forced, when they will right or wrong maintain their own Prejudices. We are at great pains to prove that the Christians had no discipline by Divine Right, and that what they had, they had in common with the Jews, and now after all, we ex∣cept only that which was peculiar to the Christians, and that too instituted by Divine Right. And thus I find that our Author is forced every where up∣on this Argument, to contradict his As∣sertion in a Parenthesis. Thus, Chap. 13. p. 494. Quidnam ibi quo minus tum regimen circa tam sacra Christiana quàm prophana, publicum, tum ipsa excommuni∣catio, ut ante (causis tantum aliquot novis pro persuasionis discrimine introductis) utpote inter mores Judaicos illibata, undi∣quaque

ab illis exerceri, nec aliter debuisset. Our whole design is to prove, that there was no Excommunication among the primitive Christians, but that of the Jews, nor none among the Jews, but what was purely civil, and now at last we except in a Parenthesis as it were by the by, all cases that came in upon the account of their new Persuasion, that is to say, all cases that concern the Chri∣stian Church. So p. 207. Et qui annis proximius sequentibus è Gentilibus sine Judaismi Proselytismi Christi disciplinam amplexati sunt, Judaeorum nihilominus no∣mine ita simul cum reliquis Judaeis parit••r veniebant eorumque diu juribus aliis non paucis ita utebantur, ut non videatur om∣nino dubitandum quin, inter jura illa et••am hoc de excommunicatione Judaica, quantum ad species ejus seu gradus (nam quantum ad causas, necessum erat ut alit••r se res habe∣ret, quod nemo non videt) pariter à cun∣ctis ut ante pro re nata adhiberetur. But if the causes for which Excommunicati∣on was inflicted in the Christian Church, were (as the Parenthesis informs us) of a different nature from those for which it was inflicted among the Jews, then without any farther dispute, it is

evident, that the exercise of the Chri∣stian Excommunication was distinct from that of the Jews. So lastly (to mention no more) p. 225. Nec disci∣plina illa apud eos alia quam Judaismus vere reformatus sen cum fide in Messiam seu Christum rite conjunctus. Unde Judaei omnimodi quantum ad hanc rem, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 credentes & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non cre∣dentes tribui solebant. We are here pro∣ving that there was no discipline in the Christian Church, but what was in the Jewish state before Christianity, but now it is the discipline of reform'd Ju∣daism, i. e. of Christianity. But passing by these humble concessions, or rather contradictions, it is enough to our pur∣pose, that though all Christians were Jews, all Jews were not Christians; so that though the Christians enjoyed the same Rights in common with the Jews, yet they must have some Rights peculiar to themselves as Christians. Non aliter (as our Author expresses it) atque is qui Civis Romani aliusve Reipublicae seu sodali∣tii * 1.21 ali••ujus socius jura pristina retinet, ut∣cunque in persuasionem aliquam inter suos singularem pro libitu transeat. In the same manner as a Citizen of Rome retains his

former Rights, notwithstanding he en∣ters himself into any new Society; to which ought to be added, that the rights of the Society into which he en∣ters himself, are distinct from those wherewith he was antecedently vested as a Citizen of Rome. And therefore all this long discourse is quite beside the purpose, that because the Christians en∣joyed the same priviledges with Jews, that therefore they enjoyed none as Christians, which is to say, that there are no Christian Priviledges. And so is that of the Edicts of the Roman Emperors, who it seems knew nothing of the diffe∣rence between Christians and Jews. What then, was there none because the enemies or strangers to the Church were unacquainted with its peculiar Consti∣tutions? And yet here too our Author is quite beside the purpose, not only in matter of Right, but in matter of Fact, as to the Authorities he alledges, the first and chiefest whereof is the Edict of the Emperour Claudius for the banishment of all Jews from Rome, by vertue where∣of (says he) Aquila who was a Chri∣stian was banisht too; and very good reason, because he that was a Christian

was a Jew too, and if he was banisht as a Jew, it is no matter whether he were a Christian or not, when the Edict was made against the whole nation of the Jews. His other instance is out of Celsus, who objects it both against the Christians and Jews, that all that great difference they made about their Messias was about a very trifle. But does Mr. Selden think that Celsus his Authority is sufficient to prove it so? If he does, then I must confess that Celsus and him∣self seem to have been much of the same opinion, for he frequently tells us that the Christians and Jews were the same men, only that those were believers, these unbelievers, as if the difference were as inconsiderable, as Celsus made the com∣ing of the Messias. But if his Autho∣rity be not sufficient, as I suppose no good Christian will grant it is, especially in this case, then it's here alledged apparent∣ly to no purpose. And whereas he adds that Origen answers, that the Jews, who believe in Jesus, do not withstanding live according to the Laws of their Nation, he ought to have added too, that they live according to the Laws of their Messias. For it was that great and sa∣cred

Law of the Gospel that made a vast difference between a Jew and a Christi∣an, which was so great, that it was not greater between a Jew and a Gentile. But however, if there were any diffe∣rence at all, it spoils all our Authors discourse, that proceeds upon this only principle, that there was none, which is so absurd, that it has all along forced him upon the forementioned cowardly contradiction, viz. That there was none but what was made by Christianity.

But, suppose that the Christians ex∣ercised a Jurisdiction among themselves by vertue of the imperial Edicts to the Jews, as he tells us: what if they had never been authorised by any such Edicts, would they have had no Autho∣rity to censure or Excommunicate scan∣dalous Offenders? Did St. Paul pro∣ceed against the incestuous Corinthian by the grant of Claudius to the Jews to go∣vern themselves by their own Laws and Customs? If he did not, then he acted by vertue of some other Authority, if he did, then when any of the following Emperours reverst this Edict, the Au∣thority of St. Paul in this matter had ceased. What then became of the

Church when Nero presently after, for∣bad the exercise of Christianity, or any part of it in the Roman Empire, was not then Excommunication in the Chri∣stian Church an unlawful thing? No, says our Author, because this Decree was made against the Christian Church in particular, and therefore did not deprive them of those priviledges, that belonged to them in common with the Jews. But however upon this principle it is manifest that it debarred them of this Power as peculiar to the Christian Church, and then whatever Jurisdiction they exercised as Jews, they had no right of exercising any Discipline in the name of the Lord Jesus, as St. Paul com∣mands the Corinthians. And then all the Ecclesiastical Discipline that was ex∣ecuted in the times of their several Persecutions was open Rebellion against the State. But beside, what if he had been pleased to reverse all priviledges granted to the Jews, then the power of Ecclesiastical Discipline must have ceased among Christians. And lastly, when he adds for his last reserve for keeping up a Discipline in the Church, contrary to the commands of the civil Power,

the confederacy of the primitive Chri∣stians, who obliged themselves by mutu∣al compacts and covenants to submit to the Discipline of the Church, he should have consider'd that all such confedera∣tions were upon his principles nothing less than conspiracies against the Go∣vernment. For if the Church have no right of exercising any Discipline with∣in it self, but by the grant of the Em∣pire, then the grant of the Empire be∣ing reversed, it has none at all. And thus has he fairly brought this confede∣rate 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 Excommunicatio∣nis

effectus inciperet, non quidem satis li∣quet. Sed ante Origenis ac Tertulliani etiam & Irenaei tempora, juxta jam dicta, effectum, quoad Sacrorum communicati∣nis negationem, inolevisse non dubitan∣dum. 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 Ci∣vil Authority, they could have no other power but a cutting off from the Spi∣ritual Priviledges of the Christian Church. And here I cannot but re∣mark it as the peculiar disingenuity of all the Adversaries both of the Govern∣ment 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 demon∣strative evidences of their Practice, for that reason destroy their Reverence and neglect their Authority, whereas had these men the common modesty of Man∣kind, 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 af∣ter the Apostles, without being able to discover any other time of its first Insti∣tution, how any man should doubt of its Apostolical Antiquity. What Re∣cords can be more evident than the Ca∣nons 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 men∣tion 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 In∣stance 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 Chur∣ches,

thus bespeaks him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: never were any men Excommunicated after this rate: Upon which our learned Author observes Excommunicationis usus qualis∣cunque ut ab anterioribus seculis illuc pro∣pagatus utrinque pariter tunc admittitur, from hence it appears, that on all sides the use of Excommunication was ad∣mitted 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 pra∣ctice? Or could any man desire to re∣duce his Adversary to a greater absur∣dity than is here so frankly own'd, that Irenaeus who lived in the age immediate∣ly 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 appro∣priated 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 Apo∣stolick prescription, especially when he does not so much as pretend to any Re∣cord 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 eve∣ry 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 Excom∣municate whom he pleased, and when he might be absolved from the heaviest sentence of the Court by any three per∣sons 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 pow∣er 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 con∣trary, 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 exer∣cised 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 concern∣ing 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 Bi∣shops had unwarrantably assumed this Power to themselves, they justified their usurpation by pretended Patents made to themselves in several Texts of Scri∣pture, 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 conside∣ration, viz. That our Saviour had al∣ready 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 under him, and gives the Keys of his Kingdom into their hands, what can that possibly signifie, but their Power of Government in and over the Society, especially when it was so familiar a thing in Scripture to ex∣press power by Keys, and our Author himself has observed it, and proved it by a multitude of Instances. But then says he, this Power of opening and * 1.22 shutting the Kingdom of Heaven is ex∣ercised by preaching the Doctrine of the Gospel, by administring the Sacra∣ments, by admitting fit Persons into it by Baptism, and by not admitting such

as are unfit, and by retaining such as are already admitted. That is to say, our Author will allow the Governors of the Church all other Acts of Jurisdiction, but only this one of Excommunication, notwithstanding that it is evidently im∣plyed in them all: Thus, if the Gover∣nours of the Church be entrusted with a Power of Judging what Persons are fit to be admitted; then certainly, if they perform not those conditions upon which alone they are admitted, it must be in the Power of those who let them in, to turn them out. So plainly does the Power of Baptism infer that of Ex∣communication, and the Power of judging who are fit members of the Church infer both. So that the Gentle∣men of the Erastian persuasion would have been much more consistent with themselves, when they would not give the Church all the Acts of Power, if they would have given it none at all, for they are inseparable. And there∣fore the learned and pious Mr. Thorndike has very judiciously observed, that the * 1.23 Leviathan has done like a Philosopher in making the question general, that is ge∣neral indeed, though by so freely and

generously declaring himself, he has made his Resolution more subject to be contradicted. But yet they that only dispute the Power of Excommunicati∣on, as they are of the same opinion, so are they pressed with greater difficulty, only they express not so much of their meaning: for they are nevertheless to give an account what Right the secular Power can have to appoint the Persons, that shall either determine or execute matters of Religion, to decide contro∣versies of Faith, to administer the Sa∣craments, than if they resolved and maintain'd all this as expresly as the Le∣viathan hath done.

And in the same manner does the fol∣lowing Text explain it self, If he hear not the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen, and a Publican; if we will observe upon what subject our Saviour was then discoursing, for though our Author to make the matter appear the more ambiguous, has given us a large Critical account of the words that sig∣nifie Church in all Languages; if in∣stead of that he had only minded our Saviour's Discourse, he must have seen that by the Church here could be un∣derstood

nothing but the Christian Church, this being one of the Laws whereby he would have the Subjects of his Kingdom to be govern'd. But our Author tells us that the Notion of the Christian Church was not then under∣stood, it being a thing to come, and it is not likely that our Saviour in a mat∣ter of familiar and daily use, should di∣rect them to such a means as no mortal man could possibly understand. To which it is very easie to answer, that all our Saviour's Discourses procede upon the supposition of the being of his * 1.24 Church. He began at preaching the Kingdom of Heaven, and all his Ser∣mons and Instructions after that, are but so many Laws and Institutions for its Government, and therefore our Savi∣our's Words are so far from being doubtful or obscure, that they were not capable of being applied to any other Society, than that which he was now establishing in the World. And whatsoever was the vulgar meaning of the word Ecclesia, yet when used by our Saviour, it can be applied to no other company of men but that of his Church, and it was so far from being

then a new word, or a new notion to the Apostles, that our Saviour had some∣time before used the same Expression to St. Peter: Upon this Rock I will build my Church, which he promised him as a peculiar reward of his forward Faith. Now it cannot be supposed that our Saviour would make his promises to his Friends and Servants in unintelligible Language, and therefore it must be supposed that the Notion of the Christian Church was an intelligible thing. But if this will not do, our Author proceeds, that this Text gives no jurisdiction to the Church, but only directs private Christians how they shall behave themselves toward Offen∣ders; as if the Emperour should have made an Edict, that if any Subject should not submit to the decree of his Prefect, he should be accounted by his fellow Subjects as no member of the Common-wealth; this gives the Pre∣fect no new Power, but only concerns the opinion of the People. Very true, but it supposes his old Power, and so if our Saviour had antecedently vested his Church with this Power, this was no new grant but only a supposition of a former one; if he had not, then this

was their Patent, when he refers his Subjects to their Judicature. But what∣ever may be the Notion of the Church, what is there, says our Author, in the following words, Let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican, that sounds like Excommunication, either in the Jewish or Christian use of it? Nothing at all in the Jewish, for Heathens were never Excommunicate as having never been of the Society; neither were Pub∣licans put out of the Synagogue upon the account of their being Publicans. But though Heathens were not Excommu∣nicate Persons, yet Excommunicate Persons were as Heathens, and that is so plainly the meaning of the words that nothing but meer peevishness could have made the exception, and it is the same as if our Saviour should have said of an Apostate, let him be unto thee as an Infidel, and our Author should have replied upon him, How can that be? When an Infidel is one that was never a Member of the Church, and an Apo∣state once was, And then as for the Publicans, though they durst not at that time Excommunicate them for that reason, for fear of the Romans, yet it is notorious that they thought them

worthy of it, and that they were e∣steem'd as no better than scandalous Sinners, Heathens, and Idolaters. But this supposed too, it is no act (says he) of the Church, but every private man, who was hereby permitted to treat the Offender as a vile Person. But this act of his supposes the power of Judica∣ture in the Church, for this advice re∣lates to the known power of the San∣hedrin, that were wont to Excommu∣nicate refractory Offenders, and there∣by to put them into the state of Hea∣then Men: And such it seems was to be the Authority of the Apostles, who were the great Sanhedrin in the Christi∣an Church, as appears by the plain de∣sign of our Saviour's discourse, when he refers all Christians to their Judica∣ture, and commands them that if any man be obstinate against their Authori∣ty, every man should look upon him as an Excommunicate Person, and by the sentence of the Court reduced into the state of Idolaters. But also by the words immediately following, Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven. Which words plainly declare a Power of binding in the sentence of the Church, and withall who the Church

is, viz. The Apostles or Governours of it, to whom our Saviour addresses his speech, and vests them, and them alone with that Authority in which he had before enstated St. Peter, and promises to ratifie not the opinion of the People, but their acts of Judicature, when the People appeal to their Authority.

But neither, Secondly, (says our Author) can these words relate to the Christian Excommunication, for what punishment could there then be in being accounted of as an Heathen, when a great number of the primitive Christians were Hea∣thens, or such as came into the Church without Circumcision. What in our Saviours time? did you not take a great deal of pains in the foregoing Chapter, to prove not only that then, but during all the time of the Apostles; all Chri∣stians were Jews, but now it will serve your turn, the greatest part of them were Heathens. But not to insist too much upon such weak pretences, it is certain, that in our Saviours time all that were not Jews by Circumcision were esteemed as Heathens, i. e. Idolaters, and vile Persons, not fit to be admitted into their Church or Common-wealth, and

therefore it can be of no other Import in the Christian Church: Our Saviour here accommodating, as he does every where, the known customs of the Syna∣gogue to the Constitution of his Church, so that considering the vulgar manner of speaking at that time, I can∣not understand, if our Saviour had de∣sign'd to establish this Power, in what other words he could have expressed himself with more plainness and less ambiguity, even to the capacities of the People.

Of the Third Text, Math. 18. 18. Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, &c. Though it is answer'd already as apper∣taining to the second, our Authors ac∣count is briefly this, that the words of binding and loosing, are either to be taken in their large sense of all manner of binding, but then it seems very strange to express one act of it by such compre∣hensive words, and it is like describing the Ocean by a drop of Water, or the Universe by an Atom. Or if they are taken in the peculiar sense of the Jewish Writers, they then do not signifie any Jurisdiction, but only declaring what is lawful, what not, or answering cases of

Conscience. To which I answer, that in whatever sense the words are taken, they will include in them the power of Excommunication. In the larger sense they signifie Jurisdiction, and all the parts, branches and appendages of it, and then the Power of inflicting penal∣ties, which (as is well known, and our Author has often observed) gives force to all the rest, is to be understood in the first place. And therefore he might have spared his wonder, that so large a word should be taken in so narrow a sense, when that narrow sense necessari∣ly infers all other things, that it does or can signifie. But however, to prevent this vain objection for the time to come, these words are not insisted upon as li∣mited meerly to Excommunication, but as a general donation of Power, and therefore of this in particular, which is so considerable a branch of it. And that is it which we assert, that seeing by the Power of the Keys, the Scripture so often expresses greatness of Power, therefore the Power that is exercised by vertue of them must carry with it the full force of obligation: So that the words mutually explain each other,

for if by the Keys given in the Sixteenth verse is signified Authority, then by binding and loosing, by which the acts of them are expressed in the Eighteenth verse, must be understood authoritative obligation; for though the word bind∣ing simply put may not infer Authority, yet binding by the Keys, signifies the same thing as binding by Authority. And this would have prevented our Au∣thors other notion (of which some learned men are so very fond) of bind∣ing only by answering cases of Consci∣ence, because, though binding alone may signifie only so much, yet binding by the Keys must signifie more. But it is notorious, that the word it self no where in the old Testament signifies any other binding than by Legislative or judicial Obligation, and whereas it is pretended that in the Talmudical Wri∣ters it signifies only an interpreting of Laws without jurisdiction, it is so pal∣pable a mistake, that in them it can sig∣nifie nothing less than authoritative Ob∣ligation, when it is so evident that their Rabbies equal'd their interpretations to the Law it self, and bound them upon the Consciences of men, by vertue of

the Divine Authority, and under penal∣ty of the Divine displeasure. But how∣ever if our Saviour constituted his Apo∣stles to be only Doctors and Casuists, yet he has annexed Authority to their Of∣fice by the promise made at their Instal∣ment, that whatever they bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, for I am sure all binding there is Obligatory; so that it seems if they are Casuists, they are au∣thoritative Casuists, and that is the same thing as if they were endued with pro∣per Jurisdiction. And now having, as I suppose, sufficiently vindicated these Texts, I cannot but remark it as some defect of Ingenuity in this learned Gen∣tleman, to have wholly omitted one Text more, which he could not be ig∣norant to have been as commonly as any of the other insisted upon in this Argu∣ment, and if he would have taken no∣tice of it, would have prevented his Evasions. And that is St. John, Chap. 20. v. 21, 22, 23. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, ••e breathed on them, and saith unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Here our Saviour gives his Apostles the same Power that he had received from his Father, and then for the discharge of it, the same Ability wherewith him∣self acted, and lastly declares to them wherein lay the Exercise of it, and what were the Effects of it, forgiving and retaining of Sins, which answers to the power of Binding and Loosing in the other Gospel. And this if at∣tended to, would have prevented that poor slender Notion, that the power of Binding and Loosing signifies only the Office of Interpreting, or declaring what is lawful, what unlawful; for to retain, or remit Sins (as the truly pi∣ous and learned Dr. Hammond observes) will not be to declare one mans sins un∣lawful, anothers lawful, which it must do if this interpretation be applied to this place.

After all this, it will be but superflu∣ous industry to spend pains upon our Author's Conceit, wherewith he con∣cludes this Chapter, viz. That the Au∣thority of the Church arises from meer consent or voluntary confederacy, for beside as I have shewn, that all such Confederacies are upon his principles

downright Rebellion, it is manifest that if our Saviour appointed Officers over his Church and vested them with a pow∣er of Government, that then he has brought all the members of it under an Obligation to submit to their Authori∣ty antecedent to their own consents. But though we had no such clear evi∣dence of this Divine Institution, yet I am sure we have not the least foot∣steps in Antiquity of this confederate Discipline. He tells us indeed of Com∣pacts and Covenants, that the Primitive Christians are said to have made among themselves; but he could have told us too, that these Compacts were nothing else but the celebration of the Eucha∣rist, at which they were wont, as all de∣vout men do, to renew their vows and resolutions of Obedience to the Laws of their Religion. And this Confederacy, we all know, is founded upon a Divine Institution, and not only this, but all other Assemblies for the publick Wor∣ship of God. To which all Christians are bound by an Obligation higher than meerly their own consent; and such a Confederation we grant the Church still to be, a company of men Covenanting

among themselves to worship God ac∣cording to the Ordinances, and obey him according to the Laws of the Go∣spel. But then they are bound by the Command of God, both to take this Covenant, and to keep it. And this is all the confederacy I know of (unless we must believe Celsus his Calumnies, for he too is quoted upon this occasi∣on) in the Primitive Church; so that whereas our Author every where com∣pares the confederate discipline of the Christians with that of the Jews in their dispersions, it is manifest that the Jews had no other engagement beside their own mutual consent, whereas the Chri∣stians were particularly obliged to en∣ter into their Confederacy by God him∣self; and this difference is so manifest, that I shall say no more of it.

And now having thus firmly esta∣blisht the Churches Power upon Divine Right, that supersedes all farther enqui∣ry into the practice of after-Ages. For in matters that are determined by Law, all Presidents are either nothing to the purpose, or to no purpose, if they are against the Command, they are nothing to the purpose, being only so many Vi∣olations

of the Law. If they are for it, they are to no purpose, because they derive all their goodness and authority from the Law it self, and therefore can give it none. Thus if the power of Ex∣communication be founded upon the Command of God, the contrary pra∣ctice of all the Princes in Christendom is of no weight against the Word of God; if it be not, the practice of all the Churches in the World can never establish a Divine Command. So that the controversie concerning matters of fact from the Reign of Constantine to our own Times, the matter of Law being al∣ready clear'd from our Saviour's Time, carries in it more of Ostentation than Usefulness. But because our Author has been pleased to prosecute it so large∣ly, and with so much learning and con∣fidence, we are obliged to follow him, especially when it is so notorious even from his own relations, that the whole practice of Christendom, unless perhaps in some enormities of the worst and most barbarous Times, runs directly cross to his design.

First then, he presents us with ma∣ny Instances out of the Imperial Law,

whereby the Emperors exercised this Authority themselves, but to all this himself immediately gives a sufficient Answer without making any Reply, viz. That such Excommunications were meerly declaratory, whereby they only declared their detestation of such Per∣sons or Doctrines, or rather declared their assent to the Sentence already de∣nounced by the Church; for I do not find that they ever made any new Ec∣clesiastical Laws of their own, but only adopted the Canons of Councils in∣to the Laws of the Empire, and added to the Anathema's of the Church, what civil Penalties they deem'd most sutable to the Offence. The Theodosian Code is an excellent collection of the Consti∣tutions of sixteen Emperours ab Anno Dom. 312. or the first Year of Constan∣tines Conversion, ad Annum 438. when it was compiled by the command of Theodosius junior, in all which I think I may safely challenge any man to assign one Law relating to Religion, that was not antecedently determin'd by some Council. Almost all the Laws of this nature are contain'd in the 16th Book under their several Titles, De fide, de

haereticis, de apostatis, &c. in all which, whoever will be pleased to peruse them, he will find that the several Emperors enacted nothing but meerly in pursuance of Ecclesiastical Canons, adding for the most part to Excommunication in the Church the punishment of Outlawry in the State. Thus for example, Theodo∣sius the Great, in that famous Ecclesia∣stical Edict, published by him in the se∣cond year of his Reign, and the first of his Baptism (and therefore stiled by the Interpreters of the Justinian Code, filiam primogenitam) only established the Nicene Faith. Ut secundum Aposto∣licam disciplinam evangelicamque doctri∣nam Patris & Filii & Spiritus Sancti u∣nam deitatem sub parili Majestate & sub piâ Trinitate credamus. And when the Year after, he published another Edict to the same purpose, he vouches his Law by the Authority of the Nicene Coun∣cil, as may be seen Tit. 5. de Haereticis, Leg. 6. So that his design was not to make any new Law, but only to abet an ancient Law of the Church with a civil Penalty, as he concludes his Edict, that Offenders against it should not on∣ly be obnoxious to the Divine Ven∣eance

denounced by the Council, but should also be punished at the Empe∣rors pleasure, for that I suppose to be the meaning of Motûs nostri ultione ple∣ctendos. But the most express Ratifica∣tion of the Canons of the Church, is that Edict of Theodosius the Younger, to the Governour of the Eastern Illyricum, * 1.25 Anno Domini, 421. Omni innovatione cessante vetustatem & Canones pristinos Ecclesiasticos, qui nunc usque tenuerunt, per omnes Illyrici Provincias, servari prae∣cipimus: Tum si quid dubietatis emerserit, id oporteat non abs{que} scientiâ viri reveren∣dissimi sacrosanctae legis Antistitis urbis Constantinopolitanae (quae Romae veteris praerogativâ laetatur) conventui sacerdo∣tali sancto{que} judicio reservari. 'Tis not material, whether this Law refer to the Canons of the General Councils, or to the particular Canons of that Province, which is a Dispute among learned men: For be it this or that, it is manifest that the Emperor design'd to follow the De∣crees of the Church, and to refer Ec∣clesiastical Controversies to its own judgment and determination. Having intimated this account of the Theodosian Code, I need add nothing of the Justi∣nian,

because it only repeats all the Laws of the former that were not ob∣solete, as may be seen not only by comparing the Books themselves, but by that exact collation of their Titles and Constitutions, that is prefixed to Gothofred's Edition of the Theodosian Code. And as for his own Novels, he frequently makes particular reference to the Canons of the Church, challenging to himself a power of punishing Of∣fences against the Ecclesiastical Canons by vertue of this one general Law, which he declares to have been the sense of himself and his Predecessors, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, * 1.26 That the Canons of the Church ought to have the force of Laws. And accordingly he begins his Laws, concerning Ecclesia∣stical matters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: * 1.27 We enact that the Canons of the Church, i. e. the four first general Coun∣cils shall be received into the number of our Laws. And by that Edict alone, if there had been no other, they were all Constituted Laws of the Empire. And according to this Principle he de∣clares in the Preface to his 83 Novel that

he only follows the ancient Canons and Constitutions of the Church. And par∣ticularly in his 137 Novel, where he endeavours the restitution of Ecclesia∣stical Discipline, he only enjoyns the observation of the thirty sixth Aposto∣lical Canon, viz. That the Bishops of each Province meet twice a Year for the more effectual Government of the Church, and this he professes to do, not as Author, but as Protector of the Ec∣clesiastical Laws; and therefore in the Preface to this Novel, he challenges to himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the power of Legi∣slation in reference to the Civil Laws; but in reference to the Laws of the Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the power of Patronage, or Protection. This seems to have been the Constitution of the Church in those happiest and most flou∣rishing Ages of it: whereby it appears that the Emperours of those Times were so far from assuming the power of Excommunication to themselves, that they would not so much as abet any matter of Religion with their civil Sanctions, that was not determin'd be∣forehand by the Spiritual Power. Whe∣ther they ever exceeded their own

bounds, I think not my self obliged to enquire, they being lyable to that, as well as to other mistakes and misearria∣ges of Govenment. Though I remem∣ber not any instances of that kind till the latter and degenerate ages of Chri∣stendom, when barbarity was introdu∣ced by the incursions of the Goths and Vandals and other salvage Nations. It is enough to my purpose, that the Pow∣er of the Keys in the Church was ac∣knowledged by the Christian Empe∣rours from Constantine to Justinian; and it is more than enough, in that whether they own'd it or not, it was setled by our Saviour upon the Apostles and their Successors to the end of the World.

But secondly, Emperours, Kings and Princes have limited the Ecclesiastical Order in the exercise of this Power, and assign'd them either larger or narrower bounds of Jurisdiction, as they judged most consistent with reasons of State; by which they evidently declare what was their opinion of the censures of the Church, for if they had supposed Church-officers to have acted by a Di∣vine Authority, they durst never have presumed to set bounds to the Power of

God by their own arbitrary Decrees As if it were not possible for the Go∣vernours of the Church to go beyond their Commission, and under pre∣tence of a Divine Authority, encroach upon that power that God has commit∣ted to Princes. Which if they can do, and some have done, what affront is it to the Authority of God himself to restrain his Ministers within those bounds of Jurisdiction that he has pre∣scribed to them? Nay, is not this very thing a very plain confession of a di∣stinct Authority, when to limit a power supposes it? So that it is so far from be∣ing any Argument of their disowning the Divine Institution of an Ecclesiasti∣cal power, that 'tis a demonstrative and undoubted proof of their acknowledg∣ment of it. This being granted, I shall not concern my self to enquire into the warrantableness of the several Prece∣dents alledged, though most of them relate only to the restraint of dilatory, vexatious and uncanonical proceedings; for my only business is to gain the suf∣frage of the Princes of Christendom to my Cause, for which I am no ways bound to prove them free from all er∣rours

and miscarriages of Government: so that if they might at any time bear too hard upon the power of the Church, especially when the Church has given them too much reason so to do, that is so far from being any pre∣scription against its due exercise, that it is a declaration of these Princes that have been most unkind to it, that they own its Power, provided it be kept within its due bounds. But what the general sense of Christendom has been concern∣ing the distinction of the Civil and Ec∣clesiastical Powers, sufficiently appears by those great differences, that have been raised about the bounds of their Jurisdiction. And though the Christi∣an Emperours have of later times been forced from time to time to struggle against the encroachments of the Bi∣shops of Rome, yet they never questi∣on'd (that I know of) the divine Right of their Episcopal Authority. And therefore neither here shall I concern my self to examine the particular prece∣dents pleaded by both Parties for the advancement of their respective Powers, when it is certain that both Powers may, and often have exceeded their just li∣mits,

which yet is such an inconveni∣ence, that, considering the passions and partialities of men, is utterly unavoid∣able. And we cannot expect that God should give such Laws, as that it should not be in the Power of humane liberty to break them, for then the Laws were given to no purpose; it is enough that they are sufficient to guide those, that will resign themselves to be govern'd with honesty and integrity; and it is not in the power of Laws to effect more. So that it is a very frivolous objection, much insisted upon by some ill-minded men, that seeing the competition of these two Powers has been occasion of creating so many mischiefs and inconve∣niences to Christendom, it were better that one of them were removed; which, beside the bold way of arguing, that be∣cause they think in their great wisdoms that God ought not, that therefore he has not constituted two distinct Powers; it is such an Objection that no constitu∣tion can possibly avoid: for which way soever the Government of the World may be setled, there is no remedy but that through the corruption and folly of mankind, it may and often will be liable

to abuses. And particularly in this case there is no difficulty in discerning the bounds that God has set to these two Powers, if men would be honest and upright; and if they will not, it is no fault of the Law that they will break it: For Christianity is wholly founded up∣on the Doctrin of the Cross, which ob∣liges them in all cases, either to obey or to suffer peaceably. So that how great soever the Authority of Churchmen may be, there is no danger of its inter∣fering with, or entrenching upon the Prerogatives of Princes, unless they misuse it; and if they do, as they go be∣yond their Commission, so they deserve their punishment in this l••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 Govern∣ment. 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 Re∣ward. 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 whoso∣ever 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 Govern∣ment, much less did they Libel it, but only represented the Innocence and Ju∣stice of their Cause; and if he were not satisfied, declared their readiness to sub∣mit 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 where∣as a foreign Italian Bishop had for a long time usurped wel-nigh all, both se∣cular and spiritual Power into his own hands, and by an exorbitant abuse of it had enslaved the Prince and empove∣rished 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 re∣sume their Rights. The King that Pow∣er 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 commissi∣on 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 Per∣sons and Causes, from his cognizance. They therefore freelv declare him Su∣preme Governour, first, Over all Per∣sons, so that no Ecclesiastical Subject might as formerly appeal from his Tri∣bunal. And in all Causes, so that every Subject whatsoever was bound to sub∣mit 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 Je∣rusalem, 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 sacerdo∣tis, as it is stated in that famous Act called The Submission of the Clergy:

That

they will never from henceforth pre∣sume to attempt, alledg, claim, or put in ure, enact, promulge, or exe∣cute 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 Li∣cense may to them be had, to make, promulge, and execute the same; and that his Majesty do give his Roy∣al Assent and Authority in that be∣half.

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 tend∣ing to the disturbance of the Kingdom, or injurious to the Prerogative of the Crown. Which in truth is such a submis∣sion 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 di∣minution of their own Authority, viz. The standing Laws of Christianity be∣ing secured, to submit all other Mat∣ters to his sovereign Will and Pleasure. Whereby as they would bring no da∣mage

to the Church, in that this power is exercised meerly in matters of Or∣der 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) distu••b or undermine his Authority. And as they parted not with their Spiritual Legi••la∣tive Power, so not with any other Power proper to their Function; as the Power of preaching the Christian Re∣ligion, 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 Maje∣sty had challenged a Spiritual or Mini∣sterial 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 disclai∣mour 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 Ti∣tle 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 Sacra∣ments, the which things the Injuncti∣ons 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 god∣ly 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 re∣strain with the civil Sword the stub∣born and evil doers.

And lastly (to mention 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, lets 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 mo∣deration of Synods, for determinati∣ons 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 con∣cerns 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 de∣nied it; and lastly, that the Church of England, and the Reformed Princes thereof have remarkably own'd it.

But, Thirdly, Constantine and his Suc∣cessors took upon them the Title of

Pontifex Maximus, to which according to the Constitution of the Roman Em∣pire, appertain'd the supreme Ecclesia∣stical Jurisd••ction. By virtue of which Authority they granted to the Church, among other Priviledges, this power of Excommunication, in the same man∣ner 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 Learn∣ing. 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 superin∣tendency 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 learn∣ed Gentleman is not only serious, but

vehement and confident in it; he urges it over and over, and though he re∣peats every thing that he says, so that indeed one half of his Discourse is no∣thing 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 Af∣ter 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 Hea∣thenish 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 no∣thing better than the supreme Head of Idolatry. An Honour certainly which no Christian Emperour would be very fond of astuming to himself. Julian in∣deed 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 ac∣cepted of the Title? (as our Author very well knows they did of Divinity it self) or rather what if it were cu∣stomarily given to them by others? For I met with no other Monuments of it, but some old Complemental Inscripti∣ons, 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 Con∣version of Constantine. And though our learned Author affirms, that the pious Emperour only refused the Vest∣ment, but not the Dignity; it is very obvious to any man of much less under∣standing than himself, that the Empe∣rour could have no reason to refuse one but for the sake of the other: for the Case is plain, that there was no super∣stition 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 con∣trary to all the Laws of the Roman Em∣pire; for though several Emperours do in their several Novels give the Bishops Power to decide causes by way of Ar∣bitration or the consent of both parties,

which Power they enlarged or contra∣cted as they pleased, and to this all the other precedents produced by our Au∣thor 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, ju∣dicium 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 de∣stroy all the Power of the civil Magi∣strate, if the humour or perversness of any man could so easily baulk their sen∣tence. 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 Ecclesia∣stical History. For as for that passage of Sozomen, l. 1. c. 9. in which some

learned men fancy they find some foot∣steps of this Law, it is quite to the other purpose that I but now mentioned, viz. the Bishops Power of determining cau∣ses by the mutual consent of Parties. When this Edict was forged, and by whom it is uncertain, but it is probably conjectur'd by Gothofred from the Bar∣barity of its stile, and great likeness of it to that of Constantines Donation, to have been forged in the same Shop and by the same hand. But if this Edict were as true as the rest are, which give Bishops Power to sentence causes praee∣unte vinculo compromissi, yet where do we find any Edict for enabling them to en∣force their decrees by Excommunicati∣on? Not one syllable of that in all the Roman Laws, but on the contrary the Civil Magistrates and their Officers are commanded to put the Bishops Sentence in execution. Is it not then a very forced way of Arguing, that because the Ro∣man Emperours granted the Christian Bishops some jurisdiction, they must of necessity have granted them the Power of Excommunication, though there is no such Edict extant in all their Laws? They conferr'd many Priviledges upon

the Clergy in the Titles, De Episcopis, Ecclesi••s, Clericis & de Religione, yet there is nothing in both the Codes, and all the Novels, to vest them with any power of Excommunication, and there∣fore as those other they enjoyed by the Emperours favour not by any antece∣dent Right; so seeing they exercised this Power, and that not by vertue of any Imperial grant, it is evident that they received their Authority from some other hand. So that to conclude, there cannot be a more pregnant Argu∣ment against our Author's opinion than the body of the Imperial Law, in which there is not one Instance recorded, that ever any Emperour pretended to this Power himself, or granted it to his Bi∣shops; for from thence it unavoidably follows, that if they had it at all, they had it from some other Commission. And thus am I come to the conclusion of this Argument, for though there are many Precedents of latter Times, yet I am not concern'd to justifie what was done by Huns, Goths, and Vandals, whose practices were the meer effects of Igno∣rance and Barbarity; and oblige us ra∣ther to pity than to follow their Exam∣ples.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Phys. c. 26.
• * 1.2

  Leviati••. c. 12.
• * 1.3

  Leviath. c. 23. 14
• * 1.4

  c. 26.
• * 1.5

  c. 35.
• * 1.6

  c. 42.
• * 1.7

  ib. p. 311.
• * 1.8

  ibid.
• * 1.9

  ibid.
• * 1.10

  c. 43.
• * 1.11

  c. 32.
• * 1.12

  c. 35.
• * 1.13

  c. 42.
• * 1.14

  ibid.
• * 1.15

  c. 3••.
• * 1.16

  c. 42.
• * 1.17

  Cap. 11.
• * 1.18

  De jure nat. & Gent. l. 2. 2. Comment in Eutych p. 54. V. Scali∣ger de emendat. temp. 1••.
• * 1.19

  Psal. 1. 1.
• * 1.20

  Ps. 26. 4.
• * 1.21

  p. 12••.
• * 1.22

  P. 237.
• * 1.23

  Epil. B. 1. c. 12.
• * 1.24

  Mat. 4. 17.
• * 1.25

  Lib. 16. Tit. 2. L. 45.
• * 1.26

  Nov. 6. c. 1.
• * 1.27

  Nov. 131. c. 1.