Municipum ecclesiasticum, or, The rights, liberties, and authorities of the Christian Church asserted against all oppressive doctrines, and constitutions, occasioned by Dr. Wake's book, concerning the authority of Christian princes over ecclesiastical synods, &c.

CHAP. I. Of the Divine Right of Synods.

SECT. I.

THE Letter to a Convocation-man does not only suppose that the Words of the Statute of Submis∣sion, are interpreted to too great a Restriction of the Convocation, but goes much deeper for a much larger Li∣berty to the Church herein, upon the Suppo∣sition of a Divine Right to all Churches and Synods for Affairs Christian. The Doctor, on the contrary, denies such Divine Autho∣rity of Synods, as being but meer pruden∣tial Clubs under Heathen Princes, and servile Conventions under Christian ones.

The Letter,

Distinguishing all Power into Spiri∣tual and Tempo∣ral, founds both of them in God, which no Christi∣an will deny of the Ecclesiastical Au∣thority; That this can be Rightly Exercised among Christians only; not as enclosed within any Civil State or Commu∣nity, but as Mem∣bers of a Spiritu∣al Society, of which Christ Jesus is the Head, who has al∣so given out Laws, and appointed a standing Succession of Officers under himself, for the Government of this Society, which con∣tinued near 300 Years before any Civil Governours embraced Christi∣anity. So that the

Spiritual Authori∣ty is not in its own Nature sim∣ply dependent on the Temporal. That when supernatural means of Govern∣ing the Church, were thought by its Founder to be no more necessary to its continuance, it was left to the best ordinary means of Conduct, and Pre∣servation; viz. as∣sembling, debating, and by Majority of Voices, deci∣ding, concerning the Rules and Prin∣ciples of Govern∣ment. That the Law of this Socie∣ty is made to their hands, not to be altered, added, or diminished; but the applying there∣of to particular Cases, explaining Doubts upon it, deducing Conse∣quences from it in

things not expli∣citly determined already by that Law, and enforc∣ing Submission and Obedience to their Determinations, are the proper Objects of their Power. That this Society can better claim an inherent and unal∣terable Right to the exercise of this Power, than any Sect among us, it not being Lost by Magna Charta, by its Giving the Church a Legal Freedom.

Thus the Letter, p. 17, 18, 19, 20.

The Doctor.

Is by no means sa∣tisfied, that the Church has any Command, or Autho∣rity from God to as∣semble Synods; he is not aware, that either in the Old or New Te∣stament, there is so much as one single di∣rection given for its so doing. And except∣ing the singular In∣stance of Acts XV. he knows of no Example that can with any shew of Reason be offered of such a Meeting. And whether that were such a Synod, as of which the Question is, may justly be doubted. The Foundation of Synods in the Church, in his Opinion, is the same as that of Councils in the State. The Ne∣cessities of the Churches, when they began to be enlarged, first brought in the One, as those of

the Commonwealth did the other. And there∣fore when men are in∣corporated into Societies as well for the service of God, and salvation of their souls, as for their Civil Peace and Security, these Assem∣blies are to be as much subjost to the Laws of the Society, and to be regulated by them, as any other Publick As∣semblies are. Nor has the Church any inherent Divine Right to set it at liberty, from being concluded by such Rules, as the Governing part of every Society shall prescribe to it, as to this matter. — As for those Realms, in which the Civil Power is of another Perswasi∣on, Natural Reason will prompt the Mem∣bers of every Church to consult together the best they can how to ma∣nage the Affairs of it, and to agree upon such Rules and Methods, as

shall seem most proper to preserve the Peace and Ʋnity of it, and to give the least Offence that may be to the Go∣vernment under which they live. And what Rules are by the com∣mon consent of every such Church agreed to, ought to be the Mea∣sure of assembling and acting of Synods in such a Countrey. Thus the Doctor, p. 365, 366, &c.

§. 2. This is what the Doctor replies about the Affairs of Ecclesiastical Synods to the Letter. Wherein any Man may plainly see, that he shuffles, and turns his Back in the ve∣ty Fundamental Article in Controversie, not daring professedly to refute the Hypothesis of the Letter by any good Proof from Reason or Authority, nor yet ingenuously confessing those well-laid Truths, which he was not able to oppose; but to steal away the Reader, from observing this Impotency, he is fobb'd off with a poor, precarious, and not so much as evasive a Scheme of Imaginations, for which he can hardly find any Church-Advo∣cate,

nor any Credentials from any Divine, or valuable Humane Writings.

§. 3. But before we come to winnow these Elements of Independent, or rather Erastian Divinity, (for there is a mixture of these Contraries, in which Erastiaenism much pre∣ponderates) it is necessary that we six the principal Terms of Matters Fundamental in his Enquiry. And first for Authority in Matters of Government, it is known to sig∣nifie either a just or rightful; or at least law∣ful Power to rule the Subjects according to Equity, and Laws of Justice, or else an un∣controulable Freedom and Impunity only of acting, which is the priviledge of all Supreme Governors, as being above all Legal and Judicial Coercion with their Subjects. Now all Acts of Authority in the former and proper Sense, appear in themselves Good and Right, and no Powers or Persons whatsoever can have any opposite Good and Lawful Autho∣rity. But the mere Exercises of an uncon∣troulable Domination, tho called by the spe∣cious name of Authority, cannot vacate any Just and Valid Rights, Liberties and Autho∣rities of any Subject, Persons or Societies. For it must be noted, that an Inherent Right and Valid Title cannot be legally extinguished by any External Violations of Breedom, or Ob∣structions of its Fruition or Practice, which, tho not accountable for at any Domestick Tribunal, shall yet fall under the Sentence and Condemnation of God; the present Ci∣vil

Impunity giving no Right to any injurious measures, nor Exemption from that divine Bar. Secondly, We are to define an Eccle∣siastical Council or Synod; wherein I will take the Doctors Definition, namely, 'tis literal∣ly a Meeting of Ecclesiastical Persons (I mean Ministers) upon an Ecclesiastical Affair.(a) And it is either subordinate, consisting of one or more Bishops, and inferiour Ministers, or Co-ordinate, consisting only of one equal Order, either of Bishops alone, or Inferiour Ministers alone. For in want of a Bishop the Inferiour Clergy are the Council for the vacant Church, according to the limits and powers of their Order. A Convention of Clergy† under their proper Bishop, for Ecclesiastical Consultations or Acts, we now should call a Diocesan Synod. A Convention of a College of Bishops for a Province we may call a Provincial Synod, which generally ever was attended with the Service of Infe∣riour Orders. Councils called General are of the fame Nature in themselves, tho of a larger extent, and not of a Canonical origi∣nally, but of Imperial Collection. Other extraordinary and unusual Conventions of Select Bishops and Ministers, not delegated so much by the Church upon her regular Constituti∣ons, as convened by the Will only of Princes, may be called Synods, tho of themselves they have no Canonicol Authority for their Acts, which must either stand or fall by the con∣sequent Reception or Refusal of the Church, notwithstanding all the Ratifications that the Temporal Powers give them; a mere Eccle∣siastical

Commission from a Prince, being not of the same sort of Efficacy and Authority, as a free Convention of the Powers Ecclesiastical. Tho therefore such Commissioners may Gram∣matically be called a Synod, yet Canonically a Synod is a Convention of the State or Powers Ecclesiastical on their own Right and Authority, whosoever calls them to the Exercise thereof. Thirdly, we are to consider the. Attribute of Christian, as given either to Princes or pri∣vate Persons. Now properly a Christian is a Person baptized into, and continuing in the Christian Faith; but loosely, and improper∣ly Hereticks claim, and use the Character, which also may improperly be given to such as profess a Belief thereof, before ever they are admitted to any Ordinance; or Station of the Church, for so Constantine the Great, and Constantius, &c. have been reputed Chri∣stian Emperors, tho not Baptized, nor so much as admitted Catechumens, or Competents, till a little before their Death. Which Preli∣minary Explications will be found of great Use in this present Controversie.

§ 4. Being thus harnessed, we will consider the strength of the Doctor's Hyyothesis first, before we come to justisie that of the Letter. First then he makes a Synod under Heathen Powers to be but an independent huddle of Christians in common, contriving their Af∣fairs, by no Authority, but that of Humane Prudence. But then I shall say, that if this be a Synod, such a Concourse of mere Lay-Christians may be a Synod, and determine the

common Process of their Conduct. For he places this Care simply in the Natural Reason of the Members of every Church, not the Governors nor Powers therein constituted; for he does not suppose it a regular Society, till incorporated with the Civil State. Nor will it help to say, that he defines a Synod a Meeting of Ecclesiastical Persons upon an Ecclesia∣stical Affair, for all Members of the Church may with Grammatical Propriety be called and accounted Eccle jastica•• Persons in distin∣ction from Aliens, or absolutely; tho Custom has given this Title as a distinctive of the Clergy from the Laity. So that, tho I, in as∣suming the Doctors Definition of a Synod, do by Ecclesiastical Persons mean the Clergy, yet 'tis not certain that the Doctor intends so, except only of Synods called by Christian Princes; but rather these Members of the Church under Heathen Powers must be the Ecclesiastical Persons, convened in Synod under them, without any Distinction of Orders, or Authorities among them. And, if we will but add one Pastor among them, here we have the true form of an Independent Church, or Congregation, which is its own constant Synod at all Meetings; only the Independent Principle claims a Divine Right, and relies not alone upon mere humane Inauthoritative Pru∣dence, and so is nearer to Truth and Reason, than the Doctor's. But if the Doctor's Prin∣ciples be true, that such Synods are Conventi∣ons of Church-Members upon Prudence only, without any inherent Right or Authority, wherein they are to give the Insidel Powers

the least Offence that may be, I doubt that Prudence will oblige them not to convene at all. For certainly we are not in Prudence to give Insidel Powers, or any Persons what∣soever any needless Offence at all. But cer∣tainly Subjects having no Authority to con∣vene, yet convening against the Laws of Ci∣vil Powers, do incur their great Offence, which natural Reason cannot prompt Men to. For if Christians should be called by such Infi∣del Powers to account for such prohibited Conventions, by what Authority they do such things, if they should set forth a good Divine Authority, this would be a good, though not perhaps a successul Plea, but if they should say, we have no Authority for it, but only natural Reason and Prudence, how can that direct a Man to disobey Laws, which destroy no Man's Authority or Right? Nor can it be shifted here, that they have Right, but not Authority; for, tho even a mere Right to synodize, is enough to the jus divinum asserted by the Letter, yet a Right to synodize is a Right to a publick Conduct by Rules and Methods to preserve the Peace and Uni∣ty of the Church, and that is Authority, tho never so democratical. And if they have natural Reason for this Conduct, that Nature that has given them just Reason has given them just Right to it; for in such Matters Right and Reason is the same, doing Men Right, being properly called doing Men Reason. If then they have natural Reason, they have na∣tural Right, and if natural Right, natural Au∣thority

to convene for their publick Conduct; and that is a good Plea against the Laws of Infidel Powers. But on the contrary, if they have no Authority so to do, they have no Right, and if no Right, no Reason, and if no Reason, how can this be done without Offence against the Civil Powers that forbid it, and have just Right indeed to forbid all Assemblies, which have no Authority, Right, or Reason. But to conclude, the Dr. has given these Synods a more fundamental Authority than he was a∣ware of, when he tells us,

that the necessi∣ties of the Church when it began to be enlarged, brought them into the Church as the necessities of the Councils of State.

Very well; and a good Parallel: but are not Councils of State endued with Authority founded on that popu∣lar Necessity? The Doctor dares not say No to the State, because the Leviathan is not safely to be angred; but why then should not the Councils of the Church be authoritative for its Conduct and Preservation upon the same bottom of equal Necessity, and that un∣der the Heathen Powers? For it appears, that on this Necessity Synods were held in the Church in full Vigour and Spiritual Authority, before there were any Christian States for heir Incorporation. And therefore the necessity was the greater, and by these the Do∣ctor's Rules the Authority should be so too, tho yet he allows them no Authority, because no Society till their Civil Incorporation, which is (tho the Doctor sees not the necessary Consequence) to deny the Unity of the Ca∣tholic Church, and its Constitution under

Spiritual Governors of its own, for the three first Centuries of Christianity.

§. 5. But he further tells us, that the In∣corporation of the Church into the State, be∣ing an Association for the saving of their Souls, as well as Secularities, subjects them as much to the Laws and Regulations of Ci∣vil Societies, as any other Public Assemblies. This is a bold stroke indeed; for it will put the Constitution of the Hierarchy, and all its Functions, into what Hands, under what Conduct, Times, and Places, &c. the Civil Powers please. They shall enable a Layman to ordain, and Minister Sacraments, to Preach, Excommunicate, Absolve, Consecrate, and degrade, and do all things by an Arbitra∣ry Legislation and Government thereupon; and well then may this Incorporation into Society promote the Se•••••••• of God and Sal∣vation of Men, with all Secular Heavens up∣on Earth 〈◊〉〈◊〉. But I pray what is this In∣corporation? Is it making the Church one of the National Estates to concurr in the Acts of Legislature? and all her Ratified Canons not only Canon, but Law too, and of Civil Consequences upon the Subject? Or is it only the Protection of the Law from Inju∣ries or Oppressions? or the addition of seve∣ral Priviledges, Honours, and Encourage∣ments? If the first of these only, then was the Church never incorporated into the State under the Roman Empire; (for it was no part of the Legislature) and consequently not thereupon subject to the Laws of the Em∣pire

in Matters of Ecclesiastical Conduct. If the second Favour be an Incorporation, then the incorporating Powers have a Right to govern the Religion of all other Socie∣ties which they tolerate, all Schisms and Heresies whatsoever, exempt by Law from Violences and Oppressions; so that an Or∣thodox Christian Emperor tolerating, Nova∣tians, Meletians, Arians, Macedonians, Ne∣storians, Eutychians, and all other Clans of Heresies, had full Right, and good Authority to govern all their several respective Coun∣sels, and Discipline, and to ratisie all their Synodical Acts, Canons, and Sentences. O Sanctas Gentes! What a mighty Supremacy would this be indeed, wherein every Prince so indulgent would be another Solomon, and reside not only over God's Church at Jeru∣salem, but over those of Chomesh, Milchom, Ashtoreth, &c. a Supremacy I must needs con∣fess more than divine! And yet I doubt it would not be casily admitted either in Holland, or the emulous England; where, tho the publick Indulgence is to save their Souls, as well as their Temporals, yet will not the Sectaries part with their Souls to these In∣dulgent Saviours, nor endure the Thoughts of their Presidency and Conduct in their little Religious Politics, but demand an Exemption as entire as the Chappels of foreign Facto∣ries, or Embassadors. Nor can in the third place an Accumulation of all Encouragements, Priviledges and Honours, prevail upon them hereunto; most of them being against a National Church, all of them against a Na∣tional

Religion, i. e. confined to the Laws of a Civil State. And commend me to Scot∣land, who have acquired all Secular Privi∣ledges and Franchises they desired, and yet scorn that a King shall so much as be a Door keeper to their Holy of Holies, not∣withstanding all these their Incorporations; and if the Dr. should preach up his Max∣imes but on the other side of the Tweed, they world quickly bring him to the stool of Repentance, for teaching their People, or their Sovereign, that Right of Supre∣macy over Holy Kirk, which they are so far from owning in all Princes, that 'tis with them the most Funda nental Heresie to allow them any at all; as appears by their perpetual Remonstrances upon all Occa∣sions in their Synods.

§ 6. But tis nor impossible that a Sove∣reign may contract a Religion contrary and destructive to that which is recieved and c••••blished among his People, and which it is not in his Power by Force or Legislative Authority presently to Abolish: As Izates King of the Adiabenes turning Jew; and, to omit others, King James the Se∣cond, Roman-Catholick. How graceful in such a Case would it be, to see a King of England of Jewish, Popish, Socinian, Pres∣byterian, Anabaptist, Independent, Quaker, or M••ggletonian Principles, or Profession, convening a Church of England Convoca∣tion, presiding in it in Person, or a Vicar∣General of his own perswasions, upon Mat∣ters of alteration in the Liturgy and Ca∣nons,

or any other Expedients for the good of the Church of England, and always twit∣ting the Synods with Caveats of that Holy Statute of Praemunire, not to speak one wold nor syllable to any purpose whatso∣ever, till such Prince pleases to allow you of his meer grace and motion, as being only of Counsel to this Head of the Church of England; who is however to be presu∣med wiser, to know all times and matters expedient for the Church (which yet by his Religion he is in Conscience bound to abhor and destroy) than whole Convoca∣tions, and to prescribe to these his Coun∣sellors herein, as being fitter to be of Coun∣sel unto them, whose Resolves after all, he has Wisdom enough, as well as Authority to ratifie, alter, rescind, or aunull; so that not what they, but what he shall bind, or loose on Earth, shall be bound or loosed in Heaven; and reason good upon such an Heavenly Authority and Design. By this Ecclesiastical Supremacy which K. James himself abjured, did he most advan∣tageously for the Church of England erect his Ecclesiastical Commission, for the sa∣ving of this Church from the Encroach∣ments of the Papal Supremacy. So that by our Incorporation alone, we are all safe Soul and Body, with Lawyers, and Court∣Flatterers, let our Supream Head be of what Religion he pleases. But Lawyers in∣deed cannot be blamed for any inconveni∣enties which may happen from 2 positive Law, and they are obliged to interpret and judge according to the Letter; but for Cler∣gy-Min

to attribute Divinity to Humane Laws, whatsoever the results of them be, this this—But will not here the same Right of Natural Reason come in, which the Dr. asserts to the Chuach, where the Civil Power is of another Perswasion, to Con∣sult together the best they can, and to that end Aslemble in Synods Ecclesiastical. This Reason, this Right, and Rule, by the word∣ing of it in general terms of quother perswa∣sion, will reach the Case of Churches, not only under Heathen Powers, but Christian Powers of different Communion and Prin∣ciples from the pure Church that is in sub∣jection. And it seem'd Calculated for the Case of the French Protestants, or the Vandoise for Comprehension sake. Now tho' I know this to be no Rule of Common or Statute-Law here in such Cases, yet will the Dr. allow a Natural Right and Reason for such Liberty, even in opposition to our Laws, when our King shall be of another perswa∣sion? shall the Church lean upon her own Authority and Wisdom, not His? This his own determination says as much in Gene∣rals, and yet I believe his Design will not permit him to say so for us, no not in our Case under the late K. James. And if he shall make any Reply upon this Book, I do desire him to speak home like a Man to this Supposition, and the Case and Demand raised on it.

§. 7. Supposing then, according to the Dr's Concession, that under Princes of a∣nother Perswasion, the Church has Right

and Reason to hold Synods and Consults, who must of Office appoint such Conven∣tions in the Church? Are they all Equals, and so must run higly-pigly on Occasions, as People do to quench an House on fire? Or are there any Superiours, or Hierarchi∣cal Rulers in it, in whom the Conduct is chiefly lodged for all Ecclesiastical Con∣cernments? If this latter be the Constitution of a Church simply in it self, then will I ask, whether the Superiours are to Assem∣ble themselves alone, or others with them, by virtue of their Superiority, or are the In∣feriours to give Rule to their Superiours? I am not willing to believe, that for the sake of a feeble Hypothesis the Dr. will o∣verturn the Order of things, especially in the Church, that subsists, as all other Bo∣dies Politick do, by Order; but we'll pre∣sume, that the right of Convention is lodged in such a State in the Supream Order. But then by that Authority, whence they derived that Order; have they Power to Convene Synods over that Church, which by the Constitution of an Hierarchy becomes of it self a Divine and Sahred Society, and is therefore called the Kingdom of God, and needs no Incorporation with Civil States, for the Service of God, or Salvation of Souls. And this I think will reduce the Dr. to a necessity of granting the Church to be a Divine Society under Orders, who have a Di∣vine Authority to hold Synods to the preser∣vation thereof, where the Prince is of ano∣ther Perswasion.

Notes

• The Case stated on each side.
• Then, it seems, the Church is not sociated, till incorporated with the civil State, to spi∣ritual as well as temporal Ends.
• The Doctor's Tergiversation.
• Terms ex∣plained.
• Authority what.
• Right.
• Uncontroula∣ble Domina∣tion.
• Synod what.
• (a)

  p. 60.
• The sorts of Synods.
• Cyp. Ep. 3 & Ep. 18.
• †

  Cyp. 26 Sect. 4, & Ep. 31. Sect. 5.
• Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Princes no Canonical Synod.
• Euseb. reek∣ons two lay 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• Dem. ev. l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 38. So Origen con. Cels. l. 3. Ambr. de Myster. initi∣and. c. 4. Aug. in Joh. c. 2.3. Tract. 11.
• The Doctor's Principle worse than the Independents.
• Common∣wealth did.
• Incorp.
• Wheve tho Prince is of a different Reli∣gion.