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.

Municipium Ecclesiasticum: OR, THE Rights, Liberties & Authorities OF THE Christian Church Asserted, &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.

* 1.1 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,* 1.2 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.* 1.3 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.* 1.4 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.* 1.5 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.* 1.6 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,* 1.7 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;* 1.8 wherein I will take the Doctors Definition, namely, 'tis literal∣ly a Meeting of Ecclesiastical Persons (I mean Ministers) upon an Ecclesiastical Affair.(a) 1.9 And it is either subordinate,* 1.10 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* 1.11 the Inferiour Clergy are the Council for the vacant Church, according to the limits and powers of their Order. A Convention of Clergy† 1.12 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,* 1.13 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* 1.14 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,* 1.15 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.* 1.16 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,* 1.17 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,* 1.18 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.* 1.19 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.

CHAP. II. Of the Rights, Liberties, and Au∣thorities of Several, as well Se∣cular, as Sacred Societies, under the Supremacy of Civil Powers.

§ 1. HAving thus Discussed the Virtue of the Dr's own positive Sense of the Churches State and Powers, we will in the next place proceed to examine what he has seemed willing to deny as to the Hypothesis of Divine Right asserted in the Letter. And in order hereunto, we will be at the pains to descend into the bottoms of Ecclesiastical and Civil Powers, to try whether these were intended by their Pro∣vidential Author, entirely to swallow up the former, (as the Dr. teaches us) in all particulars, not excepted in God's word by a special reserve.

§ 2. All Society then is either Subordi∣nate between Superiours and Subjects,* 1.20 or Co-ordinate betwen Persons or Communi∣ties, free and independent of each other. And each of these is either Natural only, from the meer obligations of Nature, or Positive by voluntary Contract or Constitu∣tion. Now of all these, the first and most Fundamental Society, is the Natural So∣ciety

between God and Man,* 1.21 maintained by the Offices of Natural Religion on our part,* 1.22 and the Acts of God's Paternal Pro∣vidence on his. Next hereunto, and im∣mediately hereupon, succeeded a positive and Faederal Society between them,* 1.23 by the Law and Communications of the Divine Presence given in Paradise; which Com∣munications and Presence (tho' the Law of Paradise determined by Man's ejection out of Paradise) still continued, and were de∣signed for continuance to Posterities,* 1.24 ad∣mitting the Mystical Worship of Sacrifices, as well as the Duties of Natural Piety, to maintain this double Consociation. And herein was laid the first foundation of Ec∣clesiastical Society and Communion with God, which more formally ripened into publick and Canonical form;* 1.25 when, the Ge∣nerations of Men increasing under this double Union in the days of Enosh, Men began to call on the Name of the Lord, Gen. 4.26. in publick Assemblies. For then those, whom under this preccedent course of Divine Communion God had Educated by his own immediate institution,* 1.26 he after constituted Prophets, and Preachers of Righteousness to the Families so Ecclesiasti∣cally consociated under God; and of these Ministers he founded an Order and Succes∣sion,* 1.27 in which Noah was the Eighth from Enosh, Gen. 5. 2 Pet. 2.5. Where these Families and Generations so consociated un∣der God, and the Sacred Authority and Con∣duct of these Prophetick Patriarchs, were a

formal Church, or Ecclesiastical Society, and were called under a Sacred Character,* 1.28 the Sons of God, Gen 6 2. Now this Society Ecclesiastical, founded not only in Nature,* 1.29 but God's positive Constitution also, contioned thro' all that vast tract of time, between the Creation (from its Originals, and from the days of Euosh) and the Flood, (as far as ap∣pears, or is probable, without the support of the Civil Sword or Magistracy, according to the concurrent Traditions of the very Heathens herein, that in the Golden Age Men lived uprightly of their own accord without need of Judges, and without fear or apprehensions of Bonds and Punish∣ment.

§. 3.* 1.30 The second sort of subordinate Soci∣ety is the Matrimonial,* 1.31 founded in the Struc∣ture of the Sexes, and difference in the in∣ward Vigours and Powers of the Soul, and so constituted by a positive determination and Ordination of God, first in the State of Pa∣radise in a less, and after the Fall into Sin, in a greater degree of Subordination, Gen. 2. Gen. 3. And herein God laid a Corporal Foundation and Original of all other Societies to come, for all the Ends and Reasons of the Creation and Provi∣dence. And hereupon, as the Right of this Ordinance is Universal and Perpetual in God's intention and establishment, so has it continued (tho' not without abuses) as the acknowledged Foundation and Rule of Lawful Succession thro' all Nations.

§. 4.* 1.32 The Third Sort of Subordinate So∣cieties, succeeding the former, is the Oeco∣nomical, and is either Natural between Pa∣rents and Children, or positive, as be∣tween Tutors, and Pupils, Masters, and Servants.

§. 5.* 1.33 The last General Sort of Subordinate Societies, fundamentally designed by God's Providence for the conservation of Man∣kind, is the Civil, entrusted with the Power of the Swórd, in defence against all Violen∣ces and Oppressions, Domestick or Foreign, for the preservation of those Rights and Li∣berties, which are necessary to the good order and well being of Mankind in all its forms of Society, which God himself hath founded by Nature, Constitution, or Provi∣dence, for a regular and undisturbed L••se. For thus St. Paul saith,* 1.34 they are God's Ordi∣nance, and, as such his Ministers, bearing the Sword for our good, to the punishment of Evil Doers, and to the praise of them that do well, Rom. 13.1, &c. Tho' therefore they may not always in fact execute the design of God their Founder, upon a just Autho∣rity lodged in them by the design of Pro∣vidence, yet they are the intentional Ordinance of God hereunto, and hereunto only, against which God's bare Negative, i. e. Non∣restrictive permissions, in the course of his Providence, of those disorders, into which many times their Eminency, and Lusts consequent upon it, do too fatally hurry them, is no valid Argument, because, tho' not reducible to any account here,

they are obnoxious to God's Judgements hereafter.

§. 6.* 1.35 The second Sort of Society is the Co-ordinate, and that either by the tics of Na∣ture alone unto all the natural Offices of Ju∣stice and Charity, or by Contract, as in Friend∣ships, Factories. Artificial Fraternities, and Commerces, between either Men, or Na∣tions, Cities, Villages, &c. And the gene∣ral Nature of these Societies is by the intention of God,* 1.36 of a precedent design before Civil Powers, as being also in the Fundamental Reasons of the Civil Superstructure. For Fa∣milies multiplying Co-ordinately, Sociated themselves first into Vicinities, and Villages,* 1.37 from smaller to greater, for the benefit of mutual succours, beneficences, and inter∣course; and from these Rudiments increa∣sing continually, they grew up into Cities, and so Incorporated into forms Political, and falling either into the affectation, or un∣der the Calamity of War from without, or the common and usual Discords among mul∣titudes within, they were led by Providence to admit the Civil and Military Sovereignty, as necessary to their peaceable cohabitation and security, in which the common. Felicity was reposed as an inviolable Trust; and tho' we in this Age, and part of the World do think it the greatest madness to repose such a considence in single Sovereigns, as was generally done in the first collections into Cities, yet the natural Equity and Humanity of Men was not so far then vitiated, as to render the Integrity of the Prince suspicious;

from whence there appears such a Recorded Unanimity of those Kings and their People, that now to us doth almost seem impossible. I know indeed the late Celebrated Oracle of all Political Villany has taught Men out of their very Senses,* 1.38 that in the admission of So∣vereigns they surrender up to them all their former Rights; but the voice of nature, and the Oracles of God have taught us far other∣wise; and by these I think all wise and good Men will, and must abide.

§. 7.* 1.39 Civil Power was therefore superindu∣ced at last upon all the other substrate forms of Society, not to destroy and devour, but to defend them to the common felicity, ex∣cept we shall think it the most unnatural Monster, made to devour its own Parents, and Originals. And as to the Laws and Rights Mankind universally has in Matrino∣nial, Oeconomical, Fraternal, Amicable, and Factoral Communications and Societies, no Man does or will doubt but that they are ex∣empt from all right of extinction by Civil Society, which cannot stand or exist but upon those Fundamentals. And can it be then imaginable, that it hath a greater right of Dominion over the Ecclesiastical Society with God, which being the Immedi∣ate Unitive in this Life between God and us, and so a medium to an Everlasting Happi∣ness in another, was the great End on this side Heaven, for which we were first Crea∣ted, and for which the other Societies next consequent upon it were designed? Matri∣monial Society being for the propagation of

Issues, Oeconomical for the Government of there, and other Minors, and Servants in it; the Co-ordinate for common Beneficences and mutual support here, but all that those Sons of Men may hereby subsist to the Communi∣on with God here, as a pledge of a nearer fruition of him in a State of Eternity. And this general Consideration, that all these forms of Society are God's Ordinances, and of these, the Religious Society with God the first in Nature, Diguity, and Time, it cannot be imagined, that God should be divided against himself, in setting up Ordinance against Or∣dinance, and the meaner and the latter a∣gainst the first and highest,* 1.40 especiully since the Nature of the Society by God ordained, imports a perpetual necessity, and therefore a design of perpetnity in them all. And hereupon it is, that Religion in general, though corrupted and disguised, has yet continued among all Nations, as perpetual and universal, as the other Societies, and carried the most publick preeminence, as being the presumed means of a Divine Soci∣ety; and this, not by the bare policy of Secular Powers; (since perhaps in Princes Courts it has ever had the least estima∣tion, and true Religion is what the Lust of Men (especially great Men) are most averse to, and false Religion too gross to impose a credulity upon their acute apprehen∣sions) but (an internal disposition of the Mind, universally promoting Men to the culture of Religion, against all the prejudi∣ces and aversions of Sesuality, is an Argu∣ment

of a Divine Foundation thereof, which as no Hypocrisie could advance, so no Arti∣fices nor Oppositions can suppress; but it will continue, whether Civil Powers will or no; since these are not able to extirpate a Zeal of Superstition, much less then those Fundamental Principles of Religion, upon which not only a frame of true Religion, but even Superstition it self must be built, and which Principles will in all Men have some Productions towards either a true or false Worship of, and Society with a Deity.

§. 8. Now tho' all these are Truths so very clear, and Fundamental to the welfare of Mankind, I desire the Dr. to say out, whether he finds them all express in Scrip∣ture, or no. For if he does, then he must grant an Ecclesiastical Society antecedent to, and the Rights thereof maintainable by Civil Powers, which he does not allow in his Hypo∣thesis; or if he will allow it the Divine Right of an Ecclesiastical and Canonical Soci∣ety, this will import an Authority of Consult∣ing, and Assembling to Consult indepen∣dently on the Superinduced Civil Powers, as shall be made out in due place; but if he finds not these Maxims in express terms of Scripture, by a reserve from the Occupati∣ons of Civil Power, will he abdicate there∣fore all these Rights to it, to dissolve all the Laws, and Liberties, and Authorities of the Matrimonial, Oeconomical, and Co-••din••te So∣cieties? Or if he be not so unmerciful toward these Carnal Societies, can he with Conscience,

or so much as a pretence of Reason, give up all the Powers of the Divine Society to the Civil Dominion and Pleasure? 'Tis there∣fore only necessary to prove a Society Divinely founded by a full and fair Evi∣dence,* 1.41 and then all the Forms, Rights, and Powers, necessary to its good Conduct and Conservation, are ipso facto asserted against all exteriour Rapes and Usurpations what∣soever.

§. 9. Now to the Eviction hereof at full, it will be necessary to enquire into all the actual Ordinances of God, either by Nature only, or by a positive Constitution supernatu∣ral. To which End, in the first place, it is the voice and dictate of Nature,* 1.42 that Liber∣ty, Time, and Place to do good, are the Primitive, Universal, Eternal, Fundamental, and Unalienable Rights of the Innocent; and in the next place, that the Consociation of Men to the true and publick Worship of God is an act of the highest good,* 1.43 practica∣ble and enjoyable upon Earth, whether we consider its Dignity, in relation to God, and our Nature framed in the likeness of God, to be preserved hereby; or the benesits that result unto them that live in it. But then such a Society cannot do its Offices regularly,* 1.44 without the Conduct of the Wise, nor keep it self Holy without the government of the Good; Wisdom and Goodness being ne∣cessary to all Government (and this most chiefly in Matters Holy and Divine) to pre∣scribe Directions to the Ignorant, to encou∣rage

the Good, and Correct or Cashier the Evil. This therefore must be laid as a Ca∣tholick Rule for all Religious Society, simply and in general by the Law of Nature. But we are further to consider, what actual So∣ciety Nature it self has formed for the adora∣tion of, and Communion with God in Offi∣ces of Religion. In Families therefore the Master,* 1.45 by the Ordinance God in Nature and Providence, is the designed and right∣ful Governour of Religion in his Family; for which by the Law of Nature he is obliged to qualifie himself with as much Wisdom and Piety as he can;* 1.46 not only for his own Conversation, but the Conduct also of his House, the little Tem∣ple of God, as indeed every House should be. This therefore from the beginning is the Natural Epis∣copacy and Care of Parents and Masters towards their Children and the other Members of the Family;* 1.47 not only as at present they are Subjects and Dis∣ciples, but as tis to be expected, that in suc∣cession of a few years these also will com∣mence Masters and Bishops of their proper Fa∣milies, and are therefore by their own pre∣sent Parents or Masters to be prepared by good Institutions thereunto, and so down∣ward for ever to all Generations.

And this natural Right and Duty extends it self to the instruction and enforcement of the whole will and purpose of God, as far as it is known, or may be known to the Master,

either by Reason only, or Revelation also.* 1.48 For tho Divine and Supernatural Revelation be a positive Ordinance of Gods free purpose, and so under no Eternal Law of Nature, yet they, that by the Law of Nature are Teach∣ers and Rulers in Matters of Piety, are by that Law obliged to propose all that God hath discovered for the promotion of in. For, tho all Graces are positive Gifts, yet when given, the Law of Nature requires the culture and improvement of them to good uses, as well as the temporal Blestings o•• Gods outward Providence. For tho no Law of Nature requires me to be Rich, yet i••••••am Rich, the Law of Nature obliges me to a suitable munisicence. This then is most cer∣tainly the Law and Ordinace of Nature in the Oeconomical Conduct of Piety and Society with God, tho Mens Apostacy unto Vice has dissolved the practice, by destroying the Appetite and Faculties of most Parents for this Conduct of Religion. For let Mens Man∣ners and Circumstances vary as they will, or may, yet herein, as in all things else, the Laws of Nature alter not. So that tho an ignorant or irreligious Parent cannot execute the Offices of his Station in Matters Religions, while so unqualified, yet is he obliged still to quit his Vices, and to prosecute the Studies of a Religious Wisdom; which, when acqui∣red, w••ll qualify him for his Charge. From all which it appears, that the Matrimonial Consociation being designed for the production of Families, to be consociated under the Mu∣ster into a Communion with God, as the

chiefest End and Reason of their production, it follows, that the Oeconomical Powers have no Authority to dissolve the Religious Society of the Families with God, as being ordained purely for the maintenance and fruition of it. And then Civil Powers supervening upon a conglobation of numerous Families, having no Right or proper Lawful Authority, as Gods Ordinance, to destroy the Oeconomical Stru∣cture and Society on which they are founded and subsist, they cannot extinguish the Power nor inhibit the exercise of an Oeconomical Com∣munion in the service of God, and the Offices necessary thereunto.

§. 10.* 1.49 From the Subordinate Societies of Fa∣milies, multiplied into Fraternal or Collate∣ral Vicinities, there arose at first the Co-or∣dinate Society of Villages, in which Men setled together for common uses and benesicences, to supply their mutual defects and appetites. For Necessity and Convenience, and above all the natural Love of Society inclined Men unto Neighbourhood, ank this to some common a∣greements and measures of Justice and Kind∣ness for the convenience of Co-habitation; so that Men, thus prompted by Nature, ce∣ment themselves together by such a Foederal form of Co-ordinate Society. But the same Reasons that cast them into this mould, re∣quire also common Schools of Education. For tho every Master of a Family should be of right sit for this Office in all necessary Prin∣ciples,* 1.50 yet since in fact many are not, the sense of this defect suggests an obligation

••pon it to procure that Education from ano∣ther, which is necessary in it self, and cannot be had in every home. Now since Principles of true Religion are the most important Mat∣ter for Education, 'tis a right of Nature in all Vicinities to have such Schools for Pious Institution, not to be justly denied by any Powers upon Earth. I do not say that the Law of Nature requires every Village to have a publick School of Piety, tho Nature it self commends it; but that which Nature com∣mends, acquires thereby such a Right, if Men please to use it, which cannot justly be de∣nied them.* 1.51 But then every School is a subor∣dinate Society; and if it be a School of Divinity, tis a Society with God, to be Celebrated with Prayers and Devotions, Doctrines, and Pre∣cepts, and the Rules of Discipline, and Re∣ctoral Conduct. But, besides particular Schools,* 1.52 thus of Right erigible in all Vicini∣ties so foederally and equally sociated, the con∣science of God being the only tie to that mutual Justice and Benevolence, which they have contracted to observe, the Law of Na∣ture does require the solemn acknowledge∣ment of that God as a fundamental Principle of their Union, and consequently if not re∣quire, as I believe it will, where there is no other superiour and better provision, yet ex∣treamly recommend our common Worship and Adoration of God, for his blessing upon that Society contracted upon Conscience to∣ward God, together with those Instructions and Remembrances of the Principles of Piety, as may oblige their Consciehc••s to its more

effectual and avowed observation. This is the more to be r••••••ed on, because as all good ought to be open and diffusive, so the Ma∣jesty of God,* 1.53 as well as the Duty and Inte∣••e of Mankind, require true Religion to be the most public and unconsined, as being the most noble, excellent, and superlative Good, resembling its Divine and Infinite Object and Author in its Purity, and why not ••••en in its Universal and Public Appear∣ance and Authority in all public•• Societies whatsoever? From hence I am sure Nature will justifie•• Right unto all such Societies to procur•• for themselves a public Worship of God in a meer Stat•• of Natucal Religion, which simple no Civi•• Powers supervening have any Right or Reason to deny. But th••n such public Worship in public Assemblies mu•••• b•• under grave and ••o••y Conduct,* 1.54 and this requires Authority, which originally will lodge in the Heads of every Family,* 1.55 as a standing Council to convene, and consult in Sy••od, for the Conduct of such public Worship, till the•• yield up this natural priviledge to any other Power; under which however they have a Right to some public Religious Local Society with God and themselves, and to fre∣quency of public Devotions in ir; which if thei•• Super••ors will neglect or obstruct, their former Right and Liberty reverts to them again to agree for, and in God's public wor∣ship, whether their Superiors will or no, it being still to be remembred that public Society with God is a fundamental Right and Duty, far greater than all others. So that from the

days of Bel or Nimrod, (whose very Names denotes his Rebellion and Usurpation of God's Dominion) tho Princes set up theldo∣latrous Worship of Creatures, and magical Priesthoods for the Conduct thereof, prohibi∣ting the true Worship of the true God, vet any Men, Families, Villages, and Cities, might have federally maintainted an Uniformity in Offices of Natural Religion publicly in the Face of those Idolatrous Powers; their Pow∣ers being indeed the Ordinance of God, but not to any lawful ••rection of Superstitions, not to the Extinct on of his own public Wor∣ship, which all Societies whatsoever are obliged to advance.

* 1.56 §. II. In virtue of these Rights, if the So∣vereign••, under which they are, will ••ot assign th••m just Tim••s, sit Places, and Con∣veniences f••r such Solemn and Sacred Ser∣vice of God, and Offices of Religion, the subject People may out of their own Prop••••∣ties provide ••hem for themselves, and ••••••er them unto God's S••rvice. And since every Subject has Right unto Time, the Ground, and Houses, &c. which he by any right forms acquires, be ••ay devote what he can spare of it to his God; and natural Religi∣on requires some Tribute of all we have, as in Tenancy under the areat Lord of all. So that whatsoever is thus from a good Se∣cular Ti••e devoted unto God, becomes his,* 1.57 and cannot be taken away without the Sin of Sacriledge, since a Subject's private House or Vineyard is not liable to any Arbitrary

* 1.58 Seizure, as in the Case of Naboth. By this natural Right the Jews built Synagogues, Schools, and Houses of Prayer; without any positive Precept from God, or order from their supream Rulers, that we read of. Up∣on on the same Originals of Nature they did the like in all their Colonies & Dispersions,* 1.59 with∣out any Ordinance, that we know of, from the Heathen Powers. And if we will pre∣sume leave asked, and granted, (for which presumption there is no great or probable Reason) yet such Petition, and grant of leave does not import a want of antecedent Right in the Petitioners to be given by the Petitioned,* 1.60 but only a care for their security in using their Right, by obtaining a permis∣sion and impunity in so doing, from those Powers, who before the Crucisixion of Christ, and the determiuation of the Mosaick Cove∣nant thereupon, had indeed no right to de∣ny them Synagogues, &c. for the teaching the true Law, and the proper Devotions in them lawfully used, but only an uncontroul∣able force to have oppressed them in these Rights as well as others. So that Caution, Decency, and Peace might incline them in Prudence to petition a liberty in what they had an antecedent Right to without Petition or Concession. And to make this clear, the M••rtyrs, or Caemeteries, the Basilicae, and the Schools of the Christian Church, crected and used under Heathen Powers, were voluntari∣ly set up and employ'd in the Christian Worship, upon this Natural Right, without any derived from the Enemy-Powers;

* 1.61 Who did indeed of meer necessity some∣times connive at these unpetitioned usages, but would never have endured the affront of a Petition to erect Houses of that Worship, which was designed to the extinction of all the then established and received Superstitions; so that tis to be presumed, that had they de∣pended upon Petitions, they would never have had one Chappel in those Ages in the whole World.

§. 12. So much then for the Natural Right and Liberties of Publick Society with God in the Offices of Natural Devotion, Religious Ser∣vice, and Society with God; which I think are made appear valid and unalienable, tho there be no express reservations of them for the uses of Natural Religion apparent in the word of God.

CHAP. III. Of the Authorities Rights and Liberties of Mystick Religion.

§. 1.* 1.62 FROM the meer Naturally Rational Body of Religion, considered ab∣stractly from all supposed positive Revelation (at least miraculously super-natural) pass we to the consideration of the Mystick part of Re∣ligion; upon what Authority that is founded, by what Ministers it is Celebrated, and what Rights, Powers, and Liberties they have in the administration of it.

* 1.63 § 2. First then, all the Authority of My∣stick Religion must be founded in Divine positive Institution in order to a Mystical and Foederal Consociation with God. For none can pre∣scribe Rights of such Communion, but he that is the Founder thereof. So that all Mysteres invented by Men in order to such Mystic Com∣merce, either with true or false Gods, are Impostures, and Sorceres, of which yet the Priests own not themselves to be the Inven∣ters, but the Numen, with whom they pre∣tend to have and procure a Society; confessing thereby, that all true and Holy Foederal My∣steries are, and can only be of Divine Institution, without which no Solemnities in Religion could merit or procure a Sacred Reverence and Reception. But being once received a∣mongst the Heathens as Divinely order'd My∣steries, they,* 1.64 and their Priests were hold in∣violable by the Civil Powers, who subimitted the Conduct of their Wars and Chief Assairs to their Mystick Interpretations and Respon∣ses.

§ 3. Since then Mystick Institutes of Society and Communion with God, must be purely of Gods positive Ordinance, so by that must they be designed to be under Order and Conduct, which no Man also can by any Humane or Na∣tural Right assume,* 1.65 the delegation of God be∣ing as necessary to Authorize the Minister, as the Institution of God to the Ministry, and therefore in the Law and Gospel both are or∣dained together. And even before the Law, even from the beginning of Publick Worship, the Patriarchs were of God made Prophets,

Friests,* 1.66 and Preachers of Righteousness, to the An••••diluvian World, and offer'd Sacrisices in order to a Mystick Communion and Foedoral Society with God. For thus Noah immedi∣ately after the Flood, by vertue of his Pro∣phetick Priesthood, which he had before it, offer'd a B••rnt Offering for expiation, and and a siveet favour, to render God pro∣pitious,* 1.67 not only to his then little Family, but to all future Generations, as the then great Priest and Mediator for all Posterities to come, and therein a Type of the High-Priest of our Salvation, who after he had founded his Church as an Ark on the Baptis∣mal Waters, afterward Sanctified it with his Blood, us one final propitiation for the World, never from thence to experience or need another Baptismal lustration but the Christian. And in like manner the other My∣stical Rites, Laws, and Sacrifices of the other Patriarchs, carried in them a Typical reference to Mysteries hid under them from Generati∣ons, and unveiled under the Gospel,* 1.68 which therefore (being Prophetical and presigura∣tive) must be first at least Ministred by Pro∣phets, tho' their continuance might descend by Order of Succession in them which were no Prophets; but then however the Order, ow∣ing its Original to a Prophetick Ordinance, still juscifies this truth, that the Ministers of My∣stick Offices in Religion, must be such as de∣rive Authority herein from a Divine Ordi∣nation. And tho at first sight the succession of the Priesthood seems to have generally descended to the First-Born, very probably

according to the Jewish Traditions,* 1.69 which seem well grounded in the Mosaick History, yet the certain Right of such Sacred Succes∣sion was not founded in the Natural Right of Primogeniture, but the Ordinance of God adorning it with such a Sanctity; tho I know St. Augustine and others are willing to be∣lieve the Antediluvian Patriarchs not to be the First-Born, because of the great Age of their Parents, before they begat the Patri∣archs descending from them; but upon this I think there is no dependence either way, nor Matter neither, since at last it comes all to one, viz. That their Sacred Patriar∣chate was the positive Ordinance and Gift of God, and was so therefore in all Succes∣sors whatsoever without exception. At length it was transferred by God from the Phylarchal Successors in the Families of Ja∣cob to the House of Levi,* 1.70 and the Sons of Aaron; from which Tribe and Family twas never alienable by any Kings of their own or Foreign Nations, upon this Principle a∣bove set, that a Society of Divine Constituti∣on cannot be rightly dissolved or aliened but by him that founded it. Nor do the frequent Changes of the High-Priests under Heathen Powers conclude against this Truth, because God's having before destroyed the Succession, and the Genealogies by his Prov∣dences tending gradually to a dissolution of that State, according to Gods own Will, and he ratifying however for the time the intruded by the Spirit of Prophecy, shews those changes to be valid, not upon bare hu∣mane

presumption, but the Divine purpose.* 1.71 And as the Law of God rendred the Rights of the Priesthood inalienable by any Civil Constitution, so the like imagined Sanctity of the Heathen Priesthoods rendred them unob∣noxious,* 1.72 as being the supposed Secretaries of their Gods. And indeed so great was ever the lustre of the Priesthood with Princes and People, that probably the Priests who had led the People to an apostacy from God in the design at Babel,* 1.73 under their Chief Leader Nimrod, did upon their dispersions share the before one Kingdom of God into ma∣ny, which they severally assumed to them∣selves, and became the first Kings, accord∣ing to the old Custom of the same Persons being Kings and Priesis; as,

Rex Anius, Rex idem hominum, Phabi{que} Sa∣cerdos.

For so Melchisedek,* 1.74 Priest of the most High God in his yearly days was King of Salem; and if there be any Argument from the An∣titype Christ Jesus to the Type, it is certain, that in his humane Nature he performed his Priestly Office, in offering himself up a Sa∣crifice for us, before he sate down on the Throne of Majesty on high; and by propor∣tion Melchisedek his grand Type might be a Priest first in order of reason, (if not time) before he was King, the Priesthood being most certainly planted by God among Men before any Kingly Power. Kingly Power then arising after the Priestly, and lodged at

first in the dispersed Priests over their respe∣ctive partitions;* 1.75 no wonder, when after the Dignities were divided into different Subjects, that yet the High-Priests retained the same Honours as before, even with the Lay Prin∣ces, not exorbitating into open Tyranny, which their violation was ever accounted to be, and to call for Divine Vengeance, as in the Tyranny of Agamemnon on old Chryses the Priest of Apollo. Hence the Priest of On (or Heliopolis) his Daughter was thought the greatest and sittest Match for Joseph,* 1.76 that next unto Pharaoh sate Lord over all the Land of Egypt;* 1.77 nor were the Priests Lands touched by Joseph or Pharoah under the Exi∣gences of that Famine, while all the Land else was sold unto him for Bread; but they were all fed on the Royal Stores at free Cost. And as Philo and Josephus magnify the Jewish High-Priesthood above rather than under Royalty,* 1.78 so do the Profane Histories of the Heathens in point of Sanctity give Priesthood the Priority, tho in point of Power they give it to the Regale. And it is the more to be wondred this in Heathens, who being alto∣gether Carnalized, one should have thought would have given all to the armed Prince, and no more than his Grace had pleased to the Sacrisicing Hierophant. Nay, tho Humi∣lity be one of the dictinctives of Christianity, and so ought most signally to appear in its Priests, against all, even the slightest arro∣gances, or self Reflections; yet we find, when the assertion of the Sanctity has been necessary to take off Imperial insolence, se∣veral

the best of Catholick Fathers have imi∣tated St. Paul,* 1.79 in magnifying their Office to the vindication of their Liberty; for instances of which, there will be occasion in due place.

§. 4. To assert therefore the inviolable Right and Authority of a Divine Ordinance or Commission against the Powers and De∣signs of Kings, I could here well alledge Elias his dealing with Baal's Prophets at Mount Carmel, before Abab's eyes, and a∣gainst his will; the assembling of the Elders of Judah and Israel under the first Babylonish Captivity before Ezekiel, to consult their common Affairs against the interests of the King of Babylon, and all the opposition of Prophets made against wicked Princes. But letting these pass,* 1.80 the singular and extraor∣dinary Case of Jeroboam will not be content to be omitted. By the Constitution of the Law (Exod. 23.14, 15, 16, 17. and 34, 23, 24.) all the Men Children of the twelve Tribes were to appear before God three times in the year, at the place of his Re∣sidence, which in Jeroboams time was in So∣lomons Temple at Jerusalem. Now Jeroboam by particular Prophecy and Providence be∣came King of the Ten Tribes, that re∣volted from Rehoboam the Son of Solomon. But Jerusalem was the very Metropolis of Rehoboams Kingdom; so that fearing that by this observation of the Law in all his Males appearing three times a year to Wor∣ship at Jerusalem, his People would return

to the House of David, he turned them a∣way from that form of Religion and So∣ciety with God at Jerusalem, to the Calves he had set up as the Symbols of God's pre∣sence at Dan, and at Bethel. And because the Tribe of Levi would not be with him, he himself became a Priest, and made such as he could get, every one that would, of the meanest People. And now if Worldly Po∣licy, and Civil Counsels will excuse a de∣flexion from Divine Ordinances, here were all imaginable Pleas for excuse, or justification herein. But God, that gave this Law for such appearances at the place of his presence, had back'd it with a promise to prevent all fears of a Surprize. No Man, saith God, shall desire thy Land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year. But because Jeroboam might perhaps take this Promise only to respect, or in∣tend a security against Aliens, not their fellow Tribes, therefore God sent him a Prophet to Bethel, with a miraculous Power to reclaim him from his diffidences to the observation of the Law; which not work∣ing upon the King, this thing became a Sin and Snare to him, his House, and his People, to their utter excision; a Docu∣ment for ever to all Earthly Powers, not to entail upon themselves,* 1.81 their Posteri∣ties, and their People the Curse of the Almighty, in the violation of his Ordi∣nances.

But to conclude all with some general Con∣siderations on Christianity, I do not at all doubt, but that the Dr. will assert to us Christians, a Right and Liberty,* 1.82 both Natural and Divine, to Assemble often in Publick Worship, and Holy Services of the Church, not only on the Lords Day and at our Festi∣vals, Fasts and Vigils; but every day, two, three, or more times a Day, if we can have leisure, tho' our Princes should forbid us these Times and Frequences. I may well add; that we may do these Devotions in Consecrated Places, and several Catholick Appendages of Devotion, tho' for these there be no express Command in Scripture, and for most of them no Instances. The Antient Church owned several Usages in the Church for Canons Apostolical,* 1.83 and not a few of that Collection, which we have under that Character, descended from the Apostolical Age and Practice, as the Tra∣ditions of the most Antient Fathers evince, and the Substrate Reasons of them, will still be of very great Use, and Eternal Conve∣nience. And must we be bound to quit all these (even not Mystick) Institutions at the Arbitrary pleasure of Civil Powers, while yet Constantine* 1.84 (beyond whom I thought no Clergy man would prescribe or claim Prero∣gative, for all Christian Princes) thought himself obliged to Revere, and Submit to such Traditional Canons, which were by the Catholick Church, received as of Apo∣stolical Age or Original?

CHAP. IV. Of the Divine Right of Christian Synods.

§ 1. NOW if we have a Divine Right of Convening for Worship in popular Assemblies, with an unalienable Authority of using many unscriptural Usages, and conve∣nient Appendages in this Service, why should not our Spiritual Governours have Authori∣ty to Assemble in Consultation for the good Conduct of the Common Assemblies, or what Prerogative is violated by this Liber∣ty? But because a positive Constitution of God is what Time-servers, and Anti-Hierar∣chists do so particularly demand from us (tho' very unwilling that you should so squeeze and torment their pretences to a Divine Title) I will however, to gratify even the peevish, endeavour to do the Church, and them too, Reason in this Point.

§ 2. As then our Faith is a Mysterious Doctrine,* 1.85 discovered originally to certain Christian Patriarchs, and Preachers of Righte∣ousness, whose Doctoral Office and Order, has descended by Ecclesiastical Ordinations to the whole Church, so our Sacramental Ordinan∣ces are Priestly and Hallowing Mysteries, committed also by Divine Ordinance,* 1.86 to proper Priests; and lastly, the Mystick

Powers of the Hierarchy, of the Keys,* 1.87 of binding and loosing, of remitting and re∣taining of sins in Earth, to be ratified above by Christ in Heaven, was deposited in the Apostles, the first Fundamental Bishops un∣der Christ, and derived down to all their Successours, with whom he promised his presence, even to the end of the World, that so the Gates of Hell might not prevail over the Church committed to their Charge;* 1.88 to which end, among others, they are by a Mystical Imposition of Hands, blessed and consecrated unto such Measures of the Holy Spirit, as are suitable to so high and holy a Function, and such Mystick Offices. Now, if this in Fact be so, then our Rule holds good, that none can attempt these Powers, but by Divine Commission, either Original, or Suc∣cessive; the Divine Maxim of the Author to the Hebrews (c. 5.4.) holding true of these Priesthoods, as well as those in the House of Aaron,* 1.89 That no Man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Now to secure this Truth and Matter of Fact, we have St. Pauls Testimo¦nies to the full, in several places; namely, That Christ hath placed in the Church Pastors,* 1.90 Teachers, Governments, in which, they that Rule are to Rule well, and with diligence, and to be therefore ac∣counted worthy of, or assigned double Honour, and to be obeyed and submitted to, as they that watch for our Souls, for which they must give Ac∣count, as Stewards of God, Mysteries, 1 Cor. 12.28. Rom. 12.8. 1 Tim. 5.17. Heb. 13.17. 1 Cor. 4.1. from whence 'tis as clear as

Noon day, that the Christian Laity are by Divine Ordinance under Governors Hierarchi∣cal; And being so, are in a Subordinate state of Ecclesiastical Society with God under their Spiritual Rulers, and being antecedently so before, are therefore independently so con∣sociated as to Civil Societies, according to the Doctrine of the Letter.

§ 3. But this is not all that deserves ob∣servation in this matter; But, beside the different Orders of Governours, the Ʋnity of the Catholick Church is to be much con∣sidered under these several Governours, ei∣ther as one Divine School of Christian Piety under many Doctors;* 1.91 or of one Army in ma∣ny Partitions under their respective Head Officers or Lieutenants General under Christ the great Captain of our Salvation; or as one Polity under many Optimates. For first our Saviour came as a Doctor sent from God, and gathered under him Disciples, of these he ordained twelve chief Doctors, and se∣venty Inferiors to collect more unto, and in∣struct them in this School, when collected. Now a collection of Disciples into one So∣ciety is but one School, how large soever it grows, and how many Teachers soever the En∣largements do required. So many Tutors there are in one Colledge, and many Colledges in one University. Since then also the whole Catho∣lick Church of Christ is but one general School of his Foundation, tho' the Doctors that teach it have their several Rooms and Mansions for their particular Shares, these Partitions for

Convenience do not divide the general So∣ciety into Independent Separations.* 1.92 The same sort of Unity is to be maintained in the No∣tion of an Army, or Church Militant, by Sa∣cramental Vow under Christs Banner, un∣der the conduct of its general Officers. And lastly, if we consider it as the one City, or Kingdom of God, committed by its Prince (du∣ring his abscence) to several Viceroys assigned their respective Districts and Jurisdictions, these are the Bishops succeeding in this Au∣thority to the Apostles. So that this One School, One Army, One City, tho' distributive∣ly to be governed by the several Rulers as to particular and local Offices, yet as to the Inte∣rests of the common Ʋnity and Preservation it must be governed Aristocratically by com∣mon Council and Unanimous Authority.* 1.93 And as no Monarch can well Govern with∣out a set of Counsellors to Advise, such as the Clergy, or Chapter of a Diocess ought to be to a Bishop in his District; So the Op∣timates of an Aristocracy cannot not only not Wisely, but not Authoritatively act without Conciliar Forms and Methods, and they are therefore themselves one standing, fundamen∣tal Council for the whole Subject Body. And hence is the Right of Provincial Synods,* 1.94 to be held all over the Catholick Church, fundamentally necessary to the Catholick Uniformity of Conduct, and Ʋnity depend∣ing thereupon; to the end, that what each Council resolves, may be transmitted to the rest, and so mutually treated of, if need be,

by the intervention of Legates, or ratified, if there be no doubt or need of discussions; which was the original form of Catholick Government and Communion in the Chri∣stian Church, before the Empire set up Christs Banner; and was received as of Apostolical Canon. So that, if the Visible Unity of the Catholick Church, as one com∣mon Society and Community,* 1.95 be of Divine Structure, the very Truth and Faith hereof immediately imports an Aristocracy, and that a Right of Conciliar Assemblies and Le∣gations. So that there needed no Scriptural Record requiring this, while the Frame and Order hereof was before laid in the first Structure of the Church, and Universally known as Established in it before any Scrip∣tures of the New Testament were conceiv∣ed or lodged in the Archives of the Church, as is confessed by the instances of this Conci∣liar form of Government extant in these Scriptures, to be by and by alledged. For it is further to be considered, that the Con∣vention of these Synods is not universally of constant and indispensably necessary frequen∣cy,* 1.96 to be fixed to stated times, but upon emergencies mostly, which yet are frequent enough, and in the days of Persecution, 'tis as inconvenient many times to the Spiritual, as dangerous to the Temporal Interests of Christians; 'twas therefore fitter to leave the exercise of that Authority free to the publick Ecclesiastick Prudence,* 1.97 as to the actual ex∣ercise and menage thereof, than to confine

it to particular Rules, Times, and Limits,* 1.98 by Express and Canonical Precept, without reserve to a necessary Liberty. Nor need this be thought strange, since the Assemblies for Doctrine and Worship, tho' apparently of Divine Right, as to daily use and practice, and under absolute Obligations unto ordina∣ry and publick frequency, yet are under no Sabbatical rigour, nor indispensable precept of Stationary days, being left to the imita∣tion of the Original and Primitive Practices, as much as Times, and Occurrences will permi••, or direct, for the best Spiritual Ser∣vice of the Church. And therefore much more may the convention of Synods be left at Liberty, for whose stated Returns there are no constant nor fixed Reasons, nor Ex∣amples in the Scriptures, nor the Writers of the next Succession to the Apostles, even as to times of Peace, much less as to times of Persecution.

§ 4. But further yet, to recommend the reasonableness hereof, let it be considered, that a great deal of the Hierarchical Rules of Order and Polity is truly of Apostolical Pre∣scription,* 1.99 and Catholickly received for such in, and thro' all the first Ages, for which however we have no Catholick Laws, or Canons in Scripture. The General and Primitive Practice of placing Bishops in every City was of Apostolical Direction and Practice,* 1.100 but without a Preceptive Obligation

upon the whole Church for ever; some whole Countries having but one Bishop; some one Bishop to two Cities, and else∣where a Village Bishop. Yet no doubt the Catholick Church has a divine Right of pla∣cing Bishops in every City, for upon that Right St. Paul order'd Tit us to do so in Crete, that order not being the first Charter of the Catholick Right herein, (for it was but a Personal, and Local Order for Tit us, and Crete) but grounded upon a general Right in the Apostles, and by them left to their Suf∣fragans and Successors, to place the Clerical Orders, where they saw most convenient, which according to all Reason was chiefly and principally to be done in Cities,* 1.101 obser∣ving those conveniencies for the publick Go∣vernment of the Church, which, being found by experience useful in the Exarchates and Provinces of the Empire, appeared in gene∣ral to the Apostles and their Successors, as useful to the Catholick Hierarchy. Where∣fore where a Right is Divinely constituted, the use whereof ought to be left to Freedom and Prudence, 'tis not only needless, but in∣congruous and hurtful to tye up the exercises of such Right to precise Limits, which is I think a good account why Synods in Scrip∣ture are not under precept.

CHAP. V. Of Scripture Synods or Councils.

§. 1. THE grounds of Synodical Autho∣rity being duly laid in a Divine Charter, it is necessary now to proceed to the Instances hereof in Holy Scripture; matters of Fact, allowed good upon Re∣cord, being very good Illustrations in Law of that Right on which they were practised and received. This is what also I am more particularly obliged to, since the Doctor is loath to own any Instances of this kind; not willingly that of Acts xv. for such a Sy∣nod as he was speaking of. In which I con∣fess he is not alone, but accompanied with a great croud of Anti-Hierarchical Criticks, and other poorer Scriblers, which cannot merit that Character. But if the practice of the Catholick Church, as well as the formal reason of the thing it self, evinces, that an Ecclesiastical Council or Synod is an Assembly of Ministers in Consult for the Spiritual Conduct of the Church,* 1.102 or according to the Doctors more unaccurate definition,

a meeting of Ecclesiastical Persons upon an Ecclesiastical affair,

I believe the Doctors second thoughts

will set him at Rights, that there manifestly appear several Sessions properly Conciliar, with their Acts Synodical, in the New Testa∣ment.

§ 2. That our Saviour instituted two Col∣ledges of Doctors, one of the Twelve, and the second of the Seventy,* 1.103 cannot I think be doubted; under whom the Lay Disciples constituted were the first Rudiments of the Catholick Church, r••presented by the Prin∣ces of the Twelve Tribes, and the Seventy Elders of Israel, which later were no doubt a Society Ecclesiastical in their first unrecord∣ed Originals, since they appear to be so in the two Convocations of them by Moses, Exod. 24. Nam. 11.* 1.104 and in other places of an obscurer intimation of such a Colledge. Nor can it be doubted before Moses his days, but that each Tribe had its 〈◊〉〈◊〉, all which were concerned in the common Conduct of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, to which our Saviours Promise to the Colledge of the Twelve has relation, when he says, they should sit up∣on Twelve Thrones,* 1.105 Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel as one common Society. Now the Twelve Apostles are herein too to be taken for a Colledge, because it appears, that St. Peter by St. Matthew is,* 1.106 called the first in order, and appears, in all Conferences of the Twelve whatsoever,* 1.107 to be the Prolocutor. So neither the Twelve, nor the Seventy, tho' sent out first two by two throughout Jewry, were yet several only, and Incohe∣rent

herent Ministers, but were Sociated into two Colledges or Fraternities, and to appear as such in all their Conventious.

§ 3. Christ then a little before his Ascen∣sion, being Assembled with Eleven Apo∣stles, commands them not to depart from Jerusalem till the illapse of the Holy Chost at Pentecost.* 1.108 This they observed according∣ly, and gathered to themselves about an ••••o Disciples, a number held sufficient for a Synagogue. In this Interyal St. Peter, the constant Prolocutor of the Upper Colledge, pro∣poses the Substitution of a Successor to the Apostleship, from which Judas by Trans∣gression fell, by a consulted Recommenda∣tion of two fit Persons unto God, of which two the Divine Lot was to determine the Successor. Here then being a Session of E∣leven Apostles in an Assembly of 120 Dis∣ciples, putting them all upon Council and Consideration, for a Successor to Judas, an affair Fundamentally Ecclesiastical, Act. 1. I hope will appear to the Doctor to be a Council, if not a Synod Ecclesiastical, in which there can be no other difference but this, that a Synod,* 1.109 is so called in respect of their Convening together from their several proper Seats, but 'tis called a Council from their actual Session, speaking properly. After the Effusion of the Holy Spirit, and the intrease of the Church, by the Accession of both Jews and Greeks, the Greeks mur∣mured against the Hebrews, that their Widows

were neglected in the daily Ministrations.* 1.110 Whereupon the Twelve called the multi∣tude of the Disciples unto them, and bid them Recommend seven Men of honest Re∣port, and full of the Holy Spirit, to whom they might commit that Diaconate, by their Apostolick Imposition of Hands, which was done accordingly. So here was a Meet∣ing of Ecclesiastical Persons upon an Ecclesia∣stical Affair, and so a Matter of Synodical Polity, under Authority Apostolical, Acts 6. Upon the Persecation,* 1.111 which began in the stoning of S•• Stephen, there followed a dis∣persion of the Church from Jerusadem; but they that were scattered abroad, went every where preaching the Word, and Philip the Deacon, made a vast Conversion at Samaria; of which, when the Apostles which, were still at Jerusadem, heard, they sent unto them Peter and John,* 1.112 to lay their Hands upon them, for the Reception of the Holy Spirit. Here was most formally a Mission from the Aposto∣lick College de propagandâ fide, of two the most Eminent of their Body, and was an Act of Conciliar Form, Authority, Govern∣ment, and Communication, Acts 8.14, 15. To the Authority of which College,* 1.113 in publick Council, St. Peter himself was forced to give an account at his return, for his having Preached to, and Baptized the Gentiles, Acts 11.1, 2, &c. Upon the same Persecu∣tion several preached the Gospel to the Jews alone, in Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch; in which last, some also preached to the

Greeks, and turned great numbers of them to the Lord; and when Tidings thereof came to the Church at Jerusalem, they send forth Barnabas to Antioch, which Mission must be ordered Conciliarly by the Apostles, of which three only had departed from the Colledge, Peter, John, and Barnabas, and Peter had returned before this Mission of Barna∣bas, Acts 11. tho' after Herod had killed the Apostle, James Major, and Imprison∣ed Peter to the same end, by the Conduct of an Angel, Peter went off a second time,* 1.114 Acts 12. Nor were there only Apostles still presiding at Jerusalem, but Elders also under them, to whom, when Earnabas and Saul returned to give Account of their Ministry, they delivered the Collection made for the Brethren of Judea, Acts 11.30. Which Elders were a second Clerical Order in that standing Council.* 1.115 What the Twenty four Elders in the Revelation were particular∣ly intended to represent, 'tis not Material to Conjecture; 'tis only observable here, that they are represented as in one Assem∣bly. When some from Judea came to An••ioch, and Preached to the Gentiles the necessity of Circumcision, and were Opposed by Paul and Barnabas herein 3 The Church there was resolved to Con∣sult the Determination of the highest Authority,* 1.116 which then was in the College of Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, who from that Metropolis, yet jointly and Sy∣nodically Governed all Ecclesiastical Mat∣ters,

needing their Determination. The Legates therefore from Antioch, being re∣ceived by this Colledge, and having given an Account of their Affairs in Publick Assem∣bly, certain of the believing Pharisees at Jerusalem, urged the necessity of Cir∣cumcising the Gentiles. Whereupon the Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this Matter;* 1.117 among whom the Old Prolocutor, Peter first, next Paul and Barnabas, and last of all James Minor, (afterward probably the Bishop of that Place, upon the dispersion of the rest Apostles) delivered their Senses and Re∣solutions for the Negative, in which the whole Council Acquiesced. And so it plea∣sed the Apostles, and Elders, and the whole Church, to send Synodical Legates and Epistles to the Gentile Churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, letting them know. That it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to Them, to lay upon them no more than four necessary Things, to abstain from Meats offered to Idols, from Blood, from things strangled, and from Fornica∣tion; assuring them withal, that those Circumcisionists from Jerusalem, had not that in Commandment from the Colledge of A∣postles and Elders, to impose the Doctrine of Circumcision on them. Whereby is imported, that that Council, or Colledge, had a Commanding Power on Missiona∣ries; tho' in vertue of that they had given these Zealots, no such Circumcising Com∣mandment.

* 1.118 This was so very formal a Synod, and the Acts and Concerns there∣of so formally Synodical, that hence all Synods, Convened upon Religious Questi∣ons and Debates, have acted in prescrip∣tion from this, as their Platform, or Ori∣ginal Pattern. And yet the Dr. tells us, That whether this were such a Synod, as he and the Letter was then speaking of, may very justly be doubted. Now what sort of Synod the Dr. intends his then Speech about, I cannot tell.* 1.119 If his General Definition of a Synod will do, this was certainly such, as fully as ever any was; or if he means such a Synod as the Churches usually were directed by; I am sure he can find no essential Reason or Form wanting. But if ••e means one of Hen. the Eight his Convocations, there in∣deed we must fail him. But to such a one as this, the Letter pretended no Divine Constitution or Example; and therefore 'tis not about such a Synods Divine Right, that the Dispute lies; nor would the Dr. have opposed a Divine Right, to such a Model, that would so ••••••ctually have Consecrated his enslaving Hypothesis. No, no; 'tis not this sort, for which the Letter lays Divine Foundations; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 'tis for such a freedom of Synods, which our Religi∣ous Prince hath deprived us of. So that the Doctors Exception properly is, either that this of Jerusalem was not an Eccle∣siastical or Canonical Council, or if it were, that it was not sice and exempt

from Civil Coercion. An exact Man here would have laid out all his force, and have set forth on what sort of Synods the De∣bate is, with a description of its Consti∣tuent Forms, in distinction from others, to have been as accurately described. Nor will a Man's haste, nor avocations Excuse such Omissions, by which Divines, Stu∣dents, and Learners may be blindly led into dangerous Errours. Which defect, therefore, I hope, he will supply in the next Edition, and Vindication of his Book. But to go on;* 1.120 The Elders of the Church of Asia, being together at Ephesus, (as the Bishops and Deacons were at Philippi, Phil. 1.1.) were all Convened by St. Paul to Miletus, to receive his Apostolical Order against those ravening Wolves, that should after his departure, arise, to pervert the people from the Faith, and to draw Disci∣ples after them; against whom he bids them Watch, taking heed unto themselves, and to the Flock, of which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops; viz. the whole Church of Asia under the Metropolis of Ephesus. And can we think, that this was a precept of sepa∣rate watches, and not rather common and united Cares, there being many of them fix∣ed in that one Provincial Church of Asia? But if they were obliged to joynt Cares, it must be by joynt Counsels, and such will justify, and require Conferences, and Synods, there∣unto, such as even this at Miletus was, being a Meeting of Ecclesiastical Persons upon an Eccle∣siastical

Affair,* 1.121 Acts 20. Presbyteries further are a Synod or Council of Elders; and such there were in those days, such as Convened unto James, their Bishop at Je∣rusalem, where Paul found them Assembled at his last being there, Acts 21. And that Presbytery, by which Timothy was ordained, was such an Ecclesiastical Con∣vention, as quadrates with the Drs. Defi∣nition, 1 Tim. 4.14.

§ 3. Besides in Judicial Processes,* 1.122 as St. Paul did pass Censures in the most so∣lemn and publick Conventions of Churches, (as that of Corinth, wherein no doubt there was an Hierarchical College) either in Person, or by Deputy, upon Epistle, or Mandate; and thereby deliver wicked Men over unto Satan, when out of the Pro∣tection of Gods Grace, in the Commu∣nion of the Church; so does he give order to Bishops, by him Constituted, thus to govern all inferior Orders by Iudicial Discipline; to the Authority whereof, as every Bishop has a Divine Right,* 1.123 so all Bishops, that have not the miraculous Spi∣rit of discerning, do need many times a Council of their Elders, as to assist their Authority, and greaten the Solemnity, so to advise them in Casuistical and Doubtful Questions, in order to a Just and Convin∣cing Determination, where as single and unconsulted Procedures,* 1.124 as they are liable to many real Obliquities, so do they lye

open to far more Suspitions and Calumnies, than 'tis possible for a fair and well establish∣ed Judgment to do. A Method therefore always observed (where it could be) in the primitive Ages, as being no doubt of Canon Apostolical. But because by meer Divine Right of Order all Bishops, are of equal Power, & consequently no one singly, has any judiciary Authority over another,* 1.125 therefore to the examination and Censure of a disorderly Bishop, and his Acts, whe∣ther publick or private, upon Informations or Appeals, a Synod of Bishops hath been ever thought, and Convened as necessary, and of Divine Right, as well as Apostolical Canon.

CHAP. VI. Of Cathedral Synods, in the three first Centu∣ries, and their Authority.

§ 1. WHether the loss of the Alex∣andrian Library, be wor∣thy the Complaint of the Christian World, I leave to the Judgment of the Curious, and Admirers of the Heathen Rarities. But, tho' the bulk of those Christian Monuments, which are lost in the Calamities of the three first Gen∣turies,

was not very great, as far as we can Judge by Eusebius, and other Authors, and Catalogists; yet the want of their Testimonies and Senses about Matters Ecclesiastical, convinces us, that the loss of them, is one of the greatest Misfortunes and Damages, that we have reason to bewail from the Ruins of time. And as the enjoyment of those Memorials would have given greater Authority to our Doctrines, and Usages, which the ignorant or wanton World, now controverts, so particularly we had had thence a vast light in the Matter before us, concer∣ning the Doctrine, Authority, Forms, Rules, Ʋses and Venerations of the Pri∣mitive Synods, especially in the Vo∣lumes of their Acts and Epistles, of which very little now remains in the Writings that are preserved.

§ 2. However,* 1.126 notwithstanding these Invaluable Losses, yet so much appears in what we have left us, that every Bishoprick was a Polity, consisting of a Bishop with his Subordinate Pres∣byters and Deacons, to Consult, Ad∣vise, and Assist the Bishop, and to Exe∣cute his Decrees, upon the Result of their common Considerations. And

not only so;* 1.127 but that Bishops were con∣sociated into Provincal Systems, under the Priority of their Metropolitans and Pri∣mates, chiefly in the Sees of Apostoli∣cal Foundation, and above all others, that of Jerusalem over the Churches of the Circumcision, till the last Ruin of the Jews, and that City under Adri∣an, and Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch in the Gentile World.

§ 3. To offer proofs for this to the Dr. or any professed Member of the Church of England, is an unnecessary and impertinent Trouble. And the more needless, because the Truth thereof has been made illustriously appear in many Volumes, written for the Episcopal Hierarchy, against all its Modern Enemies, of what Character or Extraction soever. But some little Strictures and Notices, that may more appositely quadrate with the Matter of the present Debate, I must beg the Doctor his patience to admit.

§ 4. And first concerning the State of Sees Episcopal, it is not only evi∣dent, that there were in the Suc∣cession from the Apostles, Presbyters un∣der the Bishop, if the See were full,

but these were Concorporated into Colledges, for Counsel to the Bi∣shop for the respective Bishopricks.* 1.128And he that in this Age gives us the clearest Account of the Prelacy, i. e. Ignatius the Martyr, gives us the like of these Conciliar Colledges, which he, on that very Notion, collective∣ly calls Presbyteries. Had he only named them Plurally and Masculine∣ly Elders, I could not have laid so much Stress upon it; but when he calls them, as in one System, neutrally a Prethytery, and a Syne∣drium or Council, this convinces e∣very Man, that admits the Medicean Copy for Genuine, (wherein they are so Stiled) that they were a Council for the See, or Bishoprick, Represented and Recommended by this Father as a Polity of Di∣vine Constitution.* 1.129 Thus he suggests to the Ephesi∣ans, that an obedience to their Bishop and the Pres∣bytery, is necessary to their Sanctification; which therefore must suppose a Divinely Instituted Sub∣jection hereto, as to an Ordinance of Divine Authority, no Humane

Coalitions upon meer Rational Pru∣dence, being of any so high a Vir∣tue as to Sanctifie. So he enjoyns them to Assemble in one Faith.* 1.130 —To obey tho Bishop and the Presbyte∣ry, with an indiscerpible Reso∣lution; which therefore must be the Effect and Consequence of one Faith, and consequently of Divine Intention, as being stated un∣der the Bishop,* 1.131 as the Syne∣drium of the Apostles under God: So for the Magnesi∣ans; he calls the Presby∣tery the Spiritual Corona of the Bishop, not the Pruden∣tial. Nor were these little Occasi∣onal Transports, but fixed Senses in the Holy Martyr,* 1.132 as ap∣pears by their frequent re∣petitions, requiring an Obe∣dience still to the Presby∣teries as to the Apostles, which had been extravagant to a Miracle, had not Pres∣byteries been of Divine In∣stitution; on Faith of which he calls it the Council of God, without which, who∣soever Acts any thing Ec∣clesiastical,

is not of a pure Conscience; as being Con∣corporated for the Unity of the Church, there being but one Lords Supper, and one Altar of God, as there is but one Bishop together with his Presbytery, to un∣ity, with which all penitent Schismaticks, must return in order to the remission of their Sins. So that such a System of Presbyteries in every Bishoprick appears, by this Disciple of the Apostles, and Bishop of their Consecration, to be of Divine Ordinance for a Council to the Bishop and the Bishoprick, in all its occasions. So that so many places, attesting such a Syste∣matick Consociation of Presbyteries in every See, will bid a fair Interpretation for all those other places, w^ch require ob∣servance to Elders, plurally only named,* 1.133 but collectively understood as an Ecclesi∣astick Council; and so of the Deacons the same is most probable, because they are generally set with the Bishop and the Pres∣bytery in these Rules of Hierarchical Dis∣cipline and Ʋnion, according to the

forms of those Synods of St. Cyprians which generally contained the Deacons as well as Presbyters gathered together in the face of the whole Church, in af∣fairs that did concern all the Orders thereof, of which more will be spoken, when we come to particulars.

§ 5.* 1.134Nor were they only of Counsel and Sub Society to the Bishop while the See was full, but they were a Council for the Vacant Bishoprick during the Inter∣val, to inspect and conduct the publick state thereof, and to give and receive Letters of Communion between other Churches. For tho' in the Vacancies Presbyters were not able to do all Epis∣copal Offices in their own Right, as Ordi∣nation, Anathematizing, Absolution, &c. yet all things preparatory hereunto were in their power, as Examination, Regu∣lation, Suspension, Injunctions of Pe∣nance, &c. in which the vacant Bishop∣rick was to be Canonically Subject and Obedient, reserving higher Procedures to the higher Authorities of, either the neighbouring Bishops, at the present, or their proper Bishop next to succeed.* 1.135 For tho' Ignatius tells the Romans,* 1.136 that his Church in Syria at Antioch, had now in his steed

Christ, and Christ only for her Pastor and Bishop; yet in that ascribed to him sent to his own Antiochians, he charges the Presbyters to feed the Flock, till God should give them a Governour, and the People in the mean time to be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons. And tho' this is indeed an Apocriphal Epistle, yet it is an unexceptionable Canon specisi∣ed in it, and far from an Imposture, that the Clergy should Govern the Laity in the Vacancy. So Polycarp in his Epistle to the Church at Philippi, then, as it seems,* 1.137 without a Bishop, (for other∣wise the Canon required him to have mentioned him in the first place) directs the Presbyters to be Merci∣ful, Visiters of the Needy, Converters of them that Err, forbearing Wrath, Partiality, Unjust Judgment, Severi∣ty, &c. the Laity to be sub∣ject to them. And when it shall be considered, that in these days the several Presbyters had not several Congregations apart to them∣selves, but were all one common Colledge

over one People in every See, and the Rule of the Government and Obedience setin this Epistle, is to the Elders in common without any distributive appropriation, it will then be as clear, that they were a Council for the Church in the Vacancy, as a Council to the Bishop in the Plenarty; To which the express Testimonies of the Epistles reciprocated between Bishops and Vacant Sees, under the Conciliar Conduct of the Clergy, are full and convincing.* 1.138 Thus the Clergy at Rome writing under their Vacan∣cy to the Clergy at Car∣thage under the absence of St. Cyprian, looked up∣on it as a duty incumbent upon them, in the absence or want of the Bishops, to supply their places, in what their Order would admit, in the custody of the Flock. And they therefore, having received Letters from the Clergy of Car∣thage of the Recess of St. Cyprian the Bi∣shop by Clement the Carthaginian Sub-Deacon and Messenger, send back this their Epistle by their Agent Bassianus to the Clergy of Carthage,* 1.139 and desired them to com∣municate it, by all means and opportunities possible,

to other Churches. Which were plainly acts of Form and Nature Conciliar, and such as they looked on as matter of Duty, and not Prudence only. 'Tis true, where Bishops were only absent, it may be pre∣sumed, that the Presbyteries did act by the direction of the Absent Bi∣shop; but then it is as certain,* 1.140 that the Absent Bishop was Ca∣nonically obliged so to Autho∣rize, or concede that vicarious administration, which they upon their own Right before such actual Commissi∣on might assume; for it was the disobe∣dience of some proud Conses∣sors to the Authority and Con∣duct of the Deacons and Pres∣byters,* 1.141 that occasioned St. Cy∣prians sixth Epistle to Authorize the Cler∣gy, that could safely stay at Carthage un∣der the then persecution, in his Stead, Name, and conceded Authority, to carry on the Ecclesiastical Administrations. Which was not the first Original of the Clergies Authority in the absence of the Bishop, but a valid and doub∣ling Confirmation,* 1.142 or express ratification of that Antecedent Authority of the Clergy, which the exorbitant took upon them, for want of the Bishops

Presence, to despise; there being the same reason, tho' not the same degree of Want in the Absence, as the Death of a Bishop, and the proper vacancy of the See there∣upon. And therefore, tho' in the denying Communion to Gaius Diddensis a Pres∣byter, and his Deacon, without his antecedent Sentence, only on the Coun∣sel of some of St. Cyprians fellow Bishops,* 1.143 they acted on their own Authority, yet are they commended by St. Cyprian, as having acted with great Integrity, and according to the Rules of Ecclesiastick Discipline. It appears then that by a Primitive and Catho∣lick Polity, founded at least upon Di∣vine Right, if not Precept, where∣ever Episcopal Sees were fully sixed, there was also a Council of Presbyters, with Deacons and Officers under them, for the Conduct of the Bishoprick; and, upon absence or Death of the Bishop, for Synodical Communications with other Churches.

§ 6. Which being pre-established, it may not be amiss to consider some of those pro∣cedures, in which the Primitive Bishops were wont to convene their Clergy; in which I mean them alone in one Diocess, without the aggregation of other Bishops for the Government of affairs. And first, if any Person under his Bishop promoted new, or false Doctrines in Religion, this became matter for the Care of the Bishop, and the Counsel of his Clergy, and many times the presence of the Laity infected, or in danger of infection.* 1.144 Thus in the Arsi∣noire Region under the Primacy of Alexandria, one Coracion had dis∣seminated the Doctrine of Nepos (an Egyptian Bishop) concerning a Carnal Millennium, which had spread far and wide, to the sub∣version of much people. Whi∣ther therefore Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria coming, called to∣gether the Village Presbyters and Teachers in the presence of all the Laity, that had a mind to be there, and to have a publick Discussion of that Doctrine of Nepos. And after three days publick Canvas of Nepos his Book, made with much moderation by all persons, the affair ended suc∣cessfully in the Conversion of Coracion, the Ringleaders of the

Millenaries. If then Authority to Convert Men from Errors be Divine, and Convocati∣ons of Clergy-Men by their Bishop be necessa∣ry or Expedient thereto, (as 'twas in this case) it follows, that such Synods under a Bishop are of Divine Right, and 'tis as much the Bi∣shops Divine Authority as Duty to convene them.

§ 7.* 1.145 Another Instance of Con∣vening the Clergy by their Bi∣shops in these Ages, was for re∣conciling publick Penitents by Imposition of Hands of the Bi∣shop and Clergy, upon Conses∣sion first made publickly before, in order to a recovery of the right of Communication Ecclesiastical and Eucharistical, as also for the Censure of such as should pre∣sumptuously violate the Laws, Order, Union, and Discipline of their Church, and for Ordinati∣ons of the Clergy, or less Orders. All which are Acts Synodical,* 1.146 and grounded upon the Authority of the Bishop, and the Reason of the Causes, both which herein most certainly were as Divine, as for such they were then received. If a Man would be here accurate in traversing such intimations, as may be picked up herein among the Antients, one might swell this chapter to a greater largeness than is ne∣cessary; but taking for granted that these

are uncontestable and apposite evidence, I leave these Presbyteries and their Divine Pow∣ers on their own Divine Foundations, and proceed to the second sort of Episcopal or Provincial Synods.

CHAP. VII. Of Episcopal and Provincial Synods in the three first Centuries, and their Au∣thority.

§ 1. THAT there were Synodical Con∣ventions, and Provincial Councils of Bishops, and such Presbyters under them as the Bishops brought with them, or called to them in the First Centuries, will not I sup∣pose be denied by any owner of Episcopacy, and the Volumes of the Antient Fathers. So that our present enquiry is not into, or concerning their actual being, but their Fre∣quency, Right, Authority, and Uses, for which they were wont so often, so vigorously to assemble.

§ 2.* 1.147 And first as to their gene∣ral frequency, Tertullian, the most antient of all our Latin Authors, tells us, that thro' all the Greek

Countries, where Christianity had so univer∣sally spread it self, Councils were by com∣mand or precept convened out of all Church∣es, thro', or in which Councils all arduous matters were publickly treated of, and in them the Reverence of the Christian Cha∣racter solemnly celebrated, it being the highest dignity thus every where to be con∣vened unto Christ, and that with severe Stations and Fastings for the sanctification of them. Where we see he asserts the practice and devotion to be of the very highest and divinest Dignity imaginable, and consequent∣ly of the like Authority equal to that Dignity, in which 'tis either fundamentally lodged, or to which 'tis inseparably concomitant. Nor does the Dignity only, but the necessities of affairs also recommend or enforce the ex∣ercise, as well as Institution of this Politie, and that in great and continual frequency.

§ 3. To the eviction whereof I will not urge the nature and general Forms and Con∣cerns of Aristocracy, requiring an united Counsel and Strength, to support it self against common dangers, but specifie parti∣cular Cases, which they judged necessary Conciliarly to set Right, and thereby to give credit to their determinations in their form∣ed Letters to other Churches, which gene∣rally, if not always, was the concluding Of∣fice of those Councils.

§ 4. Now of these Episcopal Synods some were but Partial, others Plenary. A Partial Sy∣nod of Bishops was such as consisted of some Bi∣shops, only in a Province upon occasion, design

or necessity. A P••••nary Synod was such as con∣sisted of a Full or General Convention of the Bishops of a Province under their Metropolitan.

§ 5. The first and most Sacred as well as constant Office of such Episcopal Synods was that of providing Bishops for vacant Sees;* 1.148 for which the most Canonical Rule most ge∣nerally observed, and to be observed in time of Peace in these Ages, was that which St. Cyprian and his Col∣leagues assert as of Divine Tra∣dition,* 1.149 (viz. as to the substrate reasons, and parallel instances) and Apostolical Observation, viz. that the nearest Bishops of the Province should repair to the vacant See, and the Bishop be chosen in the presence of the People, according to the same form of old observed at Hierusa∣lem† 1.150 by the Provincials of Pa∣laestine in filling that See with Successors, as in the case of Nar∣cissus retiring upon a perjurious Defamation; which I mention in fact more than others, because it is an early instance in that Church, which was the Mother of all Churches, and a Presump∣tion that this Custom was begun there in the constitution of James, and was continued there in all their Successions, and from thence became a Platform for the like Canon every where else throughout the Primitive Church. In which Synods the Clergy, and

the people, that stood in the Faith, Unity, and Order of the Church, were present, their Desires, Thoughts, and Counsels exa∣mined, and upon a fair and calm agreement (of which in those days they hardly ever failed, under the moderation of the Praesi∣ding Bishops) the Election was Ratified, and the Person Consecrated by the Bishops pre∣sent; and hereupon either the New Bishop alone, (when there was no contrary Preten∣sion) or the rest convening Bishops with him,* 1.151 sent the Letters of Communion to all other Churches, immediately, or mediately, according to the Forms in use under the Orders of Metropolitans and Pri∣mates.* 1.152 Thus was Cornelius made Bishop of Rome by a Synod of Sixteen Bishops after the same manner, from whence his Di∣vine Right in that Bishoprick is asserted by virtue of that Conci∣liar Ordination. So was St. Cy∣prian constituted Bishop of Car∣thage,* 1.153 to the assertion of the same Divine Right and Authority. And to pre∣tend the same his Rival Fortunatus his Party gave out at Rome, that he was Ordained for Carthage by twenty five Bishops, as falsly, as they before-hand had threatned to Con∣vene so many thereunto. And this custom was hereupon looked on as so Sacred and Ne∣cessary, that in time of Persecution they suf∣fered the Sees to lye long vacant, till a calm Season gave them opportunity for such so∣lemn Conventions, which were judged of

the Divinest Virtue and Anthority, and not mere Cabals of Prudence only.

§ 6. Other sorts of Reasons, why they met in Councils or Synods, were the preser∣vation of Unity in the Catholick, and par∣ticular Churches, by reclaiming, by censu∣ring the irreclaimable, by making Canons for good Order and Uniformity; for mu∣tual Advices and Assistances with Sister-Churches, and Composures in matters of Difference, For Discipline on Sinners, ei∣ther before, or during, or after their Re∣pentance, and particularly those that lapsed into Idolatry. So when* 1.154 Beryllus Bishop of Bostra in Arabia preached the same Doctrine with him that now presideth over the City of Waters, and the Faith was like to be di∣sturbed, and the Peace broken, there met a Council of Bishops in which Origen reclaim∣ed him: When† 1.155 Paulus Samosatenus and Sa∣bellius appeared, Councils convened against them. When the Novatian Schism began to attack the Peace of the Church at Antjoch, Helenus Bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia with his Provincials, Firmilian of Cappadocia, and Theoctistus of Palestine invited Dionysius of Alexandria to meet in Synod at Antioch, to repress Novatianism, which Schism gave oc∣casion also to many Synods in Africa,* 1.156 as did that Schism also of Felicissimus, who with his Complices attempted to set up Fortuna∣tus at Carthage. When the varying Customs of Churches,* 1.157 and the acknowledged reasons of them, occasioned, or required Ecclesiasti∣cal conferences between such Churches, they

were then wont to convene Provincial or Domestick Synods, and after their Domestick Decisions to send them with their Legates to the others for Examination and Recep∣tion, wherein if they agreed, this Unifor∣mity repressed not only Schism it self, but the occasions of it; but if not, yet the dif∣ferences of their Canonical Resolves by ver∣tue of these Conferences were preven∣ted from creating breaches in Com∣munion; or if the Peace had been violated by any hasty Passion or Prejudice, things were generally healed by these Synodical commerces. Thus in the time of Pope Victor many Synods were held about Easter-day in order to an Uniformity,* 1.158 which not being to be procured all over the Catholick Church,* 1.159 Victor broke the Communion be∣tween his Church and the Churches of Asia under Polycrates Metropolitan of Ephesus; but the other Churches would by no means endure a Rupture of Peace upon a difference of exterior usages. So the Question of Re∣baptization from Heresie was Conciliarly de∣termined different ways in several Churches,* 1.160 without any breach of Catholick Communi∣on, till Pope Stephen began the Rupture with the African, Phrygian, Galatian, Cilician, and Cappadocian Churches; which yet other Churches would by no means consent to; each Church determining according to its best Judgment, Rules, and Customs; but the most moderate taking care in the midst of this diversity,* 1.161 to keep the Unity of Spirit in the Bond of Peace. So a Council of 66

African Bishops determine the questions made them by Fidus concerning the recon∣ciliation of one Victor a lapsed Presbyter by Therapius a Bishop, before Canonical Exami∣nation and Season, as also of the liberty of Baptizing Infants as soon as born, before they were Eight Days old; as also of the Offenceless way of living to be practised by the Virgins. And as they did Conciliarly provide to prevent, so did they to correct Evils, particularly the Vices, Violences, and Immoralities of all Orders, as in the Presby∣ter Felicissimus, not only for his Schism, but for his Lusts; especially concerning the Pe∣nances and Indulgences to the Lapsed, for which, in times of Persecution, and the dispersions of the Episcopal College the Criminals were required to stay,* 1.162 and wait for peace to the Church, before it was decent for them, or allowed to them to claim their own; which was to be determined in Councils of their Bishops, Clergy and standing Laity. All which, whosoever looks into the quoted places, will find to be thought not only expe∣dient, but necessary for the good of the Church, and the persons concerned, and for the Authority of their Acts, which was uni∣versally and uncontestedly taken for Divine, upon grounds taken out of Scripture,* 1.163 which therefore they held frequently, and in some places annually, from which they sent Syno∣dical Letters and Messages, with authentick Deputations and Powers, not only by the

Sub-Clerical Orders,* 1.164 but by Deacons, Priests, nay and by Bishops also, according as the na∣ture of the affair did require, and Junctures of Time and Season would permit, being herein as much concerned for a general Ne∣gotiation in Spirituals, not only each Church within it self, but abroad with all others, and for all Christian Uses, as the Civil States and Sovereignties are for Domestick Conduct, and foreign Embassies, and Treaties with more remote, or more nearly adjacent Coun∣tries, and with as fair (to say no fairer) ground of Authority from God and Nature. Upon all which I make these concluding Re∣marks, that if such Synods had not been thought of Divine Right and Duty too, those that were Convened, and Censured by them, would have denied the Authority; the Lap∣sed Penitents would have disclaimed their Necessity, the Apostates would have proclaim∣ed the Imposture of a pretended Divine Autho∣rity, and the Churches would never have been at that vast Fatigue and Charge of Syno∣dical procedures; especially against the Edicts of Secular Powers, had they not judged these to be Acts of an Ecclesiastical Duty to, and Authority from God. But here being none, the least Exception from the offended, nor any possible Inducement upon the Church to quit the claim and practice of such Authority, I think here is an undeniable presumption hereupon, that it was as uncontestable, as it was actually uncontested.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Authority of Civil Powers and Laws in general, against the Liberty of Ecclesiastical Synods.

§. 1. AFter the Knowledge of all this, which I am sure the Dr. well knew, before ever he dreamed of Writing upon this Subject, 'tis a matter of astonishment to me, that he should look upon Synods under Alien Powers, to have been, and still to be, but prudential Clubs, without any Authority from God, or Man. And yet upon this confidence 'tis strange, that he should not wholly deliver them up to the full Authority of all Hea∣then, or Alien Powers, against which, where there is no right, no Human Reason, or Pru∣dence can warrant any popular Frequences or Councils. So that by his granting them Reason, he seems to grant them Right, and by g••a••ting them Right to grant them Authority to hold Synods under Alien Powers. And yet he is unwilling, even to allow what he grants, and floats up and down in his Doubts hereupon, and casts an unlucky glance upon the Primitive Synods, as scarce capable of Excuse, and more hardly of Justisication.

It has been (saith he) ever look'd upon as one great part of the Princes Prerogative,* 1.165 that no Societies should be Incorporated, nor any Companies be allowed to meet

together, without his Knowledge and Per∣mission. The Roman Law was especially very severe as to this Matter. And tho' after the Conversion of the Emperors to the Faith of Christ, a Provision was made for the Publick Assemblies of the Church for Divine Service; yet Tertullian, who understood these Matters as well as any one of his Time, tho' he excused their Meetings upon all other Accounts, could not deny, but that they fell under the Censure of the Law; and that having not the Princes Leave to meet together, they were in the Construction of the Law, guilty of Meeting against it.

§. 2. This brings one therefore to an En∣quiry,* 1.166 What Meetings are of right obnoxious to the prohibitions and penalties of Humane Laws. The Conventions therefore of Men are of three sorts; either Necessary, or Inno∣cent, or Hurtful. And first, such as are Neces∣sary no Man whatsoever can have a rightful Authority to restrain; for Necessity; being a Law from God, cannot be vacated by any positive Law of Man. Nor, Secondly, can Innocent Meetings be rightfully denyed in themselves, but under the apprehensions of hurt or danger upon Time, Place and Cir∣cumstances. But Hurtful Meetings, in the Third Place, may not only, but ought of Right to be restrained by the Magistracy. Yet what Princes have no Rightful Authority to do, that they may irresistibly do upon an uncountroulable Domination and Impunity. Upon which, when they presume to Repress our

Rights and Liberties, if it be in Matters Ne∣cessary, they are to be disobeyed in Fact, and submitted to as to their Legal Processes with∣out resistance; if in Matters barely Innocent, there Prudence will direct, but no bare Conscience of Duty to the Tyrannical Law alone, will oblige to observation, tho' it will to Patience, under Legal Sufferings. For an Innocent Liberty is an Ʋnalienable Franchise of our Nature, and all prohibitions of it, as such simply, are meer Nullities, as to the Rule of practical Conscience. And if so, how extreamly wide of Truth is it, at large, to say,

That it has ever been looked upon as one principal part of the Princes Prero∣gative, that no Companies be allowed to meet together without his knowledge and permission?

Where I must take Permission to be Voluntary, and such as the Prince may rightly deny, or else 'tis nothing to the pur∣pose. For if a Prince only permit, because he has no right to deny a priviledge, the en∣joyed priviledge depends not on the Right of his Princely Permission. The Dr. I suppose, will be loath to extend this Rule to the Re∣striction of Gossipings among the Good Wives of our Parishes, or of Gentlemen to their Innocent Sports, Hospitalities and En∣tertainments, the Concourse of People to Fairs, and Markets, or places of Commerce, or to Coffee Houses to hear what News comes or flies Abroad, concerning the Af∣fairs of the World, while in these there are no Apprehensions of Danger. But if it be said,

that the Apprehensions of Danger are the pre∣sumed Cause of such restraining Laws;* 1.167 I Re∣ply, That if, in truth, the Powers have such Apprehensions of Meetings barely Innocent, they have just Right, upon such fears, to re∣strain them, because apprehended not as In∣nocent, but at least dangerous; and the Sub∣ject, Knowing, or presuming this to be the Reason of the prohibition, ought in Duty to obey it.* 1.168 But this Rule will not hold in Meetings necessary, whatever the Publick Ap∣prehensions of them be. For a necessary Duty cannot give place to false and unnecessary Fears. But now, in all Meetings not prohibited, nor prohibitable by the Prince, if the Prince must have always actual Knowledge of such Meetings to discharge them from Guile not only Majesty would hereby be rendred Ri∣diculous, but the Wearers of is be oppressed with inrodes of People for giving in such Informations and Petitions for Leave. But if the Dr. had set it thus; That such Meetings as the Prince shall by Law require Notice of to be given to himself, or his Vicegerents in that behalf, in any, or every place, in order to leave hereupon to be given or denyed,* 1.169 ac∣cording to Right, or Pleasure, he had spoken much more correctly. For in such Case 'tis fit application should be made, not to obtain a Right, but to secure the Peace and Honour of the Prince, who, tho' he has no right to deny the Meeting, yet has to be secured from all dangers thereof. Now the Christians, having no such command as this from the Heathen Powers, to ask leave for their As∣semblies,

but instead thereof, being absolutely prohibited, were under no Obligation of Law or Conscience to give Knowledge of their Meetings (which would not have been a means to procure leave, but persecution) nor yet to obey the irreligious Law of Prohibi∣tion. Had Heathen Princes set them such a Rule of Leave and License, there is no doubt but the Christians would have gratefully ac∣cepted, and as constantly have observed it, and have given all manner of security for their Innocency. From whence it follows, That the Roman Laws, as designed and pointed against Christians, Assembling on Necessary Causes, and a Divine Right, were Nullities as to the Precept, and Tyrannies as to the Sanctious, and that Severity, which the Dr. adduces as a Weight of Authority,* 1.170 does in truth, nothing else but reproach their Cru∣elty. What was it then that Tertullion so sagaciously knew? Was it, that the Chri∣stians deserved the Censure of those Laws, which he, as well as all other Primitive Ad∣vocates, do Arraign of Inhismanity and Im∣piety? Or was it, that they actually fell un∣der the Censure of those Laws at the Roman Tribunals? This did not require so great a sagacity to discern, since all the Heathen Mob, that had been trained up to cry out Christia∣nos ad Leonem, knew this as well as he. Now then, why was this Instance against the Li∣berty of Christian Assemblies brought? Was it to justifie the Roman Laws, and to condemn the practices of Christians as Ille∣gal? If not, 'tis Impertinent; if it be, Lord!

what an Advocate for Christianity is here; or would he have been in these Holy Ages? Or was it to deny the Christian Church to be then,* 1.171 either in Right, or Fact, Incorporated? Not so surely; since the very self same Tertullian as∣serts such a Corporation in Fact, and Divine Right; even in Apo∣logy to these very Heathen Pow∣ers, whom he did not hereby design to enrage, but mollifie; and so might have taught the Dr. to have laid by this invidious way of pleading, and to have looked upon the Church* 1.172 as a Society of Divine Constitution and Autho∣rity, without any Civil Incorpora∣tion, into Secular States, and when the Dr. shall reflect upon this In∣sinuation, he will find it drives the point beyond his intention, to the denying, not only the Conciliar Synods, but even the Assemblies of Christian Worship, to be of a Divine Right and Authority; for the Roman Laws were as much against one as the other. And therefore, I hope this was none of those Matters in Ar∣gument, that challenge the precedent appro∣bation of my Lord of Canterbury,* 1.173 who, if the Dr. could persuade him from caring for Convocations, yet can never admit an Hipothesis or an Argument, that will oppress the Right of daily Worship also.

§ 3. It will hereupon be seasonable to examine, what Authority Princes,* 1.174 meerly Secular or Heathen, have over Christian Assemblies of what Kind or Nature soever, that thereby we may prepare a way for discovering the Supremacy of Princes espou∣sing Christianity.

§ 4. First then,* 1.175 all Princes may require fidelity to all their Civil Duties from all Christian Persons, Assemblies, or Synods, and consequently to offer at nothing in pre∣judice to any Civil Prerogatives or Rights what∣soever; and for this they may (if they doubt) demand such reasonable Security as can be had, or as is usually given in like Cases.

§ 5. Secondly,* 1.176 They may require them to live by their own Rules, and punish them Temporally, if they break them: a Falsity in a Religious Profession being Criminal at any Bar whatsoever.

§ 6. Thirdly,* 1.177 They may require any Chri∣stian Assemblies or Synods to inform, and instruct the Prince, or any of his People in Matters Christian, on the engagement of Publick Protection.

§ 7. Fourthly,* 1.178 Every Prince has a Right of Presence in any Christian Assemblies, except in Matters of Christian Communion, peculiar only to the Initiated. For all Religion Mystical requires a peculiar Society of its Votaries, and admits no Aliens whatsoever; but in all things, without that Communion, even a Secular Prince may appear in peaceable and friendly manner.

§ 8. Fifthly,* 1.179 Every Prince may appoint all ways of Inspection, and Caution to pre∣serve the Peace, against all disorders, that may be suspected, or occasioned in such Sy∣nods, upon Pretences or Transactions of Re∣ligion (as being the publick Guardian of all Secular Justice and Peace) by Virtue of Civil Laws, Sanctions and all Processes of Le∣gal Government. But if a Prince breaks in upon Authorities, elsewhere lodged by God, this may be done indeed with impunity, but not with Right and may oblige to patience under Legal Sufferings, but not to any practi∣cal Obedience or Observation.

CHAP. IX. Of the Authority of Christian Princes over Ecclesiastical Synods in point of Reason.

§. 1. VVE have above prescribed for a Divine Right in the Catholick Church to hold Ecclesiastical Synods by the Authority of her Spiritual Governours; and in them freely to Deliberate, Consult, Act, De∣termine, and Decree in Matters of Doctrine, and Discipline, and Communion, to a Spi∣ritual Obligation unto Canonical Obedience, in all the Subject Members. The Founda∣tions hereof we have laid in the Scriptures, and deduced an Universal Succession of this Practice upon a Continued and Catholick

Uncontested Claim of a Divine Authority in the Church for the three first Centuries; We have also adjusted the True Bounds of Supremacy in meer Heathen or Infidel Princes, over such Christian Assemblies; We are now to go on, and consider the Ecclesiastical Sovereignty of Christian Princes over Eccle∣siastical Synods, how far it reaches, and on what grounds it stands.

§ 2. And first, it must be granted,* 1.180 that the Authority of a Christian Sovereign must comprehend that of all others in it self, there being no Reason, that Princes should lose any Prerogatives of their Crowns by becom∣ing Christian; it being for the benefit of Mankind, that their Princes should be all Christian, and therefore not sit that they should suffer any Diminution by that, where∣by the World receives so vast a Benefit. But because this alone is not like to give con∣tent, we will sum you up the Prerogatives of Dr. Wake, taken from our Crown here, and ascribed equally to all other Sovereign Prin∣ces, professing Christianity, what, where, and whensoever.

§ 3. By the Submission of that most Holy,* 1.181 Undefiled, Humbled and Orthodox Convo∣cation under K. (I had almost said St.) Hen∣ry VIII. and the Statute thereupon, it is fixed, that our Convocations are not to convene without the Kings. Writ, nor attempt to Make, Enact, Promulge, or Execute any Canon, &c. without Royal License, &c this being but an Affirmance of an Antece∣dent Right at Common Law, which the Dr.

deduces down by Historical Accounts from the first Christian King of the English Saxons; and not content therewith, he extends the Supremacy beyond the Letter of the Law, and Lodges it in the very formal Right, and Reason of the Christian Magistracy; preclu∣ding hereby all possible hopes of any the least relief from our present Tyes, notwithstan∣ding all our old Franchises, our present Me∣rits, and our future Dangers. For the ill Consequences of a Local and Positive Law, might have had remedy; but the Fundamen∣tal and General Laws of Sovereignty admit not the least Correction or Alteration.

§ 4. Now the Doctrine of the Dr. briefly consists in these Aphorisms;

• 1. That under the Dominion of the Christian Magistrate,* 1.182 the Church has no inherent Right or Authority, to convene in Synods, but what it derives from the ex∣press Concession of the Christian Prince.
• 2. For that all Synods are but of Counsel to the Prince,* 1.183 and entirely in his Hands; and so
• 3. Not any to be sent to the Synod,* 1.184 but such as he shall allow; nor,
• 4. When convened to Sit,* 1.185 Debate, Propose, Deliberate, Conclude, or Decree any Matter of Doctrine or Discipline what∣soever.

• 5. Nor in any Method, Form,* 1.186 or Manner whatsoever, save what the Prince admits, and that
• 6. The Prince may Ratify,* 1.187 Annihilate, or Alter all their Acts and Procedures, or as many of them as he pleases; and
• 7. Suspend the Execution of all,* 1.188 and any of their Canons and Sentences;
• 8. The Authority of their Acts being entirely and only his;* 1.189 and Lastly,
• 9. That no Synod hath Right to dissolve its self,* 1.190 without the Kings License.

VVhere we may Note, that all these are Articles Negative of all those Liberties and Authorities of the Church under the Christi∣an Princes, which she claimed of Divine and Ʋncontested Right, under Heathen Powers, for the three first Centuries of Christanity, im∣mediately lost, and to be swallowed up of every Prince, as soon as he commences Chri∣stian. Wherefore it is necessary to look to the bottom of this Matter, upon which the Dr. builds this overthrow of all the Churches Authorities under Christian Powers. Now his Arguments are of two Classes, the first seated in the Substrate Reasons and Equity hereof; the second derived from the Gene∣ral and Uniform Claim and Practice of all Christian Princes.

§ 5.* 1.191 As for the former sort of Arguments, which would have been the chiesest, most convincing, and most satisfactory, the Dr. has not collected them into any proper Order or Sections, in order to a set illustration of his Principles, as it had been to have been wish'd; but only by light touches and glances here and there, seldom and consusedly Intersper∣sed, given us little hints and intimations of them. Now herein perhaps he has be∣spoken our excuse,* 1.192 for that his hast and interfering Avocations, would not allow him to be exact. But hereupon, to set things off in the clearest light and view I can, I will corrade those Reasons, on which he Bottoms the Right of Christian Princes to these An∣thorities: These are therefore of two sorts; one relating to the welf are of the Church; the other to that of the Civil State.

§ 6. And first, with relation to the Church, the Christian Prince is the Guardian of it,‖ 1.193 and consequently Supream Governonr in order to that Protection, which the Church expects or enjoys from him,* 1.194 and that such Synods hereby may become Legal Assemblies.† 1.195 Secondly, In reference to the Civil State, such a plenitude of Regal Power over Ecclesia∣stical Synods, is necessary to the ends of Civil Government,¶ 1.196 and Peace, particularly to prevent in them Proceedings prejudicial to the Regal Power. Now, if from these Reasons, there be a necessity, that the Divine Rights and Authorities of the Catholick Church in the Convention, Freedom and Acts of Synods, should thist their former Sebjects and Depo∣sitaries,

and pass. over into the hands of Christian Princes; then is the Argumenta∣tion hence hereunto suggested by the Dr. good; but if all these Reasons, Ends, and Purposes, may consist with the Permanency of these Liberties and Powers in the Church, as they stood Authorized by God for the three first Centuries, then, whatsoever others may be brought, these will not, I doubt, appear to the Author of the Letter to be valid necessary, or cogent Reasons for the alienation of these Powers from the Hie∣rarchy.

§ 7.* 1.197 We begin then with those Reasons that are drawn from the Benesit of the Church, under the Guardianship of Princes, the Protection of the Faith, and the Legalizing our Synods. Now here it is to be noted, That Heathen Princes may do all this for the Christian Church, as well as Christian Princes. For tho' they do not believe Christianity themselves, either in whole, or in part, yet they may give the Church a Legal Toleration to all its Offices, and Assemblies, and this Legalizes them. He may also add other Im∣munities and Charters to his Christian Sub∣jects, and so not only protect but promote them. And this was in great measure done by all Non-persecuting Emperors, and the Persecutors too, when ceasing to persecute by the Revocation of the cruel Edicis and Laws, and giving new Edicts for their Secu∣rity. But will the Dr. thereupon conclude, that those Heathen Emperors have, or had Night to all those Church Powers, which he

hereupon arrogates to the Christian Sove∣reigns, in the above-named Aphorisms? If so, I must needs say, that he must condemn all the Synods held, during times of Peace (which were perhaps the only times) in the three first Centuries, as Violations of the Imperial Authorities, without whose License they Convened, Sate Deliberated, Debated, Pro∣mulged, and Executed Decrees, Canons, Seatences, on their own Divine Right, and in the Name of the Lord.* 1.198 And such an Inference, as would follow upon this sup∣posed Ground of Legal Protection from Heathen Powers, I need not expose, by upbraiding the ridiculous Guise of an Hea∣then Prince, actually ordering, and directing all the Synodical Consults and Polity of the Christian Church, and Ratifying, Annulling, and Altering their Decrees, Acts, and Sen∣tences, as he Judges best for the good of the Pupil Church, of which he, not the Synod, is to be Judge. But I think a meer Edict to this purpose, would be very Pretty and Congruous; as for Diversion and Example,

T. Ʋ. Caes. Aug. &c. To all Christian Churches within our Empire, Greeting; Know ye that of our especial Grace and Compassion, we have taken upon us to be your Guardian, to protecs you in the Freedom of your Religion, and to Legalize your Synods; Ʋpon which Considera∣tion, you have no Right nor Liberty of your selves, to Convene in Synods, nor to Sit, Delibe∣rate, Act, Decrce or Resolve any Matters of your Faith, Doctrine or Discipline, by Canon, or Sentence, without the Authority of our Gene∣ral

or Particular License, to every your Par∣ticular Act and Method of Acting, nor Enact, Promulge, or Execute any Thing or Ordinance, without our Ratisication; who can, of Right, Annul, Rescind, Vacate or Alter all, or any Thing you shall do in Synod, which only is of Council to us in the Conduct of the Church, which we protect, being wholly dependent on us, and in our hands, its Conciliar Acts being wholly ours, and all their Validity from our Imperial Authority. To this we require your Synodical Submission, on fear of a Praemunire otherwise incurred, that thereupon we may put out an Edict of Praemunire, upon all the Clergy that shall attempt any the least Violation of this our Ecclesiastical Headship or Supremasy.

Yet as odd as this sounds in all Christian Ears, it is as justifiable as in any Christian Prince, if such Protections, as are aforesaid, are the alone true Reason for this Supremacy, for there is no differencing Cause assigned in the Reasons. 'Tis true indeed, a Christian Prince looks more likely to protect us, than an Alien, and has one peculiar actually Federal. Obligation by his Baptism, to support the Communion of the Church, by all his pow∣ers; but so is every private Christian too; and 'tis possible for a Christian Prince to ornit this Care, or to be disabled in it, while elsewhere, the Humanity of an Heathen Prince may do more for it voluntarily, with∣out any Federal Tyes of Christianity; and consequently, if the Ecclesiastical Supremacy be Founded on such Protection, and Squared in its Measure by the proportion thereof, I

believe many Heathen Princes had more' tho' unknown, Right in the Ecclesiastical Su∣premacy, than many Modern Princes profes∣sing Christianity; it being possible, that Princes may freely protect Subject Societies, which they are not federally, or otherwise bound to (as Jewish Synagogues now are in their States of Pilgrimage) which they, that are especially bound to, may oppress under the very colour of that Supremacy, that is thus Founded on the Right of Protection; Tho', speaking generally upon the Law of Nature, all rinces are thereby equally bound to protect all the Fundamental Rights of the Innocent, and consequently those of the Christian Church; so that the Right and Rea∣son of our protection under Princes, is not Founded in their Christianity, but the Churches Innocency, and the Right She has to the Royal Protection in doing good, by any Acts, or Ope∣rations Synodical, or other.* 1.199 Nor will this assert a Right of Protection to all pretended Re∣ligions; for, tho' the Ignorance of a Prince, in the distinction of true Religion from bad, may occasion him in mistake, actually to per∣secute the Right, and cherish the Wrong, to avoid which, under that Ignorance, he ought to tolerate that wherein he can see no hurt, yet really nothing but real Truth has a real Right to any Protection or Countenance; and the Connivances or Encouragements given to false Religions, must be excused, or justi∣fied, not on the Right of the Errors (which is none) but on other Reasons exteriour, either of State, Peace, or other insuperable

dissiculties; nor can such mistaken, or en∣forced Protections, give the Protector an Ecclesiastical Headship over all those Systems of different Religions, to act them all, as Dr. Wake allows them to Act the Church, because there is no Right bottomed upon Error, (See Chap 1. Sect. 5.) and because many times they are exempt from his Juris∣diction, as in the Chappels of Embassadors, and Foreign Factories. whose Protection is not Founded upon a supposed possibility of Truth, but upon the Reasons of Commerce and Negotiation.

§ 8.* 1.200 But if the Dr. shall here make Pro∣tection only to consist in an Incorporation of the Church into the State, and her Canons into the Laws, as this is quire another thing from bare Protection, and thought to be of a more transcendent Elevation; so it will then appear, that none of the Christion Ro∣man Emperors did so instate the Church, which consequesitly must then be out of Protection, and so free from their Supremacy, the Exercise whereof therefore must have been an Usurpation and a Nullity.

§ 9. But we shall by and by discern a little better, the Form and Nature of a Protection of the Church. For if the Catholick Church had a Divine Right in the Liberties and Autho∣rities Synodical, continued universally inviolate and unquestioned for 300 Years, down∣ward from the Apostles, how can this Body be protected by any Magistrate or Powers, that shall claim off in point of Title, and take it away thereupon in point of Fact, any

or all of these Divine Priviledges,* 1.201 given by God, and granted to her Priests for her Con∣duct and Conservation? and this under a pretence of Protection? while the Churches Constitution is apparently ruined, and her Sy∣nods, heretofore free, declared now for Criminal, if not held in Villenage? This is so contrary to the very Dictates of Nature, in the Reason and Form of Protection, that all Systems and Factions of Religion, dis∣claim such Bondage, and challenge a liberty as presubstrate and praevious to Protection, which is otherwise inconceivable, and the pretence thereof, a meer sham upon humane Understanding. The Iews therefore, as bu∣sie as they are to be enfranchised in their se∣veral Dispersions, yet would never endure the Civil Powers thereupon, so to prescribe all the Politie of the Synagogue, and to Null, Cancel, Ratify or Alter their Methods; and an attempt of this Nature upon them, would appear as dreadful a persecution as Caius his erecting his Image in their Synagogues.* 1.202 Not only the Romish Church, but all other Secta∣ries, and the Scotch Kirk illustriously scorns to admit any servitude, notwithstanding not only the National Protection but Promotion, being all sensible that a Liberty of Religious Government and Church Discipline is more valuable than all worldly Wealth, or In∣terests, and without which they cannot ap∣prehend any Protection to Religion, or the Societies that profess it. And to close up all, since in all Ecclesiastical History, those Sy∣nods have been most injurious, or injuriously

dealt with, that were least free, and their Authority thereby vacated with all Churches for ever, I wonder what reputation the Dr. will secure to a Provincial or National Synod with Neighbour Churches,* 1.203 whether Popish or Reformed, or with future Generations, should it be in Fact so managed by a Prince, as the Dr. avers, it may rightly be in all its Motions and Issues? Or how can we blame the Popes Management of the Council of Trent, and such others, if we will justify ten tiems a greater Bondage in the Councils cal∣led by Princes? What security is there for Uniformity in Doctrine, Regularity of Dis∣cipline, and Authority with the Christian Church, if all be to be done only ad nutum P—pis? The Dr. tells us of Bp.* 1.204 Lands Concurrence with K. Charles the First his Writ for, and License to the Convocation; Very well, and that King, and that Prelate too, might do so in observing the Forms, which could not be altered without Act or Rupture of Parliament; but does it follow, that they were either of them of the Drs. En∣slaving Principles under Sovereignty in Ge∣neral? When that Great Primate declares against Fisher, a free General Council to be the supremest Judicatory in the Catholick Church; and would he not then think the same of a Provincial Council, for a Provincial Church? tho' both convened and permitted to sit by the Will and Order of Princes? Men may Act under the Forms of those Laws, when not actually Executed to our injury, which they do not simply approve of

in themselves; and against such a Prosecu∣tion of which Laws they would openly and avowedly Complain, as did the Council at Ariminum, &c. And I take it, that it must pass for an eternal Rule,* 1.205 that as Truth and Piety are free-born Principles, so are the De∣positaries or Trustees of them also to be free in the Culture and Propagation of them. And they, that withdraw the Necessary freedom of these Trustees, withdraw their Protection from the Principles themselves;* 1.206 they being too noble and glorious to be com∣mitted to the Care and Conduct of Slaves or Vassals.

§ 10. Having thus enquired into the first reason for this Alienation of Synodical Powers from the Mitre to the Crown,* 1.207 let us in the next place examine the Form of it hereup∣on, which must consist in a Devolution, Oc∣cupation. or Contract with the Spiritual Pow∣ers. If by Devolution, this must be founded, either in the Original Ordinance and Constitu∣tion of God, or from the Natural Right of Sovereigns over all Persons of the same Re∣ligion. The first ground hereof I want and can, I doubt, be no where found; and we shall have occasion hereafter to make Expe∣riment, whether it can or no. And as to the second, I shall readily yield it, if it can be made our, that in all Religion, Natural and Revealed, the Prince, that is of it, shall have the entire Conduct of it. For then indeed it must rest in the Hierarchy on∣ly, till they get a King of their Faith, to whom then they must turn over all their

Powers. But why should this Divine Char∣ter Devolve over to Princes, any more than that of a little Borough? This of the Borough was granted by Kings. Be it so; tho' 'tis not necessarily so; for that popular States may so six themselves, and after admit a King to protect them, but without any De∣volution. But be it so. Can then our King be denied a Devolution of a Charter in a Town which he Protects, because a former King founded it, tho' in a mere Secular In∣terest and Government, and must a Charter founded by the King of Kings Devolve to a Temporal Prince out of those Hands, and that Society in which it was vested, in a mat∣ter quite different from the Secular Polity? I do desire a proof hereof, as weighty and im∣portant as the Matter and Consequences hereof are. What then, is it liable to a Despotick Occupation? This again is what a Borough will not yield upon a Quo Warranto, but will be ready to make a Counter de∣mand of Quo Warranto from their Prince. In vain would he plead for it on the Right of Protection, while he strikes at all their Mu∣nicipal Rights and Liberties.* 1.208 But we we only are the Poor, Tame, Dispirited, Drowsie Body, that are in Love with our own Fetters, and this is the only scandalous part of our Passive Obedience, to be not only silent, but content with an Oc—n of our P—rs, which are not forfeited nor forfeitable to any Worldly Powers whatsoever. And as to any Contract, 'tis neither pretensible, nor pretended by the Doctor; tho' too much in

truth in latter Ages has been exchanged by the Church for Worldly Interests, wherein mainly lies the great Ruine of Christia∣nity.

§ 11. But now we descend to the second Cause, in which this unlimited Supremacy of Princes is by the Doctor founded; namely, Civil Interests, as of Peace, and the Princes Prerogative. To both which I for my own part am willing to surrender all, if it be necessary. But before this however, I would fain know, how do the Laws of Peace require a Violation of those Rights, which God hath lodged in the Hierarchy as a means to reconcile all in one Body, unto a common Peace with God, and each other? If the Clergy use their Powers to that End, who has Right to hinder them? Who to break the Peace with them? But if they do not, there are other just ways of securing them from doing wrong, than by disabling them from doing Good, that very Good, which God hath set them apart, and sancti∣fied them to do. And these ways are in the Power and Sovereignty of an Heathen Prince,* 1.209 as is above manifested, and there∣fore are sufficient to the same ends in the Authority of a Christian Prince, from whose Coercion in matters of Crime, the Priest∣hood, how much soever to be revered by Princes, ought not to be made a Shelter or Protection. Under these Powers of Hea∣then Princes the Christian Synods made no Rupture on the Peace or Prerogative of the Empire,* 1.210 tho' as undeservedly accused for

this by the Heathens, as we are suspected of it now; Why should the same Spiritual Liber∣ties within a Christian Kingdom, be thought more dangerous than they were to Heathens? I will not speak out how the Churches of Christendom have been crushed between the Upper and the Nether Milstones; but sure I am, hence are all the Confusions, both un∣der the Papacy and the Reformation;* 1.211 Nor is it possible to make any true and signal Conversions to the better, as long as there is a common Slavery upon the Hierarchical Powers; for as we hate the Bondage of Rome, so they hate the Bondage of the Church under Secular Domination, and so hereby is maintained a perpetual and irre∣concileable aversion, which no illustrious Piety can extinguish, while the Powers thereof are Chained down to mere Politick Ends and Services.

§ 12. So that as there is no necessity,* 1.212 so neither is there any expediency to recommend any such unlimited Domination. For as Things and Persons Consecrated to God are to be treated with a Respect and Reverence suitable to that Sanctity and Relation to God, so a Prostitution of them under Secular Contempt is no small Impiety towards God, and no small Guilt, Blemish, and Indecency in thern that cause it. Now of all things un∣der the Sun, nothing is so hated, feared, and despised as Servitude; and no Servitude more reproachful than that of Priests, which were from the beginning a most Noble, Free, and Honourable Order in all Nations

not excepting the very Barbarous: Nor yet of all sorts of Slavery is there any so Inde∣corous, and Grieving as that, which oppres∣seth the Sanctity, Authority, and Operation of their very Functions; for maintenance of which, the Bishops of the Primitive Church were chiefly sought out unto Martyrdom. And yet as hateful as such Vassallage is in it self, 'tis less Odious under an Heathen than a Christian Prince. For from an open Ene∣my 'tis natural enough, and no new thing to expect Oppressions, but when a Prince hath been Consecrated by God's Priests into the Communion of the Catholick Church, he is thereby federally engaged to assert all the Rights and Authorities of that Divine Communion vested by our Lord in the Chri∣stian Hierarchy, as much as every common Christian, or Priest himself; our Salvation in common being promoted by the Conduct of them, Can then a claim of an Oppressive Supremacy, be deemed a Glorious Jewel in a Christian Crown, which if exercised, must of necessity forfeit the Kings Salvation? And is it not a dangerous Complaisance it Priests, to fan such an Ambition, as must end in the Ruine of the Church, the Priest∣hood, and the Soul of the Prince, which the Liberties, and Powers Hierarchical were designed to Convert, Direct, and Pre∣serve? It is not perhaps without an especial Providence, that Eusebius has preserved the Memory of this Artificial kind of Persecu∣tion, practised upon the Church by the Em∣peror

Licinius,* 1.213

Who prohibited the Bishops from Visiting the Neighbour Churches, or to hold Synods, Consultations, and Advices concerning matters profitable; — that so either by dis∣obeying his Law, they might be subjected to Punishment, or by obeying his Order, dissolve the Laws of the Church; For that 'tis no otherwise possible to set great Concerns at Right, but by Synods; by which he attempted to break that Concordant Harmony in the Church.

A place well worth every Princes and Doctors deep and most affective Consideration, that under pretence Peace there may be no Licinius set up over the Hierarchy, within the Communion of the Christian Church. For besides the Domestick Cares and Exigen∣cies of every Church, requiring a constant Watch, and frequent Consultations, the concerns of the whole Catholick Church under Heaven, ought to affect every Pro∣vince and Bishop••ick thereof, to a frequent course of Communications, in order to a general Union and Ʋniformity in all the prin∣cipal matters of Christianity, a duty never to be performed, but by a liberty of Synods in order thereunto, in which the Rights of the Catholick Church run a parallel with those of Civil Powers. 'Tis true indeed this Communication is actually broken off; but the Right and Duty thereof is m••••a••colled, and eternal, obliging all Churches to re••tore it, and I believe, all Princes to p••rmit and assist the restitution. Let therefore the Church be bound in all humility, by an ex∣press Law, to acquaint the Sovereign Prince

with her Desires, Reasons, Places, Seasons, and Necessaries of Convening, to Petition his Leave and Favour, his Inspection, As∣sistance, and Succour to the Piety of their Designs, and to secure him her Fidelity to all his proper Honours and Interests, to keep within Ecclesiastical concerns, and do all things openly to the Glory of God, and the Good of Souls in the Unity, Order, and Pu∣rity of the Church, preserved by the Rules of Catholick and Canonical Communion, and this under the Guard and Watch of Temporal Powers, this surely will be so far from endangering Mutinies in States, that there is no way so like to preserve the Peace of all Christian Nations,* 1.214 as that which will maintain the common Peace and Unity of their Churches; for that all Princes truly Christian, will be very tender of breaking the Civil Peace, whereby the Sacred Com∣munion, so necessary to the preservation of Christianity, must be obstructed, if not ut∣terly violated. And as such a Communion, founded on such a Liberty, would prevent most National Wars, so would it also most Intestine Seditions. For the Authority of a Priesthood, shining in its due and proper Lustre, supported by the Secular Powers, would over-awe most popular Insolencies, or however the Influence of Christian Com∣munication from Churches abroad, reduced to their Primitive Union, must in all Hu∣mane probability sooner quench the Cala∣mity, than can be expected in a state of ge∣neral Division, and the insignificancy of an

Oppressed and Despised Clergy. But the fatal Envy, Jealousie, and Hatred against the Priesthood, occasioned by the accursed Frauds and Tyrannies of the Church of Rome,* 1.215 is such an extreme in most parts of the Refor∣mation, as obstructs their Piety, and there∣upon Gods Blessing, and their own Happi∣ness, it being intolerable for such People, that are so zealous for their Civil Liberties, to be so averse to the just Rights and Immu∣nities of a Priesthood, that is clean and pure from all corrupt or abusive Principles what∣soever; and therefore no wonder if the Re∣formation makes no greater Progress, nor Figure in the World; but goes backward apace both in its Esteem and Interest. For a mere mistrust from instances of corrupt and unreformed Churches is not warrantable against those, that are Reformed, even in those Principles, which gave the past Offen∣ces, and continue the present Jealousies. And whether we will or no, we do trust our Souls with these Men to whom God hath committed their Trust and Care, and it is strange, that we should not allow them liberty, well to discharge that Trust, in Jealousie that they will abuse us in the free∣dom necessary to the performance thereof, while yet we have a full Temporal Right: and Power to suppress and punish all Injurious Exorbitances of the powers Hierarchical.

CHAP. X. Of the Authority of Christian Prin∣ces over Synods from Exemplary Practices.

§ 1.* 1.216 HAving thus discussed the Importance of the Drs. Reasons in the Protection of the Church and Civil Interests; we proceed to his Arguments, drawn from Ex∣amples, which are indeed the only sort he professedly insists upon, and layes the whole stress of his cause. These Examples he ranges into three Orders; First, Those of the Jewish Kings in Scripture; Secondly, Those of the Roman Empire; And Thirdly, Those of the Princes, who, upon the Inundations of the Barbarous Nations over Europe, suc∣ceeded in the several Kingdoms and Princi∣palities thereof, and particularly those of our own Country, from the first Conversion of the Saxons.

§ 2. Now before we come to Traverse the Matters of Fact, it will be necessary before hand to try the force and legal Concludency of such Argumentations unto Right.* 1.217 In all Legal therefore and Judicial Enquiries, Ex∣amples are alledged for one of these two Purposes, either to Aver or Explain the Sense of an Extant Act, as Law, Contract, or Constitution; or to prescribe a presump∣tion for such Act, &c. where it appears not.

For first, Where the Originals of a Legal Practice are Extant, they mutually assert each others certainty of Sense and Right, which might otherwise have been dubi∣ous, if no Customary Practice had fol∣lowed on that First Foundation, the Sense and Knowledge of Words Altering and Growing Obsolete in themselves many times in long Tracts of Years or Ages. On the other side, it being so easily possible in Nature, and frequent in Fact, that Records are buried in the Ruines of Time, on which the Rights and Duties of Persons and Societies, have been long and of old Founded; there∣fore upon the Non-appearance of such Ori∣ginals, Customary Judgments Recorded, and Prescriptions Immemorial well Arrested, do generally pass for good Presumptions of a valid. Constitution,* 1.218 now lost or disappearing. But upon Matter Arrested, the Court En∣quires into two Qualifications, First, If the Matter in Prescription be consistent with Common Justice, in its own Nature and Design; for otherwise the Court will pre∣sume there was no such Constitution,* 1.219 or however, Naught and Null in its self, and so condemn it. Secondly, The Court will consider, whether the Immemorial Practice could however have been as Antient, as its supposed or pretended Original must have been, and so was in Fact; i. e. whether they of that Age to whom the Prescription refers its Presumptions, could have had such a Con∣cern before them. For if Inventions, no∣toriously new and late, because they have

continued longer than any Mans Memory or Life, shall hereupon pretend themselves Founded in an Ordinance of Ages fore-past, in which it is certain no such Inventions or Matters yet were; this will discover such Imposture, and vacate such Presumption, as if a Man would prove Tobacco to have been in Use here before the Saxon Times, because it has been used for time now Im∣memorial. Whereupon the Dr. by alledg∣ing Instances, must by them intend, either to explain, or affirm the Sense of an Extant Law, or Act for all these his Rights and Powers of the Regal Supremacy in all Christian Princes as such, which Law or Act, must then be previously set forth, and produced as the most especial Matter in Evidence, to be affirmed by the constant succeeding Practice thereupon grounded and vouched; or else he must, by his Instances, prescribe for a Sup∣position and valid Presumption of such Law or Act, as their Legal Original, and defend it against all charges of Intrinsecal Injury, or of a Novity, notoriously much later than the supposed Original could be, besides what ought to be added, the proof of a perpetual un∣interrupted Uniformity in the practice, beyond all Epochas, or Memory.

§ 3. * 1.220 But here is one thing more to noted in prejudice to the Rectitude of Prescriptions, taken from the practice of Sovereign and Uncontroulable Powers, that by Virtue (or what else you will call it) of that unaccount∣able Eminency, they may, and many times do, go beyond the Lines and Measures of

Right appertaining to them, and who is there that shall say to any such Prince, What doest thou? So that prescription, though it will actually carry it in such a Kings Courts, where the Judges are at his own choice and pleasure, yet is not a safe nor certain Cri∣terton of real Right, before free and equal Judgments, as would appear in other Courts, or by the Resolution of Foreign Lawyers, where their Judgments are not subjected. And therefore that Prescription for Kings, which will and must pass with Lawyers, in foro for Prerogative, must not presently be taken for infallible Right by all Men, and particularly by Divines, till the whole Na∣ture of the Matter and the Reasons of the Royal Interest appear equal. For the veri∣fication hereof, I need not go back so far as the Licentiousness of the Cesars, nor so far off as to the Mahometans Kingdoms; let us but look over the Southern Lake, and see how Prerogative prescribes over the miserable Subjects there, and every where else, where the Sword is Arbitrary; and think the Ob∣servation will appear very well bottomed. So that when the Dr. would argue for all his Exorbitant Powers of Princes over Synods, from their customary Claims and Practices, to the convincing of Mens Minds of the Rectitude of them, he ought all along, or by a general Set of Reason, once for all; to have set forth the unexceptionable Equity, as well as Custom of such Practices; for other∣wise the customary Practices of a Boundless Power, will not ipso facto prove their own

Equity, nor be fair presumptions for it alone, with free and unsubjected Judgments.

§ 4. To shew the reasonableness of these Cautions and Exceptions, let us but consider, how great and large a Prescription Mahome∣tism has in those Infidel Countries, and Po∣pery in great part of Christendom, and Heathen Idolatry once had, from almost the Tower of Babel till Constantine's Days, over the General World, under the support of the Princes Prerogatives; and yet we see all those were, and are meer Nullities, because there is no equal bottom for them, but the certain iniquity vacates all that Right of Pre∣scription, which yet did, and still does pass in Law thro' all the abused Countries; so that prescription is rather a Rule of Right among Subjects, than in Sovereigns.

§ 5. * 1.221 Now the Dr. is so far from pretend∣ing to any Express Law or Constitution for the general Right of all Princes in those Powers, which he has so liberally assigned them, that he does not so much as suggest, nor seem to consider the presupposition of any such as the Original of these Prescriptions. Only in Fact, such things have been done, pretended and claimed by Christian Princes, and never by others without their Concession, and so con∣cludes therefore, it was, and is their Right as Christian Magistrates, without any reference to, or supposition, expressed of any Legal Original, no not so much as indefinitely and generally; whereas it was to have been expected, that he should have definitely Specified some Law or Act, as the supposable Original or Founda∣tion

of them, either the Law of Nature, or Providence, or some Divinely Revealed Law, Grant, or Prophecy; or the Law of Nations, or Common Charter of Christian Nations as such, or Canons Ecclesiastical, or Contract between the Ec∣clesiastical and Civil Powers, or at least, and at last, some Original Imperial Law over the Roman World, whence all the lesser Princes of the divided Empire retain the Right so Founded. An exact Lawyer would have laid some or other of these Foundations for the prescribed practice; but the Dr. was sensible it was a dangerous adventure to assign Originals, and so let it pass; but by thus slipping it over, he shews it impossible to be done, and so fixes a fatal prejudice against the Truth and Credit of his Reasonings; since he shews no Original Cause, Reason or Equity, presumable for the Right of such a Prescription. And therefore, since he so fatally fails at the bot∣tom, we cannot expect any great success or assurances from his meer Historical Allega∣tions.

§ 5. We will therefore go on with him, and make Experiment of his most Antient and most Divine Instance in the Jewish Kings.* 1.222

There is, saith he, no one so great a Stranger to the Holy Scriptures, as not to know what Authority the Jewish Princes, under the Law, pretended to, as to this Matter.

What that Matter is, he just before declares in generals;

A Right not only to Exercise Authority over Ecclesiastical Persons, but to Interpose in the ordering of Ecclesiastical Affairs too.

And then adds;

How far the first Christian

Emperors followed their Examples, were other Authors silent, yet that one Assertion of Socra∣tes, would not suffer us to be ignorant, where he Affirms, that ever since they became Chri∣stians,* 1.223 the Affairs of the Church have depen∣ded on them, and the greatest Synods have been Assembled by their Order, and still (says he) continue to be so Assembled.

§ 6. We are not now to examine in this Part the History and Facts of Christian Emperours, in managing the Synods, save only by the by, 'tis Observable, that the Dr. has cited Socrates against himself. For the Dr. asserts,* 1.224 That all Synods whatsoever, were Assembled by Princes, but Socrates says only the greatest, as well knowing, that most of the lesser Synods Convened, and Acted all without the Imperial Knowledge or Concurrence. But to return to the pro∣per Matter of the present Enquiry; it seems to the Dr. that the Emperours herein fol∣lowed and copied after the Platforms of the Jewish Princes, herein manifest to every one that Reads their History in Scripture,* 1.225 as if the Scriptures had given us a Draught and Model of the Synodical Polity, and Forms under Jewish Kings. This had been a fine thing indeed, an happy Scheme for Church-Government; but there is none so great a Stranger to the Scriptures, as not to know, that they mention nothing hereof, nor of any Pretensions their Princes made to it. Here are no Frames of the Great Sanhedrim, no Tables of their City-Councils, no Platforms of their Synagogues, nor their Synodical Con∣duct,

under their Princes exhibited to us. So that 'twas so far impossible in Fact, that the Christian Emperors herein exactly fol∣lowed the Jewish Patterns, that there were no Jewish Patterns in Gods Word, to be followed at all, much less with exactness; nor is it probable, that the Christian Empe∣rours did so much as think of these Jewish Kings in their Synodical Councils, or had the Forms been certain, that they could have had such a value for the Synagogue, as to think its Constitutions Fundamental to the Church, or such an Imperial Authority over it; much less when the Scriptures give the Polity of the Synagogue none the least menti∣on, much less Recommendation and Au∣thority to prescribe Law to the Christian Church for ever, but by its Absolute and Total Silence herein, seem to intend, that that Po∣lity should, instead of such prescriptive Power, together with the Law, be nailed to our Sa∣viours Cross, and be afterward decently buried in an Eternal Oblivion. And hence, tho' Men of Rabbinic Learning, are very fond to derive our Forms from their Patterns, yet we find no such Conceptions hereof, among the Antients, as no shades of it in the Scrip∣tures, nor Authority for it any where.

§ 7. But supposing the Jewish Princes had managed the Synods of the Synagogue, accor∣ding to the Drs. Aphorisms, and pretended a rightful Authority so to do, does it follow that they really had that Right, which they pretended to? If bare Pretences of Princes will create a Right, the dispute is over; but

then I must tell the Dr. he had never had any opportunity, or inducement to have writ∣ten his Book for this sort of Supremacy. But if bare pretences alone, create no Right, and the Christian Emperours exactly followed them herein, then Christian Princes have hereupon, only pretence for this their Authority. So that the Drs. Cause required stronger As∣sertions of Right in the Jewish Kings, Assigned in the Laws and Constitutions of God,* 1.226 by which they were very particularly constitu∣ted. But herein there is the profoundest Silence,* 1.227 and that little that is said of the Mishpat Hammelech, the manner of the King, which they wickedly craved instead of God, tho' it imports a Domination,* 1.228 yet does not so much assert a Right, as denounce it an uncontroulable oppression in punishment to their contempt of God and Samuel. But yet God, that was resolved so to deliver them up upon their own desires, yet limits the op∣pressions to Matters Secular only, not permitting the insolence to rage also over their Sacred and Religious Li∣berties, that there might from hence be no ground for any such barbarous and impious Prescription for any Princes Arbitrary lusts herein whatsoever.

§ 8. But to be as Concessive to the Dr. as 'tis possible, suppose this Domination to have extended to their Religious Polity and Liberties also, will he hence prescribe from the malice of Jewish Kings, permitted by God in punish∣ment

to a Rebellious People, for the Right of such Practices in Princes upon the Chri∣stian Church, and the same Christian Princes too? And yet excepting this, he has nothing in the Bible that looks like any Ordinance for the suppression of the Popular Liberties, and none at all for the Hierarchical.

§ 9. Since then there is no Law, nor Prae∣cedent in the Old Testament for this sort of Ecclesiastical Power or Authority in either Jewish or Christian Princes; let us consider what other Law or Constitution can be sound out, or supposed for its legal Original. And first we must consider the State of the Que∣stion in the first Christian Emperors, who are said to Claim, Use,* 1.229 and to be rightly In∣vested with this Authority, and particularly in Constantine the Great. Now he, being supposed to claim all these Prerogatives as his Right, antecedent to the actual Exercise there∣of, must sound it in one, or other of those Originals above summed up § 4. and yet I believe none of these will quadrate with the Hypothesis. For first, if it be founded in the Natural Law of Sovereignty simply, then all Sovereigns, Heathens, Turks, Jews, would simply have it; and all Acts of Synods otherwise managed would not only be Nul∣lities, but Rebellious Seditions; which yet I presume no Doctor will allow. Not in any express Revelation of God, for there is none such in either Testament; not in any G••••••∣ral Laws of Nations, as being antecedent to, and more general than Christianity, and in Interests Temporal only; not in any Common

Charter of Christian Nations as such, for such Charter, and such Nations there were none before Constantine; not in any Canons Eccle∣siastical, for all those before Constantine's time had no respect to any Temporal Pow∣ers; not in any Contract of his with the Church; for such is no where mentioned in his History, which yet had been the most signal thing in it; nor at last in any Law of his own making; for no man can make a right or valid Law, but by some antecedent Authority vested in him so to do; and of this the Question properly lies. Now since here are none of the Originals extant in History, or Nature, or Revelation, the only remaining Plea must be prescription from immemorial precedents, that might warrant a legal presumption for some of these Originals. But Constantine had not one instance before him for this his Sy∣nodical Supremacy, for the three first Centu∣ries after Christ, and the Plantation of the Powers Ecclesiastical; but all the prescription throughout those Ages was for the Hierarchy, in whose hands Constantine at his Conversion found it lodged in full Vigour and Authority, and is known and recorded to have owned it for Divine, as will appear in the second part. So that the Right, that is attributed by our Laws to our Kings,* 1.230 belonged not to Constan∣tine the Great, and therefore must be lodged in some other Constitution, viz. the same as that of all our Common Laws, and Original Contract between the King and the Estates of this Realm, and that upon a Civil Incorporation of the Church, and its Powers, and Ordinances into

the Civil State and Secular Authority. But if any man shall think, that the Churches Au∣thorities were given by God in order to Church Duties, and that the Church can no more part with one than the other, as being insepa∣rable and conservient to Divine ends, and so make an invidious objection about our Frame, I hope no man will expect, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 should be such a Fool to expose my self to a Middlesex Jury; and so leaving this matter to God, and the Sense of all that love his Church, I am their Humble Servant; but as to Constantine the Great, I dare swear he ne∣ver dream'd of the business.

§ 10. Nay there was in his time a very obvious prejudice against such an Opinion, viz. that God, whose Ways are not as ours,* 1.231 nor his Thoughts like those of the Sons of Men, seeing the ineptitude of the Emperors, immersed in Secular Cares, to engross all Holy Authorities to themselves, and the Suspicion of Imposture in Religions, inlaid with the Power of the Sword, the Mer∣chandize the Hypocrites would make of it,* 1.232 before its Divine Credit could be throughly established in the Hearts of Mankind, and the Reproaches consequent against it there upon; did not think sit to call many Mighty, or many Noble, Wise, or great at first to the Profession of Christianity, nor permit any Princes by his Providence to exercise any formal Authority in the least over the

Church for 300 years, tho' Abgarus, Mamaea, and Philip Gordius are said to have been Chri∣stian; that the propagation of the Christian Church and Faith might not be attributed, nor attributable to the Power of Man, but of God only. Else it had been as easie, and as miraculous for our Lord to have made Princes his first Converts and Apostles, and founded this Supremacy in them, and their Successors beyond all Question for ever. But that it might never in time to come fall under the reproachful Imputation and Cha∣racter of a State Engine, he lodged the Spi∣ritual Powers elsewhere for three Centuries entirely, that hereupon the Church might be emboldened, as upon sure grounds, to assert her proper Powers unalienated and pure against all Atheistical Calumnies what∣soever thro' all Ages; that so, tho' they were to be subject to Civil Powers to the en∣forcement of their Duties, and for repres∣sion of Enormities, yet not to the Omission of their Duties and Cares, to which God hath called them; which is the general Rule and Standard of Subjection in all Countries, Ages, and Nations Universally, and for∣ever.

§ 11.* 1.233 But there is one thing more to be considered in the two first Emperors instan∣ced by the Doctor for this universal Domi∣nation of Princes over Synods, and that is, their Christian Character, to qualifie them for this Omnipotency. For tho' the Doctor in his few interspersed Reasons for it, gives no distinctive grounds for an higher and inte∣riour

Supremacy in Christian, than in Hea∣then Princes; yet for a good Grace,* 1.234 he tells us,

That whatever Privileges do belong herein to the Christian Magistrate,* 1.235 they belong to him as such,

which must, I suppose, be the Rule of Interpreting other Places, where he more loosly omits the Christian Qualification. But here I would fain know, what 'tis shall denominate a Prince Christian, and that in order to this Authority?* 1.236 For all Internal Authority in all Powers presupposes a right to Communion more or less, as the ground of Authority, in all Societies whatsoever. And therefore the Authorities asserted by the Doctor to all Christian Princes must suppose a right to Communion in all the matters subject to that Internal Authority. For he that has no right to receive Sacraments, has no Inter∣nal Right of Authority to make Laws about them; he who is not within the Commu∣nion, has no Right to pass Sentence for the Ejection, or the Restitution of others. He may presume to do it upon an uncontroulable Force and Tyranny, and the reasons pretended for it may be in themselves good and neces∣sary, and so be admitted and observed by the Church at the Command of an Usurping Power, not in Conscience of his just Autho∣rity, but for the reason of the thing, and for the avoiding unnecessary Persecution. But a Right Internal there is none to them that are without. Now tho' Constantine and Constan∣tius so much concerned themselves about Church Synods, yet were they not yet Bap∣tised into the plenary Communion of Saints

in the Christian Church, nor so much as made Competents or Catechumens by Imposi∣tion of Hands, and consequently what they did, about Ecclesiasticals, was not of an Office or Nature Internal to Ecclesiastical Polity or Communion, but common only to the Prerogative of Princes in General; or if it was of Internal importance, 'twas Usurpa∣tion, and a Nullity in it self. Had they been Catechumens or Competents, a pretence might have thereupon been formed, that they alone might make Ordinances for those pre∣liminary Statious; but not surely for Bap∣tism, Consirmation, Lords Supper, Holy Orders, Anathemas, Absolutions, &c. Had they been Baptized, and so qualified for Confirmation and the Eucharist, it might not have looked so odd in them to have set Rules for such Sa∣craments, and the common Laity in their Ce∣lebration, but for Ordinations, and Hierarchi∣cal Powers of the Spirit over the Souls of the Laity, and Clergy, how incongtuous must it have been in any Emperour to assume the whole Legislature and Ordinance? In these therefore the Laws of Princes may well fol∣low Ecclesiastical Constitutions by the Sancti∣on of Secular Penalties; but the Constitu∣tions of Sacred Canons ought not to be taken sway from the Hierarchy, and lodged only in a Lay-hand that holds a long Sword, and for no other Reason, but this, that the Sword is in it, least they that use it Sacrile∣giously, perish by it Eternally.* 1.237 For as to Con∣stantius, whom most accuse to be aresolute Heretick, and they, that speak most sostly

of him, represent him as Patron of Heresie through simple Ignorance, he thereby be∣came, not a Guardian of the Church, or the publick Peace thereupon, hereby to sound his Right of Supremacy, but a very great Persecutor and Embroiler of the Catholick Church even by managing Synods, which no doubt in an Unbaptized state of Heresie he had no true Right, nor proper Authority to do; for whatsoever Right a mere Alien Prince may have, while he professes no En∣mity, no doubt a Professed Enemy has no Law∣ful Authority to manage that Divine Society, and its Principles, which he designeth to destroy by that very management. And so I resolve, that Constantius having de∣clared himself against the Homoonsion had no Authority to call or manage any Synod at all, and that no Obedience or Conformity to his Calls were due in Conscience to his Power, tho' it might be in Duty ••to God, and Care for his Soul, as well as the Souls in general of the whole Church, the whole Authority of meeting being in the Catholick Bishops, but none at all in him or his Arians. I might here add, that the Fathers might. Convene upon his Call, for fear of Persecution, not in Con∣science of Duty to it; but I think this did not so far enslave them as to obey, but the hopes they had of doing him and the whole Church the useful Services of true Faith and Piety. And hence it was, that when upon their Petition he would not in answer con∣cede their Dissolution. at Ariminuns,* 1.238 they dissolved themselves, not thinking them∣selves

guilty of any sin of Disobedience, (for who could imagine so of the Conscience of 400 Catholick Bishops, suffering for the Faith under Constantius his Tyranny?) tho' the Dr. so charges them;* 1.239 notwistanding the resentments of the Emperour at their Dis∣solution. Which when he mentioned, I wonder he did not see the Contradiction of. so vast a Council of Orthodox Bishops, against his Proposition, laid down in the immediate∣ly precedent page,* 1.240 That the Clergy have ever acknowledged it for a Right of Christian Princes, that no Synods can dissolve themselves, nor depart from any such Council, without the License of the Christian Prince, as he accounts Constantius to have been; nor does he think any thing of the different Opinions of the Romish, Greek, and Eastern Clergy, whose unanimous suf∣frage, I suppose he has not in this Matter.

Sequntur quaedam Testimonia Veterum Athan. cont. Arian. Orat. 1. Tom. 1. p. 295.* 1.241 de Patribus Nicaenis. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Synod. Alexandrin. ap. Athan. Apolog. Tom. 1. p. 728.* 1.242C. De Pseudo-Synodo Ty∣ri cont. Athan. coactâ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

&c. vide—ibid. p. 730. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Athan. ad Solitar. vir. agentes. Tom. 1. p. 831. D. de Paulino Trevirensi, Lucifero Sardiniae, Eusebio Vercellensi, & Dionysio Mediolanensi con. sulentibus Conslantio; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 832. A. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ibid. p. 833. A. Liberius Epise. Rom. ad Constantii Spadon. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ibid. p. 839. D. Hosius Constantio de Constante Imperatore. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 840. A. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

ibid. p. 862. B. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nazian. in tertio Irenico. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

De∣inde ad Magnates & Rectores.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Ambrosius. Lib. 5. Ep. 32. ad Valentin. Jun. Imper. Augustae memoriae pater tuus, non solum sermone respondit, sed etiam legibus suis sanxit, in causâ fidei, vel ecclesiassici alicujus Ordinis, cum judicare debere, qui nec munere impar sit, nec jure dissimilis; — hoc est Sacerdotes de Sacerdoti∣bus voluit judicare. Quinetiam si alias quo{que} argueretur Episcopus, & morum esset examinanda causa, etiam hanc voluit ad Episcopale judicum pertinere.—Quando audisti, clementissime Imperator, in causâ fidei Laicos de Episcopo judi∣casse? Ita ergo quadom adulatione curvamur, ut sacerdot alis juris simus immemores, & quod Dens ••onavit mihi, hoc ipse aliis putem esse credendum, si docendus est Episcopus à Laico, quid sequetur? Laicus ergo disputet, & Episcopus audiat; Epis∣copus discat a Laico, At certe si vel Scriptura∣rum seriem divinarum, vel vetera tempora re∣tractemus, quìs est qui abruit in causâ sidei, in causâ, inquam, sidei Episcopos solere de Impera∣toribus Christianis, non Imperatores de Episcopis Judicare? Eris, Deo favente, etiam Senectutis Maturitate provectior, & tunc de hoc censebius, quali•• ille Episcopus sit, qui laicis jus Sacerdo∣tale

substernit. Pater tuus, Deo favente, vir maturioris aevi dicebat, non est meum judicare inter Episcopos, tua nunc dicit Clementia, ego debeo judicare? Et ille baptizatus in Christo in∣habilem se ponderi tanti putabat esse judicii; clementia tua, cui adhuc emerenda baptismatis Sacramenta servantur, arrogat de fide jndicium, cum sidei ipsius Sacrament a non noverit? — Si tractandum est, tractare in Ecclesia' didici, quod majores fecerunt mei; si conferendum de fide; sacerdotum debet esse illa collatio; sicut factum est sub Constantino Angustae memoriae Principe, qui nullas Leges ante praemisit sed liberum dedit judicium Sacerdotibus. Pactum est etiam sub Constantio August ae memoriae Imperatore, paternae dignitatis haerede. Sed quod benè cepit, aliter consummatum est. Nam Episcopi sinceram primò scripserant fidem: sed dum volunt quidam de side intra palatium judicare, id egerunt, ut circumscriptionibus illa Episcoporum judicia mul∣tarentur, qui tamen inslexam statim revocavere sententiam.

Et Ep. l. 5. Orat. in Auxent. &c. — videte quanto pejores Aniani sunt quam Iudaei: Illi quae∣rebant utrum solvendum putaret Caesari jus tri∣buti: Isti Imperatori dare volunt jus Ecclesiae. — Tributum Caesaris est, non negatur: Ec∣clesia Dei est: Caesari uti{que} non debet addici. Quia jus Caesaris esse non potest Dei Templum. Quod cum honorificentia Imperatoris nemo dictum potest negare. Quid enim honorificentius quam ut Imperator Ecclesiae silius esse dicatur? Quod cum dititur, sine peccato dicitur; cum gratid dicitur. Imperator enim bonus intra Ecclesiam, non supra Ecclesiam est. Bonus enim Imperator

quaerit auxilium Ecclesiae; non refutat, &c. Idem. Ep. 32, ad Marcellin. Soror. Convenior ipse a comitibus & tribunis, ut basilicae sieret matura traditio, dicentibus Imperatorem jure suouti, eo quod in potestate ejus essent omnia, Respondi — ea quae divina Imperatoriae potestati non esse sub∣jecta — Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia; illius esse universa; Respondeo, noli te gravare Imperator, ut putes to in ea quae divina sunt, im∣periale aliquodjus habero. Noli te extollere, sed s••vis diutius imperare, esto Deo subditus. — Ad Imperatorem Palatia pertinent, ad Sacerdo∣tem Ecclesiae Publicorum tibi maenium jus commis∣sum est, non sacrorum.

Remarks upon the Book.

IT is a great absurdity to found the Title of our Kings on the pretended Right and Practice of the Emperors, since under the Emperors Synods acted simply as Ecclesia∣stical Councils, and (tho' the Dr. is pleased most falsly to say the contrary) asserted the Canonical validity of their Acts, whe∣ther the Prince would or no, tho' those Councils, which the Emperors calld, gave them account of their Procedures, and for Peace (not Rights) sake, desired their Ap∣probation, Concurrence, and Assistance. But the Councils of our Land, and those of the Neighbouring Nations, originally were made also Councils of State, by a Contract be∣tween

the Kings, and the Church, and the Barons, and so became a part of the Civil Legislature, and their Canons to be made Laws by the Royal Assent. Upon which Constitution to such Ends, the Kings Assent and Ratification, became essentially Neces∣sary. This appears all along from the Doctors own Account and Deduction of History, and therefore it is not only a false, but an absurd way of Arguing, from two different States of the Church, to assert the same Legal Rights to both. Of which, God willing, we shall discourse more fully and particularly in the second designed Part.

Arguments from Fact.

These are all that he uses for his unlimi∣ted Domination of all Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods, and avers them as Le∣gal Precedents; but when the Instances in Fact for the freedom of the Clergy are con∣sidered, these he denies to be evictions of Right.

Chap. 5. § 21.

Pag. 295. The Anti∣ent Emperors, we are well assured, tied up their Councils to very strict Rules—They sent Commissioners to sit with the Bishops, that so they might take care to keep them within Bounds, and see that they acted according to the Rules they had prescribed to them.

P. 296. 'Tis true the Clergy in those days did take the Liberty to Transact many things in their Convocations, without any particular License from the King; —but that they did take upon them to do this, is no proof that they had a Right to do it.

How this agrees with it self, or with the design of proving the Rights of Kings from Matter of Fact and Usage, I know not; nor with what he asserts in Fact. Chap. 2. §. 23. p. 47, 48. This is certain, that as the calling of such Assemblies, has always depended upon the Consent and Authority of the Prince; so when they were Assembled, the Subject of their Debates has been prescribed them by the same Power, and they have deliberated on nothing, but what they have been directed or allowed by the Prince to do.

Book. Chap. 2. § 2. p. 10, 11.

It was a famous. Saying of Constantine, the First Christian Emperour, to his Bishops,

That they indeed were Bishops in things within the Church, but that he was appointed by God to be Bishop as to those without.

Remark.

This Saying is directly against that univer∣sal Right and Authority in Synods Ecclesia∣stical, which the Dr. so frankly gives all Christian Princes; if Constantine was a Bishop in things only without the Church.

Of Synods less than general.

Contents p. 10. He asserts all lesser Synods under the Roman Emperors, to have been actually called by the Emperors Authority, and so accordingly, Book Chap. 2. § 6. p. 16.

* 1.243 But Chap. 2. § 2. p. 10. he cites Socra∣tes Saying, the greatest Synods have been As∣sembled by their Order, and still continue to be Assembled by them. Which plainly shews lesser Ones usually were not. And § 26. p. 62. he reports, that Iohn of Antioch Ar∣riving at Ephesus, after the Council there had condemend Nestorius, formed another Synod there, of about thirty Metropolitans, that came thither with him, and deposed Cyril President of the Imperial Council, &c. vide. So § 36. p. 86. He mentions two Provincial Synods, one at Rome under Celestine, and another at Alexandria under Cyril, condem∣ning Nestorius before the Council of Ephesus; yet neither of these were called by the Im∣perial Authority. And ibid. p. 88. he relates another Synod at Rome, held by Pope Leo, rejecting the Acts of the second Ephesine Council, under Dioscorus, Called and Suppor∣ted by the Emperor; which Roman Synod

therefore could not be Called, nor Authori∣zed by the Emperor.

Chap. 2. § 4. p. 14.

* 1.244 But p. 43. he thus yields, When ever the civik Magistrate shall so far abuse his Autho∣rity, as to render it ne∣cessary for the Clergy, by some extraordinary Methods, to provide for the Churches Welfare, that necessity will war∣rant that taking of them•• And Ch. 5. § 4. p. 267, 268. When the Exigences of the Church call for a Convocation, then I do confess the Church has a Right to its sitting; and if its Circumst ances be such, as to require their frequent Sitting, during those Circumstances, it has a Right to their frequent Meeting and Sitting, &. Vide.

Remark.

But if the Church has no Right to Judge of the time proper for their sitting, what benefit, or use is there to be had of their Right, or what extraordinary Methods of Session can they pretend to in provision for the Churches welfare? especially if that be

true, which he says, Ch. 2. § 14. p. 32. That the greatest Bishops of the Church in Constantius his days (which he reckons absurdly among the best times, § 15. p. 34.) did think it unlaw∣ful to hold a Council against the Princes Will; so that being forbidden by an Heretical Emperor, and that against all Right and Justice, on purpose that he might oppress them, so to do, they yet sub∣mitted to his Commands, and chose rather to suf∣fer by their Obedience (I suppose rather not to suffer by Obedience) than to Ʋsurp an Au∣thority, which they were sensible, did not belong to them. See p. 34.

Remark.

Now if this had been spoken only of Ge∣neral Councils, it had been agreeable to Church History, and our 21 Article; but the applying this against the Right of all Councils and Conventions whatsoever, is what comports, neither with truth, nor with his other fore quoted Concessions.

Chap. 2. § 2. p. 19.

When the Vandals had over-run the greatest part of Africa, and by their Authority set up the Arrian Heresie in opposition to the Catholick Faith; which beforce prevailed in those parts; Hunericus their King, at the desire of the Arri∣an Bishops, summoned a general Convention of all the Catholick Bishops to meet at Carthage;— and accordingly upon his Summons, they all came thither, and refusing to renounce the terms of the

Council of Nice, they were deprived of their Bi∣shopricks, and sent into Banishment by him.

Remark.

It is a strange inadvertency to bring an Arian Instance for a proper Authority in matters of Christianity, nay, and against the Catholick Faith too, against which no Prin∣ces have Authority to set up Heresie against the greater Authority of God: yet that A∣rian Prince had as good Authority to depose the Faith, as he had to Convene and Depose the Catholick Bishops, that is none at all, it being all a perfect unllity. B•••• every act of un controulable Tyranny passes with the Dr. under the reputation of Authority.

Chap. 2. § 15. p. 34.

I believe, it would be difficult in those best and most early times of the Church to find out any Instance, wherein the Orthodox Bishops have ever departed from this Rule, or (which is much the same thing) have ever been justified by the Church, in those cases, in which they have de∣parted from it.

Remark.

This is in effect a Revocation of his for∣mer avowed Assertion, that no lesser Synods were ever convened without the allowance of the Emperours. For tho' he says, it will be hard to find any contrary Instance; yet

having himself given four in John of Antioch, Caelestine, Cyril, and Leo, and there being in∣finitely more such to be produced out of the Histories of the Empire; he was forced in Conscience hereof to say, That they were ne∣ver justified for departing from this Rule, and that is much the same thing with not having de∣parted from it. But not so, good Sir: for in a confessed Right there is no need of a Justi∣fication; but it is sufficient in such, and so very many Synods held without any refe∣rence to Emperours, that there was no Rule or Law against them, nor ever any Censure of Irregularity past upon them; If the Prince was angry at it, he might call another to re∣view the matters; but he never could con∣demn the Provincial Conventions, merely, for being made without his License.

Of the Total Authority.

This in all Acts Synodical he avowedly attri∣butes to the Prince yet unhappily falls some∣times into contrary instances and concessions unawares, as for example; chap. 2. § 24. p. 55. He says, That in the sixth Council of Toledo, we find the very Constitutions themselves in some measure drawn by up the Order of Cinthilus their King, and only Confirmed by the Synod. Now where the Right of Confirmation was, there was the chief Internal Synodical Authority. Again, ch. 2. § 36. p. 87. He says of the first Council at Ephesus, That they appointed the Emperors Order (for suspending the Sen∣tence of Celestine, and Cyrils to Provincial

Synods) to be inserted into their Acts, and thereby gave a kind of Conciliary Authority to it. But if Councils in themselves have all their Authority Conciliary from the Prince, how could that Council give any to his Or∣der? Or how was it pertinent to the Doctors Principle, ch. 2. § 25. p. 56. to alledge Re∣ceswinthus, magno precatu deliberationis exhor∣tantem, exhorting the eighth Council of Toledo with great entreaty, to consider the matters he laid before them?

Of the Princes Ability to Judge matters Theo∣logical. ch. 2. § 31. p. 71, 72.

The Arguments given for this are very languid, and repugnant to common expe∣rience, and may as well be applied to the Reputation of a Beggars Judgment in Mat∣ters Divine. But yet it must be allowed, that before a Prince gives the Definitions of a Synod a Legal Sanction, or his own recom∣mendatory Suffrage, 'tis fit he should under∣stand them; but the Spiritual Authority lies not in the Prince, but in the Spiritual Truth in matter of Faith enforced by the Canonical Order of Ecclesiastick Ministries; tho' the Doctor ascribes the Authority of im∣posing belief on the Subjects to the Confir∣mations of the Kings. lb. p. 75. I hope, saith he, they will think it to be their Duty, in order to his consirming their Decrees with a good Conscience, to convince him of the Truth of them, and not ex∣pect, that he should not only believe himself, but should oblige others to BELIEVE, what neither

he, nor they see any reason to believe. The Fa∣thers, that scouted the second Sirmian Creed (that dated it self in the Presence of Con∣stantius, and under the Consulship of Fla∣vius Ensebius, and Hypatius in the tenth of the Calends of ••nne) for ascribing so late a be∣ginning in but the Presence of a Prince, how would they have blessed themselves, had they heard any man ascribe to Princes an An∣thority of making Subjects believe, or had they read any such paslage as this; ch. 2. § ••3. p. 79. It is, I conceive, allowed on all bends, that their Definions are no further obligatory, than as they are rulified and confirmed by the Civil Authority. For tho' the Faith of Christ neither depends upon the Authority of Man, nor is subject to the Power, either of Synods, or Princes, as to what concerns the truth of it: Yet what that Faith is, which shall be allowed to be professed in every Community by the Laws of it, and receive not only Protection, but En∣couragement from the Civil Power, must be left to the Prince to determine. (So far 'tis tole∣rable well) And the Definitions of Synods in fa∣vour of it will signifie very little, till what they have determined to be the Right Faith, be also allowed by the Civil Magistrate to the publickly Professed and Taught; and be received into his Favour, and under his Patronage as such? Sute the Doctor forgot the three first Centuries, and all other times of Princely Persecutions; under which the Synodical assertions of the Faith signisied more to the convincing Men to Faith Ten Thousand times, than all the Encouragement of Christian Princes ever

could, did, or will. And therefore what∣soever liking any other Arch-Bishop might have had to this Doctrine of the Doctors, I hope this is none, for which the Doctor will challenge his present Graces approbation:

Of Ecclesiastical Censures.

These the Dr. makes all annihilable by the Will of Princes. But how then shall what they bind on Earth, be bound in Hea∣ven, and their sins be retained, which they retain; if they are Repealable by an Earth∣ly Prince? Has this Earthly Potentate a Commission to bind and loose, remit and retain in Earth and Heaven too, as the Church had, and has still, except he can take it away? The Doctor should have con∣sidered here, that Kings are only concerned in Church Censures, as by the Laws they are to have a Civil effect, not as to their Spiri∣tual validity before God in Heaven.

Of the Right of Summons.

Ch. 3. § 5. p. 107.

They have Right to nothing but a Summons; and it were no great matter, whether they had a Right to that, or no.

Ch. 3. § 25. p. 141.

Yet I humbly con∣ceive, that so antient and settled a Custom ought to be held to. What! tho' 'tis no matter, whether they had this Right or no?

Of the Bottom of the Regal Supremacy.

This he solemnly and universally places in the Sovereignty of all Christian Princes, as such; but ch. 3. § 25. p. 144. he lodges it in the Trust reposed and granted by the Peo∣ple. The Government has intrusted him (our King) with the Power of giving them leave to sit, and act, when he pleases; and when he pleases, he may deny them to do either. This is indeed the Truth, and only Truth in this matter; 'tis a concession and trust of the Estates to our Princes established by Com∣mon and Statute Law; which whether God approves, or no, must be left to his Judg∣ment at last, when Men shall be called to account for what they have done herein, or hereupon. But in the mean time this Truth is a prejudice against that universal Right of all Christian Sovereigns herein by mere vertue of their Sovereignty.

Of the Parallel of Counsellor and Jury. Chap. 5. § 15. p. 289.

Will not their Resolutions be their own, be∣cause the King declared to them the general Mat∣ter upon which they were to consult? Is a Coun∣sellor at Law of no Ʋse, or has he no freedom of Opinion, because his Client puts his Case to him? Or does our Law unfitly call the answer of a Petit-Jury its Verdict, because the Judge, summed up the Evidence to them, and directed them, not only upon what points, but from what

proof they were to raise it? What strange Notions must, &c. But what strange Notions must that Man have, that thinks a Synod to have only a freedom of Opinion, like a Counsel∣lor, without any Decisive Authority, and yet compare that very freedom of Opinion to the Verdict of a Jury, which is Authori∣tatively Decisive? To compare the King to a Client, and a Synod to his Counsellor; and in the same breath to make the King a Judge, and so of Counsel to the Jury? Whatsoever esteem the rest of this Book may acquire among the learned of the Law, I do not pretend to Divine, but I believe this will raise no extraordinary Transports, and so let it pass.

And now I have done with my Remarks upon the Doctors Incongruities; which, tho' necessary to shew the weakness of the Work, that a false Reputation may not re∣commend the ill Principles, I had never of∣fered to publick notice, had he not used his Generous Adversary, not only with extreme Spight, but undeserved Contempt, insulting over him as a Man of no Honesly, Logick, Law, or History, &c. I could have added a great many more such absurdities, but the employ is uneasie, and so I quit it; and shall only wish that the Doctor may humble him∣self to God for the wrongs he has done to the Church, and when he has done so, he will quickly endeavour to make her Repa∣ration.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Case stated on each side.
• * 1.2

  Then, it seems, the Church is not sociated, till incorporated with the civil State, to spi∣ritual as well as temporal Ends.
• * 1.3

  The Doctor's Tergiversation.
• * 1.4

  Terms ex∣plained.
• * 1.5

  Authority what.
• * 1.6

  Right.
• * 1.7

  Uncontroula∣ble Domina∣tion.
• * 1.8

  Synod what.
• (a) 1.9

  p. 60.
• * 1.10

  The sorts of Synods.
• * 1.11

  Cyp. Ep. 3 & Ep. 18.
• † 1.12

  Cyp. 26 Sect. 4, & Ep. 31. Sect. 5.
• * 1.13

  Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Princes no Canonical Synod.
• * 1.14

  Euseb. reek∣ons two lay 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.15

  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.
• * 1.16

  The Doctor's Principle worse than the Independents.
• * 1.17

  Common∣wealth did.
• * 1.18

  Incorp.
• * 1.19

  Wheve tho Prince is of a different Reli∣gion.
• * 1.20

  Societies di∣stinguished.
• * 1.21

  Natural So∣ciety with God.
• * 1.22

  Tul. de leg. l. 1. Positive Society with God.
• * 1.23

  Apud Cyp. Ep. 30. Sect. 2. Qui a Deo, cui sociari quaerit discrepat,— privilegium so∣cietatis amittat.
• * 1.24

  Ripening into an Ecclesiasti∣cal form.
• * 1.25

  In the days of Enosh.
• * 1.26

  Ʋnder Prophe∣tick Patriarchs.
• * 1.27

  Of which Noah the Eighth from Enosh.
• * 1.28

  Sons of God.
• * 1.29

  Continuance of this state to the Flood.
• * 1.30

  Matrimonial Society.
• * 1.31

  Aug. in Gen. Quaest. 143. Est enim or∣do naturalis in hominibus, ut serviant sae∣minae viris, &c filii parenti∣bus; quia est illic justicia est haec, ut infir∣mior ratio ser∣viat fortiori.
• * 1.32

  Oeconomical Society.
• * 1.33

  Civil Society.
• * 1.34

  God's Ordi∣nance for the good of Man∣kind, tho' not always actually fulsilling Gods design.
• * 1.35

  Co-ordinate So∣ciety Natural, or Positive.
• * 1.36

  The Originals of Civil So∣ciety.
• * 1.37

  Families mul∣tiplying into Villages, and thence into Ci∣ties, Corpora∣ted at last un∣der Princes, as Trustees, to pre∣serve their Rights in Peace.
• * 1.38

  Admission of Sovereigns do not import a quitting the Rights of the Community.
• * 1.39

  Civil Society not to devour its Originals.
• * 1.40

  Gods Ordiman∣ces not destru∣ctive of, each other.
• * 1.41

  The proof of a Divinely con∣stituted Society Ipso facto, as∣serts its funda∣mental liberty.
• * 1.42

  Liberty to do good a funda∣mental right of the innocent.
• * 1.43

  God's Publick Worship the greatest good upon Earth.
• * 1.44

  This requireth the conduct of the Wise and Good.
• * 1.45

  Masters Bishops of their Fami∣lies.
• * 1.46

  Aug. in Joh. c. 12. Tract 50. Suos omnes ad∣moneat, doceat, hortetur corripiat, impendat be∣nevolentiam, exerceat disciplinam. Ita in domo sua Ecclesiasticum, & quodummodo Episcopale implebit officium, mini∣strans Christo, ut in aeter∣num sit cum ipso.
• * 1.47

  A succession of them to be maintained by Education.
• * 1.48

  Families to be instructed as well in reveal∣ed as natural Religion by the Law of Nature.
• * 1.49

  Co-ordinate So∣cieties of Villa∣ges, &c.
• * 1.50

  Schools of Re∣li••ion.
• * 1.51

  Schools subor∣dinate Socie∣ties.
• * 1.52

  Vicinities to be p••eserved by Religion.
• * 1.53

  All God to be public and dif∣fusive.
• * 1.54

  Public Worship to be under Con∣duct and Autho∣rity.
• * 1.55

  Heads of Fa∣milies the Com∣mon Conucil for mere natural Religion in vil∣lages till they surren 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it up to other Powers; under which they retain a Right to fre∣quency of wor∣shipping the true God.
• * 1.56

  Time, Places, Conveniences of Worship claim∣able under all Powers.
• * 1.57

  Ambros Valen∣tine Jun. Imp. Ep. ad Mar∣celliuam seror.
• * 1.58

  Domum pri∣vati nullo po∣tes jure teme∣rare; Domum Dei existimas auserendam.
• * 1.59

  Right of Jew∣ish Synagogues, &c.
• * 1.60

  Reasons of asking leave.
• * 1.61

  Buseb. Eccl. Hist. 1.8. c. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.62

  Mystick Reli∣gioni••s founda∣tions, Ministers Rights, &c.
• * 1.63

  Divine Insti∣tution.
• * 1.64

  Mysteries and Priests inviola∣ble.
• * 1.65

  Prieste of Di∣vine Ordinance.
• * 1.66

  Patriar••hs by Divine Ordi∣nance.
• * 1.67

  Noah as a Priest and Pro∣phet, a grand Type of Christ.
• * 1.68

  Successive Or∣ders from a Prophetick Ori∣ginal.
• * 1.69

  Sacred Succes∣sion in the First Born no natural Right of Pri∣mogeniture, but of Gods positive Ordinance.
• * 1.70

  The Succession translated to the Tribe of Levi, &c. in∣alienably.
• * 1.71

  The arbitrary changes of High-Priests on what grounds admitted.
• * 1.72

  Sanctity of Heathen Priests
• * 1.73

  Priests from the dispersion at Babel becoming the first Kings.
• * 1.74

  Melchisedek Priest and King.
• * 1.75

  Kingly Power arising out of Priestly.
• * 1.76

  Joseph's Wife 4 Priests Daughter.
• * 1.77

  Priests Lands Sacred and in∣alienable.
• * 1.78

  Priests Prior to Kings in point of sanctity posterior in point of power.
• * 1.79

  Christian Priests magni∣fying their Of∣fice against Kingly Ʋsur∣pations.
• * 1.80

  Jeroboam's Case.
• * 1.81

  Jeroboam's Case exempla∣ry to all Kings.
• * 1.82

  Right of fre∣quent Chri∣stian Wor∣ship on Holy Day, and o•• her fre∣quent days, and hou••••, with other Us••g••••.
• * 1.83

  Canons A∣postolical.
• * 1.84

  Constant. Mag. ad Sy∣nod. Tyr. ap. Ensch. de vit. Co••d. l. 4. c. 42. & l. 3 c. 57.
• * 1.85

  Our Faith and Sacra∣ments My∣sterious.
• * 1.86

  Committed by God to set Orders.
• * 1.87

  Hierarchial Powers.
• * 1.88

  Consecrati∣on by Mysti∣cal Impositi∣on of Ha••d
• * 1.89

  Priesthood not assuma∣ble but by Divine Com∣mistion.
• * 1.90

  Powers Ili∣cr••rchi••••l instincted by Christ.
• * 1.91

  The Catholick Unity of the Church a•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••chool A••••••y, or ••olity under several Principal Gover∣nours. The Twelve and the Se∣venty
• * 1.92

  No Indepen∣dencies in Christs Church.
• * 1.93

  Conciliar Assemblies necessary to an Aristocra∣cy.
• * 1.94

  The Catho∣lick Right and Primi∣tive use of Provincial Synods.
• * 1.95

  No need of Scriptural Record for requiring such forms of Govern∣ment.
• * 1.96

  Synods most∣ly upon emergen∣cies.
• * 1.97

  Not to be held con∣stantly in times of danger.
• * 1.98

  Cyp. Ep. 56. § 3. Nec quis∣quam, cum po∣pulunmostrum fugari con∣spexerit metu persecutionis, & spargi, con••urbetur, quod collec∣tion fraterni∣tatem non videat, nec tractantes Episcopos an∣diat, &c.
• * 1.99

  Catholick Right for placing Bi∣shops in Ci∣ties.
• * 1.100

  Cyp. Ep. 52. § 16. Cum jampridem per omnes provincias, &c per urbes singulas ordinati sint Episcopi, &c. vide Praeced.
• * 1.101

  The Conve∣nicacies in the Empire observed for the Govern∣ment of the Church.
• * 1.102

  The Desini∣tion of a Council or Synod, p. 60.
• * 1.103

  Christs two Colledges of Doctors.
• * 1.104

  Ignat. ad Philadelph.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.105

  The Twelve Apostles one Colledge.
• * 1.106

  Mat. 10.
• * 1.107

  St. Peter Prolocutor.
• * 1.108

  A Council for electing an Apostle in the Room of Judas.
• * 1.109

  Difference between a Synod and Council.
• * 1.110

  A Council for the E∣lection of 7 Deacons.
• * 1.111

  St. Cyprian saith, that the Apostles sent Philip to Samania. Ep. 73.••8.
• * 1.112

  Mission an Act of Con∣ciliar Autho∣rity.
• * 1.113

  St. Peter ac∣countable to the College of Apostles
• * 1.114

  Eldersunder the Apostles in the Col∣lege at Jeru∣salem.
• * 1.115

  The 24 El∣ders in the Revelation, represented as a College.
• * 1.116

  The College of Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, the S••preme Authority.
• * 1.117

  The Session at Jerusalem about Cir∣cumcision.
• * 1.118

  Syned. Afiica∣ra ad Cornel. ap. Cyp. Ep. 54. placuit nel is Spiritu Sarcio sugge∣rente, & Do∣mino per visio∣nes multas & manifestas admonente, &c.
• * 1.119

  p. 60.
• * 1.120

  Elders of Asia conve∣ned from Ephesus to Miletus.
• * 1.121

  Presbyterys
• * 1.122

  St. Pauls Censures in Publick.
• * 1.123

  Presbyters of Council to the Bi∣shops.
• * 1.124

  Unconsulted Procedures.
• * 1.125

  Cyp. ad Sreph. Ep. 67. iccirco copio∣sam corpus est sacerdotum concordiae mu••••ae ••utino at{que} uni••atis vinculo cop••∣latum ut si∣quit ex collegio nostro haeresin facere & gregem Christi lacerare & vastare ••entaverit, subveniant caeteri.
• * 1.126

  Presbyteries under the Bishop.
• * 1.127

  Metropolitans and Primates.
• * 1.128

  Vide Ori∣gen. con. Cels. l. 3.
• * 1.129

  Ign. ad Eph. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (V. G. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.130

  Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.131

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Vide. Id. ad Magnes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.132

  Ep. ad Trall. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (V. G. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vid. Ep. ad Smyr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (vide plura ap. V. G.)— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—Ep. ad Philad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ep. ad Poly∣carp. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Vide plura ejusmodi in Psendepig. Ign. & In∣scriptionem Epist. Poly∣carp. ad Philippens. Cypr. Ed. 34. § 4. Presbyterii honorem, &c.—sessuri nobiscum, &c. ita Ep. 35, 42. § 2, 3.
• * 1.133

  See in the mean time, Ep. 6. § 5. Solus rescri∣bere nibil potui—nibil sine consilio vsstro, &c. Ep. 18. & 24.
• * 1.134

  In the va∣cancy the Clergy of Council for the Bishop rick.
• * 1.135

  Ign. ad Rom.
• * 1.136

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ep. ad An∣tiochen. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.137

  Polycarps ad Philippens charges the〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, the Laity, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vide Cypr. Ep. 35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• * 1.138

  Cler. Rom. Clero. Car∣thag. int. Epist. Cypr. Ep. 3. § 1. & cum incumbat whis, qui videmur praepositi esse, & vice pastor is custo∣dire gregem, &c. spoken of the Clergy of both Sees.
• * 1.139

  Ibid. Harum literarum exemplum ad quoscun{que} poteritis transmittere per idoneas occasiones, &c. vid. Cyp. ad Cler. Ep. 6. § 2.
• * 1.140

  Cyp. ad Cler. Ep. 6. Vice meâ fungamini cirea gerendaca, quae administra∣tio religiosa deposcit. vid. Ep. 5. § 1.
• * 1.141

  Cyp. ibid. § 4. Quando audio quosdam — nec à Diaconis aut presbyteris regi posse.
• * 1.142

  Cyp. Ep. 15. ad Cler. Rom. § 2. Presbyteris & Diaconibus non defuit Sa∣cerdotis vigor.—Ep. 37. ad Cler. § 1. officium meum vestra diligentia repraesen∣tet.
• * 1.143

  Cyp. Ep. 28. ad Cler. Integre & cum disciplinâ fecislis, — quod consilio collegarum meorum, qui praesentes erant, Gaio Did∣densi presbytero, & Dia∣cono ejus, censutstis non communicandum.
• * 1.144

  Dionys. Alex. ap. Euseh; Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 25.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Nepotis, dicbum Elenchium Allegoristarum) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and after a moderate discus∣sion of the matter had by all, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• * 1.145

  Cypr. ad Cler. Ep. 10. § 2. Nam cum in minori∣bus pece at is agant peccato∣res prenitentiam justo tem∣pore, & secundum discipli∣nae or dinem ad exomolegesin veniant, & per imposstio∣nem manus Episcopi & Cleri jus communicationis accipiunt; nunc crudo tem∣pore — Offertur nomen corum; & nondum prui∣tentiâ, actâ, nondum ex••∣mologesi factâ, nondum manu eis ab Episcopo & Clero impositâ, Euch iristia illis datur. vid. Ep. 11. § 1. Ep. 12. § 1.
• * 1.146

  Ibid. § 4. Acturi & apud Nos, (the Bishop and Clergy) & apud con∣fessores — Causam suam, &c. Ep. 24. quos jam pridem communi consilio Clero proximos feceramus, quando cum Presbyteris doclioribus lectores dili∣genter probaremus.
• * 1.147

  Tertull. De Jejun. A∣guntur praecepta per Graecias illus certis in locis Concilia ex universis Ecelesijs; per quae & altiora quae{que} incommune tractantur, & ipsa repraesentatio totiùs nominis Christiani magnâ veneratione celebratur. Et hoe quam dignum side auspicanti undi{que} congregari ad Christum? — Conventus autem isti stat ionibus prius & jejunationibus operati, dolere cum dolentibus, & ita demum congaudere gaudentibus norunt. vid. Alexand. Alexandrin. Episc. Epist. ad Cath. Eccl. Epis. ap. Socr. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 5.
• * 1.148

  Councils for Ordaining Bishops.
• * 1.149

  Ep. 68.—Diligenier de traditione divinâ & Apostolicà observatione ob∣servandum est & tenendum, quod apud nos quo{que} & fere apud provincias universas tenetur, ut ad ordinationes ritd celebrandas ad eam plebem, cui Praepositus or∣dinatur, Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi qui{que} con∣veniant, & Episcopus de∣ligatur plebe praesente, &c. vide. Item. Ep. 68. § 6. ubi etiam exemplum ponit in electione Sabin•• vice Ba∣silidis, &c.
• † 1.150

  Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 10 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.151

  Cyp. ad Cor∣nel. Ep. 55. § 10.
• * 1.152

  Cypr. ad Antonian. Ep. 52. § 16. vid. etiam § 4. Factus est autem Cornelius Episcopus de Dei & Christi cjus judicio, &c. vid. praec. & seqq. & Ep. 58. § 2. Cyp. Ep. ad Cornel. 55. § 6.
• * 1.153

  Ibid. § 12.
• * 1.154

  Euseb. E. H. l. 6. c. 33.
• † 1.155

  E. H. l. 7. c. 30. Athan. de Syn. Arim. & Seleue. & de Syn. Nic. Decr. & Dionys. Alex. ap Eu∣seb. E. H. l. 6. c. 46.
• * 1.156

  Cyp. Ep. 41. § 1, 2. Ep. 45. § 1, 2. Ep. ••2. § 6. Ep. 67. § 2.
• * 1.157

  Cyp. 42. § 5. Ep. 55. § 1.9. Ep. 12. § 4.
• * 1.158

  Euseb. E. H. l. 5. c. 23. Concil. Car∣thagin. Epis. 87.
• * 1.159

  Cyp. cum col∣leg Ep 70. § 1. Ep. 71. § 1, 4. Ep. 72. § 1, 2. Ep. 73. § 1, 3. Ep. 75.
• * 1.160

  Firmil ad Cyp. § 6, 17. Dionys. Ale••. ad. Xyst. Pap. ap Eus. E. H. l. 7. c. 5. &c. 7. Cyp. cum coll. ad Fid. Ep. 59. § 1., &c.
• * 1.161

  Cyp. Ep. 62. §•• &c. Cyp. ad Cald. Ep. 38. § 2. Ep. 42. § 5.
• * 1.162

  Cyp. Ep. 12. § 2. Ep. 14. § 2. Ep. 26. § 4. Ep. 28. § 2. Ep. 31. § 5. Ep. 32. Ep. 40. § 3, 7. Ep. 52. § 2, 3, 6. Ep. 53. § 2. Ep. 54. Ep. 55. § 13.
• * 1.163

  Cyp. Ep. 55. § 13. Firm. int. Cyp. Ep. 75.
• * 1.164

  Ep. Cyp. 41. § 1. Ep. 42. § 1. Ep. 45. § 1. § 2.
• * 1.165

  p. 13.
• * 1.166

  Conventions Necessary, Innocent, Hurtful.
• * 1.167

  Necessary Meetings liable to no Restriction upon false Fears.
• * 1.168

  Tertul. Apo∣loget. Cum probi, own boni coeunt, cu••t pii, cum casti congre∣gantur, non est factio di∣cenda, sed curia.
• * 1.169

  Leave not necessary to be asked without a Law requi∣ring such Petition.
• * 1.170

  Cyp. Ep. 25. § 2. Humanis by sacrilegis ••e ibus, &c. vid. inter omnes Pru∣dentium Pe∣ristephanôn.
• * 1.171

  Tertul. Apologet. Corpus sumus de Conscientiâ Religionis & disciplinae veritate, & spei faedere. Coimus in caetum, & Congre∣gationem. — disciplinam praeceptorum inculcationibus densamus; ibidem etiam Castigationes, & censura Divina. Nam & judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certos de Dei conspectu. Summu••••{que} futuri judicii praejudicium est siquis ita deliquerit, ut à communi∣catione orationis & conven∣tûs & onmis sancti com∣merciirelegetur. Praesident probatiquo{que} Seniores, &c.
• * 1.172

  The Church a Society of it self.
• * 1.173

  Ep. Dedic.
• * 1.174

  Supremacy of Heathen Princes.
• * 1.175

  To require Fidelity.
• * 1.176

  To punish Christians for not living by their own Rules.
• * 1.177

  To call Assem∣blies upon Protection.
• * 1.178

  Of being present, ex∣cept in mat∣ter of Com∣munion.
• * 1.179

  Of Inspecti∣on and Cau∣tion over As∣semblies, &c
• * 1.180

  Prince, to lose 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Au∣thority by being Chri∣stian
• * 1.181

  The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Sub∣mission of the 〈…〉〈…〉. VIII.
• * 1.182

  1. p. 14, 41, 48, 76.
• * 1.183

  2 p. 84, 85, 136, to 139, 289, 38, 286.
• * 1.184

  3. p. 28, 39, 40, 103, 104, 105.
• * 1.185

  4. p. 79, to 83, 106, 107, 110, 112, &c. 132.
• * 1.186

  5. p. 44, 53, 54, 71.
• * 1.187

  6. p. 81 to 86, 133.
• * 1.188

  7. p. 85 to 89, 125, 126.
• * 1.189

  8. p. 288.
• * 1.190

  9. p. 77 to 79.
• * 1.191

  The Des Ar∣guments, from Rea∣son.
• * 1.192

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 7.
• ‖ 1.193

  P. 44.
• * 1.194

  p. 79.
• † 1.195

  p. 18.
• ¶ 1.196

  p. 42, 57, 70, 73.••, p. 81.
• * 1.197

  Protection from Hea∣then Powers.
• * 1.198

  No ground for such Au∣thority over Synods.
• * 1.199

  Toleration not founded on the Right of all Rehgi∣oas tolerated but upon o∣ther exterior Reasons.
• * 1.200

  Incorpon on dissers from Pro∣tection.
• * 1.201

  Protection inconsistent with violati∣on of Right.
• * 1.202

  Jews, Pa∣pists, Secta∣ries, all for Ecclesiastical Liberty.
• * 1.203

  Liberty ne∣cessary to validity and reputation.
• * 1.204

  p. 115. King Charles the first and A. B. Land.
• * 1.205

  Truth and Piety free Principles.
• * 1.206

  Not to be committed to Slaves.
• * 1.207

  The forms of alienation improper.
• * 1.208

  Be sure ex∣cept the English Church here.
• * 1.209

  Chap. 8.
• * 1.210

  Church Or∣dinances in∣nocent in all States.
• * 1.211

  Be sure here by all means to except England.
• * 1.212

  No Expedi∣ency in the Slavery of the Church.
• * 1.213

  Lecinius his crasty Perse∣cution.
• * 1.214

  Ecclesiasti∣cal Liberty the best means to the Peace of the World.
• * 1.215

  Still except England, and Omnia bene.
• * 1.216

  The Drs. three sorts of precedent Examples.
• * 1.217

  The use of Examples in Legal Pleas for Right.
• * 1.218

  Things in∣quirable in prescripti∣ons.
• * 1.219

  Injustice & too notori∣ous Novity, vacate Pre∣scription.
• * 1.220

  Prescripti∣ons from the practices of an uncon∣troulable force, no Arguments of Right in the Court of Conscience.
• * 1.221

  The Dr. heeded not to any good Originals for his prescrip∣tions.
• * 1.222

  Jewish Princes. p. 10.
• * 1.223

  H. H. Praf. l. v. p. 259. C.
• * 1.224

  Content. p. X. Ch. 1. § 6.
• * 1.225

  Synagogue Forms not extant in Scripture.
• * 1.226

  Mishpat Hammelech.
• * 1.227

  I Sam. 8.11, to 19.
• * 1.228

  Cyp. Ep. 65. § 1. Et ut hoc ulcisceretur, excitavit eis Saul Regem, qui eos in∣juriis gravibus afligeret, & per omnes contumelias & paenas superbum populum calcaret et premeret, ut con∣temptus Sacerdos de su∣perbo populo divinâ ultione vindicaretur.
• * 1.229

  The Origi∣nal of Cen∣stantiaes Su∣premacy.
• * 1.230

  The Legal Original of our Kings Supremacy.
• * 1.231

  Why Kings were not made the first Apo∣stles.
• * 1.232

  Athan. ad Orthodox. Tom. 1. P. 944. D. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (to set up Bi∣shops by Kingly force) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.233

  The Christi∣an Character of the first Princes in the Prescrip∣tion.
• * 1.234

  Praef. p. 5.
• * 1.235

  p. 94, 96.
• * 1.236

  Internal Au∣thority in Societies grounded upon an In∣ternal Right of Commu∣nion.
• * 1.237

  Constantius his want of Right over Synods.
• * 1.238

  Right of Dissolution.
• * 1.239

  p. 77
• * 1.240

  p 66.
• * 1.241

  Synodonum Libertas.
• * 1.242

  Synodus Tyriens con. Athan.
• * 1.243

  These also (viz. lesser Synods) were convened by them, or were sum∣moned by some Autho∣vity, that was derived from them. p. 17. They suffered not any Assem∣blies of the Clergy to be made, but by their leave, and according to their direction. So § 13. p. 29, and § 19. p. 41.
• * 1.244

  It was necessary that, in order to their mee∣ting lawfully, the ex∣press Command, or Al∣lowance, of the Emper∣our, should be had for their so doing. § 19. p. 41— They cannot lawfully meet, but as they are Commanded, or Allowed of by them. That they (Princes) and not the Clergy, are Iudges when it is pro∣per to Convene them.