A Brief Essay concerning the INDEPENDENCY OF Church-Power.  
THAT the non-complying Bishops and Clergy were at the Revolution duly authorized in their respective Charges, is by none denied; that they have not as yet been deprived by a Synod of Bishops, or had any Ecclesiastical Censure passed agâinst them, is equally evident. For tho' there were some Bishops in the Upper House, when the Act of Deprivation passed against their Brethren; yet their Votes (supposing them Legal) were Foreign to their Character; and given in virtue of a merely Civil Capacity; they voted not as Bishops, but as Lords of Parliament: And since the Right by which they sit is a Lay-privilege, The Acts which they do, in consequence of such a Privilege, must be of the same Secular Nature; the Case standing thus, the Question is, Whether an Act of Parliament, supposing it legally Constituted; can void an Ecclesiastical Authority, and unmake the Governors of the Church?  
I shall briefly undertake to maintain the Negative, by showing the Church's Power to be distinct from, and independent of the State.  
But, to prevent misconstruction, I desire to be understood, that by Church Power, I mean only that which is purely Spiritual: And that Ecclesiastics, as such, can make no direct or indirect claim to any other, And therefore,  
First, They are no less the Subjects of Princes than the Laity.  
Secondly, Their merely Secular Estates, their Civil Privileges and Jurisdictions, are all under the Cognizance of the State; of which they may be legally (though not always equitably) disseized, whenever the Legislative Authority of a Kingdom shall think fit to do it: Having premised this, I shall endeavour to prove their Independency in things purely relating to their Function.  

1. From the Original of Ecclesiastical Authority.  
2. From the End and Design of it.  
3. From the Practice of the Primitive Church.   
1. From the Original of Ecclesiastical Authority. The Power of Governing the Church, and performing the Offices of Religion, is neither any Gift of the People, nor held by Commission from Kings and Princes; It springs from a greater Original, and derives no lower than Heaven itself. Our Blessed Saviour, who Redeemed the Church, was pleased to settle the Administration of it by his own Appointment: From Him the Apostles received Authority to teach and govern such as were Converted by them; the Words of their Commission are plain, and expressed with all imaginable Advantage. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you; whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted, etc. St. John 20. 21▪ 23. Upon this Account the Apostles are called the Ambassadors and Ministers of Christ, 1 Cor. 4. 1. And the People are commanded to obey and submit themselves to those who have this Spiritual Authority, Heb. 13. 17. Neither was this Power to expire with the Apostles, but be conveyed by Succession through all Ages of the World; there being the same cause for its Continuance, as for its first Institution: And accordingly we find from St. Paul, that one reason of his giving Titus the Super-intendency of Crete, was to Ordain Elders in every City, Tit. 1. 5. Thus Clemens Romanus (1. Ep. ad Cor.) tells us, the Apostles in their Travels used to Ordain Bishops, etc. for the advantage of such as were only Christians in prospect, as well as for those who were already converted. And thus the Sacred Order has been continued without interruption for near 1700 Years: Now our Saviour, we know, was no Temporal Prince. He refused to interpose in a case of Property; and declared expressly, that his Kingdom was not of this World, St. Luke 12. 14. St. John 18. 36. From whence 'tis plain, that the Authority which our Saviour gave the Church, can have no dependence upon the State, because it was never derived from thence. 'Tis true, all Power, both Sacred and Civil, came originally from God; yet under the Jewish, and especially under the Christian Institution, the Crown and Mitre have been divided: And tho' the same Persons are capable of both; yet the Claim must be made upon a different Account, and conveyed by Titles perfectly distinct. And since the Ecclesiastical Authority doth not hold of the Civil Magistrate, it cannot be forfeited to Him: As the State cannot Consecrate Bishops and Priests, so neither can they recall their Character, or restrain them in the Exercise of their Function; there being no reason a Privilege should be either extinguished, or limited by those who were never Masters of the Grant: For what a Man has no Power to give, he can have no Right to take away. This will further appear, if we consider the Means by which the Advantages of Christianity are conveyed to us. Now that the Sacraments are necessary for this purpose is evident from Scripture: For concerning Baptism 'tis said, That except a Man be born of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, St. John 3. 5. And the Lord's Supper is styled by St. Paul (1 Cor. 10. 6.) The Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ; that is the Means by which the Benefits of Christ's Death are applied to us. So that without being partakers of the Sacraments, we can have no pretence to the Covenant of Grace, no Title to the Assistance of God's Spirit; nor any Assurance of a Blessed Immortality.  
Now, I suppose, none of the Laity will pretend to an Authority to Administer the Sacraments: They will not challenge a Right to Seal Covenants in God's Name; or to represent Him in Acts of Solemn Blessing and Absolution. No Man, (as the Apostle argues) ought to take this Honour to himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron, Heb. 5. 4. The Fate of Corah and Uzziah, (Numb. 16. 2. Chron. 26.) are sufficient to deter all Secular Persons from an Encroachment of this Nature; which if made, God would both punish the Usurpation, and null the Act: As a Prince would be obliged to do in point of Government, if any Person should forge a Commission in his Name. Now since the Sacraments, which are both necessary to make us Members of the Church, and to convey the Advantages of Christianity to us; are by our Saviour's special Appointment entrusted with the Clergy, and the Administration of them is lodged in their Hands; from hence it follows, that those who have the sole Right of Admitting into a Society, or Excluding from it; and of dispensing the Rewards and Punishments, are the proper and only Governors of that Society; and can have no Dependence upon any other.  
Secondly, The Independency of Ecclesiastical Authority may be proved from the End and Design of it.  
I suppose I need not prove that the Christian Religion, as contained in the New Testament, is the last Revelation which God intends to make to the World. Now this being granted, we must suppose that our Blessed Saviour Founded his Church upon such Laws, and gave it such lasting Principles of Government, as should best maintain its Continuance, and secure those important Truths He had entrusted it with. Lest of all can we imagine He would build it upon a Sandy Foundation, and make it depend upon the Arbitrary Power of its Enemies. Our Saviour foresaw that all the Princes of the World would disbelieve, and many of them Persecute his Doctrine for several Ages together; and therefore would be very improper Persons to have been trusted with the Sovereign Administration of Ecclesiastical Affairs. Had the Government of the Church been derived from them, or depended upon their Allowance; Christianity had been a very short lived Religion, and never out-grown its Infancy. In this Case, the Public Assemblies, Ordinations, Sacraments, and Discipline, must have lain at the Mercy of Unbelievers; and the Clergy ought not to have executed their Function, nor taken care of their Flock, unless the Civil Magistrate would have given them leave. For if the Spiritual Supremacy were the Right of Princes, tho' they might possibly abuse the Management of this Prerogative; yet it ought to lie absolutely at their Disposal, and under their Regulation: And for any Person to meddle in Ecclesiastical Matters without a Commission from them, but especially against their Commands, would be an open Violation of their Right; which no Man ought to be guilty of, tho' for the support of the best Religion; because we ought not to do Ill that Good may come of it. And since no Society can subsist without Government and Discipline; if the Bishops could Exercise no Spiritual Authority without a Lay-permission, it would be in the Civil Magistrates Power to make the Perpetuity of the Church impracticable; and the Christian Religion would depend upon the pleasure of the Prince. But besides the Absurdity of this way of Reasoning, we have in the  
Third Place, The Practice of the Apostles, and of the whole Primitive Church, to prove, that the Ecclesiastical Authority was perfectly sui juris, and never under the Control of the Secular Magistrate. Thus when the Sanhedrim of the Jews, who acted by the Authority of the Romans, and had the Assistance of the Captain of the Temple; when they Imprisoned the Apostles, and commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach in the Name of jesus, Act. 4. 19 to this their Answer is plain and positive; whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye, verse 20. that is to say, they had a Commission from Heaven to preach the Gospel, which they were bound to execure; and which no Temporal Jurisdiction had any Authority to revoke. Whereas had the Church been under the Check of the State in Matters purely Spiritual, St. Peter and St. John were much to blame for refusing to obey their Superiors; they ought to have acquiesced in the Sanhedrims' Prohibition, and not to have pursued their Function after they were so solemnly silenced; and tha● by those whom themselves owned to be Rulers of the People, Act. 4. 8. Either therefore the Church must be Constituted Independent of the State; or the Apostles can never be cleared of the Charge of Sedition.  
The same Imputation will, upon the Modern Principles, affect the Bishops of the Universal Church for the first 300 Years; who held public Assemblies, Governed their Clergy, and their People, and performed all parts of their Office, not only without any Authority from their respective Princes, but often contrary to their express Commands; which matter of Fact is so well known, that it would be superfluous to enlarge upon the proof of it.  
If it be said, that these were Heathen Princes, but when the Emperors became part of the Church, the Case was otherwise.  
To this I answer, That the change of the Emperor's Religion could not gain them any such new Jurisdiction as is pretended. For as Magistracy in general does not imply a Right to Spiritual Authority; so neither does the denomination of Christian give it any such Advantage. For, I suppose, Spiritual Dominion is no more founded in Grace, than Temporal. In short, if Princes receive any such Authority by virtue of their Christianity, it must be conveyed either by Revelation, or implied in the notion of Baptism.  
As to the Point of Revelation; The Scripture no where teaches us, that Princes, upon their turning Christian, should have their Commission enlarged with the addition of Episcopal, or Priestly Power. I grant, it was foretold, that Kings should be nursing Fathers to the Church, Isa. 49. 23. but then it is added, that they shall bow down to Her with their Faces towards the Earth; and elsewhere, that they shall Minister to Her, or serve Her, Isa. 60. 10. We see therefore, we must not strain upon the Letter in these Expressions; nor press the Metaphor too far, unless we will conclude Contradictions: Therefore the Character of their being Nursing Fathers, is sufficiently fulfilled by their affording Christian's Protection and Encouragement under their Government, and by finishing the Contempt of Religion. But that the Magistrates Conversion should alter the Seat of Ecclesiastical Government, put a Period to the Apostolical Succession, and dissolve the Church into the State, is not so much as the least hinted.  
And as for Baptism, there is no Authority of any kind implied in the Receiving that Sacrament; If there were, every Christian would have an equal share in this Privilege; which would make the Constitution of the Church monstrous, in which all its Members would be Governors, and so none under an Obligation of being governed.  
If it is objected, that the Oxford Greek Manuscript, published the last Year, has proved by a Collection of several Instances, that Bishops, though unjustly deprived, have for the sake of Peace, laid down their Function, and not contested their Right with their Successors, provided they were not Heretics: And that the People made no scruple to Communicate with the New Bishops.  
To this it may be returned, that this Manuscript has been lately undertaken, and shown to be altogether unserviceable to the Publisher's Design. (Vid. A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops, etc.) where the Learned Vindicator has proved.  
First, that though the Instances alleged in the Manuscript were applicable to the present Dispute, they would fall far short of gaining the Cause. I shall just mention some of his Reasons.  
He hath shown the Author of the Manuscript to be defective in point of Antiquity, and little more than 400 Years Old; and that none of the Instances rise higher than the fourth Century; that they are not universal in respect of Place, all of them being confined to the Greek Church; and most to the single See of Constantinople. Farther, the Learned Vindicator observes, that the Precedents cited by the Manuscript are nakedly represented, without showing, whether the People, who deserted the Deprived Bishops, believed them unjustly Deprived. If they did not, 'tis no wonder they withdrew their Obedience: Neither do his Instances prove, that the People thought them tried by an incompetent Authority, as well as unjustly deprived. Now this aught to have been proved, to have made the Manuscript serviceable to the Publishers purpose. For, though an unjust Sentence ought to be submitted to, when pronounced by a proper judge; yet when the Cause does not lie within the Cognizance of the Court, all the Proceedings are null and void.  
It should have been made out, that the Bishops insisted on their Right, and challenged Submission from their People; for if they acquiesced, the Case does not come up to the Matter in Hand. But here the Manuscript fails, as it does also in clearing, whether the Behaviour of the Bishops and People was founded upon Principles at that time owned. For, if want of due Information, or Fear, or Interest made them act as they did; we have no reason to be governed by their Examples.  
The Vindicator p●●●eeds to give in Counter-evidence, and proves from St. Cyprian, who disputes the Case of Sehism at large, and lived in an Age very valuable for Antiquity and Integrity; That the Catholic Church maintained the Right of Canonical Bishops, both against Secular Magistrates, and Schismatical Intruders. As appeared in the Case of Cornelius Bishop of Rome, who was owned by the whole Church; notwithstanding the Opposition made by Decius the Emperor, and Novarian the Anti-bishop. And Martian Bishop of Arles was refused the Communion of his Brethren, for owning that of Schismatics. He observes, that the Principles insisted on by St. Cyprian, were not peculiar to his own Age, but maintained likewise by St. Augustin, and Optatus, in their Disputes against the Donatists.  
The Vindicator pursues the Argument, and proves, the Antibishops and their Adherents guilty of Heresy; for the avoiding of which, the Author of the Manuscript himself allows separation to be justifiable and necessary: this charge he presseth upon them, not only because they defend their Novelties by Principles, but by such Principles, as strike at the Root of Ecclesiastical Government. For, their being Bishops supposes all Spiritual, as well as Civil Authority derived from the State; which Doctrines make it impossible for the Church to subsist in a time of Persecution. And since no Society, whether Spiritual or Secular, can stand without an intrinsic Power of Government; and the Advantages of Society cannot be had any longer than the Society whence they arise continueth. From hence it follows, that those Opinions which destroy any Society, must destroy all those Advantages, which were designed in the Constitution, and guarded by it. Such Tenants, when they relate to the Church, may, with propriety enough be called Fundamental Errors; which brings them under the Modern, and received notion of Heresy.  
The Learned Vindicator, in the second part of his Book, goes on, and shows, that though the Oxford Manuscript (how favourable soever) would have been a very slender Defence for the Antibishops, and their Party; yet they have not so much as the Countenance of this Record; the Instances produced being Foreign to the present Controversy. For in all the Cases mentioned in this Manuscript (excepting that of Callinicus, which is dubious, and not to their purpose;) either the Deprivations were passed in an Ecclesiastical Synod; or were grounded upon Resignation; or Heresy; or else the Deprived Bishops insisted upon their Right; and with their People form distinct Communions from their Intruders. And thus in the Course of 900 Years, which is the length of the Manuscript; they have not one Instance to prove, that a Lay-Deprivation had any Force against the Spiritual Authority of the Church. So singular, as well as destructive are the Principles our Adversaries establish themselves upon.  
Lastly, The Learned Vindicator subjoins a Collection of Canons drawn from those called the Apostles, from the Council of Gangra, Antioch, Carthage, and Constantinople, which in all rational Conjecture were added by the Author of the Manuscript, though omitted by the Publisher. In these Canons 'tis solemnly Decreed,  
That if any Deacon, or Priest, should despise their Bishop, and hold separate Meetings from him, unless he were deprived by a Synod, they were to be degraded: This Fault in the Laity was punished with Excommunication. And if a Bishop withdrew Communion from his Metropolitan (unless Synodically deprived) he was to be deposed. By all which we may understand, how far these Councils were from supposing that the Civil Magistrate had any Power to deprive ecclesiastics of their Spiritual Authority.  
These are some of the Heads upon which the Learned Vindicator proceeds; and which he maintains with admirable strength of Reason and Authority. If the Reader is inclined to see the Argument pursued at Length, and with its just Advantages, he may please to consult his excellent Discourse.  
From the Independency of the Church thus proved, these Conclusions naturally follow.  
First, That it is no more in the Power of the State to deprive the Church Governors of their purely Spiritual Authority, than it is in the Power of the Church to remove the Magistracy, or disincorporate the State. For all Punishment and Censure supposes Jurisdiction in the Person who inflicts it. But this Supposition is inconsistent with the Notion of Independency: Those who are Independent being in this sense equal, so far as their Independency reaches; and have no Privileges to Command, or Duties to Obey on either side. From whence it follows,  
Secondly, That the Bishops, notwithstanding the Lay-Deprivation, have the same Spiritual Authority they formerly had; and their People the same Obligation to remain in their Communion. The Consequence of which is,  
Thirdly, That the Antibishops who are possessed of their Sees, have no Authority to Govern. These the People are bound to avoid upon the Score of Intrusion and Schism. I say, upon the Score of Schism. For since they have subjected the Power of the Keys to the Civil Supremacy; given up, as much as in them lies, the Fundamental Rights of the Church, and made the Being of Religion precarious, and dependent on the Pleasure of the Magistrate: Since they have either Usurped the Authority of Lawful and Canonical Bishops, or owned those who are guilty of such Invasions; the Charge of Schism and Separation must lie at their own Doors. Such dangerous Innovations as these, as long as they are maintained, must cut off all Religious Correspondence, and make Communion impracticable. Insomuch that those who join with the Intruders, will justly fall under the same Imputation of Schism, for revolting from their Lawful Bishops, and making themselves One with those who are divided from the Church.  
Fourthly, This Privilege of Independency, in Matters purely Spiritual, will reach the Inferior Clergy. For their Authority being derived from the Bishops, and of the same Nature with theirs, it can be subordinate, or related, to no other Head of Jurisdiction: And therefore these can be no more discharged the Exercise of their Function by a Lay Power than the Bishops.  
Thus we see Communion with the pretended Church of England must be Unlawful, even supposing the Law-Authority unexceptionable, and that the Church-Service remain unaltered.  
However, let us put the Case (for we may suppose any thing,) that the depriving Authority was itself defective, and illegal, and no less a Breach of the Constitution, than an Encroachment upon the Church: Suppose farther, that the Public Prayers are stuffed with Immoral Petitions; that God is made a Party to Injustice; and invoked to prosper that which He hath threatened to punish: Such singular Mixtures as these must give the Service a very ill Complexion, and make Devotion look like a solemn Iniquity.  
To say, we dont join in the exceptionable Petitions is no answer.  
First, Because the Notion of Communion, the Prayers in their Form and Rubric, suppose the contrary.  
Secondly, If we may join in Communion where some part of the Worship is sinful; then, by Parity of Reason, we may Communicate with all Sorts of Christians; and not only so, but with Jews and Mahometans; because all these Divisions of Religion acknowledge the same God, and have many things which are pious and commendable in their Worship. But this part of the Argument, having received Satisfaction from a good Hand already, needs not be pursued any farther.  
I shall therefore make two or three Remarks, and so conclude.  
First, This Spiritual Independency of the Church can give no just grounds of Jealousy to the State. Princes need not to be awakened into any Suspicions of being disturbed in their Administrations, or having any part of their Prerogative wrested from them; this Privilege pretends to no Temporal Jurisdiction, but leaves all the Branches of Justice and Property to the Civil Magistrate. It never offers to support itself by violence, but gives up Seditious Churchmen to the Correction of the State, as well as others: It allows no Liberty to Dethrone Princes for misfortunes of Belief; It teaches no Man to be False and Treacherous for the sake of Religion, nor found'st any Merit upon Ingratitude and Rebellion. In short, this Authority relates only to Conscience: And tho' it may challenge Obedience within a proper compass; and the contempt of it will be deeply revenged hereafter; yet since there is no Force claimed for the Execution of its Censures, it must be perfectly inoffensive here.  
Secondly, Since even the Inferior Clergy are, with respect to their Spiritual Authority, Independent of Princes; certainly private Persons, tho' never so considerable, should allow them the same Advantage. Churchmen, we see, have their Authority from God; and are therefore his Ministers, not the People's; the Branches of their Office, such as Instruction, Absolution, and Blessing, imply Super-intendency, and Power, and ought not to come under a servile Character. For, as on the one side, 'tis a fault to grow vain upon their Relation, to neglect the meanest Christian, or, as the Apostle speaks, to be have themselves as Lords over God's Heritage, 1 S. Pet. 5. 3. So 'tis no less on the other, to prostitute their Function to Greatness; and make themselves Servants to Ceremony and State. And without doubt they may find other ways of paying a due Regard to Persons, without making themselves and Religion ridiculous. Neither will the Consideration of Money, or Entertainment degrade their Character, and make them BELONG to those of whom they receive it. For Money is given to Parents, to Princes, and to God himself; and therefore does not always suppose Subjection in the Receiver. When Micah contracted with the Levite to perform the Offices of Religion in his Family; he was far from thinking he entertained a Servant; as we may see, Judges 17. 10. Dwell with me, and be unto me a Father, and a Priest, and I will give thee ten Shekels of Silver, etc. And as for the Obligation, St. Paul thought there was a fair Equivalent returned; as we may perceive by his Question. If we have sow● unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing, if we shall reap your carnal things? 1 Cor. 9 11. Indeed the notion of a Priest supposes a peculiar, and incommunicable Relation to God Almighty: And in this sense, Natural, as well as Revealed Religion has understood it; the Roman Emperors, tho' they were vain enough, yet never pretended to have Priests BELONG to them till they were dead, and Deified. And if any are so extravagant as to exceed the Pride of a Heathen Emperor, tho' in Charity we ought to pray for them; yet I am afraid 'tis to little purpose to pray with them.  
Thirdly, The Clergy ought to form Assemblies for the Service of God: Since our late Brethren have dispossessed us of our own Churches, and made it Impracticable to come to theirs. Since Violence has removed us from the one, and Schism from the other: Since we are banished the Holy Ground, and driven from the Place where God's Honour used to dwell. Since we cannot perform his Worship with those Circumstances of Advantage, with that Magnificence and Solemnity which were to be wished; let us carry the Opportunity as far as it will reach; and do our Duty in the best manner we can. God, as the Scripture speaks, is not confined to Temples made with Hands. In a state of Hardship, Necessity and Devotion may Consecrate; and the Primitive Upper-Room will not be unacceptable. Above all things, let us take Care not to neglect the Service of God; lest we grow indifferent to all Religion, and by avoiding Schism, sink into Profaneness; 'tis not the danger of Suffering will excuse us: For it was in a time of Persecution, when the Apostle charged the Hebrews, not to forsake the assembling themselves together, Heb. 10. 25.  
Many are the Advantages of Public Worship above that which is performed in Private.  
By the former we pay a more solemn Homage to God, and make a more open Acknowledgement of our Dependency. In our joint and uniform Petitions we declare the Harmony of our Judgements, and the Extent of our Charity; and that we are willing to assist each other at the Throne of Grace. Besides, the Occasion of coming, and the Example of those that come, are not without their Advantage. These Circumstances are apt to keep up Attention, and improve good Dispositions, and make us more affected with the Impressions of Religion. Farther, by our united Prayers, we may hope for a greater Support from Heaven, than from single and solitary Devotions. It was upon Assemblies that the miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghost were bestowed, as we may learn from several Places of Scripture, Acts 2. 2. 4. 31. 10. 44. And though, since our Religion has been fully Confirmed, these extraordinary Assistances have been withdrawn: Yet when we meet in Obedience to God's Command, when we serve him with the greatest Reverence and Resolution, we may reasonably expect a proportionable Blessing. And as the Public Services are more beneficial, so the use of them can never be more necessary, than when the Church lies under Disorder and Distress. When Atheism grows upon us; when Virtue seems ready to expire, and the Faithful fall from among the Children of Men; when Temptations have the greatest Weight, and Perseverance is pressed, and we cannot maintain our Innocency without more than ordinary Difficulty; then is the proper Time to call in all the Aids of Religion, and to put our Devotions in the b●st posture of Advantage. Upon such a melancholy Occasion, we have need, if ever, to unite our Prayers, and frequent the Sacrament, and fortify our Minds with all the Supports of mutual and supernatural Assistance. To stand off from danger, and confine ourselves to the numbers of Security; and be frighted from Public Communion; looks like the Conduct of an Army that disbands at the Approach of an Enemy. The Honour of God, and the Good of the Church, are (without doubt) best promoted by an open Profession, by Resolution, and Religious Bravery. Those who thus distinguish themselves carry Light and Heat in their Examples. They awaken Inquiry, and encourage Imitation, and transfuse a Spirit of Greatness into others. Now the Interest of another World, all Christians grant to be incomparably the greatest, and where there is no proportion in the Value, one would think there should be no difficulty in the Choice.  
Let nothing therefore discourage us in our Duty; for whatever worldly Inconveniences may happen, we may be assured of the Divine Protection: And, besides the future Rewards of Constancy and Patience, we shall have the present Satisfaction of Suffering for the best Cause, and the best Communion.   

Printed in the Year, 1692.