Municipium Ecclesiasticum, OR, THE Rights, Liberties, and Authorities Of The Christian Church: Asserted against all Oppressive Doctrines, and Constitutions.  
Occasioned by Dr. Wabe's Book, concerning the Authority of Christian Princes over Ecclesiastical Synods, etc.  Hilar. in Psal. 52. 
Et plerumque nos tanquam pro debiti ossicii Religione pié adulari Regibus existimamus quia in corpus nostrum sit aliquid Potestatis: quibus nihil ultra in nos licet quam febri, quam incendio, quam naufragio, quam ruinae. His enim casibus corporum pro summa potestate desaeviunt, & propter brevem dolorem Libertatem Ecclesiae, spei nostrae fiduciam, confessionem Dei addicimus— Inutilis est humanae gratiae & irreligiosa sectatio.  Cypr. Ep. 40. Sect. 4. 
Adulterum est, impium est, sacrilegum est quodcunque humano furore instituitur, ut dispositio divina violetur, & Ep. 63. Sect. 11. Neque hominis consuetudinem sequi oporter, sed Dei veritatem.  
Printed and are to be Sold by the Booksellers of London, and Westminster, 1697.   

TO THE Reverend Dr. Wake, Chaplain in Ordinary To His Majesty.  
THE Irreligious World is not so dull, as to need information what ways are most effectual to the suppression of Christianity. A popular contempt of the Mysteries, and a radical aversion to the Authority of the Church does the business smoothly, and without hazard. By Ambition and Avarice, by Fanaticism and Sedition, the latter is wholly extinct; and on the sense hereof Infidelity and Heresy have made their insolent advances against the former. In condolence whereat, the Letter to a Convocation-Man seems to have been offered to the World for the use and freedom of the Convocations, against the present Impieties in Religion, and rigorous Opinions in matter of Law. 'Twas natural hereupon to expect the insurrection of the Insidels and Heretics against the Proposals and Power of a Convocation, to prevent their Censure, as well as an assertion of the Laws and Judgements herein from the hands of Lawyers. But who would have dreamt that any Clergyman of Dignity and Value in the Church should lift up his heel against her? The wounds of Adversaries, how sharp soever, are never mortal to the Church, The judgement of Lawyers is ambulatory, according to the prevalency of Times and Powers, they being only Interpreters of what the Kingdom admits or constitutes for Right and Law. And therefore when the Princes and the Nation submitted to the Pope, the Courts acknowledged and acted upon his Right or Claim of Supremacy; and when the Nation could shake it o●, and the King grasp it, then past the Judgements and Rules of Court accordingly. Nor can they be blamed herein, for so their Office determines them. But when the great Laminaries of the Church shall sign the Theta upon her Rights, Liberties, and Authorities, Divine, and Humane, and this voluntarily, and without any Bribe offered, or Menace denounced, the Concession is taken for sincere, and for that cause just; so that the Church of England suffers more by your Book herein, than by all other Lay or Law Oppositions whatsoever. And 'tis not improbable, but that it may animate the Secular Powers, not only to lay greater restrictions on the Church, but even to abolish all the remainder of her legal Rights and Powers, and put us out of all our Interest in the great Charter of the Land. For the Lay Powers, how strongly soever they desire to settle themselves over all interests, yet generally have such a modesty towards what is Divine or Sacred, as to attempt nothing notoriously violent without the concession of the Church, or her most Eminent Doctors. So K. H. VIII of Famous Memory, notwithstanding all his Claims at common Law, and his interest in his Parliament, through Power, and the Rewards by Abbey and Church-Lands, could not have made himself so absolute in Ecclesiasticals, had he not procured before the submission of the Clergy; nor could he have compassed that, but through the terror of a Praemunire, under which they had fallen, and upon which he was resolved to follow his blow, and so to bend or break them. And yet this Act of a Popish, Vnreformed, and well nigh Outlawed Convocation extorted for fear of ruin, and through ignorance, and non-suspition of the Acts consequent upon it, prejudges more against our Liberties than all Secular constitutions could pessibly have done without it. And must we now consecrate all those procedures, the results of which we seel in the total ruin of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and Christian Piety, by our voluntary Pleas and Acclamations; and to gratify the Civil Powers to an Arbitrary utmost, violate the most important Truths of Principles and Histories, treat the Synods of the Church with spite and contumely, and recommend the greatest slavery of her to the appetite of Civil Powers? How much more Honourable had it been, under a Prince, whose peculiar Province has ever been at the perpetual hazard of his Life to relieve the Oppressed, to have presented him with such Draughts and Schemes of the Divine Rights, Liberties, Authorities, and Discipline of the Church, as might inflame him to a resolution for her rescue; and to add this last Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the top of all his Glories, as an Eucharistical Duty and Oblation so God, for all his wonderful Providences in his Preservation and Achievements.  
For which cause you have made it absolutely necessary that your Book should be discussed, and its dangerous Errors laid open, to the end that the Public may be under no temptation from such a work, (inscribed to the Metropolitan) to proceed to further Resolves against the Powers Hierarchical, but may take occasion to review those Laws, through which the Church is fallen under her present Impotency; except you, and wiser Heads can show, which way a Spiritual Discipline may be otherwise restored to a freedom of doing her Duty toward God, in the cleansing the Church, and the renovation of men's Hearts unto Piety and Devotion.  
I have therefore designed an Examination thereof in three Parts. The first concerning the Divine Powers of the Churches of Christ. The second concerning Matters of Fact in Ecclesiastical History. The third concerning the Exigences for a present Convocation.  
In the mean time I wish you no more hurt, than a perpetual increase of Merit, Honour, and Promotion here; and that which is the only valuable Prospect, a Blessed Inheritance in the Life to come.   

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

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 Submission, are interpreted to too great a Restriction of the Convocation, but goes much deeper for a much larger Liberty to the Church herein, upon the Supposition of a Divine Right to all Churches and Synods for Affairs Christian. The Doctor, on the contrary, denies such Divine Authority of Synods, as being but mere prudential Clubs under Heathen Princes, and servile Conventions under Christian one's.  

The Letter,  
Distinguishing all Power into Spiritual and Temporal, found'st both of them in God, which no Christian will deny of the Ecclesiastical Authority; That this can be Rightly Exercised among Christians only; not as enclosed within any Civil State or Community, but as Members of a Spiritual Society, of which Christ Jesus is the Head, who has also given out Laws, and appointed a standing Succession of Officers under himself, for the Government of this Society, which continued near 300 Years before any Civil Governors embraced Christianity. So that the Spiritual Authority is not in its own Nature simply dependent on the Temporal. That when supernatural means of Governing 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 Preservation; viz. assembling, debating, and by Majority of Voices, deciding, concerning the Rules and Principles of Government. That the Law of this Society is made to their hands, not to be altered, added, or diminished; but the applying thereof to particular Cases, explaining Doubts upon it, deducing Consequences from it in things not explicitly determined already by that Law, and enforcing Submission and Obedience to their Determinations, are the proper Objects of their Power. That this Society can better claim an inherent and unalterable 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.  

The Case stated on each side.  Is by no means satisfied, that the Church has any Command, or Authority from God to assemble Synods; he is not ware, that either in the Old or New Testament, there is so much as one single direction given for its so doing. And excepting the singular Instance of Acts XV. he knows of no Example that can with any show 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 Necessities of the Churches, when they began to be enlarged, first brought in the One, as those of the Commonwealth did the other. And therefore when men are incorporated into Societies as well for the service of God, 
Then, it seems, the Church is not sociated, till incorporated with the civil State, to spiritual as well as temporal Ends.  and salvation of their souls, as for their Civil Peace and Security, these Assemblies are to be as much subjost to the Laws of the Society, and to be regulated by them, as any other Public Assemblies 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 Persuasion, Natural Reason will prompt the Members of every Church to consult together the best they can how to manage the Affairs of it, and to agree upon such Rules and Methods, as shall seem most proper to preserve the Peace and Unity of it, and to give the least Offence that may be to the Government under which they live. And what Rules are by the common consent of every such Church agreed to, aught to be the Measure of assembling and acting of Synods in such a Country. Thus the Doctor, p. 365, 366, etc.  
§. 2. 
The Doctor's Tergiversation.  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 vety Fundamental Article in Controversy, 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 fobbed off with a poor, precarious, and not so much as evasive a Scheme of Imaginations, for which he can hardly find any Church-Advocate, nor any Credentials from any Divine, or valuable Humane Writings.  
§. 3. 
Terms explained.  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 preponderateth) it is necessary that we six the principal Terms of Matters Fundamental in his Enquiry. 
Authority what.  And first for Authority in Matters of Government, it is known to signify either a just or rightful; or at least lawful Power to rule the Subjects according to Equity, and Laws of Justice, or else an  Freedom and Impunity only of acting, which is the privilege of all Supreme Governors, as being above all Legal and Judicial Coercion with their Subjects. 
Right.  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 Authority. But the mere Exercises of an  Domination, 
 Domination.  though called by the specious name of Authority, cannot vacate any Just and Valid Rights, Liberties and Authorities 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 Obstructions of its Fruition or Practice, which, though not accountable for at any Domestic Tribunal, shall yet fall under the Sentence and Condemnation of God; the present Civil Impunity giving no Right to any injurious measures, nor Exemption from that divine Bar. Secondly, We are to define an Ecclesiastical Council or Synod; 
Synod what.  wherein I will take the Doctor's Definition, namely, 'tis literally a Meeting of Ecclesiastical Persons (I mean Ministers) upon an Ecclesiastical Affair. 
(a) p. 60.  And it is either subordinate, 
The sorts of Synods.  consisting of one or more Bishops, and inferior Ministers, or , consisting only of one equal Order, either of Bishops alone, or Inferior Ministers alone. For in want of a Bishop 
* Cyp. Ep. 3 & Ep. 18.  the Inferior Clergy are the Council for the vacant Church, according to the limits and powers of their Order. A Convention of Clergy 
† Cyp. 26 Sect. 4, & Ep. 31. Sect. 5.  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 Inferior Orders. Councils called General are of the fame Nature in themselves, though of a larger extent, and not of a Canonical originally, but of Imperial Collection. Other extraordinary and unusual Conventions of Select Bishops and Ministers, not delegated so much by the Church upon her regular Constitutions, as convened by the Will only of Princes, may be called Synods, though of themselves they have no Canonicol Authority for their Acts, which must either stand or fall by the consequent Reception or Refusal of the Church, notwithstanding all the Ratifications that the Temporal Powers give them; a mere Ecclesiastical Commission from a Prince, 
Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Princes no Canonical Synod.  being not of the same sort of Efficacy and Authority, as a free Convention of the Powers Ecclesiastical. Tho therefore such Commissioners may Grammatically 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 private Persons. Now 
* Euseb. reekons two lay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  properly a Christian is a Person baptised into, and continuing in the Christian Faith; but loosely, and improperly Heretics 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, 
Dem. ev. l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 38. So Origen con. Cells. l. 3. Ambr. de Myster. initiand. c. 4. Aug. in Joh. c. 2.3. Tract. 11.  and Constantius, etc. have been reputed Christian Emperors, though not Baptised, nor so much as admitted Catechumen, or Competents, till a little before their Death. Which Preliminary Explications will be found of great Use in this present Controversy.  
§ 4. Being thus harnessed, we will consider the strength of the Doctor's Hyyothesis first, before we come to justify that of the Letter. 
The Doctor's Principle worse than the Independents.  First then he makes a Synod under Heathen Powers to be but an independent huddle of Christians in common, contriving their Affairs, 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 Ecclesiastical Affair, for all Members of the Church may with Grammatical Propriety be called and accounted Eccle jastica● Persons in distinction from Aliens, or absolutely; though Custom has given this Title as a distinctive of the Clergy from the Laity. So that, though I, in assuming the Doctor's 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 Prudence, and so is nearer to Truth and Reason, than the Doctor's. But if the Doctor's Principles be true, that such Synods are Conventions 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 whatsoever any needless Offence at all. But certainly Subjects having no Authority to convene, yet convening against the Laws of Civil Powers, do incur their great Offence, which natural Reason cannot prompt Men to. For if Christians should be called by such Infidel 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, though 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 public Conduct by Rules and Methods to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church, and that is Authority, though 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 natural Right, and if natural Right, natural Authority to convene for their public 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 forbidden 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 ware of, when he tells us, that the necessities of the Church when it began to be enlarged, 
Commonwealth did.  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 popular Necessity? The Doctor dares not say No to the State, because the Leviathan is not safely to be angered; 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 under 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 Doctor's Rules the Authority should be so too, though yet he allows them no Authority, because no Society till their Civil Incorporation, which is (though the Doctor sees not the necessary Consequence) to deny the Unity of the Catholic Church, and its Constitution under Spiritual Governors of its own, for the three first Centuries of Christianity.  
§. 5. But he further tells us, 
Incorp.  that the Incorporation of the Church into the State, being an Association for the saving of their Souls, as well as Secularities, subjects them as much to the Laws and Regulations of Civil 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, etc. 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 Arbitrary Legislation and Government thereupon; and well then may this Incorporation into Society promote the Se●●●● of God and Salvation of Men, with all Secular Heavens upon Earth 〈◊〉. But I pray what is this Incorporation? Is it making the Church one of the National Estates to concur 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 Injuries or Oppressions? or the addition of several Privileges, Honours, and Encouragements? 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 Empire in Matters of Ecclesiastical Conduct. If the second Favour be an Incorporation, than the incorporating Powers have a Right to govern the Religion of all other Societies which they tolerate, all Schisms and Heresies whatsoever, exempt by Law from Violences and Oppressions; so that an Orthodox Christian Emperor tolerating, Novatians, Meletians, Arians, Macedonians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and all other Clans of Heresies, had full Right, and good Authority to govern all their several respective Counsels, and Discipline, and to ratify 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 Jerusalem, but over those of Chomesh, Milchom, Ashtoreth, etc. a Supremacy I must needs confess more than divine! And yet I doubt it would not be easily admitted either in Holland, or the emulous England; where, though the public Indulgence is to save their Souls, as well as their Temporals, yet will not the Sectaries part with their Souls to these Indulgent Saviour's, nor endure the Thoughts of their Presidency and Conduct in their little Religious Politics, but demand an Exemption as entire as the Chapels of foreign Factories, or Ambassadors. Nor can in the third place an Accumulation of all Encouragements, Privileges and Honours, prevail upon them hereunto; most of them being against a National Church, all of them against a National Religion, i. e. confined to the Laws of a Civil State. And commend me to Scotland, who have acquired all Secular Privileges and Franchises they desired, and yet scorn that a King shall so much as be a Door keeper to their Holy of Holies, notwithstanding all these their Incorporations; and if the Dr. should preach up his Maxims 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 Supremacy over Holy Kirk, which they are so far from owning in all Princes, that 'tis with them the most Funda nental Heresy to allow them any at all; as appears by their perpetual Remonstrances upon all Occasions in their Synods.  
§ 6. 
Wheve though Prince is of a different Religion.  But 'tis nor impossible that a Sovereign may contract a Religion contrary and destructive to that which is received 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 Second, Roman-Catholick. How graceful in such a Case would it be, to see a King of England of Jewish, Popish, Socinian, Presbyterian, Anabaptist, Independent, Quaker, or Muggletonian Principles, or Profession, convening a Church of England Convocation, presiding in it in Person, or a Vicar-General of his own persuasions, upon Matters of alteration in the Liturgy and Canons, or any other Expedients for the good of the Church of England, and always twitting the Synods with Caveats of that Holy Statute of Praemunire, not to speak one wood nor syllable to any purpose whatsoever, till such Prince pleases to allow you of his mere grace and motion, as being only of Counsel to this Head of the Church of England; who is however to be presumed 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 Convocations, and to prescribe to these his Counsellors herein, as being fit to be of Counsel unto them, whose Resolves after all, he has Wisdom enough, as well as Authority to ratify, altar, rescind, or aunull; so that not what they, but what he shall bind, or lose 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 advantageously for the Church of England erect his Ecclesiastical Commission, for the saving of this Church from the Encroachments of the Papal Supremacy. So that by our Incorporation alone, we are all safe Soul and Body, with Lawyers, and Court-Flatterers, let our Supreme Head be of what Religion he pleases. But Lawyers indeed cannot be blamed for any inconvenienties which may happen from 2 positive Law, and they are obliged to interpret and judge according to the Letter; but for Clergy-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 Persuasion, to Consult together the best they can, and to that end Aslemble in Synods Ecclesiastical. This Reason, this Right, and Rule, by the wording of it in general terms of quother persuasion, will reach the Case of Churches, not only under Heathen Powers, but Christian Powers of different Communion and Principles from the pure Church that is in subjection. And it seemed 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 persuasion? shall the Church lean upon her own Authority and Wisdom, not His? This his own determination says as much in Generals, 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 another Persuasion, the Church has Right and Reason to hold Synods and Consults, who must of Office appoint such Conventions 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 Superiors, or Hierarchical Rulers in it, in whom the Conduct is chief lodged for all Ecclesiastical Concernments? If this latter be the Constitution of a Church simply in itself, then will I ask, whether the Superiors are to Assemble themselves alone, or others with them, by virtue of their Superiority, or are the Inferiors to give Rule to their Superiors? I am not willing to believe, that for the sake of a feeble Hypothesis the Dr. will overturn the Order of things, especially in the Church, that subsists, as all other Bodies Politic do, by Order; but we'll presume, that the right of Convention is lodged in such a State in the Supreme 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 itself 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 Divine Authority to hold Synods to the preservation thereof, where the Prince is of another Persuasion.    

CHAP. II. Of the Rights, Liberties, and Authorities of Several, as well Secular, as Sacred Societies, under the Supremacy of Civil Powers.  
§ 1. HAving thus Discussed the Virtue of the Dr's own positive Sense of the Church's 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 Providential 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 than is either Subordinate between Superiors and Subjects, 
Societies distinguished.  or  between Persons or Communities, free and independent of each other. And each of these is either Natural only, from the mere obligations of Nature, or Positive by voluntary Contract or Constitution. Now of all these, the first and most Fundamental Society, is the Natural Society between God and Man, 
Natural Society with God.  maintained by the Offices of Natural Religion on our part, 
Tul. de leg. l. 1. Positive Society with God.  and the Acts of God's Paternal Providence on his. Next hereunto, and immediately hereupon, succeeded a positive and Faederal Society between them, 
Apud Cyp. Ep. 30. Sect. 2. Qui a Deo, cui sociari quaerit discrepat,— privilegium societatis amittat.  by the Law and Communications of the Divine Presence given in Paradise; which Communications and Presence (tho' the Law of Paradise determined by Man's ejection out of Paradise) still continued, and were designed for continuance to Posterities, 
Ripening into an Ecclesiastical form.  admitting 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 Ecclesiastical Society and Communion with God, which more formally ripened into public and Canonical form; 
In the days of Enosh.  when, the Generations 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 public Assemblies. For then those, whom under this preccedent course of Divine Communion God had Educated by his own immediate institution, 
Under Prophetic Patriarches.  he after constituted Prophets, and Preachers of Righteousness to the Families so Ecclesiastically consociated under God; and of these Ministers he founded an Order and Succession, 
Of which Noah the Eighth from Enosh.  in which Noah was the Eighth from Enosh, Gen. 5. 2 Pet. 2.5. Where these Families and Generations so consociated under God, and the Sacred Authority and Conduct of these Prophetic Patriarches, were a formal Church, or Ecclesiastical Society, and were called under a Sacred Character, 
Sons of God.  the Sons of God, Gen 6 2. Now this Society Ecclesiastical, founded not only in Nature, 
Continuance of this state to the Flood.  but God's positive Constitution also, contioned through all that vast tract of time, between the Creation (from its Originals, and from the days of Euosh) and the Flood, (as far as appears, 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 Punishment.  
§. 3. 
Matrimonial Society.  The second sort of subordinate Society is the Matrimonial, 
Aug. in Gen. Quaest. 143. Est enim ordo naturalis in hominibus, ut serviant saeminae viris, &c filii parentibus; quia est illic justicia est haec, ut infirmior ratio serviat fortiori.  founded in the Structure of the Sexes, and difference in the inward Vigours and Powers of the Soul, and so constituted by a positive determination and Ordination of God, first in the State of Paradise 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 Providence. 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 through all Nations.  
§. 4. 
Oeconomical Society.  The Third Sort of Subordinate Societies, succeeding the former, is the Oeconomical, and is either Natural between Parents and Children, or positive, as between Tutors, and Pupils, Masters, and Servants.  
§. 5. 
Civil Society.  The last General Sort of Subordinate Societies, fundamentally designed by God's Providence for the conservation of Mankind, is the Civil, entrusted with the Power of the Swórd, in defence against all Violences and Oppressions, Domestic or Foreign, for the preservation of those Rights and Liberties, 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 Providence, for a regular and undisturbed L●se. For thus St. Paul saith, 
God's Ordinance for the good of Mankind, tho' not always actually fulsilling God's design.  they are God's Ordinance, 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, etc. Tho' therefore they may not always in fact execute the design of God their Founder, upon a just Authority lodged in them by the design of Providence, yet they are the intentional Ordinance of God hereunto, and hereunto only, against which God's bare Negative, i. e. Nonrestrictive 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. 
 Society Natural, or Positive.  The second Sort of Society is the , and that either by the tics of Nature alone unto all the natural Offices of Justice and Charity, or by Contract, as in Friendships, Factories. Artificial Fraternities, and Commerces, between either Men, or Nations, Cities, Villages, etc. And the general Nature of these Societies is by the intention of God, 
The Originals of Civil Society.  of a precedent design before Civil Powers, as being also in the Fundamental Reasons of the Civil Superstructure. For Families multiplying Co-ordinately, Sociated themselves first into Vicinities, and Villages, 
Families multiplying into Villages, and thence into Cities, Corporated at last under Princes, as trusties, to preserve their Rights in Peace.  from smaller to greater, for the benefit of mutual succours, beneficences, and intercourse; and from these Rudiments increasing continually, they grew up into Cities, and so Incorporated into forms Political, and falling either into the affectation, or under the Calamity of War from without, or the common and usual Discords among multitudes 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 confidence 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 Villainy has taught Men out of their very Senses, 
Admission of Sovereigns do not import a quitting the Rights of the Community.  that in the admission of Sovereigns they surrender up to them all their former Rights; but the voice of nature, and the Oracles of God have taught us far otherwise; and by these I think all wise and good Men will, and must abide.  
§. 7. 
Civil Society not to devour its Originals.  Civil Power was therefore superinduced at last upon all the other substrate forms of Society, not to destroy and devour, but to defend them to the common felicity, except 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 Matrinonial, Oeconomical, Fraternal, Amicable, and Factoral Communications and Societies, no Man does or will doubt but that they are exempt 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 Immediate Unitive in this Life between God and us, and so a medium to an Everlasting Happiness in another, was the great End on this side Heaven, for which we were first Created, and for which the other Societies next consequent upon it were designed? Matrimonial Society being for the propagation of Issues, Oeconomical for the Government of there, and other Minors, and Servants in it; the  for common Beneficences and mutual support here, but all that those Sons of Men may hereby subsist to the Communion 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 Ordinance, and the meaner and the latter against the first and highest, 
God's Ordimances not destructive of, each other.  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 public preeminence, as being the presumed means of a Divine Society; and this, not by the bare policy of Secular Powers; (since perhaps in Prince's Courts it has ever had the least estimation, 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 apprehensions) but (an internal disposition of the Mind, universally promoting Men to the culture of Religion, against all the prejudices and aversions of Sesuality, is an Argument of a Divine Foundation thereof, which as no Hypocrisy could advance, so no Artifices 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 than those Fundamental Principles of Religion, upon which not only a frame of true Religion, but even Superstition itself 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 Scripture, or no. For if he does, than he must grant an Ecclesiastical Society antecedent to, and the Rights thereof maintainable by Civil Powers, which he does not allow in his Hypothesis; or if he will allow it the Divine Right of an Ecclesiastical and Canonical Society, this will import an Authority of Consulting, and Assembling to Consult independently 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 Occupations of Civil Power, will he abdicate therefore all these Rights to it, to dissolve all the Laws, and Liberties, and Authorities of the Matrimonial, Oeconomical, and Co-●din●te Societies? 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 therefore only necessary to prove a Society Divinely founded by a full and fair Evidence, 
The proof of a Divinely constituted Society Ipso facto, asserts its fundamental liberty.  and then all the Forms, Rights, and Powers, necessary to its good Conduct and Conservation, are ipso facto asserted against all exterior Rapes and Usurpations whatsoever.  
§. 9 Now to the Eviction hereof at full, it will be necessary to inquire into all the actual Ordinances of God, either by Nature only, or by a positive Constitution supernatural. To which End, in the first place, it is the voice and dictate of Nature, 
Liberty to do good a fundamental right of the innocent.  that Liberty, 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 public Worship of God is an act of the highest good, 
God's Public Worship the greatest good upon Earth.  practicable 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, 
This requireth the conduct of the Wise and Good.  without the Conduct of the Wise, nor keep itself Holy without the government of the Good; Wisdom and Goodness being necessary to all Government (and this most chief in Matters Holy and Divine) to prescribe Directions to the Ignorant, to encourage the Good, and Correct or Cashier the Evil. This therefore must be laid as a Catholic Rule for all Religious Society, simply and in general by the Law of Nature. But we are further to consider, what actual Society Nature itself has form for the adoration of, and Communion with God in Offices of Religion. In Families therefore the Master, 
Master's Bishops of their Families.  by the Ordinance God in Nature and Providence, is the designed and rightful Governor of Religion in his Family; for which by the Law of Nature he is obliged to qualify himself with as much Wisdom and Piety as he can; 
Aug. in Joh. c. 12. Tract 50. Suos omnes admoneat, doceat, hortetur corripiat, impendat benevolentiam, exerceat disciplinam. Ita in domo sua Ecclesiasticum, & quodummodo Episcopale implebit officium, ministrans Christo, ut in aeternum sit cum ipso.  not only for his own Conversation, but the Conduct also of his House, the little Temple of God, as indeed every House should be. This therefore from the beginning is the Natural Episcopacy and Care of Parents and Masters towards their Children and the other Members of the Family; 
A succession of them to be maintained by Education.  not only as at present they are Subjects and Disciples, but as 'tis to be expected, that in succession of a few years these also will commence Masters and Bishops of their proper Families, and are therefore by their own present Parents or Masters to be prepared by good Institutions thereunto, and so downward for ever to all Generations.  
And this natural Right and Duty extends itself 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. 
Families to be instructed as well in revealed as natural Religion by the Law of Nature.  For though Divine and Supernatural Revelation be a positive Ordinance of God's free purpose, and so under no Eternal Law of Nature, yet they, that by the Law of Nature are Teachers and Rulers in Matters of Piety, are by that Law obliged to propose all that God hath discovered for the promotion of in. For, though 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 Blesting o● God's outward Providence. For though 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 certainly the Law and Ordinace of Nature in the Oeconomical Conduct of Piety and Society with God, though men's Apostasy unto Vice has dissolved the practice, by destroying the Appetite and Faculties of most Parents for this Conduct of Religion. For let men's Manners and Circumstances vary as they will, or may, yet herein, as in all things else, the Laws of Nature altar not. So that though 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 acquired, 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 Muster 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 God's Ordinance, to destroy the Oeconomical Structure and Society on which they are founded and subsist, they cannot extinguish the Power nor inhibit the exercise of an Oeconomical Communion in the service of God, and the Offices necessary thereunto.  
§. 10. 
 Societies of Villages, etc.  From the Subordinate Societies of Families, multiplied into Fraternal or Collateral Vicinities, there arose at first the  Society of Villages, in which Men settled 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 agreements and measures of Justice and Kindness for the convenience of Co-habitation; so that Men, thus prompted by Nature, cement themselves together by such a Foederal form of  Society. But the same Reasons that cast them into this mould, require also common Schools of Education. For though every Master of a Family should be of right sit for this Office in all necessary Principles, 
Schools of Religion.  yet since in fact many are not, the sense of this defect suggests an obligation ●pon it to procure that Education from another, which is necessary in itself, and cannot be had in every home. Now since Principles of true Religion are the most important Matter 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 public School of Piety, though Nature itself commends it; but that which Nature commends, acquires thereby such a Right, if Men please to use it, which cannot justly be denied them. 
Schools subordinate Societies.  But then every School is a subordinate Society; and if it be a School of Divinity, 'tis a Society with God, to be Celebrated with Prayers and Devotions, Doctrines, and Precepts, and the Rules of Discipline, and Rectoral Conduct. But, besides particular Schools, 
Vicinities to be preserved by Religion.  thus of Right erigible in all Vicinities so federally and equally sociated, the conscience of God being the only tie to that mutual Justice and Benevolence, which they have contracted to observe, the Law of Nature does require the solemn acknowledgement of that God as a fundamental Principle of their Union, and consequently if not require, as I believe it will, where there is no other superior and better provision, yet extremely recommend our common Worship and Adoration of God, for his blessing upon that Society contracted upon Conscience toward 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 aught to be open and diffusive, so the Majesty of God, 
All God to be public and diffusive.  as well as the Duty and Intere 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 Appearance and Authority in all public● Societies whatsoever? From hence I am sure Nature will justifie● Right unto all such Societies to procure for themselves a public Worship of God in a mere Stat● of Natucal Religion, which simple no Civi● Pours 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, 
Public Worship to be under Conduct and Authority.  and this requires Authority, which originally will lodge in the Heads of every Family, 
Heads of Families the Common Conucil for mere natural Religion in villages till they surren 〈◊〉 it up to other Powers; under which they retain a Right to frequency of worshipping the true God.  as a standing Council to convene, and consult in Synod, for the Conduct of such public Worship, till the● yield up this natural privilege to any other Power; under which however they have a Right to some public Religious Local Society with God and themselves, and to frequency of public Devotions in it; which if thei● Superiors will neglect or obstruct, their former Right and Liberty reverts to them again to agree for, and in God's public worship, whether their Superiors will or no, it being still to be remembered 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) though Princes set up theldolatrous Worship of Creatures, and magical Priesthoods for the Conduct thereof, prohibiting the true Worship of the true God, yet 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 Powers being indeed the Ordinance of God, but not to any lawful erection of Superstitions, not to the Extinct on of his own public Worship, which all Societies whatsoever are obliged to advance.  

Time, Places, Conveniences of Worship claimable under all Powers.  §. II. In virtue of these Rights, if the Sovereign's, under which they are, will ●ot assign th●m just Tim●s, sit Places, and Conveniences f●r such Solemn and Sacred Service of God, and Offices of Religion, the subject People may out of their own Properties provide ●hem for themselves, and ●●●er them unto God's Service. And since every Subject has Right unto Time, the Ground, and Houses, etc. which he by any right forms acquires, be ●ay devote what he can spare of it to his God; and natural Religion requires some Tribute of all we have, as in Tenancy under the areat Lord of all. So that whatsoever is thus from a good Secular Ti●e devoted unto God, becomes his, 
* Ambros Valentine Jun. Imp. Ep. ad Marcellivam seror.  and cannot be taken away without the Sin of Sacrilege, since a Subject's private House or Vineyard is not liable to any Arbitrary 
Domum privati nullo potes jure temerare; Domum Dei existimas auserendam.  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 supreme Rulers, that we read of. Upon on the same Originals of Nature they did the like in all their Colonies & Dispersions, 
Right of Jewish Synagogues, etc.  without any Ordinance, that we know of, from the Heathen Powers. And if we will presume 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, 
Reasons of ask leave.  but only a care for their security in using their Right, by obtaining a permission and impunity in so doing, from those Powers, who before the Crucisixion of Christ, and the determivation of the Mosaic Covenant thereupon, had indeed no right to deny them Synagogues, etc. for the teaching the true Law, and the proper Devotions in them lawfully used, but only an  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 Martyr's, or Caemeteries, the Basilicae, and the Schools of the Christian Church, erected and used under Heathen Powers, were voluntarily set up and employed in the Christian Worship, upon this Natural Right, without any derived from the Enemy-Powers; 
* Buseb. Eccl. Hist. 1.8. c. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Who did indeed of mere necessity sometimes 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 depended upon Petitions, they would never have had one Chapel in those Ages in the whole World.  
§. 12. So much then for the Natural Right and Liberties of Public Society with God in the Offices of Natural Devotion, Religious Service, and Society with God; which I think are made appear valid and unalienable, though 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 Mystic Religion.  
§. 1. 
Mystick Religioni●s foundations, Ministers Rights, etc.  FROM the mere Naturally Rational Body of Religion, considered abstractly from all supposed positive Revelation (at least miraculously supernatural) pass we to the consideration of the Mystic part of Religion; 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.  

Divine Institution.  § 2. First then, all the Authority of Mystick Religion must be founded in Divine positive Institution in order to a Mystical and Foederal Consociation with God. For none can prescribe Rights of such Communion, but he that is the Founder thereof. So that all Mysteres invented by Men in order to such Mystic Commerce, either with true or false Gods, are Impostures, and Sorceress, of which yet the Priests own not themselves to be the Inventors, but the Numen, with whom they pretend to have and procure a Society; confessing thereby, that all true and Holy Foederal Mysteries 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 amongst the Heathens as Divinely ordered Mysteries, they, 
Mysteries and Priests inviolable.  and their Priests were hold inviolable by the Civil Powers, who subimitted the Conduct of their Wars and Chief Affairs to their Mystic Interpretations and Responses.  
§ 3. Since than Mystic Institutes of Society and Communion with God, must be purely of God's positive Ordinance, so by that must they be designed to be under Order and Conduct, which no Man also can by any Humane or Natural Right assume, 
Priest of Divine Ordinance.  the delegation of God being as necessary to Authorise the Minister, as the Institution of God to the Ministry, and therefore in the Law and Gospel both are ordained together. And even before the Law, even from the beginning of Public Worship, the Patriarches were of God made Prophets, Friests, 
Patriarches by Divine Ordinance.  and Preachers of Righteousness, to the An●●diluvian World, and offered Sacrisices in order to a Mystic Communion and Foedoral Society with God. For thus Noah immediately after the Flood, by virtue of his Prophetic Priesthood, which he had before it, offered a B●rnt Offering for expiation, and and a siveet favour, to render God propitious, 
Noah as a Priest and Prophet, a grand Type of Christ.  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 Highpriest of our Salvation, who after he had founded his Church as an Ark on the Baptismal 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 Mystical Rites, Laws, and Sacrifices of the other Patriarches, carried in them a Typical reference to Mysteries hid under them from Generations, and unveiled under the Gospel, 
Successive Orders from a Prophetic Original.  which therefore (being Prophetical and presigurative) must be first at least Ministered by Prophets, tho' their continuance might descend by Order of Succession in them which were no Prophets; but then however the Order, owing its Original to a Prophetic Ordinance, still juscifies this truth, that the Ministers of Mystic Offices in Religion, must be such as derive Authority herein from a Divine Ordination. And though at first sight the succession of the Priesthood seems to have generally descended to the Firstborn, very probably according to the Jewish Traditions, 
Sacred Succession in the First Born no natural Right of Primogeniture, but of God's positive Ordinance.  which seem well grounded in the Mosaic History, yet the certain Right of such Sacred Succession was not founded in the Natural Right of Primogeniture, but the Ordinance of God adorning it with such a Sanctity; though I know St. Augustine and others are willing to believe the Antediluvian Patriarches not to be the Firstborn, because of the great Age of their Parents, before they begat the Patriarches 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 Patriarchate was the positive Ordinance and Gift of God, and was so therefore in all Successors whatsoever without exception. At length it was transferred by God from the Phylarchal Successors in the Families of Jacob to the House of Levi, 
The Succession translated to the Tribe of Levi, etc. inalienably.  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 above set, that a Society of Divine Constitution 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 Proudences 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, shows those changes to be valid, not upon bare humane presumption, but the Divine purpose. 
The arbitrary changes of High-Priests on what grounds admitted.  And as the Law of God rendered the Rights of the Priesthood inalienable by any Civil Constitution, so the like imagined Sanctity of the Heathen Priesthoods rendered them unobnoxious, 
Sanctity of Heathen Priests  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 apostasy from God in the design at Babel, 
Priests from the dispersion at Babel becoming the first Kings.  under their Chief Leader Nimrod, did upon their dispersions share the before one Kingdom of God into many, which they severally assumed to themselves, and became the first Kings, according to the old Custom of the same Persons being Kings and Priesis; as, Rex Anius, Rex idem hominum, Phabique Sacerdos. For so Melchisedek, 
Melchisedek Priest and King.  Priest of the most High God in his yearly days was King of Salem; and if there be any Argument from the Antitype Christ Jesus to the Type, it is certain, that in his humane Nature he performed his Priestly Office, in offering himself up a Sacrifice for us, before he sat down on the Throne of Majesty on high; and by proportion 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 respective partitions; 
Kingly Power arising out of Priestly.  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 Princes, 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, 
Joseph's Wife 4 Priests Daughter.  that next unto Pharaoh sat Lord over all the Land of Egypt; 
Priest's Lands Sacred and inalienable.  nor were the Priests Lands touched by Joseph or Pharaoh under the Exigences 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, 
Priest's Prior to Kings in point of sanctity posterior in point of power.  so do the Profane Histories of the Heathens in point of Sanctity give Priesthood the Priority, though in point of Power they give it to the Regale. And it is the more to be wondered this in Heathens, who being altogether 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, though Humility be one of the dictinctives of Christianity, and so ought most signally to appear in its Priests, against all, even the slightest arrogances, or self Reflections; yet we find, when the assertion of the Sanctity has been necessary to take off Imperial insolence, several the best of Catholic Fathers have imitated St. Paul, 
Christian Priests magnifying their Office against Kingly Usurpations.  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 Designs of Kings, I could here well allege Elias his dealing with Baal's Prophets at Mount Carmel, before Abab's eyes, and against 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, 
Jeroboam's Case.  the singular and extraordinary 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 Residence, which in Jeroboams time was in Solomon's Temple at Jerusalem. Now Jeroboam by particular Prophecy and Providence became King of the Ten Tribes, that revolted 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 Worship at Jerusalem, his People would return to the House of David, he turned them away from that form of Religion and Society with God at Jerusalem, to the Calves he had set up as the Symbols of God's presence 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 Policy, and Civil Counsels will excuse a deflexion 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 backed it with a promise to prevent all fears of a Surprise. 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 intent 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 working upon the King, this thing became a Sin and Snare to him, his House, and his People, to their utter excision; a Document for ever to all Earthly Powers, not to entail upon themselves, 
Jeroboam's Case exemplary to all Kings.  their Posterities, and their People the Curse of the Almighty, in the violation of his Ordinances.  
But to conclude all with some general Considerations on Christianity, I do not at all doubt, but that the Dr. will assert to us Christians, a Right and Liberty, 
Right of frequent Christian Worship on Holy Day, and o● her frequent days, and hou●●, with other Us●g●●.  both Natural and Divine, to Assemble often in Public Worship, and Holy Services of the Church, not only on the Lord's Day and at our Festivals, 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 Catholic Appendages of Devotion, tho' for these there be no express Command in Scripture, and for most of them no Instances. The Ancient Church owned several Usages in the Church for Canons Apostolical, 
Canon's Apostolical.  and not a few of that Collection, which we have under that Character, descended from the Apostolical Age and Practice, as the Traditions of the most Ancient Father's evince, and the Substrate Reasons of them, will still be of very great Use, and Eternal Convenience. And must we be bound to quit all these (even not Mystic) Institutions at the Arbitrary pleasure of Civil Powers, while yet Constantine 
* Constant. Mag. ad Synod. Tyr. ap. Ensch. de vit. Co●d. l. 4. c. 42. & l. 3 c. 57  (beyond whom I thought no Clergy man would prescribe or claim Prerogative, for all Christian Princes) thought himself obliged to Revere, and Submit to such Traditional Canons, which were by the Catholic Church, received as of Apostolical Age or Original?   

CHAP. IU. 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 convenient Appendages in this Service, why should not our Spiritual Governors have Authority to Assemble in Consultation for the good Conduct of the Common Assemblies, or what Prerogative is violated by this Liberty? But because a positive Constitution of God is what Time-servers, and Anti-Hierarchists 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 than our Faith is a Mysterious Doctrine, 
Our Faith and Sacraments Mysterious.  discovered originally to certain Christian Patriarches, and Preachers of Righteousness, whose Doctoral Office and Order, has descended by Ecclesiastical Ordinations to the whole Church, so our Sacramental Ordinances are Priestly and Hallowing Mysteries, committed also by Divine Ordinance, 
Committed by God to set Orders.  to proper Priests; and lastly, the Mystic Powers of the Hierarchy, of the Keys, 
Hierarchial Powers.  of binding and losing, of remitting and retaining of sins in Earth, to be ratified above by Christ in Heaven, was deposited in the Apostles, the first Fundamental Bishops under Christ, and derived down to all their Successors, 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; 
Consecration by Mystical Imposition of Ha●d  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 Mystic Offices. Now, if this in Fact be so, than our Rule holds good, that none can attempt these Powers, but by Divine Commission, either Original, or Successive; 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, 
Priesthood not assumable but by Divine Commistion.  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. Paul's Testimonies to the full, in several places; namely, That Christ hath placed in the Church Pastors, 
Powers Ilicr●rchi●●l instincted by Christ.  Teachers, Governments, in which, they that Rule are to Rule well, and with diligence, and to be therefore accounted 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 Account, 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 Hierarchical; 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 consociated as to Civil Societies, according to the Doctrine of the Letter.  
§ 3. But this is not all that deserves observation in this matter; But, beside the different Orders of Governors, the Unity of the Catholic Church is to be much considered under these several Governors, either as one Divine School of Christian Piety under many Doctors; 
The Catholic Unity of the Church a● 〈◊〉 ●●chool A●●●y, or ●olity under several Principal Governors. The Twelve and the Seventy  or of one Army in many Partitions under their respective Head Officers or Lieutenant's 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 seventy Inferiors to collect more unto, and instruct them in this School, when collected. Now a collection of Disciples into one Society is but one School, how large soever it grows, and how many Teachers soever the Enlargements do required. So many Tutors there are in one College, and many Colleges in one University. Since than also the whole Catholic 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 Society into Independent Separations. 
No Independencies in Christ's Church.  The same sort of Unity is to be maintained in the Notion of an Army, or Church Militant, by Sacramental Vow under Christ's Banner, under the conduct of its general Officers. And lastly, if we consider it as the one City, or Kingdom of God, committed by its Prince (during his absence) to several Viceroys assigned their respective Districts and Jurisdictions, these are the Bishops succeeding in this Authority to the Apostles. So that this One School, One Army, One City, tho' distributively to be governed by the several Rulers as to particular and local Offices, yet as to the Interests of the common Unity and Preservation it must be governed Aristocratically by common Council and Unanimous Authority. 
Conciliar Assemblies necessary to an Aristocracy.  And as no Monarch can well Govern without a set of Counsellors to Advise, such as the Clergy, or Chapter of a Diocese ought to be to a Bishop in his District; So the Optimates of an Aristocracy cannot not only not Wisely, but not Authoritatively act without Conciliar Forms and Methods, and they are therefore themselves one standing, fundamental Council for the whole Subject Body. And hence is the Right of Provincial Synods, 
The Catholic Right and Primitive use of Provincial Synods.  to be held all over the Catholic Church, fundamentally necessary to the Catholic Uniformity of Conduct, and Unity depending 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 Catholic Government and Communion in the Christian Church, before the Empire set up Christ's Banner; and was received as of Apostolical Canon. So that, if the Visible Unity of the Catholic Church, as one common Society and Community, 
No need of Scriptural Record for requiring such forms of Government.  be of Divine Structure, the very Truth and Faith hereof immediately imports an Aristocracy, and that a Right of Conciliar Assemblies and Legations. 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 Scriptures of the New Testament were conceived or lodged in the Archives of the Church, as is confessed by the instances of this Conciliar form of Government extant in these Scriptures, to be by and by alleged. For it is further to be considered, that the Convention of these Synods is not universally of constant and indispensably necessary frequency, 
Synods mostly upon emergencies.  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 public Ecclesiastic Prudence, 
Not to be held constantly in times of danger.  as to the actual exercise and menage thereof, than to confine it to particular Rules, Times, and Limits, 
Cyp. Ep. 56. § 3. Nec quisquam, cum populunmostrum fugari conspexerit metu persecutionis, & spargi, con●urbetur, quod collection fraternitatem non videat, nec tractantes Episcopos andiat, etc.  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 ordinary and public frequency, yet are under no Sabbatical rigour, nor indispensable precept of Stationary days, being left to the imitation of the Original and Primitive Practices, as much as Times, and Occurrences will permi●, or direct, for the best Spiritual Service 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 Examples 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 Prescription, 
Catholic Right for placing Bishops in Cities.  and Catholickly received for such in, and through all the first Ages, for which however we have no Catholic Laws, or Canons in Scripture. The General and Primitive Practice of placing Bishops in every City was of Apostolical Direction and Practice, 
Cyp. Ep. 52. § 16. Cum jampridem per omnes provincias, &c per urbes singulas ordinati sint Episcopi, etc. vide Praeced.  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 elsewhere a Village Bishop. Yet no doubt the Catholic Church has a divine Right of placing Bishops in every City, for upon that Right St. Paul ordered Tit us to do so in Crete, that order not being the first Charter of the Catholic 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 Suffragans and Successors, to place the Clerical Orders, where they saw most convenient, which according to all Reason was chief and principally to be done in Cities, 
The Convenicacies in the Empire observed for the Government of the Church.  observing those conveniencies for the public Government of the Church, which, being found by experience useful in the Exarchates and Provinces of the Empire, appeared in general to the Apostles and their Successors, as useful to the Catholic Hierarchy. Wherefore where a Right is Divinely constituted, the use whereof ought to be left to Freedom and Prudence, 'tis not only needless, but incongruous and hurtful to tie up the exercises of such Right to precise Limits, which is I think a good account why Synods in Scripture are not under precept.   

CHAP. V Of Scripture Synods or Councils.  
§. 1. THE grounds of Synodical Authority 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 Record, 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 Synod as he was speaking of. In which I confess he is not alone, but accompanied with a great crowd of Anti-Hierarchical Critics, and other poorer Scribblers, which cannot merit that Character. But if the practice of the Catholic Church, as well as the formal reason of the thing itself, evinces, that an Ecclesiastical Council or Synod is an Assembly of Ministers in Consult for the Spiritual Conduct of the Church, 
The Desinition of a Council or Synod, p. 60.  or according to the Doctors more unaccurate definition, a meeting of Ecclesiastical Persons upon an Ecclesiastical affair, I believe the Doctor's second thoughts will set him at Rights, that there manifestly appear several Sessions properly Conciliar, with their Acts Synodical, in the New Testament.  
§ 2. That our Saviour instituted two Colleges of Doctors, one of the Twelve, and the second of the Seventy, 
Christ's two Colleges of Doctors.  cannot I think be doubted; under whom the Lay Disciples constituted were the first Rudiments of the Catholic Church, represented by the Princes of the Twelve Tribes, and the Seventy Elders of Israel, which later were not doubt a Society Ecclesiastical in their first unrecorded Originals, since they appear to be so in the two Convocations of them by Moses, Exod. 24. Nam. 11. 
Ignat. ad Philadelph.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and in other places of an obscurer intimation of such a College. 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 Saviour's Promise to the College of the Twelve has relation, when he says, they should sit upon Twelve Thrones, 
The Twelve Apostles one College.  Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel as one common Society. Now the Twelve Apostles are herein too to be taken for a College, because it appears, that St. Peter by St. Matthew is, 
Mat. 10.  called the first in order, and appears, in all Conferences of the Twelve whatsoever, 
St. Peter Prolocutor.  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 Incoherent herent Ministers, but were Sociated into two Colleges or Fraternities, and to appear as such in all their Conventious.  
§ 3. Christ then a little before his Ascension, being Assembled with Eleven Apostles, commands them not to departed from Jerusalem till the illapse of the Holy Chost at Pentecost. 
A Council for electing an Apostle in the Room of Judas.  This they observed accordingly, 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 College, proposes the Substitution of a Successor to the Apostleship, from which Judas by Transgression fell, by a consulted Recommendation of two fit Persons unto God, of which two the Divine Lot was to determine the Successor. Here then being a Session of Eleven Apostles in an Assembly of 120 Disciples, 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, 
Difference between a Synod and Council.  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 murmured against the Hebrews, that their Widows were neglected in the daily Ministrations. 
A Council for the Election of 7 Deacons.  Whereupon the Twelve called the multitude of the Disciples unto them, and bid them Recommend seven Men of honest Report, and full of the Holy Spirit, to whom they might commit that Diaconate, by their Apostolic Imposition of Hands, which was done accordingly. So here was a Meeting of Ecclesiastical Persons upon an Ecclesiastical Affair, and so a Matter of Synodical Polity, under Authority Apostolical, Acts 6. Upon the Persecation, 
St. Cyprian saith, that the Apostles sent Philip to Samania. Ep. 73. ●8.  which began in the stoning of S● Stephen, there followed a dispersion 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, 
Mission an Act of Conciliar Authority.  to lay their Hands upon them, for the Reception of the Holy Spirit. Here was most formally a Mission from the Apostolic College de propagandâ fide, of two the most Eminent of their Body, and was an Act of Conciliar Form, Authority, Government, and Communication, Acts 8.14, 15. To the Authority of which College, 
St. Peter accountable to the College of Apostles  in public Council, St. Peter himself was forced to give an account at his return, for his having Preached to, and Baptised the Gentiles, Acts 11.1, 2, etc. Upon the same Persecution 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 College, Peter, John, and Barnabas, and Peter had returned before this Mission of Barnabas, Acts 11. though after Herod had killed the Apostle, James Major, and Imprisoned Peter to the same end, by the Conduct of an Angel, Peter went off a second time, 
Eldersunder the Apostles in the College at Jerusalem.  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. 
The 24 Elders in the Revelation, represented as a College.  What the Twenty four Elders in the Revelation were particularly intended to represent, 'tis not Material to Conjecture; 'tis only observable here, that they are represented as in one Assembly. 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 Consult the Determination of the highest Authority, 
The College of Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, the Supreme Authority.  which then was in the College of Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, who from that Metropolis, yet jointly and Synodically Governed all Ecclesiastical Matters, needing their Determination. The Legates therefore from Antioch, being received by this College, and having given an Account of their Affairs in Public Assembly, certain of the believing Pharisees at Jerusalem, urged the necessity of Circumcising the Gentiles. Whereupon the Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this Matter; 
The Session at Jerusalem about Circumcision.  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 Resolutions for the Negative, in which the whole Council Acquiesced. And so it pleased 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 Fornication; assuring them withal, that those Circumcisionists from Jerusalem, had not that in Commandment from the College of Apostles and Elders, to impose the Doctrine of Circumcision on them. Whereby is imported, that that Council, or College, had a Commanding Power on Missionaries; tho' in virtue of that they had given these Zealots, no such Circumcising Commandment. 
Syned. Afiicara ad Cornel. ap. Cyp. Ep. 54. placuit nel is Spiritu Sarcio suggerente, & Domino per visiones multas & manifestas admonente, etc.  This was so very formal a Synod, and the Acts and Concerns thereof so formally Synodical, that hence all Synods, Convened upon Religious Questions and Debates, have acted in prescription from this, as their Platform, or Original 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. 
p. 60.  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 indeed 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 punctually 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 Religious Prince hath deprived us of. So that the Doctor's Exception properly is, either that this of Jerusalem was not an Ecclesiastical or Canonical Council, or if it were, that it was not since 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 Debate is, with a description of its Constituent 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, Students, and Learners may be blindly led into dangerous Errors. Which defect, therefore, I hope, he will supply in the next Edition, and Vindication of his Book. But to go on; 
Elders of Asia convened from Ephesus to Miletus.  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 Disciples 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 separate watches, and not rather common and united Cares, there being many of them fixed in that one Provincial Church of Asia? But if they were obliged to joint Cares, it must be by joint Counsels, and such will justify, and require Conferences, and Synods, thereunto, such as even this at Miletus was, being a Meeting of Ecclesiastical Persons upon an Ecclesiastical Affair, 
Presbyteries  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 Jerusalem, where Paul found them Assembled at his last being there, Acts 21. And that Presbytery, by which Timothy was ordained, was such an Ecclesiastical Convention, as quadrates with the Drs. Definition, 1 Tim. 4.14.  
§ 3. Besides in Judicial Processes, 
St. Paul's Censures in Public.  as St. Paul did pass Censures in the most solemn and public 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 Protection of God's Grace, in the Communion of the Church; so does he give order to Bishops, by him Constituted, thus to govern all inferior Orders by judicial Discipline; to the Authority whereof, as every Bishop has a Divine Right, 
Presbyters of Council to the Bishops.  so all Bishops, that have not the miraculous Spirit 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 Convincing Determination, where as single and unconsulted Procedures, 
Unconsulted Procedures.  as they are liable to many real Obliquities, so do they lie open to far more Suspicions and Calumnies, than 'tis possible for a fair and well established Judgement 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 mere Divine Right of Order all Bishops, are of equal Power, & consequently no one singly, has any judiciary Authority over another, 
Cyp. ad Sreph. Ep. 67. iccirco copiosam corpus est sacerdotum concordiae mu●●ae ●utino atque uni●atis vinculo cop●latum ut siquit ex collegio nostro haeresin facere & gregem Christi lacerare & vastare ●entaverit, subveniant caeteri.  therefore to the examination and Censure of a disorderly Bishop, and his Acts, whether public 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 Centuries, and their Authority.  
§ 1. WHether the loss of the Alexandrian Library, be worthy the Complaint of the Christian World, I leave to the Judgement 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 Genturies, 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, concerning the Doctrine, Authority, Forms, Rules, Uses and Venerations of the Primitive Synods, especially in the Volumes of their Acts and Epistles, of which very little now remains in the Writings that are preserved.  
§ 2. However, 
Presbyteries under the Bishop.  notwithstanding these Invaluable Losses, yet so much appears in what we have left us, that every Bishopric was a Polity, consisting of a Bishop with his Subordinate Presbyters and Deacons, to Consult, Advise, and Assist the Bishop, and to Execute his Decrees, upon the Result of their common Considerations. And not only so; 
Metropolitans and Primates.  but that Bishops were consociated into Provincal Systems, under the Priority of their Metropolitans and Primates, chief in the Sees of Apostolical 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 Adrian, 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 evident, that there were in the Succession from the Apostles, Presbyters under the Bishop, if the See were full, but these were Concorporated into Colleges, for Counsel to the Bishop for the respective Bishoprics. 
Vide Origen. con. Cells. l. 3.  And 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 Colleges, which he, on that very Notion, collectively calls Presbyteries. Had he only named them Plurally and Masculinely 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 Synedrium or Council, this convinces every Man, that admits the Medicean Copy for Genuine, (wherein they are so Styled) that they were a Council for the See, or Bishopric, Represented and Recommended by this Father as a Polity of Divine Constitution. 
Ign. ad Eph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (V. G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Thus he suggests to the Ephesians, that an obedience to their Bishop and the Presbytery, is necessary to their Sanctification; which therefore must suppose a Divinely Instituted Subjection hereto, as to an Ordinance of Divine Authority, no Humane Coalitions upon mere Rational Prudence, being of any so high a Virtue as to Sanctify. So he enjoins them to Assemble in one Faith. 
Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — To obey though Bishop and the Presbytery, with an indiscerpible Resolution; which therefore must be the Effect and Consequence of one Faith, and consequently of Divine Intention, as being stated under the Bishop, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Vide. Id. ad Magnes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  as the Synedrium of the Apostles under God: So for the Magnesians; he calls the Presbytery the Spiritual Corona of the Bishop, not the Prudential. Nor were these little Occasional Transports, but fixed Senses in the Holy Martyr, 
Ep. ad Trall. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (V. G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vid. Ep. ad Smyr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (vide plura ap. V G.)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Ep. ad Philad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Polycarp. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Vide plura ejusmodi in Psendepig. Ign. & Inscriptionem Epist. Polycarp. ad Philippens. Cypr. Ed. 34. § 4. Presbyterii honorem, etc.— sessuri nobiscum, etc. ita Ep. 35, 42. § 2, 3.  as appears by their frequent repetitions, requiring an Obedience still to the Presbyteries as to the Apostles, which had been extravagant to a Miracle, had not Presbyteries been of Divine Institution; on Faith of which he calls it the Council of God, without which, whosoever Acts any thing Ecclesiastical, is not of a pure Conscience; as being Concorporated 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 unity, with which all penitent Schismatics, must return in order to the remission of their Sins. So that such a System of Presbyteries in every Bishopric 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 Bishopric, in all its occasions. So that so many places, attesting such a Systematick Consociation of Presbyteries in every See, will bid a fair Interpretation for all those other places, which require observance to Elders, plurally only named, 
See in the mean time, Ep. 6. § 5. Solus rescribere nibil potui— nibil sine consilio usstro, etc. Ep. 18. & 24.  but collectively understood as an Ecclesiastic Council; and so of the Deacons the same is most probable, because they are generally set with the Bishop and the Presbytery in these Rules of Hierarchical Discipline and Union, 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 affairs that did concern all the Orders thereof, of which more will be spoken, when we come to particulars.  
§ 5. 
In the vacancy the Clergy of Council for the Bishop rick.  Nor were they only of Counsel and Sub Society to the Bishop while the See was full, but they were a Council for the Vacant Bishopric during the Interval, to inspect and conduct the public 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 Episcopal Offices in their own Right, as Ordination, Anathematising, Absolution, etc. yet all things preparatory hereunto were in their power, as Examination, Regulation, Suspension, Injunctions of Penance, etc. in which the vacant Bishopric 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. 
Ign. ad Rom.  For tho' Ignatius tells the Romans, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Antiochen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  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 Governor, and the People in the mean time to be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons. And tho' this is indeed an Apocryphal Epistle, yet it is an unexceptionable Canon specisied 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, 
Polycarps ad Philippens charges the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, the Laity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vide Cypr. Ep. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  without a Bishop, (for otherwise the Canon required him to have mentioned him in the first place) directs the Presbyters to be Merciful, Visiters of the Needy, Converters of them that Err, forbearing Wrath, Partiality, Unjust Judgement, Severity, etc. the Laity to be subject to them. And when it shall be considered, that in these days the several Presbyters had not several Congregations apart to themselves, but were all one common College 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. 
Cler. Rom. Clero. Carthag. in't. Epist. Cypr. Ep. 3. § 1. & cum incumbat whis, qui videmur praepositi esse, & vice pastor is custodire gregem, etc. spoken of the Clergy of both Sees.  Thus the Clergy at Rome writing under their Vacancy to the Clergy at Carthage under the absence of St. Cyprian, looked upon 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 Carthage of the Recess of St. Cyprian the Bishop by Clement the Carthaginian Sub-Deacon and Messenger, send back this their Epistle by their Agent Bassianus to the Clergy of Carthage, 
Ibid. Harum literarum exemplum ad quoscunque poteritis transmittere per idoneas occasiones, etc. vid. Cyp. ad Cler. Ep. 6. § 2.  and desired them to communicate 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 presumed, that the Presbyteries did act by the direction of the Absent Bishop; but than it is as certain, 
Cyp. ad Cler. Ep. 6. Vice meâ fungamini cirea gerendaca, quae administratio religiosa deposcit. vid. Ep. 5. § 1.  that the Absent Bishop was Canonically obliged so to Authorise, or concede that vicarious administration, which they upon their own Right before such actual Commission might assume; for it was the disobedience of some proud Consessors to the Authority and Conduct of the Deacons and Presbyters, 
Cyp. ibid. § 4. Quando audio quosdam— nec à Diaconis aut presbyteris regi posse.  that occasioned St. Cyprians sixth Epistle to Authorise the Clergy, that could safely stay at Carthage under 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 doubling Confirmation, 
Cyp. Ep. 15. ad Cler. Rom. § 2. Presbyteris & Diaconibus non defuit Sacerdotis vigour.— Ep. 37. ad Cler. § 1. officium meum vestra diligentia repraesentet.  or express ratification of that Antecedent Authority of the Clergy, which the exorbitant took upon them, for want of the Bishop's 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 thereupon. And therefore, tho' in the denying Communion to Gaius Diddensis a Presbyter, and his Deacon, without his antecedent Sentence, only on the Counsel of some of St. Cyprians fellow Bishops, 
Cyp. Ep. 28. ad Cler. Integre & cum disciplinâ fecislis,— quod consilio collegarum meorum, qui praesentes erant, Gaio Diddensi presbytero, & Diacono ejus, censutstis non communicandum.  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 Ecclesiastic Discipline. It appears then that by a Primitive and Catholic Polity, founded at least upon Divine Right, if not Precept, wherever Episcopal Sees were fully fised, there was also a Council of Presbyters, with Deacons and Officers under them, for the Conduct of the Bishopric; 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 procedures, in which the Primitive Bishops were wont to convene their Clergy; in which I mean them alone in one Diocese, 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. 
Dionys. Alex. ap. Euseh; Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Nepotis, dicbum Elenchium Allegoristarum) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and after a moderate discussion of the matter had by all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Thus in the Arsinoire Region under the Primacy of Alexandria, one Coration had disseminated the Doctrine of Nepos (an Egyptian Bishop) concerning a Carnal Millennium, which had spread far and wide, to the subversion of much people. Whither therefore Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria coming, called together the Village Presbyters and Teachers in the presence of all the Laity, that had a mind to be there, and to have a public Discussion of that Doctrine of Nepos. And after three days public Canvas of Nepos his Book, made with much moderation by all persons, the affair ended successfully in the Conversion of Coration, the Ringleaders of the Millenaries. If then Authority to Convert Men from Errors be Divine, and Convocations of Clergymen by their Bishop be necessary 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 Bishops Divine Authority as Duty to convene them.  
§ 7. 
Cypr. ad Cler. Ep. 10. § 2. Nam cum in minoribus piece at is agant peccatores prenitentiam justo tempore, & secundum disciplinae or dinem ad exomolegesin veniant, & per imposstionem manus Episcopi & Cleri jus communicationis accipiunt; nunc crudo tempore— Offertur nomen corum; & nondum pruitentiâ, actâ, nondum ex●mologesi factâ, nondum manu eis ab Episcopo & Clero impositâ, Euch iristia illis datur. vid. Ep. 11. § 1. Ep. 12. § 1.  Another Instance of Convening the Clergy by their Bishops in these Ages, was for reconciling public Penitents by Imposition of Hands of the Bishop and Clergy, upon Confession first made publicly before, in order to a recovery of the right of Communication Ecclesiastical and Eucharistical, as also for the Censure of such as should presumptuously violate the Laws, Order, Union, and Discipline of their Church, and for Ordinations of the Clergy, or less Orders. All which are Acts Synodical, 
Ibid. § 4. Acturi & apud Nos, (the Bishop and Clergy) & apud confessores— Causam suam, etc. Ep. 24. quos jam pridem communi consilio Clero proximos feceramus, quando cum Presbyteris doclioribus lectores diligenter probaremus.  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 Ancients, one might swell this chapter to a greater largeness than is necessary; but taking for granted that these are contestable and apposite evidence, I leave these Presbyteries and their Divine Powers 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 Authority.  
§ 1. THAT there were Synodical Conventions, 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 suppose be denied by any owner of Episcopacy, and the Volumes of the Ancient Fathers. So that our present enquiry is not into, or concerning their actual being, but their Frequency, Right, Authority, and Uses, for which they were wont so often, so vigorously to assemble.  
§ 2. 
Tertull. De Jejun. Aguntur praecepta per Graecias illus certis in locis Concilia ex universis Ecelesijs; per quae & altiora quaeque incommune tractantur, & ipsa repraesentatio totiùs nominis Christiani magnâ veneratione celebratur. Et ho quam dignum side auspicanti undique 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.  And first as to their general frequency, Tertullian, the most ancient of all our Latin Authors, tells us, that through all the Greek Countries, where Christianity had so universally spread itself, Councils were by command or precept convened out of all Churches, through, or in which Councils all arduous matters were publicly treated of, and in them the Reverence of the Christian Character solemnly celebrated, it being the highest dignity thus every where to be convened unto Christ, and that with severe Stations and Fast 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 consequently 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 exercise, as well as Institution of this Polity, and that in great and continual frequency.  
§ 3. To the eviction whereof I will not urge the nature and general Forms and Concerns of Aristocracy, requiring an united Counsel and Strength, to support itself against common dangers, but specify particular Cases, which they judged necessary Conciliarly to set Right, and thereby to give credit to their determinations in their form Letters to other Churches, which generally, if not always, was the concluding Office of those Councils.  
§ 4. Now of these Episcopal Synods some were but Partial, others Plenary. A Partial Synod of Bishops was such as consisted of some Bishops, only in a Province upon occasion, design or necessity. A P●●nary Synod was such as consisted 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; 
Councils for Ordaining Bishops.  for which the most Canonical Rule most generally observed, and to be observed in time of Peace in these Ages, was that which St. Cyprian and his Colleagues assert as of Divine Tradition, 
Ep. 68— Diligenier de traditione divinâ & Apostolicà observatione observandum est & tenendum, quod apud nos quoque & fere apud provincias universas tenetur, ut ad ordinationes ritd celebrandas ad eam plebem, cui Praepositus ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quique conveniant, & Episcopus deligatur plebe praesente, etc. vide. Item. Ep. 68 § 6. ubi etiam exemplum ponit in electione Sabin● vice Basilidis, etc.  (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 Jerusalem 
† Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  by the Provincials of Palestine in filling that See with Successors, as in the case of Narcissus 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 Presumption 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 examined, and upon a fair and calm agreement (of which in those days they hardly ever failed, under the moderation of the Praesiding Bishops) the Election was Ratified, and the Person Consecrated by the Bishop's present; and hereupon either the New Bishop alone, (when there was no contrary Pretention) or the rest convening Bishops with him, 
Cyp. ad Cornel. Ep. 55. § 10.  sent the Letters of Communion to all other Churches, immediately, or mediately, according to the Forms in use under the Orders of Metropolitans and Primates. 
Cypr. add Antonian. Ep. 52. § 16. vid. etiam § 4. Factus est autem Cornelius Episcopus de Dei & Christi cjus judicio, etc. vid. praec. & seqq. & Ep. 58. § 2. Cyp. Ep. ad Cornel. 55. § 6.  Thus was Cornelius made Bishop of Rome by a Synod of Sixteen Bishops after the same manner, from whence his Divine Right in that Bishopric is asserted by virtue of that Conciliar Ordination. So was St. Cyprian constituted Bishop of Carthage, 
Ibid. § 12.  to the assertion of the same Divine Right and Authority. And to pretend the same his Rival Fortunatus his Party gave out at Rome, that he was Ordained for Carthage by twenty five Bishops, as falsely, as they beforehand had threatened to Convene so many thereunto. And this custom was hereupon looked on as so Sacred and Necessary, that in time of Persecution they suffered the Sees to lie long vacant, till a calm Season gave them opportunity for such solemn Conventions, which were judged of the Divinest Virtue and Authority, and not mere Cabals of Prudence only.  
§ 6. Other sorts of Reasons, why they met in Councils or Synods, were the preservation of Unity in the Catholic, and particular Churches, by reclaiming, by censuring the irreclaimable, by making Canons for good Order and Uniformity; for mutual Advices and Assistances with Sister-Churches, and Composures in matters of Difference, For Discipline on Sinners, either before, or during, or after their Repentance, and particularly those that lapsed into Idolatry. So when 
* Euseb. E. H. l. 6. c. 33.  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 disturbed, and the Peace broken, there met a Council of Bishops in which Origen reclaimed him: When 
† E. H. l. 7. c. 30. Athan. de Syn. Arim. & Seleve. & de Syn. Nic. Decr. & Dionys. Alex. ap Euseb. E. H. l. 6. c. 46.  Paulus Samosatenus and Sabellius 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 occasion also to many Synods in Africa, 
Cyp. Ep. 41. § 1, 2. Ep. 45. § 1, 2. Ep. ●2. § 6. Ep. 67. § 2.  as did that Schism also of Felicissimus, who with his Complices attempted to set up Fortunatus at Carthage. When the varying Customs of Churches, 
Cyp. 42. § 5. Ep. 55. § 1.9. Ep. 12. § 4.  and the acknowledged reasons of them, occasioned, or required Ecclesiastical conferences between such Churches, they were then wont to convene Provincial or Domestic Synods, and after their Domestic Decisions to send them with their Legates to the others for Examination and Reception, wherein if they agreed, this Uniformity repressed not only Schism itself, but the occasions of it; but if not, yet the differences of their Canonical Resolves by virtue of these Conferences were prevented from creating breaches in Communion; 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, 
Euseb. E. H. l. 5. c. 23. Concil. Carthagin. Epis. 87.  which not being to be procured all over the Catholic Church, 
Cyp. cum colleg Ep 70. § 1. Ep. 71. § 1, 4. Ep. 72. § 1, 2. Ep. 73. § 1, 3. Ep. 75.  Victor broke the Communion between 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 Rebaptisation from Heresy was Conciliarly determined different ways in several Churches, 
Firmil ad Cyp. § 6, 17. Dionys. Ale●. ad. Xyst. Pap. ap Eus. E. H. l. 7. c. 5. etc. 7. Cyp. cum coll. ad Fid. Ep. 59 § 1. etc.  without any breach of Catholic Communion, 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 Judgement, Rules, and Customs; but the most moderate taking care in the midst of this diversity, 
Cyp. Ep. 62. §● etc. Cyp. ad Cald. Ep. 38. § 2. Ep. 42. § 5.  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 reconciliation of one Victor a lapsed Presbyter by Therapius a Bishop, before Canonical Examination and Season, as also of the liberty of Baptising 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 Presbyter Felicissimus, not only for his Schism, but for his Lusts; especially concerning the Penances and Indulgences to the Lapsed, for which, in times of Persecution, and the dispersions of the Episcopal College the Criminals were required to stay, 
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.  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 expedient, but necessary for the good of the Church, and the persons concerned, and for the Authority of their Acts, which was universally and uncontestedly taken for Divine, upon grounds taken out of Scripture, 
Cyp. Ep. 55. § 13. Firm. in't. Cyp. Ep. 75.  which therefore they held frequently, and in some places annually, from which they sent Synodical Letters and Messages, with authentic Deputations and Powers, not only by the Sub-Clerical Orders, 
Ep. Cyp. 41. § 1. Ep. 42. § 1. Ep. 45. § 1. § 2.  but by Deacons, Priests, nay and by Bishops also, according as the nature of the affair did require, and Junctures of Time and Season would permit, being herein as much concerned for a general Negotiation in Spirituals, not only each Church within itself, but abroad with all others, and for all Christian Uses, as the Civil States and Sovereignties are for Domestic Conduct, and foreign Embassies, and Treaties with more remote, or more nearly adjacent Countries, and with as fair (to say no fairer) ground of Authority from God and Nature. Upon all which I make these concluding Remarks, 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 Lapsed Penitents would have disclaimed their Necessity, the Apostates would have proclaimed the Imposture of a pretended Divine Authority, and the Churches would never have been at that vast Fatigue and Charge of Synodical 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 contestable, 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 dreamt 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 Heathen, or Alien Powers, against which, where there is no right, no Human Reason, or Prudence 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 looked upon as one great part of the Prince's Prerogative, 
p. 13.  that no Societies should be Incorporated, nor any Companies be allowed to meet together, without his Knowledge and Permission. 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 Public 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 Enquiry, 
Conventions Necessary, Innocent, Hurtful.  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 Innocent, or Hurtful. And first, such as are Necessary 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 denied in themselves, but under the apprehensions of hurt or danger upon Time, Place and Circumstances. But Hurtful Meetings, in the Third Place, may not only, but aught 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 Necessary, they are to be disobeyed in Fact, and submitted to as to their Legal Processes without 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 Vnalienable Franchise of our Nature, and all prohibitions of it, as such simply, are mere Nullities, as to the Rule of practical Conscience. And if so, how extremely wide of Truth is it, at large, to say, That it has ever been looked upon as one principal part of the Prince's Prerogative, 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 purpose. For if a Prince only permit, because he has no right to deny a privilege, the enjoyed privilege depends not on the Right of his Princely Permission. The Dr. I suppose, will be loath to extend this Rule to the Restriction of Gossip among the Good Wives of our Parishes, or of Gentlemen to their Innocent Sports, Hospitalities and Entertainments, 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 Affairs of the World, while in these there are no Apprehensions of Danger. But if it be said, that the Apprehensions of Danger are the presumed Cause of such restraining Laws; 
Necessary Meetings liable to no Restriction upon false Fears.  I Reply, That if, in truth, the Powers have such Apprehensions of Meetings barely Innocent, they have just Right, upon such fears, to restrain them, because apprehended not as Innocent, but at least dangerous; and the Subject, Knowing, or presuming this to be the Reason of the prohibition, aught in Duty to obey it. 
Tertul. Apologet. Cum probi, own boni coeunt, cu●t pii, cum casti congregantur, non est factio dicenda, sed curia.  But this Rule will not hold in Meetings necessary, whatever the Public Apprehensions 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 rendered Ridiculous, but the Wearers of is be oppressed with inroads 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 denied, 
Leave not necessary to be asked without a Law requiring such Petition.  according 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 Assemblies, 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 Prohibition. Had Heathen Princes set them such a Rule of Leave and Licence, there is no doubt but the Christians would have gratefully accepted, 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, 
Cyp. Ep. 25. § 2. Humanis by sacrilegis ●e ibus, etc. vid. inter omnes Prudentium Peristephanôn.  does in truth, nothing else but reproach their Cruelty. What was it then that Tertullion so sagaciously knew? Was it, that the Christians deserved the Censure of those Laws, which he, as well as all other Primitive Advocates, do Arraign of Inhismanity and Impiety? Or was it, that they actually fell under 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 Christianos ad Leonem, knew this as well as he. Now then, why was this Instance against the Liberty of Christian Assemblies brought? Was it to justify the Roman Laws, and to condemn the practices of Christians as Illegal? 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, 
Tertul. Apologet. Corpus sumus de Conscientiâ Religionis & disciplinae veritate, & spei faedere. Coimus in caetum, & Congregationem.— disciplinam praeceptorum inculcationibus densamus; ibidem etiam Castigationes, & censura Divina. Name & judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certos de Dei conspectu. Summu●●que futuri judicii praejudicium est siquis ita deliquerit, ut à communicatione orationis & conventûs & onmis sancti commerciirelegetur. President probatiquoque Seniores, etc.  either in Right, or Fact, Incorporated? Not so surely; since the very self same Tertullian asserts such a Corporation in Fact, and Divine Right; even in Apology to these very Heathen Powers, whom he did not hereby design to enrage, but mollify; and so might have taught the Dr. to have laid by this invidious way of pleading, and to have looked upon the Church 
* The Church a Society of itself.  as a Society of Divine Constitution and Authority, without any Civil Incorporation, into Secular States, and when the Dr. shall reflect upon this Insinuation, 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 Argument, that challenge the precedent approbation of my Lord of Canterbury, 
Ep. Dedic.  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, 
Supremacy of Heathen Princes.  merely 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 espousing Christianity.  
§ 4. First then, 
To require Fidelity.  all Princes may require fidelity to all their Civil Duties from all Christian Persons, Assemblies, or Synods, and consequently to offer at nothing in prejudice to any Civil Prerogatives or Rights whatsoever; 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, 
To punish Christians for not living by their own Rules.  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, 
To call Assemblies upon Protection.  They may require any Christian Assemblies or Synods to inform, and instruct the Prince, or any of his People in Matters Christian, on the engagement of Public Protection.  
§ 7. Fourthly, 
Of being present, except in matter of Communion.  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, 
Of Inspection and Caution over Assemblies, &c  Every Prince may appoint all ways of Inspection, and Caution to preserve the Peace, against all disorders, that may be suspected, or occasioned in such Synods, upon Pretences or Transactions of Religion (as being the public Guardian of all Secular Justice and Peace) by Virtue of Civil Laws, Sanctions and all Processes of Legal 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 practical Obedience or Observation.   

CHAP. IX. Of the Authority of Christian Princes over Ecclesiastical Synods in point of Reason.  
§. 1. WE have above prescribed for a Divine Right in the Catholic Church to hold Ecclesiastical Synods by the Authority of her Spiritual Governors; and in them freely to Deliberate, Consult, Act, Determine, and Decree in Matters of Doctrine, and Discipline, and Communion, to a Spiritual Obligation unto Canonical Obedience, in all the Subject Members. The Foundations hereof we have laid in the Scriptures, and deduced an Universal Succession of this Practice upon a Continued and Catholic Uncontested Claim of a Divine Authority in the Church for the three first Centuries; We have also adjusted the True Bounds of Supremacy in mere Heathen or Infidel Princes, over such Christian Assemblies; We are now to go on, and consider the Ecclesiastical Sovereignty of Christian Princes over Ecclesiastical Synods, how far it reaches, and on what grounds it stands.  
§ 2. And first, it must be granted, 
Prince, to lose 〈◊〉 Authority by being Christian  that the Authority of a Christian Sovereign must comprehend that of all others in itself, there being no Reason, that Princes should lose any Prerogatives of their Crowns by becoming 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, whereby the World receives so vast a Benefit. But because this alone is not like to give content, we will sum you up the Prerogatives of Dr. Wake, taken from our Crown here, and ascribed equally to all other Sovereign Princes, professing Christianity, what, where, and whensoever.  
§ 3. By the Submission of that most Holy, 
The 〈◊〉 of the Submission of the 〈…〉. VIII.  Undefiled, Humbled and Orthodox Convocation under K. (I had almost said St.) Henry 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, etc. without Royal Licence, &c this being but an Affirmance of an Antecedent 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; precluding hereby all possible hopes of any the least relief from our present Ties, notwithstanding all our old Franchises, our present Merits, and our future Dangers. For the ill Consequences of a Local and Positive Law, might have had remedy; but the Fundamental 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. p. 14, 41, 48, 76.  the Church has no inherent Right or Authority, to convene in Synods, but what it derives from the express Concession of the Christian Prince.  
2. For that all Synods are but of Counsel to the Prince, 
2 p. 84, 85, 136, to 139, 289, 38, 286.  and entirely in his Hands; and so  
3. Not any to be sent to the Synod, 
3. p. 28, 39, 40, 103, 104, 105.  but such as he shall allow; nor,  
4. When convened to Sat, 
4. p. 79, to 83, 106, 107, 110, 112, etc. 132.  Debate, Propose, Deliberate, Conclude, or Decree any Matter of Doctrine or Discipline whatsoever.  
5. Nor in any Method, Form, 
5. p. 44, 53, 54, 71.  or Manner whatsoever, save what the Prince admits, and that  
6. The Prince may Ratify, 
6. p. 81 to 86, 133.  Annihilate, or Altar all their Acts and Procedures, or as many of them as he pleases; and  
7. Suspend the Execution of all, 
7. p. 85 to 89, 125, 126.  and any of their Canons and Sentences;  
8. The Authority of their Acts being entirely and only his; 
8. p. 288.  and Lastly,  
9 That no Synod hath Right to dissolve its self, 
9 p. 77 to 79.  without the King's Licence.    
Where we may Note, that all these are Articles Negative of all those Liberties and Authorities of the Church under the Christian Princes, which she claimed of Divine and Vncontested Right, under Heathen Powers, for the three first Centuries of Christanity, immediately lost, and to be swallowed up of every Prince, as soon as he commences Christian. Wherefore it is necessary to look to the bottom of this Matter, upon which the Dr. builds this overthrow of all the Church's 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 General and Uniform Claim and Practice of all Christian Princes.  
§ 5. 
The Des Arguments, from Reason.  As for the former sort of Arguments, which would have been the chiefest, 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 wished; but only by light touches and glances here and there, seldom and consusedly Interspersed, given us little hints and intimations of them. Now herein perhaps he has bespoken our excuse, 
〈◊〉 7.  for that his haste 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 Anthorities: 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, 
‖ P. 44.  and consequently Supreme Governonr in order to that Protection, which the Church expects or enjoys from him, 
* p. 79.  and that such Synods hereby may become Legal Assemblies. 
† p. 18.  Secondly, In reference to the Civil State, such a plenitude of Regal Power over Ecclesiastical Synods, is necessary to the ends of Civil Government, 
¶ p. 42, 57, 70, 73. ●, p. 81.  and Peace, particularly to prevent in them Proceed prejudicial to the Regal Power. Now, if from these Reasons, there be a necessity, that the Divine Rights and Authorities of the Catholic Church in the Convention, Freedom and Acts of Synods, should thist their former Sebjects and Depositaries, and pass. over into the hands of Christian Princes; then is the Argumentation 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 Hierarchy.  
§ 7. 
Protection from Heathen Powers.  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 Immunities and Charters to his Christian Subjects, 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 Security. 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 Sovereigns, in the  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 Licence they Convened, Sat Deliberated, Debated, Promulged, and Executed Decrees, Canons, Seatences, on their own Divine Right, and in the Name of the lord 
No ground for such Authority over Synods.  And such an Inference, as would follow upon this supposed Ground of Legal Protection from Heathen Powers, I need not expose, by upbraiding the ridiculous Guise of an Heathen Prince, actually ordering, and directing all the Synodical Consults and Polity of the Christian Church, and Ratifying, Annulling, and Altering their Decrees, Acts, and Sentences, 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 mere Edict to this purpose, would be very Pretty and Congruous; as for Diversion and Example, T. V Caes. Aug. etc. 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; Upon which Consideration, you have no Right nor Liberty of yourselves, to Convene in Synods, nor to Sat, Deliberate, Act, Decrce or Resolve any Matters of your Faith, Doctrine or Discipline, by Canon, or Sentence, without the Authority of our General or Particular Licence, to every your Particular 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 powers; 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, without any Federal Ties 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 Supremacy, than many Modern Princes professing 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 Reason of our protection under Princes, is not Founded in their Christianity, but the Church's Innocency, and the Right She has to the Royal Protection in doing good, by any Acts, or Operations Synodical, or other. 
Toleration not founded on the Right of all Rehgioas tolerated but upon other exterior Reasons.  Nor will this assert a Right of Protection to all pretended Religions; for, tho' the Ignorance of a Prince, in the distinction of true Religion from bad, may occasion him in mistake, actually to persecute 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 justified, not on the Right of the Errors (which is none) but on other Reasons exterior, either of State, Peace, or other insuperable dissiculties; nor can such mistaken, or enforced 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 Jurisdiction, as in the Chapels of Ambassadors, and Foreign Factories. whose Protection is not Founded upon a supposed possibility of Truth, but upon the Reasons of Commerce and Negotiation.  
§ 8. 
Incorpon on dissers from Protection.  But if the Dr. shall here make Protection only to consist in an Incorporation of the Church into the State, and her Canons into the Laws, as this is choir another thing from bare Protection, and thought to be of a more transcendent Elevation; so it will then appear, that none of the Christion Roman 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 Catholic Church had a Divine Right in the Liberties and Authorities Synodical, continued universally inviolate and unquestioned for 300 Years, downward 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 Privileges, 
Protection inconsistent with violation of Right.  given by God, and granted to her Priests for her Conduct and Conservation? and this under a pretence of Protection? while the Church's Constitution is apparently ruined, and her Synods, heretofore free, declared now for Criminal, if not held in Villeinage? This is so contrary to the very Dictates of Nature, in the Reason and Form of Protection, that all Systems and Factions of Religion, disclaim such Bondage, and challenge a liberty as presubstrate and praevious to Protection, which is otherwise inconceivable, and the pretence thereof, a mere shame upon humane Understanding. The jews therefore, as busy as they are to be enfranchised in their several Dispersions, yet would never endure the Civil Powers thereupon, so to prescribe all the Polity 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. 
Jews, Papists, Sectaries, all for Ecclesiastical Liberty.  Not only the Romish Church, but all other Sectaries, 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 Interests, and without which they cannot apprehend any Protection to Religion, or the Societies that profess it. And to close up all, since in all Ecclesiastical History, those Synods 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, 
Liberty necessary to validity and reputation.  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 Pope's Management of the Council of Trent, and such others, if we will justify ten tiems a greater Bondage in the Councils called by Princes? What security is there for Uniformity in Doctrine, Regularity of Discipline, and Authority with the Christian Church, if all be to be done only ad nutum P—pis? The Dr. tells us of Bp. 
p. 115. King Charles the first and A. B. Land.  Lands Concurrence with K. Charles the First his Writ for, and Licence 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. Enslaving Principles under Sovereignty in General? When that Great Primate declares against Fisher, a free General Council to be the supremest Judicatory in the Catholic 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 Prosecution of which Laws they would openly and avowedly Complain, as did the Council at Ariminum, etc. And I take it, that it must pass for an eternal Rule, 
Truth and Piety free Principles.  that as Truth and Piety are freeborn Principles, so are the Depositaries or trusties of them also to be free in the Culture and Propagation of them. And they, that withdraw the Necessary freedom of these trusties, withdraw their Protection from the Principles themselves; 
Not to be committed to Slaves.  they being too noble and glorious to be committed 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, 
The forms of alienation improper.  let us in the next place examine the Form of it hereupon, which must consist in a Devolution, Occupation. or Contract with the Spiritual Powers. If by Devolution, this must be founded, either in the Original Ordinance and Constitution of God, or from the Natural Right of Sovereigns over all Persons of the same Religion. The first ground hereof I want and can, I doubt, be not where found; and we shall have occasion hereafter to make Experiment, 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 only, till they get a King of their Faith, to whom then they must turn over all their Powers. But why should this Divine Charter 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 Devolution. 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 Interest 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 matter quite different from the Secular Polity? I do desire a proof hereof, as weighty and important as the Matter and Consequences hereof are. What then, is it liable to a Despotic Occupation? This again is what a Borough will not yield upon a Quo Warranto, but will be ready to make a Counter demand of Quo Warranto from their Prince. In vain would he plead for it on the Right of Protection, while he strikes at all their Municipal Rights and Liberties. 
Be sure except the English Church here.  But we we only are the Poor, Tame, Dispirited, Drowsy 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 Ruin of Christianity.  
§ 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 Prince's 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 sanctified them to do. And these ways are in the Power and Sovereignty of an Heathen Prince, 
Chap. 8.  as is above manifested, and therefore are sufficient to the same ends in the Authority of a Christian Prince, from whose Coercion in matters of Crime, the Priesthood, how much soever to be revered by Princes, ought not to be made a Shelter or Protection. Under these Powers of Heathen Princes the Christian Synods made no Rupture on the Peace or Prerogative of the Empire, 
Church Ordinances innocent in all States.  tho' as undeservedly accused for this by the Heathens, as we are suspected of it now; Why should the same Spiritual Liberties 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 Millstones; but sure I am, hence are all the Confusions, both under the Papacy and the Reformation; 
Be sure here by all means to except England.  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 irreconcilable aversion, which no illustrious Piety can extinguish, while the Powers thereof are Chained down to mere Politic Ends and Services.  
§ 12. So that as there is no necessity, 
No Expediency in the Slavery of the Church.  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 Gild, Blemish, and Indecency in thern that cause it. Now of all things under 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 Indecorous, and Grieving as that, which oppresseth the Sanctity, Authority, and Operation of their very Functions; for maintenance of which, the Bishops of the Primitive Church were chief sought out unto Martyrdom. And yet as hateful as such Vassalage is in itself, 'tis less Odious under an Heathen than a Christian Prince. For from an open Enemy '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 Catholic Church, he is thereby federally engaged to assert all the Rights and Authorities of that Divine Communion vested by our Lord in the Christian 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 King's Salvation? And is it not a dangerous Complaisance it Priests, to fan such an Ambition, as must end in the Ruin of the Church, the Priesthood, and the Soul of the Prince, which the Liberties, and Powers Hierarchical were designed to Convert, Direct, and Preserve? It is not perhaps without an especial Providence, that Eusebius has preserved the Memory of this Artificial kind of Persecution, practised upon the Church by the Emperor Licinius, 
Lecinius his crafty Persecution.  Who prohibited the Bishops from Visiting the Neighbour Churches, or to hold Synods, Consultations, and Advices concerning matters profitable;— that so either by disobeying his Law, they might be subjected to Punishment, or by obeying his Order, dissolve the Laws of the Church; For that 'tis not 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 Domestic Cares and Exigencies of every Church, requiring a constant Watch, and frequent Consultations, the concerns of the whole Catholic Church under Heaven, aught to affect every Province and Bishopric thereof, to a frequent course of Communications, in order to a general Union and Uniformity in all the principal matters of Christianity, a duty never to be performed, but by a liberty of Synods in order thereunto, in which the Rights of the Catholic 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 restore it, and I believe, all Princes to permit and assist the restitution. Let therefore the Church be bound in all humility, by an express Law, to acquaint the Sovereign Prince with her Desires, Reasons, Places, Seasons, and Necessaries of Convening, to Petition his Leave and Favour, his Inspection, Assistance, 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 Purity of the Church, preserved by the Rules of Catholic 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, 
Ecclesiastical Liberty the best means to the Peace of the World.  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 Communion, so necessary to the preservation of Christianity, must be obstructed, if not utterly 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 Insolences, or however the Influence of Christian Communication from Churches abroad, reduced to their Primitive Union, must in all Humane probability sooner quench the Calamity, than can be expected in a state of general Division, and the insignificancy of an Oppressed and Despised Clergy. But the fatal Envy, Jealousy, and Hatred against the Priesthood, occasioned by the accursed Frauds and Tyrannies of the Church of Rome, 
Still except England, and Omnia bene.  is such an extreme in most parts of the Reformation, as obstructs their Piety, and thereupon God's Blessing, and their own Happiness, it being intolerable for such People, that are so zealous for their Civil Liberties, to be so averse to the just Rights and Immunities of a Priesthood, that is clean and pure from all corrupt or abusive Principles whatsoever; and therefore no wonder if the Reformation 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 Reform, even in those Principles, which gave the past Offences, 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 Jealousy that they will abuse us in the freedom 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 Princes over Synods from Exemplary Practices.  
§ 1. 
The Drs. three sorts of precedent Examples.  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 Examples, which are indeed the only sort he professedly insists upon, and lays 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, succeeded in the several Kingdoms and Principalities 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. 
The use of Examples in Legal Pleas for Right.  In all Legal therefore and Judicial Inquiries, Examples are alleged 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 presumption for such Act, etc. 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 dubious, if no Customary Practice had followed 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 Ruins of Time, on which the Rights and Duties of Persons and Societies, have been long and of old Founded; therefore upon the Non-appearance of such Originals, Customary Judgements Recorded, and Prescriptions Immemorial well Arrested, do generally pass for good Presumptions of a valid. Constitution, 
Things inquirable in prescriptions.  now lost or disappearing. But upon Matter Arrested, the Court Inquires 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 presume there was no such Constitution, 
Injustice & too notorious Novity, vacate Prescription.  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 Ancient, as it's 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 Concern before them. For if Inventions, notoriously new and late, because they have continued longer than any Man's Memory or Life, shall hereupon pretend themselves Founded in an Ordinance of Ages forepast, 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 Immemorial. Whereupon the Dr. by alleging Instances, must by them intent, 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 Supposition 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 uninterrupted Uniformity in the practice, beyond all Epochas, or Memory.  
§ 3. 
* Prescriptions from the practices of an  force, no Arguments of Right in the Court of Conscience.  But here is one thing more to noted in prejudice to the Rectitude of Prescriptions, taken from the practice of Sovereign and  Powers, that by Virtue (or what else you will call it) of that unaccountable 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 dost thou? So that prescription, though it will actually carry it in such a King's Courts, where the Judges are at his own choice and pleasure, yet is not a safe nor certain Criterton of real Right, before free and equal Judgements, as would appear in other Courts, or by the Resolution of Foreign Lawyers, where their Judgements 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 Nature of the Matter and the Reasons of the Royal Interest appear equal. For the verification hereof, I need not go back so far as the Licentiousness of the Caesar's, 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 Observation 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 men's 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 otherwise 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 Judgements.  
§ 4. To show the reasonableness of these Cautions and Exceptions, let us but consider, how great and large a Prescription Mahometism has in those Infidel Countries, and Popery 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 Prince's Prerogatives; and yet we see all those were, and are mere Nullities, because there is no equal bottom for them, but the certain iniquity vacates all that Right of Prescription, which yet did, and still does pass in Law through all the abused Countries; so that prescription is rather a Rule of Right among Subjects, than in Sovereigns.  
§ 5. 
The Dr. heeded not to any good Originals for his prescriptions.  Now the Dr. is so far from pretending 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 concludes 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 Foundation 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 Ecclesiastical 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 shows it impossible to be done, and so fixes a fatal prejudice against the Truth and Credit of his Reasonings; since he shows no Original Cause, Reason or Equity, presumable for the Right of such a Prescription. And therefore, since he so fatally fails at the bottom, we cannot expect any great success or assurances from his mere Historical Allegations.  
§ 5. We will therefore go on with him, and make Experiment of his most Ancient and most Divine Instance in the Jewish Kings. 
Jewish Princes. p. 10.  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 Emperor's followed their Examples, were other Author's silent, yet that one Assertion of Socrates, would not suffer us to be ignorant, where he Affirms, that ever since they became Christians, 
H. H. Praf. l. v. p. 259. C.  the Affairs of the Church have depended 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 Emperors, in managing the Synods, save only by the by, 'tis Observable, that the Dr. has cited Socrates against himself. For the Dr. asserts, 
Content. p. X. Ch. 1. § 6.  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 proper Matter of the present Enquiry; it seems to the Dr. that the Emperors herein followed and copied after the Platforms of the Jewish Princes, herein manifest to every one that Reads their History in Scripture, 
Synagogue Forms not extant in Scripture.  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 Conduct, under their Princes exhibited to us. So that 'twas so far impossible in Fact, that the Christian Emperors herein exactly followed the Jewish Patterns, that there were no Jewish Patterns in God's Word, to be followed at all, much less with exactness; nor is it probable, that the Christian Emperors 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 mention, much less Recommendation and Authority to prescribe Law to the Christian Church for ever, but by its Absolute and Total Silence herein, seem to intent, that that Polity should, instead of such prescriptive Power, together with the Law, be nailed to our Saviour's 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 Ancients, as no shades of it in the Scriptures, nor Authority for it any where.  
§ 7. But supposing the Jewish Princes had managed the Synods of the Synagogue, according 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 written his Book for this sort of Supremacy. But if bare pretences alone, create no Right, and the Christian Emperors exactly followed them herein, than Christian Princes have hereupon, only pretence for this their Authority. So that the Drs. Cause required stronger Assertions of Right in the Jewish Kings, Assigned in the Laws and Constitutions of God, 
Mishpat Hammelech.  by which they were very particularly constituted. But herein there is the profoundest Silence, 
I Sam. 8.11, to 19  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, 
Cyp. Ep. 65. § 1. Et ut hoc ulcisceretur, excitavit eye Saul Regem, qui eos injuriis gravibus afligeret, & per omnes contumelias & paenas superbum populum calcaret et premeret, ut contemptus Sacerdos de superbo populo divinâ ultione vindicaretur.  yet does not so much assert a Right, as denounce it an  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 oppressions to Matters Secular only, not permitting the insolence to rage's also over their Sacred and Religious Liberties, 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 punishment to a Rebellious People, for the Right of such Practices in Princes upon the Christian 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 than there is no Law, nor Praecedent 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 Question in the first Christian Emperors, who are said to Claim, Use, 
The Original of Censtantiaes' Supremacy.  and to be rightly Invested 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 thereof, 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, than all Sovereigns, Heathens, Turks, Jews, would simply have it; and all Acts of Synods otherwise managed would not only be Nullities, 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 General 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 Canon's Ecclesiastical, for all those before Constantine's time had no respect to any Temporal Powers; 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 Synodical Supremacy, for the three first Centuries 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, 
The Legal Original of our King's Supremacy.  belonged not to Constantine 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 Church's Authorities were given by God in order to Church Duties, and that the Church can no more part with one than the other, as being inseparable 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 myself 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 never dreamed 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, 
Why Kings were not made the first Apostles.  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 Merchandise the Hypocrites would make of it, 
Athan. ad Orthodox. Tom. 1. P. 944. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (to set up Bishops by Kingly force) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  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 Christian; 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 easy, 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 Character of a State Engine, he lodged the Spiritual 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 whatsoever through all Ages; that so, tho' they were to be subject to Civil Powers to the enforcement of their Duties, and for repression 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 forever.  
§ 11. 
The Christian Character of the first Princes in the Prescription.  But there is one thing more to be considered in the two first Emperors instanced by the Doctor for this universal Domination of Princes over Synods, and that is, their Christian Character, to qualify them for this Omnipotency. For tho' the Doctor in his few interspersed Reasons for it, gives no distinctive grounds for an higher and interior Supremacy in Christian, than in Heathen Princes; yet for a good Grace, 
Praef. p. 5.  he tells us, That whatever Privileges do belong herein to the Christian Magistrate, 
p. 94, 96.  they belong to him as such, which must, I suppose, be the Rule of Interpreting other Places, where he more loosely omits the Christian Qualification. But here I would fain know, what 'tis shall denominate a Prince Christian, and that in order to this Authority? 
Internal Authority in Societies grounded upon an Internal Right of Communion.  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 Internal Right of Authority to make Laws about them; he who is not within the Communion, has no Right to pass Sentence for the Ejection, or the Restitution of others. He may presume to do it upon an  Force and Tyranny, and the reasons pretended for it may be in themselves good and necessary, and so be admitted and observed by the Church at the Command of an Usurping Power, not in Conscience of his just Authority, 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 Constantius so much concerned themselves about Church Synods, yet were they not yet Baptised into the plenary Communion of Saints in the Christian Church, nor so much as made Competents or Catechumen by Imposition 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 Usurpation, and a Nullity in itself. Had they been Catechumen or Competents, a pretence might have thereupon been form, that they alone might make Ordinances for those preliminary Statious; but not surely for Baptism, Consirmation, Lord's Supper, Holy Orders, Anathemas, Absolutions, etc. Had they been Baptised, and so qualified for Confirmation and the Eucharist, it might not have looked so odd in them to have set Rules for such Sacraments, and the common Laity in their Celebration, but for Ordinations, and Hierarchical Powers of the Spirit over the Souls of the Laity, and Clergy, how incongtuous must it have been in any Emperor to assume the whole Legislature and Ordinance? In these therefore the Laws of Princes may well follow Ecclesiastical Constitutions by the Sanction of Secular Penalties; but the Constitutions 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, lest they that use it Sacrilegiously, perish by it Eternally. 
Constantius his want of Right over Synods.  For as to Constantius, whom most accuse to be aresolute Heretic, and they, that speak most softly of him, represent him as Patron of Heresy through simple Ignorance, he thereby became, not a Guardian of the Church, or the public Peace thereupon, hereby to sound his Right of Supremacy, but a very great Persecutor and Embroiler of the Catholic Church even by managing Synods, which no doubt in an Unbaptized state of Heresy he had no true Right, nor proper Authority to do; for whatsoever Right a mere Alien Prince may have, while he professes no Enmity, no doubt a Professed Enemy has no Lawful 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 declared 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 Catholic Bishops, but none at all in him or his Arians. I might here add, that the Father's might. Convene upon his Call, for fear of Persecution, not in Conscience 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 concede their Dissolution. at Ariminuns, 
Right of Dissolution.  they dissolved themselves, not thinking themselves guilty of any sin of Disobedience, (for who could imagine so of the Conscience of 400 Catholic Bishops, suffering for the Faith under Constantius his Tyranny?) tho' the Dr. so charges them; 
p. 77  notwistanding the resentments of the Emperor at their Dissolution. 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 immediately precedent page, 
p 66.  That the Clergy have ever acknowledged it for a Right of Christian Princes, that no Synods can dissolve themselves, nor departed from any such Council, without the Licence 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 suffrage, I suppose he has not in this Matter.  
Sequntur quaedam Testimonia Veterum Athan. count. Arian. Orat. 1. Tom. 1. p. 295. 
Synodonum Libertas.  de Patribus Nicaenis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Synod. Alexandrin. ap. Athan. Apolog. Tom. 1. p. 728. 
Synodus Tyriens con. Athan.  C. De Pseudo-Synodo Tyri count. Athan. coactâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. vide— ibid. p. 730. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. ad Solitar. vir. agentes. Tom. 1. p. 831. D. de Paulino Trevirensi, Lucifero Sardiniae, Eusebio Vercellensi, & Dionysio Mediolanensi con. sulentibus Conslantio; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 832. A. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 833. A. Liberius Epise. Rom. ad Constantii Spadon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 839. D. Hosius Constantio de Constante Imperatore. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 840. A. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 862. B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazian. in tertio Irenico. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deinde ad Magnates & Rectores. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Ambrose. 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 Sacerdotibus voluit judicare. Quinetiam si alias quoque argueretur Episcopus, & morum esset examinanda causa, etiam hanc voluit ad Episcopale judicum pertinere.— Quando audisti, clementissime Imperator, in causâ fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicasse? Ita ergo quadom adulatione curvamur, ut sacerdot alis juris simus immemores, & quoth Dens ●onavit mihi, hoc ipse aliis putem esse credendum, si docendus est Episcopus à Laico, quid sequetur? Laicus ergo disputet, & Episcopus audiat; Episcopus discat a Laico, At certe si vel Scripturarum seriem divinarum, vel vetera tempora retractemus, quìs est qui abruit in causâ sidei, in causâ, inquam, sidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis, non Imperatores de Episcopis Judicare? Eris, Deo favente, etiam Senectutis Maturitate provectior, & tunc de hoc censebius, quali● ille Episcopus sit, qui laicis jus Sacerdotale 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 inhabilem 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 multarentur, qui tamen inslexam statim revocavere sententiam.  
Et Ep. l. 5. Orat. in Auxent. etc.— videte quanto pejores Aniani sunt quam judaei: Illi quaerebant utrum solvendum putaret Caesari jus tributi: Isti Imperatori dare volunt jus Ecclesiae.— Tributum Caesaris est, non negatur: Ecclesia Dei est: Caesari utique 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, etc. 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 subjecta— Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia; illius esse universa; Respondeo, noli te gravare Imperator, ut putes to in ea quae divina sunt, imperiale aliquodjus habero. Noli te extollere, sed s●vis diutius imperare, esto Deo subditus.— Ad Imperatorem Palatia pertinent, ad Sacerdotem Ecclesiae Publicorum tibi maenium jus commissum 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 Emperor's Synods acted simply as Ecclesiastical Councils, and (tho' the Dr. is pleased most falsely to say the contrary) asserted the Canonical validity of their Acts, whether the Prince would or no, tho' those Councils, which the Emperors called, gave them account of their Procedures, and for Peace (not Rights) sake, desired their Approbation, 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 between 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 King's Assent and Ratification, became essentially Necessary. 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 unlimited Domination of all Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods, and avers them as Legal Precedents; but when the Instances in Fact for the freedom of the Clergy are considered, these he denies to be evictions of Right.   

Chap. 5. § 21.  
Pag. 295. The Ancient 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 Licence 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 itself, 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 Emperor, 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 universal Right and Authority in Synods Ecclesiastical, 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 Emperor's Authority, and so accordingly, Book Chap. 2. § 6. p. 16.  

These also (viz. lesser Synods) were convened by them, or were summoned by some Authovity, that was derived from them. p. 17. They suffered not any Assemblies of the Clergy to be made, but by their leave, and according to their direction. So § 13. p. 29, and § 19 p. 41.  But Chap. 2. § 2. p. 10. he citys Socrates Saying, the greatest Synods have been Assembled by their Order, and still continue to be Assembled by them. Which plainly shows lesser Ones usually were not. And § 26. p. 62. he reports, that john of Antioch Arriving at Ephesus, after the Council there had condemend Nestorius, form another Synod there, of about thirty Metropolitans, that came thither with him, and deposed Cyril Precedent of the Imperial Council, etc. vide. So § 36. p. 86. He mentions two Provincial Synods, one at Rome under Celestine, and another at Alexandria under Cyril, condemning Nestorius before the Council of Ephesus; yet neither of these were called by the Imperial 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 Supported by the Emperor; which Roman Synod therefore could not be Called, nor Authorized by the Emperor.   

Chap. 2. § 4. p. 14.  

It was necessary that, in order to their meeting lawfully, the express Command, or Allowance, of the Emperor, 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 judges when it is proper to Convene them.  But p. 43. he thus yields, When ever the civik Magistrate shall so far abuse his Authority, as to render it necessary for the Clergy, by some extraordinary Methods, to provide for the Church's Welfare, that necessity will warrant that taking of them● And Ch. 5. § 4. p. 267, 268. When the Exigences of the Church call for a Convocation, than 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 Church's 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 unlawful 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 submitted to his Commands, and chose rather to suffer by their Obedience (I suppose rather not to suffer by Obedience) than to Usurp an Authority, which they were sensible, did not belong to them. See p. 34.   

Remark.  
Now if this had been spoken only of General 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 overrun the greatest part of Africa, and by their Authority set up the Arrian Heresy in opposition to the Catholic Faith; which beforce prevailed in those parts; Hunericus their King, at the desire of the Arrian Bishops, summoned a general Convention of all the Catholic 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 Bishoprics, 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 Catholic Faith too, against which no Princes have Authority to set up Heresy against the greater Authority of God: yet that Arian Prince had as good Authority to depose the Faith, as he had to Convene and Depose the Catholic 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 departed from it.   

Remark.  
This is in effect a Revocation of his former avowed Assertion, that no lesser Synods were ever convened without the allowance of the Emperors. For tho' he says, it will be hard to find any contrary Instance; yet having himself given four in John of Antioch, Celestine, Cyril, and Leo, and there being infinitely more such to be produced out of the Histories of the Empire; he was forced in Conscience hereof to say, That they were never justified for departing from this Rule, and that is much the same thing with not having departed from it. But not so, good Sir: for in a confessed Right there is no need of a Justification; but it is sufficient in such, and so very many Synods held without any reference to Emperors, that there was no Rule or Law against them, nor ever any Censure of Irregularity passed upon them; If the Prince was angry at it, he might call another to review the matters; but he never could condemn the Provincial Conventions, merely, for being made without his Licence.   

Of the Total Authority.  
This in all Acts Synodical he avowedly attributes to the Prince yet unhappily falls sometimes 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 Emperor's Order (for suspending the Sentence 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 Order? Or how was it pertinent to the Doctor's Principle, ch. 2. § 25. p. 56. to allege Receswinthus, magno precatu deliberationis exhortantem, exhorting the eighth Council of Toledo with great entreaty, to consider the matters he laid before them?   

Of the Prince's Ability to Judge matters Theological. ch. 2. § 31. p. 71, 72.  
The Arguments given for this are very languid, and repugnant to common experience, and may as well be applied to the Reputation of a Beggar's Judgement in Matters Divine. But yet it must be allowed, that before a Prince gives the Definitions of a Synod a Legal Sanction, or his own recommendatory Suffrage, 'tis fit he should understand 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 Ecclesiastic Ministries; tho' the Doctor ascribes the Authority of imposing belief on the Subjects to the Confirmations of the Kings. lb. p. 75. I hope, saith he, they will think it to be their Duty, in order to his confirming their Decrees with a good Conscience, to convince him of the Truth of them, and not expect, that he should not only believe himself, but should oblige others to BELIEVE, what neither he, nor they see any reason to believe. The Fathers, that scouted the second Sirmian Creed (that dated itself in the Presence of Constantius, and under the Consulship of Flavius Ensebius, and Hypatius in the tenth of the Calends of ●nne) for ascribing so late a beginning in but the Presence of a Prince, how would they have blessed themselves, had they heard any man ascribe to Princes an Authority of making Subjects believe, or had they read any such passaage 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 Encouragement from the Civil Power, must be left to the Prince to determine. (So far 'tis tolerable well) And the Definitions of Synods in favour of it will signify very little, till what they have determined to be the Right Faith, be also allowed by the Civil Magistrate to the publicly Professed and Taught; and be received into his Favour, and under his Patronage as such? Suit 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 whatsoever liking any other Archbishop might have had to this Doctrine of the Doctors, I hope this is none, for which the Doctor will challenge his present Grace's 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 Heaven, and their sins be retained, which they retain; if they are Repealable by an Earthly Prince? Has this Earthly Potentate a Commission to bind and lose, 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 considered here, that Kings are only concerned in Church Censures, as by the Laws they are to have a Civil effect, not as to their Spiritual 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 conceive, that so ancient 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 People. The Government has entrusted 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 Common and Statute Law; which whether God approves, or no, must be left to his Judgement 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 virtue of their Sovereignty.   

Of the Parallel of Counsellor and Jury. Chap. 5. § 15. p. 289.  
Will not their Resolutions be their own, because the King declared to them the general Matter upon which they were to consult? Is a Counsellor at Law of no Use, 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, etc. But what strange Notions must that Man have, that thinks a Synod to have only a freedom of Opinion, like a Counsellor, without any Decisive Authority, and yet compare that very freedom of Opinion to the Verdict of a Jury, which is Authoritatively 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 Doctor's Incongruities; which, tho' necessary to show the weakness of the Work, that a false Reputation may not recommend the ill Principles, I had never offered to public notice, had he not used his Generous Adversary, not only with extreme Spite, but undeserved Contempt, insulting over him as a Man of no Honesly, Logic, Law, or History, etc. I could have added a great many more such absurdities, but the employ is uneasy, and so I quit it; and shall only wish that the Doctor may humble himself to God for the wrongs he has done to the Church, and when he has done so, he will quickly endeavour to make her Reparation.  
FINIS.