SECT. XVIII. 256 In what cases the spiritual judge ought not to obey. PREFAT. temporal judge might do) but to the excommunication itself, DISCOURSE, to bring the act to its actual and last effect, or what perhaps will please our author better, to the very execution of the act for as high-church and high-flyer as he may call me, or think me to be, I think, in such cases as this before us, where the magistrate enacts that a man guilty of a crime that deserves excommunication shall be "excluded from the fellowship of Christ's Church," that the spiritual ought to be "the executioner" of the temporal power, and to be aiding and assisting thereunto. I say, "in all such cases, where the magistrate enacts that any person guilty of a crime which deserves excommunication," because if excommunication were enacted as a punishment for smaller crimes, which in no wise deserved it, there the spiritual power is not to obey the magistrate. As for example, if an act of parliament were made to excommunicate any person who happened to fall asleep in the church, the spiritual judges ought rather to suffer any penalty, than to pronounce the sentence of excommunication for such an offence, that was no more than a common human infirmity, for which the offender could not deserve to be excluded from the communion of saints, from the fellowship of the Catholic Church. Such a solemn abuse and profanation of the power of the keys would itself deserve excommunication; and therefore the spiritual magistrate, whose duty I own it to be obedient to the temporal in all lawful things, ought rather, with Christian patience and submission, to undergo any punishment, than to do so wicked and unlawful a thing. SECT. XIX. On the Sacerdotal He argues against the sacerdotal office and order, as he thinks, in a very popular, I am sure in a very mobbish manner, Office and as if it had nothing peculiar and proper to it, which is unOrdination. lawful for others to do. "If the office of a clergyman," saith he, "was so appropriated, that it was unlawful for others to с ... Rights, pp. 130, 131. .. ORDERS. His admission respecting separate and paid teachers. 257 maintenance wholly to attend that end." Very right, Sir; OF HOLY for, as it is commonly said, it is likewise very true, that 'what is every body's is no body's work; and therefore in his scheme of a Church two things, it seems, are convenient, and fit to be done; first, that some men should be appointed on purpose wholly to attend on these holy offices; and secondly, that they should have a sufficient maintenance allowed them upon that account. Here then it is lawful for the people, though not for God, nor the prince, to annex profits, and tack revenues and preferments to the ministers or officers of holy things. But this in other places was to 'discourage impartial examination,' to 'make men hypocrites,' and 'dissemblers with Godd,' to 'give the magistrate a power over men's properties,' to 'encourage men to profess such speculative opinions as they do not believe," and invent a thousand sophistical and knavish methods' (which none understands better than himself), 'to defend them, to the infinite prejudice of truth.' 'It is the occasion of extinguishing humanity among Christians, of dividing them into several sects,' and 'makes the clergy in all countries the magistrate's deputies, and generally speaking, of the religion to which they find preferments annexed".' These are the evil influences and effects of maintenance and revenues, to support the ministers of Christ; but contributions and salaries, though never so great, with houses never so good, would have no such effects on the ministers of the people in any church of their erection. If a congregation consisting of a thousand rich Arians, Socinians, or other Unitarians, should according to his scheme choose our author for their minister, then, good man, nothing would be too much or too great for him. Four or five hundred per annum would not 'discourage him from impartial examination;' nay were the whole nation Arians, and the people had as many ministers of their own making and choice, as the Church hath canonical ministers now, their maintenance and revenues, which generally speaking would be much better than that of the clergy, would in no degree influence their pure minds, or incline them to be of that religion, which in all its congregations HICKES. d Rights, p. 17. S f Ibid., p. 23. DISCOURSE, 258 The Divine institution of the priesthood; a question of fact; PREFAT. had such comfortable maintenance for its ministers of the SECT. XIX. people's choice. But to let this pass, is it necessary for the people, in his notion of Churches, to appoint some to minister in holy things; and may not God appoint an order of men for the same purpose in the Holy Catholic Church? Are there some holy things, some religious duties, as he is forced to acknowledge", that "cannot conveniently be left in common, but for order sake" must be committed to the care of some particular persons, who are wholly to attend them; and may not God set apart a perpetual order and succession of public officers and ministers in His Church, for ever to attend those things; with peculiar power and authority under Christ to teach them, as doctors or preachers; to govern them as rulers; and to bless them as priests? Whether He hath done so or no, is, as I must still observe, a question of fact, which must be determined by the practice of the Apostles, and the universal practice of the Church in all places since the time of the Apostles, which is the best commentary upon their practice; and I will yet presume, that the ancient histories of the Church and writings of the eldest fathers, many of which I have produced in the following letters, as evidence for the Divine institution of the Christian priesthood, are much better testimonies for it, than all that our author hath said, or by the help of all the deistical or atheistical clubs in the town can say against it. Well, but "every man can do what a clergyman doth;" but can he do it with sacerdotal authority? Can he do it as a liturg, as a public officer and minister of Jesus Christ? And "it is every man's duty to do what he can to save another's soul;" but can he do it in a sacerdotal ministerial manner, as an officer to whom God hath committed the charge of souls, as a shepherd of the flock over which Christ hath made him an overseer, as a watchman for souls, as a minister of the New Testament, and as an ambassador from God to men? So he saith, "It is every Christian man's duty to reprove, rebuke, admonish, exhort." but how? to rebuke sharply with all authority, to reprove and rebuke as a superior, to admonish as one that hath the rule over others in the Lord, and after due admo* [Ibid.] Rights, p. 131. ¡ [Ibid.] necessary to the Priests' acting with authority. 259 ORDERS. nition to censure; to give things in charge, as a governor.; OF HOLY to receive accusations before witnesses, as one who was to be answerable to Him 'in the midst of the golden candlesticks,' [Rev. ch. 2, and 3.] who hath 'the sharp sword with two edges,' for mal-administration; as 'an angel of a Church,' as his servant and trustee, for 'suffering the woman Jezebel,' and 'tolerating the doctrines of Balaam and the Nicolaitans,' and not turning the teachers of them out of the Church. But still "every man can do what a clergyman doth, and it is every man's duty to do what he can to save another's soul;" and may not every woman do what a clergyman doth? And do not the texts he cites' to no purpose against the sacerdotal orders, relate to women as well as to men, to the sisters as well as the brethren of the Church. This he cannot but acknowledge, unless he will contradict his Ulpian, upon whose authority the civil law saith, verbum hoc 'siquis' tam masculos quam fœminas complectitur. I would also fain know of our author what things a Jewish priest was to do, which every man or woman could not do as well as he? and if it was not every Jew's duty, man or woman, to save another Jew's soul? And I pray my reader to consider, if this way of arguing against the clergy is not the very same, or very like to that of Corah and Dathan" against Moses and Aaron, to whom they said, "Ye take too much upon you, seeing all [Numb. 16. the congregation are holy every one of them, and the Lord is among them; wherefore then lift you up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?" "You lift up yourselves,' said they, 'above the people of the Lord,' and so saith our author of the clergy, that they assume to themselves a power, an arbitrary power over the people,' and 'put themselves in God's place;' just indeed as Moses and Aaron did, who did not put themselves in God's place, because God put Ibid., pp. 132, 133. [The texts cited are, Heb. x. 24, 25; iii. 13; Col. iii. 16; 1 Thess. v. 11; 1 Cor. xiv.; Acts viii. 4.] m [Digest., lib. i. tit. 16. de verborum significatione, sect. i. referring to Ulpian, lib. i. ad edictum.] See Dr. Featly's "Dippers Dipt, [or the Anabaptists ducked and plunged over head and ears, at a disputation in Southwark," by Daniel Featly, D.D.] ed. 5. 1651, Article iv. ["Concern- 3.] PREFAT. DISCOURSE, 260 Their authority distinguishes magisterial from private acts. them in His. Indeed this anabaptistical and quaker-way of SECT. XIX. arguing is of as much force against Moses as against Aaron, against all orders of men in the state as well as in the Church, that is, it is of no force at all. For what cannot other men do as well as the king, or his judges, or justices of peace? But can they do it legally, can they do it validly, or cum juris effectu, with effect in law? What cannot other citizens do, as well as my lord mayor? But can they do it with the same authority? And is it not every man and woman's duty to keep the peace of the kingdom, and of the city where he dwells? But is it their duty to keep it as public officers and legal guardians of the peace? Thus men of our author's implacable hatred to priesthood matter not how they argue, or what they say, so it be against the order, or succession, or revenues of the clergy, or what confusion they bring upon the world, if they can but confound priests. The doctrine of the Church being a society of God's institution, or the external visible kingdom of Christ upon earth, being, for want of due instruction, not so well understood by all Christians in these as in ancient times, gives her enemies great advantages of deceiving the people by such like false reasonings as these, which in former ages would have made no impression upon Christian people; and whether the Church is not such a society, which hath its public officers and ministers appropriated to teach and govern their flocks, and who have power from God to censure and turn out, is, as I have had occasion to say often, a question of fact, of which I hope I have given sufficient evidence in the following books. But before I finish my answer to this argument, I cannot but observe, that in one place he limits his general expressions, saying, that "most things which the clergy are obliged to perform are every man's duty." If every man, therefore, can do but most things the clergy can do, then there are some things so appropriated to their office that other men may not do; and I would fain know of him what they are; for in other places he excepts none, no not administering the holy Eucharist, as in p. 104 and 108, where, without any reverence for God or the practice of the Church, he calls the consecration of the elements "conjuration," |