Another argument against the legislative power in the clergy of England, is, p. viii. that Tacitus telleth us; that in great affairs, the Germans consulted the whole body of the people. “De minoribus rebus principes consultant, de majoribus omnes:  Ita tamen, ut ea quoque, quorum penes plebem arbitrium est, apud principes pertractentur.”—­Tacitus de Moribus et Populis Germaniae.  Upon which Tindal observeth thus:  “De majoribus omnes, was a fundamental amongst our ancestors long before they arrived in Great Britain, and matters of religion were ever reckoned among their majora.” (See Pref. p. viii. and ix.) Now it is plain, that our ancestors, the Saxons, came from Germany:  It is likewise plain, that religion was always reckoned by the heathens among their majora:  And it is plain, the whole body of the people could not be the clergy, and therefore, the clergy of England have no legislative power.

Thirdly, p. ix.  They have no legislative power, because Mr. Washington, in his “Observations on the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Kings of England,” sheweth, from “undeniable authorities, that in the time of William the Conqueror, and several of his successors, there were no laws enacted concerning religion, but by the great council of the kingdom.”  I hope, likewise, Mr. Washington observeth that this great council of the kingdom, as appeareth by undeniable authorities, was sometimes entirely composed of bishops and clergy, and called the parliament, and often consulted upon affairs of state, as well as church, as it is agreed by twenty writers of three ages; and if Mr. Washington says otherwise, he is an author just fit to be quoted by beaux.

Fourthly,—­But it is endless to pursue this matter any further; in that, it is plain, the clergy have no divine right to make laws; because Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Queen Elizabeth, with their parliaments will not allow it them.  Now, without examining what divine right the clergy have, or how far it extendeth; is it any sort of proof that I have no right, because a stronger power will not let me exercise it?  Or doth all, that this author says through his preface, or book itself, offer any other sort of argument but this, or what he deduces the same way?

But his arguments and definitions are yet more supportable than the grossness of historical remarks, which are scattered so plentifully in his book, that it would be tedious to enumerate, or to shew the fraud and ignorance of them.  I beg the reader’s leave to take notice of one here just in my way; and, the rather, because I design for the future to let hundreds of them pass without further notice.  “When,” says he, p. x. “by the abolishing of the Pope’s power, things were brought back to their ancient channel, the parliament’s right in making ecclesiastical laws revived of course.”  What can possibly be meant by this “ancient channel?” Why, the channel that things ran in before the Pope had any power in England:  that is to say, before Austin the monk converted England, before which time, it seems, the parliament had a right to make ecclesiastical laws.  And what parliament could this be?  Why, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons met at Westminster.