former Head It was then a Principle that * Epist 55. ad Antonianum Edit Oxen Cypr. Secundus was Nullus which will as much invalidate the Consecrations of the present Anti-Bishops as it did that of Novatian This is a Principle so universally acknowledged where-ever there can be but one that it needs no Authorities to recommend it No Man can convey the same thing twice and therefore if there be two Bonds for the same thing to several Persons the second can never be thought obliging but by supposing the Invalidity of the first So also in all Monarchical Districts none can suppose an Anti-Monarch's Title good till he has shewn that the first Monarch's Title is not so Thus this Principle needed no Authority and yet it had all the Authority of the whole Catholick Church of that Age. The whole Collegium of Catholick Bishops that is St. Cyprian's Term gave their communicatory Letters not to Novatian but Cornelius and received none to their own Communion on the communicatory Letters of Novatian but only on those of Cornelius And that upon this same common Principle that Cornelius being once validly Bishop of Rome Novatian could never be a Bishop of that same District without the Death or Cession or Deprivation of Cornelius and that supposing him no Bishop of that Place to which he was consecrated he could be no Bishop at all So far they were then from our late Fancy of a Bishop of the Catholick Church without a particular District Had they thought so they might have ratified Novatian's Acts as a Bishop because he had received his Power from Bishops tho' not as Bishop of Rome Comparing the Catholick Church to a Fanum or Temple he was Profanus as not being in the Temple nor having a Right to enter into it Comparing it to the House in which the Passover was to be eaten by the Jews he was Foris not in that House in which alone the Passover was to be eaten These were the Notions of St. Cyprian and were by him and his Colleagues understood of the Catholick Church in general when they all supposed Novatian out of the Catholick in general by being out of that particular Church of Rome of which he had formerly been a Member Just as in ordinary Excommunications they also always supposed that he who was by any Act of obliging Authority deprived of his Right to his own particular Church had also lost his Right thereby to all the particular Churches in the World And they also supposed Novatian to have cast himself out of his own Body by assuming to himself the Name of a Head of that Body which already had a Head and could have no more than one And these Notions and this Language of St. Cyprian were supposed and owned universally by the whole Body of the Catholick Bishops of his Time when they acted consequently to them and took them for the Measures by which they either granted or refused their own Communion Nor is it to be thought strange that these Notions should be received and received universally not as the Opinions of private Persons but as the publick Doctrine and Fundamental to the Catholick Communion as practised not only in that early Age of St. Cyprian but as derived from the Apostles themselves and the very first Originals of Christianity For these were not as private Opinions usually were only the result of private Reasonings they were received as the Fundamentals of Christianity which were not as new Revelations generally were ... from the like Notions received among the Jews and among them received not as private Opinions but as publick Doctrines and Fundamental to the then practised Sacrifical Communion of the then peculiar People and only thence deduced as other things also are in the Reasonings of the New Testament to the Case of the new Mystical Peculium and their new Mystical Sacrifices The Language of erecting Altar against Altar in St. Cyprian is derived from the like earlier Language received among the Jews * V. Discourse of one Altar c. Edit Lond. 1683. 80. concerning the Samaritan Altar of Manasses against the Jerusalem Altar of Jaddus that is of a High Priest against a High Priest when God had appointed but one High Priest in the whole World and him only at Jerusalem And it is also plain that the Body of the Jews did look on such Schismatical High Priests and all their Communicants as cut off from the Body of their Peculium and consequently from all their publick Sacrifices and all the Privileges consequent to them Why should we therefore think it strange that the Apostolical Christians should have the like Opinion of them who set up themselves as opposite Heads of their Mystical Sacrifices But this is not all It is further as notorious 3dly St. Cyp. Epist 43. Edit Oxon. that all who any way professed themselves one with Novatian were for that very Reason of their doing so taken for divided from the Catholick Church as well as he was with whom they were united Here also the reason was very evident that he who professed and by publick Profession made himself one with a Person divided must by the same Analogy of Interpretation profess himself divided and by that very Profession actually divide himself also by making himself one with the Person supposed to be divided Nor was this reason more evident than universally acknowledged in the Discipline of that Age. All such Uniters with the Schismatick were refused to be admitted to Communion not by particular Bishops only as the Case would have been if the Opinion had been singular but by all the Bishops of one Communion in the World Not only so But it is also as notorious 4thly from the Practice and Discipline of that Age that all whom they looked upon as united with Novatian they consequently looked on as divided from themselves To be sure in the first place those who had any hand in his pretended Consecration which were principally and particularly reflected on by Cornelius in his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch Nor would his People be receiv'd to Communion by any Catholick Bishop on the communicatory Letters of Novatian and they could expect none from Cornelius whilst they were divided from him Thus all his Subjects came to be involved as well as himself But that which was highest of all was that even Bishops were supposed to have divided themselves from their Brethren if they communicated with him that is if according to the custom of that Age they either gave communicatory Letters to him or receiv'd any to their own Communion on the like communicatory Letters receiv'd from him This appear'd plainly in the Case of Martian of Arles who was on this very account denied the communicatory Letters of his Brethren and would no doubt have appeared also in the Case of Fabius of Antioch if he had proceeded so far And this does plainly suppose that such Bishops also had cut themselves off from Catholick Communion
AN ABSTRACT OF Common Principles OF A Just Vindication OF THE RIGHTS OF THE Kingdom of God Upon EARTH Against the Politick Machinations of Erastian Hereticks Out of the Vindication of the Deprived Bishops c. By a very Learned Man of the Church of England LONDON Printed Anno Domini 1700. THE PREFACE THE Kingdom of God upon Earth is in its Institution and in its own Nature really a Glorious Kingdom tho' through the ill Administration of those to whom it hath been committed it hath never yet appeared in its true and proper Lustre and at present not only seems to be but really is in a divided shattered and dejected condition God in great Wisdom doth very often with great Bodies of Men as he doth with particular Persons put them to School to the Mistress of Fools leave them to eat the Fruit of their own doings and to learn Wisdom by their own Experience to experiment and even feel the Insufficiency of Humane Powers the Deceitfulness of Humane Wisdom the Malice Subtilty and Power of their Invisible Adversaries and the Abundance of his Goodness the Infallibility of his Wisdom and the Irresistibility of his Power and their own intire Dependance upon Him and absolute need of continual Supply of all these from Him and of constant Subjection and Conformity thereunto If Men would therefore at last after so long Experience open their Eyes lift up their Heads and well consider the Admirable Wisdom of his Divine Institution the Excellent Accommodation of it for the Good and Benefit of Mankind and of all Degrees Orders States and Conditions amongst them and how and by what Ways and Means it hath come to pass that the World hath been so little sensible of and received no more Benefit from so powerful and effectual a Divine Favour as the Institution of this Kingdom is and would have produced long since had it been improved as it ought and lastly consider every one in his place but especially they who are in chief Places in Church or State what the Interest of this blessed Kingdom and the glorious King thereof do require of all and of themselves in particular for their own Good and the common Good of all and then without more a-do apply themselves with full Resolution to order all their Actions in Conformity thereunto and to approve their Fidelity to their Soveraign and his Interest as becomes Good Subjects they would soon perceive and receive the Benefit thereof and behold it in its Glory And tho' there is at present little appearance of any such Disposition in those who are first in place that they will be forwardest in such Actions yet whoever will heartily do their part in this as there is none but may do something so there is nothing that they can do so mean if they do all they can but will obtain a Glorious Reward far above all this World can afford But it will require no little Courage Generosity Magnanimity and Constancy to perform it for such is the Nature and Terms of true Loyalty in this Kingdom as will shake off Multitudes of Pretenders when they come for Admittance Yet it is in short but first to dispose themselves for the receiving of Truth and then when fairly proposed cordially imbrace it own and profess it stick to it and act accordingly For the first of these there is lately printed a short Recipe and some of the most important and fundamental Truths for this purpose are here treated in the following ABSTRACT by a very Learned Man of the Church of England established by Law and a great and zealous Champion for it It is true it is but an Abstract but an Abstract of what is very hard to be met with and of the very Marrow of it the rest being only critical Learning of little or no use to the greatest part of even intelligent Readers but only for Scholars and such as are curious in Matters of little moment And for such as desire to see more to this purpose they may have recourse to a Learned Book of the Sinfulness and Mischief of Schism in 40. and another in 8vo of One Altar and One Priesthood besides a special Learned Defence of this Vindication much more common to be had than the Vindication it self More was intended concerning this Kingdom and the true Subjects of it for the proper Use and Application of this Catholick Doctrine but because it may be more seasonable when the Doctrine hath been received and digested it may be sufficient here to add only this Admonition That Separation from Separatists is no Separation from the One Body and Unity of this Kingdom Nor is Visible or Episcopal inconsistent with Schismatical but a Schismatical Communion may be really both and hath been heretofore nay most visible in the same City or Country and truly Episcopal tho' what is not so cannot but be Schismatical and besides all this Established by Law Common Principles Of a just Vindication of the Rights of the Kingdom of God Upon EARTH c. CHAP. I. That for Clergy-Men to appear in a Cause destructive of the Interest of Religion in general and of their own Function in particular is inexcusable THAT the Laity should be favourable to Mistakes derogatory to the Sacred Power cannot be thought strange in an Age wherein they generally use so little Diligence to inform themselves or to receive Information from those who are qualified to inform them concerning the Rights of the Clergy Their own Interests are alone sufficient to make them partial in affairs of this nature tho' they were more sincerely influenced by Considerations of Religion than we generally find them But that Clergy-Men should also favour them in Incroachments on their own Function that they should professedly patronize Doctrines tending to lessen the Esteem of that greatest and most valuable of all Authorities wherewith God has honoured and intrusted none but them that they should make it depend on the Pleasure of the Magistrate which was designed for greater and more noble Ends than the Magistracy it self that they should put it in his Power to destroy the very Being of the Church as a Society by a secular Deprivation that they should not only Own but Teach That none are obliged to adhere to themselves in such a Case wherein the Magistrate is against them no not so much as in regard of Conscience that they should by this means make the greatest and most momentous Concerns for Souls subordinate to Worldly Carnal Politicks and the far less weighty Interests of Worldly Prosperity and of particular Societies that they should hereby make it least capable of subsisting under a Persecution which was the Case most obvious in the View of our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles and therefore most particularly provided for if they took care for any thing beyond their own time These things I say would not be very credible if they were not very notorious One would think none who valued the general good of
Religion and the Catholick Church and the Souls of Mankind before the temporal Prosperity of any particular State and it is hard to conceive how any good Man can do otherwise could even wish such Opinions true tho' his Wish alone were sufficient to make them so How then is it agreeable that Clergy-Men of all Men should be the most favourable and zealous Advocates for such Opinions so manifestly destructive of those greatest Interests which they of all Men ought best to understand and to be most zealously concerned for How is it agreeable that they of all Men cannot be content to let the Memory of ill Presidents die but that they must alarm us with future Fears of having them acted again by not only Abetting but also Justifying them How is it agreeable that they should do this in a Prospect such as ours is of a Laity so little concerned for the Good of Religion and the Church when even they who have any Principles have such lax ones and so very little obliging them even in Conscience to venture any thing for any particular Communion That their preferring their Worldly Concerns depending on the Pleasure of the Magistrate before the greater Concerns of Souls and Eternity is the true Cause of it is not to be believed while there are any Reasons that might induce them to it Yet little Reasons cannot in Equity excuse when the Consequences ought to be so very valuable on that very account of Mens being either Good or Religious Much less when the Consequences of the Principles on which they proceed are such in respect to the Publick Interests even of their own Church as put it in the Power of a Popish or Schismatical Prince and even of a secret Infidel or Apostate to dissolve it when they please Suppose a Popish Prince with a Popish Parliament should turn their Principles that is the Principles of these Men against themselves and deprive all our Bishops with one Act of State I cannot see what these Fathers can pretend to secure their Church as a Society and as a Communion in Opposition to them They must ho longer pretend to Diocesses in England They must not pretend to any Obligation of their Protestant Clergy and Laity to stand by them even in Conscience They must therefore never pretend to Communions in those Diocesses which are plainly Exercises of Spiritual Authority in them Nor can they then justifie or even excuse any Assemblies for Religion when forbidden by the Civil Magistrate who is only supposed by these Principles to have also the Right to that Spiritual Authority by which alone they can be justified And are these the ways to secure our Religion against Popery No open Persecutions whatsoever can ever ruine us so effectually as these Doctrines will if ever we receive them Doctrines of our own will break our Vnion among our selves more than any of our Adversaries open Violencies CHAP. II. That the Church of Christ is not to be considered meerly as a Sect but as a Sacred Society and that its being a Society is a Fundamental Doctrine MEN amongst us in this and the last Age have hitherto considered the Church rather as a Sect than as a Society and have therefore usually had no regard to the Doctrines Fundamental to it as a Society if they did not withall concern it as a Sect and Antecedently to its being a Society But there seems very little Reason for their doing so if they will be pleased impartially to reflect on it It is very true its Notion as a Sect is antecedent to its being a Society because it is a Society into which Men find themselves obliged to enter by the Doctrines they must be supposed to believe if they own it as a Sect. But even thence it appears that the Doctrines which concern it as a Sect do withall make it necessary it should be a Society These two Considerations therefore are by no means to be separated Nay it hence appears that the Doctrines constituting it as a Sect do also by a near and unavoidable and evident Consequence make it a Society Thus therefore the Fundamentals of its being a Society will be included in that System of Doctrines which concern it as a Sect. And then what Matter is it that one of these Notions is antecedent and the other consequent Thus much at least will follow that there is no subverting it as a Society without subverting it also as a Sect because those very Doctrines which make it a Sect do also consequently oblige it to be a Society For my part I believe those Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation which all who believe any Fundamentals proper to the Christian Religion as Revealed by God do reckon among Fundamentals not to have been revealed for Speculation only but purposely to oblige Men to unite in it as a Society The Vnity in Trinity which is the principal thing insisted on in the Doctrine of the Trinity as revealed in the Scripture was purposely to let Men see the Extent of the Mystical Vnion to which they were intitled by the External Vnion with the visible Church that by partaking in the Orthodox Communion the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by St. John they had also a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Father and the Son 1 John 1.3 For it was manifest they must also partake of the Spirit because he who had not the Spirit of Christ was none of his It was therefore supposed that by partaking of the Trinity we are made one Mystically and that by being united visibly to the Church we are intitled to that Mystical Vnion So whoever is united visibly to the Church is thereby if he be not wanting to himself in due Conditions united also Mystically to the Trinity and that whoever is divided externally from the Church is thereby also dis-united from this Communion and Vnion with the Trinity And what more prevaeiling Inducements could be thought of to oblige Men to keep in a Society So also the design of the Incarnation was by Christ's taking upon him our Body and our Flesh to make us also one Body and one Flesh with Him thereby to entitle our Bodies to a Resurrection but then our being one Body and one Flesh with Him depended on our being Members of the Church which is called his Body his Flesh his Bones We were to be Baptized into this one Body and become one Body by partaking of one Bread Which plainly shew that all the Benefits of the Incarnation are derived to us by our partaking of the Sacraments and therefore by our adhering inseparably to them who alone are authorized by God to administer them Thus plain it is that those very Fundamentals of our revealed Religion as revealed are revealed and designed for this purpose of making the Church a Society How can therefore our Adversaries make these Doctrines Fundamental if this be not Fundamental also that the Church was by God designed to be a Society This
by their own Act. And by this means it also appeared to have been more than a private Opinion in that Age when even no Bishop could be permitted in the Communion of his Brethren if he dissented from them in this particular Thus to make Application to our present Case all the Bishops will be involved who communicate either with the Principal Schismaticks or the Schismatical Consecrators And this will also take in by the same Principles all Communicants with such Bishops For when the Bishop was refused Communion the Effect of such refusal was that none should thence-forwards expect to be received to the Communion of those who had refused him on his communicatory Letters and no other communicatory Letters could be hoped for whilst they continued in Communion with him And then 5thly it is also as notorious on the same Principles of St. Cyprian's Age that such Schism from the visible Communion of the Catholick Church was also supposed to deprive the Person so divided of all the invisible Benefits of Church Communion God was supposed obliged to ratifie in Heaven what was done by those whom he authorized to represent Him on Earth He avenged the Contempts of his Ministers and would not be a Father to those who would not own his Church for their Mother by paying her a Filial respect They were not to expect any Pardon of their Sins They could not hope for the Holy Ghost who dissolved the Unity of the Spirit V. Cypr. de Unitate Eccl. Ep. 49. Edit Ox. Ep. 52 54 55. They were uncapable of the Crown of Martyrdom whatever they suffered in the State of Separation This is the result of many of St. Cyprian's Discourses on this Argument And indeed it is very agreeable with the Design of God that they who cut themselves off from the Peculium should by their doing so lose all their pretensions to the Rights and Privileges of it Not only so but that they should also incurr all the Mischiefs to which they were supposed liable who had lost their Right of being Members of the peculiar People Accordingly as they believed all Persons at their first Admission into the Church to be turned from Darkness to Light and from the Power of Satan unto God so upon their leaving the Church or their being cast out of it by the judicial act of their Superiors they were supposed to return into the State of Heathens to lose the Protection of those good Spirits who minister only to the Heirs of Salvation and again to relapse into their former condition of Darkness and being consequently obnoxious to be infested by the Devil and his Powers of Darkness And that this was so appeared by several ordinary Experiments in those earlier Ages not only of the Apostles but that also of St. Cyprian who has many Examples of it in his Book de Lapsis And this Confinement of the Spiritual Privileges of the peculiar People to the external Communion of the Church as it was Fundamental to their Discipline so it was rational consequently to their other Principles God was not thought obliged to confer those Privileges but by the Act of those whom Himself had authorized to oblige Him But Dividers were supposed not to belong to that Body to which the Promises were made and ambitious Intruders into other Mens Offices could not in any Equity pretend to have their Acts ratified by God from whom they could not be supposed to receive any Authority when they did not receive it by the Rules and Orders of the Society established by Him These things were then believed and believed universally Indeed nothing but an universal Belief of them would have maintained that Discipline which was then observed in the Church could have obliged them generally to suffer as they did then the severest Inflictions from the Magistrate rather than incurr the much more feared Displeasure of their Ecclesiastical Superiors When we are also of the same Mind and alike influenced by Principles and Regard to Conscience then indeed and then alone we may pretend to be a Posterity not degenerous from the great Examples of those glorious Ancestors Then it will not be in the Power of Acts of Parliament to drive us from our Principles and bring a Scandal on our Religion Then where our Bishops follow Christ we shall follow them and it will not be in the Power of the Worldly Magistrate or the Gates of Hell it self to prevail against our Church and to dissolve the Union between us Then Magistrates themselves will be more wary of involving Consciences on occasion of their little Worldly Politicks at least they will not pretend Religion and the Religion of that very Church which suffers by them for doing so May we live at length to see that happy day However it will hence appear how impossible it will be to excuse our Adversaries present Case from Schism if it be tryed by that Antiquity which we do indeed profess to imitate and alledge Now in this Case I am discoursing of I have purposely selected the Instances of St. Cyprian's Age rather than any other not only because they are the Ancientest indeed the first we know of of one Bishop's invading another's Chair not vacant but because we have withall in him the most distinct account of the Sense of the Church in his Age of such Facts and of the Principles on which they proceeded in condemning them He had occasion given him to be so distinct by two Schisms one of his own Church in Carthage where Felicissimus was set up against himself another that I have principally insisted on of Novatian set up against Cornelius in Rome On these Occasions he has written one just Discourse besides several Epistles But these Principles were not singular and proper to that Age they descended lower and are insisted on by Optatus and St. Augustine in their Disputes with the Donatists whenever they dispute the Question of their Schism without relation to their particular Opinions We have here given them the sense of the Church in an Age wherein her Testimony is every way unexceptionable wherein she had certain means of knowing the Truth and withall valued it as it deserved Even there we find the Principles now mentioned universally received and universally received as the Grounds of that universal Catholick Communion which she had received by an uninterrupted Tradition from the Apostles to that very Time Even there I say we find them received where nothing could have been received universally that had been an Innovation In so short a time it was hard to bring in Variations from the Primitive Rule and harder yet that all the Churches could have been unanimous in them if they had been Variations as Tertullian reasons in his Prescriptions especially when there was no Universal Authority received over the whole Catholick Church that could induce them to it From the Time of Trajan the Succession of our Saviour's Family failed in the Church of Jerusalem to which all
of their Spiritual Authority and where Subjects are also absolved from their Obligations in Conscience to obey them And this is also a dissolving the Catholick Church as to such as live in such Dominions and as to any Benefits they can derive from the Catholick Church also For Subjects of particular Districts are no otherwise received into the Catholick Church than as they derive a Right to Communion with all the Churches in the World by their being admitted Members of the Churches of their particular Districts And they are also deprived of their Right of Catholick Communion when they are Excommunicated by the lawful Authority of their particular Districts I cannot therefore see how our Adversaries can excuse themselves herein from Erring fundamentally if the Church's being a Society be admitted for a Fundamental CHAP. VI. Arguments and Objections against this Doctrine from Instances of Fact and Publick Good answered AGAINST this truly Catholick Doctrine two things were opposed by the Adversaries The one a Collection of Eighteen Instances of Bishops who being deprived and not for Heresie did not insist on their Right or were not seconded by their Subjects in the History of 900. Years Which way of Reasoning he shews is neither Conscientious nor Prudent For if Matters of Fact so nakedly related without Evidence of the Principles on which they were acted be urged as Precedents barely because done and no Opposition against them it will be impossible to make any thing of such arguing from History For what History is there that in a Succession of 900. Years does not afford Examples against Examples And how easie were it for an Historian by this way of Reasoning to justifie the Wickedest things that can be § 9. And in this case are divers circumstances which not appearing in any of the Instances make them insignificant § 10-14 Nor do the Instances produced prove the Sense of the Catholick Church but only of the Greek and especially of Constantinople nor even of that Church in the first and earliest Ages § 15. but most of modern barbarous and divided Ages § 22. and in different cases Part 2. § 1. and the Deprivations either by Synods or disagreeable to the Canons of that very Church § 8 9 11. and no such Power so much as pretended by the Lay-Magistrate § 3. but the Emperors indeavouring to obtain their Wills by Authority of Synods or by gross Violence murdering disabling or banishing the Incumbents The other their great Plea of the Publick Good § 47. which he well retorts upon them That the Eternal Interests of Souls and of Religion are more to be valued in a Publick Account than Worldly Politicks That it is more the Publick Good of the Church and of Religion that Subordinations be preserved than that any particular Person be made a Bishop by offering Violence to them That the Glorious Passive Doctrines of the Church be maintained in opposition to Worldly Interests than seem prostituted to serve them That the Credit of the Clergy be maintained than that they enjoy the Benefits of Worldly Protection And that the Independency of that Sacred Function on the State be asserted by challenging the Right than that by yielding the Lay-Power should be owned to have any Power of Depriving us of the Comfort of Sacraments in a time of Persecution And that this is more for the Interest of the State even of the Civil Magistracy than what is like to obtain upon the Cession Even the State cannot subsist without Obligations of Conscience and the Sacredness of Oaths * This hath respect to with he said before of the Sacred Vows of Canonical Obedience for securing that Right and Duty where no Worldly Power can force them to it which no other Power in the World can dispence with but that for whose Interest they were imposed and the dreadful Imprecations implied in them as an Obligation for Performance which can signifie nothing for the Security of any future Government if they must signifie nothing for the time past It is not for the Interest of the Publick to secure ill Titles in their Possession and thereby to incourage the Frequency of ill Titles and frequent Subversions of the Fundamental Constitutions and all the Publick Miseries that must follow on such changes But these things are more largely treated and very solidly in the Defence of the Vindication upon a farther occasion For the Adversaries being so home pressed with this that they had little to reply were forced to seek for new Arguments And first without any Answer to his Argument and granting the Proposition of the Invalidity of Lay-Deprivation the Lawfulness of Submission in the Ecclesiastical Subjects to Intruders is only insisted on and only from other Later Facts and pretence of Peace and Tranquility of the Church To which it is replied that such Submission is Sinful by the Law of God makes the Subjects Accomplices in the Injustice and moreover in the Clergy on account of their Oaths of canonical Obedience c. and That turning the Dispute to later Facts draws it from a short and decisive to a tedious and litigious Issue with which there is no reason to comply And concerning the Case of Abiathar he shews That the Fact is not commended in the Scripture as a Precedent That the Magistrate could not by the Doctrine of that Age have any direct Power over the Priesthood That in the Apostle's Age the Priesthood was expressly owned to be far more Honourable than the Magistracy it self and That Solomon's Act was only of Force and what God had threatned against the House of Eli Nor was Abiathar then the High-Priest properly so called but Zadoc c. Moreover That Christian Bishops are properly Priests and the Gospel Priesthood more noble than that of Abiathar and that these Principles and Inferences were admitted in the Apostolick Age c. by Clemens Romanus c. But the Principal Pretence of all is proposed by another Author That tho' the Argument holds where the State are Infidels and so the Church and State distinct Bodies yet not so where the State professes the Christian Religion And That the Benefits of Protection of Honor and Profit of Security and of Assistance which the Church receives from the State require in Gratitude a compensation To which is replied That more is required for such a Power than meerly being Christian which gives no Title to any Spiritual Authority That the same Persons may be of distinct Societies That the Church's Obligations are more necessary for the Subsisting of the State than those she receives from the State for hers That the Benefits also received from her by the State are greater than what she receives from it That a Pious Magistrate would not desire such a Recompence if she could grant it But it is not in the Power of Ecclesiastical Governours to make such Contract Nor is it agreeable to the Mind of God that the Church should so incorporate with the State To which
may be added That the Catholick Church and particular States are by order of Divine Providence of different unequal and inconsistent Dimensions and That Particular States are many intire independent Bodies but all Particular Churches Members of One great Body and subject to the Supream and Vniversal Authority thereof Nor ought any State Prince or Emperor be admitted or reputed Christian who will not submit all their Authority to the Authority of Christ in his Kingdom upon Earth Which being the Chief of all Powers who-ever resists resists the Ordinance of God and shall receive to themselves Damnation Rom. 13.2 CHAP. VII Of the Authority of the Church of England and that the Authority of the Primitive Catholick Church is greater than that of any Modern Particular one and to be preferred before it THE last Refuge is Argumentum ad hominem a poor Cause indeed that is reduced to that which tho' tolerable as an Adjective with others more substantial yet cannot stand alone much less support such a Cause as this Two things are alleadged the Oath of Supremacy Deprivation of the Bishops in Q. Elizabeth 's time for refusing that Oath for Proof of the Doctrine of the Church of England in this case To all this in general our Author opposeth the Authority of the Church of Christ the Catholick Church of the Primitive Ages which the Church of England it self admits and having set out the Objection fully makes this Reply I should most heartily congratulate the Zeal of these Objectors for our Church were it really such as it is pretended to be But I can by no means commend any Zeal for any particular modern Church whatsoever in Opposition to the Catholick Church of the first and purest Ages We cannot take it for a Reformation that differs from that Church which ought to be the Standard of Reformation to all later degenerous Ages at least in things so essential to the Subsistence and Perpetuity of the Church as these are which concern the Independence of the Sacred on the Civil Authority Nor is it for the Honor of our dear Mother to own her Deviation in things of so great Importance from the Primitive Rule much less to pretend her Precedent for over-ruling an Authority so much greater than hers so much nearer the Originals so much more Universal so much less capable of Corruption or of Agreement in any Point that had been really a Corruption It is impossible that ever the present Breaches of the Church can be reconciled if no particular Churches must ever allow themselves the Liberty of Varying from what has actually been received by them since the Ages of Divisions the very Reception thereof having proved the Cause of those Divisions If therefore our modern Churches will ever expect to be again united it must be by Acknowledgment of Errors in particular Churches at least in such things as have made the Differences and which whilst they are believed must make them irreconcilable Such things could never proceed from Christ who designing his whole Church for One Body and One Communion could never teach Doctrines inconsistent with such Unity and destructive of Communion And why should a Church such as ours is which acknowledges her self Fallible be too pertinacious in not acknowledging Mistakes in her self when the Differences even between Churches which cannot all pretend to be in the Right whilst they differ and differ so greatly from each other are a manifest Demonstration of Errors in Authorities as great as her own Nor can any such acknowledgments of actual Errors be prejudicial to Authority where the Decisions of the Authority are to be over-ruled not by private Judgments but by a greater Authority And if any Authority be admitted as competent for arbitrating the present Differences of Communion between our modern Churches I know none that can so fairly pretend to it as that of the Primitive Catholick Church Besides the other Advantages she had for knowing the Primitive Doctrines above any Modern ones whatsoever she has withall those Advantages for a fair Decision which recommend Arbitrators She knew none of their Differences nor dividing Opinions and therefore cannot be suspected of Partiality And it was withall an Argument of her being constituted agreeably to the Mind of her blessed Lord that she was so perfectly one Communion as he designed her And the Acquiescence of particular Churches in her Decision is easier and less mortifying than it would be to any other Arbitrator To return to her is indeed no other than to return to what themselves were formerly before their Divisions or dividing Principles So that indeed for modern Churches to be determined by Antiquity is really no other than to make themselves in their purest uncorruptest Condition Judges of their own Case when they have not the like Security against Impurities and Corruptions I cannot understand therefore how even on account of Authority our late Brethren can excuse their pretended Zeal for even our Common Mother the Church of England when they presume to oppose her Authority to that of the Catholick Church and of the Catholick Church in the first and purest Ages I am sure we have been used to commend her for her Deference to Antiquity and to have the better Opinion of any thing in her Constitution as it was most agreeable to the Pattern of the Primitive Catholick Church CHAP. VIII Arch-Bishop Cranmer 's Opinion perfectly destructive of all Spiritual Authority and his Authority in these matters none at all FOR more particular Answer he first shews the Author and Original and so the Novelty of these pernicious Opinions in England and then answers to both the Allegations aforesaid the first not being very long and therefore recited in his own Words at length is as followeth In Henry the Eighth's time under whom the Oath of Supremacy was first introduced the Invasions of the Sacred Power were most manifest Yet so that even then they appear to have been Innovations and Invasions But who can wonder at his Success considering the violent ways used by him So many executed by him for refusing the Oath The whole Body of the Clergy brought under a Premunire for doing no more than himself had done in owning the Legatine Power of Cardinal Wolsey and fined for it and forced to Submissions very different from the sense of the Majority of them He did indeed pretend to be advised by some of the Ecclesiasticks as appears from several of their Papers still preserved But they were only some few selected by himself never fairly permitted to a freedom and majority of Suffrages And when even those few had given their Opinion yet still he reserved the Judgment of their Reasons to himself And to shew how far he was from being indifferent those of them who were most open in betraying the Rights of their own Function were accordingly advanced to the higher degrees in his Favour and were entrusted with the Management of Ecclesiastical Affairs None had a greater share in his
at least is certain that we are intitled to all the Benefits of our Religion by our owning the Church not only as a Sect but as a Society also and that tho' we believe all its Doctrines as it is a Sect yet if we be divided from it as a Society that Belief alone will not secure us a Title to any of the Benefits of our Religion Excommunicates however Orthodox in their Opinions were never suppos'd in the Discipline of the Church to have any actual Title to the Benefits of Religion if they persisted wilfully in that State of Excommunication The same is to be observed concerning the Case of Schismaticks on the Principles of the early Age of St. Cyprian Hence therefore it appears that this Notion of the Church as a Society whatever it be in its self is at least Fundamental as to us in order to our partaking of any of the Benefits of Religion That is indeed it is Fundamental to all intents and purposes that we can think worthy our Enquiry Without this the other Notions if any be will never be beneficial to us So that whatever those other Notions may be in order of Reasoning yet this Notion of the Church as a Society must be Fundamental to them in order to their being beneficial that is as far as we have any reason to concern our selves for them These things ought certainly to be taken for Fundamental as to the Discipline and Censures of the Church She ought certainly to be most concerned for those things that are most influential on the Interests of Souls and those are so whose Belief is most beneficial and their Dis-belief most hurtful to those most valuable Interests I cannot therefore see why she should not think Doctrines of this kind Fundamental and reckon them among those Fundamentals on which she ought to lay out her principal Care If therefore she ought to excommunicate for any Errors at all certainly she ought in the first place to do it for Errors so destructive of all Obligation to her Communion it self and of her Authority of Excommunicating that is indeed so destructive to all that Power she has either for the Preservation of Truth or the Prohibition of Error in general And if she ought not to inflict her Censures at least these highest of them for any Errors but those which are Fundamental it will plainly follow that Errors of this kind must be reckoned for Fundamental ones Our Adversaries would have Errors in Fundamentals published and punished as a Spiritual Crime by a purely Spiritual Authority but they do not in the mean time seem to be aware how Fundamental this very Notion of the Church as a distinct and spiritual Society is to its having any Authority or Power to punish so much as Spiritually All they can do as a Sect is only to reason with Hereticks concerning their Errors and all the Means to reduce them are those reasons which can no farther prevail with them than as they may seem convictive in the Judgment of the Hereticks themselves But on that account they stand on even Terms with the Hereticks whose Reasons ought also to take place with the Ecclesiasticks so far as they are also in Conscience convinced by them A true Authority and a Power of punishing refractory Persons by excluding from Communion do Fudamentally suppose a spiritual Society over which they are to exercise this Authority and from which Delinquents are to be excluded by spiritual Censures and Excommunications How can they therefore avoid reckoning those Errors from being Fundamental ones as punishable by a spiritual Authority which ruine Fundamentally that very Authority by which such Errors are to be punished which destroy the Society on which that Authority is grounded Fundamentally If there be degrees of Fundamentals I should think the Fundamentals concerning the Church as a Society to be of the greatest consequence and therefore Fundamental in the highest degree The Church is indeed obliged to keep the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 5.11 1 Tim. 1.16 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are the Expressions by which our Adversaries themselves I believe conceive the Articles themselves call Fundamental to be signified But she is obliged to keep them as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 6.20 as a Trust committed to her How so by avoiding Disputings by stopping the Mouths of Hereticks by rebuking them with all Authority by rejecting and avoiding not their Doctrines only but their Persons also when they prove incorrigible Now these things plainly suppose Governors invested with Spiritual Authority and a Communion from whence incurable Hereticks are to be rejected So that in order to the keeping these other Fundamentals the Church as a Society is supposed antecedently as a Condition that alone can qualifie her for having such a Trust committed to her This Notion therefore as antecedent must be Fundamental to those other Fundamentals and therefore Fundamental in a higher sense than those things can be whose Security is superstructed upon it And accordingly the Damage of the Publick in subverting these Notions of the Church as a Society is proportionably greater than that which follows from the denial of other particular Articles which are commonly taken for Fundamental He that denies one of the other Articles may yet believe all the rest and zealously defend them and that by Principles too against all other Hereticks But he that denies the Church as a Society invested with a spiritual Authority does as effectually contribute to the Ruine of all the other Fundamentals at once as he does to the Ruine of a House who subverts the Foundations of it It brings in Impunity for Heresie in general and suffers Hereticks still to hope as well in their separate Sects as if they were in the Orhtodox Communion It leaves them destitute of even any Presumptions that might oblige them to judge in Favour of the Church's Doctrine as the safest Error if it should prove one It does by this means reduce the trial of the Cause to the Reasons themselves and their native Evidence and puts it in the Power of assuming Men to pretend greater Evidence than either they have or they really believe And things being reduced to this pass it is more God's Providence than the Security of Principles that hinders any Heretick who disputes any one of the other Articles from questioning all the rest CHAP. III. That the contrary Doctrine is a Fundamental Error and obstinately asserted Heresie very pernicious to the Church of Christ and to the Assertors of it themselves ST Augustin observes that Schisms generally end in Heresie That is the natural consequence of Defending it as our Adversaries do by Principles A single Act of Vndutifulness to Superiors will in course pass away with those who are guilty of it so that Posterity will not be concerned in it But when it is defended by Principles it turns into false Doctrine and Doctrine of that pernicious Consequence that the Church is
obliged to take notice of it as she will be faithful to her Trust in securing her Body from the like Divisions for the future Thus the Donatists took the first occasion for their Schism from the pretended Personal Faults of Caecilian and his Ordainers This whilst it was a particular Case went no farther than that particular Schism But when it turned into a general Doctrine that Personal Faults were sufficient to justifie Separation then it laid a Foundation of frequent Schisms as often as any Criminals got into Places of Trust and either Evidence was wanting or themselves too powerful to be contested with Then it concerned Ecclesiastical Governours to condemn this Doctrine that encouraged even Men of Conscience to divide designedly and frequently And when that Doctrine was thus condemned by the Church and was notwithstanding maintained by the Donatists as a Principle on which they subsisted as an opposite Communion it then became a Character of a Party to maintain it and from that time forward the Donatists were reckoned among Hereticks as well as Schismaticks For this was the true Notion of Heresie in those Ages as contradistinct from Schism Both of them supposed a Division of Communion or tended to it But that Division was called Schism which only broke the Political Vnion of the Society without any difference of Principles as when Thieves or Robbers transgress their Duties without any pretence of Principles authorizing them to do so So whilst Resentment alone was the reason that made Subjects separate from the Communion of their Ecclesiastical Governours or whilst Ambition alone made any to invade the Office of his Bishop and to erect an opposite Communion this was Schism properly so called as contradistinct from Heresie But when the Schism is patronized by Doctrines and justified as well done and consistently with Conscience such Divisions besides their being Schismatical were Heretical also in the sense of the Ancients and such Doctrines as Characteristical of a distinct Communion were properly called Heresies On this account the same Doctrine of the original Identity of Bishops and Presbyters was no Heresie in S. Hierome who notwithstanding kept Communion with the Bishops of the Jurisdictions he lived in and yet was Heresie in Aaerius when upon account of that pretended Identity he presumed to pay no more Duty to the Bishops of the respective Jurisdictions than he would have done to single Presbyters This is the most agreeable account of the Heresies not only in Philastrius but in other more judicious Collectors of Catalogues of Heresies And it is very agreeable with the Notion of that Term among the Philosophers from whom the Christians derived it All Notions that were proper and characteristical to particular Schools among them made Heresies not those which were received n common among them Answerably whereunto those Differences only in Opinion made Heresies in the Church which were the Notes of different Communions not those which went no farther than Speculation I am very well aware how surprizing this will be to those who upon popular Opinions have used to believe no Opinion Heresie that was not against Fundamentals But if they will for a while lay aside their Prejudices they will possibly find this as slightly grounded as many other popular Opinions are The very distinction between Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals is not that I know of ever taken notice of by the Primitive Christians either in the same or in equivalent Terms And if a Person will needs make a Breach on account of an Opinion it rather aggravates than diminishes his Guilt that the Opinion is of little consequence His own Will is more concerned in it that is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he is therefore more a Heretick and as Hereticks were more self-condemned Tit. 3.2 if even in his own Opinion the Matter for which he separates be not of any considerable Importance Even a Truth and a Truth that has great Evidence of its being so may make a Heresie if it be no way conducive nor disadvantageous to the good of Souls and yet the Person who maintains it will by no means endure Communion with those who are of another Mind He might have more pretence of Zeal tho' Mistaken if the Mistake on the Church's side did indeed concern Souls and seemed at least of dangerous consequence to them When he has not even that to pretend for himself who can impute his breaking on such accounts to any other Original than an assuming Imperiousness of Temper and a love of Contention which we generally acknowledge to be the principal Ingredients of Heresie Certain it is that such a Breach for Opinions tho' true yet of no consequence is highly culpable and destructive to that Vnity which Christ designed for his Church and the more culpable for that very reason that the Opinion is of little consequence Yet it cannot properly be called Schism which is only a Breach like those which fall out frequently in Secular Affairs when Men fall into Parties on account of a Temper ungovernable or ambitions without any proper difference of Opinion and Doctrine And it being no Schism what can we call it in the Discipline of the Church if it be not Heresie These Opinions therefore which are not otherwise Heretical on account of the Nature of the Opinions themselves do then begin to be Heretical when they begin to be characteristical of distinct Communions And that they do not only when Men designedly separate from others on that very account because they are not of the same Opinions but also when they venture on such Practices on account of their singular Opinions wherein others cannot communicate with them for that very reason because they cannot join with them in those their singular Opinions Then plainly the differing in such Opinions makes a difference of Communion unavoidable and therefore the Opinions themselves in such a Case as this is are Signals of different Communions which will come under the charge of Heresie as contradistinct from Schism in the Notion now described of the Primitive Church Thus had S. Hierome proceeded as far as Aerius in the Practice of his Opinion concerning the Original Identity of Bishops and Presbyters and had thereupon broken himself off from his Duty to the Bishop of the Diocese and by that means either made or countenanced a Schism which he had never countenanced but on account of this Doctrine of his which he held in Common with the Aerians that Doctrine had been Heresie in him as well as the Aerians So also Opiuions do then begin to be Treasonable when they are actually productive of Treasonable Actions Thus Latitudinarian Opinions in the Church do always weaken or dissolve the Obligation in Conscience to maintain the Church as a Society in a time of Persecution from the Civil Magistrate yet till that Case fall out and when Interest lies on the Church's side they often still keep one Communion who are for such Opinions and may continue in it while