to a former 2ly For erecting new places for the dividing party to meet in publickly He Mr. Hales says truly that all Meetings upon unnecessary Id. p. 180. occasions of Separation are to be stil'd Conventicles so that in this sense a Conventicle is nothing else but a Congregation of Schismaticks and he had before determin'd them to be Schismaticks that do choose a Bishop in Opposition to the former and that do erect a New Church and Oratory for the dividing party to meet in publickly The Laws and Customs of all Churches do condemn it for Saywel of Vn 193. Schismatical for a man to come into another Ministers charge c. The summ of what is cited on this Query is this that there ought to be but one Bishop in a Diocess or City that they that set up a Bishop in opposition to the Rightful Bishop and make separate Meetings setting up Altar against Altar are Schismaticks and therefore those that would avoid the guilt of Schism must constantly Communicate with the First and Rightful Bishop but never with the Intruder or his Adherents Q. Are the People that Communicate with Schismatical Bishops and Presbyters guilty of Schism A. A Schismatick is an impious Son which having contemn'd Ham. of Schism out of Ignatius the Bishops and forsaken the Priests of God dares constitute another Altar The Schismaticks are they that having left their Bishop set Doctr. of Schism p. 45. up for themselves abroad another false Bishop and all their Adherents are involv'd in the same guilt who joyn with the Schismaticks against their Bishops An essential part of our Communion with our Bishop Def. of Dr. St. p. 471. is to live in Communion only of those Presbyters who live in Communion of their Bishop that is who officiate by his Authority and are subject to his Directions and Orders This was a standing rule in Ignatius his time as is evident from his Epistles that Presbyters must do nothing in the Church but by the Bishop's consent or order and those who do are Schismaticks and those people who adhere to them in it partake in the guilt of their Schism c. 'T is notorious in all the Histories and Canons of the Church Saywel of Vnity p. 393. that never any more than One Bishop at a time was allowed in any of those great Cities Jerusalem Alexandria c. And if a Schismatick did sometimes creep in as the Novatians and Donatists did in troublesome times they were always condemn'd by the Church which did constantly maintain There ought to be but One Bishop in a City or Diocess and all Priests and Lay Persons ought to be govern'd by him To assemble and celebrate the Eucharist besides the Bishop's Thornd Prim. Gov. Ch. p. 117. appointment was then in St. Ignatius his time the due mark of a Schismatick If the Church unites upon Schismatical Principles whatever Sherl Ans to Anonym the Bishop does in pursuance of such Principles is the Act of the Church and if the Bishops be Schismaticks the Church is so too The Church is by St. Cyprian defin'd to be a People united to St. Cyprian their own Bishop and a Flock adhering to their own Pastor whence you may know the Bishop always to be in the Church and the Church to go along with the Bishop if therefore the Bishop be a Schismatick so must all the Flock that Communicate with him If any Presbyter contemning his own Bishop shall make a Long 's Ch. Sep. p. 85. Separate Congregation and erect another Altar his own Bishop not being condemn'd of any Irreligion or Injustice let him be depos'd as one that is Ambitious and a Tyrannical person and in like manner all that Adhere to him and let the Lay People be Excommunicated after the Bishops third Admonition He who submits to or complies with the manager of a Schism Falkner's Christian Loyalty p. 272. in his prosecution thereof doth involve himself in the same crime Q. If a Bishop or other Clergy man be guilty of any Offence by whom is he to be Try'd and Punish'd A. Touching the Depriving or Degrading of Bishops Presbyters Field of the Ch. p. 512. and Deacons the ancient Canon requires the Concurrence and consent of 3 Bishops for the Censuring and Depriving of a Deacon of 6 for the Depriving of a Presbyter and of 12 for the Censuring Judging and Deposing of a Bishop If a Bishop be Convicted of Heresy or Schism or some great Vind. of Def. p. 128. Wickedness and Injustice his Colleagues that is Bishops may Depose him and forbid his People to Communicate with him and Ordain another in his stead For one particular Primate or Metropolitan to censure any Hills Cath. Balance p. 86. Bishop by himself or to be uncapable of censure in his own Provincial Synods hath no Precedent in the primest and purest Antiquity The Canon Apostolical 33 directing That every Bishop of every Nation give deference to him that is Chief among them and to esteem him as their Head and to do nothing extraordinary without his Cognisance but every one only to do those things which are expedient to his own Diocess and to the Country under him And so neither must the Capital Bishop do any thing without the consent of them all for thus there will be an Vnanimity and God will be glorify'd thro' the Lord in the Holy Spirit Bishops had over their Presbyters and People Supreme Power Faith and Pract. Ch. Eng. m. cap. 1. under Christ as to Church affairs and Accountable only to Christ and to a Council of their fellow Bishops often Meeting and Consulting together for the good of the whole A Bishop of the Church of England by all the Law in the Christian Bishop of Lond. Tryal p. 6. Church in all ages and by the particular Law of this Land in case of offence is to be Try'd by his Metropolitan and Suffragans The Bishop of London's Council urged in behalf of the Bishop Id. for not suspending Dr. S. without a Legal process That absolute Suspension supposes a proof of the Crime c. Id. and That where there is an absolute Suspension there ought to be Citation Form of Proceeding Judgment and Decree and that to Act otherwise is contrary to the Laws of God of Nature of all Nations in all Ages and was never known in the World My Lord I Always have and shall count it my duty to obey the K. in whatever Id. Bp. of London's Letter to my Lord Sanderland he Commands me c. But in this I humbly conceive I am oblig'd to proceed according to Law and therefore 't is impossible for me to comply because tho' His Majesty Commands me only to Execute His Pleasure yet in the capacity I am to do it I must Act as a Judge and your Lordship knows no Judge Condemns any Man before he have knowledge of his Cause and have cited
is imply'd that possibly there may be such cause given as may justifie the Separation and if so then the guilt of Schism will lie at the door of the Church which gives such cause and not at his or theirs who Separate there from No cause can justifie a Separation save only this when a Church makes the Terms of her Communion such as cannot be comply'd withal without Sin And in this Case me thinks it is very plain that it cannot be Sin to Separate when it is Sin to Communicate for no Laws of Men can abrogate or dissolve the obligation of the express Laws of God When we cannot obey our Spiritual Rulers without disobeying the express Laws of Christ the reason of our Communion Sherlock with such a Church ceaseth because it does not answer nay contradicts the end of Christian Society which is to have fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ 1 Jo. 1. 3. If any Patriarch Prelate Church or Churches shall enjoyn Sinfull Bramhal Duties to their Subjects it is very Lawful for their Subjects to disobey them and for strangers to separate from them As in the Case of Usurpation the owning of the Lawful King Vind. of Ans to the King's Pap. p. 67. is a Voluntary Act but if an Usurper threatens to banish him if de does not abjure him upon whom must the blame be laid upon the Mans voluntary Act or the Usurpers Voluntary Imposing such a Penalty on those who do nothing but what is Just The making such Terms of Communion is a voluntary Act too and being a thing Vnreasonable and Vnjust it leaves the blame on the Imposers I held it better to seem undevout and to hear no mens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prayers than to be forc'd or seem to comply with those Petitions to which the Heart cannot consent nor the Tongue say Amen without contradicting a mans own Understanding or belying his own Soul I had rather be condemn'd to the Wo of Vae Soli then to that Id. of Vae Vobis Hypocritis by seeming to pray what I do not approve If any Bp. Metropolitan or Patriarch with open face asserts Falk Chr. Loy p. 269. manifest Heresy or false Doctrin which hath been so declar'd by approv'd Councils the disowning all Communion with him and subjection to him even before a Council is commended by some Canons as a practice which deserves Honour And it must be so where subjection must include Embracing Corruptions Secondly That Separation from the Communion of Lawful and Canonical Bishops is Schismatical It is the Law of the Gospel and the constant Profession of Saywell of Vnity p. 340. the Christian Church that all Persons as well Clergy as Lay-men must live in Obedience and Communion with their own Bishops as long as they profess the Catholick Faith and uphold such a publick Worship wherein it is Lawful to joyn and in the right performance whereof we may obtain Salvation The crime of Schism does manifestly lie upon those who refuse Id. p. 11. Obedience to their Lawful Bishops in all just Commands Not only the Greek Abyssine Russian Churches but the Protestant Id. p. 355. Churches do all with one consent condemn them for Schismaticks which separate from the Lawful Pastors of any True Church and set up Churches against Churches and Communion against Communion c. It is undoubted that it has been the constant Doctrin of the Id. 388. Greek Eastern Northern and Southern Churches as well as Roman in all Ages that Christians ought to be in subjection to their Respective Bishops and he was held cut off from the Catholick Church that did separate from his Lawful Bishop or was Excommunicated by him and no other Church could receive him till Repentance and Reconciliation to his Own Bishop and 't is the same at this very day I reckon my self bound to obey the Commands of my Lawful Faith and Pract. Ch. Eng. man chap. 3. Governors both in Church and State not only for Peace and Order sake but for the sake of God who hath Commanded me so to do and am willing to forego my own Rights often and deny my own Profit rather than disobey or oppose a Command of my Lawful Governours where I can obey without Sin God only bids me obey the Church in such cases as are not defin'd by the Law of God but doth not give the Church leave to command any thing contrary to God's Law nor oblige me to attend to it or obey it if it should so command Schism implies the casting off a Lawful Jurisdiction to which Vind. of Ch. Eng. from Sch. p. 34. Vind. Def. Still p. 401. we were oblig'd to yield Subjection and Obedience Government and Discipline is necessary to preserve any Society and therefore obedience to Ecclesiastical Governors is a Necessary term of Church Communion and let a man be never so sound and Orthodox in Faith and Worship if he be of a restless and turbulent Spirit and disobedient to his Governors and their orders and Constitutions he deserves to be flung out of the Church Communion if he do's not Separate himself and will be Damn'd for't too without Repentance Communion with the Bishop is Essential to the Notion and Unity Sherl Vind. of Def. p. 452. Id. 453. of an Episcopal Church Those only Communicate with their Bishop who submit to his Pastoral Authority and partake with him in all Religious Offices and those who do not according to the notion of the Catholick Church are Schismaticks and therefore not of the same Church with him When men consent to be Christ's Disciples they consent to Sherl def of Still p. 254. Id Vind. def p. 126. Id. vind def p. 331. submit to that Authority Christ has instituted in his Church It has been the constant practice of the Apostles and all succeeding Ages to set Bishops and Pastors over particular Churches and to confine their Care and Inspection to them Episcopacy has been the Establisht Government of the Church of England ever since the Reformation and for any Christians to Separate from their Bishops was always accounted Schism in the Christian Church unless there were some very necessary reaons to justifie such a Separation There is no other way of submitting our selves to the Authority Sherl 2d part Vn Com. p. 428. Ans to Prot. Reconciler p. 258. of Christ but by a regular subjection to the Discipline and Government of the Church I know no way of Judging whether any Man be in Communion with Christ but by his Communion with the Church There is no visible Communion with God and Christ but by a visible Communion with the Church Subjection to Christ requires subjection to that Authority Id. p. 411. which Christ has set in his Church as well as Obedience to his other Laws 'T is plain we disown Christs Authority when we reject those Id. p. 168. who Act by his Authority An
the Party From him that will never be Vnfaithful to the K. c. To suspend is a Judicial Act which cannot be done without Bp. Londons Council hearing the Cause When the King commands a Judge he commands him to Act as a Judge The Ecclesiastical Commissioners would not declare the Bishop of London suspended till he had been fully heard The Prince of Orange in his Declaration represents the proceedings P. O. Declaration against the Bishop of London as one of the great Grievances he came to redress The Commissioners says he suspended the Bishop of London only because he refus'd to obey an Order that was sent to him to suspend a worthy Divine without so much as Citing him before him to make his own Defence or observing the Common forms of Process The substance of what is said in answer to this Query is 1. That a Clergyman cannot be regularly depriv'd but by Bishops 2. That a Clergyman cannot be suspended but by a Legal Process 3. That a Bishop cannot be try'd or depriv'd but by his Collegues that is Bishops 4. That those that are depriv'd without a Hearing or by Incompetent Judges cannot be so properly said to be Depriv'd as violently Thrust from their Places and therefore it will follow 5. That a Bishop being not Regularly Depriv'd is to all intents and purposes the Canonical Bishop of his See and a Priest the True and Lawful Pastor of his Flock and the people consequently owe obedience to Them and cannot forsake their Communion without incurring the guilt of Schism Q. Were not the Protestants in Q. Mary's days guilty of Schism in making Separate Meetings under the then Depriv'd Bishops A. I willingly grant that in times of manifest Corruptions and Long 's An. to Hales of Schism p. 147. Reform justify'd p. 6. Persecutions such as the Roman and Marian were Private Meetings are Lawful and Necessary Duties because if men do forbid what God has Commanded it is better to obey God than Man 'T is plain that the Schism is on the side of the Papists who upon pretence of Papal Authority did withdraw themselves from the Communion of their own Bishops after an Universal agreement and concurrence in the Communion of the Church of England for ten or eleven years together and make a formal division in the Church which was before united in Peace and Truth The Popish Bishops that were set aside in Q. Elizabeth's Reign Id. p. 14. did possess the places of Lawful Bishops yet living or United themselves to such as did possess them therefore they were Schismatical and no Lawful Bishops of the Church of England For as soon as these Lawful Bishops were turn'd out others were put into their places and not only so but contrary to all rule and orderly Government in the Church For the most certain fundamental Constitution of the Church in all Ages and the constant Order of all Societies which is always tacitly suppos'd tho' not formally observ'd is That while Particular Churches keep to the Faith and Vnity of the Catholick Church as ours had done all things ought to be managed by the Arch-Bishop and Bishops of the Province and so by the Chief Governors and main Body of the Society or else things cannot regularly be done 'T is confess'd that 14 or 15 Bishops were turn'd out or went Id. p. 17. away in Q. Elizabeth's days but according to our Author 's own Argument they were Schismaticks and no Lawful Bishops because they came into the places of Lawful Bishops while they were alive or else were Ordain'd by and Communicated with such Schismaticks I add they Vsurp'd their places by turning out the Metropolitans and Major part of the Bishops of each Province and so could have no Lawful Authority or Jurisdiction The true Right and Authority of the Church was in those Id. p. 18. Lawful Bishops that were made in K. Edward's days and that was the True Church of England which did adhere to their Constitutions They Q. Mary's Bps. were no Lawful Bishops because they Id. p. 20. either did Schismatically invade the places of the Lawful Bishops or else were willingly Consecrated and did joyn in Communion with those Schismatical Bishops When the Queen Eliz. therefore did set them aside she did but dispossess men who had no just Right and remove those by her Civil Authority who had no Power but what they had by Force and the Secular Constitution All else but Thirlby were ordain'd by or Communicated with Id. p. 25. them during their Schism and Usurpation and therefore neither the Ordainers nor Ordained had any Right or Jurisdiction in the Church of England That which is Essential and the Authority and Power to execute Id. p. 27. the sacred office of a Bishop or Priest in their respective Charges is deriv'd from the Bishops of the Province and after great violence and disorder from as many or the major part of them which survive Every Bishop and Priest orderly constituted in his place do's Id. ibid. act by the Power and appointment of the Catholick Church and they contemn the Catholick Church that desert and disturb them in the performance of their Office Hence we may understand our Saviours meaning when he says If he neglects to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican which in the first place do's require us to hear our own particular Parish Priest and Bishop whilst they are constituted and live in the Unity of the Church but principally it does oblige us to hearken to the Catholick Church So that if our own Pastors turn Hereticks or set themselves up by undue means and not according to the Order of the Church they are not to be hearkned to but we must according to our Saviour's Command Hear the Church and not those Pastors that will not themselves Hear and Obey the Church The Popes Usurp'd Authority and his Prohibition of joyning Saywel of Vnity p. 307. with our English Bishops made the first Schism and is the hindrance to keep them from now joyning in Communion with us For the first 10 years of Q. Elizabeth the Papists did Communicate Faith and Pract. Ch. of Eng. man c. 1. with us till the Bull of Pope Pius IV. An. 1569 70. tho' our Reformation was then fully setled So that they are bound to answer it why they joyn not still in Communion with us We can say the Pope never had any setled and quiet Possession Faith and Pract Ch. Eng. man Chap. 1. and exercise of Power here at least for any considerable time together as is at large evident from what Mr. Prynn and others have Collected and all our Statutes of Provisors and Premunire's do show how little hold here the Pope was by our Government allow'd or own'd to have And tho' many did Appeal to Rome it was against Law and therefore that gives the Pope no more Right here than many Peoples
Momentous particulars 1. It was a Primitive and Fundamental Power and Duty of See Municipium Ecclesiasticum printed 1697. Bishops to convene in Synods without restriction 2ly All Ecclesiastical Rights are so Spiritual that they cannot be by Allowance and Approbation of God or his Church vested in any one in form of a Temporal Right but only on this Condition that the parties intrusted with them continue in the Unity of the Catholick Church and their own Provincial Bishops as Prelates of it having immediate care of their Souls What Princes have no Rightful Authority to do that they may Municipium Eccl. p. 100. irresistibly do upon an uncontroulable 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 The Church is Subject to all Common-Wealths where it is Thornd prim Ch. gov p. 89. maintain'd in Temporal matters In those which concern the Soul whom shall we think our Lord leaveth her in charge with but those whom he trusteth with the Keys of his House Our Church acknowledges the King to be Supreme in all Causes Ans to several Capt. Qu. p. 36. and over all Persons Ecclesiastical viz. that no Quality in the Church nor Cause of the Church exempts a Subject from the Secular Laws and the Sword of Justice which may be very true as it undoubtedly is yet all manner of Obedience in Religious matters shall not presently become due to the King For when Sovereigns require the Subjects to do things contrary to Religion if their Subjects give but one manner of Obedience to their Laws which goes with us under the Name of Passive Obedience it saves at once their Acknowledgment of the Sovereigns Supremacy over them and of Gods Supremacy over all So that we are not oblig'd by our Oath to become Calvinists c. nor in a word to be of the King's Religion but to submit to his Authority let his Religion be what it will c. If by the Parliaments changing the Church of England you mean Id. p. 25. that Parliaments can make the Religion profess'd by the Church of England to become a false Religion when their Inclinations are once vary'd from us then I tell you that the Church of England is not changeable by English Parliaments nor by all the Powers of the Earth for this matter is fix'd to their hands and can never be unfixt to the end of the World No Ordinance of Secular State can deprive our Church of its Hill's Cath. Bal. p. 99. essential Rights given us from God but only lay Temporal Punishments on us for the use of them without their permission Which if it be absolutely necessary for us at any time to do in Opposition to the State Our Ecclesiastical Acts are not Null but valid to all effects Purely Ecclesiastical and we can but suffer and despise the Penalty The Romanists triumph that we have no Power to meet in Id. p. 122 Convocation without Royal Licence nor at Liberty when there to dispute one Question without the Kings Allowance nor are our Conclusions valid without the King's Ratification whether Catholick Heretick Heathen Turk or Jew on pain of hampering by Praemunire's c. But here it is to be remember'd that these are Impositions of the State for which the Church is not bound to advocate if they are Persecutions but if men would be just they would pass the most favourable interpretations on publick Sanctions and herein conclude that these Statutes were intended not for Persecution but for Caution only against those extravagancies which the Church had abus'd its freedom to the Kings always graciously promising us on request opportunity to Convene and discuss our Matters as to us shall seem Convenient that we might have no cause to think that their Laws are intended for Persecution And for the Kings Ratification it is justly necessary not meerly to an Ecclesiastical effect but that our Censures for breach of these Canons may be seconded upon the Contumacious by the Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo c. It being no reason that the King should be the Churches Hackney without any consent of his own But if any Prince should Pervert these advantages to a Persecution we must then do our duty and fear no Sufferings We hold our Benefices by humane Right our Offices of Priests Bramhal Vindic. Ord. p. 77. and Bishops by Divine Right and Humane Right But put the case we did hold our Bishopricks only by Humane Right is it one of your cases of Conscience that a Sovereign Prince may justly take away from his Subjects any thing which they hold by Humane Right If one man take from another that which he holds justly by the Law of Man he is a Thief and a Robber by the Law of God The substance of what has been said upon these two last Queries amounts to this 1. That Toleration may excuse a Schismatick from the Penalty but not from the guilt of Schism 2. That Communicating with Schismaticks because Tolerated makes the crime less dangerous but not less sinful 3. That tho' Persecution or extreme Severity in Governours may make some men thro' humane frailty to comply with a Schismatical Church yet that will not excuse them from Schism in the sight of God because they ought to obey God rather than Man 4. That tho' the Prince be Supreme in Ecclesiastical Causes yet he cannot alter Religion at his pleasure or injoyn a Sinful Worship and if he do's 't is no Sin but a duty to disobey him 5. The Bishops and Governors of the Church in such a case are bound to defend the Rights of the Church against him as the Primitive Christians did against the Heathen Emperours 6. That all even Kings are liable to Church Censures Q. Whether a Prince being Excommunicated by the Church may be Resisted Depos'd or Murder'd by his Subjects A. It is contrary to the nature of Excommunication tho' in the Falkner Christian Loyalty p. 316. highest degree that any person and especially a Sovereign Prince should thereby lose those Temporal Rights which are not founded in their relation to the Church Indeed in Christian Kingdoms there are ordinarily some Temporal Penalties and abatement of Legal Privileges inflicted upon the persons Excommunicate But this is not the natural Effect of that sentence but is added thereto by the Civil Government and Sovereignty under which such persons do live And therefore no such thing can take place with respect to Sovereign Princes who have no Temporal Superiour to annex this as a Penalty Sovereign Princes are not liable to the Sentence of Excommunication Id. 318. in the same manner with Christian Subjects A Sovereign is capable of losing and forfeiting his relation to the Society of the Christian Church as well as other persons because as Mr. Thorndike Rt. of the Ch.