Review from Rome or at Rome for all Matters Ecclesiastical and Temporal Ecclesiastical by his Bishops Temporal by his Judges says Bishop Bramhall So that the Legal Supremacy of our Kings in spiritual Matters lyes in their power of doing them all without any Interposition of Forreign Bishops who are none of their Subjects by their own Bishops and Clergy whom they can command and compel to do their duties therein as their civil Soveraigns And this way the civil Soveraignty doth not drown or swallow up the spiritual powers of Ecclesiasticks but supposes them all the while peculiarly and immediately vested therewith But only retains its own secular power over their Persons as well as others whereby it can oblige them to a due discharge of their sacred powers according to the Rules of their spiritual Functions as occasion requires It lyes moreover 2. Secondly In the Subordination of Ecclesiastical Courts and Causes wherein Ecclesiasticks are content to act subordinately on the score of their secular mixtures and jurisdictions as in Beneficiary Matters Censures and other things of that Cognizance To give more leisure and encouragement to the Ministers of Religion in attending their spiritual Administrations the civil State has endowed their spiritual Cures with temporal Benefices or Preferments And to beget a greater Regard and a more general and aweful Observance of Ecclesiastical Determinations the civil power as I before observed is annexed and mingled with the spiritual in these Causes and a Concurrence is therein made of Temporal and Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions The Matters cognizable there are not only mere spiritual but some of them of a temporal Nature Such are all Causes Testamentary or about Wills the Causes of Matrimony and Divorces and those about Right of Tythes Oblations and Obventions the Knowledge whereof by the goodness of Princes of this Realm says the Statute for Restraint of Appeals and by the Laws and Customs of the same appertaineth to the spiritual Jurisdiction of this Realm And the Canons and Rubricks which are to rule all Proceedings are not only the Prescriptions of Bishops and Priests but Royal and civil Injunctions Like as also the Antient Canons were by the piety of the Primitive Emperors We decree that the holy Ecclesiastical Canons either those passed in the four General Councils or those confirmed by them be in place of Laws says the Emperor Justinian Our own Laws will have the Divine Canons not to be of less force or effect than Laws and what the sacred Canons forbid that also do our Laws coerce and abolish says the Code And as it was in the case of those Antient Canons under those Emperors so in case of ours too under our Kings the Judgments and Sentences upon them rest not in mere spiritual but draw on temporal Effects and Incapacites which effect the Sufferers in their Persons and Estates as well as in their spiritual Concerns As subjecting them to a Writ of Imprisonment rendring them uncapable to commence or carry on a Suit at Law or the like Now for the favour of this State-Concurrence in all these Causes that under the Union of two such different Powers there may be no clashing the Church submits to act in subordination and the King in all these Causes and mixt Jurisdictions is supreme That is no Synod of Ecclesiasticks is to meet for making Canons or Constitutions but when by his Writ he convenes them Nor are any Agreements of theirs when assembled to be publish'd as Canons or Ordinances till he approves or ratifies them Nor any of those introduced formerly to be executed and put in use further than they consist with the Kings prerogative Royal and with the Laws Customs and Statutes of the Realm All which are provided for in the Statute of Submission And when Canons are thus made by his Ratification it submits also that in certain Cases which are declared by other Acts they may be relaxed by his Royal Dispensation and that as in making Canons so also in granting Dispensations from them he shall be supreme That no Persons shall be elected Bishops of beneficed and temporally endowed Churches but who have the Kings Letters missive as is provided in another Statute or who are of his Nomination That when Ecclesiasticks sit to judge in their Courts by those Laws all their Proceedings in that Judicature shall be subject to the Kings Prohibition to stop their further hearing of a Cause which by Allowance or Custom is of another Cognizance or to his Commission of Review upon Appeals made to him after they have given sentence So that in these Courts there is a subjection and subordination to the King both as to the Laws they proceed by which are the Kings Laws as not passing or being introduced without his Approbation or Sufferance and as to the Judgments there passed according to them And because of this subordination of the Bishops and Clergy in their pure spiritual Jurisdictions for the Civil Soveraigns addition of such Temporal or State Concurrence the King is declared supream in all these Causes Thus much is declared in the Passages already mention'd from the Statutes settling the Kings supremacy And thus 't is said in another Statute of the Review of the Institution of a Christian Man that King Henry 8th set it forth as supream Head of the Church of England because he call'd the Convocation together to frame and publish â—â— by his Consent And thus in his Declaration prefix'd to the 39 Articles of Religion King Charles the First sets forth his supremacy over the Church by this subordination of the Church-men and because in making any Canons or Constitutions they must have his License for their Assembling and their Orders and Agreements confirmed by his Approbation and executed all with subordination to the Laws and Customs of the Land for preservation whereof they are subject to the Temporal Prohibition And in respect of both these parts of civil power viz Both in having this civil command of spiritual persons and this civil power over spiritual causes by reason of such secular mixtures it lyes moreover in having the same 3. Thirdly in opposition and bar of all other earthly dependance especially of all Foreign jurisdiction and appeals He is the one Supream Head of all both Spiritual and Temporal next under God saith the Statute for Restraint of Appeals And the claim of Supremacy in the Queens injunctions is so as no other Foreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them And the Thirty Seventh Article of Religion the first of King James the Firsts Canons and especially the Oath of Supremacy doth most fully disclaim and exclude all Foreign jurisdiction herein And the extending of the Kings Power of Judicature over all Persons Ecclesiasticks as well as others thereby is for excluding all Foreign Powers from being Judges in our Kings Dominions as we heard from King James's Apology for the Oath of Allegiance The Foreign jurisdiction and
Appeals particularly aimed at is that which was claimed here by the Popes of Rome They had wrested from the Crown the foresaid Soveraignty both over Ecclesiastical Persons and Causes For as to Ecclesiastical Persons they claimed an exemption for them as not answerable in Civil Courts but Cognizable only by themselves And as to Ecclesiastical Ministrations as back'd by secular benefices and Ecclesiastical Causes as mixt in the Ecclesiastical Courts with Civil Priviledges and Jurisdiction they disclaimed subordination to the Crown and asserted a supremacy to themselves therein For they made themselves supream here in investitures into benefices and preferments and to have the chief power by their Legates of calling our convecations of passing and ratifying all our Decrees Canons and Constitutions of granting dispensations from them of having their decrees take place of the Prerogatives of the Crown or of the Customs of the Realm of holding courts and of receiving Appeals from any of our spiritual courts and judicatures and the like All which civil powers over Ecclesiastical Persons and subordination of Ecclesiastical causes proceeding by the foresaid mixture of secular fortifications benefices and jurisdictions the statutes Articles injunctions and Canons of this Church and Realm about Supremacy abolish in the Popes and assert to the Crown to which they Anciently did and of right should belong So that this Soveraign Civil Power over all Ecclesiastical Persons as their subjects and this Subordination of all Ecclesiastical Causes to it because of the Concurrence and intermixture of the foresaid civil priviledges and juridictions therewith and that in opposition to the papal pretences in these points is the Ecclesiastical supremacy vested in the King by our Church and Laws The Popes spiritual Usurpation upon this Church was shaken off by asserting to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury the Brittish Churches Ancient and independant Primacy Which did Right to the King too it being against his Prerogative that any Foreigner who doth not own himself to be one of his Subjects should have any Power in his Dominions And his Civil Usurpation on the Crown in respect to Ecclesiastical Persons and Causes among its Subjects was thrown out by asserting of the Kings Supremacy But when the Supremacy speaks such a civil power over the persons of Ecclesiasticks as they are its subjects and such subordination of Ecclesiastical causes thereto as they are united to secular benefices and jurisdictions Yet at the same time as I have shewn doth it disclaim all pretence to meer spiritual powers or to the Soveraign Disposal of the Powers of Orders Of it self it can neither give nor recall them Nor stop the Ministrations thereof in any of those Cases where Christ requires them All it can do there is to withdraw its Civil incorporation from those who have these mere spiritual powers and are bound for the sake of Religion and of the Souls of Men to proceed in the exercise thereof But still that exercise and administration which hangs on anothers Commission will go on upon its own bottom and must be discharged as it can under the opposition instead of the former incorporation of state or under a civil Persecution And this continuance of such Ministrations in such Cases notwithstanding the deposition of state I think may fairly be concluded from the Concessions of those who have undertaken to plead for the Authority of state deprivations and to press them on the suffering Clergy at such times We are told by one from Mr. Mason that a state deposition of a Bishop is not by way of Degradation from his orders as if he had them not but of exclusion from the exercise thereof And that not absolutely as if he could exercise his office no where but after a sort that he should not do it as to their subjects nor in their dominions And by another that a state deprivation doth not concern the Character or Ecclesiastical Communion as an Ecclesiastical Deprivation doth but only concerns the exercise of his Episcopal Authority in any Diocess within the Dominions of that State or enjoying any Ecclesiastical Benefice in it Now since such state deprivation neither concerns the Character nor the Communion of the Church 't is plain he is a Bishop still notwithstanding their deprivation and such a Bishop as without any fault in Church Communion all good Christians may Communicate with And since his exercise of Episcopal Powers is thereby excluded only from the Dioceses and subjects of their dominions it is still the same it was as to all other places And what is the hinderance of exercising the same still in those dioceses and among that Kings Subjects One reason already cited is because he cannot exercise them in the incorporate way or in injoyment of any Ecclesiastical Benefice But besides another I conceive is suggested viz. Regard to state Authority or civil obedience Though neither the Faith nor the Communion of the Church is here concerned yet says the Learned Author last mention'd the Authority of the State is which obliges both the Clergy and Laity in these Cases So that although neither his powers are thereby vacated nor their dependance and communion with him is broken off on other accounts yet in Civil Obedience it seems by his account both Bishops and People on such state deprivation are bound to acquiesce But now if they are left in full Possession of their spiritual powers and of the communion of the Church 't is plain they cannot be debarr'd of their Ministrations in the foresaid Cases nor the people of their attendance on them in any regard to secular inhibitions or to shew Civil Obedience For we must never hear Kings against Christ or obey them when they bar us of doing what he bids us do And these Ministrations he requires and calls for in the aforesaid Cases as I have shewn and also for the peoples communion with and attendance on them And it matters not that they cannot Minister any longer in the incorporate way or under shelter of Civil Laws and enjoyment of benefices For true Ministers of Christ and of Souls must depise benefices and secular incorporations when they come in competition with his service and Minister his word and worship at their hazard and under persecutions Besides if as he owns such deprivation doth not affect the Communion of the Church it leaves the subjects of those dioceses still under the same Religious and Church Principles of dependance and communion with their Bishops as they were before it For though the state should not meddle therein the Church has Principles of this dependance and communion of its own Christ requires his Church should be one and that is by ahhereing to their Bishops whom he has made the Heads of Union And these it seems the deprivation of state doth not at all Cancel only the Authority of state as is said but not Church Communion being concerned therein So that such Bishops deprived by the state continue still to be Christs
of the respective Bishops and Pastors thereof All Orthodox Bishops and Churches keep this up 1. By Receiving each others Members as if they were their own Members 2. And in like sort by refusing each others Schismaticks And Excommunicates And admitting each others Reconciliation and Re-union of Members Of Communicatory Letters fox those Purposes CHAP. III. Of just Grounds to break off Communion Particularly of making impious and unlawful Things or unrighteous Usurpations and Incroachments the Terms of their Communion JUst Ground to break off Communion from any Churches 1. When they put impious or unlawful Things into their Sacred Offices Reasons hereof Faith and Worship spoke of as the great Ligaments which Bind us to any Church 2. More still if they admit none to Communion in the good Parts unless they particularly concur in the corrupt ones too 2. A Second Ground is if they make unrighteous Usurpations the Condition of their Communion CHAP. IV. Heresie a just Ground to break off Communion CHrists first end was to Publish a Religion Next to Incorporate â—â— into a Church or Society for the Profession of it Christian Doctrine the Foundation of Church Society and Unity So we are not Bound to Associate or Unite with any longer than they keep to this Doctrine but are discharged by their Heresie And on the Evidence of the Fact it self before Synodical Sentence This Liberty 1. For the People and Clergy towards their own local Guides and Bishops 2. For Clergy and People of one Church towards those of another And on Defections from grand and necessary Doctrines of Practice as well as of Faith Chiefly when the Ministerial Defence of either is no longer allow'd in their Communion Being thus set loose from their own Erring Bishops and Clergy they are free to Unite with others who are Orthodox And those others are free to receive them Canonical Rules against intermedling in others Diocess c. no hindrance thereto Rules of Unity not pleadable by such Defectors for vniting with them The Guilt of making the Schism lies on the Defectors Should their Brethren come over that would not Cure but make the Breach from the Catholick Church wider CHAP. V. Of the Communion of good Christians or with whom they are to joyn in Divine Offices under a Schism THeir Obligations to stick to their Orthodox Rightful Bishops and to stand off from the Anti-Bishops and their Adherents in the foremention'd Cases As reta â—â—â—ing their Baptism they may own the Schismaticks as Brethren but as being in a Schism they must stand off from their Communion A great Sence of the Obligations to shuâ— the Communion of Schismeticks and corrupt Teachers in the first Times This was most when Charity was at the hight This will bar Communion 1. with the Electors and Ordainers of such Anti-Bishops 2. With their Clergy and People or the Assemblies of their Diocess 3. With other Bishops and Churches who take their part and communicate with them 4. With the Bishops of a Province who turn over to an Anti-Primate or opposite Metropolitane Of Provincial Union and the Rules for Maintenance thereof 5. When Curch Divisions are made for opposite Ways of Worship and Tenets Men will Unite with such as are of their own Mind and hold Communion with those who are for the same way of necessary Worship and Tenets with themselves CHAP. VI. Of Ordinations of Anti-Bishops which tho' always Schismatical are not always Nullities OF St. Cyprians saying the Anti-Bishop is not Secundus but Nullus That Anti-Bishops are real Bishops and their Ordinations are not Null in themselves but were admitted in the Novatians by the Council of Nice In the Donatists by the Roman and African Councils The same shown in several other Cases Tho' Men have Orders yet they cannot exercise the same in Assemblies of the Faithful without the Communion of the Church Such Offenders Received sometimes to Clerical sometimes only to Lay-Communion as the Church saw Cause The Case of the Anti-Bishops ordain'd by the Schismatick Meletius Ecclesiastical Laws and Discipline asserted or abated in such Receptions as was judged most expedent for the Church The Donatists made Schism to take away the Powers of Orders and are opposed therein by St. Austin How St. Cyprian and the Africanes of his Age seem to have done the same which St. Basil disliked in them Altho' their Nulling the Ministerial Acts of Schismaticks seems to be only in the Way of Asserting Discipline and Canons by denying Communion to them in their Churches not that they thought them Null in themselves How the Admission of Ordination of Anti-Bishops Consists with the Bishops being the Principle of Unity and is not against the Nature of the Spiritual Monarchy A Difference as to this between Secular and Spiritual Monarchies And of Local Limitations in conserring Orders CHAP. VII Of the Excusableness of the Peoples receiving Ministerial Offices from Men in Schism rather than live without any at all THis wants the Malignity of Schism The Excusableness thereof shewn 1. From the Nature and Importance of the things themselves Where of the great Importance of Publick VVorship or of Communion in Ministerial Offices 2. From the Abatements God himself has been willing to make on such Necessity in other like Duties 2. From the Practice of Gods People under the greatest Schisms This Necessity being thought to Legitimate it 1. Among the Ten Tribes whose Ministrations were all in a Shism 2. VVith the Schismatical Novatians in the height of the Arian Persecution 3. In the Schismatical Extirpation of Episcopacy among us in the great Rebellion 4. Under the Schism of Forreign Churches where the Protestants have no Bishops Of the Abatements the Church has made where it had great Reason in the Point of Shunning the Communion of Schismaticks and Excommunicate Persons especially before they were Sentenced by the Church The same Equitably Applicable to this Case How both a due Sence of the Criminallness of Schism and Exercise of publick VVorship is provided for by this Means CHAP. VIII Of Communicating in like Necessity where there are some Prayers Sinful in the Matter of them To concur or go along in any unrighteous Petition or Thanksgiving is most Unrighteous and Prophane Of mixt Prayers where the Mixtures are Idolatrous c. Or where some Immoral Petitions are added to a Service not exceptionable on any other Accounts Of Bearing such Immoral Mixtures whilst they do not particularly concur therein but express Dissent from the same and resorting still to the Assemblyes where they are used in Care of â—â—eping Peace and Union Of Bearing the same for the Necessity of having some Ministerial Offices in want of other Opportunityes Mere Presence at such Immoral Addâ—tions no interpretative Profession of Concurrence thereâ—n Chiefly if Dissent be shewn by some external Sign Of these Concessions of favour and ease All highly concern'd to take the Right way in the Points here Debated Unsofe should they take the wrong to trust to the Plea
and let in members by baptism and on just cause cast them out by excommunication and ordain others that shall hold on from time to time to do the same But in discharge of these mere spiritual powers they cannot claim the establish'd places wherein to assemble for these Ministrations nor any enforcement of Civil Laws to make men duly frequent them and to hinder all from disturbing them or from demeaning themselves disorderly or irreverently at them Nor can they claim any secular benefices for maintenance of those who Minister therein nor to have any Cognizance of Wills Tyths or other Temporal matters nor to have their Canons made Regal injunctions or their Rubricks made Parliamentary Laws and the breakers thereof punishable by Civil Magistrates in their estates or Persons nor their spiritual censures to bring men under civil incapacities or make them lyable to civil punishments or the like The state that gave these Civil Accessions to the Bishops and Pastors in their incorporation has call'd them back and taken them away in their deprivation So that now to stick to Christ they must quit the benefits of incorporation and the Favor of Princes And as men left to their naked spiritual powers which no rightful state can deprive them of be content to exercise their spiritual Ministrations in the foresaid cases not as in an endowed and secularly protected but as in a persecuted or secularly destitute Church And as the state has power over all these secular endowments of the spiritual ministration because it conferr'd them So has it 2. Over some other Powers which belong'd to the Church whilst it kept separate but which it gives up to the Civil State during the benefit of incorporation with it For some powers the Church may have no necessity to insist on either for the sake of Religion or of the Souls of Men. And such powers for the greater benefit of incorporation it may be free to part with Thus provided the substance of Religion were secured and kept up among men in all necessary points of Worship and Doctrine and the main of discipline were taken care for by Canons already allowed as it was on the submission of our Church and Clergy made under King Henry the eighth the Church might be free by Compromise to agree that it would exercise no Canons already made but such as were consistent with the Kings Prerogative and the Laws of the Land And that in Case of any others a stop should be put to the proceedings of the spiritual courts by secular Prohibitions And that the Bishops and Clergy should not meet to make more or Assemble in Synod or Convocation but when summon'd thither by the Kings writ Nor any of their agreements should be given out for Canons or Orders but what he allow'd to pass under his Ratification And that after they were passed in things Dispensable on just cause in any particular case he should have the chief power to Grant a Dispensation That all Bishops coming in to Govern this Church according to the foresaid Rules and Prescriptions should be of his Nomination And that the Advancement of all Ministers to beneficed and civilly fortifyed Cures and Administrations should be according to the Rights of Patronage establish'd by the Laws and such like These and such like powers are naturally resident in the Church it self in a separate state or when it stands-upon its own bottom and is not incorporated For as a society it must have power in it self to make needful and wholesome Rules of Government from time to time and to have its Bishops and Ministers meet together as they can that they may make them and to appoint persons who shall be entrusted with the Administration thereof And accordingly whilst the Church was kept separate from the State and persecuted by it these powers were exercised by the Church and by its Bishops and Pastors under all the Heathen Persecutions During which the Clergy under their Bishops and the Bishops under their Metropolitanes were convened and met in Synods and made Canons and decided Controversies and sentenced Criminals and fill'd up vacancies in Presbyteries or Bishopricks having a New Bishop elected by the Metropolitane and Bishops of the Province or sometimes by the Clergy and People of the Diocess and the like Indeed as good subjects of the state they are bound to keep all innocent state Laws and cannot by any devised Canons of their own cast off their Obligation or forbid themselves or the Church to pay a due civil obedience by observance thereof So that they have no power in any condition of making any Church Canons which require subjects to act against innocent state constitutions Nor may they Lawfully refuse when the state calls them to meet together in Synods or otherwise but as Good Subjects are obliged to pay a ready obedience and to appear upon its summons These are only proper expressions of civil subjection from which the Church can in no state or condition plead exemption But tho' they may not disobey the state summons yet when it meddles not therewith in a separate condition they have power to assemble themselves as they can and as need requires taking care to do it in such ways as will make it least jealous of them And when Assembled tho' they can make or inforce no Canons to defeat any innocent civil constitutions they have power in such separate state to make others which are consistent with them and to exercise the other now mention'd powers as I say the Church did in the primitive persecutions But when it became incorporate and was obliged by the favors and priviledges of the state the Church by agreements partly express and partly by Tacit and practical carryed in prescription and the practice of times gave up these and such like powers residing otherwise in it self to the Civil Magistrates who were thus obligingly become its Patrons and Nursing Fathers Since the Emperors became Christians the Affairs of the Church have Depended upon them and the greatest Councils have been held and still are held at their pleasure was the observation of Socrates in the Preface to his Fifth Book of the History of the Church These it parted with to the civil power for its Greater Honor. And also to secure it of its Good Behaviour being tyed thereby to a compliance in things which it was not bound to insist on for the sake of Religion and of a Good Conscience and to prevent all jarring and interfereing with that power in whose Favor and Society it found so great benefit seeking herein to keep up that Beneficial kindness and Correspondence which is between them And these it gave up to it by Degrees and more in some places and less in others Being put upon parting with less at first and with more afterwards especially after the Papal Usurpations in the Western Church grew so very troublesome and prejudicial to Princes and their Kingdoms in point of investitures Appeals c.
under the Cognizance of their civil Courts as others are And this civil Subjection of Ecclesiastical Persons against the Papal Exemptions thereof is the main thing in the Ecclesiastical Supremacy claimed by our Kings In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth and in the Canons of King James this Supremacy is called the highest Power under God whereto all Men within the same Realms by God's Law owe most Loyalty and Obedience afore and above all other Powers and Potentates in Earth Her Majesty say the Injunctions again thereby neither doth nor ever will challenge any other Authority than was lately used and was of antient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have the soveraignty and rule over all manner of Persons born within her Dominions of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other Foreign Power shall or ought to have any superiority over them By Supremacy or chief Government says the 37th Article of Religion we give only that prerogative which we see to have been always given to all godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all States and Degrees committed to their Charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the Stubborn and Evil-doers And the Oath of Supremacy as King James the First declared only extended to the Kings Power of Judicature over all Persons as well Civil as Ecclesiastical excluding all foreign Powers and Potentates to be Iudges within his Dominions All which plainly make the Ecclesiastical Supremacy to lye mainly in having Bishops and Ministers or the Ecclesiastical State who were broke off from it by the Papal Exemption under the same common Obligation to the civil Soveraign with other Subjects or under the Tye of civil Subjection In vertue of this civil power over their Persons as his Subjects he can command them faithfully to discharge their Duties and Functions And that not only as Subjects in civil Matters but as Ministers in divine Offices For as he is the civil Soveraign the Temporal Magistrate is the Keeper of both Tables being to keep his Subjects in Godliness as well as in Honesty as St. Paul says And is to use the civil Sword for sins against Religion as well as for sins against the State and in his way to punish Ministers for Neglect or Abuse of their spiritual Functions as well as for Breach of the civil Peace Thus good Kings as Hezekiah and Josiah employed their temporal power to cut off corrupt administrations and to reform Abuses of Worship and Religious Offices in the Jewish Church As Constantine and other good Christian Kings and Emperors did afterwards in other Nations And the 37th Article of our Church declares That by his Supremacy the King with the civil Sword may restrain the stubborn and evil-doers whether Laicks or Ecclesiasticks And on this Account Constantine calls himself the Minister of God for the Coercion and Punishment of wicked Bishops And at his Entertainment of the Bishops tells them That God has appointed them the Bishops of things within the Church and him the Bishop of things without it and that it belongs to him as Bishop of Bishops to see they discharge their duties and be pious Thus the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian say That God by setting them to reign had made them the Bond both of the piety and of the external welfare and security of those who are subject to them the connexion betwixt which two their study was to preserve inviolable And in this Kings saith St. Austin according as God commands them do serve the Lord as they are Kings when they enjoyn good things and prohibit evil things in their Kingdoms And that not only in Matters pertaining to humane society but also in Matters pertaining to our Holy Religion And thus by means of his civil Power over Spiritual Persons has the King the like Power over Spiritual Acts Functions viz. as he can require and by the civil Sword compel them whom Christ has empowered thereto in his Dominions to exercise the same I mean to exercise them according to the Rules of God's Word and of their own Spiritual Function his Power lying in calling them to do their duties not to any Neglect or Breach thereof As we see was observed not only by the Godly Jewish Kings but also by the Primitive Emperors whose civil Laws and Edicts in these Matters still followed the spiritual Rules and Duties and were a secular Enforcement to drive all Ecclesiasticks to keep them not to Transgress them Our Laws do not disdain to follow the Sacred and Divine Canons the civil power in these Matters enforcing that which the Church had first prescribed says the Emperor Justinian And accordingly in the Civil Law for Restraint of Excommunications we forbid our Bishops saith he to Excommunicate any without a just Cause be shewn for it We forbid all Bishops and Presbyters saith another Law to exclude any from the Communion before Proof of such a Cause for which this is commanded to be done by the Ecclesiastical Canons So by his Imperial Power over their Persons commanding their Ministrations and limitting them therein to their own Rules And thus the King like as the Jewish Kings and Primitive Emperors were is supreme in these spiritual Acts and Administrations as in his Dominions they are all to be sped and administer'd not by independant Forreigners but by his own Subjects or as having the supream earthly Command of Bishops and Priests who are bound in civil Obedience to him as their Temporal Soveraign to exercise them when he requires it And this way he can give Final Justice to all his Subjects in all spiritual as well as temporal Matters having Authority to command his Bishops and Clergy to do it in the one as well as his Judges and temporal Ministers to do it in the other And by this power of doing it by their Means or Ministrations is his Supremacy set off Thus in the Statute for the Restraint of Appeals the King is declared to be the one supream Head endowed with plenary Power and Authority to render Final Justice in all Causes because the spirituality or his Bishops and Clergy can administer and determine all that belongs to their spiritual Offices and the Judges and other his temporal Ministers can do the like for Tryal of Property and Conservation of civil Peace The Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Matters doth not imply the power of the Keys which he has not but he may command those who have them to use them rightly says Mr. Mason This Supremacy is preserved if he take care that those who have the power of Ecclesiastical Censures do exercise them says Dr. Burhil He has plenary power to render final Justice that is to receive the last Appeal of his own Subjects without any fear of any
Naming of Bishops Conveneing them in Synods Ratifying of Canâ—ns Dispensing with them and the like after once a rightful state breaks the incorporation and puts the true Church from state-protection and endowments into a state of persecution For then the Church and State are divided again as they were in the days of the Ancient Canons and so they may be free as Bishops then were to exercise those powers by the Rule of those Canons as they can and as in prudence they shall see cause But whilst the protection and incorporation holds for the sake whereof it laid down its claim to those powers and suffer'd them to become the States-Prerogatives the Bishops and Ministers are not to pretend to them And so whilst the Church enjoys such incorporation our own Church by its Articles and Canons disclaims the exercise of these powers by it self and confirms them to the Crown as I formerly observed Thus are the Recognitions which Ecclesiasticks ought to make of the Supremacy of Princes and all the Regard they ought to bear to the incorporation of the Church fairly consistent with their Faithful discharge of their Spiritual Ministrations after the State has deprived them in the foresaid Cases They stand bound to Christ there to exercise the same by manifold obligations as I have shewn And no deprivations of Princes though they be Soveraign Governors of all their Subjects and have endowed and incorporated the Chuch can disable or discharge them from it And from this state of these matters it may be easy to clear and take off the Force of those instances which are brought of state-deprivations without the concurrence of Ecclesiastical Synods and to shew they are of no force in the foresaid Cases The instances chiefly insisted on are the Deposition of Abiathar by Solomon and the frequent sometimes Annual depositions of their High-Priests by the Romans when Judea fell into their Hands the depositions of the Patriarks of the Greek Church by the Turks and the deprivation of Queen Maries Popish Bishops by a commission of State pursuant to an Act of Parliament without a Synod at the beginning of the Reformation under Queen Elizabeth 1. First as for Abiathar whom for conspiring with Adonijah Solomon is said to have thrust out from being Priest unto the Lord 1 King 2. 27. it doth not appear that Solomon did remove him from the dignity and office of High Priest but only from the exercise thereof For after this sentence was passed upon Abiathar and after Joab the General also his complice and conspirator had been sentenced and suffer'd death and Benajah was made General in his place 1 King 1. 28. 34 35 Abiathar is still reckon'd as Partner with Zadock in the High-Priest-hood 1 King 4. For so in the reckoning up of Solomons Officers when Benajah the Son of Jehojadah was over the Host 't is added and Zadock and Abiathar were the Priests v. 4. And as for the debarring him the Exercise of his High-Priests Office that was the natural and inseparable consequent of his Banishment from Jerusalem to Anathoth for his Life For the exercise of that Office was local and fixed to Jerusalem and the Temple In the Temple were all the Priests tyed to officiate whose Ministrations he was to direct and in that was the Holy of Holies whereinto once a year he himself in Person and he alone was to enter and offer the Blood of Expiation and there was the Mercy Seat before which he was to stand with the Urim and Thummim to consult God upon occasion The Exercise of which Ministrations with others required his Personal Residence and could not be discharged by him living in another place So that the banishing him from Jerusalem by mere natural consequent without need of spiritual Jurisdiction excluded him from the Exercise of the High-Priests-Office And this Banishment Solomon inflicted on him as his civil Soveraign for his Trayterous Conspiracy with Adonijah and on like Cause any other lawful Soveraign may do the same And without doubt he not only consented to this Amotion but was thankful for it and that instead of being sent to Anathoth he was not sent out of the World as by Law his Fact deserved So that Abiathar had nothing to contest in his Case nor any mind to do it being justly lyable to suffer so much more at the hand of the civil Power than it was pleased to inflict on him And then as for Zadock who held the High-Priesthood in his Room and whilst he was living that doth not appear to have been by a New Creation For before this extrusion of Abiathar he had been created Partner Vicar or Suffragan with him in the High-Priests Office in Davids time Thus in the reckoning up of Davids Officers they are put together as filling this place Sheva was Scribe and Zadock and Abiathar were the Priests 2 Sam. 20. 25. And hast thou not there with thee Zadock and Abiathar the Priests says David to Hushai when in his flight from Absalom he sent him back into the City to defeat the Council of Achitophel 2 Sam. 15. 35. chap. 17. 15. And in carrying back the Ark into the City David gives command to Zadock the Priest about it 2 Sam. 15. 25 27. and the Text adds Zadock therefore and Abiathar carryed the Ark of God again to Jerusalem joyning them as Partners in this great Act of the Pontifical Charge v. 29. He also commits to Zadock the Priest the anointing and proclamation of Solomon which was another Act thereof 1 King 1. 32 34 38 39. And this is plainly asserted by Josephus who says That Zadock was first created High-priest in the Reign of David And therefore on Abiathars exclusion by Solomon that Zadock only came in to have the High-priesthood and to act therein alone He was then Sagan or Suffragan and Vicar to Abiathar as Grotius and Vatablus conceive When Abiathar therefore by his Banishment for Life in just Punishment of his Treason was incapacitated for any further Exercise of his High-priests-office on such debarring of his Pontifical Exercise there was no new Ordination of another into his Place But Zadock who had been created his Partner in the Priesthood before on his Partners Loss of this Exercise was to exercise the whole himself So that the Authority of a Deprivation of State to unmake one and to make another to be a Bishop in their dominions during his Life is ill-fetch'd from this Instance For neither doth Abiathar plainly appear to have been despoyled of the Honour of the High-priesthood tho' by Banishment for Life he was of the Exercise thereof by Solomon Nor Zadock to have been first advanced and created High-Priest by him but to have been Ordained thereto by the spiritual Powers of the Sanhedrim to whom that Ordination and Investiture did belong in Davids Time Besides 2. Secondly in these alledged State-deprivations of the Jewish High-priests either of Abiathar by Solomon or after they
those who had been Ordained by them Besides all this instead of Anti-bishops being absolutely null and in reality no Bishops to heal and compose the differences of a miserably harassed and divided Church on such Competitions it has been sometimes agreed that whichsoever of them were the Right on the death of either the Survivor should be owned and the Church should have no other Bishop and so all the Ordinations and Episcopal Acts therein should pass through his hands and stand on his Authority whilst he lived Thus it was at Antioch where the Church was divided into Two Parts 〈◊〉 for the cause of the Faith which was common to them both but of the Bishops as Socrates says some owning and adhering to Meleâ—ius and others to Paulinus For to heal and close this lamentable Schism it was agreed which Sozomen calls an admirable Counsel and expedient that on the death of either the survivor should hold the See alone for his Life without being confronted and opposed by the Ordination of any other Person To prevent which an Oath was exacted of all in that Church who seemed to stand fairest for the Episcopate and of Flavianus among the rest that on the death of either of the Bishops they would not be Ordain'd Bishop of Antioch whilst the other survived Which Agreement and Oath being afterwards broke by Flavianus when on the death of Meletius he was Ordained Bishop against Paulinus cost him so much trouble and difficulty as he found to get himself received for the Bishop thereof both in Egypt Arabia and Cyprus and at Rome and among the Western Bishops afterwards Thus though Men in a Schism did ill in Ordaining others yet were not those Ordinations null in themselves but really conferred the powers of Orders which the Persons might exercise if the Church pleased And when once the Persons were reconciled and had satisfied the Church for their Schism they have often been allow'd to officiate in Virtue of that Ordination without being Ordained over again by the greatest Councils and through the early and later Ages of the Church And this shews that their Ordinations were not null in themselves For if such Persons had never received any Spiritual powers in their Ordinations they had none to exercise And had the Church been of this perswasion it would never have admitted them to exercise those POWERS which it believed were never Conferred on them But though these Men even after they had faln into a Schism or others who were Ordained therein had Orders yet was it in the power of the Church to deny them the Ministerial Exercise of their Orders Men must have the Communion of the Church as well as Orders before they can exercise their Orders and minister to the Faithful in any Religious Assemblies And though their Schism doth not utterly devest or exclude them from the Powers of Orders yet it doth from the Communion of the Church without which the Faithful who are not to seek but to shun the Ministrations of Schismaticks and Excommunicate persons must not partake with them in any Exercise of Orders And to this Communion after once they have justly lost and faln from it they are to be restored again in Degree more or less and to be received to the Communion either only of Lay-members or else of Clergy and to officiate according to their former Honors as the Church pleaseth And as to this Admission and Allowance to exercise their Orders in its Communion the Church has acted variously according as it saw cause When Ordinations have been made against the Rules of Unity though the Offenders thereby received Orders yet in care of these Rules and to assert and keep up Discipline it has at some times denyed as well as at other times granted its Communion to them for their Exercise of the same Where it judged that Rigor expedient on their submission it would receive them to communicate as Lay-men But they should not be allow'd the Priviledges nor permitted to act and officiate as Bishops and Priests in her Communion nor should other Churches receive them and joyn with them as such till moreover satisfaction had been first given to those Rules of Unity in Ordinations which had been broken in theirs And this it has done not only in case of this great Rule of not Ordaining a Bishop into a full Church but also in case of other Rules which are of less Account than it is Thus of Ordination into a Church already vacant if it is made without the Metropolitanes consent the Council of Nice and afterwards the Council of Antioch Deâ—rce That the Church shall not receive such an one for a Bishop And of Ordinations at large without declaring the appropriate Church or Place wherein the Person Ordained is to officiate the Council of Chalcedon decrees that they shall be invalid Not to mention or insist also on the Council of Nice's rejecting of the Anti-bishops Ordained by the Schismatick Meletius till they were confirmed by a more holy imposition of hands as their Synodical Epistle says because there was an incapacity more than ordinary for giving Orders not only to Anti-bishops but to any others in his Case which because it may be of use in this Argument I shall give an Account of Meletius was Bishop of Lycus in Egypt under the See of Alexandria and as Epiphanius relates was next in dignity and power to Peter the Bishop of Alexandria himself And he with his Adherents broke off from the Unity of the Church and set up a Schism separating from Peter the Bishop of Alexandria and assembling for Prayers and other Divine Offices by themselves and Ordaining opposite Bishops Priests and Deacons for the erection of opposite Churches in several places as Eleutheropolis Gaza and Aelia as Epiphanius says And these separate erections of Churches and opposite Ordinations he made after he had been justly deposed by Peter in a Synod as we are assured by Athanasius who had the best Opportunities to understand the Truth of these Matters and the most cause to inquire into them and also by Socrates afterwards And that too among other Crimes for his having faln in the Persecution to deny the Faith and to sacrifice to Idols Which Crimes when any Bishop or Clergy were once convicted of by the great Rule of Church-Discipline they were never afterwards to exercise any Clerical Powers or to officiate as Bishops and Clergy but upon their Reconciliation were to be received only to Lay-Communion After such Falls says St. Cyprian 't is in vain for any to seek to usurp the Episcopacy since 't is manifest such Men can neither preside in the Church of Christ nor ought to offer Sacrifice to God Chiefly since it has been Decreed by Cornelius and by Us and by all the Bishops of the whole World concerning them that after such Offence they may be admitted to Penance and the Peace of the Church but must stand
removed from the Honour of the Priesthood and Clerical Orders Accordingly Basilides the Bishop after he had denyed and cursed Christ was very thankful as he says and looked upon it as a great Favour to him that he could be received to communicate as a Lay-man And likewise Trophimus the Bishop when he had sacrificed to Idols was admitted as he tells Antotianus only to communicate as a Lay-man not to usurp the Priests Office any more as some malicious persons had inform'd him which made Antonianus complain of the same to Cyprian as a Violation of this known Rule of Discipline And in Vertue of this being the known and received Rule of the Church the Donatists sought to invalidate and overthrow the Ordination of Caecilian against whom they had set up their Anti-bishop Majorinus at Carthage pretending that Caecilians Ordainers particularly Faelix of Aptisng had been Traditors in the precedeing Persecution or had faln from Christ and deliver'd up their Bibles to be burnt by their persecutors Which Charge had it been true as it was false would have been received and owned for a just Exception on both sides And the Catholicks would have rejected Caecilian till he could make out some better Ordination as well as the Council of Nice did these Egyptian Anti-bishops that had no better Ordainer than Meletius who stood guilty of the like Offence But it was rejected in Caecilians Case as being a malicious Forgery the Donatists thereby impudently laying their own Crimes on others hoping that would hinder men from inquiring after the same in themselves Indeed as Epiphanius relates this Matter Meletius made this Schism and Ordained these Anti-bishops not after he had sacrificed to Idols and had been Synodically condemned by Peter for the same but whilst he as well as Peter was a stout Confessor for the Faith against Idols and in his Zeal for the Discipline of the Church against Peters easiness in admitting the Lapsers who sought to them whilst they were together in Prison for the peace of the Church But Athanasius who was nearer to this Transaction and who after some others was chosen to suâ—ceed Peter in the same Church is more like to understand the Truth of this Affair than Epiphanius was Whom Baronius and Petavius look upon as mislead into this account by some false Acts or Histories of the Meletians who dealt injuriously with Peter and the Catholicks in Egypt like as the Donatists did with Caecilian and those Catholicks in Africk on whom they labour'd to fix the Crime of being Traditors whereof the Catholicks were free but they themselves were notoriously guilty Thus though their Orders were valid in themselves without which they could have been received at no time yet have they not always availed to Claim and obtain the Churches Communion without which the persons could not be received by the Faithful to exercise the same And this has been when the Church saw fit and expedient to insist upon the Rules of Unity in Ordinations and more vigorously to assert Ecclesiastical Law and Discipline And this it might assert or relax as it saw Cause Ecclesiastical Law and Discipline is not a Rule of indispensible Obligation to the Church but such as it may and oft-times has receded from on great reason and necessity What Rules the Church makes the Church may alter and go off from in particular Cases as need shall require and as may best serve those ends for which it made them Accordingly Rules of Discipline have not been one and the same in all Ages For to omit others the ancient Councils asserted the free Election of Bishops nominated here by the Prince to the Bishops of the Province And for bid the Translation of Bishops from poorer to richer Sees And the Attendance of Bishops about Courts of Princes the Council of Antioch confirmed afterwards at Chalcedon and in Trullo forbidding them to go to the Emperor without the approbation and Letters of the Metropolitane And excluded both Bishops and Clergy from intermealing and incumbring themselves with Secular Trusts and Administrations All which are otherwise in these latter Ages And such Rules of Discipline as have been observed more strictly have not had one equal and uniform Tenor of Observation but have been sometimes remitted and sometimes exacted and stood upon as the Church was driven thereto by prudential Reason Thus it has been with the Canons or Rules of Discipline about Ordinations Which as the Church has sometimes insisted on as I noted to vacate the Ordinations which any Bishops made against them I mean to deny the Persons its Communion without which whatever powers of Orders they had received they could not be received in any Assemblies of the Faithful to exercise the same So were they at other times relaxed and over-ruled by the necessities of the Church and the Persons on their reconciliation admitted to officiate in vertue of such Orders as I think may abundantly appear by the fore-cited instances And this very Reason is given for it by the African Fathers in the Synod of Carthage when they admit of the Ordinations of the Donatists which the Transmarine or Italian Synod had rejected telling Pope Anastasius that this Reception of them to the same Orders was for the great necessity of Africk for a †better provision for Catholick Unity and for the benefit and peace of the Church These instances and proofs I think may be sufficient to shew that Anti-bishops and others of their Ordination have Orders though being in a Schism the Faithful ought not to joyn with them in their use thereof Their Schism makes them Sinners in receiving and in using their Orders and shuts out others from communicating therewith But it doth not utterly destroy and null their Orders nor must it be said I conceive that by such sinful Ordination they receive nothing or that whatever they had formerly received they lose by falling into Schism so as that thenceforward they have no Orders nor are Bishops or Priests at all The Donatists indeed as St. Austin reports asserted this and taught that by breaking off from the Church though men did not lose the Baptism which they had received before yet they lost their Orders or the Authority and Power of Baptizing And on pretence thereof they re-baptized those who since the Breach had been baptized by any of the Catholick Clergy As to which he owns that whilst they continue in their Schism they sin in exercising their Orders They do not do right saith he in giving Baptism to others whilst they themselves are broken off from the Church And it is to their own destruction so long as they have not the Charity of Union The having Baptism themselves and confering it on others are both pernicious whilst they continue out of the Bond of Peace But though they ought not to use these powers till they have amended their Schism yet as he