Deposition of the Heretical or Schismatical Incumbent to be liable to the charge of Schism as it would have been in Case the Incumbents had been Bishops of the same Communion For the Popish Bishops therefore the Lay Deprivation alone was sufficient there being on account of their difference of Communion no Duty owing to them from the Protestant Subjects of those Dioceses even Antecedently to the Deprivation But this cannot be pretended to be the Case of our present Deprived Fathers Our Adversaries themselves have acknowledged them for Bishops of the same Protestant Communion with themselves If therefore the Lay Deprivation prove Invalid they cannot excuse themselves from the same Duties which oblige them still with regard to Conscience § XXX THIS Answer will abundantly clear the disparity between our present Lay Deprivation and that of the Popish Bishops in the beginning of the Reformation And we may the more securely rely on it because it depends on no private opinions of ours first thought of now and sitted to our present Case but proceeds as the rest of our Reasonings in this affair generally do on the Sense and Practise of unquestionable Antiquity A new Schism indeed or a new Heresie I confess was allowed a Synodical Hearing And there was reason for it because it might well be supposed not yet sufficiently manifest whether Heresie or Schism was indeed concerned in the Case or at least whether of the two Parties between whom the Dispute was raised was guilty of the Charge But when the Case was once adjudged and the difference of Communion which must necessarily follow on the pertinaciousness of the Criminals was once formed then the Church never troubled her self to inflict new Censures on every new Instance of the same Case And there was reason for it From the time that they constituted a distinct Communion she reckoned them without and with such St. Paul himself denies her to have any thing to do And it is plain that all the Church's Canons are only for maintaining a Correspondence between the several Jurisdictions of the same Communion that they may not interfere among themselves This is the reason why one Bishop must be deprived before another can be Canonically introduced because till the first be deposed the Duty of the Subjects of that Jurisdiction belongs to him and cannot without Schism be paid to any besides him But Duty was never thought owing unless in the same Subordination which cannot be but in the same Body and in the same Communion Where therefore there is no Duty in Spirituals owing to any other there it can be no undutifulness to set up a new Spiritual Body with a new Spiritual Jurisdiction any more than in a Case of a wast To be sure it can be no Schism where there is no common Body that can be said to be divided by it and where there is but one only Government to which the Obedience of the Subjects can be pretended in Conscience due What need therefore can there be of a Spiritual Deprivation where nothing is already due Indeed what can they deprive him of who has no Power which can intitle him to the Duty of the Catholick Subjects of his Jurisdiction What such a Heretical or Schismatical Bishop may pretend over the Consciences of his own Heretical or Schismatical Communicants is not the Catholick Church's Interest or Duty to intermeddle in So in the many Sees of Africa wherein it appears by the Conference at Carthage that there were Catholick and Donatist Bishops the Catholicks took no more notice of the Donatist Incumbents whenever a Predecessor failed than the Donatists did of the Catholick Bishops of the same Sees It was Peace and Reunion that was designed in the Proposals that were made for discontinuing the like distinction of Successions for the future The like was the Case of the many Arian Bishops in the time of Constantius and downwards Where there were no Bishops but such the Catholicks acted as if there were no Bishops at all They expected no sentence of Deprivation against them yet acted in the mean time what they could not have justified without such a sentence if it had been necessary Lucifer Calaritanus a Western Bishop had no Jurisdiction at Antioch Yet finding no other Bishop there but such as he judged Arian if not in Opinion yet at least in Communion as having been Consecrated by those of the Arian Communion he took upon him to substitute another and to assist at his Consecration as a Catholick Bishop may do where there is no Bishop at all I am not now concerned how rightly he judged so who afterwards did things to extreams in his zeal against that Heresie However that Example shews how far his Catholick Principles would have warranted him to have proceeded in Case the Incumbent had been as bad as he supposed him to be § XXXI YET besides this I may add further that suppose the Popish Bishops on account of the Invalidity of their Lay Deprivations retained a Right in Conscience over the Protestants themselves yet it will not thence follow that the error if any had been in that Age could affect the Titles of our present Bishops It might indeed have made the first Protestant Bishops Schismaticks if they had been immediately before of the same Communion But this could last no longer than the Persons lived who were injured by the Substitution So long as they lived the Duty had been owing to those who had been Invalidly deprived and therefore could not have been paid to their substituted Rivals without Schism After their decease this reason perfectly failed The Duty to them had been extinguished with their Lives So that thence forward their Successors were alone Then there could be no pretence of Injury to their Predecessors when their Title to Duty was at an end Nor could there be any danger of Schism when the Duty was payable only to one who had no Rival in his Claim to it And in that Case the Interest of Mankind in general which is an Argument of Right has always allowed the Title of the Possessor where there is none other living who can pretend a better Title Nor have they ever stood upon new Solemnities of investing them with the same honours they had before when upon the death of their Predecessors they who before had an ill Title were judged to have a good claim afterwards to the Duty and Obedience of the Subjects The tacit consent of all Persons whether Subjects or others concern'd in the Election or Investiture and by consequence in Legitimating the Title was thought sufficient to give those a good Title from that time forward who had none before As therefore Kings who had at first an ill Title whilst those who had a better were living have continued their old Possession which from that time was not thought doubtfull without any new Coronation or Inthronization so Bishops who were at first Consecrated in Schism whilst those were living who had a
prepassessed by our Bishops must make the Schism and the erection of Altar against Altar imputable to them by the Principles now mention'd For theirs must be the Bishops which are Consecrated into full Sees Theirs therefore in the Reasoning of St. Cyprian ' s Age must be foras must be alieni must be not secundi but nulli And therefore the Communion which has since owned them must be divided from the true peculiar People and from all solid Claim to the Priviledges of that People § XXXIII BUT to return from whence I digressed to the Case of our Protestant Bishops true Antiquity was so far from allowing defects in Originals to invalidate Successions at such a distance as ours is from the beginning of the Reformation that they thought it not only most prudent but most just to silence such Disputes when the Persons injured were deceased and their Right extinguished with them having left no Succession behind them that might perpetuate their first Original Right In this Case they thought the Possession it self a sufficient Title to Right where there was none out of Possession that could pretend a better Right And that so as to look on it as just before GOD and as obliging the Consciences of the Subjects who had it in their Power to rebell not to do so This seems to be the ground of allowing Prescription by the Law of Nations sufficient to make a Cause just that had not been so otherwise It is indeed the Interest of Mankind in general which seems to have been the ground of this Law of Nations that all Controversies should at length have an end And it is agreeable to the same Interest that process of time and such a peaceable Possession as has no Rival that has a better Right should be allowed as an Expedient for ending Controversies concerning Right and therefore for determining the Right it self The Mischief to the Publick in disturbing a present Possession is more than can be recompensed by a Right that is no more than equal to that which has Possession already And there is no Succession in the World but in a Revolution of many Ages has some unjustifiable turns which must make its present Settlement litigious if such distant Injuries must be allowed on equal terms to do so This therefore makes it the common Interest to allow Prescription on such terms for a determination of Right And there is reason to believe that GOD who as Governour of the World is determined by the Publick Interest will judge it so and punish such as violate it accordingly Nor is there any thing in the Nature of Ecclesiastical Government as it is a Government of external Bodies and managed by Men of the like infirmities with those who are engaged in the Civil Government that can secure it against the like Violences of ambitious and unreasonable Men who will judge too partially in their own Case But it is no way probable that GOD will make any Souls but their own Responsible for such consequences as are by others unavoidable Yet such violences upon the Government may sometimes make a Breach in the due Succession and affect the direct conveyances of that Authority from GOD which is requisite for giving a Title to those Spiritual benefits to Souls which are the great designs of Ecclesiastical Communion When therefore this falls out to be the Case there will be reason to believe that GOD who judges himself as much obliged by the equity of his Covenants as Men usually think themselves obliged by the letter of theirs will perform what his Covenant would in Equity oblige him to perform notwithstanding any failings on Mans side which by the common Nature of such a visible Body as he has been pleased to constitute in his Church are unavoidable to truly diligent and Pious Communicants For this being a necessity of his own making in Constituting his Church such a Body when he might have made it otherwise his equity is more concerned to provide for the consequences of it And there is reason to believe that he has done it the same way as he has done in other visible Bodies of the like constitution As therefore by confirming present settlements where no better claim is in view GOD by the Law of Nations has taken care for the Bodies of Subjects in Secular Societies that they may not miscarry by ignorance of the duty justly expected from them in the station wherein he has placed them So there is reason to believe that he has not taken less care for the more valuable Interest of their Souls that they may not fail of the Favours designed for them by a necessity of his own contrivance and by them perfectly unavoidable And seeing he has warned us of no other 't is highly reasonable to presume he has Secur'd the validity of his conveyances by the Spiritual the same way he has done in the Secular Government by ratifying the present Constitution when it is not injurious to a better Title notwithstanding any faileurs unknown and unavoidable by the Subjects on account of the station which he has given them in it § XXXIV ACCORDINGLY it was Observable that even the two great Factions of the Donatists whose whole Schism was grounded upon an Extravagant Zeal for Discipline when they charged each other as it should seem very truly with being Traditors both of them being equally guilty they agreed to let the Controversy fall and refer it to GOD without ingaging in any farther Schism upon it Yet the Delivering up their Bibles to be Burnt was in their opinion at least such an Act of Communion with the Devil as had made the Persons who had really been guilty of it uncapable not only of Episcopal but also even of lay-Lay-Communion which incapacity had it been proved might have made all their following Episcopal Acts questionable and justifyed Schisms in opposition to them by the same Principles by which both those Factions Defended their common Schism against the Catholick Church for the pretended Traditions of Caecilian and Felix And in this case these early Schismaticks are the more to be regarded because the Catholicks agreed with them in it that such Cases being left to GOD would not though the Facts had proed true prejudice the consequent Authority and Communion with GOD when no injury was done nor any Schism formed upon it So far they were of their minds in this particular that it is the professed Subject of those who wrote against them that such Personal crimes as these which if debated between Persons might have given one Person the advantage over another could not involve Posterity in the same guilt when there was no injury committed by it So far I say they were of their mind in this particular that they turn their Practice in this Case into an Argument against themselves as a professed condemnation of those Principles on which themselves proceeded in dividing from the Catholick Church Not much unlike this was
Privileges to or act by Jurisdiction upon another where there was no Common Government acknowledg'd no Legal Commerce or Subordination nothing but profess'd and notorius Hostility betwixt them And this whatever our modern Latitudinarians may fancy the Catholick Church has always taken to be the Case of opposite Communions And the generality of the Bishops being then involved in the Arian Schism though in the Heresy they were no otherwise involved than as the Schism did by Interpretation make them liable to the charge of the Heresy with which they Communicated there was no solemn reconciliation of them who were by their Office the Persons to whom reconciliation ought Ordinarily to have been made It was hard to expect it when the Bishops who had escaped the Contagion were so very small a number in comparison of those who were involved in it Yet these Practices must have occasioned many real Nullities if GOD had not been thought obliged in Equity to supply such defects where no injury followed to any Person living And the Catholick Church when she condemned the Luciferians for their Schism on account of these Austerities and charged the Guilt of the separation made on this account on them who made it plainly supposed that this was not a Cause sufficient to justify a Separation and therefore that such Nullities in rigour not in equity did not in the least affect the next Generation when there was no better Title which might in justice oblige GOD to ratify is for the good of Government and to oblige the whole Society to do justice under pain if they neglected it of not having their Acts of Spiritual Authority ratifyed by him without whose Ratification they must be unavaylable 'T is true there might be some reason for ratifying such Nullities when the Subjects by joyning with the better Title might secure their Interest in the Peculiar People But should GOD do it when there is no other Body in which the Subjects may secure themselves it must only make the Subjects desperate It would tempt them to believe that GOD intended there should no more be a peculiar People But how can that be reconciled with the new Covenant's being an Everlasting Covenant with its Gifts being without Repentance with Gods promise never to withdraw his mercies nor to suffer his Truth to fail notwithstanding whatsoever Provocations his chosen People might be guilty of How much less can he do it for such faileurs as he knows before to be unavoidable by them And for this purpose Dr. Hody ' s Collection is full And it seems indeed the design of the Author of it only to shew that the Church did not unravel Old disputes when the Persons were dead that werâ— concerned in them so as to make Nullities of all that had been done on the faulty side after the injury was ended and when things could not now be remedied This was the case of St. Chrysostom who disswaded his own Friends from such extremities not whilst he was living but after his decease This therefore was the fault of the Joannites that they made Nullities of all that was done by his Successors for so many years after his death contrary to the good Council himself had given them This was the fault of the Arsenians that they also made Nullities of all that was done by the Josephians for so many Years after the death of Arsenius This therefore being the occasion of that Collection will shew us the design of it The Author had no occasion to concern himself in defending the tolerableness of unjust much less of invalid deprivations whilst the Persons were living but only in defending the tolerableness of preceding Nullities after the injured Titles were extinct when they could not be recalled or amended And this will suffice to shew that though there had been invalidities in the Titles of our first Protestant Bishops on account of the better Titles of the Popish Bishops of the same Jurisdictions that cannot hurt the Titles of our Protestant Bishops now since their Succession has so long failed and ours been un-interrupted though both had been as they were not of the same Communion § XXXV BUT withall neither is that so certain as it may seem at the first view that even they who took out the Lay-Commissions did thereby lose their better Title to their Spiritual Authority received by their Ecclesiastical Consecrations So far indeed it might hold as to cut all such Persons off from the confidence of pleading the invalidity of the Lay-Deprivations that even such a Deprivation might be justly valid on their principles who had owned themselves to have no Spiritual Power but what they had received from the Civil Magistrate Indeed that worthy Person who was pleased to conceal himself under the assumed name of Anthony Harmar from the Processes against the Protestant Bishops in Queen Mary's time still preserved in the Register of Canterbury tells us that a Nullity of Title was objected to them by their Deprivers on account of these Lay-Commissions So the words of that Register are ob â—ullitatem Consecrationis ejus defectum tituli sui quem habuit à Rege Edwardo sexto per literas Patentes cum hac clausulâ dum bene se gesserit This form was used on Taylor Bishop of Lincoln Hooper Bishop of Worcester and Glocester Barlow Bishop of Hereford and Farrar Bishop of St Davids The same Patents also had been taken out by the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of Chester and Bristol as the same Author informs us as it should seem out of the same Registers Probably the rest did so too after the Act in King Edwards time But for those who had received their Orders from their Consecrations in the usual way antecedently to their Patents it is justy questionable whether any Act of theirs could alienate the Power they had received from Christ. Much more it is questionable whether they could do it by an indirect Act and by way only of Interpretation which is the most that can be made of their Patent It is not pretended that they did renounce their Spiritual power received from Christ any otherwise than as their owning another Original of that same Spiritual Power in their Patents may be so Interpreted And that Interpretation is only grounded on the inconsistency of these two Originals which makes it necessary that if one be owned the other must be rejected because they cannot be both possessed at once But this inconsistency is applicable both ways and may as well make their Patents null as inconsistent with their better Spiritual Title as make their Spiritual Title null as inconsistent with their Patents And it is not in their Power whether of the two shall be a Nullity unless GOD intended that the Power should be alienable when it was first given them If it was designed unalienable all their Acts afterwards to alienate it must have been Nullities as being inconsistent with the antecedent Right of GOD
as the Vows of Wives and Maids were under the Law when made against the consent of the Husbands and Parents And the will of GOD concerning the lastingness of the Spiritual Power was manifest from the will of the Ordainers who before those Lay-Patents never intended to confer Orders for any other term than that of Life If therefore such would take upon them to exercise their Spiritual Power independently on their Patent though they might contradict the designs of those who made them take out their Patents in doing so yet having indeed Authority from GOD to do so what they did by that Authority might expect a ratification from GOD and therefore must have been valid with regard to Conscience The greater difficulty was that of the others who received their first Authority from their Patents before their Consecrations These might more plansibly be thought to receive no more Power by their Consecration than what they had already received by their Patent Especially if they had the same thoughts concerning their own Consecration as Archbishop Cranmer had that it gave them no new Power but was only a Solemnity of Investiture with the same Power which they had already a Right to by their Patent And if withall the Bishops who Consecrated them had been also of the same mind and must therefore have thought themselves obliged to give them no new Power by the Authority themselves had received not from the Prince but from Christ. But I have already shewed that even in those encroaching Reigns there was no Obligation laid on the Bishops to profess their Belief of those Impious Opinions I have shewed that at the same time that they were supposed in Practice yet their Belief was Odious and Singular and in express terms generally decried I have shewed that the most received Opinion even then was that the Right of Administring the Sacraments was derived from Christ and his Apostles and by them given only to the Church and consequently that it was only given by the Acts of Ecclesiastical Consecration These things therefore being thus believed must also have obliged them further to believe that whatever Power and Authority did follow from this Right of Administring the Sacraments could not be given by the Lay-Power but only by them who had continued the derivation of that Right of Administring the Sacraments from Christ and his Apostles These things therefore being generally believed by the Bishops might make them generally design the giving and receiving the same Power in their Consecrations which had been given and received by Consecration formerly What then could hinder even those Bishops which were Consecrated then from receiving it It was consequentially inconsistent you 'l say with those Patents by which they derived a Right of giving Orders and of inflicting Spiritual Censures from the King But it was no more so than those Patents were with those Doctrines that all Power of that kind was to be derived from Christ and his Apostles who had given it to the Church not to the Lay-Magistrate The consequence whereof must be that being mutually inconsistent they ought to be made consistent as far as is possible in Practice by Interpretation That is that one Duty be performed so far and so far only as is consistent with the performance of the other But in this way of proceeding it is unavoydable but that one of the two Duties must take place of the other so as to leave no place for the other any further than is consistent with the Interest of the Principal Duty And then there can be little doubt if an Ecclesiastick be Judge and of such only I am Speaking at present whether of the two Duties must be judged Principal If they be considered as Ecclesiasticks the Church is the Principal Body for which they ought to be concerned Consider them also as good Christians and as good Men and the same Obligation will hold still to prefer the Interests of the Church because they are indeed the greatest Interests in the Judgment of GOD and in the Judgment of Right Reason and the most immediatly and firmly obliging that which is indeed the immediate Subject of Obligations the Conscience All therefore that Persons so perswaded could promise and which the Magistrates of that Age acting against Principles might be Satisfied with as sufficiently answering his ends was to behave themselves in reference to the Magistrate so as if indeed they had no Power but what they derived from him That was to hold their places from whomsoever they had received them no longer than He was pleased they should hold them This Promise they might make as to the Temporalties that they would be no longer Legal Bishops entitled by the Secular Laws to Temporalties Tho' this was a particular Hardship put upon their Order For as for the Secular Peers the held their Peerage by Law not barely at the Pleasure of the Prince However these conditions importing no loss of Spiritual Authority the Bishops might with a safe Conscience submit to when imposed on them by unavoidable force They might also promise when they were deprived of their Temporals to quit their Spirituals also in order to the qualifying another of the same Communion to succeed them without any imputation of Schism But a general promise of this kind could not oblige them when quitting their Rights might betray the Church and make it depend precariously on the pleasure of the Magistrate However they not foreseeing this Case and not fearing it in the Circumstances then in view might make this indefinite Promise and intend really to fulfill it And whether they did well in doing so or no yet they might do it without owning the Right to Spiritual Power to be at the disposal of the Civil Magistrate Yet as long as they did not think it his Right they could not think themselves obliged in Conscience to quit their pretensions to their Spirituals barely because the Magistrate was pleased to invade them All the Obligations therefore they could have to do it must either have been from their Promise or from the present exigencies of the Case which might in their Opinion seem to require it Yet all this was consistent with an Opinion that whilst they had the Power they had it from an Authority Superior to that of the Civil Magistrate whâ—â—h till the Magistrate did deprive them might make all their Acts valid as done by a Divine Commission It is very plain withall that after the Patent was given yet the Magistrate himself took care to recommend them to Bishops for their Consecration Why so unless he believed that if he had done otherwise his Bishops would never have been taken for valid Bishops with regard to Conscience VVhy so if he had not therein designed to gratify the Ancient and Received Opinions concerning the Original of Church-Power which without such Consecration supposed them liable to so just Exceptions It was not the Magistrates fancy that Consecration gave them no new Power that
is withal pretended that this Power of depriving Bishops has ever since the beginning of the Reformation been allowed in the Secular Magistrate in the Practice of this Supremacy as often as there has been occasion for it The first practice of it was lodg'd by King Henry the VIII in Cromwell a Lay-man Yet his Commission Authorized him to proceed against the highest Ecclesiasticks without exception as far as deprivation And in the same Reign Bishops were required to take out Patents from the King for even the Spirituals of their Office their Power of conferring Orders which virtually included all the Rights conveyable by Orders so conferred the Right of Preaching the Word and of Administring the Sacraments These if they were given by the Lay Power must by necessary consequence be deprivable by it also But they are sensible how little reason there is for making the Reign of that imperious and assuming Prince a Reign of Precedents in arguing that what was actually done then must therefore be presumed to have been well done and therefore fit to be done again If this were allowed they know very well that no Right whatsoever even for securing the Peoples Liberties which they pretend most zeal for who have least for those of the Clergy can be made so sacred as to restrain the Conscience of him who has by any means got the possession of an over-ruling force For he who made no Conscience of invading the Rights of those very Persons by whose intervention all other Rights were made Sacred even those of Magna Charta and the Coronation Oaths themselves not excepted could much less be terrified from invading those Rights which could pretend to no other Sacredness than what had been derived from the intervention of those same Holy Persons whose own Rights had been violated by him § II. THIS consideration therefore obliges our late Brethren to insist on the Precedents rather of King Edward the VI. and Queen Elizabeth ' s Reign which they think not so easily avoidable by us Here they tell us that all the Deprivations of the Popish Bishops were by no other than the Secular Arm. They tell us withall that the way of deprivation by Synods of Ecclesiastical Persons was in their Case perfectly impracticable No Acts could have been reputed Synodical but what had been carried by a majority of them who had been allowed votes in Synods who were only Ecclesiasticks But by this method of proceeding it was impossible that the Popish Bishops could have been deprived at all because themselves made a majority of the Episcopal Colledge Here therefore they think that we are not at liberty to question at least the validity of what was done in this affair They think we cannot do it with any consistency with the Principles on which we insist in our Plea against the present Schismaticks They think we cannot do it without subverting the Rights of those same Fathers for whose Rights we are our selves so eagerly concern'd For if those un-synodical deprivations of the Popish Bishops then were null and invalid the Popish Bishops were still the true Bishops of their respective Dioceses to whom all the Offices of the Subjects of those Dioceses were still in Conscience due And that on the same Principles on which we pretend our deprived Fathers to be still in Conscience the Bishops of those Dioceses of which they are said to be deprived and that they have still a Title to the Episcopal Dues of the same Dioceses from those who were Subjects to them before the deprivation on account of the invalidity of their deprivation as not being Synodical This being so they think it will follow further that the first Protestant Bishops must by our Principles have been Schismaticks as having been ordained into full Sees that they must therefore not have been second Bishops but none at all according to our Reasoning on St. Cyprian ' s principles And this Nullity in the Original they conceive sufficient to affect the whole Succession derived from that Original Thus they think we cannot maintain any Right in our present Fathers if vacancies made by Lay Deprivations be not allowed sufficient to legitimate their Titles who are possessed of those Sees which are vacated by no other Power than what is Laical This I take to be the utmost of what they have to say upon this Argument § III. 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 honour 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 â—iâ—h 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 compâ—â—â—nt for arbitrating the present differences of Communion be 〈…〉 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 withal 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 withal 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 Patern of the Primitive Catholick Church Here by the way I think it not amiss to take notice of a mistake common to Dr. Hody and the other Answerer to the Vindication of the deprived Bishops The rather because it is introduced by them both with some insulting triumph The Vindicator had charged his Adversaries with Heresie in regard of their singular opinions on which they insisted so far as to found their Schism upon them This they both retort upon the Vindicator himself as grounding his Defence on opinions now singular and different from the greatest numbers of our present Churches I should have thought their retortion just if the Vindicator had grounded his Defence on Opinions singular in the first Ages of Christianity But they might both of them have observed that the Vindicator did not grant this to have been his own Case He did pretend the Principles insisted on by himself to have been generally received as fundamental to all the Discipline that was practised in the first and purest Ages What was generally received then and therefore to be presumed true because it was so cannot change its nature by being afterwards as generally either forgotten or deserted in later degenerous Ages And as the Vindicators Cause did not so neither did his design nor Topick of Reasoning from the Sense of the Primitive Catholick Church oblige him to be concluded by a generality in these later degenerous Ages But this is again another instance of their advancing the sense of our particular modern Church as a standard of Primitive Catholick Antiquity But this is a deference too great not only for our own Mother but indeed for any particular Church whatsoever at such a distance from Primitive Originals § IV. HERE therefore we cannot be of our Adversaries mind But as for the Duty owing to our particular modern Church which is consistent with her Subordination we still profess as great a Zeal for her as themselves can and are ready to strive with them in a generous Aemulation who shall best express their affection to her and their zeal for her preservation Indeed our difference from them is wholly grounded on such Principles as we should think in all other parallel Cases would be taken for Arguments of a greater affection We are willing for a Vindication of her Rights to expose our selves to all the effects of the displeasure not only of her Adversaries but even of her own late Children and our own late Brethren This is a glory wherein our present Adversaries cannot pretend to rival us Whatever they pretend of good will to her they cannot pretend to suffer any thing for her So far they are froin that that they are not contented to be neuter and at least to connive at their Brethren asserting their common Mothers Rights They defend the Magistrates encroachments on their Ecclesiastical Liberties Even the Ecclesiasticks do so whilst the Magistrate has the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Revenues The Doctor has indeed wisely postponed the Vindication of the Magistrates Right for doing what has been done though nothing short of that can satisfie the Consciences of Ecclesiastical Subjects as to the lawfulness of acquiescence and submission to the Invaders of those Rights which they are by the Constitution obliged to defend as unwilling to expose himself an Ecclesiastick to the odium of betraying them He therefore here proceeds on the Supposition that the Rights of the Church are invaded not only injuriously but invalidly and pretends to prove after his way of proving by naked Facts that we not only may but must submit to the Usurpers Upon this he pretends what the Vindicator says for disproving the Right of the civil Magistrate for doing what has been done to have been impertinent To what end is all this but that he may avoid the Odium of betraying the Rights of his own Function and of defending laical Encroachments on them But I cannot conceive how this will excuse him from this charge He promises in another Book to defend professedly what he is yet so willing to be excused from even the Right of the Magistrate for such Invasions He even here makes all asserting such Rights impracticable and unavailable for preserving them He makes the Bishops whose Rights are invaded obliged in Conscience to yeild as often as they are invaded when the substituted Successor is not a Heretick that is as often as there is no other question but only that concerning Right And what can a Plea of Right signifie for preserving Right that must never be insisted on We know all Laws make frequent cessions of Right at length to extinguish the Right it self Much more that must do so which is perpetual as often as a stronger hand is pleased to invade it Much more that which must be perpetually yielded on obligations in Conscience And what can restrain the Laity from invading them as often as they please when they are told before that the Persons whose Rights they are must not 〈◊〉 ought not oppose them in it if they will be true to Obligations of Conscience When they are told also that this very consideration of an irresistible force is alone sufficient to oblige them to it Suppose notwithstanding the Bishops not satisfied with what he says to prove their obligation to recede yet he makes it impossible for them to assert their Rights for he discharges the Subjects from Duty to them whether they will or no. He pretends the irresistible force sufficient for this purpose whether the Ecclesiastical Superiors will or no. And how then is it possible for such Ecclesiasticks to assert their own Rights when they are oppressed by the irresistible force and deserted by their own Subjects He allows
them indeed a liberty of remonstrating But what can even that avail them when they neither have power to enter their Remonstrances on any Records or to oblige their Adversaries upon their pleading such Records not to suffer such violences to be Precedents for future practice § V. THUS if our common Mothers Authority be urged by our Adversaries as an Argument of their good will to her I cannot see how they can in that regard pretend to rival us They may indeed tell us that our Mother has by her own Act and Deed in the surrendry of the Clergy in King Henry the VIII ths time devested her self of that Authority which before that surrendry was justly her due Whatever the belief of this would signifie to shew our good will to her I am sure we might by doing as the Objectors do better signifie our good will to our selves if we could consistently with our Duty to her qualifie our selves for the favours of the Invaders of her Rights and Priviledges as far as gratifying flesh and blood can be taken for consulting our own Interests But still methinks it should be a greater Argument of our good will to our common Mother to be unwilling that she should on any terms be deprived of whatever was once her due Still it would become well-wishers to her not to be too easie in believing such a cession of Rights though by her self till it were well proved and proved still to be obliging Still it would become well-meaning Children to be willing to contribute as much as lay in them to recover such Rights at any rate of inconvenience to themselves that may be less to the Publick than the loss of such Rights of so great importance for the Publick Interests of Souls And all worldly inconveniences would be reputed less by generous and affectionate Judges of the Publick Interests Such would still be favourable Auditors of what might be produced for discharging her from such Obligations of Conscience which if still in force may make it unlawful now to retrieve and challenge her lost Rights They would be ambitious of prudent and lawful occasions of testifying their love to her at the expence of worldly losses when they might be once secured from any danger of sin in incurring them I am sure it must needs argue more love and good-will to be so Nor could they think it imprudent to retrieve publick Spiritual Rights by losses only private and temporary Especially where there might be the least appearance of Duty that might oblige them to it That very Duty would over-rule loving and dutiful Children beyond all worldly and carnal considerations to the contrary Much more it would do so when the Duty incumbent were pretended of so great importance as this here is by us as that without it we could not have a Church or a Communion any longer than it should please the Civil Magistrate that without it we could have no Principles that might cement us under a Spiritual Government in a state of Persecution at least that might oblige us to do so as most certainly Christ has done When these things were pretended they would at least let us know what might satisfie them if it could not us how these consequences intolerable to a true lover of the Church and Religion might be avoided And till they could do so they could not think the considerations hitherto insisted on by them of an irresistible force c. sufficient to make amends for so abominable consequences But hitherto they have not signified that solicitude for avoiding such consequences which would certainly have become them as hearty lovers of Religion Nor have they attempted any thing on their part for a re-union with such as differ from them in things which would be as much their interest as ours for us all to be unanimous in if they really took the subsistence of our Church and our Communion for our common Interests How then can they even in this regard of their so easily yielding in matters of so intolerable consequence pretend to rival our good will to our common Church and Communion § VI. BUT we must not suffer even our good will to our Mother to mislead us into any Acts of undutifulness to her though it were on pretence of saving her Uzzah laid hold on the Ark with a good design when he thought it in danger of falling Yet God struck him dead upon the place for venturing on his own judgment to shew his zeal for him beyond what was allowable to his Station So among the Romans Fabius Rullianus with great difficulty escaped punishment for venturing on his private Judgment though with as probable a prospect and as great success as his General himself Papirius Cursor could have desired and that for fear of the many ill consequences that might follow on it for the future if such a Fact had been by its impunity recommended to posterity for a precedent But I have already shewn that not to be our case here We do not oppose our private Judgments to any Authority at all But we oppose the publick Judgment of a greater to that of a lower Authority Yet we have no need of insisting on that Plea at present We can fairly reconcile our sense in this affair with the imposed Sense of our dear Mother the Church of England even as established by Law and with the full design of the Legislators as far as that can be gathered from the Cases in prospect of which the Laws were made and with Authentical Interpretations of the meaning of the Legislators themselves allowed by both Powers concerned in them as well the Civil which has imposed them by Civil as the Spiritual which has done the same by Spiritual coercions I know not what our Adversaries themselves can desire more And I cannot but look on it as a peculiar over-ruling Providence that this is capable of being performed in a Reformation wherein the Ecclesiasticks have been so manifestly overborn by the Laity and a Laity headed by a Prince so impatient of restraint as Henry the VIII was Who could expect that where the encroachers made themselves Judges in their own Case and the true Proprietors were forced to submissions and surrendries of their Rights the determinations could be just and equal on both sides § VII IN Henry the VIII th 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 sined 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
promoting it This will therefore put us further upon examining whether the part acted by Cranmer was really contributive to a Reformation Had Reformation been nothing else but a Negative a removal of Papal Tyranny that to be sure was sufficiently ruined by those Principles But Reformation is a mean between Anarchy on one side as well as Tyranny on the other and is therefore equally ruined by either of the Extreams For if we consider that it is the Church which was to be reformed and that the Church as a Church is a Society it can be no Reformation which reduces it to either of the Extreams But of the two that will less deserve the name which perfectly destroys the Government of the Church and thereby dissolves the Society that was the thing to be reformed And these are the plain consequences from those Principles by which Archbishop Cranmer acted If they freed the Church from the Tyranny then in being they naturally introduced a Tyranny of more pernicious consequence than that which had been ejected by them a Tyranny of another Body of Interests frequently inconsistent with hers and withal deprived her of all security from what further Invasions soever the Lay Magistrate should be pleased to make upon her Indeed they deprived her of all possible security for her very being And though these Principles might make those who were acted by them do her kindnesses whilst her disorders lay in excess yet when that Reformation which was advanced by them had reduced her to a just mediocrity whatever should be attempted further would be Injury not Reformation Which ought by all means to make Prudent and well-meaning Historians wary how much soever they might like the things of recommending the Example to Posterity To do so is to encourage Enemies for the future and to commend them for being so when they shall be tempted to think themselves therein to follow the Examples of celebrated Heroes Archbishop Cranmer particularly could upon neither account deserve such Elogies His Principles were not naturally such as were likely to benefit the Church but to ruine her Nor were those Principles consistent with any probability of good meaning to her when he shewed himself so partial to the Magistrate against her not only against the majority of his own Order but against the Principles of his own Education upon so very small appearances on that side and against so great evidence to the contrary As little reason there is for that advantageous Character our Historian gives his other Hero the Duke of Somerset He it was that advanced the Sacriledge of the former Reign against Monasteries and now in the time of his own Protectorship against the Universities themselves Our Historian himself has published a very angry Letter of his to Bishop Ridley for opposing his designed beginnings of it in the suppression of Clare-Hall If it must be represented as Heroical to betray the Rights and rob the Revenues of the Church if it be represented so by Ecclesiasticks themselves how naturally must this tend to the encouraging the like Practices for the future How little does this become the Office of an Ecclesiastical Historian who ought to make the true Interests of the Church the Standard of his censures as they are indeed in themselves the greatest that can be by all Rules of just Estimation I heartily and seriously recommend these things to the second thoughts of that able Author not only as to his Panegyricks upon the Enemies of the Church but as to his frequent Satyrs on his own Order His meaning in both I will not take upon me to censure But let himself judge of the obvious tendency of them in this unhappy Irreligious Age we live in wherein men greedily lay hold on such Authorities as his for countenancing their wicked designs against the Church and Religion in general For my part I cannot see how the Duke of Somerset could reconcile any true zeal for Religion and the Church with his Sacrilegious designs against that very same Church whose Communion was owned by him § X. BUT to return to Archbishop Cranmer I know none of even our present considering Adversaries who either proceed on these Principles as true or who have attempted to reconcile them with the Interests of the Church or the Reformation Even the Historian himself censures them as singular Opinions in the Archbishop And so they were even in the sense of the Bishops of those times as appears from that number of them who were concerned in that Consult Few of them were for those Opinions so much for the Interest of the Secular Prince and none so thoroughly as he Nor wou'd the Court venture to trust the tryal of these Opinions to a Synod of the Bishops This made Bonner ' s Commission who perhaps gave the first Precedent of such a Commission have so few Followers that took out the like Commissions even in those unhappy times Afterwards in the latter end of the Reign of King Henry the VIII and the beginning of King Edward the VI. some more of the Court Faction imitated him There was one of a Bishop of Worcester in the beginning of King Edward ' s time transcribed for our Historians use though not published by him in the same Stile with that of the Archbishop But this might have been a consequence of that Thought of the young King himself expressed in his second Paper for not trusting the Bishops with the entire exercise of the Ecclesiastical Power and perhaps of an Order of Council pursuant to it or at the utmost of the Act made in the last year of King Henry the VIII which we shall mention hereafter But their little constancy in obliging all the Bishops to do so is a great Presumption of the difficult reception these Sacrilegious Principles met with even in those Ages But whatever reception they wet with then it is very manifest that they are singular now Our Historian himself observes that Bonner after his taking out this Commission might well be called one of the Kings Bishops Intimating that he did not deserve the name of Christ ' s. And our Adversaries who have yet appeared against us in this Question have generally owned even our deprived Fathers themselves as valid Bishops as ever both as to the Episcopal Character and as to all exercises of Spiritual Power relating to the Catholick Church notwithstanding the pretended Deprivation They only deny that they have now any Right to their particular districts and Dioceses which being vacated by the Lay Power may therefore excuse their Successors from Intrusion and Usurpation But the Hypothesis of Archbishop Cranmer would better have accounted for all that their Cause obliges them to defend For if the Apostolical Predecessors could derive a Power to our Bishops undeprivable by the Civil Magistrate they might consequently derive to them a Right to districts confined to the exercise of that Spiritual Power as independent on him as the Spiritual Power it self And if
given formerly that their favours might not be perverted against the Interests of the Lay Power by which they had been originally granted Thus it appears had than Acts of Parliament were really true concerning all the Jurisdiction of the Spiritual Courts concerning the seculars annexed to Spirituals And even in the Spiritual Causes in which the Spiritual Judges had a Right Antecedently to the grants of Princes yet the Right of punishing refractory Persons with Temporal Coercions was the Prince's and truly derived from the grants of the Lay Magistrates So that indeed all Parts of the Spiritual Jurisdiction had some thing of Original Secular Right and therefore resumable by Princes so far as they should judge it necessary for their own Preservation And so far it was necessary to resume it and justifiable too as it was necessary for reducing Spiritual Persons to their Original due Subjection in Temporals for which the Temporals annexed to Spirituals were abundantly sufficient For this would perfectly reduce them to the same subjection under which they were before those favours were granted by the Secular Magistrate And more than that he cannot justly challenge as his due These therefore are the only Spiritual Causes that can be meant in the Oath by this explication of Queen Elizabeth and will in some sense reach all Spiritual Jurisdiction and all Spiritual Causes as there was a mixture of both Powers in the Proceedings of the Spiritual Courts of those times And this is the Explication of the word Spiritual given as I remember by Sir John Davyes in Lalor ' s Case But this will not justifie the Magistrates assuming what never belonged to him his intermeddling with matters of Faith and with Crimes not barely as Crimes injurious to the State but as Scandals to our Religion Much less will it justifie his presuming to give Commissions for inflicting Spiritual Censures From the belief of the allowableness of these things the Queens Explication will fully discharge us Yet without these things he can never pretend to a Power of depriving our Bishops of their Spiritual Power nor of absolving us from our duty to them as over us in the Lord. § XXII NOR is there any reason to doubt of the sufficiency of this Explication of the Queen for satisfying our Consciences in this Age as well as in that wherein these Injunctions were first set forth I am very well aware of the pretences of the violent Party concerning the Canons of 1640. which yet our ablest and most impartial Lawyers think to be still in force Indeed the whole Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals has been by all the Acts made in favour of it vested in the King without the least mention of the Secular States And accordingly the Prince ' s Act in such affairs has been always thought sufficient for giving Authority to them without any confirmation in Parliament And that not only for his own time but for ever till a Revocation of it by the same Power by which it was established Who doubts but the XXXIX Articles and the Canons made in year MDCIII are still good Ecclesiastical Law Yet what Authority have they to make them so besides the Regal confirmation of Queen Elizabeth for the former and of King James the I. for the later Nor was it counted material for this purpose whether any Parliament was sitting or not when the Prince was pleased to ratifie such Ecclesiastical proceedings Indeed I see no reason why it should be counted necessary that a Parliament should be at the same time when the Parliament was not necessary for their confirmation The Act for the Kings Authority in confirming Constitutions Ecclesiastical 25 Hen. VIII 19. requires no more confirmation than that of the King And King James the I. grounds his confirmation of the Canons on that Act which yet none thinks extinguished with his Person There might have been more pretended for the necessity of a Parliament sitting at the same time with the Convocation antiently than can be now Then the Clergy acted Parliamentarily and had their Members in both Houses Yet not so but that even then we have had several Synods distinct from the Parliament Now the Convocation even in Parliament time is notwithstanding a distinct Body and a distinct Assembly from it since the Clergy have been excluded from the lower House and the Bishops sit in the upper House rather on account of their Baronies than their Spiritual Jurisdiction And their meeting and acting wholly depends on the Pleasure of the Prince and is not confined to Parliament times in the Act now mentioned I see not therefore why the Injunctions may not be counted Ecclesiastical Law still on the account of the Regal Authority by which they were set forth and why the explication given in them of the Oath of Supremacy may not still be allowed as a good Authority If it be requisite that the Oath have a certain Sense the Explication of the Oath cannot be esteemed a more temporary thing than the Oath it self is This at least will be reasonable that this Sense be taken for the true Sense of the Oath till it be contradicted and another substituted instead of it by the same Authority § XXIII AND yet though this should not hold we have all the confirmation of this Particular of the Injunctions that we need desire The grant of the Supremacy to the King in the Act now mentioned under Henry the VIII was grounded on the surrendry of the Clergy as appears from the Preamble of the Act it self What therefore was surrendred by the Clergy that same was the power that by the Act was vested in the Crown But concerning the Sense of the surrendry none can be supposed more competent Witnesses than the Body by which the surrendry was made Especially when the Act by which the Oath is explained by the Clergy is not only allowed but Authorized by the Regal power to which the surrendry was made Upon this account we we have reason to believe the Explication so given to be the sense of both parties concerned in the surrendry and to be as well accepted by the Prince as given by the Clergy which should alone be sufficient to satisfy all the reasonable Scruples that can be in this matter At least the Judgment of our Church must needs be satisfactory and a sufficient Authority to explain her own sense in this matter and to shew what liberty may be allowed a Member of our Church in it consistently with the principles of his Communion and his pretentions of being a Member of it and withall how other Acts of the same Church are to be interpreted And the sense of our Church of England both concerning the Oath and the now-mentioned Injunction is manifest in her xxxviith Article So she there teaches us Where we attribute to the Queens Majesty the chief Government by which Titles we understand the minds of some dangerous folks to be offended we give not to our Princes the ministring
better Title might notwithstanding continue their old Possession upon their Predecessors death upon a more unquestionable Right without 〈◊〉 new Consecration For those Episcopal Orders which had been given them in Schism but had been given them by true Bishops sufficiently Authorized to give them though they might be Nullities at first whilst the Person ordained was incapable of receiving them that is whilst he was ordained into an Office already full and whereof there could be but one at one time might yet in process of time recover their full force as soon as the incapacity was removed which had invalidated their first collation That is as soon as the See which was before full became vacant and thereby capable of receiving a Successor Especially when not only the Impediment is removed but the first Right is ratified by all that are concerned in it not only by the unanimous reception of the Subjects of the Jurisdiction now no longer divided but united among themselves by this unanimous reception but also by the Episcopal College ratifying his Acts of Communion and Excommunication When this is the Case I know not what a new Solemnity of Consecration can add to such a Bishop beyond what he is possessed of already His being unanimously receiv'd makes him already a Principle of Unity when none can partake of the Unity of the Body who is not united to him And his ratification by the Episcopal College at least by as many of them as in this divided State of Christendom profess the same Faith and pretend to a correspondence in Communion must make his Communion as much Catholick as it can be in our present Circumstances For that would make the Case such that none who lived within his Jurisdiction could expect to be received to Communion by the rest of the Episcopal College without his Communicatory Letters and that with his Communicatory Letters they might The Consequence of these things must be that his Acts of Communion and Excommunication must both the Catholick at least as far as the Correspondence reaches and that all that are of his Jurisdiction must be obliged to maintain Communion with him under pain if they should do otherwise of being excluded from the Catholick Church And then who can doubt but that GOD will own them for his Peculiar People and CHRIST will own them for his Members whom the Body of their Authorized Representatives do judge to be so For GOD has Authorized them for this purpose that in things relating to the external Discipline of the visible Body it not being usual for him to interpose immediately their Judgment may be taken for his For this is the meaning of his ratifying in Heaven what is by them performed on Earth of his giving them the Power of the Keys and his binding and loosing in Heaven answer ably to their binding and loosing in Earth that he will admit into his Mystical Body those whom they admit into his visible Body and exclude from the Mystical Unity those whom they exclude from that which is visible This being true concerning particular Bishops may be much more securely relyed on in the Case of the Episcopal College That the Body which is owned by them all will be owned by Christ for his Mystical Body Thus it appears that the Communion of such a Bishop owned without a Rival by the Episcopal College must on that account be owned for Catholick He has therefore all already that they could give him by a repeated Consecration And being also known and owned to have it and to have it by their consent their Consecration after this can be no more necessary than it was for St. Peter to lay his hands on Cornelius in order to the giving him the Holy Ghost when he was otherwise well assured by external Manifestations that Cornelius had received the Holy Ghost already It is indeed only the Episcopal College that gives any particular Bishop the Right of having his censures ratified over all the Catholick Church And the two or three Bishops requisite for Consecrations can do it no otherwise than as by the Roman Laws the two or three represented the whole College and as the whole College had obliged themselves to ratifie what should be transacted by so small a number appointed to represent their absent Brethren also in the Solemnity This is plainly the Sense of the first and most famous General Council of Nice They require to the making of every new Bishop the consent of all the Bishops of the Province and only allow that two or three shall represent them in the Consecration when they have the consent of the Metropolitan and when no more can conveniently be present Thus it appears that the consent of the Episcopal College was that which was principally regarded in conveying the Episcopal Power I might also have shewn that the Sense of the College was allowed the same force however it was signified whether in Synods or Separately and Extrajudicially The greatest part by far of the 300 Bishops mentioned by Athanasius in favour of himself were such as were not at the Sardican Council but who had given him their suffrages by separate Subscriptions By all which it appears that the Invalidity if any had been in the Deprivation of the Popish Bishops cannot affect our Succession now so long after the decease of the injured â—ersons though we had not had the other exception already insisted on of our being even then different Communions § XXXII I grant indeed upon that Supposition it had been in the Power of the Popish Bishops to have perpetuated the Invalidity of our Succession if themselves had pleased That might have been by keeping up a Succession down to our times of their own which on that Supposition had been the better Title For by the same reason as the Title of their first Persons in their Succession had been better than the Title of the first in our Succession their whole Succession also which had been nothing but a propagation of that same first better Title had been better than ours which had been also a like continuation of the same Title which originally had been the worse of the two And therefore as the confessedly better Title in the first Persons in their Succession had made the first Persons in our Succession Schismaticks by the same reason the better Title of their whole Succession had also made our whole Succession Schismatical But since they have let fall their Succession and left our Bishops without any Rivals in the sole possession of their respective Jurisdictions the same Reasoning which upon supposition that we had been of one Faith and one Communion would have been favourable to them in the Case now mentioned will proceed against them as strongly now Since our Bishops have been left in the sole possession of the Diocesane Jurisdictions their endeavours to keep up a distinct Communion and sometimes to set up distinct Bishops in the same Dioceses fairly and Canonically
the Case that occasioned the Schism of the Luciferians The reason why they also were so very severe in disowning the Communion of so many Catholick Bishops was that they thought them guilty tho' not of the Arian Opinion yet of the Arian Communion For the Question with many of those who opposed Athanasius did only concern Communion Arius and Euzoius had under Constantine the Great made a pretended Recantation of their Haeresy and were thereupon received into Communion by Eusebius of Nicomedia and his Party This made that Party another Communion though the Recantation had been sincere till the Bishop of Alexandria for the time being had first received them because they were both of them Originally of the Jurisdiction of Alexandria and had been excommunicated for their Heresie by their Ordinary the Bishop of Alexandria who then was Alexander For the rules of Ecclesiastical Commerce then observed were that no Bishop could admit a Subject of another Bishop to his Communion without the Communicatory Letters of his Ordinary to whose Jurisdiction he belonged If he did he thereby broke the Rules of Commerce and thereby cut himself off from the Body of the Episcopal College who could no longer maintain Communion with him by giving Communicatory Letters to him or by receiving any from him This was in the Sense of that Age to out himself from the Catholick Communion and from the Catholick Church because the Communicants of such a Bishop would have Communion refused them over all the Catholick Church Such a Bishops Letters would not anywhere else intitle them to Communion and his Communicants could not be received without them by the common rules of Ecclesiastical Commerce There was also in this case something peculiar to make the Bishop of Alexandria's Communion Catholick It had been ratified in the General Council of Nice This made them who received those Alexandrian Presbyters to Communion without the consent of Athanasius their Ordinary guilty of rescinding their own Act as well as of the rule of the general Ecclesiastical Commerce However because they were received upon a pretended Recantation of their Heresy this involved many who were otherwise Orthodox in their Doctrine that they also were engaged in the Schism Especially those who rather Scrupled the Uncripturalness of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than the sense of the Catholick Church in useing it For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was thought Equivalent with the Catholick notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when they enumerated the particulars included in the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And accordingly they used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which and the forementioned expressions they might very well mean a Son by Nature and by Univocal Generation not only a Factitious Son and by Adoption which seemed to be the most that was admitted by the first and most truly Heretical Arians This appears from the several Creeds of those times And though the true Arians had insidious meanings under those plausible terms as Athanasius and Hilary shew yet many of those who by that uncanonical reception of those dissembling Hereticks were engaged in the Heretical Communion had meanings also sufficiently reconcilable with the design of the Church in the Censures of Alexander ratifi'd by the Nicene Council for condemning the Original Doctrine of those two Hereticks I say the Original Doctrine as it had been taught by them when they began their disturbances for we are to observe that they did not seem to stand by their first Prevarications Arius himself was looked on as an Apostate from his own Heresy by Aetius and Eunomius so capable the Terms he used afterwards were of an Orthodox meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 allowed by the Catholicks themselves who were more intent on the sense than the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as signifying an Univocal natural Son So I am sure Artemidorus expresses it Speaking of one who dreams of his being Born he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 includes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first and principal place And this Heathen Author who lived before those Disputes is a very competent witness how that Expression was used commonly then when there could be no design on the Dispute that was raised afterwards Lucifer therefore taking all for Arians who had been any way engaged in the Arian Communion comprehended under that name a great number of those who were notwithstanding very Orthodox in their Doctrine He took in those who Communicated with Arius and Euzoius rather as Penitents than as believing rightly He took in also all those who had been any way engaged in any Act of Communion with such as those were who had never been in their own Judgment otherwise than Orthodox He took in not only those who joyned with them not only in condemning Athanasius but all who had received any Orders from them that was the Case of Meletius of Antioch against whom he set up an Anti-Bishop though Meletius was even then in Exile for his Orthodoxy and all who had Communicated in any Sacraments administred by Persons so Ordained This must indeed have included a great number in the West where Lucifer was Bishop where though they were generally Orthodox yet since they had been reconciled to Valens and Ursacius on the belief of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no doubt understood by those VVestern Bishops who received it in the Council of Ariminum in a good sense there were very few remaining free from the Contagion of the Arian Communion on some of the terms now mentioned So Faustinus and Marcellinus plainly suppose the Case to have been They hardly excuse Hilary himself hardly any but Lucifer and perhaps Eusebius Vercellensis Into so narrow a compass they contracted the Catholick Communion even in the VVest where notwithstanding the Catholick Doctrine was most universally received In this regard it was that St. Jerom says that the whole world admired at it self for becoming Arian This Admiration principally belongs to the Case of those who being Conscious to themselves of their being Orthodox in opinion might therefore the more justly admire at their being involved unawares in the Contagion of the Arian Communion In this regard St. Jerom might well call Hilary the Deacon who then continued the Luciferian Schism a new Deucalion in regard of the very small number which had escaped the Arian deluge upon so severe a test as this was of Communion Yet it can't be denied that this Contagion of Communion was in rigour Sufficient to have made them who had been involved in it judged as members of the Arian Communion till they had been reconciled as solemnly as they had Apostatized And whilst they were of another Communion all their Acts of Authority were justly questionable as to their Validity in another Body and Communion distinct from their own For how could one opposite Body convey
could hinder the Bishops and the People too who were rightly informed concerning the nature of the Spiritual Society from judging Consecration necessary for obtaining that Power which is purely Spiritual And it 's being thought necessary by the Bishops was enough to oblige the Consecrating Bishops to give and the Consecrated Bishops to receive that Spiritual Power which in their Opinion could not be had otherwise then by their Consecration And intending to give and receive it what could hinder their Intentions from the usual Success when the same Solemnities were used by Persons equally Authorized to give it with those who had been used to give it formerly Nor could the Magistrate expect that to gratify him they shou'd defraud themselves of any Priviledges or Powers received by their Ancestors and convey'd as before from Persons empower'd to administer the Solemnities and Rites of Consecration Such a Singular obsequiousness and self-denial is this He could not I say either in Conscience or Equity pretend to expect unless He had secur'd it in express Terms and exacted a particular Profession a Profession that might make it inconsistent with the Bishops Veracity to give or receive the usuall Power as by the same Solemnities and Authority it had been given and received by their Ancestors Rather on the contrary the Permission of the samâ— Solemn Rites and the same Authority in administring them as before without any new Security against the usual effect is an Argument the Prince left it to their Liberty to intend the giving and receiving the same Spiritual Power from CHRIST as had been usually conveyed by the same Ministry He therefore contented him self with the Security given him by the Patents that from whomsoever they received the Right of being Bishops in regard to Conscience yet they should not be Bishops in Law intitled to Baronies and revenues any longer than he pleased This being so it will follow that what they did before Deprivation was valid in Conscience and in Law also but what they did afterwards though that might also be valid in Concsience yet it was not to be vaild in Law Our first Consecrations were of the former sort and therefore were not the less valid in Conscience for having the accession of a validity in Law Thus our first Consecrations might derive a Title to our Present Fathers in Conscience not deprivable at the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate with regard to Conscience GOD awaken the zeal of our late Fathers and Brethern for asserting these Rights in Conscience which are so essential to their being our Fathers and our Brethren and for the Religion and Communion of our late common Churches in these Kingdoms And may our common LORD plead the Cause of his distressed and deserted Spouse THE END The Independency of Bishops on the Sate pretended to be contrary to the Oath of Supremacy * Injunct Q. Eliz. An. 1559. 5 †Eliz. 1. In App. to Bishop Burnet's 〈◊〉 of Refor And contrary to the Principles on which the Popish Bishops were deprived and our present Succession depends The Authority of the Primitive Catholick Church is greater than that of any modern particular one * P. 14. †Defence of the Church of England p. 20 21 22. Even with regard to our particular Church our behaviour signifies more love and concern for her than that of our late Brethren does We shew our greater 〈◊〉 to our Church particularly in not yielding so 〈◊〉 as they do that she should lose bee Rights on any terms What we do is perfectly consistent with the Authorized explication of the Supremacy vested in the King Arch-â—p Cranmers Opinions in 〈◊〉 cury the VIII and Edw. the VI. time perfectly destructive of all Spiritual Authoâ—â—â— See those Papers published by Bishop Stallingfleet Iren. c. ult and by Bishop Burnet Hist. of Resor Part. I. Collect. n. XXI B. III. Part II. Collect. Num. 2. Archbishâ—p Câ—â—â—mer's Au 〈…〉 〈◊〉 these matter noâ— at all Vol. I. Book III p. 267. It is not for the Interest of the Church or the Reformation that his Authority iâ— these things should be regarded Part. I. B. III. p. 204. Part. II. B. II. p. 243. His Opinions in this matter no more agreeable to the sense of our present Adversaries than to ours P. I. B. III. p. 267. The Supremacy and Title of Head when first assumed by Henry the VIII consistent with our Doctrine 24 Hen. VIII 12. When the King gave the encroaching Commission to Cr 〈…〉 it was not 〈◊〉 â—greeable to the tru 〈…〉 of the Legis 〈…〉 Vol. I. B. III. R. 278. The Appeal allowed from the Archbishops to the Kings Commissioners in Chancery no Argument of any Spiritual Power derived from the King 25 H. VIII 10. The Supremacy explained 26 H. VIII 1. not contrary to our Doctrine in this Cause Addend to the First Vol. Num. V. The 〈◊〉 as explained in 37 H. VIII 17. full to our Adversaries purpose and the sense of Archbishop Cranmer 25 II. VIII 〈◊〉 19. The same Notion of the Supremacy continued also under King Edw. the VI. Bishop Burnet Vol. II. Col. B. II. The Kings Re 〈…〉 Pap. 2. King Henry the VIIIths Reign by no means to be allowed for an Age of Precedents Queen Elizabeth explained the Supremacy in a Sense conâ—stent with our Principles Bishop Burnet p. 11. B. 111. Col. num 2. 1 Eliz. 1. Injunct by Queen Esâ—z Edition by Bishop Sparrow p. 77. 78. That Explication discharges'us now from any obligation to believe Archbishop Cranmer's Principles Resor Leg. Eccl. de Excom c. 2. De offic Jurisd omn. Judic What the Queen requires we can sincerely undertake and in a sense fully answering the Imposition of the Legislators â—he Queen's Injunction excuses us from swearing to the Supremacy over Spiriritual Persons in Causes purely Spiritual This Injunction of Queen Elizabeth still in force The Explication in the Injunctions authorized by our Church in her XXXVIIth Article The same Explication of the Injunctions confirmed also by Act of Parliament 5 Elizab. 1. It is rather supposed than contradicted by the second Canon The Practise of the Supremacy to our times no argument of the imposed sense of the Legislators against us Can. 12â— The Objection proposed that our present Protestant Succession seems to depend on the validity of the Deprivation of the last Popish Bishops which was no other than Laical The Lay Deprivations of those Popish Bishops who took out Lay Commissions for their Episcopal Power does not by any just consequence affect our present Case Vid. Specimen against Bishop Burnet p. 52 53. The Popish Bishops were of another Communion And therefore needed no other Deprivation than that of the Lay Magistrate This Doctrine agreeable exactly to the Sense and Practise of Antiquity If the Popish Bishops had had a better Title yet that could not have illegitimated Successors any longer than their own Lives If the Popish Bishops then had the better Title yet their discontinuance of their Succession has made their Title worse now 〈◊〉 Settle 〈…〉 give Right â—â—ere no better â—iâ—ht is injured by them This is proved from the Donatist and Luciferian Disputes Opt. Milev cont Parmenian L. 1. Artem. Onâ—ir 〈◊〉 1. c. 14 Adv. Euciferian They who took out Lay-Commissions for their Episcopal Power might yet keep their better Title Part. II. §. LV. p. 133. Ib. p. 131.