there are any other Inducements to keep them in it besides those of Conscience Only it may perhaps be fit to be consider'd whether it be prudent to trust such Persons with the Management of the Government of the Church who have no Obligation of Principles or Conscience to maintain it as an independent Society or to suffer for it that is indeed who are never likely to maintain it in that very Case which was most in our Saviour's and the Apostles View that is of a Persecution But when they actually divide that Communion which they were never obliged in Conscience to maintain if they took the utmost Liberty their Latitudinarian Principles would afford them and when their lax Principles are the very grounds of their dividing the Communion without any remorse of Conscience for doing so when they are hereby emboldned to do those things which inevitably cause a Breach from those who cannot follow them in these very Principles This is the Case wherein these Principles are Characters of a distinct Communion and therefore by the Reasoning now mentioned become Heretical Especially the Principles being withall false not only in the Opinion of those from whom they have divided themselves but also of our earliest purest Ancestors even those of the Apostolical Age it self Yet I deny not but that in this Case of Heresie there is also regard to be had to the Momentousness of the Opinion it self Whoever sets up or abets a Communion opposite to that of the Church on account of Opinions is as I have shewn in the Judgment of the Primitive Church an Heretick and is the more not the less so if the Opinions be also frivolous But for such Opinions the Church would never have driven him out of her own Communion if himself had been pleased to have continued in it Her Judiciary Censures ought no doubt to be confined to Opinions Fundamental and of great Importance especially if an internal Assent be required and that under pain of Excommunication CHAP. IV. That the Church of Christ is a Society independent on any of the Powers of the World and its Spiritual Rights derived immediately from a higher Authority subject to none of them according to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in the earliest Ages EVEN in the Age of St. Cyprian which is the ancientest we know of that an Anti-Bishop was set up against a Bishop in the same See it is 1st very notorious that they then owned no such Power of the Secular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely Spiritual Power and that the Church as a Society distinct from the State subsisted on their not owning it even as to a Deprivation of their particular Districts and Jurisdictions It is notorious and as notorious as any one Tradition of the Catholick Church in those Ages not excepting that of the Canon of the New Testament it self that Christians then and not only then but in all the former Persecutions that had been from the times of the Apostles to that very Age did own themselves bound to adhere to their Bishops when it was notorious withall that those Bishops were set up and maintained against the Consent of the Civil Magistrate It is as notorious also that this Adherence of theirs was not only Matter of Fact which is all our Adversaries pretend here but a Duty owned by them as obliging in Conscience and as the result of Principles This appears not only by the unquestionable Sincerity of the Christians of those Ages who were generously influenced by no Considerations but those of Conscience not only by their Suffering those severe Penances imposed on them in order to their recovering the Bishop's Communion even when the Magistrate was against him which no other Considerations could recommend but only those of Conscience but from the Principles themselves insisted on in the Reasonings of St. Cyprian Such were these That all hopes of Pardon of Sin of the Holy Ghost of Eternal Life on Performance of Duty were confined to the visible Communion of the Church that their visible Communion with the Church could not appear but by their visible Communion with the Bishop as the Head of that Church and the Principle of its Unity that who that Bishop was to whom any particular Person owed his Duty was not then any otherwise distinguishable but by the visible Districts in which themselves lived and to which he was therefore supposed to have a Title whether the Magistrate would or no. It is also as notorious that these Reasonings were not then the sense of private Persons but the received sense of Christians in general and indeed Fundamental to that Catholick Communion which was then maintained where-ever there were Christians Not only every particular Christian of a Diocess did thus assure himself of his Right to Ecclesiastical Privileges by his Communion with the Bishop of that particular District but he was intitled also to Communion with all the other Bishops of the World and consequently with the Catholick Church in general by the communicatory Letters of the Bishop of his own particular District For it was by the mutual Obligation all Bishops of the World had to ratifie the Acts of particular Districts that he who was admitted a Member of one Church was intitled to the Communion of all and that he who was excluded from one was excluded from all others also because no other Bishop could justifie his Reception of a Christian of another Jurisdiction to his own Communion if he had not the communicatory Letters of his own Bishop Thus it appears that the Obligation even of particular Districts without Consent of the Magistrate was then Catholick Doctrine Whence it plainly follows that this Lay-deprivation which is all that can be pretended in the Case of our present Bishops is in the Principles of the Catholick Church in St. Cyprian's Age a perfect Nullity and consequently that in regard to Conscience at least our present Bishops are still Bishops and Bishops of those particular Districts as much as ever and the Obligations of the Clergy and Laity in those Districts as obliging to them now as ever And it thence follows 2dly that Anti-Bishops consecrated in Districts no otherwise vacated than by the Power of the Secular Magistrate are by the Principles of that earliest Catholick Church no Bishops at all but divided from the Church It is plain that Novatian was disowned as soon as ever it appeared that Cornelius was canonically settled in Fabian's Chair before him and disowned universally so universally that who-ever did not disown him was for that very reason disowned himself This is as clear as any Particular mentioned in our Adversaries Collection But we do not satisfie our selves with that It is also further as notorious that he was disowned by Principles obliging them in Conscience to disown him and those again not private Opinions but Principles also Fundamental to the Correspondence then maintained in the whole Catholick Church as the other were that we mentioned under the
particular Churches paid a Deference From the Time of Hadrian there could be no pretence for that Church above others when it consisted not of Jews but Greeks and Romans What was there therefore that could make them unanimous in Variations and Variations of such Importance as this had been They had then no General Councils And the absolute Supremacy of particular Bishops in their proper Districts is by none maintained more expressly and more zealously than by St. Cyprian with particular regard to all other Powers that in later times have pretended to oblige Bishops that is to Councils and the Bishop of Rome This Catholick Communion grounded on the common Interest of all the Bishops to have all their Acts of Discipline in their particular Districts ratified over the whole World might have brought in other things that were consequential to these common Interests But there was nothing antecedent that can be imagined that could have brought in this Catholick Communion of those times among such a multitude of absolute and independent Societies as the Churches were then if it had not been brought in from their very first Originals And yet these Notions we were speaking of were Fundamental to that Catholick Communion it self as managed in those earlier Ages CHAP. V. That Intruders or Anti-Bishops by Lay-Authority cannot be defended but by Principles fundamentally destructive of the Church as a Society distinct from the State in time of Persecution IF those Errors that destroy the very Being of the Church as a Society be Fundamental I cannot for my part see how such Anti-Bishops and all that own them can be excused by Principles from Erring fundamentally Their being Bishops supposes such Doctrines as if they be once admitted make it impossible for the Church to subsist as a Spiritual Society whenever the State is pleased to persecute it They cannot possibly be supposed Bishops of those Dioceses to which they are consecrated till it first be supposed that their Predecessors are validly deprived and consequently that the Sees are vacant in Gonscience If it should prove otherwise the Clergy and Laity of those same Jurisdictions will still be obliged in Conscience as much as ever to adhere to their Canonical Bishops till they be Canonically deprived and to disown such Intruders as are put over them not only without any Canonical Procedure but without any Authority also that can oblige in Conscience The only Principle therefore on which they can pretend that their Rival Bishops have lost their Right as to Conscience must be the Power that even the Lay-Magistrate has to deprive Bishops even with regard to Conscience If therefore they will defend their Schism by Principles it will be necessary that they defend this Principle also without which it is not possible that it should ever be defended They have no Ecclesiastical Judicatory Just or Unjust that they can so much as pretend in this Case And the defending this is that which will increase their Guilt and will add to their charge of Schism the aggravation of Heresie also For in order to the asserting such a Right as this to the Secular Magistrate it will be necessary to assert that the Authority of the Church even as to Spirituals is in Conscience the Right of the Civil Magistrate If it should not be so then the Subjects of the respective Dioceses may still be at liberty in Conscience to adhere to their deprived Bishops And if they may they must because then all their former Obligations in Conscience will still hold as obliging in Conscience to it is impossible that those antecedent Obligations in Conscience to adhere to their spiritual Superiors can be dis-anulled or diminished by a Power that can pretend no Right in such Matters with regard to Conscience But if we grant this Power to the Magistrate this will perfectly overthrow the Church as a Society distinct from the State and perfectly disable it to subsist as a Society in a time of Persecution For when the Magistrate persecutes it it cannot then subsist as a Society without a Government and a Government obliging in Conscience and not derived from the persecuting Magistrate But if the Right of that spiritual Government be in Conscience the Magistrate's Right it must be an invading the Magistrate's Right to pretend to it when he expressly forbids it And if so how can spiritual Governours in such a Case pretend to it How can they pretend to a Right that is none of their own consistently with Conscience How can their pretending to it with ill Consciences oblige their Subjects to adhere to them on account of Conscience Nay how can it even excuse them in Conscience for not adhering rather to him whose Right it is supposed to be and that even in Conscience No Necessity whatsoever can excuse a Sin much less lay an Obligation in Conscience on Subjects to abet it least of all lay an Obligation on God to ratifie such Acts of Authority as must be supposed no better than Usurpations And yet all Acts of Ecclesiastical Authority in a time of Persecution can signifie nothing if they be not such as may oblige in Conscience and such as God as well as Men is obliged to ratifie Thus it had been Sin in the Romans to set up Cornelius as plainly they did not only without the Consent but against the Will of Decius It had been Sin in him and not in him only but in all the Bishops of his Age to pretend to any Districts in the Roman Empire It had been Sin in them to exercise Authority in Districts not belonging to them Thus the Church had been perfectly dissolved as a Society at least within the Roman Empire unless we can suppose a Notion of a Society without Governours without Districts without any lawful Exercises of Authority And yet the Bishops of those Ages never thought themselves obliged in Conscience to go out of the Roman Empire to retrieve the Power which is pretended to belong to them as Bishops of the Catholick Church And very probably it had signified nothing to have done so They could have gone into no civilized inhabited Countries but they must have expected Magistrates who could pretend to the same Right as well as Decius and who were as much disposed as he to use their Right to the Prejudice of the Christian Religion What therefore would our Adversaries have advised the Christians of those Ages to have preserved themselves in a Society Would they have had them retired into unoccupied Wildernesses But how could they make Societies there where there were no Numbers of Subjects requisite to make a Society Plainly therefore the Catholick Church had then been dissolved as Societies if these New Principles had been maintained in those earlier Ages And these same Principles do still put it as evidently in the Power of the Civil Magistrate to dissolve the Church as a Society within his own Dominions For how can a Church continue a Society where Bishops are in Conscience deprived
of their Spiritual Authority and where Subjects are also absolved from their Obligations in Conscience to obey them And this is also a dissolving the Catholick Church as to such as live in such Dominions and as to any Benefits they can derive from the Catholick Church also For Subjects of particular Districts are no otherwise received into the Catholick Church than as they derive a Right to Communion with all the Churches in the World by their being admitted Members of the Churches of their particular Districts And they are also deprived of their Right of Catholick Communion when they are Excommunicated by the lawful Authority of their particular Districts I cannot therefore see how our Adversaries can excuse themselves herein from Erring fundamentally if the Church's being a Society be admitted for a Fundamental CHAP. VI. Arguments and Objections against this Doctrine from Instances of Fact and Publick Good answered AGAINST this truly Catholick Doctrine two things were opposed by the Adversaries The one a Collection of Eighteen Instances of Bishops who being deprived and not for Heresie did not insist on their Right or were not seconded by their Subjects in the History of 900. Years Which way of Reasoning he shews is neither Conscientious nor Prudent For if Matters of Fact so nakedly related without Evidence of the Principles on which they were acted be urged as Precedents barely because done and no Opposition against them it will be impossible to make any thing of such arguing from History For what History is there that in a Succession of 900. Years does not afford Examples against Examples And how easie were it for an Historian by this way of Reasoning to justifie the Wickedest things that can be § 9. And in this case are divers circumstances which not appearing in any of the Instances make them insignificant § 10-14 Nor do the Instances produced prove the Sense of the Catholick Church but only of the Greek and especially of Constantinople nor even of that Church in the first and earliest Ages § 15. but most of modern barbarous and divided Ages § 22. and in different cases Part 2. § 1. and the Deprivations either by Synods or disagreeable to the Canons of that very Church § 8 9 11. and no such Power so much as pretended by the Lay-Magistrate § 3. but the Emperors indeavouring to obtain their Wills by Authority of Synods or by gross Violence murdering disabling or banishing the Incumbents The other their great Plea of the Publick Good § 47. which he well retorts upon them That the Eternal Interests of Souls and of Religion are more to be valued in a Publick Account than Worldly Politicks That it is more the Publick Good of the Church and of Religion that Subordinations be preserved than that any particular Person be made a Bishop by offering Violence to them That the Glorious Passive Doctrines of the Church be maintained in opposition to Worldly Interests than seem prostituted to serve them That the Credit of the Clergy be maintained than that they enjoy the Benefits of Worldly Protection And that the Independency of that Sacred Function on the State be asserted by challenging the Right than that by yielding the Lay-Power should be owned to have any Power of Depriving us of the Comfort of Sacraments in a time of Persecution And that this is more for the Interest of the State even of the Civil Magistracy than what is like to obtain upon the Cession Even the State cannot subsist without Obligations of Conscience and the Sacredness of Oaths * This hath respect to with he said before of the Sacred Vows of Canonical Obedience for securing that Right and Duty where no Worldly Power can force them to it which no other Power in the World can dispence with but that for whose Interest they were imposed and the dreadful Imprecations implied in them as an Obligation for Performance which can signifie nothing for the Security of any future Government if they must signifie nothing for the time past It is not for the Interest of the Publick to secure ill Titles in their Possession and thereby to incourage the Frequency of ill Titles and frequent Subversions of the Fundamental Constitutions and all the Publick Miseries that must follow on such changes But these things are more largely treated and very solidly in the Defence of the Vindication upon a farther occasion For the Adversaries being so home pressed with this that they had little to reply were forced to seek for new Arguments And first without any Answer to his Argument and granting the Proposition of the Invalidity of Lay-Deprivation the Lawfulness of Submission in the Ecclesiastical Subjects to Intruders is only insisted on and only from other Later Facts and pretence of Peace and Tranquility of the Church To which it is replied that such Submission is Sinful by the Law of God makes the Subjects Accomplices in the Injustice and moreover in the Clergy on account of their Oaths of canonical Obedience c. and That turning the Dispute to later Facts draws it from a short and decisive to a tedious and litigious Issue with which there is no reason to comply And concerning the Case of Abiathar he shews That the Fact is not commended in the Scripture as a Precedent That the Magistrate could not by the Doctrine of that Age have any direct Power over the Priesthood That in the Apostle's Age the Priesthood was expressly owned to be far more Honourable than the Magistracy it self and That Solomon's Act was only of Force and what God had threatned against the House of Eli Nor was Abiathar then the High-Priest properly so called but Zadoc c. Moreover That Christian Bishops are properly Priests and the Gospel Priesthood more noble than that of Abiathar and that these Principles and Inferences were admitted in the Apostolick Age c. by Clemens Romanus c. But the Principal Pretence of all is proposed by another Author That tho' the Argument holds where the State are Infidels and so the Church and State distinct Bodies yet not so where the State professes the Christian Religion And That the Benefits of Protection of Honor and Profit of Security and of Assistance which the Church receives from the State require in Gratitude a compensation To which is replied That more is required for such a Power than meerly being Christian which gives no Title to any Spiritual Authority That the same Persons may be of distinct Societies That the Church's Obligations are more necessary for the Subsisting of the State than those she receives from the State for hers That the Benefits also received from her by the State are greater than what she receives from it That a Pious Magistrate would not desire such a Recompence if she could grant it But it is not in the Power of Ecclesiastical Governours to make such Contract Nor is it agreeable to the Mind of God that the Church should so incorporate with the State To which