An abstract of common principles of a just vindication of the rights of the kingdom of God upon earth against the politick machinations of Erastian hereticks out of the Vindication of the deprived bishops, &c. / by a very learned man of the Church of England. Stephens, Edward, d. 1706. 1700 Approx. 100 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 19 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2012-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). A61414 Wing S5414 ESTC R22791 12622575 ocm 12622575 64555

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A61414) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 64555) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 335:14) An abstract of common principles of a just vindication of the rights of the kingdom of God upon earth against the politick machinations of Erastian hereticks out of the Vindication of the deprived bishops, &c. / by a very learned man of the Church of England. Stephens, Edward, d. 1706. [4], 32 p. [s.n.], London : 1700. Attributed to Edward Stephens (Socrates Christianus). Cf. Halkett & Laing (2nd ed.). Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Dodwell, Henry, 1641-1711. -- Vindication of the deprived bishops. Church of England -- Government. Church of England -- Bishops -- Temporal power. Church and state -- England. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2011-08 Assigned for keying and markup 2011-08 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2011-09 Sampled and proofread 2011-09 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2012-05 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

AN ABSTRACT OF Common Principles OF A Juſt Vindication OF THE RIGHTS OF THE Kingdom of God Upon EARTH, Againſt the Politick Machinations of Eraſtian Hereticks; Out of the Vindication of the Deprived Biſhops, &c. By a very Learned Man of the Church of England.

LONDON, Printed, Anno Domini, 1700.

THE PREFACE.

THE Kingdom of God upon Earth is in its Inſtitution, and in its own Nature, really a Glorious Kingdom, tho', through the ill Adminiſtration of thoſe to whom it hath been committed, it hath never yet appeared in its true and proper Luſtre, and at preſent not only ſeems to be, but really is in a divided, ſhattered, and dejected condition. God in great Wiſdom doth very often with great Bodies of Men, as he doth with particular Perſons, put them to School to the Miſtreſs of Fools, leave them to eat the Fruit of their own doings, and to learn Wiſdom by their own Experience; to experiment and even feel the Inſufficiency of Humane Powers, the Deceitfulneſs of Humane Wiſdom, the Malice, Subtilty and Power of their Inviſible Adverſaries, and the Abundance of his Goodneſs, the Infallibility of his Wiſdom, and the Irreſiſtibility of his Power; and their own intire Dependance upon Him, and abſolute need of continual Supply of all theſe from Him, and of conſtant Subjection and Conformity thereunto. If Men would therefore at last, after ſo long Experience, open their Eyes, lift up their Heads, and well conſider the Admirable Wiſdom of his Divine Inſtitution, the Excellent Accommodation of it for the Good and Benefit of Mankind; and of all Degrees, Orders, States, and Conditions amongst them; and how and by what Ways and Means it hath come to paſs that the World hath been ſo little ſenſible of, and received no more Benefit from ſo powerful and effectual a Divine Favour, as the Inſtitution of this Kingdom is, and would have produced long ſince, had it been improved as it ought; and laſtly conſider, every one in his place, but eſpecially they who are in chief Places in Church or State, what the Intereſt of this bleſſed Kingdom, and the glorious King thereof, do require of all, and of themſelves in particular, for their own Good, and the common Good of all, and then, without more a-do, apply themſelves with full Reſolution to order all their Actions in Conformity thereunto, and to approve their Fidelity to their Soveraign and his Interest, as becomes Good Subjects, they would ſoon perceive and receive the Benefit thereof, and behold it in its Glory. And tho' there is at preſent little appearance of any ſuch Diſpoſition in thoſe, who are firſt in place, that they will be forwardeſt in ſuch Actions, yet whoever will heartily do their part in this, as there is none but may do ſomething, ſo there is nothing that they can do ſo mean, if they do all they can, but will obtain a Glorious Reward, far above all this World can afford. But it will require no little Courage, Generoſity, Magnanimity and Conſtancy to perform it: for ſuch is the Nature and Terms of true Loyalty in this Kingdom, as will ſhake off Multitudes of Pretenders, when they come for Admittance. Yet it is, in ſhort, but firſt to diſpoſe themſelves for the receiving of Truth, and then, when fairly propoſed, cordially imbrace it, own and profeſs it, ſtick to it, and act accordingly. For the first of theſe there is lately printed a ſhort Recipe: and ſome of the most important and fundamental Truths for this purpoſe are here treated in the following ABSTRACT by a very Learned Man of the Church of England eſtabliſhed by Law, and a great and zealous Champion for it. It is true, it is but an Abſtract, but an Abſtract of what is very hard to be met with, and of the very Marrow of it, the rest being only critical Learning, of little or no uſe to the greatest part of even intelligent Readers; but only for Scholars, and ſuch as are curious in Matters of little moment. And for ſuch as deſire to ſee more to this purpoſe, they may have recourſe to a Learned Book of the Sinfulneſs and Miſchief of Schiſm, in 40. and another in 8vo. of One Altar, and One Prieſthood, beſides a ſpecial Learned Defence of this Vindication, much more common to be had than the Vindication it ſelf.

More was intended concerning this Kingdom, and the true Subjects of it, for the proper Uſe and Application of this Catholick Doctrine; but becauſe it may be more ſeaſonable when the Doctrine hath been received and digeſted, it may be ſufficient here to add only this Admonition: That Separation from Separatiſts is no Separation from the One Body and Unity of this Kingdom: Nor is Viſible or Epiſcopal inconſiſtent with Schiſmatical; but a Schiſmatical Communion may be really both, and hath been heretofore; nay, most viſible in the ſame City or Country, and truly Epiſcopal, (tho' what is not ſo cannot but be Schiſmatical) and, beſides all this, Eſtabliſhed by Law.

Common Principles Of a juſt Vindication of the Rights of the Kingdom of God Upon EARTH, &c.
CHAP. I. That for Clergy-Men to appear in a Cauſe deſtructive of the Intereſt of Religion in general, and of their own Function in particular, is inexcuſable.

THAT the Laity ſhould be favourable to Miſtakes derogatory to the Sacred Power, cannot be thought ſtrange in an Age wherein they generally uſe ſo little Diligence to inform themſelves, or to receive Information from thoſe who are qualified to inform them, concerning the Rights of the Clergy: Their own Intereſts are alone ſufficient to make them partial in affairs of this nature, tho' they were more ſincerely influenced by Conſiderations of Religion, than we generally find them: But that Clergy-Men ſhould alſo favour them in Incroachments on their own Function; that they ſhould profeſſedly patronize Doctrines tending to leſſen the Eſteem of that greatest and most valuable of all Authorities wherewith God has honoured and intruſted none but them, that they ſhould make it depend on the Pleaſure of the Magiſtrate, which was deſigned for greater and more noble Ends than the Magiſtracy it ſelf; that they ſhould put it in his Power to deſtroy the very Being of the Church, as a Society, by a ſecular Deprivation; that they ſhould not only Own, but Teach, That none are obliged to adhere to themſelves in ſuch a Caſe wherein the Magiſtrate is against them, no not ſo much as in regard of Conſcience; that they ſhould by this means make the greatest and most momentous Concerns for Souls ſubordinate to Worldly, Carnal Politicks, and the far leſs weighty Intereſts of Worldly Proſperity, and of particular Societies; that they ſhould hereby make it least capable of ſubſiſting under a Perſecution, which was the Caſe moſt obvious in the View of our Bleſſed Saviour and his Apoſtles, and therefore moſt particularly provided for, if they took care for any thing beyond their own time: Theſe things, I ſay, would not be very credible, if they were not very notorious. One would think none who valued the general good of Religion, and the Catholick Church, and the Souls of Mankind, before the temporal Proſperity of any particular State, (and it is hard to conceive how any good Man can do otherwiſe) could even wiſh ſuch Opinions true, tho' his Wiſh alone were ſufficient to make them ſo. How then is it agreeable, that Clergy-Men of all Men ſhould be the moſt favourable and zealous Advocates for ſuch Opinions, ſo manifeſtly deſtructive of thoſe greateſt Intereſts, which they of all Men ought beſt to underſtand, and to be moſt zealouſly concerned for? How is it agreeable, that they of all Men cannot be content to let the Memory of ill Preſidents die, but that they muſt alarm us with future Fears of having them acted again by not only Abetting, but alſo Juſtifying them? How is it agreeable, that they ſhould do this in a Proſpect, ſuch as ours is, of a Laity ſo little concerned for the Good of Religion, and the Church; when even they who have any Principles, have ſuch lax ones, and ſo very little obliging them, even in Conſcience, to venture any thing for any particular Communion? That their preferring their Worldly Concerns, depending on the Pleaſure of the Magiſtrate, before the greater Concerns of Souls, and Eternity, is the true Cauſe of it, is not to be believed, while there are any Reaſons that might induce them to it. Yet little Reaſons cannot in Equity excuſe, when the Conſequences ought to be ſo very valuable on that very account of Mens being either Good or Religious. Much leſs when the Conſequences of the Principles on which they proceed are ſuch in reſpect to the Publick Intereſts even of their own Church, as put it in the Power of a Popiſh or Schiſmatical Prince (and even of a ſecret Infidel or Apoſtate) to diſſolve it when they pleaſe. Suppoſe a Popiſh Prince, with a Popiſh Parliament, ſhould turn their Principles (that is, the Principles of theſe Men) againſt themſelves, and deprive all our Biſhops with one Act of State, I cannot ſee what theſe Fathers can pretend to ſecure their Church, as a Society, and as a Communion, in Oppoſition to them. They muſt ho longer pretend to Dioceſſes in England. They muſt not pretend to any Obligation of their Proteſtant Clergy and Laity to ſtand by them, even in Conſcience. They muſt therefore never pretend to Communions in thoſe Dioceſſes, which are plainly Exerciſes of Spiritual Authority in them. Nor can they then juſtifie, or even excuſe, any Aſſemblies for Religion, when forbidden by the Civil Magiſtrate, who is only ſuppoſed, by theſe Principles, to have alſo the Right to that Spiritual Authority by which alone they can be juſtified. And are theſe the ways to ſecure our Religion againſt Popery? No open Perſecutions whatſoever can ever ruine us ſo effectually as theſe Doctrines will, if ever we receive them. Doctrines of our own will break our Ʋnion among our ſelves, more than any of our Adverſaries open Violencies.

CHAP. II. That the Church of Chriſt is not to be conſidered meerly as a Sect, but as a Sacred Society; and that its being a Society is a Fundamental Doctrine.

MEN (amongſt us in this and the laſt Age) have hitherto conſidered the Church rather as a Sect, than as a Society; and have therefore uſually had no regard to the Doctrines Fundamental to it as a Society, if they did not withall concern it as a Sect, and Antecedently to its being a Society. But there ſeems very little Reaſon for their doing ſo, if they will be pleaſed impartially to reflect on it. It is very true, its Notion as a Sect is antecedent to its being a Society, becauſe it is a Society into which Men find themſelves obliged to enter by the Doctrines they muſt be ſuppoſed to believe, if they own it as a Sect. But even thence it appears, that the Doctrines which concern it as a Sect, do withall make it neceſſary it ſhould be a Society. Theſe two Conſiderations therefore are by no means to be ſeparated. Nay, it hence appears, that the Doctrines conſtituting it as a Sect, do alſo by a near, and unavoidable, and evident Conſequence, make it a Society. Thus therefore the Fundamentals of its being a Society, will be included in that Syſtem of Doctrines which concern it as a Sect. And then what Matter is it that one of theſe Notions is antecedent, and the other, conſequent? Thus much at leaſt will follow, that there is no ſubverting it as a Society, without ſubverting it alſo as a Sect; becauſe thoſe very Doctrines which make it a Sect, do alſo conſequently oblige it to be a Society. For my part, I believe thoſe Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, which all who believe any Fundamentals proper to the Chriſtian Religion, as Revealed by God, do reckon among Fundamentals, not to have been revealed for Speculation only, but purpoſely to oblige Men to unite in it as a Society. The Ʋnity in Trinity, which is the principal thing inſiſted on in the Doctrine of the Trinity, as revealed in the Scripture, was purpoſely to let Men ſee the Extent of the Myſtical Ʋnion to which they were intitled by the External Ʋnion with the viſible Church, that by partaking in the Orthodox Communion, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mentioned by St. John, they had alſo a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the Father and the Son, 1 John 1.3. For it was manifeſt they muſt alſo partake of the Spirit, becauſe he who had not the Spirit of Christ was none of his. It was therefore ſuppoſed, that by partaking of the Trinity we are made one Myſtically, and that by being united viſibly to the Church, we are intitled to that Myſtical Ʋnion. So whoever is united viſibly to the Church, is thereby, if he be not wanting to himſelf in due Conditions, united alſo Myſtically to the Trinity; and that whoever is divided externally from the Church, is thereby alſo diſ-united from this Communion and Ʋnion with the Trinity. And what more prevaeiling Inducements could be thought of to oblige Men to keep in a Society? So alſo the deſign of the Incarnation was, by Christ's taking upon him our Body and our Fleſh, to make us alſo one Body and one Fleſh with Him, thereby to entitle our Bodies to a Reſurrection; but then our being one Body and one Fleſh with Him, depended on our being Members of the Church, which is called his Body, his Fleſh, his Bones. We were to be Baptized into this one Body, and become one Body, by partaking of one Bread. Which plainly ſhew that all the Benefits of the Incarnation are derived to us by our partaking of the Sacraments, and therefore by our adhering inſeparably to them who alone are authorized by God to adminiſter them. Thus plain it is that thoſe very Fundamentals of our revealed Religion, as revealed, are revealed and deſigned for this purpoſe of making the Church a Society. How can therefore our Adverſaries make theſe Doctrines Fundamental, if this be not Fundamental alſo, that the Church was by God deſigned to be a Society?

This at leaſt is certain, that we are intitled to all the Benefits of our Religion, by our owning the Church not only as a Sect, but as a Society alſo; and that tho' we believe all its Doctrines as it is a Sect, yet if we be divided from it as a Society, that Belief alone will not ſecure us a Title to any of the Benefits of our Religion. Excommunicates, however Orthodox in their Opinions, were never ſuppos'd, in the Diſcipline of the Church, to have any actual Title to the Benefits of Religion, if they perſiſted wilfully in that State of Excommunication. The ſame is to be obſerved concerning the Caſe of Schiſmaticks, on the Principles of the early Age of St. Cyprian. Hence therefore it appears, that this Notion of the Church, as a Society, whatever it be in its ſelf, is at leaſt Fundamental as to us, in order to our partaking of any of the Benefits of Religion: That is, indeed it is Fundamental to all intents and purpoſes that we can think worthy our Enquiry. Without this, the other Notions, if any be, will never be beneficial to us. So that whatever thoſe other Notions may be, in order of Reaſoning; yet this Notion of the Church, as a Society, muſt be Fundamental to them in order to their being beneficial; that is, as far as we have any reaſon to concern our ſelves for them. Theſe things ought certainly to be taken for Fundamental, as to the Diſcipline and Cenſures of the Church. She ought certainly to be moſt concerned for thoſe things that are moſt influential on the Intereſts of Souls; and thoſe are ſo whoſe Belief is moſt beneficial, and their Diſ-belief moſt hurtful to thoſe moſt valuable Intereſts. I cannot therefore ſee why ſhe ſhould not think Doctrines of this kind Fundamental, and reckon them among thoſe Fundamentals on which ſhe ought to lay out her principal Care. If therefore ſhe ought to excommunicate for any Errors at all, certainly ſhe ought in the firſt place to do it for Errors ſo deſtructive of all Obligation to her Communion it ſelf, and of her Authority of Excommunicating; that is, indeed ſo deſtructive to all that Power ſhe has either for the Preſervation of Truth, or the Prohibition of Error in general. And if ſhe ought not to inflict her Cenſures, at leaſt theſe higheſt of them, for any Errors but thoſe which are Fundamental; it will plainly follow, that Errors of this kind muſt be reckoned for Fundamental ones. Our Adverſaries would have Errors in Fundamentals publiſhed, and puniſhed as a Spiritual Crime, by a purely Spiritual Authority; but they do not, in the mean time, ſeem to be aware how Fundamental this very Notion of the Church, as a diſtinct and ſpiritual Society, is to its having any Authority, or Power, to puniſh ſo much as Spiritually. All they can do as a Sect, is only to reaſon with Hereticks concerning their Errors; and all the Means to reduce them are thoſe reaſons which can no farther prevail with them than as they may ſeem convictive in the Judgment of the Hereticks themſelves. But on that account they ſtand on even Terms with the Hereticks, whoſe Reaſons ought alſo to take place with the Eccleſiaſticks, ſo far as they are alſo in Conſcience convinced by them. A true Authority, and a Power of puniſhing refractory Perſons, by excluding from Communion, do Fudamentally ſuppoſe a ſpiritual Society over which they are to exerciſe this Authority, and from which Delinquents are to be excluded by ſpiritual Cenſures and Excommunications. How can they therefore avoid reckoning thoſe Errors from being Fundamental ones as puniſhable by a ſpiritual Authority, which ruine Fundamentally that very Authority by which ſuch Errors are to be puniſhed; which deſtroy the Society on which that Authority is grounded Fundamentally.

If there be degrees of Fundamentals, I ſhould think the Fundamentals concerning the Church, as a Society, to be of the greateſt conſequence, and therefore Fundamental in the higheſt degree. The Church is indeed obliged to keep the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Heb. 5.11. 1 Tim. 1.16. the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theſe are the Expreſſions by which our Adverſaries themſelves, I believe, conceive the Articles themſelves call Fundamental to be ſignified. But ſhe is obliged to keep them as a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Tim. 6.20. as a Truſt committed to her. How ſo? by avoiding Diſputings, by ſtopping the Mouths of Hereticks, by rebuking them with all Authority, by rejecting and avoiding not their Doctrines only, but their Perſons alſo, when they prove incorrigible. Now theſe things plainly ſuppoſe Governors inveſted with Spiritual Authority, and a Communion from whence incurable Hereticks are to be rejected. So that in order to the keeping theſe other Fundamentals, the Church, as a Society, is ſuppoſed antecedently as a Condition that alone can qualifie her for having ſuch a Trust committed to her. This Notion therefore as antecedent muſt be Fundamental to thoſe other Fundamentals, and therefore Fundamental in a higher ſenſe than thoſe things can be whoſe Security is ſuperſtructed upon it. And accordingly the Damage of the Publick in ſubverting theſe Notions of the Church, as a Society, is proportionably greater than that which follows from the denial of other particular Articles which are commonly taken for Fundamental. He that denies one of the other Articles, may yet believe all the reſt, and zealouſly defend them, and that by Principles too, againſt all other Hereticks. But he that denies the Church, as a Society, inveſted with a ſpiritual Authority, does as effectually contribute to the Ruine of all the other Fundamentals at once, as he does to the Ruine of a Houſe, who ſubverts the Foundations of it. It brings in Impunity for Hereſie in general, and ſuffers Hereticks ſtill to hope as well in their ſeparate Sects, as if they were in the Orhtodox Communion. It leaves them deſtitute of even any Preſumptions that might oblige them to judge in Favour of the Church's Doctrine, as the ſafeſt Error, if it ſhould prove one. It does by this means reduce the trial of the Cauſe to the Reaſons themſelves, and their native Evidence, and puts it in the Power of aſſuming Men to pretend greater Evidence than either they have, or they really believe. And things being reduced to this paſs, it is more God's Providence, than the Security of Principles, that hinders any Heretick, who diſputes any one of the other Articles, from queſtioning all the reſt.

CHAP. III. That the contrary Doctrine is a Fundamental Error, and obſtinately aſſerted Hereſie, very pernicious to the Church of Chriſt, and to the Aſſertors of it themſelves.

ST. Auguſtin obſerves, that Schiſms generally end in Hereſie: That is the natural conſequence of Defending it, as our Adverſaries do, by Principles. A ſingle Act of Ʋndutifulneſs to Superiors will in courſe paſs away with thoſe who are guilty of it; ſo that Poſterity will not be concerned in it: But when it is defended by Principles, it turns into falſe Doctrine, and Doctrine of that pernicious Conſequence, that the Church is obliged to take notice of it, as ſhe will be faithful to her Truſt, in ſecuring her Body from the like Diviſions for the future. Thus the Donatiſts took the firſt occaſion for their Schiſm from the pretended Perſonal Faults of Caecilian and his Ordainers. This, whilſt it was a particular Caſe, went no farther than that particular Schiſm: But when it turned into a general Doctrine, that Perſonal Faults were ſufficient to juſtifie Separation, then it laid a Foundation of frequent Schiſms, as often as any Criminals got into Places of Trust, and either Evidence was wanting, or themſelves too powerful to be conteſted with: Then it concerned Eccleſiaſtical Governours to condemn this Doctrine, that encouraged even Men of Conſcience to divide deſignedly and frequently. And when that Doctrine was thus condemned by the Church, and was notwithſtanding maintained by the Donatiſts as a Principle on which they ſubſiſted as an oppoſite Communion, it then became a Character of a Party to maintain it, and from that time forward the Donatiſts were reckoned among Hereticks, as well as Schiſmaticks: For this was the true Notion of Hereſie in thoſe Ages, as contradiſtinct from Schiſm: Both of them ſuppoſed a Diviſion of Communion, or tended to it. But that Diviſion was called Schiſm, which only broke the Political Ʋnion of the Society, without any difference of Principles; as when Thieves or Robbers tranſgreſs their Duties without any pretence of Principles authorizing them to do ſo. So whilſt Reſentment alone was the reaſon that made Subjects ſeparate from the Communion of their Eccleſiaſtical Governours, or whilſt Ambition alone made any to invade the Office of his Biſhop, and to erect an oppoſite Communion, this was Schiſm properly ſo called, as contradiſtinct from Hereſie. But when the Schiſm is patronized by Doctrines, and juſtified as well done, and conſiſtently with Conſcience; ſuch Diviſions, beſides their being Schiſmatical, were Heretical alſo in the ſenſe of the Ancients, and ſuch Doctrines, as Characteriſtical of a diſtinct Communion, were properly called Hereſies. On this account the ſame Doctrine of the original Identity of Biſhops and Presbyters was no Hereſie in S. Hierome, who notwithſtanding kept Communion with the Biſhops of the Juriſdictions he lived in; and yet was Hereſie in Aaerius, when upon account of that pretended Identity he preſumed to pay no more Duty to the Biſhops of the reſpective Juriſdictions, than he would have done to ſingle Presbyters. This is the moſt agreeable account of the Hereſies, not only in Philaſtrius, but in other more judicious Collectors of Catalogues of Hereſies. And it is very agreeable with the Notion of that Term among the Philoſophers, from whom the Chriſtians derived it. All Notions that were proper and characteriſtical to particular Schools among them made Hereſies, not thoſe which were received n common among them. Anſwerably whereunto thoſe Differences only in Opinion made Hereſies in the Church, which were the Notes of different Communions, not thoſe which went no farther than Speculation.

I am very well aware how ſurprizing this will be to thoſe who, upon popular Opinions, have uſed to believe no Opinion Hereſie that was not againſt Fundamentals. But if they will for a while lay aſide their Prejudices, they will poſſibly find this as ſlightly grounded as many other popular Opinions are. The very diſtinction between Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals, is not, that I know of, ever taken notice of by the Primitive Chriſtians, either in the ſame, or in equivalent Terms. And if a Perſon will needs make a Breach on account of an Opinion, it rather aggravates than diminiſhes his Guilt, that the Opinion is of little conſequence: His own Will is more concerned in it; that is, his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and he is therefore more a Heretick, and, as Hereticks were, more ſelf-condemned, Tit. 3.2. if, even in his own Opinion, the Matter for which he ſeparates be not of any conſiderable Importance. Even a Truth, and a Truth that has great Evidence of its being ſo, may make a Hereſie, if it be no way conducive nor diſadvantageous to the good of Souls; and yet the Perſon who maintains it will by no means endure Communion with thoſe who are of another Mind. He might have more pretence of Zeal, tho' Miſtaken, if the Miſtake on the Church's ſide did indeed concern Souls, and ſeemed, at leaſt, of dangerous conſequence to them. When he has not even that to pretend for himſelf, who can impute his breaking on ſuch accounts to any other Original than an aſſuming Imperiouſneſs of Temper, and a love of Contention, which we generally acknowledge to be the principal Ingredients of Hereſie? Certain it is, that ſuch a Breach for Opinions, tho' true, yet of no conſequence, is highly culpable, and deſtructive to that Ʋnity which Chriſt deſigned for his Church, and the more culpable for that very reaſon, that the Opinion is of little conſequence. Yet it cannot properly be called Schiſm, which is only a Breach, like thoſe which fall out frequently in Secular Affairs, when Men fall into Parties, on account of a Temper ungovernable, or ambitions, without any proper difference of Opinion and Doctrine. And it being no Schiſm, what can we call it in the Diſcipline of the Church, if it be not Hereſie?

Theſe Opinions therefore which are not otherwiſe Heretical on account of the Nature of the Opinions themſelves, do then begin to be Heretical when they begin to be characteriſtical of diſtinct Communions. And that they do, not only when Men deſignedly ſeparate from others on that very account, becauſe they are not of the ſame Opinions; but alſo when they venture on ſuch Practices on account of their ſingular Opinions, wherein others cannot communicate with them, for that very reaſon becauſe they cannot join with them in thoſe their ſingular Opinions. Then plainly the differing in ſuch Opinions, makes a difference of Communion unavoidable; and therefore the Opinions themſelves, in ſuch a Caſe as this is, are Signals of different Communions, which will come under the charge of Hereſie, as contradiſtinct from Schiſm, in the Notion now deſcribed of the Primitive Church. Thus, had S. Hierome proceeded as far as Aerius in the Practice of his Opinion concerning the Original Identity of Biſhops and Presbyters, and had thereupon broken himſelf off from his Duty to the Biſhop of the Dioceſe, and by that means either made or countenanced a Schiſm, which he had never countenanced but on account of this Doctrine of his which he held in Common with the Aerians, that Doctrine had been Hereſie in him, as well as the Aerians. So alſo Opiuions do then begin to be Treaſonable, when they are actually productive of Treaſonable Actions. Thus Latitudinarian Opinions in the Church do always weaken or diſſolve the Obligation in Conſcience to maintain the Church, as a Society, in a time of Perſecution, from the Civil Magiſtrate; yet till that Caſe fall out, and when Intereſt lies on the Church's ſide, they often ſtill keep one Communion who are for ſuch Opinions, and may continue in it while 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 former Head. It was then a Principle, that Epiſt. 55. ad Antonianum, Edit. Oxen, Cypr. Secundus was Nullus, which will as much invalidate the Conſecrations of the preſent Anti-Biſhops, as it did that of Novatian. This is a Principle ſo univerſally acknowledged, where-ever there can be but one, that it needs no Authorities to recommend it. No Man can convey the ſame thing twice: and therefore if there be two Bonds for the ſame thing to ſeveral Perſons, the ſecond can never be thought obliging, but by ſuppoſing the Invalidity of the firſt. So alſo in all Monarchical Diſtricts, none can ſuppoſe an Anti-Monarch's Title good, till he has ſhewn that the firſt Monarch's Title is not ſo. Thus this Principle needed no Authority, and yet it had all the Authority of the whole Catholick Church of that Age. The whole Collegium of Catholick Biſhops (that is St. Cyprian's Term) gave their communicatory Letters, not to Novatian, but Cornelius; and received none to their own Communion on the communicatory Letters of Novatian, but only on thoſe of Cornelius. And that upon this ſame common Principle, that Cornelius being once validly Biſhop of Rome, Novatian could never be a Biſhop of that ſame Diſtrict without the Death, or Ceſſion, or Deprivation of Cornelius; and that ſuppoſing him no Biſhop of that Place to which he was conſecrated, he could be no Biſhop at all. So far they were then from our late Fancy, of a Biſhop of the Catholick Church without a particular Diſtrict. Had they thought ſo, they might have ratified Novatian's Acts, as a Biſhop, becauſe he had received his Power from Biſhops, tho' not as Biſhop of Rome. Comparing the Catholick Church to a Fanum, or Temple, he was Profanus, as not being in the Temple, nor having a Right to enter into it. Comparing it to the Houſe in which the Paſſover was to be eaten by the Jews, he was Foris, not in that Houſe, in which alone the Paſſover was to be eaten. Theſe were the Notions of St. Cyprian, and were by him and his Colleagues underſtood of the Catholick Church in general, when they all ſuppoſed Novatian out of the Catholick in general, by being out of that particular Church of Rome, of which he had formerly been a Member. Juſt as in ordinary Excommunications, they alſo always ſuppoſed, that he who was by any Act of obliging Authority deprived of his Right to his own particular Church, had alſo loſt his Right thereby to all the particular Churches in the World. And they alſo ſuppoſed Novatian to have caſt himſelf out of his own Body, by aſſuming to himſelf the Name of a Head of that Body, which already had a Head, and could have no more than one. And theſe Notions, and this Language of St. Cyprian, were ſuppoſed and owned univerſally by the whole Body of the Catholick Biſhops of his Time, when they acted conſequently to them, and took them for the Meaſures, by which they either granted or refuſed their own Communion. Nor is it to be thought ſtrange, that theſe Notions ſhould be received, and received univerſally, not as the Opinions of private Perſons, but as the publick Doctrine, and Fundamental to the Catholick Communion, as practiſed not only in that early Age of St. Cyprian, but as derived from the Apoſtles themſelves, and the very firſt Originals of Chriſtianity: For theſe were not, (as private Opinions uſually were) only the reſult of private Reaſonings; they were received as the Fundamentals of Chriſtianity, (which were not as new Revelations generally were,...) from the like Notions received among the Jews, and among them received not as private Opinions, but as publick Doctrines, and Fundamental to the then practiſed Sacrifical Communion of the then peculiar People, and only thence deduced (as other things alſo are, in the Reaſonings of the New Teſtament) to the Caſe of the new Myſtical Peculium, and their new Myſtical Sacrifices. The Language of erecting Altar againſt Altar in St. Cyprian, is derived from the like earlier Language received among the Jews, V. Diſcourſe of one Altar, &c. Edit. Lond. 1683. 80. concerning the Samaritan Altar of Manaſſes, againſt the Jeruſalem Altar of Jaddus, that is, of a High Prieſt againſt a High Priest, when God had appointed but one High Prieſt in the whole World, and him only at Jeruſalem. And it is alſo plain, that the Body of the Jews did look on ſuch Schiſmatical High Prieſts, and all their Communicants, as cut off from the Body of their Peculium, and conſequently from all their publick Sacrifices, and all the Privileges conſequent to them. Why ſhould we therefore think it ſtrange, that the Apoſtolical Chriſtians ſhould have the like Opinion of them, who ſet up themſelves as oppoſite Heads of their Myſtical Sacrifices?

But this is not all. It is further as notorious, 3dly, St. Cyp. Epiſt. 43. Edit. Oxon. that all who any way profeſſed themſelves one with Novatian, were for that very Reaſon of their doing ſo, taken for divided from the Catholick Church, as well as he was with whom they were united. Here alſo the reaſon was very evident, that he who profeſſed, and, by publick Profeſſion, made himſelf one with a Perſon divided, muſt, by the ſame Analogy of Interpretation, profeſs himſelf divided, and, by that very Profeſſion, actually divide himſelf alſo, by making himſelf one with the Perſon ſuppoſed to be divided. Nor was this reaſon more evident, than univerſally acknowledged in the Diſcipline of that Age. All ſuch Uniters with the Schiſmatick were refuſed to be admitted to Communion, not by particular Biſhops only, (as the Caſe would have been if the Opinion had been ſingular) but by all the Biſhops of one Communion in the World.

Not only ſo: But it is alſo as notorious, 4thly, from the Practice and Diſcipline of that Age, that all whom they looked upon as united with Novatian, they conſequently looked on as divided from themſelves: To be ſure, in the firſt place, thoſe who had any hand in his pretended Conſecration, which were principally and particularly reflected on by Cornelius, in his Epiſtle to Fabius of Antioch. Nor would his People be receiv'd to Communion by any Catholick Biſhop on the communicatory Letters of Novatian; and they could expect none from Cornelius whilſt they were divided from him. Thus all his Subjects came to be involved as well as himſelf. But that which was higheſt of all was, that even Biſhops were ſuppoſed to have divided themſelves from their Brethren, if they communicated with him; that is, if, according to the cuſtom of that Age, they either gave communicatory Letters to him, or receiv'd any to their own Communion on the like communicatory Letters receiv'd from him. This appear'd plainly in the Caſe of Martian of Arles, who was on this very account denied the communicatory Letters of his Brethren; and would, no doubt, have appeared alſo in the Caſe of Fabius of Antioch, if he had proceeded ſo far. And this does plainly ſuppoſe, that ſuch Biſhops alſo had cut themſelves off from Catholick Communion by their own Act. And by this means it alſo appeared to have been more than a private Opinion in that Age, when even no Biſhop could be permitted in the Communion of his Brethren, if he diſſented from them in this particular. Thus, to make Application to our preſent Caſe, all the Biſhops will be involved, who communicate either with the Principal Schiſmaticks, or the Schiſmatical Conſecrators. And this will alſo take in, by the ſame Principles, all Communicants with ſuch Biſhops. For when the Biſhop was refuſed Communion, the Effect of ſuch refuſal was, that none ſhould thence-forwards expect to be received to the Communion of thoſe who had refuſed him on his communicatory Letters; and no other communicatory Letters could be hoped for whilſt they continued in Communion with him.

And then, 5thly, it is alſo as notorious, on the ſame Principles of St. Cyprian's Age, that ſuch Schiſm from the viſible Communion of the Catholick Church, was alſo ſuppoſed to deprive the Perſon ſo divided of all the inviſible Benefits of Church Communion. God was ſuppoſed obliged to ratifie in Heaven, what was done by thoſe whom he authorized to repreſent Him on Earth. He avenged the Contempts of his Miniſters, and would not be a Father to thoſe who would not own his Church for their Mother, by paying her a Filial reſpect. They were not to expect any Pardon of their Sins: They could not hope for the Holy Ghoſt, who diſſolved the Unity of the Spirit: V. Cypr. de Unitate Eccl. Ep. 49. Edit. Ox. Ep. 52, 54, 55. They were uncapable of the Crown of Martyrdom, whatever they ſuffered in the State of Separation. This is the reſult of many of St. Cyprian's Diſcourſes on this Argument: And indeed it is very agreeable with the Deſign of God, that they who cut themſelves off from the Peculium, ſhould, by their doing ſo, loſe all their pretenſions to the Rights and Privileges of it. Not only ſo, but that they ſhould alſo incurr all the Miſchiefs to which they were ſuppoſed liable, who had loſt their Right of being Members of the peculiar People. Accordingly as they believed all Perſons, at their firſt Admiſſion into the Church, to be turned from Darkneſs to Light, and from the Power of Satan unto God; ſo upon their leaving the Church, or their being caſt out of it by the judicial act of their Superiors, they were ſuppoſed to return into the State of Heathens, to loſe the Protection of thoſe good Spirits who miniſter only to the Heirs of Salvation, and again to relapſe into their former condition of Darkneſs, and being conſequently obnoxious to be infeſted by the Devil, and his Powers of Darkneſs. And that this was ſo, appeared by ſeveral ordinary Experiments in thoſe earlier Ages, not only of the Apoſtles, but that alſo of St. Cyprian, who has many Examples of it in his Book de Lapſis. And this Confinement of the Spiritual Privileges of the peculiar People to the external Communion of the Church, as it was Fundamental to their Diſcipline, ſo it was rational conſequently to their other Principles. God was not thought obliged to confer thoſe Privileges, but by the Act of thoſe whom Himſelf had authorized to oblige Him. But Dividers were ſuppoſed not to belong to that Body to which the Promiſes were made; and ambitious Intruders into other Mens Offices could not in any Equity pretend to have their Acts ratified by God, from whom they could not be ſuppoſed to receive any Authority, when they did not receive it by the Rules and Orders of the Society eſtabliſhed by Him. Theſe things were then believed, and believed univerſally. Indeed nothing but an univerſal Belief of them would have maintained that Diſcipline, which was then obſerved in the Church; could have obliged them generally to ſuffer, as they did then, the ſevereſt Inflictions from the Magiſtrate, rather than incurr the much more feared Diſpleaſure of their Eccleſiaſtical Superiors. When we are alſo of the ſame Mind, and alike influenced by Principles and Regard to Conſcience, then indeed, and then alone, we may pretend to be a Poſterity not degenerous from the great Examples of thoſe glorious Anceſtors: Then it will not be in the Power of Acts of Parliament to drive us from our Principles, and bring a Scandal on our Religion: Then where our Biſhops follow Chriſt, we ſhall follow them, and it will not be in the Power of the Worldly Magiſtrate, or the Gates of Hell it ſelf, to prevail againſt our Church, and to diſſolve the Union between us: Then Magiſtrates themſelves will be more wary of involving Conſciences on occaſion of their little Worldly Politicks; at leaſt they will not pretend Religion, and the Religion of that very Church which ſuffers by them for doing ſo. May we live at length to ſee that happy day! However it will hence appear how impoſſible it will be to excuſe our Adverſaries preſent Caſe from Schiſm, if it be tryed by that Antiquity which we do indeed profeſs to imitate and alledge.

Now in this Caſe I am diſcourſing of, I have purpoſely ſelected the Inſtances of St. Cyprian's Age rather than any other, not only becauſe they are the Ancienteſt, indeed the firſt we know of, of one Biſhop's invading another's Chair not vacant; but becauſe we have withall in him the moſt diſtinct account of the Senſe of the Church in his Age of ſuch Facts, and of the Principles on which they proceeded in condemning them. He had occaſion given him to be ſo diſtinct by two Schiſms, one of his own Church in Carthage, where Feliciſſimus was ſet up againſt himſelf; another (that I have principally inſiſted on) of Novatian, ſet up againſt Cornelius in Rome. On theſe Occaſions he has written one juſt Diſcourſe, beſides ſeveral Epiſtles. But theſe Principles were not ſingular and proper to that Age; they deſcended lower, and are inſiſted on by Optatus and St. Auguſtine in their Diſputes with the Donatiſts, whenever they diſpute the Queſtion of their Schiſm, without relation to their particular Opinions.

We have here given them the ſenſe of the Church, in an Age wherein her Teſtimony is every way unexceptionable, wherein ſhe had certain means of knowing the Truth, and withall valued it as it deſerved. Even there we find the Principles now mentioned univerſally received, and univerſally received as the Grounds of that univerſal Catholick Communion, which ſhe had received by an uninterrupted Tradition from the Apoſtles to that very Time. Even there, I ſay, we find them received, where nothing could have been received univerſally that had been an Innovation. In ſo ſhort a time it was hard to bring in Variations from the Primitive Rule, and harder yet, that all the Churches could have been unanimous in them, if they had been Variations, as Tertullian reaſons in his Preſcriptions; eſpecially when there was no Univerſal Authority received over the whole Catholick Church that could induce them to it. From the Time of Trajan, the Succeſſion of our Saviour's Family failed in the Church of Jeruſalem, to which all 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 wt he ſaid before of the Sacred Vows of Canonical Obedience, for ſecuring that Right and Duty, where no Worldly Power can force them to it; which no other Power in the World can diſpence with, but that for whoſe Intereſt they were impoſed, and the dreadful Imprecations implied in them as an Obligation for Performance. which can ſignifie nothing for the Security of any future Government, if they muſt ſignifie nothing for the time paſt. It is not for the Intereſt of the Publick to ſecure ill Titles in their Poſſeſſion, and thereby to incourage the Frequency of ill Titles, and frequent Subverſions of the Fundamental Conſtitutions, and all the Publick Miſeries that muſt follow on ſuch changes.

But theſe things are more largely treated, and very ſolidly in the Defence of the Vindication, upon a farther occaſion. For the Adverſaries being ſo home preſſed with this, that they had little to reply, were forced to ſeek for new Arguments: And firſt, without any Anſwer to his Argument, and granting the Propoſition of the Invalidity of Lay-Deprivation, the Lawfulneſs of Submiſſion in the Eccleſiaſtical Subjects to Intruders, is only inſiſted on; and only from other Later Facts, and pretence of Peace and Tranquility of the Church. To which it is replied, that ſuch Submiſſion is Sinful by the Law of God, makes the Subjects Accomplices in the Injuſtice, and moreover in the Clergy, on account of their Oaths of canonical Obedience, &c. and, That turning the Diſpute to later Facts draws it from a ſhort and deciſive, to a tedious and litigious Iſſue, with which there is no reaſon to comply. And concerning the Caſe of Abiathar, he ſhews, That the Fact is not commended in the Scripture as a Precedent; That the Magiſtrate could not, by the Doctrine of that Age, have any direct Power over the Prieſthood; That in the Apoſtle's Age the Prieſthood was expreſsly owned to be far more Honourable than the Magiſtracy it ſelf; and, That Solomon's Act was only of Force, and what God had threatned againſt the Houſe of Eli: Nor was Abiathar then the High-Prieſt properly ſo called, but Zadoc, &c. Moreover, That Chriſtian Biſhops are properly Prieſts, and the Goſpel Prieſthood more noble than that of Abiathar; and that theſe Principles and Inferences were admitted in the Apoſtolick Age, &c. by Clemens Romanus, &c.

But the Principal Pretence of all is propoſed by another Author; That tho' the Argument holds where the State are Infidels, and ſo the Church and State diſtinct Bodies, yet not ſo where the State profeſſes the Chriſtian Religion: And, That the Benefits of Protection, of Honor and Profit, of Security, and of Aſſiſtance, which the Church receives from the State, require in Gratitude a compenſation. To which is replied, That more is required for ſuch a Power than meerly being Chriſtian, which gives no Title to any Spiritual Authority; That the ſame Perſons may be of diſtinct Societies; That the Church's Obligations are more neceſſary for the Subſiſting of the State, than thoſe ſhe receives from the State for hers; That the Benefits alſo received from her by the State, are greater than what ſhe receives from it; That a Pious Magiſtrate would not deſire ſuch a Recompence, if ſhe could grant it: But it is not in the Power of Eccleſiaſtical Governours to make ſuch Contract; Nor is it agreeable to the Mind of God that the Church ſhould ſo incorporate with the State. To which may be added, That the Catholick Church and particular States are, by order of Divine Providence, of different, unequal, and inconſiſtent Dimenſions: and, That Particular States are many intire, independent Bodies; but all Particular Churches, Members of One great Body, and ſubject to the Supream and Ʋniverſal Authority thereof; Nor ought any State, Prince, or Emperor, be admitted or reputed Chriſtian, who will not ſubmit all their Authority to the Authority of Christ in his Kingdom upon Earth; Which being the Chief of all Powers; who-ever reſiſts, reſiſts the Ordinance of God, and ſhall receive to themſelves Damnation, Rom. 13.2.

CHAP. VII. Of the Authority of the Church of England; and that the Authority of the Primitive Catholick Church is greater than that of any Modern Particular one, and to be preferred before it.

THE laſt Refuge is Argumentum ad hominem; a poor Cauſe indeed that is reduced to that; which tho' tolerable as an Adjective with others more ſubſtantial, yet cannot ſtand alone, much leſs ſupport ſuch a Cauſe as this. Two things are alleadged, the Oath of Supremacy, & Deprivation of the Biſhops in Q. Elizabeth's time for refuſing that Oath, for Proof of the Doctrine of the Church of England in this caſe. To all this in general our Author oppoſeth the Authority of the Church of Christ, the Catholick Church of the Primitive Ages; which the Church of England it ſelf admits: and, having ſet out the Objection fully, makes this Reply.

I ſhould moſt heartily congratulate the Zeal of theſe Objectors for our Church, were it really ſuch as it is pretended to be. But I can by no means commend any Zeal for any particular modern Church whatſoever, in Oppoſition to the Catholick Church of the firſt and pureſt Ages. We cannot take it for a Reformation that differs from that Church, which ought to be the Standard of Reformation to all later degenerous Ages, at leaſt in things ſo eſſential to the Subſiſtence and Perpetuity of the Church, as theſe are which concern the Independence of the Sacred, on the Civil Authority. Nor is it for the Honor of our dear Mother to own her Deviation, in things of ſo great Importance, from the Primitive Rule; much leſs to pretend her Precedent for over-ruling an Authority ſo much greater than hers, ſo much nearer the Originals, ſo much more Univerſal, ſo much leſs capable of Corruption, or of Agreement in any Point that had been really a Corruption. It is impoſſible that ever the preſent Breaches of the Church can be reconciled, if no particular Churches muſt ever allow themſelves the Liberty of Varying from what has actually been received by them, ſince the Ages of Diviſions, the very Reception thereof having proved the Cauſe of thoſe Diviſions. If therefore our modern Churches will ever expect to be again united, it muſt be by Acknowledgment of Errors in particular Churches, at leaſt in ſuch things as have made the Differences, and which (whilſt they are believed) muſt make them irreconcilable. Such things could never proceed from Chriſt, who deſigning his whole Church for One Body, and One Communion, could never teach Doctrines inconſiſtent with ſuch Unity, and deſtructive of Communion. And why ſhould a Church, ſuch as ours is, which acknowledges her ſelf Fallible, be too pertinacious in not acknowledging Miſtakes in her ſelf, when the Differences, even between Churches, which cannot all pretend to be in the Right whilſt they differ, and differ ſo greatly from each other, are a manifeſt Demonſtration of Errors in Authorities, as great as her own? Nor can any ſuch acknowledgments of actual Errors be prejudicial to Authority, where the Deciſions of the Authority are to be overruled not by private Judgments, but by a greater Authority. And if any Authority be admitted as competent for arbitrating the preſent Differences of Communion between our modern Churches, I know none that can ſo fairly pretend to it, as that of the Primitive Catholick Church. Beſides the other Advantages ſhe had for knowing the Primitive Doctrines above any Modern ones whatſoever, ſhe has withall thoſe Advantages for a fair Deciſion, which recommend Arbitrators. She knew none of their Differences, nor dividing Opinions, and therefore cannot be ſuſpected of Partiality. And it was withall an Argument of her being conſtituted agreeably to the Mind of her bleſſed Lord, that ſhe was ſo perfectly one Communion as he deſigned her. And the Acquieſcence of particular Churches in her Deciſion, is eaſier and leſs mortifying than it would be to any other Arbitrator. To return to her, is indeed no other than to return to what themſelves were formerly before their Diviſions, or dividing Principles. So that indeed, for modern Churches to be determined by Antiquity, is really no other than to make themſelves, in their pureſt, uncorrupteſt Condition, Judges of their own Caſe, when they have not the like Security againſt Impurities and Corruptions. I cannot underſtand therefore how, even on account of Authority, our late Brethren can excuſe their pretended Zeal for even our Common Mother, the Church of England, when they preſume to oppoſe her Authority to that of the Catholick Church, and of the Catholick Church in the firſt and pureſt Ages. I am ſure we have been uſed to commend her for her Deference to Antiquity, and to have the better Opinion of any thing in her Conſtitution, as it was moſt agreeable to the Pattern of the Primitive Catholick Church.

CHAP. VIII. Arch-Biſhop Cranmer's Opinion perfectly deſtructive of all Spiritual Authority, and his Authority in theſe matters none at all.

FOR more particular Anſwer, he first ſhews the Author and Original, and ſo the Novelty, of theſe pernicious Opinions in England; and then anſwers to both the Allegations aforeſaid: the firſt not being very long, and therefore recited in his own Words at length, is as followeth:

In Henry the Eighth's time, under whom the Oath of Supremacy was firſt introduced, the Invaſions of the Sacred Power were moſt manifeſt. Yet ſo that even then they appear to have been Innovations and Invaſions. But who can wonder at his Succeſs, conſidering the violent ways uſed by him? So many executed by him for refuſing the Oath? The whole Body of the Clergy brought under a Premunire, (for doing no more than himſelf had done, in owning the Legatine Power of Cardinal Wolſey) and fined for it, and forced to Submiſſions very different from the ſenſe of the Majority of them? He did indeed pretend to be adviſed by ſome of the Eccleſiaſticks, as appears from ſeveral of their Papers ſtill preſerved. But they were only ſome few ſelected by himſelf, never fairly permitted to a freedom and majority of Suffrages. And when even thoſe few had given their Opinion, yet ſtill he reſerved the Judgment of their Reaſons to himſelf. And to ſhew how far he was from being indifferent, thoſe of them who were moſt open in betraying the Rights of their own Function, were accordingly advanced to the higher degrees in his Favour, and were entruſted with the Management of Eccleſiaſtical Affairs. None had a greater ſhare in his Eccleſiaſtical Councils than Arch-Biſhop Cranmer. Nor is there any who, upon all the Queſtions propoſed, wherein Eccleſiaſtical Power was concerned, does more conſtantly ſide with the King's imperious Humour againſt the true Rights of his own Order. He allows the King the Rights even of Preaching the Word, and Adminiſtring the Sacraments, and allows neither of them to the Eccleſiaſticks, any further than as they derived them from the Prince's Lay-Commiſſions. He permitted indeed their Conſecrations, as he had found them, by thoſe of their own Order; but derives nothing of their Power from thoſe Conſecrations. He makes the Ceremonies of Conſecration indifferent things, no way concerned in conveying the Spiritual Power. That he derives wholly from their Lay-Deputation. He gives them a Power of Preaching the Word, and Adminiſtring the Sacraments, where the Lay-Powers allow it, and he allows them neither where the Secular Magiſtrate forbids them. They muſt admit whom the Laws oblige them to admit, and they muſt not excommunicate any whom the Secular Laws take into their Protection. The Magiſtrate, notwithſtanding his being a Lay-Man, may perform theſe Offices himſelf, if he pleaſed. And the Eccleſiaſticks, notwithſtanding their Conſecration, are not by him permitted to perform them, unleſs the Magiſtrate be pleaſed to give them leave. Nay, ſo far he proceeds in his Flattery of the Civil Magiſtrate, that he allows no more Gifts of the Holy Ghost, in the Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery, than in the collation of any Civil Office. Even in the Apoſtles themſelves, he rather excuſes than commends all the Exerciſe of their Spiritual Authority, as neceſſitated to it by the Exigency of their preſent Circumſtances. As if any Neceſſity could excuſe Uſurpation. As if any Exerciſe of a Power not belonging to them could have been ſeconded by ſo viſible manifeſtations of God himſelf, as that was which was exerciſed by the Apoſtles. Yet even their Authority he makes perfectly precarious. He owns no Obligation on the Conſciences of the Chriſtians of thoſe times to obey even the Apoſtles themſelves, but aſcribes their Obedience then wholly to their good Will, ſo as to leave it to their own Liberty, whether they would be ſubject or no. And why ſo? Only becauſe the Apoſtles had no Civil Empire. This wholly reſolves all Obligation of Conſcience into Civil Empire, and makes it impoſſible for the Church to ſubſiſt as a Society, and a Communion, without the Support of the Civil Magiſtrate. Accordingly the ſame Arch-Biſhop Cranmer took out a Patent for his Epiſcopal Power, And another before from King Henry, long before Bonner was Biſhop: from which; and from the Compoſure, it is plain who was the Projector. preſerved by Biſhop Burnet, full of a Style ſo pernicious to Eccleſiaſtical Authority. He there acknowledges all ſort of Juriſdiction, as well Eccleſiaſtical as Civil, to have ſlowed originally from the Regal Power, as from a Supream Head, and as a Fountain and Spring of all Magiſtracy within his own Kingdom. He ſays, they who had exerciſed this Juriſdiction formerly, (for which he took out this Patent) had done it only PRECARIO, and that they ought with grateful Minds to acknowledge this Favour derived from the King's Liberality and Indulgence, and that accordingly they ought to yield whenever the King thought fit to require it from them. And to ſhew what Particulars of Eccleſiaſtical Power he meant, his Patent inſtances the Power of Ordering Presbyters, and of Eccleſiaſtical Coercion, meaning (no doubt) that of Excommunication. Nay further, the ſame Patent gives him a Power of Executing, by the King's Authority, thoſe very things which were known to have been committed to him by God himſelf in the Scriptures, per & ultra caquae tibi ex Sacris Literis divinitus commiſſa eſſe dignoſcuntur. By which we underſtand, that no Branch of Spiritual Power whatſoever was excepted. Yet all this Grant was to laſt no longer than the King's Pleaſure. I know not what the Lay-Encroachers themſelves can deſire more. Here is ſo little Security for the Church's ſubſiſting, when the Secular Laws diſcountenance her, as that ſhe is not allowed the ſame Liberty that other Subjects have, of pleading the Secular Laws already made in favour of her; but is left expoſed to the Arbitrary Pleaſure of the Prince, which is thought hard in the caſe of other Subjects. This Yoke the Politicians have lately impoſed on the Church of Scotland: GOD, in his good time, releaſe her from it.

I have often wondred how the moſt learned Biſhop Stilling fleet, who firſt publiſhed the fore-mentioned Papers, as far as they concerned Arch-Biſhop Cranmer, could think them conſiſtent with his own Principles: They are ſo perfectly contradictory to his Diſcourſe concerning the Power of Excommunication ſubjoined in the Second Edition of the Irenicum, and indeed to the Doctrine of the Irenicum it ſelf, as far as it was conſiſtent with it ſelf, or with any one Hypotheſis. For ſometimes he ſeems to doubt whether there can be any Power properly ſo called without Coercion, or any Coercion without external Force. As if indeed the Fears of the future Miſchiefs attending Excluſion from the Privileges of Church Communion had not been, in the pureſt Ages of the Chriſtian Religion, more properly Coercive, than the fear of any Evils that were in the Power of the Secular Magiſtrate. It is certain, that good Chriſtians then choſe rather to ſuffer any thing the Magiſtrate could inflict, than Excommunication. But I more admire, that ſuch a Betrayer of Eccleſiaſtical Rights ſhould, by our Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorian of the Reformation, be propoſed as the Hero of his times, and as Exemplary to ſuch as might, in his Opinion, deſerve the Name of Heroes ſtill. Yet he calls it a ſtrange Commiſſion in Biſhop Bonner, when he took out a Commiſſion from the King as to his Spirituals, conceived in the ſame terms with that of Cranmer, in the Particulars now mentioned. He grants that It is not only a groundleſs Charge upon Bonner, but falſe; & diſproved both by this, which diſcovers Cranmer the Contriver, and by Evidence of Fact, that he and others took out ſuch Commiſſions long before Bonner. v. A. Harmar. pag. 51, 52. The Hiſtorian to excuſe Cranmer caſt the Odium of it upon Bonner, and deviſed a reaſon to render it credible. Bonner's Inducement to take out that Commiſſion was, that it was obſerved, that Cranmer's great Intereſt in the King was chiefly grounded on ſome Opinions he had of the Eccleſiaſtical Officers being as much ſubject to the King as all other Civil Officers were. Yet Cranmer was to be excuſed, becauſe that if he followed that Opinion at all, it was out of Conſcience. Why he ſhould doubt, whether he was of that Opinion, I cannot gueſs, when himſelf has publiſhed thoſe very Papers of the learned Biſhop Stillingfleet, wherein Arch-Biſhop Cranmer does ſo plainly own himſelf of that Opinion; when he has alſo publiſhed Cranmer's own Commiſſion to the ſame purpoſe. As little Reaſon I can ſee why he ſhould ſay, that Cranmer was once of that Opinion, as if he had afterwards retracted it. The Papers upon the Conſult were written in Henry the Eighth's time, in the Year 1540. And then, even by the Biſhop's Obſervation, the Change of his Opinion had loſt his Intereſt with the King, if his Intereſt had been grounded on that Opinion. But Cranmer kept to the ſame Opinions in the Reign of King Edward the Sixth. Then it was he took out his Commiſſion. The young King himſelf ſeems to have been of the ſame Opinion, in his ſecond Paper of the Biſhop's Collections, which I can aſcribe to nothing more probably than to the Inſtructions of his God-Father. Nor does it appear the Arch-Biſhop chang'd his Mind afterwards. The only thing inſiſted on by our Hiſtorian to prove it, is his ſubſcribing a Book ſet out ſoon after, which teaches the contrary. But having already ſhewn that he ſtill retained the ſame Opinion in the time of Edward the Sixth, his Subſcription cannot prove any change of his Opinion, but that he complied, whatever his Opinion was, when he found his non-compliance could not hinder the contrary Opinion from being acceptable. But indeed that Book was not ſo clear in that point that his Subſcribing it would argue any change from his former Opinions. But our Hiſtorian ſays, that when Cranmer maintained that Opinion, he did it out of Conſcience. Perhaps it might have been ſo. But I am ſure it is but an ill Argument to prove it ſo, that his Intereſt in the King was viſibly promoted by it. Yet if he had frequently followed Opinions contrary to Worldly Intereſt, that, I grant, might have been an Argument, that tho' his Intereſt was indeed promoted by this Opinion, yet that might have been no Inducement to him why he did imbrace it. But, on the contrary, in the great Actions of his Life, it was the Serviceableneſs of his Opinions to the Princa's Deſigns that principally recommended him. It was notoriouſly his Opinion for the Divorce from Queen Katherine, that first brought him into the Court, and into the King's Knowledge. Nor is it denied by our Hiſtorian that it was ſo. And in the Caſe of Proſuming Conſummation of Marriage from Bedding, he gave contrary Judgments concerning the Marriage with Queen Katherine, and that with Anne of Cleve, exactly according to the King's Inclinations, and his own Intereſt in gratifying them. In Queen Katherine's Caſe he allowed it for a good Preſumption, but not ſo in the Caſe of Anne of Cleve. Nay, when the Proteſtant Reformation it ſelf was againſt his Intereſt with the Prince then in Poſſeſſion, he ranounced even that. Nor did he recant that Recantation, at leaſt he gave no publick Signification of his recanting it, till he was aſſured by Dr. Cole, in a Sermon before him at St. Maries, that even his Compliance ſhould avail him nothing for the Saving of his Life. And even in that compleater Collection publiſhed by Biſhop Burnet, none of the other Biſhops or Divines conſulted on that Occaſion is ſo perpetually thorough-paced for the King's Inclinations as he was. Which Singularity alone, not only againſt the Intereſts, but the Suffrages of his Function, in Favour of Encrcachments, ſufficiently ſhew how far he was from being Impartial in Queſtions of this Nature.

Having given this account of the Worthy Author of this Doctrine, and of his Principles, he proceeds farther to ſhew, That it is not the Intereſt of the Church, that his Authority in theſe things ſhould be regarded; That neither He, nor the Duke of Summerſet, did deſerve the Elegies by our Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorian beſtowed upon them, nor the Hiſtorian himſelf any great Commendation or Thanks for his miſtaken Service in it; That there were many in thoſe Reigns, under which the Reformation was tranſacted, who very much promoted the Reformation, but with no good Deſign on Religion or Reformation; as K. Henry himſelf, Cromwell, and the Duke of Northumberland, who both at their Executions declared themſelves of the Roman Communion; That the part acted by Cranmer was not really contributive to a Reformation; but if his Principles freed the Church from the Tyranny then in being, they naturally introduced a Tyranny of more pernicious Conſequence, which perfectly deſtroys the Government of the Church, and thereby diſſolves the Society, which was the thing to be reformed; That as little reaſon there is for that advantageous Character he gives his other Hero, the Duke of This is but part of the Sacrilege he was guilty of: and nothing of what he committed in Church Lands and Churches themſelves for his own uſe. Summerſet; for he was one that advanced the Sacrilege of the former Reign againſt Monaſteries; and in the time of his Protectorſhip againſt the Ʋniverſities themſelves; and wrote a very angry Letter to Biſhop Redley for oppoſing his deſigned beginnings of it in the Suppreſſion of Clare-Hall: and how could he reconcile any true Zeal for Religion and the Church, with his Sacrilegions Deſigns (and Practices too) againſt that very Church, whoſe Communion was owned by him?

After this he ſhews, from the ſeveral Acts of Parliament, how the Impious Notion of the Supremacy was by degrees ſettled by that Authority, and continued in the Reign of Prince Edward, who lived not to the Maturity of Judgment to diſcern the Falſhood and ill Tendency of thoſe ill Principles ſo deſtructive to all Religion, and to the very Fundamentals of the Church, as it is a Society and Communion, which had been inſtilled into him by his God-Father (Cranmer,) who was always the moſt forward Promoter of them.

And thus far our Author hath proceeded very clearly: but his more particular Anſwer to the two Objections being not fully concluded, but ſtill under Conſideration, a more compleat account of that is reſerved for another Occaſion; but may be expected ere long. And in the mean time to do him right, and gratifie the Reader, we ſhall conclude with the recital of part of a §. of the Vindication, (which had been altered without his Conſent) according to his Mind and Original Manuſcript. It is § 25. Pag. 71. as followeth.

— neither did the Emperor think that his own Authority was alone ſufficient for the purpoſe. Calinicus by having his Eyes put out was incapacited, and by that Incapacity deprived of his Office without a Judicial Sentence. The way that was taken to deprive him was the ſame that was uſually taken to deprive Emperors, without taking away their Lives, who notwithſtanding being the ſupream Authority, were never thought deprivable by any proper Exerciſe of Authority. That was not by a Legal Sentence, but by reducing them to a natural Incapacity for Government, by putting out their Eyes. This perfectly diſabled them to judge of the Decrees to be ſubſcribed by them, without which it was impoſſible for them to govern. Nor was it ever thought Ʋndatiful to deny ſuch Princes Subjection; whatever their Right was otherwiſe, when they once come to be ſo incapacitated, however they came to be ſo. No more than if they were Lunatick. Incapacity was alone ſufficient for that. And this Incapacity was ſo notorious, that we never read that even the Princes themſelves, who had been thus incapacitated, did ever judge ſo partially even in their own Caſe, as to think fit to reſume. Such a Caſe therefore as this did not put it in the Power, even of partial Subjects, to deny their Duty where it ought not to have been denied, by judging Incapacities where really there were none. And thus the Law never deſigns an Office for a Perſon incapable of it, where the Incapacity is ſo notorious as that it cannot be falſly applied by corrupt Interpretations. Thus therefore that Emperor deprived this Patriarch Callinicus by putting out his Eyes. Nor was this ſuch a Maiming only as had made him at firſt unfit to be elected, but ſuch as diſabled him to hold his Office, tho' the Emperor had never taken it from him, however he had come to it by a Diſeaſe, or by any other Providence. It was not like Antigonuſs's biting of the Ear of Hyrcanus. That only unqualified Hyrcanus for holding the Prieſthood by the particular Conſtitution of the Jews, which allowed none for Prieſts who had any ſuch corporal ſmperfections. Nor was it like the ſlitting of the Noſe of this Emperor Juſtinian. That only deprived him of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the graceful and Majeſtick Preſence becoming a Prince; but was ſtill conſiſtent with the Eſſential Qualifications for Government. But this Blindneſs perfectly diſabled our Patriarch Callinicus from ever Exerciſing any Patriarchal Office, eſpecially that moſt eſſential one of our Chriſtian Euchariſtical Sacrifice, and no Law could ever deſign to keep an Office perpetually, unleſs by allowing a perpetual unextinguiſhable Right in a Perſon who is under a perpetual natural Incapacity of Exerciſing it. Thus therefore there was no need of a depriving Sentence againſt Callinicus when he was under this Incapacity, himſelf could now pretend no Right to an Office which he could never hope to be able to exerciſe. What Pretence therefore could he have for Separating from the Communion of Cyrus, when himſelf was diſabled from Officiating in any Communion? What pretence could the Church have for Queſtioning the Ordinations of Cyrus, when his Rival was not capable of exerciſing any better Ordinations? But, God be praiſed, this is none of our preſent Fathers Caſe. They are not under any ſuch Incapacities.

FINIS.