Sense He tells us That in a late Letter said to be sent to Dr. B and now printed on the Back side of a scandalous Rhiming Libel upon his Sermon of Restitution he is threatned in case he should accept the Bishoprick with the Fate of those Ecclesiastical Schismatical Usurpers Gregory and George of Cappadocia who unjustly invaded the See of Alexandria upon the deposing of Athanasius the Orthodox Bishop there The Answer to this takes up the rest of his Book in which he takes a great deal of Pains perhaps to little purpose and makes many Flourishes pretending to be very accurate like a Man of Sense in distinguishing and assigning the Difference between the Case of Athanasius and that of our deprived Bishops in which he spends 13 or 14 Pages But all that he says may be answer'd in a very few Words And granting him if it will do him any good because I do not love to wrangle where there is no need what he says in his three first Paragraphs Pag. 18 19 20 21. where he pretends so clearly and accurately to state the Case touching the Incorporation of the Church into the State in a Christian Nation and Government and the Supremacy of the Sovereign Power in all Ecclesiastical Causes and the Extent of that Supremacy Granting him I say what he says in this excepting only in his Instance of deposing Bishops who were never anciently deposed in any Regular Orthodox Christian State without consulting a Synod of Bishops unless in Cases of capital Crimes for which the criminal Bishop has forfeited his Estate and Life and the Sovereign Power may proceed to a Decollation which is a Deposition with a Witness and that without consulting a Synod or Council I shall only take notice of his Distinction in his fourth Paragraph Pag. 21. We must distinguish says he between an Ecclesiastical and Canonical Deposition of a Bishop for Heresy or other Ecclesiastical Crimes and a State Deprivation The first he says concerns the Character and Ecclesiastical Communion it is the Censure of the Church which concerns him as a Bishop and when it is ratified and confirmed not only by a Provincial or National Synod but by a General Council such a deposed Bishop is no longer a Bishop of the Catholick Church and no Christian must communicate with him as a Bishop But a State Deprivation does not concern the Character such a Man may be a Bishop of the Catholick Church still if he do not fâ—ll under Church Censures for Heresy or other Crimes but it only concerns the Exercise of his Episcopal Authority in any Diocese within the Dominions of that State or enjoying any Ecclesiastical Benefice in it Under the first Branch of this Distinction our Author ranks the Case of St. Athanasius and the Case of our deprived Bishâ—ps under the second I am sorry that our Author who it seems has used himself to good Sense as well as to ancient Canons should be so grosly out in his History For 't is notoriâ—â—s that Athanasius was not condemn'd or depos'd for Heresy â—r other Ecclesiastical Crimes the Charge against him was not of that Nature But the Arian Faction being inveterate Haters of Athanasius for his resolute and constant adhering to the Catholick and Orthodox Faith and vehemently and effectually opposing and baffling their Heteredox and Pernitious Opinions and Heretical Doctrines and Positions and particularly at the Council of Nice where he gave a mighty Blow to the growing Heresy and wounded even to Death their great Goliah Arius which was not forgot when he was advanc'd to the Episcopal Throne contriv'd his Ruin and to that end they accuse him to the Emperor who they knew was sensible that Athanasius was Orthodox and therefore that 't was in vain to charge him with Heresy for being a turbulent mutinous factious Man and a Disturber of the Peace and other Immoralities The Emperor out of a just Veneration and Deference for his Character the Crimes laid to his Charge not being Capital which if they had there would have been another sort of Procedure against him witness the Emperor's Directions to * Vid. Life of St. Athanasius in Cave's Lives of the Fathers Vol. 2. p. 77. Dalmatius the Censor at Antioch to proceed against him upon a Charge of Murther who accordingly gave him Notice to provide for his Tryal but before the Day came the Emperor was satisfied that the Person whom he was accus'd by the Arians to have murther'd was alive conven'd a Synod to which he referr'd the Examination of Athanasius's Case in which his implacable Enemies whose Malice and Revenge was whetted and heightned to the highest degree being both a Vid Proceedings in the Synod at Tyre Id. p. 87. his Accusers and Judges they soon pronounc'd him guilty of the Crimes which he was most b The Proceedings against Athanasius appear before the Câ—uncil of Sardâ—ca to be nothing but a Train of Malice and Villany Id. p. 115. unjustly charged with and so depos'd him not from the Episcâ—pal Character but Jurisdiction and the Revenues of his See Upon which the Emperor banish'd him So that such a Block-head as I am cannot whatever this Gentleman with his Linceus Eâ—es who has used himself so much to good Sense as well as to ancient Canons can so easily perceive such a vast Difference between these two Cases Were our deprived Bishops charged with or condemn'd for Heresy So neither was St. Athanasius Are our Bishops deposed from their Episcopal Character So neither was St. Athanasius Are our Bishops accus'd of and depriv'd for an Offence against the State So was St. Athanasius Are our Bishops deposed from their Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Revenues of their Sees So was St. Athanasius Are our deprived Bishops thrust out and succeeded by Ecclesiastical Schismatical c Such the Sardican Council esteem'd the Anti Bishops that were possâ—ss'd of St. Athanasius's See at Alexandria Gregory is branded with this Mark of Infamy and Detestation p. 116. but especially in passing Sentence against Gregory the Arrian Intâ—â—dâ—r at Alexandria they shew'd a particular Detestation pronouncing him not only to have been no Bishop but not worthy the Name of a Christian nulling all Ordinations made by him and forbidding any to bear that Character that had receiv'd Orders from him George the Cappadocian Monster as Nazienzen calls him who succeeded Gregory was disown'd and discountenanc'd by all the Orthodox Suffragan Bishops and Clergy belonging to the Metropolitical See of Alexandria was install'd by a military Guard being indeed a Man of Blood had a bloody Entrance a bloody Continuance and a bloody Exit Id. p. 142 143. and p. 174 175. Intruders and Usurpers So was St. Athanasius So that it does not appear that there is so vast a Difference between these two Cases i. e. in respect of the Matter and Nature of the Deposition or Deprivation notwithstanding our Author 's accurate Distinction Indeed there is this Difference which he may call a
to give the Church her due as well as Cesar his by making good this following Principle or Hypothesis viz. That the Power of inflicting Censures upon Offenders in Ibid. sect 3. a Christian Church is a Fundamental Right resulting from the Constitution of the Church as a Society by Jesus Christ and that the Seat of this Power is in those Officers of the Church who have derived their Power originally from the Founder of this Society and act by virtue of the Laws of it In pursuance and for the better Explanation of which Principle he asserts and endeavours to demonstrate First That the Church is a peculiar Society in its own Nature Ibid. p. 423. sect 10. distinct from the Common-wealth and that by reason of its Divine Institution distinct Officers different Rights and Ends and peculiar Offences Secondly That the Power of the Church over its Members in Ibid. p. 431. sect 17. case of Offences doth not arise meerly from Confederation and Consent though it doth suppose it Which Power says he may be consider'd two ways either First as it implies the Right in some of inflicting Censures as Excommunication Suspension Deposition or Deprivation of Ecclesiastical * For the Laity to suspend or depose the Clergy is as preposterous as for the Sheep to disciplin the Shepherd Even Nature teaches us that if the Shepherd offends he must be censur'd by his Fellow Shepherds and not by the Sheep Even King James himself as great a Violator of Liberty and Property and the Privileges of Society as he was vogu'd to be did not think it proper to refer the Censure i. e. the Suspension or Deprivation of Ecclesiasticks to the Civil Magistrate or the Representatives of the People but left it to Ecclesiastical Commissioners consisting of Bishops c. who were fittest to censure their Brethren They say It is a Diamond that must cut a Diamond Officers when there is just cause for it Which are Acts of the Church as such and peculiarly relating to Church-Power and not Acts of the State For the Exercise and Administration of this Power belongs not to the Body of the Society consider'd complexly but to the special Officers and Governors of the Church who like the Eyes to the Body are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Overseers of it none else being capable of exercising this Power of the Church as such but they on whom it is settled by the Founder of the Church it self Or Secondly as it implies in others the Duty of submitting to Censures inflicted So that the Right of inflicting Censures Pag. 437. sect 19 doth not result meerly ex confederatâ discipliná the Power being settled upon the Church by Divine Institution Thirdly That this Power of the Church doth extend to the Exclusion of Offenders from the Privileges of it Fourthly That the Fundamental Rights of the Church do not Ibid. p 423. and 446. escheat to the Common-wealth upon its being united or incorporated into a Christian State Which Union or Incorporation he says Pag. 446. is only accidental as to the Constitution of a Church but the Power remains formally in the Church Which Power he says Pag. 422. sect 9. is not only a kind of Widows Estate which belonged to it only during its Separation from the Civil Power but the Church is absolutely infeâ—ffed of it as its perpetual Right belonging to it in all Conditions whatsoever it should be in as appears by the Tenure of it and the Grounds on which it is conveyed which being perpetual and universal it from thence appears that no Accession to the Church can invalidate its former Title And then that Reverend Author concludes with this remarkable Passage That though the Magistrate hath the main Pag. 447. Care of ordering Things in the Church that is in respect of the Right of Supreme Management of this Power in an external Pag. 446. way of which he gives four particular Instances yet the Magistrate's Power in the Church being cumulative and not privative the Church and her Officers retain the Fundamental Right of inflicting Censures on Offenders What has been already said is enough to answer what our Author does further urge Pag. 27. touching the Authority which the Jewish Kings exercised over their High Priests concerning whom 't is very probable and nothing appears to the contrary that they consulted the Sanhedrim and particularly Solomon's deposing Abiathar and placing Zadock in his stead Let it be consider'd what Abiathar's Crime was which as appears by the Words he recites was no less than High Treason in following Adonijah to make him King for which Solomon instead of taking away his Place might have taken off his Head he having forfeited both his Estate and Life As to what he says Pag. 27. about the changing the High-Priest every Year though by the Institution of God it was for Life when Judea was under the Government of the Romans I conceive is nothing to the purpose the Jewish Polity and Government being dissolv'd and that according to the Will of God in pursuance of the ancient Prediction Gen 49. 10. and therefore no wonder that our Saviour was not concern'd at it nor found fault with their Change either of their High-Priests or Kings And as impertinent is his Instance Pag 28. of the Grand Signior's making and unmaking the Patriarch of Constantinople at pleasure to which he may add Oliver's deposing of Bishops and depriving the Divines of the Church of England if he pleases and so joyn a Mahometan and an Usurper notwithstanding what Dr. Sherlock says who he tells us in his Case of Allegiance took Notice of this as matter of Fact without enquiring into the Reasons whose Authority is of as little Esteem with me as his own Principles are with himself There remains but one Thing more which I shall take notice of and that is what our Author says Pag. 29. The Truth is says he the same Objections which are now made against the Promotion of these new Bishops are equally strong and as eagerly urg'd at this Day by the Papists against our first Reformers For they were promoted to Bishopricks while the former Popish Bishops were living and not canonically deposed by any Act of the Church but only by the Authority of the State To this I answer That the Popish Bishops in the Beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth to which I presume he refers Vid. Fox Book of Martyrs Vol. 3. were summon'd by the Queen to meet in an Assembly of Divines conven'd at Westminster to dispute and debate about Matters of Religion in order to the Settlement of the Church But the Popish Bishops were contumacious and mutinous in the Assembly and Disturbers of the Peace and would not pay Obedience to the Queens Orders and Directions about the Method of the said Disputation and Debate So that the Assembly was forc'd to break up without prosecuting or promoting the pious Ends for which they met For which contumacy and Disobedience they fell under the Queens Displeasure and were committed to Prison but were not depos'd or depriv'd of their Bishopricks by any Act of the State Sometime after a Parliament was call'd and Matters of Religion and the Government of the Church settled and the Romish Worship abolished But the Popish Bishops would not qualifie themselves to hold their Bishopricks but utterly refus'd to subscribe to or comply with the Constitution of the Church of England as by Law established Which is far wide from the Case of our deyrived Bishops What Contumacy or mutinous Behaviour or Disobedience were they guilty of Were they not sufficiently qualified to hold their Bishopricks according to the Constitution of the Church of England Were they Oppugners of the Doctrine Discipline or Government of it On the contrary Have they not been and are they not still zealous and constant Assertors and Maintainers of it For which they suffer and for which in time they will have their Reward if not in this World yet in that to come when their Adversaries without Repentance will receive the Reward of their Apostacy Our Author concludes with desiring his Friend to persuade Dr. B to repent and puclickly to own his Mistake Perhaps the Doctor has prevented him and has repented another way and does not think fit now to repent of his Repentance which 't is only to be wish'd he would make as publick as his Error which may not be too late to do himself good being the only Recompence he can now make Thus Sir begging your Pardon for the Trouble of this Paper which may serve a little to divert you in the Country instead of better Entertainment I rest SIR Your humble Servant Lond. June 10. 1691. FINIS
Affection which his wiser Men Pag. 11. are inspired with which perhaps was the cause of that unmannerly Effort that instance of Rudeness and Folly in him of calling the Doctor Fool which is the softest Name that his good Breeding could bestow upon him which I am apt to think was a little too rude treating of so Reverend a Person whom the Government thought worthy of so high a Character had he not been too self-denying to accept of it He then proceeds in the next Paragraph Pag. 11 12. to his Conclusion from the Premisses This says he plainly proves that supposing it Lawful to have taken the Bishoprick no other Consideration whatsoever can justify the Refusal in our Circumstances If then according to his own Argument it be unlawful or if the Doctor thought it so his Refusal is justifiable But he knows not how to suppose that the Doctor could think it unlawful Which that he could not do he endeavours to prove by two Arguments The first is drawn from the Doctor 's Submission to the Government and taking the Oaths of Allegiance as early as any Man and never that our Author heard had the least Scruple about it Pag. 12 Perhaps the Doctor took the Oath as some of the Kentish Clergy took it i. e. as the Israelites did eat Manna to keep 'em from starving But perhaps the Doctor repents and sees his Error and is sorry for what he has done and therefore as a true Penitent will not add Sin to Sin And though he took the new Oath of Allegiance and that perhaps a little too precipitantly yet he will not Rob or Steal nor commit Sacriledge But our Author is very uncharitable and will allow no place for Repentance though as Esau a Man seek it carefully with Tears For says he this was the time to have been Scrupulous if he would have been so for it seems a little of the latest when he is become a sworn Subject to K. William and Q. Mary to question their Authority to make a Bishop But if true Repentance be not too late with God I know not why Man should account it so His second Argument is drawn Pag. 13. from the Doctor 's exercising Archi-Episcopal Authority by Commissien from the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury during the Vacancy of the See by the Deprivation of the A. B. as it is expressed in the Commission And this he tells us he takes to be altogether as unlawful if either of them were unlawful to seise upon the Authority of the A. B. upon the Account of his Deprivation as to take the Character and exercise the Authority of a Bishop in the See of a deprived Bishop Let the Doctor answer for this himself as I doubt not so great a Canonist is able to do Though at the first sight it appears to any one that is not so well vers'd and learned in the Canon Law that to exercise Archi Episcopal Authority when the Arch-Bishop's hands were tyed up and could not do it himself is a less Fault than to enter pleno Jure upon the Right and Possession of a Bishop unjustly deprived and seise and enjoy the Revenues of his See But I cannot but observe how industriously and malitiously our Author like the Great Abaddon endeavours to keep the poor Doctor from Repentance by shewing and exposing the Absurdity and Unreasonableness of his Refusal from this Consideration That he has plung'd himself so deeply in one Act after another in compliance with the Government which is suppos'd to confirm his Opinion of the Lawfulness of it that he cannot now Stop but must go on ad Finem usque Alas what a Dilemma do Men bring upon themselves when they go out of God's Way and leave the Paths of Truth Justice and Righteousness He that makes one false Step knows not whither he may wander He that presumptuously commits one Error knows not when or where he shall end Uno Absurdo dato sequuntur Mille. But this is the Sinner's Comfort amidst the frightful View of his repeated Acts of Sin that sincere Repentance will expiate for his greatest Errors resolving If I have done Evil I will do so no more Thus our Author having endeavour'd to prove that the Doctor could not think it unlawful to take the Bishoprick He tells us Pag. 14. what the Peoples Sentiments are of his Refusal Which says he after an appearing forwardness to take it hath tempted People to think that he judges it unlawful And if they do so our Author has put a very fine Argument in their Mouths by an easy Train of necessary Consequences wherein he speaks great Truths perhaps against his Will which may be more disserviceable to the Government than he is aware of the bare Recital of which will be enough without a Comment If says he Pag. 15. it be unlawful and perhaps not only the Doctor but others besides him think so to succeed a deprived Bishop then he is the Bishop of the Diocese still and then the Law that deprives him is no Law and consequently the King and Parliament that made that Law no King nor Parliament Which indeed some have been so bold to question thinking it hardly possible that that can be a lawful King who was made so by the People or that a lawful Parliament which was cut out of a Convention not summon'd by the King's Writs but made a Parliament by the celebrated Miracle of Transubstantiation A true Jest perhaps But Ridentem dicere Verum Quis vetat But to go on with his admirable Train of Deductions Pag. 15. If says he the deprived Bishop be the only lawful Bishop then the People and Clergy of his Diocese are bound to own him and no other then all the Bishops who own the Authority of a New Arch-Bishop and live in Communion with him are Schismaticks and the Clergy who live in Communion with Schismatical Bishops are Schismaticks themselves and the whole Church of England now Established by the New Law is Schismatical and Dr. B himself a Schismatick if he communicate with it And thus we have no Church or only a Schismatical Church as well as no King and all that Dr. B has got by refusing a Bishoprick is to prove himself a Schismatick if he live in Communion or to make a Schism if he Separate from â— The last Branch of his Disjunction I deny For though Dr. B proves himself a Schismatick if he live in Communion with a Schismatical Church yet he does not make a Schism by separating from it For he makes the Schism who makes the Terms of Communion unlawful And by the way if all is true in this Train of Consequences neither our Author I hope nor his swearing Brethren will be offended at or condemn the New Separation And so I pass to his second Head of Discourse Pag. 17. viz. the Lawfulness of the Thing it self which he says is so evident when set in a clear Light that it will admit of no Dispute with Men of
vast Difference if he pleases between these two Cases in respect of the Manner of the Procedure Athanasius had the Justice done him of being heard and try'd and had Liberty to answer for himself But our Bishops are condemn'd indictâ causâ without a formal Process unheard untry'd and without Liberty to answer for themselves Athanasius had the Honour and Deference paid to his Character to have his Case referr'd to and examin'd in a Synod But our Bishop's are unsynodically and uncanonically deposed and censur'd and condemn'd by an illegal Convention Athanasius was censur'd and condemn'd for a Crime which as 't was supposed though not proved he had committed But our Bishops were censur'd and condemn'd not for a Crime past but to come not for a Fault that they bad committed but for an Offence which 't was expected they would be guilty of Athanasius liv'd under a more Arbitrary Government and was Subject to the Will of an absolute Prince who yet allow'd him the Favour customarily due to Christian Bishops But our deprived Bishops have the Happiness to live in a Kingdom where they have a Right in common with others to the Benefit of Magna Charta which provides that no English Subject shall lose Life Limb or Estate for any Offence unless he is tryed by his Peers which is the inalienable Privilege and Birth-Right of an English Subject Which not a Lawyer in England will deny But Video Meliora proboque Deteriora sequor I am not I thank God either so Popish or Fanatical as to deny that the Supreme Power has Authority or Jurisdiction over Ecclesiastical Persons who are Subject as well as the Laity to the Laws of distributive Justice and that both in respect of Rewards and Punishments I will allow to use our Author's Words Pag. 23. the Supreme Power of a Nation to judge who shall be Bishops in their Dominions and enjoy the Revenues of the Church which are the Gift of the State but by his leave not such a Gift as is that of civil and military Offices of a Judge or a Captain which they are to hold ad placitum or quam diu se bene gesserint but it is such a Gift as when once given and legally settled on the Person on whom it is bestow'd cannot be arbitrarily taken away at pleasure it being for his Life and as much his Free-hold as any Land in England is the Purchasers who buys and pays for it And then as for Punishments there is no doubt but that Ecclesiastical Persons of what Degree or Figure soever they be are under the Authority and Jurisdiction of the State who may inflict Punishments according to the demerits of the Offenders If the Crime is Capital the Ecclesiastical Person may be try'd and if found Guilty condemn'd in a Court of Justice by Criminal Judges without a Synod or Council But if it be an Offence against the State of a lesser and more inferiour Nature as was that of St. Athanasius it has been usual and customary as I said before in Regular Orthodox Christian States I hope our Author will not insist on the Instance of the Parliamentary Deposition and Deprivation of Bishops in pursuance of the Holy Covenant in the late Civil Wars or rather Rebellion if it will not offend our Author to call it so which was indeed a Deposition of Bishops without a Synod or Council and which perhaps may be sutably rankt under the second Branch of his aforesaid Distinction of a State-Deprivation and that out of Deference to the Episcopal Character to consult a Synod or Council in case of the Deposition or Deprivation of Bishops from their Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Revenues of their Sees And though the great Kindness and Indulgence of Christian Emperors to Bishops reserving Causes but not all Causes as our Author falsly speaks without distinguishing between Offfences against the State c. Witness the intended and appointed Tryal of Athanasius before Dalmatius the Censor at Antioch as aforesaid and his Examination before the Emperor upon a Charge of High Treason reserving I say Causes relating to Bishops to the Cognizance Id. p. 76. of their own Synods was in process of Time abused and by Degrees grew into the Omnipotent Power of the Bishop of Rome as our Author speaks Pag. 26. which domineered over Emperors themselves and set the Church above the State yet the abuse ought not to abolish the use of that which is necessary convenient and laudable But our Author seems to be one of them who out of their just Zeal against the Extravagantcies of those who scrued up Church Power to so high a Peg that it was thought to make perpetual Iren. 2 Edit with Appendix pag. 418. sect 2. Discord with the Common-wealth could never think themselves free from so great an Inconvenience till they had melted down all Spiritual Power into the Civil State and dissolv'd the Church into the Commonwealth to use the Words of the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet Who whatever might unadvisedly drop from his Pen in his Irenicum derogatory to the Honour and Power and Privilege of the Church which might owe it self to his Juvenile Heat and too long and familiar Converse with Erastian and Republican Principles with which perhaps his Mind was * There is certainly a kind of Eâ—riety of the Mind as well as of the Body which makes it so uâ—stable and pendulous that it oft-times reeâ—s from one Extream to tâ—e qâ—ke contrary So that whiâ—e they that at an Appariâ—â—on 〈◊〉 so much dâ—ead they 〈◊〉 â—o these untrodden Pâ—â—hs wherein they lose both themselves and the Tâ—â—th 〈◊〉 p 418. sâ—ct 1. 〈◊〉 p. 418. sect 2. inebriated which made him reel to dangerous Extreams yet has honestly made Amends in his Appendix apologizing for himself in a lucky Parenthesis Which Hypothesis says he is the only rational Foundation on which Episcopal Government in the Church doth stand firm and unshaken and which in the former Discourse I am far from undermining of as an intelligent Reader may perceive And he must be a very intelligent Reader indeed that can perceive it And therefore to expiate his Offence which was taken if not given and prevent all Mistakes and undeceive and fully inform the less discerning intelligent Reader he speaks plain in his Appendix to which I will refer my Author for a fuller Answer to his accurate Distinction between an Ecclesiastical and a State-Deprivation in which perhaps being the Authority of a great Man he may acquiesce and for the sake of my Reader who may not have the Book I will transcribe a few remarkable Passages wherein he tâ—lls you That the World may see he has not been more forward to assert the just Power of the Magistrate in Ecclesiasticals as well as Civils than to defend the Fundamental Rights of the Church he has taken this Opportunity more fully to explain and vindicate that part of the Churches-Power which lies in reference to Offenders and therefore endeavours