Bishop in opposition to the publick intention of the Church It is an invidious Interpretation and a very false one which he gives of the Oath when he makes it in effect the same as if they should swear That they will for the Bishop's sake oppose the welfare of the Publick and break the Union of the Church and leave the Communion of it and adhere to the Bishop though they should have no reason to do so besides this bare Oath No need of this The welfare of the Publick and the Union of the Church require that in affairs of Publick Spiritual Interest the judgment of the Subject ought to be concluded by the judgment of the Bishop at least to the practice which perfectly overthrows the Doctor 's Interpretation and makes it impossible that those considerations should ever really interfere which the Doctor makes so opposite And St. Cyprian's definition of a Church that it is a flock united with the Bishop makes it impossible that the true Church's Communion can ever be left in adhering to the Bishop But this perhaps the Doctor will call a Saying of St. Cyprian and a sort of Theological Pedantry as he is used to stile other the like Doctrines and Principales of the Cyprianick and purest Ages when they are urged to oblige him to any thing that may give him occasion to shew what he calls his fortitude What he pretends with his usual confidence without the least offer of proof that particularly here in the Church of England the Oath of Canonical Obe dience is always taken with this supposition That the Civil Power as well as the Ecclesiastical do allow the Bishop to govern we shall then believe when he shall be pleased to prove it by some stronger Topick than his own Authority The Oath it self has no such matter expressed in it And he should have pitched on some expression in it if there had been any which in his opinion might seem to imply it Our Civil Laws require that our Ecclesiastical Causes should be determined by Ecclesiastical Judges which if they had been observed had left no room for the Case of Lay deprivations § XI Our Principles afford better Reasons why the unjust deprivations of Synods may be received without the deprivea Bishops consent than those insisted on by the Doctor That a Synodical deprivation though unjust discharges the Subjects from the Obligation of the Oath of Cononical Obedience is usually admitted But not for that reason which the Doctor has given for it The division which might otherwise follow in the Church and the publick disturbance which might follow thereupon if they were not so discharged are equally applicable to the opposite Pretenders and could afford the Subjects no directions with whether of them they ought to joyn The true reason ought to decide the Title and therefore ought to be such as one only of the Rivals can pretend to That is that the Synod however unjust in its way of proceeding is notwithstanding to be allowed as a conpetent Judge and therefore that on that account its Sentences ought to hold in Practice till repealed by a higher Authority of the same kind that is by a greater Synod But an incompetent Jude leaves things in the same condition in which it found them and ought not in Conscience or Equity to have an effect at all Nor can it therefore impose on the Consciences of the Subjects any the least Obligation even to acquiescence Nor does it follow that because the Bishop's conscent may not be necessary to oblige him to stand to the unjust Sentence that therefore the reason of his obligation to acquiescences is not grounded on Episcopal consent The consent of his Predecessors on the valuable consideration of having the conveniences of Synodical debates may conclude him while he enjoys the same valuable considerations And the consent of his Collegues may oblige him also who have the Right of judging with whom they will observe the Commerce of their Communicatory Letters Their agreement in denying him their Communicatory Letters is in effect a Deprivation when what he does is not ratified in the Catholick Church This will go far to hinder his Cummunion from being Catholick which may go far also towards the absolving his Subjects from Duty to him if by joyning with any other they may have the benefit of Catholick Communion But this following the judgment of Episcopal Predecessors or of the Episcopal Colledge will by no means allow the Subject that Liberty which the Doctor disputes for of deserting their Bishops on their own private Judgments concerning the publick good It will not follow that that Necessity must excuse them which has no other consideration on which it may be grounded desides that of an irresistible force § XII There is greâ—â— disparity between the Obligations of a competent and an incompetent Authority But the Doctor it seems can see no difference as to Acquiescence in a Case of Necessity between what is done by a competent and what by an incompetent Authority It is strange that a Person so able to judge in other Cases where Interest permits him to judge impertially should not see it The obvious difference now mentioned is that the Deprivation by an incompetent Authority leaves Subjects under obligation to Duty from which they are discharged when the Authority though acting unjustly is notwithstanding competent Thence it plainly follows that where the obligation to Duty is taken away there compliance is not sinful And where it is not sinful it may be born with in the Case of that Necessity which is the result of an irresistible Force But where the Obligation to Duty remains and the compliance is therefore sinful I know no tolerable Casuisty that allows it upon such Necessity The Doctor himself as we have seen already excepts it in his own stating of the Case Tenants do not usually hold their Tenures by Oaths But where they do I am sure all creditable Antiquity thought them under stricter Obligations to performance than it seems the Doctor does The Peace and Tranquillity of the Publick are no doubt useful considerations for understanding the sense of Oaths in which they oblige to performance But the Doctor might have been pleased to consider that here are two publick oftentimes incompareble Interests concerned in the Obligation of Oaths There is the publick Interest of those to whom as well as of those by whom the Faith is given And all fair and equal dealing Casuists prefer the former before the later in Oaths given for the Security of others How than can the Doctor make the good of Sworn Tenants in general to put restrictions on Oaths given for the Security not of the Sworn Tenants but of the liege Lords in general for whose Security the Obligations are undertaken He ought to prove that a Conqueror can daprive a Bishop of his Spiritual Power if he be pleased to reason upon it That the Church of Jerusalem supplyed the place of Narcissus
as any one Article of the Faith can be This the Vindicator has proved nor has the Doctor vouchsafed any Answer to what he has produced for it Indeed the whole Expedient insisted on by the Doctor seems very strange to me that he should think to secure the Church from Schism by allowing Subjects to desert their Ecclesiastical Superiours on pretence of irresistible force and by by renouncing all Principles that may oblige Ecclesiastical Subjects to adhere to their Ecclesiastical Governours whensoever the State shall be pleased to refuse to pretect them and thereby renouncing all Principles that may oblige them in Conscience to continue a Society independent on the State These Principles and Practices leave them at liberty to form and maintain as many Schisms as they please when the Decrees as the Church are not seconded by the Civil Power How then can the maintaining so licentious Principles be taken for an Expedient for preventing Schism The Doctor withal would have us consider That it was not for the Bishops that the Church was established but the Bishops were appointed for the sake of the Church Hence he concludes that it is not the welfare of the Bishops as the Bishops are these or or those Men much lese of some few particular Bishops but the welfare of the whole Church in general that is chiefly to be regarded This is a pretence for all Rebellions and Innovations whatsoever to make the Persons invested with Authority to be regarded only as private Persons whose Interests are different from those of the Publick which the Innovators pretend to promote by removing their private Persons and substituting others in their stead Nor indeed need any Rebel desire any more Let the Head of the Rebellion be the particular Person and the controversy is soon determined He will pretend no quarrel with the Publick but only whether he or the present Possessor shall be the particular Person that is to be intrusted with the Publick and to be sure will pretend it to be for the Publick Interest that of the two himself should rather be the Man if for no other reasons at least for those of the Doctor viz. Irresistible force and the Peace and Tranquillity of the whole which he is otherwise resolved to disturb And the same pretence is applicable to any other from of Government as well as that which is Monarchical The Administration of it cannot be managed but by some few chosen out of the whole Body and then those few are only so many particular Persons against whom the Publick Good may still be pretended if others may judge of it But this is so general a Principle of Rebellions and intestine discords that all well constituted Societies have used all means they could think of to secure themselves against it How private soever the Interest might seem to particular Persons to have the Government committed to them or to be invested in a Right to it yet when once they were possessed or had a Right the Publick has thought it self concerned to oppose and to provide against a violent dispossession and has allowed no pretences of Publick Good where the dispossession could not be compassed by any other means than by force Hence these very severe Laws against any thing that might look like force to the Persons of Governours especially those that were Supreme Hence their Arts of making their Persons Sacred to secure them from those violences against which the force even of the Community it self was not able to Secure them What need of all this care if they had thought it fit still to have regarded them only as particular Persons The Book of Judith when it would express how the Nations despised King Nabuchodonosor does it thus He was before them as one Man Jud. I. 11. What difference is there between this language and that of the Doctor The same Societies have also taken security that no pretence of publick good should ever be made use of against the Persons of Governours by allowing none others for Judges of the publick good besides the Persons invested with the Government and allowing them so to Judge as to conclude all Private Persons And there was reason why Societies should be so concerned against violent removals of their Governours because they cannot be violently removed whithout violence to the whole Societies which are obliged to defend them If therefore they do their duties the whole Societies must suffer violence and he over-powered in the removal which must consequently subject them to the arbitrary pleasure of the forcible Usurper And to take the Doctors way is yet worse to desert their Governours This perfectly dissolves the Government and disables the Governour to do any thing of his Duty to the Publick Thus it appears how destructive it is to his whole Cause to own the deprivations of our H. Fathers invalid Where then can be his Answer if even himself grants all that we are concerned to assert in the Question principally disputed between us § XXII The main dedsign of the Doctors new Book in arguing from Facts already overthrown by the Vindicator yet no notice taken of what was there said But far be it from me that I should oblige him to any unwary Concessions if at the same time he has produced any thing solid in his Book to prove them unwary I am therefore willing to consider the main design of his Book if I can even there find any thing that can deserve the name of an Answer that is That is not either acknowledged to be unsufficient by himself or that had not before been prevented by his Adversary And what is upon these accounts made unserviceable cannot certainly in the sense of any just Judge be taken for a solid and satisfactory Answer The main design of his Answer to the Vindication is still to carry on the Argument by him imputed to his Baroccian M. S. to prove by an enumeration of Facts which the Doctor will needs have pass for Precedents that Deprivations by the Lay-Power have been Submitted to and the Intruders own'd by the Subjects of the Dioceses out of which the Lawful Possessiors had been Uncanonically ejected Now this being nothing but the old Argument I cannot for my part see any reason the Doctor can pretend why the old Answer of the former part of the Vindication may not still be insisted on as sufficient till at least he offer at something to the contray which he has not as yet so much as attempted The Vindicator has there shewn the Unconclusiveness of that whole Topick from naked Facts without something more particularly insisted on for proving them Justifiable by true and defensible Principles Especially in those lower Ages in which the Author of the Baroccian M. S. deals and to which the Doctors new Examples are reducible the Vindicator has shewn that nothing is to be presumed to be well done which has no other Evidence of its being so than that it was actually practiced in those
well as himself desires to prove it But for my part I am perfectly of the Vindicators mind nor do I see any reason to doubt but that his whole Proof will hold if this be the only suspicious Proposition concerned in it I see no reason why the Church should loss her Liberties or Princes gain more Power by their Conversion than they had before The Nature of the thing does not the least require it Princes when they are received into the Church's Communion are received as other Laicks are by Baptism which can therefore intitle them to no more Power than other Christians who are admitted into the same Society the same way as they are As therefore Baptism alone confers no spiritual Authority to others no more it can to the Prince who has no Preheminence above them on this account When therefore he is baptized he still remains in reference to spiritual Power no more than a Private Person as all others do who have no more spiritual Authority given them than what is conferred upon them in their Baptism How then comes he by this Power in Spirituals which our Adversaries challenge for him All our forementioned Reasons proceed as validly against his claim of spiritual Power whilst he continues only a Lay-man tho' Baptized as they did before his Baptism Still the spiritual Power is grounded on the Power of rewarding and punishing Spiritually by admitting to or excluding from the Spiritual Benefits of the Society Still the Power of that admission to or exclusion from those Benefits depends upon the Power of the Incorporating Rites which being granted admit into the Body or if denyed exclude from it Still the Incorporating Acts are the two Sacraments as we are Baptized into the spiritual Body and as we are made one spiritual Body by our partaking of one Bread So that none can have the Power of these Incorporating Acts who has not the Power of Administring the Sacraments Still the Power of Administring the Sacraments is proper to the Evangelical Priest hood and it is still as unlawful for Princes to invade the Sacerdotal Offices as it was under the old Law when the Prince was obliged to be always of one Body with the Priest-hood in reference to Religious Acts of Communication Still the Reasoning of St. Clemens holds that Laymen are only to meddle with Acts properly Laical and proceeds with more Force than in the Case wherein that Holy Apostolical Person used it The Gifted Laicks had been Baptized as well as our Believing Princes and in that regard were every way Equal with them But as they were endued with Spiritual Gifts they were better qualified for extraordinary Calls to Acts of sacerdotal Power than Princes can be by any Pretensions to or Advantages of Worldly grandeur Baptism indeed makes the Prince and the Church one Society as the Prince is thereby incorporated into the Priviledged Society of the Church But then this Baptismal Union is rather of the Prince to the Bishop than of the Bishop to the Prince and therefore on the Bishop's terms not the Prince's How then can the Prince's being receiv'd into the Church as a private Person and as a Subject to the spiritual Authority intitle him to any of that same Authority to which by his Baptism he professes his subjection He is indeed so far from being a Publick Person in his Baptism that the Obligation and Benefits of his Baptism are wholly Personal to himself none of his Subjects being in the least concerned in it If he had acted as a Publick Person in it his single Act had obliged all his Subjects and would have consequently intituled them to all the benefits of his stipulation But this is more than our Adversaries will pretend in this Case How then can an Act purely Personal intitle him to an accession of Spiritual Authority § LVIII A whole Nation by Baptism may be made one Society in the Church without prejudice to their being still a Society distinct from it Thus far therefore it is certain that a Prince's admission into the Church is not alone sufficient for a Coalition of the State into one Body with the Church because that other Body of the State whereof he is head is not the least concern'd in this Act of his as a Private Person not as a Publick much less as a Head of any Body at all Suppose we therefore the generality of a State converted and Baptized also This will indeed make them one Body with the Church But on the same terms as it made the Prince one that is on the Church's terms not on theirs That is by so many repeated Personal Acts qualifying them for and receiving Baptism as there are supposed to be particular Persons in that whole Secular Society and as so many private Persons not as invested with any publick Authority in another Society Still therefore Proselites of that kind how numerous soever can never hurt the Authority of that Society into which they are Incorporated only as so many private Persons A whole Nations therefore how populous soever coming in on these terms cannot change the Spiritual Society from what they find it They add to the numbers of the Subjects of the Spiritual Society and in that regard should rather advance than diminish the Authority of that new Society into which they are Incorporated And as their accession to the Church cannot make any change in the Government of the Church so neither in their one Their admission into the Church being only the Act of so many private Persons singly considered can therefore not concern them as a Society can therefore no way affect them as publick Persons and as concerned for the Government of the Society into which they were Incorporated before There is therefore on neither side any explicite renunciation of ancient Rights nor yet by any fair Interpretation Their coalition into one Body with the Church does not dissolve the same relation they had formerly to different Societies on different considerations The Bishop though he act the part of a Publick Person in admitting them into his own Spiritual Society does not thereby put off his former Subjection as to Temporals nor acquire any thing inconsistent therewith Nor does the Magistrate by his Subjection in Spirituals profess any thing not fairly reconcilable with his Temporal Sovereignity Their coalition therefore into one Body is very well consistent with their still continuing as distinct Societies as they were before Nor does our worthy Adversay object any thing to prove the contrary but that upon Conversion and Baptism of the Seculars the Church and State consist of the same Persons How should the Church and State make Two distinst Societies says he where the Church and State consist of the very same Persons The very same way say I as our K. EDWARD the III. was at the same time a SOVEREIGN of England and SUBJECT of France when he swore homage to Philip of Valois for his Dominions in France Yet who doubts
ultimately useful for the publick good of their Souls This would oblige him further to mind that in the first place and principally those Expedients which more immediately tend to the promoting it and all other Temporal Politicks no otherwise nor further than as they also may promote it or at least be consistent with it And in this way of Reasoning I know not how he could avoid preferring the Spiritual before his own Authority and therefore managing his own Authority in subserviency to it for the promoting and supporting it not for diminishing it This I am sure every truly Christian Magistrate must look on as more solid and Judicious Reasoning from the Principles of the Christian Religion and securer therefore for his last Accounts to GOD and his Soul 's Eternal Interest than to suffer himself to be influenced in matters of so momentous a nature by Atheistical fooleries and flirts of being Priest-ridden This therefore being supposed how conscious soever such a Magistrate might be of his own good Will to the Church yet he would not be willing to accept of any branch of that Power which GOD had judged necessary for her that himself might have the managing it for her interest He would not think it for the Glory of his time upon any pretence whatsoever to leave that Holy Society more destitute of Power than he found her He must needs think that GOD's own settlement of it was the wisest that they were fittest for administring the Power who by the Nature of their Function were best qualified to understand the Causes in which it was conversant and who were most concerned for the good of the Society for whose use GOD had given it and who by Obligations of Conscience and by being destitute of external force were the least likely to design and least able to carry on encroachments to the injury of lriva powers He would not be willing that a Successor should be trusted with an administration of such a Power which if ill administred might prove of so dangerous consequence to the Church's walfare and for whose good meaning he has not that security as he has for his own He would not easily trust even his own partiality of his own mutability with it These would be the natural Reasonings of a generous and well minded Prince And methinks they should be so of pious and generous Parliaments also Here has been very much Zeal pretended for securing our Church against a Popish Successor This should make those who call themselves Protestant Parliaments unwilling to challenge that as a Right of Parliaments in general which may put it in the power of a Popish Parliament and indeed of any other that may be of another Communion to dissolve our Church as this Power of Lay deprivations will certainly do if they may be allowed as sufficient to discharge Us from our Spiritual duties to our so deprived Bishops § LXII Princes have been allowed by the Church a Right to keep Persons out not yet Canonically possessed but not to turn any out who were already in Possession of Bishopricks And that without any proper Cession of Right on the Church's part Thus it has appear'd that a well meaning Magistrate to the Interest of the Church and Religion has neither Obligation nor Equity to expect such a cession of Spiritual Rights on the Churches part as a compensation for his Protection nor would himself be inclinable to think he had any What ill meaning ones may expect is not worthy our regard Such are too partially concerned to be taken for competent Judges in Affairs of this nature They neither deserve such a Cession nor indeed are fit to be trusted with it However we deny not but that the Magistrate has a Right in the disposal of those favours which are requisite for the Churches interest in order to a legal Settlement and Protection And he has withal thereupon a Right to expect a Security to be given him for his own Temporal Power against invasions from the Ecclesiasticks in consideration even of that Act of Justice of securing them also from the like Invasions from the Temporal Power by his employing it in their defence though he be otherwise obliged in Conscience to protect that which himself believes to be the true Religion and the true Communion But then this is no proper Cession of Spiritual Rights For even antecedently to the amicable correspondence between the Church and State the Church was as much obliged in Conscience to forbear encroachments on the Temporal Rights as the Magistrate was on the Spiritual Only the difference was that before the correspondence the Church her self took upon her to judge concerning the trustiness of the Persons put in Office by her having then no access to the Civil Magistrate but afterwards she suffered him to judge himself of his own security That was by not having Bishops imposed upon him to enjoy his Temporals annexed to their Office without his own approbation which was no more than what was generally reasonable on equal terms This sometimes allowed him a power at first of stopping any Person proposed if he did not like him sometimes of pitching on the Person by the Right of a Lay Patron So also he was allowed to judge concerning Canons whether they might prove prejudical to the Temporal Government before he seconded them with his Temporal Government and by secular Coercions which was also very just and equal without any cession on the Churches side For this was only allowing him to judge where his own Power and Right was concerned But then this Right was only to keep out a Person who was not yet possessed of the Power he pretended to by even the spiritual Right of Consecration and therefore no Act of Authority upon a Bishop properly so called but only on a Candidate for the Office But there was never any Act of the Ancient Church so much as pretended that I know of that ever Allowed Princes to turn Bishops out of their spiritual Rights without Synods when they were once Canonically possessed of them No Emperors of the same Communion that acted sedately and like Persons who regarded Principles who ever attempted it without at least packing or pretending Synods for the deprivation of Bishops The Canons omitted by the Doctor are sufficient if there were no more to shew that this was at least the sense of the Church and Jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate And even this Power that was allowed was allowed on Obligation of Interest not of Conscience None could pretend to the Temporals annexed to the Episcopal Office without the Princes consent And whilst the Correspondence between the Church and the Prince held there was no need of separating the spiritual Rights form the Temporal But the Church was at perfect Liberty in Conscience if she was willing to want the Temporals to give the spiritual Power alone and much more to continue it where it was already given if she Judged the Prince's
LXXI The Conclusion I hope the Worthy Defender of the present Dividers of the Church of England will by this time see that this Proposition questioned by him concerning the Distinction of the Church even from a Christian and Orthodox State is as firmly proved as any other particular of the Vindicators whole Hypothesis I hope he will also find it conformable to those very same Authorities he was pleased to porduce against it that of Mr. Hooker and even of our Church of England as settled by our Ancient Laws Though the Compass I am obliged to confine my self to will not allow me to follow either him or the Doctor into other Arguments or into particular Applications of this I have insisted on yet I have endeavoured to urge my Argument so as to obviate whatever they have said that might otherwise have seemed to weaken it I now leave and recommend the Success to him whose Cause I have endeavour'd to plead not as I would but as I was able A Good Cause alone is indeed a very great advantage above Artifices of Wit and Subtilty in pleading for an ill one That is all that I pretended to But it is God alone that must give the Word to the Preachers and dociliey to the hearers And it is his usual way to glorifie his own Power in the weakness and contemptibleness of well-meaning Instruments This Title I have and this alone to his Assistance and blessing on the management that it will appear to be his own Work if the Good Cause it self do not suffer by my concernment in it The same good GOD dispose our Adversaries to follow the Truth rather than their Worldly Interests to consider impartially what is said how contradictory soever it may seem to their Fleshly Inclinations to examine with their more sagatious Judgments rather what the Cause it self would afford to be said for it than what has been said by me He alone can revive in them their old love of the Truth of Peace of Unity their former seriousness in these concerns of the greatest importance to them their former or even the Primitive Zeal for the Interests of the Church and of Religion in this Unbelieving Apostatizing Generation When he shall be pleased to do so we may then hope to see Endeavours for healing the Breaches themselves have made we may then hope to see them ambitious of doing it on the most Honourable Terms that may be for the Church's Security against future Invasions and against the Precedent of making Spiritual Interests give way to Worldly Politicks we may then hope to see them again as much concerned as we are nay as we ought to be that our Church and our Communion may not depend on the precarious pleasure of a Persecuting Magistrate How much more pleasing a sight must this be to all generous and Christian Tempers than our present Divisions and Scandals and Animosities When O When shall it once be FINIS * Preface to the Reader The Vindication of the Civil Power in depriving a Bishop for Political Crimes I reserve for a particular Treatise * Pref. to the Reader I grant at present that all Lay-deprivations are invalid †Pre. to the Reader 1 Thess. v. â—â— â—â—â— XIII â—â— Matth. XIX eâ— Mark 10. 31. Ch. 1. p. 2. 9. P. 5. See Unity of Priesthood Nec to Unity of Comm. p. 63. c. Psal. XV. 4. P. â—â— P. See P. 18. P. 10. P. 11. P. 11 Sulp. Sever. Sacr. Hist. L. 11. Orig in Num. Hom. X. Pearson vind Ign Part 11. c. 9 â— 12. P. 12. P. â—â— P. â—â— * Preface to the Reader Should our Adversaries be able to produce such an Example as I think they will never be able 't will advantage their Cause but little especially if it be one of the LATER AGES since it is not agreeable to the Practice of the Church in GENERAL * C. 1. §. 9 P. 9. 10. C. 1. P. 10. See above § XXIII * 1 Kings II. 1. †V. 35. * 1 Sam. XIII 12. †2 Sam. VII 6 7. * 2 Kings XV. 5. 2 Chron. XXVII 16. to 21. †Numb XVI * Numb XVII 8 9 10. †Numb XVI 40. * Numb XVI 9 * 〈…〉 XXIII 6. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo de Gigantib p. 292. Ed. Paris 1640. †Heb. IV. 14. VII 26. IX 23. 24. ‡ Heb. VIII 1 2 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Macab c 13. See Mat. v ii 11. S Luke xiii 28 29 Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 16. St. Luke XX. 38. The Bosome of Abrahan is there mentioned in the Translation of that Work by Erasmus p. 1090 Edit Colon. Whether from any Greek he had I know not But I think it is in the MS. of New-Colledge See also Josephus ' s Oration L. III. Bell Jud. c. p. 852. †Wisdom IX 8. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo de Praem Sacerd. p. 830. Edit Paris 1640. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid p. 832. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo de Monarcia p. 819. * Deut. XXXIII 5. †Numb XXIII 21. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Antiquit Lib. iv Cap. 2 pag. 104. See also Lib. III. Cap. 9. Pag. 87. Edit Colon. 1691. * Judg XX. 27. 28. 1 Sam XIV 18 19. †1 Sam. XXIII 9 â—0 11 12. 2 Sam. V. 23 4. 1 Chr. XIV 14. 15. * Josh. IX 15. †Deut. XVII 8 11 12 13. * 1 Kings I. 50. †Thucyd. Lib. 1. * St Matt. XXIII 17 19. †1 Chr. XVI 12. Ps. CV 15. ‖‡ 1 Chr. XVI 21. Ps. CV 14. * 1 Sam. XXIV 10. XXVI 9 11 23. * 1 Sam. XXII 1. 7. †v. 18. * 1 Kings II â—7 * Joseph Anti. Lib. VIII c. 1 * 1 Sam. II. 36. * 2 Sam XV. 29. 35. XVII 15 XIX 11. XX. 25. 1 Kings IV. 4. 1 Chr. XV. 11. †2 Sam. VIII 17. 1 Chr. XVIII 16 * Chap. II. S. 3. P. 17. * St. Mark II. 26. * Exod. xxviii 1. 1 Chr. xxiii 13. * Exod. xxix 4 c. Lev. viii 2. c. †Exod. xxx 19. xl 12. 31. * Exod. xxx 30. †Lev. ii 3. vi 20. vii 34. xx iv 9. 1 Chr. vi 49. * Numb vi 23. †Heb. vii 7 * Numb iii. 9. IV. 19. 27. VIII 13. 19. 22. †Exod. 11. xxviii 4. 43. * Exod. xx viii 1. †1 Chr. xxiv 2. Numb iii. 2 3 4. * Numb xxv 15. * Numb XX. 26 28. Joseph Ant. lib. IV. c. 4. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Ant. lib. VII c. 6. p. 222. * Joseph Ant. lib. VIII c. 1. p. 254. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Exod. xxix 30 * 2 Chr. XXIV ◠◠†2 Kin. XXIII 4. Joseph Ant. L. xx c. 8. p. 7â—â— * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn n. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Etist ad Magnes n. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ibid. n. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Philadelph Inscrip 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. n. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Trall n. 7. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Trall n. 3. ‖ Ut quis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sit quid sit faciondum it a hortatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Eph. n. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Philadelph n. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Trall n. 7. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Smyrn n. 8. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 1 Chr. ix 4 1 Cor. x. 16 17 18. 21. Heb. xiii 10. Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Corinth 2 Tim. I. 10. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 43. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. n. 40. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 40. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 41. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 41. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 41. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 43 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. n. 42. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. n. 44. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 42. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 21. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 46. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 57. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 16. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 46. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 46. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 54 †Ch. 18. p. 197. Bellarm de Rom. Pontif. lib. V. â— 7. Letter to a Fâ—â—end p. 20. * 2 Chr. XV. 3. †Hos. III 4. ‡ Jer. VII â— * Dan. VII 1. 12 13. IX 27. XI 3. XII 11. Joseph Bell Jud. L. VII Hook Eccl. Polie Book VIII p. 463. ed. Lond. 1682. ibid. P. 465. ibid. P. 466. Defence of the Church of England P. 7.
Bishops as the Jewish Princes could in the Case of the Jewish Priest-hood P. 75. § LIV. Our Reasoning against the Magistrates Rights of deprivation in Spirituals proceeds universally and therefore in the Case of temporal Crimes also the owning such a Power would have been pernitious to the Primitive Christians also whowere charg de with Temporal Crimes P. 77. § LV. The Spiritual Rights of our Fathers have been now invaded by Civil Force Bare Characters without Districts not sufficient to preserve the Church as a Body P. 79. § LVI Supposing the Church and Christian State had made one Body ret more had been required to make that Supposition applicable to our present Case which is not yet taken notice of P. 82. § LVII The Prince on account of his being a Christian has no Title to any Spiritual Authority P. 83. § LVIII A whole Nation by Baptism may be made one Society in the Church without prejudice to their being still a Society distinct from it P. 85. § LIX The Churches Obligations are more necessary for the subsisting of the State than these she receives from the State are for hers P. 87. § LX. The Benefits received by the State from the Church are also greater then those which the Church receives from the State P. 89. § LXI If the State had been capable of conferring the greater Obligations yet a good Pious Magistrate could not in reason desire such a recompence as should oblige the Church to yeild any of her ancient Rights P. 90. § LXII Princes have been allowed by the Church a Right to keep persons out not yet Canonically possessed but not to turn any out who were already in Possession of Bishopricks And that without any proper Cession of Right on the Church's part P. 92. § LXIII The Power of turning out Bishops once possessed too great to be granted on any consideration whatsoever P. 94. § LXIV In this Case particularly no Temporal Favour whatsoever can make amends for the loss of the Benefits of the Spiritual Society There can therefore be no implicite Contracts for such an Exchange that can in Equity oblige the Ecclesiastical Governours to performance tho' it had been in their Power to make such a Contract P. 96. § LXV But here it is not in the Power of Ecclesiastical Governours to make such a Contract P. 98. § LXVI It is not agreable to the mind of God that the Church should so incorporate with the State as that the Bishops should be deprivable at the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate P. 100. § LXVII The Magistate is by no means a Competent Judge of the Church's Interests P. 102. LXVIII The Surrender of the Clergy in Henry the VIIIths time cannot oblige their Posterity now LXIX No reasoning from the rights of the Jewish Princes to the Rights of Christian Princes now § LXX Our present deprivations not justifiable by even our present Secular Laws P. 107. § LXXI The Conclusion P. 110. A DEFENCE OF THE VINDICATION OF THE Deprived Bishops § I. The Doctor 's late Book no Answer to the Vindication WHAT the Vindicator thinks of the Answers that have been made to his Defence of our Deprived Fathers himself best knows For my part I should not have concerned my self for him if I had not been over-rul'd by the Judgments of others for whom I profess a Veneration rather than my own I have that due esteem for his Adversaries which their excellent Abilities deserve particularly for Dr. Hody His diligence in History none questions that I know of I also value his Skill and Judgment in it much more than many who are concern'd on his side of the Question here debated Nor do I deny but several things are very well observed by him in this very Work I am now considering at present though I think it more hastily and tumultuarily laid together than several of his other Writings The only thing that made me think a Reply needless was that in all the Learning he has shewn I could find nothing that I thought any indifferent Person could think proper for satisfying Conscience in the single point here in Question nothing that could give me the least reason to doubt of the Arguments principally insisted on by the Vindicator For other things not relating to that I thought our candid Adversaries themselves would excuse us when they considered the Disadvantages on our side the Difficulties of the Press the Displeasure of our pretended Superiors much more considerable than any Argument that I could find produced either by him or any other Adversary § II. The Baroccian M S disproved by the Vindicator and not defended by the Doctor So far I am from trusting my own Opinion in this matter that I would gladly know some particular of the Doctor 's Book that even our Adversaries who are so clamorous for a Reply think sufficient to excuse their Schism against the Charge of the Vindicator His Baroccain M S has already been proved impertinent to our present Dispute The Vindicator has shewn that the occasion of his writing did not oblige his Author to defend the validity of Lay-deprivations he might have added that his Author himself was not ignorant that Synods did intervene in several of his Instances which must have made so many of them perfectly impertinent to his design if that had been to vindicate the Validity of Lay deprivations That is not all The Vindicator has also shewn from the Canons subjoyned at the end and suppressed by the Doctor that the Author could not design the Defence of Lay Deprivations Nor has the Doctor offered at any thing that might shew such a Design consistent with those Canons or the Author's Subjection to them Yet those Canons alone are decisive to our purpose both as to the sense of the Constantinoplitane Church and of that Author as a Member of it whether they were part of his Work or not concerning which the Impartial Reader is to judge whether what the Doctor has said be sufficient to purge his wilful suppressing them The Vindicator has also shewn the Author not only remoteness from but ignorance of the times he writes of Nor has the Doctor proved or pretended any thing to the contrary Nay even of the Facts enumerated by him there are but few that the Doctor has thought fit on second thoughts to assert independently on his Authority It cannot therefore be on this account of vindicating his M S that any Impartial Reader can judge the Doctor 's performance to be a just Reply to the Vindicatoin § III. He has not offered at any Answer to the Arguments against him in the first part of the Vindication But whatever becomes of the so boasted M. S a Conscientious Person who was only sollicitous for Truth not Victory will easily excuse the Doctor if he had at least been pleas'd to clear our present Case relating to the Lay-deprivation of our Holy Fathers and the Schism that necessarily follow'd upon it Yet even here
not in regard of any Possession of which the Emperour could deprive him And indeed in no higher sense than ours are as shall appear hereafter Cornelius was possessed of no more Temporals of which the State could deprive him And our H. Fathers are still notwithstanding the invaled deprivation in as firm and indisputable a Possession with regard to Conscience as Cornelius So unhappy the Doctor is in proving the Doctrine which he calls the Saying of St. Cyprian nothing to to the Vindicators purpose What the Doctor adds that he cannot believe so great and wise a Man as St. Cyprian could have been of another opinion from himself we are not much concerned for till he shall be pleased to produce some better Arguments why he should not be so One would think he wanted better Arguments when he insists upon the fairness of the Elections of the Usurpers for legitimating their Call He knows very well the liberty our Laws allow the Canonical Electors that they must choose the Person proposed or a Premunire But he must never expect to be restored to the Rights of his function if he and such as he will not only betray their own Rights but plead for their Adversaries Invasion of them The Doctor Enthymeme the Vindicator will then be concerned to take notice of when the Doctor can shew it in his Book But the Doctor thinks he has got an Argument to prove that an unjust Synod can deprive no more than an incompetent Authority And why Because a Synod proceeding unjustly cannot deprive of the Right For to him he says it is absurd that any unjust sentence should take away the Right Hence he iners that a Bishop substituted in the place of another unjustly deprived by a Synod must also be no Bishop if a Bishop substituted into a place vacated by a Lay deprivation be also none This would indeed hold if a Bishop deprived wrongfully by a competent Authority retained as much Right as he who had been deprived no otherwise than by an Authority that were incompetent But the Doctor methinks might easily have discerned the difference if he would have been pleased to Judge impartially All the Right that he has who is deprived unjustly is only a Right to a juster sentence either by an Appeal to a Superior Authority if the Authority which has deprived him be subordinate or in the Conscience of that same Authority which had deprived him if it be it self Supreme But till the competent Authority put him into Possession he has no Right to the consequences of Possession the duties of the Subjects and the actual benefits of his Office Nor has he any Right to Possess himself of the place by violence but must use Legal means of recovering what is already his due in Conscience This he knows is the sense of our Legal Courts concerning Sentences pronunced by competent though corrupt Judges But where the dispossession is by a Judge not competent the injured Person may make use of force for regaining his Possession and in the mean time he retains an actual Right to all the duties and benefits of his Office during his dispossession This our Laws would allow the Doctor if the King of France or any other force not seconded with a Legal Right to use that force should dispossess him of his Fellowship of Wadham Colledge and substitute a Successor into his Place Our Laws would notwithstanding own him as the true Fellow Entitled to all the Duties and Priviledges of the Fellowship and would not allow his Rival as a Fellow nor indemnify any that should pay him the Dues belonging to the Place not allow him the Plea of a forcible entry if the Doctor should recover his Possession by force But none of these things would be allowed him if himself had been ajected and his Rival substituted by the unjust Sentence of a corrupt Judge but in a Legal Court Thus he may see a better Reason than what is given by him for our Submission to an unjust Deprivation of a Synod The actual Right of the Bishop so deprived to the Duty of his Ecclesiastick Subjects and the Priviledges of his Place are really taken from him till he be again possessed by the Acts of those who are empowered by the Laws of the Society to give Possession And all the Right he has is only in the Consciences of those who are empowered by the Laws for it first to be put into the possession and than to all the other Benefits and Privildges annexed by the Law to be Legal Possession This is very consistent with a paying the Rights consequent to Possession to another till the Possession be Legally restored But even the Legal Possession by the Laws of the Church and with regard to Conscience cannot be affected by an invalid deprivation of an incompetent Judge § XVII The Evil of Sin and Scandal in complying greater than that of Persecution which is avoided by it Having thus as well as he could proved this compliance with the Usurper's unsinful the Doctor now proceeds to the other limitations of his self evident Maxim He therefore endeavours to prove that the Evils following upon disowning the Intruders are greater and more like to fall out than those which are likely to follow upon complying with them I have already proved the contrary What now remains is only to answer what he produces to prove his own Assertion The Evils they pretend to avoid by complying are a SCHISM and a PERSECUTION These he says are two Evils as great as can possiably befal thè Church I easily agree with him concerning the former that it is an Evil of the first Magnitude But the latter was never counted so by truly Christian Spirits in the flourishing times of our Religion Then Martyrdoms were courted with as much ardency and ambition as Preferments have been since as Sulpitius Severus has long since observed Then the Apologists tell their Persecutors that it was rather for their sakes than their own that they vouchsafed to write Apologies Then they always gave thanks when they received the sentance of death for so glorious a Cause Then they bemoaned the unhappiness of their own times if they had no Persecutions as Origen expresly Then nothing troubled them more than that they lost their lives cheaply upon their beds as appears in St. Cyprian de Mortalitate The Doctor is no doubt well acquainted with Ignatiu's Epistle to the Romans full of an ardent zeal of losing his Life for Christ and earnest expostolations with the Romans that they might not so much as use their interest with God in Prayers for his deliverance telling them that he would take it for an Argument of their good will to him if they would not be so desirous of saving his Flesh and of their ill will if they should prevail with God for his safety even by an interposition of an extraordinary and miraculous Providence And when Blondel takes upon him to judge of the
Heroical ardor of that Age by the cold and degenerous Notions of his own our most learned Bishop Pearson has proved his Actions far from beīng singular by many more very express Testimonies of those most glorious times of our Christian Religion Nor are the Canons against the provoking Persecutors which the Doctor takes notice of near so old as these great examples of desiring and meeting Persecution nor indeed till the abatement of the first zeal appeared in the scandalous lapses of warm pretenders None such were made whilst they were true to their profession so that the consenting Practice of the best times was far from the Doctors mind in reckoning Persecution among the greatest Evils that can possibly befal the Church They did not take it for an evil but rather for a favour and a benefit And though it were allowed to be an evil yet the utmost that can be made of it is that it is an evil only of Calamity the greatest of which kind Conscientious Casuists have never thought comparable with the least evil of Sin I might add also that Scandal also as it is a cause of Sin is a greater Evil than Persecution Our Saviour himself pronounces wo to him by whom the Scandel cometh and the Fire of Hell which never shall he quenched And these are Evils which the Doctor himself must own to be worse than that of Persecution The Doctor therefore must not insist on the Persecution avoided by this complyance with the Intruders till he has cleared the condition of avoiding it from not only Sin but Scandal also If he thinks deposing all Bishops in general to be in earnest a just cause for him to shew his fortitude let him bethink himself how the matter is now in Scotland It were easie by just consequences from the Grounds and Principles of Ecclesiastical Commerce to shew how that Case would concern him in England if it were convenient If Christ were equally to be enjoyed in the Communion of the true Bishops and their Schismatical Rivals we should be as willing as he to keep off the Evil day as long as we could Flesh and Blood would easily perswade us to it if it were safe But he knows very well that the Catholick Church in the purest Ages never believed our mordern Latitudinarian Fancies that Schismaticks have any Union with Christ whilst they are divided from his Mystical Body the Church If this were true or if he thought it himself true I do not understand how he could reckon Schism among the greatest Evils that can befal the Church if even Schismaticks may enjoy Christ though they be in open Hostility with his Authorized Representative §. XVIII The Evil of Schism not avoided but incurred by complying with the Usurpers As for the Case of Schism which he pretends to be avoided by them by their compliance with the Usurpers this Evil is so far from being avoided as that it has been occasioned by it The Doctor cannot deny but that their communicating with the Intruders has occasioned a notorious breach of Communion which on one side or the other must needs be Schismatical All therefore that he can pretend is that they by complying are not chargable with the crime of the Schism that has been occasion'd by it How so it is because if we had also done as they have done there had been no Schism Very true But it had been full as true if they had done as we have done This pretence therefore leaves the Criminalness of the breach as uncertain as before and necessarily puts them for tryal of that on the merit of the Cause And if that be enquired into all the Presumptions as well as the particular Proofs are in favour of us and against them We were plainly one before this breach As therefore the branch it self is new so the guilt of it must be resolved into the Innovations that occasion'd it which will by unavoidable consequence make them chargeable with the breach who were guilty of the Innovations The Innovations that have caused the breach are the disowning our old Bishops and substituting others in their Places whilst themselves are living and continue their Claim and are not deprived by any Authority that had really a Power to deprive them But in these instances they not we have been the Aggressors and Innovators Do we own the Old Bishops for the true Bishops of these Sees of which they have pretended to deprive them And did not they do so too as well as we before the Deprivation And what had they to pretend for themselves why they do not so still Besides this very Sentence of Deprivation which the Doctor owns to be invalid And how can they justify their disowning them upon a Sentence confessedly invalid This new behaviour of theirs they must wholly own as it is new to be their own We only continue to own our Holy Fathers as Dr. Hody himself and his Brethren did formerly As for the Second Act the setting up new Bishops in opposition to our Fathers they cannot excuse themselves from being the Innovators and concerning us they cannot pretend it They have made the new Bishops who consecrated them and they also who own them by communicating with them or their Consecrators These have intirely been the Acts of the Ecclesiasticks Yet without these all that the Lay-Power could have done could never have formed a Schism nor divided our Communion And as to what has been done on both sides we can better excuse our selves than they can Could they and we have consented to have acted Uniformly there could have been no Schism But we can better account for our not complying with them than they can for not complying with us On their side they have nothing to plead but worldly Considerations They could not doubt of the Lawfulness with regard to conscience of doing that on their side which if done had prevented the Schism They can pretend no obligation in Conscience for setting up other Bishops as we can for not owning them till they can prove us fairly discharged in Conscience which they as well as we were obliged in in regard of the old true Proprietors They could pretend no cementing Principles essential to the subsistence of the Church as a Society and a Communion independent on the State obliging them to comply with these encroachments of the Politicions for making Spiritual considerations to give way to Temporals They could pretend no Catholick Authority of the Church in any Age approving what was done by them as we can of the best and purest Ages for what has been done by Us. They could not pretend any such united Authority of even the Church of England before this change for many things wherein we differ now as we can So far thay have been from avoiding Schism by these compliances or from purging themselves from the guilt of the Schism which has followed thereupon § XXI The abuses that may follow on Compliance are a just reason
degenerous Ages And what has the Doctor attempted to the contrary Nothing but that he has added some New Facts to those enumerated by his Baroccian Author and that he has endeavoured to defend some of the old Facts that they were such as he pretended them But neither of these things can pass for Answers whilst that Part of the Vindication remains unanswer'd For how can he secure his New Facts when all of their kind have been prov'd unconclusive And to what purpose does he endeavour to prove those few he has meddled with of his Authors Facts to have been for his purpose when the former Part of the Vindication has already evidenced that tho' they were so that would not be sufficient for carrying his Cause § XXIII The Doctor himself is unwilling to stand by the Consequences of such like Facts as himself produces So far he has been from Answering that himself confirms the Vindicator's sence upon this Argument He professes beforehand his own unwillingness to be concluded by such Instances as himself has produced though they should appear to be against him Why so if there had been any reason that he should have been concluded by them Why so if he did not thereby own that the Reasons given by the Vindicator against the Argumentativeness of such Facts were Solid and concluding And how then can he find in his heart to insist principally in his following Book on that very kind of Facts which he has acknowledged so unsafe to be relyed on in his Preface He cannot pretend to argue ad Hominem when the Vindicator had so expresly enter'd his Exceptions against that whole Argument He cannot do it in his own Person when he professes himself unwilling to stand by the consequen ces of it And how can he have the confidence to obtrude that upon Us which he does not believe himself In what sense can he take this whole reasoning for Argumentative when it does not proceed ex concessis when it proceeds on one Premiss at least not granted by either of the Parties cancern'd in the Dispute neither by Us nor even by himself How can he possibly mistake a Book which proceeds principally on such Reasoning as this for a Solid and satisfying Answer § XXIV The Doctors remark against the Reasoning of the First Parts of the Vindication concerning the Possession of Cornelius turned against himself Thus it appears that the Principal Answer of the Vindicator to the Doctors Book remains still in its full strength untouched and unconcerned in all the Doctor has said in his new Book What is it therefore that he can pretend to have Answer'd in it What is it that either makes his Book need or his Brethren so clamorous for a Reply Has he Answer'd the Vindicators Argument for Us from Facts more justifiable more agreeable to Principles and to Principles more certain and indisputable in the times of greatest Ecclesiastical Authority in the earliest and purest and unanimous Ages On this he has bestowed one single Paragraph in which he has offered nothing that can affect the principal Lines of the Vindicators Reasoning and Hypothesis All that he pretends is to observe one single disparity between the Case of the Primative Christian Bishops and OURS Yet so unhappily that even that disparity upon a closer examination is likely to prove none at all He tells Us that Cornelious was in Poffession when Novatian was set up against him Very true But how can he deny that our Fathers were in as true a Possession with regard to Conscience when their Rivals Usurp'd their Thrones as Cornelius was He can pretend no Possession of which our Fathers were deprived but such as depended on the pleasure of the pretended Secular Magistrate The Secular Act could not pretend to deprive them of any thing but what was Secular their Baronies their Revenues the Priviledges annext to their Function by the fovour of the Secular Powers And can he pretend that Cornelius was possessed of any thing of which the Magistrate could deprive him As for Spiritual Rights I cannot see the least disparity but that OUR Fathers were as properly possessed of them as HE was as properly as any can be in a State of Persecution and independence on the Civil Magestrate OUR Bishops were Consecrated and Installed with all the Solemnities requisite for a compleat Possession before the contrary encroachments were thought of That Possession was acknowledged and ratified by all the Acts of intercourse and Spiritual Correspondence by which any Spiritual possession can be acknowledged by our Natinal Church of England This Possession of Spirituals has not been touched by any Spiritual Authority that can be pretended a proper Judge of Spirituals that might discontinue this Possession as to Spirituals and with regard to Conscience All this OUR H. Fathers can truly plead for their Possession as to Spirituals at the time of the Schismatical Consecrations And what can the Doctor say more for the Possession of Cornelius against Novation His District and Jurisdiction as to Spirituals were manifestly not own'd by Cornelius for favours of the Magistrate This being so we need not depend on a SAYING the Vindicator prov'd it independently on St. Cyprian's saying it that SECOND BISHOPS are NO BISHOPS for proving his Intruders to be NONE The Doctor himself confesses that a Second that is a Schismatical Bishop an Intruder into a See already filled and possessed is no Bishop is confessed to be St. Cyprian ' s Doctrine And this has now appeared to be their Case for whom he is here concerned § XXV The Doctor 's Book offorded no Subject for a Reply but what would be Personal Besides these great neglects and omissions of the Doctor were so separable from an accurate management of the Cause and so peculiar to his Person that I knew not how to secure my Answer from meddling with his Person with whom I had no mind to deal in any other way than that of Civility and Respect In reference to the Principal Argument relating to Conscience he has brought so little New as would hardly afford Subject for a useful Answer Yet the shewing that he did so which was requisite to be done if an Answer were made at all methought looked like a design of exposing his Person which I was willing to be excused from I have always liked those Defences best which had the least mixture of Personal considerations not only as more Christian but also as more useful to those who are disengaged This made me think it more advisable to wait till either the Doctor himself or some other able Author would be pleas'd to attacque the principal strength of the Vindication § XXVI The Doctor 's turning the Dispute to later Facts draws it from a short and decisive to a tedious and litigious Issue But the principal discouragement of all from Answering was that the Doctor seemed to me to draw the whole management of this Cause from a shorter and decisive to
knew the true design of that Altar that it was only for a Monument of their Interest in the Altar of Jerusalem not for opposite Sacrifices The only way therefore left them to assert his Right had been to have abstained from Communicating in the Sacrifice of his Rival in the Temple But there is great reason to believe that that was more than they could justify then and that reason peculiar to their Constitution at that time which therefore cannot be drawn into Consequence now under the Gospel nor applyed to the Case of our present Holy Fathers It is certain that their Communion then was as much confined by GOD to the One Altar at Jerusalem as to the One High Priest The only Consideration remaining is whether of the two Regards was principal That is the proper way to determine whether was to give way to the other where both could not be had That is whether that Altar was to be taken for the One Altar designed by GOD where the true High Priest officiated who had the nearest Title in the order of Succession from Aaron Or whether that High Priest was to be taken for the true Representative of GOD and thereby could oblige GOD to performance who officiated at the Altar of Jerusalem provided he were otherwise qualified by being of the Posterity of Aaron and of the Line of Phineas and fairly consecrated by those who had Power to consecrate him though he were not the next that was legally qualified of that very Line And we have reason to believe that the Altar was the principal Consideration in the Design of GOD who thereby secured the Communion against Schismatical Factions even of the High-Priests themselves by allowing none for his authorized Representatives but those who were possessed of that One Altar For Jerusalem alone is called the Holy City St. Matt. IV. 5. XXVII 53. and so call'd in the Jewish Coins for that very Reason because that was the place where men ought to worship St. Joh IV. 20. That only was the place whither they were to bring their Tythes and Offerings and where all their Males were thrice a Year to appear in Person So that all face of publick Worship must have been laid aside at the Pleasure of their Infidel Princes if one Obtrusion of a remoter Person in the order of the Succession might have sufficed to hinder their communicating there which none can think but that GOD did intend to lay greater stress on than on the immediate Order of the Succession It is certain they could not by the Law it self challenge their Dues for Maintenance any where else than there nor eat several of the Oblations any where else than in that holy place in their Temple Which shews plainly that the Dues of Priesthood were not due to them on any other Condition than that of their officiating in that very place designed by GOD for their Holy Offices Hence it appears that what Right they might pretend when they were excluded from the Altar of Jerusalem was only such a remote Right as Men ordinarily have to Offices before their Admission into the Legal Possession of them They are indeed wronged if they be not admitted as the Law requires but till they be admitted the same Laws allow them no Title to the Profits and Duties and Dependencies annexed to the Office This was the Practice of the Jews when there were Exumples of violent exclusion of those who by the Law had a Right to possess the Temple and Altar but did not actually possess them And by the Reasoning now mentioned the Practice appears to have been agreeable to the Mind of the Divine Legislator But the Case is quite different in our Fathers Case under the Gospel By the Apostolical Ignatius it appears that the Bishop is the Standard of our Christian Altars That where he is there the Peculium is to Assemble and they only who do so can by the Laws of Christianity be properly called the Church That his Altar is the True Altar and his Eucharist the only Valid Eucharist and that no Acts of Ecclesiastical Authority are acceptable to GOD or can expect a Ratification by him which are performed any where else than where he is or without his Leave This ruins all Consequences from their Practice then to our present Case § XLVIII The Reasons for Exemption from the Power of the Prince stronger on our deprived Fathers Case than in the Case of Abiathar Our Bishops are properly Priests Hitherto I have considered the Case of Abiathar in general as it concerned the Jews with some general Strictures only with relation to our present Case I now proceed farther to consider the same Reasonings insisted on by the Principles of those Ages for proving Abiathar exempt as to his Spirituals from the Jurisdiction of Solomon with relation to the Constitutions of the Gospel which are those by which our present Fathers Rights are to be estimated Here therefore I design to shew that the same Reasonings hold and hold with more Evidence and Force for our deprived Fathers Rights than they did for those of Abiathar First therefore our Episcopal Fathers Rights are as properly indeed in a more noble sense the Rights of a Priesthood as those of Abiathar were So that it is very proper to reason from one to the other I know how very difficulty this is admitted by many And yet I wonder it should be so considering that it is manifest in the reasonings of the Writers of the Apostolical Age who reason from one to the other as plainly as I do which Reasonings must be perfectly unconclusive as proceeding on four terms if the Notion of Priesthood be not supposed univocally common to ours as well as the Jewish Ministry Thus the Apostle Reasons in the Case of maintenance Do ye not know that they which Minister about Holy things live of the things of the Temple And they which wait at the Altar are partakers of the Altar Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel GOD'S ordaining there is Supposed as known by them to whom he argues from what GOD had constituted in relation to the Jewish Priesthood and Temple and Altar which could by no means be applicable to his design for proving an Obligation under the Gospel for maintainance of the Gospel Ministry but by supposing our Case the same with theirs that we have a Priesthood a Temple and an Altar as properly as they The same Apostle Reasons on the same supposal when he compares our Eucharistical Bread and Wine and the Communion we have with CHRIST by them with the Communion maintain'd both by the Jews and the Gentiles with their respective Deities by Sacrifice With the Jews in these Words Behold Israel after the Flesh Are not they which eat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar v. 18. Here plainly he supposes our partaking of the One Bread in the Words immediately
who the Apostles were of whom he there speaks He therefore further acquaints us with the Expedients those Apostles took for securing the Holy Office from these foreseen invasions He says they themselves †put several of those Persons into their Office of whom he was then discoursing that is of those who had been deprived by these Laical Mutiniers This therefore it seems he looks on as an Argument that they who had been put in possession of their Places by Persons of the Supream Ecclesiastical Dignity should not be dispossessed at the pleasure of the Laity who how great soever their station might be otherwise yet were not regarded in their Ecclesiastical Judicatories but according to their Ecclesiastical Honours St. James II. 2 3 4 5 6. which in the Laity were none at all But there were at that time in their Ecclesiastical Presbytery some substituted in the place of those of the first settlement who were since deceased And for these also he makes the Apostles to have taken care He tells us that in foresight of this Case they provided for an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Inheritance that others might succeed into their Places Possibly it ought to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as denoting an Additional Law to those other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 received from our Lord which had formerly been mentioned by this same Author So in imitation of Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo as I remember calls Deuteronomy by the same Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as given a little before Moses his Death after the Collection of his former Laws So our Author teaches us that this Law also for securing the Succession was given by these Apostles after they had now settled the Church of Corinth and ordained as many as they then thought necessary for the Government of it That is the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifies in him afterwards as appears by another Example very little distant from this same place He tells us therefore what this Additional Law was that they who were to be substituted in their places as they died were to receive their Authority from Persons of the highest rank in the Church That I take to be the Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that signifies to be had in reputation and as on the contrary contemptible Persons are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like the proletarii or capite censi in the Roman matricula of Citizens Registred as so many Names not for any considerable benefit that their Cities receiv'd from them These 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore were such as by the Apostles themselves were designed for supplying the Apostolical Office after their deprature in filling up the Vacancies of those Presbyters who had been put in Office by the Apostle themselves as they â—ell This therefore St. Clemens in this Reasoning takes for a great Presumption that the Laity who were of the lowest rank in the Church should take upon them to displace those who had been put into their Office by the highest Ecclesiastical Authority And yet the Laity whose Case he speaks of where Prophets and Spiritually gifted Persons which Gifts were always admitted for fairer pretences to Spiritual power than all the worldly Grandeur and the Secular terror of the Civil Magistrate Prophets had been allowed that power even in Sacrificing which never was allowed the Secular Prince Yet even against these St. Clemens asserts Rights of the Church by the very same Topick insisted on by Us that the power of the Church was derived from God himself We see he ascribes this power of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Authority of the Apostles So he also derives the Authority of the Apostles themselves from God himself The Apostles taught us the Gospel from our Lord Jesus Christ Jesus Christ from God Christ therefore was sent by God and the Apostles by Christ so both missions were orderly according to the Will of God His designed inference therefore with reference to his Cause was that they who had been put in Office by an Authority so manifestly and nearly derived from God ought not to be turn'd out of their Office by a Power that could not pretend to any such power derived from God at all In all these gradations he supposes none that gave it to the Laity on which account it is that he overthrows all Right they had to claim it How then can the Magistrate pretend to it § LII He draws the like Inferences from those Reasonings in Practice as we do Thus then the Reasons from our Principles and therefore supposes them generally known and as generally granted even in that happy Age. That is not all He pursues those Principles to the same uses in Practice that we are making of them now Do we cleave to our deprived Fathers notwithstanding the Lay deprivation We do therein no more than what he advises also Let us reverence says he the Lord Jesus Christ whose Blood was given for us Let us pay a Veneration to our Rulers let us honour our Presbyters Let us cleave to the Innocent and Rïghteous for these are the Elect of God Do We complain of the desertion of our Bishops and betraying of the Ecclesiastical Rights as Schismatical And are we deeply concerned at the Consequences which have followed upon it distructive to our Common Religion And does not he the same Your Sebism has deprived many has driven many to despondency to doubting of Religion and all of us to grief I wish we could not also apply his following Words to our present Case And yet your Sedition holds on Do we heartily wish that the Schismatical Rivals would think of Repentance and returning to their Duty And how are we therein singular Does not he recommend the like thoughts to the Schismaticks of his own time These are his words You therefore who have laid the Foundation of the Sedition be subject to the Presbyters and be disciplined to Repentance bending the knees of your heart learn to be subject laying aside the haughty and insolent arrogance of your Tongue How worthy are his following Words of their Consideration For it is better for you to be little and of good Repute in the Flock of Christ than seeming to have preheminence to be cast off from his hope Let them never complain of the severity of our Censures when they find this Holy unconcerned Apostolical Fellow Labourer of St. Paul judging as hardly in a parallel Case We here see that he thought such Schismaticks out of the Flock of Christ and cut off from his hope He elsewhere adds with reference to the same Case and the same Persons Christ is of those Who are humbly minded not of those who exalt themselves over his Flock Plainly denying them any interest in Christ whilst they continued in that condition impenitent that is whilst the Rivals hold
it And if the Secular Powers may deprive Bishops for any Crime which they who deprive them shall be pleased to call Temporal and if we also are obliged to think such deprivatons sufficient to discharge Us from the Duty we owe them with regard to our Conscience I cannot see how the Primitive Christian Bishops could have escaped such deprivation Julion the Apostate pretended Temporal Reasons for most of his Persecutions purposely to hinder the Sufferers from the Glory of Matyrdome And even in the earlyer Persecutions Secular Crimes were imputed to the Christians That was the Case when the Burning of Rome was charged upon them in Nero's time and the burning of the Palace at Nicomedia in Diocletian's when the Stories of the Dog and Candle and Oedipodean incests and the Mothers of Children were pretended to be proved against them by the extorted confession of some Slaves in the time of Marcus Antoninus Their very Meetings came under the Laws de Sodalitijs and de Hetaerijs and de Factionibus And their refusing to Swear by the Genij of the Emperors or to Sacrifice for them were by the Interpretation of those times reducible to the Laws of loesa Majestas which we call Treason Will our adversaries therefore grant that on these accounts those Pagan Emperors might have deposed the Christian Bishops and Absolved their Subjects from their Duties in Conscience owing to them If they will we are very sure our glorious Ancestors of those Ages were not of their mind And let our Adversaries themselves judge whether we have most reason to follow as Guides of our Conscience Besides the Advantage the Primitive Christians had for knowing Tradition better this was also a manifest one That our late Brethren's Practice goes along with their Worldly Interests and indeed never began till motives of such Interest inclined them to it but the Practice of the Primitive Christians was directly contradictory to such Interests § LV. The Spiritual Rights of Our Fathers have been now invaded by Civil Force Bare Characters without Districts not sufficient to preserve the Church as a Body But the strangest Answer of all is That our Adversaries cannot yet be perswaded that our H. Fathers Spiritual Rights have yet been invaded by secular Force As this way of defence signifies their unwillingness to undertake the Patronage of such Invasions I confess I am not a little pleased with it in regard to the Liberty it may allow them hereafter if GOD shall be pleased to turn our Captivity to defend the Rights of their own Function when they may be defended without danger And I do not know why even now the Clergy should be forward and Active in promoting a Casuistry that may absolve the Magistrate from the obligation incumbent on him in Conscience for their Protection But it is a strange degree of Confidence to deny the Fact Had they not set up other Bishops to exercise Spiritual Power in the same Jurisdictions they might indeed pretend to it But having done so it is from thence we date their Schism Nor do I see how they can avoid the Charge of it For if the Spirituals of our Fathers be yet untouched then they must still have the same Right over those same Jurisdictions as to Spirituals as they had and as was own'd by our Adversaries themselves formerly If so their Rivals exercising Spiritual Power in the same Jurisdiction without their leave must be looked on as Invaders of their yet untouched uninvaded Spirituals Rights If so they must in the Language of St. Cyprian be foras be aliens be non secundi sed nulli Not barely on the Authority of that Holy Martyrs saying but as the Vindicator proved from the Nature of the Spiritual Monarchy which allows no more than one at once without conscent to have a Right within the same Jurisdiction It is very plain from hence that their Right to their particular districts and Jurisdiction even as to Spirituals is actually invaded by their Intruders And we have now and so had the Vindicator formerly shewn the settling of districts in order to Spiritual Jurisdiction to be a Right of the Church independent on the Favour of the Civil Magistrate We have shewn that the Church as well as the State was by CHRIST and his Apostles made a visible Body and that their way of knowing the visible Governours and Subjects of this visible Body was even from the Apostles Time taken from the extent of those visible Districts that they who lived in these districts were all Subjects to the Governours of the districts and that the Governours of those districts as to Spirituals were the particular Governours to whom the Christian inhabitants of those Districts ow'd Obedience as to Spiritual That whatever Right the Magistrate had formerly that might seem inconsistent with these Rights was by GOD himself taken away from the Magistrate in order to the making this way of propagating the Gospel Practicable yet so that Power enough was still left for securing the Authority of the Magistrate as to Temporals That the first Christian Magistrates found the Church possessed of these Districts and the Bodies of the Christians in the several Districts possessed also of the Opinion of the Independency of those Districts as to Spirituals on the Civil Magistrates which they had always made appear in all Difference between the Magistrate and the Bishops by their unanimous adherence to the Bishops as to Spirituals That therefore those Districts as to Spirituals were never derived from the Favour of the Magistrate and therefore not obnoxious to his disposal Here therefore this whole Dispute is reducible to a short Dilemma If the presumed Magistrate has not invaded the Spiritual Districts of our Fathers then the Intruders are Schismaticks for intermeddling with those Rights which their Predecessors are not deprived of And all others also must be Schismaticks who own and Communicate with the Intruders If the Rivals be not Intruders they must needs say that the Predecessors have lost their Right even to those Districts as to Spirituals And how they should come to lose it but by the Sole Act of their Magistrate I know nothing that our Adversaries can pretend There is manifestly no Act of the Church that they can so much as pretend for it Their Character they say is not yet touched No wonder it should not since the Schoolmen from whom they borrow the term of Character hold Characters to be indelible by any Humane Authority whatsoever not only secular but Ecclesiastical also However all the Use our Adversaries make of their remaining Character is only to make them restorable to their old Jurisdictions without a new Consecration and in the mean time to legitimate some Acts of Epicopal Power which must no be supposed to depend on a relation to a particular Jurisdiction But this Character that has no relation to a particular District could not be sufficient for preserving Bodies such as the Church was designed to be by them who
but England and France were then two distinst and perfectly independent Societies The same way as the BISHOP himself was the Head of the CHURCH and yet a Subject of the STATE therefore a Member of BOTH Societies antecedently to any such Conversions or any Pretence that could be therefore made for a coalition of both into one Society Conversion therefore thought it bring all Persons into one Society of the Church yet does not hinder but that the Two Societies of the Church and State continue as distinct from each other as formerly whilst the same things remain that made them two Societies formerly And Conversions do not hinder but that they may still remain so Still the Spirituals and Temporals are as distinct as ever Still the same Right continue for the Bishops to be the competent Judges of Spirituals as the Magistrate are of Temporals Still the same distinction of Laws continues by which the Two Societies are governed as formerly That the Church is to be governed by the Church which are made by a Consent of the Ecclesiasticks and that the State is governed by the Laws which receive their Sanction from the lay-Lay-Authority Still the Independence continues that the Bishops are as supream unappealable Judges for Spirituals as the Magistrates are for Temporals Conversions I am sure do not hinder but that this also might have remained as it did formerly For such a coalition of the Two Societies as our Adversary reasons for it would be necessary that the Government of one of the Societies should surrender or acknowledge a dependence on the Government of the other But neither of them can be pretended at the first Conversions of Magistrates Neither of them now in the Case of the Church of England The name of Head on which our Adversary insists is long ago laid aside by Q. Elizabeth And one of our Articles disowns all Pretensions of our Princes to the power of preaching the Word and administring the Sacraments This Article is ratified and made Law by an Act of Parliament Upon these Considerations we can fairly take the Oath of Supremacy as thus intrepreted by the Legislators themselves without owning any subjection of the Bishops as to Causes purely Spiritual to the Supream Magistrate even in England So far the Church and State are yet even here from being made one Society as our Adversary pretends The Examples of Bishops taking out Patents for the Right of giving Orders were I believe never known before the Reign of HENRY the VIII And that I hope our Adversary himself will not plead as a Reign of Presidents If he do the Liberties of the People will be no more secure than those of the Clergy Nothing was security against him who made such manifest invasions on the Two Fundamental Securities MAGNA CHARTA and his own OATH taken at his CORONATION Thus clear it is that Conversions alone could not make any change in the Rights of Power in Spirituals of which the Church was possessed before notwithstanding that the Converts are thereby made one Body with the Church with which they were not one formerly § LIX The Church's Obligations are more necessary for the subsisting of the State than those she receives from the State are for hers If therefore the Majestrate will lay claim to a Right in Spirituals it must be on some other account than bare Conversion That he must rather lose than gain by as I have already shewn because in his Conversion he comes to the Bishop's terms not the Bishop to his Our Adversaries therefore have another Pretence for his Superiority in purely Spirituals That is the benefit that the Church enjoys by the Magistrate's favour and protection the honours and profits annex'd to the sacred Offices and the security she has thereby against Adversaries and the assistance of the secular Arm for reducing Rebellious Subjects by secular coercions For these things they think her obliged in Gratitude to remit some of her former Rights by way of compensation for them And this Obligation in gratitude they conceive sufficient to engage her to an implicite and intrepretative Contract to continue this remitting of Rights on her part if she will in reason expect that the Magistrate shall continue his Favours But I confess I cannot see proceeding on Principles that must be granted by all who believe Religion but that the disadvantage will still lye on the side of the Magistrate For by this way of Reasoning the implicite Contract for remitting Rights will lye on that side which is most obliged and that side will appear most obliged which receives more benefit by the commerce than it gives For this consideration of remitting Right on account of Gratitude comes only in by way of compensation for what is wanting on its own side to make the benefit it confers equal to that which it receives But I cannot imagine how the Magistrate can pretend his Favours equal to those which he receives by Religion especially the true Religion So far he is from exceeding them so as to expect any compensation for arrears due to him on ballancing his accounts It is by Religion and by those Obligations which nothing but Religion can make sacred and inviolable that he holds his very Throne it self If he hold his Throne by Compact nothing but Religion can hold the Subjects to the Contract made by them If by any other Right nothing but that can oblige them to pay him that which by any sort of Right soever is his due Where he has no force to exact duty from them nothing can restrain them but ties of Conscience and nothing alse can lay a restraint on their Conscience but Religion Where he has a power of Force yet even that is not near so formidable at the irresistible power of Heaven and the fear of future and eternal Punishments No Considerations but those can curb them from secret Practices which oftentimes subvert the greatest Humane Force by degrees insensible and therefore unaviodable Nor is any Religion so conget on these accounts as that which is truest and most acceptable to GOD. GOD may be obliged by the general Laws of Providence for the general Good of Mankind to inflict Imprecations made for securing Faith even in false Religions But he is most present at the Offices of his owe establishment and therefore they have the greatest reason to fear them who imprecate in that form which is most suitable to the ture Religion No Religion so formidable at that which threatens future and eternal Pains in case of Violation No Religion can so well assure Us of the future and eternal State as Revealed Religion No Revelation so well evidenced by Credentials attesting it in Ages of Writings and accurate Information as our Christian Religion No one Communion even of Christians so just and equal against Invasions on either side either of the Church or the Magistrate as that of the Primitive Christians and of these Churches which lately came the nearest to those
Swerve unnecessarily from the Custom which had been used in the Church even when it lived under Infidels I know not why others should not emulate the Example of so great a Prince if they also would be esteem'd in the Judgment of so great a Person Virtuous I know not why it should not be counted commendable also in them if they also had made Conscience to Swerve unnecessarily from these acknowledged antient Ecclesiastical Liberties He owns that this same Excellent Prince ratified the Order which had been before exhorting the Bishops to look to the Church and promising that he would do the Office of a Bishops over the Commonwealth and when he did take cognizance of Causes of this kind yet this great Person doubts whether he did so as purposing to give them Judicially any Sentence Here we find plain confessions that the Church was in possession of these Liberties before the Conversion of this first Christian Emperor and that Emperor himself was so sensible of this Possession that he made a Conscience of invading it And who could better Judge of his Right as a Christian Prince than he who was the first example of it Mr. Hooker does indeed think that Constantine abstained from what he might lawfully do But he seems plainly to grant that the Emperor was of another mind when he says he made a Conscience of doing what Mr. Hooker thinks he might have done That same Judicious Person adds further with reference to our particular Laws in England There is no Cause given unto any to make Supplication as Hilary did that Civil Governours to whom Common wealth matters only belong may not presume to take upon them the Judgment of Ecclesiastical Causes If the Cause be Spiritual Secular Courts do not meddle with it We need not excuse our selves with Ambrose but boldly and lawfully we may refuse to answer before any Civil Judge in a matter which is not Civil so that we do not mistake either the Nature of the Cause or of the Court as we easily may do both without some better direction than can be by the Rules of this new sound Discipline But of this most CERTAIN we are that our Laws do neither suffer a Spiritual Court to entertain in those Causes which by the Law are Civil nor yet if the matter be indeed Spiritual a meer Civil Court to give Judgment of it Thus Mr. Hookeer And he proves what he says in the Margin from passages of the Laws themselves and the Book de Nat. Brevium and Bracton plainly asserting the difference of those two Jurisdictions I am sensible what a Scope I have here of enquiring into the Laws themselves and proving this Independently on the Testimony of this admirable Man But perhaps I have already said more than can be Printed in this difficulty of our Circumstances I therefore say no more at present but refer our Adversaries to him The rather because he is indeed against me in making the Church one Body with the believing State and because one of our Adversaries has expresly insisted on his Authority Both these reasons as well as the distance of the Age he lived in are sufficient to clear him of any the least suspicion of partiality on our side Even in this very Cause he defends the Use of Lay Persons joyn'd in Commission with Spiritual ones for determining Spiritual Affairs And possibly he may do so by Examples if all Examples must pass for Precedents since Henry VIIIths Usurpations But when King JAMES the II added Laymen in the same Commission with the Bishops concerned in the Case of the Bishop of London with a Power of Deprivation or Suspension ab Officio as well as a Beneficio it is very well known that his Lordship excepted against the competency of his Lay Judges that as a Bishop of the Catholick Church he ought to be tryed by Bishops only His Lorpship would do well now to remember his own Plea then in order to the judging of his own Case now how he can justify his Communicating with those who are set up against his Colleagues deprived no otherwise than by a Lay Power It is well known that his Council then Learned in our Laws insisted on this Plea as maintainable by our present Laws made since the Constitution of the Ecclesiastical Supremacy And what good Church of England Man was there then that did not think the Plea very just and reasonable Let those Lawyers be pleased to recollect what they had to say on that Case and try whether it will not also affect our present deprivations It is very certain that the Liberties of H. Church are the very first things provided for in Magna Charta and the Coronation Oath so that if these things be not inviolable nothing else can be so being Fundamental to all the Security that can be given by our present Constitution And it is no way reasonable that bare Precedents without express Acts for Alienating such Rights as these are should be thought sufficient for extinguishing a Claim grounded on so inviolable a Security If they be so Henry the VIIIth made such Precedents for violating Magna Charta and the Coronation Oath too that no Liberties of the People can now be secure And it is withal as certain that in the Disputes which occasioned the passing Magna Charta this particular of the exemption of the Clergy was one point principally insisted on Nay it was insisted on then to higher purposes than were reasonable or than I am concerned for now so far as to exempt them from Secular Courts even when they were guilty of Secular Crimes and even so it was most frequently determined in favour of the Clergy That was Becket's Dispute which generally prevailed in the following Ages when he was Canonized and when Henry the IId had submitted to Pennance for what he had done in opposition to him This Case of their Exemption as to their Spirituals which is all for which I am now concerned was than so generally acknowledged even by the Laity themselves that there was very little occasion of disputing it Rarely was it ever invaded and more rarely yet if ever was that Invasion defended by themselves who were guilty of it till the Unhappy Times of Henry the VIIIth So uncontroverted was the Right for which I plead that I do not think our Adversaries can give one single Instance of substituting a Successor into a See vacated by no better than a Lay deprivation This privilege therefore against Lay deprivations was so undoubtedly the sense of Magna Charta and the Coronation Oath that on that account as well as in point of Right all Patriots ought to be Zealous for it as well as all good Christians all who have a true Concern for those Two Fundamental Securities of Property as well as of Religion all who are so wise as to foresee how far Precedents of violating them in one Instance may proceed for violating them in others also §