pronounced null and all his Adherents liable to Punishment and needing a Pardon And those Church-men were in the right who refused the Engagement though by your new Doctrines they resisted the Ordinance of God in O. C. to their own Damnation Eucher To which I Reply First That his Acts had no Legal Validity according to our Laws because he was not King and no Allegiance by those Laws was due to him Nor yet had he any Legal Form of Settlement according to the general Rules of Civil Laws For meer Possession by force of Arms is no Legal Establishment in a Throne by those Laws till it acquire a federal Admission and Homage in a Nation either virtually by long Prescription of Publick Accordance or formally by an immediate and publick Act of Submission by the Estates or Representatives of a Nation Now as O. C. wanted the Plea of Prescription so neither could or did he pretend a National Contract as having no Lord 's House nor free House of Commons On the Sence of which Defect he so earnestly but vainly struggled by Art and Force to compass it So that all the Power of O. C. acquired no Form of Right or Legal Settlement and consequently the Laws of Allegiance to the Royal Heir were still in force and obliging to which O. C. himself was by Law and Oath Subject and being so could not be Sovereign at the same time Upon which occasion I cannot but highly commend that Notion of Compact which you so frankly scout in that it gives us Lawful Right to Repell Tyrants and Intruders though it cannot palliate Treasons against lawfully settled Princes And for the further recommendation hereof I could particularly shew that it was the Form of Settlement in all the Kings of God's own People admitted by God at their importunity according to the then way and manner of the Nations But this is a Digression and so I forbear to say more upon it Dyscher Well! Admitting these your Arguments to be true and with you sufficiently perswasive to Conformity what Inference do you hereupon draw against the Recusants who have other Notions to them convincing on which they build their Practice Eucher First I inferr that there is no ground for Recusancy and Secondly much less for Separation from us and our Publick Assemblies from which we do not exclude you and Lastly That the Church is not guilty of Sin in admitting new Bishops and Ministers into the Places of the Deprived considering the Authorities Causes and Consequences of things and the Temper with which the Church submits to this Ecclesiastical Change Dyscher The Grounds of Recusancy to us seem real and yours nothing but Shade and Varnish But Secondly admitting them to be true yet not being obviously but intricately so they who cannot arrive to a Conviction by them are certainly bound not to joyn in those Prayers which recommend those unto God for Sovereigns whom we judge not such against him who is our Sovereign but ranked among the Number of K. W's and Q. M's Enemies Eucher But how comes this Change about The Prayers for K. William and Q. Mary were consented to by all the Recusant Bishops and by them for their Officers without any Prohibition sent to the Clergy of every Diocess and by them generally received The Bishops were present at them directed their Clergy upon Consultation to use them And thus things stood till the day of their Suspension No blowing the Publick Trumpet against Perjury no denunciation of Anathema against these Prayers but a general calm and candid Concession in that disputable Case to every Conscience to act upon its own best Light How then comes it to pass that we are all of a sudden Perjured and Apostate and yet have no Publick Instrument or Means of Conversion or Conviction For against this 't is unworthy to object the danger of Persecution When the Souls of Men and the Churches Integrity are concerned there the Watchman ought not to wink there the Men of God ought not to be silent but first loudly forewarn and after as loudly labour to reverse the Evil. This is the more Rational in that we do not seem sine ratione insanire but have very momentous and weighty Reasons for our Conformity which will excuse from wilful Perjury and which are not refuted though where our Apologists happen to trip they are animadverted on with all uncharitable severity And as to the danger of Praying against K. James 't is certain the Prayers express him not and if you Rank him among the Number of K. William's Enemies you may best know that but we do not so for an Enemy is one that designeth to injure a Man and we are not sure K. James doth so design against K. William and yet if he doth 't is Lawful to Pray that K. William may therein vanquish and overcome him that is defeat him in that injurious Design for no more can be intended in these Prayers for we Pray for no Man's no King's Destruction or Hurt but for all Christian King's and Governours even those against whom we Wage open War Dyscher But in the Service of the 29th of May there is a Prayer that voweth Allegiance to Their Majesties K. William and Q. Mary and how can we upon our Principles be present at that Prayer Eucher Then forbear to be present at it tho' I have been by a good Author assured That the Recusant Bishops did not at first stick at that but that some gave Directions and Consent to the use of it and also before their Suspension deputed Persons to Administer the Oath in the Execution of the Authorities and Offices Episcopal thus deputed which must argue that they did not think that Ministery unlawful or which God forbid us in the least to suspect that themselves were not sincere Dyscher You must allow Men to retract their Errors Eucher And expect the Reasons of such Change and not instead thereof an inexorable Censure upon us for no other Actions than what themselves deliberately and long countenanced and authorised and in which we can yet see no harm lest by condemning us to Penitence they put themselves into the same Crime and under the same Expiation Dyscher But to come to the main how do you acquit your selves from Schism in rejecting your Fathers and Brethren driven by the State from their Stations in the Church for mere Conscience sake For admitting them to be in Error the Error is in Points of Law and the Obligations of Statutes and the Oaths enacted by them in which the Judgments of Lawyers vary with the turns of State Have they done any positive Injury Have they violated their Innocency or stained the Sanctity of their Order that they should be cast out as Reprobate Is Error in entangled Laws Heresie and fear of Perjury and the appearance of Evil Infidelity Such Judgment I trust will not pass upon them in the Day when God shall gather and bind up his Jewels Eucher The
old nor inferr a Title to a New Bishop which is the Point before us Nor can they justly deny those Externals to the Church though they may to those that offend against her on a just presumption of the Churches consent or her express Petition thereunto And this was the Sence of St. Athanasius when he denied Constantius a Church for Arians in Alexandria and of St. Ambrose when he and his Flock kept their Churches at Milan against the Commands and Terrours of the Emperour Valentinian Junior on the behalf of the Arians and of St. Chrysostom when he at Constantinople denied the Emperour Arcadius a Church for Gamas his Arian General And even in Places not Consecrated Place Time and Air and Liberty to do good are the Primitive Fundamental and undeniable Rights of the Innocent Else the Christians had sinned in using these for Christian Worship against the Laws Imperial So that as yet you can fix no Spiritual Powers in Secular States that can extinguish a Christian Man's Christian Graces Rights and Orders Eucher But our Lawyers tell us that our Kings are mixt Persons and not mere Laity and so by a joint Act of Sacred and Civil Authority may execute Spiritual Censures as far as their Authority hath a mixture of Spirituals Dyscher The Doctrine of Lawyers is with us no Divinity and St. Ambrose and Theodosius the Emperour had other Sences when the Bishop would not permit the Emperour being of the Laity to come within the Chancel or the Rails of the Altar and the Emperour acknowledged the Prohibition to be properly Just and Episcopal and the Rule Ecclesiastical which he would never more neglect during his Life Eucher But though he is of the Laity yet being Christian by virtue of his Christianity and Civil Sovereignty too he may have Christian joyntly with his Civil Authorities For as Christian he may be reputed as Head and Representative of the whole Christian Laity whom you grant before at Liberty to separate from an offensive Bishop and to procure another from Social Bishops Or if you will not admit him the alone Representative of the Laity then you may take in the Lords and Commons the whole Christian Legislative into that Number or Body of Representatives Dyscher This Notion as specious as it is will not hold for then the King and the Legislative must be professed Members of our Churches Communion but they claim this Right by virtue of the Royalty and Legislative Power though the King be not of our Religious Communion They will stand by all their Acts in or about Ecclesiasticals though contrary to all the Canons of Ecclesiastical Integrity or else I will not give Two-pence for the Act of Toleration And in this Case before us they deprive the Bishops on a pretended Title of the Civil Sovereignty for the just and necessary security thereof and there is the same Reason for Heathen Monarchs to deprive Christian Bishops on the same Pretensions Eucher I am almost weary with struggling and for that Cause will admit that an Act of a State Christian cannot not alone vacate a Spiritual Charge by any Divine Law or Primitive Canon or Prescription yet such an Act received and admitted by the Church may from her concurrence have a just and legal Effect And then upon this Notion the Statute of Deprivation ipso facto must be taken for a Law upon the Church to eject such Recusants totally from their Stations and the other Laws for Conge deslire c. as Commands on the Church to admit those the King Recommends to the Sees which either are or by the State are reputed Vacant And then the concurrence of the Church to these Laws of the State doth actually and upon just Causes rightfully exauctorate those whom the Statute dooms to Deprivation And to say Truth in all Ecclesiasticals 't is the actual Concurrence of the Church that gives the Statutes an Ecclesiastical Effect and Issue and so though the Original of the Deprivation be Secular yet the Form is Ecclesiastical and in this the Essential Vertue thereof lies and is properly Spiritual and Christian Tho' then the Laws require yet the Chapters Bishops Clergy and Laity do thereupon actually reject and deprive one and admit another Bishop c. Dyscher Then neither the Act for Deprivation nor the Writ of Conge deslire do alone vacate the Sees and if not by what Authority can Chapters proceed to Elect and Bishops proceed to Consecrate new ones in the stead of the actual Incumbents Eucher Because under all the Obligations Causes herein the Church ought to empt the Sees of such Incumbents that are dangerous to the Civil State by Acts of Separation properly Ecclesiastical and so it doth the Dean and Chapter of the Metropolitical Church taking the Jurisdiction till the Chapter Elect and Bishops Consecrate another c. Dyscher Who are the proper Judges of this Duty to eject a Bishop at the Command of the State Eucher All Parties pressed thereunto by the Civil Powers with a proper Judgment of Conscience for themselves and the Church tho' not of ordinary Jurisdiction over the Bishop For when two powers contest and require my concurrence I must then judge on which side Justice lies and to which thereupon Duty binds me and to that I must adhere and do my Part to hinder the other Party from opposing that which I am in Duty bound to And when Chapters and Bishops thus acting obtain the consequent Concurrence and Comprobation of the whole Church their Acts have as good an Authority from Humane Consent as the received Docrees of Councils whose Validity stands or falls with the subsequent Sence of the Churches in common Dyscher The silence and yielding of the Churches in common consequent upon the Violences Men admit for fear of Persecution signifies no certain Perswasion or Conviction that the Deprived suffer nothing but Justice If our Cause had been Condemned in your Convocations you had brought a more specious Argument for the Sence and Censure of the Church than this thin Pretence that carries no Colour nor Shadow of Probability Eucher Even here I will endeavour to satisfie you tho' I shall not gratifie you The General Conformity of most Bishops Clergy and Laity our sending a Convocation at Their Majesties Precept shews we own Subjection to them and Condemns the Recusancy as an Errour which of what Consequence it is every Man that thinks it Errour sees And the silence of the Convocations under this Statute of Deprivation argues their Opinion to be that they were in this to yield to the State Dyscher As if this silence was not the result of Fear and Treachery rather than Judgment for this we charge upon Liberius and the Council of Ariminum when their concurrence with the Arians is urged in Defence of Arianism Eucher Had the Convocation first stoutly decried the Statute as Liberius and that Council at first did Arianism and had upon Menaces or Experiences of bodily Persecution retracted
their Remonstrances then such a forced Compliance might have been censurable for Cowardice but here being nothing of this but a calm and constant quiet under the Procedures of the State it must be resolved that the Sence of the Convocation judged it allowable Dyscher But if the Church shall yield without any Remonstrance to such Intrusions of Civil Powers upon the Churches Liberties Censures and Authorities then for Cause or no Cause we shall be liable to Suspensions and Deprivations according to the Tydes of Humour and Temper in our Legislatours and thus fall under the Arbitrary Disposals which the High-Priesthood of the Jews suffered under Heathen and the Greek Patriarchals now suffers under Mahumetan Princes a Blemish not to be endured by any Church whatsoever it incurs for the Opposition Eucher You may remember that I have yielded to you that the Consent Publick and Actual Concurrence of the Church is necessary to give an Ecclesiastical Effect to Civil Ordinances in Matters of the Church And so here the Church is to Judge whether she may or must in Duty concurr or no and hence a Right essentially belongs to it to examine all the Causes of the Secular Demands So that if she finds there are no Grave Reasons to move the Church to the required Severities she ought to disobey as my Lord Bishop of London well did when required to Suspend Dr. Sharp indictâ causâ Nay so he ought to have done had the King been de jure Arbitrary and of Despotick Power Thus if a Prince shall trifle and require a Bishop to Hawk Hunt play at Tables run Races c. up on pain of Deprivation though none of these things be simply Unlawful for Men in General or for a Bishop to avoid a Persecution yet upon neglect of such injoyned Follies no Man will judge a Deprivation Just nor the neglect a Sin nor ought the Church to admit Deprivations on such improper and unreasonable Demands Thus †Naz. in Epitaph Patr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregory Nazianzen the Father in the behalf of the Church of Cappadocia tells Julian That they will stand by the Bishop they had set in the Church of Cesarea whatsoever Law or Violence he should offer to the contrary And I will grant you that the Church hath this Right against the Violence of Christian as well as Heathen Princes since 't is the quality of the Cause not the Prince upon which the Church is to Act Else under the Name of Christian many Un-Christian Pranks may be obtruded on the Church to the Reproach and Ruine of Christianity And whether the Church yields to or opposes the Laws of the State justly or unjustly must not be judged alone from the Rights of Civil Sovereignty but upon the Reasons of the Subject Matter in which the Concurrence of the Church is required And in our Case the Church judges it Lawful and Rational for her to admit the present Law of Deprivation from the Weight and Reasons thereof against the present Recusancy And our Judgment herein hath greater Foundation than those Concurrences and Acts of the Church in the High Commissions Ecclesiastical had heretofore in the Suspensions Deprivations in several Reigns of Reformed Princes that were purely the Executions of a Royal Authority delegated to the Judges upon little many times and captious Exceptions relating sometimes to Civils sometimes to Ecclesiasticals Dyscher But here the chief Delegates pronouncing Ecclesiastical Censures were generally Bishops tho' the Assessours were several of them Lay Personages without whose Vote or Privity nothing was to be done And this with good Reason the Causes censurable being many times mixt and so likewise the Judgments that is partly of Civil partly of Ecclesiastical Importance But tho' the King's Commission did give them License as to Place Matter Form and time of Proceeding yet the Ecclesiastical Censures had their Ecclesiastical Virtue from the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Ecclesiastical Delegates pronouncing them as in the Censures of Excommunication is most Evident this being plainly not of Regal but Apostolick Authority and the Power of the Keys which none of our Reformed Princes would assume to themselves or delegate to mere Lay-Judges Eucher But what think you of the Deprivation past on the Bishops c. Recusant to the Royal Supremacy of Queen Elizabeth by Vertue of an Act of Parliament which by their Lay Power did overbear the Episcopal and upon whose Order herein standeth our Ecclesiastical Succession from those Bishops that succeeded in the room of the Deprived Dyscher You must note that these Recusants were guilty of the false Doctrine of the Papal against the Regal Supremacy Which false Doctrine had been before Synodically condemned in the Reign of H. VIII and so effectually stood tho' Q. Mary martyred deprived and exiled both the Orthodox Bishops and Clergy for this really as well as for other Orthodoxies Therefore those deprived by Q. Eliz. were either Apostate from the Doctrine they had before professed in entrance into their Stations and so were ipso facto irregular and to be de jure Canonico deserted of all or else they came into the rooms of Men unjustly deprived and so were Usurpers or into Places really vacant which for not owning by Oath and Doctrine the Regal Supremacy they were not capable of by the still unrepealed Canons of the Church and so were in truth not true Bishops nor Ministers of the Places they assumed Well therefore might they deprive them of the Bishopricks c. that were in no Canonical Title the true Proprietors But here ours deprived were all true Proprietors under no Irregularity through Apostasie false Doctrine or uncanonical Deficiencies Eucher You frame new Notions now not started nor conceived then For upon your Plea they should never have sate in that Parliament nor have been owned as Bishops before that Act past but yet so they were in all their Titles And in the Disputation at Westminster in the beginning of the Queens Reign the five Popish Bishops were owned with all their Titles by the Lords of the Queen 's Privy Council and by the Protestant Disputants themselves Even as Hooper also owns them for such and the whole Popish Convocation for such in his Epistle that he wrote to it in the days of Q. Mary And in that Station they had continued upon their former Installations except only such who had offended or usurped the Places of Men yet in being and expecting restitution if they would have taken the Oath of Supremacy Here therefore the State enacts and Ecclesiastical Deprivation and it is all one whether you will say on a Civil or Ecclesiastical Point if on a Civil then the Case is the same with ours if Ecclesiastical also then that Parliament entred more upon Ecclesiastical Matters and Authorities than this hath done and yet you condemn not that Parliament as Schismatical nor the Church admitting it Apostate Why then charge you this upon our State and Church now Here is no
for thou art a man of death But this day I will not put thee to death because c. Verse 27. And Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord. The LXXII render the 26 Verse thus Get thee to Anathoth to thy field for thou art a man of death in this very day but I will not put thee to death c. A man of death our Translation renders worthy of death but the LXXII render the words not so much significative of Merit as a menace according to such a Paraphrase Get off to Anathoth to thy field for else thou art a man of death this very day and I will not put thee to death So that Abiathar here was put to his Option whether he would with dishonour retire from his Office or suffer Death this latter being in the Rightful Power of the King if Abiathar would not yield in the former So that Abiathar's Priesthood determined by his own voluntary Cession not the King 's Ecclesiastical Censure Thirdly Abiathar was not guilty of meer harmless and inseparable Errour as our ejected Bishops and Clergy if in an Errour must in Justice and Charity be supposed to be but of wilful active and actual Rebellion against God and David both which had before engaged and fixed the Succession in Solomon and so he could have no Plea or Excuse of Errour or Mistake for which Cause he silently submits to his Fate without Apology Eucher But did not K. Solomon substitute Zadok in his stead who was not the Lineal Successour in the Line of Abiathar And was not this as Spiritual and Ecclesiastical an Act as possibly could be ministred in that Church to which the King 's Substituting Bishops in the room of the Deprived seems Parallel Dyscher When a Bishoprick is Legally Vacant we admit the King 's Right of Nominating a Successour but we look upon his Deprivations to be Nullities and you have not proved Abiathar out by merely such a Deprivation But however neither is Zadok's Case Parallel who after Abiathar's Cession came in in Right of his own Inheritance not the King's Donation For you must Note that Zadok was the Primate of the House of Eleazar in whose Line was the Legal Seat and Original Right of the Pontificate but Abiathar was of the Line of Ithamar and he and his Progenitors had come into the High-Priesthood contrary to the first Fundamental Rule and Law of Succession Now when Abiathar quitted the High-Priesthood he quitted it for himself and his Posterity who had no Claim thereto Originally Legal whence it reverted of course to the House of Eleazar and therein to Zadok without any Title from the King Eucher But from hence I inferr that not only in Times of Subjection to Heathen Powers but even before they had any Kings in Israel the Legal and Ecclesiastical Rule of Succession to that Pontificate had been broken and another Constitution fixed without any Schism in the Submission of the People For thus Eli and his Posterity though of the House of Ithaman enjoyed it against all the House of Eleazar to whose Primate however by the Law it did belong And hence I Argue That though Bishops be unduly put into the Place of others unduly deprived the People incur no Schism by submission to the Intruder Dyscher I beg your Pardon Brother Eucheres in this Point since that Rule of Succession was capable of exception in Cases of Uncleanness Defect or other Irregularities And further God that made that Rule was not himself bound by it but had still a reserved Liberty and Authority of altering it And further This Rule did in all probability permit a voluntary Cession or Resignation so far at least that thereupon the Pontificate might change its Subject though the Resignation or Cession were a Sin of Profaneness Now some one of these Causes did most probably intervene to the change from Eleazar's Line to Ithamar's and from 1 Sam. 2.30 it should be founded in God's Determination But hence it follows not that a Secular Power can pervert a Divine Rule and Ratifie an opposite Constitution What was done in the Age of the Maccabees and afterward by Secular Powers against the Legal Succession of the Pontificate as sometimes it might be excused for want of the Lineal Heirs or Genealogies and sometimes Condemned for Bribery and Usurpation was yet admitted and ratified on the post Fact by God in giving those Intruders the Spirit of Prophecy Joh. 11.51 But this cannot argue for a Validity if the Lineal Heir had been known present and capable and the Intruder not confirmed by God the Founder of that Dignity And I must further Remark that these Intrusions though thus admitted by God were Signs of a broken Church and State hastning to its last Dissolution and so no just Precedent for the Christian Church to follow which is to continue to the End of the World except we must yield to Methods of Violation that lead to our Extinction Eucher Since then you are so hard to be moved by Scripture Instances what think you of the Appeal which Constantine admitted from the Party of Donatus against Cecilian after several Ecclesiastical Judgments to which he added his own final Sentence Dyscher But surely Constantine did not admit this Appeal with a Design to pass a Spiritual Censure himself on the Offenders but to Establish Justice in Peace by methods properly Imperial if he should find the past Acts Ecclesiastical insufficient thereunto And to pre-occupate you the same I say of Athanasius his Appeal to the same Emperor from the Council of Tyre For Athanasius in Matters of Faith expresly denies Emperors proper Judges and he has other Side-men with him therein among the Fathers Eucher But in that Council Athanasius was Condemned not for Faith but for pretended Immoralities and in these Discussions all Wise Men may be made Judges and Civil Powers are fit to be made such or rather are such in the Right of their Civil Station and this Athanasius must plainly own in this Appeal Dyscher But this doth not hit the Point nor doth it insert that Athanasius believed the Emperour being yet unbaptized could himself either pass or rescind a Spiritual Censure and that effectually but he did thus Appeal either that the Emperour might punish the Offenders Imperially or call a greater and more equal Synod for a Re-hearing which afterward was obtained at Sardica Eucher But if the Temporal Powers merely as such cannot directly pass an Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Censure yet all the necessary Externals to Sacred Offices as Time and Place c. are in their disposal so that they may take away our Churches Maintenance Leisure Liberty and Place for Publick Assemblies which amounts to all the Effects of a Judicial Deprivation and this perhaps is the only Power claimed by our Kings in this and other like Acts for Deprivation or Suspension Dyscher This indeed by actual Force they may do but this doth not dissolve our Relation to the
justified but the Legal Consequences may be admitted even upon Oath Wars and Victories are many times unjust yet they that suffer the Injury lawfully submit to the unlawful and injurious Demand of Submission as in Piracies and other like Tyrannies A Son by fraudulent Arts gets judgment in Law and seizes his Fathers Estate and Body by Execution and starves his Father in Prison This Man's Immorality is damnable yet the Judges Sheriffs and the other Officers are innocent because their Offices are not concerned in the Natural Relations or Duties but only in what is of Civil Importance and Cognisance A Lord of a Mannor to which adheres a Court Baron is unjustly outed in Law by his Son to the certain knowledge of several Reversioners These when the Estates revert to them must be sworn to the Homage and Fealty of the Lord that is in by Law Must these Men refuse Homage and lose their Estates or may they swear it to the actual Land-Lord who is visibly Legal though not honestly Rightful I for my Part must determine for the Swearing since all Lords and Tenants must be admitted for such that are in by the Law though at the same time Men are to detest the turpitude and baseness of the Recovery And in such Cases the ejected Lord never blames the Tenants for Perjury Upon which clear Resolution in the General I will descend to the Particular before us and suggest that Men should be very careful of judging others especially Supream Powers and much more how they act upon such private Judgment to the endangering the Peace of humane Societies Which I offer not that Their Majesties Cause needs such a Shade but to oppose the Command of Christ against Men's nimble Censoriousness And indeed here it would be an hard Task from the Fifth Commandment to Charge K. William with subjection to K. James either upon his being his Nephew or Son-in-law were I willing to urge or be urged upon that invidious Point And the Princess of Orange was in Duty bound to follow her Husband's Fortune Order and Authority even against the Will of her Father and this with a more plenary Consent if she judged her Husband's Cause to be just she violating no Decencies due by the Fifth Commandment to her Father which are consistent with her Husband's Rights and Interests and in her rightful Power to perform As for the inner Motions and Counsels of Their Majesties Minds they are not of Human much less of Civil Cognisance and 't is fit for us to leave them to their proper Judge that is God Tho' if the King's Design be what his Actions apparently tend to to spend himself for the Delivery of Nations from Tyranny and Bondage against all the Enemies of humane Liberties and Peace he is certainly the greatest and most desirable and will be by God's Blessing the most Honourable and Glorious Prince that perhaps ever arose since the Days of Constantine the Great I am sure we feel the Blessings of his Care for which many of us ungratefully traduce him And so much for that All that we are concerned in for our selves is not whether in Moral Justice they might desire or accept this Crown but whether this Nation might under its then Exigences yield it them or whether it being yielded them by the Publick Act of this Nation private Subjects may not or ought not to acquiesce in this Settlement and give assurance thereof by Oath or otherwise for if we might have thus yielded in those Straits to an unrelated Prince we may as well to the related because the Personal Relation affects not otherwise our Civils the Settlement of which we must admit if not as we could wish yet as things will bear And I ask you whether in good earnest you think no Settlement must be admitted under Powers procured by breach of God's Commandments Dyscher What if I should say No Eucher Then I will say few or no Changes of Government must be submitted to in the whole World which Perswasion as it is opposite perhaps to the First Introduction of Armed Powers so it must afterward assert them de jure unchangeable Since there is never any such Change without the Breach of many Divine and Moral Precepts Killing Robbery Deceit Covetousness false Accusations Lyes Pretences Subornations Perjuries Treasons c. are the usual Methods and Introductories to such Changes And yet when Settled all Ages Heathen and Christian abide by them By our Laws though the next Heir to the Crown kill the King though his Natural Parent he shall not be barred the Succession by Inheritance though by all moral Equity and supposable Intentions of Royal Parents were there no positive Constitution herein he should be disinherited Dyscher But in such Cases the King would be Dead and all his Rights and Titles with him and the Heir without Competitour But in our Case 't is and 't was far otherwise the King being alive and pursuing the Recovery of his own Dominions Eucher Then it is not the Breach of God's Commandments that incapacitates the Prince of this Crown but the Life and Contention of K. James But if his Tenure be extinct as it hath been publickly judged by this Nation our Oath to him ceases though he contends never so much for the Recovery Dyscher But this new Oath obliges me to act unjustly against K. James's Recovery whereas the whole World knows this Crown to be his in Right Eucher That it was his the World knows but the World is not so knowing that it is his neither from the Moral Justice nor Civil Forms of Law The Question of Justice depends upon the first Originals Process and Issues of the War and of this there is no Authentick Judge but God between the Two Princes though as to us this Nation hath justified K. William's Cause which is to conclude upon us and as to the Forms of Law K. William is now legally Invested I do not say these things bind K. James from endeavouring a Restitution as being without the Power of them never in Law subject to them but they bind us to defend our selves and our present Governours under this Settlement with the Suffrage of the greatest Laws of God Reason and Nations Dyscher But this Oath of Allegiance seems to imply an Assertion of Right to this Crown in K. William and Q Mary since Allegiance follows the Right and this you will yield to be a tender Point to be sworn to Eucher But First it is certain that this Oath expresses no Form of Affirmation concerning Right but is purely promissory of Allegiance to the Sovereigns actually Regnant And it is certain that the Estates in Parliament imposing it intended no more to be sworn since they rejected the Motions made for an Assertion of Right And though that and the ensuing Parliament judged their Admission of K. William and Q. Mary to be in their Lawful Right rebus sic stantibus yet they bound not us to swear so but only upon
her own and leave the Church to her own lovely Simplicity than usurp upon the Inheritance of our Lord. Eucher Will you deny all Lay-Persons a Right in all Spirituals Dyscher In all Spiritual Authorities Eucher Please you to define the Act of a Spiritual Deprivation Dyscher Deprivation is the Effectual and Total Separation of a Spiritual Person from his Charge so as to make way for the Introduction of another Eucher Is the Interest only of the Priests concerned in the Spiritual Charge or are the Souls of the People also interested in the Relation Dyscher No doubt the Interest as well as the Relation is Mutual Eucher Are there any Causes which may dissolve this Relation and vacate the Charge Dyscher Yes all Flagitious and Pestilential Sins as Apostasie Heresie Schism c. Eucher Upon whom must the Punishment of Separation fall Dyscher Upon the Guilty Eucher Who must Execute it Dyscher The Ecclesiastical Judge Eucher But what if he be the Person Guilty Dyscher Then is he to be deprived by his Superiors Eucher What if he hath none Dyscher Then by a Synod Eucher What if the Synod is to be called by him or are confederate with him Dyscher Then must they be left to God Eucher But may not the Clergy and People in the mean time Separate from his Authority and his Communion if he from the Chair recommend or enforce his Corruptions or must they be bound to be humbly present at all his prophane Ministeries Dyscher I yield they may go off But who shall judge upon the Cause Eucher If there be no other Superior Judge then God is to be appealed to and in the mean time they must have a judgment of Conscience and Discretion for themselves what to do in such incorrigible Disorders Dyscher Right enough But this judgment of Conscience is not a judgment of Authority which is necessary to a total Separation Deprivation and Vacancy Eucher Is it Cause enough to Separate and to complain to other untainted and Social Bishops of co-ordinate Churches for Relief against the Spiritual Impostor Dyscher I must grant that since this is the Original way of detecting and bringing Heretical Bishops to Ecclesiastical Order or Censure as is evident from the most Ancient Church-Histories Eucher What Relief can Social Bishops or Co-ordinate Churches give in this case Dyscher If they cannot Reform they may Condemn and Expel the Impostor Eucher Have Social Bishops and Co-ordinate Churches any Jurisdiction over each other Dyscher What if they have not Eucher Then their Sentence is not of Authority but only Conscience and Discretion and of no more Validity than that of the abused Laity and Clergy Dyscher Well! How do you determine herein Eucher I judge that the People by judgment of Conscience for their own Salvation and the Churches Peace may Separate from an Imposturous Bishop and address to other Social Bishops to consecrate them another which they by the like judgment of Conscience without proper Jurisdiction may do upon the Notoriety and Incorrigibleness of the Evil. And this was very often and constantly done in the Primitive Ages and asserted for Right and Just by the African Bishops in the Cases of the two Churches of Asturica and Emerita in their Epistle extant the 68 among St. Cyprian's Epistles concerning the Expulsion of Basilides and Martialis For the Church is a great Body whose Health subsists by cutting off all putrid Members in which all the Members are unanimously to contribute And if they that ordinarily should thus remove the Contagion will not they that can may for the common Preservation of themselves and the whole Body I grant you indeed that a proper Act of Spiritual Jurisdiction as the Power of the Keys Ordination Degradation belongs only to the Ecclesiastical Governors and are incommunicable to the Laity But it appears that the Separation or Rejection of a Bishop may on just Reasons be Legally executed by those that have no Jurisdiction and the Rectitude or Obliquity of such Separations is to be judged not upon the Point of Authority but of Merit In all Scythia there was but one Bishop Now supposing him an open Heretick or Idolater who should deprive him Might not the People renounce him and send to other Christian Provinces to consecrate or send them another And might not the Prince justly eject him and require his People to concurr in it for a new Successor Dyscher But 't is not the People as a Church in our Case do thus reject their Pastors for Irregularity but the Deprivation is an Act of Civil State as such so that these Instances and Allegations of yours come not up to us For they acted as Christians in the Right of Souls and Churches this is an Act of the Civil Power as such and that for the pretended Security of Civil Interests Now what Right hath the Temporal Sword to act in Spirituals and Matters purely Christian and Religious Eucher Do not you remember that our Church ascribes such a Power to our Kings in Ecclesiasticals as of Right appertained to and was used by godly Kings of God's own People recorded in Holy Scripture Which teacheth us that as David instituted Holy Offices in the Choir not required by the Law of Moses so Solomon deprived Abiathar of the High Priesthood upon a provocation merely in Civils Dyscher To this I have many things to reply but I will only touch those that are most pertinent to our Case First That the whole Institution of the Levitical Law was not of a Spiritual but Carnal Sanctity yielded them by God somewhat in opposition and somewhat in conformity to the Aegyptian or other Foreign Religions among whom the Priesthood had been long subjected to and perhaps first instituted by the Scepter And herein the Supreme Judgments in Civils upon the Law and Oracular Responses on Consultation about Peace War and Temporal Actions and Successes were Essential to the Authority of the Pontificate And yet we find this High Priest not subject to any Ordinary Power till Kings were also given this People after the manner of the Nations among whom the Mitre was subject to the Crown All which put together makes Abiathar's Deprivation by a Temporal Power under that Constitution Legal But from the beginning it was not so Then there were Priests who till the Flood had the Government of the World without any Civil or Military Power and that Priesthood was in all its Intentions Spiritual So that when our Saviour came not only to Restore but even to Refine upon the Primitive Rules he restored the Priesthood from Vassalage and founded his Hierarchy not in Princes but Apostles not in armed but in unarmed Powers Secondly King Solomon did not properly and judicially deprive Abiathar of the High Priesthood but only commanded or required him to quit it on pain of death For thus the words run 1 Kings 2.26 And unto Abiathar the priest said the king Get thee to thy fields at Anathoth