vast Difference if he pleases between these two Cases in respect of the Manner of the Procedure Athanasius had the Justice done him of being heard and try'd and had Liberty to answer for himself But our Bishops are condemn'd indictâ causâ without a formal Process unheard untry'd and without Liberty to answer for themselves Athanasius had the Honour and Deference paid to his Character to have his Case referr'd to and examin'd in a Synod But our Bishop's are unsynodically and uncanonically deposed and censur'd and condemn'd by an illegal Convention Athanasius was censur'd and condemn'd for a Crime which as 't was supposed though not proved he had committed But our Bishops were censur'd and condemn'd not for a Crime past but to come not for a Fault that they bad committed but for an Offence which 't was expected they would be guilty of Athanasius liv'd under a more Arbitrary Government and was Subject to the Will of an absolute Prince who yet allow'd him the Favour customarily due to Christian Bishops But our deprived Bishops have the Happiness to live in a Kingdom where they have a Right in common with others to the Benefit of Magna Charta which provides that no English Subject shall lose Life Limb or Estate for any Offence unless he is tryed by his Peers which is the inalienable Privilege and Birth-Right of an English Subject Which not a Lawyer in England will deny But Video Meliora proboque Deteriora sequor I am not I thank God either so Popish or Fanatical as to deny that the Supreme Power has Authority or Jurisdiction over Ecclesiastical Persons who are Subject as well as the Laity to the Laws of distributive Justice and that both in respect of Rewards and Punishments I will allow to use our Author's Words Pag. 23. the Supreme Power of a Nation to judge who shall be Bishops in their Dominions and enjoy the Revenues of the Church which are the Gift of the State but by his leave not such a Gift as is that of civil and military Offices of a Judge or a Captain which they are to hold ad placitum or quam diu se bene gesserint but it is such a Gift as when once given and legally settled on the Person on whom it is bestow'd cannot be arbitrarily taken away at pleasure it being for his Life and as much his Free-hold as any Land in England is the Purchasers who buys and pays for it And then as for Punishments there is no doubt but that Ecclesiastical Persons of what Degree or Figure soever they be are under the Authority and Jurisdiction of the State who may inflict Punishments according to the demerits of the Offenders If the Crime is Capital the Ecclesiastical Person may be try'd and if found Guilty condemn'd in a Court of Justice by Criminal Judges without a Synod or Council But if it be an Offence against the State of a lesser and more inferiour Nature as was that of St. Athanasius it has been usual and customary as I said before in Regular Orthodox Christian States I hope our Author will not insist on the Instance of the Parliamentary Deposition and Deprivation of Bishops in pursuance of the Holy Covenant in the late Civil Wars or rather Rebellion if it will not offend our Author to call it so which was indeed a Deposition of Bishops without a Synod or Council and which perhaps may be sutably rankt under the second Branch of his aforesaid Distinction of a State-Deprivation and that out of Deference to the Episcopal Character to consult a Synod or Council in case of the Deposition or Deprivation of Bishops from their Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Revenues of their Sees And though the great Kindness and Indulgence of Christian Emperors to Bishops reserving Causes but not all Causes as our Author falsly speaks without distinguishing between Offfences against the State c. Witness the intended and appointed Tryal of Athanasius before Dalmatius the Censor at Antioch as aforesaid and his Examination before the Emperor upon a Charge of High Treason reserving I say Causes relating to Bishops to the Cognizance Id. p. 76. of their own Synods was in process of Time abused and by Degrees grew into the Omnipotent Power of the Bishop of Rome as our Author speaks Pag. 26. which domineered over Emperors themselves and set the Church above the State yet the abuse ought not to abolish the use of that which is necessary convenient and laudable But our Author seems to be one of them who out of their just Zeal against the Extravagantcies of those who scrued up Church Power to so high a Peg that it was thought to make perpetual Iren. 2 Edit with Appendix pag. 418. sect 2. Discord with the Common-wealth could never think themselves free from so great an Inconvenience till they had melted down all Spiritual Power into the Civil State and dissolv'd the Church into the Commonwealth to use the Words of the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet Who whatever might unadvisedly drop from his Pen in his Irenicum derogatory to the Honour and Power and Privilege of the Church which might owe it self to his Juvenile Heat and too long and familiar Converse with Erastian and Republican Principles with which perhaps his Mind was * There is certainly a kind of Eâ—riety of the Mind as well as of the Body which makes it so uâ—stable and pendulous that it oft-times reeâ—s from one Extream to tâ—e qâ—ke contrary So that whiâ—e they that at an Appariâ—â—on 〈◊〉 so much dâ—ead they 〈◊〉 â—o these untrodden Pâ—â—hs wherein they lose both themselves and the Tâ—â—th 〈◊〉 p 418. sâ—ct 1. 〈◊〉 p. 418. sect 2. inebriated which made him reel to dangerous Extreams yet has honestly made Amends in his Appendix apologizing for himself in a lucky Parenthesis Which Hypothesis says he is the only rational Foundation on which Episcopal Government in the Church doth stand firm and unshaken and which in the former Discourse I am far from undermining of as an intelligent Reader may perceive And he must be a very intelligent Reader indeed that can perceive it And therefore to expiate his Offence which was taken if not given and prevent all Mistakes and undeceive and fully inform the less discerning intelligent Reader he speaks plain in his Appendix to which I will refer my Author for a fuller Answer to his accurate Distinction between an Ecclesiastical and a State-Deprivation in which perhaps being the Authority of a great Man he may acquiesce and for the sake of my Reader who may not have the Book I will transcribe a few remarkable Passages wherein he tâ—lls you That the World may see he has not been more forward to assert the just Power of the Magistrate in Ecclesiasticals as well as Civils than to defend the Fundamental Rights of the Church he has taken this Opportunity more fully to explain and vindicate that part of the Churches-Power which lies in reference to Offenders and therefore endeavours
were thoroughly convinc'd of the Legality of the Revolution why did so many who have taken the New Oaths refuse to take them in the Sense of the Imposers but their own and invent New Salvoes to quiet their struggling and reluctant Consciences Some declaring that they took the Oath only as an Obligation to live peaceably others with a Proviso that it did not oppose contradict or annul the Ancient Fundamental Laws of this Realm Others were drawn by the Magnetick Force and influenced by the powerful Charms of that rare new-invented Salvo that superfine Criticism of a certain eminent Divine and eloquent Preacher in this City than which the subtle most Aristoteletotical Thomas Aquinas himself could not have invented a better viz. That the taking the New Oath is only a temporary Suspension of Allegiance to King JAMES to whom when he returns we might warrantably return to our Duty and Allegiance A smooth and lucky Vehicle which tempted not a few young Ecclesiasticks to swallow the bitter Pill So that the Legality of the Revolution and consequently of the Deprivation being question'd and disprov'd our Author proceeds upon a wrong Hypothesis and has little Reason to blame Dr. B for refusing a Preferment which to take being another's is utterly unlawful But there is a more material Consideration says our Author pag. 6. which may influence prudent and cautious Men who are well preferred already The Experience of the Revolution in 1660. hath taught them how dangeroas it may be in case such a Revolution should happen to change their old Preferments for new ones which may be challenged again by their old Proprietors And why is our Author angry with such prudent and cautious Men who are so tractable as to be willing to be taught by the woful Experience and sad Examples of others who foolishly unhing'd themselves and quitted their old for a precarious Title to new Preferments which currente Rotâ were justly challenged again by their old Proprietors Why may they not be allowed to learn Wisdom from the burnt Child which dreads the Fire and from the cheated Dog in the Fable whose Folly was sufficiently chastis'd by snapping at the Shadow Felix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum But why does our Author so much dread Why does he put so acute an Emphasis of Horror upon SUCH a Revolution as was that of 1660. which every 29th of May the Anniversary Commemoration of it does bless and all Generations shall call it blessed It being a Revolution which brought many inestimable Blessings with it Which stanch'd the Flux of Blood clos'd our ghastly gaping Wounds and heal'd our Breaches and put an End to our miserable Confusions and the Great Rebellion Which crown'd us with the desirable long wish'd for Blessings of Peace and Plenty and restor'd to every Man his Right to the King his Crown and Royal Dignity to the Church her Revenues and Liturgy to the State the course of Justice and Deliverance from Slavery to the poor oppressed sequestred Loyal English Subject his Liberty and Property and to these distracted Nations a happy Settlement and an opulent Prosperity A Revolution which was not like the * With such invidious Characters there were not wanting some like our Author to disgrace to overcast the brighter Dawn of that happy Revolution to preoccupy and prejudice the â—â—nds of Men. breaking in of the Sea to overthrow our Houses and cause us to perish with our Neighbours but like the soft and gentle Dew or joyful Rain to the parched Earth to refresh and comfort it And why shoâ—ld our Author be so much afraid of and so vehemently deprecate SUCH a Revolution unless he has chang'd his Old Preferments for New ones which he may justly fear will be challenged again by their â—â—d Proprieters I am confident were the Generality of the English Subjects how much soever they are prejudic'd now being too apt to be blinded by the Vapours of intoxicating Fears and Jealousies satisfied that another would prove SUCH a Revolution as was that of 1660. which they have the less cause to fear considering that the Person to be restored is not a cruel bloody Nero or Diocletian but a Branch of the forgiving Race related to the Royal Martyr and Charles the Merciful and an English-man born to which may be added the signal Instances of his Clemency and forbearing Mercy in Ireland to the great disgust and dissatisfaction of the French Generals when he might have taken in all likelihood successful Advantage over the English Army when in a sick and weak and languid State whom he pitied as a true Father of his Country I am confident I say that from SUCH a Revolution they would not make it their Litany Libera nos Domine or cry out in a Fright at the apprehension of it in the Language of our Author If there ever be SUCH a Revolution c. God be merciful to this miserable Nation But our Author makes a lamentable Complaint Pag. 9. What an unpardonable Scandal Dr. B ' s Refusal hath given both to the Enemies and the Friends of the Government Which by the way is no very good Argument of the Goodness of it and no very lucky Omen or Prognostick of its Stability or Continuance In as much as in former Reigns the like Refusal has not given such a Scandal as our Author speaks of Which does not naturally and necessarily owe it self to the Doctor 's Refusal though accidentally and occasionally it may but to the sick and lame and tottering State of the Government which really is neither made better nor worse neither strengthened nor weakened by the Doctor 's Refusal But his refusing to be made so eminent a Member of it and that either out of Fear or Conscience or both may accidentally suggest Reflections upon the Stability or Authority of it And if this confirms the Enemies of the Government in their Opinion of the Unlawfulness to submit to it and weakens the hands of Friends and makes them cautious of embarking in a sinking Interest and fills them with new Jealousies of the Lawfulness of it who can help it whom may we thank for it Not the Doctor but the Badness of the Cause which as the Doctor 's Refusal could not make worse so his Compliance cannot make better In the next Paragraph Pag. 10. we find our Author in a great Fright dreading what might be the fatal Consequence of such a Miscarriage as this both to Church and State i. e. I presume least it should tempt and provoke the new Governours to alter the Constitution of the Church and set up Presbytery But then presently his Fears vanish being persuaded of the good Inclinations of their Majesties to the Church of England of which indeed they have given a signal Evidence by their wonderful kindness to the Episcopal Members of the Church of Scotland But this our Author's Eyes are not yet open to see being blinded and transported with some of that extatick Zeal and good
to give the Church her due as well as Cesar his by making good this following Principle or Hypothesis viz. That the Power of inflicting Censures upon Offenders in Ibid. sect 3. a Christian Church is a Fundamental Right resulting from the Constitution of the Church as a Society by Jesus Christ and that the Seat of this Power is in those Officers of the Church who have derived their Power originally from the Founder of this Society and act by virtue of the Laws of it In pursuance and for the better Explanation of which Principle he asserts and endeavours to demonstrate First That the Church is a peculiar Society in its own Nature Ibid. p. 423. sect 10. distinct from the Common-wealth and that by reason of its Divine Institution distinct Officers different Rights and Ends and peculiar Offences Secondly That the Power of the Church over its Members in Ibid. p. 431. sect 17. case of Offences doth not arise meerly from Confederation and Consent though it doth suppose it Which Power says he may be consider'd two ways either First as it implies the Right in some of inflicting Censures as Excommunication Suspension Deposition or Deprivation of Ecclesiastical * For the Laity to suspend or depose the Clergy is as preposterous as for the Sheep to disciplin the Shepherd Even Nature teaches us that if the Shepherd offends he must be censur'd by his Fellow Shepherds and not by the Sheep Even King James himself as great a Violator of Liberty and Property and the Privileges of Society as he was vogu'd to be did not think it proper to refer the Censure i. e. the Suspension or Deprivation of Ecclesiasticks to the Civil Magistrate or the Representatives of the People but left it to Ecclesiastical Commissioners consisting of Bishops c. who were fittest to censure their Brethren They say It is a Diamond that must cut a Diamond Officers when there is just cause for it Which are Acts of the Church as such and peculiarly relating to Church-Power and not Acts of the State For the Exercise and Administration of this Power belongs not to the Body of the Society consider'd complexly but to the special Officers and Governors of the Church who like the Eyes to the Body are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Overseers of it none else being capable of exercising this Power of the Church as such but they on whom it is settled by the Founder of the Church it self Or Secondly as it implies in others the Duty of submitting to Censures inflicted So that the Right of inflicting Censures Pag. 437. sect 19 doth not result meerly ex confederatâ discipliná the Power being settled upon the Church by Divine Institution Thirdly That this Power of the Church doth extend to the Exclusion of Offenders from the Privileges of it Fourthly That the Fundamental Rights of the Church do not Ibid. p 423. and 446. escheat to the Common-wealth upon its being united or incorporated into a Christian State Which Union or Incorporation he says Pag. 446. is only accidental as to the Constitution of a Church but the Power remains formally in the Church Which Power he says Pag. 422. sect 9. is not only a kind of Widows Estate which belonged to it only during its Separation from the Civil Power but the Church is absolutely infeâ—ffed of it as its perpetual Right belonging to it in all Conditions whatsoever it should be in as appears by the Tenure of it and the Grounds on which it is conveyed which being perpetual and universal it from thence appears that no Accession to the Church can invalidate its former Title And then that Reverend Author concludes with this remarkable Passage That though the Magistrate hath the main Pag. 447. Care of ordering Things in the Church that is in respect of the Right of Supreme Management of this Power in an external Pag. 446. way of which he gives four particular Instances yet the Magistrate's Power in the Church being cumulative and not privative the Church and her Officers retain the Fundamental Right of inflicting Censures on Offenders What has been already said is enough to answer what our Author does further urge Pag. 27. touching the Authority which the Jewish Kings exercised over their High Priests concerning whom 't is very probable and nothing appears to the contrary that they consulted the Sanhedrim and particularly Solomon's deposing Abiathar and placing Zadock in his stead Let it be consider'd what Abiathar's Crime was which as appears by the Words he recites was no less than High Treason in following Adonijah to make him King for which Solomon instead of taking away his Place might have taken off his Head he having forfeited both his Estate and Life As to what he says Pag. 27. about the changing the High-Priest every Year though by the Institution of God it was for Life when Judea was under the Government of the Romans I conceive is nothing to the purpose the Jewish Polity and Government being dissolv'd and that according to the Will of God in pursuance of the ancient Prediction Gen 49. 10. and therefore no wonder that our Saviour was not concern'd at it nor found fault with their Change either of their High-Priests or Kings And as impertinent is his Instance Pag 28. of the Grand Signior's making and unmaking the Patriarch of Constantinople at pleasure to which he may add Oliver's deposing of Bishops and depriving the Divines of the Church of England if he pleases and so joyn a Mahometan and an Usurper notwithstanding what Dr. Sherlock says who he tells us in his Case of Allegiance took Notice of this as matter of Fact without enquiring into the Reasons whose Authority is of as little Esteem with me as his own Principles are with himself There remains but one Thing more which I shall take notice of and that is what our Author says Pag. 29. The Truth is says he the same Objections which are now made against the Promotion of these new Bishops are equally strong and as eagerly urg'd at this Day by the Papists against our first Reformers For they were promoted to Bishopricks while the former Popish Bishops were living and not canonically deposed by any Act of the Church but only by the Authority of the State To this I answer That the Popish Bishops in the Beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth to which I presume he refers Vid. Fox Book of Martyrs Vol. 3. were summon'd by the Queen to meet in an Assembly of Divines conven'd at Westminster to dispute and debate about Matters of Religion in order to the Settlement of the Church But the Popish Bishops were contumacious and mutinous in the Assembly and Disturbers of the Peace and would not pay Obedience to the Queens Orders and Directions about the Method of the said Disputation and Debate So that the Assembly was forc'd to break up without prosecuting or promoting the pious Ends for which they met For which contumacy and Disobedience they fell under the Queens Displeasure and were committed to Prison but were not depos'd or depriv'd of their Bishopricks by any Act of the State Sometime after a Parliament was call'd and Matters of Religion and the Government of the Church settled and the Romish Worship abolished But the Popish Bishops would not qualifie themselves to hold their Bishopricks but utterly refus'd to subscribe to or comply with the Constitution of the Church of England as by Law established Which is far wide from the Case of our deyrived Bishops What Contumacy or mutinous Behaviour or Disobedience were they guilty of Were they not sufficiently qualified to hold their Bishopricks according to the Constitution of the Church of England Were they Oppugners of the Doctrine Discipline or Government of it On the contrary Have they not been and are they not still zealous and constant Assertors and Maintainers of it For which they suffer and for which in time they will have their Reward if not in this World yet in that to come when their Adversaries without Repentance will receive the Reward of their Apostacy Our Author concludes with desiring his Friend to persuade Dr. B to repent and puclickly to own his Mistake Perhaps the Doctor has prevented him and has repented another way and does not think fit now to repent of his Repentance which 't is only to be wish'd he would make as publick as his Error which may not be too late to do himself good being the only Recompence he can now make Thus Sir begging your Pardon for the Trouble of this Paper which may serve a little to divert you in the Country instead of better Entertainment I rest SIR Your humble Servant Lond. June 10. 1691. FINIS