to that Government were such that it was become impossible for them to execute their Spiritual Offices in the CHURCH with any Security to the Peace and Safety of the STATE They could not perform Divine-Service in Publick because they would not own the Authority of the King who was to be prayed for therein The Bishops could not ordain other Clergymen for the same Reason They could not do it without obliging them by the Laws of the Land to own those Secular Powers whom they themselves did not own They could not govern the Clergy as Bishops by the Laws of the Land are bound to govern them without Teaching them and Instructing them to teach their People the Duty of Obedience to that King whom they themselves looked on as an unlawful King Neither could they answer the Ends or do the Business of the Government by sitting in Parliament as the Law expects and requires that all the Bishops of the Kingdom should do Nay in all their Exercise of Divine Offices they must undeniably lie under a strong Byass and Temptation of instilling dangerous Doctrines and Principles inconsistent with the Peace and Security of the Kingdom Can it be supposed then that any National Government wants a sufficient and competent Authority of removing such Bishops from their Sees and of putting other Orthodox Bishops in their Room And must They ask the Clergy's Leave to do this Or must they borrow a competent Authority from the CHURCH to do this effectually Miserable are the Princes who are in such a Case Wretched is the Kingdom that wants a competent Authority to do any Thing which appears necessary to be done with any of its Subjects of what Order soever to support it self and preserve its own Authority Who then can believe that Almighty GOD ever intended this Those who object against the Validity of such a Deprivation should consider two Things 1. THAT there is no Persecution of Christianity in it Had those Bishops been deprived for any Doctrines or Articles of the Christian Faith it would have looked more plausibly on their Side and might with more Reason have been called Persecution Or if upon their Deprivation their Districts and Sees had been left destitute of Orthodox Bishops regularly consecrated to perform the Divine Offices as others had done before them This would have made a great Alteration in the Case But when it is for an avowed Disaffection to the established Civil Government and judged necessary for the Security of it that Necessity proves it lawful and answers all Objections that can possibly be brought against it And therefore to pretend that such a Deprivation is not valid as to the People living within their Districts of such deprived Bishops because it is not Canonical is in effect saying nothing at all For Deprivation signifies nothing to the Purpose if it does not in the Effects of it bind all the Consciences of the Subjects to disown the Authority of the Persons so deprived and discharge them from all Obligations of future Submission to and Communion with them This is a Power without which Civil Government cannot stand and therefore Secular Powers must be granted to have a competent Authority to all such Purposes or else they are not only Subjects and Inferiors but even Slaves to their spiritual Sovereigns and must depend precariously on the Good-will and Favour of their Clergy whether they shall sit easy and safe on their Thrones or no. And all the Laws and Canons and Constitutions of the CHURCH if they be wise and good and christian must be made with a due Regard and Subserviency to this End or else they lose all their Validity and are to be looked upon as Nothing For this is a sure Principle never to be disputed That all National Governments have as sufficient and competent an Authority to do every Thing which is necessary to preserve the STATE as the Bishops and Clergy can have for the Support of RELIGION and the CHURCH AND if this Authority will extend to the valid Deprivation of the disaffected and disloyal Governors of the Church the plain Consequence of it is That all the Subjects of the Kingdom are in Duty and Conscience discharged from any farther spiritual Relation to or Communion with the Persons so deprived What is it then that our Non-jurors mean by Exclaiming against this even as tho' it were a Sin against the Holy Ghost To tell the World That all other Bishops who will not adhere to the deprived ones can perform no valid Acts of Priesthood their Prayers Dr. Hickes Collect. p 32. are Sin and their Sacraments no Sacraments and their Absolution Null and of no Force That all other Christians who are not in the Communion of the deprived Bishops are cut off from the Church of Christ can have no Benefit by His Promises no Assistance of His Grace no Mercy thro' His Blood Nay that altho' they die Martyrs for Christ yet Martyrdom it self cannot make amends for this Sin If a Stranger to our Gospel were to hear this he would certainly conclude that Christianity aimed at Nothing more than the Exaltation of the CHURCH'S Power and that Nothing greater was required to Salvation than to own these deprived Bishops to be the Heads of it Whereas in Truth the Commission given is only to preach the Gospel to administer the Sacraments and to exercise such Offices and such Powers as shall be necessary to the Propagation of the Christian Religion Without any Check upon Secular Potentates in their Administration of Civil Government or any Exemption from their Jurisdiction They have no Authority that interferes with Civil Powers To confirm all which it must not be forgotten 2. THAT in this Deprivation the STATE took away no Power which the CHURCH truly and properly speaking gives Dr. Hickes indeed insinuates p. 24. That as only Bishops have from Christ a Right to ordain so they only have a Right to deprive one another But this Argument is formed with more Cunning than Ingenuity and the Opposition is not fairly put It should not have been between Ordaining and Depriving but Ordaining and Deposing from the Sacred Order of the Priesthood In the one the CHURCH gives in the other She takes away Her spiritual Authority But Depriving is of another Nature it leaves the Persons all the Catholick Authority which the CHURCH gave if they can find Places where they may lawfully Exercise it and only restrains them from doing so in such and such Dominions It is chiefly Removing them from the Districts and Sees which they held of the Secular Powers and thereby from all Right to the Exercise of their Spiritual Offices among any of the King's Subjects And if Kings and Princes have not a competent Authority to do this they are too weak to stand and consequently much weaker than GOD and CHRIST ever intended that Civil Government should be THE chief Objections to what is here delivered are these three I. IT is pleaded That there is
consequently they have nothing in 'em to exclude the Jurisdiction of temporal Governors Because those temporal Governors have the very same natural and common Right over all their Subjects and in all Cases and Causes to do every Thing that shall be found necessary to the Support and Preservation of the STATE which the others can pretend to Claim for the Support and Preservation of the CHURCH Nay farther That it would be no certain Advantage to Religion for the CHURCH to be possess'd of such Authority That it would rob Kings and Princes of one great Branch of their Sovereignty and may be and often has been used to defeat even their Civil Administrations and to shake their Thrones and to Ruin their Dominions And in a Word that such an Independent Authority is Incompatible with the Supremacy of Secular Princes whose Affairs must inevitably be influenced and controul'd thereby Therefore too such inconsistent Supremacies cannot be believed to be derived both from GOD. IN Consequence of all this I have shew'd That Princes have an Authority both in the Election and also in the Deprivation of Bishops if they be disloyal and disaffected to them That without such a Power Government may be made too weak to subsist and may be in Danger of being Overturned by the Power of the Clergy That as this is what Christ's Commission never was intended for so consequently all such Deprivations made by the legal Authority of the STATE are good and Valid to all Intents and Purposes and oblige the Consciences of all the Subjects THE Conclusion of all this is That the Deprivation of the late Non-juring Bishops was in all respects Valid that the People of their several Sees are thereby discharged from all Submission and Duty and spiritual Communion and Relation to them That they have no longer any lawful Authority in our CHURCH but we as Christians are bound to adhere to the Religious Communion of those whom the King by the Laws of the Land shall Promote into their Places And in a Word that the contrary Practice in leaving the Communion of this established CHURCH and setting up Religious Assemblies under the pretended Authority of such Deprived Bishops or their Adherents Is very Wicked and sinful in the Sight of GOD and an undoubted Schism from the Communion of the Church of England I WILL only add that as these have been the constant Doctrines and Principles of the Church of England from the Beginning of the Reformation down to our Times So they had not now been disputed had it not been in favour of the Pretender and of Popery FINIS THE CONTENTS THE Occasion and Importance of this Debate page 1. The State has a supremacy in all Cases antecedently to the Church's Claim 3 Natural Religion gives no Independent Authority to the Priesthood 4 Christs Commission appropriates only the Ministration in Holy Offices 5 The General Governing Powers of the Church founded only on Common Right and not Appropriated to the Clergy by Christ's Commission 8 Therefore not to be Executed by an Authority Independent on the State This proved by Six Arguments 10 I. From the nature of the Powers in Dispute 11 Where Christ has not appropriated the Power the State is not excluded ibid. Dr. Hickes admits this in Part 12 How the Church's pretended Independency is to be understood 16 The Practices of the three first Centuries were of mere Necessity pag. 17 The Royal Preisthood Nothing to this Controversy 18 The Non-jurors lofty Style and Pretensions unsuitable to the Temper of the Gospel 20 The Church's real Authority must not be judg'd of by high Strains and Metaphors but by the Powers actually convey'd and appropriated 22 II. Such an Independency in the Church not consistent with the Subordination of Christ's Kingdom to that of the Father 23 III. Not at all Serviceable to Religion 25 IV. It robs Secular Powers of one Branch of their Sovereignty 29 That secular Princes and States have Authority in Matters of Religion proved from the Jewish Kings 31 32 V. Such a Claim dangerous to all Kingdoms as Weakening and Ruining their Authority in their Temporal Affairs 36 This Evidenced by the Practices of the Non-juring Schismaticks 37 VI. Two Independent Powers in the Government of the same Body of Men breeds inevitable Confusions and therefore cannot be of GOD pag. 41 The Necessity of granting that Christ has given the Church no Authority that interferes with Civil Powers 43 The State must have as ample a Power for its own Preservation as the Church has for Hers ib. This necessarily gives them an Authority  1. In the Election of Bishops and Clergymen 44. 2. In their Deprivation 47 No Persecution in depriving the Nonjuring Bishops 50 No real Invasion of Ecclesiastical Authority 53 Three Objections answered shewing  I. That the Relation of a Bishop to his Flock is not Divine or Unalienable 54 II. The Principles and Practices of the Cyprianick Age altogether foreign to this Controversy 62 III. No real Detriment to the Christian Church or Priesthood from the Principles of this Essay 69 The properest Method of Advancing the Character and Interest of the Clergy 70 The Conclusion 75 ERRATA Page 14. line 21. read Modification p. 15. l. 6. r. Powers p. 50. l. 25. for their r. the.
the Affairs of the CHURCH If the Primitive Fathers had had the same Sentiments with Dr. Hickes and his Friends as to the CHURCH'S Divine Right to an Independent Authority it is impossible that they should have given in to the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Emperors as they are found to have done And whether they will impute it to the Ignorance of the Primitive Christians or whether they will make them the first Betrayers of the CHURCH'S sacred Rights I leave to themselves let them account for it as they please I am contented to observe from a very learned Treatise of our present Author Christian Prin. c. 2. Sect. 4. c. 17 21 27 34 35. great and good Archbishop who has supported his Assertions with Authorities which are indisputable That no sooner did the * Euseb Vit Const Lib. III. c. 6 7 10 12 13 17. Contanstine called the first general Council by his Imperial Authority appointed the City Nice in Bithynia for the Place of their Meeting and on the Day set for opening the Synod he came and sat among them and Reasoned with them and composed their Differences Ibid. Lib. IV. c. 42 43. He summoned another Council to meet at Tyre A. D. 335 and Threatned those who disobey'd his Summons with Banishment or Ejectment out of his See afterward he adjourned it to Jerusalem To this Council Athanasius came in pure Obedience to the Emperor and appealed from it to his Authority Ib. Lib. I. c. 44. Eusebius commends Constantine for his Piety and Religious Care in all this Dr. Cave Hist Lit. Vol. 2. p. 152. In the Assembly at Carthage A. D. 411. Marcellinus the Emperors Commissioner directed the Manner of their Proceeding appointing Seven Bishops only of a Side to enter into Debate and in the end gave Sentence in favour of the Orthodox And when upon Marcellinus his Death the Donatists would have had all that had been done rescinded Honorius confirmed their Decrees and made them Valid Ib. p. 158 c. Upon the Feuds and contrary Decrees in the Council of Ephesus A. D. 431. between John Patriarch of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius Theodosius the Emperor commands all that had been done on both Sides to be rescinded and upon a full and true Information of what had past he confirm'd the Decrees made against Nestorius As to Imperial Laws in Ecclesiastical Affairs I will mention a Few only out of the Code and Novells of Justinian God Lib. I. Tit. iii. cap. 8. If a Clergyman gave false Witness in a Pecuniary Case he was to be suspended from his Office for Three Years if in a Criminal Cause to be Degraded from the Priestly Office clericatûs honore nudatus c. ib. Novel Coll. ix Tit. vi 123. cap. x. A Clergyman playing at Tables or standing by to lay Wagers or look on was to be suspended for three Years jubemus tribus annis a venerabili Ministerio prohiberi ib. c. 17. He that shall give or take Money to procure the Election or Ordination of a Minister was to be degraded a gradu Sacerdotij retrahatur ib. c. 31. A Bishop not Consecrated according to some particular Imperial Constitutions was to be deposed Jubemus hunc omnibus modis Epicsopatu depelli Novel ix Tit. vi 123 1. A Presbyter ordained before examination if he had been accused as unfit was to be deposed a Sacerdotio repellatur c. 2. A Bishop deserting his See and not returning in a set Time was to be Deprived Ab Episcopatu expelli ib. c. 9. If a Bishop or Presbyter excommunicates any without hearing his Cause the Person unjustly excommunicated shall be Absolved by another Presbyter and he that unjustly excommunicated him shall himself be excommunicated ib. c. 11. If a Bishop that was deprived or deposed Sacerdotio pulsus presumed to return to the City he had belonged to he was to be confined in a Monastry ib. A Bishop permitting a Deacon to Marry after he was ordained was to be deprived expellatur ab Episcopatu and a Presbyter so Marrying was to be degraded expellatur a clero ib. c. 14. Many more Laws of this kind equivalent to our Acts of Parliament might be mentioned and they all demonstrate that the Christians of those Ages knew no such Principle as the Independent Power of the Church in Ecclesiastical Affairs Christian Emperors concern themselves in the Affairs of the Church and the Government of it but the Bishops admitted them to summon Councils by their Imperial Authority to appoint the Time and Place of their Meeting to direct the Matter to be treated on and the Manner of their Proceeding To Preside in and Regulate their Debates to exercise Authority over their Declarations and Canons sometimes to Revoke and sometimes to Suspend their Decrees Sometimes they not only made Laws about Church Government without the Clergy but even regulated their Qualifications and punished their Miscarriages sometimes with Commands to the Church to Degrade them and sometimes to Excommunicate ' em They took upon them to judge of the Controversies between the Bishops suspended one and set up another and threaten'd the Refractory with Deprivation if they but disputed the Authority of their Summons These Things they did sometimes at the Request of the CHURCH and often with hearty Thanks for what they had done And those Ages knew no such Thing as disputing the competent Authority by which they acted or the Validity of their Sentences so long as Nothing was done by them to the Detriment of the Christian Faith or Religion This shews most plainly that what was practised by the Independent Authority of the Bishops and Clergy for the first three hundred Years was only out of Necessity and not in a Claim of any Divine Right to exclude the Secular Powers AND now I come to the III. AND last Objection Some are apt to think the Principles I advance too prejudicial to the CHURCH'S Interest and Advantage that they tend too much to oppress and enslave Her But I hope I have not laid my self open deservedly to any such Charge I have granted it a divine unalienable Right to the Holy Offices of all Religious Ministrations to the Power of the Keys and to Ordination I have allowed it a natural and common Right to all the general Powers of Government and owned that by Virtue of CHRIST'S Commission it has a Trust useful to it in all its Exigencies and an Authority to do every Thing in the Exercise of its Spiritual Powers that is necessary to be done for the Propagation and Support of the Christian Religion Where then is the Slavery or Oppression in these Principles Or what is it that we can by the Authority of GOD and CHRIST claim more Other Privileges and Authorities may be granted to it by the STATE But of its own Right I am not convinced that it can pretend to more than these I AM in Truth very sensible that the Clergy are in some Mens Esteem and Opinion