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
are persecuted by the Church as well as the State But this will require a very clear proof ere we can be justly charged with so great an Impiety Dyscher This Church hath ever Taught us to preserve an untainted Loyalty to our lawful Sovereigns which with us come in by Inheritance and accordingly our Oath of Allegiance binds us to the King his Heirs and Lawful Successors and this Obligation ceaseth not till Death or Resignation dissolves it Neither of which happened in this Revolution Eucher If by Resignation you mean a formal voluntary Act and Deed passing away the Title Royal then I deny that Death only and Resignation vacate our Allegiance for many Publick Authorities are void by mere Cession and Desertion which is indeed in Law equivalent to a Resignation And such a Cession here hapned which the Estates in Convention judged a Virtual Abdication of the Sovereignty and of this being a Point of Law they were to us at that time and in that juncture the most Competent Authentick and Final Judges which we are the more to submit to since the Kingdom hath ratified their Proceedings in a second Parliament And though K. James abroad condemns them yet that is no Argument either that they were unjust or inauthoritative 'T is granted that this Church preaches up an indispensable Loyalty to the Sovereign during the Tenure of his Sovereignty but when a King is fled from his Throne into Foreign Dominions or doth not exert any Royal Power or Presence to his People the Estates of this Land are the Supreme Domestick Judges upon the Tenure of the Sovereignty which is not to make them Judges of the King's Person but in the want of his Person of the State of the Kingdom and the Rights of the Nation in order to Settlement Nor is it a just Exception to deny the Authority by which they sate for by what Authority was that Free Parliament called or sate that voted in King Charles the Second 'T is prodigious Peevishness to require a King's Presence or Commission when he is gone and hath left all in Anarchy In such Confusion howsoever they come together they are the Supremest Council of the Land And yet by the Practice of all Nations and the Reasons of Peace and Settlement the Estates of any Nation being invited by a victorious and unresisted Power may come together and Treat with him that thus calls them tho' he hath no antecedent Authority strictly taken to call them So that the Churches Loyalty is to follow the Civil Judgment concerning the Object of our Loyalty and the Tenure of Sovereignty Dyscher Supposing them then in a state of Confusion proper Judges of the Tenure of Sovereignty which they determined abdicated by K. James yet how could they pervert the Hereditary Law and Rule of Succession that is Fundamental to this Crown Eucher I answer hereunto That the general and ordinary Rule of Succession to this Crown is Hereditary and in this we are very happy against the dangerous Consequences of ambitious Competitions But in extraordinary Interruptions and Convulsions of State against the ordinary Course our Laws and Constitutions do allow the Estates such a King as can actually be had for the time being till the ordinary Rule can be fairly recovered and in this also we are equally Happy if we would but know or see it This in Fact is evident from all the History of our Succession The Heirs Lineal have submitted to it the many Acts of Parliament yet in force made by Extra-lineal Kings and the concurrent Judgment of our greatest Lawyers under Hereditary Kings even since the Reformation without any Remonstrance of this Church or any Hereditary King are an Authentick Demonstration hereof and Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book comes up to it And my Opinion is That in the late Oath of Allegiance the word Successors was added after Heirs on this very self-same ground That tho' Heirs by the ordinary course are the Legal Successors yet others legally may succeed in cases extraordinary for I will not be so bold as to say That the Oath required Allegiance to unlawful Successors And the non-observance hereof hath been the occasion of so many Paradoxes or Absurdities in Discourses upon this Point Dyscher What! Can he be Legal that thrusts out the Legal King or Legal Successor Eucher One King by a Legal War may thrust out him that till he was thrust out was Legal King of his own People For the first offending Prince loses not his Sovereignty to the offended merely by the offence till actually thrust out by the offended And even an unjust Potentate tho' he cannot according to Legal Justice out a King against whom he hath no legal Cause or Right of War yet if he doth do so and the Subject People cannot help it and he enforce himself upon the People for a New King our Laws in this concur with the Laws and Practice of all Nations in allowing our Estates to determine for us in such Exigences as is manifest in the long Contentions and many Turns between the Houses of York and Lancaster and the Sin shall lie only on the Injurious and not on them that submitted to an inevitable Fate of things And yet in our case upon the Cession of K. James the Hereditary Succession was not violently broken but altered by consent of the next Heirs antecedent to the P. of Orange which shews that the two next Heirs judged that their Father had effectually deserted the Crown and were content for the Preservation of the Nation against the Power of France to admit before them a Prince of the Blood whose great Interest abroad and whose personal Abilities of Conduct in Counsels and War might be a Wall of Defence as well to the true Royal Heirs as to the Religion Rights and Liberties of the People Upon all which put together I think we are bound by the old Laws and Oath of Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Successors to pay Allegiance to K. William and Q. Mary and that 't is a breach of those Laws and Oath to deny it them Dyscher But suppose the Violence done to the rejected Prince be in it self essentially unjust and unnatural and contrary to the Moral and Eternal Laws of God and Righteousness can humane Compacts ratifie a wrong and justifie or confirm what is essentially injurious And must even the Priests of the most High God consecrate and confirm such Rapes by Oath and Religious Sponsions Eucher What would you inferr from hence Dyscher Perhaps the deprived Bishops and Clergy considering the Relation Their present Majesties stand in to K. James and the Subjection due from all Natives in this Kingdom as well in as out of Parliament may think this a Breach of the Moral Laws of God and not to be confirmed by their Oath Eucher Then first I answer The Internal Immorality of all Actions must be carefully distinguished from the Civil Consequences of them Now the Iniquity is not to be
Temper with which the Church admits this is Mild and Compassionate and concurrs not without reluctancy and great sorrow and so is not in that respect Schismatical Nor doth the Church judge their Consciences towards God but with great deference and Charity hopes and thinks the best which moderation I wish you could imitate under your present state But this I confess we think your Principles in their Practical Consequences considering the inflamable Tempers of Men as resented by the State to be dangerous not only in respect of Trouble but of Sin even Schism and Sedition both in Church and State by the breaking of the one against the other Which Dangers when the State presses the Church to remove by exauctorating the Patrons of those dangerous Principles and Practices how can the Church that thinks this Demand of the State just and rational and necessary to be yielded to deny the Demand For in cases of danger from Mens Principles the Church hath ever been wont to judge not upon Mens Personal Morals only or chiefly but the Soundness and Tendency of the Persuasions In which whatsoever is contrary to sound Judgment and Unity must be condemned and the Fautors exauctorated how Innocent soever their Personal Morals be For even some Mens Principles may be too rigorously Pious and have no other Fault and yet in such the Church discards the non-returning Patrons of them when they grow up into a Flame The Montanistical Novatian Meletian Donatist and Luciferian Rigours not to mention several others beguiled many Pious Men out of their Order and out of the Church Her Prudence always taking Care to impose no Snare nor Yoke upon Mens Consciences above what the Equity of the Divine Laws requires And sure I am that your Maxims of Loyalty are such as the State of Mankind admits not of and are repugnant to all Civil Composures and therefore dissonant to the Laws of Christianity I will not here digress into Particulars but supposing our Church that conforms thus to judge of your Principles can you think she ought to assert you in publick Conduct of Mens Consciences to the Dissolution of our Peace against the Command of the Sovereign Powers that are the Guardians of it The publick Judgment regards the Tendencies and Consequences of Mens avowed Opinions and promotes permits or inhibits their Course according as it sees them useful tolerable or dangerous in the Publick Weal and particular Persons must be content to be bounded in their Actions and Authorities by these Rules and Measures or else farewell all publick Order and Peace For supposing for once that all Recusant Bishops and Clergy had been freely left to their own several Sences Prayers and Sermons in this present State some would have prayed and preached up K. James others K. William others neither Divers Parishes divers Prayers divers Sovereigns in the same Churches some would oppose and some applaud the Minister with all manner of Tumults and Disorders And even in those Liturgies where no King were named the Prayers would be contrary under one common Equivocation Bishop against Bishop Clergy against Clergy Prayers against Prayers Sermons against Sermons and People against People in the Publick Acts and Duties of Religion And hence must follow a total breach of Sacred Union which would speedily pass into a Civil Sedition So necessary it is to set Rules of Uniformity which those that will not stand to may if not must justly be exauctorated Dyscher Why then it seems you think our Deprivations not only Lawful but Necessary to avoid Schism which we all the while charge upon you Eucher Hold a little I do not give you my own Judgment nor yet simply the Sence of the Church upon the Matter antecedent to and abstracted from the Will of the State But this is the Sence of the Church That since the State to avoid the above mentioned Confusions decrees the Recusants to be deprived She that thinks the Deprivation simply Lawful doth upon Demand of the Civil Powers think it necessary for that the Church must yield to the State all just Security to Publick Peace and Order which cannot be if she assert Men in Authority whose Principles must destroy it Dyscher But what will you think at lowest equal if the State had not exacted Deprivation Eucher That 's no great matter what I think yet between you and me I will draw out my Soul to you First I should have thought it rational that all Recusants should promise upon Oath not to disturb the State by Word or Deed but to abide by the Laws and Administrations of the Government Secondly That they would Censure no Man for Conformity Thirdly That by themselves or others they should execute the Offices of their Function according to the present Laws as most of the suspended Clergy did by their Curates and Bishops before the Day of Suspension by their Deputies And upon voluntary Breach hereof to be deprived by an Ecclesiastical Judgment authorized by Law For Order Peace and Uniformity there must be in all especially Religious Societies and they that will not secure it must be exauctorated and not be permitted a Publick Power or Advantage to promote any kind of Confusion Dyscher Well! But admitting the Recusancy to inferr an Incapacity in the Circumstances and under the Restrictions that press the Church yet they are condemned by an incompetent lay-Lay-Power in a Spiritual and Hierarchical Censure to which if we submit as Right or Regular we then give up all to Erastianism and a Bishop shall be but an Ecclesiastical Justice and a Priest a Church-Constable To prevent which we are to stick to our Principles that the Judicial Power of Civil Authority is of Secular Vertue and Operation only but that the Spiritual Censures are not from the Swords of Princes but Apostolick Descent and Original Eucher What sort of Censure do you hold Deprivation to be Dyscher As to the Essentials of it consisting in a Divorce and Excission of the Priests Relation Care and Offices to the Souls of the People 't is purely a Spiritual Censure inherent only in Ecclesiastical Judicatories Eucher But you cannot forget that the Church is incorporated into the State from which it derives all its Temporalities which are so intwisted with the Spiritual Functions by Mutual Constitution and Concord of Church and State that they cannot be separated Now hereupon the State may judge in such Matters which appertain to it in the Church having never quitted that Power to the Church only Dyscher 'T is true the Church Offices are thus concorporated with several Secular External Concomitants but the Accessory is to follow not to lead the Principal and 't is a bad Incorporation wherein the Body must Enslave and not be Subordinate to the Soul I hope the Church in this Accord did not act prophanely like Esau sell her Birth-right for a Dish of Portage her Spirituals to a Foreign Power for a few Secular Trifles Rather therefore let the State resume
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
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
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
doctrinal Point of Theology which the State determines against the Right of the Church herein but only a mere question in Civils who is my Sovereign to whom my Allegiance is by Law due Which is a Debate not for a Synod but a Parliament and to whose Judgment in pure Civils all Subjects must submit and the Church as such hath nothing to do in the Decision And Dr. Hammond whom I suppose Men of your Principles will not Censure for Schism or Disloyalty * Tract of Schism c. â— justifies Q. Elizabeth's Deprivations for that Recusancy immediately On the Right and Power of the Supreme Magistrate to make Laws for the securing his Government and to inflict the Punishments prescribed by those Laws on the Disobedient And for this true Right he thinks all Government is concerned And concludes there was no Injustice in that Act of the Queen's which divested prove their Fidelity to their Lawful Sovereign Dyscher The Doctor indeed thus states it but he sticks to the Lawful Sovereign Eucher Are you obliged to enquire into the Sovereign's Lawful Title Dyscher Yes surely in order to just Allegiance Eucher What as a Christian or a Subject Dyscher Primarily as a Subject but secondly also as a Christian in a state of Subjection the Duties of which the Rules of Christianity require me to perform Eucher Very well For here your Christianity refers your Obedience to the Secular Laws and Constitutions and gives no Laws or Rules in Civils it self And in truth the Church as such is a Stranger and the State its Hospital while she is travelling from hence to her Heavenly abodes Now every Stranger hospitably received is obliged to all the Laws of Hospitably on his part that is Fidelity and Unconcernednesss in the Oeconomick's and Interests of the Hospital and all reasonable Defence against Violences offered to the Master or His Family c. and is not obliged to take notice of Titles and Competitions So the Church as such if Hospitably received by the State is quitted as a Stranger from Curiosities about the Civil Titles But as Christians are Natives or Denisons and so Subjects they are to the determined by the Civil Laws and Judicatories and Constitutions else there must be eternal Seditions since 't is not possible in Fact or Law that every single Person can have Cognisance or Unanimity And here I will ask you one question relating to us as a Church Whether he that hath unjustly gotten into a full Settlement upon another Prince's Dominions ought to Succour the Church in those Dominions Dyscher He ought to quit them Eucher This may be in most Cases tho' not perhaps Universally true But if he doth not is he obliged to Succour the Church during his Government Dyscher He should as it seems for I know not how to say the contrary Eucher What! Tho' the Church refuses Subjection and professeth Hostility to him Dyscher I am not so hardy to affirm this Eucher The result then is That if the Imperial Powers be bound to Cherish the Church the Church must be obliged to Secure them of her Fidelity And if particular Members refuse they are Enemies to the Church as well as to the State And therefore their Deprivation in the Church the more Rational and perhaps as to the actual Administration of the Functions absolutely necessary Dyscher Are you at that again Eucher I pray attend and give Righteous Judgment The Subjects of England owe Allegiance somewhere either to K. James or K. William this is certain They then that refuse Allegiance to K. William reserve it to K. James by which at his Command they are to engage in an actual War against all Conformists as Traytors and Rebels and this People are to be Taught to do upon pain of Damnation The Church in the mean time hath admitted K. William and given him Allegiance against all Hostilities I am not here concerned whether side is in the right Allegiance but shall only observe That no Priests can well Execute their Ecclesiastical Functions to a People whom at another Man's Pleasure they are bound to Destroy to the effecting actually whereof there wants nothing but opportunity I do not say That these unfortunate good Bishops and Clergy would concurr to or promote such Butcheries but am firmly persuaded that a Nature better than their Politicks would govern their Practices But then it is certain that Nature it self must condemn their Principles and their very Bowels render them disobedient to their own Laws and Civil Maxims which if pursued must expose this Nation to an utter Destruction at K. James's Pleasure 'T is necessary therefore that Ecclesiastical Union comport with the Civil in order to a Just and Mutual Peace Dyscher Was there no way to have healed this Rupture before it grew so wide Eucher I cannot tell that but the time assigned by the Law and the King 's long forbearance to fill the Sees after the day of Deprivation argues a willingness in the State to give Men time to consider and to allay their Prejudices and use means to come under the Publick Shelter of which the Restitution and Preferment of Dr. Sherlock is a clear Instance But the Recusants seem against all Intreaties wanting to themselves and an happy Coalition They have made no offers no applications but receeded further from Sacred and Civil Communion than at first they did which neglect must look like a contempt at least if not an hatred of the Constitution Nay I know a Diocess where the Bishop utterly suppressed a Petition signed by his Clergy and ready to be presented to Their Majesties for the Restitution of the Metropolitan the Bishop and the Suspended Clergy of that Diocess And I have it from a good Hand that a Motion for such a Petition was stifled in the Lower House of Convocation upon a Report made of my Lord Archbishop Sancroft's Request to the contrary The Reasons of this Aversness did no doubt unto them seem Pious and Rational nor do I condemn them But how far this Dischargeth the Clergy in their admission of new Bishops besides the Causes Original God must judge and these Fathers have reason tenderly to consider who would use or admit no Means of continuing with us but have left us in great Distresses for the loss of them whom we so much love and for the Prejudices and Scandals that arise upon this unhappy Occasion Dyscher The state of things is very Deplorable May the Grace of God lead us into all Truth Wisdom Meekness Gentleness Charity and an Universal Conformity to his Holy Will in all our Actions and Sufferings That no Evil Root of Bitterness Consoriousness or Schism may sowre or corrupt our Spirits but that the Love of God may guide us in the midst of all Temptations that at length in this divided People Mercy and Truth may meet together and Righteousness and Peace may kiss each other Eucher And let all the People say Amen Amen FINIS