Heroical ardor of that Age by the cold and degenerous Notions of his own our most learned Bishop Pearson has proved his Actions far from beīng singular by many more very express Testimonies of those most glorious times of our Christian Religion Nor are the Canons against the provoking Persecutors which the Doctor takes notice of near so old as these great examples of desiring and meeting Persecution nor indeed till the abatement of the first zeal appeared in the scandalous lapses of warm pretenders None such were made whilst they were true to their profession so that the consenting Practice of the best times was far from the Doctors mind in reckoning Persecution among the greatest Evils that can possibly befal the Church They did not take it for an evil but rather for a favour and a benefit And though it were allowed to be an evil yet the utmost that can be made of it is that it is an evil only of Calamity the greatest of which kind Conscientious Casuists have never thought comparable with the least evil of Sin I might add also that Scandal also as it is a cause of Sin is a greater Evil than Persecution Our Saviour himself pronounces wo to him by whom the Scandel cometh and the Fire of Hell which never shall he quenched And these are Evils which the Doctor himself must own to be worse than that of Persecution The Doctor therefore must not insist on the Persecution avoided by this complyance with the Intruders till he has cleared the condition of avoiding it from not only Sin but Scandal also If he thinks deposing all Bishops in general to be in earnest a just cause for him to shew his fortitude let him bethink himself how the matter is now in Scotland It were easie by just consequences from the Grounds and Principles of Ecclesiastical Commerce to shew how that Case would concern him in England if it were convenient If Christ were equally to be enjoyed in the Communion of the true Bishops and their Schismatical Rivals we should be as willing as he to keep off the Evil day as long as we could Flesh and Blood would easily perswade us to it if it were safe But he knows very well that the Catholick Church in the purest Ages never believed our mordern Latitudinarian Fancies that Schismaticks have any Union with Christ whilst they are divided from his Mystical Body the Church If this were true or if he thought it himself true I do not understand how he could reckon Schism among the greatest Evils that can befal the Church if even Schismaticks may enjoy Christ though they be in open Hostility with his Authorized Representative §. XVIII The Evil of Schism not avoided but incurred by complying with the Usurpers As for the Case of Schism which he pretends to be avoided by them by their compliance with the Usurpers this Evil is so far from being avoided as that it has been occasioned by it The Doctor cannot deny but that their communicating with the Intruders has occasioned a notorious breach of Communion which on one side or the other must needs be Schismatical All therefore that he can pretend is that they by complying are not chargable with the crime of the Schism that has been occasion'd by it How so it is because if we had also done as they have done there had been no Schism Very true But it had been full as true if they had done as we have done This pretence therefore leaves the Criminalness of the breach as uncertain as before and necessarily puts them for tryal of that on the merit of the Cause And if that be enquired into all the Presumptions as well as the particular Proofs are in favour of us and against them We were plainly one before this breach As therefore the branch it self is new so the guilt of it must be resolved into the Innovations that occasion'd it which will by unavoidable consequence make them chargeable with the breach who were guilty of the Innovations The Innovations that have caused the breach are the disowning our old Bishops and substituting others in their Places whilst themselves are living and continue their Claim and are not deprived by any Authority that had really a Power to deprive them But in these instances they not we have been the Aggressors and Innovators Do we own the Old Bishops for the true Bishops of these Sees of which they have pretended to deprive them And did not they do so too as well as we before the Deprivation And what had they to pretend for themselves why they do not so still Besides this very Sentence of Deprivation which the Doctor owns to be invalid And how can they justify their disowning them upon a Sentence confessedly invalid This new behaviour of theirs they must wholly own as it is new to be their own We only continue to own our Holy Fathers as Dr. Hody himself and his Brethren did formerly As for the Second Act the setting up new Bishops in opposition to our Fathers they cannot excuse themselves from being the Innovators and concerning us they cannot pretend it They have made the new Bishops who consecrated them and they also who own them by communicating with them or their Consecrators These have intirely been the Acts of the Ecclesiasticks Yet without these all that the Lay-Power could have done could never have formed a Schism nor divided our Communion And as to what has been done on both sides we can better excuse our selves than they can Could they and we have consented to have acted Uniformly there could have been no Schism But we can better account for our not complying with them than they can for not complying with us On their side they have nothing to plead but worldly Considerations They could not doubt of the Lawfulness with regard to conscience of doing that on their side which if done had prevented the Schism They can pretend no obligation in Conscience for setting up other Bishops as we can for not owning them till they can prove us fairly discharged in Conscience which they as well as we were obliged in in regard of the old true Proprietors They could pretend no cementing Principles essential to the subsistence of the Church as a Society and a Communion independent on the State obliging them to comply with these encroachments of the Politicions for making Spiritual considerations to give way to Temporals They could pretend no Catholick Authority of the Church in any Age approving what was done by them as we can of the best and purest Ages for what has been done by Us. They could not pretend any such united Authority of even the Church of England before this change for many things wherein we differ now as we can So far thay have been from avoiding Schism by these compliances or from purging themselves from the guilt of the Schism which has followed thereupon § XXI The abuses that may follow on Compliance are a just reason
to the Communion with Foreign Churches nor receive them to her own Communion if recommended by them This cannot be done by single Bishops because in these things at least they are to proceed by a common Rule and Unanimously not as in other things only by a Majority of Suffrages because no differences of Faith can be born with in the same Communion as differences of Opinion may be in other things of lesser importance This will require frequent Synods such as they had farmerly before the State was Christian twice a Year in course besides what greater Synods might be thought necessary on extraordinary emergent Cases But these cannot be had if they must depend on the Pleasure of the Local Magistrates General Synods cannot be had on these terms without a General Peace and freedom from Jealousies in all the Worldly state or till all the Dioceses in the World should come under the power of one Secular Magistracy Nor were there any Synods of that kind before the Conversion of the Empire of the Christian Religion However the Church was even then possessed of a Right of meeting in Provincial Synods for her own Affairs without asking the Magistrates leave pursuant to the general Right given her by GOD for propagating her Religion And even those Provincial Synods had such a correspondence as was absolutely requisite for settling Unanimity and a good Under standing between them But since they have depended on the Pleasure of Local Magistrates not only this correspondence but also the Subordinate Provincial and National Synods have been discontinued Nor can this Catholick Correspondence which is notwithstanding so necessary for all even Diocesane Discipline be retrieved without the consent of so many Local Magistrates as have Churches in their Dominions if the Churches must be concluded by these pretended Contracts But certainly Christ could never intend that a thing so universally necessary for that Discipline which is to be continued in all Ages of the Church should depend on a consent of so many different Minds and Interests as are veryrarely to be expected in any Age. I see not therefore why it should be expected that Christ should ratify such Compacts against his own Designs § LXVIII The Surrendry of the Clergy in Henry the VIIIth ' s time cannot oblige their Posterits now Thus it appears that no Contract has been made generally and that none can be made validly for Alienating the Church's Right of which she was possessed before the Conversion of Princes Thence may be judged how little obliging those Act of the Clergy in the Sacrilegious Reign of Henry the VIIIth were for obliging themselves and their Posterity never to meet for Affairs concerning their Spiritual Function without the Prince's leave Had that Right been a Property of their own conferred on them by a Humane Conveyance for the private benefit of their Function they might indeed have pretended a Right to oblige Posterity by those Acts of Resignation But considering it as a Right not conferred but entrusted by GOD himself for greater ends than their own private Interests thy can pretend no Right to hinder Posterity from resuming the Priviledges then surrendred whenever they shall judge them necessary for those great ends for which their Function was entrusted with them Especially what the Magistrate either has or can do in consideration of that surrendry falling infinitely short of being an Equivalent Besides it is manifest that the Surrendry then made was perfectly forced on them as well as the Fine was laid upon the whole Body of the Clergy ' on account of the Praemunire they had incurred for owning Cardinal WOLSEY's Legatine Power It has therefore on that account also that consideration of the Force by which it was extorted for discharging Posterity from its obligation which added to the Considerations now mentioned will free it every way from the Obligation of the Contract All that can be said for it must be grounded on some antecedent Right that the Prince might pretend before his Force and therefore it must not wholly be resolved into this extorted Surrendry For if the Prince had no Right before his Force he could have none afterwards on account of Conscience whatever he might pretend by Human Secular Laws For his Force without any antecedent Right had been no other but downright Injustice which could not entitle him nor his Successors to any Right in Conscience Especially where the Right it self is of that nature as it is here that it belongs to a higher than Human Secular Judicatory It therefore concerns our Advesaries to consider what they can pretend for that Right antecedent to that Force And I think what has already been proved sufficient to cut them off from all Pretensions of Right by the Constitutions of the Gospel For I have shewed that the Church was possessed of a Right to govern her self independently in visible Districts and Jurisdictions before any Conversions of Princes I have shewn withal that no Contract either was made or could be made that could dispossess her of that Right with regard to Conscience If therefore they will pretend to any such Right antecedent to the forcible surrendry it must be on some other Topick than that of the Constitution of the Gospel The tell us therefore that the Jewish Kings in the old Testament ordered many things relating to Religion Thence they infer that our Princes have the same Power now But granting the Fact true that the Jewish Princes were invested with that Power it will however by no means follow that our Christian Princes must be so now If what I have already proved hold true For having directly proved that the Constitution of the Gospel is otherwise the Question then will be whether Precedents are to take place And that in this Case cannot be difficult according to the ordinary Rules of judging concerning the Practice of inconsistent Laws These Rules are That Laws of greater importance take place of Laws of lesser importance That later Laws of even the same Legislative Power take place of elder Laws as being so far virtually repeals of them as their Practice proves inconsistent That Laws more suited to present Circumstances take place of those which were made on a remoter prospect of our present Circumstances And by all these Rules there can be no doubt but that now all such Legal Precedents are to be overruled by the peculiar Constitutions of the Gospel This I am sure is generally admitted in other Reasonings of this kind And there is nothing peculiar pleaded in this Case why Jewish precedents should rather overrule here than in other Instances Much less is there any reason why they should take place at a distance upon the first Conversions of Princes when it is so manifest that they did not do so at the first Settlement of the Christian Churches However as to this particular of Deprivation I have already given my reasons against the Magistrates Right even in the times of the Jews and have answer'd
Bishop in opposition to the publick intention of the Church It is an invidious Interpretation and a very false one which he gives of the Oath when he makes it in effect the same as if they should swear That they will for the Bishop's sake oppose the welfare of the Publick and break the Union of the Church and leave the Communion of it and adhere to the Bishop though they should have no reason to do so besides this bare Oath No need of this The welfare of the Publick and the Union of the Church require that in affairs of Publick Spiritual Interest the judgment of the Subject ought to be concluded by the judgment of the Bishop at least to the practice which perfectly overthrows the Doctor 's Interpretation and makes it impossible that those considerations should ever really interfere which the Doctor makes so opposite And St. Cyprian's definition of a Church that it is a flock united with the Bishop makes it impossible that the true Church's Communion can ever be left in adhering to the Bishop But this perhaps the Doctor will call a Saying of St. Cyprian and a sort of Theological Pedantry as he is used to stile other the like Doctrines and Principales of the Cyprianick and purest Ages when they are urged to oblige him to any thing that may give him occasion to shew what he calls his fortitude What he pretends with his usual confidence without the least offer of proof that particularly here in the Church of England the Oath of Canonical Obe dience is always taken with this supposition That the Civil Power as well as the Ecclesiastical do allow the Bishop to govern we shall then believe when he shall be pleased to prove it by some stronger Topick than his own Authority The Oath it self has no such matter expressed in it And he should have pitched on some expression in it if there had been any which in his opinion might seem to imply it Our Civil Laws require that our Ecclesiastical Causes should be determined by Ecclesiastical Judges which if they had been observed had left no room for the Case of Lay deprivations § XI Our Principles afford better Reasons why the unjust deprivations of Synods may be received without the deprivea Bishops consent than those insisted on by the Doctor That a Synodical deprivation though unjust discharges the Subjects from the Obligation of the Oath of Cononical Obedience is usually admitted But not for that reason which the Doctor has given for it The division which might otherwise follow in the Church and the publick disturbance which might follow thereupon if they were not so discharged are equally applicable to the opposite Pretenders and could afford the Subjects no directions with whether of them they ought to joyn The true reason ought to decide the Title and therefore ought to be such as one only of the Rivals can pretend to That is that the Synod however unjust in its way of proceeding is notwithstanding to be allowed as a conpetent Judge and therefore that on that account its Sentences ought to hold in Practice till repealed by a higher Authority of the same kind that is by a greater Synod But an incompetent Jude leaves things in the same condition in which it found them and ought not in Conscience or Equity to have an effect at all Nor can it therefore impose on the Consciences of the Subjects any the least Obligation even to acquiescence Nor does it follow that because the Bishop's conscent may not be necessary to oblige him to stand to the unjust Sentence that therefore the reason of his obligation to acquiescences is not grounded on Episcopal consent The consent of his Predecessors on the valuable consideration of having the conveniences of Synodical debates may conclude him while he enjoys the same valuable considerations And the consent of his Collegues may oblige him also who have the Right of judging with whom they will observe the Commerce of their Communicatory Letters Their agreement in denying him their Communicatory Letters is in effect a Deprivation when what he does is not ratified in the Catholick Church This will go far to hinder his Cummunion from being Catholick which may go far also towards the absolving his Subjects from Duty to him if by joyning with any other they may have the benefit of Catholick Communion But this following the judgment of Episcopal Predecessors or of the Episcopal Colledge will by no means allow the Subject that Liberty which the Doctor disputes for of deserting their Bishops on their own private Judgments concerning the publick good It will not follow that that Necessity must excuse them which has no other consideration on which it may be grounded desides that of an irresistible force § XII There is greâ—â— disparity between the Obligations of a competent and an incompetent Authority But the Doctor it seems can see no difference as to Acquiescence in a Case of Necessity between what is done by a competent and what by an incompetent Authority It is strange that a Person so able to judge in other Cases where Interest permits him to judge impertially should not see it The obvious difference now mentioned is that the Deprivation by an incompetent Authority leaves Subjects under obligation to Duty from which they are discharged when the Authority though acting unjustly is notwithstanding competent Thence it plainly follows that where the obligation to Duty is taken away there compliance is not sinful And where it is not sinful it may be born with in the Case of that Necessity which is the result of an irresistible Force But where the Obligation to Duty remains and the compliance is therefore sinful I know no tolerable Casuisty that allows it upon such Necessity The Doctor himself as we have seen already excepts it in his own stating of the Case Tenants do not usually hold their Tenures by Oaths But where they do I am sure all creditable Antiquity thought them under stricter Obligations to performance than it seems the Doctor does The Peace and Tranquillity of the Publick are no doubt useful considerations for understanding the sense of Oaths in which they oblige to performance But the Doctor might have been pleased to consider that here are two publick oftentimes incompareble Interests concerned in the Obligation of Oaths There is the publick Interest of those to whom as well as of those by whom the Faith is given And all fair and equal dealing Casuists prefer the former before the later in Oaths given for the Security of others How than can the Doctor make the good of Sworn Tenants in general to put restrictions on Oaths given for the Security not of the Sworn Tenants but of the liege Lords in general for whose Security the Obligations are undertaken He ought to prove that a Conqueror can daprive a Bishop of his Spiritual Power if he be pleased to reason upon it That the Church of Jerusalem supplyed the place of Narcissus
a Majority in our Legislative Assemblies I say no more at present for making Application how probable it is for such Principles to gain acceptance with the majority I should be as willing as any to presume better things if I could see reason to believe them But our best security is certainly to assert Principles that my not put it in the power of any to ruin our Spiritual Society and to be true to them He adds There is nothing more manifest than that this Inconvenience is not so likely to happen as those Evils we endeavour to avoid Why so These he says are certain and present That only possible If they be certain and present how can they pretend that by their compliance they have avoided them If they have not avoided them by complying how can they pretend that the benefits of their compliance can have made amends for all the further Injuries they may expose the Church to for the future by suffering such ill practices to pass into Precedents for want of a timely opposition Methinks he should have made the avoidal of the feared evils certain and present not the Evils themselves if he would have spoken consequently to the exigence of his Case But it is too true that the Evils themselves are present and that their Compliance has not avoided them The Schism is so notoriously And so is the Persecution also to all that will be true to their old Principles and to their old Communion For what favour has been shewn on condition of deserting old Principles can by no fair Interpretation be extended to that Church whose Principles they were So far as they hold firm to their old Principles they are still liable to the Persecution and so far as they desert them so far they also cease to be of the Church whose Principles they have deserted Few Persecutions have been so severe but that they might have been avoided by desertion But the further Inconvenience likely to follw on this compliance is more than possible It is as probable as most events are that depend on Humane Wills It is a natural Consequence and a Consequence likely to be drawn by Persons so Principled and there are but too many that are so and too tempting occasions to put them in mind of and to engage them on such Inferences § XXI That abuse it a greater mischief than that it can be made a mends for by the Doctors Expedients Yet 3ly should this Inconveniences follow the Doctor thinks himself provided against it Though the Government should be so very dissolute as to turn out frequently the Bishops of the Church without any just Cause yet who says he can look upon that mischief to be comparable to that of a Schism and a Persecution If he could find in his heart to be as much concerned for a more noble Society when it can intitle him to nothing but sufferings as he is for a less noble one that can give him revenues I cannot think he could be so indifferent for bearing frequent Injuries by invalid Deprivations of its Governours which cannot discharge Subjects from their Duty in Conscience to those which are so deprived He would be sensible how this would tend to the dissolving such a Socièty that must have its Governours removable at the pleasure of a hostile Society whensoever but pleased to invade Rights not belonging to it without any remedy or relief by insisting on their own Rights which the Doctors Principles make unpracticable And what Schisms or Persecutions can be worse to a Society than dissolution He would be sensible there is now a Schism and a Persecution That our late common Body is now divided that his late Brethren upon Principles of Conscience are now Persecuted if he could not otherwise believe he would feel if he had the compassion of a living Member If he had the Zeal of the Apostle when he used that passionate Expression Who is offended and I burn not If he had any sense of the afflictions of Joseph He would be sensible of the many future Schisms that must follow upon the frequency of these Encroachments upon his own loose Principles that neither allow Bishops to assert their own just Rights nor oblige Subjects to stand by them when they do so as long as there shall be any Bishops that shall think themselves obliged to assert them and Subjects that think their doing so will not discharge themselves from Duty to them that is as long as there are any that are true to the concenting Principles of the Church as it is a Society and a Communion He would be sensible that upon such Brethren as these such frequent encroachments would draw frequent Persecutions So far his Principles and Practices are from securing our common Body from Schisms and Persecutions But it seems he has forgot all concern for his old Brethren upon the surest most uniting Principles of Brotherhood nay for our common Body and of the terms upon which it was common to us formerly If he had not he would not think our Common Body so unconcern'd in our Divisions and our Persecutions But what says the Doctor can the suffering of a few particular men be when compared with the Peace and Tranquillity of the whole Church besides Not so much undoubtedly if the few had been Men of singular Opinions of no consequence for the good of the whole if they had not been such as all ought to have been if they would cement into a Body by any solid uniting Principles The suffering of such how few soever would have involved the whole Church if all its Members had been such as they should have been It is therefore the unhappiness of a Church that such Members are but few So far it is from being a Consideration to be boasted of that the Majority avoids sufferings by doing otherwise than becomes them If the Doctors regard to Multitude alone had been true then whenever there was an Apostaoy the Church would be by so much the more happy by how much the more had been engaged in the Apostacy These Multitudes would call themselves the Church as confidently as the Doctor and his Party do now and would as little regard the sufferings of a few particular Men as our late Brethren do I am sure the antient Catholicks did not so little regard the sufferings of a few particular Men in a common Cause In the Eastern Empire there were very few that incurred the displeasure of Constantius besides Athanasius and Paulus In the West no more than five Bishops are reckoned that suffered for their constancy The rest might have pretended generally to as much Peace and Tranquillity as our Adversaries do now Yet he was not than taken for a true Catholick who was as unconcerned as the Doctor is for the few particular Men that suffered Nor do I see but that the Cause of Episcopal Authority and Ecclesiastical Subjection is of as great and common importance to the Church in general
a tedious and unconclusive Issue The Doctor 's Talent lies in History and therefore he is willing to bring this Question also to an Argument that may give him an occasion to shew his skill in History Had not this been his Case why could he not be prevailed on to say something to the reason of the thing Especially having in the Title of his Book promised a stating of the Question But where he pretends to have performed his Promise I cannot guess I can find nothing in his Book but what concerns bare matter of Fact Had he offered at any stating of the Question why would be not at least take notice of the distinction of Facts observed by the Vindicator of the Facts excepted against and the Facts allowed by him for Argumentative Had he not allowed the Distinction at least he ought not to have produced more Facts of the Exceptionable kind till he had either answer'd the Vindicator's Exceptions against them or at least produced stronger Arguments of his own to prove his own Facts also Argumentative If he did not think fit either to Answer the Vindicator's Reasons or to produce his own why did he not confine himself to the Practice of the first Ages proceding on Pinciples than received by the whole Catholick Church and Fundamental to all the Discipline then practised Had he done so the Vindicator professing himself ready to joyn issue with him on those Terms had been indeed obliged to Answer him But how can he expect an Answer when the Vindicator's Exceptions against the whold kind of Facts he deals in remain I do not say unanswer'd only but not so much as attempted by him § XXVII We have no reason to suffer our selves to be overruled by him in these Arts of diverting Us. What himself designed in so unreasonable ways of proceeding I will not pretend my self so privy to his thoughts as to be able to determine But it is easie to observe the interest of his Cause in it It shews indeed a greater variety of his Reading than if he had confined himself to the Precedents of more decisive times But withal it obliges Us if we follow him in all his Instances to write larger Books than we can ever hope to get printed in the Difficulties of the Press on our side We cannot hope to satisfy him by answering some of his Instances if we do not all And why must we be obliged to follow a way of his prescribing which we cannot hope to go through when we can reduce the whole Dispute to narrower and yet more conclusive bounds He gives us small encouragement to gratify him in this Case when he tells us that he will not be concluded by what we can say upon it though we should prove the Practice of these later Ages from which he will not be restrained otherwise than he pretends it was And why must we take so much pains to no purpose Why should he desiâ—e it of us it his design had been to satisfy Conscience either his own or ours § XXVIII We decline his Topick of Facts rather because it is undecisive than because we think it disadvantageous to Us. Considering the difficulties of our Case how hard it is even to get small Discourses printed it concerns Us to endeavor all prudent Arts of contracting the Question into as narrow a compass as we can and by no means to suffer our selves to be distracted to impertinent Arguments till what we have to say on pertinent ones be first satisfied This will be sufficient perhaps more than so to fill up what can be allowed whilst the Intruders have the power of the Press We shall not envy the Doctor the pleasure of seeing his Challenges and Gantlets refus'd if he will not be pleas'd to confine them to more useful Subjects He has already seen a Specimen of what might have been answer'd to all the Facts he has or can produce in what the Vindicator has said to the Facts insisted on in his Baroccian M. S. The Ages he deals in were very degenerous from the Piety and Skill of their Primitive Ancestors to whose Judgments we appeal Yet I do not think any of them so far debased as that they either did or would have insisted on the Doctor 's Plea that Lay Deprivations were sufficient to discharge them from their Duty to their Spiritual Superiors He that is so forward to make Challenges would do well to shew us one single Instance wherein this Doctrine was directly defended I do not say by the Ecclesiasticks only whom I take for the most competent Judges of Ecclesiastical Doctrines but even by the Parasites of the Lay Power For my part I remember not one single one The Emperors themselves who acted so precipitantly as to deprive without Synods did however after use their uttermost endeavours to get a Synodical ratification of what they had done before by violence and indirect artifices So far even they were sensible how little what they did of that kind would be regarded in relation to Conscience This is sufficient to let the Doctor see that our declining this Topick is not for want of sufficient advantage against him in it if the Press had been as free for Us as it is for him but because it is impertinent and unsatisfactory § XXIX For want of some other Subject relating to the Vindication we here pitch on the Case of Abiathar This I thought sufficient to shew how little the Vindicator is obliged to return any Reply to the Doctor 's pretended Answer till the Doctor can be prevailed on to try his skill on the former and principal part of the Vindication But this is so particular to the Doctor 's Personal management of the Cause that I could not think this alone worthy the Reader 's trouble in perusal of it without some other Subject of more importance to the Cause it self This therefore made me think of selecting something of the Doctor 's Book which though it cannot be taken for an Answer to the Vindication which had said nothing concerning it yet might give an occasion for clearing a particular Prejudice against us insisted on by many more besides him abstracting from the Principal Topick of his Book concerning Facts in general Of his kind I take the Case to be of Solomon's deposing Abiathar which may even on the Doctor 's account deserve a more particular consideration because he seems to have taken the greatest pains in amassing the several Hypotheses relating to it of any one particular in his Book Here they find a High Priest removed from his Office by Solomon and another that is Zadoc put in his room yet without the least scruple concerning the Validity and Acceptableness of Zadok's Ministry with relation to God and Conscience This they think exactly parallel to our present Case § XXX This Fact is not commended in the Scripture as a Precedent But Fist This Fact is barely related in the Scripture without any Censure
founded it in a State of independency on the Civil Magistrate Bodies as then understood by the Ecclesiasticks being determined and distinguished by such Districts The allowing therefore the Heathen Persecuting Magistrates a Power of dissolving the relation of all the Bishops of their Dominions to particular Districts had parfectly dissolved all particular Churches as Bodies when the Magistrate was pleased to dissolve them and therefore cannot be agreeable to the design of CHRIST and his Apostles who intended to perpetuate Churches as Bodies independent on the state And it is certain that this Power of discharging Ecclesiastcal Governours from the Districts in their own Dominions was not own'd in the Civil Powers by the Apostles and earliest Christians Had it been so the Apostles themselves must have quitted Jerusalem when they were forbidden by the Sanbedrim and sought out other Converts and Districts wherein they might exercise their Function and Character But where could they seek or find them but the same Objection would still recur from this Right of the Civil Magistrate There must therefore have been no Churches in the World if this Doctrine had been allowed of But it is certain that the Apostles did still challenge and exercise their Jurisdiction in Jerusalem and were own'd and seconded in doing so by the Christians Inhabitants of that City against all the Persecutions of the Magistrate and were all of them own'd by GOD by the Credentials that followed them which could never have been if these their Practices had been Usurpations And all the Right that Bishops then had for obliging the whole Catholick Church was grounded on the commerce of Communicatory Letters and the Common interest of all to ratify the Acts of particular Districts Thence it appears that all exercise of Epicopacy as Catholick was grounded on the Right each Bishop had to a particular District So vain are our Adversaries pretences for making our Bishops Bishops of the Catholick Church though deprived of Districts in order to the exercising any Episcopal Act for preserving the Face of a Body under a Persecution § LVI Supposing the Church and Christian State had made one Body yet more had been requisite to make that Supposition applicable to our present Case which is not yet taken notice of But the Principle pretence of all that our Adversaries insist on is That in those earlier times the Church was indeed a Society distinct from the State and whilst it continued so the deprivations of the State could therefore not extend to Spirituals which were the constituts of the Church as a Society distinct from it But that there is no necessary consequence because it was so then that therefore it most be so now That the Reasoning from the Sense and Practice of those Times does indeed hold where the Case is the same as it was then That is where the State consists of Infidels but not in ours wherein the State professes the Christian Religion This is suggested by the worthy Author of the Defence of the Church of England as he calls it from the Charges of the Vindicator And he has therein managed the Reasoning Part of this Dispute better than the Doctor in that he has pitched on the particular Proposition which he thinks needs further proof in the Scheme of the Vindicator seeming withal to allow that if this also be cleared the rest of the Vidicators Proof will hold as being firmly superstructed on it This therefore brings the Question to a short issue and affords a further Subject of useful Discourse for improving what has been said already and I therefore return my hearty thanks to that Author for it only wishing that he had allowed himself a larger Scope for making that out which if proved would have been so very considerable for his purpose Supposing he had proved his Assertion true yet other things remain'd to have been proved further for making it applicable to our present Case Something more had certainly been requisite for his purpose than barely to suppose the Magistrate barely Christian. He might easily have foreseen that even among Christians there are different communions on account of HERISY and SCHISM If the Magistrate therefore be guilty of either of those he is as uncapable of Uniting with the Church in one Cmmunion as if he were an IDOLATOR And I suppose all the ground that worthy Person has for making a believing Prince's Case different from that of an Infidel in order to the Church's coalition into one Body with the Society that is governed by the believing Prince must be the Church's Union in Communion with him which it cannot have with an Infidel For that Political Union which is requisite for Secular Government as far as it is consistent with difference in Communion as to Spirituals the Orthodox are as capable of maintaining with INFIDEL Princes as they are with either HERITICKS or SCHISMATICKS And for applying that Case he might have considered further how far Communicating with Schismaticks in other places and setting up Schism where he found the true Communion established by Law and allowing no Patronage of Law without Schismatical conditions may go to prove a Prince's Case SCHISMATICAL Then supposing the Church and State united into one Society he should have enquired further why this Union must rather be under the Secular than the spiritual common Monarch This I am sure is against the General Rule of Subordinations to make the more Noble Power Subject to that which is less so and therefore ought to have been proved by reasens peculier to this particular coalition of two Societies into one Such peculiar Reasons I doubt are more then ever we can expect from him But supposing both these difficulties surmounted that the Church had a Prince of one Communion with her and that the two Societies now united were to be Governed rather by the PRINCE than the METROPOLITANE Yet still another Question remained worthy his Consideration how long this Union was to hold If irrevocably then the Church would be left destitute of a Power necessary for her subsitence whenever the Prince should Apostatize to Infidelity or an Infidel should succeed him by the Rules established for the Succession If therefore the Church's Power be granted revocable the Enquiry then would be whether the Grant can in reason be supposed to hold any longer than the Prince's Protectoon of her If so then whether when he revokes his Protection granted on Conscionable terms and Persecutes his Fellow Brethren for no other reason but for being true to the Principles of the old communion this be not the very Season wherein they are in Conscience absolved from their old Grants and are perfectly free to resume their old Spiritual Liberties I know our Adversary will understand me without any further application § LVII The Prince 〈◊〉 account of his being only a Christian has no Title to any Spiritual Authority These things I say had been requisite to make his Doctrine Practicable if it had been proved and proved as
Primitive in these late flourishing Dominions Thus it is every way certain that the Church does more contribute to the security of the State than that secular Protection which is all the State can contribute does to the security of the Church The Church can subsist by her own Principles if she will be true to them without the support of external Power The State cannot subsist without Force nor secure her Possession of a coercive Power without the support of Religion Thus even in point of necessity the Church is more necessary to the State than the State is to the Church § LX. The Benefits received by the State from the Church are also greater than those which the Church receives from the State Nor only so But the Obligations on the Church's side are greater and more beneficial to the seculars than those of the seculars can be to the Ecclesiasticks And this is withal a great consideration in judging concerning the Measures of Gratitude and the extent of what is to be done in order to a compensation The greatness of the benefit on one side is the principal thing that requires additional Offices on the other side to make an equality on both sides which is that which we call a Compensation Indeed the necessity of it is no otherwise a Consideration in this matter than as the need we have of a thing adds to the Price expected for it in ordinary Commerce But the Benefits of Religion are without compare beyond all that can be pretended from the power of the State Consider we the Supream Magistrate in his own Person and all that he enjoys as a Prince is not to be mentioned with what he may expect as a Member of the true Cammunion and a Professor of the true Religion Our Saviour himself has told us that his gaining the whole World is no purchase nor profit if he lose his own Soul for it and that nothing can make amends for such a Loss The Magistrate who believes his Christian Religion true cannot avoid believing this And how can he that does so think the Church in his arrear for his favour and protection This is and in reason ought to be of more censequence to him than his Crown and Scepter which are a very small part of the purchase mentioned by our Lord nay than the flourishing of the whole Community for which he is concern'd But we may consider him further as a publick Person inspired with a publick Spirit and with all that Zeal for the good of his Community which becomes his noble publick station Consider him as devested from all private though greater interests in his Acts relating to the publick yet even so he must believe the whole Society for which he is concerned more obliged by being admitted into the true Church than that any thing that he can do by the power and interest of his whole Society can ever recompence it So far he is from any hopes of supererogating and obliging the Ecclesiasticks more than they deserve though all the favour done were no more than their admitting his whole Society into the true Communion The saving of one Soul is in our Saviour's now mentioned Doctrine a greater benefit than what can be performed by the greatest Worldly Power But the receiving his whole Community into their priviledged Society is a publick benefit to the whole Community and a benefit of the highest kind far exceeding that of which a single-Soul is capable which yet is too great for him to hope to recompence As therefore he is obliged upon account of his Socitey to be grateful for kindnesses received from the Church so he never can hope by all the publick power of the Society of which he is possessed to make even with the Ecclesiasticks When he has done all he can his good will must by the Ecclesiasticks be accepted for his deed How can he then oblige them to any further accounts on their part that are to be made up by cession of their just Rights Even as to Temporals the whole Body of the State and the Prince as concerned for the Body are more obliged to the true Religion and the Society in which alone it is to be had than they are ever able to requite Not now to mention the Temporal Blessings to which they are hereby intitled Godliness having the Promises of this Life as well as of that which is to come all that Justice in Conversation all that sweetness and obligingness which their Duty to GOD obliges Religious Persons to shew to all with whom they converse all that sincerity and open heartedness which makes Mankind love and trust and please each other are the most genuine fruits of the true Religion where it is heartily believed and practised It can therefore be nothing but inconsideratness and disbelief and forgetfulness of the true value of things upon sober consideration that can tempt the Magistrate to think that the Church is so over-obliged to him for his protection as to need a compensation § LXI If the State had been capable of conferring the greater Obligations yet a good Pious Magistrate could not in reason desire suâ—h a recompence as should oblige the Church to yield any of her Ancient Rights It rather on the contrary appears that the greatest Obligations are on the Church's side and that therefore what compensation by cession of ancient Rights was necessary on account of Gratitude was rather to be expected from the Magistrate The best and most pious Magistrates have always thought so who were certainly the most competent Judges of matters of Religion Yet supposing it possible that the State could supererogate a pious Magistrate would never desire nor accept of such a recompence as should oblige the Clergy to yield their ancient and original Rights conferred on them by GOD himself at their first establishment He would presume that Power was necessary for the good of the Spiritual Society which GOD was pleas'd to put them in possession of antecedently to the favours of secular Princes and could not find in his heart to deprive the Spiritual Society of any Power which GOD himself had judged necessary for it He might the rather presume it concernin a Society instituted under a Persecution and designed to continue the same under all the Revolutions not only of his own but all other states in the World He would consider himself also as a Trustee of the Power committed to him by GOD and therefore under an Obligation to manage the Trust in that way that he could judge most agreeable to the mind of him who had committed the Trust to him He would therefore think himself obliged to value all things according to the value that GOD has put upon them principally to regard that which was principal in the design of GOD and to make all other Considerations subservient to it which GOD intended should be so This would oblige him to make all Designs for the Temporal Prosperity of his Subjects
would have Religion left to their disposal who by their Office think themselves obliged to be swayed Principally by their Worldly interests than which there is hardly any thing more contradictory to the great ends of Religion to make Reformation of Manners necessary to be begun by Courts which are usually the Originals of the corruptions of that kind and the great hindrances to well meant designs of Reformation An obvious consequence of such a trust would be that Religion which Princes do not take for their Principal Work must be made subservient to their worldly Politicks which Princes generally take for their Principal employment And who can think that GOD would ever intend that a Religion at first established in a State of Independency on the secular Power should afterwards be brought to a State precarious and depending on the pleasure of the secular Magistrate GODS establishing it otherwife at first shewed plainly that it was better for the Church to be independent on the State whensoever there should be any difference between it and the secular Magistrate This withal we are certain of that GOD is not changeable as man is but that whilst the same Reason holds or when the same Case returns his mind will be the same as it was before When ever therefore the Magistrate who has once favoured the Church shall again desert it and withdraw his Protection from it we must then conclude that the Church is in the same condition she was in before the Magistrate received her into his Protection and therefore that it is GODS Pleasure also that she should subsist then as she had done before on her own Government On her own Government I say as well qualified now as formerly for continuance and perpetuity by its independence on the pleasure of the Magistrate This is indeed the only way of knowing GODS pleasure concerning a Case where no now Revelation is so much as pretended as none is here even by our Adversaries This therefore being certain that in Case of a New breach GODS pleasure is that the Church should again be independent it will be also certain that in the Interval whilst the good correspondence holds between the two Societies GOD cannot allow such an Alienation of Power as shall disable her in Case of a now breach to persist on her old terms This will requite that the old Society be preserved with the old Government of Bishops during the Interval For the Church is not such a Society as other Humane ones that can be set up at pleasure by the Agreement of the particular Members of which it consists whenever they are Free from other antecedent inconsistent Obligations This is a Society erected by GOD and requires Governours Authorized by him more than other Civil Societies do for Obliging him to confer spiritual Blessings exceeding the Power of the Members considered in themselve GOD has given them no reason to expect when the breach shall fall that he will extraordinarily empower Men immediatly as he did the Apostles The only way therefore for securing the continuance of the Church is to keep up a Body of Governours Authorized by the Apostles in that Succession which has been derived from them to our present times which cannot be unless the Succession it self be continued on in all the Interval of good Correspondence This therefore requires that they do not suffer themselves so to be Incorporated into the State as to have no Governours of their own Acting by a highery Authority than what can be derived from the Prince This consideration alone is sufficient to disprove our Adversaries fancy concerning the coalition of the Two Bodies under the King as the Common Head of both of them when in the mean time the Church is obliged to continue in her Bishops a power not derivable by any Patents from the KING This Power therefore not derived from him must be perfectly independent on him And indeed no Power but what is so can justify and make Practicable a Resumption of ancient Rights For what ever depends on the Magistrate may and will in course be taken from the Bishop when the correspondence is interrupted If therefore when it is taken away the Bishop has then no Right to Govern he cannot expect GOD will ratify any exercise of a Power to which he can pretend no Right But without GOD's ratifying what is done by the Authority and good reason to presume that GOD is obliged to ractify it such a Government can signify nothing for keeping the Society in a Body that has nothing to recommend it but consideratinos relating to GOD and Conscience The Alienation therefore of this Power so necessary for securing the Society being so plainly against the Mind of GOD in giving the Power no Act of Alienation of it can expect a ratification from GOD and therefore it must be Originally null and invalid § LXVII The Magistrate is by no means a Competent Iudge of the Church's Interests Besides there are other things so peculiar to the design of GOD in instituting the Spiritual Society that make it by no means probable that it was his pleasure that it should coalesce into one Society with the State under one common Supream Government both for Spiritisals and Temporals It is inconsistent with the Office of the Supream Magistrate to endure that his Subjects should live under a state of perpetual Violence from another Power without using his utmost endeavours to resit it The Church may and often must submit to a Persucution when it is not otherwise in her Power to avoid it but by resistance She may with great generosity choose a Persecution when she judges it to be for the Interests of Religion and it is her Glory to overcome Evil with Good and to subdue her Enemies rather with Patience and Constancy than Arms and open violence She can still subsist and gain by such a state whereas the Civil state is perfectly dissolved when once that violence becomes irresistable The Magistrate is by the Law of Nations allowed to return violence for violence and to do many things when provoked by his Enemy which the Church can never decently do on any Provocation whatsoever It is for the Interest of the Magistrate if he look on Religion as his Interest that the Church should be free in her Actings for Reformation of manners which she cannot be if the Bishops must at his pleasure be turned out of their Office for no other reason but their being faithful to it The Church withal was designed by GOD for a Society that should correspond all the World over as they did anciently by their Communicatory Letters as to Spirituals For her Censures can significe nothing for reclaiming Hereticks or ill Livers if they extend no further than her own Jurisdiction if they exclude not from Catholick as well as Diocesan Communion She ought therefore to enquire into new Opinions as they may occasion difference of Communion that she may neither recommend Heriticks
Swerve unnecessarily from the Custom which had been used in the Church even when it lived under Infidels I know not why others should not emulate the Example of so great a Prince if they also would be esteem'd in the Judgment of so great a Person Virtuous I know not why it should not be counted commendable also in them if they also had made Conscience to Swerve unnecessarily from these acknowledged antient Ecclesiastical Liberties He owns that this same Excellent Prince ratified the Order which had been before exhorting the Bishops to look to the Church and promising that he would do the Office of a Bishops over the Commonwealth and when he did take cognizance of Causes of this kind yet this great Person doubts whether he did so as purposing to give them Judicially any Sentence Here we find plain confessions that the Church was in possession of these Liberties before the Conversion of this first Christian Emperor and that Emperor himself was so sensible of this Possession that he made a Conscience of invading it And who could better Judge of his Right as a Christian Prince than he who was the first example of it Mr. Hooker does indeed think that Constantine abstained from what he might lawfully do But he seems plainly to grant that the Emperor was of another mind when he says he made a Conscience of doing what Mr. Hooker thinks he might have done That same Judicious Person adds further with reference to our particular Laws in England There is no Cause given unto any to make Supplication as Hilary did that Civil Governours to whom Common wealth matters only belong may not presume to take upon them the Judgment of Ecclesiastical Causes If the Cause be Spiritual Secular Courts do not meddle with it We need not excuse our selves with Ambrose but boldly and lawfully we may refuse to answer before any Civil Judge in a matter which is not Civil so that we do not mistake either the Nature of the Cause or of the Court as we easily may do both without some better direction than can be by the Rules of this new sound Discipline But of this most CERTAIN we are that our Laws do neither suffer a Spiritual Court to entertain in those Causes which by the Law are Civil nor yet if the matter be indeed Spiritual a meer Civil Court to give Judgment of it Thus Mr. Hookeer And he proves what he says in the Margin from passages of the Laws themselves and the Book de Nat. Brevium and Bracton plainly asserting the difference of those two Jurisdictions I am sensible what a Scope I have here of enquiring into the Laws themselves and proving this Independently on the Testimony of this admirable Man But perhaps I have already said more than can be Printed in this difficulty of our Circumstances I therefore say no more at present but refer our Adversaries to him The rather because he is indeed against me in making the Church one Body with the believing State and because one of our Adversaries has expresly insisted on his Authority Both these reasons as well as the distance of the Age he lived in are sufficient to clear him of any the least suspicion of partiality on our side Even in this very Cause he defends the Use of Lay Persons joyn'd in Commission with Spiritual ones for determining Spiritual Affairs And possibly he may do so by Examples if all Examples must pass for Precedents since Henry VIIIths Usurpations But when King JAMES the II added Laymen in the same Commission with the Bishops concerned in the Case of the Bishop of London with a Power of Deprivation or Suspension ab Officio as well as a Beneficio it is very well known that his Lordship excepted against the competency of his Lay Judges that as a Bishop of the Catholick Church he ought to be tryed by Bishops only His Lorpship would do well now to remember his own Plea then in order to the judging of his own Case now how he can justify his Communicating with those who are set up against his Colleagues deprived no otherwise than by a Lay Power It is well known that his Council then Learned in our Laws insisted on this Plea as maintainable by our present Laws made since the Constitution of the Ecclesiastical Supremacy And what good Church of England Man was there then that did not think the Plea very just and reasonable Let those Lawyers be pleased to recollect what they had to say on that Case and try whether it will not also affect our present deprivations It is very certain that the Liberties of H. Church are the very first things provided for in Magna Charta and the Coronation Oath so that if these things be not inviolable nothing else can be so being Fundamental to all the Security that can be given by our present Constitution And it is no way reasonable that bare Precedents without express Acts for Alienating such Rights as these are should be thought sufficient for extinguishing a Claim grounded on so inviolable a Security If they be so Henry the VIIIth made such Precedents for violating Magna Charta and the Coronation Oath too that no Liberties of the People can now be secure And it is withal as certain that in the Disputes which occasioned the passing Magna Charta this particular of the exemption of the Clergy was one point principally insisted on Nay it was insisted on then to higher purposes than were reasonable or than I am concerned for now so far as to exempt them from Secular Courts even when they were guilty of Secular Crimes and even so it was most frequently determined in favour of the Clergy That was Becket's Dispute which generally prevailed in the following Ages when he was Canonized and when Henry the IId had submitted to Pennance for what he had done in opposition to him This Case of their Exemption as to their Spirituals which is all for which I am now concerned was than so generally acknowledged even by the Laity themselves that there was very little occasion of disputing it Rarely was it ever invaded and more rarely yet if ever was that Invasion defended by themselves who were guilty of it till the Unhappy Times of Henry the VIIIth So uncontroverted was the Right for which I plead that I do not think our Adversaries can give one single Instance of substituting a Successor into a See vacated by no better than a Lay deprivation This privilege therefore against Lay deprivations was so undoubtedly the sense of Magna Charta and the Coronation Oath that on that account as well as in point of Right all Patriots ought to be Zealous for it as well as all good Christians all who have a true Concern for those Two Fundamental Securities of Property as well as of Religion all who are so wise as to foresee how far Precedents of violating them in one Instance may proceed for violating them in others also §