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
I could find nothing that could pass for Answer with an indifferent Conscientious Arbitrator Facts without Right none can think proper for satisfying Conscience yet this is all which is so much as pretended in this Book The whole Question of the Magistrates Right for doing what has been done is reserved for another Book And then I thought it seasonable enough to Reply when a Question was debated that did indeed concern our Consciences So far his Book is from being a just Answer as to the proving what himself asserts But for that also we can wait his Leisure if the Doctor had been pleased in the mean time at least to weaken what had been produced for our Cause by the Vindicator We would gladly have been excused from the Violence we have offered our selves in forbearing their Communion and we should have thought our selves obliged to him for it if he had cleared what was objected to the contrary in that very Book which he pretends to Answer if he had shewn that notwithstanding what is there objected we might still continue in their Communion with safety to our Souls and consistency to the discharge of a good Conscience What we had to say on this point was professedly insisted on in the former part of the Vindication This ought in the first place to have been considered by him if he had regarded our Consciences as that which was necessary to dispose us for considering his other Proofs or Answers But in vain we have expected it He does not so much as pretend to consider that first Part in his whole Book How then can any unprejudiced Judge take the Doctor 's Book for an Answer to the Vindication He also grants the Proposition principally disputed between Us concerning the Invalidity of Lay-deprivations and takes no care to prevent the Consequences of that Confession That is not all He also grants that which the Vindicator designed in that place principally to prove the invalidity of Lay-deprivations This concession the Vindicator has drawn into its just Consequences that then the deprived Bishops must still be Bishops and Bishops of the same Jurisdictions and retain their Right to their Subjects Obedience in their several respective Jurisdictions as much with regard to Conscience as if such depriving Sentences had nevre been decreed None can doubt who knows what invalidity imports but that invalid Censures leave Cases exactly in the same condition as to Conscience in which they find them That therefore as it would have been Schismatical to have set up Altars and Anti-Bishops in the same districts against our H. Fathers in case the depriving Act had never passed on the same account it is so still in case the deprivation proves invalid That as in that Case that the depriving Act had not passed communicating with the Schismatical Altars had involved the Bishops and Churches that had been guilty of it in the same Schism with the principal and original Schismaticks so also it must by the same parity of Reason do so now invalid Sentences not being capable of making a disparity Now what can any one preteud that has been suggested by the Doctor for securing himself against these just Inferences from so unwary a Concession For my part I can find no place where he does so much as offer at it Where then can be his Answer if even himself grants all that we are concerned to assert in the Question principally disputed between us § V. The Doctor gains nothing by his changing the state of the Qustion This being so what advantage can the Doctor propose to himself by changing the state of our present Question from a Dispute concerning the Magistrates Right of Deprivation to another concerning the Lawfulness of Submission in the Ecclesiastical Subjests to the Invaders and Intruders I grant indeed that these Two Questions are not directly the same But it is abundantly sufficient to the Vindicators purpose if the disproof of the Magistrates Rights do by necessary consequence infer the Unlawfulness of Submission in the Subjects to the Invaders of Ecclesiastical Districts not otherwise vacated than by such Lay-deprivations And this it does by the inferences now mentioned Invalid Deprivations leave as much right in Conscience as they found and therefore as much obligation to Duty in the Subjects The Subjects therefore still owing duty to the invalidly Deprived Bishops must be guilty of Sin if they pay the same duty to their Rivals And for committing Sin the Doctor does not nay dares not own even an Irresistible force to be sufficient If he should I know none of his mind besides the old Gnostik and Elcesaite Hereticks Thus pertinent it is to disprove the Magistrates Right of deprivation in order to the disproving the Lawfulness of Submission in the Ecclasiastical Subjects on the pretence of Irresistible force § VI. The Doctor 's whole Proof unconclusive admitting the Invalidity of Lay-deprivations But the Doctor pretends that it was neither the design of the Author of his Baroccian M. S. in writing it nor his own in publishing it to prove the Right of the Lay Magistrate for Spiritual De privations I easily agree with him that it was not the design of the Author of this M. S. And I shall as easily excuse him from designing it if it be consistent with the exigency of his Cause which engaged him to the publication But can he deny at least that his design in publishing it was to purge his party from the guilt of the present Schism Can he deny that in order hereunto his design was to prove the Lawfulness of Submission in the Subjects of the deprived destricts to the Ecclesiastical Intruders His own words in these particulars are too manifest to leave him to the liberty of denying them Let him then try his skill wether he can from this M. S. or from any thing offered in his Book prove the Lawfulness of such Submission in the Ecclesiastical Subjects on the Supposal now mentioned of the Invalidity of Lay deprivations If he can he may then indeed but not till then call the disproof of the Magistrates Right for Spiritual deprivation and the consequent proof of the Invalidity of such deprivations when attempted impertinent to his design in publishing his M S. But how will he undertake to do this Does he think the Facts alone either of his M. S. or his Book sufficient for this purpose supposing them such as he is concerned they should be instances of Submission upon Lay or otherwise Invalid deprivations to Usurpers of the vacated Thrones Dare he stand by the consequence that a like enumeration of as many Facts in as large a distance of the like times is sufficient to prove the Practice allowable nay exemplary to succeeding Generations If he dare not he must think of some other way of proving them well done than barely this that they were done This will reduce him whether he will or no to the merit of the cause And how is it
Constitution Upon this account it has been accounted the Interest of Societies in general that they be unanimous in defending it For this will make the Government better able to defend it self and protect its Subjects in their Rights if it have the united assistance of the whole Society not subdivided into several little Interests It has also been thought the publick Interest of Societies rather to be concluded by their Governours as to their Practice in their Judgment concerning the publick good than to be permited to embroyl their whole Bodies by forming subdivided Factions and intestine animosities which is the natural consequence of being allowed the use of their private Judgements even concerning the publick good in a Society already constituted Thus the Doctor may see how even the regard of the publick good may oblige him to hazard all that he calls Ruin in asserting the Rights of Suprem Governours by reasons anticedent to the Oath it self and independent on his pretended false Principle that Oaths are taken only for the sake of Governours These Reasons proceed though the Government of the Churches had been like many Humane Governments founded on Humane Institution and the agreeing consent of its respective Members But the reason of hazarding all for the Rights of our Ecclesiastical Superiors holds more strongly For God himself has so constituted his own Church as to oblige us in regard of all Interests to the strict dependence on our Ecclesiastical Governours As Schism is the greatest mischief that can befall any Society so a Society such as the Church is that must subsist over all the World independent on the Secular arm nay under Pesecution from it must be in the greatest danger of Schism And God has accordingly most wisely contrived his Spiritual Society so as to secure it from that danger by making it the greatest Interest of the Church in general and of all its Members considered severally to adhere to their Spiritual Monarch It is certainly their greatest Interest to keep their Mystical Communion with God the head of Christ and with Christ the head of his Mystical Body the Church But this God has made no otherwise attainable but by maintaining a Communion with his visible Body by visible Sacraments obliging himself to ratify in Heaven what is transacted by the visible Governours of the Church on Earth Thus he admits to his Mystical Union those who are admitted by the visible Governours of his Church into his visible Body and excludes from the Mystical Union those who are by the Church Governours excluded from the Union that is visible So the Apostle St. John reasons that whosoever would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion with the Father and the Son must not expect it otherwise than by the Communion with that visible Body of which the Apostle himself was a Member 1 St. Joh. I. 3. So our Saviour himself makes the despising of those who are Authorized by him to be the despising of himself and not only so but of him also who sent him And in St. Joh. XVII he makes his Mystical Union to be of Christians among themselves as well as with himself and the Father And upon this dependend the dreadfulness of Excommunication and indeed all obligation to Discipline and the Penances imposed by it in the Primitive Church But there was none in the visible constitution of the Church that represented God and Christ under the Notion of a Head but the Biship And therefore he was taken for the principle of Unity without Union to whom there could be no pretensions to Union with God and Christ. This was the Doctrine of St. Cyprians Age and not his only but of that of Ignatius and not only of Ignatius but of that which was Apostolical grounded on the Notions then received among the Jews concerning their Union with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Archetypal High Priest by their Union with the High Priest who was visible How then can the Doctor make any Interests either publick or private separable from those of adhering to our Bishops and thereby avoiding Schism by discountenancing Usurpers of their lawful Thrones § XVI The complyance with Usurpers is also therefore sinful because Usurping Bishops are really no Bishops at all The Doctor now proceeds in the 4th and last place to shew that this complyance with the new Intruders is not sinful on account of the Objection insisted on by the Vindicator that the Usurpers are in reality no Bishops at all This matter were indeed very easy if all the Vindicator had produced for his purpose had been only a saying of St. Cyprian and a saying nothing to his purpose He might then indeed wonder that the Vindicator should pretend to raise so great a structure on so weak a foundation But considering what the Vindicator had said to prove the saying true one might rather wonder at the Doctors confidence in slighting and overlooking what one would therefore think him conscious that his Cause would not afford an Answer to The Vindicator had proved it more than a saying that it was the Sense not only of St. Cyprian but of all the Bishops of that Age who all of them denyed their Communicatory Letters to such an Intruder into a Throne not validly vacated thereby implying that they did not own him of their Episcopal Colledge and therefore took him for no Bishop at all The Vindicator shewed withal that it was agreable to the Principles and Traditions of that Age derived by Tradition from the Apostles and therefore that they had reason to say and think so too The Vindicator farther proved it independently on their saying or thoughts however otherwise creditable in an affair of this kind from the nature of the thing it self that where there could be but one of a kind and two Pretenders could not therefore be both genuine the validity of one Title is to be gathered from the invalidity of the other But to what purpose is it to produce proofs if the Doctor will take no notice of them But Cornelious with relation to whose Case St. Cyprian uses this Expression that the latr Bishop is not second but none the Doctor says had never been deposed but was still the possessor which he takes for a disparity from our deprived Fathers Case He was deposed as much as it lay in the Power of the Pagan Emperour to do so He was set up not only as the Christian Bishops then generally were without his consent but notoriously against it He was as much grieved at it as if a Rival had been set up against him for the Empire And he had kept the See vacant for a considerable time after the Martyrdom of Fabianus doing all that he could do to hinder the Clergy from meeting in such a way as was requisite for supplying the vacancy Let the Doctor himself Judge what Decius could have done more for deposing him However the Doctor tells us that Cornelius was the Possessor Very true But
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
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
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
as any one Article of the Faith can be This the Vindicator has proved nor has the Doctor vouchsafed any Answer to what he has produced for it Indeed the whole Expedient insisted on by the Doctor seems very strange to me that he should think to secure the Church from Schism by allowing Subjects to desert their Ecclesiastical Superiours on pretence of irresistible force and by by renouncing all Principles that may oblige Ecclesiastical Subjects to adhere to their Ecclesiastical Governours whensoever the State shall be pleased to refuse to pretect them and thereby renouncing all Principles that may oblige them in Conscience to continue a Society independent on the State These Principles and Practices leave them at liberty to form and maintain as many Schisms as they please when the Decrees as the Church are not seconded by the Civil Power How then can the maintaining so licentious Principles be taken for an Expedient for preventing Schism The Doctor withal would have us consider That it was not for the Bishops that the Church was established but the Bishops were appointed for the sake of the Church Hence he concludes that it is not the welfare of the Bishops as the Bishops are these or or those Men much lese of some few particular Bishops but the welfare of the whole Church in general that is chiefly to be regarded This is a pretence for all Rebellions and Innovations whatsoever to make the Persons invested with Authority to be regarded only as private Persons whose Interests are different from those of the Publick which the Innovators pretend to promote by removing their private Persons and substituting others in their stead Nor indeed need any Rebel desire any more Let the Head of the Rebellion be the particular Person and the controversy is soon determined He will pretend no quarrel with the Publick but only whether he or the present Possessor shall be the particular Person that is to be intrusted with the Publick and to be sure will pretend it to be for the Publick Interest that of the two himself should rather be the Man if for no other reasons at least for those of the Doctor viz. Irresistible force and the Peace and Tranquillity of the whole which he is otherwise resolved to disturb And the same pretence is applicable to any other from of Government as well as that which is Monarchical The Administration of it cannot be managed but by some few chosen out of the whole Body and then those few are only so many particular Persons against whom the Publick Good may still be pretended if others may judge of it But this is so general a Principle of Rebellions and intestine discords that all well constituted Societies have used all means they could think of to secure themselves against it How private soever the Interest might seem to particular Persons to have the Government committed to them or to be invested in a Right to it yet when once they were possessed or had a Right the Publick has thought it self concerned to oppose and to provide against a violent dispossession and has allowed no pretences of Publick Good where the dispossession could not be compassed by any other means than by force Hence these very severe Laws against any thing that might look like force to the Persons of Governours especially those that were Supreme Hence their Arts of making their Persons Sacred to secure them from those violences against which the force even of the Community it self was not able to Secure them What need of all this care if they had thought it fit still to have regarded them only as particular Persons The Book of Judith when it would express how the Nations despised King Nabuchodonosor does it thus He was before them as one Man Jud. I. 11. What difference is there between this language and that of the Doctor The same Societies have also taken security that no pretence of publick good should ever be made use of against the Persons of Governours by allowing none others for Judges of the publick good besides the Persons invested with the Government and allowing them so to Judge as to conclude all Private Persons And there was reason why Societies should be so concerned against violent removals of their Governours because they cannot be violently removed whithout violence to the whole Societies which are obliged to defend them If therefore they do their duties the whole Societies must suffer violence and he over-powered in the removal which must consequently subject them to the arbitrary pleasure of the forcible Usurper And to take the Doctors way is yet worse to desert their Governours This perfectly dissolves the Government and disables the Governour to do any thing of his Duty to the Publick Thus it appears how destructive it is to his whole Cause to own the deprivations of our H. Fathers invalid Where then can be his Answer if even himself grants all that we are concerned to assert in the Question principally disputed between us § XXII The main dedsign of the Doctors new Book in arguing from Facts already overthrown by the Vindicator yet no notice taken of what was there said But far be it from me that I should oblige him to any unwary Concessions if at the same time he has produced any thing solid in his Book to prove them unwary I am therefore willing to consider the main design of his Book if I can even there find any thing that can deserve the name of an Answer that is That is not either acknowledged to be unsufficient by himself or that had not before been prevented by his Adversary And what is upon these accounts made unserviceable cannot certainly in the sense of any just Judge be taken for a solid and satisfactory Answer The main design of his Answer to the Vindication is still to carry on the Argument by him imputed to his Baroccian M. S. to prove by an enumeration of Facts which the Doctor will needs have pass for Precedents that Deprivations by the Lay-Power have been Submitted to and the Intruders own'd by the Subjects of the Dioceses out of which the Lawful Possessiors had been Uncanonically ejected Now this being nothing but the old Argument I cannot for my part see any reason the Doctor can pretend why the old Answer of the former part of the Vindication may not still be insisted on as sufficient till at least he offer at something to the contray which he has not as yet so much as attempted The Vindicator has there shewn the Unconclusiveness of that whole Topick from naked Facts without something more particularly insisted on for proving them Justifiable by true and defensible Principles Especially in those lower Ages in which the Author of the Baroccian M. S. deals and to which the Doctors new Examples are reducible the Vindicator has shewn that nothing is to be presumed to be well done which has no other Evidence of its being so than that it was actually practiced in those
but England and France were then two distinst and perfectly independent Societies The same way as the BISHOP himself was the Head of the CHURCH and yet a Subject of the STATE therefore a Member of BOTH Societies antecedently to any such Conversions or any Pretence that could be therefore made for a coalition of both into one Society Conversion therefore thought it bring all Persons into one Society of the Church yet does not hinder but that the Two Societies of the Church and State continue as distinct from each other as formerly whilst the same things remain that made them two Societies formerly And Conversions do not hinder but that they may still remain so Still the Spirituals and Temporals are as distinct as ever Still the same Right continue for the Bishops to be the competent Judges of Spirituals as the Magistrate are of Temporals Still the same distinction of Laws continues by which the Two Societies are governed as formerly That the Church is to be governed by the Church which are made by a Consent of the Ecclesiasticks and that the State is governed by the Laws which receive their Sanction from the Lay-Authority Still the Independence continues that the Bishops are as supream unappealable Judges for Spirituals as the Magistrates are for Temporals Conversions I am sure do not hinder but that this also might have remained as it did formerly For such a coalition of the Two Societies as our Adversary reasons for it would be necessary that the Government of one of the Societies should surrender or acknowledge a dependence on the Government of the other But neither of them can be pretended at the first Conversions of Magistrates Neither of them now in the Case of the Church of England The name of Head on which our Adversary insists is long ago laid aside by Q. Elizabeth And one of our Articles disowns all Pretensions of our Princes to the power of preaching the Word and administring the Sacraments This Article is ratified and made Law by an Act of Parliament Upon these Considerations we can fairly take the Oath of Supremacy as thus intrepreted by the Legislators themselves without owning any subjection of the Bishops as to Causes purely Spiritual to the Supream Magistrate even in England So far the Church and State are yet even here from being made one Society as our Adversary pretends The Examples of Bishops taking out Patents for the Right of giving Orders were I believe never known before the Reign of HENRY the VIII And that I hope our Adversary himself will not plead as a Reign of Presidents If he do the Liberties of the People will be no more secure than those of the Clergy Nothing was security against him who made such manifest invasions on the Two Fundamental Securities MAGNA CHARTA and his own OATH taken at his CORONATION Thus clear it is that Conversions alone could not make any change in the Rights of Power in Spirituals of which the Church was possessed before notwithstanding that the Converts are thereby made one Body with the Church with which they were not one formerly § LIX The Church's Obligations are more necessary for the subsisting of the State than those she receives from the State are for hers If therefore the Majestrate will lay claim to a Right in Spirituals it must be on some other account than bare Conversion That he must rather lose than gain by as I have already shewn because in his Conversion he comes to the Bishop's terms not the Bishop to his Our Adversaries therefore have another Pretence for his Superiority in purely Spirituals That is the benefit that the Church enjoys by the Magistrate's favour and protection the honours and profits annex'd to the sacred Offices and the security she has thereby against Adversaries and the assistance of the secular Arm for reducing Rebellious Subjects by secular coercions For these things they think her obliged in Gratitude to remit some of her former Rights by way of compensation for them And this Obligation in gratitude they conceive sufficient to engage her to an implicite and intrepretative Contract to continue this remitting of Rights on her part if she will in reason expect that the Magistrate shall continue his Favours But I confess I cannot see proceeding on Principles that must be granted by all who believe Religion but that the disadvantage will still lye on the side of the Magistrate For by this way of Reasoning the implicite Contract for remitting Rights will lye on that side which is most obliged and that side will appear most obliged which receives more benefit by the commerce than it gives For this consideration of remitting Right on account of Gratitude comes only in by way of compensation for what is wanting on its own side to make the benefit it confers equal to that which it receives But I cannot imagine how the Magistrate can pretend his Favours equal to those which he receives by Religion especially the true Religion So far he is from exceeding them so as to expect any compensation for arrears due to him on ballancing his accounts It is by Religion and by those Obligations which nothing but Religion can make sacred and inviolable that he holds his very Throne it self If he hold his Throne by Compact nothing but Religion can hold the Subjects to the Contract made by them If by any other Right nothing but that can oblige them to pay him that which by any sort of Right soever is his due Where he has no force to exact duty from them nothing can restrain them but ties of Conscience and nothing alse can lay a restraint on their Conscience but Religion Where he has a power of Force yet even that is not near so formidable at the irresistible power of Heaven and the fear of future and eternal Punishments No Considerations but those can curb them from secret Practices which oftentimes subvert the greatest Humane Force by degrees insensible and therefore unaviodable Nor is any Religion so conget on these accounts as that which is truest and most acceptable to GOD. GOD may be obliged by the general Laws of Providence for the general Good of Mankind to inflict Imprecations made for securing Faith even in false Religions But he is most present at the Offices of his owe establishment and therefore they have the greatest reason to fear them who imprecate in that form which is most suitable to the ture Religion No Religion so formidable at that which threatens future and eternal Pains in case of Violation No Religion can so well assure Us of the future and eternal State as Revealed Religion No Revelation so well evidenced by Credentials attesting it in Ages of Writings and accurate Information as our Christian Religion No one Communion even of Christians so just and equal against Invasions on either side either of the Church or the Magistrate as that of the Primitive Christians and of these Churches which lately came the nearest to those
ultimately useful for the publick good of their Souls This would oblige him further to mind that in the first place and principally those Expedients which more immediately tend to the promoting it and all other Temporal Politicks no otherwise nor further than as they also may promote it or at least be consistent with it And in this way of Reasoning I know not how he could avoid preferring the Spiritual before his own Authority and therefore managing his own Authority in subserviency to it for the promoting and supporting it not for diminishing it This I am sure every truly Christian Magistrate must look on as more solid and Judicious Reasoning from the Principles of the Christian Religion and securer therefore for his last Accounts to GOD and his Soul 's Eternal Interest than to suffer himself to be influenced in matters of so momentous a nature by Atheistical fooleries and flirts of being Priest-ridden This therefore being supposed how conscious soever such a Magistrate might be of his own good Will to the Church yet he would not be willing to accept of any branch of that Power which GOD had judged necessary for her that himself might have the managing it for her interest He would not think it for the Glory of his time upon any pretence whatsoever to leave that Holy Society more destitute of Power than he found her He must needs think that GOD's own settlement of it was the wisest that they were fittest for administring the Power who by the Nature of their Function were best qualified to understand the Causes in which it was conversant and who were most concerned for the good of the Society for whose use GOD had given it and who by Obligations of Conscience and by being destitute of external force were the least likely to design and least able to carry on encroachments to the injury of lriva powers He would not be willing that a Successor should be trusted with an administration of such a Power which if ill administred might prove of so dangerous consequence to the Church's walfare and for whose good meaning he has not that security as he has for his own He would not easily trust even his own partiality of his own mutability with it These would be the natural Reasonings of a generous and well minded Prince And methinks they should be so of pious and generous Parliaments also Here has been very much Zeal pretended for securing our Church against a Popish Successor This should make those who call themselves Protestant Parliaments unwilling to challenge that as a Right of Parliaments in general which may put it in the power of a Popish Parliament and indeed of any other that may be of another Communion to dissolve our Church as this Power of Lay deprivations will certainly do if they may be allowed as sufficient to discharge Us from our Spiritual duties to our so deprived Bishops § LXII Princes have been allowed by the Church a Right to keep Persons out not yet Canonically possessed but not to turn any out who were already in Possession of Bishopricks And that without any proper Cession of Right on the Church's part Thus it has appear'd that a well meaning Magistrate to the Interest of the Church and Religion has neither Obligation nor Equity to expect such a cession of Spiritual Rights on the Churches part as a compensation for his Protection nor would himself be inclinable to think he had any What ill meaning ones may expect is not worthy our regard Such are too partially concerned to be taken for competent Judges in Affairs of this nature They neither deserve such a Cession nor indeed are fit to be trusted with it However we deny not but that the Magistrate has a Right in the disposal of those favours which are requisite for the Churches interest in order to a legal Settlement and Protection And he has withal thereupon a Right to expect a Security to be given him for his own Temporal Power against invasions from the Ecclesiasticks in consideration even of that Act of Justice of securing them also from the like Invasions from the Temporal Power by his employing it in their defence though he be otherwise obliged in Conscience to protect that which himself believes to be the true Religion and the true Communion But then this is no proper Cession of Spiritual Rights For even antecedently to the amicable correspondence between the Church and State the Church was as much obliged in Conscience to forbear encroachments on the Temporal Rights as the Magistrate was on the Spiritual Only the difference was that before the correspondence the Church her self took upon her to judge concerning the trustiness of the Persons put in Office by her having then no access to the Civil Magistrate but afterwards she suffered him to judge himself of his own security That was by not having Bishops imposed upon him to enjoy his Temporals annexed to their Office without his own approbation which was no more than what was generally reasonable on equal terms This sometimes allowed him a power at first of stopping any Person proposed if he did not like him sometimes of pitching on the Person by the Right of a Lay Patron So also he was allowed to judge concerning Canons whether they might prove prejudical to the Temporal Government before he seconded them with his Temporal Government and by secular Coercions which was also very just and equal without any cession on the Churches side For this was only allowing him to judge where his own Power and Right was concerned But then this Right was only to keep out a Person who was not yet possessed of the Power he pretended to by even the spiritual Right of Consecration and therefore no Act of Authority upon a Bishop properly so called but only on a Candidate for the Office But there was never any Act of the Ancient Church so much as pretended that I know of that ever Allowed Princes to turn Bishops out of their spiritual Rights without Synods when they were once Canonically possessed of them No Emperors of the same Communion that acted sedately and like Persons who regarded Principles who ever attempted it without at least packing or pretending Synods for the deprivation of Bishops The Canons omitted by the Doctor are sufficient if there were no more to shew that this was at least the sense of the Church and Jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate And even this Power that was allowed was allowed on Obligation of Interest not of Conscience None could pretend to the Temporals annexed to the Episcopal Office without the Princes consent And whilst the Correspondence between the Church and the Prince held there was no need of separating the spiritual Rights form the Temporal But the Church was at perfect Liberty in Conscience if she was willing to want the Temporals to give the spiritual Power alone and much more to continue it where it was already given if she Judged the Prince's
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
already what has been pretended to the contrary from the Case of Abiathar and those other later Deprivations by the Heathen Magistrates And this is at present our Principal Dispute § LXIX No Reasoning from the Rights of the Jewish Princes to the Rights of Christian Princes now Indeed in this whole matter concerning Reasoning from the Jewish to the Evangelical Priesthood I have taken care to Argue barely from what was common to them both the Nature of Priesthood in general and in those very instances wherein even the Apostolical Christians admit the Argument Our Adversaries on the contrary when they Reason from the Princes Power then to the Power of Christian Princes now they do not Argue as I have done from the Priesthood simply considered but from the Power annexed to the Priesthood yet seperable from it according to the design of GOD in the particular Constitution The Power of Governing the Society whose holy Rights are administred by it is I confess very seperable from the Right of Priesthood in general and whether it was actually annexed to it or not is therefore to be judged by the particular constitution But particularly for the Jewish State I rather believe that it was not annexed to it For the Right of Government as annexed to the Priesthood is founded on the Right the Priest has to oblige subjects by excluding refractory Persons as such from partaking in his Sacrifices But so much Erastus has I think well observed that the only things that then hindred from the Sacrifices were only Legal incapacities such as not being of the Holy Seed or being under some Legal Pollution not any whatsoever immoralities of Life And therefore the Punishment for not standing to the award of the Priests was capital as being a disobedience to so much of the secular Government as it was Theocratical not exclusion from the Sacrifices of those who had been contemned by the delinguent Nor indeed was there that necessity that the Government even as to Spirituals should be annexed to the Priesthood then as there is under the Gospel now The Prince was then always obliged to be a Jew and therefore of the Religion establish'd for that Nation by GOD himself Now his being of an other than the true Religion is no hindrance by our modern Constitutions from having a Lawful Right to the secular Government Then the Prince had a better pretence as the Head of the Theocracy to command in affairs concerning GOD than any Prince living can now when no State pretends to be Theocratical Then all the concerns of the Peculium were confined to that single Nation which was wholly commanded by one Prince Now the concerns of every National Church are mixed with those of all the other National Churches in the World with whom their Prince has no concern at all This very consideration makes the National Church's Interests seperable from the Interests of their Prince of which he can therefore be by no means presumed a Competent Judge That Priesthood was not intended to be Practicable in a time of Persecution and Independence on the Civil Government On the contrary the want of all the Exercises of their Religion was the most dejecting consideration of their Captivities and one of the greatest inducements for good Men to be earnest with GOD in Prayer for a Restoration They were then to be without a Priesthood without an Ephod without a Teraphim And the Temple of the Lord was the Principal thing bemoaned by them who pretended any Zeal for their Nation or Religion No doubt on account of their losing all the comfort of Sacerdotal Ministrations which could be performed in no other place besides that particular Temple Then the loss of their daily Sacrifices was the highest Calamity that the Antichrist then expected could bring upon them And the perfect uselesness of the Priests afther the destruction of the Temple made Titus put the Priests to the Sword when the obstinacy of the Jews had obliged him to destroy the Temple So clear it was that that was not a Religion capable of subsisting in a Persecution as to the Exercises of it as a Communion But it is withal as clear that our Church was instituted in a Persecution with a Power of depriving disobedient Subjects of the benefits of Communion and with a Power of exercising Sacredotal Offices in that very State of Independecy on the Civil Magistrate And indeed that State was principally provided for here at the first Institution of the Church which was not so much as designed in the Jewish Church Besides the clear and express Revelation of Spiritual and Eternal benefits conveyed by our Evangelical Priest-hood is a thing peculier to the Gospel Yet this alone is sufficient to put it beyond all pretensions even of a Theocratical Magistracy designed only for Temporals Thus therefore it every way appears that more Power is by GOD himself annexed to the Evangelical than to the Legal Priest-hood This therefore is sufficient to overthrow our Adversaries Reasoning here that our Princes now may challenge all that Power that the Jewish Princes could formerly For they cannot challenge that which though it was not then has yet been since annexed to our Evangelical Priest-hood § LXX Our Present deprivations not justifiable by even our present Secular Laws Yet after all we can even from the Laws of of our Countrys and the Supremacy settled by those very Laws except against the Sentence of Deprevation passed against our Fathers as to their Spirituals The Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical is by all the Acts made concerning it vested not in the PARLIAMENT but in the KING And even as it is in the KING it was never intended for him so as that it might be in his Power to confound the several Courts and Jurisdictions to which Causes are appropriated by the Laws themselves The Acts for the Supremacy even in Temporals do not allow him to transfar any Cause from the Court appointed for it to his own hearing out of it nor even to any other Court than that to which the cognizance of it does properly belong This holds as in other Cases so in this also of the Deprivations of spiritual Persons And it is own'd to hold by Mr. Hooker himself in that very Book to which we are referred by our Adversaries He owns it with express application to the Case of the KING himself the Seat of the Supremacy in Spirituals He tells us that All Men are not for all things sufficient and therefore publick affairs being divided such Persons must be Authorized Judges in each kind as common Reason may presume to be most fit Which cannot of KINGS and PRINCES ordinarily be presumed in Causes meerly Ecclesiastical so that even common sense doth rather adjudg this Burthen to other Men. He owns that Bishops alone were before accustomed to have the ordering of such Ecclesiastical affairs He confesses that Virtuous Emperours such as Constantine the Great was made Conscience to
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