his Jurisdiction Now this is a Knavish malicious Trick to compare our Actions to the Popes the Pope directly challengeth a Supremacy over Kings indeed over all Men we only lay claim to a Christian Liberty not to comply with Sin and Wickedness though the Magistrate command it and a Power not to desert our Station wherein Christ hath fixed us for every humoursom or unjust Prohibition of the State but at our Peril and without Resistance and what Agreement hath this with the Popes Actions But if his Civil Magistrate may not any ways be controuled but must be complied with in all things then I leave any indifferent Persons to judge whether these two things be not the direct Consequences of his Arguments First This makes the Proceedings of the Apostles and all the Primitive Christians in propagating the Gospel for about Three hundered Years to be altogether unjustifyable For they were actually prohibited first by the Jews after by the Emperours so that if his Doctrine had taken place Christianity had never entered into the World Secondly This shuts out the Doctrine of the Cross not only as Foolishness but as Wickedness and Disobedience and puts it in the Power of the Civil Magistrate at his Pleasure to extirpate Christianity out of the World for if prohibited they must cease and comply because to do otherwise Were in their way to take up Arms against him and controul his Jurisdiction And thus if the Grand Signior should Silence all the Christian Ministers in his Dominions they must hold their Peace and no more speak in the Name of Jesus for if they do our Author will tell them they are Rebels I perceive this Author makes use of his Religion only for his Convenience and will put no more on than he can at any time put off again he is here a sort of a Christian and at Japan would be a Hollander But to make good his Argument he accuseth me of Ignorance as to the Primitive Times and instanceth in Eustathius of Antioch Athanasius of Alexandria and Paulus of Constantinople put out by the Imperial Power and this he says Was never questioned by the Orthodox though they complained of the Injustice of it c. Now I confess that I have not had those Advantages which some have been happy in and am content to be accounted Ignorant provided he will suffer me to be Honest But yet as Ignorant as I am I think no Man that had consulted his Cause or his own Reputation would have produced this instance in this case For it will either justifie our Proceedings or force him to condemn these Persons and in so good Company we shall the less value hard Censures For were they thrust out of their Diocesses What great difference is here Are not our Livelihoods and Cures taken from us Are not our Bishops Deprived of their Profits and the exercise of their Jurisdictions This we suffer and do not so much as compare the Power then and now whether lawful or unlawful If the Civil Authority wrongfully spoil us of our Goods and restrain our Persons we know no Resistance any more then those good Men did But did they forbear to exercise their Office and Ministry where they had oppâ—tunity No such thing Was there no Schism upon this account It is plain That the Orthodox refused to Communicate with the Bishops put over them the whole Christian World was concerned on one side or other in the Case of Athanasius at Constantinople the People were so troublesome that the Emperor was forced to recal Paulus though he was after again Banished and upon the Expulsion of Eustathius from Antioch the suspected Bishops set over them were disgusted by many and Theodoret says That plurimi Studiosi pietatis cùm Sacerdotes tùm Plebs desertis Ecclesiasticis caetibus privatim Conveniebant lib. 1. cap. 21. And this they continued to do though all the Churches were taken away from the Adherents to Eustathius in order to force them to Communion with those put in his place as may appear from that request of Athanasius to the Emperor for one Church to be granted to the Orthodox at Antioch when he desired the like of Athanasius for the Arrians at Alexandria Theod. lib. 2. cap. 12. I think a Man so Skilful in Antiquity might have made choise of some more lucky instance but that he may not be at too much trouble if he can have a little Patience it shall not be long ere I furnish him Next in order to an Answer to his Second Question he supposeth the Clergy-man not bound by the Deprivation but then saith he What is this to a Separation For is he so obliged that rather then not officiate he may and ought to break of from Communion with the Church If you will make that supposal which in our particular Case is a great Truth you of all Men were most unfit to put these Questions For when you joyn with those who make this unjust Deprivation when you take our Churches our Flocks our Livelyhoods and suffer us not to exercise our Ministry where you have the Profit of it unless we will do it to the dissatisfaction of our Consciences Do you complain that we do not maintain Communion with you If we were in fault in this Case yet Modesty if any be left you and the ill Usage we have from your Party might make you hold your Peace I freely grant That we ought to continue in the Communion of the Church we are of as long as we can and that Separation is like a Divorce which is the last Extremity c. But then I say That we still are of the same Church we were of for the Schism goes along with the Cause and there it is you not we are the Schismaticks the Separation I grant to be Unhappy and Mischievous but let them look to that who made the Divorce by justifying unlawful Proceedings and setting up sinful Terms of Communion as I have already proved and therefore will say no more of it here And this is sufficient for an Answer to that Slander as if we proceeded upon the same Grounds with the Dissenters which is manifestly false only I am bold to tell him That they have now put a Plea into the Mouth of the Dissenters which will justifie their Separation from them and were it not that they cannot justifie their Separation from us your Perfidiousness and other ill Acts had given up the Cause to them When he thought he had lost my Second Argument with multitudes of Questions he attacks that which he calls the Third And he says I argue from the Subjection the People and Clergy owe to the Bishops and the Bishops owe to their Metropolitan and I grant That I do so and the Argument must be good unless he can Dispute away all the Government and Orders of the Christian Church But to this he returns with all imaginable Scorn Our Author that undertakes to give us an account of the
A REPLY TO A Vindication OF A DISCOURSE Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separation c. LONDON Printed in the Year M DC XCI AMONG all the Reformed Churches none departed from Rome with greater Advantage than the Church of England The certain Succession of Authority as well as purity of Doctrine and both maintained by Men as famous for the Integrity of their Lives as Profoundness of their Learning made her for a long time the Glory of the Resormation and both the Envy and Terror of her Adversaries For this Reason she became the principal Mark at which all Firebrands were darted and no Arts were neglected which might by any means raise up Enemies against her till in the former Rebellion overwhelmed with the Multitude Malice and Wickedness of her Foes either her Preists with others were barbarously murdered or shut out from the Temples and debarr'd from the daily Sacrifice And Jerusalem it self was made an heap of Stones But though this did eclipse her Beauty and as some thought well nigh defac'd her yet such was the Sincerity of her Members that those bloody Persecutions did indeed raise her Reputation and made many who admired their Constancy enquire into those Principles from whence sprang such wonderful Effects whereby she gained no few Proselytes And as when the Heathens accounting all sure erected Statues to Dicclesian with this Inscription Superstitione Christi ubique deleta the Christian Church soon after broke forth with greater Splendor than ever so when our Enemies thought they had raked up that long afflicted Church in Ashes on a sudden and beyond hopes she rose with such a Lustre as struck Envy dumb and her Enemies with Admiration as seeing the Finger of God in it And thus it might have long continued had there not been a falling away and her own Members renounced her Principles But alas now her Condition is worse and more desperate than ever unless God be her Helper Rome hugs herself and laughs to see the Members of that Church debauched and that effected by some few Vipers bred in her Bowels which all their Craft and Industry could never bring to pass The Dissenters smile and insult to see the worst of their Principles taken up and pretended to have been always Principles of the Church of England And as for those few whom no Plagues or Penalties can force to abdicate their Mother and with Rancour vomit up that Divine Food they suckt from her Breasts whilst even their Enemies commiserate them those who call themselves their Brethren prosecute them with the utmost Malice as if nothing would serve them but Root and Branch and they were fully resolved to destroy that poor distressed Church both Name and Thing And unless God of his Infinite Mercy prevent their implacable Designs to the eye of Sense it scarce seems avoydable Experience may have sufficiently taught us That Schism not only breeds ill Blood but worse Actions and not only causeth Heats and Animosities but often raiseth Men to that Madness of Zeal that they think they do God good Service by the most unjustisiable Deeds and barbarous Immanities and I pray God that these times may not too much feel the Effects of it Upon this account every good Man will not only Mourn over the Divisions of Reuben but by all honest Means endeavour to allay them And if I could be convinced That the Guilt of the present Schism lay at our Door I should think it ought to be my first Work to Repent of it And thô the Author I have to do with writes at that rate as if he intended not to convince any Man but reproach all who are not of his Party yet I will pass that by and do him the Justice to examine whatever may seem in the least material thorough his whole Discourse and so leave the Judgment to the Impartial Reader For a taste at first what awkard doings we must expect all along he answers my little Piece backwards and begins at the end And because I said I was unwilling to judge severely of my Brethren he thinks he hath no small advantage in picking up three or four harsh Phrases which dropt from my Pen As if a Man could have no kindness for others who sometimes speaks in sharp Language when bitter Truth enforceth him to it and the Nature of the Thing will not be otherwise expressed But this Complaint very ill becomes him who at every turn on set purpose calls me by all the scornful despicable Names a malicious Wit can invent and sometimes gives me such ill-favoured Titles with Threatning to boot as if he had a mind to deal by me as the Heathens with the Primitive Christians who when they would expose them to be torn in pieces drest them in the Skins of Bears or other Savage Beasts But this I can neglect For though it may recommend his Book to some kind of Wits yet it will certainly disparage it with all Men of Sense My Answer contained only two Sheets so that it could be neither difficult nor tedious to have answered it as it lay But as if he were lost in a Wood or had to do with some Voluminous Author he reduceth it to Heads but as there I followed another Man's Steps so here to prevent all Complaints of foul play seeing our Author will not allow me my own Method I will follow his But first I cannot forbear to tell him That I do not think that he hath done like an ingenuous Man in these things 1. That he hath quite omitted several Reasons of mine which were material as to the Matter in Controversy 2. That when he mentions Topicks or hints at any of my Arguments he never repeats those Words wherein the strength of the Argument lay 3. That he rarely makes any direct Answer but shifts and turns it off to another Matter like some crafty Huntsmen who being desirous to save the life of an old chac'd Hare and yet to gull those who follow the Sport and think the same Game is still on foot start and lay the Dogs into a fresh one And in these three things consists both the Artifice and Strength if it have any of his whole Book The first Topick he makes to be of Church-Communion and Schisme and here the first Offer he makes is a Side-blow in stiling us the New Separatists p. 3. Now Schisme certainly goes along with the Cause and those properly are the Schismaticks who are the Criminals Now let Matters be first adjusted and the Cause examined and let those be the new Separatists who shall be found Guilty upon Tryal and if his new Titles of Honour be not found of Right to belong to himself and his Party I will confess that I have been wofully mistaken That we do not fall but are forced into this Division I had alledged This he saith he will answer in due place and I must wait his Leisure But when he calls it a Spiteful Return when I desire that Author
of the same fatal Consequence if the Clergy had not subscribed c. if they had not declared their Assent and Consent c. if they had not taken the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy in former Kings Reigns and he might have added if People should Renounce Christianity which I fear many are strongly tempted to whilst they hear the Ministers of it Preach away God's Commandments and those who ought to be the severest Enemies of all Wickedness to Canonize Perjury and Injustice for Christian Virtues But to answer his particular Instances Will he say That either the things commanded or the Authority commanding then was unlawful If not how comes it up to our Case or how could they justly be made a ground of Separation But he would not see wherein the Fatality of the Consequence I urged lay which if he had pleased to do he might have spared all his Instances though he had had Forty more Suppose the Case thus a Government requires something to be done which is sinful and unlawsul with which if the Clergy will not comply they shall be discharged from the Exercise of their Function and Duty Now in such a case God forbids Compliance and if they are bound to submit to the Government and cease from the Exercise of their Ministry upon Non-compliance then it will lye in the Power of the Civil Government whether God shall be worshipped in the Land or not For sin we must not and yet if we must acquiesce under the Penalty for not complying then it is in their Power to discharge every Man from his Duty And therefore in such a Case I say we must do out Duty at our Peril we must do well and be content to suffer Ill we have no Remedy in such Case but to bear our Cross And to avoid or explode the Doctrine of the Cross here were in the consequence to thrust Christianity out of the World Of this not a word and indeed our Author 's great Skill lyes in avoiding not answering Arguments He farther adds That the Penalties though great are neither unjust or merciless if the Government is not otherwise to â—e secured What! not though the thing commanded be Sinful May a Government then enjoyu Wickedness under the severest Penalties if it be thought for its Security and yet be blameless There are a sort of Men are strangely careful for some Governments and what a small ado is required to establish a Throne in Unrighteousness and after all it will never be done but either this will not secure the Government according to your Principles or it may be without it For I must intreate you to remember a common Distinction amongst your selves I mean that between Government and Governours and then be pleased to call to mind who it is that expresly says That the Oath is to the Government not to the Person Now suppose a Man should take the Oaths with a design at the same time to secure the Government by putting it into other Hands I cannot see but that a Man may lawfully do thus upon your Principles and yet this were to make an Oath the most detestable Cheat that ever was known or heard of Sure the Eyes of Governours will one time or other be opened to see that these Men really strip them of all Security All our Churches saith he are open p. 8. and every one furnished with a bold Swearer But what 's this to the purpose Or how does it answer the Case I put For may they not on that account be shut at any time and for a longer time than they were in the Reign of King John And let me desire you Sir to remember though you have shut us out That the Church is not tyed to the Walls but follows the Authority of which we shall Discourse anon What he means by his Proportions of 12000. to 16000. and 2000. to 10000. I cannot imagine unless it be to expose the Apostacy and Iniquity of these Times which none before can parallel If he mean to upbraid us with the fewness of our Number it is only to encrease their own Shame and Reproach for Argument in this Case it is none or of no Force for it might as well have been pleaded against the Church in Elijah's time and he might for the same Reason have condemned all Christians in general because Christ calls them his Little Flock Whereas I alledged and proved That the Oaths were made a condition of Communion to us quatenùs Ministers He could not deny this only it seems we must be like Pelicans in the Wilderness and none must come near us For if we will separate we may but then we must separate alone For the People cannot joyn with us without being guilty of a notorious Schism p. 8. But if Ministers fall under a Deprivation which hath neither Cause for the Ground nor Authority for the Act and consequently is null and void in it self May not a Minister's own Flock joyn with him without being guilty of notorious Schism And if other Ministers will not only justifie such unjust Proceedings but greedily rob them of their Livelyhoods and enter upon their Charges May not those who receive the Wrong separately do their Duties But here he objects That this is nothing to the People of whom as Church Members this is not required And this he says is a tender Point and what I durst not touch upon The Point indeed is tender and though I had not Courage enough to swear i. e. to be Perjured yet my noble Hector shall find that I dare do any thing that is Honest It is not the Oaths in themselves nor their taking or our refusing upon which we merely justifie the Separation but it is the influence those Oaths have upon Communion and that is such as will not only justifie but oblige the People as well as the Papists to separate And if this be so then it is your selves must Separate alone because the People ought not to joyn with you For though the Oaths themselves are not imposed on the People as condition of Communion yet the Matter and Substance of those Oaths is put into the Prayers of the Church and so far it becomes a condition of Communion to all Persons For to every Prayer the People are required to say Amen and they are not left at their Liberty to joyn in what Prayers they will and not in others but are required not only to joyn but to testifie their joyning in all their Amen supposes their joynt consent concurrence and approbation What People are enjoyned in the solemn Worship to pray for is made a condition of Communion to them and if it be Sinful will not only justifie but require a Separation For what I may not swear though but once I may much less pray for daily nor can there be a greater affront offered to the Divine Goodness than by solemn Prayer to endeavour to engage it for that which at the same time I condemn as
Unjust and Wicked How can I joyn with those in every time of whose solemn Worship I am required more then once to pray to God that he would approve and prosper the breach of his Commandments and most signally and notoriously the Fifth Sixth and Eighth To pray not only for that which is highly unjust but also for the Prosperity and Continuance of it is that which no Christian ought to do and where he is enjoyned to do it he not only may but ought to separate from such and so I leave others to judge whether there be any Reason for the Peoples non Communion as he Styles it Other Reasons I could add but because the Author of The Caution against Incōsistency has clearly proved That those who think the Oaths unlawful ought for the same Reason to condemn the Prayers which relate the Matter of the Oath and consequently ought not to joyn where they by being inserted in the daily Office are made a condition of Communion I refer to that for more full Satisfaction in that particular Only this I shall add that in conclusion of the Church Prayers we return Thanks to God Who hath given us Grace with one accord to make our Prayers and Supplications Now let Men pretend what they will in repeating this Prayer either they say true or false if they say true then they joyn in those Prayers which contain the Matter of the Oath but if they do not joyn in those Prayers then this Prayer is a lye in their Mouths Yet there is one thing more I shall propound That though personal Failings of any Man are not a good Warrant to others to abstain from Communion whether nevertheless the Teaching Preaching and Maintaining Immoralities and Opinions destructive of Christian Practice may not as well justifie a Separation from such as Errors in the Faith For though our Adversaries do not say That Perjury is lawful yet they argue upon such Principles as if there could hardly be any such thing They make Oaths to be no Security to any Governours which is enough to make all Governours hate and root out that Religion which teacheth so The effect of their Discourse tends to the destroying of all Faith Truth and Justice amongst Mankind than which nothing can be more scandalous or dangerous to that Religion which prescribes and requires the highest Simplicity and Sincerity And this thing alone I think may go a great way towards justifying a Separation from such Persons From what hath been said the Answer is easie to what follows For it is apparent That it is not barely a Political Security required of us nor do we and God forbid either we or any others should Revenge our Wrongs upon the Church as he maliciously insinuates But we preserve our own Innocency and what in us lyes by lawful and honest Means the Churches Purity and just Authority though we heartily mourn That the Wickedness of others hath unavoidably put us upon the necessity of taking the Course we now do As to that which he calls my second Argument he tells me in the First place That I proceed upon a gross Mistake by confounding Deprivation with Degradation and yet with his leave the Mistake was not mine for I called it Deprivation as he doth I never mentioned Degradation But if the Civil Power inflict a Penalty under the name of Deprivation which tantamounts to a Degradation I could only argue against it as it was Now to take away a Character and make it eternally useless is in effect the same thing and this is the Case we are not only deprived of our Livelihoods and shut out from our proper Cures but perpetually discharged from the Exercise of the Ministerial Function unless we will sin against the known Laws of God and the Land and the Dictates of our own Consciences which we ought not upon any account to do And I think this wants very little of being equivalent to a Degradation let them call it by what Name they will But what if the Civil Power never so much as thought of your Distinction as I am apt to think they little Regard it When the High-Priest and Rulers of the Jews first consulted and resolved amongst themselves straitly to threaten the Apostles That they speak henceforth to no Man in this i. e. Christ's Name Act. 4 17. and after put their Resolves in Execution expresly commanding them not to Speak at all nor Teach in the Name of Jesus vers 18. do you think they troubled their heads with your Distinction of Deprivation and Degradation And how much is our Case different For we are obliged what in them lyes either not to speak in that Name or to act contrary to it and therefore I think we may very justly take up the Apostles Answer Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God judge ye vers 19. When the Heathen Emperors who set themselves against Christianity it self Banish'd the Bishops and Martyr'd others they did but deprive them they would not for all the World sure have thought of degrading them And after all what if your new Masters do assert that Power in themselves You know many of them are Erastians and how much such Men set by your Distinction you can scarce be ignorant But to go a little farther with you those Men who pretend to make Laws are commonly presumed best to understand their Meaning Now it is not long since that a haughty Member of the Convention plainly told me That it was in their power to take away our Orders and Unpriest and Unbishop us for which he gave this worshipful Reason That the Legislative Power ought not to be stinted And thus neither the Authority nor Establishment of God himself or his Christ nor the Bounds of Good and Evil must be suffered to set any Limits to a proud pragmatical Conventioner By this you may see That the Saviours you adore reckon That our being at any time in Statu quo lyes wholly at their Mercy and that even your selves if you do not absolutely please your new Masters and go through Stitch Right or Wrong with their Commands can pretend to little Benefit from your Character or Orders Besides I have lately heard of a Man who hath accepted a Commission to visit all the Exempts in the City of London and within Ten Miles of it by Vertue of which for any thing I know a busie Chego-pated Priest may insolently attempt to Visit his Metropolitan And whether this may not be improved in time to grant by Commission the Exercise of Episcopal Jurisdiction to any Persons whom they please without Regard to Orders I cannot say but I think it is a prety Step and fair Advance towards it But be the Mistake whose it will I shall now try what he answers to the Argument for it is that which is the Concern And here he deals most disingeniously by me For First in reciting my Argument he leaves out those
Words which would have cleared my Meaning and others wherein the Strength of my Argument lay Next he Sums up my Argument falsly and not in my Sense And after this he gives no direct Answer to it but raiseth three Questions and those too for the sake of some Answers he had found in Archdeacon Mason and those Answers come not up to the Case Such mighty pains are some Men at to say nothing to the purpose But however we must wait his Motions My Argument he Sums up thus That being they i. e. the Clergy receive their Authority from God no Civil Power can disable them from the Exercise of their Duty And if it doth they are bound to quit the Communion of the Church where so disabled Now I was so far from simply asserting That the Civil Power cannot disable them from exercising their Function that I there instanced in Cases where they lawfully might But as he has worded it he confutes himself For if they exercise only as he calls it their Duty it is certain no Civil Power lawfully can disable them from the Exercise of it And if he grant it their Duty in that Case he justifies them For no Man ought to be hindred from discharging his Duty Nor did I say That they are bound to quit the Communion of the Church where so disabled For the Church might own them when the State disallowed them I said in such Case of unjust Deprivation they might exercise their Office at their Peril which either might be done in the Church or in Separation from that particular Church according as the Doctrines there taught and the Terms of Communion in it stood The Argument being thus falsly represented he answers it with Questions The method I suppose is new and he a Man in fashion The first is this Whether a Bishop duly Consecrated or a Minister duly Ordained may not be lawfully Suspended and Deprived from the Execution of his Office by the Secular Power whâ—re there is sufficient Reason for it Now this Question plainly answers it self For I think any thing may be done for which there is a sufficient Reason and he is a very hard hearted Man who will not allow him this But then there are other Questions to be asked viz. What is in such Case a sufficient Reason Whether there be sufficient Reason in this particular Case And lastly if he please Whether no Authority in the Deprivers and no Crime as to them in the Deprived be a sufficient Reason for Suspension or Deprivation It is an odd way of answering a Man in a particular Case to float in generals and keep as far from the Question as may be but perhaps he will mend that anon at present we must attend to the Solution of his Question which in his Singular way he performs by reciting two Objections and as many Answers to them from Mr. Mason And to make short work I will grant him all that Mason says where there is as our Author calls it a sufficient Reason for so doing and I hope he would not have it done without or against Reason And so passing by the Act of Parliament which he hath left me to peruse at leisure till I have more spare time I will directly come to his second Question and try whether he hath any better Fortune there He is not agreed with himself how he shall word his second Question and therefore I will set down that where he expresseth himself most at large and maintains the afirmative Whether it may not be lawful for the Secular Power to deprive Persons in Orders for Crimes committed against the State and particularly upon Refusal to give Security to the Government for their Peaceable Behaviour and Allegiance by Oath This he affirms and he says I expresly deny which is expresly false as may appear from those very Words of mine which he hath cited to prove his Assertion For there I did allow a Deprivation by the Secular Power where either the just Censure of the Church had passed on any or they did merit Deposition and that I think they may do though a Censure be not actually passed upon them But if you will have the Deprivation valid even to their acquiescence where the Secular Power or that which calls it self a Secular Power says that a Crime is committed against it you must not only justifie Queen Mary in Depriving Edward the Sixth's Bishops but you must condemn those deprived Bishops for making a Schism and not joyning in Communion as Laymen i. e. that they did not turn Papists But let us examine his Defence I answer saith he with Mason Where was the Act of the Church in the Deposition of Ablathar And where was the Ecclesiastical Crime he was charged with Did Mason then use thus to answer with Questions But your Questions shall have Answers however And First I think it not very clear whether the Jewish Church did afford so sufficient an Ecclesiastical Remedy against their Criminal High Priest as the Christian Church doth against Criminal Bishops and if so then it was altogether necessary both for Church and State that their King who was of God's own appointment and something more than a mere Secular Person should interpose his Authority without any deference to Ecclesiastical Censure Secondly You may enquire but I am apt to believe that neither you nor I can certainly tell whether Abiathar was Censured by the Sanhedrim or not for if it be not Recorded that he was so neither is it that he was not Thirdly Though it be very convenient in it self agreeable to the Rules of the Church and makes much for the Peace both of Church and State That Christian Kings in Punishing Ecclesiasticks would take the Censures of the Church along with them which would make the Condemnation of such Persons more terrible and notorious yet if the Clergy should refuse as it would be their Fault so it doth not hinder the Secular Power to punish Offenders according to Justice But all this is nothing to the purpose and will do him no service because there are Cases wherein Ecclesiasticks Deprived by even a lawful Secular Power may yet remain obliged to execute their Commission from Christ though at their Peril or else the Apostles and Primitive Bishops must be Condemned and if so it is much more Lawful when for adhering to right they are deprived only by a pretended Power But I suppose this Virtuoso will say That Jehojada had been bound to leave of all care of discharging his Duty of High Priest if Athaliah had Deprived him As to his Second Question Where was the Ecclesiastical Crime Abiathar was charged with I answer That though I spake of Ecclesiastical Censures yet I did never limit the matter to pure Ecclesiastical Crimes nor have I that I can remember so much as used that Phrase for the Church may censure whatsoever is Contra bonos more 's though at the same time the Secular Power punish it as an
nothing of Moment without his Consent Every other Bishop to employ himself only about those things which are business of his proper Diocesâ— and the Villages or Places thereunto belonging Neither let him i. e. the Chief do any thing without the Concurrence of the rest And so Vnity shall be preserved and God shall be gloryfied c. To this very Canon the Council of Nice relates and explains what is meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first amongst them For after a great deal of care taken about the Ordination of the Metropolitan as a Matter of great moment for the Churches Security they conclude the Canon thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 4. i. e. Let the Authority or Confirmation of things done throughout every Province belong to the Metropolitan Upon this very Canon did the African Fathers found their Authority for that saying in their Epistle to Coelestine Bishop of Rome Decreta Nicoena sivâ— inferioris gradûs Clericus sive ipsos Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissime commiserunt i. e. The Decrees of the Council of Nice have most plainly put not only the Clergy of inferiour Rank but even the Bishops themselves under the Jurisdiction of their Metropolitans And to both the foregoing Canons the Council of Antioch seems plainly to referr in their 9th Can. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. It behoves the Bishops in every Province to know the Bishop of the Metropolitical See and that he undertakes the Care and Management of the whole Province and that by reason of the great Concourse of People from all places to the Metropolis upon account of Business c. And having thus confirmed the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans they tell you That they did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. According to an ancient Canon of our Fathers binding or in force And that you may know what particular Canon in this they had an eye to in the very next Words speaking of the Duty of Bishops they expressed it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are the very words used in the Apostles Canon for the same purpose as any one may see who will compare them together From all this it is evident That even Bishops place at Rome it made a Schism and it had been a very Pernicious one had not Felix opportunely died I will not urge upon our Author That his frequent loose way of expressing himself doth in effect basely give up not only the Episcopal Order but all the Orders in Christ's Church and consequently the Church it self to the Secular Power be it what it will if this was done designedly as it seems to be it is so much the worse But I will keep my self to regular Ecclesiastical Practices and Authorities and if a Clergy-man will not abide by these or return them a fair Answer he is much more fit for a Censure than a Disputation It is a Rule so well known to be universally received by the Ancient Church That there shall be but one Bishop in a City that I need not spend time to prove it That of the Chorepiscopi doth not alter the case and particularly is nothing to our case for these two Reasons First That though they were a sort of Rural Bishops yet they were only as Assistants and acted in Subordination to and by the Direction of the City Bishop Secondly That we have none such now and as for those who are so hasty to get into the places of our pretendly deprived Bishops they would never own themselves to be Chorepiscopi but challenge the whole entire Jurisdiction and absolutely thrust out the lawful Canonical Bishops contrary to all the Rules of the Church The reason why this Rule bath been held so Sacred is partly because to do otherwise would be to make the Church a Monster for in St. Cyprian's Sense a Church is a People united to their Bishop where by the way observe That the Word Plebs or People is taken in a larger Sense as well for the Clergy as Layety under the Jurisdiction of one Bishop And here the Bishop supplying the place of the Head and the People of the Body to set up two Bishops were to make two Heads partly because if two Powers independent upon each other command and direct in the same Church it would breed such Disorders and Confusions as usually end in Schism and indeed it might make the Obedience of the People impossible whilst they might command different things at the same time and for this reason both so great Power was given to Metropolitans in Provincial Churches and all Bishops were Prohibited any Acts of Jurisdiction out of their own Precincts which might be any ways prejudicial to the Canonical Bishop of the Place And therefore where there is a lawful Bishop another ought not to be placed there if it be otherwise the whole Act is void and this Sir your good Friend St. Cyprian will tell you Episcopo semel Facto Collegarum ac Plebis testimonio judicio comprobato alium constitui nullo modo posse Ep. 41. ad Cornel. This I think is plain enough but because our Author is for abundance of Words if he please to read St. Cyprian's Epistle to Antosvianus who favoured Novatianus in such a case as is daily expected will be ours he may there find Reasons as well as bare Assertions of which take this taste Cum nemo ante se he speaks of Cornelius Bishop of Rome factus esset cùm Fabiani locus i. e. cum loous Petri gradus Cathedrâ—e Sacerdotalis vacaret quo occupato de dei voluntate atque omnium nostrúm conseasione firmato quisquis jam Episcopus fieri voluit foris fiat necesse est nec habeat Ecclesiasticam Ordinationem qui Ecclesiae non tenct Vnitatem quisquis ille fuerit multum de se jactans sibi plurimum vindicans profanus est alâ—…nus est foris est Et cùm post primum secundus esse non possit quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat factus est non jam secundus ille sed nullus est Ep. 52. Thus it is plain That the grand Reason why St. Cyprian gives the Cause against Novatian was because Cornelius in the Vacancy of the See was Canâ—…nically placed there before him If therefore a Bishop be thrust into the place of another who is lawfully Bishop of the Place all such transactions are void and null in themselves and all that forsake their true Bishop and joyn with him who is thrust in are Schismaticks and though there should be any Penalty or Deprivation befall the Bishop yet if it be such which in its own Nature doth only amount to a Suspension it cannot make the Place capable of another Bishop because notwithstanding the present restraint he remains Bishop still though under a kind of an arrest and in such Case the return of the use and exercise of that Authority which all this while is really lodg'd in him is to be