Subjects of any Sovereign Prince may combine with and invite in a foreign Prince and when he comes tho' with a contemptible force they may forsake their lawful Prince and then by their Treachery having left him helpless and hopeless may treat with a Foreigner drive away their own King give his Crown to the Foreigner and maintain it with their Swords and Purses without which he could not keep his illgotten Goods T. B's 2d Lett. p. 18. Eucher It confessedly seems as I stated the Proposition you cannot deny the perspicuity of its Truth and therefore you invert it to an invidious Paraphrase which in many parts of it is not truly applicable to that which was the Subject of my Apology viz. the Authority of the Convention For all your aggravated Invitations Combinations Revolts Treacheries and Derelictions allowing or supposing them to be no other than you describe them are not chargeable on the whole Estates of the Land especially when in Convention And even thus I will renew my Position That by the Laws of Nations if a foreign Prince procure the Revolt of a vast part of another Princes Subjects thro' the terror of which the helpless Prince leaves his Kingdoms in Anarchy under the Army of the foreign Potentate who thereupon calls the Estates of such deserted Nation to treat for a Settlement they may convene and treat with him upon such invitation For it is the necessity the subject Nation stands in for a Settlement that warrants and legitimates such Treaties by what means soever those exigencies are introduced whether by foreign Force or intestine Commotions jointly or severally throwing all into Anarchy and Disorder But if the charge of the Revolt preclude the legality of any mans Session that incapacity ought to have been objected and if over-ruled protested against in Convention as I have already told you which not being done they were all in Law Reason and Civil Construction lawful Agents and Councellors As to the word Unresisted Power I confess I used care indeed but no trick for it was too hard for me to judge whether the Prince's Power were irresistible or no and so it is in many cases in which Parties yield rather than run the hazard of a Battle But every one can tell when it is or is not actually resisted and the Proposition is as true of an unresisted as well as irresistible Power Tho' take you all the Forces foreign and domestick joyned to the Prince when the Convention was called you will think it hard for any Subjects to have resisted them when the King himself long before durst not but disbanded and quitted thereby all pretensible Duties in the Subjects to take Arms. And the Conventioners deserve to be your humble Servants for putting them upon such an Essay But if you will require where the fault of this non-resistance really lies I think you may find it in him that neither could be induced to call a Parliament nor to fight it out After which double miscarriage and flight out of the Kingdom I think no man was obliged to resist or take up Arms but to desire such a Settlement as the State of Affairs would admit As for the Wars we maintain with our Purses against all the Enemies of our present Settlement they are just according to all the Rules and Forms of Civil Laws to which you your selves contribute as well as we only with more Crime as doing that against your Consciences which we admit upon Principles to us appearing good But if you think your Exigencies legitimate your payment of Taxes to prevent new danger so we think the general Exigencies of the Nation did legitimate this Settlement and do still justifie our plenary Submission thereunto according to the Sense Laws and Usages of all Nations As for those you call Revolters they were not the Subject of my Discourse whom I therefore leave to God who as he saw the provocations so did he also every mans purposes and trains of thought in that Insurrection according to which at the last day they shall each man be judged But for those that lay still I know no legal summons they had from King James to rise in Arms to make that quietness a breach of Allegiance in which certainly you Jacobites are as culpable as the others and in one degree more in that when you might and upon your Principles ought to have taken Arms for him you would not and now when you neither can nor ought clamour for new Seditions and Commotions by which we must inevitably fall a prey to France and a Burnt-Sacrifice to Rome Dyscher I will now for the present intermit the Remarks I collected at Gilman's Coffee-House and bestow some other impartial Reflexions on your Grand State-Principle on which you raise your other Arguments Here then I must tell you That you set up new Principles which the Church of England hath always declared to be erroncous and grounds of Rebellion viz. you set up the Parliament above the King and that we must take our measures of obedience only from the Parliament * Sol. Ab. p. 31. to whose Judgment say you in all Civils all Subjects must submit And upon this you Ground all your Superstructure as that King James's * Ibid. p. 8. Tenure has been publickly judged by this Natition to be extinct * p. 9. and that this Nation hath justified King William 's Cause which is to conclude upon us Beyond this you allow no no man to look or enquire The whole Body of the Church are to be taught by the Parliament and to have an implicit faith in them against the King in all Cases whatsoever so that * Ibid. p. 4. the Churches Loyalty is to follow the Civil Judgment concerning the Object of our Allegiance and the Tenure of Sovereignty And by this Rule if a Parliament change a King every day the Church is bound to swear to every one the Parliament can solve their Oaths But there was a time when the Church thought it their Duty to be Teachers and particularly as to Loyalty as being a principal part of Religion and even against a Parliament Here unfortunately four or five lines were broken off the MS. Reflections but as I well remember the sense was such as is included within these brackers and their Doctrine was owned by all true Sons of the Church of England I mean the Old Church of England in the Reign of King Charles II. This was their Doctrine and Practice and generally of the whole Church of England ever since the Reformation as is plain in her Homilies Articles and Canons c. And you do not attempt to disprove these but only assert the contrary and so leave it as a thing settled and sure MS. Reflections That the Churches Loyalty as to the Object is to be guided by the true Constitution of the State I deny not but I shall never yield what you would thence slur upon us that it is to
and in their visible Communion During this Tract of time can any Man think that no Clergy Men had any Conferences with their Dissenting Bishops hereupon And in those Conferences did those Fathers Condemn and forbid these Prayers at which themselves were daily present No I believe no where and somewhere in several instances I know the contrary that directions have been given to use our present Forms But one thing I will further tell you that these innocent Fathers were not so gulled as you pretend in the first motions For upon the Enthroning of their present Majesties and the Change of the Prayers and Oath of new Allegiance the Recusant Bishops met together in Consultation how to act in these Affairs and after all Debates agitated they came to this Resolution that they would not oppose the Prayers for that it would seem too invidious and uncharitable to deny their Majesties our Devotions but determined only to stick at the Oath This I presume those Fathers will not deny and if any of them should hereafter challenge me for this Report I will give them my Author whom I presume no Man can Impeach of falsehood or Detraction But I would not have mentioned this had not you reproached me with the Lye even while you endeavour to cover the most evident Truths with Clouds and Darkness Nor do I mention this to cast a blemish on them For did not their Deprivations seem to them Schismatical I believe they would not have repudiated our Communion upon the mere account of our Prayers as neither did your great Coryphaeus till the Deprivation of the Primate All which is open Truth tho' these Fathers never read these Prayers which I never charged on them since 't is otherwise very rare to hear Bishops reading the Prayers in any Church whatsoever And this Concession to these Prayers being past on their most serious considerations there was no Cause why they should blow the Trumpet against what they judged lawful But had they really judged the contrary this concurrence had been worse than the neglect of winking Watch-Men or the silence of dumb Dogs to which I never compared them tho' your Censorious Rigours must brand this moderation with more infamous Characters as is evident from this Discourse of yours and the second Chapter of the first Part of your Treatise of Christian Communion And having thus vindicated their Equity and my Reverence thereof methinks such a Man of Manners as you have approved your self hitherto to be should have besprinkled our Fathers also a little more decently and not as generally you do with Tinctures drawn from the Lake of Sodom But to leave you to the felicity of your own good Humours I shall only observe what a silly innuendo you flurt upon the Secretaries or Council of State that they were in great fear what stirs these Bishops would make had they not concerted with Mr. Jones at the Savoy to carry on this Religious Intrigue in the Blind whereas these Fathers expected their determined Fate with all imaginable calmness and serenity as Men that well understood the patience of Saints And in that exemplary Patience they were impatient at those who thro' too great bitterness called our Conformity the Apostacy of the Church of England for the truth of which if you will not believe me I hope you will Mr. Dodwell to whom I therefore refer you for satisfaction And therefore you that would raise you a Monument out of those Flames you kindle by reproaching us with infamous Imputations recede from the pattern and act without the direction of your Fathers Dyscher Another Reason why we may lawfully join in those Prayers is because as you would Perswade us King James and your King William are very good Friends That King James is not among the number of King William and Queen Mary's Enemies MS. Reflex And you prove it for that the Prayers express him not and that you rank him not among the number of King William and Queen Mrry's Enemies For an Enemy is one that designeth to injure a Man and we are not sure that King James doth so design against King William But do you not verily believe that K. James would willingly regain his Crown if he could and consequently dispossess King William Or do you think this no Injury to K. William And no more say you can be intended in those Prayers of the Liturgy for King William than to defeat him King James in that Injurious intention For we pray for no Mans nor Kings Destruction or hurt These are * Sol. Ab. pag. 14. your reasons why no Jacobite ought to Scruple to join with you in the Common-Prayers for King William viz. To strengthen him that he may Vanquish and overcome all his Enemies because King James intends him no Injury Transubstantiation is easie to this This is perswading us out of all our Senses at once King James and King William appear upon the Head of two Armies * These two words might well have been spared to cover c. and Fight and each calls those Rebels that adhere to the other and yet they are not Enemies It is no hurt to the one if the other get the Victory and therefore you may Pray for Victory to King William without meaning any hurt to King James Why then are you offended at those that Pray for Victory to King James against King William Here is no Injury intended to King William only that King James may have a Victory that is all Is this the Argument to perswade Mens Consciences to join in your Common Prayers Is this the strength of your Cause The strong and solid Conviction of the sincerity and plainness of your Dealing MS. Reflex But supposing he will do no Wrong yet sure he may demand and endeavour to recover his Right And I am apt to think that your little ambitious Dutch Saviour would think no Man in the World so much his Enemy as he that demands three Kingdoms from him Nor do we call only those Enemies who design Injuries but even all who actually oppose each other or between whom there is any Contest let their Designs be what they will or their Cause right or wrong And after all your daubing he certainly is accounted the greatest Enemy for whose sake all others are judged Enemies Now tho' the King of France be such an abominable Enemy he should soon he esteemed the best Friend if he would but renounce the Interest of K. James and suport the Usurpation of the Prince of Orange T. B. Sec. Lett. pag. 32 33. Eucher In this Triumphant and fastidious Harangue these things severally offer themselves to our Consideration 1st Whether the Strength of our Cause lies in this Account of our Prayers 2dly Whether this be not the Sense of many Jacobites 3dly What is the full importance of the word Enemy 4thly What the importance of Vanquishment and overcoming 5thly What really is the lawful Sense of these words in the
crime deserved tho' the Dr. to serve his Hypothesis extenuates the guilt of his Rebellion And if this be in fact so then it seems rather a Concession with a mixture of Counsel than a mere austere command of Retirement for so verbs of the imperative Mood very ordinarily signifie and Solomons kind reflection on his Liturgies and Sufferings in the days of David fairly appear to intend so much If a Traytor were thus spoken to by his Prince never see my face more get the out of this place for this shall satisfy me instead of thy forfeited life or else thou art a dead man even to day the Traytor would interpret the recession to be a condition of Life rather than a precept of Civil Duty And his submission would be rather his choice for himself than any Service to his King And certainly he might refuse such offer at his choice and peril as Malefactors sometimes chose the Gallows rather than Transportation This option proposed to Abiathar in this Form the whole Text in every version sufficiently exhibits but the Septuagint most expresly in the citra position of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 within the first Clause and comes more up to the Hebrew than our Translation for the Hebrew and the Septuagint by a man of death intend the sense of a dead man and this signifies rather a Menace or Sentence of actual death especially when joyned with these words in this very day than a mere merit of death as we render it But such a Menace with a Concession of voluntary exile to Anathoth must be conditional if he went not thither and so admits option And moreover according to the Hebrew Structure of the words we must admit this interpretation from the Drs. own Authorities For thus Abravanel alledged * Case of Sees pag. 21. by the Dr. out of Areschmuth gives his formal sense upon this place Solomon commanded Abiathar not to stir a foot from the place assigned him i. e. Anathot For otherwise if he should dare to sally out hence his Blood should be on his own head as he had also intimated unto Simei the Son of Gera. And this is manifest from the words of Solomon but to day I will not slay thee as if he should say but I will slay thee on that day on which thou shalt dare to go from thence any whether Now if hereupon the Blood was to be on his own head if he stirred was it not put to his option in the sense of Abravanel whether he would confine himself within Anathot or die And if there were such option in his Continuance there was so in the first Recession There are * Vindic. of Depr Bish pag. 71. Christ Com. part 2. ch 3. p. 31 32. some of us make this act of Solomons a Banishment and not a proper Deposition the natural consequent of which Banishment was the debarring him the exercise of the Pontifical Office which Abiathar must be supposed to accept as a Favour and not insist upon his Right But then this Exile must be voluntary and that makes the Cession And I desire the Dr. if he can to discover any other form or importance in the words of Solomon For tho' he says the following words so Solomon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thrust out Abiathar make it more plainly to appear a mere absolute Deprivation by the alone act of Solomon without any Cession in Abiathar yet he cannot but feel a conviction within himself that this note is far from Cogent For he well knows that in all Languages verbs Actives have a great Latitude of signification as to the Forms and Manners of action and denote as well a moral as a natural influence And here the manner of Solomons ejecting Abiathar is at full declared moral only by enjoyning him to retire from Jerusalem to Anathoth on pain of death and it is in vain to strain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to any other conception And truly since so many Learned men not concerned in our Case have had various notions of this procedure I wonder why the Dr. is so earnest to force this instance to an absolute Deprivation Why should he be fond of multiplying examples of Lay or Invalid Depositions Are there not too many such injurious Attempts at the fewest but we must needs rake and hale in more than really are to swell the number and improve the mischief of ill Precedents only to give colour to an odd and invidious Hypothesis Is the Baroccian trifle tanti Is there so much of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it as to enflame the Church of England I am afraid there is and nothing hinders the present accension but dearth of paper scarcity of money and the danger of unlicensed Printing But however I hope I shall stifle it in this instance in which I only am engaged let others try and take their Fortunes in the rest Eucher But by your good leave Sir you shall not escape so for your Arguments and the Drs. drawing me contrary ways I would gladly see my way clear between you and get me out of the maze if possible Dyscher Then go you on as you think fit Eucher The Dr. then first of all tells us * that whatsoever is necessary for the present Peace and Tranquillity of the Church ought to be made use of †Case of Sees c. Chap. 1. provided it is not in it self Sinful and the ill Consequences which may possibly attend it are either not so mischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid Vpon this Maxim the Antients always prefer'd the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church to all other things the Essentials of Religion excepted There was no Custom or Law of the Church so Sacred or inviolable but what they readily sacrificed whensoever necessity required to the Peace and Tranquillity of it And in proof hereof the Dr. brings you several full Instances and Authorities to which I refer you and on which I demand your Opinion Dyscher I may allow every jot of this to be true but who shall judge for the Churches Practtice concerning the necessity and the Exigences the Evils and the Dangers thus to be balanced Eucher For a Province the Metropolitan and Bishops and where the Clergy have a Canonical Right they also are to be admitted In a single Diocese the Bishop and his Clergy especially the Chapters and if the Laity be concerned it is fit these Debates be managed in the presence of such standing and communicant Laic's as shall there appear in their own concernments Dyscher Can any resolves be valid against the Colledge of Bishops in a Provincial Synod or against the Bishop in a Diocesan Consultation Eucher No. Dyscher Will not the College of Bishops and the body of the Clergy think it Essential to Christian Religion to preserve the Hierarchy and Authority of the Priests Sacred and
thereby that he neither was nor would be an Anti-bishop to him tho' Euphemius in begging his Protection in his way to Exile seems to have conceded without Remonstrance that Macedonius should supply the Church for him during his Exile but not against him upon which joynt accord they continued saithful Friends even unto Death And hence well might those who refused to subscribe Euphemius's Condemnation fairly Communicate with Macedonius as being no Anti-bishop to Euphemius but in perfect Charity and Communion with him All which procedures are grounded on that Maxim owned by St. Chrysostom that the Church cannot be viz. well without a Bishop So that it is the actual want of a Bishop for the time being that Justifies new Admissions not to exclude but to supply the defect of the Proprietor till his Recovery from Banishment or Bondage And to apply the Drs. Concession to our present State If their Majesties had not filled the Sees with New Bishops the Old ones had been our Bishops still and then how were the Sees before vacant by the Statute of Lay-Deprivation And how long should we have waited their Majesties leisure had they continued longer the Diocese in Suspence before the Dr. would have remonstrated for the Old Bishops Or how shall the Church know when their King's design to destroy the Church by not yielding it Bishops while the crafty Persecution is carried on under false promises and fair pretences of care for the Churches Interest These are pretty hard Morsels to digest and I leave it to the more judicious to resolve them Dyscher But to what Rules can you reduce the usage of the Greek Church in admitting new Patriarch's erected by the Grand Seignior upon his Arbitrary Dethroning a former who yet is present to his People and capable of his Pastoral Care For the Dr. puts us this strict Question †Case of c. Ch. 15. Pag. 174.175 whether an ejected Patriarch of Constantinople would do well if after he was deposed he should separate from the Communion of his Successor and make a Division in the Church To this he adds another Questions It is certain saith he that when the Patriarch of Constantinople is deposed by the Sultan the Church submits immediately to the Successor without asking the Old Patriarch leave Is now the Greek Church herein Schismatical If the ejected Patriarch should actually lay claim to his See would the Church be Schismatical for adhering to the present Possessor Eucher In this point I find the Dr. and some of you very well agreed to excuse and in a manner to justifie this Submission in the Greek Church This the Dr. observes in one of his Opponents and so have you and I in your learned Author of Christian Communion But herein my opinion is that the whole Greek Church was culpable in the first Admission of such Changes and stil is so in continuing such submission whic has nothing in it to Excuse it but fear of persecution It is true it would be odd for one single Patriarch to refuse such Ejection against the temper and humour of the whole Church especially if himself were advanced so upon the Imperial Expulsion of his Predecessor for if a whole Church will perversely urge her Bishop to yield to violence and lay down his Mitre I think in many Cases he may do well to yield to an unjust and inflexible importunity as Gregory Nazianzen did but the Churches are to blame that do not animate and maintain their Bishops against such Tyrannies in their Spiritual Authorities which ought not to lacquey it to Simoniacal and barbarous insolences For since the Greek Churches are as to their Temporal Condition in the same State with the Primitive they ought to do as the Primitive Church would have bravely done and to follow the rules of Succession that were observed in those purest Ages It is true the whole Greek Church having by a long and consuetudinary consent and prescription made this Usage to themselves as it were Canonical would not seem Schismatical in neglecting the claim of an Ejected Patriarch because he himself in his first advancement came in by the pleasure of the Sultan and assumed the Patriarchate under the same servile Terms and Conditions And therefore that first Consent tho' faulty and vicious incapacitates him to reform and reverse the ill custom singly by himself without the concurrence of his Episcopal Colleagues or the general Councils of that Church at least he cannot condemn them as Schismatical in this Customary Servility And here I must put this Quaere whether this Submission of the Greek Church to such Changes be simply Sinful If so then the Dr. ought not to prescribe from them as exemplary or excusable If not sinful then Custom and Ecclesiastical Consent hath made those deprivations and successions Valid and Canonical and then they are alien to the Drs. Hypothesis and are impertinently alledged But as if Case of the Greek Church now actually stands the ejected Patriarch making no challenges 't is no domestick Schism within themselves tho it be a wretched Dehonestation of that Churches Sanctity And so if as the Dr. confesses these Patriarchs do not merit by their Learning or Wisdom to be guides and patterns to the Bishops of England he should not urge us with their corrupt and profane examples to sacrifice our Hierarchies to the arbitrary lusts of Secular Powers For if it be not a formal Schism in the Greek 't is a radicated vice and corruption there and which for that reason we are to oppose and prevent here against all imprudent perils that it may not become an irremediable and common Evil. Dyscher You are a strange thing of a man you will neither side with us nor our Adversaries but pick out between us matters of dislike as if you would be of neither interest but a certain mixt kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this is the ready way to lose your self with both Parties Eucher I have long since learned from the Apostle that if in such Cases of Conscience I should seek to please men I should not be the servant of Christ And truly you on your part and those of the Baroccian Principles seem to me to be equally in such extremes as are destructive to the true happiness and integrity of the Church By which means you have the advantage of reproaching each other for your manifest absurdities which the defence of your principles hurries you into and thus are in a fair way for an eternal wrangle but never like to settle in a grave and impartial temper ease or satisfaction And therefore I that have been so long a seeker between you and but little the Wiser amidst your contentions and so must make the best use and practice of my own Sentiments till I can experience between you others more improving or convincing Dyscher I have been very calm all this while we have been upon the Speculation of the Baroccian hypothesis But now you
For if all the Bishops Priests and Christian Laity with them will adhere to those whom the Statute dooms to Deprivation how can the Statute pass into an Ecclesiastical Effect And so the Church ought always to do if they shall apparently persecute her Bishops for Righteousness sake to hinder their temporal Laws from attaining an Ecclesiastical Effect against the innocent whatsoever afflictions they may suffer for the opposition And if ever Popery Arianism Socinianism or Erastianism should which God forbid press it self upon us by Act of Parliament I doubt not but our Church also will herein become Recusant against such Laws and seal their Integrity with their Blood So that in our Case the only Question herein is whether this Law upon the Church to admit the Deprivation be unjust or no If it be in the Churches Judgment she ought to refuse it if not unjust 't is admissible Now this we believe and you the contrary and God must judge between us but in the mean time the church must act according to her present Convictions Dyscher But the form of the Statute is that the Recusants shall be ipso facto Deprived which must import the actual Deprivation to be completed purely by the mere virtue of this Act antecedently to the Concurrence of the Church Eucher I would willingly allow you that this is the Sense of the Parliament if you can clear it from Non-sense of which I am not willing that great Assembly should be impeached And I will also grant you that the mere Virtue of the Statute alone can deprive them of their Temporalities without the Churches Concurrence But perhaps all Decrees of Humane Power in things dubious and future have this tacit yet necessary Supposition quantum in nobis est as much as in them lies for farther certainly no Power can go And further as to the Spiritualties 't is possible the Parliament might intend no more than this that the Recusants should be ejected or quitted by the Church upon and undoubted presumption of her submissive Concurrence or the Recusants own Cession when the Temporalities were gone and their Non-resistance to such necessary and valid Laws But the Senses of Statutes I leave to the Parliament and the Judges while yet you and I know our Ecclesiastical Principles and Obligations in matters truly Spiritual and Christian and must act accordingly whatsoever Lay-men or Lawyers think hereupon And agreeably the Dean and Chapter of the Metropolitical Church looking upon the Sees of the Recusant Bishops de jure vacant discharged the Recusants of their Authority by taking the Jurisdiction to themselves which in such Cases they judged lawful by the Laws of God as well as Man as also Canonical according to our Constitutions tho' herein they assume no ordinary or proper form of Jurisdiction over Bishops not fallen de jure from their Sees and you may very well remember that I noted against this expected Objection in our last Conference †Sol. Ab. pag. 29. that this was and might be done upon judgment of Conscience for themselves and the Church but not of ordinary Jurisdiction over the Bishop And therefore you ought not to have charged this upon us as if we herein own such a Jurisdiction which we disclaim but have proved that the Church may not upon just and necessary Causes desert her Bishop over whom otherwise she confessedly has no proper formal or ordinary Jurisdiction It is most evidently plain that if the Causes be just our Canonical and Legal Constitutions not only allow but require such a Divorce from the fallen Bishop and assign the Jurisdiction to the Church Metropolitical Now if this our Constitution be irregular and invalid why did the Deprived ever own it till now the operation of it came upon them And therefore whether this imports such a formal Jurisdiction or no which yet I deny it cannot be reproached for Uncanonical without condemning our first Reformation and those Models to which your selves have hitherto sworn Canonical observance Dyscher What I have said saves me the pains of reflecting further on what you say in calling the Concurrence of some of the Clergy the Act and Concurrence of the whole Church of England But how the whole Church of England can be represented not only without the Metropolitan and many of his Suffragan Bishops by anumber no matter how many of the inferior Clergy in direct opposition and rebellion against their Lawful Superiors how this can be justified to be a true and Canonical Repre-sentation of the Church of England I leave to you to explain and to distinguish from the gainsaying of Korah Ms Reflex Eucher Except I much forget my self I never asserted any number of inferiour Clergy-men to be Representatives to the whole Church of England nor yet that the Bishops were deprived by the Representative Body of the whole Church but this I say that the actual Ecclesiastical ejection is performed successively by several Representative parts of the whole Church as first by the Metropolitical Church and then the Diocesan Chapters representing their respective Province and Dioceses Now upon an Act for Deprivation the See upon just causes becoming de jure vacant the Course of our Ecclesiastical Politie is such The Metropolitical Church first takes and deputes the jurisdiction the Diocesan Chapters omit their acknowledgments of their former Bishops and at length upon precept proceed to a new Election Bishops upon this except in mere Translations consecrate the Elected thence the whole Episcopal Colledge own the new as do the Cathedral Clergy in their offices and devotions and all the Clergy in person and the Laity by their representative Churchwardens in admitting the Visitations of the new Prelates and executing their precepts Ecclesiastical and all Lay-men personally own them that recieve their Confirmations Benedictions or any other Sacred Ordinances from them or with them as Bishops All which being uniformly and peaceably promoted by these gradations if of much more Weight and Efficacie than a mere Synodical Censure before it has attained to such an actual consequent Reception in the whole Church And therefore when this Process is complete we may truly say the Bishops are Ecclesiastically outed not by the Church representative but by the Church original And hence such a plenary consent of the Church diffusive against a few Bishops and Clergy on the account of their Recusancy must in legal and equitable construction be presumed to proceed from a common uniform Sense of their notorious incapacity and ineptitude of guiding Consciences and exercising Episcopal Functions and Authorities under the present State And upon notorious incapacities the Church may alienate her self from the incapacitated and recurr to other Bishops for new Consecrations or Investitures especially when justly required thereto by the offended Powers And if any incapacity of exercising the Pontifical Authority had been upon Aaron especially from disowning the Principality of Moses which is or comes very near your Case and Korah had opposed him
and Damnation not required by the word or law of God must in their own nature be And thus in the ancient Church all rigorous Doctrines which made sins where God hath made none draw after them inevitable Separations and so became Heretical Dyscher Well how doth this affect us Eucher I am afraid in all your Principles which make our present Allegiance Illegal and Irreligious Dyscher I pray form them into propositions and make your convictive Strictures upon them if you can Eucher I take no delight in such an Employ It is no pleasure to me to wound or grieve you but as the setting before you the danger of your Principles may correct the precipitancy of your Zeal I will obey and observe your direction First then Maj. Whosoever teacheth Men not to be subject to the Human Constitution and the Authorities that are as Gods Ordinance teacheth practical Errors Min. But so you teach Men against the present Constitution and Authorities Ergo. Concl. You teach Men practical Errors Again in another Form Maj. Whosoever teacheth it to be Perjury to swear Allegiance to a new settled Sovereign upon the Desertion of the former to whom we had sworn Allegiance teacheth practical Errors Min. But such is your Doctrine contrary to Bishop Overals Convocation book Ergo. Concl. You teach practical Errors Again in another Form Maj. Whosoever teacheth to disobey Princes fully settled in a Government procured by ill means teacheth practical Errors Min. But so do ye in the Reasons of your present Recusancy Ergo Concl. You teach practical Errors Again in another Instance Maj. Whosoever teacheth Men not to pray for Kings and all that are in Authority teacheth Men Practical Errors Min. But so teach most of you in the Reasons of your present Recusancy Ergo. Concl. Most of you teach practical Errors Again in another Instance Maj. Whosoever teacheth Men presumptuously to speak evil of Dignities teacheth practical Errors Min. But so do most of you Ergo Concl. Most of you teach practical Errors Again in another Instance Maj. Whosoever excommunicates or teaches Men to refuse Communion with Men that have sworn Allegiance to Powers fully settled acts upon and teacheth practical Errors Min. But so most of you act and instruct Men against our Communion because we have sworn Allegiance to the Powers fully settled over us Ergo Concl. You act upon and teach Men practical Errors And now considering all wherein I have answered you what can you say hereto Dyscher I answer we do not deny any of your Major and general Propositions but we deny your Minors that we teach such Doctrines for our Recusancy But we teach that those Major Maxims do not affect our particular Case for that these are not Constitutions Authorities or Dignities fully settled on which the Church according to the Apostles requires respect and obedience Eucher This is like those prevaricating Salvo's which your Author of Christian Communion upbraids us with †Part 3. Ch. 5. in eluding general Precepts from influencing in particular Cases but to omit this I have however gained another advantage and success by my Advice viz. that in the matter of Allegiance you must quit your Pretensions to Ecclesiastical Doctrines as the grounds of your Recusancy Deprivation and Separation and consequently there is an End of your low and causeless Clamours for your glorious Passive Doctrines as the Cause of your Sufferings all the remaining Question now being between us whether the present Constitution be fully settled which is a Point of Law not Religion to be resolved by the State not the Church by the Court Civil not the Court Christian And hereupon such Civil Judgments are to be secured by Religion and Conscience while they stand reversed and so you are obliged to acquiesce in the Judgments of our Parliaments in this Point But while you oppose this upon Principles of Conscience consider the Danger of Heresie which lies before you Maj. Whosoever teacheth Men to oppose the Course of public Judgment in Civils upon private Opinions to the contrary teacheth Rules of Sedition against Civil Government it self and in them practical Errors Min. But you teach Men to oppose the public Judgment of the Nation for our full Settlement in the present State Ergo Concl. You teach Rules of Sedition against civil Government it self and in them practical Errors Or thus in another Form Maj. He that teacheth Men to act against confessed Principles of Truth ought to be exauctorated Min. But you teach Men to practice Disobedience contrary to those Principles of Truth which you are forced to confess Ergo Concl. You are to be exauctorated Now I cannot for my part see how you can avoid this Charge which your own rigours against us have extorted from me And yet I have urged it for no ill Ends but only to lay before you the ill Aspects of your Division upon those your very Principles in which you glory For here I can more justly enclose you with your Vindicator's Dilemma viz. that if you separate without Principles you are then Schismatical if upon Principles you incur Heresie But if this be so the Church and State may according to your own Rules eject you without a Synod which I compassionately beg you tenderly to consider Dyscher Well let our Cause be what it will in Fact or Opinion I look upon these Lay and Parliamentary Forms of Deprivation to be very dangerous to the Spiritual Franchises of the Church tho' we suppose that such servile and gradual Concurrences of the Church do give them an Ecclesiastical Effect for that they destroy out of the Faith of Christians the Sense of those Spiritual Liberties and Authorities of the Church that by a Divine Charter and an Apostolic Descent belong to her and instil a fatal Erastianism into men's Principles and for that Cause ought not to be received but censured by the Church for that your Party founds their Authority on this false Proposition that the Church and State of England are the same Society whereas there are many Subjects of the State that are no Members of the Church as Apostates Papists Heretics and all unbaptized Persons Tho' yet were this Hypothesis true that all the same persons were equally Members of the Church and State yet as they are a Church and spiritually sociated they must be governed by a Spiritual Authority and as a State by the Civil Power of the Sword nor must the identity of the People confound the Distinction of Powers Besides as we are a Church we are of Right sociated into the unity of the whole Catholic Church to be maintained by an uniform Ecclesiastical Conduct the only ligament of Catholic Communion but as we are a State the Catholic Church is not concerned with us to take any Cognisance of our Civil Procedures but if as a Church we corrupt the Ecclesiastical Government into Civil we break off and excommunicate our selves from the Catholic Unity by deserting the Catholic Forms and Ties of