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
Swerve unnecessarily from the Custom which had been used in the Church even when it lived under Infidels I know not why others should not emulate the Example of so great a Prince if they also would be esteem'd in the Judgment of so great a Person Virtuous I know not why it should not be counted commendable also in them if they also had made Conscience to Swerve unnecessarily from these acknowledged antient Ecclesiastical Liberties He owns that this same Excellent Prince ratified the Order which had been before exhorting the Bishops to look to the Church and promising that he would do the Office of a Bishops over the Commonwealth and when he did take cognizance of Causes of this kind yet this great Person doubts whether he did so as purposing to give them Judicially any Sentence Here we find plain confessions that the Church was in possession of these Liberties before the Conversion of this first Christian Emperor and that Emperor himself was so sensible of this Possession that he made a Conscience of invading it And who could better Judge of his Right as a Christian Prince than he who was the first example of it Mr. Hooker does indeed think that Constantine abstained from what he might lawfully do But he seems plainly to grant that the Emperor was of another mind when he says he made a Conscience of doing what Mr. Hooker thinks he might have done That same Judicious Person adds further with reference to our particular Laws in England There is no Cause given unto any to make Supplication as Hilary did that Civil Governours to whom Common wealth matters only belong may not presume to take upon them the Judgment of Ecclesiastical Causes If the Cause be Spiritual Secular Courts do not meddle with it We need not excuse our selves with Ambrose but boldly and lawfully we may refuse to answer before any Civil Judge in a matter which is not Civil so that we do not mistake either the Nature of the Cause or of the Court as we easily may do both without some better direction than can be by the Rules of this new sound Discipline But of this most CERTAIN we are that our Laws do neither suffer a Spiritual Court to entertain in those Causes which by the Law are Civil nor yet if the matter be indeed Spiritual a meer Civil Court to give Judgment of it Thus Mr. Hookeer And he proves what he says in the Margin from passages of the Laws themselves and the Book de Nat. Brevium and Bracton plainly asserting the difference of those two Jurisdictions I am sensible what a Scope I have here of enquiring into the Laws themselves and proving this Independently on the Testimony of this admirable Man But perhaps I have already said more than can be Printed in this difficulty of our Circumstances I therefore say no more at present but refer our Adversaries to him The rather because he is indeed against me in making the Church one Body with the believing State and because one of our Adversaries has expresly insisted on his Authority Both these reasons as well as the distance of the Age he lived in are sufficient to clear him of any the least suspicion of partiality on our side Even in this very Cause he defends the Use of Lay Persons joyn'd in Commission with Spiritual ones for determining Spiritual Affairs And possibly he may do so by Examples if all Examples must pass for Precedents since Henry VIIIths Usurpations But when King JAMES the II added Laymen in the same Commission with the Bishops concerned in the Case of the Bishop of London with a Power of Deprivation or Suspension ab Officio as well as a Beneficio it is very well known that his Lordship excepted against the competency of his Lay Judges that as a Bishop of the Catholick Church he ought to be tryed by Bishops only His Lorpship would do well now to remember his own Plea then in order to the judging of his own Case now how he can justify his Communicating with those who are set up against his Colleagues deprived no otherwise than by a Lay Power It is well known that his Council then Learned in our Laws insisted on this Plea as maintainable by our present Laws made since the Constitution of the Ecclesiastical Supremacy And what good Church of England Man was there then that did not think the Plea very just and reasonable Let those Lawyers be pleased to recollect what they had to say on that Case and try whether it will not also affect our present deprivations It is very certain that the Liberties of H. Church are the very first things provided for in Magna Charta and the Coronation Oath so that if these things be not inviolable nothing else can be so being Fundamental to all the Security that can be given by our present Constitution And it is no way reasonable that bare Precedents without express Acts for Alienating such Rights as these are should be thought sufficient for extinguishing a Claim grounded on so inviolable a Security If they be so Henry the VIIIth made such Precedents for violating Magna Charta and the Coronation Oath too that no Liberties of the People can now be secure And it is withal as certain that in the Disputes which occasioned the passing Magna Charta this particular of the exemption of the Clergy was one point principally insisted on Nay it was insisted on then to higher purposes than were reasonable or than I am concerned for now so far as to exempt them from Secular Courts even when they were guilty of Secular Crimes and even so it was most frequently determined in favour of the Clergy That was Becket's Dispute which generally prevailed in the following Ages when he was Canonized and when Henry the IId had submitted to Pennance for what he had done in opposition to him This Case of their Exemption as to their Spirituals which is all for which I am now concerned was than so generally acknowledged even by the Laity themselves that there was very little occasion of disputing it Rarely was it ever invaded and more rarely yet if ever was that Invasion defended by themselves who were guilty of it till the Unhappy Times of Henry the VIIIth So uncontroverted was the Right for which I plead that I do not think our Adversaries can give one single Instance of substituting a Successor into a See vacated by no better than a Lay deprivation This privilege therefore against Lay deprivations was so undoubtedly the sense of Magna Charta and the Coronation Oath that on that account as well as in point of Right all Patriots ought to be Zealous for it as well as all good Christians all who have a true Concern for those Two Fundamental Securities of Property as well as of Religion all who are so wise as to foresee how far Precedents of violating them in one Instance may proceed for violating them in others also §
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
A DEFENCE OF THE VINDICATION OF THE Deprived Bishops Wherein The Case of Abiathar is particularly considered and the Invaliditly of Lay-Deprivations is further proved from the Doctrine received under the Old Testament continued in the first Ages of Christianity and from our own Fundamental Laws IN A REPLY to Dr. Hody and another Author To which is Annexed The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Independency of the Clergy on the lay-Lay-Power as to those Rights of theirs which are purely Spiritual reconciled with our Oath of supremacy and the Lay-Deprivations of the Popish Bishops in the beginning of the Reformation By the Author of the Vindication of the Deprived Bishops LONDON Printed MDCXCV THE CONTENTS § I. THE Doctor 's late Book no answer to the Vindication Page 1 § II. The Baroccian M. S. disproved by the Vindicator and not defended by the Doctor P. 2. § III. The Doctor has not offered at any Answer to the Argument against him in the first part of the Vindication P. 3. § IV. He grants the Proposition principally disputed between us concerning the Invalidity of Lay-deprivations and takes no care to prevent the Consequences of that Confession P. 4 § V. The Doctor gains nothing by his changing the State of the Question P. 4. § VI. The Doctor 's whole Proof unconclusive admitting the invalidity of Lay-deprivations P. 5. § VII The Doctor 's Limitation of his own pretended self-evident maxims do all of them prove our Case unconcerned in it Chap. I P. 6. § VIII Submission of Subjects to the Ecclesiastical Usurpers is sinful by the Law of God P. 7. § IX Such submissions would make the Ecclesiastical Subjects Accomplices in the Injustice P. 9. § X. The same Submission in the Clergy is sinful on account of the Oaths of Canonical obedience they have taken to the rightful Possession P. 10. § XI Our Principles afford better Reasons why the unjust Deprivations of Synods may be received without the Deprived Bishops consent than those insisted on by the Doctor P. 12. § XII There is great disparity between the obligations of a competent and an incompetent Authority P. 13. § XIII No reason to reckon on the presumed consent of the Injured Bishops by an invalid deprivation for discharging their Subjects Consciences from Duty to them P. 14. § XIV Our Deprived Fathers gives publick Significations that they do challenge their Old Rights as far as is necessary in their circumstances P. 15. § XV. The Oaths of canonical Obedience to our Fathers still obliging P. 17. § XVI The complyance with Usurpers is also therefore sinful because Usurping Bishops are really no Bishops at all P. 20. § XVII The evil of Sin and Scandal in complying greater than that of Persecution which is avoided by it P. 22. § XVIII The Evill of Schism not avoided but incurred by complying with the Usurper P. 24. § XIX The abuses that may follow on compliance are a just reason to refuse it where it is not otherwise in Conscience due P. 25. § XX. No security that have compliance will not be abused P. 26. § XXI That abuse is a greater mischief than that it can be made amends for by the Doctor 's expedients P. 29. § XXII The main design of the Doctor 's New Book in arguing from Facts already overthrown by the Vindicator P. 32. § XXIII The Doctor himself is unwilling to stand by the consequences of such Facts as himself produces P. 33. § XXIV The Doctor 's remarks against the reasoning of the first part of the Vindication concerning the possession of Cornelius turned against himself P. 33. § XXV The Doctor 's Book afforded no Subject for a Reply but what would be Personal P. 35. § XXVI The Doctor 's turning the dispute to later Facts draws it from a short and Decisive to a tedious and litigious Issue P. 35. § XXVII We have no reason to suffer our selves to be overruled by him in these Arts of diverting us P. 36. § XXVIII We decline his Topick of Facts rather because it is undecisive than because we think it dis advantagious to us P. 36. § XXIX For want of some other Subject relating to the Vindication we pitch on the Case of Abiathar P. 37. § XXX This Fact is not commended in the Scripturs as a Precedent P. 37. § XXXI The Magistrate could not by the Doctrine of that Age have any direct Power over the Priest-hood P. 38. § XXXII The Benefits of the Priest-hood out of the Power and far greater than any in the Power of the Civil Magistrate P. 39. § XXXIII The Ancient Jews of the Apostle's Age did believe their Priest-hood available to a future and eternal State P. 40. § XXXIV And consequently did expressly own it far more Honourable than the Magistracy its self P. 42. § XXXV This same reasoning holds on account of the Priest-hood representing God tho' without relation to a future State P. 45. § XXXVI And that also according to the opinions of those Times P. 46. § XXXVII Solomon's Act of Abiathar was only of force P. 47. § XXXVIII Which force might in the consequence render the exercise of his Right unpracticable P. 48. § XXXIX Yet Solomon was in Conscience obliged to be cautious in exercising this Force against the Priest-hood P. 49 § XL. What Solomon did was only to fulfil what God has before Threatned against the House of Eli. P. 51. § XLI Abiathar was not then the High-Priest properly so called but Zadoc P. 53. § XLII There were in those times two High-Priest at once the chief such as Zadoc was of the Family of Eleazar the lower such as Abiathar of the Family of Ithamar P. 54. § XLIII No Deprivation of the Posterity of Phineas in those Times P. 56. § XLIV Zadoc put in the room of Abiathar as to the Courses of Ithamar which were not under him before P. 58. § XLV The Jews by our Principles could not justifie a Separation on account of Abiathar Their Case not like ours P. 59 § XLVI When Invasion had passed into a Prescription as in our Saviours time he that was in Possession had really the best Title P. 60. § XLVII Among the Jews the true High-Priest was to be known by his possessing the One Altar Among the Christians the true Altar was known by its being possessed by the true Bishop P. 62. § XLVIII The Reasons for exemption from the Power of the Prince stronger in our deprived Fathers Case than in the Case of Abiathar Our Bishops are properly Priests P. 64. § XLIX The Gospel Priest-hood more noble than that of Abiathar c. P. 66. § L. This Reasoning admitted in the Apostolical Age c. by Clemens Romanus c. P. 68. § LI. He does it by the same Principles as agreable to the Constitution of the Gospel P. 70. § LII He draws the like Inferences in Practice as we do P. 72. § LIII The Laity cannot now pretend to any indirect Right of depriving
on it whether it was well or ill done And it is not indeed condemned so neither is it excused or justified from any Right asserted in Solomon to do it Yet the whole force of Reasoning from it as a Pre sedent must suppose it well done for which they have not the least intimation in the Holy Writers The whole Enquiry whether it was well or ill done must therefore be derived from other Reasonings from the sense of that Age by which it may appear whether Solomon had any Right in Offices of the Priest-hood by which he might be enabled to grant or hinder the Practice of it so as to oblige God to ratifie what he did concerning it And for this it is much more certain § XXXI The Magistrate could not by the Doctrine of that Age have any direct Power over the Priest-hood 2dly That the Magistrate had no direct Power of intermedding in the Offices of the Priest-hood according to the sense of the Sacred Writers This appears not only from Facts much more Argumentative than this is but also from Principals professedly asserted in those times The Facts are Saul's being deprived of his Kingdom for presuming to sacrifice in the Absence of Samuel though he pretended a force that obliged him to do so Then also the Fact relating to Uzzah who was struck dead upon the Place for presuming out of good will to stay the Ark in danger ashe thought of being overturn'd only because he was not one of the Priests by Office who were alone allowed by GOD even to touch it A Third is that of King Uzziah who likewise for presuming to Sacrifice was punished by GOD with Leprosy which in those times was taken for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and plainly supposed as such in all the Discipline of Moses relating to it and by being so removed from the Administration of the Government of which he was thereby rendred incapable Here are Facts attested by the same Authority as the other of Abiathar was but not so nakedly related The Facts themselves discover not only the sense of the Writers but of GOD himself His interposing his own Authority in the Cases shews plainly that those Facts were highly displeasing to him and piacular than which what can be more decisive for our purpose Nay GOD took particular care through that whole dispensation to assert the Rights of the Prie sthood as immediately depending on himself more than he did even for the Magistracy In the Rebellion of Corah Dathan and Abiram he asserted the Priest-hood not only against the Reubenties but the Levités also And Aaron's Rod that blossomed was laid up for a Monument against such Mutiniers for all suceding Generations Plainly to exclude the whole Body of the Laity from ever more presuming to pretend to it that no Stranger that was not of the seed of Aaron come near to offer Incense before the LORD that he be not as Corah and as his Company So the Holy Writer expresly And that even Kings were not excepted appeared manifestly in the Examples now mentioned of Saul and Uzziah And before the Institution of Kings the Cause was carried against the whole Body of the People in the Cases of Corah and Aaron's Rod. Nay to cut off all pretensions of the Priest hood being virtually at least and eminently included in the Regal Office the Holy Writers do still suppose the Priest hood to be the Nobler Office of the Two As it advanced the Dignity of the Peculiar People that GOD had separated them to himself from all other Nations so in the same way of Reasoning it is a preference of the Tribe of Levi above all other Tribes that GOD had separated them from the Congregation of Israel Accordingly when the Right of Primogeniture was taken from Reuben and divided between Levi and Judah the Priest hood as the principal part of it was given to the Elder Brother of the Two And as it advanced the whole Nation of the Israellites above all the Nations of the Earth that GOD himself the Supream infinitely perfect Being was their Portion and the Lot of their Inheritance and that indeed it was the Segullah or Peculium in contradistinction to all other Nations so when the same GOD is pleased to stile himself the Levites portion that very Appellative imports their Excellency above all the other Tribes out of which the Kings were chosen and makes them a Peculium in contradistinction to the other Peculium which had no other Title to that stile but what was common to the whole Nation in general §. XXXII The Benefits of the Priest-hood out of the Power and far greater than any in the Power of the Civil Magistrate Nor can this be thought strange if we consider the Opinions than generally receiv'd concerning the Benefits then expected from their Perist-hood far greater than could be pretended to by the Civil Magistrate This was indisputable when its benefits were believ'd to extend to the Future Life as well as this as it was generally believed by the Jews of the Apostolical Age excepting only the Sect of the Sadducees and as we Christians are assured of it now in the times of the Gospel Whether those Rewards were by GOD eexpresly Cove nanted for or only as a Divine gratuity reserved for the Peculium as his Favourites more than could be expected from the Letter of the Covenant or whether they were implicitely understood as included in the Mystical sense of the Covenant it self as either discovered by the Mystical Reasonings or the Oral Traditions of their Ancestors is not perhaps so easie to determine Yet certain it is that they were actually and generally believed by the Jews of the Apostolical Age. This appears in that it is noted as a singularity in the Sadducees to deny them Thence it appears that the Three other Sects of the Pharisees Essens and Galilaeans were all agreed against the Sadducees in asserting them And how inconsiderable the interest of the Sadducees was then appears in the Apostle's taking Sanctuary in the single Sect of the Pharisees alone for securing himself against them Now all the Challenge of the. Benefits proper to the Peculium depended on the Right they had to partake in the publick Sacrifices and the Covenant transacted in them God's Promises were his part of that Covenant and the Covenant is expresly said to have been by Sacrifice Psal. L. 5. that being the Ordinary way used in those times of transacting Covenants between Mankind also As therefore it was in the Power of the Priest-hood to which the Right of Sacrificing was then confined to admit to or exclude from the participation of the Sacrifice so it must consequently have been in the power of that Sacred Function to grant or deny these Benefits which were not attainable otherwise than by those Sacrifices But these are Benefits manifestly beyond the Power of the Magistrate and manifestly greater than any to which his Power does extend
The Magistrate can conser no Title to Future and Eternal Rewards to Persons otherwise never so well qualified for receiving them He cannot oblige the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ratify in Heaven what is transacted by him on Earth as the High Priest could who was in the sense of those times taken for his Authorized Representative GOD at his first permission of Kings neither suppressed the Priest hood nor united it in the Person of the King And therfore there can be no pretence that what was not otherwise in his Power was put in his Power thence forward by any particular provision or gift of GOD. How than could he pretend to to that Power How could he give or take away a Power from others to which himself could not pretend How could he suppose his Act would be ratified in Heaven Or how imagine GOD obliged by it to reject the Priest whom he as Prince was pleased to reject and accept of others who were permitted only by his Authority to officiate at GOD's Altar And what could all his intermedling in these matters signify if he cannot oblige God to ratify what is done by him if notwithstanding GOD should accept of the Person rejected by him and reject the Person obtruded by the Civil Magistrate Nothing certainly with regard to Conscience which is the principal consideration in this Case § XXXIII The ancient Jews of the Apostle's Age did believe their Priest hood available to a future and a eternal state I cannot for my Life conceive how our Adversaries can avoid the force of this Argument if the Benefits procured by the Sacerdotal Office were thought Spiritual and principally relating to a future and eternal state things perfectly out of the Power of the Magistrate and incomparably exceeding whatsoever is within it And that this was the sense of that Age I need not insist on the Article of our own Church It sufficiently appears from the earliest coaeval Monuments of that Age not only that they thought the Sacerdotal Office to have influence on the future state but that they did on that very account believe it superior to the Office of the Civil Magistrate Besides what I now mentioned concerning their agreement against the Sadduces the Two only Jewish Authors that we have undoubtedly coaeval with the Apostles Philo and Josephus are both of them sufficiently clear in these particulars That the Priests Ministry was thought available for the future state what can be clearer than those Words of Philo Where he tells us that Priests and Prophets were Men of God and therefore did not vouchsafe to account themselves of any particular City in this World or Citizens of the World in general as some of the Philosophers did but soared above all that was sensible and being translated to the Intellectual World fixed their Habitations there being registred in the City of Incorruptible Incorporeal Ideas And it were easie to shew that the Language and Notions of the N. T. concerning the correspondence between the visible Priest hood on Earth and the Archetypal Priest-hood of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Heaven and between the visible Tabernacle in Jerusalem and the true Tabernacle in Heaven not pitched by Men but God were perfectly agreeable to these Notions of Philo who was such as the Apostles were before their Conversion to the Christian Religion and that all the Benefits of their outward Ministry were thought due to this Mystical Communication with that which was Invisible by which it may appear that those words of Philo were perfectly agreeable to his avowed Principles Now how could the Magistrate pretend to promote or interrupt this Mystical communication between the Earthly and Heavenly Offices How could he therefore advance any Person to that Dignity or exclude him from it Josephus also is as clear in owning a future state which by these Principles could not be claim'd by any but on account of this Mystical Communication and consequently of that Priest hood which was thought to have a just Title to it He also expresses that state by the Laaguage of the Christians also of that Age. To these I might add the Testimony of a third Tewish Hellenist the Author of the Apocryphal Book of Wisdom He also Personates Solomom making the Temple built by himself to be a Resemblance of the Holy Tabernacle which God had prepared from the beginning Which shews that this Mystical Communication was understood even then when that Author lived who seems to have been elder than even the Apostles themselves How could the Magistrate pretend to any Right in Affairs of this nature § XXXIV And consequently did expresly own it for mor Honourable than the Magistracy it self So far is he from any Right to intermeddle in these matters that if these things be true the Priest hood must needs be own'd for an Authority of a higher nature and more Noble than even the Magistracy it self Nay this very Consequence was inferred from those Principles and own'd as true in that very Age. Philo owns it for the highest honour possible Speaking concerning the Words of Moses there mentioned Using says he an Hyperbolical Expression of Honour GOD he says is their lot with relation to the Consecrated Gifts on Two Account one of the Highest Honour because they are Partakers of those things which are by way of gratitude allotted to GOD The other because they are employed on those things alone which belong to Expiations as if they were Guardians or Gurators that is the Roman Word of the Inheritances The Similitude seems to be taken from the Roman Custom of making Tutors and Curators of young Heirs whose Estates till they themselves came to Age were said to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such Tutors and Curators being till then at their disposal Supposing that the Revenues of GOD were so at the disposal of the Priest as the Estates of the Young Heirs were so at the disposal of the Curators This Philo takes to be the reason why GOD was pleas'd to call himself the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Priests as if GOD himself had been their Pupil which was indeed a very Hyperbolical Expression of the HIGHEST HONOUR that could be ascribed to Mortals But this is general only He else where expresly equals nay prefers the Dignity of the Sacerdocal Office to the Regal He equals them in that same Discourse It is manifest says he that the Law prescribes that reverence and honour to the Priests which is proper to the King In another place he prefers the Priest hood These are his Words †Priest hood is the properest reward of a Pious Man who professes himself to serve the Father whose service is better not only than Liberty but also than a KINGDOM Nor was this a singular Opinion of Philo. Jesephus also is of the same mind The Scripture it self owns the Power of Moses to have been Regal when it calls him a King in
Jeshurum when it says that the Voice of a King was among the Israelites there being no other besides Moses who could pretend to it And his Right was as absolute and as free from any Judicatory then established that could call him to an Account as any of the Kings themselves This at least is manifest that the Supream Power of the Jews as to Seculars which is all that I am concerned for at present was lodged in him and in him alone and that he had no Rival in it Yet Moses himself as Josephus Personates him owns his Brother's Priest-hood as preferable to his own Office of the Magistracy For so he makes him speak concernig his disposal of the Priest-hood ‖ If I had not had regard to God and his Laws in giving this Honour I would not have endured to pass my self by to give it to any other For I am more nearly related to my self than I am even to my Brother and more disposed to love my self them him He plainly supposes him to have denied himself in what he had done in distribution of those Offices which he could never have said with any consistency if he had reserved himself the nobler Office of the Two This Mr. Selden was not aware of when he therefore conceives the Author of the Testaments of the Patriarchs to have lived in modern times because he prefers the Priest hood before the Civil Magistracy as if that Doctrine had been first brought in in the times of the Popes Encroachments on the Right of Princes in the West Had he recollected himself he might have found the same Doctrine in the East and in those Earlier Ages wherein no Examples could be found of such Encroachments He might have remembred that the Work he there disputes of was brought by Lincolnieufis first from the East to these Western parts and therefore was written by an Eastern Author where there were no Bishops pretending to a Civil Independency on the Empire or to a Right of deposing Princes and absolving Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance who might have been gratified by such Doctrines For my part I take that work to have been written in the Apostolical Age. It is expresly quoted by Origen long before such Encorachments on Temporal Rights were thought of It is written in the Hellenistical Greek Hebrew Stile then ordinarily used when the Apostolical Converts had formerly been for the most part Jews bevond the skill of the Modern Times to have imitated it Besides it mentions the Apostolical times as the last times a mistake frequent in the Reasonings of those times but which could not have been believed by any who lived at an Age's distance from them It has very little if any thing relating to the Destruction of the Temple by Titus which the Design of the Author would have obliged him to have been large in if he had lived after it These things considered will make that Work also fit to be considered as another Testimony of the Sense of the Jews in the Ages of the Apostles the Style and Notions of the Author making it every way seem probable that he was a Convert from them This Doctrine therefore being then believed must perfectly have destroyed all Pretensions of the Magistrate in Affairs of this Nature at least in the Opinion of those who believed it The Magistrate of this World could not in his own Right challenge any Power in things relating to the other World The only way therefore left him by which he might challenge it must have been some Donation of GOD. Yet niether for this was there any the least Pretence No Text of written Revelation ever so much that I know of as Pretended for it And no likelihood for it in the Nature of the thing it self No probability that GOD would intrust Concernments of a Nature incomparably more Noble with a Magistracy less Noble than the Trusts committed to it No probability that GOD would hereby expose interests so much in themselves more valuable and dearer to himself to the hazard of being postponed to those less noble ends for which the Secular Magistrate was principally concerned These things supposed cut off all Pretensions of Right imaginable in such Cases And the dreadfull Examples of GOD's Severity against meddling in Holy things without Right even in the Cases of Saul and Uzziah who were themselves invested with the Supream Civil Authority must have been thought sufficient to deter all Posterity from intermedling in such matters without very just and evident Claims of Right for doing so § XXXV This same Reasonning holds on account of the Priest representing GOD though without relation to a Future State Nor did this Reasoning hold only our Supposition that the Benefits of the Priest-hood were thought to extend to a future State Though it had only related to this World as all other Priest hood besides that of the Jews did undoubtedly yet even so there was no reason to believe the Civil Magistrate had any Rights to dispose of it This at least was thought certain that the High Priest who could oblige GOD to accept him and his Obligations without which all his Ministry must have been unavailable must first have been suppos'd to derive Authority from God Had the Priest only represented the People there might have been some pretence for the Magistrates interest in appointing and removing the Person of the Priest as being himself invested with all the Power that can be derived from an Original purely Humane But as the Priest has a Power of Blessing and Cursing Authoritatively so as to oblige GOD to ratify his Blessing and Curses as Men have qualified themselves respectively so it is certain that he cannot oblige GOD unless he represent GOD which he can never do unless GOD have granted him Authority to do so And as he does not only offer the Peoples Prayers and Sacrifices but offers them with a Title to acceptance so he must himself be a Person acceptable to GOD on account of his Office which he cannot be presumed to be if he come into his Office any other way than GOD has appointed for his Admission Indeed the whole ground of his obliging GOD depends on GOD'S Promise which is GOD'S Part of the Covenant And in this regard none can oblige GOD but the Priest and no Priest but he who has before been appointed by God to do so Covenants are mutual and therefore require and give Security on both Parts concerned in them The Priest therefore as in a lower sense mediating in this Covenant between GOD and Man is to procure Security on GODS side as well as on ours This he cannot do but by obliging GOD to promise Performance on his part of what is to be done by him as his part of the Covenant And that Promise being GOD'S part of the Covenant he cannot be obliged to it any other way than as he is obliged to the Covenant it self Nor can he be obliged by the Covenant if
their Schisinatical preheminence He tells us that it is no small crime if we cast them out of their Bishoprick who have offered their Sacrifical Gifts unreprovably and holily He accordingly adds It behoves us therefore Brethren to cleave to such Examples For it is written Cleave unto those who are holy for they who cleave to them shall be made holy And again in another place he says with the innocent thou wilt be innocent and with the perverse thou wilt be perverse He supposes no Holiness reputed by GOD for such but in the true Communion Thence he adds Let us cleave therefore to the Innocent and Righteous for those are the Elect of God One of the Prerogatives of the Peculium is to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chosen Generation So that in confining the Elect of God to the true Communion he must necessarily be supposed to confine the Peculium to it also His following Exhortation therefore firts our Circumstances as well as it did his Why are there Strifes and Anger 's and Divisions and Schisms and War among you Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of Grace that is shed upon Us And is there not one calling in Christ Why do we draw and tear asunder the Members of Christ and foment Seditions against our own Body and come to such Madness as to forget that we are Members of each other May this Pathetical Exhortation of so great a Person prevail with our Brethren to study some Expedient for securing our Ecclesiastical Liberties and healing the Breach they have been driven into by Carnal Politicks What a Glory wou'd it be to them who are princpally engaged in it to do what he invites them to Who is there among you Generous Who is Merciful Who full of Charity Let him say If the Sedition and Strife and Schisms be for my sake I depart I go away where you please and do whatsoever is required by the Multitude Only let the Flock of Christ have peace with the Presbyters who are set over it He who would do so would gain to himself great Glory in the LORD How much would it advance their Honour here and their Peace hereafter if they would turn their Emulations for Preheminence into those more Noble ones of Humility and Peace and Condescention The worthy Doctor since his ingenuous owing his Mistake of the Design of Clemens discover'd since by the Vindicator may be presumed by this time to be sensible now much it is more proper to make such Addresses to his Fathers than ours He must at least acknowledge the making them so to be more agreeable to the Design of St. Clement § LIII The Laity cannot now pretend to any Indirect Right of depriving Bishops as the Jewish Princes could in the Case of the Jewish Priesthood Thus it appears that by the Principles even of the Apostolick Age no Laity whatsoever can pretend to any direct Power over our Ecclesiastical Governours with regard to their purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Rights I now proceed to shew 4thly that they cannot now pretend even to an indirect Power such as I shewed that Princes might pretend to the◠of depriving our Bishops with regard to Conscience For neither of the reasons given there will hold her They cannot make their Right impracticable now as they could do then by excluding them from any particular place from which it is in their Power to exclude them Their Consecrations and Eucharists are not now confined to Cathedrals as the Sacerdotal Acts of the Jewish Priesthood were to the Temple but are equally valid where ever they are exercised within their ow Jurisdictions This hinders them from being perfectly useless when they are excluded from Cathedrals Nor has GOD fixed upon any particular Places to which he has confined his own acceptance of them under the Gospel But as we have seen from Ignatius for I now descend no lower the one acceptable Altar now follows the one Bishop not the Bishop the Altar This hinders the Additional Right formerly accruing to a Possessor purely on account of his Possession which was then sufficient to make a Possessor's Right better which without Possession would have been worse than that of an excluded Predecessor Nor indeed is there that Reason now as was then to expect that GOD should confine the Exercises of the Evangelical Priesthood to a particular place Their Religion then was confined to a particular Nation and was part of the National Constitution as it was Theocratical There was therefore all the Security given that Laws could give that their Princes should always Patronize it One of another Nation was uncapable of the Office any other way than by Conquest And that did necessarily suppose the Subversion of the Laws themselves and therefore of all the Security that could be given by Law But the Evangelical Priesthood was first instituted by Christ and settled by the Apostles in a time when the Kings of the Earth stood up and the Rulers were gathered together a-against the Lord and against his Christ Acts IV. 26 Not only without the consent of but in opposition to all the Civil Powers then being And therefore to have made it depend on the Pleasure of the Magistrate then had been perfectly inconsistent with a Design of securing and perpetuating it And that could not have been avoided if it had depended on any thing that was in the Power of the Persecuting Magistrate It was instituted and established under actual and violent Persecutions and therefore must have been fitted with Provisions that might enable it to subsist under a state of Persecution by a Power perfectly disentangled from the Secular Power To this it was requisite that it should be under no obligation of Conscience to depend on any thing that was in the Power of the Persecuting Magistrate as it must have done if it had been obliged by GOD to any one particular Place It was also requisite that this Priesthood being constituted by GOD as the cement of a Spiritual Society all that was requisite for managing that Society should have been by God who was pleas'd to found that Society conferred on the Priesthood as its Right in Conscience and therefore by the same Divine Power exempted from the Right of the Civil Magistrate For all that this Priesthood could have to recommend Duty to the Consciences of its Subjects in a state of Persecution was only its Sacredness and the Obligation that lay on GOD to ratify his own Act in inflicting the Censures denounced by it against refractory Persons and therefore they must be very well satisfied that the Censures were denounced by one to whom GOD had given a Lawful Authority to denounce them Otherwise they could not think GOD obliged to ratify them And for this it was absolutely requisite that they should believe the Magistrate to have no Right in those Cases wherein those Censures were concerned Otherwise they could not think God oblig'd 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
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