ratify them if they had been Invasions of the Right of the Magistrate But the Districts were then absolutely necessary for making the Churches Censures as settled out by Lord and his Apostles practicable By them the Bishops knew what Persons were liable to their particular respective Jurisdictions By those the Subjects olso knew the particular Bishops to whose Censures they were obliged to pay a Deference If the Bishop had censured Persons not belonging to his Jurisdiction by the settlement then made by the Apostles they could not think GOD obliged to second him in his Usurpations and therefore could be under no Obligation to regard such Censures It was therefore absolutely necessary that the Right of Preaching the Gospel and settling districts without the leave of the Possessing Magistrates must by GOD have been made the Right of the Ecclesiasticks in reference to Conscience and therefore could not at the same time have been the Right of the Civil Magistrate What then will become of the Doctor 's imaginary Contract Bellarmine fancies that when the Magistrate was baptized he also was supposed to make an implicite Contract with the Bishop that his Crown should be at the Bishops disposal whenever the Bishop should judge that his holding it would be inconsistent with the Churches Interest This is as reasonable as the Doctor 's pretended Contract that on consideration of the leave allowed by the Magistrate for Preaching and settling districts in his Dominions the Bishops make an implicit contract with the Magistrate that they will submit to be deposed by him when he shall judge their holding their places hurtful to his Worldly Interests If either of these implicite Contracts would hold Bellermines is the more likely of the two that the lesser Worldly Interests should give way to the Spiritual But from what has been said it appears that the Right of making Districts was a Right inseparable from the Authority given by GOD for making and governing Proselytes all the World over If therefore it be not the Magistrates but their own what reason have they to make any however implicite Contracts for that which is their own already § LIV. Our Reasoning against the Magistrates Right of deprivation in Spiritual proceed Universally and therefore in Case of Temporal Crimes also the owning such a Power would have been Pernicious to the Primitive Christians also who were charged with Temporal Crimes The Magistrate therefore cannot by the Constitutions of the Gospel pretend to any â—ight whether direct or indirect for depriving our Bishops of their Spiritual Power This our Adversaries themselves do not deny where the Causes pretended for their deprivation are purely Spiritual But where the Case is Temporal as it is here in our Fathers Case there they think that the Magistrate may punish them not only by Secular Punishments but by Deprivations as to the exercising of their Spiritual Right in Districts contained within his Dominions But all that can fairly follow from their Crime being Secular is no more but this that it properly belongs to the Cognizance of the Secular Magistrate and is therefore justly punishable by them who have a JUST TITLE to the Supream Secular Authority That is in such a way of Punishment as properly belongs to the Right of the Magistrate And we allow that to extend as far as the Secular Honours and Revenues by the Secular Laws annexed to their Office nay to their Persons also as to what is Personal to them This is perfectly sufficient to secure the Magistrate in Case not only a single Bishop but the whole Synod should prove guilty of violating their Duty to him whatever the Doctor pretends to the contrary But that this will give him any new Right of punishing which he cannot pretend to by the Nature of his Office our Adversaries have not yet pretended to prove Till they do so or till they Answer what has now been produced to prove the contrary that his Right of Magistracy does no way reach the Spirituals of our Bishops no nor their Right to exercise them in Jurisdictions contained in his Dominions we may as easily deny as they assert that Power of Deprivation by them ascribed to the Magistrate One would think that when we have proved the Nature of the Spiritual Power such as that it is not in the Power of any but GOD or those Authorized by GOD for this purpose to deprive them of that Power who have once received it and that neither the things themselves transacted by the Spiritual Power are in the Power of the Magistrate nor that GOD has given the Magistrate any Authority to represent him in these matters which may oblige him to ratify in Heaven what the Magistrate in his name pretends to Act on Earth It should unavoidably follow that the Magistrate has not this Power at all which if he have not in general he cannot have in this nor in any other particular Case assignable by our Adversaries Why are they therefore so unreasonable as to expect after we have disproved this Power in general that we must be put to the further trouble of disproving it in a particular Case They themselves can easily perceive the partiality of their demands in other the like Cases They who on the other side are for the encroachments of the Clergy upon the Rights of the Magistracy in order to Spirituals in Case of Heresy do so far proceed successfully when they shew that Heresy is a Crime properly cognizable by the Spiritual Judicatories and that Magistrates as well as others are Subject to such Judicatories in matters purely Spiritual But then the consequence would only be that a Magistrate so convicted of Heresy might by such Spiritual Judges be deprived of his Right to Communion and consequently of all the Spiritual Rights and benefits to which he is entitled as a Member of the true Communion This is the utmost that Spiritual Judges can pretend to or wherein they can expect that GOD will second and ratify their Determinations But when they proceed further to forbid all Civil Conversation with the Magistrate to deprive him of his Civil Rights to absolve his Subjects from their Duty of Civil Obedience These are consequences which I believe our Adversaries will not defend Yet how they can avoid being obliged to it if they will be true to the Consequences of their reasonings in this Case for my part I cannot understand For why may not the Church assume a Right of punishing Temporally a Crime that is really allowed to be of Spritual Cognizance if the Magistrate for a Temporal Crime may inflict a deprivation of Spirituals I do not now insist on what we have to say as to the validity of the Sentence given against our Fathers in respect of the Temporal Authority that can be pretended for it However that is at least sufficient to shew that it is only the Judgment of those who have given Judgment against them that they had even Temporal Authority sufficient for
Bishops as the Jewish Princes could in the Case of the Jewish Priest-hood P. 75. § LIV. Our Reasoning against the Magistrates Rights of deprivation in Spirituals proceeds universally and therefore in the Case of temporal Crimes also the owning such a Power would have been pernitious to the Primitive Christians also whowere charg de with Temporal Crimes P. 77. § LV. The Spiritual Rights of our Fathers have been now invaded by Civil Force Bare Characters without Districts not sufficient to preserve the Church as a Body P. 79. § LVI Supposing the Church and Christian State had made one Body ret more had been required to make that Supposition applicable to our present Case which is not yet taken notice of P. 82. § LVII The Prince on account of his being a Christian has no Title to any Spiritual Authority P. 83. § LVIII A whole Nation by Baptism may be made one Society in the Church without prejudice to their being still a Society distinct from it P. 85. § LIX The Churches Obligations are more necessary for the subsisting of the State than these she receives from the State are for hers P. 87. § LX. The Benefits received by the State from the Church are also greater then those which the Church receives from the State P. 89. § LXI If the State had been capable of conferring the greater Obligations yet a good Pious Magistrate could not in reason desire such a recompence as should oblige the Church to yeild any of her ancient Rights P. 90. § LXII Princes have been allowed by the Church a Right to keep persons out not yet Canonically possessed but not to turn any out who were already in Possession of Bishopricks And that without any proper Cession of Right on the Church's part P. 92. § LXIII The Power of turning out Bishops once possessed too great to be granted on any consideration whatsoever P. 94. § LXIV In this Case particularly no Temporal Favour whatsoever can make amends for the loss of the Benefits of the Spiritual Society There can therefore be no implicite Contracts for such an Exchange that can in Equity oblige the Ecclesiastical Governours to performance tho' it had been in their Power to make such a Contract P. 96. § LXV But here it is not in the Power of Ecclesiastical Governours to make such a Contract P. 98. § LXVI It is not agreable to the mind of God that the Church should so incorporate with the State as that the Bishops should be deprivable at the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate P. 100. § LXVII The Magistate is by no means a Competent Judge of the Church's Interests P. 102. LXVIII The Surrender of the Clergy in Henry the VIIIths time cannot oblige their Posterity now LXIX No reasoning from the rights of the Jewish Princes to the Rights of Christian Princes now § LXX Our present deprivations not justifiable by even our present Secular Laws P. 107. § LXXI The Conclusion P. 110. A DEFENCE OF THE VINDICATION OF THE Deprived Bishops § I. The Doctor 's late Book no Answer to the Vindication WHAT the Vindicator thinks of the Answers that have been made to his Defence of our Deprived Fathers himself best knows For my part I should not have concerned my self for him if I had not been over-rul'd by the Judgments of others for whom I profess a Veneration rather than my own I have that due esteem for his Adversaries which their excellent Abilities deserve particularly for Dr. Hody His diligence in History none questions that I know of I also value his Skill and Judgment in it much more than many who are concern'd on his side of the Question here debated Nor do I deny but several things are very well observed by him in this very Work I am now considering at present though I think it more hastily and tumultuarily laid together than several of his other Writings The only thing that made me think a Reply needless was that in all the Learning he has shewn I could find nothing that I thought any indifferent Person could think proper for satisfying Conscience in the single point here in Question nothing that could give me the least reason to doubt of the Arguments principally insisted on by the Vindicator For other things not relating to that I thought our candid Adversaries themselves would excuse us when they considered the Disadvantages on our side the Difficulties of the Press the Displeasure of our pretended Superiors much more considerable than any Argument that I could find produced either by him or any other Adversary § II. The Baroccian M S disproved by the Vindicator and not defended by the Doctor So far I am from trusting my own Opinion in this matter that I would gladly know some particular of the Doctor 's Book that even our Adversaries who are so clamorous for a Reply think sufficient to excuse their Schism against the Charge of the Vindicator His Baroccain M S has already been proved impertinent to our present Dispute The Vindicator has shewn that the occasion of his writing did not oblige his Author to defend the validity of Lay-deprivations he might have added that his Author himself was not ignorant that Synods did intervene in several of his Instances which must have made so many of them perfectly impertinent to his design if that had been to vindicate the Validity of Lay deprivations That is not all The Vindicator has also shewn from the Canons subjoyned at the end and suppressed by the Doctor that the Author could not design the Defence of Lay Deprivations Nor has the Doctor offered at any thing that might shew such a Design consistent with those Canons or the Author's Subjection to them Yet those Canons alone are decisive to our purpose both as to the sense of the Constantinoplitane Church and of that Author as a Member of it whether they were part of his Work or not concerning which the Impartial Reader is to judge whether what the Doctor has said be sufficient to purge his wilful suppressing them The Vindicator has also shewn the Author not only remoteness from but ignorance of the times he writes of Nor has the Doctor proved or pretended any thing to the contrary Nay even of the Facts enumerated by him there are but few that the Doctor has thought fit on second thoughts to assert independently on his Authority It cannot therefore be on this account of vindicating his M S that any Impartial Reader can judge the Doctor 's performance to be a just Reply to the Vindicatoin § III. He has not offered at any Answer to the Arguments against him in the first part of the Vindication But whatever becomes of the so boasted M. S a Conscientious Person who was only sollicitous for Truth not Victory will easily excuse the Doctor if he had at least been pleas'd to clear our present Case relating to the Lay-deprivation of our Holy Fathers and the Schism that necessarily follow'd upon it Yet even here
to refuse it where it is not otherwise in Conscience due One Inconvenience the Doctor himself foresees which he seems to own as justly chargeable on their Principle That by a submission to the Possessor the Civil Governour is like to be encouraged to tyrannize over the Church and to turn out such Bishops as he does not like whensoever he pleases though never so unjustly This must necessarily be the Consequence of defending such Practices in such a way as the Doctor has done not by conside rations particular to the present Case but by such Topicks as the Doctor has insisted on which if they prove any thing proceed in general that is prove Bishops obliged in general to yield their Rights as often as they are invaded and Subjects as generally absolved from their Duty to such Bishops though the Bishop should think fit to assert their Rights Both of these are asserted by him on account of the irresistibleness of the force which brings on the violence which is an Argument that must always hold on the side of the State in all Disputes that she has with the Church These things asserted by Ecclesiasticks such as the Doctor is must for ever encourage the Laity who are not acted by great skill as well as good inclinations to Religion to believe they do well in what they do of this kind and therefore to repeat it without any scruple But how does the Doctor pretend to avoid this Consequence He first pretends that the same Inconvenience is in all manner of Government Particularly that a Synod may also be encouraged to unjust Sentences by our acknowledging an Obligation to submit to such Sentences if passed Synodically But we are far from making Abuses Arguments for denying just Rights Nor does our Cause require it We are only for denying Obedience to an incompetent Authority that invades Rights which do not belong to it And for this it is certainly a very just reason for denying them what they have no Right to if yielding will encourage them to the like Injuries and Usurpations frequently which it must needs do if they must never expect opposition how frequently soever they are pleased to renew the Injuries nay if Persons concerned against them shall encourage them in the belief that they are no Injuries at all However if the Injustice had been equal in the encroachments of incompetent Judges and Synods yet the danger is not In Synods nothing can be transacted but by a majority of the Episcopal Order So the Episcopacy it self is secured by a majority of Suffrages against any mischief that can be acted against it Synodically But in a Lay Judicatory the whole Authority may combine against them and God knows is too likely to do so in these days of Irreligion when their Revenues are more regarded than their Function This Authority therefore is not to be trusted to dearest Friends who are in any disposition to be otherwise Much less to those who are under present jealousies and disaffections to their whole Order § XX. No security â—ere that compliance will not be abused The Doctor adds Secondly that here in England it is not the will of the Prince that can turn out a Bishop And that King and Parliament may by compliance be encouraged to depose Bishops at pleasure that Supposition he says is wild and extravagant As if he had never heard of a Parliament even in England that did not only deprive Bishops at pleasure but Episcopacy it self As if he knew not that Men of the same principles are notwithstanding qualified to serve in our Parliaments As if he were perfectly ignorant of the Case of Scotland where notwithstanding the interest the Bishop have by the Fundamentals of the Government as on of the Three States in which the Legistative Power is seated Yet not Bishops only but Episcopacy has been extirpated as far as the Votes of the Laity can contribute to the extirpation of it There the Doctor may see what he seys he cannot imagine that what he calls King and Parliament can concur for the deprivation not of a Bishop only but of Episcopacy And we have little security that it shall not be put in Practice if we must by Principles as he does allow them to do it here upon an occasion that they shall judge Extraordinary That Extraordinary occasion is not very difficult to be found by them who make Spiritual considerations give way to Temporal The use of the Cathedral Revenues for carrying on the present expensive War is likely enough to be judged so And the Psalmist who was himself a King has warned us not to put confidence in Princes The Doctor indeed tells us that the Bishops here have the same Security that other Subjects have I am sure they ought to have it not only for the reason of the things but by our Constitution Their Rights ought to be accounted more sacred than any other Rights or Liberties of the Subjects and therefore more inviolable All the Sacredness that has been made use of by our Legislators for securing them has been derived from the interposition of the Clergy who if they be not treated as sacred themselves can never secure other Rights which have no other sacredness than what they derive from the intervention of the Clergy But if he considers how little Laws often signify considering those who are allowed the Authority of Authentically Interpreting and Executing them and what Principles are now allowed in those who are thought qualified for that Authentical Interpretation and Execution I know no sort of Subject that he could pitch on that either have been or are likely to be treated so arbitrarily by our Legislators The Laity in Henry the VIII ths time dissolved whole Bodies of the Clergy and alienated their revenues without any consent of those Bodies or of any Authorized to represent them without any Legal trial or eviction in any form of Law When has any such thing been ever attempted against any Lay Bodies by their Representatives in Parliament who were chosen to preserve not to oppress the Liberties of those who chose them The other States have presumed to eject the Spiritual State who as a State have as sacred a Right in the Fundamental Constitution of the Legislative Power as themselves And the Commons have turned that President against the Temporal Lords What if the Lords Spiritual and Temporal should turn it upon the Commons also Could they think this agreeable to the design of the Constitution The Law certainly never intended such violences between those who are equally fundamental to the Legislative Power and who have no Legal Judges or Tribunals appointed by the Law for determining differences between them by way of Judicial process and Authority Thus the Doctor may plainly see that in the Opinion of those who justify these proceedings and who are therefore likely to plead them as Precedents Clergy-men have not the same Securities that othe Subjects have if Persons so Principled make
ultimately useful for the publick good of their Souls This would oblige him further to mind that in the first place and principally those Expedients which more immediately tend to the promoting it and all other Temporal Politicks no otherwise nor further than as they also may promote it or at least be consistent with it And in this way of Reasoning I know not how he could avoid preferring the Spiritual before his own Authority and therefore managing his own Authority in subserviency to it for the promoting and supporting it not for diminishing it This I am sure every truly Christian Magistrate must look on as more solid and Judicious Reasoning from the Principles of the Christian Religion and securer therefore for his last Accounts to GOD and his Soul 's Eternal Interest than to suffer himself to be influenced in matters of so momentous a nature by Atheistical fooleries and flirts of being Priest-ridden This therefore being supposed how conscious soever such a Magistrate might be of his own good Will to the Church yet he would not be willing to accept of any branch of that Power which GOD had judged necessary for her that himself might have the managing it for her interest He would not think it for the Glory of his time upon any pretence whatsoever to leave that Holy Society more destitute of Power than he found her He must needs think that GOD's own settlement of it was the wisest that they were fittest for administring the Power who by the Nature of their Function were best qualified to understand the Causes in which it was conversant and who were most concerned for the good of the Society for whose use GOD had given it and who by Obligations of Conscience and by being destitute of external force were the least likely to design and least able to carry on encroachments to the injury of lriva powers He would not be willing that a Successor should be trusted with an administration of such a Power which if ill administred might prove of so dangerous consequence to the Church's walfare and for whose good meaning he has not that security as he has for his own He would not easily trust even his own partiality of his own mutability with it These would be the natural Reasonings of a generous and well minded Prince And methinks they should be so of pious and generous Parliaments also Here has been very much Zeal pretended for securing our Church against a Popish Successor This should make those who call themselves Protestant Parliaments unwilling to challenge that as a Right of Parliaments in general which may put it in the power of a Popish Parliament and indeed of any other that may be of another Communion to dissolve our Church as this Power of Lay deprivations will certainly do if they may be allowed as sufficient to discharge Us from our Spiritual duties to our so deprived Bishops § LXII Princes have been allowed by the Church a Right to keep Persons out not yet Canonically possessed but not to turn any out who were already in Possession of Bishopricks And that without any proper Cession of Right on the Church's part Thus it has appear'd that a well meaning Magistrate to the Interest of the Church and Religion has neither Obligation nor Equity to expect such a cession of Spiritual Rights on the Churches part as a compensation for his Protection nor would himself be inclinable to think he had any What ill meaning ones may expect is not worthy our regard Such are too partially concerned to be taken for competent Judges in Affairs of this nature They neither deserve such a Cession nor indeed are fit to be trusted with it However we deny not but that the Magistrate has a Right in the disposal of those favours which are requisite for the Churches interest in order to a legal Settlement and Protection And he has withal thereupon a Right to expect a Security to be given him for his own Temporal Power against invasions from the Ecclesiasticks in consideration even of that Act of Justice of securing them also from the like Invasions from the Temporal Power by his employing it in their defence though he be otherwise obliged in Conscience to protect that which himself believes to be the true Religion and the true Communion But then this is no proper Cession of Spiritual Rights For even antecedently to the amicable correspondence between the Church and State the Church was as much obliged in Conscience to forbear encroachments on the Temporal Rights as the Magistrate was on the Spiritual Only the difference was that before the correspondence the Church her self took upon her to judge concerning the trustiness of the Persons put in Office by her having then no access to the Civil Magistrate but afterwards she suffered him to judge himself of his own security That was by not having Bishops imposed upon him to enjoy his Temporals annexed to their Office without his own approbation which was no more than what was generally reasonable on equal terms This sometimes allowed him a power at first of stopping any Person proposed if he did not like him sometimes of pitching on the Person by the Right of a Lay Patron So also he was allowed to judge concerning Canons whether they might prove prejudical to the Temporal Government before he seconded them with his Temporal Government and by secular Coercions which was also very just and equal without any cession on the Churches side For this was only allowing him to judge where his own Power and Right was concerned But then this Right was only to keep out a Person who was not yet possessed of the Power he pretended to by even the spiritual Right of Consecration and therefore no Act of Authority upon a Bishop properly so called but only on a Candidate for the Office But there was never any Act of the Ancient Church so much as pretended that I know of that ever Allowed Princes to turn Bishops out of their spiritual Rights without Synods when they were once Canonically possessed of them No Emperors of the same Communion that acted sedately and like Persons who regarded Principles who ever attempted it without at least packing or pretending Synods for the deprivation of Bishops The Canons omitted by the Doctor are sufficient if there were no more to shew that this was at least the sense of the Church and Jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate And even this Power that was allowed was allowed on Obligation of Interest not of Conscience None could pretend to the Temporals annexed to the Episcopal Office without the Princes consent And whilst the Correspondence between the Church and the Prince held there was no need of separating the spiritual Rights form the Temporal But the Church was at perfect Liberty in Conscience if she was willing to want the Temporals to give the spiritual Power alone and much more to continue it where it was already given if she Judged the Prince's
grant it in the other Case of encroachment of the Ecclesiasticks on the Rights of the secular Magistates When the Pope was allowed a Power of depriving Princes of their Crown and absolving their Subjects from their Duties and Oaths taken to them it was impossible for Secular Governments to defend themselves against the Pope tho' then the removal only of the Person was the thing pretended In this Case our Adversaries themselves are sensible that the whole Society is concerned in him who has the power of the whole Society and the whole Right of Governing is concerned when a Possessor is put out who has as much Right by the Establishment as any other can have who shall pretend to succeed him And why can they not see the inevitableness of the same Consequences in the contrary encroachments of the State upon the Church maintained by themselves This therefore is a Power too great to be recompenced by any possible Obligations the State can put upon the Church and therefore such as ought not to be alienated upon any Possible pretence of Obligation § LXIV In this Case particularly no Temporal Favour whatsoever can make amends for the loss of the benefits of the Spiritual So ciety There can therefore be no implicite Contracts for such an Exchange that can in Equity oblige the Ecclesiastical Governours to performance tho' it had been in their Power to make such a Contract Particularly this Reasoning holds in our present Case more strongly than it would in others It may indeed be possible by being Members of another Society that all the Particulars of which a Society does consist may enjoy greater advantages by being dissolved into another Society than by being a Society by themselves and at their own disposal And a Case may therefore fall out wherein a less beneficial Society may not only put their Liberties in the power of another more beneficial Society to be by it disiolved at pleasure but may also actually surrender their very Liberties themselves in consideration of greater benefits to all the particulars of the less beneficial Society not only than those which they possess on account of their Incorporation but also than that Liberty also which they enjoy on account of their independency which is it self also a very valuable benefit and adds considerably to the other advantages of their present Society in the common esteem of Mankind But for this two things are requisite to make the Case Practicable neither of which are applicable to the subject of our present Discourse First the benefits of the New Society must indeed be more valuable than those of the old one together with their Liberty considered into the bargain 2dly They who are possessed of the Rights of the old Society must be possessed of them on their own Accounts not as Trustees of any other that so they may have no further Obligation to preserve them than their own present Interests in them and may therefore be at Liberty to accept of considerations of graeter present Interest If either of these Considerations fail they cannot think themselves obliged in Equity to stand to such a Contract especially where no more is pretended than an implicite one not expressed in Words but gathered only from considerations of Equity And here neither of them can be so much as pretended First it cannot be pretended that any Secular Favours or Immunities whatsoever can make amends for the benefits of their present spiritual Society This has been proved already I shall therefore here take it for granted Indeed it is in our present Case so very manifest that I need no great Favour of our Adversaries themselves to give me leave to do so Supposing it therefore granted all the Rules of equitable Reasoning in the sense of those Ages wherein the State first became Christian will relieve the Church against any such pretentions as are here insisted on of an implicite contract for surrendring her independency Societies had in the Roman Civil Law which is the best standard for judging what was thought equitable in those times the same favour as Minors from being obliged by over-reaching Contracts And indeed there was reason for it when their Interests were transacted by others who as seldom consulted the sense of the Communities as Guardians did their Pupils and who were liable to as just suspicions of corrupt insidious dealings and private interests as Guardians were This therefore would allow the Church a Restitution in integrum a perfect rescission of such a Contract made in her name by her Representatives where the disadvantage was in it so manifest as the alienating spiritual Rights in exchange for Temporal and the contract had yet proceeded no further than to be implicite only and interpretative Indeed here the very Representatives themselves might expect to be relieved in Equity For receiving a valuable consideration is that which is expresly mention'd even in our Modern Contracts even where that valuable consideration it self is not mentioned purposely to prevent their revecableness if it had not been mentioned It is therefore supposed that when the Consideration is not valuable in comparison with the Right contracted for it is but reasonable in Equity that such a Contract be rescinded Especially where the Contract is not expressed in Words there is no reason in Equity to presume that any such Alienation was intended All that can be pretended in this Case is that the Prince's Favour and Protection is accepted of by the Representatives of the Church But how does it appear without an explicite Contract that it is accepted of with a design of entring into a Contract How does it appear that it is accepted of as a consideration How does it appear that any Right on their own side is intended to be parted with in consideration of it How does it appear but that it is thought already sufficiently required in the favour already conferred on the Prince and his Subjects in admitting them into a Society so much more beneficial than their own If any Cession of Rights had been thought of why must it needs be of a Right so essential to its subsistence and continuance as that is of the Independence of the Supream Govornours of their own Society How can it appear that in accepting of the Prince's favours such a Contract as this was ever thought of Nay the very unequalness of it would be in Equity a strong Presumption that it was not though of nor intended nor ever would have been consented to if it had been expresly insisted on It is certain many kindnesses are accepted of without any thoughts of a Contract It is strongly presumable such an Alienation as this would never have been consented to if it had been thought of Here is no proof of a Contract but bare acceptance On these considerations there can be no reason or Equity to oblige the Ecclesiasticks to stand to so partial an Interpretation of a Contract imposed on them by their Adversaries Indeed there can
the force now mentioned which might make the Exercise of his Right impracticable This Solomon might do by banishing him from Jerusalem and confining him to Anathoth § XXXVIII VVhich Force might in the Consequence render the Exercise of his Right impracticable For it is to be remembered that the Jewish Priest-hood included seveveral Secular Rights which must therefore have been in the Power of the Secular Magistracy and as to the Spiritual Offices was so confined to places which the Magistrate could hinder the Priests from by his Power of External Force that in case he would make use of his Force to hinder them the whole Exercise of the Right of Priest-hood would thereby be rendered impractable It included by Divine Institution many Secular Rights Particularly as to the Oracle of Urim by which many Secular Causes were to be determined and by which on account of the Governments being Theocratical the Supream Civil Magistrate as well as the Subject was in Conscience to be concluded This was consulted by the Elders of Israel concerning their designed Expedition against the Benjamits by Saul on the miraculous victory of Jonathan by David in the Cases of Sauls Exepedition against him and the treachery of the Men of Keilah and his own Expedition against the Philistians And the Elders of Israel even in the time of Joshua are blamed for not Asking Counsel at the Mouth of the Lord in the Case of the Peace made with the Gibeonites by which we understand the Obligation of the Civil Magistrate as well to consult as to observe this Oracle And in private Cases when a Cause fell out too hard in Judgment that is for the Decision of the Ordinary Judges between blood and blood between plea and plea and between stroke and stroke as in the time of Moses they consulted him and he consulted GOD so afterwards the ordinary course was to make the Ultimate Appeal to the Priests no doubt the High Priest more principally and to stand to their award under of pain Death These Causes which concerned blood and blood and stroke and stroke were undoubtedly Secular as also the Capital punishment to be afflicted on those that proved refactory These Secular Rights GOD annext inseparably to the Priest-hood But the execution of them wholly depended on the Power of the Sword which GOD was pleas'd intirely to permit to the Civil Magistrate whom the Priests could therefore only oblige in Conscience which obligation if the Magistrate would not regard it was fully in his Power to hinder the Execution of such Decrees So also even the Spirituals of that Sacerdotal Office depended on things in the Power of the Civil Magistrate The Lawful Priest himself could Sacrifice no where but in the Temple and at the Altar of Jerusalem and in the particular Vestments prescribed by the Law If he did such Sacrifices would not only be unacceptable but Piacular This the Romans very well understood when by locking up the Vestments in the Fort Antonia and by keeping a guard there that should command the Temple to which the Fort was contiguous they engrossed the disposal of the High Priest hood intirely to themselves And it was also in the Power of Solomon to make the whole Exercise of Abiathar's Priest-hood impracticable by the like force which he had a Right as a Prince to exercise where he should judge it necessary for the good of the Secular Society for which he was principally concerned This was an indirect Power over Abiathar's Spirituals in order to his own Temporals § XXXIX Yet Solomon was in Conscience obliged to be cautions in exercising this Force against the Priest-hood But then it is to be considered further 4ly by the opinions of those times grounded on Reasons lasting still Princes though they had that Power annext to their Office were notwithstanding obliged in Conscience to be sparing in the Use of it against such Holy Persons as Abiathar was Holy places were every where by the consent of Civilized Nations allowed the Right of protecting such as fled to them if they were not guilty of the highest Piacular Crimes Thus it was in the Case of Adonijah and others mentioned in the Old Testament Thus in the Cases of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Supplices among the Greeks and Romans The Piaculum Cylonianum among the Athenians was famous Though Cylon justly deserved what he suffered yet because some of his party were killed in the Sanctuary the displeasure of the Deity on that account was to be atoned by a Solemn Expiation which was performed by Epimenides And if the places were thus reverenced on account of their Consecration much more the Priests from whom they received it This is exactly the Reasoning of our Blessed Saviour in a Like Case Accordingly it was a general Rule Touch not mine Anointed for whose sakes even Kings also are said to have been reprov'd This was the Security of the whole Peculium of Israel among the many Nations through whom they passed in their Expedition from Aegypt to Canaan This was the Security of the Prince himself that none could Stretch out his hand against the Lord 's Anointed and be guiltless That is without being guilty of a Piacular Crime And how could Solomon hope that Assassinates would regard his own Anointing if himself had violated an Anointing so much greater and Holyer then his own from whence his own was derived This reverance also to Holy Persons obtained by the consent of Civilized Nations which is to us an Argument of the Law of Nations Aesop as a Person Holy and beloved of the GODS was revenged by them The like was their Opinion of several Poets also as Pindar Stesichorus c. And this also was among them Translated to the Interests of the Civil Magestrate The Tribunes of the People among the Romans were first secured by it Afterwards the Emperours were so also by having the Tribunitian Power and the Pontificate annexed to their Office And how far this opinion prevailed even among the Jews of those Earlier Ages appears plainly in the Murder of Abimeleck and the Priests by Saul His own Servants could not be prevailed upon to do it None indeed but Doeg the Edomite who being of an other Nations might be supposed to have less regard for the Jewish Consecration And there was particular reason for this revernce to the Priest-hood in the Jewish Governments as it was Theocratical As it was such the Magistrate was more particularly obliged to do every thing according to the mind of GOD himself whose Vicegerent he was And GOD being the principal and Supream Governour he was as much concerned in every thing to take care that it were performed according to his pleasure as every inferior Magistrate is bound at his peril to do every thing according to the mind of the Supreme Legislator rather than his own This would oblige the Prince to value every thing according to the esteem
it And if the Secular Powers may deprive Bishops for any Crime which they who deprive them shall be pleased to call Temporal and if we also are obliged to think such deprivatons sufficient to discharge Us from the Duty we owe them with regard to our Conscience I cannot see how the Primitive Christian Bishops could have escaped such deprivation Julion the Apostate pretended Temporal Reasons for most of his Persecutions purposely to hinder the Sufferers from the Glory of Matyrdome And even in the earlyer Persecutions Secular Crimes were imputed to the Christians That was the Case when the Burning of Rome was charged upon them in Nero's time and the burning of the Palace at Nicomedia in Diocletian's when the Stories of the Dog and Candle and Oedipodean incests and the Mothers of Children were pretended to be proved against them by the extorted confession of some Slaves in the time of Marcus Antoninus Their very Meetings came under the Laws de Sodalitijs and de Hetaerijs and de Factionibus And their refusing to Swear by the Genij of the Emperors or to Sacrifice for them were by the Interpretation of those times reducible to the Laws of loesa Majestas which we call Treason Will our adversaries therefore grant that on these accounts those Pagan Emperors might have deposed the Christian Bishops and Absolved their Subjects from their Duties in Conscience owing to them If they will we are very sure our glorious Ancestors of those Ages were not of their mind And let our Adversaries themselves judge whether we have most reason to follow as Guides of our Conscience Besides the Advantage the Primitive Christians had for knowing Tradition better this was also a manifest one That our late Brethren's Practice goes along with their Worldly Interests and indeed never began till motives of such Interest inclined them to it but the Practice of the Primitive Christians was directly contradictory to such Interests § LV. The Spiritual Rights of Our Fathers have been now invaded by Civil Force Bare Characters without Districts not sufficient to preserve the Church as a Body But the strangest Answer of all is That our Adversaries cannot yet be perswaded that our H. Fathers Spiritual Rights have yet been invaded by secular Force As this way of defence signifies their unwillingness to undertake the Patronage of such Invasions I confess I am not a little pleased with it in regard to the Liberty it may allow them hereafter if GOD shall be pleased to turn our Captivity to defend the Rights of their own Function when they may be defended without danger And I do not know why even now the Clergy should be forward and Active in promoting a Casuistry that may absolve the Magistrate from the obligation incumbent on him in Conscience for their Protection But it is a strange degree of Confidence to deny the Fact Had they not set up other Bishops to exercise Spiritual Power in the same Jurisdictions they might indeed pretend to it But having done so it is from thence we date their Schism Nor do I see how they can avoid the Charge of it For if the Spirituals of our Fathers be yet untouched then they must still have the same Right over those same Jurisdictions as to Spirituals as they had and as was own'd by our Adversaries themselves formerly If so their Rivals exercising Spiritual Power in the same Jurisdiction without their leave must be looked on as Invaders of their yet untouched uninvaded Spirituals Rights If so they must in the Language of St. Cyprian be foras be aliens be non secundi sed nulli Not barely on the Authority of that Holy Martyrs saying but as the Vindicator proved from the Nature of the Spiritual Monarchy which allows no more than one at once without conscent to have a Right within the same Jurisdiction It is very plain from hence that their Right to their particular districts and Jurisdiction even as to Spirituals is actually invaded by their Intruders And we have now and so had the Vindicator formerly shewn the settling of districts in order to Spiritual Jurisdiction to be a Right of the Church independent on the Favour of the Civil Magistrate We have shewn that the Church as well as the State was by CHRIST and his Apostles made a visible Body and that their way of knowing the visible Governours and Subjects of this visible Body was even from the Apostles Time taken from the extent of those visible Districts that they who lived in these districts were all Subjects to the Governours of the districts and that the Governours of those districts as to Spirituals were the particular Governours to whom the Christian inhabitants of those Districts ow'd Obedience as to Spiritual That whatever Right the Magistrate had formerly that might seem inconsistent with these Rights was by GOD himself taken away from the Magistrate in order to the making this way of propagating the Gospel Practicable yet so that Power enough was still left for securing the Authority of the Magistrate as to Temporals That the first Christian Magistrates found the Church possessed of these Districts and the Bodies of the Christians in the several Districts possessed also of the Opinion of the Independency of those Districts as to Spirituals on the Civil Magistrates which they had always made appear in all Difference between the Magistrate and the Bishops by their unanimous adherence to the Bishops as to Spirituals That therefore those Districts as to Spirituals were never derived from the Favour of the Magistrate and therefore not obnoxious to his disposal Here therefore this whole Dispute is reducible to a short Dilemma If the presumed Magistrate has not invaded the Spiritual Districts of our Fathers then the Intruders are Schismaticks for intermeddling with those Rights which their Predecessors are not deprived of And all others also must be Schismaticks who own and Communicate with the Intruders If the Rivals be not Intruders they must needs say that the Predecessors have lost their Right even to those Districts as to Spirituals And how they should come to lose it but by the Sole Act of their Magistrate I know nothing that our Adversaries can pretend There is manifestly no Act of the Church that they can so much as pretend for it Their Character they say is not yet touched No wonder it should not since the Schoolmen from whom they borrow the term of Character hold Characters to be indelible by any Humane Authority whatsoever not only secular but Ecclesiastical also However all the Use our Adversaries make of their remaining Character is only to make them restorable to their old Jurisdictions without a new Consecration and in the mean time to legitimate some Acts of Epicopal Power which must no be supposed to depend on a relation to a particular Jurisdiction But this Character that has no relation to a particular District could not be sufficient for preserving Bodies such as the Church was designed to be by them who