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
as any one Article of the Faith can be This the Vindicator has proved nor has the Doctor vouchsafed any Answer to what he has produced for it Indeed the whole Expedient insisted on by the Doctor seems very strange to me that he should think to secure the Church from Schism by allowing Subjects to desert their Ecclesiastical Superiours on pretence of irresistible force and by by renouncing all Principles that may oblige Ecclesiastical Subjects to adhere to their Ecclesiastical Governours whensoever the State shall be pleased to refuse to pretect them and thereby renouncing all Principles that may oblige them in Conscience to continue a Society independent on the State These Principles and Practices leave them at liberty to form and maintain as many Schisms as they please when the Decrees as the Church are not seconded by the Civil Power How then can the maintaining so licentious Principles be taken for an Expedient for preventing Schism The Doctor withal would have us consider That it was not for the Bishops that the Church was established but the Bishops were appointed for the sake of the Church Hence he concludes that it is not the welfare of the Bishops as the Bishops are these or or those Men much lese of some few particular Bishops but the welfare of the whole Church in general that is chiefly to be regarded This is a pretence for all Rebellions and Innovations whatsoever to make the Persons invested with Authority to be regarded only as private Persons whose Interests are different from those of the Publick which the Innovators pretend to promote by removing their private Persons and substituting others in their stead Nor indeed need any Rebel desire any more Let the Head of the Rebellion be the particular Person and the controversy is soon determined He will pretend no quarrel with the Publick but only whether he or the present Possessor shall be the particular Person that is to be intrusted with the Publick and to be sure will pretend it to be for the Publick Interest that of the two himself should rather be the Man if for no other reasons at least for those of the Doctor viz. Irresistible force and the Peace and Tranquillity of the whole which he is otherwise resolved to disturb And the same pretence is applicable to any other from of Government as well as that which is Monarchical The Administration of it cannot be managed but by some few chosen out of the whole Body and then those few are only so many particular Persons against whom the Publick Good may still be pretended if others may judge of it But this is so general a Principle of Rebellions and intestine discords that all well constituted Societies have used all means they could think of to secure themselves against it How private soever the Interest might seem to particular Persons to have the Government committed to them or to be invested in a Right to it yet when once they were possessed or had a Right the Publick has thought it self concerned to oppose and to provide against a violent dispossession and has allowed no pretences of Publick Good where the dispossession could not be compassed by any other means than by force Hence these very severe Laws against any thing that might look like force to the Persons of Governours especially those that were Supreme Hence their Arts of making their Persons Sacred to secure them from those violences against which the force even of the Community it self was not able to Secure them What need of all this care if they had thought it fit still to have regarded them only as particular Persons The Book of Judith when it would express how the Nations despised King Nabuchodonosor does it thus He was before them as one Man Jud. I. 11. What difference is there between this language and that of the Doctor The same Societies have also taken security that no pretence of publick good should ever be made use of against the Persons of Governours by allowing none others for Judges of the publick good besides the Persons invested with the Government and allowing them so to Judge as to conclude all Private Persons And there was reason why Societies should be so concerned against violent removals of their Governours because they cannot be violently removed whithout violence to the whole Societies which are obliged to defend them If therefore they do their duties the whole Societies must suffer violence and he over-powered in the removal which must consequently subject them to the arbitrary pleasure of the forcible Usurper And to take the Doctors way is yet worse to desert their Governours This perfectly dissolves the Government and disables the Governour to do any thing of his Duty to the Publick Thus it appears how destructive it is to his whole Cause to own the deprivations of our H. Fathers invalid Where then can be his Answer if even himself grants all that we are concerned to assert in the Question principally disputed between us § XXII The main dedsign of the Doctors new Book in arguing from Facts already overthrown by the Vindicator yet no notice taken of what was there said But far be it from me that I should oblige him to any unwary Concessions if at the same time he has produced any thing solid in his Book to prove them unwary I am therefore willing to consider the main design of his Book if I can even there find any thing that can deserve the name of an Answer that is That is not either acknowledged to be unsufficient by himself or that had not before been prevented by his Adversary And what is upon these accounts made unserviceable cannot certainly in the sense of any just Judge be taken for a solid and satisfactory Answer The main design of his Answer to the Vindication is still to carry on the Argument by him imputed to his Baroccian M. S. to prove by an enumeration of Facts which the Doctor will needs have pass for Precedents that Deprivations by the Lay-Power have been Submitted to and the Intruders own'd by the Subjects of the Dioceses out of which the Lawful Possessiors had been Uncanonically ejected Now this being nothing but the old Argument I cannot for my part see any reason the Doctor can pretend why the old Answer of the former part of the Vindication may not still be insisted on as sufficient till at least he offer at something to the contray which he has not as yet so much as attempted The Vindicator has there shewn the Unconclusiveness of that whole Topick from naked Facts without something more particularly insisted on for proving them Justifiable by true and defensible Principles Especially in those lower Ages in which the Author of the Baroccian M. S. deals and to which the Doctors new Examples are reducible the Vindicator has shewn that nothing is to be presumed to be well done which has no other Evidence of its being so than that it was actually practiced in those
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
be no such Contract at all as an implicite one which can be no otherwise proved but by reasonable equitable Interpretation § LXV But here it is not in the Power of the Ecclesiastical Governours to make such a Contract Thus much might have been pleaded for discharging the Church Officers from these Obligations though they had indeed a Power to oblige themselves thus far and had no more to do in this matter than to consider whether there were prospects of present Interest sufficient to induce them to it But that is not the Case here All they can do on any consideration whatsoever by any however Explicite Compact is not sufficient to Alienate that Power by which the Church must again subsist whenever the Magistrate deserts her For this Power is not her own but a trust commited to her by GOD and a trust committed to her with a design the Power should be perpetuated Whatsoever therefore she does she cannot oblige God by an Act of Alienation of it So a Servant that should Alienate his Lord's Rights without his leave cannot hinder his Lord from challenging them again nor any other Servant who is impower'd by his Lord to demand them This is allowed among our hired Servants and much more with the Roman Slaves to whom the Scriptures allude in this matter The Apostles themselves call their Office a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Words in the Language of that time importing Slavery such were usually then intrusted with Stewardships And the lower degree of Slavery that of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul looks on as a higher dignity of his Apostolical Office And he calls his Power a trust and a dispensation and looks on himself as under an Obligation of fidelity to discharge it according to the mind of him who had committed the trust to him This was undoubtedly to signify the Nature of his Power by the Roman Civil Laws received at that time which allowed Servants to acquire Actions to their Masters but not Alienate them without their express command The Apostles themselves therefore were not at Liberty to Alienate this trust committed to them upon any considerations whatsoever of their own private convenience nor much less can they do it who now succeed them in a Power indeed derived from them but in many particulars more limited than theirs was Besides this Power is intrusted with them not for themselves only but for the interest also of Souls in general Thence it appears that they cannot be allowed to dispose of it on considerations relating to their private Interests As it is a Trust for others the same Notions will take place here which did with the Roman Tutors and Curators who where also Officers in Trust for managing an Interest which was none of their own Nothing they did to the Prejudice of the Pupil could oblige him to performance Especially if they presumed to Alienate any part of the Inheritance entrusted with them on considerations of private Interests of their own Such Contracts were perfectly rescinded and left no Obligation on him to ratify them when he came to age as other Contracts might which were beneficial to him Here therefore they could lay no Obligation on GOD to ratify their Alienation of the Power intrusted with them to the Civil Magistrate And yet without a Right obliging GOD to ratify what was transacted by the Ecclesiastical Governours all the Conveyances they could pretend to make of their Spiritual Rights to the Magistrate must be perfectly insignificant For then GOD may still own him for a Bishop who is deprived by the Magistrate and disown that Person as an Intruder who is substituted into his Office by the Lay Power For it is GOD'S Act alone that can determine the Question as to Right and with regard to Conscience Seeing therefore the Ecclesiastical Governours cannot confer a Right upon the Magistrate to have his Acts ratified by GOD after all the Compacts they can make the Right continues as it was before They who had the Right of making and depriving Bishops have the same Right still and may resume the exercise of it when they please and are obliged to do so as they will approve themselves faithful to their Trust when they shall judge the exigences of the Church to require it What then can their Contract signify be it never so express It on the contrary appears that no consideration whatsoever of private Interest can be a reasonable inducement for Ecclesiastical Governours to enter into such Contracts not only because they cannot validly oblige themselves or confer any valid Right upon the Magistrate in this matter which he had not before but even in Consideration of their own Interest Suppose the Favours of the Magistrate were indeed sufficient to countervail the Personal benefits they enjoyed purely on account of their being the Heads of a distinct independent Body yet it cannot be denyed but that the Punishment they have reason to fear from GOD on account of their Falshood to their Trust is without comparison greater than what can be recompenced by the Civil Magistrate § LXVI It is not agreeable to the mind of GOD that the Church should so concorporate with the State as that the Bishops should be deprivable at the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate Indeed the Nature of the spiritual Society as constituted by GOD is such as that it cannot be thought agreeable to the mind of GOD that it should so concorporate with the State as wholly to depend on the Authority of the Civil Magistrate so as that its Supream Governours the Bishops should be subject to him in Spirituals also It is not agreeable to his mind that the more Noble Society should be subjected to that which is less Noble that the Interests of Souls which are more valuable in his esteem than all the Kingdoms of the World should depend on the pleasures of particular Princes and the Interests of their particular little Districts It is not agreeable that he should trust a Government of principal importance in the hands of those who are not likely to regard it as their principal employment who make the World their principal Study and take their understanding that and its concers throughly to be the principal accomplishment they are capable of for the discharging of that which they take to be their principal Office and who either take no pains at all to understand the concerns of Religion or do it no otherwise than as it is consistent with their other employments which are not indeed of that importance as matters of Religion are It is much more likely that he intended that it should continue as himself had settled it at its first establishment in the hands of those whose Principal care it should be to mind it as it deserves That is Principally and other things no otherwise than as they may prove subservient to it It is no way likely that he
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
founded it in a State of independency on the Civil Magistrate Bodies as then understood by the Ecclesiasticks being determined and distinguished by such Districts The allowing therefore the Heathen Persecuting Magistrates a Power of dissolving the relation of all the Bishops of their Dominions to particular Districts had parfectly dissolved all particular Churches as Bodies when the Magistrate was pleased to dissolve them and therefore cannot be agreeable to the design of CHRIST and his Apostles who intended to perpetuate Churches as Bodies independent on the state And it is certain that this Power of discharging Ecclesiastcal Governours from the Districts in their own Dominions was not own'd in the Civil Powers by the Apostles and earliest Christians Had it been so the Apostles themselves must have quitted Jerusalem when they were forbidden by the Sanbedrim and sought out other Converts and Districts wherein they might exercise their Function and Character But where could they seek or find them but the same Objection would still recur from this Right of the Civil Magistrate There must therefore have been no Churches in the World if this Doctrine had been allowed of But it is certain that the Apostles did still challenge and exercise their Jurisdiction in Jerusalem and were own'd and seconded in doing so by the Christians Inhabitants of that City against all the Persecutions of the Magistrate and were all of them own'd by GOD by the Credentials that followed them which could never have been if these their Practices had been Usurpations And all the Right that Bishops then had for obliging the whole Catholick Church was grounded on the commerce of Communicatory Letters and the Common interest of all to ratify the Acts of particular Districts Thence it appears that all exercise of Epicopacy as Catholick was grounded on the Right each Bishop had to a particular District So vain are our Adversaries pretences for making our Bishops Bishops of the Catholick Church though deprived of Districts in order to the exercising any Episcopal Act for preserving the Face of a Body under a Persecution § LVI Supposing the Church and Christian State had made one Body yet more had been requisite to make that Supposition applicable to our present Case which is not yet taken notice of But the Principle pretence of all that our Adversaries insist on is That in those earlier times the Church was indeed a Society distinct from the State and whilst it continued so the deprivations of the State could therefore not extend to Spirituals which were the constituts of the Church as a Society distinct from it But that there is no necessary consequence because it was so then that therefore it most be so now That the Reasoning from the Sense and Practice of those Times does indeed hold where the Case is the same as it was then That is where the State consists of Infidels but not in ours wherein the State professes the Christian Religion This is suggested by the worthy Author of the Defence of the Church of England as he calls it from the Charges of the Vindicator And he has therein managed the Reasoning Part of this Dispute better than the Doctor in that he has pitched on the particular Proposition which he thinks needs further proof in the Scheme of the Vindicator seeming withal to allow that if this also be cleared the rest of the Vidicators Proof will hold as being firmly superstructed on it This therefore brings the Question to a short issue and affords a further Subject of useful Discourse for improving what has been said already and I therefore return my hearty thanks to that Author for it only wishing that he had allowed himself a larger Scope for making that out which if proved would have been so very considerable for his purpose Supposing he had proved his Assertion true yet other things remain'd to have been proved further for making it applicable to our present Case Something more had certainly been requisite for his purpose than barely to suppose the Magistrate barely Christian. He might easily have foreseen that even among Christians there are different communions on account of HERISY and SCHISM If the Magistrate therefore be guilty of either of those he is as uncapable of Uniting with the Church in one Cmmunion as if he were an IDOLATOR And I suppose all the ground that worthy Person has for making a believing Prince's Case different from that of an Infidel in order to the Church's coalition into one Body with the Society that is governed by the believing Prince must be the Church's Union in Communion with him which it cannot have with an Infidel For that Political Union which is requisite for Secular Government as far as it is consistent with difference in Communion as to Spirituals the Orthodox are as capable of maintaining with INFIDEL Princes as they are with either HERITICKS or SCHISMATICKS And for applying that Case he might have considered further how far Communicating with Schismaticks in other places and setting up Schism where he found the true Communion established by Law and allowing no Patronage of Law without Schismatical conditions may go to prove a Prince's Case SCHISMATICAL Then supposing the Church and State united into one Society he should have enquired further why this Union must rather be under the Secular than the spiritual common Monarch This I am sure is against the General Rule of Subordinations to make the more Noble Power Subject to that which is less so and therefore ought to have been proved by reasens peculier to this particular coalition of two Societies into one Such peculiar Reasons I doubt are more then ever we can expect from him But supposing both these difficulties surmounted that the Church had a Prince of one Communion with her and that the two Societies now united were to be Governed rather by the PRINCE than the METROPOLITANE Yet still another Question remained worthy his Consideration how long this Union was to hold If irrevocably then the Church would be left destitute of a Power necessary for her subsitence whenever the Prince should Apostatize to Infidelity or an Infidel should succeed him by the Rules established for the Succession If therefore the Church's Power be granted revocable the Enquiry then would be whether the Grant can in reason be supposed to hold any longer than the Prince's Protectoon of her If so then whether when he revokes his Protection granted on Conscionable terms and Persecutes his Fellow Brethren for no other reason but for being true to the Principles of the old communion this be not the very Season wherein they are in Conscience absolved from their old Grants and are perfectly free to resume their old Spiritual Liberties I know our Adversary will understand me without any further application § LVII The Prince 〈◊〉 account of his being only a Christian has no Title to any Spiritual Authority These things I say had been requisite to make his Doctrine Practicable if it had been proved and proved as
well as himself desires to prove it But for my part I am perfectly of the Vindicators mind nor do I see any reason to doubt but that his whole Proof will hold if this be the only suspicious Proposition concerned in it I see no reason why the Church should loss her Liberties or Princes gain more Power by their Conversion than they had before The Nature of the thing does not the least require it Princes when they are received into the Church's Communion are received as other Laicks are by Baptism which can therefore intitle them to no more Power than other Christians who are admitted into the same Society the same way as they are As therefore Baptism alone confers no spiritual Authority to others no more it can to the Prince who has no Preheminence above them on this account When therefore he is baptized he still remains in reference to spiritual Power no more than a Private Person as all others do who have no more spiritual Authority given them than what is conferred upon them in their Baptism How then comes he by this Power in Spirituals which our Adversaries challenge for him All our forementioned Reasons proceed as validly against his claim of spiritual Power whilst he continues only a Lay-man tho' Baptized as they did before his Baptism Still the spiritual Power is grounded on the Power of rewarding and punishing Spiritually by admitting to or excluding from the Spiritual Benefits of the Society Still the Power of that admission to or exclusion from those Benefits depends upon the Power of the Incorporating Rites which being granted admit into the Body or if denyed exclude from it Still the Incorporating Acts are the two Sacraments as we are Baptized into the spiritual Body and as we are made one spiritual Body by our partaking of one Bread So that none can have the Power of these Incorporating Acts who has not the Power of Administring the Sacraments Still the Power of Administring the Sacraments is proper to the Evangelical Priest hood and it is still as unlawful for Princes to invade the Sacerdotal Offices as it was under the old Law when the Prince was obliged to be always of one Body with the Priest-hood in reference to Religious Acts of Communication Still the Reasoning of St. Clemens holds that Laymen are only to meddle with Acts properly Laical and proceeds with more Force than in the Case wherein that Holy Apostolical Person used it The Gifted Laicks had been Baptized as well as our Believing Princes and in that regard were every way Equal with them But as they were endued with Spiritual Gifts they were better qualified for extraordinary Calls to Acts of sacerdotal Power than Princes can be by any Pretensions to or Advantages of Worldly grandeur Baptism indeed makes the Prince and the Church one Society as the Prince is thereby incorporated into the Priviledged Society of the Church But then this Baptismal Union is rather of the Prince to the Bishop than of the Bishop to the Prince and therefore on the Bishop's terms not the Prince's How then can the Prince's being receiv'd into the Church as a private Person and as a Subject to the spiritual Authority intitle him to any of that same Authority to which by his Baptism he professes his subjection He is indeed so far from being a Publick Person in his Baptism that the Obligation and Benefits of his Baptism are wholly Personal to himself none of his Subjects being in the least concerned in it If he had acted as a Publick Person in it his single Act had obliged all his Subjects and would have consequently intituled them to all the benefits of his stipulation But this is more than our Adversaries will pretend in this Case How then can an Act purely Personal intitle him to an accession of Spiritual Authority § 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 Thus far therefore it is certain that a Prince's admission into the Church is not alone sufficient for a Coalition of the State into one Body with the Church because that other Body of the State whereof he is head is not the least concern'd in this Act of his as a Private Person not as a Publick much less as a Head of any Body at all Suppose we therefore the generality of a State converted and Baptized also This will indeed make them one Body with the Church But on the same terms as it made the Prince one that is on the Church's terms not on theirs That is by so many repeated Personal Acts qualifying them for and receiving Baptism as there are supposed to be particular Persons in that whole Secular Society and as so many private Persons not as invested with any publick Authority in another Society Still therefore Proselites of that kind how numerous soever can never hurt the Authority of that Society into which they are Incorporated only as so many private Persons A whole Nations therefore how populous soever coming in on these terms cannot change the Spiritual Society from what they find it They add to the numbers of the Subjects of the Spiritual Society and in that regard should rather advance than diminish the Authority of that new Society into which they are Incorporated And as their accession to the Church cannot make any change in the Government of the Church so neither in their one Their admission into the Church being only the Act of so many private Persons singly considered can therefore not concern them as a Society can therefore no way affect them as publick Persons and as concerned for the Government of the Society into which they were Incorporated before There is therefore on neither side any explicite renunciation of ancient Rights nor yet by any fair Interpretation Their coalition into one Body with the Church does not dissolve the same relation they had formerly to different Societies on different considerations The Bishop though he act the part of a Publick Person in admitting them into his own Spiritual Society does not thereby put off his former Subjection as to Temporals nor acquire any thing inconsistent therewith Nor does the Magistrate by his Subjection in Spirituals profess any thing not fairly reconcilable with his Temporal Sovereignity Their coalition therefore into one Body is very well consistent with their still continuing as distinct Societies as they were before Nor does our worthy Adversay object any thing to prove the contrary but that upon Conversion and Baptism of the Seculars the Church and State consist of the same Persons How should the Church and State make Two distinst Societies says he where the Church and State consist of the very same Persons The very same way say I as our K. EDWARD the III. was at the same time a SOVEREIGN of England and SUBJECT of France when he swore homage to Philip of Valois for his Dominions in France Yet who doubts
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
Primitive in these late flourishing Dominions Thus it is every way certain that the Church does more contribute to the security of the State than that secular Protection which is all the State can contribute does to the security of the Church The Church can subsist by her own Principles if she will be true to them without the support of external Power The State cannot subsist without Force nor secure her Possession of a coercive Power without the support of Religion Thus even in point of necessity the Church is more necessary to the State than the State is to the Church § LX. The Benefits received by the State from the Church are also greater than those which the Church receives from the State Nor only so But the Obligations on the Church's side are greater and more beneficial to the seculars than those of the seculars can be to the Ecclesiasticks And this is withal a great consideration in judging concerning the Measures of Gratitude and the extent of what is to be done in order to a compensation The greatness of the benefit on one side is the principal thing that requires additional Offices on the other side to make an equality on both sides which is that which we call a Compensation Indeed the necessity of it is no otherwise a Consideration in this matter than as the need we have of a thing adds to the Price expected for it in ordinary Commerce But the Benefits of Religion are without compare beyond all that can be pretended from the power of the State Consider we the Supream Magistrate in his own Person and all that he enjoys as a Prince is not to be mentioned with what he may expect as a Member of the true Cammunion and a Professor of the true Religion Our Saviour himself has told us that his gaining the whole World is no purchase nor profit if he lose his own Soul for it and that nothing can make amends for such a Loss The Magistrate who believes his Christian Religion true cannot avoid believing this And how can he that does so think the Church in his arrear for his favour and protection This is and in reason ought to be of more censequence to him than his Crown and Scepter which are a very small part of the purchase mentioned by our Lord nay than the flourishing of the whole Community for which he is concern'd But we may consider him further as a publick Person inspired with a publick Spirit and with all that Zeal for the good of his Community which becomes his noble publick station Consider him as devested from all private though greater interests in his Acts relating to the publick yet even so he must believe the whole Society for which he is concerned more obliged by being admitted into the true Church than that any thing that he can do by the power and interest of his whole Society can ever recompence it So far he is from any hopes of supererogating and obliging the Ecclesiasticks more than they deserve though all the favour done were no more than their admitting his whole Society into the true Communion The saving of one Soul is in our Saviour's now mentioned Doctrine a greater benefit than what can be performed by the greatest Worldly Power But the receiving his whole Community into their priviledged Society is a publick benefit to the whole Community and a benefit of the highest kind far exceeding that of which a single-Soul is capable which yet is too great for him to hope to recompence As therefore he is obliged upon account of his Socitey to be grateful for kindnesses received from the Church so he never can hope by all the publick power of the Society of which he is possessed to make even with the Ecclesiasticks When he has done all he can his good will must by the Ecclesiasticks be accepted for his deed How can he then oblige them to any further accounts on their part that are to be made up by cession of their just Rights Even as to Temporals the whole Body of the State and the Prince as concerned for the Body are more obliged to the true Religion and the Society in which alone it is to be had than they are ever able to requite Not now to mention the Temporal Blessings to which they are hereby intitled Godliness having the Promises of this Life as well as of that which is to come all that Justice in Conversation all that sweetness and obligingness which their Duty to GOD obliges Religious Persons to shew to all with whom they converse all that sincerity and open heartedness which makes Mankind love and trust and please each other are the most genuine fruits of the true Religion where it is heartily believed and practised It can therefore be nothing but inconsideratness and disbelief and forgetfulness of the true value of things upon sober consideration that can tempt the Magistrate to think that the Church is so over-obliged to him for his protection as to need a compensation § LXI If the State had been capable of conferring the greater Obligations yet a good Pious Magistrate could not in reason desire suâ—h a recompence as should oblige the Church to yield any of her Ancient Rights It rather on the contrary appears that the greatest Obligations are on the Church's side and that therefore what compensation by cession of ancient Rights was necessary on account of Gratitude was rather to be expected from the Magistrate The best and most pious Magistrates have always thought so who were certainly the most competent Judges of matters of Religion Yet supposing it possible that the State could supererogate a pious Magistrate would never desire nor accept of such a recompence as should oblige the Clergy to yield their ancient and original Rights conferred on them by GOD himself at their first establishment He would presume that Power was necessary for the good of the Spiritual Society which GOD was pleas'd to put them in possession of antecedently to the favours of secular Princes and could not find in his heart to deprive the Spiritual Society of any Power which GOD himself had judged necessary for it He might the rather presume it concernin a Society instituted under a Persecution and designed to continue the same under all the Revolutions not only of his own but all other states in the World He would consider himself also as a Trustee of the Power committed to him by GOD and therefore under an Obligation to manage the Trust in that way that he could judge most agreeable to the mind of him who had committed the Trust to him He would therefore think himself obliged to value all things according to the value that GOD has put upon them principally to regard that which was principal in the design of GOD and to make all other Considerations subservient to it which GOD intended should be so This would oblige him to make all Designs for the Temporal Prosperity of his Subjects
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
possible for him to prove Submission to the Usurper lawful and unsinful till the Subjects be first fairly discharged from their duty to the first Incumbent How can he prove them discharged from their first duty if the Lay deprivation be not sufficient to discharge them And how can he pretend it sufficient for that purpose if it was from the beginning null and invalid Thus he will find the disproof of the Power of the Lay-Magistrate for Spiritual deprivations to be more pertinent than perhaps himself could wish it for overthrowing his pretended Lawfulness of Submission in the Ecclesiastical Subjects to Persons obtruded on Sees no other way vacated than by the Authority of a Lay-deprivation of the Civil Magistrate § VII The Doctor 's limitations of his own pretended self-evident Maxime do all of them prove our Case unconcerned in it Chap. 1. But the Doctor pretends to demonstrate no softer word it seems would serve his turn the Truth of his Proposition and God forbid we should not yield to Demonstration But I confess I very rarely find great solidity joyned with great confidence However we must not prejudge it but examine whether it will answer the Character with which he has possessed us concerning it His demonstration therefore he draws First From the Reasonableness of it Secondly From the Authority and Practice of the Autients The Reasonableness of it he grounds on this certain and self eviden-Maxime That whatsoever is necessary for the present Peace and Tranquillity of the Church that ought to be made use of provided it is not in it self sinful and the ill Consequences which may possibly attend it are either not somischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid But upon the supposed Invalidity of Lay-deprivations this Submission of the Ecclesiastical Subjects to the Usurper of the Ecclesiastical Throne will not come under the limitations proposed by the Dr. himself of his self evident Maxim I have already shewn that on this supposal this Submission to the Usurper will be in it self sinful And the same Observation may be applied to his other limitations if the Case propos'd be judg'd by our Principles The Consequences which we think will follow from this Obligation he layson our Ecclesiastical Superiors to yield their Rights as often as they are invaded where nothing but the Right is concerned and the liberty he allows Ecclesiastical Subjects to desert their Superiors if they think fit to assert their Rights we think tend by inevitable Consequence to the perfect subvertion of the Church as a Society And this Consequence is worse than can be feared from the Persecutions of erresistible force if we can agree as the Primitive Christians did to keep our stations or from the divisions of them who will not agree to maintain Society with us in a state of Independance on the Civil Magistrate And natural Consequences from Principles are Evils more likely to hapen than any that depend on the wills of mutable Men. So that be his Maxim never so self-evident yet there is not one of the Doctor 's own limitations but excludes his own Case as judged by our Principles from being concerned in it This perfectly discharges us from all concern in the Instances by which he pretends to prove his Maxim received by the Antients as self-evident Yet it were easie to answer them if we were concerned to do so They are generally in things indifferent and changeable by their different Circumstances and the Dispensations were made by Persons in Authority without prejudice to any Third Persons Right So that not one of his Instances reach our Case But the Subjects of our Dispute are not mutable nor depend on Circumstances As the Ecclesiastical Society was designed by Christ not temporary but perpetual so the Essenital cements of it must have been so too And such are the Rights of Governours and the Duties of Subjects These if they be taken away for a moment dissolve the Society and therefore cannot be left to the Prudence of Governours for the time being because the very supposal of the Case destroys the very being of the Government and of the Society and therefore leaves no Governours in being that may consider such Circumstances and suit their Practices accordingly § VIII Submission of Subjects to the Ecclesiastical Usurpers is sinful by the Law of God But though the Doctor answers nothing produced by the Vindicator for proving such submission of the Subjects to an Intruder sinful yet he pretends to prove it unsinful But so unhappily that not one of his proofs hold for the purpose for which he has produced them First He pretends the Scripture silent in our Case and therefore that such Submission is not forbidden by any express Law of God Yet he denies not but that the Law of God commands us to be Obedient to our Governours to them also who are over us in the Lord. But where there are two Competitors and both claim our Obedience to which of these two our Obedience ought to be payed this he says it leaves to our wisdom to determine But will he therefore pretend that disobedience to any particular Governour in our Age is not against the express Law of God because no Law of God is express in determing any particular Person now living to be our Governour This will overthrow all Divine Obligations to any since the Apostles Age. Now only in this but in most other duties relating to Men the determining Circumstances are settled by Human Authority Yet none does therefore pretend but that the Offence against the Duty so Circumstantiated is against the Law of God The Law of God requires Duty to Parents But who are to be taken for our Parents not only Nature but the Laws of Men have determined in several Cases as in that of Adoption which is ancienter then Moses himself and in the other of our Civil and Spiritual Parents who are generally concluded in that Divine Commandment So in the Case of Murther it is certain that only Illegal Killing by a Person not authorized or for an unjust Cause is forbidden in the 6th Commandment But they are Human Laws which pitch upon the Person who is to be vested with the Authority of Life and Death and which determine the Cases wherein Death is to be inflicted So also in the Case of Adultery it cannot be jugded what Facts are chargeable with that Crime but by the Laws of Matrimony which depend on the particular Constitutions of the Places and are accordingly various But in no Case this is more evident than in that of the 8th Commandment Theft is all that is there forbidden which cannot be applied to any Fact but by supposing the determination of Human Laws concerning Property which are again very various For some Persons have been excluded from all Property as Slaves and unemancipated Children And the determinations of Property in Persons capable of it are so different in
Heroical ardor of that Age by the cold and degenerous Notions of his own our most learned Bishop Pearson has proved his Actions far from beīng singular by many more very express Testimonies of those most glorious times of our Christian Religion Nor are the Canons against the provoking Persecutors which the Doctor takes notice of near so old as these great examples of desiring and meeting Persecution nor indeed till the abatement of the first zeal appeared in the scandalous lapses of warm pretenders None such were made whilst they were true to their profession so that the consenting Practice of the best times was far from the Doctors mind in reckoning Persecution among the greatest Evils that can possibly befal the Church They did not take it for an evil but rather for a favour and a benefit And though it were allowed to be an evil yet the utmost that can be made of it is that it is an evil only of Calamity the greatest of which kind Conscientious Casuists have never thought comparable with the least evil of Sin I might add also that Scandal also as it is a cause of Sin is a greater Evil than Persecution Our Saviour himself pronounces wo to him by whom the Scandel cometh and the Fire of Hell which never shall he quenched And these are Evils which the Doctor himself must own to be worse than that of Persecution The Doctor therefore must not insist on the Persecution avoided by this complyance with the Intruders till he has cleared the condition of avoiding it from not only Sin but Scandal also If he thinks deposing all Bishops in general to be in earnest a just cause for him to shew his fortitude let him bethink himself how the matter is now in Scotland It were easie by just consequences from the Grounds and Principles of Ecclesiastical Commerce to shew how that Case would concern him in England if it were convenient If Christ were equally to be enjoyed in the Communion of the true Bishops and their Schismatical Rivals we should be as willing as he to keep off the Evil day as long as we could Flesh and Blood would easily perswade us to it if it were safe But he knows very well that the Catholick Church in the purest Ages never believed our mordern Latitudinarian Fancies that Schismaticks have any Union with Christ whilst they are divided from his Mystical Body the Church If this were true or if he thought it himself true I do not understand how he could reckon Schism among the greatest Evils that can befal the Church if even Schismaticks may enjoy Christ though they be in open Hostility with his Authorized Representative §. XVIII The Evil of Schism not avoided but incurred by complying with the Usurpers As for the Case of Schism which he pretends to be avoided by them by their compliance with the Usurpers this Evil is so far from being avoided as that it has been occasioned by it The Doctor cannot deny but that their communicating with the Intruders has occasioned a notorious breach of Communion which on one side or the other must needs be Schismatical All therefore that he can pretend is that they by complying are not chargable with the crime of the Schism that has been occasion'd by it How so it is because if we had also done as they have done there had been no Schism Very true But it had been full as true if they had done as we have done This pretence therefore leaves the Criminalness of the breach as uncertain as before and necessarily puts them for tryal of that on the merit of the Cause And if that be enquired into all the Presumptions as well as the particular Proofs are in favour of us and against them We were plainly one before this breach As therefore the branch it self is new so the guilt of it must be resolved into the Innovations that occasion'd it which will by unavoidable consequence make them chargeable with the breach who were guilty of the Innovations The Innovations that have caused the breach are the disowning our old Bishops and substituting others in their Places whilst themselves are living and continue their Claim and are not deprived by any Authority that had really a Power to deprive them But in these instances they not we have been the Aggressors and Innovators Do we own the Old Bishops for the true Bishops of these Sees of which they have pretended to deprive them And did not they do so too as well as we before the Deprivation And what had they to pretend for themselves why they do not so still Besides this very Sentence of Deprivation which the Doctor owns to be invalid And how can they justify their disowning them upon a Sentence confessedly invalid This new behaviour of theirs they must wholly own as it is new to be their own We only continue to own our Holy Fathers as Dr. Hody himself and his Brethren did formerly As for the Second Act the setting up new Bishops in opposition to our Fathers they cannot excuse themselves from being the Innovators and concerning us they cannot pretend it They have made the new Bishops who consecrated them and they also who own them by communicating with them or their Consecrators These have intirely been the Acts of the Ecclesiasticks Yet without these all that the Lay-Power could have done could never have formed a Schism nor divided our Communion And as to what has been done on both sides we can better excuse our selves than they can Could they and we have consented to have acted Uniformly there could have been no Schism But we can better account for our not complying with them than they can for not complying with us On their side they have nothing to plead but worldly Considerations They could not doubt of the Lawfulness with regard to conscience of doing that on their side which if done had prevented the Schism They can pretend no obligation in Conscience for setting up other Bishops as we can for not owning them till they can prove us fairly discharged in Conscience which they as well as we were obliged in in regard of the old true Proprietors They could pretend no cementing Principles essential to the subsistence of the Church as a Society and a Communion independent on the State obliging them to comply with these encroachments of the Politicions for making Spiritual considerations to give way to Temporals They could pretend no Catholick Authority of the Church in any Age approving what was done by them as we can of the best and purest Ages for what has been done by Us. They could not pretend any such united Authority of even the Church of England before this change for many things wherein we differ now as we can So far thay have been from avoiding Schism by these compliances or from purging themselves from the guilt of the Schism which has followed thereupon § XXI The abuses that may follow on Compliance are a just reason
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
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
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
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 §
LXXI The Conclusion I hope the Worthy Defender of the present Dividers of the Church of England will by this time see that this Proposition questioned by him concerning the Distinction of the Church even from a Christian and Orthodox State is as firmly proved as any other particular of the Vindicators whole Hypothesis I hope he will also find it conformable to those very same Authorities he was pleased to porduce against it that of Mr. Hooker and even of our Church of England as settled by our Ancient Laws Though the Compass I am obliged to confine my self to will not allow me to follow either him or the Doctor into other Arguments or into particular Applications of this I have insisted on yet I have endeavoured to urge my Argument so as to obviate whatever they have said that might otherwise have seemed to weaken it I now leave and recommend the Success to him whose Cause I have endeavour'd to plead not as I would but as I was able A Good Cause alone is indeed a very great advantage above Artifices of Wit and Subtilty in pleading for an ill one That is all that I pretended to But it is God alone that must give the Word to the Preachers and dociliey to the hearers And it is his usual way to glorifie his own Power in the weakness and contemptibleness of well-meaning Instruments This Title I have and this alone to his Assistance and blessing on the management that it will appear to be his own Work if the Good Cause it self do not suffer by my concernment in it The same good GOD dispose our Adversaries to follow the Truth rather than their Worldly Interests to consider impartially what is said how contradictory soever it may seem to their Fleshly Inclinations to examine with their more sagatious Judgments rather what the Cause it self would afford to be said for it than what has been said by me He alone can revive in them their old love of the Truth of Peace of Unity their former seriousness in these concerns of the greatest importance to them their former or even the Primitive Zeal for the Interests of the Church and of Religion in this Unbelieving Apostatizing Generation When he shall be pleased to do so we may then hope to see Endeavours for healing the Breaches themselves have made we may then hope to see them ambitious of doing it on the most Honourable Terms that may be for the Church's Security against future Invasions and against the Precedent of making Spiritual Interests give way to Worldly Politicks we may then hope to see them again as much concerned as we are nay as we ought to be that our Church and our Communion may not depend on the precarious pleasure of a Persecuting Magistrate How much more pleasing a sight must this be to all generous and Christian Tempers than our present Divisions and Scandals and Animosities When O When shall it once be FINIS * Preface to the Reader The Vindication of the Civil Power in depriving a Bishop for Political Crimes I reserve for a particular Treatise * Pref. to the Reader I grant at present that all Lay-deprivations are invalid †Pre. to the Reader 1 Thess. v. â—â— â—â—â— XIII â—â— Matth. XIX eâ— Mark 10. 31. Ch. 1. p. 2. 9. P. 5. See Unity of Priesthood Nec to Unity of Comm. p. 63. c. Psal. XV. 4. P. â—â— P. See P. 18. P. 10. P. 11. P. 11 Sulp. Sever. Sacr. Hist. L. 11. Orig in Num. Hom. X. Pearson vind Ign Part 11. c. 9 â— 12. P. 12. P. â—â— P. â—â— * Preface to the Reader Should our Adversaries be able to produce such an Example as I think they will never be able 't will advantage their Cause but little especially if it be one of the LATER AGES since it is not agreeable to the Practice of the Church in GENERAL * C. 1. §. 9 P. 9. 10. C. 1. P. 10. See above § XXIII * 1 Kings II. 1. †V. 35. * 1 Sam. XIII 12. †2 Sam. VII 6 7. * 2 Kings XV. 5. 2 Chron. XXVII 16. to 21. †Numb XVI * Numb XVII 8 9 10. †Numb XVI 40. * Numb XVI 9 * 〈…〉 XXIII 6. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo de Gigantib p. 292. Ed. Paris 1640. †Heb. IV. 14. VII 26. IX 23. 24. ‡ Heb. VIII 1 2 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Macab c 13. See Mat. v ii 11. S Luke xiii 28 29 Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 16. St. Luke XX. 38. The Bosome of Abrahan is there mentioned in the Translation of that Work by Erasmus p. 1090 Edit Colon. Whether from any Greek he had I know not But I think it is in the MS. of New-Colledge See also Josephus ' s Oration L. III. Bell Jud. c. p. 852. †Wisdom IX 8. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo de Praem Sacerd. p. 830. Edit Paris 1640. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid p. 832. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo de Monarcia p. 819. * Deut. XXXIII 5. †Numb XXIII 21. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Antiquit Lib. iv Cap. 2 pag. 104. See also Lib. III. Cap. 9. Pag. 87. Edit Colon. 1691. * Judg XX. 27. 28. 1 Sam XIV 18 19. †1 Sam. XXIII 9 â—0 11 12. 2 Sam. V. 23 4. 1 Chr. XIV 14. 15. * Josh. IX 15. †Deut. XVII 8 11 12 13. * 1 Kings I. 50. †Thucyd. Lib. 1. * St Matt. XXIII 17 19. †1 Chr. XVI 12. Ps. CV 15. ‖‡ 1 Chr. XVI 21. Ps. CV 14. * 1 Sam. XXIV 10. XXVI 9 11 23. * 1 Sam. XXII 1. 7. †v. 18. * 1 Kings II â—7 * Joseph Anti. Lib. VIII c. 1 * 1 Sam. II. 36. * 2 Sam XV. 29. 35. XVII 15 XIX 11. XX. 25. 1 Kings IV. 4. 1 Chr. XV. 11. †2 Sam. VIII 17. 1 Chr. XVIII 16 * Chap. II. S. 3. P. 17. * St. Mark II. 26. * Exod. xxviii 1. 1 Chr. xxiii 13. * Exod. xxix 4 c. Lev. viii 2. c. †Exod. xxx 19. xl 12. 31. * Exod. xxx 30. †Lev. ii 3. vi 20. vii 34. xx iv 9. 1 Chr. vi 49. * Numb vi 23. †Heb. vii 7 * Numb iii. 9. IV. 19. 27. VIII 13. 19. 22. †Exod. 11. xxviii 4. 43. * Exod. xx viii 1. †1 Chr. xxiv 2. Numb iii. 2 3 4. * Numb xxv 15. * Numb XX. 26 28. Joseph Ant. lib. IV. c. 4. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Ant. lib. VII c. 6. p. 222. * Joseph Ant. lib. VIII c. 1. p. 254. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Exod. xxix 30 * 2 Chr. XXIV ◠◠†2 Kin. XXIII 4. Joseph Ant. L. xx c. 8. p. 7â—â— * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn n. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Etist ad Magnes n. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ibid. n. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Philadelph Inscrip 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. n. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Trall n. 7. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Trall n. 3. ‖ Ut quis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sit quid sit faciondum it a hortatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Eph. n. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Philadelph n. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Trall n. 7. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Smyrn n. 8. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 1 Chr. ix 4 1 Cor. x. 16 17 18. 21. Heb. xiii 10. Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Corinth 2 Tim. I. 10. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 43. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. n. 40. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 40. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 41. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 41. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 41. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 43 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. n. 42. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. n. 44. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 42. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 21. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 46. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 57. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 16. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 44. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 46. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 46. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 54 †Ch. 18. p. 197. Bellarm de Rom. Pontif. lib. V. â— 7. Letter to a Fâ—â—end p. 20. * 2 Chr. XV. 3. †Hos. III 4. ‡ Jer. VII â— * Dan. VII 1. 12 13. IX 27. XI 3. XII 11. Joseph Bell Jud. L. VII Hook Eccl. Polie Book VIII p. 463. ed. Lond. 1682. ibid. P. 465. ibid. P. 466. Defence of the Church of England P. 7.