who are in Possession of the Sovereign Authority It follows from this Principle that we cannot lawfully pray to God for any but those whose Title to the Sovereignty we own to be rightful And I maintain that if this Conclusion which is drawn from the Principle I oppose be true it is impossible for any Christian Church to subsist in any State and that consequently the Conclusion as well as the Principle from whence it so naturally flows cannot but be false I desire you Sir to take notice that I affirm that it doth not belong to a Christian as such to examine whether he who hath the power over a Society possesseth the same by a Just Title or by Usurpation I acknowledge indeed that it is the right of the Society and its Representatives to examine this question but I flatly deny that it belongs to the Church or to any of the people considered as Christians to discuss the Titles of their Sovereigns Christians in as much as they are Christians are in a State in the same manner as Physicians who in that capacity have nothing to do to meddle with Affairs of State tho' they may take cognizance of them as they are Citizens Affairs therefore of State must not be regulated by any but those who are called to the management of them And forasmuch as the People are bound to submit themselves to the resolution of their Representatives the Church accordingly is obliged to own him for a lawful Sovereign of the State whom the Managers of the State own for such by ordaining Tribute to be paid to him and Prayers to be offer'd up to God for him c. This is my Position the Truth whereof I shall here set forth with a full and convincing evidence First Jesus Christ declared that Tribute ought to be paid to those whom the greatest part of the Jews lookt upon as Usurpers I mean the Roman Emperors and who indeed had usurpt the Power they themselves had formerly enjoy'd 2dly Our Saviour did plainly suppose that the prosperity of their Emperors ought publickly to be prayed for in the Temple as was constantly done to which the Zealots of the Jews opposed themselves for otherwise he ought rather to have joined himself to these Zealots and forbornt entring into the Temple in case he had not approved the Prayers there offer'd up for such Governors 3dly St. Paul taught that we are bound to pray for those that have the Authority in their hands without ever making the least distinction between those that were possest of this Authority by a lawful or unlawful Title Now where the Law doth not distinguish it is plain that neither ought we 4thly It hath been the constant practice of the Christian Church to pray for those that had the Sovereign Authority without ever allowing themselves the Liberty to judge of the Validity or Invalidity of the Titles of those that were in possession thereof This practice of the Church in all times and in all places is so uncontested a matter of Fact that we may defie any Person whatever to produce any one single example of a Schism that hath happen'd in the Church on a pretence like to that on which they have formed one of late viz. where one party of the Church maintain'd that they ought not to pray for a Prince in Possession because his Title was not lawful and separated themselves from those that submitted to him that was in Possession It is visible that according to the contrary Principle if the Church had not only a Right to examine the Title of Sovereigns but were also under an obligation so to do for fear of offering displeasing Prayers to his Divine Majesty in favour of an Usurper that it was of indispensable necessity for the Apostles to have made an exact draught of Politicks fram'd according to the Nature and Rights of the Government which they ought to have transmitted to their Successors in writing It would have been necessary also in the Church to instruct the Bishops and all the Clergy conformably to this Scheme of Politicks to the end that they might afterward instruct the Church and yet we do not find a tittle of all this neither in the New Testament nor any other Books of Antiquity Tho' without this so necessary precaution it cannot be imagin'd but that a vast number of Schismes must have been formed by occasion of so many Revolutions that have so strangely changed the Face of Governments from the time of our Saviour to this present We must therefore of necessity own either that none of the ancient Christians ever thought of discharging a duty so essential to the Christian Religion in the most important Acts of Devotion or that the Christians never believed that it was their business to examine the Rights of Sovereigns much less that they were obliged so to do to the end they might be in condition to offer their prayers to God with a good Conscience I have told you Sir That the Christian Religion could never have been admitted or have subsisted in any State if our Saviour had given another Rule to his Apostles than that which he hath given them And accordingly I entreat you to consider with your self a little what would have become of the Christian Religion if the Church had undertaken to examin the Titles of Sovevereigns Can you believe in good earnest that ever she would have met with an easie entrance into the World if it had been known that those who preached it entred into a State with a design and under obligations of examining the Titles of those who govern'd it and with a design of charging upon the Subjects as their duty an enquiry of this Nature I am certain that we cannot meet with any thing like this neither in the Writings of the Apostles nor in the Writings of the ancient Doctors of the Church particularly in their Apologies wherein they have refuted the principal grounds for which the Emperors rejected the Christian Religion and proscribed it Yea I am very ready to be so just to those who are of the contrary Opinion as to believe that they would have more Prudence than to make any such kind of Declaration to the Indians or Chinese if they had a mind to go and Preach the Gospel amongst them But some it may be may be apt to perswade themselves that the profession of the Christian Religion is the rather to be received upon this Condition of engaging Subjects to examin the Title of their Soveraigns and the whole State For indeed it may be thought what can be more advantageous to a Society or a Prince than Souls of so tender a conscience as are unwilling to pray for a Prince till they have discuss'd the point whether their Titles be lawful But yet I know not whether they would have been able to make the Gospel to be Received on those terms For 1. It plainly appears that they must have left all those Countries which from
an Emanation of the Authority of God himself I comprize here in a few words the force of St. Paul's reasoning St. Paul commands Christians to pray for the Soveraign Powers of the State where they live he orders them to pay the Tributes that are necessary to maintain their Domination and to exercise their Authority He grounds both these duties upon the obligation that lies upon us to wish all possible good to those who are the Conservators of the Society in which we live and to contribute to the Safety and Security the Church enjoys under their Protection so that he supposeth that these two duties with regard to the Sovereign Powers are inseparable If you cannot in good Conscience pray for the Sovereign Powers which the Body of the State owns for such then neither can you in good Conscience pay them any tribute and on the contrary if you can in good conscience pay them tribute which is design'd to maintain their Domination you may with as good a Conscience pray for their prosperity But this I suppose is enough Sir as to the first Article of the Question you have proposed to me I have by the by touch'd upon the second which I am now willing to examin more carefully because I perceive that Examples often have as great an influence upon the Spirits of men as the strongest and most decisive Arguments To be assured how the Primitive Christians behav'd themselves who could not but be acquainted with the Practice of the Apostles and their Successors we need only to take notice of the Terms of their Liturgies which the learned Dr. Hammond hath quoted in his Annotations on the Second Chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy ' Of these four sorts of prayer 't is affirm'd by St Chrysostome that they were in his time all used in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the daily Service 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this is sufficiently known to all the Priests or those that officiate Morning and Evening And so it appears by the Laturgies The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referring to the larger or lesser Collecta that in the Litany for deliverance from all the Evils there named and the other after in which the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we humbly beseech thee O Father is used which is for the averting of Evils The second to the Prayers for Mercy and other Wants The third to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us pray for the whole state of Christ's Church for Kings c. is inserted And the fourth to the Solemn Thanksgiving for all men and to the Hymns sung to the praise of God and it may be observed that the direction here of praying for Kings c. is agreeable to that of the Hebrews R. Chaninath in Pirche Aboth C. 3. S. 2. Pray for the Peace of the Kingdom for unless there be fear men will devour one another alive And so when Petronius came to set up Caligula's Image in the Temple they that would die rather than that should be done being asked then whether they would wage War with the Emperor answered no but on the other side twice a day they offered Sacrifice for the safety of the Emperor see Josephus and Jer. 29.7 Accordingly was the Christians practise as long as the Emperors continued Heathen praying in their Liturgies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Kings after when they were Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We pray thee for our most pions Kings Defenders of God or of the Faith of Christ as it is in St. Chrysostom's Liturgy and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Power Victory Continuance Peace Health Safety The very things which they prayed for them when they were yet Gentiles saith Tertullian in Apoll. sine monitore precamur pro omnibus Imperatoribus vitam illis prolixam Imperium Securum domum tutam exercitus fortes Senatum fidelem populum probum orbem quietum we pray for a long life to our Emperors a secure Empire a safe House valiant Armies a faithful Senate a good People a quiet World This was after done for Arrian and heretical Kings as Constantius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Cyrillus Cat. 10. We beseech God for the common Peace of the Churches for the quiet of the World for our Kings their Souldiers and Auxiliaries Thus far the learned Doctor Accordingly I desire you to take notice First That this was a set Form in which nothing might be changed except only the name of him that was raised to the Throne 2dly That it doth not appear by any Record of the Church that the reading of these Prayers was ever suspended in any case whatsoever 3dly That there never arose any controversie in the Church about what Emperor they were to pray for the Church always acknowledging him to be Emperor who had that title in those places where it was settled 4thly That there never happened any Schism on this account during all the manifold Revolutions of the Empire 5thly That there never was a Canon of Council made to regulate the Penance that was to be imposed upon those that had prayed for an Usurper against a lawful Prince 6thly That it doth not appear that ever any Heathen Emperor persecuted the Christians of one Country for having prayed for him who had usurped the Empire in the places where they lived 7thly We do not find that ever any Christian in his Commentaries upon the Scripture hath taken notice that it was the Belief of the Church that they ought to make a distinction between an Usurper of the Empire and a lawful Emperor before they made Prayers for him Would you have some examples to evidence to you the Truth of these Observations Cassius in Syria revolted against Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher at the Sollicitation of Faustina the Emperor's own Wife and upon the News that was spread abroad that Marck Antonine was dead he usurped the Absolute Power that had been conferr'd upon him by the Army which was in Pannonia But this news of the Emperor's death being found to be a mistake he notwithstanding carried on his pretensions and made himself to be owned Emperor by the Provinces of Cilicia Syria Judea and Egypt Do you believe Sir that the Christians of those Provinces did continue to pray publickly for Mark Antonine and that they refused to pray for Cassius in their Publick Service if they had done so they must have exposed themselves to the Persecution of Cassius or if they did pray publickly for Cassius they must thereby have separated themselves from the Communion of those Christians who lived under the Empire of Mark Antonine But where do we read that Cassw persecuted them for not owning his Authority or that ever they were excommunicated by the other Christians for having prayed for Cassius who was an Usurper Do not imagin Sir that Tertullian doth oppose what I here assert when he saith in
Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell DR Patricks Parable of the Pilgrim The 6th Edition Corrected Exposition of the Ten Commandments 8vo Private Prayer to be used in difficult times Sermon before the Prince of Orange at St. James's 20th January 1688. Sermon before the Queen at Whitehall March 1. 1688. Dr. Burnets Collection of Tracts and Discourses written after the Discovery of the Popish Plot from the years 1678 to 1685. To which is added A Letter written to Dr. Burnet giving an Account of Cardinal Pools Secret Powers The History of the Powder Treason with a Vindication of the Proceedings thereupon An Impartial Consideration of the Five Jesuits Dying Speeches who were executed for the Popish Plot 1679. His Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England In which is demonstrated that all the Essentials of Ordination according to the Practice of the Primitive and Greek Churches are still retained in our Church Reflections on the Relation of the English Reformation lately Printed at Oxford In two Parts 4 to Animadversions on the Reflections upon Dr. BVRNET's Travels 8 o. Reflections on a Paper intituled his Majesties Reasons for withdrawing himself from Rochester An Enquity into the Present State of Affairs and in particular whether we owe Allegiance to the King in these Circumstances And whether we are bound to Treat with Him and call him back or no A Sermon Preached in St. James's Chappel before the Prince of Orange 23d December 1688. A Sermon Preached before the House of Commons 31. January 1688. being the Thanksgiving day for the Deliverance of this Kingdom from Popery and Arbitrary Power His Eighteen Papers relating to the Affairs of Church and State during the Reign of King James the Second Seventeen whereof were written in Holland and first Printed there the other at Exeter soon after the Prince of Orange's Landing in England A Letter to Mr. Thevenot Containing a Censure of Mr. Le Grand's History of King Henry the Eighth's Divorce To which is added a Censure of Mr. de Meaux's History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches Together with some further Reflections on Mr. Le Grand 1689. Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria a Christe nato usque ad Saeculum XIV Facili Methodo digesta Qua de Vita illorum ac Rebus gestis de Secta Dogmatibus Elogio Stylo de Scriptis genuinis dabits suppositias ineditis deperditis Fragmentis deque variis Operum Editionibus perspicue agitur Accedunt Scriptores Gentiles Christianae Religionis Oppugnatores cujusvis Saeculi Breviarium Inseruntur suis locis Veterum aliquot Opuscula Fragmenta tum Graeca tum Latina hactenus medita Praemissa denique Prolegomena quibus plurima ad Antiquitatis Ecclesiasticae studium spectantia traduntur Opus Indicibus necessariis instructum Autore GULIELMO CAVE SS Theol. Profes Canonico Windssoriensi Accedit ab Alia Manu Appendix ab incunte Saeculo XIV ad Annum usque MDXVII Fol. 1689. OF THE Behaviour of Christians UNDER Various Revolutions IMPRIMATUR April 20. 1693. R. BARKER A LETTER TO A FRIEND CONCERNING THE Behaviour of Christians UNDER THE VARIOUS REVOLUTIONS OF STATE-GOVERNMENTS LONDON Printed for Rich. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCXCIII A LETTER TO A FRIEND Concerning the Behaviour of Christians under the various Revolutions of State-Governments THE Revolutions that so frequently happen in States may well engage an honest man to examine how Christians and the Church in geneneral ought to behave themselves in such kind of Revolutions I have therefore undertaken to answer your desire in as clear and perspicuous a manner as it is possible for me without making too particular a Reflection upon the present change of Government which hath put you upon proposing this question to me You desire to know of me whether it be lawful for a Christian to pray for a Prince whom he takes to be an Usurper and how the ancient Christians behaved themselves in the like Revolutions The First Point is a question of Right whether it be unlawful to pray for a Prince whom we believe to be an Usurper so as that all those who are of this Opinion are obliged to separate themselves from the Communion of those who believe him to be a lawful Prince it being impossible that those who think they ought to pray for a dispossessed Prince because they consider him as their lawful Prince should be present at the Prayers that are made for a Prince whom they consider as an Usurper The second Point is a matter of Fact which I might excuse my self from entring upon because it is certain that Christians are to order their Lives not by Examples but by Rules However for your satisfaction I will not refuse to take a a short view of the Behaviour of the Primitive Christians in such kind of Revolutions As to the first Point I answer That it is not only lawful for a Christian but that he is also obliged in Conscience to pray for those who are in possession of the Authority of the State wherein he lives if he hath a mind to obey the Apostle St. Paul and to follow the Principles of the Christian Religion I suppose that that which is the Duty of every Christian in particular is the Duty also of the Church in general forasmuch as the Church is nothing but an Assembly of Christians Take we a view therefore of the command of the Apostle St. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy Chap. 2. v. 1 2 3 4. I exhort therefore that first of all Supplications Prayers Intercessions and giving Thanks be made for all men for Kings and all that are in Authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godliness and Honesty For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour who will have all men to be sav'd and to come unto the Knowledge of the Truth The learned Dr. Hammond hath thus paraphrased this Precept First In the first place therefore I advise thee and all the Bishops under thy Metropolis that you have constant publick Offices of Devotion consisting First Of Supplications for the averting of all hurtful things Sins and Danger 2dly Of Prayers for the obtaining of all good things which you want 3dly Of intercession for others and 4thly Of Thanksgiving for Mercies already received and all these not only for your selves but in a greater diffusion of your Charity for all Mankind 2dly For the Emperors and Rulers of Provinces under them to whom we owe all our peaceable living in any place in the exercise of Religion and virtuous Life and therefore ought in reason to pray and give thanks for them 3dly For this God under the Gospel approves of and requires at our hands 4thly In proportion to the example which he hath given us in himself who earnestly desires the good of all Mankind and useth all powerful means to bring them to reform their former wicked Lives and now to entertain the
Monarchies were newly changed to Common-wealths or the contrary 2d It appears that they would have been excluded out of any Country where a Prince had been depos'd and another put in his place forasmuch as they could not obey the Laws of an usurper nor own him by praying for him 3dly They must even in those places where the government appear'd to them lawful at their first entrance have declar'd that their true disciples would be always ready to withdraw themselves from under the authority of the government assoon as any change should be made in it contrary to their Scheme of a lawful Government and that they would do their utmost endeavours to withdraw from the State all those that could not comply with this Change in the Government This supposed let them judge in how many places they could have got an entrance for the Gospel clogg'd with those Conditionals But there is something Worse than all this for by this jumbling of political Considerations about Government with the doctrine of the Gospel the Apostles would have been Obliged at their first entrance to present the Governor of the Place a draught of a lawful Government according to their Notion to the end that the State might Consider whether this political Scheme did agree with the Nature of Government as it is establisht amongst the several Nations of the World This is the point whence they ought of necessity to have begun the preaching of the Gospel for without this Christians could never be perswaded to offer up their prayers to God for the Governour of a State In very truth the Apostles would have seemed a company of pityful Men for understanding their Commission no better as having failed to leave us a good and ample instruction in this most important matter and which was of so great necessity considering the vast number of Changes and Revolutions that have happened in Governments whereas instead of using this exactness they have only simply and in general commanded us to pray to God for all the Powers set over us but they never daigned to acquaint us either by their conduct or doctrine that this was to be restrained onely to such Powers as are lawful But they will say since you grant that a Christian and a Citizen are one and the same Person under different respects how is it possible that after all this you should conceive that a Citizen who is perswaded in his Conscience that such an one is an Usurper may yet as a Christian pray God for this Usurper as if indeed he were his lawful Prince To this I answer that a Man who embraceth any Principles contrary to the Constitution of a State is very much to be pitied and if besides he be so unhappy as to fill his brain with whimseys without any ground or probability of truth and takes pains to confirm himself in the same from passages of Scripture misapplied he is still more incurable because in this case he huggs his error as supposing it both Honourable and Meritorious But to answer directly to this difficulty I say that the Conscience of such a Person is most Visibly Erroneous For 1. he judgeth in the quality of a Citizen that such an one is an Usurper for whom it is not lawful to pray because as he is a Christian he admits a Doctrin and Principle in Consequence whereof he opposeth himself against the determination of the State which hath manifestly acted and judged according to other Principles If he forms this judgment as he is a Christian then he attributes to himself a right which God hath never granted to Christians as such but if he judge thus in the quality of a Citizen and not of a Christian he violates the laws of a Society which can not subsist if every private Person be permitted to oppose his particular judgment to that of the publick declared in the most solemn manner imaginable the delusion of the Conscience of such a Person appears as evident to me as if a Person should have resolved to maintain from Scripture as a Doctrine of faith that the Sun goes round the Earth and in consequence to this Principle should refuse Communion with those that believe the Systeme of Copernicus I don't beleive that those who represent the body of the State are infallible in their judgment but seeing it is the highest Human Tribunal where these questions which concern the right of those that pretend to the Government can be decided I assert that if a Citizen hath a judgment opposite to that of the State either he must acquiesce in the judgment of the State or he must depart out of it for fear of being made partaker of the punishment which he beleives God may inflict upon a State for an unjust action but after all there is none but God that can Correct that which he hath reserved to his Government This is that which Conscience must naturally dictate to a Man who listens to its Suggestions This being granted I say in the 2d place that they who reason thus and continue in the State whose Authority they do not acknowledge do not follow their own principles as they are bound to do Suppose we therefore that they ought to separate themselves from their brethren forasmuch as in the quality of Christians they cannot joyn in those Prayers that offend their Morals are they not as much obliged in the quality of Citizens to quit a Society which they suppose to have violated the Fundamental Laws of the State by raising an Usurper to the Throne of the Lawful Prince The obligation if I be not mistaken is as binding on this hand as on the other This is an ignorant flattering of our selves to believe that we may lawfully preserve a propriety in our Estates by continuing in a State which we look upon as being in actual Rebellion against their Soveraign for it is certain that the possession of the goods we enjoy as members of the Society is no further allowed us than as we own the Authority whereby the Society doth subsist We have no right to them any further than as the Society allows us to enjoy the same and that we own the Authority of the Rulers of the Society The propriety we have in our goods is not from a Natural Right but from a Positive Right which cannot subsist but in the Society As soon as we quit a Society which we do when we disown its Authority we have no longer any right to our goods and accordingly ipso facto they cease to be ours And therefore a stranger who is bound by his oath to his own Prince can possess nothing in a forreign State he hath no leave to trade in a strange Country any further than he submits himself to the laws of the Society and to undergo the punishments which the Law inflicts in case it appear that he hath violated the Laws of it This is the Doctrin of St. Augustin upon St. John confirmed by Yves of
Pretence that Licinius the Father was yet alive Or did they continue to pray for Licinius the Father or Licinius the Son whom his Father had declar'd Augustus I know no body that was capable of such a preposterous Behaviour save onely Eusebius of Nicomedia who had all along been a great Favourer of Licinius against Constantine All the rest of the Christians were overjoyed at this Revolution and the Nicene Council blessed God for it and ordered publick Thanksgivings therefore See here another Example which I would desire you seriously to consider The Emperor Gratianus having been assassinated by Count Andragalbius Maximus thereupon invaded Britain the Gauls and Spain and was there proclaimed Emperor Do you suppose that the Churches of these Three Great Provinces of the Empire of the West did continue to pray for Valentinian whom Gratian had associated in the Empire and that they refus'd to pray for Maximus Or do you imagin that any Schism happen'd amongst the Christians of these Three Provinces upon this occasion True it is that there happened a Schisme between the Churches of France the greater part whereof refused to communicate with those Bishops that had employed the Authority of Maximus for the punishing of Priscillian so great an Enmity did this Church at that time bear against all Persecution but we do not read that the other Bishops divided themselves some of them thinking themselves bound to pray for Valentinian and other for Maximus the Usurper Let any Man read over the Monuments of those times and he shall no where find any the least instance that the Christians of Great Britain did follow any other order in their Prayers than the Gauls and Spaniards did If ever there were a just occasion to refuse to pray for an Emperour it was then when Phocas invaded the Empire and usurped it from Maurice The Barbarous Cruelty which he used towards that Emperour and four of his Children cannot be read without Sorrow Theodosius the Son of Maurice whom his Father had declared Augustus had escaped the Massacre Well do we find that for all this the Church refused to pray for Phocas They who will read the 38th Epistle of the XI Book of the Pope that then was may judge whether the Church of Rome in the name whereof Gregory writes to Phocas after that his Accession to the Empire had been signifi'd to the Church and to the Roman Senate made any difficulty to pray for Phocas whom all Succeeding Posterity have consider'd as a great Tyrant I could easily make it appear that the same Maximes have been followed by all the Kingdoms of the West which were raised from the Ruins of the Roman Empire but it will be sufficient to alledge onely the Example of France Some years since a great Question hath been started between Father le Cointe and the Doctors of the Court of Rome The latter contending that the Franks did not deprive King Childeric of the Royal Title but by the concurring Authority of Pope Zachary whereas Father le Cointe rejects this opinion for a meer Legend mantaining that the Deposition of Childeric was perform'd by the Sole Authority of the State of the Franks See here what Papebrocius writes to prove that it is not improbable that Pope Zachary never so much as consented to this Deposition because the whole Body of the Nation judged it just and necessary For it was no new thing saith he for the Franks when they had dispatcht any of their Kings or thrust them into Monasteries to substitute others in their Room such as were indeed of the Merovingian Line yet not always those that were the next Heirs in a right Line of Succession as is evident to any one that reads the History of Gregory of Tours stuft with Royal Tragedies and Revolutions wherewith the Popes never concern'd themselves or enquir'd into the Right and Title of those in Possession of the Throne by what means soever they got to it And when ever did the Patriarchs of Constantinople refuse to crown or the Roman Bishops to own those Emperours which Fortune any way soever offer'd to them For seeing none of the Bishops nor of the Abbots nor any of those Persons who at that time were accounted famous for their Learning and Sanctity did oppose the Elevation of King Pippin if Pope Zachary had undertaken to oppose it his opposition would have been to no purpose against such an unanimus Resolution of the whole Kingdom already executed and to which nothing was wanting save onely the Ceremony of the Sacred Unction or Coronation The reason of my alledging Papebrocius that famous Compiler of the Laws of the Saints is onely to let you see how true the matter I have here advanced is viz. That the Church never at any time refused to pray for those who have been owned by the Body of the State and that the Christians in all Ages have been infinitely estrang'd from that Maxim whereon some Men do now build the Schisme we deplore viz. That it belongs to the Church to Judge who is the Lawful Soveraign and that she can and may consider him as an Usurper who is owned by the State and that its Members ought to refuse to pray for him and to separate themselves from those who do as from Persons that openly Violate the Laws of God and the Obligations of Conscience which I heartily wish these Gentlemen may take into their Serious Consideration I am FINIS