Bishop in opposition to the publick intention of the Church It is an invidious Interpretation and a very false one which he gives of the Oath when he makes it in effect the same as if they should swear That they will for the Bishop's sake oppose the welfare of the Publick and break the Union of the Church and leave the Communion of it and adhere to the Bishop though they should have no reason to do so besides this bare Oath No need of this The welfare of the Publick and the Union of the Church require that in affairs of Publick Spiritual Interest the judgment of the Subject ought to be concluded by the judgment of the Bishop at least to the practice which perfectly overthrows the Doctor 's Interpretation and makes it impossible that those considerations should ever really interfere which the Doctor makes so opposite And St. Cyprian's definition of a Church that it is a flock united with the Bishop makes it impossible that the true Church's Communion can ever be left in adhering to the Bishop But this perhaps the Doctor will call a Saying of St. Cyprian and a sort of Theological Pedantry as he is used to stile other the like Doctrines and Principales of the Cyprianick and purest Ages when they are urged to oblige him to any thing that may give him occasion to shew what he calls his fortitude What he pretends with his usual confidence without the least offer of proof that particularly here in the Church of England the Oath of Canonical Obe dience is always taken with this supposition That the Civil Power as well as the Ecclesiastical do allow the Bishop to govern we shall then believe when he shall be pleased to prove it by some stronger Topick than his own Authority The Oath it self has no such matter expressed in it And he should have pitched on some expression in it if there had been any which in his opinion might seem to imply it Our Civil Laws require that our Ecclesiastical Causes should be determined by Ecclesiastical Judges which if they had been observed had left no room for the Case of Lay deprivations § XI Our Principles afford better Reasons why the unjust deprivations of Synods may be received without the deprivea Bishops consent than those insisted on by the Doctor That a Synodical deprivation though unjust discharges the Subjects from the Obligation of the Oath of Cononical Obedience is usually admitted But not for that reason which the Doctor has given for it The division which might otherwise follow in the Church and the publick disturbance which might follow thereupon if they were not so discharged are equally applicable to the opposite Pretenders and could afford the Subjects no directions with whether of them they ought to joyn The true reason ought to decide the Title and therefore ought to be such as one only of the Rivals can pretend to That is that the Synod however unjust in its way of proceeding is notwithstanding to be allowed as a conpetent Judge and therefore that on that account its Sentences ought to hold in Practice till repealed by a higher Authority of the same kind that is by a greater Synod But an incompetent Jude leaves things in the same condition in which it found them and ought not in Conscience or Equity to have an effect at all Nor can it therefore impose on the Consciences of the Subjects any the least Obligation even to acquiescence Nor does it follow that because the Bishop's conscent may not be necessary to oblige him to stand to the unjust Sentence that therefore the reason of his obligation to acquiescences is not grounded on Episcopal consent The consent of his Predecessors on the valuable consideration of having the conveniences of Synodical debates may conclude him while he enjoys the same valuable considerations And the consent of his Collegues may oblige him also who have the Right of judging with whom they will observe the Commerce of their Communicatory Letters Their agreement in denying him their Communicatory Letters is in effect a Deprivation when what he does is not ratified in the Catholick Church This will go far to hinder his Cummunion from being Catholick which may go far also towards the absolving his Subjects from Duty to him if by joyning with any other they may have the benefit of Catholick Communion But this following the judgment of Episcopal Predecessors or of the Episcopal Colledge will by no means allow the Subject that Liberty which the Doctor disputes for of deserting their Bishops on their own private Judgments concerning the publick good It will not follow that that Necessity must excuse them which has no other consideration on which it may be grounded desides that of an irresistible force § XII There is greâ—â— disparity between the Obligations of a competent and an incompetent Authority But the Doctor it seems can see no difference as to Acquiescence in a Case of Necessity between what is done by a competent and what by an incompetent Authority It is strange that a Person so able to judge in other Cases where Interest permits him to judge impertially should not see it The obvious difference now mentioned is that the Deprivation by an incompetent Authority leaves Subjects under obligation to Duty from which they are discharged when the Authority though acting unjustly is notwithstanding competent Thence it plainly follows that where the obligation to Duty is taken away there compliance is not sinful And where it is not sinful it may be born with in the Case of that Necessity which is the result of an irresistible Force But where the Obligation to Duty remains and the compliance is therefore sinful I know no tolerable Casuisty that allows it upon such Necessity The Doctor himself as we have seen already excepts it in his own stating of the Case Tenants do not usually hold their Tenures by Oaths But where they do I am sure all creditable Antiquity thought them under stricter Obligations to performance than it seems the Doctor does The Peace and Tranquillity of the Publick are no doubt useful considerations for understanding the sense of Oaths in which they oblige to performance But the Doctor might have been pleased to consider that here are two publick oftentimes incompareble Interests concerned in the Obligation of Oaths There is the publick Interest of those to whom as well as of those by whom the Faith is given And all fair and equal dealing Casuists prefer the former before the later in Oaths given for the Security of others How than can the Doctor make the good of Sworn Tenants in general to put restrictions on Oaths given for the Security not of the Sworn Tenants but of the liege Lords in general for whose Security the Obligations are undertaken He ought to prove that a Conqueror can daprive a Bishop of his Spiritual Power if he be pleased to reason upon it That the Church of Jerusalem supplyed the place of Narcissus
a Majority in our Legislative Assemblies I say no more at present for making Application how probable it is for such Principles to gain acceptance with the majority I should be as willing as any to presume better things if I could see reason to believe them But our best security is certainly to assert Principles that my not put it in the power of any to ruin our Spiritual Society and to be true to them He adds There is nothing more manifest than that this Inconvenience is not so likely to happen as those Evils we endeavour to avoid Why so These he says are certain and present That only possible If they be certain and present how can they pretend that by their compliance they have avoided them If they have not avoided them by complying how can they pretend that the benefits of their compliance can have made amends for all the further Injuries they may expose the Church to for the future by suffering such ill practices to pass into Precedents for want of a timely opposition Methinks he should have made the avoidal of the feared evils certain and present not the Evils themselves if he would have spoken consequently to the exigence of his Case But it is too true that the Evils themselves are present and that their Compliance has not avoided them The Schism is so notoriously And so is the Persecution also to all that will be true to their old Principles and to their old Communion For what favour has been shewn on condition of deserting old Principles can by no fair Interpretation be extended to that Church whose Principles they were So far as they hold firm to their old Principles they are still liable to the Persecution and so far as they desert them so far they also cease to be of the Church whose Principles they have deserted Few Persecutions have been so severe but that they might have been avoided by desertion But the further Inconvenience likely to follw on this compliance is more than possible It is as probable as most events are that depend on Humane Wills It is a natural Consequence and a Consequence likely to be drawn by Persons so Principled and there are but too many that are so and too tempting occasions to put them in mind of and to engage them on such Inferences § XXI That abuse it a greater mischief than that it can be made a mends for by the Doctors Expedients Yet 3ly should this Inconveniences follow the Doctor thinks himself provided against it Though the Government should be so very dissolute as to turn out frequently the Bishops of the Church without any just Cause yet who says he can look upon that mischief to be comparable to that of a Schism and a Persecution If he could find in his heart to be as much concerned for a more noble Society when it can intitle him to nothing but sufferings as he is for a less noble one that can give him revenues I cannot think he could be so indifferent for bearing frequent Injuries by invalid Deprivations of its Governours which cannot discharge Subjects from their Duty in Conscience to those which are so deprived He would be sensible how this would tend to the dissolving such a Socièty that must have its Governours removable at the pleasure of a hostile Society whensoever but pleased to invade Rights not belonging to it without any remedy or relief by insisting on their own Rights which the Doctors Principles make unpracticable And what Schisms or Persecutions can be worse to a Society than dissolution He would be sensible there is now a Schism and a Persecution That our late common Body is now divided that his late Brethren upon Principles of Conscience are now Persecuted if he could not otherwise believe he would feel if he had the compassion of a living Member If he had the Zeal of the Apostle when he used that passionate Expression Who is offended and I burn not If he had any sense of the afflictions of Joseph He would be sensible of the many future Schisms that must follow upon the frequency of these Encroachments upon his own loose Principles that neither allow Bishops to assert their own just Rights nor oblige Subjects to stand by them when they do so as long as there shall be any Bishops that shall think themselves obliged to assert them and Subjects that think their doing so will not discharge themselves from Duty to them that is as long as there are any that are true to the concenting Principles of the Church as it is a Society and a Communion He would be sensible that upon such Brethren as these such frequent encroachments would draw frequent Persecutions So far his Principles and Practices are from securing our common Body from Schisms and Persecutions But it seems he has forgot all concern for his old Brethren upon the surest most uniting Principles of Brotherhood nay for our common Body and of the terms upon which it was common to us formerly If he had not he would not think our Common Body so unconcern'd in our Divisions and our Persecutions But what says the Doctor can the suffering of a few particular men be when compared with the Peace and Tranquillity of the whole Church besides Not so much undoubtedly if the few had been Men of singular Opinions of no consequence for the good of the whole if they had not been such as all ought to have been if they would cement into a Body by any solid uniting Principles The suffering of such how few soever would have involved the whole Church if all its Members had been such as they should have been It is therefore the unhappiness of a Church that such Members are but few So far it is from being a Consideration to be boasted of that the Majority avoids sufferings by doing otherwise than becomes them If the Doctors regard to Multitude alone had been true then whenever there was an Apostaoy the Church would be by so much the more happy by how much the more had been engaged in the Apostacy These Multitudes would call themselves the Church as confidently as the Doctor and his Party do now and would as little regard the sufferings of a few particular Men as our late Brethren do I am sure the antient Catholicks did not so little regard the sufferings of a few particular Men in a common Cause In the Eastern Empire there were very few that incurred the displeasure of Constantius besides Athanasius and Paulus In the West no more than five Bishops are reckoned that suffered for their constancy The rest might have pretended generally to as much Peace and Tranquillity as our Adversaries do now Yet he was not than taken for a true Catholick who was as unconcerned as the Doctor is for the few particular Men that suffered Nor do I see but that the Cause of Episcopal Authority and Ecclesiastical Subjection is of as great and common importance to the Church in general
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
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
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
A DEFENCE OF THE VINDICATION OF THE Deprived Bishops Wherein The Case of Abiathar is particularly considered and the Invaliditly of Lay-Deprivations is further proved from the Doctrine received under the Old Testament continued in the first Ages of Christianity and from our own Fundamental Laws IN A REPLY to Dr. Hody and another Author To which is Annexed The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Independency of the Clergy on the Lay-Power as to those Rights of theirs which are purely Spiritual reconciled with our Oath of supremacy and the Lay-Deprivations of the Popish Bishops in the beginning of the Reformation By the Author of the Vindication of the Deprived Bishops LONDON Printed MDCXCV THE CONTENTS § I. THE Doctor 's late Book no answer to the Vindication Page 1 § II. The Baroccian M. S. disproved by the Vindicator and not defended by the Doctor P. 2. § III. The Doctor has not offered at any Answer to the Argument against him in the first part of the Vindication P. 3. § IV. He grants the Proposition principally disputed between us concerning the Invalidity of Lay-deprivations and takes no care to prevent the Consequences of that Confession P. 4 § V. The Doctor gains nothing by his changing the State of the Question P. 4. § VI. The Doctor 's whole Proof unconclusive admitting the invalidity of Lay-deprivations P. 5. § VII The Doctor 's Limitation of his own pretended self-evident maxims do all of them prove our Case unconcerned in it Chap. I P. 6. § VIII Submission of Subjects to the Ecclesiastical Usurpers is sinful by the Law of God P. 7. § IX Such submissions would make the Ecclesiastical Subjects Accomplices in the Injustice P. 9. § X. The same Submission in the Clergy is sinful on account of the Oaths of Canonical obedience they have taken to the rightful Possession P. 10. § XI Our Principles afford better Reasons why the unjust Deprivations of Synods may be received without the Deprived Bishops consent than those insisted on by the Doctor P. 12. § XII There is great disparity between the obligations of a competent and an incompetent Authority P. 13. § XIII No reason to reckon on the presumed consent of the Injured Bishops by an invalid deprivation for discharging their Subjects Consciences from Duty to them P. 14. § XIV Our Deprived Fathers gives publick Significations that they do challenge their Old Rights as far as is necessary in their circumstances P. 15. § XV. The Oaths of canonical Obedience to our Fathers still obliging P. 17. § XVI The complyance with Usurpers is also therefore sinful because Usurping Bishops are really no Bishops at all P. 20. § XVII The evil of Sin and Scandal in complying greater than that of Persecution which is avoided by it P. 22. § XVIII The Evill of Schism not avoided but incurred by complying with the Usurper P. 24. § XIX The abuses that may follow on compliance are a just reason to refuse it where it is not otherwise in Conscience due P. 25. § XX. No security that have compliance will not be abused P. 26. § XXI That abuse is a greater mischief than that it can be made amends for by the Doctor 's expedients P. 29. § XXII The main design of the Doctor 's New Book in arguing from Facts already overthrown by the Vindicator P. 32. § XXIII The Doctor himself is unwilling to stand by the consequences of such Facts as himself produces P. 33. § XXIV The Doctor 's remarks against the reasoning of the first part of the Vindication concerning the possession of Cornelius turned against himself P. 33. § XXV The Doctor 's Book afforded no Subject for a Reply but what would be Personal P. 35. § XXVI The Doctor 's turning the dispute to later Facts draws it from a short and Decisive to a tedious and litigious Issue P. 35. § XXVII We have no reason to suffer our selves to be overruled by him in these Arts of diverting us P. 36. § XXVIII We decline his Topick of Facts rather because it is undecisive than because we think it dis advantagious to us P. 36. § XXIX For want of some other Subject relating to the Vindication we pitch on the Case of Abiathar P. 37. § XXX This Fact is not commended in the Scripturs as a Precedent P. 37. § XXXI The Magistrate could not by the Doctrine of that Age have any direct Power over the Priest-hood P. 38. § XXXII The Benefits of the Priest-hood out of the Power and far greater than any in the Power of the Civil Magistrate P. 39. § XXXIII The Ancient Jews of the Apostle's Age did believe their Priest-hood available to a future and eternal State P. 40. § XXXIV And consequently did expressly own it far more Honourable than the Magistracy its self P. 42. § XXXV This same reasoning holds on account of the Priest-hood representing God tho' without relation to a future State P. 45. § XXXVI And that also according to the opinions of those Times P. 46. § XXXVII Solomon's Act of Abiathar was only of force P. 47. § XXXVIII Which force might in the consequence render the exercise of his Right unpracticable P. 48. § XXXIX Yet Solomon was in Conscience obliged to be cautious in exercising this Force against the Priest-hood P. 49 § XL. What Solomon did was only to fulfil what God has before Threatned against the House of Eli. P. 51. § XLI Abiathar was not then the High-Priest properly so called but Zadoc P. 53. § XLII There were in those times two High-Priest at once the chief such as Zadoc was of the Family of Eleazar the lower such as Abiathar of the Family of Ithamar P. 54. § XLIII No Deprivation of the Posterity of Phineas in those Times P. 56. § XLIV Zadoc put in the room of Abiathar as to the Courses of Ithamar which were not under him before P. 58. § XLV The Jews by our Principles could not justifie a Separation on account of Abiathar Their Case not like ours P. 59 § XLVI When Invasion had passed into a Prescription as in our Saviours time he that was in Possession had really the best Title P. 60. § XLVII Among the Jews the true High-Priest was to be known by his possessing the One Altar Among the Christians the true Altar was known by its being possessed by the true Bishop P. 62. § XLVIII The Reasons for exemption from the Power of the Prince stronger in our deprived Fathers Case than in the Case of Abiathar Our Bishops are properly Priests P. 64. § XLIX The Gospel Priest-hood more noble than that of Abiathar c. P. 66. § L. This Reasoning admitted in the Apostolical Age c. by Clemens Romanus c. P. 68. § LI. He does it by the same Principles as agreable to the Constitution of the Gospel P. 70. § LII He draws the like Inferences in Practice as we do P. 72. § LIII The Laity cannot now pretend to any indirect Right of depriving
different Places that what is Property and the violation of it Theft in one Country is not so in another Yet what Casuist has ever doubted but that Disobedience to Parents Murther Adultery and Theft are still violations of the Law of God notwithstanding that the Imputation of these Crimes to particular Facts does now generally depend on Circumstances determined by Human Law If therefore by our Wisdom the Doctor means the Wisdom of the Subjects themselves as if the Scriptures had left the determination of these Circumstances to that his Observation it not true The Subjects are to be concluded by the wisdom of their Superiours and that upon account of the Divine Law which obliges them to duty to Superiours in general which is to be so expounded that it may extend to all our Superiors for the time being in what time or place soever This therefore will oblige us to take all the ways of conveying Power to particular Persons by the constitutions of particular Societies not only for Human but Divine Establishments I am sure St. Cyprian looks on all particular Bishops in his own time as appointed by God and Christ. And in this way it is manifest that they who are intruded into places vacated by an incompetent Authority cannot be taken for the Bishops to whom the Subjects Obedience is due by Divine Law This also is as certain from the Reasonings and Principles as well as the Sayings of St. Cyperian § IX Such Submission would make the Ecclesiastical Subjects Accomplices in the Injustice The Doctor adds Secondly That Submission to the Usurpars does not make us Accomplices in the Injustice But why if our duty still be owing to the Rightful Claimers as it must notwithstanding an invalid deprivation The only reason he pretends is that refusal of Duty to the Usurpers would only draw Ruin upon the Clergy themselves who should refuse it and cannot restore the Rightful Owners whom the state has deposed Thus this Divine takes Persecution and Deprivation of Revenues for Ruin and sufficient to excuse from the Duty which may still remain notwithstanding any thing he has pleased or can plead from a Deprivation which himself has granted to be Invaild I am sure his Texts teaches us otherwise that Persecutions incurred for Duty are not Ruin but gain a Hundred fold even here besids the future Eternal Rewards Nor can any one believe otherwise who believes our Revealed Religion Nothing but flesh and blood and a carnal prospect can make these things appear as the Doctor has represented them But he says their refusal of Obedience to the Intrudors cannot restore the true owners to their Rightful Possession What then will this therefore excuse them for joyning with the Usurpers for thereby maintaining their unjust Possession in opposition to those who have a better Title which Title themselves were Obliged to maintain Can he reconcile this with their old Duty or excuse themselves for violating that Duty from being Accomplices in the Injustice But the Suggestion is not true which he insists on that the refusal of Obedience to the Intruders and paying it to the lawful Pastors would not continue the Rightful Poslesiors It would not indeed continue them in their Possession of their Secular dues or of any thing of which the State could deprive them But it would continue them in a Possession of those things for which our Consciences are concerned I mean of Spiritual in such a Possession as is consistent with a Persecution from the State in such a Possession as was enjoyned by their holy Ancestors in the first and purest Ages This we might continue to them whether the State would or no if we could find in our hearts to agree among our selves as the Primitive Christians did to be Unanimous in performing our Duty to them And so far is the prospect of the Publick good from obliging us as the Doctor pretends to the contrary that that very consideration of the Publick good is that which we principally insist on for our purpose It is certainly for the Publick good of the Spiritual Society that the Rights of its Governours and the Duties of its Subjects should be preserved inviolable And it is for the Publick good also that the Interest of less valuable Societies should give way to the Interests of that Society which is more valuable And it is withal as certain that the Spiritual is the more valuable Society I cannot foresee what part of this Reasoning the Doctor can question if he will be true to the Interests of Revealed Religion § X. The same submission in the Clergy is sinful on account of the Oaths they have taken to the of Rightful Possessors Canonical Obedience He proceeds and says Thirdly That such compliance with an Usurping Ecclesiastick Governour is not sinful on account of the Oath of Canonical Obedience to the Lawful Possessor And why so Because the Bishop so deprived can no longer govern But GOD be praised our Bishops can still govern if their Clergy and Laity would obey And that the Clergy will not obey the Doctor ought to shew how it is reconcileable with their Oaths of Obedience by some other Topick than what he has here insisted on Our Bishops are not banished are not imprisoned are not confined nor any way disabled from exercising that actual Government which relates to Conscience and which is practicable in a Persecution Yet the Primitive Christians did not think their Bishops disabled for Governing when they were in Exile as long as they maintained a correspondence with their Clergy So St. Cyprian even in his Exile exercised his Authority and was obeyed by his Carthaginian Clergy St. Athanasius was banished further into the West which perfectly disabled him for keeping up that Ordinary Correspondence with his Alexandrian Clergy which was requisite for actual Government Yet this was not then thought sufficient either to give them leave to joyn with any of those who were substituted into his place by suspected Arian Synods as well as by the Imperial Authority or to set up any Person without his leave of as unsuspected Orthodoxy as himself While he was living and might return to a capacity of governing they did not think themselves discharged from their duty to him on the Doctor 's pretence of the publick good I have already also shewn how that pretence in this Case makes against him and am not willing to repeat what has been there said If the Church's intention be regarded as the Doctor seems to regard it here she certainly could never intend that her Governours should be robbed of their Spiritual Right and her Subjects discharged from their Spiritual Subjection and her Body thereby dissolved at the pleasure of the sacrilegious encroaching Magistrate This dependance of the Subjects is so universally the Interest of all Churches and Bishops in general and indeed of all Societies as that I know not any shew of reason the Doctor has to make it the private intention of the
not in regard of any Possession of which the Emperour could deprive him And indeed in no higher sense than ours are as shall appear hereafter Cornelius was possessed of no more Temporals of which the State could deprive him And our H. Fathers are still notwithstanding the invaled deprivation in as firm and indisputable a Possession with regard to Conscience as Cornelius So unhappy the Doctor is in proving the Doctrine which he calls the Saying of St. Cyprian nothing to to the Vindicators purpose What the Doctor adds that he cannot believe so great and wise a Man as St. Cyprian could have been of another opinion from himself we are not much concerned for till he shall be pleased to produce some better Arguments why he should not be so One would think he wanted better Arguments when he insists upon the fairness of the Elections of the Usurpers for legitimating their Call He knows very well the liberty our Laws allow the Canonical Electors that they must choose the Person proposed or a Premunire But he must never expect to be restored to the Rights of his function if he and such as he will not only betray their own Rights but plead for their Adversaries Invasion of them The Doctor Enthymeme the Vindicator will then be concerned to take notice of when the Doctor can shew it in his Book But the Doctor thinks he has got an Argument to prove that an unjust Synod can deprive no more than an incompetent Authority And why Because a Synod proceeding unjustly cannot deprive of the Right For to him he says it is absurd that any unjust sentence should take away the Right Hence he iners that a Bishop substituted in the place of another unjustly deprived by a Synod must also be no Bishop if a Bishop substituted into a place vacated by a Lay deprivation be also none This would indeed hold if a Bishop deprived wrongfully by a competent Authority retained as much Right as he who had been deprived no otherwise than by an Authority that were incompetent But the Doctor methinks might easily have discerned the difference if he would have been pleased to Judge impartially All the Right that he has who is deprived unjustly is only a Right to a juster sentence either by an Appeal to a Superior Authority if the Authority which has deprived him be subordinate or in the Conscience of that same Authority which had deprived him if it be it self Supreme But till the competent Authority put him into Possession he has no Right to the consequences of Possession the duties of the Subjects and the actual benefits of his Office Nor has he any Right to Possess himself of the place by violence but must use Legal means of recovering what is already his due in Conscience This he knows is the sense of our Legal Courts concerning Sentences pronunced by competent though corrupt Judges But where the dispossession is by a Judge not competent the injured Person may make use of force for regaining his Possession and in the mean time he retains an actual Right to all the duties and benefits of his Office during his dispossession This our Laws would allow the Doctor if the King of France or any other force not seconded with a Legal Right to use that force should dispossess him of his Fellowship of Wadham Colledge and substitute a Successor into his Place Our Laws would notwithstanding own him as the true Fellow Entitled to all the Duties and Priviledges of the Fellowship and would not allow his Rival as a Fellow nor indemnify any that should pay him the Dues belonging to the Place not allow him the Plea of a forcible entry if the Doctor should recover his Possession by force But none of these things would be allowed him if himself had been ajected and his Rival substituted by the unjust Sentence of a corrupt Judge but in a Legal Court Thus he may see a better Reason than what is given by him for our Submission to an unjust Deprivation of a Synod The actual Right of the Bishop so deprived to the Duty of his Ecclesiastick Subjects and the Priviledges of his Place are really taken from him till he be again possessed by the Acts of those who are empowered by the Laws of the Society to give Possession And all the Right he has is only in the Consciences of those who are empowered by the Laws for it first to be put into the possession and than to all the other Benefits and Privildges annexed by the Law to be Legal Possession This is very consistent with a paying the Rights consequent to Possession to another till the Possession be Legally restored But even the Legal Possession by the Laws of the Church and with regard to Conscience cannot be affected by an invalid deprivation of an incompetent Judge § XVII The Evil of Sin and Scandal in complying greater than that of Persecution which is avoided by it Having thus as well as he could proved this compliance with the Usurper's unsinful the Doctor now proceeds to the other limitations of his self evident Maxim He therefore endeavours to prove that the Evils following upon disowning the Intruders are greater and more like to fall out than those which are likely to follow upon complying with them I have already proved the contrary What now remains is only to answer what he produces to prove his own Assertion The Evils they pretend to avoid by complying are a SCHISM and a PERSECUTION These he says are two Evils as great as can possiably befal thè Church I easily agree with him concerning the former that it is an Evil of the first Magnitude But the latter was never counted so by truly Christian Spirits in the flourishing times of our Religion Then Martyrdoms were courted with as much ardency and ambition as Preferments have been since as Sulpitius Severus has long since observed Then the Apologists tell their Persecutors that it was rather for their sakes than their own that they vouchsafed to write Apologies Then they always gave thanks when they received the sentance of death for so glorious a Cause Then they bemoaned the unhappiness of their own times if they had no Persecutions as Origen expresly Then nothing troubled them more than that they lost their lives cheaply upon their beds as appears in St. Cyprian de Mortalitate The Doctor is no doubt well acquainted with Ignatiu's Epistle to the Romans full of an ardent zeal of losing his Life for Christ and earnest expostolations with the Romans that they might not so much as use their interest with God in Prayers for his deliverance telling them that he would take it for an Argument of their good will to him if they would not be so desirous of saving his Flesh and of their ill will if they should prevail with God for his safety even by an interposition of an extraordinary and miraculous Providence And when Blondel takes upon him to judge of the
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
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