Words which would have cleared my Meaning and others wherein the Strength of my Argument lay Next he Sums up my Argument falsly and not in my Sense And after this he gives no direct Answer to it but raiseth three Questions and those too for the sake of some Answers he had found in Archdeacon Mason and those Answers come not up to the Case Such mighty pains are some Men at to say nothing to the purpose But however we must wait his Motions My Argument he Sums up thus That being they i. e. the Clergy receive their Authority from God no Civil Power can disable them from the Exercise of their Duty And if it doth they are bound to quit the Communion of the Church where so disabled Now I was so far from simply asserting That the Civil Power cannot disable them from exercising their Function that I there instanced in Cases where they lawfully might But as he has worded it he confutes himself For if they exercise only as he calls it their Duty it is certain no Civil Power lawfully can disable them from the Exercise of it And if he grant it their Duty in that Case he justifies them For no Man ought to be hindred from discharging his Duty Nor did I say That they are bound to quit the Communion of the Church where so disabled For the Church might own them when the State disallowed them I said in such Case of unjust Deprivation they might exercise their Office at their Peril which either might be done in the Church or in Separation from that particular Church according as the Doctrines there taught and the Terms of Communion in it stood The Argument being thus falsly represented he answers it with Questions The method I suppose is new and he a Man in fashion The first is this Whether a Bishop duly Consecrated or a Minister duly Ordained may not be lawfully Suspended and Deprived from the Execution of his Office by the Secular Power whâ—re there is sufficient Reason for it Now this Question plainly answers it self For I think any thing may be done for which there is a sufficient Reason and he is a very hard hearted Man who will not allow him this But then there are other Questions to be asked viz. What is in such Case a sufficient Reason Whether there be sufficient Reason in this particular Case And lastly if he please Whether no Authority in the Deprivers and no Crime as to them in the Deprived be a sufficient Reason for Suspension or Deprivation It is an odd way of answering a Man in a particular Case to float in generals and keep as far from the Question as may be but perhaps he will mend that anon at present we must attend to the Solution of his Question which in his Singular way he performs by reciting two Objections and as many Answers to them from Mr. Mason And to make short work I will grant him all that Mason says where there is as our Author calls it a sufficient Reason for so doing and I hope he would not have it done without or against Reason And so passing by the Act of Parliament which he hath left me to peruse at leisure till I have more spare time I will directly come to his second Question and try whether he hath any better Fortune there He is not agreed with himself how he shall word his second Question and therefore I will set down that where he expresseth himself most at large and maintains the afirmative Whether it may not be lawful for the Secular Power to deprive Persons in Orders for Crimes committed against the State and particularly upon Refusal to give Security to the Government for their Peaceable Behaviour and Allegiance by Oath This he affirms and he says I expresly deny which is expresly false as may appear from those very Words of mine which he hath cited to prove his Assertion For there I did allow a Deprivation by the Secular Power where either the just Censure of the Church had passed on any or they did merit Deposition and that I think they may do though a Censure be not actually passed upon them But if you will have the Deprivation valid even to their acquiescence where the Secular Power or that which calls it self a Secular Power says that a Crime is committed against it you must not only justifie Queen Mary in Depriving Edward the Sixth's Bishops but you must condemn those deprived Bishops for making a Schism and not joyning in Communion as Laymen i. e. that they did not turn Papists But let us examine his Defence I answer saith he with Mason Where was the Act of the Church in the Deposition of Ablathar And where was the Ecclesiastical Crime he was charged with Did Mason then use thus to answer with Questions But your Questions shall have Answers however And First I think it not very clear whether the Jewish Church did afford so sufficient an Ecclesiastical Remedy against their Criminal High Priest as the Christian Church doth against Criminal Bishops and if so then it was altogether necessary both for Church and State that their King who was of God's own appointment and something more than a mere Secular Person should interpose his Authority without any deference to Ecclesiastical Censure Secondly You may enquire but I am apt to believe that neither you nor I can certainly tell whether Abiathar was Censured by the Sanhedrim or not for if it be not Recorded that he was so neither is it that he was not Thirdly Though it be very convenient in it self agreeable to the Rules of the Church and makes much for the Peace both of Church and State That Christian Kings in Punishing Ecclesiasticks would take the Censures of the Church along with them which would make the Condemnation of such Persons more terrible and notorious yet if the Clergy should refuse as it would be their Fault so it doth not hinder the Secular Power to punish Offenders according to Justice But all this is nothing to the purpose and will do him no service because there are Cases wherein Ecclesiasticks Deprived by even a lawful Secular Power may yet remain obliged to execute their Commission from Christ though at their Peril or else the Apostles and Primitive Bishops must be Condemned and if so it is much more Lawful when for adhering to right they are deprived only by a pretended Power But I suppose this Virtuoso will say That Jehojada had been bound to leave of all care of discharging his Duty of High Priest if Athaliah had Deprived him As to his Second Question Where was the Ecclesiastical Crime Abiathar was charged with I answer That though I spake of Ecclesiastical Censures yet I did never limit the matter to pure Ecclesiastical Crimes nor have I that I can remember so much as used that Phrase for the Church may censure whatsoever is Contra bonos more 's though at the same time the Secular Power punish it as an
Sense Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Times would have done well to have given us a touch or two of his Skill that way by some credeble Authorities and particularly of such a Subjection of the Bishop to the Metropolitan to the Confutation of some of St. Cyprian 's Epistles It being very likely that in a small time the whole Controversie may turn upon this hinge and it being most becoming Church Men to direct Ecclesiastical Proceedings by Ecclesiastical Authority I shall take a little more pains in this place to answer not only what he now objects but to take in what he hath at any time dispersedly spoken as to this Matter If this scornful Gentleman will so give up all to the Civil Power that their Commands and Orders must be actually obeyed and complyed with in every thing he in effect grants two things which done by any Clergy-man to have his Gown pulled over his Ears were too mean a Punishment First That it is in their Power to destroy Christianity and in the room of it to plant any other or none at all Secondly That Religion is only an Artifice or Sham to be made use of so far as it is serviceable to the Civil Power and no otherwise By this you may perceive what a Friend the Erastian is to the Atheist and though our Author doth not speak out yet he hath many Expressions that look earnestly that way But he will allow That the blessed Jesus who instituted the Christian Church did by a published Gospel and Succession of authorized Pastors provide for the Directing Ordering and Governing of that Church which they are to stand by in all Ages and Difficulties then he must grant That there are some Duties of a Christian which no Civil Power can supercede and though we are not allowed to resist the lawful Civil Power how hardly so ever it use us yet we must practice our Duty at our peril and if the Civil Power would obstruct it we must then take up our Cross and follow Christ And if this be not our Case we are mistaken Sufferers but if it be it will very much call in question their Sincerity To fear God and honour the King and not meddle with those who are given to change I think was not only laid down as a wise Man's Advice but designed as a Duty and Obligation upon every particular Person But not to urge here matters of Justice Fidelity and common Honesty which yet by the way I think are never to be slighted we are here to consider what Obligations we may lie under with respect to the Government and Orders in the Church And if he will allow me to reason either from the Practice of the Church or the Canons of the Church or the Writings of those who best understood both particularly St. Cyprians whom he himself Magnifies and than whom no Man better understood this Cause then I doubt not but we may go a considerable way in it That Episcopacy is the highest Order in the Christian Church and that there is nothing which one Bishop as a Bishop may do but another may do the same I readily grant and consequently That there can be no such thing as Episcopus Episcoporum But then that there are withal certain Rights Priviledges and Prerogatives belonging to the Metropolitan which have been always thought to have been inseperably annexed to him and from the exercise of which other Bishops have been ever ordinarily debarr'd and that upon this account that the Peace and Unity of the Church cannot be otherwise preserved nor the Government managed this I say I think to be as plain as the High way Whatever the Rights or Priviledges of Metropolitans may be I shall only Discourse of some which were universally allowed by the Ancient Church and confirmed by Canons or Practice universally received and which may at least in some measure affect our Case of which one is this That no one was to be Ordained a Bishop without the concurrence or consent of the Metropolitan In the 19th Canon of the 1st Councel of Antioch it is thus determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That a Bishop shall not be Ordained without a Synod and the Presence of the Metropolitan And when in the same Canon they had made the actual Presence of the Metropolitan as necessary as such a case could permit they add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That if any thing be done otherwise then as was than determined the Ordination shall be invalid Now this very Canon was only pursuant to a Canon of the Councel of Nice and because most Men especially those with whom we have now to do have at least formerly pretended a great Veneration for that Ancient Councel we will see what was their Judgment which in the 6th Can. you may find expressed thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let this be universally known that if any one be Ordained a Bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan This great Counsel doth determine that such a one ought to be no Bishop Perhaps it was for this Reason That Eusebius as far as I remember in reckoning up the Ecclesiastical Succession except Jerusalem for which there might be particular Reasons mentions only Metropolitical Sees For whilst the Rights of the Metropolitan were preserved and his Succession undoubted it was scarce possible that the other Bishops of the Province should come in any other way but at the right Door for he was either to be actually at or consent their to Ordination by Bishops summoned by him for that purpose so that as the being sure concerning him removed away all doubt of the rest so the being uncertain concerning him of course makes all the Ordinations in his time uncertain This I say that you may consider what will be the effect of Setting up a Metropolitan against a Metropolitan and how it is a fair way to render the validity of the Ministerial Function called in question But of what force such an Act would be if done I shall consider presently Another matter appropriated by the universal Church to the Metropolitan was that nothing of Moment which might concern the Province or be of general Concernment should be done without his privity and consent so that unjustly to set a Metropolitan aside and for other Bishops to neglect him is to make matters of greatest Moment and nearest Concernment to the Church to become impracticable and to draw a Scandal upon the Actions of all Bishops as to any thing they shall do in such Cases and when I have offered Authorities for the Proof of this I leave others to judge whether they are Credible enough for such a Huff as our Author Amongst those Ancient Canons collected and received before the Councel of Nice which are vulgarly called the Apostles Canons the 34th runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Bishops of every Country ought to observe him who is their First or Chief and to esteem him as their Head and to do
nothing of Moment without his Consent Every other Bishop to employ himself only about those things which are business of his proper Diocesâ— and the Villages or Places thereunto belonging Neither let him i. e. the Chief do any thing without the Concurrence of the rest And so Vnity shall be preserved and God shall be gloryfied c. To this very Canon the Council of Nice relates and explains what is meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first amongst them For after a great deal of care taken about the Ordination of the Metropolitan as a Matter of great moment for the Churches Security they conclude the Canon thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 4. i. e. Let the Authority or Confirmation of things done throughout every Province belong to the Metropolitan Upon this very Canon did the African Fathers found their Authority for that saying in their Epistle to Coelestine Bishop of Rome Decreta Nicoena sivâ— inferioris gradûs Clericus sive ipsos Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissime commiserunt i. e. The Decrees of the Council of Nice have most plainly put not only the Clergy of inferiour Rank but even the Bishops themselves under the Jurisdiction of their Metropolitans And to both the foregoing Canons the Council of Antioch seems plainly to referr in their 9th Can. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. It behoves the Bishops in every Province to know the Bishop of the Metropolitical See and that he undertakes the Care and Management of the whole Province and that by reason of the great Concourse of People from all places to the Metropolis upon account of Business c. And having thus confirmed the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans they tell you That they did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. According to an ancient Canon of our Fathers binding or in force And that you may know what particular Canon in this they had an eye to in the very next Words speaking of the Duty of Bishops they expressed it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are the very words used in the Apostles Canon for the same purpose as any one may see who will compare them together From all this it is evident That even Bishops place at Rome it made a Schism and it had been a very Pernicious one had not Felix opportunely died I will not urge upon our Author That his frequent loose way of expressing himself doth in effect basely give up not only the Episcopal Order but all the Orders in Christ's Church and consequently the Church it self to the Secular Power be it what it will if this was done designedly as it seems to be it is so much the worse But I will keep my self to regular Ecclesiastical Practices and Authorities and if a Clergy-man will not abide by these or return them a fair Answer he is much more fit for a Censure than a Disputation It is a Rule so well known to be universally received by the Ancient Church That there shall be but one Bishop in a City that I need not spend time to prove it That of the Chorepiscopi doth not alter the case and particularly is nothing to our case for these two Reasons First That though they were a sort of Rural Bishops yet they were only as Assistants and acted in Subordination to and by the Direction of the City Bishop Secondly That we have none such now and as for those who are so hasty to get into the places of our pretendly deprived Bishops they would never own themselves to be Chorepiscopi but challenge the whole entire Jurisdiction and absolutely thrust out the lawful Canonical Bishops contrary to all the Rules of the Church The reason why this Rule bath been held so Sacred is partly because to do otherwise would be to make the Church a Monster for in St. Cyprian's Sense a Church is a People united to their Bishop where by the way observe That the Word Plebs or People is taken in a larger Sense as well for the Clergy as Layety under the Jurisdiction of one Bishop And here the Bishop supplying the place of the Head and the People of the Body to set up two Bishops were to make two Heads partly because if two Powers independent upon each other command and direct in the same Church it would breed such Disorders and Confusions as usually end in Schism and indeed it might make the Obedience of the People impossible whilst they might command different things at the same time and for this reason both so great Power was given to Metropolitans in Provincial Churches and all Bishops were Prohibited any Acts of Jurisdiction out of their own Precincts which might be any ways prejudicial to the Canonical Bishop of the Place And therefore where there is a lawful Bishop another ought not to be placed there if it be otherwise the whole Act is void and this Sir your good Friend St. Cyprian will tell you Episcopo semel Facto Collegarum ac Plebis testimonio judicio comprobato alium constitui nullo modo posse Ep. 41. ad Cornel. This I think is plain enough but because our Author is for abundance of Words if he please to read St. Cyprian's Epistle to Antosvianus who favoured Novatianus in such a case as is daily expected will be ours he may there find Reasons as well as bare Assertions of which take this taste Cum nemo ante se he speaks of Cornelius Bishop of Rome factus esset cùm Fabiani locus i. e. cum loous Petri gradus Cathedrâ—e Sacerdotalis vacaret quo occupato de dei voluntate atque omnium nostrúm conseasione firmato quisquis jam Episcopus fieri voluit foris fiat necesse est nec habeat Ecclesiasticam Ordinationem qui Ecclesiae non tenct Vnitatem quisquis ille fuerit multum de se jactans sibi plurimum vindicans profanus est alâ—…nus est foris est Et cùm post primum secundus esse non possit quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat factus est non jam secundus ille sed nullus est Ep. 52. Thus it is plain That the grand Reason why St. Cyprian gives the Cause against Novatian was because Cornelius in the Vacancy of the See was Canâ—…nically placed there before him If therefore a Bishop be thrust into the place of another who is lawfully Bishop of the Place all such transactions are void and null in themselves and all that forsake their true Bishop and joyn with him who is thrust in are Schismaticks and though there should be any Penalty or Deprivation befall the Bishop yet if it be such which in its own Nature doth only amount to a Suspension it cannot make the Place capable of another Bishop because notwithstanding the present restraint he remains Bishop still though under a kind of an arrest and in such Case the return of the use and exercise of that Authority which all this while is really lodg'd in him is to be
A REPLY TO A Vindication OF A DISCOURSE Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separation c. LONDON Printed in the Year M DC XCI AMONG all the Reformed Churches none departed from Rome with greater Advantage than the Church of England The certain Succession of Authority as well as purity of Doctrine and both maintained by Men as famous for the Integrity of their Lives as Profoundness of their Learning made her for a long time the Glory of the Resormation and both the Envy and Terror of her Adversaries For this Reason she became the principal Mark at which all Firebrands were darted and no Arts were neglected which might by any means raise up Enemies against her till in the former Rebellion overwhelmed with the Multitude Malice and Wickedness of her Foes either her Preists with others were barbarously murdered or shut out from the Temples and debarr'd from the daily Sacrifice And Jerusalem it self was made an heap of Stones But though this did eclipse her Beauty and as some thought well nigh defac'd her yet such was the Sincerity of her Members that those bloody Persecutions did indeed raise her Reputation and made many who admired their Constancy enquire into those Principles from whence sprang such wonderful Effects whereby she gained no few Proselytes And as when the Heathens accounting all sure erected Statues to Dicclesian with this Inscription Superstitione Christi ubique deleta the Christian Church soon after broke forth with greater Splendor than ever so when our Enemies thought they had raked up that long afflicted Church in Ashes on a sudden and beyond hopes she rose with such a Lustre as struck Envy dumb and her Enemies with Admiration as seeing the Finger of God in it And thus it might have long continued had there not been a falling away and her own Members renounced her Principles But alas now her Condition is worse and more desperate than ever unless God be her Helper Rome hugs herself and laughs to see the Members of that Church debauched and that effected by some few Vipers bred in her Bowels which all their Craft and Industry could never bring to pass The Dissenters smile and insult to see the worst of their Principles taken up and pretended to have been always Principles of the Church of England And as for those few whom no Plagues or Penalties can force to abdicate their Mother and with Rancour vomit up that Divine Food they suckt from her Breasts whilst even their Enemies commiserate them those who call themselves their Brethren prosecute them with the utmost Malice as if nothing would serve them but Root and Branch and they were fully resolved to destroy that poor distressed Church both Name and Thing And unless God of his Infinite Mercy prevent their implacable Designs to the eye of Sense it scarce seems avoydable Experience may have sufficiently taught us That Schism not only breeds ill Blood but worse Actions and not only causeth Heats and Animosities but often raiseth Men to that Madness of Zeal that they think they do God good Service by the most unjustisiable Deeds and barbarous Immanities and I pray God that these times may not too much feel the Effects of it Upon this account every good Man will not only Mourn over the Divisions of Reuben but by all honest Means endeavour to allay them And if I could be convinced That the Guilt of the present Schism lay at our Door I should think it ought to be my first Work to Repent of it And thô the Author I have to do with writes at that rate as if he intended not to convince any Man but reproach all who are not of his Party yet I will pass that by and do him the Justice to examine whatever may seem in the least material thorough his whole Discourse and so leave the Judgment to the Impartial Reader For a taste at first what awkard doings we must expect all along he answers my little Piece backwards and begins at the end And because I said I was unwilling to judge severely of my Brethren he thinks he hath no small advantage in picking up three or four harsh Phrases which dropt from my Pen As if a Man could have no kindness for others who sometimes speaks in sharp Language when bitter Truth enforceth him to it and the Nature of the Thing will not be otherwise expressed But this Complaint very ill becomes him who at every turn on set purpose calls me by all the scornful despicable Names a malicious Wit can invent and sometimes gives me such ill-favoured Titles with Threatning to boot as if he had a mind to deal by me as the Heathens with the Primitive Christians who when they would expose them to be torn in pieces drest them in the Skins of Bears or other Savage Beasts But this I can neglect For though it may recommend his Book to some kind of Wits yet it will certainly disparage it with all Men of Sense My Answer contained only two Sheets so that it could be neither difficult nor tedious to have answered it as it lay But as if he were lost in a Wood or had to do with some Voluminous Author he reduceth it to Heads but as there I followed another Man's Steps so here to prevent all Complaints of foul play seeing our Author will not allow me my own Method I will follow his But first I cannot forbear to tell him That I do not think that he hath done like an ingenuous Man in these things 1. That he hath quite omitted several Reasons of mine which were material as to the Matter in Controversy 2. That when he mentions Topicks or hints at any of my Arguments he never repeats those Words wherein the strength of the Argument lay 3. That he rarely makes any direct Answer but shifts and turns it off to another Matter like some crafty Huntsmen who being desirous to save the life of an old chac'd Hare and yet to gull those who follow the Sport and think the same Game is still on foot start and lay the Dogs into a fresh one And in these three things consists both the Artifice and Strength if it have any of his whole Book The first Topick he makes to be of Church-Communion and Schisme and here the first Offer he makes is a Side-blow in stiling us the New Separatists p. 3. Now Schisme certainly goes along with the Cause and those properly are the Schismaticks who are the Criminals Now let Matters be first adjusted and the Cause examined and let those be the new Separatists who shall be found Guilty upon Tryal and if his new Titles of Honour be not found of Right to belong to himself and his Party I will confess that I have been wofully mistaken That we do not fall but are forced into this Division I had alledged This he saith he will answer in due place and I must wait his Leisure But when he calls it a Spiteful Return when I desire that Author
of the same fatal Consequence if the Clergy had not subscribed c. if they had not declared their Assent and Consent c. if they had not taken the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy in former Kings Reigns and he might have added if People should Renounce Christianity which I fear many are strongly tempted to whilst they hear the Ministers of it Preach away God's Commandments and those who ought to be the severest Enemies of all Wickedness to Canonize Perjury and Injustice for Christian Virtues But to answer his particular Instances Will he say That either the things commanded or the Authority commanding then was unlawful If not how comes it up to our Case or how could they justly be made a ground of Separation But he would not see wherein the Fatality of the Consequence I urged lay which if he had pleased to do he might have spared all his Instances though he had had Forty more Suppose the Case thus a Government requires something to be done which is sinful and unlawsul with which if the Clergy will not comply they shall be discharged from the Exercise of their Function and Duty Now in such a case God forbids Compliance and if they are bound to submit to the Government and cease from the Exercise of their Ministry upon Non-compliance then it will lye in the Power of the Civil Government whether God shall be worshipped in the Land or not For sin we must not and yet if we must acquiesce under the Penalty for not complying then it is in their Power to discharge every Man from his Duty And therefore in such a Case I say we must do out Duty at our Peril we must do well and be content to suffer Ill we have no Remedy in such Case but to bear our Cross And to avoid or explode the Doctrine of the Cross here were in the consequence to thrust Christianity out of the World Of this not a word and indeed our Author 's great Skill lyes in avoiding not answering Arguments He farther adds That the Penalties though great are neither unjust or merciless if the Government is not otherwise to â—e secured What! not though the thing commanded be Sinful May a Government then enjoyu Wickedness under the severest Penalties if it be thought for its Security and yet be blameless There are a sort of Men are strangely careful for some Governments and what a small ado is required to establish a Throne in Unrighteousness and after all it will never be done but either this will not secure the Government according to your Principles or it may be without it For I must intreate you to remember a common Distinction amongst your selves I mean that between Government and Governours and then be pleased to call to mind who it is that expresly says That the Oath is to the Government not to the Person Now suppose a Man should take the Oaths with a design at the same time to secure the Government by putting it into other Hands I cannot see but that a Man may lawfully do thus upon your Principles and yet this were to make an Oath the most detestable Cheat that ever was known or heard of Sure the Eyes of Governours will one time or other be opened to see that these Men really strip them of all Security All our Churches saith he are open p. 8. and every one furnished with a bold Swearer But what 's this to the purpose Or how does it answer the Case I put For may they not on that account be shut at any time and for a longer time than they were in the Reign of King John And let me desire you Sir to remember though you have shut us out That the Church is not tyed to the Walls but follows the Authority of which we shall Discourse anon What he means by his Proportions of 12000. to 16000. and 2000. to 10000. I cannot imagine unless it be to expose the Apostacy and Iniquity of these Times which none before can parallel If he mean to upbraid us with the fewness of our Number it is only to encrease their own Shame and Reproach for Argument in this Case it is none or of no Force for it might as well have been pleaded against the Church in Elijah's time and he might for the same Reason have condemned all Christians in general because Christ calls them his Little Flock Whereas I alledged and proved That the Oaths were made a condition of Communion to us quatenùs Ministers He could not deny this only it seems we must be like Pelicans in the Wilderness and none must come near us For if we will separate we may but then we must separate alone For the People cannot joyn with us without being guilty of a notorious Schism p. 8. But if Ministers fall under a Deprivation which hath neither Cause for the Ground nor Authority for the Act and consequently is null and void in it self May not a Minister's own Flock joyn with him without being guilty of notorious Schism And if other Ministers will not only justifie such unjust Proceedings but greedily rob them of their Livelyhoods and enter upon their Charges May not those who receive the Wrong separately do their Duties But here he objects That this is nothing to the People of whom as Church Members this is not required And this he says is a tender Point and what I durst not touch upon The Point indeed is tender and though I had not Courage enough to swear i. e. to be Perjured yet my noble Hector shall find that I dare do any thing that is Honest It is not the Oaths in themselves nor their taking or our refusing upon which we merely justifie the Separation but it is the influence those Oaths have upon Communion and that is such as will not only justifie but oblige the People as well as the Papists to separate And if this be so then it is your selves must Separate alone because the People ought not to joyn with you For though the Oaths themselves are not imposed on the People as condition of Communion yet the Matter and Substance of those Oaths is put into the Prayers of the Church and so far it becomes a condition of Communion to all Persons For to every Prayer the People are required to say Amen and they are not left at their Liberty to joyn in what Prayers they will and not in others but are required not only to joyn but to testifie their joyning in all their Amen supposes their joynt consent concurrence and approbation What People are enjoyned in the solemn Worship to pray for is made a condition of Communion to them and if it be Sinful will not only justifie but require a Separation For what I may not swear though but once I may much less pray for daily nor can there be a greater affront offered to the Divine Goodness than by solemn Prayer to endeavour to engage it for that which at the same time I condemn as
Unjust and Wicked How can I joyn with those in every time of whose solemn Worship I am required more then once to pray to God that he would approve and prosper the breach of his Commandments and most signally and notoriously the Fifth Sixth and Eighth To pray not only for that which is highly unjust but also for the Prosperity and Continuance of it is that which no Christian ought to do and where he is enjoyned to do it he not only may but ought to separate from such and so I leave others to judge whether there be any Reason for the Peoples non Communion as he Styles it Other Reasons I could add but because the Author of The Caution against Incōsistency has clearly proved That those who think the Oaths unlawful ought for the same Reason to condemn the Prayers which relate the Matter of the Oath and consequently ought not to joyn where they by being inserted in the daily Office are made a condition of Communion I refer to that for more full Satisfaction in that particular Only this I shall add that in conclusion of the Church Prayers we return Thanks to God Who hath given us Grace with one accord to make our Prayers and Supplications Now let Men pretend what they will in repeating this Prayer either they say true or false if they say true then they joyn in those Prayers which contain the Matter of the Oath but if they do not joyn in those Prayers then this Prayer is a lye in their Mouths Yet there is one thing more I shall propound That though personal Failings of any Man are not a good Warrant to others to abstain from Communion whether nevertheless the Teaching Preaching and Maintaining Immoralities and Opinions destructive of Christian Practice may not as well justifie a Separation from such as Errors in the Faith For though our Adversaries do not say That Perjury is lawful yet they argue upon such Principles as if there could hardly be any such thing They make Oaths to be no Security to any Governours which is enough to make all Governours hate and root out that Religion which teacheth so The effect of their Discourse tends to the destroying of all Faith Truth and Justice amongst Mankind than which nothing can be more scandalous or dangerous to that Religion which prescribes and requires the highest Simplicity and Sincerity And this thing alone I think may go a great way towards justifying a Separation from such Persons From what hath been said the Answer is easie to what follows For it is apparent That it is not barely a Political Security required of us nor do we and God forbid either we or any others should Revenge our Wrongs upon the Church as he maliciously insinuates But we preserve our own Innocency and what in us lyes by lawful and honest Means the Churches Purity and just Authority though we heartily mourn That the Wickedness of others hath unavoidably put us upon the necessity of taking the Course we now do As to that which he calls my second Argument he tells me in the First place That I proceed upon a gross Mistake by confounding Deprivation with Degradation and yet with his leave the Mistake was not mine for I called it Deprivation as he doth I never mentioned Degradation But if the Civil Power inflict a Penalty under the name of Deprivation which tantamounts to a Degradation I could only argue against it as it was Now to take away a Character and make it eternally useless is in effect the same thing and this is the Case we are not only deprived of our Livelihoods and shut out from our proper Cures but perpetually discharged from the Exercise of the Ministerial Function unless we will sin against the known Laws of God and the Land and the Dictates of our own Consciences which we ought not upon any account to do And I think this wants very little of being equivalent to a Degradation let them call it by what Name they will But what if the Civil Power never so much as thought of your Distinction as I am apt to think they little Regard it When the High-Priest and Rulers of the Jews first consulted and resolved amongst themselves straitly to threaten the Apostles That they speak henceforth to no Man in this i. e. Christ's Name Act. 4 17. and after put their Resolves in Execution expresly commanding them not to Speak at all nor Teach in the Name of Jesus vers 18. do you think they troubled their heads with your Distinction of Deprivation and Degradation And how much is our Case different For we are obliged what in them lyes either not to speak in that Name or to act contrary to it and therefore I think we may very justly take up the Apostles Answer Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God judge ye vers 19. When the Heathen Emperors who set themselves against Christianity it self Banish'd the Bishops and Martyr'd others they did but deprive them they would not for all the World sure have thought of degrading them And after all what if your new Masters do assert that Power in themselves You know many of them are Erastians and how much such Men set by your Distinction you can scarce be ignorant But to go a little farther with you those Men who pretend to make Laws are commonly presumed best to understand their Meaning Now it is not long since that a haughty Member of the Convention plainly told me That it was in their power to take away our Orders and Unpriest and Unbishop us for which he gave this worshipful Reason That the Legislative Power ought not to be stinted And thus neither the Authority nor Establishment of God himself or his Christ nor the Bounds of Good and Evil must be suffered to set any Limits to a proud pragmatical Conventioner By this you may see That the Saviours you adore reckon That our being at any time in Statu quo lyes wholly at their Mercy and that even your selves if you do not absolutely please your new Masters and go through Stitch Right or Wrong with their Commands can pretend to little Benefit from your Character or Orders Besides I have lately heard of a Man who hath accepted a Commission to visit all the Exempts in the City of London and within Ten Miles of it by Vertue of which for any thing I know a busie Chego-pated Priest may insolently attempt to Visit his Metropolitan And whether this may not be improved in time to grant by Commission the Exercise of Episcopal Jurisdiction to any Persons whom they please without Regard to Orders I cannot say but I think it is a prety Step and fair Advance towards it But be the Mistake whose it will I shall now try what he answers to the Argument for it is that which is the Concern And here he deals most disingeniously by me For First in reciting my Argument he leaves out those
waited and endeavoured From hence I think it doth appear that it was a ruled Case in the Church That if any Person did come into any other than a vacant See and claim there as direct and proper Bishop as Novatianus did against Cornelius both he and all his adherents were adjudged Schismaticks As to a Vacancy I am still of the same Mind and if our Author would have me change it he would sooner have prevailed with me by Arguments than Threatnings I have seriously thought on it and cannot yet imagine how a Vacancy can be but one of these three ways either God must make the See void by his Death or a lawful Authority makes it voyd by a lawful Deposition or he himself makes it void by his Renunciation For the last of these I perceive our Author has a present kindness but how long it may hold I know not For when others have taken away their Estates he in a pretty sly way perswades them to mend the Matter by renouncing their Order and I believe with much the same design that the Fox praised the Cock for an excellent Singer that while he shut his Eyes as he crow'd Reynard might have the opportunity to run in upon him and make a prey of him as to the second way which is Deposition I do not see that there is the least room for any Plea for it in this Case For be the Authority of the Secular Power what it will as to the taking away their Estates the consinement or punishment of their Persons or the temporary restraint of the exercise of their Authority yet that the Secular Power can unmake a Bishop which is the only thing can as to them come up to our Case I still peremptorily deny And let our Author clap his Hands and cry S'too let him set all he can on my Back all the threatnings in the World nay all the things that can be threatned shall never fright me from it indeed if he can fairly convince me by Argument I will yield and give up my Religion when they please to demand it But he had best have a care what he does for in the end he himself would be no Gainer by the Bargain In the next place if he fly to an Ecclesiastical Deposition there several things must be enquired into As First A sufficient Cause without which the Act would be manifest Injustice if not void To enquire after all the Causes for which a Bishop may lawfully be Deposed would be too tedious Photius in the 14th Ch. of his Nomocanon refers us to very many I will not say all our Author may search them at his leasure and see if he can pick up a new Charge as for the present Accusation it is a thing of that Nature that the contrary may rather justifie the doing the same by others In the next place there must be competent Judges and the 12th Canon of the Council of Carthage will not allow less than Twelve Bishops to depose a Bishop But lay all Circumstances together as our present Case is and I am apt to think that there will not be found any competent Authority to sit in Judgment upon our Bishops But he that as it will When hath any such Authority made any offer that way Lastly There must be a full and fair Hearing And in the close of the 97th Canon of the Council of Carthage you may see what Horrour the Bishops expressed in the Case of Quedvultdeus of Deposing a Bishop before his Cause had a full and final Hearing Indeed in some Cases the Canons censure ipso facto and then such solemn Proceedings are not necessary but even then there must be a notoriety of the Fact the Canon relates to and there must be a Declaration that the Canon takes Place But I do not see that any of these things can be so much as pretended in this Case and therefore deposed they are not The last way of Vacancy is Death but of that I need not Discourse there are thanks be to God if not a great yet a venerable Number of them living and I hope God will long continue their Lives for his Honour their own Renown and the Good of this distressed Church From the foregoing Discourse these Consequences may be fairly drawn First That whosoever shall be put into the Place of the pretended Deprived Bishops are not to be esteemed Bishops nor ought either Clergy or People to regard them but to adhere firmly to their former true Bishops Secondly That whosoever shall Ordain such or endeavour to Place them there make themselves Criminals and liable to an Ecclesiastical Censure Thirdly That they and all their adherents are Schismaticks I am accustomed to speak my Mind plainly if this do not please you I cannot help it you were pleased to call for Authorities I have given you some and when you are at leasure I hope I shall hear of your Epistles Having thus dispatched the Argument I think I need not put in any Answer to his impertinent Questions but whereas he says My Argument will serve either way as well for the Bishops and Metropolitans that have as those that have not taken the Oaths he is much mistaken for if my Allegation be good they will be liable to censure and if he consider he will yield that that alters the Case And by this he may perceive That whatever matters of State have occasioned yet it is not bare matters of State we proceed upon nor do we think it unlawful to swear Allegiance to the Sovereign Power and therefore both his Questions in that respect are Impertinent But I desire to know what Primitive Christians ever thought it lawful to take an Oath of Allegiance to that which is no Sovereign against that which really is or to take a later Oath directly contrary to a former lawful Oath But if he can find none such if he please I can furnish him with a sort of Christians in the Primitive Times who made so little Conscience of Oaths that Jura Perjura Sacretum proderâ— noli is said to be a received Axiome amongst them and if these are for his turn I do not envy him their Company But one great Artifice of our Author is to take the out skirts or some little snips of the Cause and then put Questions as if we were concerned about nothing else which is pitiful Sophistry if he please to deal fairly and take the whole Case together he may take the liberty to ask as many Questions as he please and I doubt not but he may be furnished with Answers In the mean time I shall leave this matter here and as for what follows it coming not up so fairly to the Merits of the Cause I shall be very short The next thing that comes upon the Stage is Publick Good which like the Phoenix is born to destroy it self for it is rarely used but when all other Reasons fail and commonly then most strongly pretended when the Intention and
discharge the Obligations of the other Children owe a Duty to wicked Parents Servants to hard Masters Subjects to severe Kings though it were much better if they had more Encouragement to perform their Obligations Every Cur will be snarling at the dead Lyon whom otherwise he durst not look in the Face The Actions Writings and Reputation of Dr. Hammond and Bishop Sanderson were enough to blast these Proceedings and therefore almost every Scribler for the late Treachery doth all he can to lessen their Esteem in the World I had particular occasion to vindicate Bishop Sanderson but he tells me I mistake between what the Consent of the absent Prince is founded upon and upon what the Casuists found their Opinion of the Obligation that lies on Mankind to do what tends to the Publick Good under a Vsurpation and this he calls teaching me A. B. C. and indeed I think he is much fitter to teach A. B. C. than so great a Congregation unless he had more Conscience and Honesty However I will not learn my A. B. C. of him if it were only for this Reason that I have no mind to learn it backward But if he please to look into his Author again with a more impartial Eye he will find that he invidiously and maliciously endeavours to charge and undervalue Bishop Sanderson as founding the Actions of Subjects under a Usurpation on such a Reason as other Casuists did not and as if he made the presumptive Will of the Prince the sole Reason And in this Case I think I had Reason to urge That he founded the presumptive Consent of the Prince upon the Publick Good and I shall not willingly suffer so great a Person to be scandalized let him put his B's and C's how he will The last Head he propounds is of Obedience to Authority which if it had been more thought of and better observed there had been no occasion to dispute about it now And I wonder with what face those Men can name Obedience to Authority who make it their whole Business to justifie Disobedience to Authority Here after some little Wit and much trifling and the Charge of some Mistakes upon me which I think might be easily returned but I will not spend time about it because they come not up to the Case at last he replies to my Answer concerning the Case of the Jews And this is the only thing material he offers under this Head My first Answer That the Jews being governed by one of their own Brethren was designed as a Blessing the contrary was a Judgment he doth not deny But he would thence infer this Consequence That therefore they might not lawfully transfer their Allegiance from their own Blood to a Foreigner And this he thinks he can prove false But I do not know how that Consequence follows from my Words The Jews spontaniously wantonly and by their own Authority could not transfer their Allegiance but when God for their Sins deprived them of a particular Privilege and Blessing and put them under the Power of others and they knew it was his Will it should be so they were then bound to obey And thus Nehemiah might serve as Governour under Artaxerxes and Jaddus take an Oath of Fidelity to Darius And hence you see on what Right the Oath was founded Next I urged that they were under a state of Conquest this he doth neither deny nor own it to be our Case and unless he doth this latter whatever he infers thence whether true or false cannot affect us And therefore I am not further concerned to answer a Man who labours to make acts of Violence to be standing Rules for all Seasons In the third place I did as he says urge That the Question to our Saviour was not concerning Oaths but Tribute which he grants all Casuists do allow may be paid even to an Vsurper But then he says I know what Vse and what Gain too my Adversary made of this But if he made an ill Use of it how can I help it Must I Answer for that As for his Gain if he mean a Bishoprick it is something but as to the Merits of the Cause I cannot see that he hath Gained any thing But after all both the Use an Gain is an Argument borrowed from Dr. Burnet which runs to this purpose if Submission may be testified one way why not another If Tribute may be paid why not promised If promised why not sworn And then he asks Is it not as a Token of Allegeance The Answer is plain I may submit wherein it may be done lawfully but not wherein it is unlawful I may pay Money to a Thief I may promise it yea such may be my Streights and Dangers that I may swear to do it and yet this is not as a Token of Allegiance which all that time is due to my King and ought not to be made over to a Thief it is the Redemption of my Life or Goods and the choosing a less Evil rather than a greater in a case wherein I may do it without Sin For in such case I think I may lawfully part with my own though it is unlawful for the other to take it And if this Answer will not please him he may still call me Fool as he here doth I like the Title much better than Knave though I am fond of neither Lastly With respect to Tiberius it was urged that no Man had jus potius and that there was no prior Oaths in bar against him as to which he Answers That Agrippa Posthumus was then living one much nearer to Augustus and that seem'd designed by him to succeed him What he means by seem'd designed I cannot tell Was he really designed or not It is a common thing for Relations to waver in their Thoughts which way they shall bestow their Favours and sometimes it is a piece of Art but if Tiberius was designed as he calls it at last the Cause is so far cast But because this will not do he says That there was a jus potius in the Senate from whom even Augustus was willing to receive it But if Augustus who was before Tiberius did receive the Senates Right then their Right was gone before Tiberius's time and so the jus potius is good on his side still Beside by their own Laws they might make a Dictator and they had actually made Julius Caesar perpetual Dictator who was before them both and in that very act gave away their Power so that their giving up to Augustus was but Selling their Estate twice And after all his Author confesses they swore Allegiance to Tiberius and where was then their jus potius As to the prior Oaths he asks me What I think of the Oath of Jaddus to Darius c. And in requital I ask him again What is that in bar to the Title of Tiberius So that if Tiberius was as bad a Man as he represents him and indeed I never thought him a Saint though for his Art in Dissimulation he might have been qualified for one in these times yet in spite of our Author his Title will prove the best he can set up As to the better Title which he saith he will adventure to set before me he may keep it to himself he hath offered his Ware to a wrong Chapman But for his Kindness I will leave him this Remark That when the Childeren of Israel forsook the living God to worship Graven Images the greater part were always more zealous for their Idols than for the true God In the Conclusion I find that our Author is supositions of the force of his Arguments for he will not leave me to the Tribunal of Heaven but threatens me with being called to account here and I do not question but that he will do his endeavour nor do I crave any Favour at his Hands He that calls me to Sufferings I hope will enable me to bear them and in such case I have no other Remedy but to appeal to the just God before whom one Day we shall have a Rehearing And when it comes to my Thoughts how a Turk at Buda laying his Hand on his Brest promised not to yield up the Town but with his Life and in pursuance of his Word so Manfully defended it that it cost a victorious Army dear and took up almost two Summers Work and when the Place was Untenable any longer might have made honourable Conditions yet rather than break his Promise chose to stand in the Breach in his Drawers and tempt and desie Death it amazeth me to think who shall rise up in Judgment against this Treacherous and Perfidious Generation O God of Goodness and Compassion in the midst of Judgment think on Mercy have Pity upon this poor distressed Church and give Men a Sense of that Simplicity Sincerity and Integrity which thy Law so highly extols and strictly requires of all who call themselves Christians FINIS
his Jurisdiction Now this is a Knavish malicious Trick to compare our Actions to the Popes the Pope directly challengeth a Supremacy over Kings indeed over all Men we only lay claim to a Christian Liberty not to comply with Sin and Wickedness though the Magistrate command it and a Power not to desert our Station wherein Christ hath fixed us for every humoursom or unjust Prohibition of the State but at our Peril and without Resistance and what Agreement hath this with the Popes Actions But if his Civil Magistrate may not any ways be controuled but must be complied with in all things then I leave any indifferent Persons to judge whether these two things be not the direct Consequences of his Arguments First This makes the Proceedings of the Apostles and all the Primitive Christians in propagating the Gospel for about Three hundered Years to be altogether unjustifyable For they were actually prohibited first by the Jews after by the Emperours so that if his Doctrine had taken place Christianity had never entered into the World Secondly This shuts out the Doctrine of the Cross not only as Foolishness but as Wickedness and Disobedience and puts it in the Power of the Civil Magistrate at his Pleasure to extirpate Christianity out of the World for if prohibited they must cease and comply because to do otherwise Were in their way to take up Arms against him and controul his Jurisdiction And thus if the Grand Signior should Silence all the Christian Ministers in his Dominions they must hold their Peace and no more speak in the Name of Jesus for if they do our Author will tell them they are Rebels I perceive this Author makes use of his Religion only for his Convenience and will put no more on than he can at any time put off again he is here a sort of a Christian and at Japan would be a Hollander But to make good his Argument he accuseth me of Ignorance as to the Primitive Times and instanceth in Eustathius of Antioch Athanasius of Alexandria and Paulus of Constantinople put out by the Imperial Power and this he says Was never questioned by the Orthodox though they complained of the Injustice of it c. Now I confess that I have not had those Advantages which some have been happy in and am content to be accounted Ignorant provided he will suffer me to be Honest But yet as Ignorant as I am I think no Man that had consulted his Cause or his own Reputation would have produced this instance in this case For it will either justifie our Proceedings or force him to condemn these Persons and in so good Company we shall the less value hard Censures For were they thrust out of their Diocesses What great difference is here Are not our Livelihoods and Cures taken from us Are not our Bishops Deprived of their Profits and the exercise of their Jurisdictions This we suffer and do not so much as compare the Power then and now whether lawful or unlawful If the Civil Authority wrongfully spoil us of our Goods and restrain our Persons we know no Resistance any more then those good Men did But did they forbear to exercise their Office and Ministry where they had oppâ—tunity No such thing Was there no Schism upon this account It is plain That the Orthodox refused to Communicate with the Bishops put over them the whole Christian World was concerned on one side or other in the Case of Athanasius at Constantinople the People were so troublesome that the Emperor was forced to recal Paulus though he was after again Banished and upon the Expulsion of Eustathius from Antioch the suspected Bishops set over them were disgusted by many and Theodoret says That plurimi Studiosi pietatis cùm Sacerdotes tùm Plebs desertis Ecclesiasticis caetibus privatim Conveniebant lib. 1. cap. 21. And this they continued to do though all the Churches were taken away from the Adherents to Eustathius in order to force them to Communion with those put in his place as may appear from that request of Athanasius to the Emperor for one Church to be granted to the Orthodox at Antioch when he desired the like of Athanasius for the Arrians at Alexandria Theod. lib. 2. cap. 12. I think a Man so Skilful in Antiquity might have made choise of some more lucky instance but that he may not be at too much trouble if he can have a little Patience it shall not be long ere I furnish him Next in order to an Answer to his Second Question he supposeth the Clergy-man not bound by the Deprivation but then saith he What is this to a Separation For is he so obliged that rather then not officiate he may and ought to break of from Communion with the Church If you will make that supposal which in our particular Case is a great Truth you of all Men were most unfit to put these Questions For when you joyn with those who make this unjust Deprivation when you take our Churches our Flocks our Livelyhoods and suffer us not to exercise our Ministry where you have the Profit of it unless we will do it to the dissatisfaction of our Consciences Do you complain that we do not maintain Communion with you If we were in fault in this Case yet Modesty if any be left you and the ill Usage we have from your Party might make you hold your Peace I freely grant That we ought to continue in the Communion of the Church we are of as long as we can and that Separation is like a Divorce which is the last Extremity c. But then I say That we still are of the same Church we were of for the Schism goes along with the Cause and there it is you not we are the Schismaticks the Separation I grant to be Unhappy and Mischievous but let them look to that who made the Divorce by justifying unlawful Proceedings and setting up sinful Terms of Communion as I have already proved and therefore will say no more of it here And this is sufficient for an Answer to that Slander as if we proceeded upon the same Grounds with the Dissenters which is manifestly false only I am bold to tell him That they have now put a Plea into the Mouth of the Dissenters which will justifie their Separation from them and were it not that they cannot justifie their Separation from us your Perfidiousness and other ill Acts had given up the Cause to them When he thought he had lost my Second Argument with multitudes of Questions he attacks that which he calls the Third And he says I argue from the Subjection the People and Clergy owe to the Bishops and the Bishops owe to their Metropolitan and I grant That I do so and the Argument must be good unless he can Dispute away all the Government and Orders of the Christian Church But to this he returns with all imaginable Scorn Our Author that undertakes to give us an account of the