possible for him to prove Submission to the Usurper lawful and unsinful till the Subjects be first fairly discharged from their duty to the first Incumbent How can he prove them discharged from their first duty if the Lay deprivation be not sufficient to discharge them And how can he pretend it sufficient for that purpose if it was from the beginning null and invalid Thus he will find the disproof of the Power of the Lay-Magistrate for Spiritual deprivations to be more pertinent than perhaps himself could wish it for overthrowing his pretended Lawfulness of Submission in the Ecclesiastical Subjects to Persons obtruded on Sees no other way vacated than by the Authority of a Lay-deprivation of the Civil Magistrate § VII The Doctor 's limitations of his own pretended self-evident Maxime do all of them prove our Case unconcerned in it Chap. 1. But the Doctor pretends to demonstrate no softer word it seems would serve his turn the Truth of his Proposition and God forbid we should not yield to Demonstration But I confess I very rarely find great solidity joyned with great confidence However we must not prejudge it but examine whether it will answer the Character with which he has possessed us concerning it His demonstration therefore he draws First From the Reasonableness of it Secondly From the Authority and Practice of the Autients The Reasonableness of it he grounds on this certain and self eviden-Maxime That whatsoever is necessary for the present Peace and Tranquillity of the Church that ought to be made use of provided it is not in it self sinful and the ill Consequences which may possibly attend it are either not somischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid But upon the supposed Invalidity of Lay-deprivations this Submission of the Ecclesiastical Subjects to the Usurper of the Ecclesiastical Throne will not come under the limitations proposed by the Dr. himself of his self evident Maxim I have already shewn that on this supposal this Submission to the Usurper will be in it self sinful And the same Observation may be applied to his other limitations if the Case propos'd be judg'd by our Principles The Consequences which we think will follow from this Obligation he layson our Ecclesiastical Superiors to yield their Rights as often as they are invaded where nothing but the Right is concerned and the liberty he allows Ecclesiastical Subjects to desert their Superiors if they think fit to assert their Rights we think tend by inevitable Consequence to the perfect subvertion of the Church as a Society And this Consequence is worse than can be feared from the Persecutions of erresistible force if we can agree as the Primitive Christians did to keep our stations or from the divisions of them who will not agree to maintain Society with us in a state of Independance on the Civil Magistrate And natural Consequences from Principles are Evils more likely to hapen than any that depend on the wills of mutable Men. So that be his Maxim never so self-evident yet there is not one of the Doctor 's own limitations but excludes his own Case as judged by our Principles from being concerned in it This perfectly discharges us from all concern in the Instances by which he pretends to prove his Maxim received by the Antients as self-evident Yet it were easie to answer them if we were concerned to do so They are generally in things indifferent and changeable by their different Circumstances and the Dispensations were made by Persons in Authority without prejudice to any Third Persons Right So that not one of his Instances reach our Case But the Subjects of our Dispute are not mutable nor depend on Circumstances As the Ecclesiastical Society was designed by Christ not temporary but perpetual so the Essenital cements of it must have been so too And such are the Rights of Governours and the Duties of Subjects These if they be taken away for a moment dissolve the Society and therefore cannot be left to the Prudence of Governours for the time being because the very supposal of the Case destroys the very being of the Government and of the Society and therefore leaves no Governours in being that may consider such Circumstances and suit their Practices accordingly § VIII Submission of Subjects to the Ecclesiastical Usurpers is sinful by the Law of God But though the Doctor answers nothing produced by the Vindicator for proving such submission of the Subjects to an Intruder sinful yet he pretends to prove it unsinful But so unhappily that not one of his proofs hold for the purpose for which he has produced them First He pretends the Scripture silent in our Case and therefore that such Submission is not forbidden by any express Law of God Yet he denies not but that the Law of God commands us to be Obedient to our Governours to them also who are over us in the Lord. But where there are two Competitors and both claim our Obedience to which of these two our Obedience ought to be payed this he says it leaves to our wisdom to determine But will he therefore pretend that disobedience to any particular Governour in our Age is not against the express Law of God because no Law of God is express in determing any particular Person now living to be our Governour This will overthrow all Divine Obligations to any since the Apostles Age. Now only in this but in most other duties relating to Men the determining Circumstances are settled by Human Authority Yet none does therefore pretend but that the Offence against the Duty so Circumstantiated is against the Law of God The Law of God requires Duty to Parents But who are to be taken for our Parents not only Nature but the Laws of Men have determined in several Cases as in that of Adoption which is ancienter then Moses himself and in the other of our Civil and Spiritual Parents who are generally concluded in that Divine Commandment So in the Case of Murther it is certain that only Illegal Killing by a Person not authorized or for an unjust Cause is forbidden in the 6th Commandment But they are Human Laws which pitch upon the Person who is to be vested with the Authority of Life and Death and which determine the Cases wherein Death is to be inflicted So also in the Case of Adultery it cannot be jugded what Facts are chargeable with that Crime but by the Laws of Matrimony which depend on the particular Constitutions of the Places and are accordingly various But in no Case this is more evident than in that of the 8th Commandment Theft is all that is there forbidden which cannot be applied to any Fact but by supposing the determination of Human Laws concerning Property which are again very various For some Persons have been excluded from all Property as Slaves and unemancipated Children And the determinations of Property in Persons capable of it are so different in
Title of Zadok before Abiathar Zadok being descended from the Elder Brother § XLIV Zadok put in the room of Abiathar as to the Courses of Ithamar which were not under him before But then the Difficulty will be how these Words are to be under stood Zadok the Priest did the King put in the room of Abiathar 1 Kin II. 35. Not certainly of his being then put first into the High Priest's Office if what I have already proved hold true that Zadok was already possessed of a nobler station in the Priesthood before than Abiathar himself was That had been a degradation of Zadok rather than a promotion of him But we have another and an easier and more probable account of it David had before divided the Two Sacerdotal Families of Eleazar and Ithamar into four and twenty Courses whereof sixteen were of the House of Eleazar and only eight of the Family of Ithamar Those of the Family of Ithamar were committed then to the Care of Abiathar For him I understand as I said before by the Name of Abimelech who was indeed the Son of Abimelech The room therefore into which Zadok succeeded upon this Exile of Abiathar was the Management of those eight remaining Courses of Ithamar which were not under him before Thence forward therefore all the twenty four Courses were under the Disposal of the House of Eleazar Yet so that the High-Priest of the Family of Eleazar did not immediately take care of them but committed them to another nominated as it should seem by himself but not one of the House of Ithamar This I take to be the Second Priest mentioned 2 Kin. XXV 18. Jer. LII 24. in contradistinction to the Chief Priest who was the High Priest properly so called in the confined sense of the Word And these eight Courses of Ithamar I take to be meant by them who are elsewhere called the Priests of the second Order not hitherto so commonly understood And perhaps the Levites also of the second Degree 1 Chr. XV. 18. were they whose particular Office it was to attend these Priests of the second Order the whole Tribe of the Levites being given as I observed before to Aaron and his Sons in common And that these second Priests under the House of Eleazar were not as formerly confined to the House of Ithamar I take to be the ground of the Inconvenience the Posterity of Eli were like to be reduced to by this Change as it is expressed in the Prophesy concerning it that they were to crouch to this second Priest in order to their being put into one of the Priests Office 1 Sam. II. 36. There was more necessity of crouching now when they had to do with one not so nearly related to them than when they were always secure of having one to deal with who was of their own Family This might be the Sagan mentioned by the Rabbins in the Language used after the Captivity who though he were more subject to the true High-Priest of the House of Eleazar than formerly might yet be serviceable to him in the same capacites that those were in who had been of the House of Ithamar in officiating for him when himself was under any Legal Impediment for performing his own Duty in his own Person § XLV The Jews by our Principles could not justify a separation on account of Abiathar Their Case not like Ours Hence it follows 7ly that even by our Principles the Jews had no reason to make any Separation on Abiathar's account though we should suppose him deprived not unjustly only but invalidly also For supposing his deprivation invalid all that can follow is that still he retain'd the same Right as to Conscience which he had before But even that would not have sufficed for to justifie a Separation on his account Even before not he but Zadok was the Principle of Unity So that in case of difference they were still secure in adhering to Zadok in opposition to all others whatsoever whoever he were that occasioned the Separation Even before therefore Zadok owed no duty to him but he to Zadok and consequently not Zadok but he had been guilty of the Schism that would have followed upon the difference If such an invalid deprivation could not affect or weaken the Title of Abiathar as to Conscience much less can it be pretended to affect that of Zadok who was not any way concerned in it Even before the Duty of the Communicants in case of such division had been still owing to Zadok and therefore they also must have involved themselves in the Schism if upon pretence of their duty to Abiathar they had violated their more sacred and obliging Duty to Zadok to whom Abiathar himself owed Duty as well as they Indeed they owed Abiathar no Duty at all but in subordination and dependence on their antecedent Duty to Zadok And therefore when that subordination and dependance had been taken away as it must have been by a notorious Separation they could not then owe Abiathar any duty at all and therefore thy must have broken their duty to Zadok in paying any to Abiathar For thus it is in other subordination also Whilst a General does himself observe his own Sovereign his Soldiers cannot pay their duty to the common Sovereign without paying it to the General who has the Sovereign's Authority to exact duty from them But if the General revolt they are judged Rebels as well as he to the common Sovereign if upon any pretence whatsoever they pay him any Duty at all So far this Case therefore is from being paralled to that of our present Holy Fathers that here the Reasoning and the Duty lie directly contrary If our Fathers still retain their Right in Conscience as they must if the Sentence of Deprivation be invalid with regard to Conscience as pronounced by them who have no Right to judge them in relation to their Spiritual then their Rivals can have none in the same Jurisdictions and the whole charge of Schisms must lye against them and those who maintain them in their Invasions of our Father's Rights How can they then apply here the Case of Abiathar § LXVI When Invasions had passed into a Prescription as in our Soviour's time he that was in Possession had really the best Title Thus far I have proceeded on the Sense and Reasonings of those earlier times of the Jews which is certainly the truest and solidest way of judging concerning Obligations and Duties incumbent on the Subjects then And by these it has appeared that the Civil Power could not pretend to any Right of depriving Priests of their Right as to Spirituals and with regard to Conscience This consideration did restrain Princes of their own Nation who had any regard to their Duty to GOD from putting the Case But when they were not under the Government of Princes who were of their own Nation and Religion but under those who did not think themselves obliged by the positive Laws of GOD to
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
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
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
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
but England and France were then two distinst and perfectly independent Societies The same way as the BISHOP himself was the Head of the CHURCH and yet a Subject of the STATE therefore a Member of BOTH Societies antecedently to any such Conversions or any Pretence that could be therefore made for a coalition of both into one Society Conversion therefore thought it bring all Persons into one Society of the Church yet does not hinder but that the Two Societies of the Church and State continue as distinct from each other as formerly whilst the same things remain that made them two Societies formerly And Conversions do not hinder but that they may still remain so Still the Spirituals and Temporals are as distinct as ever Still the same Right continue for the Bishops to be the competent Judges of Spirituals as the Magistrate are of Temporals Still the same distinction of Laws continues by which the Two Societies are governed as formerly That the Church is to be governed by the Church which are made by a Consent of the Ecclesiasticks and that the State is governed by the Laws which receive their Sanction from the Lay-Authority Still the Independence continues that the Bishops are as supream unappealable Judges for Spirituals as the Magistrates are for Temporals Conversions I am sure do not hinder but that this also might have remained as it did formerly For such a coalition of the Two Societies as our Adversary reasons for it would be necessary that the Government of one of the Societies should surrender or acknowledge a dependence on the Government of the other But neither of them can be pretended at the first Conversions of Magistrates Neither of them now in the Case of the Church of England The name of Head on which our Adversary insists is long ago laid aside by Q. Elizabeth And one of our Articles disowns all Pretensions of our Princes to the power of preaching the Word and administring the Sacraments This Article is ratified and made Law by an Act of Parliament Upon these Considerations we can fairly take the Oath of Supremacy as thus intrepreted by the Legislators themselves without owning any subjection of the Bishops as to Causes purely Spiritual to the Supream Magistrate even in England So far the Church and State are yet even here from being made one Society as our Adversary pretends The Examples of Bishops taking out Patents for the Right of giving Orders were I believe never known before the Reign of HENRY the VIII And that I hope our Adversary himself will not plead as a Reign of Presidents If he do the Liberties of the People will be no more secure than those of the Clergy Nothing was security against him who made such manifest invasions on the Two Fundamental Securities MAGNA CHARTA and his own OATH taken at his CORONATION Thus clear it is that Conversions alone could not make any change in the Rights of Power in Spirituals of which the Church was possessed before notwithstanding that the Converts are thereby made one Body with the Church with which they were not one formerly § LIX The Church's Obligations are more necessary for the subsisting of the State than those she receives from the State are for hers If therefore the Majestrate will lay claim to a Right in Spirituals it must be on some other account than bare Conversion That he must rather lose than gain by as I have already shewn because in his Conversion he comes to the Bishop's terms not the Bishop to his Our Adversaries therefore have another Pretence for his Superiority in purely Spirituals That is the benefit that the Church enjoys by the Magistrate's favour and protection the honours and profits annex'd to the sacred Offices and the security she has thereby against Adversaries and the assistance of the secular Arm for reducing Rebellious Subjects by secular coercions For these things they think her obliged in Gratitude to remit some of her former Rights by way of compensation for them And this Obligation in gratitude they conceive sufficient to engage her to an implicite and intrepretative Contract to continue this remitting of Rights on her part if she will in reason expect that the Magistrate shall continue his Favours But I confess I cannot see proceeding on Principles that must be granted by all who believe Religion but that the disadvantage will still lye on the side of the Magistrate For by this way of Reasoning the implicite Contract for remitting Rights will lye on that side which is most obliged and that side will appear most obliged which receives more benefit by the commerce than it gives For this consideration of remitting Right on account of Gratitude comes only in by way of compensation for what is wanting on its own side to make the benefit it confers equal to that which it receives But I cannot imagine how the Magistrate can pretend his Favours equal to those which he receives by Religion especially the true Religion So far he is from exceeding them so as to expect any compensation for arrears due to him on ballancing his accounts It is by Religion and by those Obligations which nothing but Religion can make sacred and inviolable that he holds his very Throne it self If he hold his Throne by Compact nothing but Religion can hold the Subjects to the Contract made by them If by any other Right nothing but that can oblige them to pay him that which by any sort of Right soever is his due Where he has no force to exact duty from them nothing can restrain them but ties of Conscience and nothing alse can lay a restraint on their Conscience but Religion Where he has a power of Force yet even that is not near so formidable at the irresistible power of Heaven and the fear of future and eternal Punishments No Considerations but those can curb them from secret Practices which oftentimes subvert the greatest Humane Force by degrees insensible and therefore unaviodable Nor is any Religion so conget on these accounts as that which is truest and most acceptable to GOD. GOD may be obliged by the general Laws of Providence for the general Good of Mankind to inflict Imprecations made for securing Faith even in false Religions But he is most present at the Offices of his owe establishment and therefore they have the greatest reason to fear them who imprecate in that form which is most suitable to the ture Religion No Religion so formidable at that which threatens future and eternal Pains in case of Violation No Religion can so well assure Us of the future and eternal State as Revealed Religion No Revelation so well evidenced by Credentials attesting it in Ages of Writings and accurate Information as our Christian Religion No one Communion even of Christians so just and equal against Invasions on either side either of the Church or the Magistrate as that of the Primitive Christians and of these Churches which lately came the nearest to those
grant it in the other Case of encroachment of the Ecclesiasticks on the Rights of the secular Magistates When the Pope was allowed a Power of depriving Princes of their Crown and absolving their Subjects from their Duties and Oaths taken to them it was impossible for Secular Governments to defend themselves against the Pope tho' then the removal only of the Person was the thing pretended In this Case our Adversaries themselves are sensible that the whole Society is concerned in him who has the power of the whole Society and the whole Right of Governing is concerned when a Possessor is put out who has as much Right by the Establishment as any other can have who shall pretend to succeed him And why can they not see the inevitableness of the same Consequences in the contrary encroachments of the State upon the Church maintained by themselves This therefore is a Power too great to be recompenced by any possible Obligations the State can put upon the Church and therefore such as ought not to be alienated upon any Possible pretence of Obligation § LXIV In this Case particularly no Temporal Favour whatsoever can make amends for the loss of the benefits of the Spiritual So ciety There can therefore be no implicite Contracts for such an Exchange that can in Equity oblige the Ecclesiastical Governours to performance tho' it had been in their Power to make such a Contract Particularly this Reasoning holds in our present Case more strongly than it would in others It may indeed be possible by being Members of another Society that all the Particulars of which a Society does consist may enjoy greater advantages by being dissolved into another Society than by being a Society by themselves and at their own disposal And a Case may therefore fall out wherein a less beneficial Society may not only put their Liberties in the power of another more beneficial Society to be by it disiolved at pleasure but may also actually surrender their very Liberties themselves in consideration of greater benefits to all the particulars of the less beneficial Society not only than those which they possess on account of their Incorporation but also than that Liberty also which they enjoy on account of their independency which is it self also a very valuable benefit and adds considerably to the other advantages of their present Society in the common esteem of Mankind But for this two things are requisite to make the Case Practicable neither of which are applicable to the subject of our present Discourse First the benefits of the New Society must indeed be more valuable than those of the old one together with their Liberty considered into the bargain 2dly They who are possessed of the Rights of the old Society must be possessed of them on their own Accounts not as Trustees of any other that so they may have no further Obligation to preserve them than their own present Interests in them and may therefore be at Liberty to accept of considerations of graeter present Interest If either of these Considerations fail they cannot think themselves obliged in Equity to stand to such a Contract especially where no more is pretended than an implicite one not expressed in Words but gathered only from considerations of Equity And here neither of them can be so much as pretended First it cannot be pretended that any Secular Favours or Immunities whatsoever can make amends for the benefits of their present spiritual Society This has been proved already I shall therefore here take it for granted Indeed it is in our present Case so very manifest that I need no great Favour of our Adversaries themselves to give me leave to do so Supposing it therefore granted all the Rules of equitable Reasoning in the sense of those Ages wherein the State first became Christian will relieve the Church against any such pretentions as are here insisted on of an implicite contract for surrendring her independency Societies had in the Roman Civil Law which is the best standard for judging what was thought equitable in those times the same favour as Minors from being obliged by over-reaching Contracts And indeed there was reason for it when their Interests were transacted by others who as seldom consulted the sense of the Communities as Guardians did their Pupils and who were liable to as just suspicions of corrupt insidious dealings and private interests as Guardians were This therefore would allow the Church a Restitution in integrum a perfect rescission of such a Contract made in her name by her Representatives where the disadvantage was in it so manifest as the alienating spiritual Rights in exchange for Temporal and the contract had yet proceeded no further than to be implicite only and interpretative Indeed here the very Representatives themselves might expect to be relieved in Equity For receiving a valuable consideration is that which is expresly mention'd even in our Modern Contracts even where that valuable consideration it self is not mentioned purposely to prevent their revecableness if it had not been mentioned It is therefore supposed that when the Consideration is not valuable in comparison with the Right contracted for it is but reasonable in Equity that such a Contract be rescinded Especially where the Contract is not expressed in Words there is no reason in Equity to presume that any such Alienation was intended All that can be pretended in this Case is that the Prince's Favour and Protection is accepted of by the Representatives of the Church But how does it appear without an explicite Contract that it is accepted of with a design of entring into a Contract How does it appear that it is accepted of as a consideration How does it appear that any Right on their own side is intended to be parted with in consideration of it How does it appear but that it is thought already sufficiently required in the favour already conferred on the Prince and his Subjects in admitting them into a Society so much more beneficial than their own If any Cession of Rights had been thought of why must it needs be of a Right so essential to its subsistence and continuance as that is of the Independence of the Supream Govornours of their own Society How can it appear that in accepting of the Prince's favours such a Contract as this was ever thought of Nay the very unequalness of it would be in Equity a strong Presumption that it was not though of nor intended nor ever would have been consented to if it had been expresly insisted on It is certain many kindnesses are accepted of without any thoughts of a Contract It is strongly presumable such an Alienation as this would never have been consented to if it had been thought of Here is no proof of a Contract but bare acceptance On these considerations there can be no reason or Equity to oblige the Ecclesiasticks to stand to so partial an Interpretation of a Contract imposed on them by their Adversaries Indeed there can
protect the Priests from the Legal Power of force which GOD had committed to them this was the time indeed wherein we find Examples of true High-Priests even properly so called who were deprived by the Secular Power Here therefore were Two Cases one was when the Practice of Intrusions was now grown so frequent that no High-Priest living had a better Title the other upon the first invasion when the true Predecessor was still living and had not renounced his Right The former was the Case in the time of our Saviour The old way of deriving the succession to the next of the Family who was legally qualified for it having none of those Corporal blemishes which by the Law could make him uncapable of it on which account Eleazar succeeded Aaron was long before that laid by a Prescription sufficient to antiquate it For many Generations it had been disposed of by the Secular Princes who had the Power of the Temple first by the Macedonians then by the Romans to Persons no otherwise qualified than by their being only of the Family of Aaron There was therefore then no Person living who had a better Title as to the designation of his Person than the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate who had the command of the Temple and the Sacerdotal Vestments As soon therefore as any Person was once possessed of the Temple and the Altar the same way as his Predessor had been his Right was every way as good as the Right of any other who could pretend against him in which case the publick Interest which is inseparably Right for ending Controversies has always given proference to the Possessor Both of them were as well consecrated into the Office by Spiritual Persons as well as invested by the Lay-Power into the possession of the Externals requisite for executing the Spiritual Office committed to them And that the later was consecrated into his Predecessor's Place both without the consent and by the subjects of his Predecessor was as applicable to all his Predecessors as himself and therefore must as much weaken their Title also as it did his and make them only equal to him on this consideration also This would resolve the Right only into some dead Person whose Rights all Laws determine with their Lives especially were no Person living is concerned in them All therefore that can be said in this Case is that what ought not to have been done at first was now done and ratified by Providence the same way as all other Humane Governments as well Secular as Sacred are usually changed by Prescription which by the Law of Nations and with relation to the good of Mankind and Governments in general is in process of time judged sufficien to extinguish an Original Right and to make that a RIGHT which at first was no other than invasion and Violence This holds especcially where the Right is only Personal as that of the Priest-hood was and the Person made uncapable of holding it Mutilation alone was sufficient to have taken away the Right of the Priest hood by the same Law that gave a Right to it and therefore much more Death This was really the Case when our Blessed Saviour communicated with the High-Priests obtruded by the Romans Josephus himself observes that whereas the High Priest-hood was before for Life then it was not so but during the pleasure of those who had the Power of the Temple And I know no Eternally obliging Law frow the nature of Priest-hood in general that makes it essential to the Priest-hood to be for Life more than for any other Humane Office If it were therefore changeable such a prescription was undoubtedly sufficient for actually changing it And if this Case hold any where among Christians it does so at present among the Constantinopolitane Greeks They also now are brought to that pass that their Patriarchs have not their power given them for Life at the time it is given them but during the pleasure of the Infidel Magistrate The Greeks therefore are under no Obligation of Conscience to assert the Rights of any Predecessor by refusing Communion with his Successor because the Predecessor himself had no better a Right and the Successor has on this account an equal Right but on account of Possession a better than he But this can by no means be applied to the Case of our present Fathers They at their Consecration had a power given and intended for Life which is not yet taken from them by the power that gave it them and therefore have manifestly by our present Constitution a better Title than their Successors They are indeed THRUST out of their Possession as Abiathar but with no such evidence of the Divine Sentence passed against them as was in his Case We have as yet no Prescription for such Violences nor have we to deal with an Infidel Magistracy as they had Heathen Governours might with more consistency to their own Principles use such Violences so frequently as at length when all were dead who had a better Title to make them pass into a PRESCRIPTION This can by no means become CHRISTIAN PRINCES DEFENDERS of the FAITH nor CHRISTIAN PARLIAMENTS mueh less MEMBERS of our late flourishing CHURCHES in these Dominions This I say on Supposition only of the Legality of our Civil establishment § XLVII Among the Jews the true High-Priest was to be known by his possessing the One Altar Among th Christians the true Altar was known by its being possessed by the true Bishop If our Adversaries will needs Reason from Precedents of those times they must put a Case exactly Parallel with Ours of a High-Priest possessed of a Title unquestionably better than his Successors yet violently forced as Ours are out of his Possession This Case I grant did frequently befall the Jews when they were Subject to Infidel Magistrates But it was in such times whose Practice we cannot reckon upon as Infallible as we can upon that of our Blessed SAVIOUR and his Apostles Here therefore we cannot reckon upon their bare Practice That what was done was as it ought to be purely on this account alone because it was done but independently on that we must enquire what the Principles then received obliged them to do if they would approve themselves true to them And here I have already shewn that External Force alone was sufficient to make all exercise of the Priest hood impracticable to the Person so deprived by Secular Force Hence it follows that it was not in their Power directly to assert his Right by communicating with him in Acts of his Sacerdotal Authority For him to erect any other Altar where it might be in his Power to Officiate besides that in Jerusalem was condemned as Schismatical by the Doctrines of those Ages in the Case of the Samaritans and upon the same accounts as the Worship in the High places had been condemned in the Scriptures and as the Altar built by the Tribes beyond Jordan was condemned till they
ratify them if they had been Invasions of the Right of the Magistrate But the Districts were then absolutely necessary for making the Churches Censures as settled out by Lord and his Apostles practicable By them the Bishops knew what Persons were liable to their particular respective Jurisdictions By those the Subjects olso knew the particular Bishops to whose Censures they were obliged to pay a Deference If the Bishop had censured Persons not belonging to his Jurisdiction by the settlement then made by the Apostles they could not think GOD obliged to second him in his Usurpations and therefore could be under no Obligation to regard such Censures It was therefore absolutely necessary that the Right of Preaching the Gospel and settling districts without the leave of the Possessing Magistrates must by GOD have been made the Right of the Ecclesiasticks in reference to Conscience and therefore could not at the same time have been the Right of the Civil Magistrate What then will become of the Doctor 's imaginary Contract Bellarmine fancies that when the Magistrate was baptized he also was supposed to make an implicite Contract with the Bishop that his Crown should be at the Bishops disposal whenever the Bishop should judge that his holding it would be inconsistent with the Churches Interest This is as reasonable as the Doctor 's pretended Contract that on consideration of the leave allowed by the Magistrate for Preaching and settling districts in his Dominions the Bishops make an implicit contract with the Magistrate that they will submit to be deposed by him when he shall judge their holding their places hurtful to his Worldly Interests If either of these implicite Contracts would hold Bellermines is the more likely of the two that the lesser Worldly Interests should give way to the Spiritual But from what has been said it appears that the Right of making Districts was a Right inseparable from the Authority given by GOD for making and governing Proselytes all the World over If therefore it be not the Magistrates but their own what reason have they to make any however implicite Contracts for that which is their own already § LIV. Our Reasoning against the Magistrates Right of deprivation in Spiritual proceed Universally and therefore in Case of Temporal Crimes also the owning such a Power would have been Pernicious to the Primitive Christians also who were charged with Temporal Crimes The Magistrate therefore cannot by the Constitutions of the Gospel pretend to any â—ight whether direct or indirect for depriving our Bishops of their Spiritual Power This our Adversaries themselves do not deny where the Causes pretended for their deprivation are purely Spiritual But where the Case is Temporal as it is here in our Fathers Case there they think that the Magistrate may punish them not only by Secular Punishments but by Deprivations as to the exercising of their Spiritual Right in Districts contained within his Dominions But all that can fairly follow from their Crime being Secular is no more but this that it properly belongs to the Cognizance of the Secular Magistrate and is therefore justly punishable by them who have a JUST TITLE to the Supream Secular Authority That is in such a way of Punishment as properly belongs to the Right of the Magistrate And we allow that to extend as far as the Secular Honours and Revenues by the Secular Laws annexed to their Office nay to their Persons also as to what is Personal to them This is perfectly sufficient to secure the Magistrate in Case not only a single Bishop but the whole Synod should prove guilty of violating their Duty to him whatever the Doctor pretends to the contrary But that this will give him any new Right of punishing which he cannot pretend to by the Nature of his Office our Adversaries have not yet pretended to prove Till they do so or till they Answer what has now been produced to prove the contrary that his Right of Magistracy does no way reach the Spirituals of our Bishops no nor their Right to exercise them in Jurisdictions contained in his Dominions we may as easily deny as they assert that Power of Deprivation by them ascribed to the Magistrate One would think that when we have proved the Nature of the Spiritual Power such as that it is not in the Power of any but GOD or those Authorized by GOD for this purpose to deprive them of that Power who have once received it and that neither the things themselves transacted by the Spiritual Power are in the Power of the Magistrate nor that GOD has given the Magistrate any Authority to represent him in these matters which may oblige him to ratify in Heaven what the Magistrate in his name pretends to Act on Earth It should unavoidably follow that the Magistrate has not this Power at all which if he have not in general he cannot have in this nor in any other particular Case assignable by our Adversaries Why are they therefore so unreasonable as to expect after we have disproved this Power in general that we must be put to the further trouble of disproving it in a particular Case They themselves can easily perceive the partiality of their demands in other the like Cases They who on the other side are for the encroachments of the Clergy upon the Rights of the Magistracy in order to Spirituals in Case of Heresy do so far proceed successfully when they shew that Heresy is a Crime properly cognizable by the Spiritual Judicatories and that Magistrates as well as others are Subject to such Judicatories in matters purely Spiritual But then the consequence would only be that a Magistrate so convicted of Heresy might by such Spiritual Judges be deprived of his Right to Communion and consequently of all the Spiritual Rights and benefits to which he is entitled as a Member of the true Communion This is the utmost that Spiritual Judges can pretend to or wherein they can expect that GOD will second and ratify their Determinations But when they proceed further to forbid all Civil Conversation with the Magistrate to deprive him of his Civil Rights to absolve his Subjects from their Duty of Civil Obedience These are consequences which I believe our Adversaries will not defend Yet how they can avoid being obliged to it if they will be true to the Consequences of their reasonings in this Case for my part I cannot understand For why may not the Church assume a Right of punishing Temporally a Crime that is really allowed to be of Spritual Cognizance if the Magistrate for a Temporal Crime may inflict a deprivation of Spirituals I do not now insist on what we have to say as to the validity of the Sentence given against our Fathers in respect of the Temporal Authority that can be pretended for it However that is at least sufficient to shew that it is only the Judgment of those who have given Judgment against them that they had even Temporal Authority sufficient for
it And if the Secular Powers may deprive Bishops for any Crime which they who deprive them shall be pleased to call Temporal and if we also are obliged to think such deprivatons sufficient to discharge Us from the Duty we owe them with regard to our Conscience I cannot see how the Primitive Christian Bishops could have escaped such deprivation Julion the Apostate pretended Temporal Reasons for most of his Persecutions purposely to hinder the Sufferers from the Glory of Matyrdome And even in the earlyer Persecutions Secular Crimes were imputed to the Christians That was the Case when the Burning of Rome was charged upon them in Nero's time and the burning of the Palace at Nicomedia in Diocletian's when the Stories of the Dog and Candle and Oedipodean incests and the Mothers of Children were pretended to be proved against them by the extorted confession of some Slaves in the time of Marcus Antoninus Their very Meetings came under the Laws de Sodalitijs and de Hetaerijs and de Factionibus And their refusing to Swear by the Genij of the Emperors or to Sacrifice for them were by the Interpretation of those times reducible to the Laws of loesa Majestas which we call Treason Will our adversaries therefore grant that on these accounts those Pagan Emperors might have deposed the Christian Bishops and Absolved their Subjects from their Duties in Conscience owing to them If they will we are very sure our glorious Ancestors of those Ages were not of their mind And let our Adversaries themselves judge whether we have most reason to follow as Guides of our Conscience Besides the Advantage the Primitive Christians had for knowing Tradition better this was also a manifest one That our late Brethren's Practice goes along with their Worldly Interests and indeed never began till motives of such Interest inclined them to it but the Practice of the Primitive Christians was directly contradictory to such Interests § LV. The Spiritual Rights of Our Fathers have been now invaded by Civil Force Bare Characters without Districts not sufficient to preserve the Church as a Body But the strangest Answer of all is That our Adversaries cannot yet be perswaded that our H. Fathers Spiritual Rights have yet been invaded by secular Force As this way of defence signifies their unwillingness to undertake the Patronage of such Invasions I confess I am not a little pleased with it in regard to the Liberty it may allow them hereafter if GOD shall be pleased to turn our Captivity to defend the Rights of their own Function when they may be defended without danger And I do not know why even now the Clergy should be forward and Active in promoting a Casuistry that may absolve the Magistrate from the obligation incumbent on him in Conscience for their Protection But it is a strange degree of Confidence to deny the Fact Had they not set up other Bishops to exercise Spiritual Power in the same Jurisdictions they might indeed pretend to it But having done so it is from thence we date their Schism Nor do I see how they can avoid the Charge of it For if the Spirituals of our Fathers be yet untouched then they must still have the same Right over those same Jurisdictions as to Spirituals as they had and as was own'd by our Adversaries themselves formerly If so their Rivals exercising Spiritual Power in the same Jurisdiction without their leave must be looked on as Invaders of their yet untouched uninvaded Spirituals Rights If so they must in the Language of St. Cyprian be foras be aliens be non secundi sed nulli Not barely on the Authority of that Holy Martyrs saying but as the Vindicator proved from the Nature of the Spiritual Monarchy which allows no more than one at once without conscent to have a Right within the same Jurisdiction It is very plain from hence that their Right to their particular districts and Jurisdiction even as to Spirituals is actually invaded by their Intruders And we have now and so had the Vindicator formerly shewn the settling of districts in order to Spiritual Jurisdiction to be a Right of the Church independent on the Favour of the Civil Magistrate We have shewn that the Church as well as the State was by CHRIST and his Apostles made a visible Body and that their way of knowing the visible Governours and Subjects of this visible Body was even from the Apostles Time taken from the extent of those visible Districts that they who lived in these districts were all Subjects to the Governours of the districts and that the Governours of those districts as to Spirituals were the particular Governours to whom the Christian inhabitants of those Districts ow'd Obedience as to Spiritual That whatever Right the Magistrate had formerly that might seem inconsistent with these Rights was by GOD himself taken away from the Magistrate in order to the making this way of propagating the Gospel Practicable yet so that Power enough was still left for securing the Authority of the Magistrate as to Temporals That the first Christian Magistrates found the Church possessed of these Districts and the Bodies of the Christians in the several Districts possessed also of the Opinion of the Independency of those Districts as to Spirituals on the Civil Magistrates which they had always made appear in all Difference between the Magistrate and the Bishops by their unanimous adherence to the Bishops as to Spirituals That therefore those Districts as to Spirituals were never derived from the Favour of the Magistrate and therefore not obnoxious to his disposal Here therefore this whole Dispute is reducible to a short Dilemma If the presumed Magistrate has not invaded the Spiritual Districts of our Fathers then the Intruders are Schismaticks for intermeddling with those Rights which their Predecessors are not deprived of And all others also must be Schismaticks who own and Communicate with the Intruders If the Rivals be not Intruders they must needs say that the Predecessors have lost their Right even to those Districts as to Spirituals And how they should come to lose it but by the Sole Act of their Magistrate I know nothing that our Adversaries can pretend There is manifestly no Act of the Church that they can so much as pretend for it Their Character they say is not yet touched No wonder it should not since the Schoolmen from whom they borrow the term of Character hold Characters to be indelible by any Humane Authority whatsoever not only secular but Ecclesiastical also However all the Use our Adversaries make of their remaining Character is only to make them restorable to their old Jurisdictions without a new Consecration and in the mean time to legitimate some Acts of Epicopal Power which must no be supposed to depend on a relation to a particular Jurisdiction But this Character that has no relation to a particular District could not be sufficient for preserving Bodies such as the Church was designed to be by them who