true where the Matter is unlawful in it self but not where the Obligation comes to cease And this I grant also to be true but then a Man ought to be very well assured that the Obligation doth cease for otherwise all the Arts and Shifts in the world will not absolve him from Perjury And I insisted on the first as being our Case and therefore his Instance of the Shew-bread is beside the Matter For though as dedicated to God it belonged to the Priests yet it was never unlawful in it self for a Man to eat Bread nor did such Dedication hinder the Priests from being Charitable and in case of necessity relieving a good Man from being starved And though it he the fashion of our days not only to make Men poor but by all means possible to hinder them from any Relief that they may starve yet he needed not to have gone to the Jews for an Instance but might have told us of Christian Bishops who in times of Famine have sold the Riches of their Churches to buy Food for the Poor and Posterity hath honoured their Memory for it As for his Story of Jaddus I will not trouble my self to call it in question it will be somewhat to the Purpose when he can prove these three things 1. That Jaddus and the Jews took an Oath to Alexander I find no such thing in the Story and he knows that we do not deny all manner of Submission to Force 2. That Darius was living when Jaddus made the Submission 3. That we have the same Authority Warrant and Directions which Jaddus and the Jews had as to which last he may do very well to address himself to a certain Person whom he very well knows and try if he can find it in the Revelations The next Instance is of the Parents Part to Children as to which he cites these words from his Author If Parents instead of regarding the Good of their Children do openly design their Ruine none will say but that they are bound to take Care of their own Wellfare They are so but yet even then there is a Duty owing from those Children to those Parents But in order to take off my Answer there given as if he had received a double Portion of Hugh Peters's Spirit he falls to his blackening Arts and with the help of Flam-Supposals and notorious Falshoods represents as indulgent a Father as perhaps lived as if he were another Saturn who devoured his own Issue and then he thinks the Child may enter upon the Estate and keep Possession against his Parent c. and then tryumphantly asks this question May not all this be done and the Fifth Commandment stand in its full Force Yes Sir the Fifth Commandment will be in force and you and others some time or other will find so but as you order the Matter here you make it either of no Force or of Force to very ill purpose for so I take it to be when it lays no other Obligation upon the Child but to dispossess the Father of his Estate or to knock out his Brains Do not you think you have done an Heroick Act thus to dispute away the fifth Cammannment But at this rate I am afraid you will paint White-Chapel black and make People doubtful how he is a Preacher of Righteousness who devises Tricks to take away the Oblâ—gation of God's Commandments The third Instance is of Masters and Servants Victors and Captives and in these his Author says there is a Regard had to the Benefit of those who are in Subjection This I did grant but withall deny That any Consequence could be drawn thence which would be for his turn But here he accuseth me of Ignorance Nonsense Blunders and what not and all along after speaks in such insolent language as I think is only fit to be despised and therefore I will not do him the Pleasure to take any farther notice of it Only I think it disingenuous to cite my Words by the halves and then cry out of Nonsense and Inconsistencies But it was impudence assoon as this was done to repeat the following Words which both make them Sense and take away all Inconsistency But to my Argument he answers That being under Government rightly so called doth not Metamorphose us into Beasts yet mere absolute Power comes very near it I know not what he means by his Government rightly so called I hope it is not Usurpation That Parenthesis would better have become another than him But his Answer is neither to the purpose nor true For there neither is nor can be any Government but somewhere there is lodg'd in it that which he calls an absolute Power and thus in his way of Arguing he hath near Metamorphosed all Mankind into Beasts unless there be any such as are under no Government at all I as heartily wish as he or any other Man can That Power may be well used and yet I think I ought to be content to allow my Governours their Failings without mutinying against them and displacing them This would be not only endless but to condemn our selves for if it were said to us he that is without Sin let him cast the first stone I doubt you would scarce find one to begin the Work His Distinction of a private Injury from that wherein the Publick is concerned is not practicable upon his Principle For let it be made lawful on any account to depose the supream Governour and the least and most private Injury imaginable shall be interpreted a Breach of the Subjects Privilege in general and consequently against the Publick Good But there will be no need for this according to his Principle For if the antecedent Good as he calls it be so the Measure of the Obligation as to dissolve it when that is wanting every Man will be prone to think his own particular Good to be as much that antecedent Good as any thing he can call publick and consequently if he be wronged will take himself to be absolved from his Allegiance This is an admirable way to make Government firm and stable The last Relation he mentions is between Princes and their Subjects as to which the only material thing he says is That the Nature of Political Oaths is such that they are reciprocal Now though I do not think this will hold yet to what purpose should I enter into a Discourse about Oaths when our Business is with the Duties which were antecedent to the Oaths and to the Performance of which we are more strongly bound by those Oaths These undoubtedly are not reciprocal For if the Subject will not do his Duty or absolutely deny it doth this deprive the King of his Right to Sovereignty At this rate indeed we may depose Kings and transfer Allegiance at pleasure It were a very happy thing if the Duties of Relations were always justly and mutually paid but if there be as too often there is a Failure on the one part it doth not
the Breaches Or how are they repared and amended No doubt but that now all is well and we are out of danger and as safe as Thieves in a Mill. But after all he might have considered That there is a great difference between judging in Naturals and Politicks As to the Objects of my Senses Nature hath made me the Judge so that if I see the Water break in or the Wall thrown down I need not ask another whether it be so or no but I am not so proper a Judge of the Tendency of my Superiours Actions they being often moved by such Springs as I cannot see and therefore can make no certain Judgment of them And it is no strange thing for People to mistake these Actions when done and not to know what is good for themselves Thus the Earl of Strafford was accused for advancing Trade in Ireland and for urging the necessity of the Interposition of the King's Authority where the Letter of the Law was too severe upon his Subjects And I could name the Person who in Vindication of the Barbarity of the Kentish Men to a certain Person in Distress urged his putting an Act in execution in those parts than which scarce any thing more tended to the Advancement of our Trade as even he who urged it had formerly acknowledged Thus some people will make even Health it self to be a Disease Now if we are not well qualified to judge of the Evil we are still more unfit to he judges of the Remedy For it is a Madness to prate of applying a Cure to we know not what But to put a stop here he supposes Cases wherein the Supreme Governour may be a Party and therefore not to be allowed to be judge in his own Case But then will not his Subjects be a Party too And if they in this Case must be allowed to be Judge over the Supreme Governour What is this but to set a Supreme above a Supreme whilst he himself grants That the Supreme Governour has no Supreme But it is an idle if not a wicked Thing to suppose such Cases without proving them when such Supposals are made the Reason of their Actions For at this rate no Government can be long-liv'd When that is proved to be the Case it is then time enough to discourse of what may be done by the Intreaties and Petitions of the People and the Mediation of co-ordinate Powers in order to set things to Rights But let his Author say never so plainly That he doth not set up the Power of the People over Kings yet his Principles do and Men act by those whatever they may pretend or say to the contrary As to what concerns a Body of Men he puts these two Questions from his Author Whether the Law of our Nation doth not bind us to Allegiance to a King and Queen in actual Possession of the Throne by consent of the three Estates of thâ— Realm And whether such an Oath may not lawfully be taken notwithstanding any former Oath The affirmative he proves from the Consent of the People whose true Representatives as he says they are I need not here examine of what Force is the Consent of the People because the Foundation whereon he Grounds it as to our present Case is false For the three Estates of the Realm are the King 's three Estates and they can neither be legal Estates nor legal Representatives without the King's Authority Writs and Summons and other Requisites But it seems the Inquirer here put an unlucky Question Where or how can all the People meet Which he scornfully thus Answers As if the Author he opposes thought of no less than the numbering of the People from Dan to Beersheba But if he did not think of numbering them from Dan to Beersheba he ought to have thought of numbering them from Barwick to Dover For if the Government was not dissolved Why goes it not according to the Constitution If it was dissolved than all Men were as free as it is possible for Men to be and then no Man could represent another without his express Consent and every ones Consent ought to be taken Viritim for whosoever did not give his Consent did not come into your new Body and his natural Freedom could not without Injustice be taken from him by Force When I thought we had been near an end he is got again to the begining and when he was thinking of closing in the very next Words he propounds no less than three Heads of Discourse which he says his Author treated of towards the begining but all amount to no more but the old Cuckoo Note of Publick Good and that it ought to over-rule every thing as to which I might briefly Answer That Publick Good is to be promoted in the way of Duty not out of it and this is very ill taken up for a Plea where there is neither Publick Good nor Duty in the Matter they plead for But he undertakes to prove the Matter by Instances only they are Instances which have been already Answered and he doth not handle them so dexterously as his Author He begins with Parents and Childeren and unlucky Omen If saith he a Vow to God which is as solemn a Thing as an Oath hinders that good which Children are bound to do to Parents it ceaseth to oblige as our Saviour declares Very good But the reason is because that Vow never obliged at all as be-ing unlawful and contrary to that which God and Nature had made a Duty of Childeren to Parents though Wicked or Froward I thought the Duty of Children to Parents had been Abdicated at least Sir you ought to have overlook'd it But I desire it may be observed That to make amends for this oversight this very Author who here makes the Duty of Childeren to Parents so Sacred that it makes void a Vow to God himself within 3 Pages next following teacheth you a trick to vacate the Obligation of the Fifth Commandment But it seems I had said That this was nothing to the purpose and I think I there proved it But he says it is to the purpose because if the procuring and preserving the Publick Good be a Duty and what a Person hath vowed or sworn be destructive of it then the Oath cannot oblige no more than a Vow c. p. 28. But I say this also is nothing to the Purpose For though the procuring and preserving the publick Good be a Duty yet it doth not make every thing a Duty which may tend towards it and it must be procured and preserved only by means lawful and honest If Children might murther their Parents for the Publick Good such Parents as have large Estates and wicked Children had need look out sharp for Pretences even of Publick Good would not long be wanting to send them of an Errand to another World Whereas I had said with respect to such Oath or Vow That the Sin was in making c. he says this is
to speak with more Reverence of a Case of Conscience if he had withal added my Reasons it would have plainly appeared that nothing but frontless Impudence would have called that Spitefulness But to divert the Discourse he tells me That I have over-run the Point For saith he the Word Only is not as if a Case of Conscience was not a matter of Consequence but that the taking or not taking the Oaths is only a Case of Conscience not matter of Doctrine But doth not the Strength of his Argument lye in this That the taking or not taking the Oaths is only a Case of Conscience about which wise and good Men may differ And doth not he by this means endeavour to represent it as a Matter of small Moment or Importance and I think this is not to make it a Matter of any great Consequence Or do I there speak any thing of Doctrine but strictly keep my self to the Plea of a Case of Conscience Was not my principal Reason this That there was not any Moral Action and consequently not any Duty of a Christian about which a Case of Conscience might not at one time or other arise And if these may be determined either way because wise and good Men may differ this will either destroy the very nature of Good Evil or make the Bounds so moveable that we shall never know certainly where to find them But because these and other Reasons deserve no Answer let us see whether he hath made the matter better or worse by what he will vouchsafe us It is only a Case of Conscience he says not Matter of Doctrine What is the meaning of this Doth he think practical Cases things indifferent and that nothing is of moment but matter of Theory Provided that a Man doth believe in general that Oaths are obligatory is it lawful for him in practice to take contradictory Oaths and be guilty of Perjury I confess That I should have a better Opinion of the Quaker who denies the Lawfulness of all Oaths than of that Man who maintains the Lawfulness of Breaking all Oaths The one may prevent Perjury the other encourageth it without end But if Men put such a Sense upon promissory Oaths as contrary to their Nature and Design makes them to be no Security I leave it to indifferent Persons to judge whether that Man doth not in effect invalidate all promissory Oaths and set up such a Doctrine as teacheth the Lawfulness to break them And I think we need not go far to seek Men who do thus But this Oath he says is a Matter of a Civil Nature What then Is not God appealed to in the taking it Is not his holy Name profaned and his Wrath and Vengeance provoked if it be taken in Violation of former Oaths i. e. in Perjury What if its Meaning be to be learnt from the Constitution and Laws of the Realm Has it not therefore a certain Sense and Meaning And if there be Sin in it is it not a sufficient ground to refuse to communicate in that Sin or to joyn with perjured Persons in their Perjury But here he shamelesly insinuates That the Matter of our Difference is only Scruples when I had told him as plainly as a Man could speak That we had no Scruples If a Man should encourage me to murther my Father or rob him of all he hath should I make any Scruple to reject the Council of such a Villain I think there is as little Reason for a Man to raise Scruples why he may not forswear himself as why he may not commit Theft Murther or Adultery He scarce deserves the Name of a Christian who doth not without any Scruple condemn these Sins After this shift he next puts two Pleas in our Mouths and then makes two Answers for his learned Author The First Plea is That when any Thing unlawful is made a condition of Communion it will justify a Separation As to which he tells us his Author made Answer That taking the Oaths is no condition of Communion with us and shewed that the Terms of our Communion are not altered This indeed he said but he never shewed or proved nor ever can For will he say That the matter of the Oaths is not made a condition of Communion to all Men Are we not obliged to pray for the same thing in more ample plain and signicant Terms than we are to swear it Now whatever Objections we have against the Oath our principal Objection is against the matter of it as unduely and unjustly assigned and if the Owning and Praying for this be made a part of the daily Office it is made a condition of our Communion and if so then the terms of our Communion are altered And thus he may see that a Man may sooner prove the Oaths to be made conditions of Communion then tell of forty Things they are not But this will be done more fully afterwards As to the Second Objection he tells us his Author says That it is the Scruple about mix'd Communion which hath been so long exploded among us and this he says I was very careful to pass over in silence And perhaps he did not very advisedly to be my remembrance For I will not pass it over so now For should I suffer that to lye against us I should expose both my self and others to a severe Censure But I have known Boys set up a Daslin and then strangely laugh and tryumph to see how bravely they knockt it down again and when other Men make our Objections for us they may frame them on purpose so as to fasten on them some ridiculous Consequences which they had before in their Head and that indeed may make them Sport but it doth not affect us And I cannot think that this Author did believe himself when he cast this Calumny upon us as think us so very Weak and Silly to seperate upon the Terms of those Enthusiasts who thought themselves Defiled in mix'd Communions Had he stated the Objection fairly there had been no colour for his Answer But since he is resolved to cast all Slanders upon us I shall briefly represent our Sense in this Case which will be sufficient to wipe them off We do not seperate from them upon the account of any particular Frailties or any personal Infirmities or Sins We do not seperate from them for that they have taken unlawful Oaths though we think them bad Men for doing so and worse for hardening themselves in their Sin by maintaining them and encouraging others to be as bad as themselves good Offices may be discharged by ill Persons if lawfully authorized thereto and where the Terms of the Communion are Sound the particular personal Failings of a Man in other matters affects not the Communion both Judas and Demas may execute their Office to the benefit of others though it were to be wished that scandalous Sins were less rife in the World for a fulsome Cup is apt to turn the Stomack
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
be considered whether it be the particular Case and whether the Publick Good be Secured or Advanced And here it would be enquired Whether Religion be better Secured to us Whether Mens Lives and Properties are more Safe How we encrease in Strength in Trade in Riches and the like And though I do not admire our Gain yet many of these Things are out of my way but there is a certain Tract called the DEAR BARGAIN which speaks of these Things and if the Government would encourage that Author to write I am perswaded he would quickly set that Controversie in the true Light and to him as the fittest Man I leave it The next thing is the Practicability of this Principle of Publick Good Now whatever the Publick Good is or whatever it may Warrant yet if People are to make that their Rule they will judge of it and then every one will judge of Publick Good according to his own Interest and Persuasion and this by several Arguments I did prove would fill the World with Violence and Confusion But he is so far from answering any of my Arguments that he never mentioneth one of 'em as sensible that it would spoil all that he intended to sham on me afterwards But very honestly he Sums up my Argument as I neither laid nor meant it and tells me That the Publick Good 's being liable to be abused is an inconcluding Argument not only because of the Inconsequence but because this is a way of Arguing that may serve against any thing and if we put Publick Justice or Laws or Religion or Reformation into the place of Publick Good it will hold in any of them as well as the other Grant this to be true though it is of his own making yet will this conclude that whoever pleads Publick Good Religion or Reformation is necessarily in the Right And if it be so liable to be abused Doth it not nearly concern us to examine well whether it be not abused When so many have been imposed upon by it and even we our selves so very lately almost to our utter Ruin must we still be such Fools as to believe without more adoe every bawling or self-interessed Fellow who cries Publick Good For this Reason I did then fairly intimate That Publick Good as a common Noise or solitary Plea is never to be admitted without such Criterions and other Evidences accompanying it as may make it appear that what is pleaded is real And thus it will be in any of the Cases he supposeth if he please he may set up the cry of Reformation and then the Church of England is for Reforming the Church of Rome yea at this time perhaps one part of it is for Reforming another the Presbyterian would Reform them both and the Independent outdoeth him and still the Anabaptist hath a Knack of Reforming further and the Quaker he is for Reforming them all Now set all these on Work and encourage them by telling them That the Plea of Reformation being liable to be abused is no Argument but it is Inconsequent and would reach to Publick Good or any thing else and if they were suffered to go on in this mad Humour I am apt to think that in a short time they would reform away all Religion And if therefore Reformation be required we must not presently fall to altering or pulling down but first enquire whether there be any thing that stands in need of Reformation For if things be either well or near well change is rarely for the better But if there be discovered either such gross Errors or intolerable Abuses as need Reformation yet it must be done in a regular Course for though there should be never so much need of Reformation if you will allow all to be Publick Reformers you will mend Religion worse than those Tinkers do Kettles who instead of stopping one hole make two And thus as to Publick Good the bare Name of it is not enough especially when such great Actions are pretended for the sake of it as for any thing we know may prove fatal and therefore when such a Pretence is set up I think there is a double Test whereby it ought to be tryed for as a Civil Society we ought to examine such Pretences with their agreeableness to our Constitutions for if they be contrary to them they portend a Civil Destruction But then as we are a Christian Society this Pretence of Publick Good must be examined by the Rules of Righteousness and the Gospel of the Blessed Jesus and if Men will pretend for Publick Good to disannul indispensable Duties to destroy all Faith and Truth amongst Men and to over-throw the very Nature of Good and Evil by making it Changeable and Subservient to every present Turn and Occasion this is the ready way to destroy not only the Civil Society but the Christian Church And if that which makes void Promises and Oaths which evacuates God's Commandments which transforms Treachery into Vertue and either makes it lawful to do Evil that Good may come of it or flatly says it is no Evil if Good may happen to come of it for I think there is not much Good come of it yet I say if this be not Destructive of the Evangelical Rule I know not what can And if disinteressed Persons were to judge of Particulars in the present Case I dread to think on which Side even a Moral Heathen would give the Verdict to the Shame of such numbers of Christians The third thing proposed is who shall be Judge i. e. either of the Mischief or the Remedy As to the former he says The Case before us is supposed to be notorious It is indeed supposed but it was never proved Must we destroy a King and Government for the Shams and Slanders that malicious Men suppose in defence of their Wickedness Two things indeed he mentions which have a Tendency as he saith to the Destruction of a Government Desertion and Lunacy Now if K. J. was Lunatick this is the first time I have heard of it but if he was that is not a sufficient ground to depose him Indeed it may warrant the setting up a Protector or Regent to act in his Name but the Honour and Title still remain with him This seems to be the Case of Edward III. who at the latter end of his Reign being sensible of his Indisposition for Government made Lionel Duke of Clarence Regent of the Realm But this bereaved neither Edward III. his Father nor Richard II. his Nephew of their Right As for Desertion I think they ought not for shame to have named it unless they had returned some better Answer to the Paper called Desertion Discuss'd than imprisoning the Author But he saith I might as well have asked who shall be the Judge whether the Banks are broken down in an Inundation c. I hope he doth not mean an Inundation of Foreigners Poverty and Cruelty But who is it hath broke the Banks or made