Page 13
§ XII. There is gre•••• disparity between the Obligations of a competent, and an incompe∣tent, Authority. (Book 12)
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 sin∣ful. 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 con∣siderations 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, when they thought him dead, does not prove that they had thought themselves at liberty to have done so, if they had known him to have been living. Whatever present incapacity he might have been under for the administration of his Of∣fice, they might have thought themselves obliged to Stay for him, as the Alexandrians did for St. Athanisius. St. Chrysostomes Case is less for his purpose. He only desired his People to Submit to the Bi∣shop * 1.1 that should be substituted after his decease. Yet even in that he prevailed not with them, the Schism of the Joannites being continued many years after, till an honourable amends was made to his memory. During his own life time he was so far from it that he challenged