A debate on the justice and piety of the present constitution under K. William in two parts, the first relating to the state, the second to the church : between Eucheres, a conformist, and Dyscheres, a recusant / by Samuel Hill ...

PART II. Concerning the Ecclesiastical Change.

Dyscher.

ACcording to my yesterdays pro∣mise, I am returned to continue on the Debate, which the super∣vening night interrupted. Let us therefore now begin where we left off, and pursue the matters

of our last Conference to their just and utmost Issue.

Eucher.

You are heartily welcom; and so let us closely apply our selves to the Business.

Dyscher.

Pass we then from the Civil to the Sacred War, in which we are engaged by the contrariety of our Principles. And first I pray you, wherein do you found the just and regular Right of the Ecclesiastical Deprivations?

Eucher.

This I often and very expresly told you, that as to the merits of Deprivation, they stand in the enormities of your practic principles against the present Civil Constitution, by which you are brought into an incapacity of a public Trust over mens Consciences, which your opi∣nions will sharpen into Civil Seditions, and reli∣gious Schisms. And as to the Canonical form of your Deprivations, I placed it in the customary right, the ancient Churches used against Bishops of false principles, by separating from them, and Appealing to other Social Churches, and Bishops for their assistance in new Consecrations; which course our Church has also used against the Recusant Fathers, upon the just Commands of the State.

Dyscher.

Indeed I do remember now the na∣ture of that Charge you loaded us with,† 1.1 and it might have made an excellent Argument for Julian, or Dioclesian, by traducing our Bishops as imposturous, and comparing them to Idolaters, for which my friend T. B. hath so sufficiently requited you, (Sec. Lett. pag. 36)

that you cannot say he is in your Debt, or is so indigent, as to run upon tick for calumnies and slanders.

Eucher.

I was never skilled in T. B's Arts, or Conversations, and do decline the lists, and pre∣tentions to the faculty of evil speaking. I shall only say, that I ever looked on those Fathers to be too rigorously pious in their unhappy Errors in the notions, and rules of English Loyalty, tho' I ever acknowledged their undoubted sincerity. But because I was aware, that you exempt all Episcopal Causes, and Authorities from all Civil, and Laic Cognisance in matters, and censures purely Spiritual, therefore to draw you off from that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I put the Case upon the worst of Crimes,* 1.2 as Apostasie, Heresie, Schism, &c. and demanded, whether the Clergy and People may desert a Bishop under such pestilential crimes, and impostures, and procure another from Social Bishops? For if they may Canonically do this in such Cases, then perhaps they may canonically do so in other, which tho' not so designedly malignant, yet ne∣cessitate an exauctoration, tho' founded in meer infirmities, and too pious prejudices, as I ex∣plained my self in those very passages, at which, it seems, the gall of T. B. is exasperated.

Dyscher.

Well; I think it not decent for us to draw hard on this invidious subject; let us, if you please, discuss the Canonical forms of your procedure herein, which your party generally defends from pretended precedents of Civil Au∣thorities over the Jewish High Priests, and the Practice of Christian Churches in submission to

Imperial Orders, especially the Greek Church under Turkîsh Changes made in their Patriar∣chal See. Now the most famous instance among the Jewish High Priest is that of Solomons depri∣vation of Abiathar. Which tho' you endeavoured to parallel to our present Case, yet herein I brought you such just exceptions, as neither you, nor all your Party will be able to take off. For if the Crime was nothing like, if there was such a difference between the Constitutions of the Jewish and Christian Churches, if it was a manifest Cession on Abiathar's part, (all which I well proved) then that Instance can by no means come up to this Case. T. B. Sec. Lett. pag. 36.

Eucher.

Tho' I could not deny the force of your reasonings upon this instance, yet have I con∣sulted my friends upon it, as well as you have done upon me. And the chiefest of their senses I will lay before you, to which if you can make any weighty reply, you must not thence conclude a vice, or fault in the Cause; for if I cannot defend it my self, perhaps its proper Patrons may, who as they have singular Opi∣nions, so have they as singular abilities to maintain them.

Dyscher.

This is a secure Caution for your own Reputation, tho' it betrays an inward suspicion of the Arguments you intend to produce. But however, since it is but just, that no personal defects should prejudice a good Cause, and that one man's Errors should not affect another man's Estimation, I grant you your Demand, and therefore I pray proceed.

Eucher.

Have you not seen the Book entitled, The Case of Sees Vacant, &c. whose learned Authors felicity is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This great man pretends to dissolve all your machins against this grand Precedent for a Lay-Depriva∣tion, and I will exhibite you his Argumentations according to your, and his Or∣der. First then he observes, that * 1.3 this perhaps may be the Plea of our Adversaries, in an∣swer to the examples of the Jewish High-Priest, that the Office of a Bishop amonst us is much more Spiritual, than the Office of those High-Priests. To that Plea I answer, that he that considers the true and full import of the Question now before us, will find it to be no other than this, whether a Person, duly invested with an Ecclesia∣stical Office of God's own Institution and Ordinance, being deposed by the Lay-power, any other can law∣fully succeed in that Office? Now as to God's parti∣cular Institution and Appointment, whatsoever otherwise the difference may be, (which is needless for us to contend about) it is certain, that the Jewish High-Priests were rather superior than inferior to our Bishops. 'Twas by God himself, and that too in an extraordinary manner, that the Office of the High-Priest was instituted, and it was from God alone that he received his Authority. If therefore a Person was accepted by God as a true and real High-Priest, tho' put into the room of another de∣posed by Civil Authority, then a Bishop likewise may be truly a Bishop, and accordingly ought to be re∣ceived, tho' put into the place of a Bishop deposed by that Power. To this I add, that the annual Ex∣piation for the Sins of the whole People was to be performed by the High-Priest. This was the chief

of the federal Rites of that Religion, and that to which our Saviour's offering himself up a Sacrifice is particularly compared in the Epistle to the Hebrews. And this they did ex opere operato, so that it was of the greatest Consequence to the Jews to have this Divine Institution performed by one appointed to it by God. And tho' no provision was made for Cases of necessity, yet necessity was understood to be a provision for it self. And it is certain, these annual Expiations were accepted of God till our Saviour's days. For that is a certain Consequence of their being still in Covenant with God, since these Ex∣piations were the yearly renewing of that Covenant. Nor can any of the performances of the Christian Priesthood be compared to this, unless we believe the Power of Transubstantiating. These examples of the Jewish High-Priest alone, were there no other to be alledged, would sufficiently warrant our submission to our present Possessors.

Dyscher.

This Doctrine of that learned Doctors is very new, and amazing in every Sentence of it, as also is his original Principle. But whe∣ther it be of sincere Metal, or no, must be tried by the proper Touchstone. First then it is strange, that he shou'd affirm it certain, that the High-Priests are rather Superior to our Bishops as to the Divinity of their Institution. For are not Bi∣shops instituted originally by God himself, and in a manner more extraordinary than that of Aaron's Consecration? For this appears indeed in the Le∣vitical Law to be divinely solemn, and glorious, as far as external Pomp and Ceremony could adorn it, and an Oracular Power of Judgment in things Temporal sanctifie him, but yet as the Agent for God in this Consecration was a Ser∣vant only, viz. Moses, so the Oracular Sanctity

was not purely Spiritual. But the first Bishops were the Apostles, made so, not by the Hand of a Servant, but the Son of God himself in our own Flesh, ordaining them with an extraordi∣nary Power of Miracles of all kinds, with the insufflation of the Holy Ghost, in order to the remission, and retaining of sins upon the Soul, by the Acts of an Authority to be ratified in Heaven. To them the Sacraments were com∣mitted, the Laver of Regeneration, and the My∣stery of our Incorporation into Christ, and Par∣ticipation of his Holy Spirit, besides the glorious Effusion of the Spirit on them at the Feast of Pentecost, consecrating them Preachers of the Resurrection of Christ with an amazing Glo∣ry in the sight of all Nations gathered toge∣ther at Jerusalem, in a manner more superlative∣ly divine than any the meaner Forms of Aaron's Investiture. Besides the Doctor may as well pre∣fer the Institution of the meanest Levites to that of the Highest Apostles upon the same grounds, on which he hath so superexalted the Jewish Pontiff, who was no more divinely instituted than the lowest Orders of Levi, tho' he was to higher Services. Nor is the Doctor less mistaken in his extraordinary Esteem, and Elogy of the Annual Expiation, as more noble than any Epis∣copal Functions. For notwithstanding all its So∣lemnities and Operations, yet its highest Excel∣lency was but Typical of that Grace, which was not given by Moses, but by Jesus Christ. And all its actual present Energy reached no further than a legal imaginary Cleansing of the Body of the Jews, and this only for one Year past, and that only for the securing him in the Temporal benefits promised in that Law. But our Priestly Functions are not merely Typical

of Grace not yet given, but both commemora∣tive, and exhibitory also of that Grace, which hath already appeared for the Salvation of all Men, and consecrates the Souls and Bodies of Men unto Immortality; not to mention the ex∣traordinary Measure of the Spirit collated in the especial Acts of Episcopal Ordinations. In all which interiour Sanctifications, tho' there is no Transubstantiation, yet is there a mystical Uni∣on betwixt Christ and his Members by the il∣luminating Communion of the Holy Spirit. For which truth it is needful that we contend, tho' I confess it was needless for him to contend a∣gainst it. And yet further, supposing all this had been right, which the Doctor hath dicta∣ted, yet here arises another Infelicity in his Lo∣gic. For tho' God might admit an intruded High-Priest, yet it does not follow, that Men may admit an intruded Bishop; for can Man pretend to all the Authorities of God? God is indeed superior to all his own Institutions, and may dispense with them, or ratifie Violations of them, as he did the violent Successions in the Kings of Israel. But does it follow, that Men can lawfully, without any Divine Dispen∣sation given and granted, admit the Violations of his Laws, and the perverters of that Hierar∣chy, which he has made organical to the San∣ctity and Salvation of his Church? Nay, fur∣ther yet, the Doctor is very unaccurate in his very State of the Question, which properly is not, whether any Man may lawfully succeed an Ecclesiastic deposed by a Lay-power; for if we grant that there can be any such Lay-depo∣sition, no doubt the Succession may be lawful; but the Question is, whether there can be any Ecclesiastical Deposition inflicted on Spiritual Or∣ders

by a Lay-power? This is that we, and our Fathers complain of, that the Lay-powers enact Spiritual Censures of Suspension, and Deprivati∣on, which your Ecclesiastics admit as regular, and valid, which were they so, we should not quarrel at the Successions. This I am sure is our Question, whatsoever that of the Baroccian Treatise is; if this differs from ours; then in that respect the Treatise is impertinently adduced in our Case. Besides the Question is not, whether a Person duly invested with an Ecclesiastic Of∣fice of God's Institution may not be deposed by any Lay power? For if God in the Jewish Church did subject their Ecclesiastics to a Lay-depositi∣on, no doubt in the Nature of the thing it might be lawful. But the Question is, whether first God did so subject the Jewish Ecclesiastics to such a Lay-authority? And secondly, supposing that God had so subjected their Ecclesiastics, the next Question is whether he hath in like manner so subjected the Christian Hierarchy? For if there be any specific Difference, or intentional Dispa∣rity in the Nature and Purposes of the Jewish and Christian Religions, if there have been such Changes admitted by God in the Authorities of one, which have not been so conceded upon the Authorities of the other, then the Argument from the Jewish doth not conclude upon the Christian Hierarchy. And therefore by the Do∣ctor's leave, not only the Divinity of the Insti∣tution, but the Nature of the Offices, and the Rules of Tenure, and Succession instituted by God in his Church, are to be considered in this Debate. For to put the matter into a short Theory, I think it fairly possible to conceive, that the Jewish Religion, in what it was pecu∣liarly Jewish, was only of a carnal Sanctity, in

Order only to Temporal Fruitions, and so might be under the Conduct of Temporal Powers, that are the Supreme Guardians of all Temporal En∣joyments; but the Christian Religion is purely Spiritual, not subordinated to Temporal Ends, and so not under the like Authority of Temporal Powers. Now whatsoever are the civil Autho∣rities about matters Christian, I suppose the Es∣sential Differences of our Religion from the Jewish, will bar the Argument for the same Rules of Subjection. And if you please upon another Consultation to propose the matter to the Do∣ctor's second Thoughts, I will be at the pains of repeating my Observations hereupon. † 1.4 First, that the whole Institution of the Leviti∣cal Law was not of a Spiritu∣al, but carnal Sanctity, yielded them by God, some∣what in opposition, and somewhat in conformity to the Aegyptian, or other foreign Religions, among whom the Priesthood had been long subjected to, and perhaps first instituted by the Scepter. And herein the Supreme Judgments in Civils upon the Law, and Oracular Responses upon Consultations a∣bout Peace, War, and Temporal Actions, and Suc∣cesses, were essential to the Authority of the Ponti∣ficate. And yet we find this High-Priest not sub∣ject to any ordinary Power, till Kings were also gi∣ven this People after the manner of the Nations, among whom the Mitre was subject to the Crown. All which put together makes Abiathar's Depriva∣tion by a Temporal Power under that Constitution Legal. But from the beginning it was not so. Then there were Priests who till the Flood had the Go∣vernment of the World, without any Civil or Mi∣litary Power; and that Priesthood was in all its Intentions Spiritual. So that when our Saviour

came not only to restore, but even to refine up∣on the primitive Rules, he restored the Priesthood from Vassalage, and founded his Hierarchy, not in Princes, but Apostles, not inarmed, but in unarmed Powers. But if among the Nations of old the carnal Priesthoods were subject to Arbitrary and Imperial Powers, and God conceded the Jews Kings with such Power after that Gentile man∣ner, the Jewish High-Priests thereupon became Subject, not only to a Judicial, but Imperial Authority, and so legally deprivable at the plea∣sure of the secular Prince, so far at least, that these Censures might be effectually valid, tho' not always good, and just. And hence all the Changes of the High-Priests, violently and ar∣bitrarily made by heathen Princes in the Jewish Pontificate, seem to be legally and regularly valid, ex jure Imperii toties quoties, and so are nothing at all to the Case of an uncanonical Deprivation, or the Doctor's purpose. But our Priesthood has nothing Civil in it, nor is by God subjected to the Arbitrary Empire of Princes, that so we should think our selves obli∣ged to bow down our Faith and Freedom to such feeble Principles of Spiritual Bondage and Pusillanimity.

Eucher.

But a little to interrupt you, did you not deny * 1.5 Zadok's Title to be derived from the Kings donation, tho' the Scripture expressly affirms, that K. Solo∣mon did put Zadok the Priest in the room of Abia∣thar? I Kings 2.35. And do you now on a sud∣den put all the power of disposing that Priest∣hood in the arbitrary will of their Sovereigns, that so you may oppose the Drs. Principles?

Dyscher.

What I delivered then can well consist with my present Sentiments, which I offer not in an itch of contradicting the Doctor, but upon the reasonableness of the thing it self. For in Solo∣mon's time the Genealogies were extant, and the due course of Succession obvious; on which ac∣count I take it, Zadok had before in David's time been admitted under Abiathar into the communi∣cable Offices of the Pontificate, in order perhaps to the next plenary Succession after the death of Abiathar, which Succession now commenced on Abiathar's remove before the time preintended, by the actual introduction of him by King Solo∣mon into the possession of what he had an ante∣cedent Title to upon the next vacancy, either by the right of Primogeniture, which the antient Jews have owned, from the first Patriarchs, and the Law Lev. 16.32. or upon an ordination by the Ecclesiastic Powers of the Sanhedrin, as men of Talmudic learning have conjectured. Now it is certain, that their native Kings of God's own appointment were obliged to keep the Law, and every man's Rights established by it, and the doing otherwise was really sinful and offensive, tho' such unjust acts of Kings had among them the effectum juris, as appears in the sentence of David between Ziba and Mephibosheth. If therefore Solomon had rejected Zadok as well as Abiathar, such cause∣less procedure in my opinion had been unjust, but yet valid, as being not subject to any Tribunal, and presumable for just, and done upon reason∣able, although secret Causes. But when the Sovereignty fell into the hands of gentile Princes, not tyed to the Mosaic Constitutions, as their native Kings were, and the Genealogies were lost, and the Legal Successors unknown, or ab∣sent

the necessity of some high-Priest made the person upon each such vacancy Elective by the Su∣preme power, or (with the permission thereof) by the priests and people, as appears in the Maccab••ic History, and Josephus. Amongst which instances there is one above all most considerable, viz. that of Simon, who was made high-Priest by the Jews, and Priest for ever, until there should arise a faithful Prophet, 1 Maccab. 14.41. to discover the lineal Successor, as also to shew them, what to do 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the defiled Stones of the Sanctuary. 1 Maccab. 4.46. Whence it appears the sense of that people, from the constitution of that Priesthood in Simon and his heirs, for want of the true Proprietary Family. First, that there was an absolute nece∣sity of the high-priesthood; Secondly, that it le∣gally belonged to Aarons lineal heirs; Thirdly that in want of them, they, if they had freedom, were to elect another Family for that Succession. All which set together discovers Zadok to be the next regular Successor to Abiathar, since the Scriptures impeach not the King of any irregular and despo∣tic injuries against the Laws of the high Priest∣hood.

Eucher:

But what say you to that note of the Dr that it was of the greatest consequence to the Jews to have the annual Expiation performed by one apointed to it by God? Does not this argue the Deposition of such a one null? and yet upon necessity God permitted the Jews to own the Suc∣cessor coming in by mere intrusion.

Dyscher.

To this I answer, that if God himself allowed the Jews to admit such intruders, then it appears, that it was not of the greatest conse∣quence to the Jews to have the Expiation perfor∣med

by one, to whom it belonged by the con∣stitution of the Law. For if the Intruders Expia∣tions were effectually acceptable, they did the bu∣siness as well as the Liturgy of the legal Proprie∣tor. But further, Gods admission of the Intruder after Intrusion takes off his irregularity, ratifies his Title, and vacates that of the ejected, and so is of Gods particular occasional appointment for the time being, tho' not by the original de∣signation of the Law, and so this is nothing to the Drs. Hypothesis, or Cause. And this is in fact the real state of that Case in such Changes. The State Civil first intruded Successors into the room of the expelled, but this not creating any Plenitude, or Sanctity of Title, God made up this defect by giving the Intruders the Spirit of Pro∣phecy, which supervening made them also Gods high-priests to all Sacred, as well as Civil pur∣poses. Which act of Gods was not a mere ac∣knowledgment of their antecedent Authority, but an efficient thereof to all the intents of the Levitic Law, tho' the Dr. would fain perswade us to a contrary notion herein. Yet had it been a mere consequent acknowledgment of their Priest hood held only by Intrusion, as * 1.6 the Dr. intimates, it had been nothing to his purpose, because up∣on the Extinction of the Genealogies, and Igno∣rance of the lineal Heirs, and the more plenary Subjection therefore of that pontificate to the Gentile Sovereigns, who were despotic, and free from all the ordinary Rules, that obliged their native Kings, this had made these Changes of High-Priests in the potificate (being an office car∣nal, and temporal even in its Religious acts) for∣mally valid, and authoritative, for that these Gen∣tile powers came into the Sovereignty of their

native Kings, (or perhaps a greater) to whom God at their request had subjected the Hierarchy after the manner of the Nations. And a great deal of this I told you * 1.7 in our last Conference, which no doubt you consulted your Dr. upon. tho' he takes no notice of it. And I then drop'd another note perhaps worth a second Rumen with you, that those Intrusions, tho' thus admitted by God, were signs of a broken Church and State, hastening to its last Dissolution, and so no just Precedent for the Christian Church to follow, which is to continue to the End of all things, except we must yield to methods of Vio∣lation, that lead to our Extinction. And I leave it to the pious consideration of every Religious Conscience to judge whether those servile Sub∣missions to Imperial violences in the instances of the Baroccian Treatise, and the others produced by the Learned Dr. against his Opponents, did not properly lead to the ruin of the Church, into which the Greeks from these precedents are fal∣len under Mahometan powers? all which had been effectually obviated, had the Church stuck to the Laws and Canons of the Christian Hierar∣chy and Communion against the encroachments of wicked Emperors, against which it is the Duty of all Churches, obstare principiis, in contempt of persecutions. Hereby, and hereby alone shall we be able to stifle all Erastian and Antichristian Arts, with which their concomitant persecutions will all cease and sink of Course, when once men see we scorn them. For Shame, Conviction, and Reproach of Conscience, upon the sense of our magnanimous and meek Patience, will natural∣ly quench the Spirit of persecution, and open a glorious liberty and venerable Authority to the Church of God. But our base fears of worldly

greatness on one hand, and the baser affectation of it on the other, hath universally effaced all the glories of Religion and Piety throughout the world, and looks like a gloomy prognostic of Ec∣clesiastical Ruines and Confusion.

But that† 1.8 Clergy men themselves should court and invite an Hie∣rarchical servitude, and apply the bowstring to the throat of their holy Mother, by Principles contrived to strangle all her Aposto∣lical Powers and Authorities, is such a daring presumption, as needs a greater than the annual Expiation. And if the Dr. should live to see his Principles pursued, by either Civil, or Tyrannical Powers to the arbitrary Subversions of Gods Priests, or if otherwise he shall live to think fee∣lingly of that most holy Authority vested in Bi∣shops by God himself, whose Ambassadours, Vice∣gerents, and Representatives they are, the con∣tempt of whom affronts even Christ himself, he will not think every violent Intruder, that like a Robber comes not in by the door, to be a regular Messenger of the Lord of Hosts, and that the most audacious Sacriledge hath entitled him to a Di∣vine Character, and consecrated his Authority and Communion. He will then with sighs and unappeasable groans of Spirit anathematize the instances and design of his Baroccian Treatise, and the ill use of his own infinite reading, and diligence, to recommend the baseness and villanies of de∣generous Churches, concerning which at present I leave him and his Adversaries to fight it out at Argument. In the mean time I will only note, that tho' Civil power, or force may put intruding Bi∣shops into the Palaces and Revenues of the Bi∣shopric's by un-canonical Violences, yet they can∣not

be possessed of Spiritual Authorities by any mere secular, or incompetent Power, or Authori∣ty, and so we on our part deny the Drs. Intruders the present possessors of the real Episcopacy in the abused Dioceses.

Eucher.

If the Dr. should hear you talk at this rate, he would not take it very kindly, I believe. But I will make proof of your prowess against him in the famous instance of Solomon and Abiathar. For the Dr. having asserted Abiathar properly deposed by the mere Royal act, and power of Solomon, refutes five or six principal opinions to the contrary, and among them yours of Cession with such a contemptuous turn of hand, as exposes it for ridiculous. For he utterly baffles you with the bare repetition of the LXXII. version, on which you seem to lay the greatest stress and force of your opinion. And it is no small impeachment of your understanding to take that as an Argument for your Cause, which it notoriously condemns. Let me therefore clear up your eyes with some of the Doctors Arguments. You therefore say, that* 1.9 King Solomon did not properly and judicially de∣prive Abiathar of the High-Priesthood, but only commanded, or required him to quit it on pain of death. And to this purpose you quote the words of Solomon to Abiathar according to the Hebrew, and the LXXII, which latter you paraphrase so as to infer an option in Abiathar, whether he would with dishonour retire from his Office, or suffer death, this latter being in the rightful Power of the King, if Abiathar would not yield in the former. So that Abiathars Priesthood determined on his own volutary Cession, not the Kings Ecclesiastical

sure. Now how does the Dr. cut off this?* 1.10 In answer to this, saith he, I need but produce the words of the LXXII, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This, excepting the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (which are removed from the latter Clause to the antecedent) agrees exactly with the Hebrew, and the natural Sense of these words is no other than what we have in our English Translation, with which all Interpreters agree, Josephus, (as is plain* 1.11 from his words above produced) the Chaldee Paraphrast, the Syriac, and the Arabic, and the old Latin Translators, who, all understand the Texts of a Positive and Authorita∣tive ejectment. And that it was a positive command not an Opinion proposed to Abiathar, but an absolute Deprivation, is yet more plain from the words which immediately follow, so Solomon thrust out Abiathar, in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. So the Doctor.

Dyscher.

'Tis strange, that so Learned a man could fancy this to be an answer, especially since I see not how he can clear himself from inconsistency, or open error. For if it were a positive com∣mand to Abiathar, as he grants, how could it be an absolute Deprivation, which he asserts? I owned it to be a command as positive and requi∣ring as the Dr. but for that very reason denyed it to be a proper Act of Judicial Deprivation, be∣cause judicial Sentences are not direct commands on the Offenders to excuse their own punishments, but decrees of punishments to be executed by o∣ther hands, as in Joabs Case, which so apparently differs in Form from this of Abiathar. Besides a command of self-execution, as it may actually,

so may it lawfully be disobeyed, and rendred in∣effectual, and it is in any such mans choice, whe∣ther he will submit to it, or no; and the truth is, no man will yield thereto, but for fear of greater Danger. Now if there had been no other prospect of Danger, Abiathar would not have obeyed this so positive command of Solomon, and if he had not actually obeyed, the mere command, being frustrate by his neglect, had not been an absolute Deprivation; that then, which in it self was no absolute Deprivation without Abiathars consent, and obedience, which was not alone so, as the Dr. contends, and his office became void by Cession, not mere Deprivation. For it is a great mistake in the Dr. to imagine that positive commands destroy Option. For tho' the commands of God upon our Practices are all as absolute as possible, yet are they proposed to our option. Thus, saith God, in his * Deu∣teronomy, Ch. 30. v. 19. I set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live. The Law and Gospel, though in the preceptive part they are most properly Laws, yet have also, the nature, and form of a Covenant in them and the punishments inflicted by vertue of them are justified, not only from the nature of the crimes, but our own option. But let us see, whether this command were so positive as these Laws? whether it were so much the de∣claration of the Kings own will, as a conces∣sive indulgence to the will of Abiathar? It is plain then herein K. Solomon offered him an easier condition than his crime deserved, tho' the Dr. to serve his Hypothesis extenuates the guilt of his Rebellion. And if this be in fact so, then it seems rather a Concession with a

mixture of Counsel, than a mere austere com∣mand of Retirement; for so verbs of the im∣perative Mood very ordinarily signifie, and Solomons kind reflection on his Liturgies, and Sufferings in the days of David fairly appear to intend so much. If a Traytor were thus spoken to by his Prince; never see my face more; get the out of this place, for this shall satisfy me instead of thy forfeited life; or [else] thou art a dead man even to day, the Traytor would interpret the recession to be a condition of Life, rather than a precept of Civil Duty. And his submission would be rather his choice for himself, than any Service to his King. And certainly he might refuse such offer at his choice and peril, as Malefactors sometimes chose the Gallows rather than Transportation. This op∣tion proposed to Abiathar in this Form the whole Text in every version sufficiently exhi∣bits; but the Septuagint most expresly in the citra position of these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 within the first Clause; and comes more up to the Hebrew than our Translation; for the He∣brew and the Septuagint by [a man of death] intend the sense of a [dead man,] and this signifies rather a Menace, or Sentence of actu∣al death especially when joyned with these words [in this very day] than a mere merit of death, as we render it. But such a Menace with a Concession of voluntary exile to Ana∣thoth, must be conditional, if he went not thi∣ther, and so admits option. And moreover according to the Hebrew Structure of the words we must admit this interpretation from the Drs. own Authorities. For thus Abra∣vanel, alledged * 1.12 by the Dr. out of Areschmuth, gives his formal sense

upon this place. Solomon commanded Abiathar not to stir a foot from the place assigned him, i. e. Anathot. For otherwise, if he should dare to sally out hence, his Blood should be on his own head, as he had also intimated unto Simei the Son of Gera. And this is manifest from the words of Solomon; but to day I will not slay thee, as if he should say; but I will slay thee on that day, on which thou shalt dare to go from thence any whe∣ther. Now if hereupon the Blood was to be on his own head, if he stirred, was it not put to his option, in the sense of Abravanel, whe∣ther he would confine himself within Anathot, or die? And if there were such option in his Continuance, there was so in the first Recession. There are * 1.13 some of us make this act of Solomons a Banish∣ment, and not a proper De∣position; the natural conse∣quent of which Banishment was the debarring him the exercise of the Pon∣tifical Office, which Abiathar must be supposed to accept as a Favour, and not insist upon his Right. But then this Exile must be voluntary, and that makes the Cession. And I desire the Dr. if he can, to discover any other form, or importance in the words of Solomon. For tho' he says the following words, so Solomon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thrust out Abiathar, make it more plainly to appear a mere absolute Deprivation by the a∣lone act of Solomon, without any Cession in Abiathar, yet he cannot but feel a conviction within himself, that this note is far from Co∣gent For he well knows, that in all Langua∣ges verbs Actives have a great Latitude of sig∣nification as to the Forms and Manners of action, and denote as well a moral as a natural

influence. And here the manner of Solomons ejecting Abiathar is at full declared moral on∣ly by enjoyning him to retire from Jerusalem to Anathoth on pain of death, and it is in vain to strain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to any other con∣ception. And truly since so many Learned men, not concerned in our Case, have had va∣rious notions of this procedure, I wonder why the Dr. is so earnest, to force this instance to an absolute Deprivation. Why should he be fond of multiplying examples of Lay, or Inva∣lid Depositions? Are there not too many such injurious Attempts at the fewest, but we must needs rake, and hale in more than really are, to swell the number, and improve the mischief of ill Precedents, only to give colour to an odd and invidious Hypothesis? Is the Baroccian trifle tanti? Is there so much of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in it as to enflame the Church of England? I am a∣fraid there is, and nothing hinders the present accension, but dearth of paper, scarcity of money, and the danger of unlicensed Prin∣ting. But however I hope I shall stifle it in this instance, in which I only am engaged, let others try, and take their Fortunes in the rest.

Eucher.

But by your good leave, Sir, you shall not escape so; for your Arguments and the Drs. drawing me contrary ways, I would gladly see my way clear between you, and get me out of the maze, if possible.

Dyscher.

Then go you on as you think fit.

Eucher.

The Dr. then first of all tells us * that whatsoe∣ver is necessary for the present Peace and Tranquillity of the Church, ought to be made use of,† 1.14 provided it is not in it self Sinful, and the ill Consequences, which may possibly attend it, are either not so mischievous to the Church, or at least not so like∣ly to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid. —Ʋpon this Maxim the Antients always pre∣fer'd the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church to all other things, the Essentials of Religion excep∣ted. There was no Custom, or Law of the Church so Sacred, or inviolable, but what they readily sacrificed, (whensoever necessity required) to the Peace and Tranquillity of it. And in proof here∣of the Dr. brings you several full Instances, and Authorities, to which I refer you; and on which I demand your Opinion.

Dyscher.

I may allow every jot of this to be true; but who shall judge for the Churches Pract∣tice, concerning the necessity, and the Exi∣gences, the Evils, and the Dangers thus to be balanced?

Eucher.

For a Province the Metropolitan, and Bishops, and where the Clergy have a Canonical Right, they also are to be admitted. In a single Diocese the Bishop, and his Clergy, especially the Chapters; and if the Laity be con∣cerned, it is fit these Debates be managed in the presence of such standing and communicant Laic's, as shall there appear in their own con∣cernments.

Dyscher.

Can any resolves be valid against the

Colledge of Bishops in a Provincial Synod, or against the Bishop in a Diocesan Consulta∣tion?

Eucher.

No.

Dyscher.

Will not the College of Bishops, and the body of the Clergy think it Essential to Christian Religion to preserve the Hierarchy and Authority of the Priests Sacred, and inviolate against all routs and tyrannical confusions? Will not they think a temporal distress, incurred for adherence to the fundamental Laws of Catholic Communion, less hurtful than a general and cau∣seless deturbation of the pious and regular Priests of God Almighty? Can they think it sinless to permit an arbitrary divorce of themselves from their relation to God, and the Souls of their People, and to let in greedy wolves, who covet nothing but the promotions of the Church, and for that Cause will pretend an outside Ortho∣doxy in all other points? For put the Case in Fact, that once again an O. C. should oppress all by the Sword, and turn out at once all the Bishops and Clergy of this Realm, and bring in another Set into their Places, must the Christian Laity renounce their Canonical relation to the former, and embrace that of the imposed and irregular Ministers? Or let us look up unto God, and enquire within our selves, whether of these will God accept for his Servants? Must God submit to an irresistible Mob, or Hector too? Or must we admit those for Gods Messengers, whom God never sent, and will never own? And must this be yielded by us toties quoties, whensoever our too mighty Enemies will sport

themselves upon us with such a form of persecu∣tion? I am afraid, if this mysterious Secret had been known in the three first Centuries, the Hea∣then Powers, when baffled in their other me∣thods of hostility against the Church, would have took up this as the most successful, because most Orthodox, and Christian way of persecu∣tion. Now suppose such a design had been pro∣jected against the Apostles, to deprive them of the places, and exercise of their Apostleship, and to fill their Room with other Orthodox pre∣tenders, would the Apostles in Council have allowed people to reject them, and receive the intruding Apostles? Or could any intrude, by the help of the Secular Powers, without Sin, and Schism, and Sacriledge? Or would the Apostles have censured these Invaders, and have still maintained their own Functions?

Eucher.

As to the Office, which was pecu∣liar Apostolic, necessity was laid upon them, and wo had been unto them, had they not preached the Gospel, in obedience to God, ra∣ther than man. But in that Office, as such, there could be no successor, and so they were to be continued as foundation stones, whereas the Episcopal Office is not peculiarly personal but successive.

Dyscher.

I will not here except against the va∣lidity of this Distinction in these Offices, but will put the Case, as you set it, Suppose the Heathen Powers had passed Se••••ence on the Apostles, that being permitted the functions distinctly Apostolical, they should not execute their Episcopal Authorities any where, nor be

received by the Churches as their Bishops, but that others provided by the Heathen Enemies should be vested in their Episcopacy, would the Apostles have quitted their Episcopacy, to which Christ gave them Commission? When St. Paul bids the Elders of the Asian Church, to take heed to the Flock, of which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops, Act 20.28. must that Au∣thority, received from the Holy Spirit, have conceded to an enstallment of Nero, or Domi∣tian? Or would the Holy Ghost have truckled under the persecuting Powers, and have hal∣lowed the Intruders, and deserted those of his former constitution by Apostolic designation? And would the Apostles, and their first successors, with their flocks, have judged persecution of their bodies greater than this of their Spirituals, that so they should concur in this, to avoid the other, and be content to submit to the Conduct and Communion of Neronian Bishops, that had de∣throned the Apostles of our Blessed Saviour, and by the heathen sword assumed a Spiritual Ju∣risdiction over them? When Ignatius says, that the Bishop, and his Presbytery are to be re∣ceived as Christ, and his Apostles, with several other earnest and Seraphic Elogies, would he have allowed them to be forsaken at the pleasure of an Heathen Mob, or Tyrant, in exchange for others set up by Idolatrous craft, and force? Clemens Romanus would not allow this in a domestic Mob in the Church of Corinth, and would he concede it to a Mob of aliens and Pagans?

Eucher.

I cannot tell how to answer this; but perhaps the Dr. may, when it shall be of∣fered him.

Dyscher.

In the mean time then I take the Bishops to be the Supreme Ecclesiastic Judges, as well in the dispensation with, as the exe∣cution of all secondary Canons, whensoever exigences unforeseen, or more important than those Canons, require their present Relaxation. But such dispensing Power lies not upon the fun∣damental Rules of their Order and Union, to dissolve their own being, and Authority at the pleasure of the Churches Enemies, for no other motives but those of secular terrour, for mere fear whereof no Bishop can dispense with his union towards his Colleagues, nor Clergy, or People be dispensed with as to the Laws of their subordination in the Ecclesiastic unity.

Eucher.

Why then you must bring this ad∣mission of new Bishops, &c. violently obtruded, upon the violent expulsion of the former, into the Catalogue of Sins, which the Dr. excepts out of his Principle. But he withal denies such admission to be sinful, because they are not against the Law of God, nor do they make us ac∣complices to the injustice, nor violate the Obli∣gations to our Canonical Obedience, nor is the Ordination of the obtruded a mere nullity.

Dyscher.

As to the two last Suggestions I shall say nothing to them, if the two former are not provable against the Doctor. For my Canoni∣cal Obedience belongs to my proper Bishop, whoever he be, and the Ordi∣nation of Anti-Bishops is † 1.15 not censured for a mere Nullity by all our Worthies, tho' it is by our Vindicator. Let us then begin with the first

Consideration, whether, it be not a Sin by the Law of God? I pray how does the Doctor make out the Negative?

Eucher.

He says, That the Scripture in our Case is altogether silent. 'Tis true, it bids us be obe∣dient to our Governours, and that Command reaches as well to the Spiritual, as to the Temporal. But when there are two that stand Competitors, and both claim our Obedience; to which of these two our Obedience ought to be paid, it leaves to our Wisdom to determine.

Dyscher.

You ought here to observe, that our Question runs about the Duty, or Lawfulness of admitting Intruders, upon an open and con∣tested Expulsion of Right, not where the Title, or Right is dubitable. Now when an Intruder contests for the holding an Ecclesiastical Fun∣ction against the Rightful Proprietor, that is invalidly and uncanonically thrust out, doth the Law of God leave it to our Wisdom, and not to our Justice to determine, or does it leave it to our Wisdom, to determine according to regular and confessed Justice, or according to irregular and confessed Wrong? For the Law of God requires us to render suum cui{que} every Man his due, and there is no Wisdom against Right. But the Phrase of leaving things to our Wis∣dom imports a Liberty undetermined by God, which we may use as we judge expedient, and what God hath so left by the Silence of his Word, is under no Divine Law, and conse∣quently by this Law we are at liberty to take, or choose whether of the two Competitours we in our Wisdom think most convenient to

the good of the Church, and hereupon as many violent Competitors, as any Illegal Rout shall ob∣trude against Right, may draw after them so ma∣ny several Parties, according as they in their Ele∣ctive Wisdom shall determin. And is this the way of Ecclesiastick Peace, Unity, and Happiness a∣gainst the danger of exteriour Persecutions? For if force shall put in Competitions, I doubt the Competitions must be ended by force; where di∣vided Wisdom cannot fix a determinate Unity. But the Eighth and Tenth Commandments expesly for∣bid men to take, or covet anothers Right, and leave us no liberty to determin otherwise. So that no man ought to intrude into anothers Bi∣shoprick. For a Deprivation, that is apparent∣ly invalid, cuts off no Right, or Title before Rightly, and Authoritatively vested. And he sins whosoever puts himself into possession of such Right, which is canonically permanent in the former Possessor. Had the Emperors pretended a Deprivation of the Apostles Episcopacy, had it been lawful for any other Bishop to have rejected them, or seized their Archiepiscopacy and have subjected the Apostles to their Ecclesi∣astical Government? Or will the fear of force necessitate a Man to admit an injurious consecra∣tion to another Divine Authority? But what shall be done, if no Bishops will confer the Sacred Order on him? What must they be also obliged by a Rout to give the Holy Ghost to qualify the Intruder? If not, then this is what they may refuse to sacrifice to the present secular Tran∣quillity of the Church. And if the Bishops may refuse to ordain, a man may refuse to be ordained to an Intrusion, because it is an Intrusion: And if so, the whole Church may refuse the Intrusion. But if the Bishops are obliged hereto for fear of force, then even the injured Bishops may be bound to consecrate others into their own in∣juriously

deprived Authorities; and so the Apo∣stles had likewise been obliged against their own Divine Commission. But if this be allowed, the result will really be, that the Apostles, and all Bishops Authority either actually ceases, or ought to be quitted by their own Cession, or Con∣cession, at the command of mere Force; out then the producer is not invalid, unjust or uncanoni∣cal in the Ejection, and consequently agrees not with the Drs. Hypothesis. But God, that is a God of order, not of confusion, would not per∣mit the deturbation of Aaron, nor the Substitu∣tion of any Intruder by the Mob, or Princes: Numb. Ch. 16. Ch. 17. Nor would the Anci∣ents have confirmed Novatian, had he driven a∣way Cornelius from the See of Rome, upon a pre∣sumption that they were left at discretion, or obliged to sacrifice the Laws of the Sacred Union. For they had other Senses, and Wisdom, when they so severely provided against such forcible Entries by the 30th. Canon Apostolick; If any Bishop, (say's that Holy Canon) making use of worldly Princes, does by them get himself possessed of a Church, let him be Deprived, and Excommunica∣ted; and all that Communicate with him. Now if necessity vacates the obligations of all Canons, not excepting those of Episcopal Constitutions; how came these Wise Men of the East to make a Canon against irresistible necessity, if the terrour of Temporal Persecution be such? And why does Athanasius, and other Fathers object this Impie∣ty to the Arian Intruders? For if there were no fault in the Intrusion, but only the Arianism, then those Fathers ought only to have upbraided them with the Arianism, not the Intrusion. But if the Fathers justly condemn the Intrusion, then they were not to admit what they righteously censured. And if the Fathers were not to admit Intrusions, neither were the people to admit them,

for by so doing they would become accomplices to the Evil, and for that cause are Excommuni∣cate by the said Apostolick Canon. And what I pray has the Doctor to evince the contrary?

Eucher.

If, saith he, a Landlord, be unjustly, and invalidly dispossessed of his Estate by an incompetent Authority; who thinks the Tenant an Accomplice to the injustice, because he pays his Rent to the present Possessor? Should the Clergy refuse to submit to the Bishops in possession, it could only serve to draw down Ruin upon themselves; it cannot restore those whom the State has Deposed. It is not our Submis∣sion to the present Possessors, that ejects the former, for they are already irretrievably deposed, and more to this purpose Chap. 1. Pag. 5.

Dyscher.

Here the Dr. hath out-pitch'd you two bars length between Lord and Tenant; for* 1.16 you assign Rents, and Homage to the actual Landlord, who is visibly Legal, tho' not honestly Rightful; since all Lords, and Tenants must be admitted for such, that are in by Law. But the Dr. requires no Forms, or Formalities of Law to warrant the payment of Rents, or Oath of Fealty. For he say's,* 1.17 If a Lord be dispos∣sessed of his Mannor by an in∣competent Authority, that cannot be resisted, (a Con∣queror suppose, or an unlawful Court) who thinks the forsworn for submitting to the new Tenants Possessor? Who makes a difference there between a Competent, and Incompetent Authority? Why does the Oath, which he took to the Rightful Lord, cease to oblige him? 'Tis because, when he took the Oath, he took it only on this Supposition, that the Lord was possessed of the Mannor. The Peace, and Tranquillity of the Publick, and the good of Tenants in general give that Restri∣ction to the Oath. Now here I must set you upon the Dr. who would never allow forcible Entry,

or Possession to be legal, or valid, and thereupon assert the Resistance of O. C. to be just, where∣as the Drs. Principles justifie the Engagement to his Government against King and House of Lord's. But now for the present I will assume your Noti∣ons, and reply upon the Dr. First of all, that up∣on all Conquests a Publick Settlement gives a le∣gal form of Title; and secondly in a Government full settled there cannot be an Unlawful Court, nor can any Man be ejected by an Incompetent Court, if he will legally except against the In∣competency. Otherwise, if an Alien get in by a mere Formal Rout of Robbers, the Tenant owes him no Duty, and pays it on Peril of Repay∣ment, or Penalty to the Legal Proprietor; And Men are always wary upon the Competitions of several pretending Landlords to be secured in their Payments from the other Claimers, from which they know the mere present Possession is not a Legal Security always. But beside, this is not a Parallel Case; nor is there the same parity of Reason in a Real Estate, and the Personal Autho∣rity. Here is a Man, that really was, and still Asserts himself Christ's Ambassador, Residentia∣ry Vicar, and Vice-gerent; Comes a Tyrant, or a Rout, and violently expells this Ambassador; This is a Crime against the Laws of Nations, and the Rights of Royal Majesty, and is a direct affront to our Lord Christ. But this is not all; This Ty∣rant, or Rout corrupts a few of other our Lord's Ministers, and they in their Lord's name give Credential Commissions to an impostor set up by these Enemies of our Lord, to supply the defect of the ejected Ambassador; this augments sure∣ly, not lessens the insolence, and no Prince what∣soever can connive thereat without severe and vindicative Resentments. Now whether shall the Church own for Christ's Messenger, him that he sent, but others barbarously, expelled, or him,

that he sent not, but others impudently obtruded? Doth not our Saviour say to them, whom he sent, as his Father sent him, He that despiseth you, despiseth me, and he that despiseth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 d••spiseth him that sent me? And can we admit this contempt upon his Messen∣gers without being Accomplices therein? And what if this is necessary for the Clergy at present to save their promotions? Must we value these before the Divine Laws of the Hierarchy and Communion? Are we thus taught to contemn the World indeed, as to quit all the Authorities of our Lord's Dig∣nation rather than loose a little Worldly Interest? When our Lord saith, He that loveth the World, or the things that are in the World more than him, the love of the Father is not in him, nor can he be Christ's Disciple? But however, if the Clergy be not de∣generous, they can preserve their Bishops in the exercise of their Spiritual Au••••o••••ties, tho' not in the Enjoyment of their Estates and Temporalities. For from what is Spiritual no Secular force can alone Depose them, without C••us••, and the con∣currence of the Church. Shall outward force force us into Intestine Schism, or Disorder, or can no Division from our Fathers be Schismatical ad∣mitted for fear of Temporal force? But one thing more will I ask the Dr. whether we must admit such Deposition, as violent Power pre∣tends to, before a new violent filling of the Sees with others? If not, then are we not to Sacri∣fice all the Secular Peace, and then the See being not vacant by such pretended Deposition, either the Deposition formally consists in the new In∣trusion, and so the Intrusion must on the Drs. Hy∣pothesis be invalid, and so cannot oblige us to ad∣mit it; or if the Intrusion be not the Deposition, then the former Bishop, &c. is not Deposed, and the latter, either is not possessed, or two Anti-Bishops can be, and are joyntly possessed of the same Episcopal See, and Authority. But if we

may, or must abide by the pretended Secular De∣position before a new Intruder; then what if the Secular Tyranny will not concede us any Bishop? Must we Sacrifice here too? No, here the Dr. is tender, and will not Sacrifice, he will have some Bishop, or other by Mr. Mobs favour, whe∣ther his Irrestibleship will, or no. Now then let us reduce this Prudential Principle into Practice, and if you can bear a little teizing, I will discuss its Virtue.

Eucher.

Proceed.

Dyscher.

Suppose then upon an Irretrievable Deposition of Bishops by mere force, the Tyran∣nick Powers neglect to new furnish the Churches, what course must they take for a Supply?

Eucher.

Petition those Powers thereunto.

Dyscher.

What if these Powers, Conscious of this your Drs. Principle, always give fair Promises, but never intend to repair the Breach; how long must the Church wait?

Eucher.

Till such time as they see no hope of relief, and as long as the Church can forbear, without damage to the Substance of Religion.

Dyscher.

Well then, suppose the Church can forbear no longer, or the Tyranny absolutely de∣nies to fill the Sees, who shall then provide for the Church?

Eucher.

The other Undeprived Bishops, and Clergy.

Dyscher.

But while, or before they go about this the Irresistible Irretrievably deprives them also, how shall the Cut go then?

Eucher,

Then the Church-wardens must try what they can do for their People.

Dyscher.

But let them be Irretreivably Deposed too, and how then?

Eucher.

Then the multitude of Christian Chur∣ches.

Dyscher.

Tho' here I could demand, how an

unorganized Multitude can Act Uniformly, yet I will not pinch you that way, but what Priests must or can they provide, the Old that are De∣prived, or New?

Eucher.

The old. Case of Sees, &c. pag. 41.

Dyscher.

What upon their Old Title, or your New Investiture?

Eucher.

Here I am in a strait; but let it be on their Old Title, what then?

Dyscher.

Then they may not abide by the pre∣tended Forcible Deposition, till a new Intrusion; nor is that Deposition Irretrievable, as the Dr. sometimes supposes it, for an Irretrievable Depo∣sition is an effectual one, whose effect cannot be vacated, or reversed, while yet at another time the Dr. allows the Deposition to be Invalid, but an Invalid Deposition is null, 'tis no Deposition, whereas an Irretrievable Deposition is a most effectual and real one as I have said.

Eucher.

Well then, what if, to avoid these difficulties we allow the reinvestiture of the former Priests by a new Title?

Dyscher.

But they will not accept it, as kno∣wing that their old Title is permanent, and un∣impaired by the null pretended Deposition, and consequently, that a pretended new Investiture is null, because needless, and anticipated; besides, we know, that the acts of mere Laity cannot Canonically erect an Hierarchy.

Eucher.

Let them then procure a new Sett.

Dyscher.

But where will they find Persons qua∣lified, or willing to enter into such a deposable Office, or to ordain them against Mr. Irresisti∣bles will, who will presently Irretrievably Depose them? To this issue of Absurdity and Contradi∣ction the Drs. Principle must of necessity bring him. And he were better resolve, that the Church may admit an open and utter Dissolution of the Hie∣rarchy, than dwindle it away after this poor

precarious manner of Sophistry. Have you any thing more to alledge from the Doctor?

Eucher.

Yes, yes; If the Bishop of a Frontier Town will not own the Authority of a Conqueror, and is therefore Deposed by that Conquerour, I desire to know of you, whether the Clergy of that Town are Perjur'd if they own that Bishop, whom the Conque∣ror thinks fit to set over them? Case of Sees p. 6.

Dyscher.

I smell your design well enough to bring me into a snare; but I can answer the Dr. upon your Principles. For if the Conqueror be not settled in Form of Law, all he does is of no Validity, and the Clergy are to have no regard to his violences upon the Bishop, nor his Illegal intrusion of another. But if he upon Conquest hath attained to a Formal Settlement, there is a just Cause, on the Merits of which, the Recusant Bishop at the Command of the Conqueror, may be ejected by the Church, and give way to a Successor of the Conquerors Nomination. But this the Church is obliged to, not for mere wrath, but also for Conscience sake towards the reason of the Cause, and the Law of God, that requires Subjection to humane Constitutions. But the Drs. Hypothesis puts the whole Proceeding against the deprived as injust, and formally invalid to all intents whatsoever, and makes the act of Depo∣sition simply Secular, without any Concurrence of the Church.

Eucher.

If a Bishop should be by the Civil Power Cond••mned to perpetual and close Imprisonment, or be banished for ever from his Country, so that it is impossible for him to perform the Duties of a Bishop, or should he be carried away Captive, we know not where, or from whence we cannot redeem him;—Nay, suppose the Banished, the Imprisoned, the Cap∣tive Bishop should expresly require them, upon their Duty o•• C••••onical Oath, never to accept of any o∣ther Bishop, as long as he by the common Course of

Nature may be supposed to be living, or till they be assured he is dead, — what must be done in such Cases, &c? Case of Sees, pag. 6, 7.

Dyscher.

The Church must abide by the Govern∣ment of their Clergy in such Cases; and in all Cases, where the peculiar Office of the Bishops is wanting apply to other Bishops for their Succour, and Aid.

Eucher.

But what if the Diocese be so set, or restrained, that the Church cannot have recourse to other Bishops, (as suppose in the Isle of Man) or any other impediments preclude a Capacity of such Negotiations with other Bishops, who can bear such an hard saying, that the Church must not admit a new Bishop of her own, when she may, meerly because the ejected Bishop, with whom we can have no correspondence, is ill na∣tur'd, and grudges that benefit to the Church?

Dyscher.

I am hard pressed here; I pray how will you steer in this dangerous difficulty, be∣tween the quick Sands that lie on both sides, on the Drs. loose Principles for your Cause, and the strict Rules of ours?

Eucher.

Why truly I must so far concur with the Dr. as to grant, that the Church has a Liberty to admit a new Bishop in such Cases, if he be o∣therwise Canonically qualified.

Dyscher.

Does Banishment, Imprisonment, or Captivity, cutting off all capacity of commerce, vacate the See, and exauctorate the injured Bishop?

Eucher.

It does render the See actually em∣pty for the time; but yet I will allow you, that the Bishop is not exauctorated, but that upon re∣moval of the impediments, his Authority would immediately exert it self, and run on in its old Channel, and ought to be received on the Ori∣ginal Title, as being still Bishop of his Diocese, except his supposed prohibition of another sub∣stitute

Bishop forfeits his Right, Title, and Au∣thority.

Dyscher.

This is odd Doctrine; If the Bishop does not forbid the Church to substitute another, which not to do may be presumed for a Cession, then he still continues Bishop; if he forbids a Substitution, then he quits it by forfeiture; I pray how can you make out these Paradoxes?

Eucher.

Thus; if a Bishop shall enjoyn Orders to the Dissolution of Discipline, he ipso facto be∣comes irregular, and forfeits. And such would be the effect of this supposed Prohibition of a Sub∣stitute. But if he admits a Substitute upon the necessity of Discipline not otherwise to be suppor∣ted, he still continues Bishop, and is to be re∣ceived for such in full Authority immediately upon his enlargment, and recovery.

Dyscher.

This does not extricate, but involve, and double the Paradox. For thus there may be two Bishops of the same See at once, and a Successor to a present Proprietary; which Succes∣sor is to be again thrust out as uncanonical, and no Bishop of such Diocese on the return of the former.

Eucher.

Two Bishops there then will be at the same time of one and the same See, though not in it. But the second will not be a proper Successor, but a Sagan, or Vicar to the absent, and so to give place to the returning Proprietary, till the See shall become wholly vacant of the Proprietary Bishop by death, or otherwise, except there be some other exceptive provision in such extraordi∣nary Cases. For according to this Rule of Pru∣dence the Church of Jerusalem proceeded in the case of Nar∣cissus* 1.18 alledged by the Dr. which is much like this sup∣posed Case before us. Oppressed with calum∣nious Perjuries Narcissus retires from his See to

deserts, and unknown Fields for many years, not plainly renouncing his Station however. Upon this the Prelates of the bordering Churches fill his Place with other Successors, in all three, be∣fore his return, never undoubtedly designing to exclude Narcissus, if he should return, whose Glory and Innocency Heaven it self had signally vindicated. But so it happen'd, that after the death of the third intermediate Bishop Gordius, Narcissus returns, and the Church requires him to resume the Throne Episcopal, not on a new, but his old Title. But because through the great infirmities of his old Age he could not bear the fatigue of his Office, it was agreed, that one Alex∣ander should be his Sagan, or Partner in that Pre∣lacy, the original Authority of Narcissus being thus derived to Alexander, and by him to be ad∣ministred in ease to Narcissus.

Dyscher.

But this does no Service in our case; for our former Proprietaries are ejected, and o∣thers set in to exclude them, though present, and claiming their proper Relation to their Dioceses. Nor does this account of yours reach the design of those instances given by the Dr. in which the Intruders asserted a Title against the unjustly and invalidly expelled Proprietors.

Eucher.

I am not yet come to those Instances; I only tell you what may be done in the Case of a Banished, Deprived, or Captive Bishop hereby rendred uncapable of his Functions, which I here proposed from the Dr. though I confess to you as a Friend, that this Plea, and Case of the Drs. as well as all his Lay-instances throughout his Book, are far more Impertinent to our present Case, than (as he says) your Vindicators dis∣courses were to the Baroccian Hypothesis.

Dyscher.

This is pretty Inadvertency, if you can make it out.

Eucher.

Why, look ye; Deprivation, or De∣position,

in our Sense, and Case, is the Divorce, or Dissolution of the spiritual Relation between Priest and People, but Banishment, Imprisonment, and Captivity makes no such divorce; And this the Dr. Fundamentally grants in supposing his Lay-ejections to be invalid Deprivations, or De∣positions; and though he generally calls these Lay-ejections, and Banishments by the name of Depositions, yet upon a cogent pinch he grants, that Banishment from a Bishoprick, though in∣flicted on purpose to part the Bishop from his people, is no Deposition; for so he† 1.19 expresly asserts of S. Hilary, that he was never De∣posed, but only Banished, and al∣lows him to be still actual Bishop of Poictiers, since there was no other Orthodox Bishop there. Now our enquiry, as the Dr. sets it, is of an unjust and invalid Deposition by a Lay-power, or Ir∣resistible Force, and the Admission of a Succes∣sor consequent thereupon. Now if Banishment (and by parity of Reason Imprisonment, and Captivity) is not a Deposition, how are these pertinently alledged for such in our Question? Then again, if upon Banishment the Deposition consists in the intrusion of another, and this be unjust, and invalid, how is the intruded a right Successor to whom the Churches obedience is due? Or if he be not right, (i. e. Canonical) how is this obedience due? Must we pay obedience where it is not due? Or is there any due, where there is no form of Right? Or is there any form of Right created by an Act not only unjust, but even invalid, and consequently null? Then again, every one of the Drs. instances of Lay-depriva∣tions are nothing but meer Banishments, and Imprisonments, and so no Depositions from their Spiritual Powers or Relations, as he confesses in St. Hilaries case; though elsewhere he common∣ly

calls them Depositions without thinking of it. But if the Depositions consist in the consequent intrusions, these being invalid, as well as unjust, oblige to nothing, but Repentance and Restitu∣tion. And so his infinite expence of Reading and Criticism is all at once unfortunately thrown a∣way. But there is one thing farther considerable in the last Question of the Dr. and that is the impossibility of performing the Episcopal Functions, consequent to these Lay-Banishments and Impri∣sonments. For if this incapacity gives those vi∣olences the forms of Depositions, then it appears not, that all the Lay-instances produced by the Dr. were Depositions; and perhaps none of them, since the Episcopal conduct might be carried on by Communicatory Letters to the Dioceses, and other Social Bishops to act for them, according to the constant practice of Exiled and Imprisoned Bishops from the days of the Apostles. But if the persecution be so straight as to preclude all capacity of such Pastoral care, a new Bishop may be set to supply the defect, but not to exclude the Right of the ejected, to govern for him, not a∣gainst him, and to resign upon the return of the Proprietor. On this account it must be resolved how the ejected Bishops reteining their Claim or Right, mentioned by the Dr. or his Baroccian Treatise, owned those Orthodox Persons that fil∣led their places in their Ab∣sence. Thus* 1.20 Briccius might call Armentius Brother, and Bishop of Tours, while he was returning to lay Armentius aside, upon a Presum∣ption that Armentius never set up against him nor would oppose his Restitution, if yet there be any credit due to the Story. On some such confidence* 1.21 Elias might Communicate with John, and his Communicants at Jeru∣salem,

not only because John was Orthodox, but because he kept not the See from Elias as a Rival, or Anti-Bishop, but only continued that Care for the Church during Elias's Incapacity. For their Mutual Friendship is a demonstration, that John did not still oppose Elias; and Elias ratified John's Present Government by his Communion; which was, if not a Cession, as your Vindicator conceived, yet a Valid Concession for the time being. For tho' John was one of Elias's Expellers, yet after John had opposed, and baffled the Em∣peror, and therein seconded Elias's Cause: This, with the Mediation of those Martial Monks Theodosius and Sabas, might cool all Elias's for∣mer Resentments, and procure his Peace, and Ratification of John's Government. That Elias was not obliged by Canon to acquiesce is mani∣fest, not only from many Canons to the contra∣ry, but the practice of many others produced by the Dr. who endeavoured to recover against the Orthodox Intruder received by the Church on the Drs. Fundamental Law of Necessity. If then Elias acquiesced not by Law, but Choice, this made a Ratifying Concession to John's Govern∣ment, and hereupon Theodosius and Sabas might well Communicate with both, since they both held Communion one with the other, either by the Cession, or Concession of Elias. But here a shrew'd hard Question Intervenes; If the Church always owned the Orthodox Possessor of anothers Chair without Schism, how could the Orthodox ejected Bishop rival and contest the Intruded Possessor without Schism or injury done in challen∣ging; his Right, while yet his Right would be ta∣ken for quitted; if he should not challenge it? Now during the Challenge he must renounce the Possessor, and all Communion with him as such, whom yet the whole Church according to the Dr. lawfully receives for the Diocesan: Now if the

Ejected will be in the Communion of the whole Church, they must own their Anti-Bishops, and so it will be their Duty to loose their Right to Intruders, or if they may refuse the Anti-Bishops without Fault, how can others lawfully own them, and their Possession of other Men's Sees ne∣ver validly vacated? Methinks Apparent and Confessed Right should obtain in Judgment a∣gainst possession manifestly without Right; nor is it a Rule of Conscience, or Religious Peace, but Carnal Fear, and base Interest, that inclines to the contrary. Hereupon I conclude, that the best Title, John had to the Churches Communion, was from the Concession of Elias. And your Vindicator had great reason to suppose something done on Elias's part, to the confirming of John's Prelacy; from the Communion, that is asserted to have been between them. For being appa∣rently no Anti-Bishops, the Natural and Legal Presumption must be, that Elias allowed him, and that was a Canonical ground for the Churches regular Communion with him, tho' before there seems none, except Elias had been removed be∣yond all Capacity of Communion, which it's plain he was not. So then it is not the Substitution of a New Bishop in the Chair of another, utter∣ly latent, or removed from all possible Communi∣cation, that makes a Schism, but when one is set up to Exclude the other, (Violently and Inva∣lidly Ejected) from the Administration of his Of∣fice, either at present, or hereafter, while in a Capacity, and Readiness to perform his Fun∣ctions. Thus Pope Martin, whom the Dr. hath also instanced, pronounces it Unlawful for the Church of Rome to admit another Bishop during his Life, and Spalatensis alledges that Authority and Rule for Canonical and Good. Yet when he was Condemned at Constantinople, and the Church of Rome had taken him for dead, and

so chose Eugenius, no wonder that Pope Martin, receiving News of this before his death, prayed for Eugenius thus chosen, because he knew the Romans had not set him up as an Anti-Bishop, and could not doubt, had his return been possi∣ble, but that his Church, and Eugenius too, would have joyfully re-inthroned him. But in cases of Competition, as in the Ignatian and Pho∣tian War, if the Church or the Competitors can be on both sides excused from Schism, upon e∣very turn and invalid Act of Lay-Power, against which a good and valid Title is still asserted, while the people turn to both sides with the Secular Wind, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; And I believe no body can make it out. And I think we must make the Proceedings of the Church at the best to follow the pretended measures of Right and Rule, or condemn them for wrong in every Instance produced by the Dr.

Dyscher.

What course then will you take to excuse the Churches, in admitting and maintai∣ning Anti-Bishops against the Invalidly ejected Proprietors still claiming?

Eucher.

Upon what particular Motives they did Act, it is impossible for me to determine; but I think I can set such Rules, according to which they might act validly, not otherwise. First then I admit, that all the Imperial Ejecti∣ons were not proper Depositions, but either Antecedents, or Consequents of them. Now if the standing Councils of the Churches find the Bishop wickedly ejected by the Secular Arm, or without any declared Cause, they ought not to admit any other Bishop, without the consent of, and during a capacity of Communication with the Ejected, or his Deputies. But upon defect of such Capacity they may admit an Orthodox Bishop, as a Sagan, not as an Anti-Bishop to the absent, to resign and concede at his return. Much of

this Photius engaged to the Ignatians under his hand, (if the Drs. Metrophanes be true in this particular,† 1.22)* that he would carry himself toward Ignatius as towards an unbla∣mable Patriarch, and neither spake any thing a∣gainst himself, nor approve of any that should do so. But being hereupon received, tis said, he took away the Paper he had so Subscribed, and then deposed Ignatius. He was therefore sensible, that such a Subscription would have engaged him to Resign, whenever Ignatius should return. It being a Contract not to stand as Anti-Patriarch against Ignatius. But in Case the Expulsion be for Notorious Villany incompatible with Episco∣pal Sanctity, then, even without a Synodical Sentence, the Councils of the Church may esta∣blish another Successor, as in the Case of† 1.23 Callinicus Pa∣triarch of Constantinople, bani∣shed to Rome for open and effectual High-Treason; in whose stead Cyrus was admitted. And here your Vindicator acknowledges, there was no need of a Synod to deprive him upon the notoriety and heinousness of the Guilt, and the Dr. rightly ob∣serves against him, that there was no need of a pre∣sumed Cession in Callinicus, but then the Church, if she acted Piously, look'd on more than bare possession in Cyrus, namely to the ill Merits, as well as Fortunes of Callinicus, as the just ground of quitting him for Cyrus. Indubitable charges of the Secular Powers removing the impeached Prelate beyond the reach of Ecclesiastical Com∣munication, the standing Council of the Church may admit another for the present, reserving the Cause of the Ejected to Ecclesiastical Cog∣nisance, whensoever there shall be opportunity; and Equity binds the Ejected to admit these Ec∣clesiastical

procedures, because just and necessary. And with this Design the Councils of the Church might admit new Bishops, when the former had fallen under Imperial, or Civil Condemnations to remote Exiles, for Crimes charged on them by the solemn Credit or Averment of the Secular Powers, to whose Proceedings and Declarations in the mean time we owe a just Defference and Veneration. And if in all those the Drs. Instan∣ces, wherein heinous crimes are pretended as the true causes of the Exiles, the Churches had admitted the new Ones with such a Reservation of trying the Causes perfectly upon a fair oppor∣tunity, I think their new Admissions had been not only valid, but just too, and a charitative Pre∣sumption of such intention in the Churches Ad∣missions of the New Bishops, will I believe ex∣cuse those Admissions at our Tribunal from Schism and Invalidity. But when all comes to all, none of this Hypothesis, these Questions, or in∣stances are applicable to our Case; for our eje∣cted Fathers are not removed from the free presence of, and Communication with their Dio∣cesses; so that they need not any other Substi∣tute for want of their Presence and Authority, from whom, if there were no other Cause or Rea∣son, we could not recede without their Concession. And this is conclusible from† 1.24 the Drs. own words, and in∣stances. For, saith he, should our Magistrates, like the Persecu∣tors those Ages, viz. the three first centuries endeavour to destroy Christianity, by depriving us of our Bishops, and by suffering none to be substituted in their Rooms, then those Bishops, would be our own Bishops, and as such we should still adhere to them; As the Church of An∣tioch stuck to Eustathius eje∣cted by an Heretical Synod, and banished by the Emperour,† 1.25 till

the Catholick Bishop Meletius was settled in his See, upon which Eustathius quitted his Episcopal Care and Government, and not before. Now from hence 'tis plain, that Civil Separations are not real Deprivations, or Depositions, and that the Admission of an Heretical Intruder thereupon does not create a Deprivation of a Catholick Bi∣shop from his Church. So that all the Question remaining herein is, whether the Introduction of an Orthodox Bishop be an effectual Depri∣vation? For if so, the Orthodox Church, in∣troducing the New Orthodox Bishop, must in∣tend to deprive the former Good, Persecuted, Confessor Bishop, but who can think, that an Orthodox Church will, or can do this according to the Rules of Orthodoxy? But, then again this is no Lay-Deprivation, and yet on the Drs. Hypothesis must be Unjust, Invalid and Un∣canonical, and yet, I pray, must it be done by an Orthodox Church according to the Rules of Or∣thodoxy? Even so it must be according to the Drs. but not the Catholick Principles. But if the Church by the introduction of a New does not intend to deprive the Old, then the Old Bishops Title and Relation to his Church is still retained, and permanent, and the New is no Anti-Bishop to the Old, but must resign upon the return of the former, except it be otherwise Canonically contracted. And in the Drs. own instance, who can think, that the Catholick Church in Antioch by admitting Meletius did depose Eustathius, to whom they ever had so firmly adhered du∣ring all the Arian Persecution? It must there∣fore be resolved, that Eustathius directed, or ad∣mitted the Introduction of Meletius, in that here∣upon he omitted, and quitted his Episcopal Care; or that the Church admitted him not against Eu∣stathius but in his stead, until his Return, and Restitution, upon which Eustathius wholly Re∣signed,

or discontinued, and gave place. And so the same may be well judged† 1.26 in the Succession of Macedonius to Euphemius in the Constan∣tinopolitan Patriarchate, even as the Case is Sta∣ted by the Dr. especially since Macedonius, be∣sides other good Offices, would not wear his Omophorion in the presence of Euphemius, shew∣ing thereby, that he neither was, nor would be an Anti-bishop to him, tho' Euphemius in begging his Protection, in his way to Exile seems to have conceded without Remonstrance, that Macedo∣nius should supply the Church for him during his Exile, but not against him; upon which joynt accord they continued saithful Friends e∣ven unto Death. And hence well might those, who refused to subscribe Euphemius's Condemna∣tion, fairly Communicate with Macedonius, as being no Anti-bishop to Euphemius, but in per∣fect Charity and Communion with him. All which procedures are grounded on that Maxim owned by St. Chrysostom, that the Church can∣not be (viz. well) without a Bishop. So that it is the actual want of a Bishop for the time be∣ing that Justifies new Admissions, not to exclude, but to supply the defect of the Proprietor till his Recovery from Banishment, or Bondage. And to apply the Drs. Concession to our present State, If their Majesties had not filled the Sees with New Bishops, the Old ones had been our Bishops still; and then how were the Sees be∣fore vacant by the Statute of Lay-Deprivation? And how long should we have waited their Ma∣jesties leisure, had they continued longer the Diocese in Suspence, before the Dr. would have remonstrated for the Old Bishops? Or how shall the Church know, when their King's design to destroy the Church by not yielding it Bishops, while the crafty Persecution is carried on un∣der

false promises, and fair pretences of care for the Churches Interest? These are pretty hard Morsels to digest, and I leave it to the more judicious to resolve them.

Dyscher.

But to what Rules can you reduce the usage of the Greek Church in admitting new Patriarch's erected by the Grand Seignior upon his Arbitrary Dethroning a former, who yet is present to his People, and capable of his Pasto∣ral Care? For the Dr. puts us this strict Question;† 1.27 whe∣ther an ejected; Patriarch of Constantinople would do well, if after he was deposed, he should separate from the Communion of his Successor, and make a Division in the Church? To this he adds another Questions; It is certain, saith he, that when the Patriarch of Constantinople is deposed by the Sultan, the Church submits immediately to the Successor without asking the Old Patriarch leave. — Is now the Greek Church herein Schismatical? If the ejected Patriarch should actually lay claim to his See, would the Church be Schismatical for adhering to the present Possessor?

Eucher.

In this point I find the Dr. and some of you very well agreed, to excuse, and in a man∣ner to justifie this Submission in the Greek Church. This the Dr. observes in one of his Op∣ponents, and so have you and I in your learned Author of Christian Communion. But herein my opinion is, that the whole Greek Church was culpable in the first Admission of such Changes, and stil is so in continuing such submission, whic has nothing in it to Excuse it but fear of per∣secution. It is true, it would be odd for one single Patriarch to refuse such Ejection against the tem∣per and humour of the whole Church, especially if himself were advanced so upon the Imperial Expulsion of his Predecessor; for if a whole Church will perversely urge her Bishop to yield

to violence, and lay down his Mitre, I think in many Cases he may do well to yield to an unjust and inflexible importunity, as Gregory Nazianzen did; but the Churches are to blame, that do not animate and maintain their Bishops against such Tyrannies in their Spiritual Authorities, which ought not to lacquey it to Simoniacal and bar∣barous insolences. For since the Greek Churches are, as to their Temporal Condition, in the same State with the Primitive, they ought to do as the Primitive Church would have bravely done, and to follow the rules of Succession, that were observed in those purest Ages. It is true, the whole Greek Church, having by a long and consuetudi∣nary consent and prescription made this Usage to themselves, as it were Canonical, would not seem Schismatical in neglecting the claim of an Ejected Patriarch, because he himself in his first advance∣ment came in by the pleasure of the Sultan, and assumed the Patriarchate under the same servile Terms and Conditions. And therefore that first Consent, tho' faulty, and vicious, incapacitates him to reform, and reverse the ill custom singly by himself, without the concurrence of his Episcopal Colleagues, or the general Councils of that Church; at least he cannot condemn them as Schismatical in this Customary Servility. And here I must put this Quaere, whether this Submission of the Greek Church to such Changes be simply Sinful? If so, then the Dr. ought not to prescribe from them, as exemplary, or excusable. If not sinful, then Custom, and Ecclesiastical Consent hath made those deprivations and successions Valid, and Ca∣nonical, and then they are alien to the Drs. Hy∣pothesis, and are impertinently alledged. But as if Case of the Greek Church now actually stands, the ejected Patriarch making no challenges, 'tis no domestick Schism within themselves, tho it be a wretched Dehonestation of that Churches

Sanctity. And so, if, as the Dr. confesses, these Patriarchs, do not merit by their Learning, or Wisdom to be guides, and patterns to the Bishops of England, he should not urge us with their corrupt and pro∣fane examples, to sacrifice our Hierarchies to the arbitrary lusts of Secular Powers. For if it be not a formal Schism in the Greek, 'tis a ra∣dicated vice and corruption there, and which for that reason we are to oppose, and prevent here against all imprudent perils, that it may not become an irremediable and common Evil.

Dyscher.

You are a strange thing of a man; you will neither side with us, nor our Adversa∣ries, but pick out between us matters of dislike, as if you would be of neither interest, but a certain mixt kind of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but this is the ready way to lose your self with both Parties.

Eucher.

I have long since learned from the Apostle, that if in such Cases of Conscience I should seek to please men, I should not be the servant of Christ. And truly you on your part, and those of the Baroccian Principles seem to me to be equally in such extremes, as are destructive to the true happiness and integrity of the Church. By which means you have the advantage of re∣proaching each other for your manifest absurdi∣ties, which the defence of your principles hur∣ries you into, and thus are in a fair way for an eternal wrangle, but never like to settle in a grave and impartial temper, ease, or satisfaction. And therefore I, that have been so long a seeker between you, and but little the Wiser amidst your contentions, and so must make the best use and pra∣ctice of my own Sentiments, till I can experience between you others more improving or convincing.

Dyscher.

I have been very calm all this while we have been upon the Speculation of the Baroccian hypothesis; But now you remind me of your own Principles, and Senses, I fear I shall fall into

the Spirit of T. B. again, and not use you very partially in some of my Reflexions.

Eucher.

I am sensible by experience of your infirmity; And since good natur'd Men are some∣times passionate, I know how to bear as well as to correct a little rudeness. I pray, good Brother, let me know, what 'tis now that be∣gins to provoke your choler?

Dyscher.

When you had spent a great many Argu∣ments drawn out with much Pomp and Ostentation, being basted in them you grow weary with strugling, and fairly give up all, and acknow∣ledg that† 1.28 an Act of State Christian cannot alone vacate a Spiritual Charge,* 1.29 and that the consent, publick and actual Concurrence of the Church is necessary to give an Ecclesiasti∣cal Effect to Civil Ordinances in Matters of the Church. Now this Concession overthrows your whole Cause, and being placed after the main Body of your Arguments, is it self an Ar∣gument, that you had little faith in them.—So then our Bishops, being never Ca∣nonically Deprived, are the yet proper Bishops of their Sees.— But you come like a Spiritual Jugler, and per∣swade us, that this hath been Canonically done; For the Church, say you, ought to em∣pty the Sees of such Incum∣bents, that are dangerous to the Civil State. But, Sir, must the Church cast out her Bi∣shops, as oft as they will not

comply with Ʋsurpers, &c. But you say, this was done by Acts of Separation properly Ecclesiastical, the Dean and Chapter of the Metropolitical Church taking the Jurisdiction, till the Chapter elect, and Bishops consecrate another,— But, Sir, you cannot but know, that the Dean and Chapter have no Jurisdiction over their Metropolitane, and the See must be vacant, before they can proceed to Election. T. B. Sect. Pag. 37.38.

Eucher.

I have heard with much patience, yea pleasure, all your Noble strains of Rhetoric, and need only say, "If I have spoken evil, bare witness to the evil, but if well, why smitest thou me? For if the Deprived assert the Churches Concur∣rence necessary to give Acts of State an Ecclesia∣stical Effect, and I grant it, what Cause have you to fly in my face for even that very Concession? But for you to upbraid me with my Candour, who are so heedless in attending to my words, as to take, or set them off in other Senses, than ra∣tionally can be fixed on them in their clear ac∣count of this Concurrence, is neither very cour∣teous, nor prudential. Let us therefore again look over these oversights, and see whether we can come again to our selves. First then I never said, that the Concurrence of the Church was necessary, either to make an Act of Parliament, or to make it valid in Ecclesiasticals, and parti∣cularly in Acts of Deprivation; But I admitted your Principle so far, and no further, that her Concurrence is necessary to give Statutes an Ec∣clesiastical Effect, and Issue. For an Act of Parliament may justly require of the Church some certain Ecclesiastical proceedings, without any joynt Session, or Consultation of the Church. And such Acts shall be just and valid of themselves to oblige the Conscience of the Church to obe∣dience, or executive Concurrence. As suppose, an Act of Parliament, repealing all the Statutes of Premunire, which cramp the liberties of the Church in the Episcopal Successions, and Syno∣dical Consultations for a perfect reformation to a Primitive purity, should consequently require our Bishops, or Convocations to proceed upon such relaxation to provide, and execute better rules of Discipline on the morals, and duties of the Chri∣stian Church under their care, and to renew the Commercium formatarum with foreign Churches

for a general Restitution of Piety and Order to its Primitive State, such a Law I think would valioly oblige the Church to Concurrence, without which however actually given it could not have its Ecclesiastical Effect. When King Joash com∣manded the Priests to employ the sacred Money to the reparation of the Lords House, it was a valid command to oblige; but while the Priests neglected it, it had no Sacred effect. 2 King 12. So when Moses spake unto Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar to eat the meat offering and heave shoulder according to set Rules, the precept was very valid, yet because of their actual Omission it wanted an Ecclesiastical Effect, Lev. 10. So when a Statute of Deprivation requires the Church to eject Recusants from their Stations, if the cause be necessary, or just, the Statute is valid to oblige the Conscience of the Church to an executive and concurrent obedience, yet if the Church will by no means yield to such com∣mand of the State, whether just or unjust, valid or invalid in its obligatory intentions, it cannot actually pass into an Ecclesiastical Effect, and Issue, and all, that the Civil Powers can do on the refusal, is to subject the Church to temporal Punishments. Nay, in the same Genus of Civil Government the Decrees and Judgments of the Kings Courts, notwithstanding their perfect justice and validity, cannot have their Civil Effect, if the subordinate officers neglect, or re∣fuse to execute them. Tis true, there is a diffe∣rence between the Civil obligations of Under-Of∣ficers to their Superiors in Secular Authorities, and those of the Church to the Civil Powers in matters Ecclesiastical. For that Civil Officers are obliged only to observe the Legal forms of process in the Orders of their Superiors, and are not tied to enquire into the inner justice of those Orders. But the Church, when under any Laws,

or Commands of the State, may and ought to judge for her self, and her conscience toward God, Whether the matters, enjoyned her by the Laws, be consistent with the Laws and Principles of Christianity, and the Churches fundamental Con∣stitution, against which she is never to admit them to an Ecclesiastical Effect, but must bear the penal Consequences with all meeknes and resig∣nation. And this is not only the Right and Duty of all Churches, as sacred Corporations, toward all humane laws in matters moral, or Religious, but of every single Christian also. And if this be not admitted, up goes Hobbism, and the Civil Powers may enact Deprivations, Excommuni∣cations, and Anathema's for mens refusing the Alcoran, Paganism, Socinianisme, and even Atheism it self, and for owning the Scriptures, Creeds, and Sacraments. But you, that think us such a soft and waxen generation, would have found this Right asserted even unto Martyrdom against all such deprivations, had they been ena∣cted upon causes apparently injurious, or im∣posed on the Church. For in the late Reign not only you, but others also opposed the growth and menaces of Popery with a burning zeal, when we had no present prospect of any thing, but Fagots, Dragons, and most Christian Bridles. And that all these Armies of Worthies, should all of a sudden grow base, abject, and irreligious, cannot easily (I am sure not fairly) be presu∣med. But in cases, which the Church judges equal, she may concur and submitt, and when she may so do, it can be neither religious, or prudential to provoke, or incur a persecution by a needles and obstinate refusal, which is our Sense upon the Causes and Law of the present Deprivations. But is it not a pretty exception against this Concurrence, because it is yielded by Submission, not Authority? For did I ever

assert of an Authority in the Church to refuse her Duty, against which certainly there lies no Authority? And I told you,† 1.30 that the Church here concurs by Submission, as judging it her duty herein to yield to the State. But in such Cases if you will needs require the Churches Au∣thority, I will remind you what I told you† 1.31 last time, that the Church has an Authorita∣tive Right to judge in such Cases, whether she may, or must concur, or no. And hence a Right essentially belongs to it to examin all the Causes of the Secular Demands; so that if she finds there be no grave Reasons to move the Church to the required Severities, she ought to disobey, as my Lord Bishop of London well did, when required to suspend Dr. Sharp indictâ Causâ, &c. And for this I alledged out of Nazianzen one of the Noblest Instances in all Antiquity, wherein the Bishops of Cappado∣cia refused to depose, or reject the canonically settled Bishop of Cesarea, notwithstanding all Julians terrors and commands, of which I wonder Dr. Hody took no notice. But I add also, that if the Church finds those Causes sufficient, she may, if necessary she must admit the Laws en∣forcing them, and not wantonly pretend Au∣thority against duty, nor use her liberty for a cloak of maliciousness. And I can never imagine, that this Right of the Church was ever suspected, much less opposed by any Powers or Legislators truly Christian.

But if Civil Powers will make irreligious Laws in maters Spiritual, will you immediatly oblige the Christian Councils to invade the Senate House, or Courts of Civil Judicature with Protestations against their Procedures, before the Laws come home upon us, and press us to actual Concurrence? Surely the Primitive Christians did not so against

the Edicts of Heathen Powers. For tho' Chri∣stianity will warrant meek and petitionary Apo∣logies, yet will it not justifie sawcy Remonstran∣ces and Prohibitions upon Legislators, who must pass undisturbed and unaffronted in their mea∣sures, and we must with all meekness of behaviour wait the eventual prosecution of the Laws, if we cannot divert it by fair atonement; and when it comes, refusing calmly the required Sins, commit our selves, and Cause to him that judgeth righteously. So that all your Harangues about running into Parliament House with Proclama∣tions, or Protestations for our against their Au∣thority, are injudicious, immodest, and sedi∣tious proposals, tho' we had known the demands of the State to have been unlawful, which we yet acknowledge to be otherwise. And that we should cease to be a Church, because we are not officiously rude to the Legislators, who may sometimes happen to be causelesly unkind, or hard hearted to us! We are neither to precipitate our zeal, manners, confession, or sufferings, but let the will of God be done upon us, when his own time comes; Since even the vilest Laws of men have this obligation and validity upon the Consciences of Subjects, to restrain all indecen∣cies, and disturbances against them, and the Legislative. For if the Senate has not Authority to oblige us to evil, it has to modesty, and ab∣stinence from their Presence, and Consulta∣tions.

But the Parliament thought their Authority alone sufficient to deprive the Bishops, and did not ask, nor think they wanted the concurrence of the Clergy to make their Act valid, very well; they did not think so. And if you confine this sufficiency to a va∣lid Obligation on the Church to submit, and concur, this opinion of the Parliament is very true, tho' I believe they ground it, not upon any

mere pretended Arbitrary Despotick Power, but upon the Weight and Sanctity of the Causes, on which they founded the Law. But if you think it the opinion of the Parliament, that their Acts can actually pass into an Ecclesiastical Effect without Ecclesiastical Concurrence, you fix an opinion on them rather to be charged with Non-sense than Falshood. For if all the Bi∣shops, Priests, and Christian Laity with them will adhere to those whom the Statute dooms to Deprivation, how can the Statute pass into an Ecclesiastical Effect? And so the Church ought always to do if they shall apparently persecute her Bishops for Righteousness sake, to hinder their temporal Laws from attaining an Eccle∣siastical Effect against the innocent, whatsoever afflictions they may suffer for the opposition. And if ever Popery, Arianism, Socinianism, or Erastianism should (which God forbid) press it self upon us by Act of Parliament, I doubt not but our Church also will herein become Recu∣sant against such Laws, and seal their Integrity with their Blood. So that in our Case the only Question herein is, whether this Law upon the Church to admit the Deprivation be unjust, or no? If it be in the Churches Judgment, she ought to refuse it; if not unjust, 'tis admissible. Now this we believe, and you the contrary, and God must judge between us; but in the mean time the church must act according to her pre∣sent Convictions.

Dyscher.

But the form of the Statute is, that the Recusants shall be ipso facto Deprived, which must import the actual Deprivation to be comple∣ted purely by the mere virtue of this Act ante∣cedently to the Concurrence of the Church.

Eucher.

I would willingly allow you, that this is the Sense of the Parliament, if you can clear it from Non-sense, of which I am not willing

that great Assembly should be impeached. And I will also grant you, that the mere Virtue of the Statute alone can deprive them of their Temporalities without the Churches Concurrence. But perhaps all Decrees of Humane Power, in things dubious, and future, have this tacit, yet necessary Supposition, quantum in nobis est, as much as in them lies; for farther certainly no Power can go. And further as to the Spiritual∣ties, 'tis possible the Parliament might intend no more than this, that the Recusants should be e∣jected, or quitted by the Church upon and un∣doubted presumption of her submissive Concur∣rence, or the Recusants own Cession, when the Temporalities were gone, and their Non-resi∣stance to such necessary, and valid Laws. But the Senses of Statutes I leave to the Parliament, and the Judges, while yet you and I know our Ecclesiastical Principles and Obligations in mat∣ters truly Spiritual and Christian, and must act accordingly, whatsoever Lay-men or Lawyers think hereupon. And agreeably the Dean and Chapter of the Metropolitical Church, looking upon the Sees of the Recusant Bishops de jure vacant, discharged the Recusants of their Au∣thority, by taking the Jurisdiction to themselves, which in such Cases they judged lawful by the Laws of God, as well as Man, as also Canoni∣cal according to our Constitutions; tho' herein they assume no ordinary, or proper form of Ju∣risdiction over Bishops not fallen de jure from their Sees; and you may very well remember, that I noted against this ex∣pected Objection in our last Conference,† 1.32 that this was, and might be done upon judg∣ment of Conscience for themselves, and the Church, but not of ordinary Jurisdiction over the Bishop. And therefore you ought not to have charged this

upon us, as if we herein own such a Jurisdiction, which we disclaim, but have proved, that the Church may not upon just and necessary Cau∣ses desert her Bishop, over whom otherwi∣se she confessedly has no proper, formal or ordi∣nary Jurisdiction. It is most evidently plain, that, if the Causes be just, our Canonical and Legal Constitutions not only allow, but require such a Divorce from the fallen Bishop, and assign the Jurisdiction to the Church Metropo∣litical. Now if this our Constitution be irregu∣lar and invalid, why did the Deprived ever, own it, till now the operation of it came upon them? And therefore, whether this imports such a formal Jurisdiction, or no, (which yet I deny) it cannot be reproached for Uncanonical without condemning our first Reformation, and those Models to which your selves have hitherto sworn Canonical observance.

Dyscher.

What I have said saves me the pains of reflecting further on what you say, in calling the Concur∣rence of some of the Clergy the Act and Concurrence of the whole Church of England. But how the whole Church of England can be represented, not only with∣out the Metropolitan, and many of his Suffragan Bishops, by anumber, no matter how many, of the infe∣rior Clergy, in direct opposition and rebellion against their Lawful Superiors, how this can be justified to be a true and Canonical Repre-sentation of the Church of England, I leave to you to explain, and to distinguish from the gainsaying of Korah. Ms. Reflex.

Eucher.

Except I much forget my self, I ne∣ver asserted any number of inferiour Clergy-men to be Representatives to the whole Church of En∣gland, nor yet that the Bishops were deprived by the Representative Body of the whole Church; but this I say, that the actual Ecclesiastical eje∣ction is performed successively by several Repre∣sentative parts of the whole Church, as first by

the Metropolitical Church, and then the Diocesan Chapters representing their respective Province, and Dioceses. Now upon an Act for Deprivation, the See upon just causes becoming de jure va∣cant, the Course of our Ecclesiastical Politie is such; The Metropolitical Church first takes and deputes the jurisdiction, the Diocesan Chapters omit their acknowledgments of their former Bi∣shops, and at length upon precept proceed to a new Election, Bishops upon this (except in mere Translations) consecrate the Elected, thence the whole Episcopal Colledge own the new, as do the Cathedral Clergy in their offices, and devo∣tions, and all the Clergy in person, and the Laity by their representative Churchwardens in admitting the Visitations of the new Prelates, and executing their precepts Ecclesiastical, and all Lay-men personally own them, that recieve their Confirmations, Benedictions, or any other Sacred Ordinances from them, or with them as Bishops. All which, being uniformly and peaceably promoted by these gradations, if of much more Weight and Efficacie than a mere Synodical Censure, before it has attained to such an actual consequent Reception in the whole Church. And therefore, when this Pro∣cess is complete, we may truly say, the Bishops are Ecclesiastically outed, not by the Church representative, but by the Church original. And hence such a plenary consent of the Church diffusive against a few Bishops and Clergy, on the account of their Recusancy, must in legal and equitable construction be presumed to pro∣ceed from a common uniform Sense of their notorious incapacity and ineptitude, of guiding Consciences, and exercising Episcopal Functions and Authorities under the present State. And upon notorious incapacities the Church may alienate her self from the incapacitated, and

recurr to other Bishops for new Consecrations or Investitures, especially when justly required thereto by the offended Powers. And if any incapacity of exercising the Pontifical Authori∣ty had been upon Aaron, especially from dis∣owning the Principality of Moses, (which is, or comes very near your Case) and Korah had opposed him purely on that account, that con∣tradiction had never been recorded to his infa∣my, but his praise for ever. But as to your idle Question about complying with Usurpers, (which, like Altar against Altar, is the Incipe Maenalios of your whole Ditty) as it has re∣ceived full answers already, so here 'tis nothing to our present purpose, since our discourse now is founded on a Supposition of a due and full Settlement of Legal Powers in the State, which ought not to be charged with formal Usurpa∣tion.

Dyscher.

We will then let alone at present the Dis∣quisition of our capacity, and proceed further in our Enquiry concerning your Churches Concurrence. For least the Dean and the Cha∣pter should not be strong enough,* 1.33 you call in the Convocation for help. And first you tell us, what your worthy Conformists did, and what was their opi∣nion. But this is just the Pro∣verb, Ask my fellow, if I am a Thief? But, say you, their sending a Convocation shews their Subjection, and condemns Recusancy as an Er∣ror.—But the silence of the Convocation, you think, will work Miracles; for that argues their opinion to be, that they were in this to yield

to the State. And thus we are utterly undone with the Ar∣gument of Lovers and Fools, Silence gives consent. There must be many other concurrent circumstances, before the least consent can be presumed from Silence. For otherwise it is often a sign of indignation, scorn, sullennes, yea, even of obstinate denial it self. And what they meant by their Si∣lence you may better guess, when you have resolved this Quaere, whether you can rea∣sonably think that they would have chosen him for their Archbishop, whom they refu∣sed for their Prolocutor? But what if they were not so silent as here you make them? 'Tis pity your memory is not better; for thro' forgetfulness you give in evidence against your self; for you tell us of a motion in the lower house of Convocation for the Restitution of the Bi∣shops, and (then) suspended Clergy.— Now would a∣ny men take petitioning for men for appearing against them? But what if there had been none of this? Were ever Bishops deposed by Slence? T. B. Sec. Lett. pag. 39.

Eucher.

By what Arguments soever you are undone, that is to your selves; but I am sure I can find in you but few Arguments of Love, or Wisdom in this clamorous Rant, which seems designed in spite to the poor Proverb, lest your Silence should seem to consent. But since it is now my turn to break Silence, I will speak to this point but this once, and, if you will not, I will for ever hereafter hold my peace. First, then I must it seems talk of Silence, of which I am taxed, as if I had ascribed to it, not only Consent, but Authority too, and actual Depri∣vation, which are two points beyond the lines of the Proverb. Consider we then at first the proverbial Importance here in the Carriage of the Convocation. We were* 1.34 enquiring into the Sense of the Churches in common, which you excepting against challenged a Sense of our Convocations; and I tell you, That their Silence under the Statute of Deprivation argues their opinion to be, that they were in this to yield

to the State. But I, well observing, that bare Silence is Non-action, and mere nothing, and in it self simply of no determinate signification, set such other positive Acts, in† 1.35 conjunction with which this Non-action, or Silence might legally and morally be interpreted to a consent of yielding herein to the State. To this purpose I premised the gene∣ral Conformity of most Bishops, and Clergy, and Laity, that our sending a Convocation at their Ma∣jesties Precept shows, that we own Subjection to them; and condemns the Recusancy as an [in∣capacitating] Error (for so I meant by softer forms of expression, that I might not gaul you) and so I conjoyn the Silence of the Convocati∣on with those other positive indications, that it might joyntly ground a legal Argument, that in their Judgment they ought to yield to the State. So that you had united Circumstances enough to have fore-strangled your Cavils, if your prejudice had not blinded you. On the Session of the second Convocation the Recusants were in a State of actual Suspension, and the Day of Deprivation drew on. Now this the Convocation in their Judgment were to yield to, or oppose, for 'tis impossible but they must judge one, or the other to be their Duty. Now if they had been of opinion for the opposition, this must have been done by Synodical Remon∣strance; if their Judgments was for the Submis∣sion, then they were to break no Silence to the contrary. Now then is not their actual Silence hereupon a legal token that they thought it their Duty to yield in Silence? Except we will perversly judge them silent against the Dictates of their Conscience, which if you will, it will lye upon you to prove it out. Whensoever things are brought into such a Strait, that ei∣ther

Silence, or Contradiction must become a Duty, there Silence is as moral a Token of Con∣sent, as Contradiction is of Dissent. And in all cases where either Assent, or Dissent is inevita∣bly requisite, and the Rule is, that all Dissents must be express and protested, as the forms are in the Lord's House, and process of Actions in the Civil Law, there Silence in Law is taken for Consent. But here is yet more; the King had graciously conceded a liberty to the Convoca∣tion to propose their Grievances in order to his Royal Redress; So that tho' they had no Civil or Legal Liberty to remonstrate against the Sta∣tute, yet they had an opportunity to have pre∣sented an humble Supplication for a relaxing Expedient, or a Temperament, on just Security for the inoffensiveness of the suspended. Yet neither did they think themselves obliged in Du∣ty so much as to break Silence in this manner herein; And must not the State then conclude, that the Church by this Silence thought it fit to yield? However I hope you do not think in good sadness, that their Silence did signifie in∣dignation, scorn, sullenness, or denial to the State. For 'tis true in cases of request and contract Si∣lence is no grant of a Proposal, but Silence un∣der a Law, together with a consequent Obedi∣ence to the Precept thereof, is an indubitable Token of Consent, which was the Churches case here, while silent in her Convocation, and obe∣dient in her Metropolitical and Diocesan Bodies. So much then for Consent; next for the Autho∣rity, which you say is not asserted, but betrayed by this Silence. But neither here can I agree with you: For as I never said, that Silence asserts Au∣thority, so neither does it betray it. For your in∣stance from the Peers does not import a Right be∣trayed, but only a Vote consented to by Silence, and this confirms my Observation, and refutes

you; For as the Silence of a Peer surrenders not his Peerage, so neither does such Silence in the Church forfeit; or vacate her Authority; No, tho' the Church had had Right to have en∣tred the Parliament House with Votes, and Pro∣testations. But suppose it for once, that the Churches Silence had betrayed her Right, see upon whom the Treachery must be most unfor∣tunately charged. Did the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and his other Recusant Colleagues, that had a legal Right of Session in the Lord's House, enter, and enter a Protestation against the Validity of that Act, as wanting their, and the Churches Suffrage, or Synodical Concurrence? No, not a jot of this. And yet they, by their Station as well as Cause, ought to have been the first in the Protestation; which if they would not make for themselevs, and the Churches Rights, then according to you they are Prodi∣tors; and so 'tis unreasonable in them, or you, to require the Protestation of others, less con∣cerned, or obliged by their Order, Cause, and Principles. But the truth is, we had no just Cause, or legal Authority of making such Re∣monstrant Protestations, and so our Silence is not perfidious, but dutiful. Now this being so clearly stated, all your childish trifling upon French Subjects, and Turkey Mutes is very idle, and impertinent, since Silence does not indeed import Authority against, but Submission under Laws. Yet even in these French, and Turkish oppressions the Silence argues an opinion, that they, either in Duty, or Prudence, are to be si∣lent, and quietly submissive. And this certainly was the Sense of our Saviour in his Silence, when he was led as a Lamb to the Slaughter. But to deal plainly, these Instances pertain not to our present Case; for here ours was Silence, and obedient Submission to the Commands of the

State, the comporting with which in Silence is a Consent to, and Comprobation of its Justice, and is more than a meer silent Patience under un∣just Oppressions. So inartificial and improper is the Objection from these poor Mutes, and Vassals. Thirdly, you assure me, that Silence is no Deprivation. No verily; nor did I ever hear that it was. But, to intercept your hast, whose Silence was I speaking of? And to whom did I ascribe the Ecclesiastical Acts of Deprivation? Why truly, I spake of the Silence in Convocati∣on, as importing their Opinion, that they ought not to oppose the Laws of the State. But I never said, that the Convocation did deprive the Deprived. No surely; they sate not at the time, or on the Day of Deprivation. But I told you before, that the Ecclesiastical and Spi∣ritual Acts of Deprivation consisted in the Me∣tropolitical and Diocesan Alienations, effected not by mere Silence, but Canonical Acts, and forms of procedure. And now let us see, whe∣ther my Memory hath failed me any more than my Cause. I here assert the Silence of the Con∣vocation, but afterward told you,* 1.36 that a Motion for a Petition was stifled in the Lower House of Convocati∣on,† 1.37 tho' you clip my words on purpose to abuse me. For a Motion may be stifled be∣fore it is offered, by one, that knows, that it is inten∣ded to be made. But how∣ever an actual Motion of one Member may con∣sist with the Silence of the whole Body. For if the Majority Vote Silence against the Motion for a Petition, the Convocation is silent, and silen∣ceth all its Members, as to the Petition it self, tho' some brake Silence in the silenced Motion,

but keep it after, thro' voluntary desistence, or Canonical Order. Now here in fact a Motion was offered by one excellent Person, but, upon the report then tendred to him of my Lord Archbishop Sancroft's request to the contrary, he desisted in Silence, tho' you however in this Conference have thus barbarously bespatter'd him, when there was just reason for your Si∣lence. But however herein you own T. B. has a very contracted Memory too, when† 1.38 he endeavours to dis∣credit the Story of this Moti∣on so stifled on the said Report. But you have one Argument, that will confound me into Eternal Silence or Amazement, namely, that they that refused Dr. Tillotson for their Pro∣locutor, would not have consented to have had him their Archbishop. Well; be it so; what then? Perhaps, if the Election of Bishops had been freely left to our Convocations, they would have admitted few, or none of those, whom our Kings have advanced, but yet the Chapters ele∣cting have consented to the Legality of those Nominations, which they have not always judged so expedient, and the Episcopal Colledge have consented to their Communion, with the rest of the Clergy, as well in, as out of Convocation, as no doubt they will with the new Archbishop at their next meeting, without breaking any Silence against him by way of Dissent. And now at last I am come to your Questions about the De∣position of Episcopacy. And first you say, the Bishops and Clergy of Scotland are silent under the Abolition of Episcopacy it self, and twit me that hereby belike they concur to that Act of Abolition. No; Brother, this does not follow from me, but according to you their Silence is a betraying their Right. But here again, you cannot distinguish the Case of quitting a Perso∣nal

Right to an Authority, which is our Case, from the Abolition of the Authority it self Uni∣versally, which is the Case of Scotland. For they that can legally do the former, may not legally do the latter. For the King can depose the Judges, but not the Courts, and dismiss other Officers, whose Offices he cannot abrogate. And the Church can depose Priests, and Bishops, but not the Priesthood, or Episcopacy. And whe∣ther any Civil State has more intrinsick Power in the Spirituals of the Church, than the Church her self ever had in most perfect Freedom, judge you. But here I must Advocate for the Bishops and Clergy of Scotland against your Calumnies; For tho' they made no formal Protestation at Parliament, yet they assert their Episcopacy by an avowed Communion of their own, and a re∣nunciation of the Presbyterian Model. But as to the Civil Power of abrogating Episcopacy here, I answer, 'tis as great as 'tis any where; but I find not our Parliaments to pretend to the same Opinions here as they do in Scotland, and I hope you will not require me to justifie Scot∣tish Pretensions. I think the Constitutions of our Orders are founded on Divine Rules, and have descended to us by Traditions truly Catholic and Primitive, which here we are not so rude to pro∣fane, or violate by any wanton Claims of Arbi∣trary Power; and in my Opinion the Scots will never acquit themselves well to God, his Church, and the King, till they copy after us, where E∣piscopacy is as well secured as the Scriptures, and Sacraments, and all the most essential Parts of Christianity. But if any of these ever happen to be persecuted here, I hope we shall remember Him, who on all such Occasions requires us to take up the Cross, and follow him. And now we are upon this melancholy Speculation of the Church of Scotland, I fear the Presages you have

made from their fall, have been most influential with you to your present Recusancy to those Powers, from whom you expect our Dissolution. This, I confess, is a very deplorable jealousie, for which if there had been sufficient ground, (as there was not) yet this will not justifie Recusancy to the Civil Powers. But the mischief of it is more than Personal, and Temporary, For here∣by the Deprived Fathers, who by their glorious merits in the last Reign, might have been useful Mediators for the Scotch Church, and Promoters of our own, are now become uncapable of this second Glory, and useless to the Churches happi∣ness by this unfortunate Recusancy. But herein I charge no man's Conscience, but only bewail the infelicity. And shall pray, that the Goodness of God will so graciously dispose our Tempers, and Affairs, as in his own good time to set all things at Right, and shew us at length the Light of his countenance.

Dyscher.

But let me put these things closely to your Conscience, do you verily believe, that your Church, and Chapters admit the Ecclesiastical Change upon the merits of the Cause, and not merely on the fear, or acknowledged Authority of the State?

Eucher.

I do believe so in very deed just as I have spoken; and my reason is; because, had the Act of Deprivation past for recusancy of Ma∣hometism, &c. and the Church would never have forsaken their Diocesans, nor elected any other even Orthodox Bishops, the Act for Deprivation being impious, and for that cause unobliging, and as loose as Dr. Hody's Rules, and as strait as your Principles are, I put it close home to his, and your Consciences, whether on a Case so put, or supposed, you can think the contrary?

Dyscher.

Your jumble of Queen Mary's and Queen Elizabeth Bishops I shall not examine, be∣cause

a full answer to that, either already is, or suddenly will come abroad.

Eucher.

This is what above all I have ever greatly coveted; and I have of late been so lucky as to meet with the Sense of† 1.39 your excellent Author of Christian Communion on this point. But because you have hinted to me my shortness of memory, I had rather have it repeated from your memory, that we may discuss it.

Dyscher.

Indeed it was almost lapsed, but now upon your Suggestion I have recovered it, and will accordingly lay it before you. As to this Case of the Marian Bishops, saith he, or of other Popish Bishops ander Edward the Sixth, two things are to be noted in their removal and ejection out of their Bi∣shoprick's. One is from the Temporalities, the Bene∣fices, and Preferments thereof; and these Temporal Endowments are directly subjects to the Temporal Power, &c. The other is from the Spiritual ad∣herence and dependence of the People on them as on heads of Church unity and Communion for religious ministrations. And this there was no need to deprive the Popish Bishops of, for they had already deprived themselves of it by their own Corruptions, both in Doctrines, and Devotions. Adulterations of Reli∣gion, and corrupt ministrations of the word, of Prayers, and Sacraments, break the Ligaments, which tye on People to this adherence to any Bishops, or Pastors, yea, tho' they were Apostles themselves. Tho' we, or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema, or accursed, saith St. Paul Gal. 1.8. — When therefore any Bishops, and Pastors, instead of heading Christian Truth, appear at the head of Ʋn-Christian Errors, the people are discharged from their Obli∣gation, and Dependence upon them, and are to

unite themselves as they can to others, who still keep firm to that necessary Truth, and Gospel Worship, which they have forsaken. And this was done by the Popish Bishops, who fed the people with false Doctrines, and polluted Prayers, and Ministrations, which left no need of any thing more to deprive them of the Peoples Communion, and Dependence, these Papal Corruptions of Religious Ministrations being enough to discharge, and drive them away of themselves. So that the reformed Bishops, when they were set at the heads of those Dioceses, called none away, nor made them break off from any just and due Spiritual Dependence on their former Bishops, whose own heretical Doctrine, and corrupt Ministra∣tions had made the people cease from depending any longer in Conscience upon them. They wanted only to be Lawfully empowered, and regularly ordained themselves by Episcopal Imposition of hands, as all those reformed Bishops plainly were, — and so were no Spiritual Intruders, nor guilty of any Civil Ʋsurpation, or Injustice. — But where Bishops are Orthodox, and are deprived for their adherence to Truth and Righteousness, both in their private Practice and Publick Ministrations, the people are still left Spiritually to depend on them. — And so we our selves should have thought, at least we all seem, as if we should, if by Gods Providence the Civil State had gone on to ddprive our reformed Bishops for sticking to the Doctrines and Worship of the Reformation, and had set up Popish Bishops in their places, &c. Vide.

Eucher.

This Doctrine of that learned Person must be admitted with a grain of Salt, or else it will be very unwholesom, and prove very con∣vulsive in the Ecclesiastick Body. For tho every single Christian is to abhor, and defie all false Doctrine, condemned by the unanimous Sense and suffrage of the Universal Church from Divine Authorities, yet single Persons cannot distribu∣tively,

and alone reject their Bishops as not Bishops for heretical Opinions, or corrupt Ministrations, which the general Body, and all Orders of the Church do not uniformly censure irregular, and renounce their Authors, except a just and regu∣lar Sentence pass in form against them. When Churches are concorporated into Provincial and Diocesan Unions, there must be some public con∣duct for the diffusive multitude, to a due dis∣cussion of Principles in order to such Divorces. Thus of old, when grievances arose from sus∣pected Bishops, the people appealed to Synods to judge upon their Cause, but in Cases noto∣rious they addressed to other Churches, Bishops, and Synods to allow their necessary Rejection of their irregular Bishop, and ordain them others. And this usage was as common as useful, till the Papal Usurpations rendred it impracticable in the Western Church, and so necessitated extraordi∣nary forms of reformation. For here the Prince, and the People, and a great Body of the Clergy, having an Ecclesiastical Cause of Controversie against the Marian Bishops, unrelievable by any fair domestic, or foreign Synod, were forced, upon the Notoriety of the Evil, to use extraordinary measures of purgation, not by rabble, or inco∣herent Partitions, but by a National Judgment in Parliament, as a middle expedient, as well against intestine Schisms, as Romish abuses; upon which discharge of Papal Tyranny, a way was opened to that true and uniform Sense of true Religion, which the whole emancipated Church presently received with a glad and chear∣ful Uniformity, which was a felicity however not atchievable by a loose unorganized Multitude. Since then the whole People of this Land did in their National Senate Vindicate the pure Religion established in former Convocations from the Ma∣rian Bishops, the enacted Deprivation was de∣signed

more against their Spiritual Conduct, than their Temporal fortunes, and the People followed that publick intention, not their own private counsel in the reception of new Bishops, and the models of reformation. And herein such mea∣sures of prudence were observed, which cannot be secured in a promiscuous multitude, which I wonder that Author did not consider. For a Priest is not immediatly upon dropping of an Error ma∣terially heretical to be taken by all at random for a formal and self-deprived heretic, or Ana∣thema, but he must be previously heard, and ad∣monished, and only upon incorrigible Obstinacy to be rejected, with appeal unto God, and an apology to all Churches, or Spiritual Fathers un∣concerned, and untainted. But then this is a Canonical form of exauctoration by the Church, not a formal Self-deprivation, otherwise upon this Authors Principle, all the Hierarchy of the Ro∣mish Communion was long self-deprived before the Reformation, and totally exauctorated, and how then will he justify our Episcopal Succession? For such ipso facto irregularities, that are so in their own nature, and not by mere Canonical Ordinance, degrade as well as deprive, from not only Order, but Communion, to which of old upon Penitence they were wont to be restored, not as Priests, but as Laymen, for that such a fall was an ipso facto Degradation of Order, in which there were to be no public Penitents. But now, if we make such Deprivation the Act of the Christian People, as we must, then it, and all the previous pro∣cess thereunto must be executed by some formed Session, or Council for the Place and People con∣cerned; but for the whole People of this Land we have no Council but that of Parliament. And here it must be noted, that a Christian Parlia∣ment hath as much Spiritual Right against here∣tical Priests as the common Christian Multitude,

and if the Multitude may on such notorious Corruptions eject one, and procure another Bi∣shop, even without the Consent of civil Powers, according to this Authors Doctrine, surely such Right much more belongs to the Christian Le∣gislative, to which the Care of Religion does by Divine Ordinances belong, as well as to the Hie∣rarchy, and common Multitude, which had a real need of their Counsel and Conduct in so great a Difficulty. The People therefore in Parliament did their Part in the Ejection of the Marian Bi∣shops, and all the Chapters, and other Ecclesia∣stical Orders sequaciously concurred, and com∣pleted the Design of that Act in their Alienati∣on from the condemned Recusants. And tho' all this was done for refusing the Oath of Supre∣macy; yet that Recusancy being grounded on false Principles in Religion, and maintained in Defence of the Romish Usurpations and Corrup∣tions, the Statute of Deprivation had not only a civil Intention, but Religious also, and was re∣ceived accordingly. But all this while I find no Answer to that famous Passage quoted by me† 1.40 out of Dr. Hammond's Tract of Schism, tho' of so great Moment, and of so great Strength to justifie such Statutes of Deprivation for the Security of the civil Go∣vernment against Seducements and Seditions. But if you would take my Counsel, I would ad∣vise you not to lay the Cause of this Controver∣sie in Points of Religion, nor make common Peo∣ple the Judges of them, for fear of a Snap, that perhaps you are not aware of.

Dyscher.

What, what do you mean? I am a little startled at this Suggestion, since we are where we were, and have neither altered the old Doctrines, nor the Practices they direct to.

Eucher.

Do not you remember, that that great Man who wrote the Vindication of the Deprived Bishops, vehe∣mently argues,† 1.41 that not only Errors, whether great or small, but even unnecessary Truths be∣come Heresies, when they are made the Causes, or Characters of different Communions? And such all Principles and Rules of Christian Mo∣rals inforced on peril of Sin and Damnation, not required by the word, or law of God, must in their own nature be. And thus in the ancient Church all rigorous Doctrines, which made sins where God hath made none, draw after them inevitable Separations, and so became Hereti∣cal.

Dyscher.

Well, how doth this affect us?

Eucher.

I am afraid in all your Principles, which make our present Allegiance Illegal, and Irreligious.

Dyscher.

I pray form them into propositions, and make your convictive Strictures upon them, if you can.

Eucher.

I take no delight in such an Employ; It is no pleasure to me to wound, or grieve you, but as the setting before you the danger of your Principles may correct the precipitancy of your Zeal, I will obey, and observe your direction. First then,

Maj.

Whosoever teacheth Men not to be subject to the Human Constitution, and the Au∣thorities that are, as Gods Ordinance, teacheth practical Errors;

Min.

But so you teach Men against the pre∣sent Constitution, and Authorities; Ergo.

Concl.

You teach Men practical Errors.

Again in another Form;

Maj.

Whosoever teacheth it to be Perjury to swear Allegiance to a new settled Sovereign upon

the Desertion of the former, to whom we had sworn Allegiance, teacheth practical Errors;

Min.

But such is your Doctrine, (contrary to Bishop Overals Convocation book) Ergo. Concl. You teach practical Errors.

Again in another Form;

Maj.

Whosoever teacheth to disobey Princes fully settled in a Government procured by ill means, teacheth practical Errors;

Min.

But so do ye in the Reasons of your present Recusancy; Ergo

Concl.

You teach practical Errors.

Again in another Instance;

Maj.

Whosoever teacheth Men not to pray for Kings, and all that are in Authority, tea∣cheth Men Practical Errors.

Min.

But so teach most of you in the Reasons of your present Recusancy, Ergo.

Concl.

Most of you teach practical Errors.

Again in another Instance,

Maj.

Whosoever teacheth Men presumptuous∣ly to speak evil of Dignities, teacheth practical Errors;

Min.

But so do most of you; Ergo

Concl.

Most of you teach practical Errors.

Again in another Instance,

Maj.

Whosoever excommunicates, or teaches Men to refuse Communion with Men, that have sworn Allegiance to Powers fully settled, acts upon, and teacheth practical Errors

Min.

But so most of you act, and instruct Men against our Communion. because we have sworn Allegiance to the Powers fully settled over us; Ergo

Concl.

You act upon, and teach Men practical Errors. And now, considering all, wherein I have answered you, what can you say hereto?

Dyscher.

I answer, we do not deny any of your Major and general Propositions, but we deny

your Minors, that we teach such Doctrines for our Recusancy. But we teach, that those Ma∣jor Maxims do not affect our particular Case, for that these are not Constitutions, Authorities, or Dignities fully settled, on which the Church ac∣cording to the Apostles requires respect, and obe∣dience.

Eucher.

This is like those prevaricating Salvo's, which your Author of Christian Communion up∣braids us with,† 1.42 in eluding general Precepts from influencing in par∣ticular Cases; but to omit this, I have however gained another advantage, and success by my Advice, viz. that in the matter of Allegiance you must quit your Pretensions to Ecclesiastical Doctrines as the grounds of your Recusancy, Deprivation, and Separation; and consequently there is an End of your low and causeless Clamours for your glorious Passive Doctrines as the Cause of your Sufferings; all the remaining Question now being between us, whether the present Constitution be fully settled, which is a Point of Law, not Religion, to be re∣solved by the State, not the Church, by the Court Civil, not the Court Christian. And here∣upon such Civil Judgments are to be secured by Religion, and Conscience, while they stand re∣versed, and so you are obliged to acquiesce in the Judgments of our Parliaments in this Point. But while you oppose this upon Principles of Conscience, consider the Danger of Heresie, which lies before you.

Maj.

Whosoever teacheth Men to oppose the Course of public Judgment in Civils upon pri∣vate Opinions to the contrary, teacheth Rules of Sedition against Civil Government it self, and in them practical Errors;

Min.

But you teach Men to oppose the public Judgment of the Nation for our full Settlement in the present State; Ergo

Concl.

You teach Rules of Sedition against ci∣vil Government it self, and in them practical Er∣rors.

Or thus in another Form.

Maj.

He that teacheth Men to act against con∣fessed Principles of Truth, ought to be exaucto∣rated;

Min.

But you teach Men to practice Disobe∣dience contrary to those Principles of Truth, which you are forced to confess, Ergo

Concl.

You are to be exauctorated.

Now I cannot for my part see how you can avoid this Charge, which your own rigours against us have extorted from me. And yet I have urged it for no ill Ends, but only to lay before you the ill Aspects of your Division, upon those your very Principles, in which you glory. For here I can more justly enclose you with your Vindicator's Dilemma, viz. that if you separate without Principles, you are then Schismatical, if upon Principles, you incur Heresie. But if this be so, the Church and State may according to your own Rules eject you without a Synod, which I compassionately beg you tenderly to consider.

Dyscher.

Well, let our Cause be what it will in Fact, or Opinion, I look upon these Lay and Par∣liamentary Forms of Deprivation, to be very dan∣gerous to the Spiritual Franchises of the Church, tho' we suppose, that such servile and gradual Concurrences of the Church do give them an Ec∣clesiastical Effect; for that they destroy out of the Faith of Christians the Sense of those Spiritual Liberties and Authorities of the Church, that by a Divine Charter, and an Apostolic Descent, be∣long to her; and instil a fatal Erastianism into men's Principles, and for that Cause ought not to be received, but censured by the Church; for that your Party founds their Authority on this

false Proposition, that the Church and State of England are the same Society, whereas there are many Subjects of the State, that are no Members of the Church, as Apostates, Papists, Heretics, and all unbaptized Persons. Tho' yet were this Hypothesis true, that all the same persons were equally Members of the Church and State, yet as they are a Church, and spiri∣tually sociated, they must be governed by a Spiritual Authority, and as a State, by the Ci∣vil Power of the Sword; nor must the identity of the People confound the Distinction of Powers. Besides, as we are a Church, we are of Right so∣ciated into the unity of the whole Catholic Church, to be maintained by an uniform Eccle∣siastical Conduct, the only ligament of Catho∣lic Communion; but as we are a State, the Catholic Church is not concerned with us, to take any Cognisance of our Civil Procedures, but if as a Church we corrupt the Ecclesiasti∣cal Government into Civil, we break off, and excommunicate our selves from the Catholic Unity by deserting the Catholic Forms and Ties of Union.

Eucher.

As to that Principle of the Identity of Church and State, and the Consequences Men draw from thence to assert the Right of Civil Authority in Spiritual Processes, I leave it to them, whose Heads are clear enough to justifie it. But, for my own part allowing your excep∣tions to the contrary, yet our Case has justified it self ex naturâ Rei. And I must further adver∣tise you, that this Church has long submitted to the use of such Powers over us, and that fundamentally in Q. Elizabeth's Reformation, and in many other matters in which the State had not so much pretence of Right, or Necessity, all which have passed uncensured by us, but in this, whether well, or ill, God must judge. The Sub∣scription

of a Popish Clergy to avoid a Premu∣nire drew after it such Acts of Parliament, as thro' which we can make no provision for the Church, no•• move a question for her good, without Royal License, nor have so much free∣dom in our Concernments and Duties, as eve∣ry little Corporated Burrough has in it's vo∣luntary Councils; which, tho' it be a tolera∣ble Condition under a good King, that has a Zeal for Christianity, yet under an Irreligious King 'tis an absolute Bondage, and bar to the Primitive Purity, Course, and Vigour of Reli∣gion. In the Reign of Edward the VI. they struck out the Ordinaries names out of all Pro∣cesses Ecclesiastical, and set in the Kings, as if all Church Power had been derived from the Crown; the non-payment of Tenths, tho' omitted by mere neglect, and not on any Prin∣ciple of Opinion, remains yet a Cause of De∣privation. And those shackles, which the State of old thought necessary to restrain us from Popery, now the reasons of that Conduct are cessant, become great Obstacles to the Pri∣mitive and Catholic Reformation of our yet re∣maining defects, of which th••s Church, upon a just liberty and Authority restored her, would become the first Example, and the noblest Standard. Yet all this Subjection we have born in Silence, tho' hereby only can Popery be reduced, whensoever a Popish Conjuncture shall arise upon us; and no Body has yet dared to offer a good mediation with the Public for a Temperament in these things. And if our dulness herein has not been by us, or you accounted Schismatical, shall we be judged Schismatics in admitting these much more rea∣sonable Deprivations, in which the Lay-powers are concerned not only in point of Care and In∣terest, but even in certain and undubitable mea∣sures of Right?

Dyscher.

How so, Sir?

Eucher.

As the State is the Churches Hospital, so a Corporal, or Civil Communion is substrate to the visible Communion of the Church. For tho' I allow you, what you* 1.43 just∣ly challenge to the innocent, a primitive, fundamental, and un∣deniable Right to good, as well in common, as in consecrated Places, yet it is cer∣tain, that in order to this Claim they must give all just security and assurance of their innocency, upon Test demanded by the Civil Powers, that are Guardians of these fundamental Liberties to all good Subjects; of which innocency an Oath of Allegiance seems the most obvious, proper, and usual Form of security between Subjects and So∣vereigns. Otherwise the Civil Powers may re∣strain those Libeties, of which they are the Tru∣stees. Thus a Civil Soveraign may prohibit, and punish all conversation with the Enemies, or Re∣cusants of his Civil Authority. Now conversati∣on simply in it self alone is a secular communica∣tion, but absolutely Fundamental to the Eccle∣siastical, which is a visible Communion in Spiri∣tuals. Though then the Secular Authority alone, as such, does not touch the Spirituals, yet it may upon just and legal Causes take away all that secular and local Communion, that is sub∣strate to the Ecclesiastical. And he that may upon Recusancies of Subjection forbid all personal Communication with a Recusant, may forbid it in any certain Place, Time, Matter, or Mea∣sure, and consequently at all such Times, and Places, when, and where the Recusant may call upon him to attend in Spirituals. But this Right, and Authority of the Magistrate I lodge not in ar∣bitrary will respectively, but on the nature and merit of the provocation. And the Right, which the Christians have to the Liberty of their Sacred

Functions, is not peculiar to them as Christians, by a Charter altogether unconditionally exempt from Civil Powers, and so a Right of Gods positive constitution in the Church, as a Society founded by Christ, liable to no secular Reflections for any Cause whatsoever; but is a common, and natural Right to all Persons of clear and unspotted inno∣cency, as such, to do that which is good, origi∣nally due to them from the Creation. And hence Civil Powers, becoming Judges of our Morals and Innocency, are Guardians of that natural Right, but may justly deny it to others, but will not approve their innocency by due Tests to the Public Peace of the Government, to which Recusants therefore the rightful Capacity Ecclesiastical Com∣munion is lost, when the natural Right to Society is, either totally, or in the proper opportunities of sacred Communion, justly denied by the Civil Powers. And to say true, he that by ill Princi∣ples, or Practices deserves the loss, and deprivation of all common Society, much more deserves the deprivation of the Spiritual, that stands as a Super-structure on the other. And therefore if our ill merits Authorize the Powers to take away at the bottom the Foundation of our Religious Commuion, they can, tho' not directly, and im∣mediatly touch, yet undermine the spiritual Structure, by destroying its secular Foundation, which lies within the Authority and Care of Civil Powers. So that in this respect and form an Hea∣then Prince may rightly deprive seditious, or dis∣loyal Priests of the Priviledge of actually using their Ecclesiastical Functions, by rightly denying them so much secular Society, as is Fundamental∣ly requisite to the exercise of them. And thus far a Statute of Deprivation may have this Civil ob∣ligation, that no Subject shall yield corporal Com∣munion with Recusant Priests, when they call him to sacred Offices any where, and Laws may shut

them out from consecrated Places, that there may be no such local Society in them. And if such Recusancy against civil Powers be notori∣ous, confessed, or avowed, then is such Act of State both just, and civil only, but at the same time, the bottom of the Recusants Ecclesiasti∣cal Offices is righteously, and validly taken a∣way.

Dyscher.

Well, well, notwithstanding these Sub∣tilties, yet the Temporal Powers cannot take a∣way the actual Relation between Priest and People, tho' they may suspend, or incapacitate them hereby from the actual Ministeries of their Orders; And so hence accrues no Right to civil Powers to impose new Bishops on the Church.

Eucher.

There are two known Canonical Cau∣ses of depriving Spiritual Persons, Immoralities, and erroneous Principles. So that; if either of these hath merited, and drawn after it a Forfei∣ture and Deprivation of all that secular, and lo∣cal Communion, and Society, which is necessa∣ry to the sacred Functions, the Church upon certain Notoriety of that Guilt, Forfeiture, and civil Incapacity, may elect, and consecrate others, who have contracted no such Blemish, or Inca∣pacity. Nor needs there here the Judgment of a Synod, (as is confessed in the like Case of Cal∣linicus and, Cyrus before mentioned) which is only necessary to discuss and determine things dubi∣ous in Fact, or Right. So that in such Cases, where there is no Rule set to the contrary, the Church on her old original Liberties may of her own accord proceed to a new Promotion, and I think ought to do so, when the Blemish, and consequent Incapacity are irremediable. And what the Church in freedom may do without Command, she may do when commanded, even by those Powers, which have no direct Right to manage our Ecclesiasticals, as Infidel, and

Un-Christian Powers have not. Yet indirectly, I grant, a new Settlement in the Church may be necessary to the weal of an Un-Christian State, which then has an indirect Right to command the Church within it to fill the Vacancies, and then she is in Duty bound to obey, not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience sake, when∣soever so commanded, as having no Authority to oppose those actual Reasons, or the civil Cau∣ses of such the secular Commands, so that in the lawful Vacancy she must be obedient. And if this be a just Rule for the Christian Church un∣der Un-Christian Princes, much more ought it to be so under Christian ones, to whom, as nur∣sing Fathers, you know our Church gives great Homage, and Deference. Have you any thing more to object?

Dyscher.

Nothing at all, except you will hear me repeat the three last Pages of T. B. spent wholly in charging you with soliciting our total Ruin, and Misusage of your deprived Metropolitan, and Diocesan, on their refusal of a Petition, with the same pernicious Design; but because I must confess you were most carefully tender of cen∣suring the Counsels of those Fathers, and T. B. discovers himself too openly calumnious in those Impeachments, I have done, and commend us all to God's Grace and Mercy.

Eucher.

T. B. is one of those Men, who love to speak evil of Dignities, and the things they know not, supplying the Narrowness of his Understan∣ding with Rage and Bitterness, for which I hear∣tily remit him to God's Mercy.

But as for your Fathers, and all the venerable Numbers of good Men fallen in this Change, I compassionately beseech them tenderly to lay these things to heart, and unanimously to think of some healing Expedient for our mutual Peace, and Joy. There have been, who, upon the bare dry

Inferences of their Arguments, have desired them to desist, and quit claim only, which is to ask, not shew them Charity. But might it not be thought too assuming, I think, I could propose such a cer∣tain Scheme of Resolutions, as would so effectu∣ally close up our present Wounds, as to turn all our Sighs and Sorrows into Joys, and the Voice of Melody. But being conscious of my Station, and Measures, and doubtful of your Misappre∣hensions, I forbear, and leave you, and your Counsels to the Divine Conduct, and your own Piety, that you may happily recover that Union, from which your Errors and Infirmities have too much alienated you, being willing to hope, that (as St. Paul said of Onesimus) Perhaps you are de∣parted from us for a Season, that we should receive you again for ever. Amen.

Notes

• † 1.1

  Sel. and Ab. pag. 16, 17.
• * 1.2

  Sol and Ab. pag. 19, 20.
• * 1.3

  Case of Sees Va∣cant, &c. Chap. 2. § 2.
• † 1.4

  Sol. and Ab. Pag. 21, 22.
• * 1.5

  Sol. & Ab. pag. 23.
• * 1.6

  Case of Sees &c. Ch. 3. § 3.
• * 1.7

  Sol. & Ab. pag. 24.
• † 1.8

  This is the strain of Dr. Hody's great adversary.
• * 1.9

  Sol. & Ab. pag. 22.
• * 1.10

  Case of Sees. pag. 18.
• * 1.11

  Case of Sees. pag. 18.
• * 1.12

  Case of Sees. pag. 21.
• * 1.13

  Vindic. of Depr. Bish. pag. 71. Christ. Com. part. 2. ch. 3. p. 31, 32.
• † 1.14

  Case of Sees, &c. Chap. 1.
• † 1.15

  Treat. of Ch. Com. Part. 3. Ch. 6.
• * 1.16

  Sol. & Ab. p. 6. 7.
• * 1.17

  Case of Sees &c. p. 6.
• * 1.18

  Case of Sees, &c. Chap. 1. pag. 6.
• † 1.19

  Case of Sees, &c. Ch. 4. pag. 56.
• * 1.20

  Case of Sees, &c. pag. 59.
• * 1.21

  Case of, &c. Ch. 7. pag. 82.90. &c.
• † 1.22

  Case of, &c. Ch. 14. Pag. 148.
• † 1.23

  Vindic. of Dep. B••sh. Pag. 71. &c. Case of Sees, &c.
• † 1.24

  Case of &c. Ch. 4. §. 1. Pag. 41.
• † 1.25

  Case of Sees, &c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4. §. 1. Pag. 41.
• † 1.26

  Case of, &c. Ch. 17.
• † 1.27

  Case of, &c. Ch. 15. Pag. 174.175.
• † 1.28

  Sol. & ab. pag. 27.29.
• * 1.29

  Charge, by any Di∣vine Law, primitive Ca∣non, or Prescription. This is as full as can be worded against the Pow∣er of the State to de∣prive Bishops. Now see, how you come about a∣gain in the very next words; Yet such an Act, received, and ad∣mitted by the Church, may from her concur∣rence have a just and le∣gal Effect. And then up∣on this Notion the Sta∣tute of Deprivation ipso facto must be taken as a Law upon the Church to reject the Recusants totally from their Sta∣tions. Here you will not have the Deprivation to proceed from the Act of the State alone, but, to save some Honour to the Clergy, you make their Deprivation valid by their Concurrence to the Act of Deprivation. But I pray, how did they concur? Was it o∣therwise than by sub∣mitting to the Act, when it was made? And is such Submission any Authority? I thought they had been quite dif∣ferent things. Did the Clergy shew any signs, or make any protesta∣tions for their Right, viz. that the Act of Par∣liament for the Depri∣vation of the Bishops was not valid without their Concurrence? No, not a word; but when it is done, they submit to it, and acknowledg it. And you would make a Prote∣station against Fact, that their Concurrence was necessary to it, that themselves did not pretend, nor dare they do it to this day.—It is certain the Parliament thought their own Authority sufficient to deprive the Bishops, and did not ask, or think they needed the Concurrence of the Clergy to make their Act valid. On the contrary no Clergy-men have dared to dispute it, but those, who are deprived. And for others to imagin to come in by their Concur∣rence into a share of the Authority, is like the fly on a Wheel of the Chariot, that thought he contributed to the dust that was raised, for he too gave his concurrence. It is possible such Men as you should not see how contemp∣tible it renders them, to pretend to an Authority they dare not avow? And upon this Foundation to raise Arguments to justify their proceedings, which they can∣not maintain any other way! For these Men to deny themselves to be Erastians! or ever to name any Ecclesia∣stical Authority! I had almost said to call them a Church! Or to speak as you do, that the Church ought not to admit Deprivations on improper or unrea∣sonable Demands! As if the Parliament did request it from the Convocation, or left it to their admitting, or not ad∣mitting! As if they durst dispute the validity of an Act of Parliament for want of their Concurrence! As if any of them durst let such a word come out of their Mouth! Behold the Ghost, the Echo of a Church! &c. M. S. Reflex.
• † 1.29.1

  Sol. &c. Ab. Pag. 29.
• † 1.30

  Sol. and Ab. pag. 28.
• † 1.31

  Sol. and Ab. Pag. 29.
• † 1.32

  Sol. & Ab. pag. 29.
• * 1.33

  Did they then in their Convocation make the least scruple, or vote, that their Concurrence was necessary to that Statute? No, not a syl∣lable. But you tell us how they did it. The Si∣lence of the Convocation under the Statute of De∣privation argues their opinion to be, that they were in this to yield to the State. This is ac∣cording to the old Pro∣verb, Silence gives con∣sent. And at this Rate the Statute of abolishing Episcopacy in Scotland must be supposed to have it's validity from the Concurrence of the Bishops and Cler∣gy there, for they too are silent. And some of the infe∣rior Clergy there, (but not half so many as in England) have com∣plyed. I pray you to answer me in plain terms, whe∣ther you do not think the Parliament in Eng∣land to have as great Power as the Parlia∣ment of Scotland? And consequently might a∣bolish the whole Order of Episcopacy in Eng∣land, as they have done in Scotland? And for their Silence, it is a strange Plea. Have they liberty to assert without danger? I mean in Eng∣land, as well as Scot∣land? And if Silence perforce argues Con∣sent, then they are the freest Subjects of the world in France, and in Turkey, whose M••tes are happier by this Argu∣ment, and have greater Authority than our House of Commons. I thought Authority could not be exerted by Si∣lence. Tho the Turk will have his Executi∣oners to be mute, he cannot command them by his Silence. If the King says nothing, when both Houses present a Bill for the Royal Assent, this is a re∣fusal of that Bill. So that it is not in all Cases, you see, that Silence gives con∣sent; indeed in no Case of Authority. That was a saying only adapted to the grant of some private favours, and is but a Jest, or Complement at the best. When the Church saw the Bill of Deprivation pass wholly and solely in the Name, and by the Authority of the State, they ought to have entred their Protestation, and asserted their own Right. Their Silence in that Case was an yielding up and betraying their Right, as it is if a Peer does not protest against any vote that passes, his consent to it is implyed. And therefore the Churches Silence in that Case is so far from being an asserting of their Right, that it is against the common Sense and Practice of mankind so much as to alledge it. M. S. Reflex.
• † 1.33.2

  Sol. & Ab p. 28.
• * 1.33.3

  But in good truth, have any Clergy men in Eng∣land com∣plyed to an enacted a∣bolition of Episcopacy here?
• * 1.33.4

  Doth the King say nothing, when he re∣fuses a Bill? Or doth he return them a de∣cent answer with promise of Considera∣tion?
• * 1.34

  Sol & Ab. pag. 28.
• † 1.35

  Grot. de Jure, &c. l. 2. c. 4. Parag. 5.
• * 1.36

  Sol. & Ab. Pag. 34.
• † 1.37

  T. B. Repeats it thus, You tell us of a Moti∣on in the lower House of Convocation; but leaves out the word [Sti∣fled] fraudulently.
• † 1.38

  T. B. See Lett. Pag. 42.
• † 1.39

  Part 2. Chap. 3. Pag. 33, 34.
• † 1.40

  Sol. and Ab. Pag. 32.
• † 1.41

  Vindic. of Depr. Bish. pag. 24.25, 26, 27.
• † 1.42

  Part 3. Ch. 5.
• * 1.43

  Sol. & ab. pag. 25.