can after this, be no longer call'd in Question : Bộth the Bishop of London and Dr. Sharp were Justly, and Worthily Suspended.

· The Reformation in Edward the Sixth’s Days was Legal and Evangelical, and the overthrowing that Reformation in Queen Mary's Reign was the same.

But give me leave to tell you, Sir, you drew Arbitrary Confequences from the King's Nomination, which was no more than a Concordate between the Church and the State, in consideration of the Temporalities ; but to urge that this Confers Power, is to say, that a Lay Patron when he Presents a Person to a Living, gives him a Power to Preach the Gospel, Administer the Sacraments, in that Parish ; which is evidently false, because the Presentation is of no Value without the Institution of the Bishop; otherwise a Lay Patron may as well Transfer those Powers to a Laick, or Preach himself, as give them to a Clergyman. But let me know, my Lord; if without the Confecration, a King can give to any Perfon Authority to Exercise the Episcopal Powers, if he can, he makes Bishops by Authority deriv'd from his Masters, the People ; if he cannot, the Confecration gives somewhat to a Bishop which the Prince cannot take away, accora ding to your own Hypotheses.

in I desire you to turn your Eye over fome of your former Treatises in behalf of the Rights of Episcopacy, in your Defence of Episcopal Ordination, c. 3. S. 2. P. 30. (a) I find that Bishops have lost


(a) The Apostles did indeed, in the Case of an Office, which they thought too different from the main end of their Apo{tleghip for themselves to attend to, pur it upon the People to Nominate the Persons whom they thought proper to be Dea: cons, but in the first place it doth not appear that they accounted this any Privilege of the People. Brief Defence of Epile copal Ordindt. c. 3. S. 2. p. 190.

ground since that Book was publishd, and your appealing to the Laws of the Land, when the controverfy is about a Divine Right, is advancing the Laws of the Land, above the Laws of God. But I hope in a short time the English Conftitution will be cleard from such a foul Sacrilege; your Appeal to the Laws of the Land, against the Rights of the Church, will be found as Ground lefs, as your Appeals to the Laws against the True Constitution in the State.

In the succeeding Paragraph a manifest falsehood appear'd, which I was Astonish'd at to find dropping from the Pen of one who calls himself a Bishop, viz. That the Bishops bad apon their bended Knees acknowledgʻd they held their Bijkopricks and PofFellions of the same, as well Temporalities as Spiritualities of the King's Majesty ; whereas in all the Oaths of Homage that I have Read, the Temporalities are expresly mention'd without the Spirituali. tics.

Your next point, and indeed it is a grand one, is to prove from the Nature and Extent of the Power of Self-defence, that the State may depriye Bifhops, but the Argument I take to be Naught, and to have the worst Consequences attending it.

I shall readily grant with you p. 44. That the Gospel

fine has not Abridgd the State of those Pow.. ers which are Effentially necessary to the Preservation of Society, and which belongd to the State before Chriftianity appeard in the World, But Christian Society is an Institution which does not interfere with the State. This was Demonstrated in the Elements of Policy, its End, its Rewards and Punishments were intirely different, and when the Spiritual Governour moyes beyond his Sphere, and incroaches upon the State, our Religion does not protect him from Civil Punish


[ocr errors]

ments. Therefore Civil Society by what a Bishop can do in his proper Station, is no more affected, than the Affairs of our Earth are affected by the Transactions in the World of the Moon.

Your Case of Praying for the Destruction of a Government by what has been laid down, is easily answerd, mixing Civil Affairs in our Prayers of Intercession, and Thanksgiving, is so far a Civil Aą as it affects the Fortune or Life of my Neighbour, because 'tis the part of the Civil Magistrate to defend both

from Damage, if therefore a Priest prays for the Destruction of a Lawful Monarch, the SoveTeign nay Punish him for the same, but not with Spiritual, but Carnal Weapons, he may divest him of his Temporalities, and if he pleases, put him to Death. But I cannot see how he can Dissolve during his Life the relation between his Flock and him. This Civil Power, as it extends to deprivation of Life, is surely fufficient to answer all the ends of Self-preservation, without incroaching upon Spiritual Authority. The Magistrate, I in my conscience believe cannot dissolve the Contract between a Man and his Wife, tho' he may Hang the Man for Treason, or other Crimes committed against the State.

But praying for the Destruction of a Lawful Government, I may be bold to say, was not the Case of the Nonjurors at the Revolution, because they mention'd no Names; they pray'd for the King and altho their Opinions differ'd in relation to the Person, they defir'd their Prayers shou'd tend to the Benefit of none but the Lawful King whosoever he might be. This we may presume from their known Characters, which their worst Enemies who have any sense of Truth will befow upon them for Piety and Sincerity:



if we consider the State of the Roman Empire before Constantine, Usurpers frequently broke into their Duty to their Prince, and caus'd themselves to be proclaim'd Emperors. The Primitive Christians, we may reasonably suppose continu'd praying after their old Way for the Emperor, without mentioning his Name, which in those times was never done. Did Albinus, or "Nigrinus, put the Christians to Death, or deprive them of their Bishopricks, for praying for the Destruction of the Government, because they did not mention Albinus, or Nigrinus, in their Prayers.

Your Comparison of Great, or Less, adapted to things of a different Species, is a New Logick to me ; an Horse may be small, in comparison with an Elephant, but he may be a large Creature, compard with another of the fame Speices : Deprivation and putting to Death are distinct powers, and not compatible with the same Persons confider'd in one Capacity, and therefore they cannot be compar'd together as greater or less, neither can one be included in the other,

I can meet a Bishop upon the Highway, and knock out his Brains; the deprivation, as consequentially follows, as if the Civil Magistrate fay'd me the Labour by doing it himself: But will you say that any single Person can divest a Bishop of his Episcopal Character, or that an Highwayman instead of Shooting him thro’ the Head, may deprive him of his Sacred Titles, and reduce him to the state of a Layman ? If this be the Case, I beg of you to Travel with a strong Guard.

You tell us a Right to Imprison (p. 51.) includes Deprivation, from whence I conclude: The Seven Bishops were effectually depriv'd by King James, when they were sent to the Tower, and that a Bishop 7

[ocr errors]

is effe&ually deprivd when he is laid up with the Gout.

Abiathar will not reach your Case in the least, for these Reasons, the Center of Unity in the Jewisha Church was not Personal, but Local, and was confin’d to the Temple at Jerusalem ; therefore, no, Schism cou'd follow from Abiathar's Punishment. 2dly, I cannot find that Ahiathar incurd any other Penalty than Banishment, which consequently prevented his performing the Priestly Office, which cou'd be done no where but at Jerusalem ; you may as well argue, that if the Ægyptians, or any publick Enemy of the fews, had taken Abiathar Prisoner, and carried him into another Country. That they had a power of depriving him. 3dly, As Abiathar's Life was forfeited by Treason, Abiathar, for ought we know,' might Compound to relinquish his Priesthood to fave his Life.

Deprivation is, good Sir, a pure Spiritual Act, it can no more be said to be included in the A&t of Banishment or Death, than a Man can hold a Spirit in his Arms. The effects of it are Invisible, the Spirit leaves the Person deprivd, and the secret and ineffable Workings of God's Grace peculiar to his Priestly Character desert him. But does this consequentially follow from Banishment? If the Authority is deriva froni God; none but God can take that Authority away, and the Christian Prieithood is so contriv'd, that distance of place does not prevent the Influence of its power.

I was therefore much fcandaliz'd at this. Notion, because it brings the Argument to this Dilemma, either the Episcopal Powers are not deriv'd immediately from God, or the Civil Magistrate can Suspend a Divine Institution by a Superiour Power of his own.


[ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »