Solomon and Abiathar: OR, THE CASE OF THE Deprived BISHOPS and CLERGY, DISCUSSED.   

IMPRIMATUR.  
Carolus Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. à Sacris Domesticis. Junii 6. 1692.   

Solomon and Abiathar: OR, THE CASE OF THE Deprived BISHOPS and CLERGY DISCUSSED, BETWEEN EUCHERES a Conformist, AND DYSCHERES a Recusant.  En quò Discordia!— 
LONDON, Printed for Ric. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard, MDCXCII.   

THE PREFACE.  
Good Reader,  
I Am a Man distressed at the present Change of Bishops, that have looked on the Fate of the Deprived Fathers as an Eclipse to the Church, a Reproach to the Nation, and an Instance of dangerous Consequences. I have had hard Thoughts of Them that accepted their Seas, the Chapters that Elected, and the Bishops that Consecrated them, without any Remonstrance or Intercession for the Ejected; and have prepared myself to lose all, rather than to acknowledge the Superinduced. Yet fearing, on the other hand, lest I should, through an ungarded Zeal, be too Censorious upon the Consciences of many Admirable Men concurring hereunto, I resolved to discuss the Cause to my utmost, according to the best Notices I could Remember or Collect; the which are here digested into a Dialogue, in which I have set forth the Arguments of most weight (that occur to me) to the fullest Advantage of either side, according to the Sense of the opposite Parties. In which, where either Dialogist remains unanswered, there I my self am at a fault, and know not how to make a satisfactory Reply to my own Conscience. This is therefore to beg the Learned World, to secure me in these Defects: And because the Deprived have not the Privilege of the Press, if they on their Part will give in their Corrections or Informations to my Editor, I shall receive the Favour with all Gratitude, and do promise them all just Secrecy. The Design being First to be enabled and instructed hereby what to do, to quiet my own Conscience, which is dearer to me than all worldly Interests; and Secondly to provoke the Learned to offer such Discourses hereupon to the Public, as may settle others, that are under the same Dissatisfactions with myself.   

Solomon and Abiathar: OR, THE CASE of the Deprived BISHOPS and CLERGY, Discussed, between Eucheres a Conformist, and Dyscheres a Recusant.  Eucher. 
BRother Dyischeres, I have undertaken this Visit on purpose to invite you next Wednesday to a small Treat, where you will meet with several your especial Friends, among whom I promise you a very hearty Welcome.  Dyscher. 
I am very sorry that I cannot answer so kind an Invitation, that Day being our Fast-day, on which we that are ejected as Offenders, with our constant Adherents, do Solemnly humble ourselves before God, to reverse his Displeasure, provoked by the Deplorable Disloyalty and Schism of the Nation, in rejecting the true King, and the sincere Bishops and Clergy, for their bounden Conscience and Loyalty. 'Tis surely, Brother, a time for Sackcloth and Ashes, and not for Diversions, since the Glory is departed from Israel, and the Light of God's Countenance is gone from us.  Eucher. 
I do as hearty bewail all the Evils that have happened in this Nation, on occasion of this great Revolution; but when we consider, that in the midst of men's Impieties, the Goodness of God hath not been cessant, but (as his way usually is) out of the Evils of Men hath produced a most eminent Good in the Redemption of his own People, and Faithful Children, and this endangered Church, from the Inundations of Popery and Bondage; the Innocent, as they are to deplore the National Impieties, so are still obliged to sing the Songs of Zion in this yet happy Land, for that God hath not forsaken, but visited his People with a great Salvation, in not leading us into Temptation, but delivering us from the Evil. And it is to you a greater Infelicity than your Deprivations, that you have not concurred with us in these sacred Blessings, Joys, and Exultations.  Dyscher. 
As if the present State were not worse than a deluge of Popery! For then the Church would have saved her Integrity, tho' not her Ease. Now the Daughter of Zion is become an Harlot; the generality of her Children apostate, and unchurched; and the Faith and Communion is with the few, who have rather chosen to suffer Affliction as the People of God, than to dwell in the Tents of unrighteousness.  Eucher. 
Zeal is an excellent Flame of Spirit, while it is under Rule and Moderation, but otherwise there is no Wildfire more raging. And such a kind of Fury it is to charge our Submission to the present Constitution, to be an Excommunication, ipso facto, even before it can be proved to be a Sin. For admitting it to be a Sin, yea a crying Sin, yet every such Sin doth not ipso facto unchurch single Persons, or public Societies; most certainly they do not, if the Principles of Doctrine, or Opinion, whence these Sins receive encouragement, do not destroy the Church's Fundamentals, or Structure; which our Conformity certainly doth not: But an authentic Act must pass in order to a state of actual Expulsion. Nay, we assert the Church of Rome still to be a Church, notwithstanding her great Breaches made upon the Beauty of Holiness; nor do we unchurch the Eastern Churches, notwithstanding their great Disorders and Confusions. And can this Change in our Church parallel the Corruptions of these, who having no Judge but God, do yet remain Churches in all their Pollutions?  Dyscher. 
Admitting then that you are not actually unchurched for want of an Ecclesiastical Judge, yet if your Apostasy merit it, so that good Men may not maintain any Religious Communion with you, without danger of encouraging you, or defiling themselves, or offending other men's Consciences; this is enough to justify our Secession. For hereupon we broke off from the Communion, as well as Sovereignty, of the Roman Church, tho' in her we own the Essentials of a Church.  Eucher. 
Tho' our Church justly and absolutely rejects the Roman Monarchy, yet she will not refuse any lawful Communion or Correspondence with it in any good Ecclesiastical Negotiations consistent with Integrity, saving still a public Remonstrance to all her Pollutions. So you should communicate with us in all that is Lawful, especially since 'tis possible, and by you fairly supposable, that (if we do amiss) we do so through Simplicity, and want of Understanding, which you might easier heal by Accommodation, than by a severe Rupture and Separation.  Dyscher. 
We carefully observed this Method, while you only conformed to the present Temporal Powers, but did not Eject your Fathers and Brethren from their Stations in the Church; but now you have broken the very Essential Bonds of Ecclesiastical Communion, and begun the Schism, in admitting Intruders into the Room of them, who were ejected only for practising the Doctrines of the Church.  Eucher. 
If their Ejection be only for Adhering to the Doctrines of this Church, or the Laws of God, I will allow you, that they are persecuted, by the Church as well as the State: But this will require a very clear proof, ere we can be justly charged with so great an Impiety.  Dyscher. 
This Church hath ever Taught us to preserve an untainted Loyalty to our lawful Sovereigns, which with us come in by Inheritance; and accordingly our Oath of Allegiance binds us to the King, his Heirs, and [Lawful] Successors; and this Obligation ceaseth not, till Death, or Resignation dissolves it: Neither of which happened in this Revolution.  Eucher. 
If by Resignation you mean a formal voluntary Act and Deed, passing away the Title Royal, than I deny that Death only, and Resignation, vacate our Allegiance; for many Public Authorities are void by mere Session, and Desertion; which is indeed in Law equivalent to a Resignation. And such a Session here happened, which the Estates in Convention judged a Virtual Abdication of the Sovereignty; and of this (being a Point of Law) they were to us at that time, and in that juncture, the most Competent, Authentic, and Final Judges; which we are the more to submit to, since the Kingdom hath ratified their Proceed in a second Parliament. And though K. James abroad condemns them, yet that is no Argument either that they were unjust, or inauthoritative. 'Tis granted that this Church preaches up an indispensable Loyalty to the Sovereign, during the Tenure of his Sovereignty; but when a King is fled from his Throne into Foreign Dominions, or doth not exert any Royal Power or Presence to his People, the Estates of this Land are the Supreme Domestic Judges upon the Tenure of the Sovereignty; which is not to make them Judges of the King's Person, but in the want of his Person, of the State of the Kingdom, and the Rights of the Nation, in order to Settlement. Nor is it a just Exception, to deny the Authority by which they sat; for by what Authority was that Free Parliament called, or sat, that voted in King Charles the Second? 'Tis prodigious Peevishness to require a King's Presence, or Commission, when he is gone, and hath left all in Anarchy. In such Confusion, howsoever they come together, they are the Supremest Council of the Land. And yet by the Practice of all Nations, and the Reasons of Peace and Settlement, the Estates of any Nation, being invited by a victorious and unresisted Power, may come together and Treat with him that thus calls them, tho' he hath no antecedent Authority (strictly taken) to call them. So that the Church's Loyalty is to follow the Civil Judgement, concerning the Object of our Loyalty, and the Tenure of Sovereignty.  Dyscher. 
Supposing them then, in a state of Confusion, proper Judges of the Tenure of Sovereignty, which they determined abdicated by K. James; yet how could they pervert the Hereditary Law, and Rule of Succession, that is Fundamental to this Crown?  Eucher. 
I answer hereunto, That the general and ordinary Rule of Succession to this Crown is Hereditary, and in this we are very happy against the dangerous Consequences of ambitious Competitions: But in extraordinary Interruptions, and Convulsions of State, against the ordinary Course, our Laws and Constitutions do allow the Estates such a King as can actually be had for the time being, till the ordinary Rule can be fairly recovered; and in this also we are equally Happy, if we would but know or see it. This in Fact is evident from all the History of our Succession. The Heirs Lineal have submitted to it; the many Acts of Parliament, yet in force, made by Extralineal Kings, and the concurrent Judgement of our greatest Lawyers, under Hereditary Kings, even since the Reformation, without any Remonstrance of this Church, or any Hereditary King, are an Authentic Demonstration hereof; and Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book comes up to it. And my Opinion is, That in the late Oath of Allegiance, the word [Successors] was added after [Heirs] on this very selfsame ground, That tho' Heirs, by the ordinary course, are the Legal Successors, yet others legally may succeed in cases extraordinary; for I will not be so bold as to say, That the Oath required Allegiance to unlawful Successors. And the nonobservance hereof hath been the occasion of so many Paradoxes or Absurdities in Discourses upon this Point.  Dyscher. 
What! Can he be Legal that thrusts out the Legal King, or Legal Successor?  Eucher. 
One King by a Legal War may thrust out him that, till he was thrust out, was Legal King of his own People: For the first offending Prince loses not his Sovereignty to the offended merely by the offence, till actually thrust out by the offended. And even an unjust Potentate, tho' he cannot, according to Legal Justice, out a King against whom he hath no legal Cause or Right of War; yet if he doth do so, and the Subject. People cannot help it, and he enforce himself upon the People for a New King; our Laws in this concur with the Laws and Practice of all Nations, in allowing our Estates to determine for us in such Exigences, as is manifest in the long Contentions, and many Turns between the Houses of York and Lancaster; and the Sin shall lie only on the Injurious, and not on them that submitted to an inevitable Fate of things. And yet in our case, upon the Session of K. James, the Hereditary Succession was not violently broken, but altered by consent of the next Heirs antecedent to the P. of Orange; which shows, that the two next Heirs judged that their Father had effectually deserted the Crown, and were content, for the Preservation of the Nation against the Power of France, to admit before them a Prince of the Blood, whose great Interest abroad, and whose personal Abilities of Conduct in Counsels, and War, might be a Wall of Defence, as well to the true Royal Heirs, as to the Religion, Rights, and Liberties of the People. Upon all which put together, I think we are bound by the old Laws, and Oath of Allegiance to the King, his Heirs, and Successors, to pay Allegiance to K. William and Q. Mary; and that 'tis a breach of those Laws and Oath to deny it them.  Dyscher. 
But suppose the Violence done to the rejected Prince be in itself essentially unjust, and unnatural, and contrary to the Moral and Eternal Laws of God and Righteousness; can humane Compacts ratify a wrong, and justify, or confirm what is essentially injurious? And must even the Priests of the most High God consecrate and confirm such Rapes by Oath, and Religious Sponsions?  Eucher. 
What would you infer from hence?  Dyscher. 
Perhaps the deprived Bishops and Clergy, considering the Relation Their present Majesties stand in to K. James, and the Subjection due from all Natives in this Kingdom, as well in as out of Parliament, may think this a Breach of the Moral Laws of God, and not to be confirmed by their Oath.  Eucher. 
Then first I answer, The Internal Immorality of all Actions must be carefully distinguished from the Civil Consequences of them. Now the Iniquity is not to be justified, but the Legal Consequences may be admitted, even upon Oath. Wars, and Victories are many times unjust, yet they that suffer the Injury, lawfully submit to the unlawful and injurious Demand of Submission; as in Piracies, and other like Tyrannies. A Son by fraudulent Arts gets judgement in Law, and seizes his Father's Estate and Body by Execution, and starves his Father in Prison. This Man's Immorality is damnable; yet the Judges, Sheriffs, and the other Officers are innocent, because their Offices are not concerned in the Natural Relations, or Duties, but only in what is of Civil Importance, and Cognisance. A Lord of a Manor (to which adheres a Court Baron) is unjustly outed in Law by his Son, to the certain knowledge of several Reversioners. These, when the Estates revert to them, must be sworn to the Homage and Fealty of the Lord that is in by Law: Must these Men refuse Homage, and lose their Estates; or may they swear it to the actual Landlord, who is visibly Legal, though not honestly Rightful? I for my Part must determine for the Swearing, since all Lords and Tenants must be admitted for such, that are in by the Law, though at the same time Men are to detest the turpitude and baseness of the Recovery. And in such Cases, the ejected Lord never blames the Tenants for Perjury. Upon which clear Resolution in the General, I will descend to the Particular before us; and suggest that Men should be very careful of judging others, especially Supreme Powers, and much more how they act upon such private Judgement, to the endangering the Peace of humane Societies. Which I offer, not that Their Majesty's Cause needs such a Shade, but to oppose the Command of Christ against Men's nimble Censoriousness. And indeed here it would be an hard Task, from the Fifth Commandment, to Charge K. William with subjection to K. James, either upon his being his Nephew, or Son-in-law, were I willing to urge, or be urged upon that invidious Point. And the Princess of Orange was in Duty bound to follow her Husband's Fortune, Order, and Authority; even against the Will of her Father, and this with a more plenary Consent, if she judged her Husband's Cause to be just, she violating no Decencies, due by the Fifth Commandment to her Father, which are consistent with her Husband's Rights, and Interests, and in her rightful Power to perform. As for the inner Motions and Counsels of Their Majesty's Minds, they are not of Human, much less of Civil Cognisance, and 'tis fit for us to leave them to their proper Judge, that is, God. Tho' if the King's Design be what his Actions apparently tend to, to spend himself for the Delivery of Nations from Tyranny and Bondage, against all the Enemies of humane Liberties and Peace, he is certainly the greatest, and most desirable, and will be by God's Blessing, the most Honourable and Glorious Prince, that perhaps ever arose since the Days of Constantine the Great: I am sure we feel the Blessings of his Care, for which many of us ungratefully traduce him. And so much for that. All that we are concerned in for ourselves is, not whether in Moral Justice they might desire or accept this Crown, but whether this Nation might, under its then Exigences, yield it them; or whether it being yielded them by the Public Act of this Nation, private Subjects may not, or ought not to acquiesce in this Settlement, and give assurance thereof by Oath, or otherwise; for if we might have thus yielded in those Straits to an unrelated Prince, we may as well to the related; because the Personal Relation affects not otherwise our Civils, the Settlement of which we must admit, if not as we could wish, yet as things will bear. And I ask you, whether in good earnest you think no Settlement must be admitted, under Powers procured by breach of God's Commandments?  Dyscher. 
What if I should say, No?  Eucher. 
Then I will say, few, or no Changes of Government must be submitted to in the whole World; which Persuasion, as it is opposite, perhaps, to the First Introduction of Armed Powers, so it must afterward assert them the jure unchangeable. Since there is never any such Change without the Breach of many Divine and Moral Precepts. Killing, Robbery, Deceit, Covetousness, false Accusations, Lies; Pretences, Subornations, Perjuries, Treasons, etc. are the usual Methods, and Introductories to such Changes. And yet when Settled, all Ages, Heathen and Christian, abide by them. By our Laws, though the next Heir to the Crown kill the King, (though his Natural Parent) he shall not be barred the Succession by Inheritance, though by all moral Equity, and supposable Intentions of Royal Parents (were there no positive Constitution herein) he should be disinherited.  Dyscher. 
But in such Cases, the King would be Dead, and all his Rights and Titles with him, and the Heir without Competitour. But in our Case 'tis, and 'twas far otherwise, the King being alive, and pursuing the Recovery of his own Dominions.  Eucher. 
Then it is not the Breach of God's Commandments that incapacitates the Prince of this Crown, but the Life and Contention of K. James. But if his Tenure be extinct, as it hath been publicly judged by this Nation, our Oath to him ceases, though he contends never so much for the Recovery.  Dyscher. 
But this new Oath obliges me to act unjustly against K. James' Recovery, whereas the whole World knows this Crown to be his in Right.  Eucher. 
That it was his, the World knows; but the World is not so knowing that it is his, neither from the Moral Justice, nor Civil Forms of Law. The Question of Justice depends upon the first Originals, Process, and Issues of the War; and of this there is no Authentic Judge but God between the Two Princes; though as to us, this Nation hath justified K. William's Cause, which is to conclude upon us; and as to the Forms of Law, K. William is now legally Invested. I do not say these things bind K. James from endeavouring a Restitution, as being without the Power of them, never in Law subject to them; but they bind us to defend ourselves and our present Governors under this Settlement, with the Suffrage of the greatest Laws of God, Reason and Nations.  Dyscher. 
But this Oath of Allegiance seems to imply an Assertion of Right to this Crown in K. William and Q Mary, since Allegiance follows the Right, and this you will yield to be a tender Point to be sworn to.  Eucher. 
But, First, it is certain, that this Oath expresses no Form of Affirmation concerning Right, but is purely promissory of Allegiance to the Sovereigns actually Regnant. And it is certain, that the Estates in Parliament, imposing it, intended no more to be sworn, since they rejected the Motions made for an Assertion of Right. And though that, and the ensuing Parliament, judged their Admission of K. William and Q. Marry, to be in their Lawful Right, rebus sic stantibus, yet they bond not us to swear so; but only upon Oath, to promise that Allegiance due by our Laws to Kings, thus actually admitted; which I here Remark, that you may not here Object the Intention of the Imposer, to make us swear what they judged to be Right. And here also I must further advertise you, that the Courts Assigned to Administer this Oath, being the Authentic Interpreters thereof, and the Imposers Intention, never gave an Interpretation Affirmative of Right (that I ever heard of) when consulted hereupon; but on the contrary, I am very well assured, that several Courts have given, and admitted such Senses, as the most tender Recusant might have sworn to, and in which Men as Loyal as themselves concurred.  Dyscher. 
The Laws and Judgements of Men many times permit, and require Iniquity, and the Prevarication of Courts, in the admitting Senses not intended in the Oath, on purpose to elude it, is a mere mockery of God, Humane Powers, and men's Consciences.  Eucher. 
Whether Courts prevaricate in their Judgements, or no, private Persons cannot judge to any Civil Effect or Obligation; and so what they determine must be taken for Law, till Condemned by a Superior Court, or nulled by the Legislative. And as to their inward Sincerity, God alone is to be their Judge. But supposing the Courts may warp the Design of the Oath, and the Law, on purpose to ease tender Consciences, what prevarication is there in these tender Consciences, that Religiously took care to have an innocent Sense Authoritatively admitted, on which, and no other, they would take the Oath?  Dyscher. 
This was a colour pretended only to save their Estates; for if they took the Oath really, they took it in the Sense of the Imposer, and not the feigned Intention, but if they did not take the Oath at all, then is the State beguiled by a Pretence, which is not agreeable to a Christian, much less to Priestly Sincerity.  Eucher. 
If these Men had made Reservations in the Oath they took, Insincerity might have been justly chargeable on them; but if they demanded of the Court the Imposers Sense, and the Court gave an Innocent one; and they declared they took it in that Sense so given in Form of Law, and no other, they certainly did not prevaricate with the State; nay, it had been a Prevarication to have taken it in any other Sense, than what the Court had given. And if they really took not the Oath as the Parliament intended, they took it as directed by Their Majesty's Judges, and could take it not otherwise; and if Their Majesties by Their Courts declared their Sense in the passing the Act for the Oath in favour to all innocent and tender Consciences, I hope it was no Insincerity to accept that Lenity, and Ease, and at once to save their Stations, and their Consciences, and the Public Peace of Church and State.  Dyscher. 
But what if a Man be persuaded of the Impiety of this whole Revolution, and thinks that the Vengeance of God will fall upon the Nation hereupon, can he in Piety swear himself a Party to those Sins, on which he expects God's dreadful Judgements?  Eucher. 
If Men's Minds be entangled in wrong Notions, they can act well no way, neither with, nor against their Persuasions. But then such Men's Infirmities, how pitiable soever, must not obstruct Public Constitutions. Now if such Persuasions be well grounded, there must be a Public Rule of Conscience to justify them. And here I demand, what Law of God manifestly makes it a Sin, to comport with Civil Powers, settled according to the Forms and Laws of Nations, though many Immoralities have led the way, and Preparations to such Settlements? They, that act sinfully, to introduce such new Powers, have Cause to expect God's heavy Displeasure but they that contribute no evil to the Change, but submit to it, when publicly settled, are perhaps one sort of the Meek, that shall inherit the Earth, in yielding that active Obedience, which St. Paul requires to the Powers or Authorities in being; and St. Peter to the Humane Constitution. And therefore were there no other crying Sins of the Nation, 
The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Per. 2.13. Denotes the Acts of Settlement to be of Humane Law, Right, and Forms, though, the Authority of the Persons thus Settled or Constituted be Divine: And 'tis very harsh to understand it for Mankind.  this peaceable yielding to Humane Constitutions needs not be dreaded. So little ground is there for those your Superstitious Jealousies.  Dyscher. 
'Tis easy for Sophistry to put fair Glosses upon foul: Matters; but if K. James ever return, these Recusants will be able to make a better Plea son their Cause, than you will for yours. And though they may be Persecuted again for their Religion; yet can they not suffer as Traitors, and Evil-doers. And herein they comfort themselves, though they are for Conscience sake killed all the day long, and are counted as Sheep appointed to be slain. But you! What will you say, when it shall be demanded of you, by what Authority you transferred your Allegiance without his Will? When it shall be objected, That you were sworn to him, not the Estates of this Realm; and he, not they, had the only Right of disposing your Allegiance?  Eucher. 
Upon such a Turn as you mention, I grant you good Answers may have no Reception; for Swords and Guns have no Ears: But yet a good Answer may be given, to wit, That we had his Authentic Grant for so doing.  Dyscher. 
That is strange.  Eucher. 
Did not K. James, in his Declaration for Indulgence, Dispense with the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy to all his Subjects?  Dyscher. 
That was an ineffectual and null Act in itself, as being contrary to Law.  Eucher. 
Must the Law then be the Rule of Civil Actions both in King and People?  Dyscher. 
It must so.  Eucher. 
Was K. James' Coronation Oath a Legal Act?  Dyscher. 
It was so.  Eucher. 
Then by that he swore to assert unto this People their Laws, Rights, and Liberties. Which Laws and Liberties do assign our Allegiance to the King for the time being, though extralineal. And if the Lineal Heir may hang me as a Traitor for breach of that Allegiance to an extralineal King, by which himself was a while excluded; whether this Law be equal, or no, (though I believe it is very equal) yet it is equal that the Subject should not be hanged for observing that Law, by the same Prince, who may by the Law hang him for not observing it. And they that venture so much upon their Integrity to K. James, if they break the Laws of Allegiance to K. William, may be hanged by K. James as Traitors, when he returns, according to Law. A fine colour for Papists to dispatch those Protestants, that by their being intowered, blasted all their fine Projects upon our Liberties and Religion.  Dysch. 
But will not this infer Subjection due to O. C? was he not settled much more absolutely, and strongly than K. William? And yet we see upon the return of K. Charles the Second, all his Laws pronounced null, and all his Adherents liable to Punishment, and needing a Pardon. And those Churchmen were in the right, who refused the Engagement, though by your new Doctrines, they resisted the Ordinance of God in O. C. to their own Damnation.  Eucher. 
To which I Reply, First, That his Acts had no Legal Validity according to our Laws, because he was not King, and no Allegiance by those Laws was due to him. Nor yet had he any Legal Form of Settlement, according to the general Rules of Civil Laws. For mere Possession by force of Arms is no Legal Establishment in a Throne by those Laws, till it acquire a federal Admission and Homage in a Nation, either virtually by long Prescription of Public Accordance, or formally by an immediate and public Act of Submission by the Estates, or Representatives of a Nation. Now as O. C. wanted the Plea of Prescription, so neither could, or did he pretend a National Contract, as having no Lord's House, nor free House of Commons. On the Sense of which Defect, he so earnestly, but vainly, struggled by Art and Force to compass it. So that all the Power of O. C. acquired no Form of Right, or Legal Settlement; and consequently the Laws of Allegiance to the Royal Heir, were still in force and obliging; to which O. C. himself was by Law and Oath Subject; and being so, could not be Sovereign at the same time. Upon which occasion I cannot but highly commend that Notion of Compact, (which you so frankly scout) in that it gives us Lawful Right to Repel Tyrants and Intruders, though it cannot palliate Treasons against lawfully settled Princes. And for the further recommendation hereof, I could particularly show, that it was the Form of Settlement in all the Kings of God's own People, admitted by God at their importunity, according to the then way and manner of the Nations: But this is a Digression, and so I forbear to say more upon it.  Dyscher. 
Well! Admitting these your Arguments to be true, and with you sufficiently persuasive to Conformity, what Inference do you hereupon draw against the Recusants, who have other Notions to them convincing, on which they build their Practice?  Eucher. 
First, I infer, that there is no ground for Recusancy; and Secondly, much less for Separation from us; and our Public Assemblies, from which we do not exclude you; and Lastly, That the Church is not guilty of Sin, in admitting new Bishops and Ministers into the Places of the Deprived, considering the Authorities, Causes and Consequences of things, and the Temper, with which the Church submits to this Ecclesiastical Change.  Dyscher. 
The Grounds of Recusancy to us seem real, and yours nothing but Shade and Varnish: But Secondly, admitting them to be true, yet not being obviously, but intricately so, they who cannot arrive to a Conviction by them, are certainly bound not to join in those Prayers, which recommend those unto God for Sovereigns, whom we judge not such, against him who is our Sovereign, but ranked among the Number of K. W's. and Q. M's. Enemies.  Eucher. 
But how comes this Change about? The Prayers for K. William and Q. Mary were consented to by all the Recusant Bishops, and by them (for their Officers without any Prohibition) sent to the Clergy of every Diocese, and by them generally received. The Bishops were present at them, directed their Clergy upon Consultation to use them. And thus things stood till the day of their Suspension. No blowing the Public Trumpet against Perjury; no denunciation of Anathema against these Prayers; but a general calm and candid Concession, in that disputable Case to every Conscience, to act upon its own best Light. How then comes it to pass, that we are all of a sudden Perjured, and Apostate, and yet have no Public Instrument, or Means of Conversion or Conviction. For against this 'tis unworthy to object the danger of Persecution. When the Souls of Men, and the Church's Integrity are concerned, there the Watchman ought not to wink, there the Men of God ought not to be silent, but first loudly forewarn, and after as loudly labour to reverse the Evil. This is the more Rational, in that we do not seem sine ratione insanire, but have very momentous and weighty Reasons for our Conformity, which will excuse from wilful Perjury, and which are not refuted; though where our Apologists happen to trip, they are animadverted on with all uncharitable severity. And as to the danger of Praying against K. James, 'tis certain the Prayers express him not; and if you Rank him among the Number of K. William's Enemies, you may best know that, but we do not so; for an Enemy is one that designeth to injure a Man; and we are not sure K. James doth so design against K. William; and yet if he doth, 'tis Lawful to Pray that K. William may therein vanquish, and overcome him; that is, defeat him in that injurious Design; for no more can be intended in these Prayers, for we Pray for no Man's, no King's Destruction, or Hurt, but for all Christian King's, and Governors, even those against whom we Wage open War.  Dyscher. 
But in the Service of the 29th of May there is a Prayer that voweth Allegiance to Their Majesties K. William and Q. Marry, and how can we upon our Principles be present at that Prayer?  Eucher. 
Then forbear to be present at it, tho' I have been by a good Author assured, That the Recusant Bishops did not at first stick at that, but that some gave Directions and Consent to the use of it; and also, before their Suspension, deputed Persons to Administer the Oath in the Execution of the Authorities, and Offices Episcopal thus deputed; which must argue, that they did not think that Ministry unlawful, or (which God forbidden us in the least to suspect) that themselves were not sincere.  Dyscher. 
You must allow Men to retract their Errors.  Eucher. 
And expect the Reasons of such Change, and not instead thereof an inexorable Censure upon us, for no other Actions than what themselves deliberately and long countenanced and authorised; and in which we can yet see no harm, lest by condemning us to Penitence, they put themselves into the same Crime, and under the same Expiation.  Dyscher. 
But, to come to the main, how do you acquit yourselves from Schism, in rejecting your Fathers and Brethren, driven by the State from their Stations in the Church, for mere Conscience sake? For admitting them to be in Error, the Error is in Points of Law, and the Obligations of Statutes, and the Oaths enacted by them, in which the Judgements of Lawyers vary with the turns of State. Have they done any positive Injury? Have they violated their Innocency, or stained the Sanctity of their Order, that they should be cast out as Reprobate? Is Error, in entangled Laws, Heresy; and fear of Perjury, and the appearance of Evil, Infidelity? Such Judgement, I trust, will not pass upon them in the Day when God shall gather and bind up his Jewels.  Eucher. 
The Temper, with which the Church admits this, is Mild and Compassionate, and concurs not without reluctancy, and great sorrow, and so is not in that respect Schismatical. Nor doth the Church judge their Consciences towards God, but with great deference, and Charity hopes and thinks the best; which moderation I wish you could imitate under your present state. But this, I confess, we think your Principles in their Practical Consequences (considering the inflammable Tempers of Men) as resented by the State, to be dangerous, not only in respect of Trouble, but of Sin, even Schism, and Sedition, both in Church, and State, by the breaking of the one against the other. Which Dangers, when the State presses the Church to remove, by exauctorating the Patrons of those dangerous Principles and Practices, how can the Church, that thinks this Demand of the State just, and rational, and necessary to be yielded to, deny the Demand? For, in cases of danger from men's Principles, the Church hath ever been wont to judge; not upon men's Personal Morals only, or chief, but the Soundness and Tendency of the Persuasions. In which whatsoever is contrary to sound Judgement and Unity must be condemned, and the Fautors exauctorated, how Innocent soever their Personal Morals be. For even some men's Principles may be too rigorously Pious, and have no other Fault, and yet in such the Church discards the non-returning Patrons of them, when they grow up into a Flame. The Montanistical, Novatian, Meletian, Donatist, and Luciferian Rigours (not to mention several others) beguiled many Pious Men out of their Order, and out of the Church: Her Prudence always taking Care to impose no Snare nor Yoke upon men's Consciences, above what the Equity of the Divine Laws requires. And sure I am, that your Maxims of Loyalty are such as the State of Mankind admits not of, and are repugnant to all Civil Composures; and therefore dissonant to the Laws of Christianity. I will not here digress into Particulars; but supposing our Church, that conforms, thus to judge of your Principles, can you think she ought to assert you, in public Conduct of men's Consciences, to the Dissolution of our Peace against the Command of the Sovereign Powers, that are the Guardians of it? The public Judgement regards the Tendencies and Consequences of men's avowed Opinions, and promotes, permits, or inhibits their Course according as it sees them useful, tolerable, or dangerous in the Public Weal; and particular Persons must be content to be bounded in their Actions and Authorities by these Rules and Measures, or else farewell all public Order and Peace. For supposing, for once, that all Recusant Bishops and Clergy had been freely left to their own several Senses, Prayers, and Sermons in this present State, some would have prayed, and preached up K. James, others K. William, others neither. Divers Parishes, divers Prayers, divers Sovereigns; in the same Churches some would oppose, and some applaud the Minister with all manner of Tumults and Disorders. And, even in those Liturgies, where no King were named, the Prayers would be contrary under one common Equivocation; Bishop against Bishop, Clergy against Clergy, Prayers against Prayers, Sermons against Sermons, and People against People in the Public Acts and Duties of Religion. And hence must follow a total breach of Sacred Union, which would speedily pass into a Civil Sedition. So necessary it is to set Rules of Uniformity, which those that will not stand to, may (if not must) justly be exauctorated.  Dyscher. 
Why then, it seems, you think our Deprivations not only Lawful, but Necessary to avoid Schism; which we all the while charge upon you?  Eucher. 
Hold a little! I do not give you my own Judgement, nor yet simply the Sense of the Church upon the Matter antecedent to, and abstracted from the Will of the State. But this is the Sense of the Church, That since the State, to avoid the above mentioned Confusions, decrees the Recusants to be deprived, She, that thinks the Deprivation simply Lawful, doth, upon Demand of the Civil Powers, think it necessary; for that the Church must yield to the State all just Security to Public Peace and Order; which cannot be, if she assert Men in Authority, whose Principles must destroy it.  Dyscher. 
But what will you think, at lowest, equal, if the State had not exacted Deprivation?  Eucher. 
That's no great matter what I think, yet between you and me I will draw out my Soul to you. First, I should have thought it rational, that all Recusants should promise upon Oath not to disturb the State by Word or Deed, but to abide by the Laws and Administrations of the Government. Secondly, That they would Censure no Man for Conformity. Thirdly, That by themselves, or others, they should execute the Offices of their Function according to the present Laws, as most of the suspended Clergy did by their Curates and Bishops, before the Day of Suspension, by their Deputies. And, upon voluntary Breach hereof, to be deprived by an Ecclesiastical Judgement, authorized by Law. For Order, Peace, and Uniformity there must be in all, especially Religious Societies; and they that will not secure it, must be exauctorated, and not be permitted a Public Power or Advantage to promote any kind of Confusion.  Dyscher. 
Well! But admitting the Recusancy to infer an Incapacity in the Circumstances, and under the Restrictions that press the Church, yet they are condemned by an incompetent Lay-Power, in a Spiritual and Hierarchical Censure; to which, if we submit as Right, or Regular, we then give up all to Erastianism, and a Bishop shall be but an Ecclesiastical Justice, and a Priest a Church-Constable. To prevent which we are to stick to our Principles, that the Judicial Power of Civil Authority is of Secular Virtue and Operation only; but that the Spiritual Censures are not from the Swords of Princes, but Apostolic Descent and Original.  Eucher. 
What sort of Censure do you hold Deprivation to be?  Dyscher. 
As to the Essentials of it consisting in a Divorce, and Excission of the Priest's Relation, Care, and Offices to the Souls of the People, 'tis purely a Spiritual Censure, inherent only in Ecclesiastical Judicatories.  Eucher. 
But you cannot forget, that the Church is incorporated into the State, from which it derives all its Temporalities; which are so entwisted with the Spiritual Functions, by Mutual Constitution and Concord of Church and State, that they cannot be separated. Now hereupon the State may judge in such Matters, which appertain to it in the Church, having never quitted that Power to the Church only.  Dyscher. 
'Tis true, the Church Offices are thus concorporated with several Secular External Concomitants; but the Accessary is to follow, not to lead the Principal; and 'tis a bad Incorporation wherein the Body must Enslave; and not be Subordinate to the Soul. I hope the Church in this Accord did not act profanely, like Esau; sell her Birthright for a Dish of Portage; her Spirituals to a Foreign Power for a few Secular Trifles. Rather therefore let the State resume her own, and leave the Church to her own lovely Simplicity, than usurp upon the Inheritance of our Lord.  Eucher. 
Will you deny all Lay-people a Right in all Spirituals?  Dyscher. 
In all Spiritual Authorities.  Eucher. 
Please you to define the Act of a Spiritual Deprivation.  Dyscher. 
Deprivation is the Effectual and Total Separation of a Spiritual Person from his Charge, so as to make way for the Introduction of another.  Eucher. 
Is the Interest only of the Priests concerned in the Spiritual Charge, or are the Souls of the People also interested in the Relation?  Dyscher. 
No doubt the Interest, as well as the Relation is Mutual.  Eucher. 
Are there any Causes which may dissolve this Relation, and vacate the Charge?  Dyscher. 
Yes; all Flagitious and Pestilential Sins, as Apostasy, Heresy, Schism, etc.  Eucher. 
Upon whom must the Punishment of Separation fall?  Dyscher. 
Upon the Guilty.  Eucher. 
Who must Execute it?  Dyscher. 
The Ecclesiastical Judge.  Eucher. 
But what if he be the Person Guilty?  Dyscher. 
Then is he to be deprived by his Superiors.  Eucher. 
What if he hath none?  Dyscher. 
Then by a Synod.  Eucher. 
What if the Synod is to be called by him, or are confederate with him?  Dyscher. 
Then must they be left to God.  Eucher. 
But may not the Clergy and People, in the mean time, Separate from his Authority, and his Communion, if he from the Chair recommend, or enforce his Corruptions? or must they be bound to be humbly present at all his profane Ministeries?  Dyscher. 
I yield they may go off: But who shall judge upon the Cause?  Eucher. 
If there be no other Superior Judge, than God is to be appealed to; and in the mean time they must have a judgement of Conscience and Discretion for themselves, what to do in such incorrigible Disorders.  Dyscher. 
Right enough! But this judgement of Conscience is not a judgement of Authority, which is necessary to a total Separation, Deprivation, and Vacancy.  Eucher. 
Is it Cause enough to Separate, and to complain to other untainted and Social Bishops of  Churches, for Relief against the Spiritual Impostor?  Dyscher. 
I must grant that, since this is the Original way of detecting, and bringing Heretical Bishops to Ecclesiastical Order, or Censure; as is evident from the most Ancient Church-Histories.  Eucher. 
What Relief can Social Bishops, or  Churches give in this case?  Dyscher. 
If they cannot Reform, they may Condemn and Expel the Impostor.  Eucher. 
Have Social Bishops, and  Churches any Jurisdiction over each other?  Dyscher. 
What if they have not?  Eucher. 
Then their Sentence is not of Authority, but only Conscience and Discretion, and of no more Validity than that of the abused Laity and Clergy.  Dyscher. 
Well! How do you determine herein?  Eucher. 
I judge, that the People by judgement of Conscience for their own Salvation, and the Church's Peace, may Separate from an Imposturous Bishop, and address to other Social Bishops to consecrate them another, which they by the like judgement of Conscience, without proper Jurisdiction, may do upon the Notoriety and Incorrigibleness of the Evil. And this was very often and constantly done in the Primitive Ages; and asserted for Right and Just by the African Bishops, in the Cases of the two Churches of Asturica and Emerita, in their Epistle extant, the 68 among St. Cyprian's Epistles, concerning the Expulsion of Basilides and Martialis. For the Church is a great Body, whose Health subsists by cutting off all putrid Members; in which all the Members are unanimously to contribute: And if they, that ordinarily should thus remove the Contagion, will not, they, that can, may, for the common Preservation of themselves and the whole Body. I grant you, indeed, that a proper Act of Spiritual Jurisdiction, as the Power of the Keys, Ordination, Degradation, belongs only to the Ecclesiastical Governors, and are incommunicable to the Laity: But it appears, that the Separation or Rejection of a Bishop, may, on just Reasons, be Legally executed by those, that have no Jurisdiction; and the Rectitude, or Obliquity of such Separations is to be judged, not upon the Point of Authority, but of Merit. In all Scythia there was but one Bishop: Now, supposing him an open Heretic or Idolater, who should deprive him? Might not the People renounce him, and send to other Christian Provinces to consecrate, or send them another? And might not the Prince justly eject him, and require his People to concur in it for a new Successor?  Dyscher. 
But 'tis not the People, as a Church, in our Case do thus reject their Pastors for Irregularity, but the Deprivation is an Act of Civil State as such; so that these Instances and Allegations of yours come not up to us. For they acted as Christians in the Right of Souls and Churches; this is an Act of the Civil Power as such, and that for the pretended Security of Civil Interests. Now what Right hath the Temporal Sword to act in Spirituals, and Matters purely Christian and Religious?  Eucher. 
Do not you remember, that our Church ascribes such a Power to our Kings in Ecclesiasticals, as of Right appertained to, and was used by godly Kings of God's own People, recorded in Holy Scripture? Which teacheth us that, as David instituted Holy Offices in the Choir, not required by the Law of Moses, so Solomon deprived Abiathar of the High Priesthood, upon a provocation merely in Civils.  Dyscher. 
To this I have many things to reply, but I will only touch those that are most pertinent to our Case. First, That the whole Institution of the Levitical Law was not of a Spiritual, but Carnal Sanctity, yielded them by God, somewhat in opposition, and somewhat in conformity to the Egyptian, or other Foreign Religions; among whom the Priesthood had been long subjected to, and perhaps first instituted by the Sceptre. And herein the Supreme Judgements in Civils upon the Law, and Oracular Responses on Consultation about Peace, War, and Temporal Actions, and Successes, were Essential to the Authority of the Pontificate. And yet we find this High Priest not subject to any Ordinary Power, till Kings were also given this People after the manner of the Nations; among whom the Mitre was subject to the Crown. All which, put together, makes Abiathar's Deprivation 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 Government of the World without any Civil or Military Power; and that Priesthood was in all its Intentions Spiritual. So that when our Saviour came not only to Restore, but even to Refine upon the Primitive Rules, he restored the Priesthood from Vassalage, and founded his Hierarchy not in Princes, but Apostles; not in armed, but in unarmed Powers.  
Secondly, King Solomon did not properly and judicially deprive Abiathar of the High Priesthood, but only commanded, or required him to quit it on pain of death. For thus the words run, 1 Kings 2.26. And unto Abiathar the priest said the king, Get thee to thy fields at Anathoth, for thou art a man of death: But this day I will not put thee to death, because, etc. Verse 27. And Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord. The LXXII render the 26 Verse thus; Get thee to Anathoth to thy field, for thou art a man of death in this very day, but I will not put thee to death, etc. A man of death, our Translation renders, worthy of death; but the LXXII render the words not so much significative of Merit, as a menace according to such a Paraphrase: Get off to Anathoth to thy field, (for [else] thou art a man of death this very day) and I will not put thee to death. So that Abiathar here was put to his Option, 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 Abiathar's Priesthood determined by his own voluntary Session, not the King's Ecclesiastical Censure.  
Thirdly, Abiathar was not guilty of mere harmless and inseparable Error, as our ejected Bishops and Clergy (if in an Error) must in Justice and Charity be supposed to be; but of wilful, active, and actual Rebellion, against God, and David, both which had before engaged and fixed the Succession in Solomon, and so he could have no Plea or Excuse of Error, or Mistake; for which Cause he silently submits to his Fate without Apology.  Eucher. 
But did not K. Solomon substitute Zadok in his stead, who was not the Lineal Successor in the Line of Abiathar? And was not this as Spiritual and Ecclesiastical an Act as possibly could be ministered in that Church, to which the King's Substituting Bishops in the room of the Deprived seems Parallel?  Dyscher. 
When a Bishopric is Legally Vacant, we admit the King's Right of Nominating a Successor; but we look upon his Deprivations to be Nullities, and you have not proved Abiathar out by merely such a Deprivation. But however, neither is Zadok's Case Parallel; who after Abiathar's Session came in, in Right of his own Inheritance, not the King's Donation. For you must Note, that Zadok was the Primate of the House of Eleazar, in whose Line was the Legal Seat, and Original Right of the Pontificate; but Abiathar was of the Line of Ithamar, and he and his Progenitors had come into the High-Priesthood, contrary to the first Fundamental Rule and Law of Succession. Now when Abiathar quitted the High-Priesthood, he quitted it for himself and his Posterity, who had no Claim thereto Originally Legal; whence it reverted of course to the House of Eleazar, and therein to Zadok, without any Title from the King.  Eucher. 
But from hence I infer, that not only in Times of Subjection to Heathen Powers, but even before they had any Kings in Israel, the Legal and Ecclesiastical Rule of Succession to that Pontificate had been broken, and another Constitution fixed, without any Schism in the Submission of the People. For thus Eli and his Posterity, though of the House of Ithaman, enjoyed it against all the House of Eleazar, to whose Primate however, by the Law, it did belong. And hence I Argue, That though Bishops be unduly put into the Place of others, unduly deprived, the People incur no Schism by submission to the Intruder.  Dyscher. 
I beg your Pardon, Brother Eucheres, in this Point, since that Rule of Succession was capable of exception in Cases of Uncleanness, Defect, or other Irregularities. And further, God, that made that Rule, was not himself bound by it, but had still a reserved Liberty and Authority of altering it: And further, This Rule, did in all probability, permit a voluntary Session or Resignation; so far at least, that thereupon the Pontificate might change its Subject, though the Resignation, or Session, were a Sin of Profaneness. Now some one of these Causes did most probably intervene to the change from Eleazar's Line to Ithamar's; and from 1 Sam. 2.30. it should be founded in God's Determination. But hence it follows not, that a Secular Power can pervert a Divine Rule, and Ratify an opposite Constitution. What was done in the Age of the Maccabees, and afterward by Secular Powers, against the Legal Succession of the Pontificate, as sometimes it might be excused for want of the Lineal Heirs or Genealogies; and sometimes Condemned for Bribery and Usurpation, was yet admitted and ratified, on the post Fact by God; in giving those Intruders the Spirit of Prophecy, Joh. 11.51. But this cannot argue for a Validity, if the Lineal Heir had been known, present and capable, and the Intruder not confirmed by God, the Founder of that Dignity. And I must further Remark, that these Intrusions, though 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 the World, except we must yield to Methods of Violation, that lead to our Extinction.  Eucher. 
Since than you are so hard to be moved by Scripture Instances, what think you of the Appeal, which Constantine admitted from the Party of Donatus, against Cecilian, after several Ecclesiastical Judgements, to which he added his own final Sentence?  Dyscher. 
But surely Constantine did not admit this Appeal, with a Design to pass a Spiritual Censure himself on the Offenders, but to Establish Justice in Peace, by methods properly Imperial, if he should find the past Acts Ecclesiastical insufficient thereunto. And to preoccupate you, the same I say of Athanasius his Appeal to the same Emperor, from the Council of Tyre: For Athanasius, in Matters of Faith, expressly denies Emperor's proper Judges; and he has other Sidemen with him therein among the Fathers.  Eucher. 
But in that Council Athanasius was Condemned, not for Faith, but for pretended Immoralities; and in these Discussions, all Wise Men may be made Judges, and Civil Powers are fit to be made such, or rather are such, in the Right of their Civil Station; and this Athanasius must plainly own in this Appeal.  Dyscher. 
But this doth not hit the Point; nor doth it insert, that Athanasius believed the Emperor, being yet unbaptised, could himself either pass, or rescind a Spiritual Censure, and that effectually; but he did thus Appeal, either that the Emperor might punish the Offenders Imperially, or call a greater and more equal Synod for a Re-hearing, which afterward was obtained at Sardica.  Eucher. 
But if the Temporal Powers, merely as such, cannot directly pass an Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Censure; yet all the necessary Externals to Sacred Offices, as Time, and Place, etc. are in their disposal; so that they may take away our Churches, Maintenance, Leisure, Liberty, and Place for Public Assemblies, which amounts to all the Effects of a Judicial Deprivation; and this perhaps is the only Power claimed by our Kings in this, and other like Acts for Deprivation or Suspension.  Dyscher. 
This indeed by actual Force they may do; but this doth not dissolve our Relation to the old, nor infer a Title to a New Bishop, which is the Point before us. Nor can they justly deny those Externals to the Church, though they may to those that offend against her, on a just presumption of the Church's consent, or her express Petition thereunto. And this was the Sense of St. Athanasius, when he denied Constantius a Church for Arians in Alexandria; and of St. Ambrose, when he and his Flock kept their Churches at Milan, against the Commands and Terrors of the Emperor Valentinian, Junior, on the behalf of the Arians; and of St. Chrysostom, when he at Constantinople denied the Emperor Arcadius a Church, for Gamas his Arian General. And even in Places not Consecrated, Place, Time, and Air, and Liberty to do good, are the Primitive, Fundamental, and undeniable Rights of the Innocent: Else the Christians had sinned, in using these for Christian Worship against the Laws Imperial. So that as yet you can fix no Spiritual Powers in Secular States, that can extinguish a Christian Man's Christian Graces, Rights and Orders.  Eucher. 
But our Lawyers tell us, that our Kings are mixed Persons, and not mere Laity; and so by a joint Act of Sacred and Civil Authority, may execute Spiritual Censures, as far as their Authority hath a mixture of Spirituals.  Dyscher. 
The Doctrine of Lawyers is with us no Divinity; and St. Ambrose and Theodosius the Emperor had other Senses, when the Bishop would not permit the Emperor, being of the Laity, to come within the Chancel, or the Rails of the Altar; and the Emperor acknowledged the Prohibition to be properly Just and Episcopal, and the Rule Ecclesiastical, which he would never more neglect during his Life.  Eucher. 
But though he is of the Laity, yet being Christian, by virtue of his Christianity, and Civil Sovereignty too, he may have Christian jointly with his Civil Authorities: For as Christian, he may be reputed as Head, and Representative of the whole Christian Laity, whom you grant before at Liberty, to separate from an offensive Bishop, and to procure another from Social Bishops. Or if you will not admit him the alone Representative of the Laity, than you may take in the Lords and Commons, the whole Christian Legislative, into that Number, or Body of Representatives.  Dyscher. 
This Notion, as specious as it is, will not hold; for then the King and the Legislative must be professed Members of our Church's Communion; but they claim this Right by virtue of the Royalty, and Legislative Power, though the King be not of our Religious Communion. They will stand by all their Acts in or about Ecclesiasticals, though contrary to all the Canons of Ecclesiastical Integrity, or else I will not give Twopences for the Act of Toleration. And in this Case, before us, they deprive the Bishops on a pretended Title of the Civil Sovereignty, for the just and necessary security thereof; and there is the same Reason for Heathen Monarches to deprive Christian Bishops on the same Pretensions.  Eucher. 
I am almost weary with struggling; and for that Cause will admit, that an Act of a State Christian cannot not alone vacate a Spiritual Charge, by any Divine Law, or Primitive Canon, or Prescription; yet such an Act received, and admitted by the Church, may from her concurrence have a just and legal Effect. And then upon this Notion the Statute of Deprivation ipso facto, must be taken for a Law upon the Church, to eject such Recusants totally from their Stations; and the other Laws for Congee deslire, etc. as Commands on the Church, to admit those the King Recommends to the Sees, which either are, or by the State are reputed Vacant. And then the concurrence of the Church to these Laws of the State doth actually, and (upon just Causes) rightfully exauctorate those, whom the Statute dooms to Deprivation. And to say Truth, in all Ecclesiasticals, 'tis the actual Concurrence of the Church, that gives the Statutes an Ecclesiastical Effect and Issue, and so, though the Original of the Deprivation be Secular, yet the Form is Ecclesiastical; and in this the Essential Virtue thereof lies, and is properly Spiritual and Christian. Tho' then the Laws require, yet the Chapters, Bishops, Clergy, and Laity, do thereupon actually reject, and deprive one and admit another Bishop, etc.  Dyscher. 
Then neither the Act for Deprivation, nor the Writ of Congee deslire do alone vacate the Sees; and if not, by what Authority can Chapters proceed to Elect, and Bishops proceed to Consecrate new ones in the stead of the actual Incumbents?  Eucher. 
Because under all the Obligations Causes herein, the Church ought to empt the Sees of such Incumbents, that are dangerous to the Civil State, by Acts of Separation properly Ecclesiastical, and so it doth; the Dean and Chapter of the Metropolitical Church taking the Jurisdiction, till the Chapter Elect, and Bishops Consecrate another, etc.  Dyscher. 
Who are the proper Judges of this Duty, to eject a Bishop at the Command of the State?  Eucher. 
All Parties pressed thereunto by the Civil Powers, with a proper Judgement of Conscience for themselves and the Church, tho' not of ordinary Jurisdiction over the Bishop. For when two powers contest, and require my concurrence, I must then judge on which side Justice lies, and to which thereupon Duty binds me; and to that I must adhere, and do my Part to hinder the other Party, from opposing that which I am in Duty bound to. And when Chapters and Bishops thus acting, obtain the consequent Concurrence and Comprobation of the whole Church; their Acts have as good an Authority from Humane Consent, as the received Docrees of Councils, whose Validity stands or falls with the subsequent Sense of the Churches in common.  Dyscher. 
The silence and yielding of the Churches in common, consequent upon the Violences Men admit, for fear of Persecution, signifies no certain Persuasion or Conviction, that the Deprived suffer nothing but Justice. If our Cause had been Condemned in your Convocations, you had brought a more specious Argument, for the Sense and Censure of the Church, than this thin Pretence, that carries no Colour nor Shadow of Probability.  Eucher. 
Even here I will endeavour to satisfy you, tho' I shall not gratify you. The General Conformity of most Bishops, Clergy and Laity; our sending a Convocation at Their Majesty's Precept, shows we own Subjection to them, and Condemns the Recusancy as an Error, which of what Consequence it is, every Man, that thinks it Error, sees. And the silence of the Convocations under this Statute of Deprivation, argues their Opinion to be, that they were in this to yield to the State.  Dyscher. 
As if this silence was not the result of Fear and Treachery, rather than Judgement! for this we charge upon Liberius, and the Council of Ariminum, when their concurrence with the Arians is urged in Defence of Arianism.  Eucher. 
Had the Convocation first stoutly decried the Statute, as Liberius, and that Council at first did Arianism, and had upon Menaces, or Experiences of bodily Persecution retracted their Remonstrances, than such a forced Compliance might have been censurable for Cowardice; but here being nothing of this, but a calm and constant quiet under the Procedures of the State, it must be resolved, that the Sense of the Convocation judged it allowable.  Dyscher. 
But if the Church shall yield, without any Remonstrance, to such Intrusions of Civil Powers upon the Church's Liberties, Censures, and Authorities, then for Cause or no Cause, we shall be liable to Suspensions, and Deprivations, according to the Tides of Humour and Temper in our Legislatours, and thus fall under the Arbitrary Disposals, which the High-Priesthood of the Jews suffered under Heathen, and the Greek Patriarchals now suffers under Mahometan Princes; a Blemish not to be endured by any Church, whatsoever it incurs for the Opposition.  Eucher. 
You may remember, that I have yielded to you, that the Consent, Public and Actual Concurrence of the Church, is necessary to give an Ecclesiastical Effect to Civil Ordinances, in Matters of the Church. And so here, the Church is to Judge, whether she may, or must in Duty concur, or no; and hence a Right essentially belongs to it, to examine all the Causes of the Secular Demands. So that if she finds there are 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: Nay, so he ought to have done, had the King been de jure Arbitrary, and of Despotic Power. Thus if a Prince shall trifle, and require a Bishop to Hawk, Hunt, play at Tables, run Races, etc. up on pain of Deprivation, though none of these things be simply Unlawful for Men in General, or for a Bishop to avoid a Persecution; yet upon neglect of such enjoined Follies, no Man will judge a Deprivation Just, nor the neglect a Sin; nor ought the Church to admit Deprivations on such improper and unreasonable Demands. Thus 
† Naz. in Epitaph. Patr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Gregory Nazianzen the Father, in the behalf of the Church of Cappadocia, tells Julian, That they will stand by the Bishop they had set in the Church of Caesarea, whatsoever Law or Violence he should offer to the contrary. And I will grant you, that the Church hath this Right, against the Violence of Christian, as well as Heathen Princes; since 'tis the quality of the Cause, not the Prince, upon which the Church is to Act; Else under the Name of Christian, many Un-Christian Pranks may be obtruded on the Church, to the Reproach and Ruin of Christianity. And whether the Church yields to, or opposes the Laws of the State, justly or unjustly, must not be judged alone from the Rights of Civil Sovereignty, but upon the Reasons of the Subject Matter, in which the Concurrence of the Church is required. And in our Case the Church judges it Lawful and Rational, for her to admit the present Law of Deprivation, from the Weight and Reasons thereof against the present Recusancy. And our Judgement herein hath greater Foundation than those Concurrences and Acts of the Church, in the High Commissions Ecclesiastical had heretofore in the Suspensions, Deprivations (in several Reigns of Reformed Princes) that were purely the Executions of a Royal Authority, delegated to the Judges, upon little (many times) and captious Exceptions, relating sometimes to Civils, sometimes to Ecclesiasticals.  Dyscher. 
But here the chief Delegates, pronouncing Ecclesiastical Censures were generally Bishops, tho' the Assessors were several of them Lay Personages, without whose Vote or Privity nothing was to be done. And this with good Reason, the Causes censurable being many times mixed, and so likewise the Judgements, that is, partly of Civil, partly of Ecclesiastical Importance. But tho' the King's Commission did give them Licence, as to Place, Matter, Form, and time of Proceeding; yet the Ecclesiastical Censures, had their Ecclesiastical Virtue from the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Ecclesiastical Delegates pronouncing them, as in the Censures of Excommunication is most Evident, this being plainly not of Regal, but Apostolic Authority, and the Power of the Keys, which none of our Reformed Princes would assume to themselves, or delegate to mere Lay-Judges.  Eucher. 
But what think you of the Deprivation passed on the Bishops, etc. Recusant to the Royal Supremacy of Queen Elizabeth, by Virtue of an Act of Parliament; which by their Lay Power did overbear the Episcopal, and upon whose Order herein standeth our Ecclesiastical Succession from those Bishops, that succeeded in the room of the Deprived?  Dyscher. 
You must note that these Recusants were guilty of the false Doctrine of the Papal, against the Regal Supremacy: Which false Doctrine had been before Synodically condemned in the Reign of H. VIII, and so effectually stood, tho' Q. Mary martyred, deprived, and exiled both the Orthodox Bishops and Clergy, for this really, as well as for other Orthodoxies. Therefore those deprived by Q. Eliz. were either Apostate from the Doctrine they had before professed in entrance into their Stations, and so were ipso facto irregular, and to be, de jure Canonico, deserted of all; or else they came into the rooms of Men unjustly deprived, and so were Usurpers; or into Places really vacant; which, for not owning by Oath and Doctrine the Regal Supremacy, they were not capable of, by the still unrepealed Canons of the Church, and so were, in truth, not true Bishops, nor Ministers of the Places they assumed. Well therefore might they deprive them of the Bishoprics, etc. that were in no Canonical Title the true Proprietors. But here ours deprived were all true Proprietors, under no Irregularity, through Apostasy, false Doctrine, or uncanonical Deficiencies.  Eucher. 
You frame new Notions now, not started, nor conceived then. For, upon your Plea, they should never have sat in that Parliament, nor have been owned as Bishops before that Act past; but yet so they were in all their Titles. And in the Disputation at Westminster, in the beginning of the Queen's Reign, the five Popish Bishops were owned with all their Titles by the Lords of the Queen's Privy Council, and by the Protestant Disputants themselves: Even as Hooper also owns them for such, and the whole Popish Convocation for such, in his Epistle that he wrote to it in the days of Q. Mary. And in that Station they had continued upon their former Installations (except only such, who had offended, or usurped the Places of Men yet in being, and expecting restitution) if they would have taken the Oath of Supremacy. Here therefore the State enacts and Ecclesiastical Deprivation; and it is all one, whether you will say on a Civil, or Ecclesiastical Point; if on a Civil, than the Case is the same with ours; if Ecclesiastical also, than that Parliament entered more upon Ecclesiastical Matters, and Authorities than this hath done; and yet you condemn not that Parliament as Schismatical, nor the Church admitting it Apostate: Why then charge you this upon our State and Church now? Here is no doctrinal Point of Theology, which the State determines against the Right of the Church herein, but only a mere question in Civils, who is my Sovereign to whom my Allegiance is by Law due. Which is a Debate, not for a Synod, but a Parliament; and to whose Judgement, in pure Civils, all Subjects must submit; and the Church, as such, hath nothing to do in the Decision. And Dr. Hammond, whom, I suppose, Men of your Principles will not Censure for Schism, or Disloyalty, 
* Tract. of Schism, c. ●.  justifies Q. Elizabeth's Deprivations for that Recusancy, immediately; On the Right and Power of the Supreme Magistrate to make Laws for the securing his Government, and to inflict the Punishments prescribed by those Laws on the Disobedient: And for this true Right he thinks all Government is concerned. And concludes there was no Injustice in that Act of the Queen's, which divested prove their Fidelity to their Lawful Sovereign.  Dyscher. 
The Doctor indeed thus states it; but he sticks to the Lawful Sovereign.  Eucher. 
Are you obliged to inquire into the Sovereign's Lawful Title?  Dyscher. 
Yes, surely, in order to just Allegiance.  Eucher. 
What, as a Christian, or a Subject?  Dyscher. 
Primarily as a Subject; but, secondly, also as a Christian in a state of Subjection; the Duties of which the Rules of Christianity require me to perform.  Eucher. 
Very well! For here your Christianity refers your Obedience to the Secular Laws and Constitutions, and gives no Laws or Rules in Civils itself. And in truth, the Church, as such, is a Stranger, and the State its Hospital, while she is travelling from hence to her Heavenly abodes. Now every Stranger, hospitably received, is obliged to all the Laws of Hospitably on his part; that is, Fidelity, and Unconcernednesss in the Oeconomicks and Interests of the Hospital, and all reasonable Defence against Violences offered to the Master, or His Family, etc. and is not obliged to take notice of Titles, and Competitions. So the Church, as such, if Hospitably received by the State, is quitted, as a Stranger, from Curiosities about the Civil Titles. But, as Christians, are Natives, or Denizens, and so Subjects, they are to the determined by the Civil Laws, and Judicatories, and Constitutions; else there must be eternal Seditions, since 'tis not possible in Fact, or Law, that every single Person can have Cognisance, or Unanimity. And here I will ask you one question, relating to us, as a Church. Whether he that hath unjustly gotten into a full Settlement upon another Prince's Dominions, aught to Succour the Church in those Dominions?  Dyscher. 
He ought to quit them.  Eucher. 
This may be in most Cases, tho' not, perhaps, Universally true: But, if he doth not, is he obliged to Succour the Church, during his Government?  Dyscher. 
He should, as it seems; for I know not how to say the contrary.  Eucher. 
What! Tho' the Church refuses Subjection, and professeth Hostility to him?  Dyscher. 
I am not so hardy to affirm this.  Eucher. 
The result than is, That if the Imperial Powers be bound to Cherish the Church, the Church must be obliged to Secure them of her Fidelity: And if particular Members refuse, they are Enemies to the Church, as well as to the State: And therefore their Deprivation in the Church the more Rational, and perhaps (as to the actual Administration of the Functions) absolutely necessary.  Dyscher. 
Are you at that again?  Eucher. 
I pray attend, and give Righteous Judgement. The Subjects of England own Allegiance somewhere, either to K. James or K. William, this is certain. They then, that refuse Allegiance to K. William, reserve it to K. James; by which, at his Command, they are to engage in an actual War against all Conformists as Traitors and Rebels; and this People are to be Taught to do upon pain of Damnation. The Church, in the mean time, hath admitted K. William, and given him Allegiance against all Hostilities. I am not here concerned whether side is in the right Allegiance, but shall only observe, That no Priests can well Execute their Ecclesiastical Functions to a People, whom, at another Man's Pleasure, they are bound to Destroy; to the effecting, actually whereof, there wants nothing but opportunity. I do not say, That these unfortunate good Bishops, and Clergy would concur to, or promote such Butcheries; but am firmly persuaded, that a Nature, better than their Politics, would govern their Practices: But than it is certain, that Nature itself must condemn their Principles, and their very Bowels render them disobedient to their own Laws, and Civil Maxims; which, if pursued, must expose this Nation to an utter Destruction at K. James' Pleasure: 'Tis necessary, therefore, that Ecclesiastical Union comport with the Civil, in order to a Just and Mutual Peace.  Dyscher. 
Was there no way to have healed this Rupture before it grew so wide?  Eucher. 
I cannot tell that; but the time assigned by the Law, and the King's long forbearance to fill the Sees after the day of Deprivation, argues a willingness in the State to give Men time to consider, and to allay their Prejudices, and use means to come under the Public Shelter; of which the Restitution and Preferment of Dr. Sherlock is a clear Instance. But the Recusants seem against all Entreaties wanting to themselves, and an happy Coalition. They have made no offers, no applications, but receded further from Sacred and Civil Communion than at first they did; which neglect must look like a contempt, at least, if not an hatred of the Constitution. Nay, I know a Diocese, where the Bishop utterly suppressed a Petition, signed by his Clergy; and ready to be presented to Their Majesties for the Restitution of the Metropolitan, the Bishop, and the Suspended Clergy of that Diocese. And I have it from a good Hand, that a Motion for such a Petition was stifled in the Lower House of Convocation, upon a Report made of my Lord Archbishop Sancroft's Request to the contrary. The Reasons of this Averseness did, no doubt, unto them, seem Pious and Rational; nor do I condemn them: But how far this Dischargeth the Clergy in their admission of new Bishops, besides the Causes Original, God must judge; and these Fathers have reason tenderly to consider, who would use, or admit no Means of continuing with us, but have left us in great Distresses, for the loss of them, whom we so much love; and for the Prejudices and Scandals, that arise upon this unhappy Occasion.  Dyscher. 
The state of things is very Deplorable. May the Grace of God lead us into all Truth, Wisdom, Meekness, Gentleness, Charity, and an Universal Conformity to his Holy Will in all our Actions and Sufferings; That no Evil Root of Bitterness, Consoriousness, or Schism may sour or corrupt our Spirits, but that the Love of God may guide us in the midst of all Temptations; that at length, in this divided People, Mercy and Truth may meet together, and Righteousness and Peace may kiss each other.  Eucher. 
And let all the People say, Amen, Amen.  
FINIS.