founded on Dr. Hicks's Scheme of a Spiritual Monarchy. The New Teftament acquaints us with the mutual Duties of Paftor and People; but no where infifts upon fuch a spiritual Relation, &c. as is not to be diffolv'd by the Civil Power. And the first Chrif tian Emperors frequently diffolv'd that Relation, as appears by divers Facts related by Eufebius, Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomen.

Anfw. 3. 'Tis obfervable that the fame Perfons who have coin'd the Divine Right of Kings to their Kingdoms, now begin to affert a Divine Right of BiShops to their Diocefes, and the Divine Right of the Clergy to their Benefices; and pray why not a Divine Right of the Poor to the Alms of the Parish? What a wild and vagrant Notion have thefe Men of Divine Right? Poor unhappy Laity! you are bound and must obey both your Spiritual and Secular Princes, be they never fo wicked, there's no Remedy from your felves, till they are pleas'd to diffolve the Relation themselves.

22. Well! but whence does this indiffoluble Relation between a Bishop and his Diocese arife? Why hence, as this Gentleman tells us; "A Man is or"dain'd to fomewhat, and a Bishop confecrated to fome"what, i. e. not only for the Exercife of a Minifte"rial or Episcopal Authority, but for the executing of "it in this or that Parish or Diocefe; and this before "Chriftianity had the Protection of the Civil Govern"ment." Admit this, how does it appear by this account, that the Relation between the Bishop and his Diocese is indiffoluble by the Civil Power? If this were true, the Diocefes of the Bishops, whom many Christian Emperors banish'd, muft have remain'd vacant; which yet, we all know, were fill'd by new Bishops. Our Laws take no notice of this pretended indiffoluble Relation: K. Henry VIII. difmember'd feveral Bishopricks, and erected five new ones by Letters Patents, without the leaft Oppofition for infringing this pretended indiffoluble Relation. Tunftal Bishop of Durham was depriv'd of his Bishoprick

in

are not bound to fubmit to a Heathen, or a Papist endeavouring to fubvert it: for their Establishment is a part, and the best part of the Powers that be, or of the Ordinance of God, &c. to which they are to fubmit. 4. A Popish Prince cannot rule us by Proteftant Laws, as abundance of our Statutes are; and they are fuch Laws too, as I hope we chiefly value: and therefore voting fuch a Prince incapable of ruling us, is our declaring what he knew in his own Confcience was true.

§. 18. But the Lay-Gentleman hopes no one will fay, That Popery is more dangerous than Paganism. I anfwer certainly 'tis, in fome refpects, than fome forts of Paganifm, under which Chriftians may live peaceably and fafely: but under Popish Governments there is no Medium betwixt Popery and Perfecution. He goes on; "A Heathen propagating "Idolatry, and perfecuting Chriftians, was to be sub"mitted to as their Civil Governour. If he means by St. Paul's Doctrine fuch Submiffion was due, it must be understood in all things juft, reafonable, and prudent. To be quiet was their Province, who had it not in their power to remedy the Disorders of the Roman Government; which great good Work, if others neglected, to whom it belong'd, and quietly fuffer'd good Government, the Ordinance of God, to be trampled on, they were inexcufable.

§. 19. But the Lay-Gentleman fays, p. 16. "Sup"pose it be allow'd, that a Popish Prince has once endeavour'd the Subverfion of the Civil Conftitution, " will it therefore follow that every Roman Catholick

Prince will certainly do the fame?" Who is this Gentleman? What has he to do to put fuch an abfurd Question, when all is fettled? If this Gentleman be a Papist, he does not doubt but a Popish King would fubvert our Proteftant Conftitution: And if he be a Proteftant, he can't doubt it, unless he wants common Senfe. For a Papift, as fuch, profeffes himfelf an Enemy to our Conftitution, and can be no

lefs, whilst he continues a Papift; and to fancy he would not, as the Layman fpeaks, is great Weakness, or diffembling his real Opinion: for did he ever know any Popifh Prince, in any Proteftant Country, that fail'd in his Duty to the Papal Interest, when 'twas in his power? But we are at prefent otherwife engag'd, God be prais'd, and fhall not make a trial of the Unanimity of the Church in afferting her Rights, which we should have little reason to expect from abundance of her Members; who are little acquainted with her Constitution, and would, too many of 'em, value a Prince's Favour above any Religion in the World.

S. 20. This Gentleman in his 16th Page is pleas'd to acquaint us with his Notion of the word Abdication, which he fays the Romans understood to be, "when a Magiftrate or Officer voluntarily refign'd his Trust, and lived a private Member of the fame Community; which is beft understood by reading Roman "Writers. Now (fays he) this was fo far from being the "Cafe of the late King James, that he fled for his Per

fonal Security, and continu'd claiming till his Death." I know this has pafs'd current among many, and fome who fhould know better, for many years, as the true and only Notion of the word Abdication. But had this Lay-Gentleman, or his Friend, well confider'd the Roman Writers, he would have found often in thofe Writers a Compulsive as well as a Voluntary Abdication; in Livy particularly: Coegerunt abdicare fe Magiftratu, will be found in that Hiftorian again and again: And the Civilians in their Books are no Strangers to that Phrafe. So that I wonder this Layman fhould mention Roman Hiftorians, and be at the fame time a Stranger to the Senfe of the word Abdication. The late King James's Abdication was in both fenfes, all the parts of his Male- Administration, recited in the Bill of Rights, particularly his raifing the

* Will. & Mary.

Cuftoms

1

nable Principles, openly maintain'd, treasonable Acts? They who difown the whole Frame and prefent Conftitution of our Government, fure cannot pretend to ask liberty to have publick Meetings, which would be Affemblies of profefs'd Rebels; yet this Gentleman, who has more regard for them than the Church and Bishop with whom he pretends to hold Communion, is become their Advocate, and is fo bold as to offer at difguifing the Bishop's Reasoning; for he infinuates, that the mere Exercife of the holy Function by the Nonjuring Clergy, can do no hurt to the State. 'Tis very true, mere praying and preaching cannot hurt the State; but praying and preaching feditiously may, and the affembling of Perfons of feditious and traitorous Principles may; which is what the Bishop by his Principles plainly oppofes. And to ftate the Cafe otherwise, looks like a Defign to render the Bishop or his Notions odious; as indeed feveral Passages too plainly, tho not honeftly, endeavour at throout the Book: As for inftance, in pag. 4. where he pleads for a Toleration for his Friends the Nonjurors, he is pleas'd to say, He thinks their Nonjuring ought not to be made a Reafon to deprive them of Holy Orders. Nor does the Bishop think it ought, nor does any body elfe that I know: But has not this Writer Senfe or Candour enough to diftinguish between Deprivation ab Officio, and Deprivation ab Executione Officii pro bic & nunc? Do our Acts of Parliament, or did any Civil Power in King William's, or Queen Anne's, or now in King George's Reign, take upon it to deprive the Clergy of Holy Orders for Nonjurancy? No fuch matter has been attempted, or fo much as thought on; tho it can't be faid fome of them ha'nt well deferv'd it, for a most extravagant Profanation of religious Affemblies, with riotous feditious Discourses.

0.25. But the Exercife of the Chriftian Priesthood is neither Treafon nor Rebellion, fays Mr. S-th, p. 10. Most certainly the proper Exercife is not; but the abusive

Exercise

Exercise of it by feveral Nonjurors moft certainly has been; of which he muft remember fome late notorious Inftances among the Rebels, and I wish there were none fuch to be met with amongst those who have taken the Oaths. Does it become a found Member of our Church to exafperate his Readers by infifting upon it, that the Bishop muft mean a total Deprivation, (Confiderations, pag. 21.) contrary to abundance of exprefs words, and to very plain Paffages in the Prefervative, and fome of them cited by this Layman? Upon this falfe Suppofition he enlarges, fhewing what the Apostles did, notwithstanding they were oppos'd by the Civil Power: And who is there that doubts, that not only an Apoftle, but every Chriftian is bound, as he can, to reafon and perfuade the World to be wife and good, all human Powers and Laws to the contrary notwithstanding? Such part of a Preacher's Office, or of a private Chriftian's Duty, no Civil, no Canonical Deprivation can hinder the Execution of; but if Preachers, upon Principle not difguis'd, but openly profefs'd, are Enemies to a Government, and upon Principle too Friends to its greatest Enemies, has the Civil Power no Right to deprive fuch of their Civil Privileges? And fuch are their Benefices, &c. which are the Alms of the

* Upon thofe Words of the A (1 W. & M.) [deriv'd from their Offices] the Bishop gloffes, Saying, the Deprivation here Spoken of is from a Right to execute their Office. And, p. 40. The Lay-Power does not concern it felf with the Power within. And, P.55. The Civil Power may hinder their actual Exercife of their Office, whenever, &c. And again, p. 65. It is abfolutely necessary to the Being of the Civil Power, that any Ecclefiaftick should be depriv'd of his Right to the Exercife of his Of fice, if that be inconfiftent with the Safety of the State; which was the Cafe of Abiathar in Solomon's Reign: Now that is all that is included in the Deprivation we are speaking of, &c. And therefore tho it may be faid, that Deprivations upon other Accounts must be perform'd by a spiritual Authority, yet this does not, because a Matter of a Civil Nature must belong to the Civil Power. And more to the fame purpose in several other Places.

Srate;