« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
8 The Bishop of BANGOR's Powers, and a regular uninterrupted Succession, &c. This Tendency to Popery, with Riots and Rebellions, and a settled Disaffection to our true Constitution in Church and State, are the unhappy Fruits of Jacobitism.
§. 10. In conjun&ion with the Nonjurors, many who have not yet deserted our Communion, forgetting their Duty and Relation to our Church and Government, are constantly employ'd in assaulting both; and if any Paper or Writer be considerable for Zeal in defending the Church and State, some of our false Brethren and pretended Churchmen immedi. ately raise all the Clamours and Calumnies they can invent, and are as busy to serve the Jacobite Cause, as if they had renounc'd our Communion, and declar'd for the Pretender and his Faction. With these Auxi. liaries, and a Spirit of Fury and Defamation, the Nonjurors, from a small and accidental Original, are grown up to a Party, daring many bold things, and designing more.
S. 11. The Bishop of Bangor has for many Years been their Hatred, as now he is their Envy : But if Candour and Modesty had any Influence upon these Men, they must have applauded the Preservative ; for it fairly represents our Strength, and the Weakness of the Cause of the Nonjurors: tho the last is sufficiently done by themselves, especially in the Answers they have publish'd against the Preservative.
The first Paper against the Preservative *, which is the most specious of the four I shall examine, tells his Reader, pag. 10. that “ Pofesion (he means of the Throne)" is a thing purely accident al, but what are o properly call d Principles are fix'd, and Right unalteurable. This is certainly true, if rightly taken.
The Right of Nations to intrust themselves, and their Affairs, with such Persons and Families as they
*Layman's Considerations on the Bp of Bangor’s Preservative:
SD Doda a
shall fee reasonable, is an unalterable Right; that is, Nations can't, de Jure, be divested of it by their Trustees, tho, in Fact, it too often happens to be otherwise. This Right has often been exercis'd by our Nation, and by all our Neighbour Nations, as fully appears in History. The Case of the Stuarts is a famous Instance of it: The Possession of the Throne of Scotland by them was purely accidental, as the Layman's Words are ; it was not fix'd by any Divine Law, nor by any Human Law, that gave the Stuarts an unalterable Right, but by an Act of the States or Parliament of Scotland. And is there any human positive Law, or Act of Parliament, in its own nature unalterable ? Surely the Layman is a Gentleman of too much Sense, and, I hope, of too much Candour, to affirm there is.
"G. 12. The Preservative, he says, is built upon two " Articles, that the King may deprive Bishops, and the " People depose Kings; or alienate their Right' by Afts of o their own, which they may have the Liberty to call “ Afts of Parliament.” Sir, saving the Impropriety of your Terms, what is there new or absurd in this? In our, and all other Christian Kingdoms, Princes have claim'd and exercis'd a Right of depriving Bishops of their Temporalities, and of the Exercise of their Function too, within not only those Bishops Dioceses, but their Prince's Dominions, by Imprisonment, Banishment, or express Prohibitions. And our and all civiliz'd Nations have asserted and exercis’d their Right, as they saw occasion, to depose or set aside (not Kings, Sir, for they who are truly and properly such, are not de Jure opposable or deposable) but Tyrants, that is, Enemies to their Country, and to Mankind. I need not put this Gentleman in mind of the Honours that were done, by erecting Statues to the Memory of Harmodius and Aristogiton, the Deliverers of their Country from Hipparchus. However he may judge by that of the
10 The Bishop of BANGOR'S Sense of the Greeks * : But Examples would be infinite. The Roman Senate gave Sentence in such Cases, Sueton. in Neron. cap. 49. And the Emperor Wenceflaus (the German Sardanapalus) was depos’d, Com. muni Suffragio abrogatum Wenceslao Imperium : Schonborn, de Potestate Electorum, in Ele&tione e Degradatione Imperatorum. I refer this Layman for Instances. of this kind to the Histories of Sweden, Denmark, France, Spain, and other European Monarchies. By which publick Acts he will find not only the publick Peace and Liberties have been preserv'd, but those very Monarchies have been establish'd upon a more lasting Foundation. When National Assemblies have before them an Affair of this nature, they can't be properly said to alienate a Right, for that was before either forfeited or abdicated; but rather to afsert their own Rights, and to settle their own Affairs, which every private Man may do: And such Natio- nal Assemblies will always take a liberty to stile their own Acts by what Names they think fit, how im. proper soever it may appear to this Gentleman : Who has not copfider'd that Nations have lafted af. ter the Extinction of several Regal Families; and whenever that has happen'd, the Supreme Power was folely in the Estates or National Assemblies : who acting in the highest Capacity, and with an Absolute and Sovereign Power, may therefore give what Stile or Denomination they please to their own A&ts; by which Acts they create new Regal Families, or new Forms of Government, and dispose of themselves and their Affairs by an Independent and Unlimited Authority.
But the Power and Authority of Regal Families, set up by National Assemblies, must be limited in the nature of the thing, because 'tis morally importible to conceive an Allembly of reasonable Men
* Cicero pro Milone.
should derive a Power from themselves against themselves : Such Acts are null, even in private Cases, by our and the Roman Law. To plead therefore for absolute Submission, or Obedience to limited Power, is absurd: And to suppose such Obedience to be an Apostolical Principle, as the Author of the Layman's brief Observations, &c. pag. 10. seems to do, is more absurd. And as for his two antient Apoftolical Principles of Obedience to the Civil Magistrate, and the Rights of the Holy Catholick Church, they will not be disputed when rightly stated. 'Tis the absurd and stupid Sense of those Do&rines propos'd by the Nonjurors, that only is rejected, and ought to be rejected. My Lord, let them be Anathema, whoever they be, who are for giving a Sanction to Tyranny or Anarchy. Let the Rights of Princes be sacred, and let the Rights of Nations be as sacred : But let not unskilful angry Men take upon them to call that the Prince's Right, or the People's Duty, which is nothing less : Let them not presume to stile Absurdities Apostolick Do&trines, and Doctrines of our Church, and then call in the French or the Saedes to persuade us to believe them.
6. 13. We know the Church and State to be diftin&t things, p. 12, and that Obedience is due to the Laws of each. But then that Obedience is a reasonable Act, and is to be govern’d by the Laws of each Society, and not by the arbitrary Dictates of Princes, either Secular or Spiritual. The Christian Laws of highest Authority are contain'd in the Christian Code, the New Testament; we are bound to the strictest Observance of them. But for « true Faith and Allegiance " to the Authority lodg’d in Ecclesiastical Bodies, by « Suocession from the Apostles,” pag. 12. as the Terms are new, so the Notion is false, and has misled a great part of Christendom into an open Resistance of the Supreme Power and Authority of the sacred Canons of the Holy Scriptures. Mankind are so prone to become the Servants of Men, and Ecclefiaftical Bodies
have 12 The Bishop of BANGO R's have been so apt to dispense with the Service of God, that they have no good reason to expect " we should “ look upon their Decisions in spiritual Affairs, as obli“ gatory as the Laws of a Civil Power are upon Ecc clesiasticks in Civil Affairs," as this Lay-Gentleman would have it. Reasonable Men ought to stand oblig'd to their own Aets and Deeds, and to the certain Laws of God; but to be oblig'd by the Acts of Persons, who are not our Delegates or Representa. tives, who act not, and pretend not to act by our Appointment or Consent, but without it and against
it, is not reasonable without Deliberation. 18. 14. This Lay-Gentleman acquaints us, pag. 13. CG 'Tis for want of considering the Distinction of Civil and es Ecclefiaftical Authority, that a Difference in Religion e has been imagin’d to excuse our Allegiance, and make « an Alteration in Civil Righe : whereas, says he, in « reality they are two very different Questions ; Whether cc a Prince, tho a Papilt, has a Right to reign over us? « And whether, as a Prince, he has a Right to impose
his own Religion upon us? The last, if not deny’d, he C says, will bring us back to our former Confusion, (I " suppose he means to Popery ;) but if the first be not e answer'd in the Affirmative, it will, he says, make « Right very precarious, and our Kingdom little better " than Elective:” The second Question he answers right, buğ as to the first Question, he only says there will follow two Inconveniences, if that Question be not answer'd affirmatively; that is, if we won't affirm, That a Prince, tho a Papist, has a Right to reign over us, then bis Right will be very precarious, and the Kingdom little better than Elective. I answer; If Mankind were generally wise and good, an elective Succession would be the best ; but in the present State of Things, the Hereditary is certainly better, to avoid Parties and Conflicts at every Demise. But then no Hereditary Succession can be establish'd, or was indeed ever establish'd with an absolute Non-obftante to all future Incapacities or Male-administra