the Law of God is plain and manifest to all that read it, no doubt but Sovereign Powers by their own Authority may confirm 'em without advising with Ecclefiafticks. That they have Power alfo to do the like in dubious Cafes is not, as I think, to be difputed. But fure when they do fo, they do not proceed either according to the Rules of Equity, Reafon or Prudence. I have often wifhed (1) Sir E. D's (faid a once Eminent Member of the Houfe of Speech of Bowing at the Commons, and no great Friend to the Church, Name of Jefus. in a Speech made to that Honourable House) that we might decline thefe dogmatical Re• folutions in Divinity, I fay it again and again, that we are not Idonei & competentes fudices in doctrinal Determinations. Yet if the Supreme Powers will judge in fuch Matters, I know no Remedy but Patience. But fure these things belong properly to Ecclesiaftical Synods: with whom the Supreme Powers ought in Equity to confult before they proceed to any Doctrinal Sanctions. Yet upon due Advice had with the Church. I cannot fee that the Magistrate abufes his Authority by confirming the Refolutions of his Ecclefiaftical Council by his Civil Decrees: For thus was the Faith confirmed in the four first great general Councils.

Neither is it I think, to be questioned but that the Supreme Magiftrate may compel the Clergy to do their Duty, in their several Stations, by his Civil Authority: And may lay Temporal Penalties on them for the neglect of their Duty, when he fees it Expedient. For in this Cafe we have feveral Examples of many Godly Kings among the Jews, and of the Chriftian Emperours in the Primitive Church.

Thus

(c) 2 Chr. 29. 7.

(4) 1. Chr.15.11. Thus (a) David called for Zadock, and Abiathar the Priests, and for the Levites, and faid un to them, Sanctify your felves, both ye and your Brethren, that you may bring up the Ark of the Lord God of Ifrael unto the place that I have pre(6) a Chr. 18. 7 pared for it. And (b) fehoshaphat fent the Priests to teach the Law of the Lord in all the Cities of Judah. And (c) Hezekiah, in the first Year of his Reign, commanded the Priests and Levites to fanctifie themselves, and to fanctifie the Houfe of the Lord, and to carry forth the filth (d) 11 Chr 35.2 out of the Holy Place. (d) The good King Jofiah alfo fet the Priefts and Levites in their Charges, and commanded them to serve the Lord God, and to kill the Paflover. The things here commanded were Duties, to which the Priests and Levites were obliged by the Law of God; but having been fometimes negligent in the performance of them, these, and other Godly Kings made use of their Civil Authority to oblige them to care and diligence in the Difcharge of them, and are commended for fo doing, fo that there is no question to be made but they might juftly have punished them with Secular Penalties, if they had been Difobedient. Neither is it to be doubted but Christian Princes have the fame Right, Power and Authority over the Chriftian Priesthood, that the Kings of Judea had over the Aaronical: For the Jewish Priesthood was as much of Divine Right, during the continuance of that Oeconomy as the Chriftian Priesthood is now, and the High-Prieft; Priests and Levites were as much exempt from the Authority of their Kings or Sovereigns, under the Law, as the Bishops, Priefts and Deacons can be, from their Supreme Civil Magiftrate under the Gof

་

pel,

pel, and confequently are bound to Obey them in all things agreeable to the Law of God and the Duties of their Sacred Function. And accordingly we find, that affoon as there were Chriftian Princes they began to exercise their Civil Authority over the Clergy, to oblige them to discharge their Duties faithfully. Thus the Emperours from Conftantine downwards, when they found the Canons of the Churchi not fufficient to keep the Clergy to a strict Attendance on their Duties, made Civil Laws agreeable to thofe Canons, in order to compel them to it by the Imperial Authority, as is manifeft from the Nomocanons of Johannes Antiochenus, Photius, &c. And this has been the Practice of all our own Princes fince the Reformation, who claim (e) that only Prerogative) Act. 17. which we fee to have been given always, to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself, that is, that they fhould Rule all Eftates and Dcgrees committed to their Charge by God, whether they be Ecclefiaftical or Temporal, and restrain with the Civil Sword the Stubborn and Evil Doers.

(f) A late Author indeed gives a much (f)Rights of Chrift greater Power to the Magiftrate than any Church, p. 389. here mentioned, and a great deal more than any of our own Kings and Queens, or than any. other Christian Princes ever pretended to. He tells us that a Bishop has no other Power than what is derived from the Magiftrate. And if a Bishop. has his Authority only from the Civil Magiftrate, all the inferior Clergy muft derive their Authority from the fame Fountain, for they are all ordained by the Bishop. The truth is, the whole Design of his Scandalous Book, is to fhew that their neither is, nor can be fuch a thing as Ecclefiaftical Power diftinct from the. Civil?

D

Civil: But I trust that what I have faid in my former Chapter, concerning Church-Power in general, and whence it is derived, is a fufficient Anfwer to his fallacious Reasonings. And as to what he says, to prove that our Bishops must acknowledge their Power to be derived from the Sovereign, because they are nominated by him, I fhall take occafion to confider it when I come to speak of the Election of Bifhops.

(g) Another Power over Bishops attribut(8) Pref. P. 31. ed by this Author to the Civil Magiftrate (which may be properly confidered in this Place) is, the Right to deprive Bishops of their Bishopricks. And he tells us, that there has not been a Reign fince the Reformation, in which the Parliament has not made Laws for depriving Ecclefiafticks. It must be confeffed that this is true in Fact, and our Church has esteemed thefe Deprivations to have been Rightful also, having always relinquifhed the Communion of the Ecclefiafticks fo deprived, and adhered to those who have been fubftituted in their Places. Thus it was when Popish Bishops and Priests were deprived, in the Reigns of King Edw. VI. & Queen Eliz. and the Non-Jurors in the Reign of King William & Queen Mary. But we may obferve that the Parliament never pretended to deprive the Non-Swearing Clergy of their Ordination; but only to forbid them the Publick Exercife of their Ministry within this Realm, as every Sovereign has a Right to do. Because the Sovereign Authori ty of a Nation has a Right to exclude or feparate from its Body fuch Members as are troublefome: And the not taking Oaths to those that are invested with that Supreme Authority

may

may cause the greatest Disorders. However, this Removal of a Bishop or Priest from the Execution of his Office by the Civil Power, does not in it felf deprive the Person so removed from the Right he has to execute his Office over that cure which has been Legally committed to his Charge, if it had, the Orthodox Church had been very much to blame to adhere fo closely to Athanafius against Gregory and George, who were fucceffively put into his See of Alexandria by the Emperour, and notwithstanding the Intrusion of thofe Men, to look upon him as the Rightful Bishop. But it is further to be obferved, that tho' St. Athanafius was driven from Alexandria, and another placed there in his Room, yet he never forfook the care of that Church, but as much as he could continued to execute his Authority amongst them, even in his Banishment, by fending diverfe Exhortatory Letters to his Suffragans of Egypt and his Clergy. But the Cafe is very different where a Bishop either Voluntarily or thro' Fear quits the Care of his Diocess at the Command of the Secular Powers; and never fo much as attempts the performance of any Epifcopal A&t amongst them, but wholly gives it over: Such a proceeding is a plain Renunciation of his Cure; if he will no more act as a Bishop, how is it poffible for his Clergy and People to adhere to him as their Paftor? So that, altho' the Act of Parliament declaring his Benefice to be void Ipfo Facto, as tho' he was naturally Dead, does not actually Vacate it in Foro Confcientia, nor deprive him of his Right to execute his Function over the Souls committed to his Charge, yet if he fubmits to that Deprivation, and