c r ( r f t fir* I : f :• • .« .• t . «.«- V iV.S V

r r f r t c • • • I i • • i i • ••.•«■*■.■-%■■ f T f r c t c I • ■ • t • I • I I •.M-***-*«*J* r f r c c c I f • t ■€•••! • •.MAMAfc-i

I « i « 1 1 ji • « » f « « K « «i«**

m g n M VMm M m « jn^ j ii^ Ajii-^

Ji ^

w».

'*«

iT'ir** ^.

■ 19 ..IB iK

'*

w *

wruw

*■ . ^ **'*'1(	t »- # * w : , *, ^ . ... ..;*
^ffy^.^^iL^ y^ ..^^.^^
Wl»#K''^	# iLiLJ;- S^Ok
^wirar«	rwwwwwW]

-fi?*Ssa

;3f

1 1 PC"

m.

^^^■^^^'y^^

yr

i if ^

	1

speciAL coLLecrlONS

t)OUQLAS LifeRARy

queeN's UNiveRsiiy

AT kiNQSTION

kiNqSTON ONTARIO CANADA

f

THE

NONJURORS SEPARATION

FROM THE

Public Aflemblys

0 F T H E

Church o^ENGLAND

E X A M I N'D,

And Prov'd to be S c h i s mat i c a l, upon their own Principles.

By THO, BENNET, a D.

LONDON:

Printed for W. I n n y s, at the Prime*s Arms in St. PauPs Church-T^rd. 1716.

(Price Six Pence.),

V

r r r f f I ^AJtJtJJ* *

-^

•l »

I--'

■■■iV I I ft J If 1 I 1 I f 1 »^t t * 1 1 ^ fViV i I • • • • » • i • • • I > i t 1

ill

1 > 1 1

' -1 ■ » i • f • i f • • f ItlltllT^

■ 'l • • • • • • * » » • t i • I 1 f 1 t I

f II)

t I

THE

PREFACE.

WOtiU to Gody 1 needed an Jipology for the Pubiicdtion of thtfe Papers^ which the ferwtfs Confideratton of our prefent unhappy Circumfiances has extorted from me.

Certainly it becomes every fncere Member of our excellent Church to exert himfelf at thts Critical juncture. For does not common Senfe tell even the weakefl amongfl /^, and does not the Conduct of our Enemys (the Papifts on the one hand, and the Fana- tics on the other ^ who are fneering at our Folly, and rejoicing in our Breaches) demonjlrat^ that they under" (land too well^ what mufl be the Conftquence of this iieparatton ? And are we fo objltnatly bltnd^ as to (hut our Eyes agxinfi our mantfejl Jntereji f Let any thoughtful Per/on judge, whether this is a proper Time to divide thofe^ who are the heart lejl Friends ofEpiJ* (Opacy, and a precompojed Liturgy.

But that which gives a good Chrijlian the great* iji Vneajinefsy is this melancholy Truth, that there

A is

yW^!^^^^.,iH^

i > 1 1 1.1 » t I > 1 i • » 9.1

III! » 3 t St ft t I

• ft t 3 1 1 I ft ft ft^ft, I t t • i t

t I ft.* »i.*^

• ft ft ft ft ft

t ft ft..*: ft^L t i^: ft: ft. ft 4

i mftt ft ii'

. ft ft ft »ijy(

ft ft ft ft ft V

. ft ft., ft, i. ft_'

ft . ft ft K. mjt

iKM' ^^ flh)F' ttf Ib

ft f i

ft li.'"ft ft 1 9

r_f t

•AV

/

vf

.9.

'I'i'f

f.#

speciAL coLLeci:10NS

tDOUQlAS LibRAR:^

queen's uNiveusiiy

AT klNQSrON

kiNQSTON ONTAKiO CANAOA

THE

PREFACE.

WOuld to God^ 1 needed an Apology for the FubticAtion of thefe Papers, which the ferious Confideration of our frefent unhappy Circumfiances has extorted from me.

Certainly it becomes every ftncere Member of oar txcellent Church to exert himfelf at this Critical yun^fure. For does not common Senfe tell even the tveakefi amongjl «f , and does not the ConduB of our Enemys (the Papifts on the one hand, and the Fana- tics on the other ^ who are fneering at our Folly, and rejoicing in our Breaches) demonjlrat^ that they under* pand too well^ what mufi be the Confequence of this Separation? Jndarewe fo obfiinatlyblind^ as to [hut our Eyes ag/tinjl our manifejl Interefl ? Let any thoughtful Per/on judge, whether this is a proper Time to divide thofe, who are the heartiefi Friends ofEpiJ^ copacy, and a precompofed Liturgy.

But that which gives a good Chriftian the greats eji Vneafmefsy is this melancholy Truth, that there

A k.

\

The PREFACE.

fV undonbiedly a. Schifm betiveen thofe^ who vretend an equrtl AffcBton^ and the tv.trmefl Z^al^ for our Holy M'thvr. And haze we not ah -ys told the iJif- jerjters^ that Schijm is a nw(l damnable Sin ? Surely therejore ^tis by no me ins an tndijf'^rent things whether we rejort to the Public or to the Privat Jjfemblys (which do e.ich of Vw cUim the .'veaer able Name of th^Chnrc',) of En^Ayi^^.jor there is affiiredly great hnzird of Sahation »n one fide or other.

Ought not this Kefi^clion to > awaken our ConfcU enoes^. Ought we not to c^y mightily to God J or the Dtreciion and Jff!jTame' of his tlalj Spfit, that we m^q difern and chafe' the ri'Jht Path^ and acl con- ■fifiently with the Rules of our holy Religion f

For my own Part ^_ as 1 have impartially fe arched after the Truth ; fo I am pcrfuaded^ God has (hew'd it. ta me: And I have honefilj endeyor^d (as indeed 1 think my f elf hound] to communicat h others that Satisfaction^ which I enjoy r/iy felf. God grant^ that my foor Labors may tend to the Peace of our Church, find to the healwg of thofe Wounds which her owrt Sons have given her.

The Reader cannot but obferve, that as I have flu- dtoufl'i avotded all Political Difpules^ fo 1 have don my utrnoft to bring this Cor/troverfy to a fhort Iffue ; and J have accordingly granted fo much to the Non- jurors , thatfome Perfons may perhaps^ on the firfl Fiew of my conoefjionsj be in pain for me. I only intrea^t them

The PREFACE.

tQAttepd the Force af my Arguments, and to mirk the Event, For I fnuft own, 1 think the Separation of the Nonjurors fa pr feci ly unjuflifahle, that one may grant^ them almcp every thing, ami )et evincs the Jhjfhdjty and Sinfulnejs of it,

lam obliged to add, that if any Perfoa (Jj all think it unfafe for him to puhltfh an Jnfver to this TraB, ^ 1 intreat him to fend his Papers to me^ hy fuch a Way "as he [hall chufei^with this fingle Hint, that the Par- cel comes from an unknown Hand) and I dofo^ lemnly promife, that 'if they are written as becomes a Chnjiian and a Scholar (of which fuch Nonjurors Jball be "Judges, as their Brethren will re adtly confide tn) 1 will make no Inquiry after the Author • but in a reafonable Space of Time, ' will either return hirh J hanks fur confuting n:e, or elfe reply in fuch a mxnner, that he fljall hive no reafon to comr plain of my mifreprefenting his Senfe^ or injur im his Arguments. '^

4v

€ti Laurence T story ^

•'' LONDON, --pi 7-,

^^P.iemk27. 1716. 1 no. jDennet.

•I.b'

\ n I

THE

THE

CONTENTS.

CilHapJ. The State of the pefent Controverfy tH ^ the Diocefe of London, proposed. Page i. Chap. II. That Dr. Compton continued rightfm Btjhop of London to the Day of his Death, p. 4. Chap. III. Of the pretended Contagion of Schifm bj maintaining Communion with the late Dt Compton after the Deprivation of the Nonju- ring Bifhops. p. 9

Chap. IV. Whether the Fathers of the three frji Centuries had any fuch Notion of the Contagior of Schifm^ as has been of late advanced. p- 1 5 Chap. V. An Obje^ion from the Second Canofi anfaer^d. p. 28

Chap. VI. That the Nonjurors separation from th Communion of Bifbop Compton was schifmati cal. P' 41

Chap. VII. 0/ the pretended Immorality of ou. Public Offices, p. 42

Chap. VIII. That the Nonjurors Separation fron the Communion of Bijhop Robinfon is Sehifma tical. P« 57

Chap. IX. The Cafe of the Nonjurors SeParatioi in the other Diocefes in England, brietty touch ed upon. p. 6<

T H

( I )

The Nonjurors Separation from the Public Aflemblys of the Church of England examined, and prov'd to be Schifmaticalj upon their own Principles.

CHAP. I.

Th State of the frefent Controverjy in the Diocefi of London, propos'*d.

EVERY Body knows^ that by the Church of England fas diftinguifti'd from Vapfis,, Vresbyteriansj &c.) is meant that Body of Chriftians (Clergy and Laity) who profefs themfelves Members of that Communion^ which is maintain'd amongft us under the Goverment of BifhopSj and by the Ufe of the Book of Common Prayer.

Of this Church there are Aflemblys in all Parts of England^ wherein Clergymen Epifcopally or- dain'd do officiate and to which the Laity may fefon, under the Protedion of his prefent Majefty.

B The(9

2 The Nonjurors Separation Chap. I.

Thefe 1 call the Fublic Affemblys of the Church oiEnglivd^ 1. Bccauie they are not only permitted, but encouraged ; and every Man may fafely fre- quent tliwOij in the mofl open Manner, without any Difcountenance from our prefent Superiors, either Ecclefiaftical or Temporal. 2. Becaufe o- ther Affemblys, wherein Clergymen Epifcopally ordain'd do otficiat, and the Book of Common Prayer is ufed (excepting fome Paffages relating to our prefent Temporal Governors) are privatly held, without the Countenance or Protedion of, nay, in Oppofition to, our prefent Superiors both Ecclefiaftical and Temporal.

Thefe Fri'vat Affemblys are frequented by, and compos*d of. Nonjurors. For tho' 'tis well known, that many of thofe Perfons, who dare not take the Oaths required by Law to his prefent Majefty, do refort to the Public Affemblys : yet 'tis notorious, that thofe who refort to the Privat Affemblys, are in general fuch as refufe to take the faid Oaths, there being, I believe, very fev/ (if any) Exceptions throughout all England.

Now there is manifeftly a Separation of Com- munion between the Public and Privat Affemblys. And therefore, fince the Privat ones were fet up, and are ftill reforted to, by fuch Nonjurors as think it unlawful to frequent the Public ones ; I call this Refort to the Privat Affemblys (which is moft evi- dently a Forfnking the Public ones, and a Con- demnation of tlieni) tht Nonjurors Separation from the Public Affemblys of the Church of England.

Now this Separi-rion of Communion between the Public and the Privat Affemblys, is undoubt- edly and confeffedly Schifmatical ; that is, thofe who refpedively frequent either of them, do allow that there is a Scliifm between the Public and the

Privat

Chap. L ^rov*d to he SchtfmaticuL j

Privat Aflemblys, and they mutually charge this Schifm upon each other ,- fo that the Guile of ic muft certainly fall very heavy upon one of the oppofit Partys. And fince 'tis acknowledged on both fidesj that the Guilt of Schifm is exceedingly great y therefore 'tis our indifpenfableDuty to con- iider the Matter fairly and impartially, and to maintain Communion with thofc Aflemblys (whe- ther Public or Privat) which may be frequented without committing the moft heinous Sin of Schifm.

In order thereto, I think it necefiary to fix the Scene of this Difpute (if I may fo fpeak) in fome one particular Diocefe ; there being certainly a confiderable Diverfity, i. between the Cafe of the Province of Canterbury^ and that of the Province of Tork ; 2. Between the Cafe of thofe Diocefes whofe Biftiops were deprived for refufing the Oaths to King William and Queen M^iry, and thofe Diocefes whofe Billiops took the fa id Oaths, and were con- fequently fufFer'd to continue in their Sees.

Wherefore I ftiall take the liberty of begin- ning with the Diocefe of London, not only becaufe 'cis the Diocefe wherein I have lived near fixteen Years (and confequently I fhall inftantly enter upon my own particular Cafe, which does fo near- ly concern me) but alfo becaufe the Strength of that Communion which I charge with Schifm, lies in and about this great City, from which the Dio- cefe takes its Name ^ and confequently in the Re- folution of my own Cafe, I fhall refolve the Cafe of the greateft Part, and the moft confiderable Number, of thofe who are engaged in that Sepa^ fation, which I condemn as Schifmatical.

B 2 CHAP.

The Nonjurors Separation Chap. II.

CHAP. II.

1f:J

'Thit. Dr. Compton continue Jl rightful Bifiop of London to the Day of his Death.

N'OW 'cis granted on both fides, that Dr. Ccm- ptcn was moft rightfully polTefs'd of this See • of London at the Time of the late Revolution ; and that the Clergy and Laicy of this Diocefe were ^c that Time indifpeniably bound to maintain Communion with him as their Bifhop. And *tis notorious, that he claimed and exercis'd his Epi- fcppal Authority over us to the lad Day of his JLife.

Wherefore it cnn't be pretended, that he ceafed to be our Bifnop by a Voluntary Refignation of. the Diocefe. Nor did he ceafe to be our Bifhop by Deprivation. For I can't find, that any fuch Sen- tence of Deprivation was ever pronounced againft him by any Authority, or pretended Authority, whatfoever. If any fuch Sentence were pleaded, J fhould then be obliged to examin the Ground of it, the Authority of thofe that paiTed ir, the JulHce of their Proceedings, and the Validity of their Cenfure. But till it docs evidently appear, that there vvas fuch a Sentence in Fact ,• I muft take the liberty of denying, not barely the Force (for that v/ould feem to fuppofe the thing it felf) but even the Being of it.

There is therefore no Poffibility of fliewing, that he ceafed to be our Bifhop, unlefs it can be fbewn that he forfeited his See. But even this cannot be pretended. For, i. He did not forfeit it before the P«;pri'/ation of thp Nonjuring Bifliops. This

appears

,f hap. II. ffov^d to be Schifmdticd, 5

.appears from>thofe very Bifhops avowed Communi- on with him as Bifhop of LojjJon to the very Date of their Deprivation. Nor^ 2. did he forfeit it after their Deprivation. For what did he do inconfiftent with the Right to his See ? It 'twere granted_, that 'his having taken the Oaths to King William and ^Queen Mary, and his Allowance of the Alteration of the Liturgy (with refped to the then new .Change of Goverment)' throughout his Diocefe, were bafe and fmful Compliances -, yet he did not thereby forfeit his Epifcopal Relation to us. For jjf.thofe Adiions were a Forfeiture of his See ,- then his See was forfeited immediacly after the Revo- lution. Whereasj befides the Weaknefs of this Plea 4n it felf (as if every fuch fmful Compliance were a Forfeiture of a Bifliop's See) the Nonjurors themfelves allow^ and did moft openly confefs and recognize hinij to have been Bifhop of Lo«io», till the Time of the Deprivation of the Nonjuring Bi- ihops, notwithftanding he had fo publicly taken the Oathsj and allowed the Alteration of the Li- turgy, without ever intimating his Diflike of thofs A<ftions3 or profefling that he undid them by Re- pentance.

Nor can any other Adion (fuppos'd to be evil) be urged as the Ground of his Forfeiture, except it be pleaded, that he maintain'd Communion with thofe Bifhops, who were placed in the Sees of the Deprived ones. And upon this Topic the Nonjurors love to enlarge, and feem to be afTured of great Advantages over him : Whereas in Reality 'tis a moft empty Pretenfe, and a moft trifling Objection againft his continuing rightful Bifhop of this See.

I fhall not upon this Occafion launch into that wide Ocean of Difputes concerning the Validity of the Settlement made ac the Revolution, and the

Depri-

6 The Nonjurors SeparattoH Chap. II.

Deprivation of thofe Bifliops who would not fub- mit to it,- becaufe I am refolved to fliorten thisr Controverfy^ and to argue with theNonjurors upon 1 ^ their own Principles. Let it therefore be granted, I. That the late Revolution was utterly unjuftifi- able, and that the Settlement confequent upon it was utterly null , 2. That the Bi(hops who were de- prived for not fubmitting to it, were ConfelTors for their Refufal ^ and that thofe Biftiops who were placed in their SeeSj were Schifmatical Intruders ; 3. That Dr. Compton^ then Bifhop of London^ was guilty of Schifm in maintaining Communion with thofe Schifmatical Intruders. I dare fay, thefeCon- ceffions will be efteem'd large enough o'Confci- ence j and I bid the Nonjurors heartily welcome to all the Advantages they can draw from them. For I ftill contend, that the aforefaid Dr. Cowpton con- tinued our Bifhop notwithftanding ; and that his (fuppcfed) Schifmatical Communion with the (fup- pofed) Schifmatical Intruders, was not a Forfeiture of his Right to this See.

For the clearing of this Affertion, give me leave to fuggeft one Difiindion. Tho' all Schifm is a Breach of that Union, which ought to be main- tained in the Church or Chriftian Society : yet there is a wide Difference between the Schifm of Coordination, and the Schifm of Subordination. When there is a Breach of Church Union between thofe that are Equals in the Chriflian Church (for inftance, between two Bifhops ^ for I need not ob- ferve to the Nonjurors, that all Bifhops are of the fame Order and Dignity) then there is a Schifm of Coordination : but when there is a Breach of Church Union between Superiors and Inferiors (for inftance, when tiie inferior Clergy or the Laity quarrel with their Bifhop, or the like) then there is

a

Chap. II. frov^d to he Schifmatkul, j

a Schifm of Subordination. Wherefore Dr. Cowpton\ Acknowledgment of Schifmatical Intruders into neighboring Sees, and maintaining Communion with them as Bifhops of thofe Sees, which (as 'tis now fuppofed) they were unjuftly poffeffed of, was a Schifm of Coordination ,- becaufe 'twas a Breach of that Peace, which he ought to have maincain'd with thofe of his Collegues, who were unjuftly dif- poffeffed for refufing the Oaths to King JVilUam and Queen Mary.

Now a Bifliop's being guilty of the Schifm of Coordination, is by no means a Forfeiture of his See, any more than the Drunkenefs, or Injuftice, or other finful A<ft or Habit of a Bifhop, is a For- feiture of it. I grant, that the Schifm of Coordi- nation may be moft juftly (and ought indeed to be in fome Cafes) the Ground of a Bifliop's De- privation by Synodical Cenfure ; and fo may and ought his Drunkenefs, or Injuftice, or any other fcandalous Crime : But I affirm, that till a Bifliop is depos'd by a proper Judicature, he no more cea- fes to "be Biftiop of his See by being guilty of the Schifm of Coordination, than he ceafes to be Bi- fhop of his See by being a Drunkard, or guilty of any other enormous Vice.

For which way can the Schifm of Coordination diffolve the Relation between a Bifliop and his Diocefe ? Every Biftiop has the fame Right to the Spiritual Goverment of his Diocefe (till difpofteffed by fufficient Authority) as a King has to the Civil Goverment of his Realm, or an inferior Civil Ma- giftrat to the Jurifdidion of his Diftrid, or the Mafter of a Family to the Management and Dire- <aion of his Houfliold. Now as a King, or an in- ferior Magiftrat, or the Mafter of a Family, does not ceafe to be what he is, or fprfeit his Right to

th«

I I f

•| f • I • iC*

• II 11.

I • i • (

!^ %

«:i>

8 r/^^ Nonjurors Separation Chap. 11.

the Obedience of his own Subjeds or Inferiors^ by breaking that Peace which he ought to keep with' his Equals, whether Princes, or inferior Civil Ma-^ giftars, or Mafters of Familys : lb neither does a a Billiopj by being guilty of the Schifm of Coordi- nation, by breaking that Peace which he ought to keep with neighboring Diocefans, ceafe to be what ' he is, 'viz,. the Supreme Pallor of his own Diocefe. ' A Superior's tranfgreffing the Bounds of his Duty towards thofe who are independent of him , and whoare equally Superiors in their refpedive Sta- tions, cannot ciincel the Duty of his own Inferi-- orSj and difcharge them from Obedience to him. And furely, if the Duty of Inferiors to their own Superior does continue, notwithftanding that Su- perior is faulty with refped to other Superiors, to whom they owe no Subjection ,* that Superior retains his Right of Goverment, whether Civil or Spiritual, and can't be difobey'd without the Guilt of Rebellion.

And therefore, whatever might have been pre- tended, if Dr. Compton had been depofed for the Schifm of Coordination (for fmce that was not his Cafe, I need not decide it, or meddle with it) yet ' 'tis certain, that Dr. Compton^ becaufe he was not de- pofed by any Authority whatfoever, either real or pretended, did continue the rightful Bifhop of this Diocefe to the Time of his Death.

CHAP,

r

Diocel;

folv.-

r. .

den.:

;o;:

uEJri

I Vi i'l" •'•' •" »' » ' K KK K '

I » ■ 1 • I • • • 1 » * ' *>

1 i i 1 i 1 • • • til i » I ill' it • lit • • i • i i I I i i t » • • • ».• >

Clap,!!,':

Miperiors,'

. .■:! or

Gliap. III. proved to be Schifmatical.

CHAP. IIL

Of the pretended Contagion of Schifm by maintAimrjg Communion with the Ute Dr. Compton after ' the Deprivation of the Nonjuring Bifhops,

BUT we are told, that after the Deprivation of the Nonjuring Bifhops^ fuch Chriftians of his Diocefe (whether Clergy or Laity) as maintained Communion with the late Dr. Compton^ who had acknowledged the Schifmatical Intruders^ were in- volved in his Guilt, and polluted with his Schifm, the Contagion of which mud necelTarily fpread it i felf amongft all thofe, who continued their Obedi- ence to him, and fubmitted to his Authority.

To this I anfwer, that the Schifm of Coordina- tion does not aife<5t a Diocefe in fuch a manner, as thefe ObjeAors imagin. For 'tis as certainly pofli- ble for the Bifhop of a Diocefe to be guilty of the Schifm of Coordination, without involving his Di- ocefe in it ,• as tis poffible for him to be guilty of Murder, or Drunkenefs, or any other Villany, without infecting his Flock therewith, and making them guilty of his Perfonal Wickednefs.

For it muft be remembred, that none can con- trail a moral Contagion from another Perfon's Adion, otherwife than by joining (fome way or other) in that Perfon's immoral AAion. And con- fequently, if the Bifhop of a Diocefe be guilty of any Sin, 'tis undoubtedly podible for that Sin to be properly Perfonal in the Bifhop (that is, confin'd to the Bilhop's own Perfon) nor does the Bifhop's fpiritual Charader necelTarily caufe the Guilt of

C his

■^-4.4*

I I a I r r rt > i^i ) 1 i 9 } r » n r i^\

1 1 > I » » *^

111 1i^»^t,>. 1 S 1 1 >^» '^

its » *JJ^. I i I • ^JJ^J

t t t 1 1

i m ft • » • ft i ft ft ft

ft: ft. ft ftv ft ft

^ ft ft ft ft

ft ft fti ft; ft

, _l ft W. ft: ft:

ft ft ft ft W

ft, ft. ft ft ft

ft: %M%

9^ •felt. Wk_ ™-:

■"ft:ft..L.

s

H

.•Xv.v

i

N,

i*::i

i

t

•kj*.

^^4-^

#%

niri

8 The Nonjarors Scp.vatio» Chap. II.

the Obedience of his own Subjeds or InfcriorSj by breaking that Peace which he ought to keep with'- his Equals, whether Princes, or inferior Civil Ma-'^ giftars, or Mafters of Familys : lb neither does a a Billiop, by being guilty of the Schifm of Coordi- nation, by breaking that Peace which he ought to keep with neighboring Diocefans, ceafe to be what ' he is, i/iz,. the Supreme Paftor of his own Diocefe. ' A Superior's tranfgrefling the Bounds of his Duty towards thofe who are independent of him , and whoare equally Superiors in their refpedive Sta- tions, cannot c^incel the Duty of his own Inferi-- orSj and difcharge them from Obedience to him. And furely, if the Duty of Inferiors to their own Superior does continue, notwithftanding that Su- perior is faulty with refped to other Superiors, to whom they owe no Subjection ,• that Superior retains his Right of Goverment, whether Civil or Spiritual, and can't be difobey'd without the Guilt of Rebellion.

And therefore, whatever might have been pre- tended, if Dr. Compton had been depofed for the Schifm of Coordination (for fmce that was not his Cafe, I need not decide it, or meddle with it) yet • 'tis certain, that Dr. Compton^ becaufe he was not de- pofed by any Authority vvhatfoever, either real or pretended, did continue the rightful Bifliop of this Diocefe to the Time of his Death.

CHAP.

Ghap. III. proved to be SchifmAticai, '9

CHAP. IIL

Of the pretended Contagion of Schifm by maintairjing Communion with the Ute Dr. Compton after the Deprivation of the Nonjuring Bifhops.

U T we are told, that after the Deprivation of the Nonjuring Bifhops^ fuch Chriftians of his Diocefe (whether Clergy or Laity) as maintain'd Communion with the late Dr. Compton^ who had acknowledged the Schifmatical Intruders^ were in- rolved in his Guilty and polluted with his Schifm, the Contagion of which muft neceiTarily fpread it felf amongft all thofe, who continued their Obedi- ence to him, and fubmitted to his Authority.

To this I anfwer, that the Schifm of Coordina- tion does not affed a Diocefe in fuch a manner, as thefe ObjeAors imagin. For 'tis as certainly pofli- ble for the Bifliop of a Diocefe to be guilty of the Schifm of Coordination, without involving his Di- ocefe in it j as tis poffible for him to be guilty of Murder, or Drunkenefs, or any other Villany_, without infedting his Flock therewith, and making them guilty of his Perfonal Wickednefs.

For it muft be remembred, that none can con- tract a moral Contagion from another Perfon's Action, otherwife than by joining (fome way or other) in that Perfon's immoral Adion. And con- fequently, if the Bifhop of a Diocefe be guilty of any Sin, 'tis undoubtedly poffible for that Sin to be properly Perfonal in the Bifhop (that is, confin'd to the Biihop's own Perfon) nor does the Bifhop's fpiritual Charadter neceffarily caufe the Guilt of

C his

lo The Nonjurors Separation Chap. III.

his Actions to reach farther than himfelf. And confequently, if I do not (fome way or other) wil- fully make my felt a Partner in my Bifhop's Sin by a voluntary Concurrence in it ; my maintaining Communion with him, or paying him a fpiritual Obedience, does not convey his Guilt to me, and make me a Sharer in it, any more than my living in Peace with a Temporal Magiftrat, and paying him a Civil Obedience, pollutes me with thole Crimes, which that civil Magiftrat may commit. So that I am no otherwife chargeable with the Crimes of my Bilhop, than I am chargeable with the Crimes of my Temporal Governor. For in- ftance, I am no more chargeable with the Drunk- enefs or Injuftice of a Bifliop of London, than with the Drunkenefs or Injuftice of a Lord Mayor of London.

Nor is there any thing in the Nature of a Bifhop's Schifm of Coordination, which makes it necelTarily contagious to his Flock, any more than any other of that Bifhop's Crimes. 'Tis true, a Bifhop is the Center of Principle of Unity in his Diocefe ,• that is, all the Clergy and Laity of his Diocefe are bound to live in Spiritual Obedience to him, and Communion with him. Otherwife the Unity of a Diocefe can't be preferved. And confequently, if the inferior Clergy or Laity be guilty of the Schifm of Subordination by withdrawing themfelves from their Bifliop's Obedience, by renouncing Commu- nron with him, by gathering Congregations in Op- pofition to him, by obflruding or difturbing his Adminiftration, or the like ; the Unity of that Diocefe is broken, by fuch Perfons receding from the Bifnop who is the Center or Principle of it. But which way does a Bifhop's being guilty of the Schifm of Coordination make his own Flock recede

from

Chap. III. frov*d to he Sclnfmatical. It

from the Principle or Center of Unity ? Tho' he is a Principle or Center of Unity to them with refped to the Goverment of his own Diftrid ,• yet he is not a Principle or Centre of Unity to them with refped: to other Diftrids_, with the Adminiftration or Go- verment of which they have no concern. Chrifti- ans are united toChrift^and to one another, by Vir- tue of their Baptifm ; and fo long as our Baprifmal Covenant remains firm and good, we certainly re- tain a Relation to Chrift our Head, and to all our Fellow Members in other Diocefes, how qu3rrel- fom foever our own Bifhop may prove to the Bi- (hops of neighboring Sees. We are wanting in our own Duty of Subjection to our proper Superior, if we break with our own Bifhop : but we commit no Sin (whatever he himfelf may do) by our own Bi- (hop's breaking with his Equals, to whom (as we owe them no Subjedtion, io) we offer no Injury. Nor are we at all engaged or interefted in our own Bifhop's Quarrels with his neighboring Bifhops, un- lefs we thrufl our felves into a Difference, and fool- ifhly refolve to be Sharers in that Guilt, which we ought to lament and deprecat, but not to covet or hunt after. And confequently I may as well avoid the Guilt of a Bifhop of London s Schifm of Coor- dination, as I may avoid the Guilt of any other Sin, which 'tis poflible for a Bifhop of London to com- mit.

The only Point therefore to be confider'd is, whether he that obey'd the late Dr. Compon as Bi- (hop of London^ after he had communicated with the Schifmatical Intruders, did thereby make him- felf guilty of the faid Dr. Cowprow's Schifm of Coordi- nation. It can't be doubted, but that 'twas poffible fpr a Perfon of this Diocefe (by fome means or other) to make himfelf a Partaker of Dr. Componh

C 2 afore-

12 TIjs "Noniuvovs Sepdraiio?t Cliap.III.

a^crefaid Schifinatical Action : but the Queftionis, Vhecher Obedience to the aforefaid Dr. Cowptort^ as 'Bi^'\op o\ Lo?iJcn, after the aforefaid Intrufioo was notorioufly countenanced and abetted by him, wasj and muft needs be gLonftrued, a Concurrence in that Schifpiatical Atiion of his ; fo that whofoever obey '4 him for thei^uture as Bifhop of London ^ did thereby voluntarily and wilfully join in bib Schif- matical acknowkdgm.ent of the Ancibifliops.

And methinksj this Queftion may be very eafily; refolv*d. For put the Cafe during the Life of the deprived Bifiiop of h'orwicb (for inftaiK^e) Which way did any PeiTon's communicating wich Dr. Cor?ipto?i as Bifhop of Lcndwa^ by otficiating as a Clergyman in any Public Affembly of this Dio- CjQre.j or by joining in tiie \j{c of the Liturgy in a ilay. Capacity in any fueh Public Aliembiy^ and by paying Submillion to the Authority of Dr. Compr; ion 'is'^if^o'p Q>( Londcn 'j I fay^ which way did this Conduct imply-.or acknowledge, which of the con- tending Parties was, in that Perlon's Opinion^ right- fjl Bifhop ov ■Ncr:i>^ch ? Was there any difference in our Pifblic Offices in that refpeclj or upon that acr coiiiit ? \>as any ©nothing don or comply'd with by uSj upon Suppoiltionthat Dr. Mcore was rightful Biibop of Ncnvich^ .befides^ or different from, what; would or ILould have been don or comply'd with by us^ upon buppoficicn that Dr. Lloyd flill continue4 Bifitcp of that See, and had been pcnBicced quietly to enjoy it ? If uo'tj pray vv'hat Difference or Alte- ration did-Dr. A/tVrr's (fuppofed) Intrulion create with refpecl.to tlieClergy crLaity of this Diocefe^ And conftquencly which v/ay did cur proceeding after the Intrulion^ exa6tly as we did before the In- irufion, and as we mufi have continued to do^ if ^here had been no Intrufion at allj make us Parties

Chap. III. frov'd to be Schifmiticd. l^

in that Quarrel which arofe by reafon of that In- tra fion ? I confefsj Dr. Cowpton^ as a neighboring Bifhop, had frequent Opportunities of owning the Intruder : but what was that to us ? How did that affed his Clergy or his Laity ? Neither the Clergy nor the Laity of this Diocefe needed to join in thofe Actions of Dr. Compton ; and confequently they could not (unlefs they would^ and chofe it) be chargeable with the (fuppofed) Sinfulnefs of them. Wherefore Dr. Comptons Schifmatical Acknowledg- ment otj and. Communicating wich^ Dr. Moore as Bi(hop o{ Norii^ich J w^s the faid Dr. Comptons Pcc- fonal Crime^ which we (as 'his Inferiors in this Diocefe) needed nor to intermeddle in^ or be in- feded with^ notwichftanding we either officiated in, or frequented, the Public Aflemblys of the Church of England in this Diocefe, and profefled an intire Subjection and Obedience to the faid Dt. Comptons Authority, as Bifhop of it.

For the fuller llluftration of this Matter, give me leave to fuppofe, that two Princes, two May- ors of Corporations, or two Mafters of Fami- lys, fhould quarrel. Now certainly, as *tis very poffible for thofe who are refpedively fubjed: to the Authority of thofe Princes, thofe May« ors, or thofe Mafters of Familys, to become Partys in the Quarrels of their Superiors : fo 'tis alfo in numberlel's Cafes very poflible for them not to concern themfelves at all in the Difputes of their Superiors, but to live in perfed Amity with thofe whom their Superiors quarrel with. Nor can the Inferiors be infeded in fuch Cafes with their Su- periors Sin in quarrelling, unlefs they join with their Superiors in their Injuftice (for there is always Injuftice in Quarrels on one fide or other) and a- bec their wicked Adions, by imbarquing in theiir

Caufes,

14 The Nonjurors Separation Chap. IIL

Caufes, by efpoufing their IncereftSj &c. And ac- cordingly, as I may pay an intire Obedience to my Prince, my Magiftrac, or the Mafter of the Fami- ly 1 live in, at the fame Time that he is making a nioft unrighteous War, carrying on a moft unjuft Oppofition, profecuting a moft wicked Suit at Law, offering the moft unreafonable Violence, pouring forth the moft opprobrious Language, &c, without partaking of the Guilt of my Temporal Superior, or becoming a Party in his Action : fo I may pay an intire Obedience to myBifhop, at the fame time that he ads a moft wicked Part with relation to a neighboring Bifliop^ without being guilty of that Wickednefs my felf, or involving my felf in that Schifm of Coordination, which my Bi- {hop is undoubtedly guilty of. And confequently, tho' Di'.Compton was never fo certainly a Schifmatic for owning Dr. Moore as Bifliop of Norwich in oppo- fition to Dr. Lloyd: yet my continuing in Commu- nion with Dr. Compton as Bifhop of London, did not pollute me with the faid Dr. Comptons Schifm in owning Dr. Moore as Bifliop of Norwich. Becaufe by paying Obedience to Dr. Cowpton as my own Bifliop, I did not do any thing in Oppofition to Pr. Llojdy or in Acknowledgment of Dr. Moore, And for that Reafon I might eafily keep my felf intirely free from the Quarrel, and clear of the Contagion of that Schifm of Coordination, whicH Pr. Cofnpton was (as 'tis now fuppos'd) unhappily engag'd in.

1 confefs, if thofe that continued in Communion with Dr. Compton were thereby obligM, by fome ex- plicit or implicit A(Stion or Declaration, to ac- knowledge the intru<iing Dr. Moore for Bifliop of Norwich ; or if the Public Aftemblys of the Church pf England in the piocefe of London^ were held in

oppoficioi^

Chap. IV. frov*d, to be Schijmatical. i ^

oppofition to Dr. Lloyfs Authority, and in Defi- ance of his Right to the See oiNor-wicb^ or the like: then the Cafe had been very different. But fince nothing of this Nature either was, or could be, pretended ; I fee no manner of reafon for charging our Continuance in Communion with Dr. Comport as Bifliop of London^ with the Guilt of that Schifm of Coordination,whichDr. Cowpfow committed in own- ing Dr. Moore for Biftiop of Norwich ^ the doing of which was Dr. Cowptons Perfonal Crime, with which his Diocefe of London could no otherwife be poUu- ted,than they would have been by the faid Dr. Cofn-. ftons perfonal Drunkenefs, or his perfonal Murder^ could that excellent Prelat have been fuppofed guilty of any fuch Enormity.

CHAP. IV.

Whether the Fathers of the three jirfi Centuries had my fuch Notion of the Contagion of Schifm, as has been of Ute advam^d.

I Am well aware, what Appeals have been made to Antiquity with relation to thisDifpute. It has been pretended, that the Primitive Church did uni- verfaliy condemn Communion with Schifmatical Bilhops ; and confequently, in the Judgment of the Fathers, *twas unlawful, upon my foregoing Con- ceffions, to communicat with Dr. Ccmpton after the Deprivation of the Nonjuring Bifhops, when by his acknowledging the Intruders into their Sees, he himfelf became a Schifmatical Bifhop.

Now

1 6 The Nonjurors Separation Chap. IV.

Now this may perhaps appear a very phufibla Argument at firft fight, efpecially to thofe who are not well vers'd in the Pradice of the firft Ages* Whereas in Reality there is no Strength in it. For tho' 'tis very true, that the Primitive Church did moft fcverely condemn Communion with Schifma- tical Bifhops ; yet it muft be obferv'd, that thofe PafTages of Antiquity do univerfally relate to fuch Cafes, where cither the Flocks were Partys in the Schifm (for inftance, where there were oppofit Bi- fhops in the fame Diocefe -, fo that the one Party muft certainly oppofe the rightful Bifliop) or elfe; the Bifiiop of a neighboring Diocefe made himfelf a Party, and took the wrong Side, in the Quarrel of two Biftiops contending for the Right of the fame See ;; and was confequently guilty of the Schifm of Coordination with refped to the injured Bifhop. In thefe Cafes, no Doubt but the Primi- tive Church condemned Communion withSchifma- tical Bifhops, becaufe they condemned Communion in the Schifm They forbad the Flocks where there were oppofit Bifhops, and they forbad the neigh- boring Bifhops who were to correfpond with thofe Diocefes in which there were Antibifhops, to com- municat with thofe who were the Schifmatical Bi- fliops in thofe Diocefes.

But what is this to our prefsnt Purpofe ? It may be of Ufe in confidsring the Cafe of thofe Sees, where there were Antibitliops after the Revolu- tion ^ or it might fcrve for the Dire<5tion of t-hofe Bifhops of other Sees, who acknowledged the (fup- pofed) Schifmatical Intruders into the Sees of the deprived Bifnops : but which Way does it afFed: the Flocks of thofe Bifhops, who were no otherwife Schifmatics, than by acknov/ledging Schifmatical Intruders into neighboring Sees ? Does Antiquity

warrant

Clmp. I v. proved to he Schifmatkd, ij

warrant or countenance a Separation of the Flocks from their proper Bifhops^ whenfoever thofe their proper Bifliops do become guilty of Schifm in any Manner or Cafe whatfoever ? Does Antiquity teach the Modern Dodrin of the Contagion of the Schifm of Coordination ? That is, does An- tiquity teach, that a Bifliop can't be guilty of the Schifm of Coordination, but his Flock muft ,neceffarily be infeded with it too, if they conti- nue in Communion with him and Obedience to him ? Nothing'like it. I muft take leave to affirm (and I hope I do not fpeak without Book) that the three firft Centurys before mentioned (and 'tis needlefs to examin the Pradice of after Ages) give no Countenance to fuch Abfurditys. And I fairly challenge thofe who wou'd feem to pay fuch a De- ference to Antiquity^ to prodace fo much as one fingle Facft to the contrary. I befeech them to fliew me, if they can, that any one Flock was encou- raged to forfake theCommunion of their Diocefan, merely for his having communicated with a Schif- matical Intruder into a neighboring See, or for being upon any other Account chargeable with the Schifm of Coordination. I confefs, if a Bifliop had been depofed for his Schifm of Coordina- tion, the Flocks were obliged to adhere to the new Biftiop in Oppofition to their late Schifmatical one : but I defy any Man to fliew, that a Flock could be juftified by the Principles of Antiquity^ in feparating from their own Bifliop's Communion merely for his being guilty of the Schifm of Co- ordination, before he was depofed, or before any other Bifhop was ordain'd to prefide over them.

This were fufficient to filence this Plea. The Nonjurors Colledions therefore from Antiquity, as large and pompous as they are, are quite befides

D the

i8 The ]<lon){}^ovs Separ^tiOft Chap. IV.

the Purpofe : and tho* they may deceive the Igno- rant and Unwary, yet they do not reach the pre- fent Cafe. But, iince they boaft chemfelves of Antiquicy, and till the Ears of the unlearned Laity with fuch a Din of midipply'd Quotations from thence j I will take the Freedom to obferve, that the Pra(5lice of the three firft Centuries (thofe, I hope, will be thought fufficient) is not only not/c»* them, but diredly agahi(t them. Th.it is, Anti- quity does not only -not teach,that aBifhop'sSchifm of Coordination is always and neceffarily conta- gious to his Flock, and confequently that the Flocks muft feparat from their refpcdive Bifliops, when- foever they become guilty of the Schifm of Coor- dination : bur on the contrary Antiquity does teach, that one Bifhop may fiifely ccmmunicat with ano- ther Bifliop who is guilty of the Schifm of Coordi- nation, and that a Flock may fafely continue in Communion with their Bi(hop when he becomes guilty of that Crime j provided, to be fure, that they do not refpedively join in the Schifm of him whom they communicat with.

To evince this, I fh'all point at a few plain Fa£ts. Every Body knows, what a Rent was made in the Church by the ?a[chal Difpute. Pope ViBor (a) en-

devored

(a) 'Rth Tinrii I fj^ 'Pa/Mf.iay ^z^f-^coi BiKTWf eiBf^eef r'Afftac

^^hivovnLt Jy.ru ajuruJ to. f e.fj)j))f )y 'T r^i Tcvt ^I'maioy ivcoaico^ :Cj dyt.'mi (p^^roy. ^ifjvTUi ■^ >y ai t^twv '^maj. aA«K77)Cffl'TE^J',

fA^iMFAicjoex <s>^<n\yjivmi, a( fji^ knioyjTjjot oKa; c/AyJiHaiat Q£» ■ ■ mt^cuvH Eufeb Hiji Ecclef. 1. j. c. 24. p. 192.

-mi tv T» ' ACTct TSflWf so'xcu<A;at777tt/j dTiis^Kiv. Socr. HiJl. Ecclef.

J.J, C. 22. p. 284.

Chap. IV. frov*d to be SchifmaticaL 1 9

devored to cut off the Eaflern Churches from Ca- tholic Unity for obfcrving a Cuftom different from that which obtained in the Weft. In order there- to he for his part adiually excommunicated the Eaftern Churches ; and he would fain have drawn all the Weftern Bifhops into the fame moft unwar- rantable Condemnation of them. And it appears from {h) Epiphaniiis^ thit diverfe of the Weftern Bi- fhops did adualiy join with him in that deteftable Proceeding. But others of them, particularly St. IrenauSy not Only diiapproved his violent and unjuft Conduel, but remonftrated fharply againft jt,- by which means Peace was at length reftor*d "between the Eaft and the Weft. 1 prefume, 'twill be readily granted, that here was a Schifm with a Vengeance, a moft unreafonable and wick- ed Schifm ot Coordination j and that Pope Fi^or, and thole Weftern Bifhops who joinM u ith him,were the Schifmatics. And confequently,if the Modern Noti- ons of the Contagion of the Schifm of Coordination had been then invented, pray, what ftiall we think of good Irenatis and thofe other Weftern Bifiiops, who in a moft Chriftian manner oppofed the Pope's Party, without fo much as pretending to break off Communion with his Schilmatical Holinefs ? Or what fhall we fay, was the Duty of the refpecftive Flocks of I'^iclor and his Schifmatical Adherents, du- ring the Continuance of that Breach ? 'Tis plain, thofe truly pious Bifhops did not think themfelves obliged to become Pattys in every Difpute which arofe between contending Bifhops : but they main- tained Communion with both thofe oppofit Par-

D 2 tys.

H/fr. 7^, p. 8; I.

20 The Nonjurors Separation Chap, IV.

ty5, which refufed to maintain Communion with each other. And as for the refpedive Flocks of Vi^or and his Schilmatical Adherents^ they did not think themfelves obliged to fcparat from their re- fpedive Diocefansj upon the account of their be- ing in a State of bchifm of Coordination with rela- tion to the Bifhops of the Eaftern Diocefes.

Again (c)^ *Tis nororiou.s that Mxrcianus Bifhop of Arks was a Schifmatic. St. Cyprian fays, he was a No'vatian : but it does not fufficiently appear, "whether that Phrafe, as u fed by St. Cyprian, figni- fies his communicating with Novatian as Bifhop of Rome, or only patronizing No'vatia^j's Sentiments. For he deny'd Penitence to the Lapfed ; fo that many of his Flock went out of the World without being reftored to Communion. However, 'tis cer- tain^ that he fepar?.ted himfelf from the Commu- nion of his neighboring Catholic Bilhops; and confequently he was undoubtedly guilty of th? Schifm of Coordination, even tho' there had never been fuch a Perfon as Novatian in the World. If

there-

{c) Quod Marclanus Arelare confiftens Novatiano fefe con- junxcrit, oc a Catholics Ecclcfioe unitate, atque a corporis noftri & facerdotii confenfione difcefTerir, tenens hiereticae praefumpti- onis durifTimam pravitatem 5 ut fervis dei pcenitentibus & do- Jentibus &: Ecclefiam lachrymis & gemitu &: dolore pulfantibus, divinae pietatis & lenitatis pacernae folatia & fubfidia claudan- Cur, nee ad fovenda vulrjcra admitiantur vulnerati, fed fine fpe pacis & communicati^nis relifti ad luporum rapinam &: prje-

^am diaboli projiciantur. Jampridem jaftat & praedicat,

guod Novatiano ftudens, 8c ejus pervicaciamfequens, a commu-

nicatione fe noftra fegregaverit. Ex quibus cum Mar-

cianus efTe coeperit, & fe Novatiano conjungens adverfarius mi- rcrlcordiae & pietatis extiterit, fententiam non dicat, fed acci- piat : nee Ciz agat, quafi ipfe judicaverit de CoUcgio facerdo-* rum, quando ipfe fit ab univerfis facerdotibus judicatus. Cypr. j^j).68. p. i7<J 9. :(■■

Chap. IV. frov^i to he Schifrtatical, 2t

therefore a Flock is obliged to forfake the Com- munion of their Diocefanj when he becomes guilty of the Schifm of Coordination, for fear of Conta- gion by continuing their Subje(5i:ion to him ; then certainly there was juft Caufe for the People of the Diocefe oi Aries to feparat from Alarcianus. And yet St. Cyprians Epiftle all along fuppofes, that Marc'ianui\ Flock did, and ought to, continue in Communion with him as their Biftiop, till he was depofed for his Crimes ,• for the compaffing of which End that remarkable Letter was writ by 5r. Cyprian tO Pope Stephen.

Again, when Bafilides and Martialjs were mod jaftly depofed, and other Bifhops fixed in their Sees, St. Cyprian tels us, that fome of {d) his CoL legtmAiA notwithftanding communicat YJithBaJIlides and Martially. Thofe Bifhops therefore were guil- ty of the Schifm of Coordination. And yet St. Cy. ; frian exprefly cals them his Collegues, which Phrafe conftantly denotes (as every body will own, that is in any meafure vers'd in St. Cyprian) fuch Bi- ftiops as he profefTed himfelf in Communion with. And yet St. Cyprian, if he had been ac- quainted with the modern Notions about the Con- tagion of the Schifm of Coordination, muft have been a felfcondemned Schifmatic for owning them as his Collegues. Whereas I prefume, the Nonju- rors will be very pnwilling to lay this Charge upon phat rigid Pattern of Ecclefiaftical Difciplin.

At

(d) Quare etfi allqui de collegis noftris extlterunt, fratres di- Jeftlflimi, qui deificam difciplinam negligendam putant,& cum

tafilide & Marriale temere communicant, conturbare fidem nQ- ram res ilia nop debet) &c. £p. 67. p. 175.

22 The Nonjurors Separation Chap. I NT; ,

At length it c:ime to pafs, thjit Pope Stephen (e) excommunicated even the good St. Cyprian himielf, and thofe Bifhops who adhered to hitrij for rejeding the Baptifm of Heretics. Now there was iTianifeftly a Schifm of Coordination in this Cafe between the oppofit Partys ,• and yet we <lon^ find, that either fide thought the Flocks of their Adverfarys oblig'd to forlake the Commu- jiion of their refpective Diocefans on that account ; which notwithftanding they muft have don, if they had thought a Bifiiop's Schifm of Coordination (o necefTarily contagious, that it could not but infe6l his People, if they continued to yield him their Obedience, and upheld their Communion with him.

From what has been faid, it fufhciently appears, that the modern Notions aoout the Contagion of the Schiim of Coordination (which have affrighted fome well meaning PerfoBs almoft out of their Wits, and have driven them on to the moft obfti- nat reparation) were not known, much lefs recei- ved, in the three fir(t Centurys.

And this Account of the Pradice of the Fathers within that Period, ferves to illuftrat fome general

Expreffions,

(c) Nee tamen propter hoc ab Ecclefix Catholicas pace atque cnirate aliquando diicefTum eft. Quod nunc Srephanus aufus eft facere rumpens adverlum vos pacem, Sec. Firmil. Epift. ad Cy^r. inter Cjp*-. Epift. 75. p. 220.

Lites enim & diflentiones quantas parafti per ecclefias totius mundi ? Peccatum vero quam magnum tibi exaggerafti, quando te a tot gregibus fcidifti ? Excidifti enim reipfum : noli re fal- )ere. Siquidem ille eft vere fchifmaticus, qui fe a communione EcclefiafticjE unitatis apoftatam fccerit. Dum enim putas om- nes a te abftineri pofTe, folum te ab omnibus abftinuifti. /^/of. p. 228..

Et tamen non pudet Stephanum —— FMternitatem fcindere, tiZ. p. 2:9.

Zliap. IV. frov'd. to bt SchifmAticul. 2 ^

ExpreffionSj which rhofe who do not compare their Words with their Deeds, have drawn very tidd Con- fequences from. H^W often have we been told, :hat in the Primicive Times 'twas held for a Maxim, rhat he who was a Schifmatic from one found Branch or Part of the Chriftian Church, was e- fteemed a Schifmatic from the whole Chriftian Church, and was confequently deny'd Communi- on with the Chriflian Church, and fhut quite out of it ? And what ftrange Inferences have been drawn from thence, efpecially in Oppofirion to thofe, who maintained Communion with fuch Bf- fliops, as were upon fome Account or other Schif- matics r* Now the Truth is, the Correfpondence between the Ancient Bifhops by communicatory Letters was (generally Ipeaking) ftridly main-^ tain'd j and 'twas ufual for thern to refufo Commu-^ nion to Schifmatics: fo that thofe who ieparated from their own Diocefan (and confequently could not carry his Letters to the Bifhop of a Neighbor- ing Diocefe) were not admitted to Church Com- munion, when they traveled beyond the Diftricl of their own Bifhop. By this rneanSj whofoever fepa- rated from one found Branch of the Chriftian Church, was (generally fp;:aking) eff^edlually fnuc out of the Communion of the whole Chriftian Church J- becaufe other Members of the Chriftian Church wcu'd not receive him. This was the or- dinary Puniflimen?: of thofe who were guilty of the Schifm of Subordination ; that is, 'twas the ordinary Punifhment of fuch Inferiors (whether Clergy or Laity) as feparated fron) their own Superior or pro- per Diocefan Bifhop. But then how does this af- fect the Cafe of a Schifm of Coordination ,• that is, a Schifm between Equals, ^viz^. between two Dioce- fans ? Oftentimes one Biftiop wou'd ratifte the Cen-

fares

i4 5"^? Nonjurors separation Chap. IV.

Aires of another Bifhop, 2nd confequently wou*d deny Communion to the Perfon Cenfured by him , (and 'twere to be wifhed, that no Cenfures were palled by any Bifhop whatfoeverj but fuch as eve- ry other Bifhop ought in Confcience to ratifie) but the Primitive Biftiops did not always ad thus, they did not always ratifie each others Cenfures, as ap- pears by the flagrant Inftances already mentioned. And as for the Flock of any fuch Bifhop, as was guilty of Crimes expofing him to Cenfure, the Pri- mitive Church never thought them at liberty to fe- parat from their Diocefan, till their Relation to him was difTolved, which his being guilty of the Schifm of Coordination was never imagined to do without a regular Depofition. Great Care there- fore muft be taken in this Controverfy, that thofe PafTages which manifeftly relate to the Schifm of Subordination, be not apply 'd to the Schifm of Co- ordination. Otherwife we fhall unavoidably blunder into fuch Abfurdities, as may be moft fatal to the Confciences of Men, and of inexpreflible Mifchief to the Church, and utterly deftrudive of her Peace; But it may be objeded, that St. (f) Cyprian fays^ Tlehs obfeoiuens fraceptis Domini^ d^ Deum wetuens, a •peccatore prapojtto feparare fe debet. Now Schifm is 3 tnoft heinous Sin, and confequently in St. Cyprians Judgment, the Flock ought to feparat from their Bilhop, if he become a Schifmatic. But I would fain ask the Nonjurors, whether they will care to own,that this Propofition of St. Cyprian is univerfally true, viz. that a Flock muft feparat from their Bi- fhop, if he becomes a wicked Man; or what Rea- fon they can give, why a Flock muft feparat from

their

(f) Epift. 67. p. 171.

Chap. I v. proved to he Schifmatkai. 25

their Bifllop_, if his Wickednefs be the Schifm of Coordination ,• altho* they need not feparat from him, if his Wickednefs be df another Nature^ fup- pofe Murder or Drunkenefs. Till this double Que- ftion be refolved in a fatisfadtory manner, I hope St. Cyprians Authority will not be too warmly ur- ged ; fince the Nonjurors themfelves will hardly ftand to the Truth of St. Cyprians AlTertion in the full and obvious Senfe of it (in which alone it can oppofe me) any more than I fhall do.

But in reality this Paflage of St. Cyprian can't be dragged into ourprefentControverfy. It may indeed be as pertinently urged in Favor of the DoArin of Tranfubftantiation. For St. Cyprian is fpeaking of the Dutyof thofeFlockSjWhich wereat that time adually under the Goverment of Sahinus and Felix upon the Depofition of BaJtUdes and Martialis. For it feems, Bafilides and Martialis would not acquiefce in what was tranfaded by the Neighboring Bi- fhops i but ftill officiated as Bifhops in oppofition to the the new ones, Sahinus and Felix, who were pla- ced in their rooms. Now fince Bafilides and Mania- Irs had been depofed for great Crimes ^ therefore each of them might well be diftinguiflied from his SuccelTor by being ftiled peccator prapofitus, the finful Bifhop ; for deferving which Character he had been depofed. '^t. Cyprian therefore does by no means fay, that a Flock muft feparat from their Bifliop, if he be a wicked Man (whether his Wickednefs be Schifm, or of what kind foever it be) but he tels thofe Flocks, whofe Cafe he was then confidering, that they ought to feparat from Bafilides and Martia- lif, each of which was the peccator prapofitus, in con- tradiftindion to their refpedive Succeflbrs • and adhere to Sahinus and F<?//x, who were their proper Bifhops by the Depofition of Bafilides and MartiaUs,

E Wliich

26 The Nonjurors Separation Chap. IV.

Which way therefore does this Pailage of St.Cjfirian relate. to the Cafe of thofe Bifliops, who can be no otbcivvife efteemed Schifmatics, than upon the ac- count of their acknowledging Schilmatical Intru- ders into Neighboring Sees?

Buc St. Cyprian (g) elfewhere fays, ^:^if^ue covfpi'r ratioTii ^futtioni ejus adjimxerilj fciat fe inecclejia nohif- cuvi nc?^ ejje communicaturum^ cjni (ponte tnaluit ah ecclefict feparari. Now if this. PaiTage fhould be thought to favor the modern Notions of the Contagion of Schifm, it muft be remembred, that 'tis fpoken of thofe only, who feparared from St. Cyprian himfelf, their proper Diocefan ,• and who were therefore guilty of the Schiiitn of Subordination. And con- sequently this does not at all afFed the Cafe we are difcourfing of, 'ulz,. the Schifm of Coordina- tion, and the Duty of thofe Flocks whofe Bifhops are guilty of it.

Iconfefs, there is one other PalTage of St. Cyprian, which feems to bear hard upon me. Speaking of Jsfovatiany he (^) fays, ^i ergo nee unitatcm fpiritus, nee conjunclionem pjcis obfervat, c^' fe ah ecclejite "vinculo^ atque a facer datum collegio feparat, Epifcopi nee potejtatem potefi. habere, nee bonorem, qui Epijcopatus nee unitatent 'voltiit tenere nee pacem.

New'fuppofe this PalTage to be diredily oppofit to what I have been advancing ,* yet we all know^ that St. Cjprian was by no. Mean.s infallible, I dare fay, whoever has read him, does in a variety of In- ilances diifent from him. His great Error about the Bapcifm of Heretics, is notorious, and has been univerfally condemned : and 'tis certain, that

he

(g) Epi{l:.4r. p. 80; (h) Ep. 55. p. 112.

Chap. IV. frov*d to he Schifrnxticxl. 27

he did not either reafon or think clearly upon the Nature of the Churchy which was (at leaft partly) the occafion of his Error beforemention*d. It ought not therefore to be wondred at, if he had dropt fome Words, which I might be forced to give up3 as inconfiftent with my Notions. Nor indeed fhall I ever be afraid or afham'd to diffent from St. C/- p'lan^ if I have Scripture and Reafon, or either of them, on my fide j as I am fure I have in this very Inftance.

But farther, the Truth on't is, St. Cyprian is in this PaiTage inconfiftent with himfelf, it he be in- confiftent with me. Every body knows, that he wrote with great Warmth and Vigor, and that he always pufh'd a thing as far as Words would carr)^ it. No wonder therefore, if he fometimes over- fhot himfelf, and uttered fuch Expreffions in the full Career of his Zeal, as greatly needed Corre- <iiion, and ought to be underftood with many Grains of Allowance. But furely a Man's Words and his A(5tions ought to be compared together, and to interpret each other. And indeed 'tismuch^. more reafonable to explain a Man's Words by hisA- Aions,and to take his Z/^/?/ Words in fuch aqualify'd Senfe, as makes them confiftent with his moft deli- herat Adions j than to carry his Words to the ut- moft Stretch, an4 take them in fiich a rigid Senfe, as fets them at Variance with his Actions, and con- feqqently renders the Perfon felfcondemned. I think this a ftanding Rule of common Equity, which can't honeftly be broken v^id\ regard to any Man whatfoever. And if this Rule be apply'd in St. Cyprian sG^^Q J I can apprehend no Danger from any thing he has written. For I have fhevvn, that he own'd thofe for Bifliops, v/hom he knew and declar'd to be Schifmacics, as being guilty of break-

E 2 ing

«8 The t<on]urors Sepayatiofj Chap.V,

ing the Union of the Epifcopal College. And con- fequently, what Words ioever he Ibffcr'd to flip from him in his Heat and TranfporCj his notorious Conduct muft be permitted to ibfcen and temper them J- fo that it muft not be imagined, that in his cooler Judgment he did really condemn, what I have evidently lliewn to be right and true_, whether he did feern to condemn it, or no.

Upon the whole, I conclude, that the Fathers of the three firft Centurys were utter Strangers to the modern Notions of a Bifliops forfeiting his Right to his own See, by acknowledging a Schif- matical Intruder into a neighboring See ; and of the Flocks being oblig'd to withdraw their Obedi- ence from their own Diocefan, when he becomes a Schifmatic by the Acknowledgment of fuch an Intruder. And confequently the late Dr. Cowpton continued rightful Bifiiop of London, and the People of this Diocefe were oblig'd to maintain Commu- nion with him as fuch, even to the pay of his Death, in fpight of thofe novel Fanfys about the Contagion of the Schifm of Coordination, which Jiave lately been propagated amongft us.

CHAP. V.

j^a Objeclion from the Second Cafjon anfrver'*d.

BUT there is one other Pretenfe againfl the Right of that Venerable Father^ which ftill remains to be confider'd.

Our Second Cacon (of the Year i6o;) runs i'hus^

Whofecvet\

Chap.V. frov^i to be SchifmAticd. 29

Whofoever fliall hereafter affirm, that the Kltig^s A4aje(ly lath not the fame Authority in Caufes Ecclejiaflicaly that the Godly Kings had amongii the Jews^ and Chrifiian Enfpercrs in the Vrimiti've Churchy or impach in any Fart his Regal Supremacy in the faid Caufes refiored to the Crown, and by the Laws of the Realm therein efiahlijl)ed ; let him he excommunicated ipfo faftOj and not reftorcd hut only by the Archbijhop after his Repentance, and public Revocation of thofe his wicked Errors.

From hence (becaufe we are now difputing up* on the Principles of the Nonjurors,* and accord- ingly we muft now fuppofe^ in Confequence of

I our former Conceffions, that as IbAng James \\. was, fo the Pretender isj the King meant in the Canon) fome have been pleafed to argue, that who-

i ever has denyM or impeached the Ecclefiaftical Au- i thority or Supremacy of the late King James II. i or of the prefent Pretender, whom they call King James III. is excommunicated ipfofaBo. And there- fore all thofe who have taken the Oaths impofed

I I fmce the late Revolution, are excommunicated ipfo \ Ifa^o, And fmce 'tis notorious, that Dr. Compton did

take the faid Oaths, therefore he lay under that j Sentence of Excommunication (which undoubtedly .} implys a Depofition from his Biftiopric) and ceafed I to be Bifhop of London ^ and we were accordingly ! bound to feparat from him, and to difown his Au- I thority.

I Now the whole Force of this Reafoning depends upon a falfe Notion of an ipfo faBo Excommu- ' nication. We have been told with great Af- e! furance, that the declaratory Sentence of a Judg* Hi is nor neceffary in an ipfo faBo Excommunicati- on ,* hut that the Excommunication immediatly s takes Place, and the Offender is adually excommu- iiicaced. as foon as ever the Fa6t is committed.

Whofo.

JO The Nonjurors Separation Chap. Vjr

Whofoever therefore becomes guilty of any Fad, for which an Excommunicauon ipfofa^o is decreed, Xi thereby, vvitbouc any formal Sentence^ adually expelled the Churcii^,: and to be for the future eftecm'd no Member of ic.

But I would fain know, from whence this Notiort y/as fetch'd, what Authors do warrant it, and what Library in Faiiy Land is furnifti'd with thofe Au- thors. Do any of the Canonifts deliver ic ? No ; but they exprefly declare the contrary ; as eve- ry Bcxly knows, that will fo much as dip intoi them. 1 (hall not therefore trouble the Readerr with a large Account of this Matter (it being be^ fides the Bufir^icfs- of my Profeffion) but briefly fug-.- geft a few Things, which I hope will effedtually* clear the Senfe of the Canon,, and difcover the egregious Folly of the whole Obj?(5t:ion. i /.a .

In the Ecclefiaftical Courts, vviien a Perfon i© found Guilty, there muft be a Sentence pronoun- ced, before the Punifhment can be inflided. .-This Sentence is fometimes fpecified by Canon : but , at other times 'tis left to the Judge to decree fuch Pu*-; nifbment as he eftecms reafonable. And as thejudge- is in fome Cafes obliged to pronounce the Sentence immediatly after the Matter is brought to an IlTue;: fo in other Cafes he is at Liberty to defer the Pro*v nqnciation of it. The higheft Punifliment is thati of Excommunication ,• which, becaufe ic is fo" grievous, is generally preceded by one or .more Monitions. But when the Crime is very heinous, ihe Sentence of Excommunication is often pro- nounced without any previous Monition.

Whenfoever therefore a Canon decrees, thats fuch an Offender be excommunicated,* the Sen- tence being in this Cafe particularly fpecify'd, the Judge is obliged to decree nothing lefs than Ex-.

communication

Chap.V. proved to he Schip^atkal. |i

communication it (elf. But then^ becaufe in ordi- nary CafeSj the Judge has a dircretionary Power of deferring the Sentence, or of decreeing one or more Monitions before he pronounces it : the fChurch thinks it advifable to reftrain the Judge in jCafes extraordinary, and obliges him to a fliorter ^Courfe, when the Blacknefs of the Crime cals for ISeverity^ and a fpeedy Execution of Juftice. And accordingly in this Inftance of denying the King*s Supremacy, {he efFedually prevents the Judge's Cotherwife poffible) Inclinations to favor the Of- "ender or refpite his Punifhment, by prefcribing Jnd injoining an immediat Pronunciation of the Sentence, as foon as ever the Fad is prov'd ; and flic thereby peremptorily forbids the Ufe of even fuch Forms of Monition, as are ordinarily granted. And :herefore the Church in this, and other the like Of- fences of the deepeft Dye, decrees that the Offender 3e ipfofacio excommunicated • that is, fhe decrees, that as foon as ever his Guilt appears, the Punifii- nent of Excommunication be inftantly inflided ;' ihd the Excommunication being then pronounc'd Jo's adually take place that very Moment. Nor does [he allow the Offender to be releas'd from his Pni- lifhment of Excommunication by the Abfolution 3f any fuch Ordinary as paiTed the Sentence (and A'ho has, generally fpeaking, the Power of ab- olving thofe on whon he iniiicaed the Punifhment) ?ut (he. makes it necclTary, that he be reftored only 3y the Archbifhop hirnrelf ' Nor does fhe fuffer jven the Archbifhop to abfolve him without Re- pentance, and a public Revocation of his wicked Errors.

There is therefore a plain difference between iecreeing a bare Excommunication, and decreeing iQ Excommunication ipfo faclo j and you fee,

wherein

-?4 The Nonjurors Separation Chap.V*

wherein that difference does confift, the one De- cree being manifeftly much more fevere than the other.

But thenj whether the Offender is decreed barely to be excommunicated, or to be excommunicated ipfo fa^o ; there muft of Neceflity be a Sentence declaratory by the Judge, before he becomes ftdually excommunicato and is to be efteem'd and treated as fuch. And confequently the Guilt it felt does by no means inflid the Punilhment (as fome have vainly imagin'd) tho'it makes the Guilty Perfon liable to it. This the Canonifts do fo una- nimoufly affert^ that I am really afhamed to think it fhould need being proved to any Man, who ar- gues from the Senfe of a Canon, and who confiders at the fame time, what execrable Havock the con- t;rary Notion wou'd make (if true) not only amongft thofe who have comply'd with the prefent Go* verment (for thefe Objedors don't feem over com* paflionac in our Cafe) but in the whole Church of

Chrift.

However, I have given (a) a few Authorities in

the

(a) Alioquin « ipfo jure ipfis ipfos decernimus fore privates Cffwj?. D. Othon. Licet adprcfugandum.

Upon which Jo, de Athona notes thus^

6 Ipfo jure. Hoc cafu tamen fertur Sententla Declaratoria de« liftj, uc notat Gui. Extra, de homic. c. i. in fi. It. 6. & e. It. defwniT. ca. f^licis. hi . glo 'ver. infamis. per eundem . ff. de jure fifci. I. ejus. _

Sub pcEna fufpenfionis ab Officio & Benefici'o, quam irt

ipfos ^ ferimus ne caufari poflinr, cum ad 1 executio-

nem prlvationis in eos lata; fententialiter in conftirutione prae- difta procefruin fuerit, fe monicos non fuilTe. Siqui auteir prcEdifts conftitutionis recitationem tnalidofe impedierint, Ex- communicationi fubjaceant P ipfo fafto. ConJiit> J. Peccham §ltii» incontinentia.

Chap. V. proved to he Scbifmatkci!. 5 ^

the Margin ,• nor do I know one lingle Canonift of rhe contrary Opinion.

And indeed, the very Wording of our Canon (one would think) naturally leads Men to that In- terpretation of an ipfo facto Excommunication, which I have given. For the Canon does not fay, P/e decree J that he is^ or that he adually fiands, ipfo fadio excommunicated y or the like : but it f^iys. Let him he excommumcatid ipfo fa6to. It fpeaks impera- tively, and confequently in the future Tenfe ,• that \s, he fliall be ipfo faclo Excommunicated. Very well j but by whom fliall he be excommunicated

F ipfo

On this Conftitution fart of Lyndwood'/ Uotes (Lib. i. Tit. 2.) are as follows.

b Ferimus. Et fic hsec eft poena fententlx latae, quam incur* fit inobediens ipfo jure. Executio tamen hujus pcence fieri non debet, nifi prius per ipfum, ad quern pertiner, fententia declara- tpria fuper hoc fuerit promulgata, ut legicur in c. Cum fecundum leges. deHare Itb. 6.

' Executioncm. Fafta prius declaratione ipfos beneficlis fuis liujufmodi fuifle & efle privates ; licet enim ipfo jure privati fint, neceftaria tamen eft fententia declaratoria, ut no. Jo. de /Ithona di£}a conjiitutione Othonis, Licet ad profugandtim. ubi hales 'uper hoc rcmijjicnes ad ylrch. de hc7nicid. c. \. in fi.lib 6. ^ cod. lib :.felicis. de pcenis in glojfa. 'ver. infamis per eundcm.

P IpjofaBo. Et iic eft conftitutio latss fententice. Cui como-r. tfuod no. per Jo. An. in c. qitant (it. ver. eo ipfo. de eleH. lib. 6. & per 4rch. eod. ver. Requiritur tamen fententia decJaratoria, fecun- ium Do£lores prsdiftos. Pro quo etiam notat Arch, de hcynicid. :. I. glo. ult. lib. 6. &" optime in c.felicis. ver. infamis. de panis eod. ^ib. per eundem.

Nay, our common Lawyers (tho their Authority is of lefs iVcight in 'his Cafe) are of the fame Opinion-

lo £//a. Dyer 275. upon the Statute of 5 Edro. 6. for ftriking

:ni the Church, that ipfofaEio he fball be excommunicated, is to

je intended, he Iha 1 be excommunicated after Sentence, or

lue Trial and Conviftion, and not before, i Cro. 680. Seealft

Ventris'j Rep. i. 146.

^4 The NoniurOTS SeUrAtten Chap. V

ipftfcBo? By thejii<?g€, no doubt. And muft not the Fa<3: then appear to that Judge, who excom- ^Wunicats the Offender ip/o fado ? Yes furely, or elfe thcjudgc ought to be ipfo fa^e excommunicated hitnlclf. The Wording of the Canon therefore implys 2. judicial Procefs^ and a formal Sentence, without which there is no Pretenfe fof the Offen- der's Handing adhially excommunicated^how much foever he may deferve it.

..r.riXo what has been aUxady faid, I can't forbear "adding (as well in Juftice to the greateft part of the Konjarors, as in Confirmation of what 1 hav6 ^written) a fftort Hiftory of the Rife and Progrefs of .this Notable Argument.

Tho' the Canons of i6o; have decreed an ipfo faBo Excommunication for diverfe Crimes_, befides chac of denying or impugning the Regal Suprema- cy, many of which Crimes (as will appear by th« Perufalof the feveral Canons) muft frequently have infiifted that Sentence, if the abovemention'd No- tion of an ipfo fa^o Excommunication had beeii true^ and confequently we could not have wanted too great a Plenty of undoubted Precedents to afcertain what the Canon means by an iffo faSfo Excommunication : yet 'tis very remarkable, that this Notion was never thought of (I vvill not bare- ly fay ififore^ but) even after the Revolution, by any of the £?7^/i/?j Nonjurors, till the Year 1695; not- withllanding the Difputes about the Revolution, and the Oaths Confequent upon it, and the (fup- poled) Schifmatical intrud^srs into the Sees of the deprived Biihops, had been warmly managed by Tery many learned Men, who had fearched all Corners for Arguments, to defend themfelves, and- annoy their Opponents. Nay, fo little did either^ Party then dreanj of this new Notion of an ipf>'

Chap. V. praz/'*d ia.&e Schifi/s.ttkal, j^

f/iHo Excommunication (which muft have made ftrange Work, as differently appl>'d by rhole who refpedively admicted the oppofic Claims to the Crown) that after the Oaths were generally ta^- ken (and confeqaendy this pretended hfo faSo Excommuication was aduaUy incurred^ and mcft have operated both v/ays^ and each Party mufl hx\'3 been metamorphofed into Heathens by it:, in the Judgment of thofs that differed from them) the Nonjuring Bifhops, Clergy, and Laity^ maincained Communion with fuch as had taken the Oaths; nor did either fort fufpect^ that the others ftood actually excommunicat by virtue of this Canon^ for denying and impugning the Supremacy of the rightful King (and confequently that Comniucion v/ith them was unlawful) till Biiliops were confd- CiMted for the Diocefes of the deprived ones (Dr. Tillotfon, Mjy ;i. 1691, and others foon after in the fame Year) and a Schifm was begun ia the Church upon the Account (not of the modern Pre- tenfes of ///o/j^a Excommunications, or immoral Prayers, upon which fo great Strefs is laid at pre- Icnr ; but) of oppofit Claims of different Bifhops to the fame See.

How then did this Conceit ftart up amongfl us ? Why, it feem.s, an eminent ScotcJi Nonjuror (who at the fame time confeffed himfelf very much a Stranger to the Conftitution and Policy of the Church of EngLi-rJ) chanced to read the Canons of 160; ,• and it came into his Mind, that fuch an Argument might be formed from the Second Ca- non, as might be of Ufe to his Brethren of the Se- paration then newly made in England. According- ly he fuggefted it to a Friend by Letter, wilhing it might be examined, &c\

I *

: Fa This

g^' The ]<lor])\iYOYS Separath^ Chap.V.

This Hint was (greedily caught, and ConfUeratlom on the Second Canon were according;ly printed in 169% wherein this mighty Secret, this dead-doing Argument, is divulged to Mankind. But what Suc- cels did it meet with ? Did the Generality of the Nonjurors embrace it, and think it of any Mo- ment ? So far from that, that I do not remember, that either Dr. Hickes, or Mr. Dohvell, or any one Writer of Confideracion, has ever vouchfafed to make u(e of this new Invention (let the warmeit Admirer of it fhew me the contrary, if he can) but it flept moft quietly, till 'twas cooked up of late by fome Zealots in the Separation, fmce the Deceale of all the deprived Bifhops, merely to fupport the Schifm upon a new Foot, becaufe the old one has fo manifeitly faii'd them (notwithftanding the Suc- cefTion of Suffragans privatly confecrated, of which more hereafter) and 'tis now inculcated with great Induftry, and crammed inro the Ears of the Inju- dicious, to ftrensithen the Interefl of a Party, tho 'twas never efteemed of any Weight by the Nonju- rors themfelves in former times, as has been ob- ferved above. .

Strange indeed I that a Nation mult be unchri^ ftian'd by the lump, all on a fudden, in Compli- ment to the new Interpretation of an t^jo fadotx- commun'ication ; and that a fmall Handful ot the prefent Nonjurors mud now treat us as Excommu- mcats for having comply 'd with the prefent Go- verment, notwithftanding the deprived Bilhops and Clergy (who had certainly the greateft Caufe to complain and deal roughly, and were every whit as wife and honeft as their Succeffors) and all the •Nonjuring Laity, for fo long Time after the Re- volution, never knew of any iuch Ceniure, and did accordingly never fcruple to commumcat with

Chap.V. proved to be Schlfmnticd. ^j

fuch as had taken the Oaths, till the Deprivation of the Nonjuring Bifhops in 1691, which bears no relation to this new minted Charge^ founded on the Second Canon.

And after all, what new Light has been flruck ? What Difcoverys have been made ? Which way do they turn this Canon upon us ? Truly their whole . Force is to be feen in the Confiderations above men- tioned. For even the Author of a late Pamplet in- tituled The Cafe of Schifm in the Church of England truly fiatedj has barely abridged what the Author of the Confiderations had written. Now the Author of the Confiderations (to give him his due) lays about him furioufly, and rings Peals of Thunder into the Ears, not only of thofe that have taken the Oaths, but of all others alfo, that have communicated with them hnce their being (as 'tis pretended) ipfo faBo excommunicated for taking them.

I will prefent the Reader with a Specimen of this Mafterpiece. Tou can exfeci (fays he {b) fpeak- ing of the Cafe of a Clergyman that had taken the Oaths) no return of Prayers made with hnn^ -with whom you ought not to communicate. The Bleffed Sacrament con- fers no Benefit received from his Hands. He cannot autho- ritatively hlefs the People of God^ who is himfelf under a Curfcy and excluded from being a fc.rt of them. And here I think, all thofe who have joined themfelves to fuch Per- fons, to he highly concern d to lay their Hands on their Hearts J and conjider well what they have done in commu- nicating with the7n hitherto ; and whether they can think it fafe to continue therein. For in communicating with them as they are Schif-naticks, they make themfelves Schif- maticks ^ and in communicating with them as they art Excommunicates , not only all their Labour is lo(t, hut they ^ get

(0 p. a6.

j8 Tf^e Noil jurors Sef^trMian Chap. Yj

gtt'0 Curfe infitadr. of a Blejjinf, And (c) 2giin, 1^6:^' ^e all thofs jmoujly to~confider this, who flock to the P<r-i t^ Churches J where they not only join in Comryitmlon witbi ExcominunicatcSj but the 'very Ferfons 'ivho perform all the. hUn'tfierial Ojfices, lie wader the Cenfure of Excommuni- lispicVi ky Virtlii of the jorecited Qmvn. J^'/hat Madmen ftteu^il.tHrn tbeir 'very Prayers, their Sacraments, avd all t^irCorifitjn Offices into Sin ! Far thus they do, who tahc this Courfe. And (d) again^ No pretended Ncceffi-, ty c^n ex/ufe, you in fuch a Comply ance, as to join witbs tS^m intheAtls ofCLri/lianM-Wjhip and Communion. For; iet t&i Ca[e be ntver fo hard, there can he no NeceJJity ofi fnmng. And fuch communicating will he a 'very greaA ^in on many Accounts. And in general^ as he fuppo- fes all who had taken the Oaths^ whether Clergy or Laky, were thus ipfo faclo excommunicated ^ fo he fays TO with refpect to every fuch Coraplyer, that all Perfons ought to fiand upon their Guard againjk lim,^ and not only keep him from, the Public k. Service, and iri'ue him out of their Churches, as a Profaner of their Contrnunlon, and one who has no Right to ir, and as one who is y^ifeclious and injurious to them, and makes iheir C&Tpmunion imfft^ual : but farther they ought to take care that they join not in any Private Devotions with him, nor admit him to Prayers with them, tho in their own Houfcs, Now would not a Man naturally exped and hope^ that every confjderat Chriftian would be very teiKler in fo nice a Cafe^ that he vvould be cauti- ous how he uttered fuch fevere and perecnptory Denunciations of VengeancCj that he would be vcry^ well aiTured of the Truth of his Notion, be^ Jore hs laid fuch prodigious Strefs upon it ,• and that he would offer very fubilantial Reafons for his Opijiion^ before he prefTed it To unmercifully upon

the

(() p. sS. (e) p. 27. (d) p. 29.

Cliap.V. frov^d'tobi Schifm.iUcd. |i^

the Confciences of others I What therefore did this Author (for I need not now mention the Gentle- man that abrkig'd him) produce ? What Evidence does he give, that his Notion of an ipfo falhEn- communication is right^notwithftanding the whole World, and even thofe of his own Party (who were ■furely as well skill'd in our Church Canons as him- feif, or his Friend in Scotland) had never hitherto been aware of it^ but aded in fuch a Manner, as was utterly unjuftifiable before God and Man, if it be true ? Does he appeal to the Canoniils (the moft proper Authors)or to the Church's Prac?:ice/or the Eftablifhment of it ? Nothing like it. He alle- ges neither one ringleFa(ft,norone llngle Authority, to fupport his new Senfe of lo old and fo common a Phrafe (notwithftanding he does his utmoit to fend a whole Nation to the Devil by it) but round- ly (f) tels uSj that fuch Offenders ongJst to bs treated eii excomr/iunicate ipfo fa(fto upon the Antbority of the Carton^ without waiting for the declaratory Senterjce of a Jiving Judge. So that if you will take his bare Word for it, the Point is clearly proved, in fpight of all that common Senfe, and the concurrent Opinion and Pra<5tice of the moft competent Judges, can furnilh to the contrary.

Blelfed be God, this does not affe<9: the main Body of the Nonjurors. The far greater and bet- ter Part cf them have no: been fo indifcreet. Nay, the excellent Mr. Kcttlewell has, with his ufual Mo-' defty and truly ChriOian Spirit, confuted this vile Notion in a few Woids, faying (g^ that an ipfafai^o Excommunication is crJy Sententia lata ab ipfo jure, a Sentence pafs d by the LaWy which as the Cancniflsfaf. »f^i/jSententiam latam 2, yi&iCQjanother Sentence paf id

. */

U) 'P« -5' (ff) OfChrijlisnCoTamunim, Part 3. ch. 7. p. 99.

40 r/'ff Nonjurors Separation Chap.V^

hy the Judge, an ipfo fa^to Excornmunication by anyCa^ nons not barring Mtn jrorn Communion , till there be a declaratory Sentence, as Lyndwood notes. And in the Margin he quotes two PalTages of Lyndwood, which eftablifli his Affercion. And furely it had beeq worth our Author's while (if he wrote after Mr. Kettlewell; as I am perfuaded he didjtho* both their Books bear Date the fame Year) to be fure it wa? worth another Gentleman's while^ before he ven- tured to reprint our Author's Notion, and fpread it afrefh, to confider the PalTages alleg'd by the ad^ mirable Mr. Kettlewell (whole Book he muft needs have feen) or at leaft to have counterpoifed them by other Authoritys of equal Elfimation. But if neither our Author, nor his Abridger, had ever feen one fingle Authority on my fide of the Quefti- on ; yet methinks each of them fhould have trem- bled at broaching his own, without the Itrideft Demonftration of the Truth of it, for which he, does not pretend fo much as one Voucher.

In Ihort therefore, if the Second Canon muft be underftood in the fame Senfe now, as it was to be underftood in the Year 1690 (which will be readily granted) then either we do not ftand excommuni- cat now for taking the Oaths (and confequently thefe Objedors, after all their Confidence, don't know what an ipfo faBo Excommunication means) or elfe the whole Body of the Nonjurors in 1690, did not underftand what thefe Obje<flors efteem the plain Senfe of the Canon, but aded in flat Contra- didion to it. Or (which is all one) if the 2d Canon did not make it unlawful to communicat with fuchj Perfons as had taken the Oaths in 1690 (for which I have the joint Suffrages of all the then Nonjurors, who were as good Cafuifts and Canonifts, as any of the prefent ones) then the very fame Canon

can'c,

Cliap. VI. proved to be Schijr/iatkaL 4I

:an'c make it unlawful to communicat with us, A^ho have taken the Oaths in 1716.

And confequently, tho' I cou!^ offer many rhings in favor of the late Bifhop Compton^ were he Words of the Canon really liable to that Con- trudionj which fome have (thro' Miftake, I hope) )ut upon them : yet (ince an ipfofucio Excommuni- :ation (tho' never fo much deferved) fignifies no- hing, nor has any Canonical Effec^t^ till a Sen- ence declaratory is given ; 'tis cerrainj that Bi- hop Comfton could not forfeit the Right to his See )y reafon of any ipfo faBo Excommunication, altho lis taking the (iaths impofed lince the Revolution, night juftly have expofed him to that Cenfure by /irtue of the fecond Canon.

CHAP. VI.

VhAt the Nonjurors Separation from the Commun'toit of Bijbop Compton was SchifmAticaL

THUS have I examined all the Pretenfes, that have been advanced againft Dr. Compton s !:ontinuing rightful Bifhop of London to the Day of bis Death \ and I have difcover'd the Vanity of !them. From whence it follovvsjupon the Principles jDf the Nonjurors, that the Clergy and Laity of this Diocefe were indifpenfably bound to maintain Communion with him as Bifhop of this See, fo long is God fufFered him to live amongft us, and prefide Dver us. And therefore, fince the Nonjurors did feparac from his Communion, and difown his Au- ihority, and fet up an Altar in oppofition to his ;

G 'tis

42 The Nonjurors Sepay^iioft Chap. Vlli|

*ti5 plain, that this V:\(St of theirs was Schifmatical, and rnofi highly criminal^ it being nothing lels than a -downri^ght JUbellion againft that Ecclefia- flical Authonty, which God hid been pleafed ro appoint over us, and which he expe<3:ed and com- manded our Submiflion and Obedience to.

CHAP. VII.

0} the fretended Immorality ofourPMc Offices.

BUT we are told, that during the laft Years of Bifliop Ccwpton\ Life, the Nonjurors were forced to abfent themfelves from our Public Affeni- blys (and confequently to feparat from his Com- munion) becnufe thofe Perfons were prayed for therein as Sovcreins of this Realm, whom they efteemed barely ^f fa^o fuch. .And conlcqueiitly the Guilt of the Schifm muil be charg'd on ihofe, whofe Pollution of cur Liturgy, by rhe Addition of immoral Prayers to our Public Offices^ made a- Separation abfolutly neceilary.

In anfwer to this Argument, 'tis in vain for me to plead, that thofe whom the Nonjurori. efteemed barely de faBoSovtrc'mSy during rhe laft Years of Bi- fhopCcw^frw'sLife, dclerve a better Name. Nor fhall I inquire, whether the Forms in our Liturgy mighc; not be ufcd for fuch. as were de fr.i'h regn-^nt Prin- ces^altho' they ftcpped irregularly into theXhrone^ and couid not be ftiled" Rightful Sovereins. Be- caufe I am determined to difpute ail along upon the Principles of the Nonjurors themfelves j and \ muft therefore be obliged to grant (cho' I am very ■ . iar

Chap. VII. frov'd to k Schifmaticd. 45

far from believing) that ic was unlawful to pray, in the Terms of our Liturgy, tor thofe Princes who have filled the Throne lince the Revolution : and confequentlv, that if the Nonjurors could not maintain Communion with ^x^c^Cowpcn, by fre- quenting the Public Affemblys in his Diocele, du- ring the laft Years of his Life, without joming in thofe (fuppofed) immoral Prayers ; then they iwere bound to leparac from the Public Aflemblys. Nor could their Separation then be efteemed Schil- matical ,• becaufe the Impofuion of a finful Term of Communion had made it unavoidable. ^ • -^ :

The Queftion therefore is,; whether |oining in the (fuppofed) immoral Prayers, for the de fath Princes, was made a Term of Communion with the Public Affemblys in this Diocefe, during the laft Years of Billiop Cowptons Life.

And in order to the Refolution of ir, I obferve, ... That 'tis undoubtedly the bounden Duty of all iChurch Governors to ufe their beft Endevors, that nothing be inferted in the Public Liturgy, but what 15 agreeable to God's Will, and fuch as every Perfcn mav cordially approve of, and join in. 2. That unlefs there be evident Proof of the contrary (which can't be pretended in the Cale now under Confideration ) v^q ought in Cha- rity to believe, that Church Governors have, to the beft of their Power, afted according to this Rule ,• and that they know of nothing in the Pub- lic Liturgy, but what they efteem conliftent with a good Confcience, and fuch as they are perfuaded the refpeaive Congregations may lawfully bear a part in. ;. That we muft prefume ic to be the Defign and Defire of Church Governors, that all who frequent their Affemblys, ihould accordingly

44 The Nonjurors Sepayatia» Chap. VII,

join throughout in all the Parts of the feveral Offi- ces prepared for Public Ufc ; and that they do ac- cordingly expcdt luch a Complyance of the feveral Congregations fubjed to their Authority. 4. Thacj thole who frequent the Church AlTemblys, oughtJ if poffibly they can without the Guilt of Sin^ t(^ conform in all refpeds to the Public Liturgy, that there may be, as far as Human Imperfedion will permit, a perfed Harmony of all the Church's Members in the Ufe of all her Public Offices.

Now if both Superiors and Inferiors do proceed after this Manner ,• chat is, if Superiors do provide fuch a Public Liturgy, as all their Inferiors may join in throughout ; and all the Inferiors do com- ply in evei-y Particular with what their Superiors injoin : then every Particular which the Superiors require, and the Inferiors perform, may be called a Term of Communion. And becaufe thelnjundion of Superiors does in all lawful Matters infer an Obligation on the Inferiors to obey^ therefore eve- ry Particular, in which the Inferiors are bound to conform thernfeivcf ro the Will of their Superiors, may be properly laid to. be impofeJ^ and made a Term of Church Con^munion.

But then, in the Courfe of this troublefom World it happens too fi-equ-,ntiy, that a Man can't con- form himfeif to the Wiil of his Superiors without doing what he efieems finful ,• and accordingly fomething may chance to be inferted into a Public l^ituigy^ which a Man not only can't approve, but thinks^ utterly repugnant to God's Will. In fuch a Cafe 'tis indifputably clear, that a Man who is thus perfuaded, ought not to join in this (fuppofed) immoral Part of the Liturgy. Becaufe he who ads againll the Light of his own Mind (whether his C^nfcience be erroneouSj or no) does certainly

ofFe;i4

Chap. VII. proved to he SchifmaticaL 45

oitend God. But then the Queftion is, whether this (fuppofed) immoral Part of the Public Liturgy be impofed as a Term of Church Communion, or no.

For the Solution of this Difficulty let it be no- ted, that there is a twofold Impofition of a Term of Church Communion, the one intentional^ the o- ther peremptory or final. Every Church Governor, when he promulges a Term of Church Commu- nion, is fuppos'd to believe that his Inferiors may lawfully clofe with it ; and confequently he ex- pects, defires and intends, that they comply with his Will, and adually conform in that Particular. This Declaration of his Will therefore, this Propo- fal of the Thing to be don, is an intentional Impofi- tion of that Term of Church Communion. Be- : caufe the Lawfulnefs of a Superior's Command in- , fers an Obligation on the Inferior to obey. And : accordingly there is an intentional Impofition of eve- ; ry Prayer, that is inferted into the Public Liturgy • by competent Authority. But then, when a Go- i vernor finds, that a Term of Church Communion I is not comply'd with, and that his Inferiors refufe I Obedience to his Commands, and will not do what I he propofes and requires ; we know, that 'tis in his I Power to infliA Punifhmeiit, and thereby to en- } force his Injund:ions. And if he does fo ^ if he in- I fifls upon his Inferiors Obedience, and refolves to I make them conform themfelves to his Will, and come up to that Term of Church Communion which they are heartily unwilling to comply with ; then, befides the intentional Impofition of it, there is alfo a peremptory or final Impofition of that Term of Church Communion j and the Superior makes it thereby abfolutly neceifary for his Inferiors, ei- ther to join in that Term of Church Communion, as well as in others, or elfe to fuffer for the Refufal. :.:. Nqvv

46 The Sonjiirors Separat/o» Chap. V if!

Now when the Queftion is, with refpect to a pariicular Term of Church Communion which an lut'erior judges to be unlawful, whether it be impo- fed by the Superior as a Term of Church Commu- nion, or no ; the meaning always is, not whether J theri be an intentional^ buc whether there be a fe- * Tiwptory cr fin:il Impofition of it. Every Command or injunclion of a Superior implys an intentional Im-J portion of the Thing commanded or injoined ^ andi there is no. Doubt but the Inferior fins, if he be re- fradcry and ilubbcrnj whether the Superior fhali be pleaild to add a ^erempcry or find Impofition of it, cr no : but in cafe the Inferior Judges a Term of Church Communion to be unlawful, 'tis in theSu- perior^'s Breail, whether he will proceed farther than an intetitioTial Impofition j whether he will be contenr, that the Confeqiiince fnall barely reft on the Inferior's Confcience, or infill upon his Con- formity to wh.ac is prefcribed, by a peremptory or find Impofition of it. Whenfoever therefore a Term of Communion is made known, there can be no doubt of the i7tttntiond Impofition of it : but even after 'tis made known, and a Complyance is undoubtred*- ly exptdted, or perhaps in plain Terms, and by a perfonal Application, demanded of the Inferior; yet the Church Governor flill referves it to him- ielf, whether there fhall be alfo a peremptory or final Impofirion of what lie lequires ; and he may deter- .min differently in different Cafes, as his own Good- nefs and Difcretion ihall lead him.

WhcLefore in the Cafe before us, concerning the (fuppofed) Immorality of our Public Offices, there is no donbt, but that there was an intentional Impo- fition of the Prayers for cur de facfo Temporal Governors, in the Terms of the Eftablifli'd Liturgy, during the lait Year;^ of Bifliop Comptm% Life : but

the

Chap. VII. frov*d to he Schifmatical. 4^

the Queftion is, whether there was alfo a peremptory OT final Impofitior. of thetrij fo that they became a neceffary and unavoidable Term of Church Com- munion, which every Perfon that then frequented the Public Aflemblys of the Church of Englavdin thisDiocefe, was confirain'd to join in.

And furely this Queftion is very eafily anfwered. For was not this (fuppofed) Immorality introduced in the Beginning of the Year 1689 ? A.nd was it not evident to all Mankind, that the Nonjuring Bifhops and Clergy^ as well as the Nonjuring Lnity^ (who came to the Public Churches til! tne C^onfe-* cration of the Ancibifhops, that is, till :bout Mid- fummer in the Year i<^9i, vvhci. the Schifm com- menced) did not join in -\\& Public Prayers ror thofe who filled the Throne after tlie Revolution ? And is it not equally evident, that many of the Nonjuring Clergy and Lrj:y have all along don the very fame, and do continue doing fo, to this very Day ? And has any one of them ever (ufFer- ed, or been driven out of t;he Public AlTcmblys, and refufed our Communion ? nay, has any one o\ them ever been fo much as profecuted, even in the flightefl: manner, upon that account ? I'm fure, if the Nonjurors can, on the one hand, fatisfy their own Confciences in refufing to pray for thofe Prin- ces who have been well aflured of the Goodnefs of their own Titles, and whofe Right could not de- pend upon the Nonjurors Opinion of it (for which I leave the Nonjurors, as I hope they will be con- tent to leave others, to the Judgment of God) I am fure, 1 fay, that 'tis plain on the other hand, that fo great has been the Lenity of our Church Governors (and God grant that fuch it may always continue) that even this notorious Noncomplyance has never yet provoked any one of them (that I

have

4S The Nonjurors Sepayation Chap. VIL

have heard of) to do any one fevere thing (the' it has been too often in their Power) to any one Per- fon, that has refufed, tho' never fo openly (I wifli it might not be faid, fometimes indecently) to join in thole Parts of ourLiturgy. And confequently it can*c be pretended, that the (fuppoled) immoral Prayers were impofed (that is, perewptcrllj and finally impo- fed) as a Term (that is, a nscelTary Term) of Church Communion in the Public Affemblys of this Diocefe, or that the Nonjurors had Reafon to feparac from the Public AlTemblys upon the ac- count of them, during the laft Years of Bifftop Compon s Life.

But it has been pleaded, that by joining in the Service of the Public AlTemblys of this Diocefe^ during the laft Years of Bifliop Compons Life, the Nonjurors might feem to join, tho' they did not join in Fad, in thofe (fuppofed) immoral Pray- ers ; and that they might confequently give Scan- dal by their Prefence in the Public AlTemblys, a? if they really approved all the Prayers that wer© offered in them. To this I anfwer, i

I. Tho' it were earneftly to be wifhed (and doubtlefs it was originally defigned) that every Per-* fon prefent in a Religious AlTembly fhould join throughout in the Devotions of it ,• yet alas I it has been for many Years too notorious, that wo have been divided in our Opinions concerning the Right of our Temporal Governors, and that too many have accordingly refufed to pray for them in the Terms of our Liturgy. So that being prefent at our Public AlTemblys, has for too long a Time been efteemed no Proof of a Perfon's joining iij (the now fuppofed) immoral Prayers. And indeed^' the very Form of our Liturgy has afforded theScru-* pulous a moft convenient Opportunity of fignify-i

ing

Chap. VII. proved to he Schifmatkal. 49

ing cheir DifTent to thofe Parts of our Public De- votions. For our Prayers being divided into fo many fliort Colleds, to which the People are re- quired to fay^^wewj whofoever does conftantly fay Ar>^en at the Conclufion of all the other Prayers, and does as conftantly forbear it at the Conclufion of thofe for our Temporal Governors, does thereby fo notorioufly fignify his DifafFcdion to them^ and his Refufal to pray for them in the Terms of the Church's Liturgy, that one would much fooner ap- prehend the Danger of fome Temporal Inconve- nience from fuch an avowed Oppofition to them, than the Danger of giving Scandal by feeming to pray for them.

If it ihould be faid, that we declare in St. Chry~ fofiorns Prayer, that we have with one Accord made our Common Supplications to God, and that that Ex- preffion virtually includes the whole preceding Office J- and confequently it imply'd in the laft Years of Bifhop Compons Life, that thofe who ufed itj joined with the Congregation in Prayers for our de fa5lo Princes : I anfwer, i. That where there had been a notorious Dillent to thofe parti- cular Prayers, as God could not, fo Man would not, underftand that Expreffion otherwife than with an Exception to them. 'Twould only import, that thofe Perfons had with one Accord made their common (that is, their joint) Supplications to God, in all the feveral preceding Collects, except thofe for the Princes aforefaid. And confequently there could not be the leaft Shadow of Falfhood or Prevarication in the Nonjurors ufing that Prayer of St. Chrjfofiom in our Public AlTemblys during the laft Years of Bifhop Cowpfo»*s Life. But, 2. if any Perfon was fo rigidly fcrupulous as ftill to fear thac St. Cbrjfofiom's Prayer was infe<5t§d with an implicit

5© The Nonjurors Separation Chap. VII,

Petition for fuchPrinccs ; he might then have rcfufed to Ciy^rr/en even CO that Prayer aUojand thereby he would effedually have anfvver'd his own Objection. For notwithftanding chofe Defalcations, I dare fay, 'twill not be pretended, that our Liturgy was de- fe(5tive in any effennal Part of Chriftian Worlhip.

2. This was the Senfe of the Nonjuring Bifhops and Clergy, as well as of the Nonjuring Laity, for two Years and a half after the Revolution, 'viz. till the Antibifhops were confecrated about Midfum- mer 1691. The great Revolution was then new, the Liturgy was then lately altered, and con- fequently the Danger of giving Scandal was then much greater, than it has ever been fince thofs Days : and yet they thought (and indeed very juft- ly) that their conftant Refufal o{x.\\Q,Amen was a fufficient Signification of their dilTent to the ofFen- five Parts of the Liturgy ,• nor did they then think, that the (pretended ; Immorality of our Public Of- fices could juftify a Separation from our Public Af^ femblys, how much Strefs foever is now laid on that Plea, by fuch as are neither more wife, nor more cautious, nor more upright, than thofe firft (who were indeed by far the mod eminent ) Nonjurors.

3. That I may at once efFed:ually filence this Plea, I defire it may be confidered, that what- ever Right cur de fatio Governors had during the laft Years of Bifhop Ccwptons Life, and how culpable foever thatPrclat himfclf might be thought for complying with the Revolution ; yet 1 have fhewn, that he did not by any Rules or Principles of Ecclefiadical Policy, ceafe to be Bifhop of this Diocefe, but continued our rightful Spiritual Go- vernor to the Day of his Death. Wherefore we owed him a Spiritual Obedience, and were bound to maintain Church Communion with him as our

Bifhop

Chap. VII. ^rov^d to he Schifmtttfcd. 51

Bifhop, whether we owed thofe de fa^o Princes any Temporal Obedience, and were bound to pay them any Civil Allegi;ince, or no. This then is the fhort of the Cafe. Here is the plain Duty of Church Communion with our rightful Bifiiop on the one fide, and the (pretended) Danger of giving Scandalj by feeming to pray for de facioTtmpo- ral Governors^ on the other. Wherefore let any fober Chriftian judge. Can a wife or good Alan think the poflible Danger of giving Scandal to in- confiderac People (for 1 have demonftrated, that there is not the leaft Necefficy of doing the finful Adion it lelf, even upon the Nonjurors own Prin- ciples) futficient to counterpoife and cancel the plain Duty of Church Communion with our right- ful Bifhop ? I confefs, if Aifemblys had been held in Subjedion to, and Communion with, and by che Confent and Approbation of, our then rightful Eifhop Dr. CofKprotjy in which the fcrupled Prayers were not ufed ,• a Nonjuror would rather be in- clined or chufe to refort to thole AiTemblys, where he might avoid thofe Prayers. Bur furely, fines the Privat AlTemblys, in which thofe Prayers were not ufed, were fet up and maintained in Oppofi- :ion to our then rightful Bifnop ,• and the Public ones, wherein thofe Prayers were ufed, were held in Subjection to him, in Communion with him, and by his Confent and Approbation : therefore he who refufed, under the Pretenfe of the Poffibility (for there was no Certainty) of Scandal, to join in the Public Aflemblys, did thereby, to avoid a Poffi- bility of Scandal, venture upon a Certainty of downright Sin, by joining in an open Rebellion againft his rightful Spiritual Governor ,• which Condud, I am confident, no Man of Epilcopal Principles will dare to juftify.

H 2 I

52 The Nonjurors Separation Chap. Vlt.

I would intreat our Nonjurors ferioufly to confi- der this one thing. If my rightful Temporal Go- vernor fhould command what I efteem an unlaw- ful thing ; I prefume^ they will readily granr^, that I muft not comply. But fuppofe, that my quiec Behavior in all other Refpeds, and my Governor's gracioufly forbearing to punifli my Noncomply- ance^ fliould tempt fome unreafonable People to think that I had comply'd in that Inftance; would it not be fufficient for me, in a modeft and Chri- ftian manner, to deny that I ever did fo ? And would not the (pretended) Scandal of thofe unrea- fonable People, be whiu we call a Scandal taken^ but not^iww? Or muft 1, that I may effedually^ Ihew my Noncomplyance in that Inftance with my rightful Temporal Governor, publicly renounce my Allegiance to him, and refufe all Subje<fti- on to his Authority for the future in all other Infiances, becaufe he expected a Complyance in one Inftance which I think fmful ? Would not a Man be thought mad, that ftiould ad at this rate ? And yet, to deal plainly and impartially, did not thofe Perfons, who refufed to communicat in the Public AlTembiys held in Obedience to Bifhop ■ Compons Authority during the laft Years of his Ijfe, do the very fame thing in an Ecclefiaftical Refped, which is fo monftroufly and fo apparent- ly abfurd and abominable in a Civil Refpc6t ? Mu{\i a Man, becaufe he can't comply with his rightful Biftiop, his Spiritual Superior, by joining in one part of the Liturgy, refufe to join in any part of iti in any Affembly that is held in Obedience to him^ Mult he bid Defiance to his rightful Bifhop's Au- thority ? Muft he abet and maintain -Privat Affem- blys held in dired Oppofition to him ? Muft he fet Hp an Altar againft his rightful Bifhop's Altar, and

entep

Ilhap.VIL frov*d to be SchifmAtkd, 5j

inter into open Ecclefiaftical War with him ? If :his be Chriftianity ; it this be the way to Church Unity ,• if this be the fo much celebrated Duty of Subjedion to Spiritual Governors ^ if this be the jMethod of fupporting Ecclefiaftical Authority, and defending the Rights of the Epifcopal College, and preferving the Intereft and Peace of Chrift's Spiri- rual Kingdom : I frankly own my felf an utter Stranger to it.

But 'twill ftill be pretended, that if a Man may innocently refort to thofe Affemblys, wherein im- moral Prayers are offered up, provided he forbears frying Amen to thofe Prayers ; then he may inno- cently go to Mafs, and continue in Communion with the Popifh Bifhops. How therefore can we juftity our Separation from the Church of Rome upon the account of their notorious Corruptions of the Chriftian Worfhip ? To this I anfwer,

I. Nothing furely but the moft unreafonable Pre- judice could tempt Men to compare the (fuppofed) Immorality of our public Offices with the Roman Abominations, or to argue from the one againft the other. For do but confider the Difference. In the eftabliftied Liturgy there is no other Immorali- ty pretended, but what is intirely grounded upon a Political Difterence about the Rightful Title to the Throne. *Tis granted on both fides, that what we offer to God in behalf of the King, is perfedly agreeable to God's Will, provided he be the right- ful King. There is therefore no Turpitude in the Matter of the Prayer ; nor is there- any Difpute a- bout the Objed of it (for we addrefs our felves to God alone) but there happens to be a Difference about the King's Perfon, there being a Conteft be- tween oppofit Claimants of the Crown. If this Political Difpute were but agre&d, there is no other

Poflibility

j54 The Nonjurors Separates Chap. VII.

Poffibilicy of quarrelling with our public Devotions Whereas in the Church oiRome, i. Prayers are of- fered to Angels and Saints, and confequently there is downright Idolatry practiled, by reafon of dif- ferent Objedis of Prayer. 2. The Prayers are in an unknown Tongue, which in EfFed deftroys (to to the far greateft Part of the People) the very Ef- ience of public Woriliip. 7,. There is one half of the bleffed Eucharift deny'd to the Laiuy in gene- ral. • You fee therefore, that in our Cafe there is a plain and eafy Poffibilicy of feparating the only Inftance of (iuppofed) Immoralicy from the reft ofj our Devotions : but in the Cafe of the Church o: Rome, if you could feparat the lawful Matter itheir public Offices from that which is unlawful, and if you were allowed nocorioufly to dilTent from i the one Part ac the fame time Cii^.t you pretend to \ join in the other : yet that very Part of their Offi- ces which is lawful as to the Matrer of it, being in an unknown Tongue, the Body of the People are ' thereby efFe<51:ually prevented from performing the great Duty of joint Worfhip in Church AlTemblys j and one Half of the Lord's Supper being taken a- way, the great Chriftian Sacrifice can't be offered up by the Laity. So that the very Conftitution of the Roman Church involves the Communicants in unavoidable Sin ; whereas if this one (fuppofed) Immorality of our Liturgy (which depends meerly upon a Difficulty in Politics, about which the Learned differ) be forborn, all the Elfentials of Chriftian Worfhip are fiill preferved intire amongft us, and our whole Courfe of Devotion is perfectly innocent. But,

2. To cut this Matter fhort, I do roundly affirm, ihat wherefoever there is a lawful Succeffion of Pa- tiers, and the public Liturgy contains all the effen-

tial

ihap. VII. frov^d to be Schifmaiical, ^^

jal Parts of the A4atter of Prayer^ and all thofe ef- intial Parts of the Matter of Prayer are direded 0 the proper Object of Prayer^ and offered up in JLch a Ton^uCj that they may become, according f) the Gofpel Rule^ my own Perfonal Ads of Pray- ;r ^ and the Holy Sacraments of the Gofpel are |.fo duly adminiffred as to all the ElTentials of hem J- in fuch a Cafe^, tho' there were fome un- iwful Mixtures in the Public Worfhip, I may not liwfully feparat from my Bifhop, provided I may e allowed to difTent from thofe unlawful Mixtures, nd notorioufly and conftantly to fignify fuch my )ifrent in fuch a modeft^ humble and Chriftian /lannefj as becomes an Inferior with regard to his uperior^ whom the Rules of our Holy Religioa vili not fuffer us to affront in the Difcharge of his )ffice, altho' he difcharge it in a faulty Manner, or which he is accountable to that God_, whofc /Vicegerent he is.

I confefsj I think every Mnn is bou.ndj in a re- gular Way, and in his own Sphere, to do his ut- noft for the removal of all Corruptions (or even nexpediencys) out of the Public Worfhip : but if lis Superiors will retain fome of chem in fpite of all lis Endevors to the contrary, whether by humble lemonftrances to the Superiors •:hemfr!-/:s, or by ?rayers to God, or by other Chriilian Methods of jroceeding ; I'm fure, he's no farther concerned, han to. continue his notorious Diifent : and he has •eafon to blefs God, that he is permitted to enjoy he great Benefit of Church Communion (the Et- .entials of which are now fupooled to be afforded lim ) without Perfecution for his notorious Diffent :o fi'c'n Particulars, as bis Superiors do for their parts think perfectly innocent, and what he ought in Confcience to comply with. And therefore, if

fuch

56 The Nonjurors Separation Chap.VIL

fuch a thing were pradicable in the Church of Rome (as alas 1 it is not) if I could enjoy all the Ef- fentiais of Chriftian Worfliip amongft them, and could be permitted notorioully to diffent from their Corruptions ^ I would not feparat from my Bifhop, if he were a Vafifi ; . that is, if my Tofilh Bilhop would fufFer me (till to continue a Vrotefravt^ I would not feparat from an AfTembly held in Sub- jedion to his- Authority, tho' I would ufe the ut- moft Endevors, and imploy all poflible Zeal, for the Extirpation of his Fcperj/y and never comply, or feem to comply, with any one Branch of it in any Cafe or Circumftance whatfoever.

In a Word, the Chriftian Rule is this, that if it be poflible, and as much as lies in us, we muft live peaceably with all Men ^ and efpecially with our Ecclefiaflical Superiors. So that I have nothing more to confider, than whether I can avoid Sin, if I continue in Communion with my Biftiop. For if I can, I am indifpenfably bound to live in Obe- dience to his Authority, which is the Ordinance of God. And therefore, fince 'tis evident, that a Nonjuror might, in any part of this Diocefe,continue in Com.munion with Bifhop ComftoTtj even during the laft Years of his Life, without the Commiflion of any one Sin, or doing any one thing which he (even thro' Miftake) judged finful j 'tis plain, that thofe Nonjurors who feparated from Bilhop Com- ftons Communion upon the Pretenfe of immoral Prayers (to which there was no Neceffity of their fay\ng Amen ,• but to which they were notorioufly permitted to exprefs a DilTent, even in the moft fignificant manner) were guilty of a moft inexcufa- bleSchifm by fo doing ; nor could their Separation from the faid Bifhop's Comm.union be jiiftify'd or excufed upon any fober and Catholic Principles of Church Unity whatfoever. CHAP.

chap. Vlli. pr(^'*d to he Schifwatkal. 57

CHAP. VIII.

That the Nonjurors Separation from the Commu' nion of Bifhop Robinfon is Schifmaticd.

TI S now no longer a Secret, that the late Dr. Hickes was confecrated Suffragan Bifhop o'iThetford in the Diocefe oi Norwich, by fome of the Deprived Nonjuring Bifhops ; and *tis prefum^d (for I would by no means be underftood to affirm any thing, that may create a Temporal Inconve- nience to thofe whom I am difputing againft) that Suffragans were alfo confecrated for thofe other Sees, whofe Bifhops were deprived for refufing the Oaths to King William and Queen Mary ; and that fmce the Death of thofe deprived Bifhops, and of fome of their Suffragans, a Succeflion of Nonjuring Bifhops has been continued amongfl us.

Now becaufe I am arguing upon the Principles of the Nonjurors, therefore I will grant, that the deprived Bifhops had, even after their Deprivation a Right to confecrat Suffragans for their own Diocefes. And there is no doubt, but that a Suffra- gan Bifhop can difcharge the Epifcopal FunAion as validly, as if he were a Principal, and filled a See ,♦ for inftance, a Suffra8;an of Thetford can con- fecrat a Bifhop, ordain a Prieft, &c. as validly as a Bilhop of Norwich.

Let us now examin Dr. Robivfons Right to the See of London. Since I have demonflrated, that the u r "?..n Coordination did not vacat the Sees of thole Bifhops who comply'd with the Revolution and communicated with the (fuppofed) Schifmatil cal Intruders ^ therefore there can be no doubt, but

^ that

5? J, The Nonjurdi's Se^jratkn Chap. VIIL

that Dr. Rohlnforh Confecration, when nominated by Queen Anvc to xhc^St^ o^ Br i^ol, was valid ; be- caufe the PeiTons who confecrated'him, had the Power of Conf'ecracion. For whatever might have been vvifliedj upon the "Nonjurors Principles ,• yec 'ris notorious, that the (fuppofed) Want of a Right- ful Prince's IMomination, could not null that Spiri- tual A<2:ion of the Comprovincial Bifliops who laid Hands on him. And whereas the Concurrence of the Metropolitan is for prudential Reatbns required by our Conftitution ; 'tis certain, that ;as the Want oF it cant affeA the Vaiidity (tho' ic rhighc be fup-^ pofud to afFcd the Regularity) of his Cbnlecration^ io eiiher we had at that Time no Metropolitan, or clfe pr. Tenifon was the Perfon. For 1 am perfua- ded, the Nonjurors have never pretended to hll up the See of Cufnerhry^ tho' perhaps they may have amongil: them a Perion pretending to be the Suffra- gan- of poi-er. Now- whatever Power a Suffragan Bifhop has during theXife, and under the Autho- rity^jO^.his Principal j yet 'tis notorious, that a Suffragan Bifliop has no more Right. to fucceed in the See of his Principal, than a Curat has to fuc- ceed in- the Benefice of him whom he affifls. A Suffrag?jn is indeed capable of fucceeding in his Principaf s See, as a Curat is alfo capable cf fuc- ceeding .in that Benefice he ofiiciats in : but then he niuft.te. regularly introduced \ for lie has not a Right to.'iucceed, fo as, to claira.it of courie as his Due. Wiicrefcre if a Perfon were never Co regular- ly •confe.crated Suffragan q{ ^Do'ver by Archbifhop Sancrofi;' (yji^^t he couic. not pretend a. Right to the See ctpQa^erhupj upiO.i'thflt Prt^-at's D>ath. And iincel am'fatisfy'd, that Jio Perfon ever pretended to be.. ■Archbifhop of Cmterbmy at .the tmie of Dr.i?^^.'/i^/*?/s Confecracipn to the i3eeotJB?-?y/i?/,ex^ ' ' ' ceps

Chap. Vlir. proved to he S'chifm.iticat, 59

cz\)i'Dr.Tenifcn ^ therefore either Dr. 7l'«y^« was then our Metropolitan (and we know, he concur- red in Dr. Rcblnjons ConfecrsTttoh) or elfe we had no Metropolitan at all^ and fo the Concurrence of the Metropolitan could not be necefrary„

Now upon the Death of Bifhop Cemftcn, Dr. 'Ro- hinfon was tranflated to -this See of London. It the i Nomination of Queen Anne was not worth regard- I ing : yet can any Perfon pretend, that another ., Man was nominated by the Pretender ? And lurcly Queen Annes Nomination, there being no other Nomination pretended, did not vacat the AcSs of all thofe other Perfons, whofe Concurrence vvus neceffary in order to his regular Settlement, in the ufual Manner, efpecially as to all purely Spiri- tual Proceedings. For he was peacefully receiv'd and I'ubmitted to by this Diocefe, without any Ri- val or Competitor, that I could ever yet hear of, I confefs, had the Nonjurors fet up an oppofit Bi- fliop, had any other Perfon claim'd the See of Lj;?- don : we fliould then have been obliged to confider the Merits of their refpedive Pretenfions, and to join with him whofe Right fhould appear. But fmce the Nonjurors themfelves do not fay, that there is another Bifhop of London'^ therefore Dr. R-hhlon is the only Bifhop of Lcndony and has as good a Pvight to this See, as his PredecelTor Dr. Compton had, vvhofe Right I have vindicated at large.

And fince Dr. Robi?ifon is now rightful Bifhop of London^ therefore the Nonjurors Separation from his Communion is Schifmatical ; there being no Reafon for feparating from the Communion of Bi- fhop Roblnfon^ but what I have already largely an- fwer'd, in confidering Bifliop Comptons Cafe.

I 2 CHAP.

^o Th Nonjurors Separatio» Chap.lX«

CHAP. IX.

The Cafe of the Nonjurors Separation in the other Diocefes in England, briefly touched upon.

AS for all the other Diocefes, the Cafe of the Nonjurors Separation from the refpet^tive Bi- Ihops of them, may be refolved by an Application of what has been already faid.

As for the Province of Tork^ there was no Bifhop deprived in it for Noncomplyance with the Revo- lution. Andconfequently there never could be a- ny Objedlion flarted againft the Right of the Bi- Ihops of that Province to their refpedive Sees, but what muft arife from their being guilty of the (fupr pofed) Schifm of Coordination by acknowledging Antibifhops in the neighboring Province of Canter- bury. And fmce I have proved, that that Plea is of no Force even in the Province of Catfterbury ; cer- tainly it can't affe(9: the Province of Tork, where the Metropolitan and all his Corpprovincials have all along aded unanimoufly, and continued their Suc- ceflion to this very Day, without the Shadow of an Antibifnop amongft them.

And as for the Province of Canterbury^ in which there was once a confiderable Difficulty (viz,, du- ring the the lives of the deprived Bifliops) yet now the Cafe is clear throughout, for thofe Diocefes whofe Biftiops were not deprived for refufing Sub- miffion to the Revolution, are in the fame State with this o{ London i and the refpecftive Bifhops have the fame Right to their Sees, as Bilhop Robinfon has to ours. And as for thofe Diocefes whofe Biihops ■ were

^hap.IX. proved to he Schifmatkai. 6i

;ere deprived, whatever might have been pleaded, /hilft the deprived Bifhops themfelves were alive ; et fince that perfonal Conteft is at an end, and le Schifm of Coordination is thereby perfedlly eafed (becaufe the deprived Bifhops themfelves re dead ,• and thofe who were confecrated by the eprived Ones, or derive their Succeflion from hem, do not pretend to be other than Suffragans) herefore thofe Bifhops that have be^n eleded, and onfecrated, and publicly and unanimoufly re- eived, and owned by their Comprovincials, as bifhops of thofe once controverted Sees, are now jy all the Rules of Ecclefiaftical Difciplin (and )articularly in the Judgment of (a) St. Cyfrian, ^hom the Nonjurors love to magnify) the only awful Bifhops of them ; nor indeed is there any )cher Claimant in oppofition to them. And there- ore Separation from their Communion is undoubt- ;dly Schifmatical, there being no juft Caufe for it, IS has been fully fhewn in the foregoing Papers.

Whether

{») Agnofcant atq; intelligant, Epifcopo femel fafto Zc Col- egarum &: plebis teftimonio & judicio comprobato, alium con- titui nullo modo pofle. Cypr. Epift. 44. p. 86.

Fa£his eft autem Cornelius Epifcopus de Dei &: Chrlfti ejus udicio, deClericorum pene omnium teftimonio, de plebis quje uiic affuit fuffragio, &: de Sacerdotum anriquorum & bonorun^ 'irorum collegio, cum nemo ante fc faftus eflcr, cum Fabiani ecus, id eft, locus Petri & gradus Cathedra: Sacerdotalis vaca- et ; quo occupato de Dei voluntate atq; omnium noftrum con- enfione firmato, quifquis jam Epifcopus fieri voluerit, foris lat necefte eft, nee habeat Ecclefiafticam ordinationem qui Ec- :leriae non tenet unitatenj. Quifquis ille fuerit, multum de (e iaftans & fibi plurimum vindicans, proftnus eft, alienus eft, foris :ft. Et cum poft primum fecundus efte non pofHt, quifquis port anum qui folus elfe debeat, faftus eft, non jam fecundus ille, cdnulluseft, Cy^r. Epift. 55. p. 104. :

C*2 T/;«? Nonjurors 5i?f4r/?//>;;j Sec. Ch'ap.IICl

Whether thofe SafFragans who were confecrated by the Nonjuring BifhopSjOr derive their Succeffion from them, have now any Power in thofe Dio- cefes, for which ('tis prefumed) they were confe- crated, their Principals may inquire and determin; it they judge it proper fo to do. But if thofe Suf- fragans have any Power at all, I'm fure it mud be exercifed in due Subordination to their Principals. Orherwife 'cis notorioufly Schifmatical, even with- in the Bounds of the feveral Diocefes they were in- tended to officiat in.

Tix END.

BOOKS EVitten h^ the Reverend Dr. Bennet, and Sold by W. Innys ^f.i|/j^. Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-yard^^ .•^•'

AParaphrafe with Annotations upon the Book oi Common Prayer, wherein the Text is explained, Objedlions are an- Xwer'd, and Advice is humbly offer'd, both to the Clergy and tayety, for promoting' true Devotion in the Ufe otit. Th^ Second Edition. ^ •

. An Abridgment .of the London Cafes, jth Edit. A Confutation of Popery. 4th Edit. . Confutatioa of Quakerifm. id Edit, A Difcourfe of Schiim. 4th Edit.

f_/« the Prefs, by the fame Author,

A Difcourfe of tht Ev^Vbleflfed Trinity in Unity, with an txatnination of Dr. Chrkis Scripture D^clrlns of the Trinity.

W7^

y.

r^

iV'^'^^x^-

i

^^l()AJ^^..^c.*#^in. ^■:^-i

^"W

V

A'

V

t'

f7

>-

— --/Wf

^\^

►-^'

lit::

jyi^r i^M.i.i^i i i I I * II * J » » 1 f ? >

.M**-*k»»*i.*w»i*-* *.»^» • ^ ^ » » i i t t T%

XI I «-«^» • » » • • I I • I i I I » i t t ^ V

^-•-•^•.•.•.» ».ft * • • I • • I I I » » r t* J 1 l.i.t.».\i i.i i-i t t. i t I t i I » r w iR if »fi

Xt^i^i.i i' t; i^* i It • t I i if, » » i« It. ft 1^1' 1 1 t i. »^t,f ,» » r r t r »^» ft It ife i » if^iT^

itrX>„*.K* •-» • tit • t t • fciKr t i: m m mu lJ.i.i.r 1 i i f^i rt • lit*; wtmrn. u mm mm k

MX® t t •: 1 « i • ». • *. K ii » KKt: •Vauri

1,

lit 1: » I •

K

^^y

,r

i:t ft It ft ft I

ft i< ft

R ft::

.1.

ft:

K

K

m.

W^^

ft

ft'ri: ft

kr^^-

i-ft

•r

r

1

ft^

(^

"^^Siir^.

■b.:

«

t

i

.i«t

l-t

» 1

»ii

_€«_«-«:

•

i-l

^1^%^.

■m «B"'<*"tia ««*W^^'

^.*

t I

1 — ^^ — m ^

c r c r T f f € c t f i%9 i i f^* «<»■.• i.i.i r r r r t f t I t I t • • i • « •_i.t.t_i J_i^i

f c r f f t i jji • I f f « i t <^t^«^0.««i^l, ]

f f r c c f t 9mm t • • « • « t i ajiJLJUULit

«

t^ Ir

r f f f f < « f » f f yr- r t < f c Wk t t « c t' r c 4 i r c « r t « f

f c < t

t I •_«

SIS

tJI J -

^ r

r*^

• ''fc -S-l 'VSX JLf^ — r ^jj^

\*J*»w*-»-***-».».>.» * * » » » « * > » » » i ? ? %

\^ ^»».»-,»-»M«M*^M » » • • ft • » * » i i i tS 1 T ^ »LM-»**LM ».• »i* • » t » i ■ » » » T 1 iS 1

•.M**«»**.Mk».»-»^* •.* » » » » » * i 1 t 1 T i>.t i i • 1^1 i^i r 1 r r 1^1 i^i J f J i % tS

i.i.SA i^i i • t • I s t • • I at t i ft Hi "» >

fS^l^B^i^t^r ft^i ill i • • t I i 191111 i 1

.M-*-«.««»^M • » • • • • I » I 1 i I i I % > ^•-•.•,'-» • »-• » • • till • I t » t t* i 1

ri.ft.i J I • ft » ft ft • ft ft ft ft ft ft ft i^ftf ftT^afi .^i»»-«-«-»J » ft ».» ft ft ft ft ft I ft »'ftV»^»fftVir

^ >„l.l.1 ft ft t ft ft ft ft ft ft ft • fti. ft' ft ft ft H ft H It

.■.■ t^J it i I ft ft ft I ft ft ftmK ft 1 ft» ftft I , I i t.Vft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ftfcft ft ftifft ftft

-'^M.*,~*.ft.*»«^* »-*-» • ft ft ft ft ft fti, ft ftV^lTi

>^M 1 a I ft t ft ft ft ft. ft Kft ft'ftift itft ft ftrftri*

. _ _..t ft ft 1 ft ft ft ft ft, ft ft ft ft ft ft » iR ftj ftf ririofi

^l^it^«^»^t.»^».ft^»i.i;.».»^fttfti»^fti,f£JOlJUOf^

mimn

^OfciEm

^'^mys

tiCiL

m

l^ft_«

, - 'ft t • i ft'i

» 1 i ft • • 1 1

»-•••. *X»"ft

• ft 1

^■\'

\

iVv-^^^^?W

V

Hi

^•^■«f'

mpt. . sA,*-