A defence of the vindication of the deprived bishops wherein the case of Abiathar is particularly considered, and the invalidity of lay-deprivations is further proved, from the doctrine received under the Old Testament, continued in the first ages of christianity, and from our own fundamental laws, in a reply to Dr. Hody and another author : to which is annexed, the doctrine of the church of England, concerning the independency of the clergy on the lay-power, as to those rights of theirs which are purely spiritual, reconciled with our oath of supremancy, and the lay-deprivations of the popish bishops in the beginning of the reformation / by the author of the Vindication of the deprived bishops.

§ XIV. Our deprived Fathers give publick Signifi∣cations that they do challenge their old Rights, as far as is ne∣cessary in their Circumstances. (Book 14)

Upon these terms the Doctor is pleased to tell us, that he is fully persuaded that our ejected Fathers are very worthy and good men. But not without a manifest design. They must, if they will maintain the place he has admitted them to in his good opinion, be true to that Idea of good men by which he is resolved to try them; give up those Rights whose maintenance may oblige him and his Brethren to any temporal loss. And is not this a very obliging reason to induce them to it, that they must give up the trust committed to them of the publick Interests of God and of Religion, rather than he and his Bre∣thren should hazard their Temporal and private Interests in main∣taining those Rights, by contributing no more on their own parts than what is otherwise their duty to them? They must have agreat stock indeed of that which he is pleased to call goodness, if this way of Reasoning can make them think themselves obliged to him. Much more, if, upon this pretence of kindness, he may be allowed to beg, what he can never be able to prove, that they are obliged in Con∣science rather to surrender their Rights, than that he and his obliged Bre∣thren should be obliged to any hazard in maintaining them. This one would think too much for him to persume till he were better able to prove it. But the greater easiness of presuming, than proving, makes him very hold indeed, when he prosumes that our H. Fathers themselves give their consent that their Successors should be acknowledged. Yet he pretends reason why we ought to presume it. And what may that be? * 1.1 That they have never by any pablick Signification of their wills, lay'd claim to the Obedience of their People; and do not now exercise their Episcopal po∣wer as before. But truly Conscienticus Observers of Oaths would ra∣ther persume on the Oaths side than against, it, least otherwise if God should help them no otherwise than they perform what they have Sworn by him, the from of the Oath it self should prove a dreadful impre∣cation.

This was, I am sure, regarded in the Cases of Edward the II. and Richard the II. The Subjects did not content themselves with a presumed consent to what was done in deposing them, gathered only from their silence; but they desired and procured an express renonciation of their Rights, and an express releastment from the Oaths which they had taken to them formerly. This reason therefore alone would hin∣der such Persons from undertaking second inconsistent engagements, that they had not yet been expresly discharged from the first. So far they would be from reckoning on their silence alone as sufficient to discharge them. For there are besides, especially in such Circumstances as ours, obvious reasons why silence only should not be taken for an Argument of a presumed consent. The fear of those under whose violence they suffer may hinder them from publick Signification of their dissent, and yet, (it seems) nothing under a publick Signification will satisfy the Doctor. If this fear should less influence so worthy and good Men, yet the fear of miscarrying might, in Prudence, discourage them from attempting what they might easily foresee that they should never be able to go thorough with. And how could our H. Fathert hope to succeed under so manifest and general a desertion of those who owe Duty to them, and know they do so? But it is not very Human in our Adversaries by their notorious undutifulness to oblige our Fathers to this silence, and than Ironically to turn their silence into an Argument of a presumed consent. In the mean time these considerations make it plain that it is very possible for them to continue their Claim, though they should give no publick Significations of doing so. And their cno∣tinuing it, though without any publick Signification, is Sufficient to our obligation with regard to Conscience, till they give a publick Significa∣tion that they will discharge us. For that is sufficient to continue their old notorious Claim they had to our Duty before the pretended depriva∣tion. I know no other Case wherein our Advarsaries where concerned, in which they would think it just to presume that Persons living un∣der a notorious force do therefore surrender their Rights because they do not further provoke their Oppressors by an open Signification of their Claim. But if nothing less than a publick Signification of their Claim will content the Doctor, methinks he should have acquainted us what Acts they are of Episcopal Power which he expects from our H. Fathers as publick Significations of it. Does he expect that they must signify their minds herein Juridically, as they did formerly, from their Courts and their Cathedrals? But he knows these are in the Power of those who have pretended to deprive them. He knows their Officers and Subordinate Governours will not now obey them. Must

they publickly warn those who are in possession of their Cures and Parishes? But how can they expect more Duty from them who follow the revenues into the Schism, and who are in actual Communion with, and under the pretended Obligation of Oaths of Canonical Obedience to, their Rival Schismaticks? What could they expect from such a publication of their dissent, (besides their gratifying the Doctor) but to expose their own Authority, without any prospect of publick benefit that might coun∣tervail it? What but a fruitless exasperation of their Persecutors? Would he have them fix publick Protestations against what has been done, in publick places? But the worthy Dean of Worcester's Case is a notori∣ous Instance how such a publication would be resented. I hope he will not own any design of urging them to such difficulties only to gratify him, if he has really that veneration for them which he Professes to have. By all the Episcopal Acts that are necessary, and of which their Circumstances are capable, they do already publickly signify their insisting on their old Title. I know no Episcopal Acts, necessary for our present condition, but what they readily exercise as they see occasion for them. They exercise them in Dioceses not otherwise vacated than by the Schism, without the Ordinaries leave, and to Persons not owning the Ordinaries Communion, which also our H. Fathers themselves abstain from. These are publick Significations that they do disown the state com∣munion as Schismatical (not only as using unlawful Offices) which can∣not be justified on any other terms but their challenging their old Rights, and condemning their Schismatical Rivals.

Notes

• * 1.1

  P. ••••