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.

§ XV. The Oaths of canonical Obedi∣ence to our Fa∣thers still obli∣ging. (Book 15)

So, unreasonable are the gratifications expected by the Doctor from their Lordships, whereas, all things considered, there is no reason why he should expect any gratification at all. For if they will not discharge him from his Duty, he is however resolved not to pay them any. For he puts the Case of a Bishop forbidding his People, on their Oaths, to ac∣cept of any other Bishop, and then asks, what must be done in such Cases? Is the Church perjured if she accept of another? will our Adversaries say that she is? He knows our mind very well that we know not how to excuse her. And what has he to prove the contrary? Nothing but the voice of flesh and bloud; A hard saying! who can bear it? But this learned divine knows very well that the hardness of a saying (especially if it be only so to flesh and bloud) is no Argument to prove it false. He knows it was not so in that very passage whence he borrows the Expressions. He knows it is not so in all Cases of Persecution, and of Doctrins that may deserve to be maintained by suffering. And he urges nothing peculiar in our present Case. But he cannot imagine

that the welfare and prosperity of mankind does depend upon so ticklish and uncertain a point as that of an ejected Governors consent. That, if he refuses to give his Consent, all the Church, or the Nation, must be made a Sacrifice to him. So he represents the Case very Invidiously. As if the Competition were between the private Interests of the Governour and the Good of the Community. He therefore fancies that the false Principles on which this Nation is built is this, That the Oath that is taken to the Governour, is taken only for his sake. But though that Principle which he calls folse be really in the Constitution of some particular Gouernments, and therefore is not universally false; yet neither, on the contrary, is it universally true. Particularly, it is not true in the Case of the Ecclesiastical Government. This Government is not a Property of the Governours, but a Trust committed to their management for the Good of others, rather than of themselves. Yet though this be the Case, it is the publick Interest of the whole Society, that all the Members of it be unanimous in defending the particular Persons in whom the Go∣vernment is vested, against a forcible Dispossession. It is the publick In∣terest, that no Rights whatsoever be overpower'd, because if they be, no Rights whatsoever neither private nor publick, can be secure; but may be also overpower'd by the same Precedent. It is yet more particu∣larly the Publick Interest, that those Rights be secured against all force, upon which the Security of all the Particular Rights of the whole Society depend. Such are those of the Supream Governours who if they be not enabled to defend themselves, can never be able to protect either the whole Body, or any particular Members of it, in Possession of the Rights to which they were Intitled by the Constitution. Upon this account it has been accounted the Interest of Societies in general, that they be unanimous in defending it. For this will make the Go∣vernment better able to defend it self, and protect its Subjects in their Rights, if it have the united assistance of the whole Society, not subdivi∣ded into several little Interests. It has also been thought the publick Interest of Societies rather to be concluded by their Governours, as to their Practice, in their Judgment concerning the publick good, than to be per∣mited to embroyl their whole Bodies by forming subdivided Factions and intestine animosities, which is the natural consequence of being al∣lowed the use of their private Judgements, even concerning the publick good in a Society already constituted. Thus the Doctor may see how even the regard of the publick good may oblige him to hazard all that he calls Ruin, in asserting the Rights of Suprem Governours, by reasons anticedent to the Oath it self, and independent on his pretended false Prin∣ciple, that Oaths are taken only for the sake of Governours. These

Reasons proceed, though the Government of the Churches had been like many Humane Governments, founded on Humane Institution, and the a∣greeing consent of its respective Members. But the reason of hazard∣ing all for the Rights of our Ecclesiastical Superiors holds more strongly. For God himself has so constituted his own Church as to oblige us, in regard of all Interests, to the strict dependence on our Ecclesiastical Go∣vernours. As Schism is the greatest mischief that can befall any Society; so a Society, such as the Church is, that must subsist over all the World, independent on the Secular arm, nay under Pesecution from it, must be in the greatest danger of Schism. And God has accordingly most wisely contrived his Spiritual Society so as to secure it from that danger, by making it the greatest Interest of the Church in general, and of all its Members considered severally, to adhere to their Spiritual Monarch. It is certainly their greatest Interest to keep their Mystical Communion with God the head of Christ, and with Christ the head of his Mystical Body the Church. But this, God has made no otherwise attainable but by maintaining a Communion with his visible Body by visible Sacraments, obliging himself to ratify in Heaven what is transacted by the visible Governours of the Church on Earth. Thus he admits to his Mystical Union those who are admitted by the visible Governours of his Church into his visible Body, and excludes from the Mystical Union those who are by the Church Governours excluded from the Union that is visible. So the Apostle St. John reasons that whosoever would have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Communion with the Father and the Son, must not expect it otherwise than by the Communion with that visible Body of which the Apostle him∣self was a Member 1 St. Joh. I. 3. So our Saviour himself makes the despising of those who are Authorized by him to be the despising of him∣self, and not only so, but of him also who sent him. And in St. Joh. XVII. he makes his Mystical Union to be of Christians among themselves as well as with himself and the Father. And upon this de∣pendend the dreadfulness of Excommunication, and indeed all obligation to Discipline, and the Penances imposed by it in the Primitive Church But there was none in the visible constitution of the Church that represen∣ted God and Christ under the Notion of a Head but the Biship. And therefore he was taken for the principle of Unity, without Union to whom there could be no pretensions to Union with God and Christ. This was the Doctrine of St. Cyprians Age, and not his only, but of that of Ignatius, and not only of Ignatius, but of that which was Apostolical, grounded on the Notions then received among the Jews concerning their Union with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Archetypal High Priest, by their Union with the High Priest who was visible. How then can

the Doctor make any Interests either publick or private, separable from those of adhering to our Bishops, and thereby avoiding Schism by dis∣countenancing Usurpers of their lawful Thrones?