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.

§ XVI. The comply∣ance with Usur∣pers is also there∣fore sinful, be∣cause Usurping Bishops are real∣ly no Bishops at all. (Book 16)

The Doctor now proceeds in the 4th and last place, to shew that this complyance with the new Intruders is not sinful on account of the Objection insisted on by the Vindicator, that the Usurpers are in reali∣ty no Bishops at all. This matter were indeed very easy if all the Vindi∣cator had produced for his purpose had been only a saying of St. Cy∣prian, and a saying nothing to his purpose. He might then indeed won∣der that the Vindicator should pretend to raise so great a structure on so weak a foundation. But considering what the Vindicator had said to prove the saying true, one might rather wonder at the Doctors confidence in slighting and overlooking what one would therefore think him conscious that his Cause would not afford an Answer to. The Vindi∣cator had proved it more than a saying, that it was the Sense, not only of St. Cyprian, but of all the Bishops of that Age, who all of them denyed their Communicatory Letters to such an Intruder into a Throne not validly vacated, thereby implying, that they did not own him of their Epis∣copal Colledge, and therefore took him for no Bishop at all. The Vin∣dicator shewed withal that it was agreable to the Principles and Tra∣ditions of that Age, derived by Tradition from the Apostles, and there∣fore that they had reason to say and think so too. The Vindicator far∣ther proved it independently on their saying or thoughts (however o∣therwise creditable in an affair of this kind) from the nature of the thing it self, that where there could be but one of a kind, and two Pre∣tenders could not therefore be both genuine, the validity of one Title is to be gathered from the invalidity of the other. But to what pur∣pose is it to produce proofs if the Doctor will take no notice of them? But Cornelious (with relation to whose Case St. Cyprian uses this Expres∣sion, that the latr Bishop is not second, but none) the Doctor says, had never been deposed, but was still the possessor, which he takes for a dis∣parity * 1.1 from our deprived Fathers Case. He was deposed as much as it lay in the Power of the Pagan Emperour to do so. He was set up, not only as the Christian Bishops then generally were, without his consent, but notoriously against it. He was as much grieved at it as if a Ri∣val had been set up against him for the Empire. And he had kept the See vacant for a considerable time after the Martyrdom of Fabianus, doing all that he could do to hinder the Clergy from meeting in such a * 1.2 way as was requisite for supplying the vacancy. Let the Doctor him∣self Judge what Decius could have done more for deposing him. How∣ever

the Doctor tells us that Cornelius was the Possessor. Very true. But not in regard of any Possession of which the Emperour could deprive him. And indeed in no higher sense than ours are, as shall appear hereafter. Cornelius was possessed of no more Temporals of which the State could deprive him. And our H. Fathers are still, notwithstand∣ing the invaled deprivation, in as firm and indisputable a Possession with regard to Conscience, as Cornelius. So unhappy the Doctor is in prov∣ing the Doctrine, which he calls the Saying of St. Cyprian, nothing to to the Vindicators purpose. What the Doctor adds that he cannot be∣lieve so great and wise a Man as St. Cyprian could have been of * 1.3 another opinion from himself, we are not much concerned for till he shall be pleased to produce some better Arguments why he should not be so. One would think he wanted better Arguments when he in∣sists upon the fairness of the Elections of the Usurpers for legitimating their Call. He knows very well the liberty our Laws allow the Cano∣nical Electors, that they must choose the Person proposed, or a Premunire, But he must never expect to be restored to the Rights of his function if he, and such as he, will not only betray their own Rights, but plead for their Adversaries Invasion of them. The Doctor Enthymeme the Vindicator will then be concerned to take notice of when the Doctor can shew it in his Book. But the Doctor thinks he has got an Argu∣ment to prove that an unjust Synod can deprive no more than an in∣competent Authority. And why? Because a Synod proceeding unjustly cannot deprive of the Right. For to him, he says, it is absurd that any * 1.4 unjust sentence should take away the Right. Hence he iners that a Bishop substituted in the place of another unjustly deprived by a Synod, must also be no Bishop, if a Bishop substituted into a place vacated by a Lay deprivation be also none. This would indeed hold if a Bishop de∣prived wrongfully by a competent Authority retained as much Right as he who had been deprived no otherwise than by an Authority that were incompetent. But the Doctor, methinks, might easily have discerned the difference if he would have been pleased to Judge impartially. All the Right that he has who is deprived unjustly, is only a Right to a juster sentence, either by an Appeal to a Superior Authority, if the Authority which has deprived him be subordinate; or in the Conscience of that same Authority which had deprived him, if it be it self Supreme. But till the competent Authority put him into Possession, he has no Right to the consequences of Possession, the duties of the Subjects, and the actual benefits▪ of his Office. Nor has he any Right to Possess himself of the place by violence, but must use Legal means of recovering what is already his due in Conscience. This he knows

is the sense of our Legal Courts concerning Sentences pronunced by competent, though corrupt, Judges. But where the dispossession is by a Judge not competent, the injured Person may make use of force for regaining his Possession, and in the mean time he retains an actual Right to all the du∣ties and benefits of his Office during his dispossession. This our Laws would allow the Doctor, if the King of France, or any other force not seconded with a Legal Right to use that force, should dispossess him of his Fellowship of Wadham Colledge, and substitute a Successor into his Place. Our Laws would notwithstanding own him as the true Fellow, Entitled to all the Duties and Priviledges of the Fellowship, and would not allow his Rival as a Fellow, nor indemnify any that should pay him the Dues belonging to the Place, not allow him the Plea of a forcible entry, if the Doctor should recover his Possession by force. But none of these things would be allowed him, if himself had been a∣jected, and his Rival substituted by the unjust Sentence of a corrupt Judge, but in a Legal Court. Thus he may see a better Reason than what is given by him for our Submission to an unjust Deprivation of a Synod. The actual Right of the Bishop so deprived to the Duty of his Eccle∣siastick Subjects, and the Priviledges of his Place, are really taken from him, till he be again possessed by the Acts of those who are empowered by the Laws of the Society to give Possession. And all the Right he has, is only in the Consciences of those who are empowered by the Laws for it, first to be put into the possession, and than to all the o∣ther Benefits and Privildges annexed by the Law to be Legal Pos∣session. This is very consistent with a paying the Rights consequent to Possession, to another, till the Possession be Legally restored. But even the Legal Possession by the Laws of the Church, and with regard to Conscience, cannot be affected by an invalid deprivation of an incompetent Judge.

Notes

• * 1.1

  P.
• * 1.2

  See P. 18.
• * 1.3

  P. 10.
• * 1.4

  P. 11.