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.

§. XVIII. The Evil of Schism not avoid∣ed, but incurred, by complying with the Usurp∣ers. (Book 18)

As for the Case of Schism which he pretends to be avoided by them by their compliance with the Usurpers, this Evil is so far from being avoided, as that it has been occasioned by it. The Doctor cannot deny but that their communicating with the Intruders, has occasioned a notorious breach of Communion, which on one side or the other, must needs be Schismatical. All therefore that he can pretend, is, that they, by com∣plying, are not chargable with the crime of the Schism that has been occasion'd by it. How so? it is because if we had also done as they have done, there had been no Schism. Very true. But it had been full as true, if they had done as we have done. This pretence there∣fore leaves the Criminalness of the breach as uncertain as before, and necessarily puts them (for tryal of that) on the merit of the Cause. And if that be enquired into, all the Presumptions, as well as the par∣ticular Proofs, are in favour of us, and against them. We were plainly one before this breach. As therefore the branch it self is new, so the guilt of it must be resolved into the Innovations that occasion'd it, which will, by unavoidable consequence, make them chargeable with the breach who were guilty of the Innovations. The Innovations that have caused the breach, are the disowning our old Bishops, and substituting others in their Places, whilst themselves are living, and continue their Claim, and are not deprived by any Authority that had really a Power to deprive them. But in these instances, they, not we, have been the Aggressors and Innovators. Do we own the Old Bishops for the true Bishops of these Sees, of which they have pretended to deprive them? And did not they do so too, as well as we, before the Deprivation? And what had they to pretend for themselves, why they do not so still. Besides this very Sentence of Deprivation, which the Doctor owns

to be invalid? And how can they justify their disowning them upon a Sentence confessedly invalid? This new behaviour of theirs, they must wholly own, as it is new, to be their own. We only continue to own our Holy Fathers, as Dr. Hody himself and his Brethren did formerly. As for the Second Act, the setting up new Bishops in opposition to our Fathers, they cannot excuse themselves from being the Innovators, and concerning us, they cannot pretend it. They have made the new Bi∣shops who consecrated them, and they also who own them by com∣municating with them, or their Consecrators, These have intirely been the Acts of the Ecclesiasticks. Yet without these, all that the Lay-Power could have done, could never have formed a Schism, nor di∣vided our Communion. And as to what has been done on both sides, we can better excuse our selves, than they can. Could they and we have consented to have acted Uniformly, there could have been no Schism: But we can better account for our not complying with them, than they can for not complying with us. On their side, they have nothing to plead but worldly Considerations. They could not doubt of the Lawfulness with regard to conscience, of doing that on their side, which, if done, had prevented the Schism. They can pretend no ob∣ligation in Conscience, for setting up other Bishops, as we can, for not owning them; till they can prove us fairly discharged in Conscience, which they, as well as we, were obliged in, in regard of the old true Proprie¦tors. They could pretend no cementing Principles essential to the subsistence of the Church, as a Society, and a Communion independent on the State, obliging them to comply with these encroachments of the Politicions, for making Spiritual considerations to give way to Temporals. They could pretend no Catholick Authority of the Church, in any Age, approving what was done by them, as we can of the best and purest Ages, for what has been done by Us. They could not pretend any such united Authority, of even the Church of England, before this change, for many things wherein we differ now, as we can. So far thay have been from a∣voiding Schism by these compliances, or from purging themselves from the guilt of the Schism which has followed thereupon.