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.

§ XXI. The abuses that may follow on Compliance, are a just reason to refuse it, where it is not otherwise, in Conscience, due (Book 19)

One Inconvenience the Doctor himself foresees, which he seems to own as justly chargeable on their Principle: That by a submission to the Pos∣sessor, the Civil Governour is like to be encouraged to tyrannize over the Church, and to turn out such Bishops as he does not like, whensoever he pleases, though never so unjustly. This must necessarily be the Consequence of defending such Practices in such a way as the Doctor has done, not by conside rations particular to the present Case, but by such Topicks as the Doctor

has insisted on, which (if they prove any thing) proceed in general, that is, prove Bishops obliged in general, to yield their Rights as often as they are invaded, and Subjects as generally absolved from their Duty to such Bishops though the Bishop should think fit to assert their Rights. Both of these are asserted by him on account of the irresistibleness of the force which brings on the violence, which is an Argument that must always hold on the side of the State, in all Disputes that she has with the Church. These things asserted by Ecclesiasticks, such as the Doctor is, must for ever encourage the Laity, who are not acted by great skill, as well as good inclinations to Religion, to believe they do well in what they do of this kind, and therefore to repeat it with∣out any scruple. But how does the Doctor pretend to avoid this Con∣sequence? He first pretends that the same Inconvenience is in all manner of Government. Particularly, that a Synod may also be encouraged to * 1.1 unjust Sentences by our acknowledging an Obligation to submit to such Sentences, if passed Synodically. But we are far from making Abuses Arguments for denying just Rights: Nor does our Cause require it. We are only for denying Obedience to an incompetent Authority, that invades Rights which do not belong to it. And for this it is certainly a very just reason for denying them what they have no Right to, if yielding will encourage them to the like Injuries and Usurpations frequently, which it must needs do, if they must never expect opposition, how frequently soever they are pleased to renew the Injuries; nay, if Persons concerned against them, shall encourage them in the belief that they are no Injuries at all. However if the Injustice had been equal in the encroachments of incompetent Judges and Synods; yet the danger is not. In Synods nothing can be transacted but by a majority of the Episcopal Order. So the E∣piscopacy it self is secured by a majority of Suffrages against any mischief that can be acted against it Synodically. But in a Lay Judicatory, the whole Authority may combine against them, and (God knows) is too likely to do so in these days of Irreligion, when their Revenues are more regarded than their Function. This Authority therefore is not to be trusted to dearest Friends, who are in any disposition to be otherwise. Much less to those who are under present jealousies and disaffections to their whole Order.

Notes

• * 1.1

  ••. 12.