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.

§ XX. No security ••ere that com∣pliance will not be abused. (Book 20)

The Doctor adds Secondly, that here in England it is not the will of the Prince that can turn out a Bishop. And that King and Parliament may by compliance be encouraged to depose Bishops at pleasure, that Supposition, he says, is wild and extravagant. As if he had never heard of a Parlia∣ment, even in England, that did not only deprive Bishops at pleasure,

but Episcopacy it self. As if he knew not that Men of the same prin∣ciples are notwithstanding qualified to serve in our Parliaments As if he were perfectly ignorant of the Case of Scotland, where not∣withstanding the interest the Bishop have by the Fundamentals of the Government, as on of the Three States in which the Legistative Power is seated; Yet not Bishops only, but Episcopacy has been extirpated, as far as the Votes of the Laity can contribute to the extirpation of it. There the Doctor may see, what he seys he cannot imagine, that what he calls King and Parliament can concur for the deprivation, not of a Bishop only, but of Episcopacy. And we have little security that it shall not be put in Practice, if we must by Principles, as he does, allow them to do it here, upon an occasion that they shall judge Extraordinary. That Ex∣traordinary occasion is not very difficult to be found by them, who make Spiritual considerations give way to Temporal. The use of the Cathe∣dral Revenues for carrying on the present expensive War, is likely e∣nough to be judged so. And the Psalmist, who was himself a King, has warned us not to put confidence in Princes. The Doctor indeed tells us, that the Bishops here have the same Security that other Subjects have. I am sure they ought to have it, not only for the reason of the things, but by our Constitution. Their Rights ought to be account∣ed more sacred than any other Rights or Liberties of the Subjects and therefore more inviolable. All the Sacredness that has been made use of by our Legislators for securing them, has been derived from the interposition of the Clergy, who, if they be not treated as sacred themselves, can never secure other Rights which have no other sacredness than what they derive from the intervention of the Clergy. But if he considers how little Laws often signify considering those who are allowed the Authority of Authentically Interpreting and Executing them, and what Principles are now allowed in those who are thought qualified for that Authentical Interpretation and Execution; I know no sort of Subject that he could pitch on that either have been, or are likely to be, treated so arbitrarily by our Legislators. The Laity in Henry the VIII^ths time, dissolved whole Bodies of the Clergy, and alienated their revenues, without any consent of those Bodies, or of any Autho∣rized to represent them, without any Legal trial or eviction in any form of Law. When has any such thing been ever attempted against any Lay Bodies by their Representatives in Parliament, who were chosen to preserve, not to oppress, the Liberties of those who chose them. The other States have presumed to eject the Spiritual State, who as a State, have as sacred a Right in the Fundamental Constitution of the Legislative Power as themselves. And the Commons have turned that President a∣gainst

the Temporal Lords. What if the Lords Spiritual and Temporal should turn it upon the Commons also? Could they think this agreeable to the design of the Constitution? The Law certainly never intended such violences between those who are equally fundamental to the Legi∣slative Power, and who have no Legal Judges or Tribunals appointed by the Law for determining differences between them by way of Judicial process and Authority. Thus the Doctor may plainly see, that in the Opinion of those who justify these proceedings, and who are there∣fore likely to plead them as Precedents, Clergy-men have not the same Securities that othe Subjects have, if Persons so Principled, make a Majority in our Legislative Assemblies. I say no more at present for ma∣king Application, how probable it is for such Principles to gain accep∣tance with the majority. I should be as willing as any to presume better things, if I could see reason to believe them. But our best security is certainly to assert Principles that my not put it in the power of any to ruin our Spiritual Society, and to be true to them. He adds, There is nothing more manifest than that this Inconvenience is not so likely to happen * 1.1 as those Evils we endeavour to avoid. Why so? These, he says, are cer∣tain and present, That only possible. If they be certain and present how can they pretend that, by their compliance, they have avoided them? If they have not avoided them by complying; how can they pretend that the benefits of their compliance can have made amends for all the further Injuries they may expose the Church to for the future, by suf∣fering such ill practices to pass into Precedents for want of a timely opposition? Methinks he should have made the avoidal of the feared evils certain and present, not the Evils themselves, if he would have spoken consequently to the exigence of his Case. But it is too true, that the Evils themselves are present, and that their Compliance has not avoided them: The Schism is so notoriously. And so is the Perse∣cution also to all that will be true to their old Principles, and to their old Communion. For, what favour has been shewn on condition of de∣serting old Principles, can by no fair Interpretation be extended to that Church, whose Principles they were. So far as they hold firm to their old Principles, they are still liable to the Persecution; and so far as they desert them, so far they also cease to be of the Church, whose Principles they have deserted. Few Persecutions have been so severe, but that they might have been avoided by desertion. But the further Inconve∣nience likely to follw on this compliance, is more than possible. It is as probable as most events are that depend on Humane Wills. It is a natural Consequence, and a Consequence likely to be drawn by Persons so Principled; and there are but too many that are so, and too

tempting occasions to put them in mind of, and to engage them on, such Inferences.

Notes

• * 1.1

  P. 12.