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.

§ XXXIII. The ancient Jews of the Apo∣stle's Age did be∣lieve their Priest hood available to a future and a eternal state. (Book 33)

I cannot for my Life, conceive how our Adversaries can avoid the force of this Argument, if the Benefits procured by the Sacerdotal Office were thought Spiritual, and principally relating to a future and eternal state; things perfectly out of the Power of the Magistrate, and incomparably exceeding whatsoever is within it. And that this was the sense of that Age, I need not insist on the Article of our own

Church. It sufficiently appears from the earliest coaeval Monuments of that Age, not only that they thought the Sacerdotal Office to have in∣fluence on the future state; but that they did on that very account, believe it superior to the Office of the Civil Magistrate. Besides what I now mentioned concerning their agreement against the Sadduces, the Two only Jewish Authors that we have undoubtedly coaeval with the Apostles, Philo and Josephus, are both of them sufficiently clear in these particulars, That the Priests Ministry was thought available for the future state, what can be clearer than those Words of Philo? Where he tells us, that * 1.1 Priests and Prophets were Men of God, and therefore did not vouchsafe to account them∣selves of any particular City in this World, or Citizens of the World in general (as some of the Philosophers did) but soared above all that was sensible, and being translated to the Intellectual World, fixed their Habi∣tations there, being registred in the City of Incorrup∣tible Incorporeal Ideas. And it were easie to shew, that the Language and Notions of the N. T. concerning the correspondence between the visible Priest hood on Earth, and the Arche∣typal † 1.2 Priest-hood of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Heaven, and between the visible Taber∣nacle in Jerusalem, and the true ‡ 1.3 Tabernacle in Heaven, not pitched by Men but God, were perfectly agreeable to these Notions of Philo, who was such as the Apostles were before their Conversion to the Christian Religion; and that all the Benefits of their outward Ministry, were thought due to this Mystical Communication with that which was Invisible; by which it may appear, that those words of Philo were perfectly agreeable to his avowed Principles. Now how could the Magistrate pretend to promote or interrupt this Mystical communication be∣tween the Earthly and Heavenly Offices? How could he therefore ad∣vance any Person to that Dignity, or exclude him from it? Josephus also is as clear in owning a future state, which by these Principles could not be claim'd by any but on account of this Mystical Communica∣tion, and consequently of that Priest hood, which was thought to have a just Title to it. He also expresses that state by the Laaguage of the * 1.4 Chri∣stians

also of that Age. To these I might add the Testimony of a third Tewish Hellenist, the Author of the Apocryphal Book of Wisdom. He also, Personates Solomom making the Temple built by himself to be a Resemblance of the Holy † 1.5 Tabernacle which God had prepared from the beginning. Which shews, that this Mystical Communication was under∣stood, even then when that Author lived, who seems to have been elder than even the Apostles themselves. How could the Magistrate pre∣tend to any Right in Affairs of this nature?

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Phi∣lo de Gigantib. p. 292. Ed. Paris. 1640.
• † 1.2

  Heb. IV. 14. VII. 26. IX. 23. 24.
• ‡ 1.3

  Heb. VIII. 1, 2,
• * 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Joseph. Macab. c, 13. [See Mat. v ii. 11. S Luke xiii. 28, 29] Again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. cap. 16. [St. Luke XX. 38.] The Bosome of Abrahan is there mentioned in the Translation of that Work by Erasmus p. 1090 Edit. Colon. Whether from any Greek he had I know not. But I think it is in the MS. of New-Colledge. See also Josephus's Oration, L. III. Bell Jud. c. p. 852.
• † 1.5

  Wisdom IX. 8.