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.

§ XXXIV. And consequent∣ly, did expresly own it for mor Honourable than the Magistracy it self. (Book 34)

So far is he from any Right to intermeddle in these matters, that if these things be true, the Priest hood must needs be own'd for an Au∣thority of a higher nature, and more Noble than even the Magistracy it self. Nay, this very Consequence was inferred from those Principles, and own'd as true in that very Age. Philo owns it for the highest honour possible: Speaking concerning the Words of Moses there mentioned, * 1.1 Using (says he) an Hyperbolical Expression of Honour, GOD, he says, is their lot, with relation to the Consecrated Gifts, on Two Account: one, of the Highest Honour, because they are Partakers of those things which are by way of gratitude, allotted to GOD: The other, because they are employed on those things a∣lone which belong to Expiations, as if they were Guar∣dians (or Gurators, that is the Roman Word) of the Inheritances. The Similitude seems to be taken from the Roman Custom of making Tutors and Cu∣rators of young Heirs, whose Estates, till they them∣selves came to Age, were said to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of such Tutors and Curators, being till then, at their disposal Supposing that the Revenues of GOD were so at the disposal of the Priest, as the Estates of the Young Heirs were so at the disposal of the Curators. This Philo takes to be the reason why GOD was pleas'd to call himself the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Priests, as if GOD himself had been their Pupil, which was indeed a very Hyperbolical Expression of the HIGHEST HONOUR that could be ascribed to Mortals. But this is general only. He else where expresly equals, nay prefers the Dignity of the Sacerdocal Office to the Regal. He equals them in that same Discourse. It is manifest, says he, that * 1.2 the Law prescribes that reverence and honour to the Priests, which is proper to the King. In another place he prefers the Priest hood. These are his

Words; † Priest hood is the properest reward of a Pious * 1.3 Man, who professes himself to serve the Father, whose service is better, not only than Liberty, but also than a KINGDOM. Nor was this a singular Opinion of Philo. Jesephus also is of the same mind. The Scripture it self owns the Power of Moses to have been Regal, when it calls him a * 1.4 King in Jeshu∣rum; when it says, that the † 1.5 Voice of a King was among the Israelites, there being no other besides Moses who could pretend to it. And his Right was as absolute, and as free from any Judicatory then established, that could call him to an Account, as any of the Kings themselves. This, at least, is manifest, that the Supream Power of the Jews as to Seculars, which is all that I am concerned for at present, was lodged in him, and in him alone, and that he had no Rival in it. Yet Moses himself, as Josephus Perso∣nates him, owns his Brother's Priest-hood as preferable to his own Of∣fice of the Magistracy. For so he makes him speak concernig his disposal of the Priest-hood: ‖ If I had not had regard to God and his Laws in giving this * 1.6 Honour. I would not have endured to pass my self by, to give it to any other. For I am more nearly related to my self, than I am even to my Brother, and more disposed to love my self them him. He plainly sup∣poses him to have denied himself in what he had done in distribution of those Offices, which he could never have said, with any consistency, if * 1.7 he had reserved himself the nobler Office of the Two. This Mr. Selden was not aware of, when he therefore conceives the Author of the Testaments of the Patriarchs to have lived in modern times, because he prefers the Priest hood before the Civil Magistracy, as if that Doctrine had been first brought in, in the times of the Popes Encroachments on the Right of Princes in the West. Had he recollected himself, he might have found the same Doctrine in the East, and in those Earlier Ages, wherein no Examples could be found of such Encroachments. He might have remembred that the Work he there disputes of, was brought by Lincolnieufis first from the East to these Western parts, and therefore was written by an Eastern Author, where there were no Bishops pretending to a Civil In∣dependency on the Empire, or to a Right of deposing Princes, and absolving Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, who might have been gratified by such Doctrines. For my part, I take that work to have been written

in the Apostolical Age. It is expresly quoted by Origen, long before such Encorachments on Temporal Rights were thought of It is written in the Hellenistical Greek Hebrew Stile, then ordinarily used, when the Apostolical Converts had formerly been for the most part Jews, be∣vond the skill of the Modern Times to have imitated it. Besides, it mentions the Apostolical times as the last times, a mistake frequent in the Reasonings of those times, but which could not have been be∣lieved by any who lived at an Age's distance from them. It has very little; if any thing, relating to the Destruction of the Temple by Titus, which the Design of the Author would have obliged him to have been large in, if he had lived after it. These things considered, will make that Work also fit to be considered, as ano∣ther Testimony of the Sense of the Jews in the Ages of the Apostles; the Style and Notions of the Author making it, every way, seem probable that he was a Convert from them. This Doctrine there∣fore being then believed, must perfectly have destroyed all Pre∣tensions of the Magistrate in Affairs of this Nature, at least, in the Opinion of those who believed it. The Magistrate of this World, could not, in his own Right, challenge any Power in things relating to the other World. The only way therefore left him, by which he might challenge it, must have been some Donation of GOD. Yet niether for this was there any the least Pretence. No Text of written Revelation ever so much, that I know of, as Pretended for it. And no likelihood for it, in the Nature of the thing it self. No probability, that GOD would intrust Concernments of a Na∣ture incomparably more Noble, with a Magistracy less Noble than the Trusts committed to it. No probability, that GOD would here∣by expose interests so much in themselves more valuable and dearer to himself, to the hazard of being postponed to those less noble ends for which the Secular Magistrate was principally concerned. These things supposed, cut off all Pretensions of Right, imaginable in such Cases. And the dreadfull Examples of GOD's Severity against meddling in Holy things without Right; even in the Cases of Saul and Uzziah, who were themselves invested with the Supream Civil Authority, must have been thought sufficient to deter all Posterity from intermedling in such matters, without very just and evident Claims of Right for doing so.

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Philo de Praem. Sacerd. p. 830. Edit, Paris. 1640.
• * 1.2

  * 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ibid p. 832.
• * 1.3

  * 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Philo de Monarcia, p. 819.
• * 1.4

  Deut. XXXIII. 5.
• † 1.5

  Numb. XXIII. 21.
• * 1.6

  * 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Joseph. Anti∣quit. Lib. iv. Cap. 2 pag. 104.
• * 1.7

  See also Lib. III. Cap. 9. Pag. 87. Edit. Colon. 1691.