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.

§ LXVI. When Invasi∣ons had passed into a Prescrip∣tion, as in our Soviour's time, he that was in Possession had really the best Title. (Book 46)

Thus far I have proceeded on the Sense and Reasonings of those earlier times of the Jews, which is certainly the truest and solidest way of judging concerning Obligations and Duties incumbent on the Subjects then. And by these it has appeared, that the Civil Power could not pretend to any Right of depriving Priests of their Right as to Spiri∣tuals, and with regard to Conscience. This consideration did restrain Princes of their own Nation, who had any regard to their Duty to GOD, from putting the Case. But when they were not under the Government of Princes, who were of their own Nation and Religion, but under those who did not think themselves obliged by the positive Laws of GOD, to protect the Priests from the Legal Power of force which GOD had committed to them; this was the time indeed, wherein we find Examples of true High-Priests, even properly so cal∣led, who were deprived by the Secular Power. Here therefore were Two Cases; one was, when the Practice of Intrusions was now grown so frequent, that no High-Priest living had a better Title; the other, upon the first invasion, when the true Predecessor was still living, and had not renounced his Right. The former, was the Case in the time of our Saviour. The old way of deriving the succession to the next of the Family who was legally qualified for it, having none of those Corporal blemishes which by the Law could make him uncapable of it, (on which account Eleazar succeeded Aaron) was long before that laid by a Prescription sufficient to antiquate it. For many Generations, it had been disposed of by the Secular Princes who had the Power of the Temple, first by the Macedonians, then by the Romans, to Persons no otherwise qualified than by their being only of the Family of Aaron. There was therefore then no Person living who had a better Title as to the designation of his Person, than the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate who had the command of the Temple, and the Sacerdotal Vestments. As soon therefore as any Person was once possessed of the Temple and the Altar, the same way as his Predessor had been, his Right, was every way, as good as the Right of any other, who could pretend against him; in which case, the publick Interest, (which is inseparably Right) for end∣ing Controversies, has always given proference to the Possessor. Both of them were as well consecrated into the Office by Spiritual Persons, as well as invested by the Lay-Power into the possession of the Externals re∣quisite

for executing the Spiritual Office committed to them. And that the later was consecrated into his Predecessor's Place, both without the consent, and by the subjects of his Predecessor, was as applicable to all his Predecessors as himself, and therefore must as much weaken their Title also, as it did his, and make them only equal to him, on this consideration also. This would resolve the Right only into some dead Person, whose Rights all Laws determine with their Lives, especially were no Person living is concerned in them. All therefore that can be said in this Case is, that what ought not to have been done at first, was now done, and ratified by Providence, the same way as all other Humane Govern∣ments, as well Secular as Sacred, are usually changed by Prescription; which by the Law of Nations, and with relation to the good of Man∣kind, and Governments in general, is, in process of time, judged suf∣ficien to extinguish an Original Right, and to make that a RIGHT which at first was no other than invasion and Violence. This holds especcially where the Right is only Personal, as that of the Priest-hood was; and the Person made uncapable of holding it. Mutilation alone was sufficient to have taken away the Right of the Priest hood, by the same Law that gave a Right to it, and therefore much more Death. This was really the Case, when our Blessed Saviour communicated with the High-Priests, obtruded by the Romans. Josephus himself observes, that whereas the High Priest-hood was before for Life, then it was not * 1.1 so, but during the pleasure of those who had the Power of the Temple. And I know no Eternally obliging Law frow the nature of Priest-hood in general, that makes it essential to the Priest-hood to be for Life, more than for any other Humane Office. If it were therefore changeable, such a prescription was undoubtedly sufficient for actually changing it. And if this Case hold any where among Christians, it does so, at present, among the Constantinopolitane Greeks. They also now are brought to that pass, that their Patriarchs have not their power given them for Life at the time it is given them, but during the pleasure of the Infidel Magistrate. The Greeks therefore are under no Obligation of Conscience to assert the Rights of any Predecessor, by re∣fusing Communion with his Successor, because the Predecessor himself had no better a Right; and the Successor, has on this account, an equal Right, but, on account of Possession, a better than he. But this can, by no means, be applied to the Case of our present Fathers. They, at their Consecration, had a power given and intended for Life, which is not yet taken from them by the power, that gave it them; and therefore have manifestly, by our present Constitution, a better Title than their Suc∣cessors. They are indeed THRUST out of their Possession as Abiathar,

but with no such evidence of the Divine Sentence passed against them, as was in his Case. We have, as yet, no Prescription for such Violences; nor have we to deal with an Infidel Magistracy, as they had. Heathen Governours, might with more consistency to their own Principles, use such Violences so frequently, as at length, when all were dead who had a better Title, to make them pass into a PRESCRIP∣TION. This can, by no means, become CHRISTIAN PRINCES, DEFENDERS of the FAITH, nor CHRISTIAN PARLIAMENTS; mueh less, MEMBERS of our late flourishing CHURCHES in these Dominions. This I say, on Supposition only of the Legality of our Civil establishment.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Joseph. Ant. L. xx. c. 8. p. 7••••.