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.

§ XLVII. Among the Jews, the true High-Priest was to be known by his possessing the One Altar. A∣mong th Christians, the true Altar was known by its be∣ing possessed by the true Bishop. (Book 47)

If our Adversaries will needs Reason from Precedents of those times, they must put a Case exactly Parallel with Ours, of a High-Priest possessed of a Title unquestionably better than his Successors, yet vio∣lently forced, as Ours are, out of his Possession. This Case, I grant, did frequently befall the Jews when they were Subject to Infidel Magistrates. But it was in such times whose Practice we cannot reckon upon as Infallible, as we can upon that of our Blessed SAVIOUR and his Apostles. Here therefore we cannot reckon upon their bare Practice, That, what was done, was as it ought to be, purely on this account alone, because it was done; but, independently on that, we must enquire what the Principles then received obliged them to do, if they would approve themselves true to them. And here, I have al∣ready shewn that External Force alone was sufficient to make all exercise of the Priest hood impracticable, to the Person so deprived by Se∣cular Force. Hence it follows, that it was not in their Power di∣rectly to assert his Right, by communicating with him in Acts of his Sacerdotal Authority. For him to erect any other Altar, where it might be in his Power to Officiate, besides that in Jerusalem, was condemned as Schismatical, by the Doctrines of those Ages, in the Case of the Samaritans, and upon the same accounts as the Worship in the High places had been condemned in the Scriptures, and as the Altar built by the Tribes beyond Jordan was condemned, till they knew the true design of that Altar, that it was only for a Monument of their Interest in the Altar of Jerusalem, not for opposite Sacrifices. The only way therefore left them to assert his Right, had been to have abstained from Communicating in the Sacrifice of his Rival in the Temple. But there is great reason to believe that that was more than they could justify then; and that reason, peculiar to their Constitution at that time, which therefore cannot be drawn into Consequence now under the Gospel, nor applyed to the Case of our present Holy Fathers. It is certain

that their Communion then was as much confined by GOD to the One Altar at Jerusalem, as to the One High Priest. The only Consi∣deration remaining, is whether of the two Regards was principal. That is the proper way to determine, whether was to give way to the other, where both could not be had: That is, whether that Altar was to be taken for the One Altar designed by GOD, where the true High Priest officiated, who had the nearest Title in the order of Suc∣cession from Aaron? Or, whether that High Priest was to be taken for the true Representative of GOD, and thereby could oblige GOD to performance, who officiated at the Altar of Jerusalem, provided he were otherwise qualified, by being of the Posterity of Aaron, and of the Line of Phineas, and fairly consecrated by those who had Power to consecrate him, though he were not the next that was legally qualifi∣ed, of that very Line. And we have reason to believe, that the Altar was the principal Consideration in the Design of GOD, who thereby secured the Communion against Schismatical Factions, even of the High-Priests themselves, by allowing none for his authorized Representatives but those who were possessed of that One Altar. For Jerusalem alone is called the Holy City, St. Matt. IV. 5. XXVII. 53. and so call'd in the Jewish Coins for that very Reason, because that was the place where men ought to worship, St. Joh IV. 20. That only was the place whi∣ther they were to bring their Tythes and Offerings, and where all their Males were, thrice a Year, to appear in Person. So that all face of publick Worship must have been laid aside at the Pleasure of their Infi∣del Princes, if one Obtrusion of a remoter Person, in the order of the Succession, might have sufficed to hinder their communicating there, which none can think but that GOD did intend to lay greater stress on, than on the immediate Order of the Succession. It is certain, they could not, by the Law it self, challenge their Dues for Maintenance any where else than there, nor eat several of the Oblations any where else than in that holy place in their Temple. Which shews plainly, that the Dues of Priesthood were not due to them on any other Condi∣tion, than that of their officiating in that very place designed by GOD for their Holy Offices. Hence it appears, that what Right they might pretend, when they were excluded from the Altar of Jerusalem, was only such a remote Right as Men ordinarily have to Offices, before their Admission into the Legal Possession of them. They are indeed wronged if they be not admitted as the Law requires; but till they be admitted, the same Laws allow them no Title to the Profits, and Duties, and Dependencies annexed to the Office. This was the Practice of the Jews, when there were Exumples of violent exclusion of those who

by the Law had a Right to possess the Temple and Altar, but did not actually possess them. And by the Reasoning now mentioned, the Practice appears to have been agreeable to the Mind of the Divine Le∣gislator, But the Case is quite different in our Fathers Case under the Gospel. By the Apostolical Ignatius it appears, that the Bishop is the Standard of our Christian Altars: That where he is, there the Pecu∣lium is to * 1.1 Assemble; and they only who do so, can, by the Laws of Christianity, be properly called the † 1.2 Church: That his Altar is the True Altar ‖ 1.3 and his Eucharist the only * 1.4 Valid Eucharist: and that no Acts of Ecclesiastical Authority are † 1.5 acceptable to GOD, or can expect a Ratification by him, which are per∣formed any where else than where he is, or without his ‖ 1.6 Leave. This ruins all Consequences from their Practice then to our present Case.

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn. n. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Etist. ad Mag∣nes. n. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. ibid. n. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epist. ad Philadelph. Inscrip. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ibid. n. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epist. ad Trall. n. 7.
• † 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epist. ad Trall. n. 3.
• ‖ 1.3

  Ut quis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sit. quid sit faciondum, it a hortatur. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epist. ad Eph. n. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epist. ad Philadelph. n. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epist. ad Trall. n. 7.
• * 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epist. ad Smyrn. n. 8.
• † 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• ‖ 1.6

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.