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.

§ XLVIII. The Reasons for Exemption from the Power of the Prince stronger on our deprived Fathers Case, than in the Case of Abiathar. Our Bishops are pro∣perly Priests. (Book 48)

Hitherto I have considered the Case of Abiathar in general, as it concerned the Jews, with some general Strictures only, with rela∣tion to our present Case. I now proceed farther to consider the same Reasonings, insisted on by the Principles of those Ages, for proving Abi∣athar exempt, as to his Spirituals, from the Jurisdiction of Solomon, with relation to the Constitutions of the Gospel, which are those by which our present Fathers Rights are to be estimated. Here therefore I design to shew that the same Reasonings hold, and hold with more Evidence and Force, for our deprived Fathers Rights, than they did for those of Abiathar. First therefore our Episcopal Fathers Rights are as properly (indeed in a more noble sense) the Rights of a

Priesthood as those of Abiathar were. So that it is very proper to reason from one to the other. I know how very difficulty this is ad∣mitted by many. And yet I wonder it should be so, considering that it is manifest in the reasonings of the Writers of the Apostolical Age, who rea∣son from one to the other as plainly as I do, which Reasonings must be perfectly unconclusive as proceeding on four terms, if the Notion of Priesthood be not supposed univocally common to ours, as well as the Jewish Ministry. Thus the Apostle Reasons in the Case of mainte∣nance: Do ye not know that they which Minister about Holy things, live * 1.1 of the things of the Temple? And they which wait at the Altar, are par∣takers of the Altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel. GOD'S ordaining there, is Sup∣posed as known by them to whom he argues, from what GOD had constituted in relation to the Jewish Priesthood, and Temple, and Altar; which could by no means be applicable to his design for proving an Obligation under the Gospel, for maintainance of the Gospel Ministry, but by supposing our Case the same with theirs, that we have a Priesthood, a Temple, and an Altar, as properly as they. The same Apostle Reasons on the same supposal, when he compares our Eucharistical Bread and * 1.2 Wine, and the Communion we have with CHRIST by them, with the Communion maintain'd both by the Jews and the Gentiles, with their respective Deities, by Sacrifice. With the Jews, in these Words: Behold Israel after the Flesh: Are not they which eat of the Sacrifices, parta∣kers of the Altar? v. 18. Here plainly he supposes our partaking of the One Bread, in the Words immediately preceeding, to be the same thing with us, as the eating of the Sacrifices, and partaking of the Altar. How so, if our Eucharist had not been properly a Sa••rifice? With the Gen∣tiles. where he compares our drinking the Cup of the LORD, with drinking the Cup of Devils; and our Partaking of the LORDS Table with partaking of the Tables of Devils v. 21. and our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with Christ v. 16. with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with Devils, v. 20. It plainly appears, that the Table of Devils was furnished with no other Feasts but Sacrifical, and they are expresly called Sacrifices, v. 19, 20. These things also plainly shew, that the benefits expected by the Christians from their Eucharist were transacted, according to the then receiv'd Notions both of Jews and Gentiles, by Sacrifices, as properly so called as the others were, as to all intents and purposes of Legal transaction. So again, the same Apostle owns the Sacrifical Style, when he calls that an Altar which * 1.3 he had elsewhere called the Lords Table: We have an Altar whereof they have no Right to eat, which serve the Tabernacle. That Altar he compares with meats in the verse before, and therefore must pro∣bably mean the Eucharistical Altar. Besides the Jews did pretend to

the Heavenly Altar, as is clear from the places formerly produced from Philo. But it was Notorious that their Priests as such had no Right to the Christian Eucharistical Altar, nor did they ever pretend to it. This therefore was more unquestionable, and more fit to be Reason'd on, for the Apostles purpose. So also Clemens Romanus argues from * 1.4 the Sacredness of the Jewish Priest hood, to the like Sacredness of the Gos∣pel Ministry. And from the like Notions of an Altar, Ignatius also Reasons in the places already mentioned. So many precedents we have of Reasonings of this kind in the Apostolical times themselves. And if he consider the things themselves sedately, I see no reason why we should think these Notions strange in that Age. The Jewish Sacrifices themselves were not then thought available as they consisted in shed∣ding the Bloud of Brutes, but as they represented the Archcetypal Sacrifice of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and as Covenanting Symbols gave the Communicants a Right to what was represented by them. This was the truly beneficial No∣tion of a Covenant transacted by Sacrifice. And in this Sense, I can∣not conceive how our Adversaries can deny our Eucharist the name of a Sacrifice, as properly, as it agreed to any used among the Jews. Our Eucharist also was designed by our Lord to represent his own Archetypal Sacrifice on the Cross. And not only so, but as a Covenant∣ing Symbol, to convey a Right to that Sacrifice, so represented, to the Wor∣thy rightly disposed Communicant. What therefore can our Adver∣saries desire more for satisfying the proper beneficial Notion of a Sacri∣fice? Wine may, by Christs appointment, signify his Bloud to Covenant∣ing beneficial purposes, as well as real Bloud itself.

Notes

• * 1.1

  1 Chr. ix. 4
• * 1.2

  1 Cor. x. 16, 17 18. 21.
• * 1.3

  Heb. xiii. 10.
• * 1.4

  Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Corinth.