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.

§ XLIX. The Gospel Priest-hood more Noble than that of Abiathar. The same Rea∣soning therefore holds now which did then; but now more strongly. (Book 49)

This therefore being supposed that our Gospel Ministry is a Priest∣heod; I add further 2ly, that it is a Nobler one than that of Abiathar This I am sure is proved or supposed in all the N. T. Reasonings, that whatsoever was Common to the old and the New Peculiam, was still more excellent under the New Peculium than that which answer'd it under the old. I cannot now spare leisure to give Instances. It is at present sufficient for my purpose, that what was less certain concerning the Jewish Priest-hood, is more certain in Ours; That the principal design of Ours is to oblige GOD to performance of Promises, as his part of the New Covenant, explicite and clear, not only implicite as for∣merly, in relation to Spiritual and Future and Eternal benefits, which none but GOD is able to perform. In this regard the new 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of which our Lord is a Mediator, is called a better Testament, Hebr. VII. 22. as introductive of a better hope, v. 19. a better Covenant esta∣blished * 1.1 on better Promises. Hebr. VIII 6. Life and Immortality being

elsewhere said to be brought to light by the Gospel. And the Priest hood relating to this new Covenant is preferred before the other Levitical one, in that Levi in Abraham pay'd Tithes and received a blessing from Melchi∣sedec, as the lesser from the greater. Hebr. VII. 7, 9. In that the Priest-hood of the New Testament is an Everlasting one, as all Archety∣pal Ideal beings were supposed to be, in the sense of the Platonick Hellenists, whose Language and Notions the Apostle alludes to in those places. Not only as it was Eternal in the Individual Person of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but also as it was to be so in the Succession of the Gospel Ministry, which was never to give way to any other future dispensation, as that of the Law did. Besides, in that here the entrance into Heaven the true Tabernacle, was more immediately performed by the Archety∣pal High Priest himself; Hebr. VIII. 1, 2. than under the Law, where it was only shadowed by the High-Priests entring into the Holy of Holyes Hebr. IX. 7. This also advanced the Dignity of the Gospel Priest-hood, even in the Ministers themselves as representing the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 more immediately, and under a Noble depensation than they did who were of the Order of Aaron. Hebr. VII. 11. To this also the Apostle adds that the Melchisedekian Priest hood, as it was for ever, so it was also by an Oath, of which there was no use in the constitution of the Levitical Priest hood. Hebr. VII. 20, 21. Thus therefore it every way appears that the Consequences inferred in the Case of Abiathar, must hold here, but with more Force and Cogency. If the Levitical Priest hood exceeded the Dignity of the Civil Magistracy, much more the Evangelical Priest-hood must do so too. If that required a Divine call greater than could be given or repealed by the Civil Magistrate, this must do so also. If the Unction of the Priest hood then so far exceeded the Unction of the Civil Magistrate, as that the Magistrate could not invade the Office without Sacriledge and a Piacular Crime, much less can he now justify his Invasion of a Priest-hood, so much Holier than that was. If the Sacredness of their Office then was thought sufficent to awe all Conscientiou, Magistrates from offering any thing that might look like violence to such Holy Persons; a greater Sacredness of our Priest hood now ought in reason more to awe the Magistrate now under the Gospel Dis∣pensation. The Punishment of such Encroachments was indeed more fre∣quent and visible then, but in the Apostle's Reasoning, it is sorer now: Hebr. II. 2, 3. X. 29. I am sure it must needs be so, if we be∣lieve our Religion, that its not being inflicted here is only a reserving it for the Future State.

Notes

• * 1.1

  2 Tim. I. 10.