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.

§. LI. He does it also by the same Princi∣ples, as by him owned agreeable to the Constitution of the Gospel. (Book 51)

So far, I say, he was from that, that he makes such Invasions more formidable now, under so much a Nobler Dispensation. So his following Words imyly: * 1.1 Take care, my Brethren, lest, by how much our knowledge of the Divine Mysteries (that is the importance of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that Age) is advan∣ced, by so much our danger be advanced also. And so far he was from being obliged, by any exigency of his Cause, to argue as he does, from Precedents under tthe Law, if that way of Reasoning had not then been judged, solid; that he tells us, that Christ also had made the like Provision for securing the Gospel Ministry from the like Encroachments. He tells us therefore, that the Apostles being forewarned by our Lord, that the like Contentions should arise among the Christians, concerning the * 1.2 Name of Bishop, as had been before, among the Jews, relating to the † 1.3 Priest hood; had there∣fore, in their * 1.4 foreknowledge of that very event, taken the like care for preserving the Office from the like Invasions. The Apostles here mentioned, I take to be St. Peter, and St. Paul, who had by their common Labours planted both Churches, that of Rome, from whom this Epistle was written, and that of Corinth, to whom. As therefore, he calls them in this place, ‖ 1.5 our Apostles, so elsewhere he says, that St. Pe∣ter and St. Paul had set a noble Example of pa∣tience * 1.6 among us. These Two Places thus com∣pared together, give us to understand who the A∣postles were of whom he there speaks. He therefore further acquaints us with the Expedients those Apostles took for securing the Holy Office from these foreseen invasions. He says, they themselves † put several of those Persons into * 1.7 their Office, of whom he was then discoursing; that is, of those who had been deprived by these

Laical Mutiniers. This therefore, it seems he looks on as an Ar∣gument, that they who had been put in possession of their Places by Persons of the Supream Ecclesiastical Dignity, should not be dis∣possessed at the pleasure of the Laity, who, how great soever their station might be otherwise, yet were not regarded in their Ecclesiastical Judicatories, but according to their Ecclesiastical Honours, (St. James II. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.) which in the Laity were none at all. But there were at that time, in their Ecclesiastical Presbytery, some sub∣stituted in the place of those of the first settlement, who were since deceased. And for these also he makes the Apostles to have taken care. He tells us, that in foresight of this Case, they pro∣vided for an * 1.8 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Inheritance that others might succeed into their Places. Possibly it ought to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as denoting an Additional Law to those other † 1.9 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, received from our Lord, which had formerly been mentioned by this same Au∣thor. So, in imitation of Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Philo, as I remember, calls Deuteronomy by the same Title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as given a little before Moses his Death, after the Collection of his former Laws. So our Author teaches us, that this Law also for securing the Succession, was given by these Apostles, after they had now settled the Church of Corinth, and ordained as many as they then thought necessary for the Government of it. That is the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it signifies in him after∣wards. as appears by another ‖ 1.10 Example very lit∣tle distant from this same place. He tells us there∣fore what this Additional Law was, that they who were to be substituted in their places as they died, were to receive their Authority from Persons of the highest rank in the Church. That I take to be the Notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as that signifies to be had in reputation, and as on the contrary contemp∣tible Persons are said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, like the proletarii or capite censi in the Roman matricula of Citizens, Registred as so many Names, not for any considerable benefit that their Cities receiv'd from them. These 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore, were such as by the Apostles themselves were designed for supplying the Apostolical Office after their deprature, in filling up the Vacancies of those Presbyters, who had been put in Office by the Apostle, themselves, as they ••ell This therefore St. Clemens, in this Reasoning, takes for a great Presumption, that the Laity who were of the lowest rank in the Church, should take upon them to displace those who had been put into their Office by the highest

Ecclesiastical Authority. And yet the Laity whose Case he speaks of, where Prophets, and Spiritually gifted Persons, which Gifts were always admitted for fairer pretences to Spiritual power, than all the worldly Grandeur, and the Secular terror of the Civil Magistrate. Pro∣phets had been allowed that power even in Sacrificing, which never was allowed the Secular Prince. Yet even against these, St. Clemens asserts Rights of the Church, by the very same Topick insisted on by Us, that the power of the Church was derived from God himself. We see he ascribes this power of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Authority of the Apostles. So he also derives the Authority of the Apostles them∣selves, from God himself. * 1.11 The Apostles taught us the Gospel from our Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ from God. Christ therefore was sent by God, and the Apostles by Christ; so both missions were orderly ac∣cording to the Will of God. His designed inference therefore with reference to his Cause was, that they who had been put in Office by an Authority so manifestly and nearly derived from God, ought not to be turn'd out of their Office by a Power that could not pretend to any such power derived from God at all. In all these gradations, he supposes none that gave it to the Laity, on which account it is, that he overthrows all Right they had to claim it. How then can the Magistrate pretend to it?

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 n. 41.
• * 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. n. 44.
• † 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. n. 43
• * 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. n. 44.
• ‖ 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 n. 44.
• * 1.6

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. n. 6.
• * 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. n. 44.
• * 1.8

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, n. 44.
• † 1.9

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. n. 42.
• ‖ 1.10

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. n. 44.
• * 1.11

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. n. 42.