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.

§ LXV. But here it is not in the Power of the Ecclesiastical Governours to make such a Contract. (Book 65)

Thus much might have been pleaded for discharging the Church Officers from these Obligations, though they had indeed a Power to oblige themselves thus far, and had no more to do in this matter, than to consider whether there were prospects of present Interest suffici∣ent to induce them to it. But that is not the Case here. All they can do, on any consideration whatsoever, by any however Explicite Com∣pact is not sufficient to Alienate that Power, by which the Church must again subsist, whenever the Magistrate deserts her. For this Power is not her own, but a trust commited to her by GOD, and a trust committed to her, with a design the Power should be perpetuated. Whatsoever there∣fore she does, she cannot oblige God by an Act of Alienation of it. So a Servant that should Alienate his Lord's Rights without his leave, cannot hinder his Lord from challenging them again, nor any other Servant who is impower'd by his Lord to demand them. This is allowed among our hired Servants, and much more with the Roman Slaves, to whom the Scriptures allude in this matter. (The Apostles themselves call their Office a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Words in the Lan∣guage of that time importing Slavery.) such were usually then intrusted with Stewardships. And the lower degree of Slavery, that of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 St. Paul looks on as a higher dignity of his Apostolical Office. And he calls his Power a trust, and a dispensation, and looks on him∣self as under an Obligation of fidelity, to discharge it according to the mind of him who had committed the trust to him. This was un∣doubtedly

to signify the Nature of his Power by the Roman Civil Laws received at that time, which allowed Servants to acquire Actions to their Masters, but not Alienate them without their express com∣mand. The Apostles themselves therefore were not at Liberty to Alie∣nate this trust committed to them upon any considerations whatso∣ever of their own private convenience; nor much less can they do it, who now succeed them in a Power, indeed derived from them; but in many particulars more limited than theirs was. Besides this Pow∣er is intrusted with them not for themselves only, but for the interest al∣so of Souls in general. Thence it appears that they cannot be allowed to dispose of it on considerations relating to their private Interests. As it is a Trust for others, the same Notions will take place here which did with the Roman Tutors and Curators, who where also Officers in Trust for managing an Interest which was none of their own. No∣thing they did to the Prejudice of the Pupil could oblige him to performance. Especially if they presumed to Alienate any part of the Inheritance entrusted with them on considerations of private In∣terests of their own. Such Contracts were perfectly rescinded, and left no Obligation on him to ratify them when he came to age, as other Contracts might, which were beneficial to him. Here therefore they could lay no Obligation on GOD, to ratify their Alienation of the Power intrusted with them, to the Civil Magistrate. And yet without a Right obliging GOD to ratify what was transacted by the Ecclesiastical Governours, all the Conveyances they could pretend to make of their Spiritual Rights to the Magistrate, must be perfectly insignificant For then GOD may still own him for a Bishop who is deprived by the Magistrate, and disown that Person as an Intruder, who is substi∣tuted into his Office by the Lay Power. For it is GOD'S Act alone that can determine the Question as to Right, and with regard to Con∣science Seeing therefore the Ecclesiastical Governours cannot confer a Right upon the Magistrate to have his Acts ratified by GOD; after all the Compacts they can make, the Right continues as it was before. They who had the Right of making and depriving Bishops, have the same Right still, and may resume the exercise of it when they please, and are obliged to do so, as they will approve themselves faithful to their Trust, when they shall judge the exigences of the Church to re∣quire it. What then can their Contract signify, be it never so express? It on the contrary appears, that no consideration whatsoever of pri∣vate Interest, can be a reasonable inducement for Ecclesiastical Gover∣nours to enter into such Contracts, not only because they cannot va∣lidly oblige themselves, or confer any valid Right upon the Magistrate

in this matter, which he had not before; but even in Consideration of their own Interest. Suppose the Favours of the Magistrate were indeed sufficient to countervail the Personal benefits they enjoyed, purely on account of their being the Heads of a distinct independent Body; yet it cannot be denyed but that the Punishment they have reason to fear from GOD on account of their Falshood to their Trust, is with∣out comparison greater than what can be recompenced by the Civil Ma∣gistrate.