Selected quad for the lemma: father_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
father_n	person_n	son_n	true_a	14,186	5	5.5218	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36241	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.	Dodwell, Henry, 1641-1711.	1695 (1695)	Wing D1805; ESTC R18161	114,840	118

of bread Now in this way of Reasoning here mentioned GOD himself had declared his pleasure that Abiathar and the House of Ithamar too should be deprived of the Priest-hood and deprived at that very time So that Solomon had nothing more to do in it than to use that Lawful Power God had given him for forcing him out of his Possession § XLI Abiathar was not then the High-Priest properly so called but Zadok But whatever Solomon's concernment was in the Deprivation of Abiathar I add farther 6ly that it was not an Example so far it was from being a Precedent of a Deprivation of a High Priest properly so called I deny not but Abiathar was a High Priest but not in the appropriated Sense The N. T. History and Josephus mention whole Bodie of High-Priests who with the Bodies of the Scribes made up the Jewish Judicatories relating to Religion These might consist partly of those who had been High-Priests partly of the Heads of the Several Sacerdotal Families partly of the Heads of the Sacerdotal courses But the High Priest concerned in our present despute is he only who answered our Christian Bishops as a Principle of the Unity of the Jewish Communion as the Bishops are in the Christian. This could have been only one the chief of all who were called by the common name of High Priests who could be the Principle of Unity And I deny Abiathar to have been High Priest simply in this appropriated Sense For Zadoc is frequently mentioned with him yet so as that he is always preferred before him And this in Davids time as well as Solomon's which plainly shews that this Superiority did not begin from the Expulsion of Abiathar From that time he was alone and therefore had so little reason to be reckoned in the first place that he had no reason to be joined with him at all Indeed he was every way Superiour to Abiathar as well in order of time as in the Dignity of his Office In order of time For he is joined not with Abiathar only but with Ahimelech also and so joyned with him as still to have the precedency of him also If Ahimelech be the true Person designed to be joined with Zadok in these places he cannot be the Son of our Abiathar as the Doctor fancies because both places refer him to the time of David If he were his Father then as it is certain that Ahimelech was put to Death by Saul so it must be certain that Zadok who was coaeval with him must have been in the time of Saul also and before Abiathar But perhaps there may have been an easie transposition of Ahimelech the son of Abiathar instead of Abiathar the Son of Ahimelech in both Places So they will be parallel to those other places now mentioned where they are so joyned and the time of both will agree with the time assigned them in the Text that of David whose Reign will hardly admit of any Collegue for Zadok besides our Abiathar Besides as the time of David is inconsistent with either a Son or a Father of our Abiathar so neither was the Father of our Abiathar the Son of another Abiathar but of Ahitub Unless possibly both Father and Son of had both Names that of Ahimelech and of Abiathar also It is certain that Ahimelech the Father under whom David did eat the Shew bread is in the Gospel called Abiathar But whether I may securely reason from these Readings or not it is certain from the Unanimous Consent of so many other places that Zadok was High Priest and Superiour to Abiathar in that Office even in the time of David This is at once sufficient to overthrow the Doctor 's Fancy that Zadok's High-Priest hood commenced from the Expulsion of Abiathar and those of Josephus also and of the Rabbins who made the High-Priest hood for many Generations translated from the Family of Eleazar to that of Ithamar and not restored to its true oncient course till this dishonour of Abiathar § XLII There were in those times two High-Priests at once the chief such as Zadok was of the Family of Eleazar the lower such as Abiathar of the Family of Ithamar They had no Books to inform them in this matter more than we no other coaeval Writings but the Scriptures which no where assert any such matter in plain terms The only way remaining therefore how they might gather this Opinion thence must be by their own Reasoning and Consequences And it is not very difficult to guess what those might be There is indeed no High Priest mentioned in the interval from Phineas to Abiathar but Eli Ahias and Ahimelech all of the Race of Ithamar Thence they conceived that all the stock of Phineas for that time were private Persons not-invested with the High-Priest hood But the Name of High Priest is never given to any of those Predecessors of Abiathar much less in the appropriated Sense of which I am now discoursing How then do they come to know that they were High-Priests in the Sense here disputed Is it because Ahias ministred before the Ark and Ahimelech and Abiathar gave Divine Answers to David But how do they know that this Office of giving Responses by Urim was so the prerogative of the first High-Priest that it might not in his absence agree to the lower High Priest of the Junior Family Why might not the Two Families take their turns for the mutual ease in these Offices of attending the King as the Ordinary Priests did afterwards in their 24 Courses in attending on the Temple And why might not these times fall on the courses of Ithamar The great occasion of their mistake is that judging of the Customs of these more ancient times by more modern practices they thought none capable of wearing the Ephod by which the Oracle of Urim was given but the High Priest properly so called in the appropriated sense in which there could be no more at one time but one And that which gave them this Occasion was that this Ephod is reckoned among the Garments peculiar to the High Priest in contradiction to the Priests of lower Orders But upon a closer examination they might have found that the High-Priesthood as to the execution of it was common to Aaron and all his Sons and therefore that the Vestments were so too only with dependence on him while he lived and on him who should afterwards succeed him in his Prerogatives as first and chief of those who did yet all partake in the execution of the High-Priest-hood This seems clear in all the places where the High-Priesthood is spoken of in the Pentaeuch Aaron is hardly ever mentioned without his Sons as joint sharers with him in it The first Command was that Aaron and his Sons should be taken from among the Children of Israel that HE might minister in the Priest Office They are consecrated together and by one common Form which seems plain to imply that the

Bishops as the Jewish Princes could in the Case of the Jewish Priest-hood P. 75. § LIV. Our Reasoning against the Magistrates Rights of deprivation in Spirituals proceeds universally and therefore in the Case of temporal Crimes also the owning such a Power would have been pernitious to the Primitive Christians also whowere charg de with Temporal Crimes P. 77. § LV. The Spiritual Rights of our Fathers have been now invaded by Civil Force Bare Characters without Districts not sufficient to preserve the Church as a Body P. 79. § LVI Supposing the Church and Christian State had made one Body ret more had been required to make that Supposition applicable to our present Case which is not yet taken notice of P. 82. § LVII The Prince on account of his being a Christian has no Title to any Spiritual Authority P. 83. § LVIII A whole Nation by Baptism may be made one Society in the Church without prejudice to their being still a Society distinct from it P. 85. § LIX The Churches Obligations are more necessary for the subsisting of the State than these she receives from the State are for hers P. 87. § LX. The Benefits received by the State from the Church are also greater then those which the Church receives from the State P. 89. § LXI If the State had been capable of conferring the greater Obligations yet a good Pious Magistrate could not in reason desire such a recompence as should oblige the Church to yeild any of her ancient Rights P. 90. § LXII Princes have been allowed by the Church a Right to keep persons out not yet Canonically possessed but not to turn any out who were already in Possession of Bishopricks And that without any proper Cession of Right on the Church's part P. 92. § LXIII The Power of turning out Bishops once possessed too great to be granted on any consideration whatsoever P. 94. § LXIV In this Case particularly no Temporal Favour whatsoever can make amends for the loss of the Benefits of the Spiritual Society There can therefore be no implicite Contracts for such an Exchange that can in Equity oblige the Ecclesiastical Governours to performance tho' it had been in their Power to make such a Contract P. 96. § LXV But here it is not in the Power of Ecclesiastical Governours to make such a Contract P. 98. § LXVI It is not agreable to the mind of God that the Church should so incorporate with the State as that the Bishops should be deprivable at the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate P. 100. § LXVII The Magistate is by no means a Competent Judge of the Church's Interests P. 102. LXVIII The Surrender of the Clergy in Henry the VIIIths time cannot oblige their Posterity now LXIX No reasoning from the rights of the Jewish Princes to the Rights of Christian Princes now § LXX Our present deprivations not justifiable by even our present Secular Laws P. 107. § LXXI The Conclusion P. 110. A DEFENCE OF THE VINDICATION OF THE Deprived Bishops § I. The Doctor 's late Book no Answer to the Vindication WHAT the Vindicator thinks of the Answers that have been made to his Defence of our Deprived Fathers himself best knows For my part I should not have concerned my self for him if I had not been over-rul'd by the Judgments of others for whom I profess a Veneration rather than my own I have that due esteem for his Adversaries which their excellent Abilities deserve particularly for Dr. Hody His diligence in History none questions that I know of I also value his Skill and Judgment in it much more than many who are concern'd on his side of the Question here debated Nor do I deny but several things are very well observed by him in this very Work I am now considering at present though I think it more hastily and tumultuarily laid together than several of his other Writings The only thing that made me think a Reply needless was that in all the Learning he has shewn I could find nothing that I thought any indifferent Person could think proper for satisfying Conscience in the single point here in Question nothing that could give me the least reason to doubt of the Arguments principally insisted on by the Vindicator For other things not relating to that I thought our candid Adversaries themselves would excuse us when they considered the Disadvantages on our side the Difficulties of the Press the Displeasure of our pretended Superiors much more considerable than any Argument that I could find produced either by him or any other Adversary § II. The Baroccian M S disproved by the Vindicator and not defended by the Doctor So far I am from trusting my own Opinion in this matter that I would gladly know some particular of the Doctor 's Book that even our Adversaries who are so clamorous for a Reply think sufficient to excuse their Schism against the Charge of the Vindicator His Baroccain M S has already been proved impertinent to our present Dispute The Vindicator has shewn that the occasion of his writing did not oblige his Author to defend the validity of Lay-deprivations he might have added that his Author himself was not ignorant that Synods did intervene in several of his Instances which must have made so many of them perfectly impertinent to his design if that had been to vindicate the Validity of Lay deprivations That is not all The Vindicator has also shewn from the Canons subjoyned at the end and suppressed by the Doctor that the Author could not design the Defence of Lay Deprivations Nor has the Doctor offered at any thing that might shew such a Design consistent with those Canons or the Author's Subjection to them Yet those Canons alone are decisive to our purpose both as to the sense of the Constantinoplitane Church and of that Author as a Member of it whether they were part of his Work or not concerning which the Impartial Reader is to judge whether what the Doctor has said be sufficient to purge his wilful suppressing them The Vindicator has also shewn the Author not only remoteness from but ignorance of the times he writes of Nor has the Doctor proved or pretended any thing to the contrary Nay even of the Facts enumerated by him there are but few that the Doctor has thought fit on second thoughts to assert independently on his Authority It cannot therefore be on this account of vindicating his M S that any Impartial Reader can judge the Doctor 's performance to be a just Reply to the Vindicatoin § III. He has not offered at any Answer to the Arguments against him in the first part of the Vindication But whatever becomes of the so boasted M. S a Conscientious Person who was only sollicitous for Truth not Victory will easily excuse the Doctor if he had at least been pleas'd to clear our present Case relating to the Lay-deprivation of our Holy Fathers and the Schism that necessarily follow'd upon it Yet even here

when they thought him dead does not prove that they had thought themselves at liberty to have done so if they had known him to have been living Whatever present incapacity he might have been under for the administration of his Office they might have thought themselves obliged to Stay for him as the Alexandrians did for St. Athanisius St. Chrysostomes Case is less for his purpose He only desired his People to Submit to the Bishop that should be substituted after his decease Yet even in that he prevailed not with them the Schism of the Joannites being continued many years after till an honourable amends was made to his memory During his own life time he was so far from it that he challenged their duty to himself and dissuaded their complying with the Schismaticks § XIII No reason to reckon on the persumed consent of the Bishops injured by an Invalid deprivation for discharging their Subjects Consciences from Duty to them The Doctor here foresees an answer that I do not find was ever admitted by the Vindicator and therefore will only concern them on whose Principles it is made That is that in such difficult Cases it is presumed that the deprived Bishop gives his consent and that this presumption must be reckoned on to discharge the Subjects from their Duty to him with regard to Conscience It is a most extravagant remissness thus to permit the interpretation of the Oaths to the desires and interests of those who are to be obliged by them That whenever the observing them puts them upon any Straights they shall then be at liberty to betray their own Faith and his Security for whose sake they had undertaken them and that by so unreasonable a persumtion of his consent whose Security was thus provided for It utterly ruines the whole design of giving this Security by the way of Oaths That is to oblige them in such Cases wherein no considerations can oblige them but those of Conscience where their corrupt affections should incline them to the contrary and where there is no visible force appearing that may make the inconveniences of breaking their Faith greater than those of keeping it That is perfectly to disoblige them in that very Case wherein the Psalmist does most commend the Observation of Oaths That is when they are to the hindrance of those who must observe them Nor does it follow that because the consent of an injured Governour may indeed be presumed in Acts of Government for a time which do not by any consequence affect his Title therefore it may be presumed also in Acts wherein his consent would be inconsistent with his design of continuing his Claim when he neither has nor intends to relinquish it Nor does it follow that because in some Cases wherein publick considerations may prevail with them good men may patiently submit to the prejudice of their own Right therefore they cannot be good men who do not submit in Cases wherein the same considerations of the Publick of which they only have a Right to judg who have a Right to Authority do in their Judgments make the insisting of their Rights more necessary and becoming them If Rights must always be surrendred by good men as often as ill men are pleased to invade them In vain are Laws for determining or defending them In vain at least must good men who ought to be the favourites of wise and just Lawmakers expect the benifit of Laws if they must never plead their Rights In vain are good men trusted with such Rights as are the Publick Interests of their Societyes if they who are otherwise the more trusty for being good must here upon that same consideration of their being good men be obnoxious to those impressions of Conscience which must make them think themselves obliged to betray them if that very consideration that the publick and their own private Interests are coincident must make them as prodigal of the publick Interests as they would be of their own Nor has the Doctor nor any other that I know of insisted on any considerations particular to our present Case but only on such general ones as if they proved any thing would prove in general that all good men are obliged to surrender their Rights whenever Wicked men are pleased to invade them § XIV Our deprived Fathers give publick Significations that they do challenge their old Rights as far as is necessary in their Circumstances Upon these terms the Doctor is pleased to tell us that he is fully persuaded that our ejected Fathers are very worthy and good men But not without a manifest design They must if they will maintain the place he has admitted them to in his good opinion be true to that Idea of good men by which he is resolved to try them give up those Rights whose maintenance may oblige him and his Brethren to any temporal loss And is not this a very obliging reason to induce them to it that they must give up the trust committed to them of the publick Interests of God and of Religion rather than he and his Brethren should hazard their Temporal and private Interests in maintaining those Rights by contributing no more on their own parts than what is otherwise their duty to them They must have agreat stock indeed of that which he is pleased to call goodness if this way of Reasoning can make them think themselves obliged to him Much more if upon this pretence of kindness he may be allowed to beg what he can never be able to prove that they are obliged in Conscience rather to surrender their Rights than that he and his obliged Brethren should be obliged to any hazard in maintaining them This one would think too much for him to persume till he were better able to prove it But the greater easiness of presuming than proving makes him very hold indeed when he prosumes that our H. Fathers themselves give their consent that their Successors should be acknowledged Yet he pretends reason why we ought to presume it And what may that be That they have never by any pablick Signification of their wills lay'd claim to the Obedience of their People and do not now exercise their Episcopal power as before But truly Conscienticus Observers of Oaths would rather persume on the Oaths side than against it least otherwise if God should help them no otherwise than they perform what they have Sworn by him the from of the Oath it self should prove a dreadful imprecation This was I am sure regarded in the Cases of Edward the II. and Richard the II. The Subjects did not content themselves with a presumed consent to what was done in deposing them gathered only from their silence but they desired and procured an express renonciation of their Rights and an express releastment from the Oaths which they had taken to them formerly This reason therefore alone would hinder such Persons from undertaking second inconsistent engagements that they had not yet been

expresly discharged from the first So far they would be from reckoning on their silence alone as sufficient to discharge them For there are besides especially in such Circumstances as ours obvious reasons why silence only should not be taken for an Argument of a presumed consent The fear of those under whose violence they suffer may hinder them from publick Signification of their dissent and yet it seems nothing under a publick Signification will satisfy the Doctor If this fear should less influence so worthy and good Men yet the fear of miscarrying might in Prudence discourage them from attempting what they might easily foresee that they should never be able to go thorough with And how could our H. Fathert hope to succeed under so manifest and general a desertion of those who owe Duty to them and know they do so But it is not very Human in our Adversaries by their notorious undutifulness to oblige our Fathers to this silence and than Ironically to turn their silence into an Argument of a presumed consent In the mean time these considerations make it plain that it is very possible for them to continue their Claim though they should give no publick Significations of doing so And their cnotinuing it though without any publick Signification is Sufficient to our obligation with regard to Conscience till they give a publick Signification that they will discharge us For that is sufficient to continue their old notorious Claim they had to our Duty before the pretended deprivation I know no other Case wherein our Advarsaries where concerned in which they would think it just to presume that Persons living under a notorious force do therefore surrender their Rights because they do not further provoke their Oppressors by an open Signification of their Claim But if nothing less than a publick Signification of their Claim will content the Doctor methinks he should have acquainted us what Acts they are of Episcopal Power which he expects from our H. Fathers as publick Significations of it Does he expect that they must signify their minds herein Juridically as they did formerly from their Courts and their Cathedrals But he knows these are in the Power of those who have pretended to deprive them He knows their Officers and Subordinate Governours will not now obey them Must they publickly warn those who are in possession of their Cures and Parishes But how can they expect more Duty from them who follow the revenues into the Schism and who are in actual Communion with and under the pretended Obligation of Oaths of Canonical Obedience to their Rival Schismaticks What could they expect from such a publication of their dissent besides their gratifying the Doctor but to expose their own Authority without any prospect of publick benefit that might countervail it What but a fruitless exasperation of their Persecutors Would he have them fix publick Protestations against what has been done in publick places But the worthy Dean of Worcester's Case is a notorious Instance how such a publication would be resented I hope he will not own any design of urging them to such difficulties only to gratify him if he has really that veneration for them which he Professes to have By all the Episcopal Acts that are necessary and of which their Circumstances are capable they do already publickly signify their insisting on their old Title I know no Episcopal Acts necessary for our present condition but what they readily exercise as they see occasion for them They exercise them in Dioceses not otherwise vacated than by the Schism without the Ordinaries leave and to Persons not owning the Ordinaries Communion which also our H. Fathers themselves abstain from These are publick Significations that they do disown the state communion as Schismatical not only as using unlawful Offices which cannot be justified on any other terms but their challenging their old Rights and condemning their Schismatical Rivals § XV. The Oaths of canonical Obedience to our Fathers still obliging So unreasonable are the gratifications expected by the Doctor from their Lordships whereas all things considered there is no reason why he should expect any gratification at all For if they will not discharge him from his Duty he is however resolved not to pay them any For he puts the Case of a Bishop forbidding his People on their Oaths to accept of any other Bishop and then asks what must be done in such Cases Is the Church perjured if she accept of another will our Adversaries say that she is He knows our mind very well that we know not how to excuse her And what has he to prove the contrary Nothing but the voice of flesh and bloud A hard saying who can bear it But this learned divine knows very well that the hardness of a saying especially if it be only so to flesh and bloud is no Argument to prove it false He knows it was not so in that very passage whence he borrows the Expressions He knows it is not so in all Cases of Persecution and of Doctrins that may deserve to be maintained by suffering And he urges nothing peculiar in our present Case But he cannot imagine that the welfare and prosperity of mankind does depend upon so ticklish and uncertain a point as that of an ejected Governors consent That if he refuses to give his Consent all the Church or the Nation must be made a Sacrifice to him So he represents the Case very Invidiously As if the Competition were between the private Interests of the Governour and the Good of the Community He therefore fancies that the false Principles on which this Nation is built is this That the Oath that is taken to the Governour is taken only for his sake But though that Principle which he calls folse be really in the Constitution of some particular Gouernments and therefore is not universally false yet neither on the contrary is it universally true Particularly it is not true in the Case of the Ecclesiastical Government This Government is not a Property of the Governours but a Trust committed to their management for the Good of others rather than of themselves Yet though this be the Case it is the publick Interest of the whole Society that all the Members of it be unanimous in defending the particular Persons in whom the Government is vested against a forcible Dispossession It is the publick Interest that no Rights whatsoever be overpower'd because if they be no Rights whatsoever neither private nor publick can be secure but may be also overpower'd by the same Precedent It is yet more particularly the Publick Interest that those Rights be secured against all force upon which the Security of all the Particular Rights of the whole Society depend Such are those of the Supream Governours who if they be not enabled to defend themselves can never be able to protect either the whole Body or any particular Members of it in Possession of the Rights to which they were Intitled by the

degenerous Ages And what has the Doctor attempted to the contrary Nothing but that he has added some New Facts to those enumerated by his Baroccian Author and that he has endeavoured to defend some of the old Facts that they were such as he pretended them But neither of these things can pass for Answers whilst that Part of the Vindication remains unanswer'd For how can he secure his New Facts when all of their kind have been prov'd unconclusive And to what purpose does he endeavour to prove those few he has meddled with of his Authors Facts to have been for his purpose when the former Part of the Vindication has already evidenced that tho' they were so that would not be sufficient for carrying his Cause § XXIII The Doctor himself is unwilling to stand by the Consequences of such like Facts as himself produces So far he has been from Answering that himself confirms the Vindicator's sence upon this Argument He professes beforehand his own unwillingness to be concluded by such Instances as himself has produced though they should appear to be against him Why so if there had been any reason that he should have been concluded by them Why so if he did not thereby own that the Reasons given by the Vindicator against the Argumentativeness of such Facts were Solid and concluding And how then can he find in his heart to insist principally in his following Book on that very kind of Facts which he has acknowledged so unsafe to be relyed on in his Preface He cannot pretend to argue ad Hominem when the Vindicator had so expresly enter'd his Exceptions against that whole Argument He cannot do it in his own Person when he professes himself unwilling to stand by the consequen ces of it And how can he have the confidence to obtrude that upon Us which he does not believe himself In what sense can he take this whole reasoning for Argumentative when it does not proceed ex concessis when it proceeds on one Premiss at least not granted by either of the Parties cancern'd in the Dispute neither by Us nor even by himself How can he possibly mistake a Book which proceeds principally on such Reasoning as this for a Solid and satisfying Answer § XXIV The Doctors remark against the Reasoning of the First Parts of the Vindication concerning the Possession of Cornelius turned against himself Thus it appears that the Principal Answer of the Vindicator to the Doctors Book remains still in its full strength untouched and unconcerned in all the Doctor has said in his new Book What is it therefore that he can pretend to have Answer'd in it What is it that either makes his Book need or his Brethren so clamorous for a Reply Has he Answer'd the Vindicators Argument for Us from Facts more justifiable more agreeable to Principles and to Principles more certain and indisputable in the times of greatest Ecclesiastical Authority in the earliest and purest and unanimous Ages On this he has bestowed one single Paragraph in which he has offered nothing that can affect the principal Lines of the Vindicators Reasoning and Hypothesis All that he pretends is to observe one single disparity between the Case of the Primative Christian Bishops and OURS Yet so unhappily that even that disparity upon a closer examination is likely to prove none at all He tells Us that Cornelious was in Poffession when Novatian was set up against him Very true But how can he deny that our Fathers were in as true a Possession with regard to Conscience when their Rivals Usurp'd their Thrones as Cornelius was He can pretend no Possession of which our Fathers were deprived but such as depended on the pleasure of the pretended Secular Magistrate The Secular Act could not pretend to deprive them of any thing but what was Secular their Baronies their Revenues the Priviledges annext to their Function by the fovour of the Secular Powers And can he pretend that Cornelius was possessed of any thing of which the Magistrate could deprive him As for Spiritual Rights I cannot see the least disparity but that OUR Fathers were as properly possessed of them as HE was as properly as any can be in a State of Persecution and independence on the Civil Magestrate OUR Bishops were Consecrated and Installed with all the Solemnities requisite for a compleat Possession before the contrary encroachments were thought of That Possession was acknowledged and ratified by all the Acts of intercourse and Spiritual Correspondence by which any Spiritual possession can be acknowledged by our Natinal Church of England This Possession of Spirituals has not been touched by any Spiritual Authority that can be pretended a proper Judge of Spirituals that might discontinue this Possession as to Spirituals and with regard to Conscience All this OUR H. Fathers can truly plead for their Possession as to Spirituals at the time of the Schismatical Consecrations And what can the Doctor say more for the Possession of Cornelius against Novation His District and Jurisdiction as to Spirituals were manifestly not own'd by Cornelius for favours of the Magistrate This being so we need not depend on a SAYING the Vindicator prov'd it independently on St. Cyprian's saying it that SECOND BISHOPS are NO BISHOPS for proving his Intruders to be NONE The Doctor himself confesses that a Second that is a Schismatical Bishop an Intruder into a See already filled and possessed is no Bishop is confessed to be St. Cyprian ' s Doctrine And this has now appeared to be their Case for whom he is here concerned § XXV The Doctor 's Book offorded no Subject for a Reply but what would be Personal Besides these great neglects and omissions of the Doctor were so separable from an accurate management of the Cause and so peculiar to his Person that I knew not how to secure my Answer from meddling with his Person with whom I had no mind to deal in any other way than that of Civility and Respect In reference to the Principal Argument relating to Conscience he has brought so little New as would hardly afford Subject for a useful Answer Yet the shewing that he did so which was requisite to be done if an Answer were made at all methought looked like a design of exposing his Person which I was willing to be excused from I have always liked those Defences best which had the least mixture of Personal considerations not only as more Christian but also as more useful to those who are disengaged This made me think it more advisable to wait till either the Doctor himself or some other able Author would be pleas'd to attacque the principal strength of the Vindication § XXVI The Doctor 's turning the Dispute to later Facts draws it from a short and decisive to a tedious and litigious Issue But the principal discouragement of all from Answering was that the Doctor seemed to me to draw the whole management of this Cause from a shorter and decisive to