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.

§ XI. Our Principles afford better Rea∣sons why the un∣just deprivations of Synods may be received without the deprivea Bishops consent, than those insist∣ed on by the Doctor.

That a Synodical deprivation, though unjust, discharges the Subjects from the Obligation of the Oath of Cononical Obedience, is usually ad∣mitted. But not for that reason which the Doctor has given for it. The division which might otherwise follow in the Church, and the publick disturbance which might follow thereupon, if they were not so discharged, are equally applicable to the opposite Pretenders, and could afford the Subjects no directions with whether of them they ought to joyn. The true reason ought to decide the Title, and there∣fore ought to be such as one only of the Rivals can pretend to. That is, that the Synod, however unjust in its way of proceeding, is notwithstanding to be allowed as a conpetent Judge; and therefore that, on that account, its Sentences ought to hold in Practice, till repealed by a higher Authority of the same kind, that is, by a greater Synod. But an incompetent Jude leaves things in the same condition in which it found them, and ought not, in Conscience or Equity, to have an effect at all. Nor can it therefore impose on the Con∣sciences of the Subjects any, the least, Obligation, even to acquiescence. Nor does it follow, that because the Bishop's conscent may not be necessary to oblige him to stand to the unjust Sentence, that therefore the reason of his obligation to acquiescences is not grounded on Episco∣pal consent. The consent of his Predecessors on the valuable considera∣tion of having the conveniences of Synodical debates, may conclude him while he enjoys the same valuable considerations. And the consent of his Collegues may oblige him also, who have the Right of judging with whom they will observe the Commerce of their Communicatory Let∣ters. Their agreement in denying him their Communicatory Letters, is, in effect, a Deprivation, when what he does is not ratified in the Catholick Church. This will go far to hinder his Cummunion from being Catholick, which may go far also towards the absolving his Subjects from Duty to him, if by joyning with any other, they may have the benefit of Catholick Communion. But this following the judg∣ment of Episcopal Predecessors, or of the Episcopal Colledge, will by no means, allow the Subject that Liberty which the Doctor disputes for, of deserting their Bishops on their own private Judgments concerning the publick good. It will not follow, that that Necessity must excuse them, which has no other consideration on which it may be grounded, desides that of an irresistible force.