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.

§ XXVI. The Doctor's turning the Dis∣pute to later Facts draws it from a short and decisive, to a te∣dious and litigi∣ous, Issue. (Book 26)

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 a tedious and unconclusive, Issue. The Doctor's Talent lies in History, and therefore he is willing to bring this Question also to an Argument that may give him an occasion to shew his skill in History. Had not this been his Case, why could he not be prevailed on, to say something to the reason of the thing? Especially having in the Title of his Book, promised a stating of the Question. But where he pretends to have performed his Promise, I cannot guess. I can find nothing in his Book, but what concerns bare matter of Fact. Had he offered at any stating of the Question, why would be not at least take notice of the distinction of Facts observed by the Vindicator, of the Facts excepted against, and the Facts allowed by him, for Ar∣gumentative? Had he not allowed the Distinction, at least he ought not to have produced more Facts of the Exceptionable kind, till he had either answer'd the Vindicator's Exceptions against them, or at least pro∣duced stronger Arguments of his own, to prove his own Facts also Argu∣mentative. If he did not think fit, either to Answer the Vindicator's Reasons, or to produce his own, why did he not confine himself to the Practice of the first Ages proceding on Pinciples than received by the whole Catholick Church, and Fundamental to all the Discipline then practised?

Had he done so, the Vindicator professing himself ready to joyn issue with him on those Terms, had been indeed obliged to Answer him But how can he expect an Answer, when the Vindicator's Exceptions a∣gainst the whold kind of Facts he deals in, remain, I do not say unan∣swer'd only, but, not so much as attempted by him.