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.
About this Item
Title
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.
Author
Dodwell, Henry, 1641-1711.
Publication
London :: [s.n.],
1695.
Rights/Permissions
To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Subject terms
Dodwell, Henry, 1641-1711. -- Vindication of the deprived bishops.
Hody, Humphrey, 1659-1707. -- Letter from Mr. Humphry Hody, to a friend, concerning a collection of canons.
Hody, Humphrey, 1659-1707. -- Case of sees vacant by an unjust or uncanonical deprivation.
Welchman, Edward, 1665-1739. -- Defence of the Church of England.
Church of England -- Bishops -- Early works to 1800.
Nonjurors -- Early works to 1800.
Bishops -- England -- Early works to 1800.
Dissenters, Religious -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- England -- Early works to 1800.
Link to this Item
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A36241.0001.001
Cite this Item
"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." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A36241.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed May 4, 2025.
Pages
§ XXVII. We have no reason to suffer our selves to be overruled by him in these Arts of diverting Us. (Book 27)
What himself designed in so unreasonable ways of proceeding, I will not pretend my self so privy to his thoughts, as to be able to determine. But it is easie to observe the interest of his Cause in it. It shews indeed a greater variety of his Reading, than if he had con∣fined himself to the Precedents of more decisive times But withal, it obliges Us, if we follow him in all his Instances, to write larger Books than we can ever hope to get printed in the Difficulties of the Press on our side. We cannot hope to satisfy him, by answering some of his Instances, if we do not all. And why must we be obliged to fol∣low a way of his prescribing, which we cannot hope to go through, when we can reduce the whole Dispute to narrower, and yet more conclusive bounds? He gives us small encouragement to gratify him in this Case, when he tells us that he will not be concluded by what we * 1.1 can say upon it, though we should prove the Practice of these later Ages, from which he will not be restrained, otherwise than he pre∣tends it was. And why must we take so much pains to no purpose? Why should he desi••e it of us, it his design had been to satisfy Con∣science, either his own, or ours?