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 5, 2025.

Pages

§ XXIX. For want of some other Subject relating to the Vindication, we here pitch on the Case of Abiathar. (Book 29)

This I thought sufficient to shew how little the Vindicator is obliged to return any Reply to the Doctor's pretended Answer, till the Doctor can be prevailed on to try his skill on the former and principal part of the Vindication. But this is so particular to the Doctor's Personal manage∣ment of the Cause, that I could not think this alone worthy the Reader's trouble in perusal of it, without some other Subject of more im∣portance to the Cause it self. This therefore made me think of se∣lecting something of the Doctor's Book, which (though it cannot be taken for an Answer to the Vindication, which had said nothing concern∣ing it) yet might give an occasion for clearing a particular Prejudice against us, insisted on by many more besides him, abstracting from the Principal Topick of his Book concerning Facts in general. Of his kind, I take the Case to be of Solomon's deposing Abiathar, which may, e∣ven on the Doctor's account, deserve a more particular consideration, because he seems to have taken the greatest pains, in amassing the several Hypotheses relating to it, of any one particular in his Book. Here they find a High Priest * 1.1 removed from his Office by Solomon, and ano∣ther, that is Zadoc, † 1.2 put in his room, yet without the least scruple concerning the Validity and Acceptableness of Zadok's Ministry, with relation to God and Conscience. This they think exactly parallel to our present Case.

Notes

* 1.1

1 Kings II. 1.

Back to content
† 1.2

V. 35.

Back to content