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.

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

https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A36241.0001.001 content_copy

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 April 28, 2025. content_copy

Contents

• title page
• THE CONTENTS.
• § I. The Doctor's late Book, no Answer to the Vindication.
• § II. The Baroccian M S, disproved by the Vindicator, and not defended by the Doctor.
• § III. He has not of∣fered at any An∣swer to the Ar∣guments against him in the first part of the Vin∣dication.
• He also grants the Proposition principally dis∣puted between Us concerning the Invalidity of Lay-deprivations, and takes no care to prevent the Con∣sequences of that Confession.
• § V. The Doctor gains nothing by his changing the state of the Qustion.
• § VI. The Doctor's whole Proof un∣conclusive, ad∣mitting the In∣validity of Lay-deprivations.
• § VII. The Doctor's limitations of his own pretended self-evident Max∣ime, do all of them prove our Case unconcerned in it. Chap. 1.
• § VIII. Submission of Subjects to the Ecclesiastical U∣surpers is sinful by the Law of God.
• § IX. Such Submis∣sion would make the Ecclesiastical Subjects Accom∣plices in the In∣justice.
• § X. The same sub∣mission in the Clergy is sinful, on account of the Oaths they have taken to the of Rightful Pos∣sessors Canonical Obedience.
• § 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.
• § XII. There is gre disparity between the Obligations of a competent, and an incompe∣tent, Authority.
• § XIII No reason to reckon on the per∣sumed consent of the Bishops inju∣red by an Invalid deprivation, for discharging their Subjects Consci∣ences from Duty to them.
• § XIV. Our deprived Fathers give publick Signifi∣cations that they do challenge their old Rights, as far as is ne∣cessary in their Circumstances.
• § XV. The Oaths of canonical Obedi∣ence to our Fa∣thers still obli∣ging.
• § XVI. The comply∣ance with Usur∣pers is also there∣fore sinful, be∣cause Usurping Bishops are real∣ly no Bishops at all.
• § XVII. The Evil of Sin, and Scandal in complying, greater than that of Persecution which is avoided by it.
• §. XVIII. The Evil of Schism not avoid∣ed, but incurred, by complying with the Usurp∣ers.
• § XXI. The abuses that may follow on Compliance, are a just reason to refuse it, where it is not otherwise, in Conscience, due
• § XX. No security ere that com∣pliance will not be abused.
• § XXI. That abuse it a greater mis∣chief than that it can be made a mends for by the Doctors Ex∣pedients.
• § XXII. The main de∣dsign of the Do∣ctors new Book in arguing from Facts already overthrown by the Vindicator, yet no notice ta∣ken of what was there said.
• § XXIII. The Doctor himself is unwil∣ling to stand by the Consequen∣ces of such like Facts as himself produces.
• § XXIV. The Doctors remark against the Rea∣soning of the First Parts of the Vindica∣tion concerning the Possession of Corne∣lius turned against himself.
• § XXV. The Doctor's Book offorded no Subject for a Re∣ply, but what would be Perso∣nal.
• § 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.
• § XXVII. We have no reason to suffer our selves to be overruled by him in these Arts of diverting Us.
• § XXVIII. We decline his Topick of Facts, rather because it is undecisive than because we think it disad∣vantageous to Us.
• § XXIX. For want of some other Subject relating to the Vindication, we here pitch on the Case of Abiathar.
• § XXX. This Fact is not commended in the Scripture as a Precedent.
• § XXXI. The Magistrate could not by the Doctrine of that Age, have any direct Power over the Priest-hood.
• §. XXXII. The Benefits of the Priest-hood out of the Power, and far greater than any in the Power, of the Ci∣vil Magistrate.
• § XXXIII. The ancient Jews of the Apo∣stle's Age did be∣lieve their Priest hood available to a future and a eternal state.
• § XXXIV. And consequent∣ly, did expresly own it for mor Honourable than the Magistracy it self.
• § XXXV. This same Reasonning holds on account of the Priest repre∣senting GOD, though without relation to a Future State.
• § XXXVI. And that also according to the Opinions of those times.
• § XXXVII. Solomons Act on Abiathar was on∣ly of Force.
• § XXXVIII. VVhich Force might, in the Consequence ren∣der the Exercise of his Right im∣practicable.
• § XXXIX. Yet Solomon was in Consci∣ence obliged to be cautions in exercising this Force against the Priest-hood.
• § XL. What Solomon did was only to fullfill what GOD had be∣fore threatned against the Fa∣mily of Eli.
• § XLI. Abiathar was not then the High-Priest▪ properly so called, but Zadok.
• § XLII. There were in those times two High-Priests at once; the chief, such as Zadok was, of the Fami∣ly of Eleazar, the lower, such as Abiathar, of the Family of Itha∣mar.
• § XLIII. No deprivati∣on of the Posteri∣ty of Phineas in those times.
• § XLIV. Zadok put in the room of Abi∣athar, as to the Courses of Itha∣mar, which were not under him before.
• § XLV. The Jews, by our Principles, could not justify a separation on account of Abia∣thar. Their Case not like Ours.
• § LXVI. When Invasi∣ons had passed into a Prescrip∣tion, as in our Soviour's time, he that was in Possession had really the best Title.
• § XLVII. Among the Jews, the true High-Priest was to be known by his possessing the One Altar. A∣mong th Christians, the true Altar was known by its be∣ing possessed by the true Bishop.
• § XLVIII. The Reasons for Exemption from the Power of the Prince stronger on our deprived Fathers Case, than in the Case of Abiathar. Our Bishops are pro∣perly Priests.
• § XLIX. The Gospel Priest-hood more Noble than that of Abiathar. The same Rea∣soning therefore holds now which did then; but now more strongly.
• § L. This Reason∣ing was admit∣ted in the Apo∣stolical Age. Particularly by Clemens Roma∣nus. He also Vin∣dicates the Churches Rights against Lay-de∣privations from Jewish Prece∣dents.
• §. LI. He does it also by the same Princi∣ples, as by him owned agreeable to the Constitution of the Gospel.
• § LII. He draws the like Inferences from those Rea∣sonings, in Pra∣ctice, as we do.
• § LIII. The Laity can∣not now pretend to any Indirect Right of depriv∣ing Bishops, as the Jewish Princes could in the Case of the Jewish Priesthood.
• § LIV. Our Reasoning against the Ma∣gistrates Right of deprivation in Spiritual proceed Universally, and therefore in Case of Temporal Crimes, also the owning such a Power would have been Perni∣cious to the Prim∣itive Christians also, who were charged with Temporal Crimes▪
• § LV. The Spiritual Rights of Our Fathers have been now inva∣ded by Civil Force. Bare Characters. without Districts not sufficient to preserve the Church as a Bo∣dy.
• § LVI. Supposing the Church and Christian State had made one Body, yet more had been requi∣site to make that Supposition ap∣plicable to our present Case, which is not yet taken notice of.
• § LVII. The Prince account of his being only a Christian, has no Title to any Spiritual Autho∣rity.
• § LVIII. A whole Na∣tion, by Bap∣tism, may be made one So∣ciety in the Church, with∣out prejudice to their being still a Society distinct from it.
• § LIX The Church's Obligations are more necessary for the subsisting of the State, than those she receives from the State are for hers.
• § LX. The Benefits received by the State from the Church, are also greater than those which the Church receives from the State.
• § LXI. If the State had been capable of conferring the greater Obliga∣tions, yet a good Pious Magistrate could not, in rea∣son, desire suh a recompence as should oblige the Church to yield any of her Anci∣ent Rights.
• § 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 Pos∣session of Bishop∣ricks. And that without any pro∣per Cession of Right on the Church's part.
• § LXIII. The Power of turning out Bi∣shops once Pos∣sessed, too great to be granted on any Considera∣tion whatsoever.
• § LXIV. In this Case, particularly, no Temporal Fa∣vour whatsoever can make a∣mends for the loss of the benefits of the Spiritual So ciety. There can therefore be no implicite Con∣tracts for such an Exchange that can in Equity o∣blige the Ecclesi∣astical Gover∣nours to perfor∣mance, tho' it had been in their Power to make such a Contract.
• § LXV. But here it is not in the Power of the Ecclesiastical Governours to make such a Contract.
• § LXVI. It is not a∣greeable to the mind of GOD, that the Church should so concorporate with the State, as that the Bi∣shops should be deprivable at the pleasure of the Civil Ma∣gistrate.
• § LXVII. The Magistrate is by no means, a Competent Iudge of the Church's Inte∣rests.
• § LXVIII. The Surrendry of the Clergy in Henry the VIIIth's time, cannot oblige their Posterits now.
• § LXIX. No Reasoning from the Rights of the Jewish Princes to the Rights of Chri∣stian Princes now.
• § LXX. Our Present deprivations not justifiable by e∣ven our present Secular Laws.
• § LXXI, The Conclu∣sion.