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.

§ VI. The Doctor's whole Proof un∣conclusive, ad∣mitting the In∣validity of Lay-deprivations.

But the Doctor pretends that it was neither the design of the Author of his Baroccian M. S. in writing it, nor his own in pub∣lishing it, to prove the Right of the Lay Magistrate for Spiritual De privations I easily agree with him, that it was not the design of the Author of this M. S. And I shall as easily excuse him from designing it, if it be consistent with the exigency of his Cause which engaged him to the publication. But can he deny at least, that his design in publishing it, was to purge his party from the guilt of the present Schism? Can he deny that in order hereunto, his design was to prove the Lawfulness of Submission in the Subjects of the deprived destricts to the Ecclesiastical Intruders? His own words in these particulars are too manifest to leave him to the li∣berty of denying them. Let him then try his skill, wether he can from this M. S. or from any thing offered in his Book, prove the Lawfulness of such Submission in the Ecclesiastical Subjects on the Supposal now mentioned, of the Invalidity of Lay deprivations. If he can, he may then indeed, but not till then, call the disproof of the Magistrates Right for Spiritual deprivation, and the conse∣quent proof of the Invalidity of such deprivations, when attempted impertinent to his design in publishing his M S. But how will he un∣dertake to do this? Does he think the Facts alone, either of his M. S. or his Book, sufficient for this purpose, supposing them such as he is concerned they should be, instances of Submission, upon Lay, or otherwise Invalid deprivations, to Usurpers of the vacated Thrones? Dare he stand by the consequence, that a like enumera∣tion of as many Facts in as large a distance of the like times, is suf∣ficient to prove the Practice allowable, nay, exemplary, to succeed∣ing Generations? If he dare not, he must think of some other way of proving them well done, than barely this, that they were done. This will reduce him, whether he will or no, to the merit

of the cause. And how is it possible for him to prove Submission to the Usurper lawful and unsinful, till the Subjects be first fairly dis∣charged from their duty to the first Incumbent? How can he prove them discharged from their first duty, if the Lay deprivation be not sufficient to discharge them? And how can he pretend it sufficient for that purpose, if it was from the beginning null and in∣valid? Thus he will find the disproof of the Power of the Lay-Ma∣gistrate for Spiritual deprivations to be more pertinent, than perhaps himself could wish it, for overthrowing his pretended Lawfulness of Submission in the Ecclesiastical Subjects to Persons obtruded on Sees no other way vacated, than by the Authority of a Lay-depriva∣tion of the Civil Magistrate.