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.

§ LVII. The Prince 〈◊〉〈◊〉 account of his being only a Christian, has no Title to any Spiritual Autho∣rity. (Book 57)

These things, I say, had been requisite to make his Doctrine Practi∣cable, if it had been proved, and proved as well as himself desires to prove it. But, for my part, I am perfectly of the Vindicators mind, nor do I see any reason to doubt but that his whole Proof will hold, if this be the only suspicious Proposition concerned in it. I see no rea∣son, why the Church should loss her Liberties, or Princes gain more Power by their Conversion, than they had before. The Nature of the thing, does not the least require it. Princes, when they are received

into the Church's Communion, are received, as other Laicks are, by Baptism; which can therefore intitle them to no more Power, than o∣ther Christians, who are admitted into the same Society, the same way, as they are. As therefore Baptism alone confers no spiritual Authori∣ty to others, no more it can to the Prince, who has no Preheminence above them, on this account. When therefore he is baptized, he still remains, in reference to spiritual Power, no more than a Private Person, as all others do, who have no more spiritual Authority given them, than what is conferred upon them in their Baptism. How then comes he by this Power in Spirituals, which our Adversaries challenge for him? All our forementioned Reasons proceed as validly against his claim of spiritual Power, whilst he continues only a Lay∣man, tho' Baptized, as they did before his Baptism. Still, the spiritu∣al Power is grounded on the Power of rewarding and punishing Spiri∣tually, by admitting to, or excluding from, the Spiritual Benefits of the Society. Still, the Power of that admission to, or exclusion from, those Benefits, depends upon the Power of the Incorporating Rites; which be∣ing granted, admit into the Body, or if denyed, exclude from it. Still the Incorporating Acts, are the two Sacraments, as we are Baptized into, the spiritual Body, and as we are made one spiritual Body, by our par∣taking of one Bread: So that none can have the Power of these Incor∣porating Acts, who has not the Power of Administring the Sacraments. Still, the Power of Administring the Sacraments, is proper to the Evan∣gelical Priest hood; and it is still, as unlawful for Princes to invade the Sacerdotal Offices, as it was under the old Law, when the Prince was obliged to be always of one Body, with the Priest-hood, in reference to Religious Acts of Communication. Still, the Reasoning of St. Clemens holds that Laymen are only to meddle with Acts properly Laical, and proceeds with more Force than in the Case wherein that Holy Apostolical Person used it. The Gifted Laicks had been Baptized as well as our Believing Princes, and in that regard were every way Equal with them. But as they were endued with Spiritual Gifts, they were better qualified for extraordinary Calls to Acts of sacerdotal Power, than Princes can be by any Pretensions to, or Advantages of, Worldly grandeur. Baptism indeed makes the Prince and the Church one Society, as the Prince is thereby incorporated into the Priviledged Society of the Church, But then, this Baptismal Union is rather of the Prince to the Bishop, than of the Bishop to the Prince, and therefore on the Bishop's terms, not the Prince's. How then can the Prince's being receiv'd into the Church as a private Person, and as a Subject to the spiritual Authority, intitle him to any of that same Authority, to which by his Baptism,

he professes his subjection? He is indeed so far from being a Publick Person in his Baptism, that the Obligation and Benefits of his Baptism, are wholly Personal to himself, none of his Subjects, being in the least, concerned in it. If he had acted as a Publick Person in it, his single Act had obliged all his Subjects, and would have consequently inti∣tuled them to all the benefits of his stipulation. But this is more than our Adversaries will pretend in this Case. How then can an Act purely Personal, intitle him to an accession of Spiritual Au∣thority?