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.

§ 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.

Thus far therefore it is certain, that a Prince's admission into the Church, is not alone sufficient for a Coalition of the State into one Body with the Church, because that other Body of the State, whereof he is head, is not the least concern'd in this Act of his as a Private Person, not as a Publick, much less as a Head of any Body at all. Suppose we therefore the generality of a State converted and Baptized also. This will indeed make them one Body with the Church. But on the same terms as it made the Prince one, that is, on the Church's terms, not on theirs: That is, by so many repeated Personal Acts qualifying them for, and receiving Baptism, as there are supposed to be particular Per∣sons in that whole Secular Society, and as so many private Persons, not as invested with any publick Authority in another Society. Still, there∣fore, Proselites of that kind, how numerous soever, can never hurt the Authority of that Society, into which they are Incorporated only, as so many private Persons. A whole Nations therefore, how populous soever, coming in on these terms, cannot change the Spiritual Society from what they find it. They add to the numbers of the Subjects of the Spi∣ritual Society, and in that regard, should rather advance, than diminish, the Authority of that new Society into which they are Incorporated And as their accession to the Church cannot make any change in the Govern∣ment of the Church, so neither in their one. Their admission into the Church being only the Act of so many private Persons singly considered, can therefore not concern them as a Society, can therefore no way af∣fect them as publick Persons, and as concerned for the Government of the Society, into which they were Incorporated before. There is therefore on neither side any explicite renunciation of ancient Rights, nor yet by any fair Interpretation. Their coalition into one Body with the Church, does not dissolve the same relation they had formerly to different Societies, on different considerations. The Bishop, though he act the part of a Pub∣lick Person in admitting them into his own Spiritual Society, does not thereby put off his former Subjection as to Temporals, nor acquire any

thing inconsistent therewith. Nor does the Magistrate by his Sub∣jection in Spirituals, profess any thing not fairly reconcilable with his Temporal Sovereignity. Their coalition therefore into one Body, is very well consistent with their still continuing as distinct Societies as they were before. Nor does our worthy Adversay object any thing to prove the contrary, but that upon Conversion and Baptism of the Seculars, the Church and State consist of the same Persons. How should the Church and State make Two distinst Societies, says he, where the Church and State consist of the very same Persons? The very same way, say I, as our K. ED∣WARD the III. was, at the same time, a SOVEREIGN of England, and SUBJECT of France, when he swore homage to Philip of Valois for his Dominions in France. Yet who doubts but England and France were then two distinst and perfectly independent Societies? The same way as the BISHOP himself was the Head of the CHURCH, and yet a Sub∣ject of the STATE, therefore a Member of BOTH Societies, antecedent∣ly to any such Conversions, or any Pretence that could be therefore made, for a coalition of both into one Society. Conversion therefore, thought it bring all Persons into one Society of the Church, yet does not hinder but that the Two Societies of the Church and State, continue as distinct from each other as formerly, whilst the same things remain that made them two Societies formerly. And Conversions do not hinder but that they may still remain so. Still, the Spirituals and Temporals, are as distinct as ever. Still, the same Right continue for the Bishops to be the competent Judges of Spirituals, as the Magistrate are, of Temporals. Still, the same distinction of Laws continues, by which the Two Societies are governed as formerly. That the Church is to be governed by the Church, which are made by a Consent of the Ecclesiasticks, and that the State is governed by the Laws, which receive their Sanction from the Lay-Authority. Still, the Independence continues, that the Bishops are as supream unappealable Judges for Spirituals, as the Magistrates are for Tem∣porals. Conversions I am sure, do not hinder, but that this also might have remained as it did formerly. For such a coalition of the Two Societies as our Adversary reasons for it, would be necessary that the Government of one of the Societies should surrender, or acknowledge a dependence on the Government of the other. But neither of them can be pretended at the first Conversions of Magistrates. Neither of them now, in the Case of the Church of England. The name of Head, on which our Adversary insists, is long ago laid aside by Q. Elizabeth. And one of our Articles disowns all Pretensions of our Princes to the power of preaching the Word, and administring the Sacraments. This Article is ratified, and made Law by an Act of Parliament. Upon

these Considerations, we can fairly take the Oath of Supremacy, as thus intrepreted by the Legislators themselves, without owning any subjection of the Bishops, as to Causes purely Spiritual, to the Supream Magistrate, even in England. So far the Church and State are yet, e∣ven here, from being made one Society, as our Adversary pretends. The Examples of Bishops taking out Patents for the Right of giving Orders, were, I believe, never known before the Reign of HENRY the VIII. And that I hope our Adversary himself will not plead as a Reign of Presidents. If he do, the Liberties of the People will be no more se∣cure, than those of the Clergy. Nothing was security against him, who made such manifest invasions on the Two Fundamental Secu∣rities, MAGNA CHARTA, and his own OATH, taken at his CORO∣NATION. Thus clear it is, that Conversions alone could not make any change in the Rights of Power in Spirituals, of which the Church was possessed before, notwithstanding that the Converts are thereby made one Body with the Church, with which they were not one for∣merly.