SECT. I. The Necessity of an Outward Commission to the Ministers of the Gospel.

SOme Quakers having perus'd my Discourse of Baptism, think the Quaker Arguments against it sufficiently Answered: And they have but one Difficulty remaining, that is, who they are (among the various Pretenders) that are duly Qualify'd to Ad­minister it.

And if satisfaction can be given to them herein, they promise a perfect Compliance to that Holy Institution.

The Chief thing they seem to stand upon is the Personal Holyness of the Administrator; thinking that the spiritual Effects of Baptism cannot be convey'd by the means of an Unsanctify'd Instru­ment.

But yet they Confess, that there is something else Necessary, besides the Personal Holiness of the Administrator: Otherwise, they wou'd think themselves as much Qualify'd to Administer it as any others; because, I presume, they suppose themselves to have as great a Measure of the Spirit as other Men.

This Requisit which they want, is that of Lawful Ordination.

But the Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists do pretend to this. Therefore their Title to it is to be Examin'd.

And, that we may proceed the more clearly in this Matter, with Respect still to that Difficulty upon which the Quakers lay the stress; we will Inquire concerning those Qualifications which are Requisit in any Person that shall take upon him to Administer the Sacraments of Christ's Institution. And,

These Qualifications are of two sorts, Personal or Sacerdotal.

I. Personal. The Holiness of the Administrator. And, though this is a great Qualification to Fit and Prepare a Man for such an Holy Administration, yet this Alone does not suffi­ciently Qualifie any Man to take upon him such an Admini­stration.

II. But there is moreover requir'd, 2ly. A Sacerdotal Qua­lification, that is, an Outward Commission, to Authorize a Man to execute any Sacerdotal or Ministerial Act of Religion. For, This Honour no Man taketh unto himself, but he that is cal­led of God,Heb. v. 4.as was Aaron; so also Christ glorify'd not himself to be made an High-Priest; But he that said unto him, thou art my Son—Thou art a Priest, &c.

Accordingly we find that Christ did not take upon Him the Office of a Preacher, till after that Outward Commission given to Him by a Voice from Heaven, at His Baptism; for it is written, Matth. iv. 17. From that time Jesus began to Preach: Then He Began; and He was then about Thirty Years of Age, Luke iii. 23. Now no Man can doubt of Christ's Qualifications, before that time, as to Holiness, Sufficiency, and all Personal Endowments. And if all these were not sufficient to Christ Himself, without an Outward Commission, what other Man can pretend to it upon the Account of any Personal Excellencies in Himself, without an outward Commission?

III. And as Christ was outwardly Commissionated by His Father, so did not He leave it to His Disciples, every ones Opinion of his own sufficiency, to thrust himself into the Vine­yard, but Chose Twelve Apostles by Name; and after them, Seventy others of an Inferior Order, whom He sent to Preach.

IV. And as Christ gave outward Commissions, while He was upon the Earth, Act. xiv. 23. so we find that His Apostles did Pro­ceed in the same Method, after His Ascension. They ordained them Elders in every Church.

V. But had they, who were thus Ordained by the Apostles, [Page 3]Power to Ordain others? Yes, Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. v 22. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest — Ordain Elders in every City. Lay hands suddenly on no Man, &c. St. Cle­ment, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, writing concerning the Schism which was then risen up amongst them, says, Parag. 44. [...]. That the Apostles fore-knowing there wou'd be Contests concerning the Episcopal Name (or Office) did themselves appoint the Persons: And not only so, lest that might be said to be of force, only during their time. But that they afterwards established an Order how, when those whom they had Ordained shou'd Die; others, fit and approved Men, shou'd succeed them in their Ministry. Par. 43. that they who were in­trusted with this Work, by God, in Christ, did Constitute these Offi­cers.

But this Matter depends not upon the Testimony of him, or many more that might be produced. It is such a Publick Mat­ter of Fact; That I might as well go about to quote particular Authors, to prove that there were Emperors in Rome, as that the Ministers of the Church of Christ were Ordained to succeed one another; and that they did so succeed.

SECT. II. The Deduction of this Commission is continu'd in the Suc­cession of Bishops and not of Presbyters.

BUT here is a Dispute, whether this Succession was pre­serv'd in the Order of Bishops or Presbyters? or whether both are not the same?

I. Answ. 1. This is the Contest betwixt the Presbyterians and us: But either way it operates against the Quakers, who allow of no Succession deriv'd by outward Ordination.

II. Answ. 2. But because the Design of this Discourse is to shew the Succession from the Apostles, I answer that this Succes­sion is preserv'd and deriv'd only in the Bishops: As the conti­nuance of any Society, is deduc'd in the Succession of the Chief Governors of the Society, not of the Inferior Officers. Thus in Kingdoms, we reckon by the Succession of the Kings, not of Sheriffs or Constables; and in Corporations by the Succession of the Mayors or other Chief Officers; not of the Inferiour Bailiffs or Serjeants: So the Succession of the Churches is Computed in the Succession of the Bishops, who are the Chief Governours of the Chur­ches; and not of Presbyters, who are but Inferiour Officers under the Bishops.

III. And, in this, the Matter of Fact is as Clear and Evident as the Succession of any Kings or Corporations in the World.

To begin with the Apostles, we find not only that they Consti­tuted Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete, as in the Sub­scriptions of St. Paul's Epistles to them: But, in Eusebius and other Ecclesiastical Historians, you have the Bishops Nam'd who were Con­stituted by the Apostles themselves, over the then famous Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria, and many other Chur­ches; and the Succession of them down all along.

St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, was Disciple to St. John the Apostle; and St. Irenaeus, who was Disciple to St. Polycarp, was Constituted Bishop of Lyons in France.

I mention this, because it is so near us; for, in all other Churches, throughout the whole World, where ever Christianity was Planted, Episcopacy was every where Establish'd, without one Exception, as is Evident from all their Records.

And so it was with us in England, whither it is generally suppos'd, and with very good Grounds, that St. Paul first brought the Christian Faith. Clemens Romanus, in his First Epist. to the Corinthians, Paragr. 5. Says, that St. Paul went Preaching the Gospel to the farthest bounds of the West; [...]. by which Term Britain was then Understood. And Theodoret expresly Names the Britains among the Nations Converted by the Apostles. (To. 4. serm. 9. p. 610.) And Eusebius in his Evan­gelical Demonstration, (l. 3. c. 7. p. 113.) Names likewise the Bri­tains, as then Converted.

But whether St. Paul, or, as some Conjecture, Joseph of Ari­mathea, or any other Apostolical Person was the first who Preach­ed Christ in England, it matters not, as to our Present Pur­pose; who Enquire only concerning Episcopacy; And it is Cer­tain by all our Histories; that as far up as they give us any Account of Christianity in this Island, they tell us likewise of Bishops; and the Succession of this Church of England has been Deduc'd in the Succession of Bishops, and not of Presbyters. And particularly in the Diocess of London, which was the first Archi-Episcopal See, before Augustin the Monk came hither, af­ter which it was Establish'd in Canterbury. And the Saxon Writers have Transmitted the Succession of their Bishops in Can­terbury, Rochester, London, &c.

And in Countries so Remote and Barbarous as Island it self we find the same care taken; Ara or Aras an Islandish Priest Surnam'd Hinfrode the Leurned, who flourish'd in the Eleventh Century, and was 25 Years Old when Christianity was brought thither, in his Book of that Country written in Islandish, has Transmitted to Posterity, not only the Succession but the Genea­logies of the Bishops of Skalholt and Hola (the two Episcopal Sees of Island) as they Succeeded one another in his Time. I mention this of Island, to show that Episcopacy has Extended it self Equally with Christianity, which was carry'd by it, into the Remotest Corners of the Earth; upon which account the Bishops of Skalholt and Hola, and their Succession, are as Remark­able Proofs of Episcopacy, tho' not so Famous as the Bishops of Canterbury and London.

IV. If the Presbyterians will say (because they have nothing left to say) that all London (for Example) was but one Parish▪ and that the Presbyter of every other Parish was as much a Bishop as the Bishop of London; because the words [...] and [...] Bishop and Presbyter are sometimes us'd in the same [...]e [...] They may as well prove that Christ was but a Deacon, because He is so call'd, Rom. xv. 8. [...], which we rightly [...]ra [...] are a Minister: And Bishop signifies an Overseer, and Presbyter an Ancient Man, or Elder Man; whence our Term of Alderm [...]n And this is as good a Foundation to Prove that the Apostles were Aldermen, in the City acceptation of the Word; or that our Aldermen are all Bishops and Apostles, as to Prove that Pres­byters [Page 6]and Bishops are all one, from the Childish Gingle of the Words.

It wou'd be the same thing, if one shou'd undertake to Con­front all Antiquity, and Prove against all the Histories, that the Emperors of Rome were no more than Generals of Armies, and that every Roman General was Emperor of Rome; because he cou'd find the word Imperator sometimes apply'd to the General of an Army.

Or as if a Common-wealth-man shou'd get up, and say, that our former Kings were no more than our Dukes are now; be­cause the Stile of Grace, which is now given to Dukes, was then given to Kings.

And suppose that any one were put under the Pennance of Answering to such Ridiculous Arguments; what Method wou'd he take, but to shew that the Emperors of Rome, and former Kings of England, had Generals of Armies and Dukes under them, and Exercis'd Authority over them?

Therefore when we find it given in Charge to Timothy, the first Bishop of Ephesus, how he was to Proceed against his Pres­byters, when they Transgressed▪ to Sit in Judgment upon them, Examine Witnesses against them, and pass Censures upon them, it is a most Impertinent Logo [...]chy to argue from the Etymology of the Words, that notwithstanding of all this, a Bishop and a Presbyter are the same thing. Therefore that one Text, 1 Tim. v. 19. is sufficient to silence this Pitiful Clamour of the Presby­terians; our English reads it, against an Elder, which is the Literal Translation of the word Presbyter, [...], against a Presbyter receive not an Accusation, but before two or three Witnesses, and, them that sin Rebuke before all, that others also may fear. Now, upon the Presbyterian Hypothesis, we must say that Timothy had no Authority or Jurisdiction over that Pres­byter, against whom he had Power to Receive Accusations, Exa­mine Witnesses, and pass Censures upon him: And that such a Presbyter had the same Authority over Timothy— which is so Ex­travagant and against Common Sense, that I will not stay lon­ger to Confute it; and think this enough to have said con­cerning the Presbyterian Argument from the Etymology of the words Bishop and Presbyter.

And this likewise Confutes their other Pretence, which I have mention'd, that the Ancient Bishopricks were only Single and Independent Congregations, or Parishes. This is a Topick they have taken up but of late (being Beaten from all their other Holds) and Launched by Mr. David Clarkson, in a Book which he Entitules Primitive Episcopacy; which has given occasion to an Excellent Answer, by Dr. Hen. Maurice, call'd A Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy, Printed 1691. which, I suppose, has ended that Controversie, and hindred the World from being more troubl'd upon that Head. And their other little Shift, and as Groundless, that the Primitive Bishops were no other than their Moderators, advanced more lately by Gilb. Rule late Moderator of the General Assembly in Scotland, has been as Learnedly, and with great Clearness of Reason, Confuted by the Worthy J. S. in his Principles of the Cyprianick Age, Printed 1695.

But, as I said, that Text, 1 Tim. v. 19. has made all these Pre­tences wholly useless to the Presbyterians: For supposing their most Notorious false supposition, as if the Bishopricks of Jerusa­lem, Rome, Alexandria, or London, consisted but of one single Congregation, and that such Bishops had no Presbyters under them; but that all Presbyters were Equally Bishops; I say, supposing this, then it must follow from what we Read of Timothy, that one Bishop or Presbyter had Jurisdicton over other Bishops or Pres­byters, which will Destroy the Presbyterian Claim of Parity, as much as their Confession to the Truth, and plain Matter of Fact, that Bishops had Presbyters under their Jurisdiction; and that they were Distinct Orders: Notwithstanding that a Bishop may be call'd [...] a Deacon, or Minister of Christ; and likewise [...], an Elder or Grave Man, which is a Term of Ma­gistracy and Dignity, and not ty'd to Age. And a Presbyter may likewise, in a sound Sense, be call'd a Bishop, that is, an Overseer or Shepherd, which he truly is over his Particular Flock; without denying at all his Dependance upon his Bishop and Overseer:

V. As under the Term of Priest, the High-Priest was Included, without Destroying his Supremacy, over the other Priests. Against which Korah and his Presbyters, or Inferiour Priests arose. And if the Presbyterians will take his word, whom, of all the Fathers, they most Admire, and Quote often on their side, that is, St. Jerom, he will tell them, in that very E­pistle [Page 8](ad Evagr.) which they Boast favours them so much, That what Aaron, and his Sons, and the Levites were in the Temple, that same are Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon in the Church.

And long before him, Clemens Romanus in his 1 Epist. to the Corinthians, makes frequent Allusion to the Episcopacy of the Le­vitical Priesthood, and argues from thence to that of the Christian Church. Thus Paragraph 40. [...]. To the High-Priest (says he) were allotted his proper Offices; to the Priests, their proper place was as­signed; and to the Levites their services were appointed; and the Lay-men were Restrain'd within the precepts to Lay-men. And Paragraph 42. he applies that Scripture, Isa. LX. 17. to the Officers of the Christian Church, and renders it thus; I will Constitute their Bishops in Righteousness, and their Dea­cons in Faith. The Greek Translation of the LXX has it thus. I will give thee Rulers (or Princes) in Peace; [...].and thy Bishops in Righ­teousness.

It was the frequent Method of these Primitive Fathers to Rea­son thus from the Parallel 'twixt the Law and the Gospel, the one being an Exact Type of the other, and therefore being fulfill'd in the other. And in this they follow'd the Example of Christ, and the Apostles, who argu'd in the same manner, as you may see Matth. v. 1 Cor. x. the whole Epistle to the Hebrews, and many other Places of the New Testament.

VI. Now the Presbyterians are desir'd to shew any one Dispari­ty betwixt their Case and that of Korah; who was a Priest of the second Order, that is, a Presbyter; and withdrew his Obedience from the High-Priest with other Mutinous Levites: For, ther was no matter of Doctrine or Worship betwixt them and Aaron; nor any other Dispute but that of Church-Government. And, by the Parallel betwixt the Old Testament and the New, Korah was a Presbyterian, who Rose up against the Episcopacy of Aaron. But this Case is brought yet nearer home; for, we are told (Jude xi.) of those under the Gospel, who perish in the gain-saying of Korah: And in the Epist. of Clem. Rom. to the Corinthians before Quoted, Paragraph 43. He plainly applys this Case of Korah, to the state of the Christian Church; shewing at large, that as Moses, by the [Page 9]Command of God, Determin'd the Pretensions of the Twelve Tribes to the Glory of the Priesthood, by the Miraculous Budding of Aaron's Rod, which was after the Schism and Punishment of Korah and his Company. So likewise, he says, the Apostles sore­knowing, by Christ, that Dissentions wou'd arise also in the Christian Church, by various Pretenders to the Evangelical Priest­hood, did Settle and Establish, not only the Persons themselves; But gave Rules and Orders for continuing the Succession after their Deaths, as I have before Quoted his Words. So that it is plain from hence, That the Evangelical Priesthood, is as Positively, and Certainly Establish'd, and Determin'd, in the Succession of Ecclesi­astical Ordination, as the Levitical was, in the Succession of Aaron. And consequently, that the Rebellion of Presbyters from under the Government of their Bishops, is the same Case as the Rebellion (for so it is call'd, Numb. xvii. 10.) of Korah and his Levites, a­gainst Aaron; who had as good a Pretence against him from the word Levite, which was Common to the whole Tribe; as the Presbyterians have against Bishops, from the Name Bishop and Presbyter, being us'd sometimes promiscuously, and apply'd to the Clergy in General; which is a Term that Includes all the Or­ders of the Church, as Levite did among the Jews.

VII. But, to leave the fruitless Contest about Words, let this Matter be Determin'd, as other Matters of Fact are.

If I pretend to succeed any Man in an Honour or Estate, I must name him who had such an Estate or Honour before me; and the Man who had it before him; and who had it before him; and so up all the way to him who first had it; and from whom all the rest do derive; and how it was lawfully deduc'd from one to another.

This the Bishops have done, as I have shewn; and can name all the way backward, as far as History goes, from the Present Bishop of London, (for example) to the first Plantation of Christianity in this Kingdom: So, from the present Bishop of Lyons up to Irenaeus the Disciple of St. Polycarp, as before is told. The Records are yet more certain in the Great Bishopricks of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and others, while they lasted in the World. And tho' the Records may not be Extant of every small Bishoprick, which was less taken notice of; as the Names of many Kings are lost, in obscure Nations; of many Mayors or Sheriffs, who, notwithstanding have as cer­tainly [Page 10]Succeeded one another, as where the Records are Preserv'd. I say, tho' every Bishop in the World cannot tell the Names of all his Predecessors up to the Apostles, yet their Succession is cer­tain: And in most Christian Nations there are Bishops who can do it; which is a sufficient Proof for the rest, all standing upon the same Bottom, and being Deriv'd in the same Man­ner.

Now, to Ballance this, it is Desir'd, that the Presbyterians wou'd shew the Succession of any one Presbyter in the World, who was not likewise a Bishop, in our acceptation of the Word, in the like manner, from the Apostles.

Till when, their small Criticisms upon the Etymology of the Words, Bishop or Presbyter, is as poor a Plea, as if I shou'd pre­tend to be Heir to an Estate, from the likeness of my Name to somebody who once had it.

And here I cannot choose but apply the Complaint of our Sa­viour, John v. 43. If any come, in the Name of Christ, that is, by a Commission from Him, deriv'd down all the way, by Re­gular Ordination, him ye will not Receive: Nay, tho' he be o­therwise a Man without Exception, either as to his Life and Con­versation, or as to his Gifts and Sufficiency for the Ministry; you make this his Commission an Objection against him: For that Rea­son alone, you will not accept him. But, if another come in his own Name, that is, with no Commission, but what he has from himself; his own Opinion of his own Worthiness; giving out that himself is some Great One, (Act. viii. 9.) him ye will Receive, and Follow and Admire him; Heaping to your selves Teachers, having Itching Ears, as it was Prophesy'd of these most degenerate Times, 2 Tim. iv. 3.

But as to those well-dispos'd Quakers, for whose Information Chiefly I have wrote this Discourse, I must suppose that their Inquiry is wholly concerning the several Titles of Bishops, Pres­byterians, Independents, &c. to the true Succession from the Apo­stles: That it may thereby be known, to which of all these they ought to go for Baptism.

This I have shewn, in behalf of Episcopacy; and put the Presby­terians to prove their Succession, in the Form of Presbytery, which they can never do: Because, as I have said before, the Chrono­logy of the Church does not Compute from the Succession of the [Page 11] Presbyters, but only of the Bishops, as being the Chief Governors of the Church. And therefore, tho' in many Bishopricks, the Roll of their Bishops is preserv'd from the Apostles to this Day; yet there is not one bare Presbyter, that is, the Minister of a Parish, and no more, no not in all the World, who can give a Roll of his Predecessors, in that Parish, half way to the Apostles, or near it: For, from the first Plantation of Christianity, the Church was Di­vided into Bishopricks; this was necessary for the Government of the Church: But it was not so early Sub-divided into Parishes. The Presbyters, at first, attending upon the Bishop, were sent out by him, to such Places, and for such Time as he thought fit; and Returning, gave Account of their Stewardships, or were Visited, and Changed by him, as he saw Cause: And therefore, tho' one might come after another, in the Place where he had Ministred before; yet they cou'd not Properly be said to Succeed one another; as (to speak Intelligibly to the Quakers) many of them do Preach after G. Fox, yet none of them are said to Succeed him.

I have been thus long upon the Presbyterians, because they on­ly, of all our Dissenters, have any Pretence to Succession. And what I have said, as to them, must Operate more strongly against the later Independent, Baptist, &c. who have not the Face to Pre­tend to Succession, but set up merely upon their own pretended Gifts.

VIII. But what are these Gifts, which they so Highly Boast?

• 1. An Inward, and more than Ordinary Participation of the Gra­ces of the Holy Spirit.
• 2. A Fluency and Powerfulness in Preaching and Praying.

I know of no other Gifts that any of our Dissenters pretend to, unless they will set up for Miracles, as G. Fox, &c. And other Dissenters did likewise pretend to the same, at their first setting out, to amuse the People; but (as the Quakers) have let it drop after­wards, to stop any further Examination of it; having already serv'd their Turn by it.

But, as to these pretended Gifts, if we may trust to our Savi­our's Rule, of knowing the Tree by its Fruits, we cannot think it the Holy Spirit of which these Men did partake, who fill'd these three Nations with Blood and Slaughter; and whose Religion was never otherwise Introduc'd, than by Rebellion, in any Country whither-soever it has yet come.

And as to that Volubility of Tongue, which they Boast, as the main Proof of their Mission, we have found it by Experience, that a little Confidence and Custom, will Improve very slender Judg­ments, to great Readiness in that sort of Talent.

And the Powerfulness which is found in it by some, who are affected with a Dismal Tone, Wray Faces, and Antick Gestures, is not more but less, if there be either Method or Sense in the Dis­course: Which shews their Passion to proceed not from Reason, but Imagination.

The Scots Presbyterian-Eloquence affords us Monstrous Proofs of this; but not so many, as you may have from Eye and Ear-Wit­nesses.

Such Course, Rude, and Nasty Treatment of God, as they call De­votion; as in it self, it is the highest Affront to The Divine Ma­jesty; so has it Contributed, in a very great Measure, to that wild Atheism, which has always attended these sort of Inspirations: It seeming to many, more Reasonable to Worship no God at all, than to set up one, on purpose to Ridicule Him.

But this sort of Enthusiasm presumes upon a Familiarity with God, which breeds Contempt, and Despises the Sobriety of Religion, as a low Dispensation. I Recommend to the Reader that Excel­lent Sermon, upon this Subject, of Dr. Hicks, call'd The Spirit of Enthusiasm Exorcis'd. And I desire those to consider, who are most taken with these seeming Extraordinary Gifts of Volubility and Nimbleness in Prayer, that the most Wicked Men are capable of this Perfection; none more than Oliver Cromwell, especially when he was about some Nefarious Wickedness: He continu'd most Fluently in this Exercise, all the time that his Cut-throats were Murthering of his Royal Master. And his Gift of Prayer was great­ly Admir'd. Major weir of Edinborough, was another great Instance, who was strangely Ador'd for his Gifts, especially of Prayer, by the Presbyterians in Scotland; while, at the same time, he was wallowing in the most Unnatural and Monstrous Sins. See his Stupendous Story in Ravillac Redivivus.

There are many Examples of this Nature, which shew that this Gift is attainable by Art. Dr. wilkins (the Father of the Latitu­dinarians) has given us the Receipt, in his Gift of Prayer.

Yet none of the Performances of these Gifted-men are any ways Comparable (as to the wonderful Readiness in which they Boast) [Page 13]to the Extempore Verses of Westminster School, which Isaac Vossius cou'd not believe to be Extempore, till he gave the Boys a Theme, which was senes bis Pueri, and he had no sooner spoke the Words, but he was immediately Pelted with Ingenious Epigrams from four or five Boys.

So that this Volubility in Prayer, which is the Gift our Dissen­ters do most Glory in, may be deduc'd from an Original far short of Divine Inspiration.

But suppose that they had really those wonderful Gifts which they pretend to, yet were this no ground at all to Countenance or Warrant their makeing a Schism, upon that Account.

This Case has been Rul'd in a Famous and most Remarkable In­stance of it, which God was pleas'd to permit, (for the future In­struction of His Church) at the first setting out of the Gospel, in the very Days of the Apostles.

Then it was that Christ, having Ascended up on High, gave many and miraculous Gists unto Men; which was necessary towards the first Propagation of His Gospel, in Opposition to all the Establish­ed Religions and Governments then in the World, and under their Persecution.

But these Gifts of Miracles did not always secure the Possessors from Vanity, and an high Opinion of themselves, to the disparage­ment of others; and even to break the Order and Peace of the Church, by advancing themselves above their Superiors; or think­ing none Superior to themselves.

The Great Apostle of the Gentiles was not free'd from the Ten­tation of this; whom the Messenger of Satan was sent to buffet, least he shou'd be Exalted above measure, thro' the Abundance of the Revela­tions which were given to him, 2 Cor. xii. 7. Nay more, our Blessed Saviour tells of those who had miraculous Gifts bestow'd upon them, and yet shou'd be finally Rejected, Matth. vii. 22, 23. Therefore He Instructs His Disciples not to Rejoyce in those Miraculous Gifts which he bestow'd upon them, but rather that their Names were written in Heaven, Luke x. 20. which supposes, that they might have such Gifts, and yet their Names not be written in Heaven.

And when He taught them how to Pray, He added no Petition for such Gifts, but only for the Remission of their Sins, and the Sanctifying Graces of the Holy Spirit; which are, as most Pre [...]ita­ble to Us, so most Precious in the sight of God.

Now some who had these Miraculous Gifts made ill use of them, and occasion'd a great Schism (the first in the Christian Church) at Corinth. They were Exalted above Measure, in their own Gifts; and therefore Refus'd to submit themselves to those who were their Superiors in the Church (who, perhaps, had not such Gifts as they had) but set up for themselves, and drew Parties after them, who were Charm'd with their Extraordinary Gifts; thinking that the Participation of the saving Graces of the Holy Spirit must there Chiefly be Communicated, where God had bestow'd such won­derful Gifts. And they laid more stress upon the Personal Qualifi­cations of these Ministers of God, than upon the observance of that Order and Constitution which He had Commanded; which was, in Effect, preferring Men to God, and trusting to the Instru­ments rather than to the Author of their Religion; as if thro' the Power and Holiness of the Administrators of God's Institutions, and not from Him alone, the Graces which were Promis'd to the due Observance of them, were convey'd. Act. iii. 12.

And this, as it turn'd Men from God, to Trust in Man, so, as a necessary Consequence of it, it begot great Emulations among the People for one Teacher against another, even (sometimes) when it was not the Fault of the Teachers. For People being once let loose from Government and Order, to follow the Imaginations of their own Brain, will run farther than their first Seducers did Intend; and will Carve for themselves.

Thus, in the Schism of the Church at Corinth, one was for Paul, another for Apollos, another for Cephas, &c. much against the Minds of these good Apostles; but having been once unsettl'd by the Pride and Ambition of Seducers, they Heaped to themselves Teach­ers, having itching Ears; and made Divisions among themselves, Pretendingly in behalf of Christ and His Apostles, but in Effect, tending to Divide Christ and His Apostles, as all Schisms do.

Against these St. Paul Disputes with wonderful force of Reason and Eloquence; particularly in the xii Chap. of his first Epistle to these same Corinthians; wherein, from the Parallel of the Unity of Mem­bers in the same Body, he admirably Illustrates, That the many Different and Miraculous Gifts which were then Dispensed all from the same Spirit, cou'd be no more an Argumeut for any to Advance himself beyond his own Station in the Church, than for one Mem­ber of the Body, tho' an Eye or a Hand, the most Useful or Beautiful, [Page 15]to Glory it self against the Inferior Members (who are all Actuated by the same Soul) or not to be Content with its Office and Station in the Body, and due Subordination to the Head. Thence the Apostle goes on, and makes the Application in the xiiith. Chap. That the most Exalted Spiritual or even Miraculous Gifts cou'd not only not Ex­cuse any Schism to be made in the Body, that is, the Church; But that if any who had such Gifts, did not employ them for the Pre­servation of the Unity of the Church, which is very properly Ex­press'd by Charity, i.e. Love for the whole Body, such Gifts wou'd Profit him Nothing, loose all their Vertue and Efficacy, as to the Possessor, and be rather an Aggravation against him, than any Ex­cuse for him, to withdraw his Obedience from his lawful Superiors, and Usurp the Office of the Head; and so make a Schism in the Body, upon the account of his Gifts; which tho' they were as great as to speak with the Tongues of Men and Angels; to understand all Mysteries, and all Knowledge; to have all Faith, even to Remove Mountains; and such a Zeal as to give all his Goods to the Poor, and his very Body to be Burned, yet, if it be done in Schism, out of that Love and Charity which is due to the Body, and to its Unity, all is Nothing, will profit him nothing at all.

And no wonder, when all that Heavenly Glory in which Lucifer was Created, cou'd avail him nothing, Jude 6. when he kept not his first Principality, but Aspir'd Higher, and made a Schism in the Hierarchy of Heaven.

How then shall they who have (as St. Jude expresses it) left their own Habitation, or Station in the Church, and advanc'd themselves above their Bishops, their lawful Superiors, the Heads and Princi­ples of Unity, next and immediately under Christ, in their Respe­ctive Churches, upon pretence of their own Personal Gifts and Qua­lifications, and thereby make a Schism in the Terrestrial Hierarchy of the Church; which is the Body of Christ, Eph. 1.23. the Fulness of him who Filleth all in all: How shall they be Excus'd for this, whose pretended Gifts are in nothing Extraordinary, except in a Furious Zeal without Knowledge, and a Volubility of Tongue, which proceeds from a Habit of Speaking without Thinking; and an Assurance that is never out of Countenance for Ten Thousand Blunders, which wou'd Dash and Confound any Man of Sense or Mo­desty, or that consider'd the Presence of God, in which he spoke?

If those truly Miraculous Gifts, which were made a Pretence for the Schism at Corinth, were not sufficient to justifie that Schism: How Ridiculous and much more wicked is the Pretence of our Mo­dern Gifted-men, who have pleaded their Delicate Gifts as a suffi­cient Ground for all that Schism and Rebellion which they have Rais'd up amongst us?

If the real Gifts and Inspirations of the Holy Spirit were Stinted and Limited by the Governors of the Church, to avaid Schism and Confusion in the Church: If the Prophets were Confin'd as to their Number, 1 Cor. xiv. from v. 26. to Two, or at the most Three at a time; some ordered to hold their Peace, to give place to others; o­thers to keep silence for want of an Interpreter; and the Women (tho' Gifted or Inspir'd as many then were) totally silenc'd in the Church, 1 Tim. 11.12. or Publick Assemblies: What Spirit has Possess'd our Modern Pretenders to Gifts, that will not be subject to the Prophets, nor to the Church, nor to any Institutions whether Divine or Humane! But if their Superiors pretend to Direct them in any thing, they cry out, what! will you stint the Spirit! And think this a sufficient Cause to break quite loose from their Authori­ty, and set up an open Schism against them, upon Pretence of their wonderful Gifts forsooth!

That first Schism in the Church of these Corinthians was vigorously oppos'd by the Apostles and Bishops of the Church, at that time. They, like good Watch-men, wou'd not give way to it, knowing the fatal Consequences of it.

This produc'd Two Epistles from St. Paul to the Corinthians, and Two to them from St. Clement, then Bishop of Rome, which are pre­serv'd, and handed down to us. It was this same occasion of Schism, which so early began to Corrupt the Church, that led the Holy Ignatius (who flourish'd in that same Age) to press so Earnestly in all his Epistles to the several Churches to whom he wrote, the In­dispensable obligation of a strict Obedience to their Respective Bi­shops. That the Laity shou'd submit themselves to the Presbyters and Deacons, as to the Apostolical College under Christ; and that the Presbyters and Deacons; as well as the Laity, shou'd Obey their Bishop, as Christ Himself; whose Person he did Represent: That therefore whoever kept not Outward Communion with his Bishop, did forfeit his Inward Communion with Christ: That no Sacra­ments were Valid, or Acceptable to God, which were not cele­brated [Page 17]in Communion with the Bishop. That nothing in the Church shou'd be done, nor any Marriage Contracted without the Bishop's Consent, &c. As you will see hereafter.

These clear Testimonies fore'd the Presbyterians (because they were not in a Temper to be Convinc'd) to deny these Epistles of St. Ignatius to be Genuine. But they have been so fully Vindicated, particu­larly by the most Learned Bishop of Chester, Dr. Pearson, as to silence that Cavil, and leave no Pretence remaining against Episcopacy in that Primitive and Apostolical Age.

SECT. III. Objection from the Times of Popery in this Kingdom; as if that did Un-Church, and consequently break the Succes­sion of our Bishops.

I must now Account for an Objection, which with some, seems a mighty one, even enough to overthrow all that I have said concerning the Succession of our Bishops: And that is, the long Mid-night of Popery, which has, in old Time, Darken'd these Nations.

Well. The Succession, of which I have been speaking, was no Part of that Darkness; and we have, by God's Blessing, recover'd our selves, in a great Measure, from that Darkness. But that Dark­ness was such, as, with some, to Destroy the Episcopal Succession; because, as they say, such great Errors, especially that of Idolatry, does quite Un-church a People; and consequently must break their Succession.

I. This, by the way, is a Popish Argument, tho' they that now make it, are not a ware of it. For the Church of Rome argues thus, That Idolatry does Un-church; and therefore, if she was Ido­latrous, for so long a time as we charge upon her, it will follow that, for so many Ages, there was no Visible Church, at least, in these Western Parts of the World. And Arianism (which is Idola­try) having broke in several times upon the Church; if Idolatry did quite Un-church; and Break the Succession, ther wou'd not be a Christian Church hardly left in the World. The Consequence [Page 18]of which wou'd be as fatal to the Church of Rome, as to us: There­fore let her look to that Position, which she has advanced against us, that Idolatry does Un-church.

II. But that it does not Un-church, I have this to offer against those Papists, Quakers, and Others who make the Objection.

I. If it does quite Un-church, then cou'd no Christian be an Idola­ter; because, by that, he wou'd, ipso facto, cease to be a Mem­ber of the Christian Church: But the Scripture does suppose that a Christian may be an Idolater: Therefore Idolatry does not Un-church. The Minor is prov'd, 1 Cor. v. 11. If any Man that is called a Bro­ther (that is, a Christian) be a Fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idola­ter—Nay, Eph. v. 5. a covetous man is call'd an Idolater; and Col. iii. 5. Covetousness is Idolatry. So that, by this Argument, Co­vetousness does Un-church. If it be said, that Covetousness is call'd Idolatry, only by Allusion, but that it is not Formal Idolatry: I know no Ground for that Distinction. The Scripture calls it Idola­try, and makes no Distinction. But,

2dly, In the first Text quoted, 1 Cor. v. 11. both Covetousness and Idolatry are Nam'd; so that, you have both Material and For­mal, or what other sort of Idolatry you please to fansie.

I grant, that, in one sense, Idolatry does Un-church; that is, while we continue in it, it renders us Obnoxious to the Wrath of God; and forfeits our Title to the Promises which are made to the Church in the Gospel: But, so does Fornication, Covetousness, and every other Sin, till we Repent, and Return from it. But none of these Sins do so Un-church us, as to Exclude our Returning to the Fold, by sincere Repentance; or to need a second Baptism, or Admission into the Church: Neither does Idolatry. Do I then put Idolatry upon the level with other common Sins? No, far from it. Every Scab is not a Leprosie; yet a Leper is a Man, and may Re­cover his Health. Idolatry is a fearful Leprosie; but it does not therefore quite Un-church, nor throw us out of the Covenant. For, if it did, then wou'd not Repentance heal it; because Repentance is a great Part of the Covenant. And therefore, since none deny Re­pentance to an Idolater; it follows that he is not yet quite out of the Covenant. Some of the Ancients have deny'd Repentance to Apostacy, yet granted it to Idolatry; which shews that they did not look upon Idolatry to be an absolute Apostacy; for every Sin is an Apostacy, in a Limited sense.

2. Let us, in this Disquisition, follow the Example before men­tion'd, of the Apostles and most Primitive Fathers, to measure the Christian Church with its exact Type, the Church under the Law; which are not Two Churches, but Two States of the same Church, for it is the same Christian Church, from the first Promise of Christ, Gen. iii. 15. to the End of the World. And therefore it is said, Heb. iv. 2. That the Gospel was Preached unto Them, as well as unto Us. And these two States of the Church, before and after Christ, do Answer, like a pair of Indentures to one another; the one being, to an Iota fulfilled in the other. Matth. v. 18.

Now we find frequent Lapses to Idolatry in the Church of the Jews: Yet did not this Un-church them; no, nor deprive them of a competent measure of God's Holy Spirit; as it is written, Neh. ix. 18, 20. Yea, when they had made them a molten calf, and said, this is thy God—yet thou, in thy manifold Mercies, forsookest them not —Thou gavest thy good spirit to instruct them, &c.

And let it be here observ'd, That tho' God sent many Prophets to Reprove the great Wickedness and Idolatry, as well of their Priests as People; yet none of these Holy Prophets did separate Communi­on from the Wicked Priests: They wou'd not joyn in their Idolatrous Worship; but in all other Parts, they joyn'd with them; and set up no opposit Priesthood to them. So little did the Prophets think that their Idolatry had either Un-church'd them, or broke the Suc­cession of their Priests; or that it was Lawful for any, how Holy soever, to usurp upon their Priesthood, and supply the Deficiencies of it to the People. And apply to this, what I have before shewn, in the words of St. Clement, whose Name is written in the Book of Life, That the Evangelical Priesthood, is as surely fixed; in the Bi­shops of the Church, and its Succession continu'd in those Ordain'd by them, as the Levitical Priesthood was confirm'd by the Budding of Aaron's Rod, and to be continu'd in that Tribe.

III. And here let our Korahites, of several sizes, take a view of the Heinousness of their Schism; and let them not think their Crime to be nothing, because they have been taught, with their Nurses Milk, to have the utmost abhorrence to the very Name of a Bishop; tho' they cou'd not tell why. Let them rather con­sider seriously the misfortune of their Education, which shou'd make them Strangers, to all the rest of the Christian World but [Page 20]themselves in a Corner; and to all the former Ages of Christi­anity.

They have been told that Episcopacy is Popery; because the Pa­pists have Bishops.

So have they Presbyters too, that is, Parish Priests: They have the Creed likewise, and the Holy Scriptures; and all these must be Popish, if this be a good Argument.

But, are they willing to be undeceived? Then they must know that Episcopacy has none so great an Enemy as the Papacy; which wou'd Engross the whole Episcopal Power, into the single See of Rome; by making all other Bishops absolutly dependent upon that, which only they call the Apostolical Chair. And no longer since than the Council of Trent, the Pope endeavor'd, with all his In­terest, to have Episcopacy, except only that of the Bishop of Rome, to be declar'd not to be Jure Divino. By which no other Bi­shops cou'd claim any other Power, but what they had from Him. But that Council was not so quite Degenerated as to suffer this to pass.

And the Jesuits, and Others, who Disputed there on the Pope's part, us'd those same Arguments against the Divine Right of Episcopacy, which from them, and the Popish Canonists and School­men have been lick'd up by the Presbyterians and others of our Dissenters. They are the same Arguments which are us'd by Pope and Presbyter against Episcopacy.

When the Pope cou'd not carry his Cause against Episcopacy in the Council of Trent, he took another Method, and that was, to set up a vast Number of Presbyterian Priests, that is, the Regu­lars, whom he Exempted from the Jurisdiction of their respective Bishops, and fram'd them into a Method and Discipline of their own, accountable only to Superiors of his, and their own contri­ving; which is exactly the Presbyterian Model.

These Usurpations upon the Episcopal Authority, made the Fa­mous Archbishop of Spalato, quit his great Preferments in the Church of Rome, and Travel into England, in the Reign of King James I. to seek for a more Primitive and Independent Episcopacy. Himself, in his Consilium Profectionis, gives these same Reasons for it: And that this shameful Depression and Prostitution of Episcopacy, in the Church of Rome, was the cause of his leaving her.

He observ'd truly, that the further we search upward in Anti­quity, there is still more to be found of the Episcopal, and less of the Papal Eminency.

St. Ignatius is full, in every line almost, of the high Authority of the Bishop, next and immediately under Christ; as all the other Writers in those Primitive Times: But there is a profound silence in them all of that Supremacy in the Bishop of Rome, which is now claim'd over all the other Bishops of the Catholick Church: Which cou'd not be, if it had been then known in the World. This had been a short and effectual Method, whereby St. Paul, or St. Clement might have quieted the great Schism of the Corinthi­ans, against which they both wrote, in their Epistles to them; to bid them refer their Differences to the Infallible Judge of Contre­versy, the Supreme Pastor at Rome. But not a word like this. Espe­cially considering that St. Peter was one, for whom some of these Corinthians strove (1 Cor. i. 12.) against those who preferred others before Him.

The Usurp'd Supremacy of the later Bishops of Rome over their Fel­low-Bishops, has been as Fatal to Episcopacy, as the Rebellion of our yet later Presbyters against their Respective Bishops.

And indeed, whoever wou'd write the true History of Presbyte­rianism, must begin at Rome, and not at Geneva.

So very Groundless, as well as Malicious, is that popular Cla­mour of Episcopacy having any Relation to Popery. They are so utterly Irreconcilable, that it is impossible they can stand toge­ther: For that moment that Episcopacy were Restor'd to its Pri­mitive Independency, the Papacy, that is, that Supremacy, which does now distinguish it, must ipso facto cease. But enough of this, for I must not digress into various Subjects.

I have shewn, in Answer to the Objection of the Ages of Pope­ry in this Kingdom, that all those Errors, even Idolatry it self, does not Un-church, nor break Succession. And 2dly, I have Exem­plifi'd this from the Parallel of the Jewish Church, under the Law. Then applying of this to our Case, I have vindicared Episcopacy from the Imputation of Popery. I will now go on to further Rea­sons, why the Succession of our present Bishops is not hurt by that Deluge of Popery, which once cover'd the face of this Land.

IV. The end of all Government, as well in the Church as State, is to preserve Peace, Unity, and Order; and this cannot be done, [Page 22]if the Male-administration of the Officers in the Government, did Vacat. their Commission, without its being Re-call'd by those who gave such Commission to them. For then, 1st. Every Man must be Judge, when such a Commission is Vacated; and then no Man is bound to obey longer then he pleases. 2dly, One may say it is Vacated, another not; whence perpetual Contention must arise.

A Man may Forfeit his Commission, that is, do those things, which give just Cause to his Superiors to take it from him: But it is not actually Vacated, till it be actually Recall'd by those who have lawful Power to take it from him: Otherwise their cou'd be no Peace nor Certainty in the World, either in Publick or in Private affairs. No Family cou'd subsist. No Man enjoy an Estate. No Society whatever cou'd keep together: And the Church being an Outward Society (as shewn in the Discourse of Water Baptism) must consequently subsist by those Laws which are indispensible to every Society. Sect. iii. [...]. 1. And tho' Idolatry does justly Forfeit the Commission of any Church, in this sense, that God's Promises to Her being Conditional, He may justly take her Com­mission from her, and Remove her Candlestick: Now tho' her Com­mission be thus Forfeitable, yet it still Continues, and is not actually Pacated, till God shall please actually to Recall it, or take it away: For no Commission is Void, till it be so Declar'd. Thus, tho' the Jews did often fall into Idolatry, yet (as before has been said) God did bear long with them; and did not Un-church them, tho' they had justly Forfeited. And these wicked Husband men, who slew those whom the Lord sent for the Fruits of His Vineyard, yet con­tinu'd still to be the Husband-men of the Vineyard, till their Lord did Dispossess them, and gave their Vineyard unto others.

And natural Reason does enforce this: If a Steward abuse his Trust, and oppresses the Tenants, yet are they still oblig'd to pay their Rent to him, and his Discharges are sufficient to them against their Landlord, till he shall Supersede such a Steward.

If a Captain wrong and cheat his Soldiers, yet are they oblig'd to remain under his Command, till the King, who gave him his Commission, or those to whom he has Committed such an Au­thority, shall Cashier him.

And thus it is in the Sacerdotal Commission, Abuses in it, do not take it away, till God, or those to whom He has Committed such [Page 23]an Authority, shall Suspend, Deprive, or Degrade (as the Fact Re­quires) such a Bishop or a Priest.

And there is this higher Consideration in the Sacerdotal Com­mission, than in those of Civil Societies; That it being immedi­ately from God, as none (therefore) can take this Honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron; so can none take it — way, but he that is as Expresly and Outwardly called thereunto, as Aaron was to be a Priest. For this wou'd be to Usurp upon God's immediate Prerogative, which is to Constitute His own Priests. Upon this Foundation I argue.

V. As the necessity of Government, and the general Commands in Scripture, of Obedience to Government do require our Submission to the Government in being, where there is no Competition con­cerning the Titles, or any that Claims a better Right than the Pos­sessor: So where a Church, once Establish'd by God, tho' suffering many Interruptions, does continue, Her Governors ought to be ac­knowledg'd, where ther is no better Claim set up against them.

This was the Reason why our Saviour and His Apostles did, with­out scruple, acknowledge the High-Priest and Sanbedrin of the Jews in their time; tho' from the days of the Maccabees, ther had been great Irruptions, and Breaches in the due Succession of their Priests: and before Christ came, and all His time, the Romans, as Conquerors, dispos'd of the Priesthood as they pleas'd; and made it Annual and Arbitrary, which God had appointed Hereditary and Unmovable.

But ther was then no Competition: The Jews did submit to it, because they were under the subjection of the Romans, and cou'd have no other. No High-Priest claimed against him in Possession, but all submitted to him.

And our Saviour did confirm His Authority, and of the Sanhe­drin, or Inferior Priests with him, (Matth. xxiii. 2.) saying, the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses's seat. All therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and de. And St. Paul own'd the Authority of the High-Priest, Act. xxiii. 5.

Many Objections might have been rais'd against the Deduction of their Succession from Moses: But ther being none who claim'd any better Right than they had; therefore their Right was Un­controverted; and by our Saviour's Authority was Confirm'd.

Now suppose some Interruptions had been in the Succession, or Corruptions in the Doctrine and Worship of our English Bishops, in former Ages, yet (as in the Case of the Scribes and Pharisees) that cou'd have no Effect to Invalidate their Commission and Authority at the present.

SECT. IV. The Assurance and Consent in the Episcopal Communion, beyond that of any other.

I. THE whole Christian World, as it always has been, so at this Present, it is Episcopal, except a few Dissenters, who, in less than Two Hundred years last past, have arisen, like a Wart upon the Face of the Western Church. For little more Propor­tion do our Dissenters here, the Hugonots in France, the Presbyte­rians in Holland, Geneva, and thereabouts, bear to the whole Bo­dy of the Latin Church, which is all Episcopal. But, if you com­pare them with the Catholick Church all over the World, which is all Episcopal, they will not appear so big as a Mole.

II. If our Dissenters think it much, that the Church of Rome shou'd be reckon'd in the List against them; we will be content to leave them out: Nay more, if we shou'd give them all those Churches, which own the Supremacy of Rome to be joyn'd with them (as they are the nearest to them) it will be so far from cast­ing the Ballance on their side, that the other Episcopal Churches will, by far, out-number them both.

Let us then, to these Dissenters against Episcopacy, add the Chur­ches of Italy, and Spain entire, with the Popish Part of Germany, France, Poland and Hungary (I think they have no more to reckon upon,) against these we produce the vast Empire of Russia (which is greater in Extent than all these Popish Countries before nam'd) England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, and all the Lutheran Chur­ches in Germany, which will out-number both the Papists and Presbyterians before-mention'd. And this comparison is only made as to the Latin Church. But then, we have all the rest of the Christian World, wholly on the Episcopal side, against both the Supre­macy [Page 25]of Rome, and Parity of the Presbyterians. The whole Greek Church, the Armenians, Georgians, Mingrelians, Jacobites, the Christians of St. Thomas, and St. John in the East-Indies, and o­ther Oriental Churches. Then in Africa, the Cophties in Egypt, and great Empire of the Abyssins in Aethiopia. These all are Epis­copal, and never own'd the Supremacy of Rome: And over reckon, out of sight, all that disown Episcopacy, and all that own the Su­premacy of Rome with them.

III. Let me add, that among our Dissenters, every Class of them does Condemn all the rest; the Presbyterian Damns the Quaker, the Quaker Damns him, Independent, Baptist, &c. All Damn one another, and Each denys the others Ordination or Call.

So that, the Ordination of every one of them, is disown'd by all the rest; and all of them together by the whole Christian World. And if their Ordinations are not Valid, then they have no more Au­thority to administer the Sacraments, than any other Lay-men; and consequently, ther can be no security in Receiving Baptism from any of them.

IV. What allowances God will make to those who think their Ordination to be good enough, and that they are true Mi­nisters of the Gospel; and, as such, do receive the Sacraments from them, I will not determine.

But they have no reason to expect the like allowances who are warned of it before-hand, and will notwithstanding venture upon it; before these Dissenters have fully and clearly acquit themselves of so Great and Universal a Charge laid against them; such an one, as must make the whole Christian World wrong, if they be in the Right! Not only the present Christian Churches, but all the Ages of Christianity since Christ. Of which the Dissenters are de­sir'd to produce any one, in any Part of the World, that were not Episcopal—any one Constituted Church upon the Face of the Earth, that was not Govern'd by Bishops, distinct from, and Su­perior to Presbyters, before the Vaudois in Piedmont, the Hugonots in France, the Calvinists in Geneva, and the Presbyterians thence Transplanted, in this last Age, into Holland, Scotland and England.

V. If it shou'd be retorted, that neither is the Church of Eng­land without Opposers; for, that the Church of Rome opposes Her, as do likewise our Dissenters.

Ans. None of them do oppose Her, in the Point we are now upon, that is, the Validity of Episcopal Ordination, which the Church of Rome does own; and the Presbyterians dare not deny it, because they wou'd (thereby) overthrow all their own Ordinations; for the Presbyters who Reformed (as they call it) from Bishops, receiv'd their Ordination from Bishops.

And therefore, tho' the Episcopal Principles do Invalidate the Ordination by Presbyters, yet the Presbyterian Principles do not In­validate the Ordination by Bishops: So that the Validity of Episcopal Ordination stands safe, on all sides, even by the Confession of those who are Enemies to the Episcopal Order: and, in this, the Bishops have no opposers.

Whereas, on the other hand, the Validity of the Presbyterian Ordinations, is own'd by none but themselves; and they have all the rest of the World as opposite to them.

Therefore, to state the Case the most Impartially; to receive Baptism from these Dissenters, is, at least, a hazard of many Thou­sands to One; as many as all the rest of Christianity are more than they: But to receive it from the Bishops, or Episcopal Clergy, has no hazard at all, as to its Validity, even as own'd by the Presbyte­rians themselves.

SECT. V. The Personal Sanctity of the Administrator of the Sa­craments, tho' highly Requisite on his Part, yet not of Ne­cessity as to the Receivers, to Convey to them the Benefits of the Sacraments.

I. THE only Objection of those Quakers, who are otherwise convinc'd of the Obligation of the Sacraments, is the Ne­cessity they think ther is of great Personal Holiness in the Admi­nistrators; without which, they cannot see how the Spiritual Ef­fects of the Sacraments can be convey'd. But I wou'd beseech them to consider, how, by this, instead of referring the Glory to God, and lessening the Performance of Man, which I charitably [Page 27]presume (and I am confident as to some of whom I speak) that it is their true and sincere Intention; but instead of that, I do, in great Good will, invite them to reflect whither their well-in­tended Zeal has turn'd the Point of this Question—even to o­ver-magnifie Man, and transfer the Glory of God unto His weak Instrument; as if any (the least Part) of the Divine Vertue which God has annexed to His Sacraments did proceed from His Mini­ster. If this be not the meaning (as sure it is not) why so much stress laid upon the Sanctity of the Ministers? Act. iii. 12. as if thro' their power or holiness the Holy Ghost was given!

II. To obviate this pretence, our Saviour Christ chose a Devil (John vi. 70.) to be one of His Apostles; and he was sent to Baptize and work Miracles as well as the rest: And those whom Judas did Baptize, were, no doubt, as well Baptized, and did partake of the Communication of the Spirit (according to their Prepara­tion for it) as much as any who were Baptized by the other Apo­stles; unless you will say that Christ sent him to Baptize, who had no Authority to Baptize, and that none shou'd receive Benefit by his Baptism, which wou'd be to Cheat and Delude the People; and is a great Blasphemy against Christ, and a distrust of His Power; as if it were Limited by the poor Instrument He pleases to make use off; whereas,

III. His Greatness is often most Magnify'd in the meaness of the Instruments, by which He works. Thus He destroy'd Egypt by Frogs and Lice; and the Philistines by Emerods and Mice; and sent His Armies of Flies and Hornets to dispossess the Canaanites. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength, because of thine enemies, Psal. viii. 2.that thou mightest still the enemy, and the avenger; i.e. That the Enemies of God might be confounded, when they saw His great Power Exerted by such weak and contemptible Instruments. The Walls of Je­richo (the Type of Spiritual wickedness) were thrown down by the blast of seven Rams Horns, when blown by the Priests whom He had commanded: And He rebuked the Iniquity of Balaam by the mouth of an Ass, to shew that no Instruments are Ineffectual in His Hands; and made use of the mouth of Balaam to Prophesie of Christ. For this cause, says St. Barnabas, in his Catholick Epistle, c. 5. [...]. did Christ choose Men who were Exceeding great Sinners to be His A­postles; [Page 28]to shew the Greatness of His Power and Grace; and put the Inestimable Treasure of His Gospel into Earthen Vessels, that the Praise might be to God, and not to Men.

IV. St. Paul rejoyced in Christ being Preached, Ihil. i. 16. tho' not sincerely by those who did it; because God can bring Good out of Evil; and by wicked Instruments, Propagate His Gos­pel; turning their malice (even of the Devil himself) to the fur­therance of the Faith: Otherwise the Apostle cou'd have no cause to Rejoyce in the Preaching of wicked Men, if none cou'd receive benefit by it. And he plainly supposes, 1 Cor. ix. 27. That a Man may save others by his Preaching, and yet himself be a cast-away.

V. And so far as we can know or judge any thing, we see daily Experience of this; That God has touched Mens Hearts upon hearing the Truth spoken, tho' by Men who were great Hypocrites, and very Wicked. And what reason can be given to the contrary? Truth is Truth whoever speaks it: And if my Heart be prepared, the good Seed receives no evil Tincture of the Hand that sowed it: And who can Limit God, that His Grace may not go along with me in this?

I have heard some of the now separate Quakers confess, that they have formerly felt very sensible Operations of the Spirit, upon the Preaching of some of those whom they have since Detected of gross Errors and Hypocrisies; and they now think it strange. But this were enough to convince them, that the wind bloweth where it list­eth: otherwise they must condemn themselves, and confess that, in all that time, they had no true Participation of the Spirit of God, but that what they mistook for it, was a meer Delusion: Or else confess that by the Truths which were spoken by these Mini­sters of Satan (for they speak some Truths) God might work a good Effect upon the Hearts of some Well-dispos'd, tho' then Igno­rant, and much Deluded People. If not so, we must judge very severely of all those who live in Idolatrous or Schismatical Coun­tries; ther were great Prophets and good Men among the Ten Tribes. And if the Words, nay Miracles, of Christ, did render the Hearts of many yet more obdurate, Matth. xii. from v. 22. to v. 32. even to sin against the Holy Ghost; which was the reason why He sometimes refus'd to work Miracles among them, because there­by they grew worse and worse; and if the Preaching of the Gospel, by the mouths of Apostles, became the savour of Death to wicked [Page 29]and unprepar'd Hearts; why may not the words of Truth have a good Effect upon honest and good Minds, tho' spoken from the mouth of an Hypocrite, or of Persons, who, in other things, are greatly Deluded?

I have before mention'd the Wizard Major Weir, who Bewitched the Presbyterians in Scotland, since the Restoration, 1660, as much as Simon Mag [...]s did the Samaritans: And yet I suppose the more moderate of the Quakers will not rashly give all over to Destru­ction, who blindly followed him, and admir'd his Gifts; or will say but that some words of Truth he might drop, might have a real good Effect upon some Well meaning, tho' grosly Deluded Peo­ple, who followed him. Two of Winder's Witches (see The Snake in the Grass, p. 300. 2d. Edit.) were Preachers among the Quakers for Twenty years together; and thought to be as Powerful and Affecting as any others.

VI. But, the Argument will hold stronger against them, as to the Sacraments, than in the Office of Preaching; because in Preach­ing much depends upon the Qualifications of the Person, as to In­vention, Memory, Judgment, &c. But in the Administration of an Outward Sacrament, nothing is requir'd, as of Necessity, but the lawfulness of the Commission, by which such a Person does Admi­nister; and a small measure of natural or acquir'd Parts is sufficient to the Administration.

Therefore let us lay no stress upon the Instrument (more than was upon the Waters of Jordan to heal Naaman) but trust wholly upon the Commission, which conveys the Vertue from God, and not from His Ministers: That all the Glory may be to God, and not to Man.

'Tis true, the Personal Qualifications of the Instrument are Love­ly and Desirable; but they become a Snare, where we expect any part of the Success from them. This was the ground of the Co­rinthian Schism (1 Cor. i. 11.) and, tho' unseen, of ours at this Day.

VII. And the consequences of it, are of manifold and fatal Destruction.

1. This unsettles all the Assurance wee in have in God's Promise to assist His own Institution; for, if the Vertue, or any part of it, lies in the Holiness of the Instrument, we can never be sure of the [Page 30]Effect, as to us; because, we have no certain knowledge of the Holiness of another. Hypocrites deceive even good Men.

2. This wou'd quite disappoint the Promise Christ has made, Matth. xxviii. 20. To be with His Ministers, in the Execution of His Commission; to Baptize, &c. always, even unto the end of the world. For, if the Holiness of the Instrument be a necessary Qua­lification, this may fail, nay always must fail, so far as we can be sure of it; and consequently Christ has commanded Baptism and His Supper to continue, to the end of the world, till his coming a­gain; and yet has not afforded means whereby they may be con­tinu'd; which He has not done, if the Holiness of the Administra­tor be a necessary Qualification; and that He has not left us a cer­tain Rule, whereby to judge of the Holiness of another: And thus have you rendred the Command of Christ of none Effect, thro' your Tradition.

3. This is contrary to all God's former Institutions. The wicked­ness of the Priests, under the Law, did not excuse any of the Peo­ple from bringing of their Sacrifices to the Priests: The Priests were to Answer for their own Sin, but the People were not answer­able for it, or their Offerings the less accepted.

But we were in a much worse condition, under the Gospel Ad­ministration, if the Effect of Christ's Institutions, did depend either wholly, or in part upon the Personal Holiness of His Priests. This wou'd put us much more in their Power, than it is the Intention of those who make this objection to allow to them: This mag­nifies Men, more than is due to them; therefore I will apply the Apostle's wolds to this Case; 1 Cor. iii. 21. Let no man glory in men; who is Paul? and who is Apollo? but ministers—so then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God who giveth the increase.

4. This was (with others) the Error of the Ancient Donatists; those Proud and Turbulent Schismaticks, the great Disturbers of the Peace of the Church, upon an opinion of their own Sanctity, above that of other Men: For which reason, they rejected all Bap­tisms, except what was performed by themselves; and Re-baptiz'd those who came over to them, from the Church; for, they said that the Holiness of the Administrator was necessary towards con­veying the Spiritual Graces of Baptism: Thus they argu'd; Qui non habet quod Det, quomodo Dat? i.e. How shall a Man give that [Page 31]to another, which he has not himself? Adv. Parmen. l. 5. de schismat. Donatist Ed. Paris 1631. p 87 But Optatus Answers them, that God was the Giver, and not Man, Videte Deumesse Datorem. And he argues that it was preferring Themselves before God, to think that the Vertue of Baptism did come from Them; that they were nothing but Ministers or Work-men; and that, as when a Cloth was Dyed, the change of the Cloth came from the Colours infus'd, not from the vertue of the Dyer. So that in Baptism the Change of the Bap­tized, came from the Vertue of the Sacrament; not from the Ad­ministrator: That it was the Water of Baptism, which did wash, not the Person who apply'd the Water. That the Personal Sanctity of the Administrator signify'd nothing to the Efficacy of the Sacrament; Therefore, says he, Nos operemur ut Ille det, p. 88.qui se daturum esse promisit, i.e. Let us work, that God, who has promis'd it, may bestow the Effect: And that when we work, Humana sunt opera, sed Dei sunt Munera, i. e. The Work is Man's, but the Gift is God's. And thence he exposes that Ridiculous Principle of the Do­natists, Jam illud quam Ridiculum est, quod, quasi ad Gloriam vestram, à vobis semper auditur, hoc munus Baptismatis, est Dantis, non Ac­cipient is? p. 89. which they advanc'd to gain Glory to Themselves; that the Gift in Baptism was of the Administrator, and not of the Receiver: But he shews, that the Gift was conferred by God, proportionably to the Faith of the Re­ceiver, and not according to the Holiness of the Administrator.

The Discourse is large, to which I refer the Reader. I have given this Tast of it, to let these see to whom I now write, that they have (tho' unaware) stumbled upon the very Notion of the Donatists, which divided them from the Catholick Church, and which, with them, has been, long since, Exploded by the whole Christi­an World; and I hope this may bring them to a more sober mind; to consider from whence, and with whom they have fallen; and to return again to the Peace of the Church, and the Participation of the Blessed Sacraments of Christ, and the Inestimable Benefits which He has promis'd to the Worthy Receivers of them.

Lastly, Let me observe that this Error of the Donatists and Qua­kers, borders near upon Popery; nay rather seems to exceed it. For the Church of Modern Rome makes the Validity of the Sacra­ments to depend upon the Intention of the Priest; but his Intention is much more in his own Power; and ther are more evident S [...]s of it than of his Holiness.

VIII. I wou'd not have the Quakers imagine that any thing I have said was meant in excuse for the ill Lives of the Clergy of the Church of England; as if the Dissenters were unblamable, but our Clergy wholly Prostitute to all wickedness; and that for this cause, we plead against the Sanctity of the Administrator, as Essen­tial to the Sacrament.

No, That is far from the Reason: I do not love to make compari­sons, or Personal Reflections. If all Men be not as they shou'd be, pray God make them so. But I think ther is no modest Dissenter will be offended, if I say, that ther are of our Bishops and Clergy, Men, not only of Learning, and moral Honesty, but of Devotion, and spiritual illumination; and as much of the Sobriety of Religion; and can give as many Signs of it, Equally at least (to speak mo­destly) as any of our Dissenters, of what Denomination soever.

IX. And I hope, that what I have said will, at least, hinder the Succession of the Bishops from the Apostles, to be any Objection a­gainst them: And they being possess'd moreover of all the other Pretences of our Dissenters, the Ballance must needs lie on their side, and security can only be with them; because ther is doubt in all the other Schemes of the Dissenters, if what I have said can amount but to a Doubt. If the want of Succession and outward Commission, up­on which Christ and His Apostles, and the whole Christian Church, in all Ages, till the last Century; and in all Places, even at this Day, except some Corners in the west; and the Mosaical Institu­tion before them, did, by the Express Command of God, lay so great a stress; if all this make but a Doubt (it is strange that it shou'd, at least, that it shou'd not) in the mind of any considering Persons; then can they not, with Security, Communicate with any of our Dissenters; because, if he that Eateth and Doubteth is Damned, Rom. xiv. 23. much more he that shall do so in Religious matters; wherein chiefly this Rule must stand, that whatsoever is not of Faith is sin.

X. But now, to argue a little, ad hominem, suppose that the Succession of our Bishops were lost; and suppose, what the Quakers and some others wou'd have, that the Thread being broke, we must cast a new knot, and begin again, and make an Establish­ment amongst our selves, the best we can. Well, When this is done, ought not that Establishment to be preserv'd? Ought eve­ry one to break in upon it, without just cause? Shou'd every [Page 33]one take upon him (or her) to Preach, or Baptize, contrary to the Rules Establish'd? This, I think, no Society of Men will allow; For, the Members of a Society must be subject to the Rules of the Society, otherwise it is no Society: And the Quakers of Grace-church-street Communion have contended as Zealously for this compliance as any.

Now then, suppose that the conscientious Quakers to whom I speak, shou'd lay no stress at all upon the Succession of our Bishops; and consider our Constitution no otherwise than of an Esta­blishment by agreement amongst our selves; yet even so, by their own Confession, while they can find no fault with our Doctrine or Worship, they ought not to make a Schism in this Constitution, which they found Established; and they ought to return to it; and if a new Knot was cast upon the broken Thread of Succession, at the Reformation from Popery, that Knot ought not to be un-losed, with­out apparent and absolute Necessity; lest if we cast new Knots eve­ry Day, we shall have no Thread left un-knotted; and expose our selves to the Derision of the common Adversary.

XI. Consider the grievous Sin of Schism and Division; it is no less than the Rending of Christ's Body; and therefore great Things ought to be born, rather than run into it; even all things, except only that which is apparently sinful; and that by the Express words of Scripture; and not from our own Imaginations, tho' never so strong. And tho' ther are some Impersections in our Reformation, as to Discipline, and all the High Places are not yet taken away (the Lord, of His Mercy, quickly remove them) yet I will be bold to say, that in our Doctrine, Worship, and Hierarchy, nothing can be objected that is contrary to the Rule of Holy Scripture, or any thing Enjoyn'd, which is There Forbid to be done: And nothing less can warrant any Schism against our Church.

XII. Now, to come to a Conclusion, upon the whole matter. If you cannot get Baptism as you wou'd have it, take it as you can get it. If you cannot find Men of such Personal Excellencies as the Apostles, take those who have the same Commission which they had, deriv'd down to them by regular Ordination; who Reform'd from Popery, and have been the Established Church of this Nation, ever since: And moreover are as un-exceptionable, in their Lives and Conversations, as any others. These are all the securities you can have (without new Miracles) for Receiving the Sacraments from Proper hands. And therefore ther is no doubt but God will accept [Page 34]of your Obedience in Receiving them from such hands; much ra­ther than your Disobedience of His Command to be Baptized, be­cause you are not pleas'd with those whom His Providence has, at this Day, left in the Execution of His Commission to Baptize; as if the weakness of His Minister cou'd obstruct the Ope­rations of His Spirit, in making good His part of the Covenant, which He has promised.

XIII. Ther is an Objection against Baptism, which is not worth an Answer; but that I wou'd condescend to the meanest, and leave nothing behind which might be a stumbling block to any.

I have heard it urg'd, that ther is no visible Effects seen by our Baptisms; that Men remain wicked and loose notwithstanding; and therefore some do conclude that ther is no vertue in Baptism.

Answ. To make this Argument of any force, it must be prov'd that none do receive any Benefit by it. For, if some do receive Be­nefit by it, and others do not, this must be charg'd upon the Dis­position of the Recipient; according to the known Rule, that what­soever is receiv'd, is receiv'd according to the disposition of the Recei­ver. Thus the same Meat is turn'd into good Nourishment in an healthy, and into noxious Humors in a vitiated Stomach. Simon Magus receiv'd no Benefit by his Baptism; and after the Sop the Devil entred into Judas; yet the other Apostles receiv'd great Benefit by it: 1 Cor. x. 16. c. xi. 29. To some it is the savour of Life, even the Com­munion of Christ's Body and Blood; to others of Con­demnation, who discern not the Lord's Body in it, but receive it as a common thing: Therefore we are commanded to examine our selves, v. 28. to prepare our Hearts for the worthy Re­ceiving of it.

But some say, as the Jews to Christ, shew us a sign: They wou'd have some Miraculous Effects, immediately to appear. These are Ignorant of the Operations of the Spirit; and to these I say, in the words of Christ, Joh. iii. 8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit. It works silently, but powerfully; and its Progress, like the growing of our Bodies, is not all at once, but by Degrees; whose motion is Imper­ceptible to humane Eyes.

The true use that is to be made of this Objection, that so few (and yet they are not few who) receive the Inestimable Benefits which are convey'd in the Sacraments of Christ's Institution, is this, [Page 35]To take the greater Care, and the more Earnestly to beg the As­sistance of God's Grace, to fit and prepare us, for the worthy Receiv­ing of them; but by no means to neglect them: For those who refused to come to the Supper were Rejected, as well as he who came without a Wedding Garment.