Nor is it any more to our ſatisfaction, to ſay that Timothy and Titus were Biſhops of Epheſus and Crete, for the Queſtion is not whether there were Biſhops in Scripture times, but whether thoſe Biſhops had any power that the Presbyters had not, and if they had, whether it belongs to them as Biſhops, or on ſome other account, St. Peter was a Presbyter, and had Authority over Biſhops, muſt we therefore argue that Presbyters had power over Biſhops: Timothy had Authority to command Biſhops too, and joined with Paul in Writing a Canonical Epiſtle to the Biſhops and Deacons of Philippi? will it therefore follow that one Biſhop has Authority over another?

And what did Timothy and Titus, that Presbyters might not do, if they had the ſame qualifications? They ordained Elders, and how does it appear that they did not do it, as being Elders themſelves? and that they had not the aſſiſtance of others? And may not Presbyters do ſo too? Perhaps it will be ſaid, no, for they have not the Epiſcopal Power; but that is the very thing in queſtion, and muſt be proved, and not taken for granted; if God has laid no injunction upon them to the contrary men cannot do it; 'Tis an odd way of reaſoning, Titus was left to ordain Elders in Crete, therefore he was a Biſhop, for none but Biſhops can Ordain, how do you prove that? Why becauſe Titus was a Biſhop and he alone did Ordain; if this be not a Circular, Precarious and Trifling way of arguing, nothing in the World deſerves that name.

But indeed the many removes which Timothy and Titus made, is argument enough that they were not the fixed Paſtors of particular Churches; no queſtion wherever they came, they were employed in the ſame work, which they did at Epheſus: and why Titus by being ſent into Dalmatia, did not become the Biſhop of the Churches there, as well as by being leſt in Creet, the Biſhop of the Cretians, I ſee no reaſon; he was ſent to the one, he was left in the other; and doubtleſs in both, his work was to ſet in order the things that were wanting, and this was his buſineſs every where, and would as well entitle him the Biſhop of any other place, as of Creet.

The argument from the Angels of the Churches, is as dark and inconcluſive as the former: thoſe meſſages ſent to the Churches were delivered by Viſion, and in the ſtyle and phraſe of Viſion, a ſingular term is often to be underſtood collectively: as by the falſe Prophet, A. B. Uſher underſtands the Roman Clergy; and there are many words in thoſe Epiſtles that favour this Interpretation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. and there is not one word in all that Book, intimating that thoſe Angels were ſingle perſons, much leſs ſuch as had any power above Presbyters. And thoſe that grant them to be ſingle perſons will tell us; the moſt that can be inferr'd, is a Preſident or Moderator of a Presbytery, which is allowed by thoſe that are wholly diſſatisfied with Dioceſan Prelacy.

The Gentleman pas;ſes very lightly over all theſe difficulties, and in a ſtrain of careleſsneſs and confidence natural to him, tells us. It is evident that the Government of the Church by Epiſcopacy, was of Apoſtolical Inſtitution, for that Timothy was made Biſhop of Epheſus, and Titus of Creet, as is plain by St. Pauls Epiſtles to them both; that the ſeven Churches of Aſia which received the Chriſtian Faith had each a Biſhop is evident, by the Title St. John gives them in his Letters to them. This is the Gentlemans proof of the Divine right of our Engliſh Prelacy, this is that mighty evidence and demonſtration, he ſo often refers to in his Pamphlet, ſaying, I have proved, I have ſhewed, &c.

But if it was ſo plain from St. Pauls Epiſtles that Timothy and Titus were Biſhops, why did he not tell us what words thoſe are which make it ſo very plain? Indeed the Poſtſcripts to thoſe Epiſtles, expreſly call them Biſhops of Epheſus and Creet, but does he need to be told, that the Poſtſcripts are no part of Canonical Scripture, nor joined with the Epiſtles for ſeveral hundred years after Chriſt; Theodoret being the firſt that mentions them, only as part of his own Commentary, and yet he has not the word Biſhop in them; Nor any body elſe till Oecumenius who wrote above a thouſand years after Chriſt: nay the very Poſtſcripts themſelves prove that they are of much later date than the Epiſtles, for in one of them Phrygia is called Pacatiana, which was not the name of it till above three hundred years after Chriſt, when it was conquered by one Pacatius a Roman General, and after him called Pacatiana; and in the Poſtſcript to Titus, it is ſaid the Epiſtle was writ from Nicopolis, which it could not be, ſince in the Epiſtle it ſelf, Paul ſpeaks of Nicopolis a place whither he deſigned to go and Winter, and would have Titus come to him there; come to me to Nicopolis, for there (not here) I deſign to Winter; theſe Poſtſcripts therefore betray themſelves by their own language.

And he ſhould have told us, what there is in the word Angel that will demonſtrate a Dioceſan Biſhop, but inſtead thereof tells us a long ſtory out of Dr. Hammond, which is worſe than impertinent, for it affirms that thoſe Angels were not Dioceſan Biſhops, but Metropolitanes, or Arch-Biſhops, that had Biſhops under them; Vid. Dr. Sherlock Vindic. of Prot. Princ. p. 71. now our learned Church Men acknowledge that Metropolitanes, are not of Divine, but of Eccleſiaſtical Inſtitution, and have no proper Juriſdiction over Biſhops, and they generally deſert Doctor Hammond in this Notion, but this Gentleman had not conſidered ſo far, but found a large Paragraph, that would prove the largeneſs of thoſe Churches, and thought he had got a prize; in ſhort let them but acknowledge Presbyters to be Biſhops, as Dr. Hammond ſays they all were in Scripture Times, Dr. Morrice of Dioceſan Ep. ſcop. p. 27. and let the Biſhops be Metropolitans, holding only by Eccleſiaſtical Inſtitution, without any proper Authority over the Presbyters, and we ſhall not much differ from them.

Let us now ſee what evidence may be brought to prove that Presbyters are of the ſame Order with Biſhops, and have the ſame power as they. And

1ſt. It is no contemptible argument that Presbyters are frequently called Biſhops in Scripture, that the names are uſed promiſcuouſly the greateſt Patrons of the Prelacy acknowledge; the Elders of the Church of Epheſus are ſo called Acts 20.28. The Miniſters of the Church of Philippi are called Biſhops; and it is obſervable that the Syriack Verſion, which is very antient, has but one word for Presbyter and Biſhop; now if there be ſo material a diſſerence betwixt a Biſhop and a Presbyter, as ſome men would make, it is ſtrange there ſhould not be a diſtinct word to expreſs it by: if only ſuch as are now owned to be Biſhops were called Presbyters, the argument would not be ſo ſtrong, for they might think to evade it by ſaying, the leſſer is included in the greater, and they are Presbyters before they are Biſhops, but when even thoſe who are acknowledged to be meer Presbyters, are called Biſhops, it is very conſiderable, for the leſſer cannot include the greater; it would ſound very ſtrange in England for a Presbyter to write himſelf Biſhop: and if the Apoſtles had known any thing of this mighty diſtinction, upon which the Fate of ſo many Churches, and Salvation of ſo many Souls is made to depend, we cannot ſuppoſe they would have laid ſuch a temptation before us, to draw us into an opinion of the Identity of Order, by the indifferent and promiſcuous uſe of the Titles.

Dr. Morrice in his defence of Dioceſan Epiſcopacy, makes very little account of the Title of Biſhops being given to Presbyters in the Church of Philippi, Pag. 29, 30. and is pleaſed to ſay, This debate about the Biſhops of Philippi had ſoon been at an end, if our Author had thought fit to explain himſelf, and told us what he meant by Biſhops, for were the Paſtors of ſingle Congregations reſpectively in Covenant? Then there muſt have been ſeveral Congregations or Churches in the ſame City, which Mr. Clarkſon will not allow: Or were thoſe Biſhope only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal authority? Then our Authour muſt give up the queſtion, and inſtead of making many Biſhops, muſt own that there was none at all there but onely Presbyters, will he contend that there were no other Biſhops than Presbyters? That will be to abuſe his Reader with the Ambiguity of a Word, which he takes in one ſence, and the Church in another, that many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation none ever denied, but that many Biſhops in the Allow'd and Eccleſiaſtical ſence of the Word, had the overſight of one City, ſeems ſtrange and incredible to the Antient Chriſtians. Chryſoſtom obſerving this expreſſion of the Biſhops of Philippi, ſeems to be ſtartled with it; What many Biſhops in one City? By no means, it cannot be, what then? They were not Biſhops properly ſo called, but Presbyters.

I have taken the more notice of this Paragraph, Works of the Learned Auguſtin, p. 25. becauſe La Croſe magnifies it as a terrible Dilemma, though he has lamentably ſpoiled it in the Abridgment; but taking it as the Dr. has laid it before us, I ſee not how it can much weaken our Cauſe or fortifie his own: We do really maintain that theſe Biſhops were Presbyters, ruling the Church of Philippi with common conſent, and whether this be the Eccleſiaſtical ſence of the word or no, we are not much concerned to enquire; it is ſufficient to our purpoſe that it is the true Scriptural ſence, and the only one too, Communi Presbyterorum conſilio Eccleſ • e gubernabuntur, Hieron 1. Tit. for we never find the word in all the New Teſtament, ſignifying an Eccleſiaſtical Order of Men Superior to Presbyters; we deny not, but that this Name very early began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter in a Church or City, who yet never pretended to be a diſtinct Order from the reſt of his Colleagues of the Presbytery for a long time afterwards. But as the word thus uſed, is taken in an Eccleſiaſtical, not Scriptural ſence, ſo the Dignity thereby expreſſed, is of meer Eccleſiaſtical, not Divine Inſtitution.

And whereas Chryſoſtom ſays, They were not Biſhops properly ſo called; he can mean no more by it, but that they were not ſuch Biſhops as that word was made to ſignifie by common uſage in his time; and we grant they were not, for the Diſtinction of Office and Degree, not being known in Scripture, the word could not be uſed in that diſtinguiſhing ſence there. Thus a Learned Canoniſt gives it as the Vogue of many Primitive Authors: Lancel Inſtit. Lag. Can. l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. That Biſhop and Presbyter were formerly the ſame, and that Presbyter was the Name of the Perſons Age, Biſhop of his Office, but there being many of theſe in every Church, they determined amongſt themſelves for the preventing of Schiſm, that one ſhould be Elected by themſelves to be ſet over the reſt, and the Perſon ſo elected, retained the Name of Biſhop for Diſtinction ſake; the reſt were only called Presbyters, and in proceſs of time, their Reverence for theſe Biſhops ſo encreaſed, that they began to obey them as Children do a Father, &c.

2dly, Not only the ſame Title, but the ſame Powers are aſcribed to Biſhops and Presbyters in Scripture; both that of Juriſdiction and that of Orders, as they are uſually diſtinguiſhed. As to the former, we read of ruling Presbyters, 1 Tim. 5.17. Let the Elders that Rule well be accounted worthy of double honour; If this Rule be not the ſame with their Juriſdiction, where lies the difference? and where will they find as plain Scripture for the pretended Juriſdiction of Prelates, as here we have for the ruling Power of Presbyters? and that Admonition of the Apoſtle Peter is worthy our obſervation, 1 Pet. 5.1, 2, The Presbyters which are amongſt you I exhort, who am alſo a Presbyter, and a witneſs of the Sufferings of Chriſt— Feed the Flock of God which is amongſt you, taking the Overſight thereof, &c. The Spiritual Juriſdiction of Presbyters, is here expreſs'd by two words, [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] which the Defenders of the Hierarchy contend, does not ſignifie barely to Feed, but to provide Food as the Governor of a Family, and is often uſed for Government, and ſometimes that of Princes; but however it certainly ſignifies the office of a Paſtor, and is a good Argument that the Paſtoral Power is veſted in Presbyters; The other word is [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] taking the overſight, or the Epiſcopal Office, doing the work of a Biſhop; if this will not prove that the Epiſcopal Juriſdiction belongs to Presbyters, I deſpair of ever underſtanding the meaning of words.

The Power of Orders is with the ſame clearneſs attributed to Presbyters; Timothy himſelf, who they ſay was a Biſhop, receives his Office or Gift by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. To this the Gent. replies, Dr. Hammond ſays that thoſe Presbyters were Apoſtles; but that is only the Doctors conjecture, and yet if the Apoſtles were concerned in it, it is plain they acted as Presbyters, whether they were Apoſtles, or Biſhops, or Evangeliſts, they acted as a Presbytery. I doubt not but if it had been ſaid, The Gift which thou receivedst by the laying on of the hands of the Epiſcopacy; theſe Gentlemen would have preſently concluded that Ordination belongs to Biſhops as ſuch, and would have given us very hard words, if we ſhould have dared to diſpute it.

Barnabas and Paul themſelves, who are called Apoſtles, received their Ordination from Prophets and Teachers, Acts 13.1, 2, 3. and it is obſervable before this, neither of them were called Apoſtles; but preſently after they were, Chap. 14. Verſ. 14.

Theſe things have ſo gravel'd the Learned Defenders of Dioceſan Prelacy, that they have not agreed amongſt themſelves how to find out a tolerable Evaſion; Diſſert. 4. Cap 19, 20. Vind of Diſſert. p. 26. but their moſt famous Doctors have taken quite contrary Paths. Dr. Hammond ſaw there was no way to come off, but by holding that all the Presbyters we read of in Scripture, were Biſhops; and that there was no inferior Order inſtituted by the Apoſtles, but that preſently after in Ignatius's time we meet with them. Now this is as much as we deſire, for it fully proves that by Divine Right Biſhops and Presbyters are the ſame, and that the diſtinction was not founded upon any Scripture Rule, but only an ancient Conſtitution: I perceive many have learnt out of Dr. Hammond to evade all theſe inſtances of the Powers given to Presbyters in Scripture, by ſaying, Thoſe were not meer Presbyters; and when we ask them what they mean by meer Presbyters, they anſwer, ſuch as were not alſo Biſhops, and we grant they were not meer Presbyters if that be the ſignification of it, nor were there any ſuch meer Presbyters in Scripture that we know of.

Dr. Stillingfleet on the other hand ſays, Ʋnreaſon. of Separ. p. 269. That the Apoſtles in their times managed the Government of the Churches themſelves, and therefore there was then no Biſhop, but they were all one with Presbyters; but that as the Apoſtles went off, Biſhops came to be ſettled in the ſeveral Churches. Now though it is moſt certain the Apoſtles did not manage the Government of particular Churches themſelves, but put it into the hands of the Presbyters, they themſelves ſtill holding an Univerſal Superintendency; yet we gladly accept the Conceſſion of this learned Prelate; 'tis indeed à regione adverſe to Dr. Hammond, but will equally ſerve our purpoſe; the one ſays, there were no Presbyters in Scripture times inferior to Biſhops; the other, there were no Biſhops ſuperior to Presbyters: Our concluſion flows alike naturally and freely from both, that in Scripture times Biſhops and Presbyters were of the ſame Order.

3dly, We have no Rules laid down in Scripture for the Ordination of any Biſhops but what are the ſame with Presbyters; in 1 Tim. 3. we have the Qualifications of Biſhops and Deacons deſcribed, and no mention made of Presbyters, becauſe they were the ſame with the Biſhops; and unleſs we acknowledge that, we ſhall be utterly at a loſs for a Reaſon of that Omiſſion, and there are few Commentators but underſtand it ſo: The learned Grotius upon this place ſays, the Presbyters of the Churches are here called Biſhops or Inſpectors, but that afterward that Name was given 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to one of them that was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Preſident.

Titus who was left in Creet to ordain Elders, has a Canon given him about the Qualifications of thoſe Elders, Ch. 1. v. 5,6. and as a reaſon it is added, For a Biſhop muſt be blameleſs; this would have been no reaſon, had not the Elder and Biſhop been the ſame. A late Author thought this ſo conſiderable, that he puts a new ſence upon the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ordain Elders in every City, as if the meaning were, advance Presbyters in every City to the Office of Biſhops; but this is a ſtretch upon the word which it cannot bear, [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] plainly ſignifies to conſtitute and ordain, and when the Perſons are mentioned, it is in the capacity to which they are ordain'd not from which they were advanced, as Ariſtot. in Polit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the inſtauration of Princes, and Plutarch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Accuſative Caſe if alone always repreſenting the State unto which the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , had raiſed them; nor do I believe any one inſtance can be given to the contrary in either Sacred or Prophane Writer.

Now if this diſtinction of Order had been known in Apoſtolical times, it is very ſtrange we ſhould not have a diſtinct Rule for the Ordination of the one, and the Conſecration of the other; eſpecially ſince by the acknowledgment of all, it is not having many Congregations, or Presbyters under him that makes a Biſhop, but only a peculiar, and higher Ordination: And yet we find no footſteps of it, but on the contrary, in the very Directory for Ordination of Presbyters, they are called Biſhops: Surely theſe things are as clear proof that Biſhops were not a Superior Order as a Negative is capable of, and there being no one Text in Scripture that affirms the diſtinction Semper praeſumitur pro negante, we muſt have concluded in the Negative, though we had not had theſe proofs.

But what is wanting in Scripture, they hope to make up out of the Fathers and Councils, in behalf of Dioceſan Prelacy; it is certain they think their greateſt ſtrength lies there: And we deny not that many of the Fathers ſeem to make a great difference betwixt Biſhops and Presbyters; but this does not overthrow our Hypotheſis; for if they are the ſame in Scripture, the Sayings of the Fathers cannot make them otherwiſe, and yet few or none of the Ancients ſay that they are diſtinct Orders, much leſs that they are ſo by divine right; but ſome of them acknowledge the contrary, as we ſhall preſently ſhew.

It is not therefore their uſing the Name of Biſhop in a ſence diſtinct from that of Presbyter, or requiring Presbyters to be obedient to their Biſhop, that will prove a ſuperiority of order jure divino; for we grant that it was the early Practice of the Church to chooſe one of the Graveſt and Wiſeſt of the Presbyters, and conſtitute him Preſident over the reſt; and that where there were many Presbyters in a particular Church, commonly the Eldeſt or worthieſt was as Paſtor, and the other his Aſſiſtants, but ſtill we know the Parſon and the Curates are of the ſame order; and every Biſhop in England is equal in order to the Archbiſhop of Canterbury, though they take an Oath of Canonical Obedience to him; the ſame we ſay of the diſtinction betwixt Biſhop and Presbyter in Primitive Times.

This would be a ſufficient reply unto the Antiquities this Gentleman has alledged, but leſt he ſhould think he has done a mighty feat in tranſcribing theſe Paſſages, I ſhall animadvert more particularly upon them.

He begins with the Canons of the Apoſtles, but why they ſhould take place of Clemens Romanus and Ignatius, I cannot tell, unleſs he has a Mind to cheat us with the Name, or was cheated by it himſelf. Dr. Cave reckons them among the Suppoſititious Works of the Firſt Age; and Dr. Beveridge, who has laboured ſo hard to defend them againſt Daille, only contends that they were written by Clemens Alexandrinus, near the latter End of the Second Century. But what ſay theſe Canons? why they ſay, Let not the Presbyters or Deacons do any thing without the conſent of the Biſhop, for he hath the People of the Lord entruſted to him, and there ſhall one day be required of him an Account of their Souls. Here (ſays the Gentleman) the Biſhop has the Power of governing the Presbyters and Deacons; Concil. Carth. c. 23. Cypr. Edit. Goul. Ep. 6. p. 17. Ep. 24. p. 55. it is well argued however; the Kings of England can make no Laws without the conſent of the Lords and Commons, have they therefore the power of governing him? Cyprian did nothing without the concurrence of his Presbyters; nay, he determined to do nothing without the conſent of his People; by our Gentleman's dialect the Presbyters and People had the Power of governing the Biſhop.

And is there one word here to prove that the Biſhop was of a Superior Order? The Curates of a Church are to have the direction and conſent of the Parſon, and yet the Order is the ſame; And it deſerves to be conſidered whether 'tis likely this Biſhop the Canon ſpeaks of, was any more than the Paſtor of a particular Church, ſince he muſt be ſuppoſed capable of giving the Neceſſary Orders for management of all Affairs, and nothing muſt be done without his conſent; it would be a Rule hard to be obſerved, as our preſent Dioceſes are Modell'd; and if Presbyters muſt do nothing without the Biſhops conſent, they muſt do nothing at all, the whole time being too little for Travel and Conſultation, there would be none left for Action; unleſs by conſent, we muſt underſtand a general Permiſſion to do what they pleaſe, without conſulting him at all in particular Matters, which would be a very odd Comment upon ſuch a Text, and not very well agreeing with the Reaſon that is added for this conſent, viz. That the Biſhop has the People of the Lord committed to him, and ſhall give an account of their Souls. Surtly this requires a more careful and near inſpection, than to commit the care of all by an Act of general conſent to others, without ever intending a perſonal Acquaintance with one of a Thouſand, Preſ. Treat. of Repentance. ſo ſolemnly committed to him. Dr. Taylor ſays he is ſure we cannot give an Account of thoſe Souls of whom we have no notice.

The next paſſage is out of Clemens Romanus his Epiſtle to the Corinthians, a Piece of Antiquity which all the World has a great Veneration for; that which the Gentleman thinks is for his purpoſe, he gives us thus; The Apoſtles foreſeeing that there would be Contentions about the Name or Dignity of Biſhop or Epiſcopacy, they ſet down a Liſt or Continuation of Succeſſors, that when any died, ſuch a certain perſon ſhould ſucceed him.

But this place in Clement is very falſly recited, and whoever furniſhed him with it abuſed him, and impoſed upon his Ignorance. This Tranſlator whoever he be, would have us to think that the Apoſtles ſet down a Liſt of the Names of thoſe that were to Succeed in the Epiſcopal See; this we cannot admit, until he tell us where this Liſt is to be found? how far it went? It ſeems it was a Continuation of Succeſſors, but it is hard to imagine how they could have the Names of Perſons ſo ready, that were yet unborn, and unconverted; we know an Infallible Spirit could reveal it to them, but ſurely then we ſhould have had it in the Canon of Scripture; ſuch a thing would have been of ſingular Uſe, not only for prevention of Diſputes about the choice of Biſhops, but for the Uncontroulable Evidence of the Truth of Chriſtianity, when they were able to produce a Prophetical Liſt, with the Names of Perſons then unborn, and yet all in due time appearing, and aſcending the Chair according to that Sacred Roll: for theſe Reaſons we cannot but reject the Fiction of any ſuch Liſt of Names, which when one died, declared that ſuch a certain Perſon ſhould ſucceed him.

And I am ſure the words of Clement ſay no ſuch thing; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Edit. Colomes. 103. the true Engliſh of them is this: And our Apoſtles underſtood by our Lord Jeſus that contention would ariſe about the Name of Epiſcopacy, and for this Cauſe being furniſhed with perfect foreknowledge, ordained thoſe before-mentioned, and moreover gave [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] order, that whenſoever they ſhould die, other approved Men ſhould ſucceed and perform their Functions.

I know there have been great Diſputes about this odd word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Biſhop Uſher renders it [Ordinem] thoſe that tranſlate it [a Liſt] would have it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , But let them contend about words as long as they pleaſe, the true import of the place, is plain enough to thoſe that conſider it with the foregoing Paragraph; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. p. 100. for there we find the Jewiſh Conteſts about the Prieſthood, and thoſe of the Chriſtians about the Epiſcopacy are compared together; the caſe may be thus contracted, Moſes knowing that the Tribes would contend about the glorious Title of the Prieſthood, ordered them to bring their Rods, each inſcribed with the Name of its Tribe, and he laid them up in the Tabernacle, telling them, That the Tribe whoſe Rod ſhould bloſſom God had approved and choſen for the Prieſthood; Even ſo the Apoſtles, &c. That is, as the Sacerdotal Tribe was choſen and approved of God, ſo none muſt take upon them the office of Epiſcopacy, but Men well approved; this ſeems to me the true ſence of the place, and the only one that it is capable of.

And what is here to prove that Biſhops are a diſtinct Order from Presbyters, not one word, but rather to the contrary; for here it is ſaid the Apoſtles conſtituted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , P. 98. the aforeſaid, go a few lines backward and you have the word again, and there you will find it refers to Biſhops and Deacons, which the Apoſtles ordained for thoſe that ſhould believe: Now, if they only appointed theſe two ſorts of Officers, what is become of ſubordinate Presbyters? the Apoſtles we ſee appointed none ſuch, the diſtinction betwixt Biſhops and Presbyters according to Clemens, is not by Divine or Apoſtolical inſtitution; and it is obſervable, that in this very Paragraph he makes them the ſame, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. It will be no ſmall Sin in us to reject thoſe that have diſcharged the Duties of their Epiſcopal Function in an holy and unblameable manner, happy are thoſe Presbyters who have finiſhed their courſe—They fear not being turned out of their preſent Settlement.

It is ſtrange theſe Gentlemen ſhould threaten us with Clement, who as he writ next to the Apoſtles, ſo he is next to them moſt friendly to our Cauſe, and this was ſo evident to the learned Grotius, That he gives it as a reaſon why he thinks this Epiſtle to be Genuine, Quod nuſquam meminit exortis, Epiſt. 182. ad Bignon. &c. becauſe he no where mentions that extravagant Authority of Biſhops which by the Cuſtom of the Church began to be introduced at Alexandria, but plainly ſhews as the Apoſtle does, that Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were alſo Biſhops.

His next Author is Ignatius, and it muſt be confeſs'd, he puts a diſtinction betwixt Biſhop and Presbyter, and bids them all be obſervant of the Biſhop, and do nothing without the conſent of the Biſhop; but ſtill here is not a word to prove a Superiority of Office by divine right; we grant that in his time the Name of Biſhop began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter, who was as Paſtor, and the reſt his Curats or Aſſiſtants, but this will make little for the Dioceſan Prelate; That Ignatius's Biſhop was no more than the Paſtor of a particular Church, his own words abundantly manifeſt; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ep. ad Philad. There is to every Church one Altar, and one Biſhop, with the Presbytery and the Deacons my Fellow-Servants; here we have the principle of Individuation in Churches, not that all the Members of the Church, muſt be no more than can always meet together in one place, there be many things that may make that difficult, but they muſt all have One Altar, that is, One Communion-Table; Many Tricks and Salvo's have been invented to evade this inſtance; ſome ſay by One Table, is meant ſpecifically One; but ſo, are all in the World. Others, One Supream Altar, to which the reſt were Subordinate; but why then may we not ſay, by One Biſhop, is meant One Supream Prelate, with other Biſhops under him? There is no reaſon aſſignable, why the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſhould be taken Numerically, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , otherwiſe. That by One Altar, is meant One Conſiſtory, as Dr. Morrice would ſuggeſt, is very improbable, when in the ſame Sentence we read of One Biſhop with his Presbytery, which ſure muſt ſignifie the Conſiſtory, if any thing that Sentence does, and is much more likely to do ſo, than One Altar.

This is ſo apparent, that Mr. Mede confeſſes, Proof of Churches in the ſecond Cent. p. 29. It ſhould ſeem that in thoſe firſt times before Dioceſan were divided into leſſer and ſubordinate Churches, we now call Pariſhes, and Presbyters aſſigned to them, they had not only one Altar in one Church or Dominicum, but one Altar to a Church, taking a Church for the Company or Corporation of the faithful, united under one Biſhop, and that was in the City and place where the Biſhop had his Reſidence. Dr. Morrice would diſable this Evidence, becauſe Mr. Mede expreſſes it with Caution and Modeſty, it ſhould ſeem. But ſuch modeſty makes it more valuable, being the humor and way of that learned man; he had made as ſtrict reſearches into theſe things, as he could, and upon the whole it ſeemed thus to him, but if there was a more than ordinary Caution, obſerved in the Words, ſome will be apt to think, it was not for want of evidence, that the caſe was really ſo, but rather becauſe he knew the Notion would not be very agreeable to the Governours of that Church of which he was an Excellent Member.

The Author of a late Treatiſe, called a Defence of Pluralities, ſuppoſed to be Mr. Wharton, notwithſtanding the heights of his Zeal for the Hierarchy, which appear ſufficiently throughout the Book, yet ingenuouſly acknowledges, That at the beginning, Page 59. the Biſhop and his Presbyters lived altogether in one common place, and were maintain'd by the free Oblations of the People which were brought to the Cathedral and depoſited upon the Altar or Communion Table, when the number of Chriſtians encreaſed they began to build more Churches than one in a City, theſe new Churches were but as Chappels of Eaſe, annexed to and depending upon the Cathedral Church, where the Holy Euchariſt was Conſecrated.

This may ſuffice to ſhew what kind of Dioceſs, Ignatius's Biſhop had, and what he means by one Altar; Enquiry into the Conſtitut. Diſcip. Ʋnity, &c. Of the Primitive Churches. Chap. 2. and a late Author has ſaid a great deal to prove out of Ignatius himſelf, that the ſeveral Biſhopricks of Smyrna, Epheſus, Magneſia, Philadelphia and Trallium, were but ſo many ſingle Congregations, governed by a Biſhop as Paſtor and his Presbyters as Aſſiſtants, and this he makes the true diſtinction betwixt Biſhop and Presbyter in thoſe times: But whether that be ſo or no is not ſo material, as that our Cauſe cannot ſtand without it; for as the firſt variation from Apoſtolical Practice, was the ſetting up of one above the reſt of the Presbyters, in a particular Church, and calling him Biſhop, ſo the next was the keeping of new Congregations in dependancy upon that which was the firſt Church; and though I will not ſay ſuch dependances are in all Caſes unlawful, yet they are ordinarily dangerous, and can never be proved neceſſary; God has no where tied up a new formed Congregation, from endeavouring to have a Biſhop and Altar of their own; and if this cannot be had with the good Will and Conſent of that Elder Church and Biſhop, who had been inſtrumental in the Converſion of this new Colony, they may, no doubt, do it without them, if general Edification require it.

Thus I have briefly examined our Gentlemans Antiquities, what Advantage he or his Cauſe has received by them, he has now leiſure to conſider; Let us ſee whether the Primitive Fathers are no more favourable to us than they have been to him. And I would lay down this, as a juſt remark upon theſe proofs out of Antiquity, That, one Paſſage which expreſly tells us, what kind of Superiority, Biſhops had in Primitive times over Presbyters, and how they came by it, is of more value in this Controverſie, than a ſcore, that barely mention that Superiority; the one ſpeaks directly to the Queſtion, the other not; we acknowledge thoſe whom the Fathers call Biſhops, had ſome kind of Superiority, over thoſe called Presbyters, and it is a vain thing for Perſons to ſweat and toil, in proving that which we never deny, but will grant them at the firſt demand, but the Controverſie turning upon this very hinge, whether it was a Superiority of Order by Divine Inſtitution, thoſe Ancients that ſpeak purpoſely to this Point, are the moſt proper Evidences in this cauſe.

St. Hierom ſpeaks as directly to the Queſtion, as 'tis poſſible for one to do; he poſitively aſſerts, and largely proves, that Biſhops and Presbyters are the ſame, Ad Evagrium. Manifeſtiſſime comprobatur eundem eſſe Epiſcopum & Presbyterum; and citeth for that purpoſe, Acts 20.28. Phil. 1.1. Tit. 1.5, 6, 7. And divers other Texts of Scripture, and in his Commentary on Iſt of Titus affirms, Idem ergo Presbyter qui Epiſcopus, &c. and tells us, that at firſt the Churches were governed by the common conſent of the Preſbyters, and that the Diſtinction betwixt Presbyter and Biſhop was, Magis conſuetudine quàm diſpoſitionis Dominicae veritate, rather by Cuſtom than Divine Appointment — in another place he aſcribes to Presbyters the Power of the Keys; Ep. ad Heliodorum. p. 283. and is ſo full and expreſs, that ſome of the Papiſts accuſe him of Error herein; others labour hard, but in vain, to invalidate his evidence by pretending, that this Praelation of Biſhops, above Presbyters, was a thing done by Apoſtolical Appointment, becauſe Jerom ſays, it was found out as a remedy againſt Schiſm, when men began to ſay I am of Paul and I of Apollo, which was in the Apoſtles times; but to this it has been often replyed, St. Jerom does not ſpeak of that particular Schiſm of the Corinthians, but of others which aroſe about Conteſts of the like Nature; and that he does not intend that individual Caſe of the Church of Corinth, is moſt certain. For,

1. The Schiſms he ſpeaks of, were occaſioned by their differences about thoſe Presbyters, that had governed them by common Conſent; but that of the Corinthians was about the Apoſtles, it cannot be ſuppoſed, that by the common Council of Presbyters; Jerom ſhould mean, Paul, Apollo, and Cephas governing in Common the Church of Corinth.

2. This Schiſm Jerom ſpeaks of, was too much promoted, by the Preſbyters themſelves, Poſtquam vero unuſquiſque eos quos baptizaverat ſuos eſſe putabat, non Chriſti, &c. He does not date this Diſtinction of Order, from the time that the People only contended about their Miniſters, but when the Miniſters alſo, influenced thoſe Contentions, and made themſelves the Heads of Parties, accounting thoſe their own who had been baptized by them; now this was not the Corinthian caſe, for there the Apoſtle was ſo far from encouraging thoſe ſidings, that he expreſly condemns them.

3. The Schiſm he ſpeaks of, was remedied by chooſing one of thoſe Preſbyters they contended about; and ſetting him over the reſt, and committing the whole care of the Church to him, but I hope none will ſay, that Paul was ſet above Cephas, or he above Paul, or Apollo above them both, to heal the Corinthians Schiſm; and therefore the riſe of Prelacy is not to be dated from that very Schiſm; but from others, that afterwards happened in the Churches.

And it has been obſerved by a very learned Doctor, That the Arguments which St. Jerom brings for this Parity, Dr. Stilling. Irenic. p. 279. are grounded upon thoſe parts of Scripture, which were writ after this Corinthian Schiſm, and ſays he, can we think Jerom had ſo little ſence, as to ſay that Epiſcopacy was inſtituted upon that Schiſm, and yet bring all his Arguments for Parity after the time that he ſets for the Inſtitution of Epiſcopacy?

St. Ambroſe or rather Hilary, Non per omnia conviniunt ſcripta Apoſtoli ordinat. in Epheſ. 4. Proſpiciente Concilio ut non ordo, ſed meritum crearet Epiſcopum multerum ſacerd. judicio conſtiti. Ibid. affirms that the Ordination that was in the Church in his day, did not exactly agree with the writings of the Apoſtles, and afterward ſhews, how the difference betwixt a Biſhop and Presbyter aroſe, by a meer Act of the Church chooſing One that was moſt worthy, and ſetting him over the Reſt, but that in the beginning there were no particular Rectors of Churches conſtituted, and therefore all things were managed, by the Convention of Presbyters, Comment in 1 Cor. 11. Theſe Commentaries are cited by St. Auguſtine and greatly commended.

Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. l. 7. tells us, that the Diſcipline of the Church, is Penes Presbyteros, in the Power of the Presbyters.

St. Auguſtine gives us a plain account of the difference betwixt Biſhops and Presbyters, Secundum honorum Vocabula, quae jam Eccleſiae uſus obtinuit, Epiſcopatus Presbyterio major eſt; he does not pretend that it was by Divine right, but by the Cuſtom of the Church, nor in any real act of Power, but only in an honourary Title that Epiſcopacy is Superiour to Presbytery. Medinas de ſacr. Hom. Orig. l. 1. c. 5. Conſult. Art. 14. p. 952. Chryſ. Hom. 11.

And this matter is ſo evident, that the moſt learned Papiſts acknowledge it was the opinion of moſt of the Fathers, Caſſander is poſitive in it, Convenit inter omnes olim Apoſtolorum aetate nullum diſcrimen, &c.

To this, ſome Object, that both Jerom and Chryſoſtome, notwithſtanding all they ſay for the Identity of theſe Offices, do ſtill except Ordination, as that which is peculiar to the Biſhop, but the illuſtrious Chamier has ſufficiently taken off this Objection, Agere de ſui temporis politia non de ea quae fuit ab Eccleſiae initiis, and more particularly to that of Jerom, Chamier de Occum. Pontif. cap. 6. p. 180. manifeſtum eſt de ſuo loqui tempore, &c. It is manifeſt, when St. Jerom ſays, a Preſbyter does every thing that a Biſhop does, except in Ordination, he ſpeaks of the time in which he lived, and from that very thing he draws an Argument to prove, that formerly Biſhop and Presbyter were the ſame, becauſe, ſays he even now, though the Names have been for a long time uſed for Diſtinction of Degrees, yet excepting in Ordination, there is nothing that a Biſhop does but a Presbyter may do it alſo; and therefore if after ſo long a Diſcrimination of Title and Degree, Biſhops have only gained this one Point of Power, it is certain at firſt there was no difference at all; this is the reaſoning of that Father, wherein he agrees very well with himſelf, and is guilty of no ſuch inconſiſtency as ſome careleſs or prejudiced Readers would charge upon him.

But that which ſeems moſt directly to confront theſe Witneſſes is, That Aerius is reckon'd amongſt the Hereticks by Epiphanius, for this Opinion, and is repreſented as a Prodigy, and his Opinion madneſs, which Dr. Morrice does not forget to Proclaim, as that which gives a mortal wound to our Cauſe.

But a learned Prelate of their own, will give them a ſufficient anſwer to this, Irenic. p. 277. for if Aerius was a Heretick for holding the Identity of Order, it is ſtrange that Epiphanius, ſhould be the firſt man, that ſhould charge him with it, and that neither Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret nor Evagrius before whoſe time he lived, ſhould cenſure him for it; and why ſhould not Jerom have equally Animadverted upon, who is as expreſs in this as any man in the World. But ſome tell us, He was an Arian, others ſay, he was put amongſt the Hereticks for making an unneceſſary Separation from the Church of Sebaſtia, and Euſtathius the Biſhop thereof; not that this was indeed Hereſie, but it was the cuſtom of angry Biſhops in thoſe Ages to call all men Hereticks that ſtood in their way, as appears by the famous Catalogues of Hereticks and Hereſies, that Philaſtrius a Biſhop and Saint has bequeathed unto the World.

It is too evident to be concealed, that Epiphanius, though otherwiſe a Worthy and Good Man, was of a hot and eager Temper, raſh in his Cenſures, and ſometimes tranſported into great irregularities of Practice, as appears by the diſturbance he made at Conſtantinople, Socrates, c. 11, 12. and the rude Language he gave to Chryſoſtom, becauſe he did not at his command, baniſh Dioſcorus and condemn the Books of Origen.

The Learned Author of the Summary of the Controverſies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, gives us an inſtance of the raſh and injudicious Zeal of Epiphanius, in condemning Aerius for Hereſie in another point, which will very much depreciate the Authority of that Father in judging of Hereſies; Summary of the Controv. p. 62.63, 64. take it in the Words of our Author. At the Celebration of the Euchariſt, the Biſhop or Prieſt made mention of the Names of Martyrs, and Confeſſors, and thoſe who had deſerved well of the Church, and particular Chriſtians in their Private Devotions, remembred their own Relations and Friends, and thus it became a Cuſtom without enquiring into the Reaſons of it, till by this Cuſtom, People began to conclude, that ſuch Prayers were profitable for the dead, and that thoſe who had not lived ſo well as they ſhould do, might obtain the pardon of their Sins by the Interceſſions of the Living; which I confeſs, was a very natural Thought, and ſhews us the eaſie progreſs of Superſtition, that Cuſtoms taken up without any good Reaſon, will find ſome reaſon, though a very bad one when they grow Popular; upon this Aerius condemns the Practice, and he is reckoned amongſt Hereticks for ſo doing; He deſired to know for what Reaſon, the Names of dead men are recited in the Celebration of the Euchariſt, and Prayers made for them, whether by this means thoſe who died in Sin might obtain Pardon, which he thought if it were true would make it unneceſſary to live vertuouſly, if they had Pious Friends who would pray for them, when they were dead; Epiphanius undertakes to confute Aerius, but gives ſuch Reaſons, as are no anſwer at all to his Queſtions. He ſays it ſignifies our Belief, that thoſe who are dead to this World do ſtill live in another ſtate, are alive to God; That it ſignifies our good Hopes of the Happy State of thoſe who are gone hence; That it is done to make a Diſtinction between Chriſt, and all other good Men, for we pray for all but him, who intercedes for us all. Very worthy Reaſons of praying for the Dead, &c.

Thus you ſee what a Monſtrous Heretick Aerius was, and what an admirable Confuter Epiphanius; The Truth is, theſe two Hereſies of Aerius concerning the Parity of Biſhops and Presbyters, and the unlawfulneſs of praying for the dead, are much of the ſame Nature; and Epiphanius's Confutation of them both, equally Learned and Satisfactory; for it is very obſervable that in the ſame place where he condemns that monſtrous prodigious Hereſie of the Identity of Order, he fairly confeſſes, That by the two Orders of Presbyters and Deacons, Epiph. conr. Acrium haereſ. 75. p. 905. all Eccleſiaſtical Offices might be performed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

After the Fathers, we have ſuffrage of the Canoniſts, Gratian, cap. 24. Legimus, diſt. 39. cap. 5. Olim, diſt. 95. cap. 4. Nullus, diſt. 60. cap. 16. Ecce, diſt. 95. Lancel. l. 1. Tit. 21. p. 32. Auth. Gloſſae in cap. diſt. Concil. Baſil, Duaren de ſacr. Eccl. Min. l. 1. c. 7. And it being thus enrolled in the Canon Law, was publickly taught by the Schoolmen and others, as Lombard, lib. 4. Sentent. diſt. 24. litera I. But at length the Roman Church ſaw it neceſſary for the better ſettling of the Papacy to advance the Order of Epiſcopacy above Presbytery, and in the Council of Trent they have Decreed, Seſs. 23. cap. 4. Can. 6, 7. this Superiority, and in their New Edition of the Canon Law have inſerted this Note. Annot. Marg. ad Cap. legimus, diſt. 43. That Biſhops have differed from Presbyters always, as they do now in Government, Prelacy, Offices and Sacraments, but not in the Name and Title of Biſhop, which was formerly common to both. And thoſe Learned Examiners of the Tridentine Council, Chemnitius and Gentilletus, Exam. part 2. Lib. 4. the one a Divine, the other a Lawyer, condemn this Decree, the one by Scripture and Fathers, the other by the Canon Law.

I Will now venture to leave this point as ſufficiently proved, that Biſhops have no Power or Juriſdiction given them by the Law of God, but what Presbyters have as well as they, I have been the larger upon it, becauſe it goes a great way in deciding the whole controverſie, and would ſave me all farther Labour, about the caſes of Ordination and Succeſſion.

As to Ordination, if Presbyters be the ſame with Scripture Biſhops, the Orders conferred by them muſt needs be valid, for as Monſieur Claude ſays, 'tis a right that cannot be taken away from them by Humane Rules; it is true indeed there may be ſuch a prudent Order agreed upon, for the due management of this work, as may make it irregular to ordain without a Preſident, but ſuch agreements cannot make the action null; for my part I never knew any Ordination amongſt Diffenters, but there was a Moderator choſen, who was chiefly concerned in the conduct of it, and ſuch a Moderator wants nothing of the Primitive Biſhop: And if there be ſome Antient Canons, that ſay the Presbyters ſhall not ordain without the Biſhop, Concil Carth. 3, 4. C. 22. ſo there are others that ſay the Biſhop ſhall not ordain without the Presbyters, and by requiring Presbyters to join in this office, it is certain they have the power, otherwiſe their laying on of hands would be a meer nullity. The truth is, neither a ſingle Biſhop, nor a ſingle Presbyter can regularly Ordain, it ought to be done by a Claſſis, and in that caſe there muſt be ſome Preſident to avoid confuſion, and that is the general practice amongſt us, and therefore our Ordinations are not only valid, but regular too.

Biſhop Carleton in his Treatiſe of Juriſdiction, ſaith, P. 7. The Power of Order by all Writers that ever I could ſee, even of the Church of Rome, is underſtood to be immediately from Chriſt, given to all Biſhops and Prieſts alike by their Conſecration; And it is very conſiderable, what Dr. Bernard mentions, concerning Arch-biſhop Uſher's Opinion in this caſe, The Judgment of the late A. B. of Armagh, p. 134, 135. wherein we have this Hiſtorical paſſage, That in 1609, when the Scotch Biſhops were to be conſecrated by the Biſhops of London, Ely, and Bath, a queſtion was moved by Dr. Andrews Biſhop of Ely, whether they muſt not firſt be ordained Presbyters, as having received no ordination from a Biſhop, the Arch-biſhop of Canterbury Dr. Bancroft, who was preſent, maintained, That there was no neceſſity for it, ſeeing where Biſhops could not be had, Ordination by Presbyters muſt be eſteemed lawful, otherwiſe it might be doubted whether there were any lawful vocation in moſt of the Reformed Churches: this was applauded by the other Biſhops, and Ely acquieſced in it, &c.

It was too great a hardſhip therefore that our Biſhops put upon the poor baniſhed Miniſters of the French Churches, in requiring them to be re-ordained, which in the ſence of the impoſers, was a renouncing the validity of their former Ordination, and it is very remarkable that ſome of thoſe that were moſt zealous in that ſevere uſage of thoſe poor Refugees, and would admit none to be Miniſters that did not ſubmit to them in it, are ſince diveſted of their Epiſcopal power themſelves, and have now time to conſider, whether to allow the Ordinations of the Roman Churches, and reject thoſe of the Reformed, was not (to uſe Monſieur Claudes words) a piece of Phariſaiſme all over, that ſtrains at a Gnat and ſwallows a Camel.

And for the pretended Succeſſion, if our Presbyters which have Miniſterial Ordination (and I know no other) be really Biſhops by the Laws and Language of Scripture, We are in the Line ſtill (as the Vindicator ſpeaks) if ſuch a Line there be: though we look upon it as a moſt wretched piece of confidence and madneſs, to make the Eſſence of the Miniſtry and Church depend upon a thing ſo lubricous and uncertain.

But that we may if it be poſſible lead this Man out of his fooliſh conceit, about the neceſſity of an un-interrupted Line of Succeſſion from the Apoſtles, let us but ſtate the caſe according to his own aſſertions, and perhaps when it is rightly put it will not require much arguing; His opinion in this matter, take in theſe three points.

1. Arch-Rebel, p. 2, 3. He affirms that the Biſhops receive their Spiritual Juriſdiction from the Apoſtles, by the Line of Succeſſion, this Succeſſion he makes the foundation of their Title and Power.

2. From hence he infers, that he is no true Biſhop, who is not ordained by another Biſhop, and ſo upwards in a continued line of Epiſcopal Ordination to the Apoſtles themſelves; Arch-Rebel, p. 3. ſo that if a Man could ſhew a Spiritual Pedigree in a Line of Epiſcopacy for a thouſand years, yet if ſo long ago there was failure, he is but a Lay Impoſtor. And

3. That thoſe Churches (or what you'll pleaſe to call them) that are not under the Government of ſuch Biſhops, Reply, p. 18. as are poſſeſs't of their Authority, by ſuch a Line, are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church, have no Miniſtry, no Sacraments, no Salvation.

The firſt of theſe, that Biſhops have their power from the Apoſtles as being their Succeſſors, P. 20. will certainly infer, that they could never be poſſeſſed of it till the Apoſtles were dead, unleſs we can ſuppoſe that they were degraded, or voluntarily reſigned; this the Vindicator has deſervedly expoſed, To be the Apoſtles Succeſſors in Apoſtolical power, the Apoſtles ſtill living and in Plenitude of Power, is a very great Myſtery, and ſomething like the honeſt Vicar of N's Prayer for King Charles the II. that he might outlive all his Succeſſors; What has the Gentleman to reply to this? He puts on a marvellous grave aſpect, and charges the Vindicator with Scoffing at Timothy and Titus; but this is a poor ſhift of his own, when he has rendred himſelf ridiculous, to turn it off to Timothy and Titus, I do not believe there is any ſuch Affinity or Line of Succeſſion betwixt thoſe bleſſed Evangeliſts and this Gentleman, but a man may venture to expoſe the folly of the latter, and ſtill preſerve a due Veneration for the former.

He confeſſes it was a piece of Ignorance to pray that the King might outlive all his Succeſſors, and why then is not he as ignorant in ſaying that Timothy, and Titus, and Linus, were made the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles in their Apoſtolical Power, whilſt the Apoſtles were ſtill living, for in this caſe, the Apoſtles might have outlived their Succeſſors, and if we believe ſome Hiſtorians they did ſo; and if this be ignorance in the Vicar, it can be no extraordinary piece of Wiſdom and Illumination in the Citizen; he confeſſes this is a myſtery, and ſo he ſays is all the Goſpel, but he muſt not take upon him to obtrude ſuch ſtuff of his own upon the World, becauſe the Goſpel is a myſtery, thanks be to God, a man may eaſily diſcern, betwixt the myſteries of the Goſpel, and thoſe of T. W's making.

But if this Notion won't paſs under the pretence of Myſtery, he will invent a reaſon for it, which we have in theſe Words, They could not have been ſaid to be Succeſſors of Apoſtolical Power, if the Apoſtles whilſt living had not conferr'd it upon them, could the Apoſtles have ordained then after they were dead? No truly, no more than give Scripture Rules after they were dead; but were all that the Apoſtles ordained their Succeſſors in Apoſtolical Power, then the Presbyters which they ordained muſt be ſo too; He ſays, The Apoſtle by ordaining them in his Life-time, ſecured the Succeſſion to them, and the Government too in the Apoſtles abſence: But I wiſh he had told us how they could ſecure the Succeſſion to them, unleſs they could have ſecured them from dying before them; and for ſecuring the Government to them in the Apoſtles abſence, that was no more than what they did for the Presbyters, but if they were inveſted in Apoſtolical Power, they had enjoyed the Government as much in the Apoſtles Preſence, as in their Abſence, for the Apoſtles had all the ſame Power, and had it alike whether together or aſunder; In ſhort, if it be really true, that the Biſhops muſt either be the Apoſtles Succeſſors in Apoſtolical Power, whilſt the Apoſtles lived, or they could never be ſo, we muſt conclude, they could never be ſo, for whilſt the Apoſtles lived, they could not have Succeſſors in their Office, eſpecially ſuch as claimed their Power by ſuch Succeſſion.

The ſecond Point is equally cenſurable, viz. That he is no true Biſhop, that was not ordained by another Biſhop, and ſo upwards to the Apoſtles; This the Vindicator told him was altogether unproved, and that the Papiſts, whoſe Intereſt it is to make men believe ſo, confeſs there are inſuperable difficulties about the Succeſſion of Popes in the Roman See: The Gentleman replies, I never diſcourſed with any of that Church, who did not zealouſly affirm the Succeſſion, that all eſtabliſhed Catholick Churches do aſſert it, and that in every Dioceſs, it is as ſacredly recorded, as the Succeſſion of Kings and Emperors to their Thrones, and challenges his Adverſary to prove the contrary. Well I'll be ſo civil to him as to tell him, that, which it ſeems he knew not before, touching the uncertainty of this Line of Succeſſion.

Euſebius himſelf, notwithſtanding the Conjectures that he makes concerning the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, Eccleſ. Hiſt. lib. 3. cap. 4. after all ingenuouſly confeſſes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. But how many or who were the true Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, and thought ſufficient to govern the Churches founded by them, is hard to ſay, excepting thoſe which perhaps ſome one may gather, out of the writings of St. Paul upon which a Learned Prelate ſays, What becomes then of our unqueſtionable Line of Succeſſion of the Biſhops of ſeveral Churches, and the large Diagramms made of the Apoſtolical Churches, with every ones Name ſet down in his Order, as if the Writer had been Clarencieux to the Apoſtles themſelves? Is it come to this at laſt, that we have nothing certain but what we have in the Scriptures? Are all the outcries of Apoſtolical Tradition, of Perſonal Succeſſion, of Unqueſtionable Records, reſolved at laſt into Scripture it ſelf, by him, from whom all theſe Pedigrees are fetched? Then let Succeſſion know its place, and vail Bonnet to the Scriptures, and withal let men take heed of over-reaching themſelves when they would bring down ſo large a Catalogue of ſingle Biſhops from the firſt and pureſt times of the Church, for it will be hard for others to believe them, when Euſebius profeſſeth it is ſo hard to find them.

There are two things to be done, before a man can prove this uninterrupted Line; firſt, He muſt have a true Catalogue of the Names of all ſuch Biſhops as have filled the See, and then he muſt be able to demonſtrate that none of them, came in after a Surreptitious manner without Epiſcopal Ordination; the former is difficult, but the latter much harder, and yet without it, the former will amount to no more than a Wild-gooſe row of hard Words and Names.

1. It is extreamly Difficult to get a ſatisfactory Catalogue, even in that See whoſe Biſhops have made the greateſt noiſe and figure in the World, and if this Gentleman has any Friend that will conſult Baronius for him, I ſuppoſe he will forbear making challenges for the future.

Licet pleri que ſive vitio Scriptoris acciderit ſive alia ex cauſa, &c. the learned Annaliſt ſhews, Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. Num. 41. that Optatus Milevitanus rehearſing the Catalogue of Roman Biſhops down to his own times, begins thus. In the principal Chair ſate, firſt Peter, then Linus ſucceeded, to him Clemens, to him Anacletus, (paſſing by Cletus as thinking him the ſame with Anacletus) but on the other hand Epiphanius, omitting Anacletus, mentions Cletus, ſpeaking thus, The Succeſſion of the Biſhops of Rome is in this Order, Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Evariſtus; St. Auſtin following Optatus omits Cletus, thinking him the ſame with Anacletus; St. Jerom ſpeaking of Clemens ſays, he was the fourth Biſhop of Rome from Peter, that Linus was the Second and Cletus the Third, although many of the Latines think that Clemens was the ſecond; of theſe Jarring accounts, Baronius ſays, Num. 48. Si in ordine & tempore primorum Romanorum Pontificum quempiam errare contigerit, in multos errores ferri omnino cogetur.

The Author of the Roman Ceremonial, endeavours to reconcile theſe things by a fine Conjecture, Lib. 1. cap. 2. Ipſe Jeſus primum denominatione Succeſſorem conſtituit & ea ratione, &c. Jeſus Chriſt appointed his Succeſſor by Name, and after the ſame manner Peter alſo named Clemens, but on this Condition, that the Senate of the Roman Church would admit of him, but they knowing that this way of naming ones Succeſſor, would in time be very Prejudicial to the Church, would not accept of Clemens, but choſe Linus to hold the Pontificate after Peter, but that afterward, when both Linus and Cletus were dead Clemens was choſen by the Senate it ſelf.

Of theſe Primitive times the great Scaliger thus ſpeaks. Prolog. in Euſeb. Chron. Intervallum illud ab ultimo, &c. That interval of time from the laſt Chapter of the Acts of the Apoſtles, to the Middle of the Reign of Trajan, in which Quadratus and Ignatius flouriſhed, might be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an obſcure confuſed time, in which nothing is delivered to us certainly concerning the Affairs of the Chriſtians, beſides a few things that the Enemies of the Church touch upon by the way, as Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, &c. Now to fill up this Chaſme, Euſebius has careleſly fetch'd things 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of the Hypotypoſes of I know not what Clement (for it is not, Alexandrinus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) and out of the Commentaries of Hegiſippus, a writer of no better Credit than the former.

Theſe Perplexities the Learned Biſhop of Worceſter thus relates, Irenic. p. 322. Come we therefore to Rome and here the Succeſſion is as muddy as the Tyber it ſelf, for Tertullian, Ruffinus and others, place Clemens next to Peter, Irenaeus and Euſebius ſet Anacletus before him, Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus, Auguſtine and Damaſus, make Anacletus, Cletus and Linus all to precede him; certainly if the Line of Succeſſion fails us here, where we moſt need it we have little cauſe to pin our Faith upon it, as to the certainty of any particular form of Church Government, which can be drawn from the help of the records of the Primitive Church.

And we do not ••• ly meet with theſe Difficulties, near the Head of the Line, but many Ages lower; The Series of Popes in the Roman See, after the eighth Century, is very much ruffled and confuſed, as Onuphrius tells us, Horum temporum Pontifices, ne que Praefat. act partem ſecund. de Romano Pontif. perpetuum quendam habent Scriptorem, &c. The Biſhops of thoſe times have not any conſtant certain Writer, and a great part of their Affairs are omitted, whence it comes to paſs, that theſe times are ſo uncertain and obſcure, that we cannot tell in what Order the Names of divers Popes ought to be put, and ſome new Popes have crept in, which by Computation of the time can have no place in the Roll, as Baſilius, one Agapetus, and Dommus the ſecond, which are either the ſame with others under a different name, or elſe were Schiſmaticks or perhaps were never in being, but which of theſe to affirm is uncertain and doubtful; and he tells us, that as to John the 11th. Leo the 16th. Stephen the 8th. Leo the 7th. and Stephen the 9th. He has not followed the common Opinion of Writers, but of Luitprandus Ticinenſis, and ſays there is a foul miſtake in the account of the Martins, for there never were any ſuch men as Martin the 2d and 3d. and in the Johns; quanta, bone Deus, confuſio exorta eſt ex veterum Hiſtoriarum ignorantia!

It ſeems our Learned Citizen, never dreamed that Popiſh Writers ſhould be ſo ingenuous as to confeſs theſe inſuperable difficulties in the Succeſſion, for his part he never diſcours'd with any of them that did not zealouſly aſſert it, and it may be ſo, but certainly then he never diſcourſed with the wiſeſt or honeſteſt of them, but had the good hap always to meet with men as bold and ignorant as himſelf. But

2. Were theſe Catalogues of Names, as clear and certain as they are otherwiſe, yet unleſs it were equally certain that all of theſe were truly Biſhops, and had valid Conſecration, the Line of Succeſſion is ſtill unproved; and how impoſſible is it to have this demonſtrated with that clearneſs, requiſite unto a point upon which the Truth of our Churches and Salvation of our Souls is made to depend.

For it has been often obſerved, that our Church Hiſtorians being left ſo much in the dark for the earlieſt Ages, are forced to ſupply the defects of Hiſtory with bold conjectures of their own; and where-ever they met with the Apoſtles or Evangeliſts in any place, preſently they made them the Biſhops of that place, Irenic. p. 302. ſo Philip is made Biſhop of Trallis, Ananias Biſhop of Damaſcus, Nicolaus Biſhop of Samaria, Barnabas Biſhop of Millan, Silas Biſhop of Corinth, Sylvanus Biſhop of Theſſalonica, Creſcens of Chalcedon, Andreas of Byzantium, and upon the ſame grounds Peter Biſhop of Rome.

And through the loſs of the Dyptychs of the Church, which would have acquainted us with the time of the Primitive Martyrs Suffering, called their Natalitia, ſome have miſtaken Martyrs for Biſhops, and the time of their Apotheoſis, for that of their Conſecration, and the Learned Junius reckons among theſe Anacletus, Cletus and Clemens at Rome.

And how ſhall we prove that all the perſons mentioned in the Liſts, had ſuch Ordination as is made eſſential to Epiſcopacy; it is not ſufficient to ſay there were ancient Canons, decreeing that no Biſhop ſhould be Conſecrated but by three at the leaſt, this is arguing a jure ad factum, which is no better than to argue a facto ad jus, it is certain there were abundance of excellent Canons made, and it is as certain they were very little regarded, in that ſtate of Apoſtacy and Antichriſtianiſm into which the Churches fell, and lay for ſo long a time; we know there are many examples of mens getting into the higheſt Church Preferments by Murther, Simony, Sorcery, which by the Ancient Canons nullifie their Authority and Adminiſtrations; It is certain there are many excellent Precepts in Scripture againſt judging, hating and perſecuting one another about Ceremonies, but if any ſhall argue from hence there were never any ſuch Practices, every age will afford inſtances enough for their Confutation; and if there has been ſo notorious a contempt of the Laws of Chriſt; Why ſhould we think it ſtrange, if the Canons of the Church have been deſpiſed too, when they have ſtood in the way of mens Intereſt? Every body knows Eccleſiaſtical Canons are meer Spiders Webs only to catch Flies, whilſt the greater ſort of Vermine ruſh through.

The Council of Lateran decreed, Electio facta per civilem Magiſtratum in ſacris beneficiis vim nullam habeat; and the Jus Orientale, Lib. 3. Inter. 59. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Conc. Carth. 4. and the ſeventh General Council (as it is called) determine, Omnem Electionem quae fit à Magiſtratibus, Epiſcopi vel Presbyteri vel Diaconi irritam eſſe; and yet that de facto the Magiſtrates ſometimes did elect will not be denied. The ſecond Council of Nice decreed that the Orders of all Symoniacal Biſhops ſhall be null and void, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Bernard con. ad Eugen. l. 4. &c. And yet Eugenius and others were notoriouſly guilty of it; and therefore the late Examiner of the Notes of the Church ſays, Notes of the Church, p. 152. It is probable the Roman Church wants a Head, and that there is now no true Pope, nor has been for many Ages for that Church to be united to, for by their own Confeſſion a Pope Symoniacally choſen, a Pope intruded by Violence, a Heretick and therefore ſure an Atheiſt, or an Infidel is no true Pope, This, &c. Is to be ſupplied with Arch-Biſhops Biſhops and all other Orders. Advertiſement on the Hiſt. of K. Charles, p. 193. and many ſuch there have been of one ſort or other, whoſe acts therefore in creating Cardinals, &c. Being invalid, it is exceeding probable that the whole Succeſſion has upon this account failed long ago, &c.

I may add hereunto, that it is the opinion of Dr. Heylin, where there is no Dean and Chapter to elect and no Arch-Biſhop to Conſecrate, there can be no regular Succeſſion of Biſhops; now where there are ſo many junctures in which this Line may fail, it would be very ſtrange if in all that Series of Ordainers and Ordinations, none of thoſe things ſhould happen which break in upon the Succeſſion.

Nay farther, when a Biſhop has advanced by lawful paces to the Chair, yet it is not impoſſible, but he may loſe this power again; I know the Papiſts have invented the Chimaera of an indelible Character to ſupport the other Chimaera of an uninterrupted Succeſſion: But Biſhop Jewel affirms, Apology, c. 3. diviſ. 7. That if the Biſhop of Rome (and I ſuppoſe it will hold of any other) do not his Duty as he ought, except he Adminiſter the Sacraments, except he inſtruct the People, except he warn them and teach them, he ought not to be called a Biſhop, or ſo much as an Elder; for a Biſhop, as ſaith St. Auguſtin, is a name of Labour, and not of Honour; and that man that ſeeketh to have the Pre-eminence, and not to profit the People, muſt know he is no Biſhop: Defence of Ap •• . part 2. p. 135. And he vindicates this Saying againſt Harding from other of the Fathers, Chryſoſtom Hom. 13. Multi Sacerdotes & pauci Sacerdotes, multi nomine & pauci opere; And St. Ambroſe, Niſi bonum opus amplectaris, Epiſcopus eſſe non potes, Lib. 4. Ep. 32. de dignit. Sacerdot. c. 4. And Gregory ſpeaking in the name of wicked Prelates, Sacer dotes nominamur, non ſumus; And the Council of Valentia under Damaſus, c. 4. Quicun que ſub ordinatione vel Diaconatus vel Presbyterii vel Epiſcopatus mortali crimine dixerint ſe eſſe pollutos à ſupra dictis ordinationibus ſubmoveantur; Whoſoever he be, whether of the Order of Deacon, Presbyter or Biſhop, that is convicted of deadly Sin, let him be removed from the ſaid Orders. Now can any man imagine that in a Line of above 1600 Years length, running through Babylon it ſelf, there ſhould be none of theſe, who by their intolerable wickedneſs had nullified their Title? Wo unto Mankind, if their Salvation depend upon ſuch a Suppoſition.

Thirdly, The third Part of this Gentleman's Poſition is, That thoſe Churches, Reply, p. 18. or (if they muſt not be ſo called) thoſe Societies that are not under the Government of ſuch Biſhops, are out of the Communion of the Catholick Church, have no Miniſtry, nor Sacraments, nor Salvation.

This cuts off at a blow the Church of Alexandria, and damns all her Members for the Firſt two Hundred Years: Of the Government of that Church, we have this remarkable Account from Entychius Patriarch there.

That the Evangeliſt Mark in the Ninth year of Claudius Caeſar, Eutychii Annal. Pococks Edit. p. 328. came unto the City of Alexandria, and called the People to the Faith of Chriſt, and as he was walking in the Street broke the Latchet of his Shoe, and preſently applied himſelf to one Ananias, a Cobler, to get it mended; in the doing of it, Ananias prick'd his Finger with the Aul, after that dangerous manner, as cauſed a great effuſion of Blood and much Pain, inſomuch, as that he murmured againſt Mark; who ſaid unto him, If thou wilt believe on Jeſus Chriſt thy Finger ſhall be healed, and added, In his Name let it be made whole; and accordingly in the ſame moment it ceaſed bleeding and was well; from this time Ananias believed, and was baptized by Mark, and made Patriarch of Alexandria, and with him were appointed twelve Presbyters, Hitrom Ep. ad Evagr. 85. that when the Patriarchate was vacant, one of them ſhould be choſen, on whom the other Eleven ſhould lay their hands, and bleſs him and create him Patriarch, and then ſhould chooſe ſome worthy Perſon and conſtitute him a Presbyter in his room who was made Patriarch: And this Cuſtom continued till Alexander the Sixteenth Patriarch without interruption, which was about 235 Years. This Story St. Jerome likewiſe tells us, and by it proves the Identity of Biſhops and Presbyters, and that Presbyters have not only Power to ordain thoſe of the ſame degree with themſelves, but to conſecrate Patriarchs too.

And this Aſſertion undoes all the Reformed Churches abroad that are governed by Presbyters; To this the Gentleman replies, That many very Learned and Pious Perſons amongſt them, have declared their longing Deſires for the Epiſcopacy, but living in Popiſh Dominions, cannot have any but thoſe of the Popiſh Communion, or in Republicks that will not admit of Epiſcopacy.

IF we come off clear in theſe great points of Catholick Unity, and Obedience to Superiors, we ſhall more eaſily defend our ſelves againſt the leſſer imputations of Indecency and Irregularity.

We begin with that of Indecency, and therein ſhall enquire, firſt into the Nature and Rule of Decency, ſecondly into the Practice of the Non-conformiſts, and how far it is agreeable to thoſe Rules.

We fully aſſent and conſent, to that great Law of Decency laid down in Scripture, and believe the tranſgreſſion of that as of all other Divine Laws to be abſolutely ſinful; We do not think it an indifferent thing whether we worſhip God decently or indecently; But the queſtion is, what may be the Standard or Rule by which Decency is to be meaſured, our thoughts about it (ſuch as they are) we ſhall lay down in a few words.

1. It muſt be ſomething Antecedent to the Command of Superiors; even the Apoſtle himſelf when he commands that all things be done decently, ſuppoſes that there was a Decent way and method of acting, which they could not be ignorant of; he does not by his command make the Decency, but ſuppoſes it, and obliges them to the obſervation of it; We therefore conclude Decency is not a thing of meer poſitive inſtitution, nor depends upon the Will and Command of Men, but is of higher Original, even the Light of Nature, and is no other but the Natural decorum of an action: To ſay the Ceremonies of the Church of England are therefore Decent becauſe commanded, is as much as to ſay, were there no ſuch command, there would be no Decency in them, and therefore that the omiſſion of them is guilty of no other indecency than that of diſobeying Superiours, and where Superiours are pleaſed to ſuſpend ſuch commands, the Worſhip of God may be performed as decently without them, which indeed is to ſet aſide the Argument of decency and to betake our ſelves wholly to that of Obedience which has been already diſcuſſed.

2. 'Tis therefore Nature (or Cuſtom which is a ſecond Nature) that is the rule and meaſure of Decency; Vind. of Prot. Prin. p. 100. And Dr. Sherlock argues rationally upon this point, when his Adverſary would ſuggeſt that there is as much neceſſity of an Oecumenical determination of Decency and Order, as of a National one, he anſwers No, for Decency of Worſhip is nothing elſe but to perform the External Acts of Worſhip in ſuch a manner, as may expreſs our Reverence and Devotion to God, therefore ſince there are no Catholick ſigns of Decency, there can be no Catholick Uniformity in theſe matters, The Decency of Garments, Poſtures, Geſtures, differ in ſeveral Countries, and ſo do the expreſſions of Honour and Reverence, and therefore ſuch external Rites being only for external Decency, and having no ſacredneſs by inſtitution, may vary with the different cuſtoms and uſages of Countries: But as to National Churches, ſince the uſages and cuſtoms of the ſame Nation, and Rules of Decency are the ſame, the Biſhops may agree upon an Uniformity of Rites for a National Church; The ſumm is, it is not the Command of Superiours, but the Cuſtoms of a Country that make a thing Decent, and therefore the ſame Rites may be commanded throughout a Nation, becauſe the Cuſtoms upon which Decency ſtands are the ſame.

3. When we make Cuſtom the Rule of Decency we do not mean, This or that way of Worſhiping of God is Decent, becauſe we are accuſtomed to Worſhip him ſo, but on the contrary, We uſe to Worſhip ſo, becauſe it is Decent, that is agreeable to our cuſtom of expreſſing Honour and Reverence in other caſes; Otherwiſe we ſhould make the ſame thing the Rule of it ſelf, and ſay, this Worſhip is Decent becauſe it is cuſtomary, and it has been our cuſtom to Worſhip God thus, becauſe it is Decent: which would be running the ring; beſides, then might all the fopperies of the Roman Church ſet up for Decency, becauſe they are now become cuſtomary; No actions or geſtures in the Worſhip of God, how long ſoever they have been uſed, can plead Decency, but thoſe which are uſed in other caſes, as well as in Divine Service, and therefore uſed in the ſervice of God, becauſe agreeable to the general cuſtoms of Decency in other matters.

4. Nothing is required of us by the Law of Decency, but to preſerve the Worſhip of God from all Indecencies; It is impoſſible to prove that we are obliged by that Law to uſe this or that Ceremony in the Worſhip of God, if it may be managed decently without them; If the Omiſſion of ſuch Ceremonies do not render the ſervice of God Indecent, the Law of Decency is not broken; As no man can be charged with a breach of the Law of Juſtice, but he that has done ſome unjuſt thing, or of the Laws of Charity, but he that is uncharitable, ſo none can be charged with breaking the Laws of Decency, but he that Behaves himſelf Indecently in Divine Worſhip; As there is no medium between Juſtice and Unjuſtice, ſo there is none betwixt Decency and Undecency, and when of two actions one is ſaid to be more juſt, the other muſt needs have ſomething of injuſtice in it, ſo when one thing is more decent, the other muſt have ſomething of indecency, for theſe things being privately oppoſed, admit of no medium in a capable ſubject.

There are ſome indeed tell us of certain tranſcendental heights of Juſtice, Charity and Devotion, which might be omitted without ſin, Miſcell. p. 275. thus Mr. Norris in his diſcourſe of Heroick Piety; How they can reconcile it with the 14th. Article of the Church of England, I cannot tell; it is like ſuch men will pretend to the ſame Eminencies of Decency too, but ſo long as they acknowledge, we may fall ſhort of ſuch acme's without Sin we are well enough, the Nonconformiſts pretend not to ſuch high Attainments, they would be heartily glad, could they come up to the Rule in any thing, but are ſo far from pretending, that they do not deſire to exceed it, nor do they grudge theſe Gentlemen that unweildy Glory, of being wiſer and better than God has commanded.

Now let us Examine the Practice of Diſſenters, in their worſhipping of God, and its agreeableneſs with the Rules of Decency; The Cheſter Gentleman falls upon the Vindicator for ſaying; We deſire the Rules of the Goſpel may be carefully look'd into, and ſuch a Model of Government and Worſhip taken from thence, as may be likely to anſwer the great ends thereof, that nothing may be impoſed, but either what is expreſly commanded, or has a natural and proper tendency to promote that which is ſo, then would the Worſhip of God appear like it ſelf, Rational, Grave and Majeſtical, becoming reaſonable Creatures to offer, and a Being of perfect Simplicity, and Spirituality to accept; Nor would we as we are accuſed under pretence of Spirituality, reject the natural Decorum of an Action in Divine Worſhip, but only lay aſide theſe Formalities that are over and above natural Decency, which in Civil Converſe are counted Foppiſh, and daily grow out of repute betwixt man and man, and are no where ſo improper as in the Service of God.

Now what harm is there in all this, the Gentleman it ſeems has nothing to object againſt it, but all the Queſtion is, Whether the Worſhip of God in our Conventicles be as agreeable to this Rule, as their is in the Churches; and no doubt he thinks the Caſe is half determined, by the very Names Churches and Conventicles; for is it imaginable that men ſhould worſhip God as decently in a Conventicle, as in the Church? All the Club will ſay, and ſwear too 'tis impoſsible; but what if our Aſſemblies are as much Churches as theirs, and theirs as much Conventicles as ours; 'tis true enough for any thing he has yet produced to the contrary; Of Schiſm. Mr. Hales tells us, that all pious Aſſemblies in times of Perſecution and Corruption are the only lawful Congregations, and the publick Aſſemblies though according to form of Law, are indeed nothing but Riots and Conventicles, if they be ſtained with Corruption and Superſtition.

He charges the Diſſenters with Indecency, 1. In their Expreſsions. 2. In their Geſtures. 3. In their Habits.

1. In Expreſsion, becauſe our Miniſters uſe not a ſtated form of Prayer, and therefore he accuſes them of Ruſhing into the preſence of God with the raſh and ſudden thoughts of one ſingle Perſon, with a Prayer newly Coined, but whether Sterling or no, is uncertain, being never tried, for the People know it not till it be out.

But muſt it needs follow, that becauſe we have not a form laid before us, that our thoughts are therefore raſh and ſudden, is he ſure that we never uſe Premeditation both as to the general Method and Matter of Prayer? And for the words if they be uſually Scripture Phraſe, I hope they will paſs for currant in a more equal Ballance than his; Will this Gentleman ſay, that all conceived Prayer is raſh and irreverent? Then I am ſure he will condemn the moſt learned and pious Divines, yea and Biſhops too of the Church of England, who in the Pulpit commonly uſe ſuch Prayers, and ſometimes of a conſiderable length too, which we may be ſure they would not do, if they thought it impoſſible for the People to joyn with them in it; and if the Duty of Prayer may be performed rationally and gravely without a preſcribed form, this Objection vaniſhes into putrid Air.

If this Gentleman would only ſay that He and his Companions, cannot expreſs themſelves rationally and reverently in the preſence of God, without a preſcribed form of Words, we would not contradict them, they beſt know what they can do, but to ſay, that without ſuch a form, it is impoſſible to perform this Duty aright, is (as the Vindicator ſpeaks) little leſs than Lampoon upon the common ſence of Engliſh men; and I am ſure it is contrary to the whole ſcope of that excellent Book of Biſhop Wilkins called the Gift of Prayer; for my part I thank God, for the acquaintance I have had, with ſome plain poor People, that in their Prayers to God would expreſs themſelves in much more proper and pertinent Language, than this Gentleman has yet attained to, though he be the Author of at leaſt two famous Books.

2. In our Geſtures; that in Prayer they are confuſed, and irreverent, I know not what he intends by theſe Words, We judge it our Duty either to kneel or ſtand, in the time of Prayer, either of which are poſtures of Adoration, and to ſit or loll we utterly diſallow, unleſs in caſe of bodily weakneſs and inability, where they are excuſed, by that Rule, God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice; I wonder, how this Gentleman ſhould come to know our poſtures, better than we do our ſelves. I ſuppoſe he has ſeldom appeared in our Aſſemblies, unleſs it was in former days, when he came attended by his Setters to break them up, and then perhaps the Terror of ſuch a One might put the People into poſtures odd and confuſed enough, but if he pleaſes to come now, when his Thunder-bolts are ſpent, he may ſatisfie himſelf that our Geſtures are almoſt as grave, though not ſo genteel as his own.

But it ſeems the Diſſenters ſit and loll, and are covered, at the reading of the Pſalms; as for ſitting, I know not why it ſhould be more irreverent at the reading of the Pſalms, than other parts of Scripture, or than at the ſinging of the Pſalms, and at ſuch times, I am ſure in Churches they generally ſit.

And that we are uſually covered, either at the Reading or Preaching of the Word is not true, and yet I know of no great Crime in it, S. B. Eſq The Providences of God obſerved, p. 28. eſpecially in Infirm and Aged Perſons; but I ſhall refer him to what a Learned Gentleman of the Church of England, ſays in this Caſe, his Words are, Though the Act for enjoyning the Common Prayer, forbids both Affirmatively and Negatively any other Method or Form of Service Rites, and Ceremonies than is there directed; ſome Churchmen are great Nonconformiſts in diſobeying that Rule, by ſeveral Additions in approach to Popery, as in their ſecond Service, &c. As alſo in being ſuperabundant to Popery, in endeavouring to make a Superſtitious Faſhion, to ſit bare during Sermon, which is but a new thing in England, and not known in any other Chriſtian Church, for though the Papiſts are bare in their Churches out of Service-time, whom we endeavour to imitate in that Circumſtance, yet they are covered during Sermon, wherein we outdo them; and he tells us, That the Miniſter of Finchly not long ſince cauſed one to be committed for being covered, whilſt he was in his Sermon, who bringing his Action againſt the Juſtice for falſe Impriſonment recovered good Damages of him; which though ſufficient to prove the Churches Uſurpation in this matter, they do notwithſtanding go on in it, as a part of that new Popery formerly intended by Laud in his time.

But the Gentleman is chiefly ſcandalized at our Geſture in receiving the Sacrament, Reply, p. 46. wherein (he ſays) we ſit like Clowns and Bumkins; but who told him that we ſit ſo Clowniſhly? A man may ſit very decently and handſomely, and how does he know, but we do ſo? I hope meerly ſitting is not the thing that makes a Bumkin, for then this Gentleman is forced to be a Bumkin almoſt all the day long; nor ſitting in the Service of God, for that he does too; and why it ſhould have ſuch a peculiar Ruſtical quality at the Lords Supper, rather than in other Ordinances I cannot imagine; eſpecially when for any thing that appears, our Saviour uſed it in the very Inſtitution of the Ordinance, and the Apoſtles even when they received it from his immediate hand, and though I am not of their minds, that think this makes ſitting neceſſary, yet I am ſure it will at leaſt defend it from the ſcandal of an irreverent Poſture.

3. The Habit of our Miniſters is not pleaſing, For (ſays he) He who adminiſters in their Divine Service, as they call it, has no other habit than what is due to, and becomes a Tradeſman or any other Laick in the Congregation.

And here again, we have Reaſon to complain that the matter of Fact is not truly repreſented, for our Miniſters are generally diſtinguiſhed from others, Tertul. de pallio. p. 490. by the uſe of that very antient Garment the Goak, of which Tertullian has writ a Treatiſe, and prefers it before the Gown, as a more modeſt humble Attire, inſomuch as that, à Toga ad Pallium, became a Proverb to expreſs a Perſon growing humble, from which Beatus Rhenanus argueth againſt the coſtly Wardrobe of the Prelates, as not being à toga ad pallium, but à pallio ad togam, ad purpuram, ad mundi p • mpam. And what if Laicks wear Cloaks too, ſo do Lawyers wear Gowns, and the ſinging Men and Boys have their Surplices, and yet I ſuppoſe they are not thereby advanced above the Condition of L • icks; why then is not our habit as grave, though not as Majeſtical as theirs?