I AM not willing to add the Guilt of In­gratitude, to the many Crimes you are pleas'd to charge me with; and therefore thus publickly manifest my grateful Resent­ments of the good Service you have done the Pres­byterian Cause, by the Postscript to your Defence of the Modest Proof, &c.

WHATEVER were your Views, in that truly admirable Performance; it would be Stupidity not to apprehend, and Forgetfulness not to acknow­lege, the Obligations we are thereby laid under, I shall therefore briefly take Notice of some of the special Favours, you have vouchsafed us in that Dissertation; and depend upon your usual [Page 2] Candour, for Pardon of my necessary Defects in that Attempt.

'TWOULD have been inexcusable Insensibility, to have overlookt the rare Imbellishments of your Stile, and the fine Flowers of Billingsgate-Rheto­rick, which make up the Substance of that Discourse. I had tho't to have presented you with a Nose­gay of these Flowers; but upon a Review could find no room for Choice: (Impotent Malice, Venom, Disordered Brain, Petulance and Ignorance, an Empty Skull, Falshood, Profane Ribaldry, Sawcy, Puny Scrib­ler, &c. being the common Epithets, you are pleas'd to favour me with) And you'll excuse me the Trouble of transcribing the whole Discourse, since you can't be at a loss where to find it; nor can your value for, and esteem of it, suffer it to be long out of your Hands—I shall therefore only take notice of the particular Advantages ari­sing to our Cause, from this Treatment. And

1. THIS gives us a just Idea of the Spirit of our Adversaries; and will give every Body full Con­viction, how far they are from being Followers of the Prince of Peace, and how far from that Meek­ness and Moderation which the Gospel requires, who so charitably damn by the lump, our Ministry, Ordinances, and precious Souls.—Can it ever enter into the Minds of any serious and well dis­pos'd Persons, that the only way to Heaven, is to commit their Souls, to the Direction of such wrathful and furious Guides?

2. THIS is a plain Indication of the badness of that Cause, which must be thus defended with Swords and Staves. And (to use your own Words) This offers it self an Evidence, that the Book you impugn, is not so contemptible, as you would represent it. For [Page 3] what Cause of these tragical Outcries, if you were not wounded with the Arguments? Why do you flounce at this rate, if not taken in the Toils?—Truly Sir, your substituting Anger for Argument, has rendred your Discourse a very harmless Piece.—And now I proceed, to offer you my Acknow­legements, for your Remarks upon my Preface.

And,

First, IT's very kindly done, plainly to inform us, to what Party you herd your self: And (to use a Phrase of your own) distinguish your Squadron by its proper Ensign. There can be nothing more plain­ly expressed by Words, than that it was the HIGH­CHURCH-Party and no others, whom I styled an Upstart Sect. You tell us, that 'tis the best and brightest Part of the Catholic Church, to whom I gave that Character: The Consequence therefore makes it self, that we have a TORY to deal with. And thence (by the way) we may give o­ver our Admiration at your manner of Address, so peculiar to your own Party.

BUT you'll pardon my Diffidence, if I cannot yet believe the Church of England so far degenera­ted, that the HIGH-CHURCH-Party, (a Faction not heard of till Arch-Bishop Laud's time, and no more a Part of the establish'd Church, than a Wen, or such like Excrescence, is part of a Man) are ten times so numerous, as all the other Sects in the Nation.

YOU'll be pleased to wait a little, for the Re­turns due to your abounding Charity, in denying all that want Ministers Episcopally ordain'd, to be any part of the Catholic Church; for so your Words must be understood, if made consistent with the rest of your Discourse: Being yet to meet with more [Page 4] flights of the same kind, I hope to account with you for all together.

BUT I'll not delay to offer you my Acknow­legements, for the succeeding Paragraph, that‘The Government will doubtless resent the ad­vancing that seditious Position, That the Doc­trine of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistence, whereon is founded its own Security, are Jaco­bite Principles, and ought to be exploded.’ Is it a seditious Position, to call the Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistence, (as propos'd in the Modest Proof, without any Limitation) Jacobite Principles? Be pleas'd Sir, to read the Trial of your late Brother Dr. Sacheveril, and you'll find by the Suffrage of the Supreme Judicature of the Nation, that the direct contrary Doctrine is Sedi­tious; that the Prince of Orange did actually make Resistance; and that the present most happy Esta­blishment is founded on the just Resistance then made to King James.—Is the Security of the Government founded on Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance? Is it not a Fact notoriously true, and obvious to all the World, that all the Rebellions and Seditions that have been rais'd, during the happy Reign of our present most Excellent Sovereign King GEORGE, have had their rise from that Doctrine, as unlimitedly propos'd in the Modest Proof, and in this choice Discourse of yours! Be pleas'd Sir, to inform me in your next, (for you can doubtless tell) what is the unhappy Choak-Pear, that sticks in the Consciences of our Jacobites, and prevents their Swearing to the present Government, if this be not the Obstacle!

Thus having in some measure discharg'd the Debt, due for your Remarks on my Preface, I'll now [Page 5] proceed to take notice of the peculiar Favours receiv'd from your Animadversions on the Book it self.—And

THE first thing that bespeaks my Gratitude, is your necessary Evasion of that plain Demonstration offer'd in my Defence, that the little History with which the Modest Proof begins, is not only false in Fact, but egregiously Self-inconsistent. First, I have proved, that it was a gross Mistake to say, that there was little or no Noise made for above 1400 Years, about this Point of Church-Government. I have brought in Jerom plainly asserting the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters: I have produced the Confession of a Number of our Adversaries themselves, that St. Ambrose, Augustin, Sedulius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophilact, were all of 'em of the same Mind. I have observ'd that the Waldenses, and Wicklef in England, with his Followers, were persecuted for this very Doctrine, before that Period. I have shewn you, that there was a great Noise made about Prelacy long before that Time; that prelatic Power and Superiority, when it did obtain, had been the dreadful Source of tumultuary Up­roars, and bloody Massacres in the ancient Church; whence Gregory Nazianzen wish'd there had been no Prelacy, nor Prerogative of Place in the Church of Christ. Secondly, I have prov'd that Author guil­ty of manifest Contradiction, in saying, that there was little or no Noise made about the Point of Church-Government, for 1400 Years; And yet that it was at length invaded and suppress'd by the Roman Papacy. I'm sure, there is no Proposition in Euclid more demonstrable, than that he is pleading for the Roman Hierarchy, according as it was establish'd in that Synagogue of Satan, before the Year 1400; [Page 6] when there was no Noise made about this Point of Church-Government; or else that according to him, there was no Roman Papacy before that Time, since the Government he propugns, was invaded and sup­press'd by the Roman Papacy, when it did arise. You might have had your Choice of these Consequen­ces, which (once more to use your own Phrase) do necessarily make themselves. But what have you said in Answer to all this? Might we not have reasonably expected (if I might yet use your own Dialect) some lisps upon this Head? But your Caution and Prudence are very praise-worthy, in chusing rather a safe Retreat under a mean Eva­sion, than to rush upon the Pikes of such glaring Evidence; and thereby rather to justify the Cause you pretend to oppose, (for which I thank you) than to expose your self in so dangerous a Field.

BUT perhaps you'll think your self neglected, if these Evasions (how mean soever) are not taken Notice of. And truly Sir, I have such an innate abhorrence to Ingratitude, that I cannot overlook these Favours.

YOU tell me, that in your Reply to the Remarker, you have given the Sense of those venerable Persons on the Case, whose Voices I have had the Assurance to sol­licit. I have carefully read what you there offer, and can't find the least hint from any one of those Fathers, or from all of 'em together, that there is by Divine Right, a Disparity between Bishops and Presbyters; but plain Suggestions to the contrary might be remarked, even from your own Quota­tions. But had they been ever so full and clear to your Purpose, how would that have prov'd, that there was no Noise about this Point of Church-Govern­ment? Unless setting Jerom and St. Hierom, Au­gustine [Page 7] and the Bishop of Hippo, &c. together by the Ears, be an evidence that there was no Noise about it. Dare you pretend to deny, that St. Je­rom in his Epistles to Evagrins and to Oceanus, and in his Commentary on Titus, has fully and clearly asserted the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, and largely prov'd it from Scripture? Have not Num­bers of your own Party, ^* besides Dr. Stillingfleet, acknowleged, that upon the strictest Enquiry, Medi­na's Judgment will prove true; that Jerom, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophilact, were all of Aerius his Judgment, as to the Identity of both Name and Order of Bishops and Presbyters, in the primitive Church? Nay, will not you your self, when you have taken the Trouble to to read the Places quoted in the Margin, be forced to acknowlege the same thing?

BUT you have further obliged us by your usual Candour, in saying that ‘the Reason why the Dissenters are so fond of Aerius, seems to be, that he being branded for an Arian, as well as Schismatic, they are willing to pay a Deference to his Opinions in Doctrine, as well as in Disci­pline.’ [Page 8] To which it's Answer sufficient, Thou shalt not bear false Witness against thy Neighbour. And I shall only add, that there has been a great deal more said, to purge Aerius from the Charge of Arianism, than you, or all your Party can say, to fix that Imputation upon him. But be that as it will. You appear a very merciful Enemy to the Cause you oppugn, (for which I thank you) while equipt with no other Armour, than Railery and Calumny.

YOUR next Evasion is equally obliging. Did the Author of the Modest Proof pretend, to shew the difference between Popery and Presbytery? Could you publish such a Story, where that Book is in every Body's Hands? Did he alledge, that the Episcopal Rights were early usurped upon by the Papal Hierarchy? Does he not plainly assure us, that they were not early usurped upon at all, in that there was no Noise made about it for 1400 Years; but the goodly Order and Government instituted by Christ, stood firm for many Ages; and was at LENGTH (i.e. after 1400 Years) invaded, &c!—Did I infer, that because there were Usurpations upon that Order, therefore Presbyterian Government was set up ot Rome, before that period? Was there any thing like this in my Defence? No Sir! the plain truth is, you were wil­ling to say something, but the Cause would admit of nothing to the Purpose.

I am next to acknowledge your Favours, in so peaceably allowing, that all the Foreign Churches, were at the Reformation, established upon Presbyte­rian Principles. I don't mean by this, that you have not ventur'd to contradict this flagrant Truth; but that all you have offer'd against it, serves but to confirm and establish it. Which friendly Office I'll now particularly take Notice of.

[Page 9]YOU first inform us, that ‘it will not follow, that there are no real Bishops in the Northern Kingdoms, tho' Bugenhage was improv'd as an Instrument of the Reformation in Denmark, where we are assur'd there are two Arch-Bishops, and thirteen Bishops.’—What do I hear! Will it not follow, although Bugenhagius, a meer Presby­ter, ordain'd the first seven Superintendents in Denmark, from whence flows all their Episcopal Succession to this Day, that there are no real Bishops there? I'm sure then it does follow,

1. THAT Presbyters have Authority to Ordain Bishops. And thus you have, with one friendly Stroke, knocks out the Brains of your darling Pre­lacy; that it's hopeful we are to hear no more of the Necessity of Episcopal Ordination.

2. IT also follows, that there may be a true Mi­nistry, without Episcopal Succession. Adieu there­fore for ever, to that infrangible Chain.

YOU subjoin, that ‘it's contrary to known Fact, and the truth of History, that there were no Superintendents in Scotland, where Knox was improv'd as a like Instrument.’—To which I make the same Reply. Was Knox a Bishop! How then came he by Authority to Ordain Superinten­dents? The Consequence again makes it self, that Presbyters may Ordain Bishops, tho' they have no Power to propagate their own Kind and Order. But since you're pleas'd to mention the Superinten­dants in Scotland, as an Argument to prove, that the Reformation there was first establish'd upon a Prelatic Foundation; give me leave to consider the Case a little.

[Page 10]WHAT can more plainly discover the Minds of the Reformers, than their Book of Discipline, made the first Year of the Reformation? In the Sixth Head of which, as Calderwood ^* informs us, ‘they give a Reason, wherefore they make a Difference at this time among Ministers, some to be Super­intendants, and some to be Ordinary Ministers; not because Superintendants were of Divine Insti­tution, or an Order to be observ'd perpetually in the Kirk; but because they were forced only at this Time, to make the Difference, lest if all the Ministers should be appointed to make con­tinual Residence in several Places, when there was so great a Rarity of Preachers, the greatest Part of the Realm, should be destitute of the preaching of the Word.’ Thus he.

AGAIN, Did they not very early Approve, and Ratify, the latter Confession of Helvetia ^†, ex­cepting only against some Holy Days? Which Con­fession has these remarkable Words, ‘The Power that is given to the Ministers of the Church, is the same and alike in all; in the Beginning the Bishops, and Elders, did with a common Consent and Labour govern the Church, no Man lifted up himself above another.’ I will only add,—

THAT the continued Subjection of these Su­perintendants, to the Presbyterian Assembly in Scotland, makes 'em appear but very Whiggish Bishops.—You have not added one Word more against what was offer'd in my Defence, on this Point; and have therefore very fairly given up the Cause: For which I renew my Thanks; and hope the Gen­tlemen [Page 11] of your Party, will not be so profligate of their Reputation for the future, as to Publish to the World such a ridiculous Story, that the greatest and most considerable Part of the Reformed Churches, founded the Reformation upon Prelacy.

AND now I'm come to pay you my Acknow­legements, for your Remarks upon what I offer'd on the FIRST HEAD.

I hope the severe Correction you have given the Remarker, has not so maim'd and disabled him, but that he may yet defend his own Cause, with­out a Second; I shall therefore only take Notice of what you say to me.

I need not enquire, why you were so angry at my citing a Passage from Mr. Sage, the Cause is manifest: That Passage utterly destroys all your fine Scheme, taken from the Imparity of the Twelve and Seventy: And Losers we know must have liberty to speak—Nor need I enquire, why you did not attempt an Answer to Mr. Sage's Arguments, whereby he irrefragably proves, that the Seventy's Commission did not constitute 'em standing Officers in the Christian Church. The Reason of this is also obvious. These Arguments were too hot for your Fingers. And, Nemo tenetur ad impossibilia. However, I must still thank you for giving up that Cause.

AND now I'll consider your Queries, and hope I shall consistently Answer 'em, without being far remov'd from, and preaching another Gospel than that of Christ.—Yor first Query is, ‘Might not Believers in the Messiah, the Lamb of God, come to take away the Sins of the World, especially when baptized in that Faith, be accounted Members of the Gospel Church?’ I must take li­berty [Page 12] to Answer this Question in the Negative. And when you have heard and answer'd my Rea­sons, I'll submit to what Censure you're pleas'd to impose.

1. THEN it's a plain Case, they could not be Members of the Gospel-Church, before there was such a Church. Members they were indeed of Christ's Mystical Body, and so Members of the Ca­tholic Church; but so likewise were even the God­ly Ante-diluvian Patriarchs.—And this also may serve for Answer to your Second Query. For, tho' our Saviour's Ministry was so succesful, as to gain many Converts to this Article, That he was the Lamb of God, come to take away the Sins of the World; yet not to this, That he he had actually abrogated the Jewish Oeconomy, and establish'd the Christian Church upon its Ruines.

2. THAT there was no Gospel-Church at this Time is manifest from this, that our blessed Lord himself was actually a Member of the Jewish Church, under the Laws and Government of the Old Testa­ment Dispensation. And accordingly we find him submitting, not only to the Government, but to all the Ordinances pertaining to that Pedagogy; as Cir­cumcision and the Passover, the Jewish Sabbath, with all their other Festivals, &c. And I hope you won't pretend, that both these Dispensations did de jure subsist together.

3. 'TIS clear as Light, that the Christian Church was founded upon Christ's Death. In that all the Jewish Sacrifices, and other bloody Rites, were Ty­pical of his Death. And until the Substance (there­by [Page 13] typified) was come, the Shadows could not be done away. (See Heb. IX. and X. per totum.) And equally certain it is, that this glorious Dispensa­tion must have been founded on Christ's Resurrection, since it's the grand Article of the glad Tidings reveal'd in the Gospel, that as Christ was delivered for our Offences, so he was raised again for our Justifi­cation. Rom. IV. 25. To which I may add, the Apostle himself assures us, that the New Testament could not exist, and consequently not the New Dispensation therein reveal'd, before the Death of the Testator, Heb. IX. 16, 17. For where a Testament is, there must of necessity be the Death of the Testator. For a Testament is of force after Men are Dead, other­wise it is of no strength at all, whilst the Testator liv­eth. Whence it yet appears with a Meridian Lustre, that as there was no Christian Church, when the Seventy received their Commission, they could not be Officers in that Church, nor have any Succes­sors.—And so I'll pass to your Third Query, which is,

‘WERE not those, who in so many Words are said Luke IX. 6. to have went thro' the Towns preaching the Gospel, Ministers of the Gospel?’ I Answer, They were Preachers of the Gospel, and so were Adam and Noah, with all the Prophets, and other Orthodox Ministers, in the Jewish Church. But if by Ministers of the Gospel you intend Officers in the Christian Church, (as they must be understood in this Controversy) I must yet Answer in the Ne­gative, for the Reasons above alledg'd. Nor will your meer Opposition afford contrary Convic­tion.

IF it be demanded, what was the End of the special Mission and Commission of the Twelve and [Page 14] Seventy, Luke IX. and X? I Answer in the Lan­guage of your own Brokesby ^*, ‘They were sent as Forerunners before the Face of Christ, to the Places whither he would come, to prepare the People to entertain him.’ I add, They were to preach the glad Tidings, that the Messiah was already come, to take away the Sins of the World, that he would quickly bring in a new and better Dispensation. And to confirm their Doctrine, by undoubted Miracles.—Thus Sir, you see how much we are oblig'd to you, for offering nothing but these trifling Queries, to prove the Seventy to be Officers in the Christian Church; and thereby leaving your tottering Fabric, without any Foun­dation, having not so much as one Prop, to sup­port it.

BUT it's time to offer you my Thanks, for your learned Pains to prove, what never any Body question'd; that 'twas the Deacon's Office, to serve the Table of the Lord, as well as of the Poor. But, good Sir, what follows from hence? Are they therefore Preachers and Baptizers; because they are to serve both these Tables? Aye, but Ignatius tells us, that they are not Deacons of Meat and Drink; but Ministers of the Church of God. I shall not now give you the Trouble of those ungainsayable Evidences, you have been so often told of, that Ignatius knew nothing of these Epistles. But only take the bold­ness humbly to enquire, whether the Apostles did not constitute them Deacons of Meat and Drink? Be pleas'd to read Acts VI. 1. and see if the first Occasion of instituting this Order, was not a mur­muring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because [Page 15] their Widows were neglected in the daily Ministration. Did these Widows want no Meat and Drink? Be pleased also to read v. 2d. where 'tis propos'd as their whole Business to serve Tables: And tell me in your next, whether Tables are not to be furnish­ed with Meat and Drink? But if you prefer this supposititious Ignatius to the Twelve Apostles, will you not (if I may be allow'd a Phrase of your own) believe your dear self, who tell us, That the Deacons were to serve those Tables where the Eucharist was cele­brated? And are not the Elements in the Eucharist, Meat and Drink?—Who now can be so ill na­tur'd, as to deny your Conclusion from this invin­cible Argument, that Deacons were ordain'd for the superiour Offices of Preaching and Baptizing?

BUT it may be you'd salve the Reputation of your spurious Ignatius, by supposing his Meaning to be, that they are not ONLY Deacons of Meat and Drink; but Ministers of the Church of God. Be it so. Your Champion nevertheless militates against the Apostolical Institution, which makes it their whole and ONLY Business, to serve Tables; as I have shewn in my Defence, unto which you have not vouchsafed any Answer.—You have indeed given us a notable Specimen of your Learning, by criticizing upon the Word Evangelist, which you tell us, is the Greek of the English Gospeller; and that to say that the Deacons preached as Evangelists, is a plain Tautology, and no more than they preached as Preachers.—How greatly have you obliged your Reader, by this useful piece of Instruction! When for the future he shall hear the four Evan­gelists mention'd, he will thereby understand four Preachers. When he reads Eph. IV. 11. he'll under­stand, that Christ has given for the Work of the [Page 16] Ministry, not only some Apostles, some Prophets, some Pastors and Teachers; but some Preachers also.—By the same way of Reasoning from the Gram­matical Construction of Words, I can prove to you, that your Foot-Boy, when sent on an Errand, is an Apostle; that an Overseer of the Negroes in the West Indies, is a Bishop; that your Servant, when he brings you good Tidings, is a Minister of the Gospel. And a great many more such pretty Consequences might be thought of, by a Gentleman of your profound Learning, so well acquainted with the English of Greek Words. But the worst on't is, I must after all, take liberty to inform you, that the Word Evangelist, or Gospeller, as you English it, and Preacher, are not Terms synonymous: For Preaching is not the only Means to Gospellize the World. Private Instruction, the Ordination of Ministers, Administration of the Sacraments, writing of E­pistles, &c. are useful, and have been improv'd to this Purpose. And thus your fine Criticism is quite lost.—And now it's time you should be paid the Acknowlegements due, for leaving your preaching and baptizing Deacon to shift for himself, without one Word in his Favour; save that excel­lent Saying of your counterfeit Ignatius, and this learned Descant of yours upon the Word Evange­list.

THOUGH I have thus particularly consider'd these weighty Arguments, I'll for the Reader's sake, take the liberty of a short Digression, to de­sire him to read the Sober Remarks upon this Head, 2d. Edit. from p. 18. forward; and my Defence, p 13, 34, 35. where he'll find this Matter set in a true Light, and strongest Evidence offer'd, that Philip preached as an Evangelist; and was there­fore [Page 17] no Instance of a preaching Deacon: as well as that Evangelists were (during the Infant-State of the Church) a distinct Order in the Gospel-Mi­nistry. Unto all which, this Gentleman did not find himself capable to make any Reply.—But I return to our Author.

AND now Sir, that dreadful Posture in which you appear, arm'd Cap-a-pe, with Hercules Club in your Hand, threatning my poor empty Skull, might have fill'd me with such Surprize, that I could have meditated nothing but Flight, were it not for your merciful Disposition, (for which I thank you) which has by a new Piece of Military Skill, provided me a Shield for a Head-Piece; and directed all your terrifying Blows, against the empty Air.—You begin your Attack with this Syllogism.

‘THEY are bold and insolent Intruders, into the Inclosure wherewith our Lord Jesus has fenced his Vineyard, who usurp the Ministerial Function, without being ordain'd to it by a Suc­cessor to the Apostles, &c.’

‘But Jonathan Dickinson was never ordain'd by any such Successor; Ergo Jonathan Dickinson is a bold insolent Intruder, &c.’—Is it not now high time for poor Jonathan to hide his Head, from the dreadful Weight of this invincible Ar­gument; That none but the Successors to the A­postles have Power of Ordination, (the Point deba­ted, and that should have been prov'd) because they are insolent Intruders into the Work of the Ministry, who are not ordain'd by a Successor to the Apostles? Very strongly argu'd!

IN my Defence I offer'd this Argument.

[Page 18]THEY that are authoriz'd by the same Commission, have the same Office and Authority.

BUT all the Ministers of the Gospel, have the same Commission.—And all you pretend in Answer, (besides this notable petitio principii before cited) is, That ‘there were several Things contain'd in the Commission, and several Offices warranted by it.—That Deacons by virtue thereof did Preach and Baptize, but not consecrate the Lord's Supper, nor meddle with the Powers of Absolution and Cen­sures, which Presbyters did; but not Ordain, be­cause not vested with the Episcopal Powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction.’

WAS it ever heard of before, that Commissions might be thus crumbled into Parts? And that Men authorized by a Commission, might exercise but a Part of the Authority thereby confer'd upon 'em? Suppose his Majesty should honour you with the same Commission, which he gives to the Governours of the Plantations, (a Dignity well be­coming so GREAT a Man) would you take it kindly, to be deny'd the Exercise of a Governour's Powers, and to be acknowleg'd only in the Quali­ty of a Justice of the Peace?—Truly Sir, this fright­ful Spectre (as you call it) will still haunt you, and all your Party, till you can find some better Me­thod to lay it.

BUT it's high Time to return you my Thanks for so quietly giving up the Argument for Episco­pacy from the Jewish Priesthood; and not venturing to advance one Syllable, in the Defence of so ce­lebrated a Plea. And you have more especially merited Thanks, for bringing this Controversy to so happy an Issue, by telling us, that the very Thing [Page 19] you contend for, is a Bishop of a Congregation, Ruling Elders and Deacons. (For these were the Offices mention'd from Dr. Burnet, with which you seem so well satisfied) And if these will satisfy, we may mutually Seal general Releases, from all Strife and Debate in this Controversy, from the Day of the Date of these Presents.

AS for your Reasoning with the Remarker, where­in you pretend to have fully reply'd to what is offer'd by me under the Third Head, I have care­fully perus'd it, and must profess I can find no Strength at all in it. I have consulted you upon the several Texts, made use of in my Defence, as 1 Pet. 5. 2. Mat. 28. 19. &c. and can't perceive you have said any thing to take off the Force of the Remarker's or my Reasonings upon them. They therefore yet stand good against you, both in the Remarks and my Defence. You have left 'em safe in our Hands, for which I thank you.—I have further to acknowlege your Favour, in one peculiar Stroke, wholly new, which is all you have offer'd in answer to me; wherein you charge me with ‘Denying St. Paul the honour of being an A­postle: for (say you) before his Conversion he had not seen our Lord; and the Defender ex­pressly says, None could be admitted into the Apostolate, but such as had seen Jesus before his Death.’—Wonderful that you should pitch on this single Passage in all my Discourse under the 3d. Head, to make your Exceptions against: and surely you were not very happy in the Objecti­on you offer. For it is plain from the Text cited by me, (viz. Act. 1. 21, 22.) that none could be admitted to succeed Judas, in the Apostolate, but [Page 20] such an one as had seen Jesus before his Death, as well as after his Resurrection. And that This was one stated Qualification of an Apostle, seems evident, not only from that Text, but also from 1 Cor. 15. 8. where St. Paul speaks of himself as an Abortive, and hardly meet to be number'd among the Apostles. His Words are, Last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due Time. By which it appears He had that necessary Qualification for the Apostolic Office, A Sight of Jesus Christ: tho' this Vision of Christ, and his Mission then to be an Apostle, were LATE and MIRACULOUS. Wherefore St. Paul being so late, and in such an extraordinary manner, added to the Twelve, He lookt upon himself as one born out of due time.—And now judge you whether we are not much oblig'd to you, that you've offer'd nothing but one lean and pitiful Exception against all my Discourse up­on the Temporeity of the Apostolate.

THUS, Sir, I'm prepar'd to offer you my Ac­knowlegements, for your so favourably handling the Fourth Head.

YOUR first Attempt is, to prove from Scripture, Reason, and Authorities, that James was Bishop of Jerusalem: But you have been so kind as not to offer one Word from Scripture, but what I had be­fore largely consider'd in my Defence; to which I refer you, for a full and particular Answer.—You have indeed brought St. Jerom and Chrysostom for Vouchers, that James was Bishop of Jerusalem. And have also quoted Euseb. Lib. 7. Cap. 14. to the same Purpose; but I must tell you, that I have carefully perused the Place refer'd to, and can't find there one Word of that Nature: tho' he does indeed tell us Lib. 2. Cap. 1. That James is SAID [Page 21] to be the first, that occupied the Bishops See at Jerusa­lem. But upon the whole, I have these Things to propose to your Consideration.

1. THAT your own Dodwell, ^* who pretends to much earlier and better Authority, assures us, that Episcopacy did not obtain, before the Year 106. or thereabouts. And who is to be credited in this Case?

2. YOU have not made it appear, that these Fathers meant ought by James's Episcopacy, but his tarrying some considerable Time at Jerusalem, to well establish and build up the Faith in that im­portant Place; and to satisfy the Difficulties of those who came from all Parts of the World, to consult that Church.—I'm sure it can't be very good Sense, in them or any body else, to talk of an Apostle's being a Diocesan Bishop; or in other Words, of his being sent to propagate the Gospel thro' the World, and yet confin'd to a particular City.

3. THE Authors you quote, are much too late to determine this Matter. They living in an Age wherein there was so much Uncertainty, Obscuri­ty, and childish Debate, about Apostolic Practices and Traditions.

4. NONE acquainted with Antiquity can be ig­norant, how little the Authority of these Fathers is to be depended upon, in any Doctrinal Point. And this is always acknowleged by the most emi­nent of your own Party. Hear two of them. The first is the truly excellent Chillingworth. ^† ‘I for [Page 22] my part, (saith he) after a long, and (as I ve­rily believe and hope) impartial Search of the true Way to eternal Happiness, do profess plain­ly, that I cannot find any Rest for the sole of my Feet, but upon this Rock, viz. the Scrip­ture: I see plainly, and with my own Eyes, Councils against Councils; some Fathers against o­thers, the same Fathers against themselves, a con­sent of Fathers of one Age, against a consent of Fathers of another Age; and the Church of one Age, against the Church of another Age.’—The Second is Dr. Sherlock, who tells us, ^* ‘The Scripture is all of a Piece, every Part of it agrees with the rest; the Fathers many times contra­dict themselves, and each other: And that it has often made him smile, with a Mixture of Pity and Indignation, to see what a great Noise the Roman Disputants made among Women and Children, and the meanest sort of People, with Quotations out of the Fathers and Councils, whom they pretend to be all on their Side.’—And thus you see how much we are beholden to you, for those trifling and inconclusive Reasonings of yours.

AND now I'm come, to offer you my Thanks, for your wonderful flights of Wit, Satyr and Merri­ment; the only Arguments by which you would establish Timothy's Episcopacy.—It must be con­fess'd, you have acted not only safely for your self, but friendly to us, in taking the Poet's Ad­vice, [Page 23] ^† To—

I prov'd to you (in my Defence) from Timothy's Peregrinations, recorded in the Scriptures, that if he was a fixed Bishop at any Place, he was a Pat­tern of Non-residency: And that this Bishop of E­phesus had the whole World for his Diocess. To which you Answer, ‘Will it follow, that because Timothy had been with Paul in several Places, that he was not afterwards settled at Ephesus?’ The meaning of your Question is plainly this: Whether the Apostle did constitute Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, after he took his last leave of that Church, committing the Care of that Flock, to the Oversight of other Bishops, Acts XX. 25, 28. and after he had written his Epistles to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Philippians, to the Colossi­ans, to Timothy, and to the Hebrews? For by all these, I have prov'd him an itinerant Minister. To which I Answer, What should hinder, but Ti­mothy's Ordination to that Diocess, might be the last Work the Apostle perform'd in the World? Or who can tell, but this Charge was a Legacy left him by the Apostle, in his last Will and Testament? Certain it is, he was an Evangelist, and as such tra­vel'd from Nation to Nation, as long as we have [Page 24] any Account of Things from the Apostle, in his Epistles to the Churches. But we must believe (we may take your Word for't) that he was neverthe­less, afterwards Bishop of Ephesus.

AS for what follows upon this Head, be pleas'd in your next to explain it, and make it intelligi­ble.

WE might have reasonably expected from your former Promise, a few Words at least, in favour of the Arch-Bishop of Crete; but you are not pleas'd to vouchsafe one Word of Proof upon that Point; nor a Syllable in Answer to the Objections against the Episcopacy of Titus. And therefore how­ever his Grace might merit your Neglect, you have certainly merited my Thanks, (which I freely of­fer) for giving up that Cause.

AND now I must enter the Lists with the Asi­atic Angels, if you can either for Love or Money, engage 'em on your Side. But from what ap­pears, I need be in no great Terror, from the Expectation of this Conflict. For what I offer'd in my Defence, does yet remain Demonstration, and will ever do so, (notwithstanding what you have said, or can say) that these Angels must be taken in a collective Sense, as including not only the Ministers of the Churches, but even the whole Churches themselves.—You tell me, that the sin­gular Number is used ten times to one of the Plural. Be that so. There are nevertheless plural Expressions enough to make it evident, that these Epistles could not be directed, only to particular Persons.—You justly take Notice, that in Scripture-Language [Page 25] an Anallagy ^† of Numbers is observable. But is it agreeable to Scripture-Language, to say to a sin­gle Person, The Devil shall cast some of YOU into Prison, that YE may be tried, as Rev. II. 10? Or that, My faithful Martyr was slain among YOU, as in v. 13? Is it agreeable to Scripture-Language, to call a Bishop a Church, and to conclude an E­pistle to a single Bishop, with this Epiphonema, He that hath an Ear to hear let him hear, what the Spirit saith unto the CHURCHES? Be pleas'd Sir, in your next, to give us Examples of this kind.—It's sufficient Answer to your Quotations, that there are as many Divines, no less Considerable than those mention'd by you, that are clearly and fully on our Side. But since all Appeals to Human Authority on either Side, serve only for Ostentati­on, and not for Evidence, I shall save my self the Labour, and you the Trouble of any Collections of that kind.—Besides it does not appear by your Quotations, that any of the mention'd Di­vines esteem'd these Angels to be Diocesan Bishops, or had any other Notion of this Word Angel, than that it primarily imply'd, either the Moderator of the Presbytery, or Pastor of the Church, and by him the whole Church. And thus two of 'em, viz. Pa­rens and Beza, do expresly declare themselves, in the very Places by you quoted.

BUT after all were it plain to a Demonstra­tion, (as the direct contrary is) that these An­gels were single Persons; is there the least hint in all the Epistles, that these single Persons had the [Page 26] sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, or were in any thing superior to other Presbyters? Nay is there any thing said to them, that might not have been with greatest Propriety spoken, even to meer Presbyters, of the Episcopal kind? Do not you your self allow, even to these, Authority to bear Testimony against false Doctrines; and to censure the Publishers of 'em? which is the highest Act of Authority you can with any Justice pretend to found upon these Epistles! Where then shall we find my Lord the Bishop?

THUS I've considered (and thank you for) your successless Arguments, to engage these An­gels to be Guardians to the Episcopal Cause.

I'm next to acknowlege your Kindness, in so judiciously explaining the Word Co-ordinate; the meaning of which, you tell me, I was before ig­norant of. But alas Sir, I must confess my self so dull a Scholar, as not to be susceptible of your learned Instruction. For I cannot for my Life un­derstand, why two Persons authorized by the same Commission, and vested with all the same Powers, are not Co-ordinate; or why Ministers of the same Order, have not the same Office, and the same Power. But it's true my Dulness is none of your Fault, you have acted your Part faithfully.

YOU next make some Pretences, to Answer the Arguments I offer'd against Prelacy; but you prudently take Time to consider of it; and find it the safest way, to defer your Answer, until latter Lammas next.—You say indeed, that I af­firm [Page 27] it to be just arguing from a Community of Names, to a Co-ordination of Powers: But I affirm, that there is not one Word of that Nature in my Defence; and you did not want for Assurance, in publishing such a Story to the World.—My Argument was propos'd in these very Words.

IF the Scriptures ascribe not only a Community of Names, but also of OFFICE and Order, to Bishops and Presbyters; they are necessarily Co-ordinate.

BUT the Scriptures do ascribe a Community both of Names and OFFICE, to Bishop and Presbyter—And it is not very difficult to account for your Conduct, in dividing this Argument, the whole was too heavy for you; And why should you take up such a Weight, as would break your Back? Be­sides, had you considered the whole Argument, you had lost the Advantage, of favouring the [...]orld with a Specimen of your Logical Skill, and [...] [...]iscovering your pretty knack at Syllogizing, by [...] you can prove every thing from every thing, [...] any thing from nothing.

AS for the other five Arguments, you have implicitly acknowleged their Force, (for which I renew my Thanks) in not adventuring upon a Word of Answer.

AND now I'll remember my Promise, of offer­ing you my Acknowlegements for your abound­ing Charity, in mercifully Damning all the Protes­tant World, but your own Party. You tell us. p. 55. that ‘they who have no proper Ministers and Sa­craments never were, nor are they now, any [Page 28] Parts of the Catholic Church.’ And that we may be at no loss who you mean, you inform us, p. 60. that ‘they are bold and insolent Intruders, &c. who usurp the Ministerial Function without being ordain'd to it, by a Successor to the Apostles.’ i.e. by a Diocesan Bishop, as you all along pretend to prove. And thus at one Stroke, all the Protes­tants in the World, but the Church of England, are cut off from the Catholic Church, and Mystical Body of Christ. And lest we should not yet take Warn­ing, you leave it as your last Testimony, ‘That it as much concerns every one, as his Salvation amounts to, to be well assur'd, that he is within the Pale of the true Church:—And that at the great Audit, he shall be own'd by Christ, to have been a Member of his Mystical Body upon Earth.’—Thus we see what to expect, were you to determine our final State: But blessed be God, we have a more Righteous and Merci [...] Judge to appear before, who will at last let all [...] World know, that all other Attainments wit [...] [...] Charity, are but as sounding Brass, or a tinkling [...], 1 Cor. XIII. 1.—And in the mean Time, our Cause is not like to suffer much, by great Words, and weak Arguments; nor will the World be easily persuaded to believe, that the infinite Fountain of Love and Mercy will eternally damn his Creatures, for not submitting to an Ecclesiastical Government, whereof (by the Confession of the most Considerable of your own Party) there is not one Word in the Divine Oracles.

I find nothing more in your incomparable Dis­course, that calls for particular Notice. I therefore [Page 29] conclude, with only desiring your Acceptance of this grateful Acknowlegement,